Infrastructure Investing

No not at all...Are you unaware of what the federal government has done in past history?
They brought electricity to every home, telephones to every house, built the highways all across and over the country....Now the country is to cheap, to help the masses...Its more important that rich get tax breaks and corporations are people!

 

Whatever you say.

 

“Investing” is a damned loose term. What’s the point in building roads and bridges whilst waging an economic war on the petroleum industry that propels vehicles across them?

 

School busses will get charged by those owning the school busses. They aren't going to be wandering the city looking for a charge station.

I don't believe charge stations cost anywhere close to the figure you give. Do you have more on that? The stations need almost no technology. So, does getting electric service really cost $50K per slot? Is that including real estate purchases? Today, numerous stores, restaurants, parking lots and employment sites have sprouted charging stations with no government help at all - simply because it is good business.

I do not agree with your 125 cars per station idea. By FAR the majority of electric vehicles will be charged at the residence and/or work site of the owner. The only infrastructure needed for that is a 220 outlet (110 being slow) - like for an electric clothes dryer. And, then the owner almost never has to go somewhere else to get charged.

If there is a reason for that to be too much of an investment in our EV infrastructure, it might be simply because it's happeing anyway. EVs have technology that locates charging stations and can do cross country trip planning which includes range. So, today I can tell my car that I want to drive from Seattle to NYC, and it will figure it out. But, almost all use will be within the range of my home, thus I almost NEVER have to go looking for electricity - like people today have to go to a gas station.

 

That would be a great point if there wasnt an alternative to the gas powered engine....
Another epic fail!

 

Do you see evidence of transportation being limited by the price of gas?

Are you aware that electricity is a cheaper transportation fuel in many parts of the country?

 

What you say has logic but ignores the massively changing situation. It is like arguing in the 30s that Routes 30 and 66 can take care of every transportation requirements. If charging stations are to service say half of the vehicles the current charging station technology is woefully deficient. You need many charging stations at publicly accessible places each with a kWhr capability that is magnitudes greater than today's charging station. This also means the electric distribution grid is woefully in the wrong place. With high level math, if it takes 12 hrs to charge a 50kWhr car battery -- a station that will put out 4200 watts (twice the average heat pump of oven) for 12 hours straight which at today's cost would be about $6 -- it would take 600kWhr capacity to charge it in one hour which is almost half the monthly power consumed in an average house in one month. If this station was running around the clock non-stop it could handle 24 cars, 1/10 of the 250 average from Biden's math. No one has ever built such a station (beyond basic research) and if they were built no power company has the capability to get the electricity required to it. This is where Biden's (and a million other's) math falls apart.

 

I don't really dispute your math.

But, the main point here is that our fleet is highly unlikely to depend to that degree on public charging stations.

First of all, it is FAR easier to charge at home, at work, at their hotel or at just about any other place where people are likely to stay put or a while. And, charging stations are popping up in those locations without the need for federal dollars.

Also, fast charging like you suggest would damage car batteries. Newer capacitor technology is coming, and that would allow for far faster charging. As of today, the fast charging that Tesla allows does have extra wear on their batteries, as I understand it. So, there are reasons today for not even wanting that kid of charging.

I think the early adopter direction is going to appeal to those whose common useage is within the 300+ mile limit of batteries today. That way, no charging is required away from home, except for exceptional circumstancs of long trips.

It's been long pointed out that our electric grid is bad shape regardless of electric vehicle consumption. So, that does need to get fixed. It needs to be flexible, more robust, and has to allow for individual production of electricity that can be put back on the grid, so people's electric bills go down.

I hope our infrastructure bill has that in mind - or, can explain more important objectives.

 

There is logic here. However, will everybody be more than willing to change their life style and avoid using their car every night so it can be recharged? And if so why does Biden need 500,000 charging stations by 2030? Can the electric companies double the electricity delivered to every average home with their current transmission? Charging a 50kWhr battery over 8 hours requires 6 kWhrs over 8 hours a night, times 30 days is 1500 kWhrs a month, about the average home's total current usage. You raise an interesting point about Biden's beefing up the grid, except his purpose is to get it off carbon dioxide producing electricity, not to get it to his 500,000 charging stations which would require a whole different architecture.

 

I would suggest that most people will spend enough time NOT driving their car. In fact, most people's use is not going to be near the range limit - meaning that a full charge from essentially fully discharged is unlikely to be a common scenario. For example, it isn't for gas cars. Cars with 10 gallon tanks today (such as most hybrids) don't get as much distance on a tank of gas as an electric car can get. And, few people have to go to a service station every day.

I don't know why the infrastructure bill sees that many charging stations as required. And, I doubt Biden is the individual who set that number.

Your last point could well be a good one. One would need to compare gasoline combustion engines along with drilling and cracking plants, etc., to electricity production plants. I'm not so sure that is favorable comparison for the oil industry.

Plus, let's note that the major fuel source for generating electricity in Iowa is wind.

And, home solar is cost efficient today - a way for home owners to reduce their electric energy bills.

Imho tuning our electric grid to allow individuals to create their own electricity with solar and to sell that back for use by others needs to be a MAJOR goal.

 

Battery swaps - for a somewhat higher price you can swap your depleted battery for a charged one - believe in capitalism - where there is a need some bastard will profit

 

Or course it includes that. Ha ha
Surly you jest. Sewerage runs concurrently with roads and other forms of distribution. “Facilities” are used throughout the infrastructure proposal. That includes out dated power distribution and internet services as well.

“Infrastructure” is literally, anything society needs to function. When has any private business with out support from the Govt, done anything with infrastructure for the common good of the public at large without then charging them a user fee. Increasing their fair share is obviously a good reason for provideing facilities where everyone can safely take a dump..

 

As opposed to the corporate tax cuts pushed through by the last administration? What were they backed by? Gold bullion? The US has been running deficits for decades, under the oversight of multiple administrations from both sides of politics. face it, any pretense of a commitment to 'balanced budgets' was abandoned long ago by both sides.

At least this tranche of debt will A) create jobs/boost consumption. B) make American industry more competitive by improving a national infrastructure that hasn't any real investment since the 60's, something which can't be said about other nations.

And if you end up a Zimbabwe (not going to happen BTW) it will be both the Republicans and the Democrats fault. And of course the generations of voters who have acquiesced to their siren song of rolling deficits that cost will cost them nothing (we promise) personally.

 

That list was pretty specific in detailing the various types of infrastructure to be improved and made no mention of sewer, wastewater, sanitation or any of the other terms commonly used to refer to it. And yes, the sewer often 'runs concurrently' with roads, but that doesn't mean funding for roads is funding for sewers. They have literally nothing to do with eachother other than sometimes being on top of eachother. You are making completely baseless and unreasoned assumptions.

...and why the hell are you rambling to me about private business? I didn't say anything about that.

 

Infrastructure has always meant more than roads and bridges. That is a very elementary view of Infrastructure.

 

I am assuming we can find a butt load of post from you whining about the record level of spending done in the previous 4 years?

No doubt you have a thread you started after Trump submitted the largest budget request in the history of the nation by more than a trillion dollars?

 

Just a reminder that private business on its own does nothing for sewerage nfrast

 

Just a reminder that private business on its own does nothing for sewerage infrastructure that only comes from government intervention.

Major projects everywhere impact sewerage up grading. No one is going to rebuild roads and bridges with failing sewerage systems that might mean tearing up the same jobs just years later. Major infrastructure programs ALWAYS include a survey by civil engineers of water, sewerage, electricity and other utilities and now internet services that impact the area worked on. . The word “ facilities”includes that. It seems you might have been in the business....if you were, I’m surprised you don’t get the basics of what “ infrastructure means” .
“ the Big Dig in Boston had huge cost overruns because of the impact in everything from water, sewerage et al, just by trying to build an artery through a city....it’s no different in small towns and cities everywhere.

 

Charging electric cars adds much less to demand then anyone thinks.. the electric car sales isn’t suddenly going to increase over night. Just like every demand electricity providers are responsible for, the needs are tracked regular rate and construction proceeds at a slow methodical rate staying ahead of demand.

 

Well, maybe that is just icing on the hidden cake since it is in lock step with Agenda 21, Degrowth, and globalization.

Probably par for the course with Biden just doing what he is told to do.

The petroleum distribution chain is already where it belongs. The electric power distribution chain is not.

 

Everybody changing their car's battery every 2, 3, or 4 days????? And how are the suppliers going to recharge all of those batteries they get?

 

???
It's in line with the biological needs of human beings.

I'm sure there will be vehicle usage patterns that call for fuel other than electricity.

So you don't even know what the job of the president entails!!!

NO president has any business focusing his personal time on doing the research and formulaion of bills of this magnitude. He and congress have significant staff for that. They also have industry advisers.

There are problems with the electric power distribution chain that have to do with its fragility (as shown in Texas), and the fact that it is not set up such that individuals can create electricity to add to the grid - thus taking full benefit of the technology available today.

And, that exists regardless of the auto industry making strong moves toward electric vehicles.

Beyond that, you seem to be missing that a home owner of an electric car whose trips are within 300 miles a day does not EVER need to go to one of these charging stations.

Plus, their fuel is cheaper and their car maintenance bill is significantly lower.

 

No one that is smart would do that. But it happens all the time anyway. I don't think anyone who has been 'in the business' would've been able to avoid noticing how much of a clusterf*** of ignorance, blind bureaucracy and abject stupidity the people we put in charge of spending taxmoney tend to be.

 

It’s called cost overruns. So, the alternative is to sit on our asteroid like we did for the last five years and do nothing. Nope, moving on. There is a reason why we are falling behind other countries in key areas. It’s deficiency in our own infrastructure

 

Now it's starting to look like you're interested in expanding your business.