My parents town is very suburban-rural- there’s lots of trees. People tend to value their privacy and I would guess most houses are on least 2 acres, but there are plenty of absurd mansions on 7-10+ acre estates to be found.
They don’t have gas hookups in their neighborhood, so they have a smaller buried tank for their cooktop and 2 of 3 fireplaces. Heat and hot water are oil. Traditional central air. They have a ridiculous 20-something (28?) KW commercial diesel standby generator which AFAIK can handle everything in their 5500sq ft house… except maybe the pool pump? They also have a 6000w Honda generator from their old house.
I just don’t understand what this power generation strategy is. There’s a big push in some places to phase out ICE engines in cars and tools, phase out gas/oil home appliances- switching all of that over to electric, meanwhile shutting down fossil fuel plants (and nuclear). While there’s definitely applications for solar/wind, they’re not capable of meeting our energy needs- plus there is very likely a cost issues caused by supply/demand. Relying on cheap, subsidized solar panels from China isn’t energy independence either. There are very limited ways of storing energy in a cost effective manner right now. And while sodium ion batteries are supposedly 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of lithium, their lifespan is 1/3 to 1/4 compared to lithium- so basically a wash. Plus they can take up 2x as much space.
I am all for creating a cleaner environment, I have nothing against EV’s, etc but I think there is a huge problem that many politicians and many in the public don’t consider about the practicality, feasibility, and externalities of these plans. Too often political decisions are made based on optics rather than the what actually makes sense.
We can convert every last fossil fuel energy consuming device to electric, but it’s a waste if we don’t have the energy to actually power them. I don’t think we should putting the cart before the horse, but it does makes sense to utilize our “green” technologies where they most benefit. ie Put the solar panels in SoCal, not New England where they’re 80% less efficient.
And all these articles that say the grid can handle 80% EV adoption are nonsense (and don’t factor in the phasing out of fossil fuels in home utilities and power generation)- what the ”experts” (advocacy groups) actually say is that the grid *could* (or “will” with major changes) support it provided we vastly expand renewables, rely tremendously on battery storage (probably not realistic given costs and element supply constraints) create a smart grid, have smart charging for vehicles, build new transmission lines (easier said than done), mandatory + voluntary energy conservation, etc, etc, etc.