The Volkswagen Whee ..

[MichaelB]

I can see this being limited to a small group of people, engineers and senior managers within the Volkswagen brand (one division of the VW group). From a VW Group corporate perspective they could be called "lower level", although we forum members would refer to them all as executives or senior managers. Certainly they all were highly compensated individuals that were involved in manufacturing and marketing. Not sure about design.

Modern corporate leadership sets highly ambitious goals, challenges middle management to deliver, and heavily rewards the top achievers. The executive team doesn't want to know the details, without doubt one reason is plausible deniability. The nature of the reward leads some to cross the line.

My guess is the defeat device is a common sw option that most auto manufacturers program. just to be able to measure the effect of emissions controls on performance. In the VW case it found it's way out of the lab and into regular production as part of an intense marketing effort to position the VW diesel as the global leader.

 

[jazz4cash]

Well, my experience dates back to the 80's - so I would not be surprised if the driver is replaced by a robot now, but that's not really the issue - I was just relating what I saw at the time.

We can agree to disagree, I but suspect that competitors would be very curious as to how VW managed to pass the standard test, and not need advanced systems, yet still get the performance they did.

In our business, we routinely did 'tear-downs' of competitor's products, and tested them to figure out if they had some 'secret sauce' that we just had not figured out. I wouldn't expect the auto business to be much different in that regard.

In our industry, it would be near impossible to cheat on the test itself, it was too 'closed-loop'. It would be like if you could sum up the 'driving experience' of a car in the 0-60 mph time, and the emission test was performed during the 0-60 mph time. So if they cheated in such a way that reduced emissions, but hampered performance, the 0-60 time would have dropped. The cheat would be exposed.

In our industry, cheating would be more along the lines of using cherry-picked products to submit to the test, while the average production run wasn't held to those tolerances, so the typical product might be out of spec, and only the cherry picked samples passed. That is why our compliance department randomly selected a sample of our products to test, and we had no knowledge of when/where they got their samples (separate from our regular hour-to-hour, day-to-day QC checks).

-ERD50

I generally agree with your observations based on my experiences. Yes there was definitely tremendous curiosity about how others achieved their results,but investigating software is significantly more complicated than evaluating hardware. The emissions group was generally considered "burden" by MegaMotors.....you don't see domestic manufacturers bragging about how good their emission are. Competitive product teardowns , durability testing etc are routine in the industry. If we could stick a competitors product alongside our own and run the test it was easy to get budget. Digging into software code is another matter.
There is a thread on Seeking Alpha where a poster commented that Bob Lutz, a retired GM exec was interviewed on CNBC and he supposedly gave the Opel engineers a lot of grief over not being able to match VW's results.

 

[Lakewood90712]

I generally agree with your observations based on my experiences. Yes there was definitely tremendous curiosity about how others achieved their results,but investigating software is significantly more complicated than evaluating hardware. The emissions group was generally considered "burden" by MegaMotors.....you don't see domestic manufacturers bragging about how good their emission are. Competitive product teardowns , durability testing etc are routine in the industry. If we could stick a competitors product alongside our own and run the test it was easy to get budget. Digging into software code is another matter.
There is a thread on Seeking Alpha where a poster commented that Bob Lutz, a retired GM exec was interviewed on CNBC and he supposedly gave the Opel engineers a lot of grief over not being able to match VW's results.

Lutz was always giving the Opel guys grief LOL The Story Behind The Best Bob Lutz Photo Ever - The Truth About Cars

 

[ERD50]

WADR, a different POV in itself is not an "attack." You've read the Seeking Alpha article. If you read the equally well written article I linked, you can decide for yourself - it's that simple. ...

I did read the article, and if you analyze their information, rather than just their hand-wave conclusion, you'll see it largely supports my view.

I'll never own a Tesla Model S (too $), but I suspect their owners are capable of evaluating whether or not they are reducing their overall environmental footprint. ...

Unfortunately, I think the average person really is not capable of (or at least does not invest the time/effort) evaluating whether or not they are reducing their overall environmental footprint. Very few people dig up numbers from sources and do the math that is needed. They see the "Zero Pollution" sticker, and that's as far as many will go.

It's not simple to calculate the power used by an EV, and translate this to pollution from the source. You need to go to several sources, verify they are legit and in agreement, make numerous conversions between kWh, BTU, ppm, #/mile, grams/km, and on and on. Tesla's own white paper on this subject was full of bad calculations and bad assumptions. No, I don't think the average person does this at all.

If they live where natural gas, nuclear or hydro are the primary power plant fuels, their total footprint is less. Or if they rely on solar and/or wind for electricity. It appears to be closer to a push where coal is the sole source. Where those cities, states, regions are is well documented (and have been posted here before).

I'll ask you to evaluate my statement about marginal power generation. Any grid has only X amount of renewables. Adding EVs adds demands, and draws on the 'dirty side'. You can crank up a fossil fuel plant, you can't crank up the sun or wind. You can add more turbines and solar panels, but again - until there is routinely an excess of green energy, it really makes almost no difference. Those EVs are drawing on non-renewables. Explain how it can be otherwise. Averages don't matter, it's the added draw that has to be supported. If you can show me a flaw in that thinking, please do. But don't just say "Anyone can find support for anything", it's not meaningful.

There isn't much opportunity to add hydro, and it takes many years for a new hydro plant to offset the CO2 created by its construction (cement and flooded land). Solar makes up ~ 0.4% of generation in US, and wind is single digits. We are a long, long way from routinely having enough excess to charge an EV fleet.

How many EV owners are aware of that? And if EVs go mainstream, how many average people (rather than early adopters, who are probably more knowledgeable) know things like that?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I generally agree with your observations based on my experiences. Yes there was definitely tremendous curiosity about how others achieved their results,but investigating software is significantly more complicated than evaluating hardware. The emissions group was generally considered "burden" by MegaMotors.....you don't see domestic manufacturers bragging about how good their emission are. Competitive product teardowns , durability testing etc are routine in the industry. If we could stick a competitors product alongside our own and run the test it was easy to get budget. Digging into software code is another matter.
There is a thread on Seeking Alpha where a poster commented that Bob Lutz, a retired GM exec was interviewed on CNBC and he supposedly gave the Opel engineers a lot of grief over not being able to match VW's results.

Let me clarify. I didn't mean to suggest they were digging into their competitor's software. I only meant that I think it was likely that they checked their competitors performance on the standard test, and after seeing that they passed the test, even w/o advanced hardware, and got good performance, that they might run some 'real world tests' to try to figure out how they did this. If the reports are accurate that VW spews out 10-40x what would be expected, this would be pretty obvious. They might not have even been suspecting cheating, just trying to get some clues to out how they did it. And it would be obvious that they didn't do it, not in real world tests.

-ERD50

 

[jazz4cash]

So now the top brass at VW are blaming the code writers and engineers.....



Full article: Volkswagen Blames Emissions Cheating Scandal on Low-Level Technicians | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Blaming low level employees is essentially admitting management has no control and no knowledge of what is happening within the organization they are supposed to be responsible for which is worse than just saying "we screwed up-we need to find and fix the broken links in our management and control systems". It's the 1st Rule of Holes.

 

[ERD50]

...
My guess is the defeat device is a common sw option that most auto manufacturers program. just to be able to measure the effect of emissions controls on performance. ... .

That's exactly the scenario I outlined in my post #95. It's common to have these options available in complex code for debug and evaluation. And they don't really have to 'make their way' into the final code - they leave them there for future use and debugging, and for future versions - that's just how it is done. They don;t take them out and then put them back in later, they are part of the code. JoeWras, who worked directly on embedded sw (I worked with the people who wrote the code, one step removed), agreed with that observation.

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

I'll ask you to evaluate my statement about marginal power generation. Any grid has only X amount of renewables. Adding EVs adds demands, and draws on the 'dirty side'. You can crank up a fossil fuel plant, you can't crank up the sun or wind. You can add more turbines and solar panels, but again - until there is routinely an excess of green energy, it really makes almost no difference. Those EVs are drawing on non-renewables. Explain how it can be otherwise. Averages don't matter, it's the added draw that has to be supported. If you can show me a flaw in that thinking, please do. But don't just say "Anyone can find support for anything", it's not meaningful.

To pick just one element of your POV. If EVs only add demand, there's no electricity used to refine gasoline? I'll let you do your own search, and your own "math."

I only know two Model S owners personally, but I've read the considerable posts of a few others here - they seem to be far more intelligent than you seem to believe.

 

[aja8888]

Lutz was always giving the Opel guys grief LOL The Story Behind The Best Bob Lutz Photo Ever - The Truth About Cars

Thanks! Probably the best old photo of Bob Lutz out there.

With respect to Tesla and VW diesel purchase reasons, I know two Tesla owners, neither of which spent $100K to get the car because of less pollution reasons. They bought for the performance and additional savings from no liquid fuel use. I suspect they understand the emissions rewards, but it was not a driving force in their decision to make the purchase.

I know many (20+) VW TDI owners and if you asked them why they bought their cars, the vast majority would answer for MPG and torque performance. Some may put engine longevity as a first reason. As for pollution benefits, probably no one would make that a top priority. It is what it is.

Interestingly, VW didn't get on the low emissions (aka, clean diesel) bandwagon until the 2009+ models were developed and were using common rail injection technology. Models before common rail were injected using unit injectors (one injector per cylinder, 2005 -2006 model years only), and earlier models using a mechanical injection pump. Earlier models *reportedly* met US emission standards, although they were more relaxed in those years (1998 - 2006).

 

[jazz4cash]

I scanned this entire thread and maybe I missed it on here but somewhere there is some comment about SEC violations if VW admitted to EPA that they cheated without publicly disclosing this info that is material to their stock price.

 

[Disappointed]

Wouldn't the management be curious as to how their engineers were able to achieve such superior performance than their peers (MBZ, BMW, etc.), at least to reward them for their intelligence?
Bernie Madoff was able to achieve consistent positive returns even during the melt down, some people were wondering how, the feeder funds who benefited from the inflow of funds never wanted to ask the question.
The CEO claimed no knowledge? How about other car manufacturers, were they not curious as to how VW achieved the result or they believed that VW engineers were so superior?



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
Mp

 

[aja8888]

I scanned this entire thread and maybe I missed it on here but somewhere there is some comment about SEC violations if VW admitted to EPA that they cheated without publicly disclosing this info that is material to their stock price.

That was mentioned in some publications I read over the last few days. The Germans are on to that point also. I suspect VW will face that issue up the road.

 

[ERD50]

To pick just one element of your POV. If EVs only add demand, there's no electricity used to refine gasoline? I'll let you do your own search, and your own "math."

I've seen that claim before, and I've seen it debunked - with math, and data from verifiable sources.

IIRC, there simply isn't enough electricity generated on the refinery grids to justify that number. Can you back up the claim with numbers, not just a diagram that says "I said so"?

You didn't answer my question about marginal power, you diverted to another topic (kWh to refine gasoline). And used the strategy you accused me of - that you can find stuff on the internet to support any view. So show us the backup data//numbers/logic to your claim.

I have some personal business to deal with, so may not get around to digging up those links and numbers until later, maybe you or someone else will get to it before I do.

I never said the Tesla owners are not intelligent. But some of them are 'believers', and hard to reason with, and some don't care about the environment, they bought it for performance (which is fine). If you go back to that long thread, you'll see that clifp, for one, did accept my data after I explained it. My challenges stood up to his challenges.

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

Wouldn't the management be curious as to how their engineers were able to achieve such superior performance than their peers (MBZ, BMW, etc.), at least to reward them for their intelligence?
...........................
How about other car manufacturers, were they not curious as to how VW achieved the result or they believed that VW engineers were so superior?

Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
Mp

It is surprising that VW cars equipped with essentially one half the emissions systems that MBZ and BMW have in their cars met the standards and bragged about it. (MBZ and BMW use a combination of LNT and SCR emission control technology in their recent diesels while VW used EITHER LNT or SCR in their cars)

I would think that VW senior management would also have been curious how that could have been achieved over the methods used by other competitors.

 

[jazz4cash]

That's exactly the scenario I outlined in my post #95. It's common to have these options available in complex code for debug and evaluation. And they don't really have to 'make their way' into the final code - they leave them there for future use and debugging, and for future versions - that's just how it is done. They don;t take them out and then put them back in later, they are part of the code. JoeWras, who worked directly on embedded sw (I worked with the people who wrote the code, one step removed), agreed with that observation.

-ERD50

This premise makes sense except having the steering input to trigger the response represents a level of intent beyond simply forgetting to toggle the override in the final version of the software. I believe this would have been found and fixed much sooner. Also, I think VW would have quickly used this as an excuse but they appear to have admitted the issue did not occur accidentally.

 

[Texas Proud]

I scanned this entire thread and maybe I missed it on here but somewhere there is some comment about SEC violations if VW admitted to EPA that they cheated without publicly disclosing this info that is material to their stock price.

I posted some question about it... my thinking is that this should be considered material and reported... and it does not seem like it was...


Now we know that they knew over a year ago... I would think that they probably issued bonds during that time... the question is did they do so in the US market since German interest rates are lower than in the US...

Still, I think it should have been reported...

(read a later post noting they did read an article about this)

 

[ERD50]

This premise makes sense except having the steering input to trigger the response represents a level of intent beyond simply forgetting to toggle the override in the final version of the software. I believe this would have been found and fixed much sooner. Also, I think VW would have quickly used this as an excuse but they appear to have admitted the issue did not occur accidentally.

?

I don't think we are communicating. I never said there was any 'forgetting', or any 'accident'. The code is there, it is always there.

A separate module, that might be built in at the very last stage and known to only a small group, does the detection, and re-setting of some flags when it detects the standard test. That would be very intentional and controlled. But the lower level coders would be totally unaware of it.

edit/add: And if VW tried to claim it was an oversight - once they 'fixed' it, their cars would fail the standard test. They'd be in the same boat, but maybe avoid the deceit charges.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

To pick just one element of your POV. If EVs only add demand, there's no electricity used to refine gasoline? I'll let you do your own search, and your own "math." ....

As I said, I have limited time now, but here's a start for you - and this information is what I recall. Later I can take more time to validate what is said here, and follow the links, but as I recall, it all pans out (and I'll acknowledge it if it doesn't - I won't change the subject).

Doubting is thinking: No, you can't power an EV fleet by shutting the refineries down (updated)

Skip to "Problem #3: all that "energy" refineries use is NOT electricity"

Reader's Digest version- the commonly quoted 6kWh/gallon is NOT electricity available to use in an EV - it is mostly fossil fuel energy, stated in kWh, and some/most of that might be a waste, or low level petroleum product. Yes, they burn petroleum waste/low-value products to create the heat for refining. Doesn't that make sense? Heating with electricity is expensive. You have an NG furnace in your home, not electric, right? Same reason.

So see if those numbers add up for you.

BACK ON TOPIC: Regardless, this is getting far afield from the VW thread topic. I made the case that if people are looking for VW to compensate for the additional NOx these cars have/will produce (a reasonable request, I think), than shouldn't we hold EVs to the same standard, if their NOx and SOx emissions exceed standards of other vehicles? They aren't violating any laws (but IMO, that's an omission of the law), but the effect on the environment is similar (some adjustment, maybe, for the non-local power plants. But that doesn't adjust it to zero either.

-ERD50

 

[travelover]

Wouldn't the management be curious as to how their engineers were able to achieve such superior performance than their peers (MBZ, BMW, etc.), at least to reward them for their intelligence?
Bernie Madoff was able to achieve consistent positive returns even during the melt down, some people were wondering how, the feeder funds who benefited from the inflow of funds never wanted to ask the question.
The CEO claimed no knowledge? How about other car manufacturers, were they not curious as to how VW achieved the result or they believed that VW engineers were so superior?

That certainly wasn't the culture at the MegaMotors where I worked. I recall being asked why a competitor was better for a performance attribute and my team did a detailed tear down on both vehicles with a parts display and detailed costing on the affected components. The competition had spent about three times as much to achieve that attribute level. My management's response? "Well, we're smarter than them aren't we?"

 

[Midpack]

IIRC, there simply isn't enough electricity generated on the refinery grids to justify that number. Can you back up the claim with numbers, not just a diagram that says "I said so"?

You didn't answer my question about marginal power, you diverted to another topic (kWh to refine gasoline). And used the strategy you accused me of - that you can find stuff on the internet to support any view. So show us the backup data//numbers/logic to your claim.

I am getting dizzy going in circles. My point about 'finding stuff on the internet to support any view' wasn't directed at one POV or another, just the idea that anyone can probably find a credible link to support any view.

The diagram came from a lengthy article, but since you've suggested repeatedly you do your own math, I didn't bother with the link (and since you've categorically dismissed the last several I offered). That and your challenge to check your math that I haven't seen, and don't care to. You're welcome to your POV. We disagree, life goes on...

I didn't answer your question about marginal power, because you seem to have missed the point. There is most certainly electricity used to run refineries and distribute gasoline, that largely offsets the electricity used to charge EVs. Less gasoline, more EV charging if that's not clear.

 

[ERD50]

I am getting dizzy going in circles. My point about 'finding stuff on the internet to support any view' wasn't directed at one POV or another, just the idea that anyone can probably find a credible link to support any view.

The diagram came from a lengthy article, but since you've suggested repeatedly you do your own math, I didn't bother with the link (and since you've categorically dismissed the last several I offered). That and your challenge to check your math that I haven't seen, and don't care to. You're welcome to your POV. We disagree, life goes on...

I didn't answer your question about marginal power, because you seem to have missed the point. There is most certainly electricity used to run refineries and distribute gasoline, that largely offsets the electricity used to charge EVs. Less gasoline, more EV charging if that's not clear.

Sorry, I did miss the point at first. It took me a minute (and after my post) to make the connection that the electricity you claim is used for refining gasoline would be eliminated and then available for an EV w/o having to ADD that energy marginally to the grid.

But it sure would be helpful to have the sources of data and the calculations on that 6 kWh/gallon number instead of just a claim and a "WTF?" graphic.

It won't be until this evening that I might have a chance to double-triple check my numbers, but my first pass shows just what I recalled - there just isn't enough electricity produced in the US to reasonably support your claim.

If you (or anyone else) wants to look into it before I get back to it - just look up # of barrels refined in the US per day, multiply by gallons/barrel, multiply by 6 kWh/gallon for daily electrical energy consumption that refineries would use. Unless I slipped up and moved a decimal point, it looks like refineries would need to be responsible for ALL the electricity that the industrial sector consumes. Not very realistic, is it?

A couple links with data:

Table 5.9 Refinery Capacity and Utilization, 1949-2011

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#Electricity_generation

I'll share my numbers after I check them....

Oh, also - when oil is refined, you get gasoline, diesel, kerosene (jet fuel), and some other products. Do you know how that figures in the your chart? Is 6 kWh only for gasoline? More total power to get the diesel, etc? Or did they assign ALL the kWh to refine a barrel to the gasoline portion?

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

Lots of good data here (general website) even if you don't appreciate their articles/conclusions.

The 6 kWh electricity to refine gasoline would drive an electric car the same distance as a gasser? | The Long Tail Pipe

 

[ERD50]

Lots of good data here (general website) even if you don't appreciate their articles/conclusions.

The 6 kWh electricity to refine gasoline would drive an electric car the same distance as a gasser? | The Long Tail Pipe

Lots of good data here (general website) even if you don't appreciate their articles/conclusions.

The 6 kWh electricity to refine gasoline would drive an electric car the same distance as a gasser? | The Long Tail Pipe

Just so you don't think I forgot about you ...

I was able to 2x-3x check my numbers last night, but I have not had time to put them in as concise and clear a presentation format as I would like. Hopefully later today, but I do have some much higher priority personal stuff going on, so please bear with me.

But to not leave you hanging, I'll provide the gist of it, and detail the numbers later (the numbers themselves are fairly straightforward, the explanations of them is what I'm working on). But after reading through the link you gave, I actually got confused if you were trying to support the claim that 6 kWh of electricity is used to refine a gallon of gas, and that can propel an EV about as far as the gas would propel an ICE, or if you were trying to counter it, and use it as an example of 'you can find support for any view'... The whole “WTF?” part comes across as pretty snarky and superior, unless I'm misreading that as well.

But since you said (bold mine):

There is most certainly electricity used to run refineries and distribute gasoline, that largely offsets the electricity used to charge EVs.

I'll go with the 'support' angle.

It is pretty easy to disprove the statement, and I'm saddened/disappointed that someone as brilliant and respected as Elon Musk is repeating a statement that is clearly rubbish, and misleads (either purposely, or through ignorance/inattentiveness) the public on these important topics. And that leads to “appeal to authority” false arguments all over the Internet. And Elon clearly assigns this to "refining" in the links (though they mostly talked about a 5 kWh figure, not 6, but close).

Bottom line, as I expected, there simply isn't enough electricity generated in the US to support the claim. That claim results in a Terawatt-hour figure that exceeds ALL the electricity allocated to ALL industrial processes combined (or about 25% of total electrical generation). Simply not rational. You can try to break down numbers and energy assignments any way you want, but that much electricity simply cannot be accounted for.

Now, trying to get an accurate figure is really getting into the weeds, but it is clear that the 6 kWh figure is way overstated. To dig deeper, you get into complications such as:

Hmmm, aren't some of the byproducts of refining sent to power plants to generate electricity? How to account for that?

What is the electrical energy delta between a hybrid and an EV (lithium battery production for example), amortized over their useful lives?​

And probably many more. But I'll get the 6 kWh numbers posted later.

STAYING ON TOPIC: Yes, this still gets back to the thread topic - if we are looking to VW for compensatory payments (separate from 'fines') for the excess NOx their non-compliant vehicles emit, isn't it reasonable to look to EVs and understand how much NOx and SOx they are responsible for, and shouldn't they have to pay to reduce these pollutants, in the same way that we pay for the pollution controls on our non-EV cars?

Which brings me to another point I repeatedly make. A “gate” is just a bad way to manage things. Emissions should not be pass/fail (samclem touched on this), but a car maker could have to pay for X level of emissions. The lower they are, the less they pay, the more popular the car could be (depending on costs to lower emissions). It would motivate further reductions and cost effectiveness beyond the 'gate', and reward small, efficient cars over larger ones that simply 'pass'. And heavy emissions could be so expensive, there would be virtually no vehicles like that on the road. In this case, averages do count.

Imagine if adding another $10 of equipment lowered emissions another 20% beyond the pass/fail level. Today, a manufacturer would not spend the $10 - they passed, and that's all they care about.

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

Be sure to factor in night time/off peak EV charging, as many owners charge at night when demand is down (some chargers have timers to be sure of it). In those (many) cases, there is no additional/marginal power demand. Leveling of demand is a benefit to power plants as you probably know. There are all sorts of sources, but I will let you search for one you agree with, since you summarily dismiss links I provide (without a full read in some cases).

I regret the WTF? - it was part of the graphic I linked to, but I should have taken the time to crop it out. That author was simply saying if the amount of electricity used to refine gasoline for an ICE was roughly equal to the amount of electricity to charge an EV and drive roughly the same number of miles, it makes more sense to just charge an EV than to bother with using electricity to refine crude into gasoline. That doesn't even factor in all the other huge energy demand in refining aside from electricity and crude procurement and gasoline distribution costs.

 

[ERD50]

Be sure to factor in night time/off peak EV charging, as many owners charge at night when demand is down (some chargers have timers to be sure of it). In those (many) cases, there is no additional/marginal power demand. Leveling of demand is a benefit to power plants as you probably know. There are all sorts of sources, but I will let you search for one you agree with, since you summarily dismiss links I provide (without a full read in some cases).

I don't 'summarily dismiss links you provide', but if those links (and your explanations) don't include sources and the background to the calculations so that I can fully understand how they got to their conclusion, it ends up being a "take it on faith" proposition, and I'm not interested in that - both sides have plenty of 'faith' - I need to dig deeper. The Elon Musk numbers and quotes came from your links.

And briefly, just because demand is lower at night, it doesn't necessarily hold that there routinely is unused excess available to charge EVs. Coal plant output can be lowered, just not quickly. It is my understanding that they do lower the output of the coal plants at night. The power to charge EVs must come from somewhere.

We might be seeing some occasional periods, in some areas, where wind power at night exceeds demand (sorry, no data/links at the moment - I'm just talking generally/casually for now). It would be great if EVs could suck up that excess. But my gut tells me (subject to data when/if I can find it), that if you take this to the 'big picture', and when enough EVs to actually make a dent in something like total gas/diesel consumption are on-line, that there isn't going to be enough excess to matter much. It's too hard to match supply/demand with an intermittent source, and it gets expensive. So a couple nights of low/no wind need to be back-filled with fossil. And if you have enough wind on an average night to charge those EVs, you will have excess on above average nights (roughly half the time!) - energy not consumed and paid for makes it harder to recapture the capital investment for wind. That raises the cost of renewable energy.

Realistically, everything tells me we are a very long way from having enough clean energy for EVs. So far, that I suspect the solution will be something else.

-ERD50