Back

@panduck @JohanEmpa
An EV requires 7200 watts to charge.

https://news.energysage.com/how-many-watts-does-an-electric-car-charger-use/

Solar panels produce up to 200 watts per square meter, usually less.

So to produce enough wattage to charge an EV, you need at least 36 square meters of solar cells, or 360 square feet.

Most humans live in cities, and don't have anything like that.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa An EV "require" 7.2kW to charge, where do you get that from? Mine is happily pulling 1.3kW right now. My panels can deliver a max of 3.6kW, I only have 9 panels on ,y roof. Guy down the road has some 20 of them. Even my 9 is plenty to charge the car.

Anyway, this was about using EVs bidirectional charging capabilities to store solar energy and put it back when needed to balance grid. An EV isnt charging all the time...

@panduck @JohanEmpa

> Where do you get that from?

I did post the source in my answer.

---

More technology will not fix the problems of too much technology.

I posted this article before on this thread: https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/solar-panels-another-exercise-in-magical-thinking-5a824c825844

We cannot continue our exponential growth in consumption and waste by simply consuming something else. People are emotionally attached to buying new stuff to solve old problems.

Degrowth, reducing consumption, is the only solution.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa Well, since my car is currently pulling 1.3kW, I would say your source is wrong. And producing EVs instead of gas cars is not growth, is change of technology. And while we need to replace cars with public transport as much as we can, we are not able to stop sale of cars now, this is simply not doable.

I am getting so dang fed up with this "degrowth is the solution" ANY TIME EV is mentioned.

Gas cars must die. EVs is the only short term option we have.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa Your source is using logic equal to "a power outlet requires 2400w", and that becomes a bit silly, sorry. The charge plug I have can provide 11kW, but I rarely ever pull more than 1.3kW to 3kW, depending on how much my panels are producing. As a result, me charging my car is barely affecting network load at all.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa So, you rather them build billions of gas cars instead? Because that is what will happen.

We need to replace cars with public transport as much as we can.

What we cannot, we need to replace gas cars with EVs.

We are not talking about building a billion EVs in addition to a billion gas cars. We are talking about building EVs instead of gas cars.

That we need to reduce the size of and amount of cars is a different debate. Take that seperately.

@panduck @JohanEmpa As I said, replacing (note that word) one billion gasoline cars with one billion electric cars will not solve the issue of exponentially increasing growth of resource consumption and of waste.

How, exactly, is unbounded exponential growth possible in a finite world?

I remember hearing your arguments almost 50 years ago and believing them: but https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/

Producing more but different things will not fix this. Our only hope is to produce fewer things.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa We have two options: When a gas car has lived its life and need to be replaced with a new car, it can be replaced with an EV or it can be replaced with a gas car.

Those are your two optuions.

Pick one, please. One of those two.

Because for all the people that sadly depend on cars, there is no other option.

None.

Give them an alternative first, and they can pick that.

Right now, the alternative is not there.

@panduck @JohanEmpa

> Give them an alternative first,

"First" implies that something will then change. But your plan prevents that change.

Building a billion electric cars will increase people's dependency on private transportation.

A car lasts 20 years, so another way to see this is 50 million cars a year for the rest of time.

You have a plan to continue exponential growth in consumption and waste, but simply change what's being consumed and wasted.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa ""First" implies that something will then change. But your plan prevents that change."

No.

We can do two things at the same time

1) Build better public infrastructure so more people can use public transport.
2) Build EVs instead of gas cars, so that cars that are sold, are EV instead of gas.

You are acting like you cannot do 1 and 2 at the same time.

We are talking about cars that would be built regardless.

Your argument is that it is better that they are gas cars.

@panduck @JohanEmpa

Unbounded exponential growth is impossible on a finite planet.

But your plan calls for continuing unbounded exponential growth indefinitely: the same plan as 50 years ago, which has completely failed.

----

> Your argument is that it is better that they are gas cars.

Well, you have passed the bounds of politeness with that last claim. Shame on you.

I will not be communicating with you further.

You seem young: I hope you remember this in thirty years.

@TomSwirly "You seem young: I hope you remember this in thirty years"

Thirty years from now when I watch the planet burn, I'll remember a person trying to shame me for doing what little I could with the options that were available to me, because they were not enough.

If you think being called out for being abelist and privileged, and feel that this is passing "bounds of politeness" then boy do I have news for you.

Now, get off the internet, you are using more resources than you need.

@panduck @JohanEmpa A plan would involve treating the climate crisis as an existential emergency, redirecting some of the trillions the US spends on fossil fuels and war into public transportation, and moving aggressively to get rid of private cars in the next two decades.

You're quite right that none of this will happen. We'll just keep consuming and die.

@TomSwirly "You're quite right that none of this will happen. We'll just keep consuming and die."

So what is your plan? Sitting there griping at a "better than nothing" plan because it is not "good enough" for you?

Present a plan, or you are nothing but a troll griping about "your not being good enough".

I am not going to be shamed for having a car so I can transport my disabled mate.

People like you talk from an abelist point of privilege, but offer no real solution.

@TomSwirly At least "my plan" removes dependency on the worst companies in the world: the oil companies.

This is a major important step towards degrowth.

Your plan is to go along like nothing because "the other plans are not good enough anyway."

@panduck @JohanEmpa

It would be better to address my arguments, rather than to use the CAPS KEY.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa I pointed out how your arguments are not really arguments, but flawed assumptions, and caps keys are a result of being somewhat frustrated with having to repeat this over and over any times EVs are mentioned and people like you show up.

We are not REPLACING gas cars with EVs, we are asking them to build and sell an EV instead of buying and selling a gas car, and if they dont build it as an EV they will build it as a gas car. No matter how much you talk about "degrowth"

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa As a result, all you do, is defend the position of the gas companies, since way too many people are totally dependant on cars, and the option is either to buy gas or to buy EV.

You ignored everything I wrote about this and focused only on the fact that I used caps to convey my frustration.

@TomSwirly @JohanEmpa "What are my "flawed assumptions" exactly?"

That people will be able to pick an option that is not available to them.

That we somehow by saying "we need degrowth!", we suddenly remove our dependency on cars.

You argue like we are not capable of scaling down production of cars, while at the same time producing EVs instead of gas cars.

It is easy to toss out "degrowth", but you have so far not provided any means as to how.

@panduck @JohanEmpa

I do entirely understand your argument, you know.

You're saying this: "We will never have public transportation, so we should continue to build exponentially increasing number of private cars."

It's the same argument I've heard for 50 years. It has been leading Americans not to build public transportation for 70 years, and I'm sure you're right that this will continue until the collapse.

Unlimited exponential growth is mathematically impossible on a finite planet.

@TomSwirly "You're saying this: "We will never have public transportation, so we should continue to build exponentially increasing number of private cars.""

No.

Nowhere did I say that.

I said we need to reduce our dependency on cars.

I said that the cars we still need to build, has to be EVs.

You are talking from a point of privilege. Many people dont have an option, we need a car to take us where we have to go.

We need to build options.