Reality check on electric cars

[Into the Night]

So you think 60 gallons of lubricating oil is equivalent to 640,000 gallons of gasoline and 2,000 gallons of engine oil?
Wind turbine requires 60 gallons of lubricating oil in a sealed system that lasts for over a year.
Wind turbine provides enough electricity in a year for electric vehicles to travel 19,200,000 miles which in an ICE vehicle at 30mpg would require 640,000 gallons of gasoline and 2,000 gallons of engine oil even if you only change the oil every 12,000 miles.


So you don't have evidence that the American continent is still covered with prairies and old growth forests? That would be the only way your argument that man can't affect his environment could possibly be true.

As to your claim that the electrical grid can't currently charge millions of electrical cars -

The current electric grid is perfectly capable of charging millions of cars over night.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
On the average night the electrical usage in the US drops by 100,000,000 kwh from the peak during the day. If we simply assume that is for 4 hours that gives us 400,000,000 kwh of electricity for charging cars over night that can be handled by the current grid with no changes at all. That 400,000,000 kwh would top off 40,000,000 electrical vehicles.

But if we look further, we see the peak load on the grid is only for about 6 hours per day and only during the 3 summer months. That would leave us with a current grid that could give us over a billion kwhs or more capacity per day to charge cars even during the peak electrical usage of summer. Then during the other 9 months we would have well over 2 billion kwhs of capacity with the current grid. Then if you simply require a smart charger similar to what electric utilities use for cycling air conditioners on and off you can control when and how those cars charge and likely increase the capacity even further.

The problem is not the current neighborhood electrical grid. That is perfectly capable of handling the charging of electrical vehicles at night with a few tweaks to control so all vehicles aren't charging at the same time. But then that's just me being naive enough to actually do the research. Feel free to continue on in your ignorance while calling me naive.

You are naive.

It requires 10-12 hours to charge an electric car from fully drained to fully charged. It takes about 5 minutes to refuel a gasoline car.
This makes the electric car essentially useless for open road travel or for commercial vehicle use.

Your 'topping off solution' is nothing more than not driving your car much.

Joules are joules. It takes a certain amount of them to move a mass a certain distance at a certain speed. You can't change that. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If you want to charge a nation full of electric cars, there is not enough power generating capacity to do it. More power plants will have to be built. Wind won't cut it. Solar won't cut it. Nuclear won't cut it. Hydroelectric won't cut it. It means coal, oil, and natural gas.

 

[Nordberg]

You are naive.

It requires 10-12 hours to charge an electric car from fully drained to fully charged. It takes about 5 minutes to refuel a gasoline car.
This makes the electric car essentially useless for open road travel or for commercial vehicle use.

Your 'topping off solution' is nothing more than not driving your car much.

Joules are joules. It takes a certain amount of them to move a mass a certain distance at a certain speed. You can't change that. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If you want to charge a nation full of electric cars, there is not enough power generating capacity to do it. More power plants will have to be built. Wind won't cut it. Solar won't cut it. It means coal, oil, and natural gas.

Chargers are getting faster and faster and you are getting dumber and more dishonest.
It does not take 10 to 12 hours. Quit lying. The cars are never run to zero. They are plugged in every night and topped off. I know no electric car person who has to wait 12 hours. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-charge-electric-car-tesla-2021-10 Do you know that technology, unlike you, gets better and faster?
Even if you have to charge at 120, you just plug in at night and wake up to a fully charged car. What you claim to be a serious problem, simply is not.
Maybe some come with a hamster wheel for you to recharge. Run the treadmill until it fully charges,.
The govt understands that long-distance travel represents a problem. That is why they are installing chargers every 70 miles on the interstates.
However as the charger speeds take less and less time, it will work out. That is how you build for the future. capacity is another red herring. https://www.barrons.com/articles/th...hicles-heres-who-will-charge-them-51605368406

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I assume you mean by 'alternative energy' the use of wind and solar. It is nowhere near 30 percent of energy production in the world. It is currently 3.7% in the world. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix

Poor Into the Night. He thinks it's still 2019.
Then he thinks it's just fine when he presents made up numbers. (RANDU fallacy?)

It's so funny how you fall into your own traps over and over again.

Wind is the 2nd most expensive method of producing electrical power and is inconsistent, and requires large amounts of real estate or expensive sea mounted devices.
Solar is the most expensive, and only works during the day.

This would be a perfect example of Into the Night committing what he loves to call a RANDU fallacy. I wonder if the "source" he is using for his numbers is prior to 2010?

 

[Into the Night]

Chargers are getting faster and faster and you are getting dumber and more dishonest.

They are not getting faster. You can't ram 498 amperes into a charger socket. You couldn't lift the cable.

It does not take 10 to 12 hours.

Yes it does.

Quit lying. The cars are never run to zero.

You don't get to speak for every driver on the road. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

They are plugged in every night and topped off.

Your driving habits are not the same any one else's. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
If you want to pay a lot of money for a car you don't drive much, that's YOUR problem.

I know no electric car person who has to wait 12 hours.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

Do you know that technology, unlike you, gets better and faster?

You driving your car very little is not an improvement in technology.

Even if you have to charge at 120, you just plug in at night and wake up to a fully charged car.

What you claim to be a serious problem, simply is not.

Yes it is.

Maybe some come with a hamster wheel for you to recharge. Run the treadmill until it fully charges,.

If you want to run on a hamster wheel to charge your car, why are you driving a car? Just run to where you want to go.

The govt understands that long-distance travel represents a problem.

It is not a problem. The government has never made any such statement. You don't get to speak for the government.

That is why they are installing chargers every 70 miles on the interstates.

Makes no difference. You spend too much time recharging your car. Further, there a lot of roads that are not interstate highways.

However as the charger speeds take less and less time, it will work out.

Nope. You can only shove so many amperes into the charger port. You obviously have no idea what the effect of current on a wire or connector is. You also have no idea of the internal resistance of a battery.

That is how you build for the future.

You are not talking about the future. You are being naive.

capacity is another red herring.

No, it isn't. You can't create energy out of nothing. A charging station is NOT a power generating plant.

 

[Into the Night]

Poor Into the Night. He thinks it's still 2019.

I used the latest numbers available there, dumbass.

Then he thinks it's just fine when he presents made up numbers. (RANDU fallacy?)

Okay. You consider them made up numbers. Fine by me.

It's so funny how you fall into your own traps over and over again.

No, it's YOUR trap.

This would be a perfect example of Into the Night committing what he loves to call a RANDU fallacy. I wonder if the "source" he is using for his numbers is prior to 2010?

Bogus question. I used 2019 numbers...the latest available for this site.

Argument from randU fallacy.

You don't accept my data. I don't accept yours. So there.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You are naive.
It requires 10-12 hours to charge an electric car from fully drained to fully charged. It takes about 5 minutes to refuel a gasoline car.

The average commute for most people is under 40 miles round trip. They rarely drive 300 miles on a day unless traveling out of town.

This makes the electric car essentially useless for open road travel or for commercial vehicle use.

No. It doesn't make it useless for open road travel or commercial vehicle use. The average commercial delivery vehicle averages less than 150 miles per day. That would require about 4 hours to top off the vehicle making an electric vehicle perfect for most commercial delivery vehicles. We already see electric buses that despite your claims that it is impossible for them to function they do quite well and most cities have plans to increase their electric bus fleet over the next 5 years. For open road travel it just requires planning. Something people used to do all the time for trips and most are still capable of doing that planning.

Joules are joules. It takes a certain amount of them to move a mass a certain distance at a certain speed. You can't change that. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

ROFLMAO. A mass moving at a given rate of speed requires no joules to continue to move at that speed. Mass requires energy to accelerate or decelerate. A mass moving without friction will continue to move with no expenditure of energy so it requires no joules to move a certain distance at a maintained speed. It seems you really aren't very familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. You probably should stop for a moment and think before you decide to tell the world how ignorant you are.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I used the latest numbers available there, dumbass.

Okay. You consider them made up numbers. Fine by me.

No, it's YOUR trap.

Bogus question. I used 2019 numbers...the latest available for this site.

Argument from randU fallacy.

You don't accept my data. I don't accept yours. So there.

ROFLMAO. So you just make up data and then don't accept data that isn't made up? Ok. We definitely see that from you on a daily basis.
You provided no source for your claim that solar and wind were the 2 most expensive sources of electricity. I did provide a source that shows they are the cheapest and have been among the cheapest for a number of years. Without a source, your numbers are made up. it is nothing more than a RANDU fallacy on your part to use your repeated idiocy. Please provide us with a valid source that shows that the cost of electricity from solar and wind is more than coal and nuclear.

 

[Into the Night]

The average commute for most people is under 40 miles round trip. They rarely drive 300 miles on a day unless traveling out of town.

I drive more than 300 miles in a day on a trip. I drive about 1000 miles. I'll be at my destination while YOU are still charging your car!

No. It doesn't make it useless for open road travel or commercial vehicle use.

Yes it does.

The average commercial delivery vehicle averages less than 150 miles per day.

They have payload to carry. They can't waste it all on carrying around batteries. They drive more than 150 miles in a day too. I am also talking about more than just delivery vehicles.

That would require about 4 hours to top off the vehicle making an electric vehicle perfect for most commercial delivery vehicles.

Nope. Joules are joules. You require MORE power to move the heavier weight.

We already see electric buses that despite your claims that it is impossible for them to function they do quite well and most cities have plans to increase their electric bus fleet over the next 5 years.

They use trolley lines, not batteries. Like a train, they are limited to the trolley line.

For open road travel it just requires planning.

No, it requires wasting a lot of time charging your car.

Something people used to do all the time for trips and most are still capable of doing that planning.

No, it requires wasting a lot of time charging your car.

ROFLMAO. A mass moving at a given rate of speed requires no joules to continue to move at that speed.

Only in a vacuum, idiot.

Mass requires energy to accelerate or decelerate.

Friction is deceleration. It is converting your energy into useless thermal energy.

A mass moving without friction will continue to move with no expenditure of energy so it requires no joules to move a certain distance at a maintained speed.

So I need no fuel or electricity to drive down the freeway. No battery needed! No engine needed! Gotit.
You are not driving in a vacuum, dude, even though your argument is in one.

It seems you really aren't very familiar with the laws of thermodynamics.

No, that would be YOU. Discounting the effects of friction is ludicrous.

You probably should stop for a moment and think before you decide to tell the world how ignorant you are.

Take your own advice.

 

[Into the Night]

ROFLMAO. So you just make up data and then don't accept data that isn't made up?

It is made up. I don't make up data.

Ok. We definitely see that from you on a daily basis.

Inversion fallacy.

You provided no source for your claim that solar and wind were the 2 most expensive sources of electricity.

You provided no source for your claim that solar and wind are cheap.

I did provide a source that shows they are the cheapest and have been among the cheapest for a number of years.

No, you did not. You provided a graph of random numbers.

Without a source, your numbers are made up.

You can actually see it in the power lines coming out of the various forms of energy.
Huge wind generator farms don't bother with anything beyond a simple distribution sized line. Solar panels do not provide a lot of wattage.
Both are intermittent sources. When they are not generating electricity at all, they still cost. They still have to be maintained. Large tracts of land are still dedicated to wind generators.

it is nothing more than a RANDU fallacy on your part to use your repeated idiocy. Please provide us with a valid source that shows that the cost of electricity from solar and wind is more than coal and nuclear.

No.

While nuclear is the 3rd most expensive method of generating electricity, all you need is one plant to generate more power than ALL of the wind generators combined in the State.

Your cost analysis chart is failing to take into consideration many factors. That's why it's gunk.

Wind generators can only generate power in a limited range of wind speeds. Outside of that, they can generate NO power at all. Further, they are susceptible to icing conditions. They cannot run when iced up. It would lead to catastrophic failure.

Solar power only generates power during the day. They generate NO power at night. Solar panels must be maintained and even replaced from time to time. They are susceptible to a variety of weather conditions including wind, dust, debris, snow, and ice. They are also susceptible to critter damage. They generate very little power.

Piddle power is not going to cut it. The SOTC is already finding that out, since they've been closing their power plants. They import almost all of their power now.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

They are not getting faster. You can't ram 498 amperes into a charger socket. You couldn't lift the cable.

Why would you need to be using 498 amps to charge a vehicle faster? As always amperage is wattage/volts. If you are charging a 100kwh 400 volt battery system you don't need nearly 498 amps to charge it in less than the 10 hours you claim is required. So to make a faster charger doesn't require 498 amps.

Then to claim that someone couldn't lift a cable rated for 500 amps is ridiculous. The weight for a strand of 750 kcmil copper cable is 2.3 lbs per foot and it is rated at 535 amps with a 90c jacket. 2 cables and jacket would weigh little more than 6 pounds per foot and a 5' long cable would only weigh 30 pounds. Easy for most people to lift. Even if you add a third cable to give a safety ground on a 240v cable, you still end up with a cable that is less than 10 lbs per foot and you should never have to carry the weight of more than 3' of the cable to plug in your car.

https://colonialwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WIRE-WEIGHTS1.pdf

Leave it to you to just make up random numbers and claim they are true.


Let's do a little math.
A supercharger uses 400v DC.
A Tesla battery has a capacity of 100kwh.
100,000/400 = 250 amps are required at 400 volts to charge the batter from empty to full in one hour give or take depending on that time for the last 5-10% of charge.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The average commute for most people is under 40 miles round trip. They rarely drive 300 miles on a day unless traveling out of town.

I drive more than 300 miles in a day on a trip. I drive about 1000 miles.

Gosh Captain Obvious, thanks for confirming my statement.

I'll be at my destination while YOU are still charging your car!

I'll be having a relaxing dinner while you are driving. People drive differently. It doesn't make your way of driving correct.

They have payload to carry. They can't waste it all on carrying around batteries. They drive more than 150 miles in a day too. I am also talking about more than just delivery vehicles.

OMG. They have a payload to carry they can't waste it carrying around the weight of an engine and gasoline. The weight of the vehicle and its power source is not really relevant when we are talking what work it can do. If one vehicle costs $1 to move 1000 lbs and the other vehicle costs $.25 to move 1000 lbs, the second vehicle can weigh twice as much as the first vehicle and still cost less to move cargo.

Nope. Joules are joules. You require MORE power to move the heavier weight.

I guess if you ignore the cost per joule then we could be having this conversation.

They use trolley lines, not batteries. Like a train, they are limited to the trolley line.

Your ignorance does not match reality. https://www.blue-bird.com/buses/electric-school-buses

No, it requires wasting a lot of time charging your car.

No, it requires wasting a lot of time charging your car.

It seems some people can't use time wisely. Too bad for you.

Only in a vacuum, idiot.

Friction is deceleration. It is converting your energy into useless thermal energy.

So I need no fuel or electricity to drive down the freeway. No battery needed! No engine needed! Gotit.
You are not driving in a vacuum, dude, even though your argument is in one.

No, that would be YOU. Discounting the effects of friction is ludicrous.

It takes energy to overcome friction. But that is not what you said originally. You claimed that the first law of thermodynamics says that joules are required to keep an object in motion. Your statement was false. Your attempt to now move the goal posts doesn't suddenly make your statement true. Joules are required to overcome friction. Acceleration to counteract the deceleration.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It is made up. I don't make up data.

Lovely paradox. You claim you made it up, then claim you don't make up data.

You provided no source for your claim that solar and wind are cheap.

No, you did not. You provided a graph of random numbers.

I provided a graph that came from a source. Either I didn't provide a graph and just made up numbers or I did provide a graph and it came from a source. You can't claim both are true.

You can actually see it in the power lines coming out of the various forms of energy.
Huge wind generator farms don't bother with anything beyond a simple distribution sized line. Solar panels do not provide a lot of wattage.
Both are intermittent sources. When they are not generating electricity at all, they still cost. They still have to be maintained. Large tracts of land are still dedicated to wind generators.

Could you be any more stupid? Levelized cost is based on output/total cost. Total costs include projected maintenance and upkeep costs. For solar and wind costs they assume actual production is about 30-40% of the rated production.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

While nuclear is the 3rd most expensive method of generating electricity, all you need is one plant to generate more power than ALL of the wind generators combined in the State.

ROFLMAO. Texas produced over 7,000 gwhs of electricity from wind in September according to the EIA. Also according to the EIA, the larges nuclear plant in the US if running at full capacity for the entire year would produce 5,112 gwhs of electricty. So you would need a nuclear plant that is over 20 times the size of the current largest nuclear plant to make your claim true.

Iowa in 2019 produced 41% of its electricity from wind and produced 25,328 gwhs of electricity. Over 5 times the capability of the largest nuclear plant in the US.
https://iub.iowa.gov/regulated-industries/wind-powered-electric-generation-iowa

Minnesota in 2020 produced 21% of its electricity from wind and produced 12,240 gwhs. Over 2 times the capability of the largest nuclear plant in the US.

Your cost analysis chart is failing to take into consideration many factors. That's why it's gunk.

Wind generators can only generate power in a limited range of wind speeds. Outside of that, they can generate NO power at all. Further, they are susceptible to icing conditions. They cannot run when iced up. It would lead to catastrophic failure.

Solar power only generates power during the day. They generate NO power at night. Solar panels must be maintained and even replaced from time to time. They are susceptible to a variety of weather conditions including wind, dust, debris, snow, and ice. They are also susceptible to critter damage. They generate very little power.

Maintenance costs? I wonder why no one but you thought there might be maintenance costs. Then they don't produce power 100% of the time at 100% of their rated capacity? I wonder why no one but you thought of that. Oh.. wait, they DID think of it which is why the levelized the costs. Costs even before any tax credits make solar and wind the cheapest new power sources today, in 2023 and in 2026.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Then to think, the horror of icing on turbine blades and no one but you has ever thought of it and no one but about a dozen companies have provided solutions to icing.
https://www.iqpc.com/media/1001147/37957.pdf

Piddle power is not going to cut it. The SOTC is already finding that out, since they've been closing their power plants. They import almost all of their power now.

Meanwhile Iowa gets 41% of its electricity from wind turbines. How is that even possible in your estimation? Surely you can tell us that isn't really happening because they must be lying about their electrical usage. Maybe they are using your made up numbers.

 

[Matt Dillon]

The average commute for most people is under 40 miles round trip. They rarely drive 300 miles on a day unless traveling out of town.


No. It doesn't make it useless for open road travel or commercial vehicle use. The average commercial delivery vehicle averages less than 150 miles per day. That would require about 4 hours to top off the vehicle making an electric vehicle perfect for most commercial delivery vehicles. We already see electric buses that despite your claims that it is impossible for them to function they do quite well and most cities have plans to increase their electric bus fleet over the next 5 years. For open road travel it just requires planning. Something people used to do all the time for trips and most are still capable of doing that planning.



ROFLMAO. A mass moving at a given rate of speed requires no joules to continue to move at that speed. Mass requires energy to accelerate or decelerate. A mass moving without friction will continue to move with no expenditure of energy so it requires no joules to move a certain distance at a maintained speed. It seems you really aren't very familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. You probably should stop for a moment and think before you decide to tell the world how ignorant you are.

What vehicle moves down the road without friction? You got a frictionless vehicle hidden up your ass or something?

You should sell it, you'll make billions!

 

[Into the Night]

Gosh Captain Obvious, thanks for confirming my statement.

I didn't. Hallucination.

I'll be having a relaxing dinner while you are driving.

I'll be having a relaxing dinner at my destination while YOU'RE still on the road.

People drive differently. It doesn't make your way of driving correct.

Listen to your own advice.

OMG. They have a payload to carry they can't waste it carrying around the weight of an engine and gasoline. The weight of the vehicle and its power source is not really relevant when we are talking what work it can do. If one vehicle costs $1 to move 1000 lbs and the other vehicle costs $.25 to move 1000 lbs, the second vehicle can weigh twice as much as the first vehicle and still cost less to move cargo.

Pivot fallacy. It's not about cost. It's about time.

I guess if you ignore the cost per joule then we could be having this conversation.

We aren't having this conversation. Pivot fallacy.

Your ignorance does not match reality. https://www.blue-bird.com/buses/electric-school-buses

School buses don't drive all day. Most of the time they are parked.

It seems some people can't use time wisely. Too bad for you.

Inversion fallacy.

It takes energy to overcome friction.

Which is what I said.

But that is not what you said originally.

It is what I said originally.

You claimed that the first law of thermodynamics says that joules are required to keep an object in motion.

If the object is a car.

Your statement was false.

Semantics fallacy.

Your attempt to now move the goal posts doesn't suddenly make your statement true.

Fallacy fallacy. Semantics fallacy.

Joules are required to overcome friction. Acceleration to counteract the deceleration.

Which is what I said. You finally agree with me and the point I was making.

 

[Into the Night]

Why would you need to be using 498 amps to charge a vehicle faster?

Just using your wacky numbers, dude.

As always amperage is wattage/volts.

WRONG. Amperes are NOT watts. Amperes are NOT volts. Denial of Ohm's law, Amperes law, and Volta's law, and Faraday's laws.

If you are charging a 100kwh 400 volt battery system you don't need nearly 498 amps to charge it in less than the 10 hours you claim is required.

Yup. You do. The numbers come from Tesla. Argue with them.

So to make a faster charger doesn't require 498 amps.

Using your wacky numbers, it does.

Then to claim that someone couldn't lift a cable rated for 500 amps is ridiculous.

Go try to lift two of them. That's what is needed to charge a car.

The weight for a strand of 750 kcmil copper cable is 2.3 lbs per foot and it is rated at 535 amps with a 90c jacket. 2 cables and jacket would weigh little more than 6 pounds per foot and a 5' long cable would only weigh 30 pounds. Easy for most people to lift.

That cable cannot carry 500 amps!

Even if you add a third cable to give a safety ground on a 240v cable, you still end up with a cable that is less than 10 lbs per foot and you should never have to carry the weight of more than 3' of the cable to plug in your car.

You want to add a safety ground? Okay. Lift THREE cables capable of carrying 500 amps (the 750kcmil cable can't carry 500 amps).

Leave it to you to just make up random numbers and claim they are true.

Leave it to you to deny science.

Let's do a little math.
A supercharger uses 400v DC.
A Tesla battery has a capacity of 100kwh.
100,000/400 = 250 amps are required at 400 volts to charge the batter from empty to full in one hour give or take depending on that time for the last 5-10% of charge.

You don't have a 400 volt service. The maximum service entrance to a house is 240v @ 200A. That only provides (if you use the entire service for that purpose) 48kW. After that, you require special engineering and special installations from the power company. You're going to be paying through the nose for using that much power too!

Now, are you going to use your ENTIRE ELECTRICAL service just to charge your car?????? Your wiring won't take it, dude!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Just using your wacky numbers, dude.

Really? That's interesting since I was using your numbers. If the numbers are wacky then that is on you.

WRONG. Amperes are NOT watts. Amperes are NOT volts. Denial of Ohm's law, Amperes law, and Volta's law, and Faraday's laws.

I never said amps were watts. I said amps is calculated by dividing watts by voltage. It seems you can't recognize simple mathematical symbols.

Yup. You do. The numbers come from Tesla. Argue with them.

The numbers from Tesla say a supercharger can charge a vehicle to 80% in 15 minutes. I am not the one arguing with them. You are. Tesla also says that you can put in a 100amp 240v charger in your garage with no problem. Such a charger will deliver 24kwh per hour and not require 8-10 hours to charge a vehicle.

That cable cannot carry 500 amps!

You say it can't. NEC says it can.
https://www.usawire-cable.com/pdfs/nec ampacities.pdf
A 750kcmil THHN cable is rated for 535 amps with 3 cables in a raceway.
With a single cable in a raceway it is rated for 794 amps in underground ductwork.
You are simply full of shit.

Then we get to cables not in ductwork but rated for air
http://wiresizecalculator.net/tables/maxampfa30.htm
Now we see that a 90c 750kcmil copper cable is rated for 885 amps when it is in free air.

You know what. I'll stick with the people that write the electrical code when it comes to deciding what amperage a given cable can handle.

You want to add a safety ground? Okay. Lift THREE cables capable of carrying 500 amps (the 750kcmil cable can't carry 500 amps).

NEC ampacity tables says it can carry 500 amps without any issues. The weight of the cable says I can lift it easily. You are still full of shit.

Leave it to you to deny science.

Leave it to you to not even know what science is.

You don't have a 400 volt service. The maximum service entrance to a house is 240v @ 200A. That only provides (if you use the entire service for that purpose) 48kW. After that, you require special engineering and special installations from the power company. You're going to be paying through the nose for using that much power too!

A supercharger has 480 volts. It seems you simply ignored my statement and decided to attack a straw man.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

A couple of notes on the above:

750K circular mil cable is about an inch and half in diameter, give or take. The current price is about $25 a foot and you can only get it special order from wholesalers. If you are pulling more than one and more than a few feet, better get a wench and a come-along or you aren't pulling it...

No residential area I know of has 480/ 277 VAC available in it. Three phase 240 VAC isn't available either normally.

Oh, there is no 200 A service limit on a home. I've done ones with 300 and 400 Amp services. The only issue over 200 A is they won't permit it until you get a PE electrical engineer stamp on the drawings. Up to 200 amp you can do it yourself--if you know how to do it yourself.

The issue with these fast charges is that most power companies bill for the month on peak use. If you have a short but very high current pull--like these chargers do, or say a tankless water heater does--you can be smacked with a rate up to double what you'd otherwise pay if your use was lower and constant.

 

[Into the Night]

Really? That's interesting since I was using your numbers. If the numbers are wacky then that is on you.

Nope. They are YOUR numbers.

I never said amps were watts.

Yes you did, liar.

I said amps is calculated by dividing watts by voltage. It seems you can't recognize simple mathematical symbols.

Not mathematical symbols.

The numbers from Tesla say a supercharger can charge a vehicle to 80% in 15 minutes. I am not the one arguing with them. You are. Tesla also says that you can put in a 100amp 240v charger in your garage with no problem. Such a charger will deliver 24kwh per hour and not require 8-10 hours to charge a vehicle.

So you want to commit half of your ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SERVICE to charge your car. Gotit. In some homes this is the ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SERVICE. Your wiring can't handle it, dude.

You say it can't. NEC says it can.

NEC does not rate wire.

https://www.usawire-cable.com/pdfs/nec ampacities.pdf

Okay. Let's say you use 750kcmil cable. Let's say you ignore the trapped bundle ratings and shove 500 amps through it (if you can find that much power somewhere!). The cable is going to weight about 50 lbs. Good luck plugging that into the car! Oh....the connector won't handle that current either.

A 750kcmil THHN cable is rated for 535 amps with 3 cables in a raceway.

It's not in a raceway. It's in a trapped cable. You are not derating correctly.

With a single cable in a raceway it is rated for 794 amps in underground ductwork.

You can't charge a car with one wire.

You are simply full of shit.

Inversion fallacy. That would be you.

Then we get to cables not in ductwork but rated for air

The cable is not in free air.

http://wiresizecalculator.net/tables/maxampfa30.htm

Fine. You will have no problem lifting 50lbs of stiff cable and plugging it into your car. Of course, your electrical service cannot provide that kind of power. Never mind the connector.

Now we see that a 90c 750kcmil copper cable is rated for 885 amps when it is in free air.

It's not in free air.

You know what. I'll stick with the people that write the electrical code when it comes to deciding what amperage a given cable can handle.

Then learn to read the charts correctly.

NEC ampacity tables says it can carry 500 amps without any issues. The weight of the cable says I can lift it easily. You are still full of shit.

Right. I'd love to see you lift it and get it plugged into your car.

Leave it to you to not even know what science is.

There is no science here. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not wire ratings, electrical codes, or electrical service limits.

A supercharger has 480 volts.

Volts is not watts. Converting 240V @ 200A service to 480 volts means you only have 100A available, assuming no eddy losses AND using your ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SERVICE capacity just to charge your car.

It seems you simply ignored my statement and decided to attack a straw man.

Fallacy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

A couple of notes on the above:

750K circular mil cable is about an inch and half in diameter, give or take. The current price is about $25 a foot and you can only get it special order from wholesalers. If you are pulling more than one and more than a few feet, better get a wench and a come-along or you aren't pulling it...

No residential area I know of has 480/ 277 VAC available in it. Three phase 240 VAC isn't available either normally.

Oh, there is no 200 A service limit on a home.

There is in Washington (where he is located, and so am I). You need an engineering study before you get the precious stamp of approval.

I've done ones with 300 and 400 Amp services. The only issue over 200 A is they won't permit it until you get a PE electrical engineer stamp on the drawings. Up to 200 amp you can do it yourself--if you know how to do it yourself.

Fine. It does require a bit more than just a rubber stamp in this State. He's also ignoring the 50lbs or so of stiff cable, AND the limits of the connector on the car, AND just how much power it's going to take just to charge his car in his given time frame. He already has confused volts, amps, and watts as the same thing.

The issue with these fast charges is that most power companies bill for the month on peak use. If you have a short but very high current pull--like these chargers do, or say a tankless water heater does--you can be smacked with a rate up to double what you'd otherwise pay if your use was lower and constant.

And Puget Power is no different that way.

There is also, of course, the cost the power company is going to stick you for mounting the larger transformer and stringing line to the service entrance.

3 phase 220v is available in many service areas of Puget Power, including residential areas. It's an extra charge to install it though. This one will need just a engineering rubber stamp here.

Even worse, this special setup is NOT going to be available on the road when taking long trips. Tesla has different maximum charge ratings as well depending on the model car. You simply cannot charge them any faster than that maximum charge rating, no matter how powerful the charger is. This rating is determined by the connector capacity, the internal resistance of the battery, and the charging circuit itself (essentially the rating of the pass transistor).

He is also ignoring, despite his grand expectations of short charging rates, still cannot get it to less than an hour every 300 miles. That is still way longer then the 5 minutes to refuel a gasoline car, and to get it to that hour, you have to take pretty extreme measures to do it, some of which the car itself is unable to do.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There is in Washington (where he is located, and so am I). You need an engineering study before you get the precious stamp of approval.

Fine. It does require a bit more than just a rubber stamp in this State. He's also ignoring the 50lbs or so of stiff cable, AND the limits of the connector on the car, AND just how much power it's going to take just to charge his car in his given time frame. He already has confused volts, amps, and watts as the same thing.

And Puget Power is no different that way.

There is also, of course, the cost the power company is going to stick you for mounting the larger transformer and stringing line to the service entrance.

3 phase 220v is available in many service areas of Puget Power, including residential areas. It's an extra charge to install it though. This one will need just a engineering rubber stamp here.

Even worse, this special setup is NOT going to be available on the road when taking long trips. Tesla has different maximum charge ratings as well depending on the model car. You simply cannot charge them any faster than that maximum charge rating, no matter how powerful the charger is. This rating is determined by the connector capacity, the internal resistance of the battery, and the charging circuit itself (essentially the rating of the pass transistor).

He is also ignoring, despite his grand expectations of short charging rates, still cannot get it to less than an hour every 300 miles. That is still way longer then the 5 minutes to refuel a gasoline car, and to get it to that hour, you have to take pretty extreme measures to do it, some of which the car itself is unable to do.

750 k cir mil copper stranded 600 V rated weighs 8.33 lbs. a foot. Try hundreds of pounds of cable even running just a short distance. Hence why you need a wench, a come-along and you better buy a big jug of pull soap along with a kellems (slang for pull sock). The wench and pull sock are necessary to pull the cable. The come-along is necessary to bend the cable flat for pulling because you can't do any of that by hand with cable that big. You'll also have to put in several runs of conduit as 2 750's + your ground cable from the street won't all fit in any of the normal trade sizes of EMT or NMC that you can easily buy.

Of course, any conduit over 1" requires hydraulic bending or use of pre-bent elbows. For burial, it's PVC but you need a heater or prebends for elbows, etc.

Okay, Washington state is more virulent on regulations than Arizona. I can see that. An engineering stamp will run you anywhere from about $500 to $5000 to get depending on the guy you hire.

I'd also think a charge that fast is going to generate a lot of heat as a side effect. That could be a real hazard...