Expert prognosis for the planet

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm not disagreeing with you on the EV, I think you are spot on. I will say the car manufacturers "claim" they will be all electric soon, but if the first models fail, and folks continue to purchase petrol cars, they will change course.

I do find the chart misleading. Take the telephone for example. It required a HUGE infrastructure in what was still mostly a rural country at the time, and it's growth was stymied by two World Wars that put priorities elsewhere. Plus, while a convenience, there was nothing "necessary" about the telephone. It was also expensive. This is an excerpt from a NYC phone book circa 1920. The columns are the charges for the first 3 minutes, then every additional minute. Not exactly cheap.



Everything else on this chart was dependent on the growth of the electrical grid, so naturally the curve could not be much faster than that was, but if it came later than the grid then it was much easier to spread.

Urbanization and its usefulness in business has made the spread of the Internet faster, but not equally. Nearly 50% of the folks that work with me in IT in our rural hospital system (just 30 miles from Atlanta) cannot get Internet above basic DSL speeds.

[mrntd]

There are alternatives to ev but no one will invest in them because legislation favors ev. Development grants are for ev. The media touts ev. The biggest problem, which no one seems pay attention to, is our electric infrastructure can’t support all evs replacing all the gas powered vehicles.

[Irace86.2.0]

The point is that for the majority of people, EVs will be better, and right now, they are not better for many people. Products had differences in their rate of adoption/saturation in society dependent on key technological hurdles, infrastructure, appeal/desirability, adoption leading to more adoption, etc. The future will have better infrastructure, more charging, faster charging, battery swapping, etc. Even with today’s technology with more infrastructure, there would be plenty of demand/adoption.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mrntd

There are alternatives to ev but no one will invest in them because legislation favors ev. Development grants are for ev. The media touts ev. The biggest problem, which no one seems pay attention to, is our electric infrastructure can’t support all evs replacing all the gas powered vehicles.

Infrastructure will grow with demand. We have more than enough time. We have grown our energy production faster than the projected timeline for EV adoption before, so your point is a nonstarter.

[soundman98]

my boss just quoted a gas station on installing a few level 3 car chargers. they actually laughed at him after getting the price and said they'll ride out gasoline .

most gas stations have somewhere around a 200-800A electrical service depending on car washes and freezer capacity. to do ev chargers, they'd need a minimum of 1200A service. just the breakers for a service like that can run $3k-5k, each. i believe the quote was to upgrade the entire electrical panel, and install the chargers, which put it well into 6 figures...


i think we'll see a trend very similar to telephones like dadhawk referenced.

the charging infrastructure of ev is really going to be the make/break for the entire situation, and it's almost non-existent outside of metropolitan areas.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mrntd

There are alternatives to ev but no one will invest in them because legislation favors ev. Development grants are for ev. The media touts ev. The biggest problem, which no one seems pay attention to, is our electric infrastructure can’t support all evs replacing all the gas powered vehicles.

Reposting

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

my boss just quoted a gas station on installing a few level 3 car chargers. they actually laughed at him after getting the price and said they'll ride out gasoline .

most gas stations have somewhere around a 200-800A electrical service depending on car washes and freezer capacity. to do ev chargers, they'd need a minimum of 1200A service. just the breakers for a service like that can run $3k-5k, each. i believe the quote was to upgrade the entire electrical panel, and install the chargers, which put it well into 6 figures...


i think we'll see a trend very similar to telephones like dadhawk referenced.

the charging infrastructure of ev is really going to be the make/break for the entire situation, and it's almost non-existent outside of metropolitan areas.

Reposting:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles...ehicle-charger

The EV Project and the ChargePoint America project were conducted for the Department of Energy by Idaho National Laboratory (INL). From 2011-2013 the project installed nearly 17,000 alternating current (AC) Level 2 charging stations for residential and commercial use and over 100 dual-port direct current (DC) fast chargers in 22 regions across the United States.

Results from this study show that DC fast charger installations were by far the most expensive, ranging from $8,500 to $50,000 per installation, though it is important to note that the DC fast chargers installed had dual ports as opposed to the single port level 2 charging stations. The cost for public level 2 charger installations ranged from about $600 to $12,660. Residential installations had the lowest average installation cost with a mean of $1,354 though individual installation costs ranged from just a few hundred dollars to as much as $8,000. The cost of installation varies greatly depending on the electrical requirements at the site and other factors such as permit and inspection fees.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Reposting:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles...ehicle-charger

It would be really interesting to see how, if at all, the cost of ev-charging upgrades has changed in the last 5 years. I haven't done any looking, but I have come to the conclusion that any future lawn equipment, automobile, or powertool purchase I make will be electric. We made a commitment to use renewable electric power years ago, but I am persuaded that, unless we can speed up the process of weaning ourselves off "fossil" fuels, we, as a species, are well and truly fucked.

As much as I hate to say it, I think we won't make it. The world economy is premised on continual economic growth. Unless we can develop a low/zero growth alternative, we as a species, are well and truly fucked.

For an alternative, but very difficult, approach see Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics. https://www.amazon.com/Doughnut-Econ.../dp/1603586741

https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Reposting:...

For what it's worth, GM is including the "standard installation" of a L2 home charger with the purchase of a 2022 Chevy Bolt or Bolt EUV.

[Irace86.2.0]

This came up today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...lution-deaths/

Air pollution from farms leads to 17,900 U.S. deaths per year, study finds

[soundman98]

Ok, consider the source, being from an oil site, but it seems like a lot of quotes from Toyota, and less speculative then bestcar..
https://oilprice-com.cdn.ampproject....e-In-2030.html

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This came up today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...lution-deaths/

Air pollution from farms leads to 17,900 U.S. deaths per year, study finds

Ok quick look through the cited study and it's references and have some interesting observations. See study here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/20/e2013637118

It looks like this study makes use of data that other studies have performed which are based on a PM2.5 model that was created by through yet another study. I haven't looked into the model much, though it is open source, but I found that at least one creator of the model shows up as an author in all layers of aforementioned studies. While not unusual to see somebody participating in follow-on work, it is important to note creator's bias here.

The question becomes how accurate is the model, and is it backed up by empirical evidence. Judging by the rate of development and amount of data outputs it claims to support, I would SWAG that this model is based entirely on outside research. Meaning based on research others have done for their own purpose, reused to meet the needs here. With how all the covid-19 data repackaging and assessments have led to misinformation, we should all be aware of the potential for that here, though I am certain it is unintentional on the author's part.

The model in question:
http://spatialmodel.com/inmap/

As an engineer, I would not feel comfortable using this study as a sole source of evidence of the implied relationship. I would want to see hard data to back up the simulated findings for at least half of the steps it takes to connect them. I don't think I have seen any test data in any of the references I have access to. As such, this is an interesting mathematical exercise, but not much more.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Ok quick look through the cited study and it's references and have some interesting observations. See study here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/20/e2013637118

It looks like this study makes use of data that other studies have performed which are based on a PM2.5 model that was created by through yet another study. I haven't looked into the model much, though it is open source, but I found that at least one creator of the model shows up as an author in all layers of aforementioned studies. While not unusual to see somebody participating in follow-on work, it is important to note creator's bias here.

The question becomes how accurate is the model, and is it backed up by empirical evidence. Judging by the rate of development and amount of data outputs it claims to support, I would SWAG that this model is based entirely on outside research. Meaning based on research others have done for their own purpose, reused to meet the needs here. With how all the covid-19 data repackaging and assessments have led to misinformation, we should all be aware of the potential for that here, though I am certain it is unintentional on the author's part.

The model in question:
http://spatialmodel.com/inmap/

As an engineer, I would not feel comfortable using this study as a sole source of evidence of the implied relationship. I would want to see hard data to back up the simulated findings for at least half of the steps it takes to connect them. I don't think I have seen any test data in any of the references I have access to. As such, this is an interesting mathematical exercise, but not much more.

The authors mention that this study is novel, and as such is the case, there is the implication that more research is needed, and I would imagine that even the authors are skeptical of the results in light of that. With that said, this type of research isn’t novel, and it is backed by many supportive studies addressing respiratory problems in farm workers.

Models are best when they are predictive and well vetted. I don’t know how this one ranks, but these types of models and comparative studies have been done before for related things like fire related particulates or smog related particulates and deaths. I recall that LA’s smog is attributed from similar studies to a certain number of annual deaths. This article addresses the topic well:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...431692%3famp=1

It is also worth noting that many studies use data from other sources like from other studies or from private or government public databases. In fact, there are scientists that specialize in statistical analysis that collaborate with authors or who just reanalyze studies where light statistical analysis was used. These scientists will find relationships from the data that previous authors did not find because those authors weren’t skilled in statistical analysis or didn’t invest the time to do enough analysis. I’ve read studies where the statisticians came to more profound and glaring conclusions using the data from other authors’ studies without having to ever go into the field or pick up a test tube or a pipet. Talk about stealing someone’s thunder.

[Lightened]

What a roller coaster ride