Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

crammed174 t1_j1r1cf0 wrote

Real question. Con-Ed messaged all of us to cut back on electricity because of an expected winter storm. “Don’t use washers, dryers, dishwashers” etc. how can we then possibly be even close to having. Large electric car population in civilian hands. Like if everyone got a free swap for their ICE cars to an electrics and just 25% of the city switches. Could we even handle it? We have no where near enough public chargers available as is. And it seems even if everyone charged at home the grid can’t handle it.

Please educate me if I’m missing something.

18

Braedan0786 t1_j1r64uw wrote

You’re missing that we have more than a decade to make the transition. No one is forcing the ICE owning population to swap to EVs now and no one is going to force them to swap when states stop selling ICE vehicles.

21

crammed174 t1_j1r88wi wrote

So you foresee that in a decade not only will their be more public chargers ala gas stations but the actual electrical grid will be able to support it? I question the grid, not to mention I doubt enough electric chargers to support a dense city like NY. We would need more Chargers the gas pumps because filling up is five minutes but charging is at least 20 to 30 minutes best case.

Mind you NYC grid is mostly fossil fuels since the closing of Indian Point.

2

_aware t1_j1r90np wrote

Electricity prices would go up, and thus incentivize more power plants to open up. Or our government can actually do something for once and restart Indian Point with better and safer reactors.

5

Braedan0786 t1_j1r8tzs wrote

Yes, I do. Lost in the shuffle about CA’s plan to transition to EVs is their plan to improve power production and reliability in the state prior to 2035. NY will likely do the same.

We don’t need anywhere near as many charging stations as gas stations in this country because GASP the vast majority of EV owners charge at home, overnight. How many ICE vehicle owners fill up their tank every night at home? Fast charging stations are generally used for longer trips and people who must spend more time on local roads.

My Tesla is in a garage in Manhattan that has about thirty Tesla chargers for EVs. The attendants plug it in, swap it around with other EVs, etc. It’s not hard.

4

crammed174 t1_j1re1r7 wrote

I live in a prewar apt as do my parents and in laws and cousins etc. this is an option for single family home owners and people in suburbs. Not NYC. At least not easily or soon.

9

Braedan0786 t1_j1reewe wrote

Cool bro. So what you’re saying is that there will be literally no increase in chargers on the street and other charging solutions in NYC over the next checks notes 13 years before the 2035 restrictions are in place?

−1

1keaman t1_j1rhlzd wrote

Your snarkiness *checks notes* is lame

5

Braedan0786 t1_j1rkrpz wrote

You have officially added checks notes literally nothing to the discussion.

−1

crammed174 t1_j1rvvr9 wrote

I don’t think I said that there won’t be any increase. I said I don’t foresee an increase to meet demand and even if that increase of chargers happens, the power grid can’t handle it if in 2022 we still can’t handle winter storms in a city geographically situated to be prone to winter storms.

We also can’t handle the heat in the summers. I get con-Ed messages every summer urging decrease in consumption.

2

Braedan0786 t1_j1rxa2b wrote

Ok so I’ll put you down as someone who believes that 13 years from now nothing will change. Seems like a pretty absurd position to take given how much technology changes on a near daily basis these days, but hey, you keep being you.

−2

[deleted] t1_j1rxuz5 wrote

[removed]

2

Braedan0786 t1_j1s36z1 wrote

Nah, I get what you’re saying. You’re still using issues today to justify your idiotic logic arguing things will essentially be the same in 13 years.

−1

Wowzlul t1_j1rfc6n wrote

You're right that personal electric vehicles are overhyped as a solution. They don't solve the fundamental issues that plague urban America, namely our dogshit inefficient land use that simultaneously requires and caters to people who drive personal automobiles to every destination.

There is no viable future for this city or the US generally that doesn't involve many fewer people driving personal vehicles for their daily comings and goings. We have to provide them with other options, and live in communities that are built to make those options viable. There's simply no other way around it.

8

cteno4 t1_j1rfmza wrote

Not that this solves the source of the problem, but having an electric car with C2G actually could have helped you in that situation. If your power had cut out, then you could have powered your house with the car for a day.

3

huebomont t1_j1r3vnh wrote

it’s a great question and just one more reason that just swapping every ice car to an electric car is going to be woefully inadequate to meet climate needs. we need to reduce the need for personal cars whenever and wherever possible, incentivize making them smaller and less power-hungry, and generally undo the horrific trends in car and truck design and marketing that have been going on for years.

2

[deleted] t1_j1rgwwt wrote

[deleted]

1

huebomont t1_j1um5wv wrote

Right, it’s not your job to figure out a solution, but for all the money the government spends subsidizing highways and gasoline they could divert even a fraction of that to transit construction and operations and serve way more people. That’s the mental shift we need but I doubt it will happen in time, if ever.

1

jay5627 t1_j1riw3v wrote

Well, in a few years all new developments will have to be electric (heat, ovens etc). I'm sure we'll have upgraded the infrastructure by then... right?

2

crammed174 t1_j1rotrh wrote

I’m not against it. By all means, I think we should have 100% nuclear power supplemented with solar, hydro and wind where feasible and everything should be electric. That way everything is actually clean energy (and cheap). I just don’t see it happening in the timeframe people aspire to, or even the government thinks it can mandate.

2

jay5627 t1_j1rp10r wrote

> I just don’t see it happening in the timeframe people aspire to

Well, nothing ever really happens on time when the gov't is setting the dates. I do agree it will be a net-positive when it's implemented, I just don't trust the grid to be updated and we'll be stuck with insufficient energy while everyone looks around with a shocked pikachu face

2