Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0
I think your objections come down to one of cost or convenience and not of feasibility. Most homes have a dual 120v plug running 15-20 amps that could probably be cheaply converted to a 240v plug. Even if not, a 120v will change 5 miles per hour, which covers most people’s daily needs if all they did was charge at night. Some days my car is in my garage all day. That would add 120 miles on the most basic charger. A V3 supercharger will add 75 miles in five minutes, so fast charging could be done. Who doesn’t have five minutes? Remember, feasibility, not convenience. Towns have added street chargers next to parking meters. They have added level 2 chargers to mall parking, to hotel parking, to parking structures, etc. This will only increase with demand. There are companies that will charge up your EV in any parking lot, while you are at work. There may be a point not too far off where the EV drops you off then drives to a charging facility to charge up and then returns to a parking spot or summons itself to your work when you get off. The other interim possibility is plug in hybrids, which have smaller batteries for short commutes, and then we can tax fuel more to incentivize charging.
|
Correct. It all comes down to cost and convivence for me. It would be feasible for me to not even own a car, but it sure would be inconvenient. I'm sure there is a not insignificant amount of other people out there who feel the same.
Quote:
Even in California, total gasoline taxes is less than a dollar, but fuel is currently over four dollars a gallon. That seems high compared to most consumer goods, but it isn’t prohibitively high for the vast majority. The cost of e-fuels would come down, but there is no reason to believe they would be less than petrol, even if they weren’t taxed, but of course they would still be taxed. Meanwhile, the current projections suggest they would require five times the infrastructure as EVs and cost consumers 40% more than EVs:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...s-vs-batteries
|
That article seems pretty biased and reading this quote -
"It would cost automakers an average 10,000 euros (about $12,000 at current exchange rates)
in emissions credits to cover synthetic-fuel cars in 2030, but battery prices could drop to 3,000 euros ($3,600) by that time, according to the paper. It would also cost five times as much to set up synthetic-fueling infrastructure than continued expansion of charging infrastructure, the paper said."
Makes me think the greatest variable in the quoted "cost" projections are because of carbon credit taxation schemes and not because e-fuel would be inherently much more expensive to produce.
The idea that e-fuel will always be much more energy intensive to produce based on the small quantities currently being produced with current technology is about as short sighted as the people who were saying that a BEV could only ever have <100 mile range 15 years ago.