• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Close to Half of All Cars Sold in Norway so Far This Year Are Electric

Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Some electrical engineer.

Just how much current will a 110 volt connection require for a 7 kilo-watt. Afterall, that is the minimum charger by the requirements.

Once again, I call BS of you being an electrical engineer.
Click to expand...

I call BS on your understanding of electric cars. You clearly don't own one, otherwise you wouldn't spout such nonsense. There is no charger, other than the components in the vehicles!!!
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's my point. It's not a large expense if you just mandate a connection point be built as the home is built. It is a larger cost though. Still, it's an unwarranted expense to require a home with a built in charger, that might not get used for a decade, and then the electric car owner may want a newer changer than the obsolete one mandated in the home.

They are saying a minimum 7 kWatt charger. At 220 volts, that means a 31.82 amp draw at 100% efficiency. This is why a 35 amp circuit breaker would be used, as a minimum size. My range and dryer use 40 amp breakers. Now the problem comes where some homes high only have a normal 100 amp service from the utility company, and these homes would require a higher level of service, costing more again. As a mandate to a new home, for something that might not ever be used.

Now I'm not against the higher initial cost of the higher current power drop to homes, or mandating a charging point of the 7 kWatt capacity minimum.

I am against requiring the 7 kWatt charger as part of the home built.

Now our self proclaimed electrical engineer, Media Propaganda, claims it can be done on a 110 volt socket. Not 7 kWatts... That would require wiring and plugs capable of over 63 amps! It would require a 4 AGW wire to meet the US standards. An 8 AGW might do for Europe, and their safety standards aren't as stringent as ours.
Click to expand...

I charge my vehicle with a 110-Volt outlet, and it's only a 20-Amp circuit. It can be done. It simply takes longer to charge. That said, I would definitely recommend a 220-Volt outlet. I built my home in 2011, and I wish that code would have required me to install a 220-Volt outlet. Now I have to foot a much larger bill. I'm expanding my PV system with a system to charge electric cars from the sun, and I plan on adding the outlet then.

It's a no-brainer to require homes to install the 7KW circuits. Owners will be thankful in the long-run. I know I would be!!!
 
longview said:
Keep in mind folks, that many areas already see blackouts when too many people run their air conditioners, now
imagine if everyone were also running the equivalent of an electric clothes dryer all the time their car in the garage!!! 220 volts X 30 amps=6600 watts.
Even a few percent of electric cars could disrupt the grid. No we need to nearly triple the capacity of the power grid to support everyone home charging their cars.
Click to expand...

Air conditioners are peak load appliances. Electric car charging can be programmed to only charge at night, outside peak load hours. It will help to balance the grid. Also, Solar Edge makes a system which can recharge electric cars with solar PVs. It can be used with or without Netmetering.

EV_Charging_Photo.JPG

You're always talking about storage of power. Electric cars in homes all over the country ARE STORAGE! Wind power can produce large surpluses at night, when there is little usage. Electric cars provide that load storage!!! And guess what - the next day, much less fuel is burned in the city.
 
Media_Truth said:
I call BS on your understanding of electric cars. You clearly don't own one, otherwise you wouldn't spout such nonsense. There is no charger, other than the components in the vehicles!!!
Click to expand...

You didn't read the article, did you.

Why do you want to look like a moron to us? I don't get it.

For once, please try to comprehend words, instead of filling in your lack of understanding with your confirmation bias. From the article:

We propose specifying that the chargepoints must have a minimum power rating output of 7kW, be fitted with a universal socket that can charge all types of electric vehicle currently on the market and meet relevant safety and accessibility requirements.
​

This means the charger must be installed. A power rating of 7 kWatts isn't going to come from a 110 volt outlet.

Please stop pretending to be a moron.
 
Media_Truth said:
Air conditioners are peak load appliances. Electric car charging can be programmed to only charge at night, outside peak load hours. It will help to balance the grid. Also, Solar Edge makes a system which can recharge electric cars with solar PVs. It can be used with or without Netmetering.



You're always talking about storage of power. Electric cars in homes all over the country ARE STORAGE! Wind power can produce large surpluses at night, when there is little usage. Electric cars provide that load storage!!! And guess what - the next day, much less fuel is burned in the city.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself that! but our grid is not ready to handle moving a bunch of cars from gasoline to electric.
and if you are charging your car for transport, it is a net user, not storage.
 
Grand Mal said:
Ohferchristsake.
What better use for oil profits than green technology? Damn. Some of you guys just bitch and moan about anything green. Hypocrite this, hypocrites over there, once you've decided to be pissed off about everything there's not much good news left in the world, is there.
Click to expand...

Im just saying that they produced an awful lot of of fossil fuel to be released into the atmosphere in order to get this green tech, as you claim.
 
PoS said:
Im just saying that they produced an awful lot of of fossil fuel to be released into the atmosphere in order to get this green tech, as you claim.
Click to expand...

What's wrong, does the Norwegians doing something to advance a green agenda offend you? Or do you think that the position taken 20 years ago locks you in and requires you to work against said green agenda?
Or maybe it's just the garden-variety right wing reaction to anything that smacks of environmentalism? Damn, it's like conservatives have decided that what they are is the not-liberals. Conservatives thinking the what conservatism means is opposing anything liberal and environmental issues are a liberal thing so...
Whatever. Be true to your school.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You didn't read the article, did you.

Why do you want to look like a moron to us? I don't get it.

For once, please try to comprehend words, instead of filling in your lack of understanding with your confirmation bias. From the article:

We propose specifying that the chargepoints must have a minimum power rating output of 7kW, be fitted with a universal socket that can charge all types of electric vehicle currently on the market and meet relevant safety and accessibility requirements.
​

This means the charger must be installed. A power rating of 7 kWatts isn't going to come from a 110 volt outlet.

Please stop pretending to be a moron.
Click to expand...

:lamo "A Universal socket" is simply a 220-Volt plug-in receptacle. You embarass yourself when you try to act like you know what you're talking about. I also think you better review what I said about a 110-Volt outlet, and the ability to slow-charge electric vehicles. You're so busy trying to potty-mouth others that you're not even critically analyzing what is being said.
 
longview said:
Keep telling yourself that! but our grid is not ready to handle moving a bunch of cars from gasoline to electric.
and if you are charging your car for transport, it is a net user, not storage.
Click to expand...

Charging large numbers of EVs is no different than having a Tesla Mega battery pack. All those car batteries are storage power to be used later. The main thing is that criteria needs to be developed for when charging of vehicles can occur. I foresee higher rates during peak hours, which will incentivize night-time charging. Goodbye to oil and refineries. Good riddens!
 
Media_Truth said:
:lamo "A Universal socket" is simply a 220-Volt plug-in receptacle. You embarass yourself when you try to act like you know what you're talking about. I also think you better review what I said about a 110-Volt outlet, and the ability to slow-charge electric vehicles. You're so busy trying to potty-mouth others that you're not even critically analyzing what is being said.
Click to expand...

That's not what the text is indicating. The mean something like this:

1024px-Tesla-type-1-inlet-tesla02-outlet-iec-type-2-outlet-background-blur.jpg


IEC 62196 Plugs, socket-outlets

I disagree with you, but if that is all they are requiring. That is what I said I'm OK with.
 
Media_Truth said:
Charging large numbers of EVs is no different than having a Tesla Mega battery pack. All those car batteries are storage power to be used later. The main thing is that criteria needs to be developed for when charging of vehicles can occur. I foresee higher rates during peak hours, which will incentivize night-time charging. Goodbye to oil and refineries. Good riddens!
Click to expand...
You are missing the point, people will charge at night, because that is when they are not using their car, and this will move the peak load to nighttime.
The current level of energy we get out of gasoline is 3 times the size of the electrical grid!
 
Grand Mal said:
What's wrong, does the Norwegians doing something to advance a green agenda offend you? Or do you think that the position taken 20 years ago locks you in and requires you to work against said green agenda?
Click to expand...

I could care less what the Norwegians do. What I do find funny are leftists and climate radicals who advocate all this green energy, yet dont even bother to look at the actual costs or where the funding comes from.

Or maybe it's just the garden-variety right wing reaction to anything that smacks of environmentalism? Damn, it's like conservatives have decided that what they are is the not-liberals. Conservatives thinking the what conservatism means is opposing anything liberal and environmental issues are a liberal thing so...
Whatever. Be true to your school.
Click to expand...

Or maybe one is just so partisan that they immediately lose sense of logic and brains since I'm not a conservative.
 
PoS said:
I could care less what the Norwegians do. What I do find funny are leftists and climate radicals who advocate all this green energy, yet dont even bother to look at the actual costs or where the funding comes from.



Or maybe one is just so partisan that they immediately lose sense of logic and brains since I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...

While you're caring about what Norwegians do, which is it that bugs you about them, that they made money off oil or that they are spending money on electric car infrastructure? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that oil profits don't bother you so it must be the green initiative that's got you going. Well, you can laugh at the leftists (what the hell is a 'climate radical'?)
'till the cows come home but the days of the gas-engined car are fast ending. Electric car technology today is about where internal combustion tech was when the engines had to be cranked to start and fuel was bought in cans at the hardware store and you know how fast that developed. This green technology will happen much faster for too many reasons to ignore.
Wanna bet technological philistines back then laughed at the idea that vehicles needing gas and oil will ever replace horses?
 
Grand Mal said:
While you're caring about what Norwegians do, which is it that bugs you about them, that they made money off oil or that they are spending money on electric car infrastructure? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that oil profits don't bother you so it must be the green initiative that's got you going. Well, you can laugh at the leftists (what the hell is a 'climate radical'?)
'till the cows come home but the days of the gas-engined car are fast ending. Electric car technology today is about where internal combustion tech was when the engines had to be cranked to start and fuel was bought in cans at the hardware store and you know how fast that developed. This green technology will happen much faster for too many reasons to ignore.
Wanna bet technological philistines back then laughed at the idea that vehicles needing gas and oil will ever replace horses?
Click to expand...

LOL electric cars have been around for ages, even before the early days of ICE engines- but guess what? They were never mass produced.

Why? Most eco-nuts think its a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry, but the reality is electric cars are not as efficient as an ICE engine is. And with no new battery technology in the horizon, then the tech has plateaued.
 
PoS said:
LOL electric cars have been around for ages, even before the early days of ICE engines- but guess what? They were never mass produced.

Why? Most eco-nuts think its a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry, but the reality is electric cars are not as efficient as an ICE engine is. And with no new battery technology in the horizon, then the tech has plateaued.
Click to expand...

They are more efficient for the power to the wheels vs. the energy used, but we still cannot get past the fact that liquid fuel is far more energy dense than batteries.
 
PoS said:
LOL electric cars have been around for ages, even before the early days of ICE engines- but guess what? They were never mass produced.

Why? Most eco-nuts think its a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry, but the reality is electric cars are not as efficient as an ICE engine is. And with no new battery technology in the horizon, then the tech has plateaued.
Click to expand...

Pretty steep plateau. Every day there's more news of advances. and it seems like every time I go to town I see another charging station. Just last week we saw one in the carport of the house next to my wifes chiropractor.
I don't know what you call 'efficient'. Considering how much is required to keep a gas engine running for two years there's no way anyone could call them more efficient than electric. And battery technology is changing so fast that it's mind-boggling. Changes in batteries can be said to drive the advances in other technologies. Self-driving technology, for example.
You might want to Google 'electric buses' to get an idea how far the advances have happened elsewhere in the world. Chile just bought 100 more from China for Santiago, and I flat-out guarantee you they did more research before spending that kind of money than you have replying in this thread.
 
I think what people don't consider is that in a 12 gallon tank of gasoline, at 6.3 pounds per gallon, we have a little over 75 pound of fuel in a 15 pound tank. This can take us 360 miles at 30 MPG. It takes A tremendous weight of batteries for the same range of travel between charges, and then charging that much power takes several hours, instead of under 5 minutes filling liquid fuel.

Until these things change, liquid fuel will dominate.

Even if we get to state of the art fast charges, then there are safety concerns that are more dangerous than transferring liquid fuels.

This video is not for the weak:

 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Pretty steep plateau. Every day there's more news of advances. and it seems like every time I go to town I see another charging station. Just last week we saw one in the carport of the house next to my wifes chiropractor.
I don't know what you call 'efficient'. Considering how much is required to keep a gas engine running for two years there's no way anyone could call them more efficient than electric. And battery technology is changing so fast that it's mind-boggling. Changes in batteries can be said to drive the advances in other technologies. Self-driving technology, for example.
You might want to Google 'electric buses' to get an idea how far the advances have happened elsewhere in the world. Chile just bought 100 more from China for Santiago, and I flat-out guarantee you they did more research before spending that kind of money than you have replying in this thread.
Click to expand...

We'll see then, wont we? Batteries degrade over time so let's see what the real costs will be.

And nobody knows what the long term impact of this will be 10-20 years from now. Will the electric car industry go mainstream? Tesla has never posted a profit ever, and only 1 out of 250 cars are electric so far.

I remain skeptical until its proven otherwise.
 
longview said:
You are missing the point, people will charge at night, because that is when they are not using their car, and this will move the peak load to nighttime.
The current level of energy we get out of gasoline is 3 times the size of the electrical grid!
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Any changes will be gradual. Electricity providers are the experts in providing electricity to their customers to meet their needs. Again, you claim to be the expert, but you are not. They will handle it. They will adjust. That's their job.

Your comment on gasoline is unlinked. Gasoline-powered cars are much less efficient than electric vehicles. Also, just like there are a lot of garages to house cars, there are a lot of garage roofs for Solar PV charging of cars.
 
PoS said:
I could care less what the Norwegians do. What I do find funny are leftists and climate radicals who advocate all this green energy, yet dont even bother to look at the actual costs or where the funding comes from.

Or maybe one is just so partisan that they immediately lose sense of logic and brains since I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...

Stop blurting nonsense, and do your research. Wind energy is less expensive than both coal and nuclear, and is competetive with natural gas. Solar PVs are becoming more and more competetive, and are less expensive than coal and nuclear.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They are more efficient for the power to the wheels vs. the energy used, but we still cannot get past the fact that liquid fuel is far more energy dense than batteries.
Click to expand...

For once, I agree with your statement. I would add that electric vehicles, with current technology, meets the needs of over 99% of individuals. People seldom drive over 200 to 300 miles at one time. I prefer the train for roadtrips, but if I do undertake a roadtrip by car, I'm more than willing to pull over for a half hour to charge the car.
 
Media_Truth said:
For once, I agree with your statement. I would add that electric vehicles, with current technology, meets the needs of over 99% of individuals. People seldom drive over 200 to 300 miles at one time. I prefer the train for roadtrips, but if I do undertake a roadtrip by car, I'm more than willing to pull over for a half hour to charge the car.
Click to expand...

Sure, it would meet my needs. I several drive more than 50 miles a day, or outside the metro area. I would love to have an electric car, but not yet. Not until the technology improves.
 
Media_Truth said:
Stop blurting nonsense, and do your research. Wind energy is less expensive than both coal and nuclear, and is competetive with natural gas. Solar PVs are becoming more and more competetive, and are less expensive than coal and nuclear.
Click to expand...

Where I live, British Columbia, the power is all hydro-electric which effectively makes electric vehicles solar-powered.
 
Media_Truth said:
Stop blurting nonsense, and do your research. Wind energy is less expensive than both coal and nuclear, and is competetive with natural gas. Solar PVs are becoming more and more competetive, and are less expensive than coal and nuclear.
Click to expand...

Wind energy is not ready to replace fossil fuel energy because battery tech is inferior. Nuclear may have higher startup costs, but will be much cheaper and cleaner in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom