Top 50 Metro Areas by Electric Vehicle Registrations:

[Dahobbs 17420]

34 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Teslas aren’t good looking cars. EVs won’t catch on MTM the degree most people think. I mean they could, but I doubt it here in the US. It’s a meaningless argument because of China and India, and oil being a global commodity. 

Have you tried actually driving an EV? They are objectively better to drive, especially if you get one pedal driving down. 

I think we have a bet that at least 50% of the US energy grid will be renewable in 50 years. I'll also add that at least 50% of the new car market will be electric by that time too. 

(P.S. China is electrifying at a very fast pace). 

[Rimbo 25766]

2 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

My takes on energy aren’t wrong.

Gasoline engines are obsolete. They are relics of the previous century, used by people who like paying more money for engines that do less.

If you agree with me, then your take on energy isn't wrong. If you don't, then they are.

[Rimbo 25766]

47 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Teslas aren’t good looking cars.

now THIS is a correct opinion

[G650 14074]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

They are objectively better to drive, especially if you get one pedal driving down

Eh, I wouldn't say that. I own one EV for work and my DBX for weekends and such, amd the Aston is definitely better to drive.

 

One thing I will categorically state though is once you have an EV for commuting there is absolutely no way you would want to go back. They are just entirely too fucking easy and cheap to use.

[MisterP 127]

Come on keep going. I love a good slap fight where two people have opinions that they will never change no matter what. 

[Homercles 10205]

Why the FUCK are y’all wasting your energy with that dickwagon?  He’s an O&G protectionist that’s locked in and purposefully fucks over EV charging spaces like a child.  You’re not getting anywhere with him.  

My next car will be electric, but not a Tesla…don’t really like driving an ipad and questionable build quality.  Shit on it all you want, but I like the Mach-E as it’s the perfect size for me + Ford seems to be on the right path for making electric ‘normal’ cars.  

It’s undoubtedly the future, short term fluctuations aside.  Like all disruptive tech, heavyweights will lobby and delay the inevitable instead of positioning to leverage their brand momentum as a leader in the emerging space…and dickwagons will continue to spew digital vomit on forums as their industry slowly turns to dust.  
 

[Dahobbs 17420]

17 minutes ago, G650 said:

Eh, I wouldn't say that. I own one EV for work and my DBX for weekends and such, amd the Aston is definitely better to drive.

 

One thing I will categorically state though is once you have an EV for commuting there is absolutely no way you would want to go back. They are just entirely too fucking easy and cheap to use.

Ha, fair. Although I think you probably need to drive a closer like to like comparison like the a Taycan, Hummer, or the new RR ev. No doubt that ICE cars may sometimes make better toys, just like manual vs automatic. 

[G650 14074]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ha, fair. Although I think you probably need to drive a closer like to like comparison like the a Taycan, Hummer, or the new RR ev. No doubt that ICE cars may sometimes make better toys, just like manual vs automatic. 

Yeah, I mean I went from X5 to iX M60 BMW, so I was really more comparing just the response of an ICE vs the electric.

The iX is blinding fast though, there's no doubt there. It's just so linear.

 

And as I said. Its so insanely convenient. And cheap, I spent 150 bucks on it for electricity the first six weeks I owned it. I cackle when I drive past gas stations. I used to spend 2-300 a week in my X5

[Schulz2.0 28762]

I've been looking at buying an EV, probably after the 1st of the year. It makes sense after getting solar panels and Denver moving to high octane gas only within the next year or so.

[closetohumping 17386]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I know I park in handicap spaces "on accident" and don't care.  I mean...they are spaces after all!

Hey people in EVs park in non EV spots .  Amirite!!?!???    Derp

3 hours ago, G650 said:

There's actually people on this site that are just now finding out Porterhouse is a grade A shitstain? Lol.

I rarely see him on the other boards.  Now I know. 
 

 

anyways not surprising.  The south was slow to adopt civil rights and is slow to adopt EV.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

Gasoline engines are obsolete. They are relics of the previous century, used by people who like paying more money for engines that do less.

If you agree with me, then your take on energy isn't wrong. If you don't, then they are.

Lulz. I’m happy being wrong then pal. Relics of the previous century. That’s fucking great. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

Why the FUCK are y’all wasting your energy with that dickwagon?  He’s an O&G protectionist that’s locked in and purposefully fucks over EV charging spaces like a child.  You’re not getting anywhere with him.  

My next car will be electric, but not a Tesla…don’t really like driving an ipad and questionable build quality.  Shit on it all you want, but I like the Mach-E as it’s the perfect size for me + Ford seems to be on the right path for making electric ‘normal’ cars.  

It’s undoubtedly the future, short term fluctuations aside.  Like all disruptive tech, heavyweights will lobby and delay the inevitable instead of positioning to leverage their brand momentum as a leader in the emerging space…and dickwagons will continue to spew digital vomit on forums as their industry slowly turns to dust.  
 

You actually think the industry is trending to dust. I mean you really think that. And I’m not a protectionist. The industry doesn’t need protecting. 

[closetohumping 17386]

43 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Hey people in EVs park in non EV spots .  Amirite!!?!???    Derp

I rarely see him on the other boards.  Now I know. 
 

 

anyways not surprising.  The south was slow to adopt civil rights and is slow to adopt EV.  

Oh wait.  I remember porterhouse now.  He was on the basketball board rooting for us to lose in the tournament.  Wonder if that’s related to Rodney Terry potentiallly getting the HC job?

[Rimbo 25766]

33 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Lulz. I’m happy being wrong then pal. Relics of the previous century. That’s fucking great. 

 

Why would you be happy with that? I mean, I guess there were people proud of the steam engine a century ago, and weren't about to go for those newfangled gasoline engines.

 

30 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

You actually think the industry is trending to dust. I mean you really think that. And I’m not a protectionist. The industry doesn’t need protecting. 

 

Oh, it doesn't have to be. Jets still need fuel; the weight of a battery makes zero sense for an airplane. Hydrogen makes a lot more sense, but is a long, long way from being ready. So, as long as there are boats and planes, we're gonna need gas.

But for cars? They're cheaper, faster, and easier to drive than gasoline engines.

I mean, look, I still drive a turbocharged gas-powered car -- with a manual transmission. But both of these things are totally obsolete; you get better acceleration and gas mileage from a CVT or auto nowadays, and other than Jatco's shitty CVTs that Nissan and others keep shoveling into their crapwagons, they're at least as reliable. (Particularly the way I drive. Smell that? That's mah clutch.) So my next car's going to be an electric, because I'd have to be some kind of short-bus riding lobotomized idiot not to.

It's just reality, man. Time to wake up to it.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I believe him too. He bought the shorter ranged version (230 miles) with the smaller battery pack (98 kwh), didn't fully charge it, loaded it up, and then drove 70 mph on the highway 30 miles each way. Nothing about the result should have been surprising. From the various trip screenshots, it looks like he was getting .8 kwh per mile. That means fully charged it would have been expected to go 78 miles, which is essentially what he got. If he had kept the speed to 55 mph (towing speed limit in lot of places), he'd likely have gotten closer to 1.5 kwh/mile, consistent with the Edmunds test. He might have been able to complete the planned 120 mile trip in that circumstance if he fully charged the battery. 

Well...if you're going to bring DATA into it.  I mean, how is anyone supposed to contradict that?!?!?

[Rimbo 25766]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well...if you're going to bring DATA into it.  I mean, how is anyone supposed to contradict that?!?!?

Just watch.

[lemonlime 5503]

On 8/22/2023 at 4:54 PM, closetohumping said:

This is total, not per capita.  Not surprised by any except maybe Phoenix and Atlanta being ahead of Chicago.

 

 

Better public transportation in Chicago and a greater percentage of the population that doesn't own a car.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

Why would you be happy with that? I mean, I guess there were people proud of the steam engine a century ago, and weren't about to go for those newfangled gasoline engines.

 

 

Oh, it doesn't have to be. Jets still need fuel; the weight of a battery makes zero sense for an airplane. Hydrogen makes a lot more sense, but is a long, long way from being ready. So, as long as there are boats and planes, we're gonna need gas.

But for cars? They're cheaper, faster, and easier to drive than gasoline engines.

I mean, look, I still drive a turbocharged gas-powered car -- with a manual transmission. But both of these things are totally obsolete; you get better acceleration and gas mileage from a CVT or auto nowadays, and other than Jatco's shitty CVTs that Nissan and others keep shoveling into their crapwagons, they're at least as reliable. (Particularly the way I drive. Smell that? That's mah clutch.) So my next car's going to be an electric, because I'd have to be some kind of short-bus riding lobotomized idiot not to.

It's just reality, man. Time to wake up to it.

Ok

[Rimbo 25766]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

Ok

I mean, you're entitled to believe in magical fairies and pixie dust as much as you like. Though when you are dumb enough to brag that you like parking in charging spots, well, that's when I'm entitled to start the public shaming.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I mean, you're entitled to believe in magical fairies and pixie dust as much as you like. Though when you are dumb enough to brag that you like parking in charging spots, well, that's when I'm entitled to start the public shaming.

Why would you shame me?  I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I’m going to ask a few questions and make a general observation:

1) If in 50 years the majority of the world drives an EV, what will worldwide crude oil demand be relative to what it is now?

2) Same question, but for natural gas. 

3) If you believe a Ferrari - new or old - is a relic, then I don’t know what to tell you other than we ought to agree to disagree and move along. 

[Rimbo 25766]

3 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Why would you shame me?  I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I’m going to ask a few questions and make a general observation:

1) If in 50 years the majority of the world drives an EV, what will worldwide crude oil demand be relative to what it is now?

2) Same question, but for natural gas. 

3) If you believe a Ferrari - new or old - is a relic, then I don’t know what to tell you other than we ought to agree to disagree and move along. 

I shame you, because blocking residents who have EVs from being able to charge is a dick move. Period.

1. Irrelevant. What matters is price (including total cost of ownership) and performance. Everything else is jacking off.

2. See #1.

3. Ferrari, you say?

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Rimbo

[closetohumping 17386]

24 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Better public transportation in Chicago and a greater percentage of the population that doesn't own a car.

And a lot of Californians move to Phoenix 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I shame you, because blocking residents who have EVs from being able to charge is a dick move. Period.

1. Irrelevant. What matters is price (including total cost of ownership) and performance. Everything else is jacking off.

2. See #1.

3. Ferrari, you say?

 

Well I’m a dick and fuck everyone else. 

1. it’s relevant in defending my industry from people hilariously saying it’s a dinosaur - that’s all. The answer is oil demand will still likely go up. 

2. What’s more relevant, especially to you from a cost perspective, is that nat gas will increase sharply.  I wouldn’t call that jacking off. Would you?

3. I can’t view your link. Maybe it’s to an electric Ferrari, the performance of which SURELY can match an ICE. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

3. I can’t view your link. Maybe it’s to an electric Ferrari, the performance of which SURELY can match an ICE. 

Well outperform. You can't beat instant torque and tons of horse power. 

[Rimbo 25766]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

Well I’m a dick and fuck everyone else. 

1. it’s relevant in defending my industry from people hilariously saying it’s a dinosaur - that’s all. The answer is oil demand will still likely go up. 

2. What’s more relevant, especially to you from a cost perspective, is that nat gas will increase sharply.  I wouldn’t call that jacking off. Would you?

3. I can’t view your link. Maybe it’s to an electric Ferrari, the performance of which SURELY can match an ICE. 

1. 
   I'm going to buy the car that gives me the best performance for my money. Electric cars are simpler to maintain, faster, and cheaper per mile. So yes, gas cars are obsolete. And guess what? So will everyone else. It simply makes more sense to drive electric than gas for most people.
2. I absolutely would call it jacking off. This is a discussion about the automobile market, not about the O&G industry. And electric cars don't run on natural gas. Or gasoline. They run on ... electricity! Thus the name.
3. Yes, it's an electric Ferrari. Ferrari's not building it out of some panty-waist feelings about the environment or some shit like that. They're building it because they're losing market share to pure-electric supercars that are beating the snot out of their cars. They're playing catch-up.

I'm sorry that your precious snowflake feelings are so hurt that your "industry" is about to lose a shit-ton of business due to advances in automotive technology, but that's what markets do. It's called capitalism, ya pinko commie bastard. Go re-read "Who Moved my Cheese?" or something and come join us on the side of Adam Smith over here.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Rimbo said:

1. 
   I'm going to buy the car that gives me the best performance for my money. Electric cars are simpler to maintain, faster, and cheaper per mile. So yes, gas cars are obsolete. And guess what? So will everyone else. It simply makes more sense to drive electric than gas for most people.
2. I absolutely would call it jacking off. This is a discussion about the automobile market, not about the O&G industry. And electric cars don't run on natural gas. Or gasoline. They run on ... electricity! Thus the name.
3. Yes, it's an electric Ferrari. Ferrari's not building it out of some panty-waist feelings about the environment or some shit like that. They're building it because they're losing market share to pure-electric supercars that are beating the snot out of their cars. They're playing catch-up.

I'm sorry that your precious snowflake feelings are so hurt that your "industry" is about to lose a shit-ton of business due to advances in automotive technology, but that's what markets do. It's called capitalism, ya pinko commie bastard. Go re-read "Who Moved my Cheese?" or something and come join us on the side of Adam Smith over here.

2. Electricity is generated by what?  I’ll give you a hint: it’s not jacking off. 

[G650 14074]

7 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Well I’m a dick and fuck everyone else. 

Yes, this is your general problem

[Dahobbs 17420]

5 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

2. Electricity is generated by what?  I’ll give you a hint: it’s not jacking off. 

A generator, which can be powered by any number of things. Fossil fuels will be an increasingly smaller percentage of them over the next couple of decades. E.g, see that data below from ERCOT:

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

A generator, which can be powered by any number of things. Fossil fuels will be an increasingly smaller percentage of them over the next couple of decades. E.g, see that data below from ERCOT:

What is the point?  Do the above assume over 50% of the country is driving EVs in 50 years?  Does it speak to the general sharp increases in our electric bills in this hypothetical?  Point being, to say EVs are cheaper now and to assume it will always remain that way is foolish. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

38 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

What is the point?  Do the above assume over 50% of the country is driving EVs in 50 years?  Does it speak to the general sharp increases in our electric bills in this hypothetical?  Point being, to say EVs are cheaper now and to assume it will always remain that way is foolish. 

Well the point of the graphs was just another example of what the trend is for the construction of new electric generation. As the data in the graphs only go out to 2026, no they doesn't assume anything about fifty years from now. 

Anyone that starts utilizing an electric vehicle will have a higher electric bill. And they will spend less (or nothing) on gas. 

if you're suggesting that electric rates would surge due to increased demand, that is possible. It just depends on how well new supply manages to keep up with demand. Counteracting any price increase would be downward pricing pressure as a larger portion of the grid is powered by cheaper energy sources such as solar. 

All of this is really a non sequitur to the issue of electric cars. Regardless of what powers the grid, electric cars are objectively better on a number of metrics. They can be faster, quicker (acceleration), more powerful, simpler to build and maintain, more efficient in their use of energy, easier to refuel at home, allow for more precise traction control, cheaper to maintain, and I'll set aside environmental issues for now.

The primary advantages current ICE vehicles have is in their total fuel capacity and availability of refueling points during a long road trip, although both of those are gradually changing. ICE do have the fun/challenge factor advantage for toy cars, particularly if you drive stick.   

Edited August 24, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

It's still range anxiety with me that's the issue. And maybe not running out of battery, but doesn't it take 30-60 minutes to charge? I don't want to have to do that in the middle of a trip. But every time I change the oil, I swear my next car is going to be electric. 

More likely it's going to be a hybrid. I love my small truck but only need the truck capability a small portion of the time. A new Hyundai Elantra Hybrid gets 56 mpg and starts $25k. If I had a three-car garage, it would already be in there for getting around town. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

A generator, which can be powered by any number of things. Fossil fuels will be an increasingly smaller percentage of them over the next couple of decades. E.g, see that data below from ERCOT:

 

 

So solar is set to double in the next four years or so? Hell yeah. Wonder why wind is slowing its growth. Anyone have insight?

[Dahobbs 17420]

6 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

So solar is set to double in the next four years or so? Hell yeah. Wonder why wind is slowing its growth. Anyone have insight?

It is more expensive and a more developed market in Texas. Also, if all those projects complete (unlikely), solar would actually nearly triple from current capacity.

[closetohumping 17386]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

It's still range anxiety with me that's the issue. And maybe not running out of battery, but doesn't it take 30-60 minutes to charge? I don't want to have to do that in the middle of a trip. But every time I change the oil, I swear my next car is going to be electric. 

More likely it's going to be a hybrid. I love my small truck but only need the truck capability a small portion of the time. A new Hyundai Elantra Hybrid gets 56 mpg and starts $25k. If I had a three-car garage, it would already be in there for getting around town. 

That's definitely an issue for me as well.  I live in OC but can get to Vegas on one charge thankfully.  And a lot of times the hotels have free charging stations.  That's as far as I'll go though.  

[closetohumping 17386]

3 hours ago, G650 said:

Yes, this is your general problem

I hate people that think it's cool to be a dick.  You're not a 23 year old kid that's going through life w/o a worry in the world.  You're a grown ass man.  Be respectful of others.

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

It's still range anxiety with me that's the issue. And maybe not running out of battery, but doesn't it take 30-60 minutes to charge? I don't want to have to do that in the middle of a trip. But every time I change the oil, I swear my next car is going to be electric. 

More likely it's going to be a hybrid. I love my small truck but only need the truck capability a small portion of the time. A new Hyundai Elantra Hybrid gets 56 mpg and starts $25k. If I had a three-car garage, it would already be in there for getting around town. 

Depends on your vehicle, where you charge, and how you charge. My in-laws have gone cross country in their Model Y and enjoyed it. My experience with the Tesla Supercharger Network is I program the destination into the car. It directs me to stop once the battery gets around 20%-30%. I stop for maybe 10 minutes to grab a snack/use restroom. Car is around 60%-65% charged. I then continue driving again until the battery gets low. The cars charge faster the lower the state of charge. You're better off doing more quick stops rather than fewer long stops trying to fully charge the battery. For instance, a 15-20 minute charge at a high speed charge can take you from 10%-80% in the newer vehicles. Whereas going to full charge may take an hour. The problem is that not all charging stops are up to that standard. Tesla's Network is the easiest to use and the most reliable. Others vary.

[G650 14074]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

It's still range anxiety with me that's the issue.

350 miles was the target I had, as I drive around 200 a day, so it's that plus a decent cushion. Once they started hitting that kind of range, I was comfortable enough.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Depends on your vehicle, where you charge, and how you charge. My in-laws have gone cross country in their Model Y and enjoyed it. My experience with the Tesla Supercharger Network is I program the destination into the car. It directs me to stop once the battery gets around 20%-30%. I stop for maybe 10 minutes to grab a snack/use restroom. Car is around 60%-65% charged. I then continue driving again until the battery gets low. The cars charge faster the lower the state of charge. You're better off doing more quick stops rather than fewer long stops trying to fully charge the battery. For instance, a 15-20 minute charge at a high speed charge can take you from 10%-80% in the newer vehicles. Whereas going to full charge may take an hour. The problem is that not all charging stops are up to that standard. Tesla's Network is the easiest to use and the most reliable. Others vary.

I drove from Austin to Santa Barbara last New Year's and the biggest issue right now is redundancy in the charging network.  By which I mean, right now, if you drive an ICE car on a long road trip and hit a town, you generally will have 3-10 immediate options to refuel.  This is due to 100 years of building out gas stations and all that goes with that.  With Tesla, there is one charging option and when you get there, so is everyone else driving a Tesla on your route (I-10 for my example).  There may be a wait to charge or, in the worst case scenario that I ran into in Ft. Stockton, the gas station that the supercharger was connected to actually had lost power.  So the supercharger was dead and there was no other option to charge.  To circle back to my redundancy issue, there were two other gas stations directly across the street, so any ICE cars that wanted to fill up at the station without power could simply go across the street and continue on their way.  Teslas were fucked.  Luckily the power came back on about 45 minutes later, but it was a harrowing situation for a bit.

This will be less of an issue in coming years as more charging stations get built out and redundancy increases.

That said, electric vehicles are far more useful in every day life with short commutes, as opposed to long road trips.  Luckily, this constitutes 99% of most people's lives.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I hate people that think it's cool to be a dick.  You're not a 23 year old kid that's going through life w/o a worry in the world.  You're a grown ass man.  Be respectful of others.

I’d never be a dick to someone because they drive an EV. This is what you call internet bluster. I’m admitting this now in hopes that you’ll stop being a sanctimonious vagina. 

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

if you're suggesting that electric rates would surge due to increased demand, that is possible. It just depends on how well new supply manages to keep up with demand. Counteracting any price increase would be downward pricing pressure as a larger portion of the grid is powered by cheaper energy sources such as solar. 

All of this is really a non sequitur to the issue of electric cars.

I agree it’s a non sequitur to EVs in a vacuum, but when people start bagging on the “fossil fuel” industry without having a clue what they’re saying, I’ll respond. 

And it will unquestionably lead to a massive surge in demand, and if you think it’s a simple supply/demand issue, you’re naive. LNG in the kind of timeframe in my hypothetical will be a massive roadblock to supply, and solar and other renewables will increase in price as gas does. I also disagree solar is cheaper than gas right now, as it’s extremely cheap. 

That won’t last.  I’m more bullish on gas long term than oil for the exact reason we’re discussing and am shaping my portfolio in that direction. 

I also would be open to getting an EV. I just don’t like the way they look. I have two SUVs for another year, until my oldest turns 16, and my wife drives a QX-80. I might buy her an SUV EV in 3 years. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

it was a harrowing situation for a bit.

It’s like an Onion headline: “Austinite Visiting Santa Barbara Stuck in Fort Stockton for 45 Minutes”

Power outage created for a “harrowing situation,” as hipster weighed Whataburger or Allsup’s dining options, dreaming of Uchi.

[Dahobbs 17420]

13 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I agree it’s a non sequitur to EVs in a vacuum, but when people start bagging on the “fossil fuel” industry without having a clue what they’re saying, I’ll respond. 

Ok? From an emissions standpoint, even if the grid was 100% powered by natural gas, it would be better to have electric cars than ICE. Powerplants are just much more efficient at generating usable energy from natural gas than ICE are at generating useable energy from gasoline. And electric cars, in large part due to regen, are much more efficient at using at that energy (e.g., 75 kWh battery pack of a 300+ mile Model 3 contains the same amount of energy as a little over 2 gallons of gasoline).

Quote

And it will unquestionably lead to a massive surge in demand, and if you think it’s a simple supply/demand issue, you’re naive. LNG in the kind of timeframe in my hypothetical will be a massive roadblock to supply,

I didn't doubt it would increase demand. Electrifying every consumer vehicle in the US would cause around a 25%-50% increase in electric consumption. Whether that causes a similar increase in price is going to depend upon changes in supply.  I really have no idea what you mean by it not being a "simply supply/demand issue." Of course it will be a supply/demand issue. That's what dictates cost in a market. If supply is constrained because generation isn't built or because the fuel sources for generators are more scarce, then that is a supply/demand issue that would raise costs. 

Quote

and solar and other renewables will increase in price as gas does.

What market dynamic is going to cause solar to increase in cost? Yes, if supply of generation overall is constrained, then a solar power plant is going to try and maximize value by selling at the higher market prices. But, there isn't much of reason to expect solar power costs to increase. I guess the most likely reason would be continued supply chain issues due to tensions with China, but I think those are pretty much built into the price of panels now. We are working to build up industry here and reduce reliance on Chinese exports, so that should help control costs on the the solar end. Obviously the fuel source itself isn't going to become more scarce absent some sort of end of the world event. 

Quote

I also disagree solar is cheaper than gas right now, as it’s extremely cheap. 

It was cheap in 2020 too. LCOE still (slightly) favored solar. Fuel costs are only part of the costs of building/operating a gas power plant. 

Quote

That won’t last.  I’m more bullish on gas long term than oil for the exact reason we’re discussing and am shaping my portfolio in that direction. 

I agree, it will not. 

Quote

I also would be open to getting an EV. I just don’t like the way they look. I have two SUVs for another year, until my oldest turns 16, and my wife drives a QX-80. I might buy her an SUV EV in 3 years. 

I think that is a fair criticism. Aerodynamics tends to dictate the designs a lot, meaning a lot of EVs end up looking similar. 

[closetohumping 17386]

51 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I’d never be a dick to someone because they drive an EV. This is what you call internet bluster. I’m admitting this now in hopes that you’ll stop being a sanctimonious vagina. 

I agree it’s a non sequitur to EVs in a vacuum, but when people start bagging on the “fossil fuel” industry without having a clue what they’re saying, I’ll respond. 

And it will unquestionably lead to a massive surge in demand, and if you think it’s a simple supply/demand issue, you’re naive. LNG in the kind of timeframe in my hypothetical will be a massive roadblock to supply, and solar and other renewables will increase in price as gas does. I also disagree solar is cheaper than gas right now, as it’s extremely cheap. 

That won’t last.  I’m more bullish on gas long term than oil for the exact reason we’re discussing and am shaping my portfolio in that direction. 

I also would be open to getting an EV. I just don’t like the way they look. I have two SUVs for another year, until my oldest turns 16, and my wife drives a QX-80. I might buy her an SUV EV in 3 years. 

So you actually don't park in the EV space with your gas guzzler?

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

From an emissions standpoint, even if the grid was 100% powered by natural gas, it would be better to have electric cars than ICE. Powerplants are just much more efficient at generating usable energy from natural gas than ICE are at generating useable energy from gasoline. And electric cars, in large part due to regen, are much more efficient at using at that energy (e.g., 75 kWh battery pack of a 300+ mile Model 3 contains the same amount of energy as a little over 2 gallons of gasoline).

Ok?

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't doubt it would increase demand. Electrifying every consumer vehicle in the US would cause around a 25%-50% increase in electric consumption. Whether that causes a similar increase in price is going to depend upon changes in supply.  I really have no idea what you mean by it not being a "simply supply/demand issue." Of course it will be a supply/demand issue. That's what dictates cost in a market. If supply is constrained because generation isn't built or because the fuel sources for generators are more scarce, then that is a supply/demand issue that would raise costs. 

You said demand “may” increase (edit: you said it was “possible”), insinuating some doubt. I was making clear that it’s a no doubter it’ll increase demand, sharply so, and increase electricity costs for everyone. And anyone who trades commodities (hint: I do) knows it’s NEVER a supply/demand issue. Long term, it will likely pan out in a direction that follows S/D fundamentals, but there’s always a shitload of noise. Here, I’m saying supply will be constrained because it’ll be diverted to Europe and Asia, who have MUCH higher natural gas prices (gas is very much a regional commodity). Our abundance of gas will be pulled overseas and it will increase the cost for gas sharply when it happens. 

 

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What market dynamic is going to cause solar to increase in cost? Yes, if supply of generation overall is constrained, then a solar power plant is going to try and maximize value by selling at the higher market prices.

They’re going to do it anyway if their regional competition (nat gas) is selling at substantially higher prices. It has nothing to do with any increase in their cost. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Porterhouse

[Guest]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

So you actually don't park in the EV space with your gas guzzler?

Very rarely and never to be a dick. There is little usage of the charging station. What people that do use it aren’t affiliated with our business and they do irritate various businesses. However, it’s not a big deal, they are additive to our space and I wouldn’t have them removed. 

[VRHorn 718]

From the link above that Rex wouldn't click:

• Ferrari confirms plans for first electric car
• Electric supercar set to arrive before 2026
• Could come with four electric motors
• More than 1,000hp possible
• Could be the most powerful Ferrari ever

Other notes:

• Tesla now has a tool in their app to throttle car charging to only use solar power (assuming you have panels) so you would theoretically not be consuming fossil fuels to charge the car. It's a little unwieldy currently, so I haven't played with it too much. They will fix that
• I'm a little surprised more isn't made of the power (particularly acceleration) of EVs, outside of the Plaid. My M3P does 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, but more importantly, it accelerates that fast from 60-90, which is helpful in real-world traffic situations
• I don't know that EVs will reduce fossil fuel usage, but why on earth should we add them (along with robust solar usage) to the mix. If all of the big warehouses/parking lots had solar panels above them, it would have a stabilizing influence overall

The O/G people who rail against EVs and renewable energy are a real beating and they are missing the opportunities available in the space.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

From the link above that Rex wouldn't click:

• Ferrari confirms plans for first electric car
• Electric supercar set to arrive before 2026
• Could come with four electric motors
• More than 1,000hp possible
• Could be the most powerful Ferrari ever

Other notes:

• Tesla now has a tool in their app to throttle car charging to only use solar power (assuming you have panels) so you would theoretically not be consuming fossil fuels to charge the car. It's a little unwieldy currently, so I haven't played with it too much. They will fix that
• I'm a little surprised more isn't made of the power (particularly acceleration) of EVs, outside of the Plaid. My M3P does 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, but more importantly, it accelerates that fast from 60-90, which is helpful in real-world traffic situations
• I don't know that EVs will reduce fossil fuel usage, but why on earth should we add them (along with robust solar usage) to the mix. If all of the big warehouses/parking lots had solar panels above them, it would have a stabilizing influence overall

The O/G people who rail against EVs and renewable energy are a real beating and they are missing the opportunities available in the space.

I read the article. I don’t rail against EVs. Renewable energy in its current form, yes, but glad we’ve made inroads in those markets because we’re gonna need those sources and already do. I have the politicization around energy feedstocks. As much as you think I’m a beating, consider the headwinds for people in the O/G industry.  Political and societal headwinds. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

29 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

You said demand “may” increase, insinuating some doubt.

I actually said that it was possible rates would increase. I took the increased demand as a given. I'll admit there is some ambiguity in the sentence, but the surrounding context should have made it clear that the doubt only applied to the increase in rates, not demand.  

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

if you're suggesting that electric rates would surge due to increased demand, that is possible. It just depends on how well new supply manages to keep up with demand. Counteracting any price increase would be downward pricing pressure as a larger portion of the grid is powered by cheaper energy sources such as solar. 

 

Quote

I was making clear that it’s a no doubter it’ll increase demand, sharply so, and increase electricity costs for everyone.

Demand would increase, although not as much as it seems you think. 50% conversion to EVs means a 10%-25% increase in consumption. Given that the long term trend has been lower consumption elsewhere (energy efficient appliances), I'd expect that number to be in the low to mid of that range. Again, whether prices increase depend upon other factors than just demand. 

Quote

And anyone who trades commodities (hint: I do) knows it’s NEVER a supply/demand issue. Long term, it will likely pan out in a direction that follows S/D fundamentals, but there’s always a shitload of noise. Here, I’m saying supply will be constrained because it’ll be diverted to Europe and Asia, who have MUCH higher natural gas prices (gas is very much a regional commodity). Our abundance of gas will be pulled overseas and it will increase the cost for gas sharply when it happens.

You're saying it is "never a supply/demand issue" and then describing a supply/demand issue, i.e., limited supply being diverted to other regions with high prices. I really don't understand what distinction you think you are marking here.  

Quote

They’re going to do it anyway if their regional competition (nat gas) is selling at substantially higher prices. It has nothing to do with any increase in their cost. 

Yes, if overall supply of generation is constrained, then prices go up regardless of the cost of providing the supply. Again, that is a supply/demand issue. Gas may become a more expensive source of electricity. If we don't build sufficient capacity of renewables, the market is going to be more exposed to and sensitive to fluctuations in natural gas prices. However, if gas is much smaller portion of the generation in the US, and if sufficient capacity exists from cheaper sources, then we wouldn't necessarily see a large increase in prices. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guadaloopy 10917]

20 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

• I don't know that EVs will reduce fossil fuel usage

There is 33.7 kWh of energy in a gallon of gas.  The average consumer ICE vehicle in the US gets 24.5 mpg, which translates into a usage of 1.376 kWh per mile.  A standard range Tesla Model 3 uses .240 kWh per mile.  That means the standard range Tesla Model 3 is 5.7X more energy efficient than the average consumer ICE vehicle.

Factor in that EVs can be charged from a grid that is already on average 20% renewable energy (and that percentage is growing) and there is absolutely no way that EV adoption won't reduce fossil fuel usage. 

[royiv 9146]

I'm not an energy wonk, but I'm not seeing any discussion here of how storage will impact demand on o&g in the future. I've always thought that there is going to be a lot of technological advancement in storage technology over the next 50 years that will make renewables even more attractive/efficient. Also, isn't there some impact on oil demand as people drop ICE and move to EV? Doesn't gasoline demand go down? That has an impact as the demand shifts from gasoline to other uses of oil, or am I missing something?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You're saying it is "never a supply/demand issue" and then describing a supply/demand issue, i.e., limited supply being diverted to other regions with high prices. I really don't understand what distinction you think you are marking here. 

First, price is not affected purely by supply/demand fundamentals. Surely you accept this truth. Second, and unrelated to that, natural gas supply will be increasingly more scarce as LNG ramps up. 

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

If we don't build sufficient capacity of renewables, the market is going to be more exposed to and sensitive to fluctuations in natural gas prices. However, if gas is much smaller portion of the generation in the US, and if sufficient capacity exists from cheaper sources, then we wouldn't necessarily see a large increase in prices. 

It’s like your reciting from a book. You’re mostly correct, of course, but a) natural gas as a bridge to nuclear is the key to our country’s energy crisis, b) given this, it’s not going anywhere in terms of its US generation, and (c) if your competition is high priced, you will flex your pricing upwards regardless of your cost. An abundance of capacity can counterbalance that somewhat, but I suspect we’d disagree on magnitude.