how much longer for the ICE now Americia's best selling Vehicle has gone electric?

[oil pan 4]

Since we are slamming electric cars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RaG6Qec7N0

For Australia to go electric they have to keep all their coal generation capacity for the foreseeable future.
Since they are terrified of nuclear power.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by dunhamjr

Adoption of EV's is going to be way slower across the population than some of the estimates mentioned here. Even with considering automaker estimates (dont forget they include fleet sales) and government incentives & economy/carbon regulations.

Government and large fleets operating within a strictly limited area may seem easier to electrify, and when it comes to private fleets to improve their own recharging infrastructure instead of waiting for any government to take the first step. But anyway, instead of focusing on a total elimination of tailpipe carbon emissions, which is much harder to achieve for certain operating conditions, some businesses are going for so-called "net-zero" carbon compensation programs which end up being more realistic to cover their needs and achieve their goals.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

For Australia to go electric they have to keep all their coal generation capacity for the foreseeable future.

... and they would still be ahead compared to burning gasoline and diesel in cars.

[Big Dave]

I'd say the IC engine has at least forty years of service life left.

1. They still don't have the range/charging problem beat. A 150 mile road trip takes as much planning as the Apollo program.

2. The electrical production infrastructure will be overwhelmed quickly if Problem #1 is beat. An electrical engineer calculated that to got 100% electric by 2040, we would have to be putting three 1000 Mw(e) nukes (or dispatchable upon demand equivalents) into service every day until 2040. The scope of the problem is that immense.

[freebeard]

2. The electrical production infrastructure will be overwhelmed quickly if Problem #1 is beat.

As shown in Permalink #60.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

I'd say the IC engine has at least forty years of service life left.

1. They still don't have the range/charging problem beat. A 150 mile road trip takes as much planning as the Apollo program.

2. The electrical production infrastructure will be overwhelmed quickly if Problem #1 is beat. An electrical engineer calculated that to got 100% electric by 2040, we would have to be putting three 1000 Mw(e) nukes (or dispatchable upon demand equivalents) into service every day until 2040. The scope of the problem is that immense.

From a report prepared for the DOE:

Despite this flat energy generation growth within the last decade, the U.S. electric power system added an average dispatchable generating capacity of 12 GW per year, with years that exceeded 25 GW when including intermittent resources. In an unmanaged charging scenario intentionally chosen as an illustrative worst case, 12 GW of dispatchable generating capacity is equivalent to the aggregate demand of nearly 6 million new EVs. This accounts to 1 to 3 times the projected EV market growth through 2030 in the high and medium scenarios respectively. This case does not account for managed charging (i.e., using smart communications technology to coordinate EV charging over the course of a day), which offers additional flexibility to reduce peak demand and which will play an important role in integration of EVs at Scale.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi...%20Nov2019.pdf

[Isaac Zachary]

12GW could feed a million EV's at 12kW average per car, all at the same time.
Or two million at 6kW all at the same time.
Or three million at 4kW all at the same time,
Or four million at 3kW all at the same time,
Or six million at 2kW all at the same time.

Of course that is not accounting for transmission losses.

[Isaac Zachary]

3.2 trillion miles a year sounds right. There are some 276 million cars registered in the USA and at a little over 11,500 miles per year would equal 3.2 trillion.

So 3.2 trillion at 0.3kWh per mile would equal 960TWh of electricity per year. But the USA can produce at least 4PWh (4,000TWh) of electricty per year (it did in 2018), or more than 4 times that.

So we'd need to increase the total power output by about 25% or 960TWh, right? Divide 960TWh into 3,650 hours (10 hours charging per night if spread out evenly) would be 260GW needed.

So we'd need a 1GW station every week for the next 260 weeks and we haven't even factored in the extra electricity already available during night charging hours...

So 260 weeks would make for 5 years. That would put us at 2026, not 2035. To reach 2035 we'd need that kind of power (a GW power plant every week) if everyone charged during the same 3.5 hour period, again, not factoring in the currently off-peak power available.

[freebeard]

IMHO it makes more sense to put a solar array on the house[s] with powerwall[s] and reduce the requirement for Big Electricity to become involved.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

I'd say the IC engine has at least forty years of service life left

Considering the viability of using biofuels, which may rely on many feedstocks including organic waste in general, I'm sure the ICE is more useful to close the carbon and nitrogen cycles than what EV endorsers may say.