jg95z28

At least out here on the west coast, most ranch homes built from the 50s-90s have the washer/dryer hook-up in the garage, and most dryer hook-ups are 240v.

Z28Wilson

Yeah, I have a ranch with our laundry room in the basement. I have encountered very few homes in the midwest with laundry areas in the garage. All depends on where you live I suppose.

Bob Cosby

It is not at all difficult nor expensive to have a qualified electrician setup a 240V outlet in the garage. Many breaker boxes are in the garage anyway, and it is easy for a qualified electrician (yes, I intentionally said it twice) to install the necessary hardware. A couple hundred bucks....tops...and likely less than that.

HAZ-Matt

Load on the grid is not going to be a huge issue with electric cars because most of the charging will be at night after people get home from work... which is after peak demand. It will in fact help balance out load over the course of the day which actually helpful to the electric companies.

jg95z28

We don't have basements on the westcoast. I guess that's why our laundry rooms end up in the garage.

Koz

I still think electricity is the way to go. Yes, infrastructures will need to be updated, but that argument applies to every energy source. And if the electrical infrastructure is in need of an upgrade anyway, then why not just upgrade it and run cars off of it too? It's better than putting in a whole new infrastructure for hydrogen, LPG, CNG, etc. and then still needing to update the electrical infrastructure too.

I'd have to think upgrading one system is more cost effective than upgrading that same system (maybe to a lesser extent), plus drastically expanding some other less common system.

Just my thought, not based on any cold hard numbers.

jg95z28

If you've seen the Discovery "Future Car" series, all the experts and futurists predict that its going to take a combination of several different fuel sources to replace petroleum based fuels. I agree with this idea. EVs are ideal for short trips especially in low speed urban settings. Other technologies will be needed for longer trips and heavy hauling. Therefore we really need to focus the new infrastructures in most cost effective for the short-term and most viable (and cost effective) for the long-term.

I still think producing biofuels from non food stocks like algae and effluent are paths that should be looked at more seriously.

Z28x

We don't need all cars to be plug-in, just a big chunk of them. We still produce around ~50% of our own oil, and then a lot of the imports come from Canada and Mexico. We just have to get down to a level where all energy comes from North America.

I'm also seeing a lot of businesses and houses putting up solar. That saves us from having to upgrade power plants and the grid. Just a ballpark estimate, but every house that goes solar cancels out 1 new EV. (600kWh a month for each).


I have a friend in Charleston that has the laundry out in the garage. You and I are too far north for that.

HAZ-Matt

The bigger issue is that replacing the power source in cars is not the best solution for energy efficiency unless you develop zero point energy modulators or some other techno-babble sci-fi thing. It would be more efficient to live closer to where you work or work at home and have advanced mass transit.

Slappy3243

I agree with the bolded comment, but it's not going to happen. The United States is way to big and spread out. For most people, it is cost prohibitive to live close to their urban center jobs. This does work in places like Europe. Working from home is great, but not every job lends itself to it.

Z28x

Do you drive coast to coast for your commute? Most of us do the vast majority of our driving in our metropolitan area (50 mile radius?) and it really doesn't matter if the country is 10x or 1/10th its current size.

Slappy3243

I don't really have much of a commute since I do my work from home. However, I do go to school and I have have to go to two separate campuses. Once campus is about 25 miles away from home.

Anyway, look at NYC for example. I grew up on Long Island. Most folks who live on the island work in NYC. I was about 50 miles or so from the city, and that was from the center of Long Island or so. That is already out of the Volt's range, one way. Now, a lot of people do take the train to the city, but it's not convenient. You have to drive to a dumpy station, wait for the train, and then stop at every single stop on the way to the city. It's quicker than rush hour, but still no ride in the park.

Some cities in the US are better than others, but we will never have a good railroad infrastructure. You can catch the Acela train on the east cost to go from DC to NYC, but it is just as expensive if not more than flying.

HAZ-Matt

In 1960 it wasn't possible to land a crew on the moon and then return them safely to Earth.

It's really an odd view that building (or rather improving) the rail in the States is impossible and not worth bothering with. However, I will concede this point if you will state that the US is not a top tier nation and thus cannot move into the realm of technologically advanced industrialized societies.

jg95z28

Rail construction is extremely expensive and we are in a recession. Even California's high speed rail initiative is struggling to stay afloat, and this is considered a "green" state.

If it were not for the job security, I'd be looking to get out of this industry and into something with better growth potential.

Slappy3243

They are expanded the metro-rail here down by DC to Dulles airport. It is taking several years to complete. Phase I is almost complete at a cost of over 1 Billion dollars for 11 miles of track. Yes, 11 miles at 1 billion dollars. If this means that our nation cannot rely on high speed rail due to cost, then so be it.