Must watch presentation on the replacement of fossil fuels.

[jderimig]

The solution to replacing fossil fuels is not just a science problem. The solution if there is to be one has to be:
1. Technically feasible - check
2. Supply chain feasible - the topic of Michaux presentation.
3. Politically feasible.

Unfortunately for the extreme green energy folks most of the largest greenhouse emitters are not dictatorships yet. I can't imagine the Americans or Germans are going to put anyone in power anytime soon who is going be hostile to personal vehicle ownership.

 

[aerostadt]

Unfortunately for the extreme green energy folks most of the largest greenhouse emitters are not dictatorships yet. I can't imagine the Americans or Germans are going to put anyone in power anytime soon who is going be hostile to personal vehicle ownership.

Also, do the Americans and the Germans want to make stringent fossil fuels concessions, while powerful countries like China are given special breaks by the Paris Climate Agreement.

 

[Funkworks]

None of these references addresses the mineral constraints that are the topic of this thread. All these similar articles assume that the raw materials and supply chain is in place for the transition.

We can't produce enough baby formula or enough chips to finish F150 truck assembly how are we going to increase the production of copper and nickle 2 orders of magnitude from rapidly decreasing ore quality? That seems to be the elephant in the room.

How does on reconcile the data in post #3 to the goals of net zero in 20 years? Or even 50 years. Just saying the materials will be delivered shows an total non-understanding on how long reserve discovery to mine production takes.

You seem to be saying that if there's no sure plan to replace 100% of fossil fuel use, then it's not worth trying. While it's just a matter of going as far as we can, one step at a time.

... I want to be able to get in my Jeep and drive up the trails without hoping there's a charging station out in the middle of nowhere on the side of a mountain.

EVs include a nav map with charging stations, and there are plenty of smartphone apps. For each trip, you can plan ahead. But you quickly learn your favorite routes.

The solution to replacing fossil fuels is not just a science problem. The solution if there is to be one has to be:
1. Technically feasible - check
2. Supply chain feasible - the topic of Michaux presentation.
3. Politically feasible.

Unfortunately for the extreme green energy folks most of the largest greenhouse emitters are not dictatorships yet. I can't imagine the Americans or Germans are going to put anyone in power anytime soon who is going be hostile to personal vehicle ownership.

Again with 100% replacement, while it's a matter of doing what's within our means one step at a time. Giving up at the starting line is boring. Don't make too much of the "extreme green" crowd. It takes time to understand all the subtleties but energy efficiency is good for everyone. It's about making the most with each gallon of fuel and each lbs of ore. Don't forget all metals can be recycled, and don't worry about not reaching a goal tomorrow, it's about having a path.

Hey, in case people didn't know, the Saudis are big investors in Lucid and an EV manufacturing plant is being built in (I think) Riyadh:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/435641

https://www.lucidmotors.com/en-ca/m...ng-up-first-international-plant-saudi-arabia/

 

[Off Grid Gecko]

EVs include a nav map with charging stations, and there are plenty of smartphone apps. For each trip, you can plan ahead. But you quickly learn your favorite routes.

I think... possibly, that you missed his point with this response. I'm actually fairly close to a "city" compared to some, but it's still over 30 miles to the nearest McDonalds. I'm also about 2-4 miles down a dusty dirst road with animals everywhere that love chewing on wires. I'm pretty sure Tesla was not designed to make it up my hill. (Think of 8 inches of ground clearance as my minimum in a vehicle). The point was that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone.
Your argument would be similiar to me telling everyone in the us that they need to ditch their car and get a horse or a wagon pulled by Oxen. That's just not gonna work in NY city, for reasons people discovered in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

 

[jderimig]

You seem to be saying that if there's no sure plan to replace 100% of fossil fuel use, then it's not worth trying. While it's just a matter of going as far as we can, one step at a time.

Your words not mine.

I would consider the real world constraints and estimate what the confidence interval is for what is achievable by 2030, 2050 and beyond. Then calculate what the effect would be on any reduction of global temperatures and compare it with the costs on society. If the cost benefit ratio is poor then perhaps we should develop a new plan instead of blindly spending scarce (and becoming more so) financial and energy resources on a plan that possibly can't work. Then there would be no time or resources left to pursue the needed approach.

 

[Mushtang]

EVs include a nav map with charging stations, and there are plenty of smartphone apps. For each trip, you can plan ahead. But you quickly learn your favorite routes.

Nope.

Mountain trails, that you can't get over without a 4WD, not paved, and zero charging stations or gas stations on the trail. Wilderness, where an app on your phone won't help you once your battery dies.

I have no interest in trying to take an EV over one of these trails and having to wait 100 years until a charging station is installed. I'll keep my ICE Jeep, thankyouverymuch.

If the prices for self driving Teslas ever come down to where I can afford one I'll definitely want one of those too, but I'm not interested in giving up my gas powered fun machine. Ever.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I haven’t made it through the entire video yet. Assuming his data are accurate (I have no reason to doubt) it’s a chilling prospect. I’ve spoken directly to coal producers who tell me that Wyoming has as much coal energy as Saudi Arabia has petroleum.
There’s no possibility that we will completely stop using fossil fuels, but as John said decline in fossil fuel production will limit the use; I think that’s inevitable. That will also change the economics.
We’re headed for an interesting era with lots of problem solving, but eventually something will change; it always does.

 

[bjphoenix]

the elephant in the room is, why does everyone assume that all 8 Billion people need to have their own car!? that's just crazy. there are so many options between that and the consequent resource depletion and earth destruction ... and anything more rational.

Some rambling on here... Some of this discussion is doom and gloom. We are worried about climate change, etc., even without that someday the fossil fuels will run out. The demand is only increasing. So there are likely hard choices to be made. It may be that people have to give up cars, or get smaller cars. In some countries a lot of people ride motorcycles instead of using cars. Increasing availability of public transportation might help. After the lessons of covid more people may be working from home and not need as much transportation. For the past 2 years I've driven about 1/3 as many miles as in years before. Maybe people have to get jobs closer to where they live. In the big city where I live people don't think anything about getting a job 20 miles from where they live. Maybe we cannot build enough batteries to replace all of the cars, maybe we need to take an intermediate step using plugin hybrids. They use much smaller batteries than an all electric, and they can be used for long trips in places where there is not enough charging infrastructure. Unfortunately right now there isn't much selection in plugin hybrids or my wife might want to buy one.

 

[cls]

Great reply. That's what I hoped to get started here, some out of the box thinking.

Instead, most of the replies were about how someone absolutely MUST be able to drive 450 miles right now for no real reason... Not out of the box thinking, those ideas ARE the box.

 

[lakeroadster]

I haven’t made it through the entire video yet. Assuming his data are accurate (I have no reason to doubt) it’s a chilling prospect. I’ve spoken directly to coal producers who tell me that Wyoming has as much coal energy as Saudi Arabia has petroleum.
There’s no possibility that we will completely stop using fossil fuels, but as John said decline in fossil fuel production will limit the use; I think that’s inevitable. That will also change the economics.
We’re headed for an interesting era with lots of problem solving, but eventually something will change; it always does.

"We’re headed for an interesting era with lots of problem solving, but eventually something will change; it always does."

Let's all hope that change isn't the language we speak. Do you know how to speak Mandarin? I don't.

Steve... you are such a diplomat.

We not only have coal, as you stated, but fracking has unleashed an amazing amount of previously unknown reserves.

Yet the chicken little folks want to crush that. The USA was finally energy independent, and the socialist regime currently occupying the peoples house have chosen to abandon that, in favor of "renewable" (it's not) energy that will throw this country into the abys.

Gather data, interpret the data, develop a strategy, create a budget, develop an implementation plan, place checks and balances in place, engage the plan.

Our current home, circa 1978, was built using all electric power. At some point, prior to us buying it, they removed the inefficient electric base board heat and installed a natural gas hydronic system, which works great and is very efficient. I wonder how long before the Stasi decides I have to rip out the efficient natural gas heat and replace it with electric?

 

[jderimig]

Some rambling on here... Some of this discussion is doom and gloom. We are worried about climate change, etc., even without that someday the fossil fuels will run out. The demand is only increasing. So there are likely hard choices to be made. It may be that people have to give up cars, or get smaller cars. In some countries a lot of people ride motorcycles instead of using cars. Increasing availability of public transportation might help. After the lessons of covid more people may be working from home and not need as much transportation. For the past 2 years I've driven about 1/3 as many miles as in years before. Maybe people have to get jobs closer to where they live. In the big city where I live people don't think anything about getting a job 20 miles from where they live. Maybe we cannot build enough batteries to replace all of the cars, maybe we need to take an intermediate step using plugin hybrids. They use much smaller batteries than an all electric, and they can be used for long trips in places where there is not enough charging infrastructure. Unfortunately right now there isn't much selection in plugin hybrids or my wife might want to buy one.

The free market will sort all that out. If fossil fuels start to get scarce before a transition to something else has happened (likely in my opinion) then those behavior changes will happen strictly due to economics not command and control.

In my opinion the real threat to humanity is not climate but instability due to affordable energy scarcity. The latter might very well happen sooner.

 

[kuririn]

There are plenty of metals in seawater. On the order of several thousand times the amount in known land reserves. And the technology exists for extracting them. They haven't been scaled up for production because it would be economically unviable. That will change when the market price of these metals rises dramatically due to demand.
https://www.miningweekly.com/articl...increase-in-the-future-2016-04-01/rep_id:3650https://www.mining.com/scientists-f...t-amounts-of-rare-earths-from-seafloor-73254/I remember when the oil crisis hit in the early 70s. Pundits were saying that there is plenty of oil in the ground but much of it is locked up in shale, and it would be too expensive to process. Today petroleum is routinely being extracted from shale via fracking. The market conditions changed (10x increase in the price of gas) and the technology to extract the oil became economically feasible. Same will happen with these metals.

EDIT: One more.
https://www.mining.com/scientists-develop-cheap-and-easy-method-to-extract-lithium-from-seawater/

 

[cwbullet]

Interesting video. I agree it is a pipe dream by 2050.

I am not a fan of taxing our way to renewable energy. Currently, we have people who cannot afford a new gas power car. You will not be able to mandate people into electric cars. Despite popular belief, there still are not near enough charge stations to make it possible, and it would probably take 500K to 1000K more chargers to make it feasible.

If you give it time, capitalism will make it happen.

I do think the future is the Steak and Shake model. Put them in Grocery Store and Restaurant parking lots so you shop and charge.

 

[Antares JS]

Instead, most of the replies were about how someone absolutely MUST be able to drive 450 miles right now for no real reason... Not out of the box thinking, those ideas ARE the box.

I have a reason for you. We're rocket people. Driving hundreds of miles with a car full of stuff to remote locations is something a lot of us do every month.

Our current home, circa 1978, was built using all electric power. At some point, prior to us buying it, they removed the inefficient electric base board heat and installed a natural gas hydronic system, which works great and is very efficient. I wonder how long before the Stasi decides I have to rip out the efficient natural gas heat and replace it with electric?

In fairness, electric heating has gotten a lot better in the past few decades. We just did the opposite over the course of the past couple of years, getting rid of the gas heaters and stove and replacing them with electric equivalents, and we have never looked back.

 

[Mushtang]

Instead, most of the replies were about how someone absolutely MUST be able to drive 450 miles right now for no real reason

I'll assume that my reply was not included in the "most", because I gave two very real reasons for wanting to drive that far. Want more?

 

[lakeroadster]

In fairness, electric heating has gotten a lot better in the past few decades. We just did the opposite over the course of the past couple of years, getting rid of the gas heaters and stove and replacing them with electric equivalents, and we have never looked back.

Interesting. Are the new electric heaters more efficient than natural gas, efficient enough to pay for the equipment and labor to replace them in let's say 5 years?

 

[jderimig]

Interesting. Are the new electric heaters more efficient than natural gas, efficient enough to pay for the equipment and labor to replace them in let's say 5 years?

Heat pumps are more efficient in temperate climates. However equipment costs are about 5X+ more than a 93% gas fired furnace. Efficiency is not the question it is cost. The next question is that cost politically feasible? Government providing subsidies by printing money for it doesn't make it any less cheaper.

 

[dr wogz]

I do think the future is the Steak and Shake model. Put them in Grocery Store and Restaurant parking lots so you shop and charge.

Up here, a lot of shopping malls / centers, even a few of the big box chains have charging stations..

But then again, Quebec has some of eh cheapest electricity on the continent..

We also just switched for an oil fired furnace to a 15Kw on demand water heater for our home heating (water radiators) Oil was getting just too expensive.. [$1.20/l]

 

[lakeroadster]

Heat pumps are more efficient in temperate climates. However equipment costs are about 5X+ more than a 93% gas fired furnace. Efficiency is not the question it is cost. The next question is that cost politically feasible? Government providing subsidies by printing money for it doesn't make it any less cheaper.

More subsidies, more socialism.

 

[Antares JS]

Interesting. Are the new electric heaters more efficient than natural gas, efficient enough to pay for the equipment and labor to replace them in let's say 5 years?

One thing I realized that is probably notable, is that our former gas appliances were propane, not NG. I'm not sure whether a similar scenario would apply to NG heat.

Also note that our house has two independent HVAC systems for the upstairs and the downstairs, each with an air conditioner and a heater when we bought the house, now each with its own electric heat pump.

Before, we had air conditioning and gas heat. During the summer, our electric bill would be about $200 a month when we were running the air conditioner. It would drop to about $100 a month during the cold season, when we were not running the air conditioner. We would also pay about $1000 for a season's worth of heating gas.

Since we replaced all of that with electric heat pumps that both heat and air condition, we do not pay for gas at all and pay $200 a month for electricity year round. Assuming a cold season of six months from October to March, We are now paying $600 for heat per cold season and saving $400 a year.

One thing to note about my particular situation too - when we bought our house, the air conditioning machinery was nearing the end of its life, as was the downstairs furnace due to not being properly protected from the elements in our house's crawlspace. We were going to have to replace the machinery regardless.

It turned out that buying the electric heat pumps for about $5000 each cost about the same as a new air conditioner and a new furnace for $2500 each. Since the upstairs furnace was the only one of those machines in good working order, we only spent $2500 more than we otherwise would have, meaning that the heat pump will pay for itself in savings over buying gas in only a little more than 6 years. Probably even less than that now that gas prices spiked right after we got rid of the gas appliances.

 

[lakeroadster]

One thing I realized that is probably notable, is that our former gas appliances were propane, not NG. I'm not sure whether a similar scenario would apply to NG heat.

Also note that our house has two independent HVAC systems for the upstairs and the downstairs, each with an air conditioner and a heater when we bought the house, now each with its own electric heat pump.

Before, we had air conditioning and gas heat. During the summer, our electric bill would be about $200 a month when we were running the air conditioner. It would drop to about $100 a month during the cold season, when we were not running the air conditioner. We would also pay about $1000 for a season's worth of heating gas.

Since we replaced all of that with electric heat pumps that both heat and air condition, we do not pay for gas at all and pay $200 a month for electricity year round. Assuming a cold season of six months from October to March, We are now paying $600 for heat per cold season and saving $400 a year.

One thing to note about my particular situation too - when we bought our house, the air conditioning machinery was nearing the end of its life, as was the downstairs furnace due to not being properly protected from the elements in our house's crawlspace. We were going to have to replace the machinery regardless.

It turned out that buying the electric heat pumps for about $5000 each cost about the same as a new air conditioner and a new furnace for $2500 each. Since the upstairs furnace was the only one of those machines in good working order, we only spent $2500 more than we otherwise would have, meaning that the heat pump will pay for itself in savings over buying gas in only a little more than 6 years. Probably even less than that now that gas prices spiked right after we got rid of the gas appliances.

Thanks for breaking all that down. We had a heat pump system when we lived in Ohio.

No air conditioning at our place here in Colorado. Just heat, hydronic heat. To install a heat pump would mean running duct work throughout the home via the crawlspace that you have to belly crawl around in, then finding someplace to install the equipment in the house and outside the house. Sounds extremely expensive.

Hydronic heat is pretty awesome. No air being moved around, nice a quiet and no ductwork to keep clean.

 

[jderimig]

One thing I realized that is probably notable, is that our former gas appliances were propane, not NG. I'm not sure whether a similar scenario would apply to NG heat.

Also note that our house has two independent HVAC systems for the upstairs and the downstairs, each with an air conditioner and a heater when we bought the house, now each with its own electric heat pump.

Before, we had air conditioning and gas heat. During the summer, our electric bill would be about $200 a month when we were running the air conditioner. It would drop to about $100 a month during the cold season, when we were not running the air conditioner. We would also pay about $1000 for a season's worth of heating gas.

Since we replaced all of that with electric heat pumps that both heat and air condition, we do not pay for gas at all and pay $200 a month for electricity year round. Assuming a cold season of six months from October to March, We are now paying $600 for heat per cold season and saving $400 a year.

One thing to note about my particular situation too - when we bought our house, the air conditioning machinery was nearing the end of its life, as was the downstairs furnace due to not being properly protected from the elements in our house's crawlspace. We were going to have to replace the machinery regardless.

It turned out that buying the electric heat pumps for about $5000 each cost about the same as a new air conditioner and a new furnace for $2500 each. Since the upstairs furnace was the only one of those machines in good working order, we only spent $2500 more than we otherwise would have, meaning that the heat pump will pay for itself in savings over buying gas in only a little more than 6 years. Probably even less than that now that gas prices spiked right after we got rid of the gas appliances.

Good point. If you already have central air an upgrade to a heat pump makes sense when your compressor wears out. And if you are a DYI kind of guy and can work a rented Bobcat, a ground water cooled compressor unit would be even better.

 

[Antares JS]

Thanks for breaking all that down. We had a heat pump system when we lived in Ohio.

No air conditioning at our place here in Colorado. Just heat, hydronic heat. To install a heat pump would mean running duct work throughout the home via the crawlspace that you have to belly crawl around in, then finding someplace to install the equipment in the house and outside the house. Sounds extremely expensive.

Hydronic heat is pretty awesome. No air being moved around, nice a quiet and no ductwork to keep clean.

Fair enough, we already had all that in place; it might not make sense for you if you also have to install all the duct work.

 

[boatgeek]

One thing I realized that is probably notable, is that our former gas appliances were propane, not NG. I'm not sure whether a similar scenario would apply to NG heat.

Also note that our house has two independent HVAC systems for the upstairs and the downstairs, each with an air conditioner and a heater when we bought the house, now each with its own electric heat pump.

Before, we had air conditioning and gas heat. During the summer, our electric bill would be about $200 a month when we were running the air conditioner. It would drop to about $100 a month during the cold season, when we were not running the air conditioner. We would also pay about $1000 for a season's worth of heating gas.

Since we replaced all of that with electric heat pumps that both heat and air condition, we do not pay for gas at all and pay $200 a month for electricity year round. Assuming a cold season of six months from October to March, We are now paying $600 for heat per cold season and saving $400 a year.

One thing to note about my particular situation too - when we bought our house, the air conditioning machinery was nearing the end of its life, as was the downstairs furnace due to not being properly protected from the elements in our house's crawlspace. We were going to have to replace the machinery regardless.

It turned out that buying the electric heat pumps for about $5000 each cost about the same as a new air conditioner and a new furnace for $2500 each. Since the upstairs furnace was the only one of those machines in good working order, we only spent $2500 more than we otherwise would have, meaning that the heat pump will pay for itself in savings over buying gas in only a little more than 6 years. Probably even less than that now that gas prices spiked right after we got rid of the gas appliances.

This highlights what a lot of people are saying. The time to switch to new and more efficient technology is when your old equipment is wearing out and you'd have to replace it anyway. Goes for cars, furnaces, AC, etc. I have a dream of replacing our minivan with a plug-in hybrid, but it just doesn't make sense while the old van is running well.

Years ago, we converted our (~80% efficient) furnace to natural gas by replacing the burner unit. The salesman said that he'd give us a quote for a new 93% gas furnace, and it would blow our socks off with how much money we'd save. After we gave him our information on the amount of fuel we use a year, we never heard another word about the new furnace...

Thanks for breaking all that down. We had a heat pump system when we lived in Ohio.

No air conditioning at our place here in Colorado. Just heat, hydronic heat. To install a heat pump would mean running duct work throughout the home via the crawlspace that you have to belly crawl around in, then finding someplace to install the equipment in the house and outside the house. Sounds extremely expensive.

Heat pumps really shine when they can replace AC at the same time. That said, there are heat pumps that are configured to heat water for hydronic heat so you wouldn't have to run ducts.

 

[cwbullet]

More subsidies, more socialism.

That is my worry.

 

[cls]

a reason for you. We're rocket people. Driving hundreds of miles with a car full of stuff to remote locations is something a lot of us do every month.

Yep, I do that too. Last weekend we drove 800+ miles round trip to XPRS. Did we do it in one shot? No. We stopped for a meal, and to visit friends in NV, and to get gas. And stretch legs etc. So the car doesn't need 900 mile range.

The trip was optional. Really. No one is going to die if we don't make the trip. No extra food was grown. It's for a hobby. It is not essential. We dearly enjoy it and rocketry makes us very happy, but it isn't on the short list of real essentials, oxygen, food, clothes, housing.

You have presented one narrow situation , which most ordinary folks do not have. The reality is most people drive a few miles a day and do not need extended range.

Do you really think that all 8 billion people in the world absolutely need to be able to drive such distances at any time? That's ridiculous. Especially considering most folks don't travel more than a few miles from where they were born.

So, I'm asking folhs to think clearly and creatively about what their real needs are. Don't respond emotionally to muh freedumbs being taken. We heard all that already.

Do I really need to keep an overcapable vehicle that sits 95% of the time?

 

[Antares JS]

It's for a hobby. It is not essential.

Speak for yourself.

You have presented one narrow situation , which most ordinary folks do not have. The reality is most people drive a few miles a day and do not need extended range.

"Most people" in this case does not include me. My reality is that I need to drive hundreds of miles in a single day at least once a month, and sometimes I need to do it at the drop of a hat. Others have also chimed in on this thread and explained that a vehicle with limited range does not suit their needs.

Especially considering most folks don't travel more than a few miles from where they were born.

I'm not one of those people either.

So, I'm asking folhs to think clearly and creatively about what their real needs are. Don't respond emotionally to muh freedumbs being taken. We heard all that already.

My real needs, for dealing with emergency situations that have actually come up in my life:
-Drive from San Diego to Wisconsin in two days.
-Drive from the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Wisconsin in two days with luggage for a family of four.
-Drive from the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Georgia in one day with luggage for a family of four.

If I wasn't able to go where I wanted, when I wanted, I would have missed one of the last times my grandmother was lucid for several days in a row, so excuse me if your insistence that people don't need to drive hundreds of miles in a single day at the drop of a hat just p***es me off.

Do I really need to keep an overcapable vehicle that sits 95% of the time?

Unless one is wealthy enough to keep different vehicles for different use cases, people should keep a vehicle that is suitable for their greatest foreseeable need.

 

[Funkworks]

Your words not mine.

I would consider the real world constraints and estimate what the confidence interval is for what is achievable by 2030, 2050 and beyond. Then calculate what the effect would be on any reduction of global temperatures and compare it with the costs on society. If the cost benefit ratio is poor then perhaps we should develop a new plan instead of blindly spending scarce (and becoming more so) financial and energy resources on a plan that possibly can't work. Then there would be no time or resources left to pursue the needed approach.

Ok, but before reinventing the wheel and assuming it hasn't been done, I'd do a few searches. There are literally thousand of economists looking at all sorts of models in detail.

Nope.

Mountain trails, that you can't get over without a 4WD, not paved, and zero charging stations or gas stations on the trail. Wilderness, where an app on your phone won't help you once your battery dies.

I don't see how an empty fuel tank would be any better. Maybe you carry jerry cans, but that's not a issue of propulsion, it's an issue of where you choose to drive. Many people have little interest to go that far away from civilization.

I have no interest in trying to take an EV over one of these trails and having to wait 100 years until a charging station is installed. I'll keep my ICE Jeep, thankyouverymuch.

Of course, if you insist on going just beyond the range of any car, and far from fueling and charging stations, you're going to have issues. I'd just point out that carrying solar panels in an EV truck would allow an infinite range, although probably less than 50 miles a day after the 1st charge has run out.

If the prices for self driving Teslas ever come down to where I can afford one I'll definitely want one of those too, but I'm not interested in giving up my gas powered fun machine. Ever.

I agree luxury cars and current AWD and 4x4 are expensive. I have neither and my fun machine only has 2 wheels.

I enjoyed this so maybe you would too:

 

[kuririn]

"Most people" in this case does not include me. My reality is that I need to drive hundreds of miles in a single day at least once a month, and sometimes I need to do it at the drop of a hat. Others have also chimed in on this thread and explained that a vehicle with limited range does not suit their needs.

To be fair, unless you live in Montana, North Dakota or South Dakota you should be able to find a charger before you run out of battery power. And even in those states I suspect that in ten years that will drastically change. In Virginia, on average there is a charging station every 28.7 miles of roadway. So no different than a gas car. When your gauge starts going low you find a fuel stop. And do you drive the full 800 miles without stopping for food and a restroom break? During the half hour to recharge you could be downing grub and taking care of "necessities". My car is a midsize V6 gas sedan that gets 20 mpg with a 15 gallon tank. So 300 miles range. Actually a little lower than most EVs on the market today.
https://electrek.co/2022/01/23/the-...ates-with-the-most-spread-out-charging-points

The data chart (sorted by state)​

STATE	REGISTERED EVs	TOTAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS	% OF VEHICLES THAT ARE EVs	PUBLIC CHARGER PORTS AVAILABLE	EVs PER CHARGER	MILES PER EV CHARGER
Alabama	2,890	2,065,223	0.14%	495	5.84	203.40
Alaska	940	174,496	0.54%	83	11.32	213.69
Arizona	28,770	2,387,462	1.21%	1,994	14.43	33.55
Arkansas	1,330	874,634	0.15%	412	3.23	249.07
California	425,300	14,654,371	2.90%	34,775	12.23	5.05
Colorado	24,670	1,724,841	1.43%	3,458	7.13	25.76
Connecticut	9,040	1,260,063	0.72%	1,248	7.24	17.29
Delaware	1,950	422,002	0.46%	277	7.04	23.46
Florida	58,160	7,732,491	0.75%	5,747	10.12	21.42
Georgia	23,530	3,445,471	0.68%	3,764	6.25	34.13
Hawaii	10,670	492,034	2.17%	743	14.36	6.06
Idaho	2,300	599,749	0.38%	260	8.85	202.00
Illinois	26,000	4,286,622	0.61%	2,287	11.37	63.83
Indiana	6,990	2,183,343	0.32%	834	8.38	116.19
Iowa	2,260	1,210,633	0.19%	534	4.23	214.99
Kansas	3,130	943,138	0.33%	942	3.32	149.02
Kentucky	2,650	1,638,625	0.16%	478	5.54	167.27
Lousiana	1,950	1,321,964	0.15%	339	5.75	188.69
Maine	1,920	370,051	0.52%	552	3.48	41.34
Maryland	17,970	1,841,711	0.98%	2,866	6.27	11.30
Massachusetts	21,010	2,085,100	1.01%	4,279	4.91	8.60
Michigan	10,620	2,810,414	0.38%	1,694	6.27	72.13
Minnesota	10,380	1,821,645	0.57%	1,239	8.38	114.09
Mississippi	780	803,827	0.10%	281	2.78	275.76
Missouri	6,740	2,035,762	0.33%	2,088	3.23	63.34
Montana	940	438,642	0.22%	205	4.59	359.25
Nebraska	1,810	647,411	0.28%	356	5.08	267.67
Nevada	11,040	1,052,571	1.05%	1,252	8.82	38.12
New Hampshire	2,690	486,514	0.55%	315	8.54	51.38
New Jersey	30,420	2,616,279	1.16%	1,638	18.57	23.79
New Mexico	2,620	635,272	0.41%	401	6.53	179.12
New York	32,590	4,425,722	0.74%	6,679	4.88	17.06
North Carolina	16,190	3,390,087	0.48%	2,365	6.85	45.51
North Dakota	220	224,952	0.10%	132	1.67	667.94
Ohio	14,530	4,380,516	0.33%	1,883	7.72	65.34
Oklahoma	3,410	1,249,360	0.27%	992	3.44	115.56
Oregon	22,850	1,399,619	1.63%	2,149	10.63	36.78
Pennsylvania	17,530	4,222,743	0.42%	2,453	7.15	49.21
Rhode Island	1,580	389,425	0.41%	533	2.96	11.27
South Carolina	4,390	1,724,396	0.26%	774	5.67	102.37
South Dakota	410	337,367	0.12%	148	2.77	553.85
Tennessee	7,810	2,137,154	0.37%	1,401	5.58	68.64
Texas	52,190	8,223,542	0.64%	5,054	10.33	62.42
Utah	11,230	910,430	1.23%	1,839	6.11	26.43
Vermont	2,230	202,897	1.10%	834	2.67	17.09
Virginia	20,510	3,145,500	0.65%	2,626	7.81	28.69
Washington	50,520	2,877,533	1.76%	3,789	13.33	21.30
Washington DC*	2,360	184,832	1.28%	684	3.45	2.22
West Virginia	600	525,159	0.11%	269	2.23	144.52
Wisconsin	6,310	1,973,948	0.32%	866	7.29	133.57
Wyoming	330	193,092	0.17%	171	1.93	175.97
US TOTAL/AVG.	1,019,260	107,180,635	0.95%	111,477	9.14	37.42

*District of Columbia is technically not a state

 

[kuririn]

If the cost benefit ratio is poor then perhaps we should develop a new plan i

OK, what would you suggest as a better alternative?