Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

[Rick C]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tim Williams]

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ddf8d4d-6806-47b8-958a-01e215d7a737@googlegroups.com...

By your analysis a copper sheet would require more labor to produce than a
hand painting. Just because it cost more.

Ackshooally...

I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

That copper touched a LOT of machinery along its way from the mill (whether
from virgin ore or recycled scrap) to your hands.

It probably didn't have labor directly applied to it, no. Not like the old
days when a smith beat it with a hammer a million times. But indirectly,
there may well be more man-hours in it from the operators and managers
running the equipment, mills and supply chain, or the amortized labor of the
engineers and technicians who designed and built the machinery.

I mean, really -- it costs literally nothing to dig ore out of the ground.
Here's a shovel, have fun! Resources are almost free*. It's making use of
it that costs capital (shovels, trucks, separators, smelters..), or labor,
or both. Every process, every product, is value-add!

*A statement itself worthy of argument. Mining sites tend to be low cost
land, and tend not to be widely inhabited... or tend not to cost much to the
local governments to, ahem, relocate said inhabitants. Or in some cases,
can be mined laterally.

Did you know there are hundreds(?) of oil wells in the middle of LA, to this
day? Hidden inside nondescript buildings, they do directional drilling,
slowly extracting the resources under the city. The mineral rights, to
which, probably aren't all that cheap, but I have no idea how long they've
been held; they might well have been a pittance back in the day.

May not work as well in countries with unlimited vertical property rights...

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, Rick C wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike to
protect jobs had the desired effect?

Sylvia.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:56:51 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Rick C wrote...

The shift to electric vehicles could cost
the UAW 35,000 jobs.

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.

I think your analysis is very one dimensional. EVs have more costs in materials, cobalt, nickle and copper cost a lot more than steel. Also the issues of assembly in an EV are simpler. You completely ignored the fact of having so many fewer components to be assembled.

By your analysis a copper sheet would require more labor to produce than a hand painting. Just because it cost more.

While labor is always a factor in costs, it isn't a constant proportion and is not even a significant factor in some.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Winfield Hill]

Rick C wrote...

The shift to electric vehicles could cost
the UAW 35,000 jobs.

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Phil Allison]

Rick Cunthead wrote:

---------------------

Winfield Hill wrote:

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.

I think your analysis is very one dimensional.

** While this fool's ides come straight from the Flat Earth Society.

EVs have more costs in materials, cobalt, nickle and copper cost a
lot more than steel.

** The costs of retrieval and refining of raw material relates to wages paid and incomes going all the folk involved, right down the line for every machine and resource used.

Also the issues of assembly in an EV are simpler. You completely
ignored the fact of having so many fewer components to be assembled.

** Massive, stupid lie. Win mentioned it specifically.

By your analysis a copper sheet would require more labor to produce
than a hand painting. Just because it cost more.

** GIANT huh ? ??

A hand painting of what, the " Mona Lisa " ?

Are there no limits to this trolling jerkoff's absurdities ?.

While labor is always a factor in costs, it isn't a constant proportion and is not even a significant factor in some.

** Says drowning fool, clutching at imaginary straws.

Gurgle, gurgle, gurgle ....



.... Phil

Rick C.

+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 9:30:13 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ddf8d4d-6806-47b8-958a-01e215d7a737@googlegroups.com...
By your analysis a copper sheet would require more labor to produce than a
hand painting. Just because it cost more.


Ackshooally...

I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

That copper touched a LOT of machinery along its way from the mill (whether
from virgin ore or recycled scrap) to your hands.

It probably didn't have labor directly applied to it, no. Not like the old
days when a smith beat it with a hammer a million times. But indirectly,
there may well be more man-hours in it from the operators and managers
running the equipment, mills and supply chain, or the amortized labor of the
engineers and technicians who designed and built the machinery.

I mean, really -- it costs literally nothing to dig ore out of the ground..
Here's a shovel, have fun! Resources are almost free*. It's making use of
it that costs capital (shovels, trucks, separators, smelters..), or labor,
or both. Every process, every product, is value-add!

*A statement itself worthy of argument. Mining sites tend to be low cost
land, and tend not to be widely inhabited... or tend not to cost much to the
local governments to, ahem, relocate said inhabitants. Or in some cases,
can be mined laterally.

Did you know there are hundreds(?) of oil wells in the middle of LA, to this
day? Hidden inside nondescript buildings, they do directional drilling,
slowly extracting the resources under the city. The mineral rights, to
which, probably aren't all that cheap, but I have no idea how long they've
been held; they might well have been a pittance back in the day.

May not work as well in countries with unlimited vertical property rights....

I figured someone would want to trace the history of every bit of work that went into making the copper. However the same analysis can be applied to the hand worked painting. So this is a degenerate way of looking at the issue... likely from a degenerate thinker. <grin>

--

Rick C.

-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

Tom

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 04/10/19 01:56, Winfield Hill wrote:

Rick C wrote...

The shift to electric vehicles could cost
the UAW 35,000 jobs.

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.

That discounts the /energy/ required to mine and
separate and transport raw materials and
finished goods.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By "fleet" I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the conversion to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just kidding yourself.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Andy Bennet]

On 04/10/2019 02:30, Tim Williams wrote:

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ddf8d4d-6806-47b8-958a-01e215d7a737@googlegroups.com...
By your analysis a copper sheet would require more labor to produce
than a hand painting.  Just because it cost more.


Ackshooally...

I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

That copper touched a LOT of machinery along its way from the mill
(whether from virgin ore or recycled scrap) to your hands.

It probably didn't have labor directly applied to it, no.  Not like the
old days when a smith beat it with a hammer a million times.  But
indirectly, there may well be more man-hours in it from the operators
and managers running the equipment, mills and supply chain, or the
amortized labor of the engineers and technicians who designed and built
the machinery.

I mean, really -- it costs literally nothing to dig ore out of the
ground. Here's a shovel, have fun!  Resources are almost free*.  It's
making use of it that costs capital (shovels, trucks, separators,
smelters..), or labor, or both.  Every process, every product, is
value-add!

*A statement itself worthy of argument.  Mining sites tend to be low
cost land, and tend not to be widely inhabited... or tend not to cost
much to the local governments to, ahem, relocate said inhabitants.  Or
in some cases, can be mined laterally.

Did you know there are hundreds(?) of oil wells in the middle of LA, to
this day? Hidden inside nondescript buildings, they do directional
drilling, slowly extracting the resources under the city.  The mineral
rights, to which, probably aren't all that cheap, but I have no idea how
long they've been held; they might well have been a pittance back in the
day.

May not work as well in countries with unlimited vertical property
rights...

Tim

I don't get this more copper argument. I would be suprised if EV's use
much more copper than an ICE powered car - once the main motor has been
wound you have no starter motor in an EV and they tend to have less
copper in the wiring looms as well due to many more peripherals being of
the intelligent variety. And a hell of a lot less aluminum for the block.

 

On Friday, 4 October 2019 07:31:57 UTC+1, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 04/10/19 01:56, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

The shift to electric vehicles could cost
the UAW 35,000 jobs.

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.

That discounts the /energy/ required to mine and
separate and transport raw materials and
finished goods.

No it doesn't. Every process involved costs, including those required to produce the energy used.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:18:41 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

Anthropogenic global warming is already enough of problem that they won't have a lot of choice.

The US, Canada and Australia have per-head CO2 emissions of 15 metric tons per year, 14.9 metric tons and 16.2 metric tons. More densely populated advanced industrial countries come out under ten tons - and they have to get theirs down a lot too.

Moving people over to electric cars is going to be particularly important for these countries.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------

Moving people over to electric cars is going to be particularly
important for these countries.

** Be much like re-arranging the deck chairs on the proverbial...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire power grid - at huge public expense.

Excluding the nuclear option, cos warmies all hate it, doing this requires 3 or 4 times more coal to be burnt.

Spare me the PV + huge batteries nonsense - that cannot possibly work on such a scale in most places at a sane cost.

EVs are still a novelty item, be far easier to get folk to by smaller vehicles ( not SUVs ) and use them only sparingly - else share or rent as need be.

Taxing petrol and diesel fuel heavily would do that quick smart.



..... Phil

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 04/10/19 08:33, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By "fleet" I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the conversion to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just kidding yourself.

In the UK 40% of cars are parked on the street without
access to electricity.

My local power distribution company has a published strategy:
https://www.westernpower.co.uk/downloads-view/29293

There are many problematic areas which might or might not be
practical/economic to solve.

For the foreseeable future, this will be a representative
experience:
"A colleague who lives in London did charge his car from
his terraced house and covered the cable, which ran across
the pavement, with basic safety kit to stop passing pedestrians
from tripping up. He okayed everything with his council
but ultimately his neighbours weren't happy and he decided
to give his electric car up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48881117

 

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 20:18:36 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

Tom

If you live in rural areas, the EV might not be practical due to the
limited range (a few hundred km).

However for urban dwellers the EV range becomes sufficient.

Electric cars, trucks and busses will in increase the life quality in
city centers due to reduced noise, elimination of sulphur and other
pollutants and reduction in small particles.

Even if the electricity needed by EVs is made in coal fired power
plants, these can be built outside cities and high smoke stacks can be
used to effectively filter out most of the pollutants and spread out
the rest to a large area. The pollution levels in city centers at nose
level will be significantly reduced.

If nuclear power is used to power the EVs, a nuclear power plant can
supply about one million EVs.

At least currently, EVs s are parked most of the time and do not need
to be charged at a specific time, so unreliable sources such as wind
and solar can be used to charge these vehicles.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:33:05 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 04/10/19 08:33, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By "fleet" I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the conversion to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just kidding yourself.

In the UK 40% of cars are parked on the street without
access to electricity.

That's not an insuperable problem.

My local power distribution company has a published strategy:
https://www.westernpower.co.uk/downloads-view/29293

There are many problematic areas which might or might not be
practical/economic to solve.

For the foreseeable future, this will be a representative
experience:
"A colleague who lives in London did charge his car from
his terraced house and covered the cable, which ran across
the pavement, with basic safety kit to stop passing pedestrians
from tripping up. He okayed everything with his council
but ultimately his neighbours weren't happy and he decided
to give his electric car up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48881117

Somebody with a better crystal ball would see the council cutting a slot in the pavement, burying the cable and putting a socket into the kerb.

Parking meters already have power connections - in Canada you plug your car into them to power the heater that stops the radiator from freezing solid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:10:03 PM UTC+10, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Moving people over to electric cars is going to be particularly
important for these countries.

** Be much like re-arranging the deck chairs on the proverbial...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire power grid - at huge public expense.

Wrong. The energy used to drive US cars around is about 3O% of the US generating capacity.

The grid may need to be beefed up a bit, but that's going on all the time, and we won't move to electric cars overnight.

> Excluding the nuclear option, cos warmies all hate it, doing this requires 3 or 4 times more coal to be burnt.

Solar power can do it. The nice thing about electric cars is that they have got batteries, and they spend 95% of the time parked.

Any rational scheme will put electric car charging points in every place that they get parked, and a smart meter on each charger that allows the cost of the charging current to be billed to the person who is running the car.

As was pointed out in 2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

the batteries in electric cars are just what the solar energy business needs.

If we get close to 100% electric cars, the batteries in the parked cars will be able to deliver three times as much power as the grid, and will be able to soak up all the embarrassing extra power that the solar cells will deliver during the day.

Whether the grid will be able to persuade enough car owners to let the grid extract some of that stored power over-night is an open question.

When we last debated this here Rick C was sceptical, because it wouldn't fit the way he uses his car.

> Spare me the PV + huge batteries nonsense - that cannot possibly work on such a scale in most places at a sane cost.

The electric cars provide the huge battery - if you've got enough of them.

They can't work without it, and the fact that cars spend 95% of their time parked means that their batteries are at least pontentially availalbe to do the job.

EVs are still a novelty item, be far easier to get folk to by smaller vehicles ( not SUVs ) and use them only sparingly - else share or rent as need be.

Taxing petrol and diesel fuel heavily would do that quick smart.

They are already heavily taxed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

-----------------
:

Moving people over to electric cars is going to be particularly
important for these countries.

** Be much like re-arranging the deck chairs on the proverbial...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire power grid - at huge public expense.

Wrong.

** Nope.

The energy used to drive US cars around is about 3O% of the US
generating capacity.

** Meaningless to any of my points.


> The grid may need to be beefed up a bit,

** Like 3 to 5 times.

Excluding the nuclear option, cos warmies all hate it, doing this requires 3 or 4 times more coal to be burnt.

Solar power can do it.

** Nonsense.


> Any rational scheme will put electric car charging points in every place that they get parked,

** Which requires he upgrades that I suggested.

If we get close to 100% electric cars,

** A warmies wet dream.

Spare me the PV + huge batteries nonsense - that cannot possibly work on such a scale in most places at a sane cost.

The electric cars provide the huge battery - if you've got enough of them.

** Pure greenie fantasy.

EVs are still a novelty item, be far easier to get folk to by smaller vehicles ( not SUVs ) and use them only sparingly - else share or rent as need be.

Taxing petrol and diesel fuel heavily would do that quick smart.

They are already heavily taxed.

** False and irrelevant nonsense.



..... Phil

 

[Winfield Hill]

Phil Allison wrote...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like
3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire
power grid - at huge public expense.

Poor data. I think my case is typical. My car takes
about 6kWh for my 22-mile commute, my house uses about
28kWh/day. By national statistics my wife and I account
for another 25kWh more, at work, stores, infrastructure,
etc. So my car requires 6/53 = 11% more, not 3 to 4x.
If we'll need 10% more electricity in the distant future,
when most cars are electric, that doesn't sound too hard.


--
Thanks,
- Win