Ironically, this is all good news, because once people actually understand the truth, fewer EV's will be sold - which means fewer people at the public charge networks, and less stress on a grid that cannot easily absorb a substantial uptick in EV adoption. It may even give time for the pendulum to swing back towards nuclear plants as an option in some areas. I'm lucky out here in the PNW, because I know my EV runs on hydro. But in the Midwest and East, we all know that EVs run on coal and natural gas... so continuing to scale coal and NG plants to align with EV adoption seems incredibly backwards, and scaling solar/wind is too expensive/inefficient.
Respectfully, I don't happen to reach the same conclusions. Perhaps we can have a gentlemens discussion to reach firmer territory? Let's try this:
1) Re: the relatively insignificant amount of day-time charging, would you agree it's an excellent salve for the Duck Curve the west coast power industry is trying to figure out?
2) Given the vehicles being discussing are for personal use, most will be charged at night: Moving onto the statement "stress on a grid that cannot easily absorb a substantial uptick in EV adoption", I'm curious on your math here. I certainly well know my homes energy consumption, and I've looked at that of many friends and neighbors that have uttered the same words. In every case their night power use was relatively insignificant. There was no stress on the grid at all. Heck it makes holding a consistent power output easier for the utilities. In fact, Florida Light and Power just this week announced new EV charging incentives.
BTW, we just purchased two fairly large solar systems. Didn't seem too expensive or inefficient to us. Just my opinion, but getting to never write a check for electricity or gasoline again strikes me as a very nice thing. Both homes make more solar than either needs, including EV demand.
So I've had this conversation more than a few times, and lord knows I'm relatively conversant in solar by now, but I'm always open to new insights. I've shared I actually modeled hourly energy consumption of my homes and those of others. How did you come to your conclusions? Are you perhaps renting an apartment in a complex of some kind and don't use much energy in your home?
Also, some light reading on midwest power generation. Its old, up to 8 years ago, but you'll find even then the midwest was on par with the rest of the nation on renewable and nuclear, but lagging on Hydro-electric. Ergo yes, the midwest uses more coal and nat gas in place of the hydro access gap. On the other hand, many of us are investing in solar, so it remains a work in progress. That said, I think we can agree more nuclear power plants would be a very very good thing.
Here is more recent data: News Release | Consumers Energy
Not bad, right? Coal free by 2025?
Or here: Illinois creates 12% of the entire nations nuclear power.
U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
So perhaps not entirely backwards for EV use.
My respects either way,