When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
We are building a new facility. The city was pushing (hard) for us to install a charger (on our dime) in our parking lot (close like the handicap spots). All else set aside...we do not need folks sitting in that spot for what ever time it takes (according to AI - 2:15 to charge their RV1+). We also do not want to maintain it or have any of our patients complain that this or that is not working (that is why they are at the facility to begin with).
Now, as a business owner and as someone who deals with the general population day in and day out...If I owned a gas station I want you on my property for no more than 15 minutes. Come, get your gas, buy a drink, go pee....leave. I would not want folks sitting there for an hour expecting me to have free WiFi a clean bathroom (two times) and what ever other thing. For that? Go use the stations at Target and wander the store while you charge.
I dont want one because we do not need folks around for that long.
A couple of points.
- chargers can be a source of revenue
- the charge rate can be set to increase each 30 minutes to entice shorter time charging
- chargers can be installed and owned by a network that pays you rent
- high speed chargers that can charge 80% in 15 minutes earn much higher rates and are in high demand
A couple of points.
- chargers can be a source of revenue - If that was the case, why would more business owners (such as myself) install them? More over, why does the Govt need to pressure a person like me - who is opening a MEDICAL OFFICE need to have some kind of pressure to install a freaking EV charger?
- the charge rate can be set to increase each 30 minutes to entice shorter time charging - 30min? In that time I can fill my RV and be
- chargers can be installed and owned by a network that pays you rent - could not be less interested. Last thing we need is folks at our front desk complaining on how our charger is the wrong brand and does not work with their car....I have seen this more than once at hotels.
- high speed chargers that can charge 80% in 15 minutes earn much higher rates and are in high demand - Hell, the city was not happy about how much voltage I need...then they want me to add a freaking charger for our local COAL POWERED "Eco-Friendly" cars?
A couple of points.
- chargers can be a source of revenue - If that was the case, why would more business owners (such as myself) install them? More over, why does the Govt need to pressure a person like me - who is opening a MEDICAL OFFICE need to have some kind of pressure to install a freaking EV charger?
- the charge rate can be set to increase each 30 minutes to entice shorter time charging - 30min? In that time I can fill my RV and be
- chargers can be installed and owned by a network that pays you rent - could not be less interested. Last thing we need is folks at our front desk complaining on how our charger is the wrong brand and does not work with their car....I have seen this more than once at hotels.
- high speed chargers that can charge 80% in 15 minutes earn much higher rates and are in high demand - Hell, the city was not happy about how much voltage I need...then they want me to add a freaking charger for our local COAL POWERED "Eco-Friendly" cars?
- slow adoption does not always mean it’s a bad idea, often its lack of awareness
- that said, the government should NOT pressure but build a beneficial business case, including incentives. Obviously without a biz case you should decline
- you can fill your RV in less than 30 minutes, how is that relevant? EV charging can be done at different rates. You can’t have gasoline refill at home or at businesses smaller than a Costco.
- When you look into charger networks there is no wrong brand. They can charge all vehicles. You can also put a sign on the charger that it is an independent business, call 1800xxx for assistance
- If the city is unwilling to support your power needs then it has no say on EV chargers. Time to advocate for coal generation replacement since even without EV charging you business, home and daily life is spewing coal. Burning coal releases particulate matter (soot), sulfur dioxide (acid rain), nitrogen oxides (smog), and mercury (neurotoxin). It causes more premature deaths per unit of energy produced than any other source.
-It causes more premature deaths per unit of energy produced than any other source.
humans are living longer than they have ever lived in the history of mankind. 🤣🤣🤣 are more comfortable lives too for that matter.
that said I absolutely agree with you and it is a shame the United States does not refocus more of our energies on to nuclear power as opposed to some of the other delusional options out there.
We will need "All of the Above," not only in the future but today.
Coal saved the East Coast last month, and prevented many deaths.
Plus it's affordable, as an already installed base.
Yeah, people think we can just produce enough energy from sunshine and wind. Not considering seasonal changes and not every place has plenty of sun and wind. Some places have too much sun and don't know where to go with all the energy, so it gets wasted. That's the problem here in California. The kind of energy storage we'd need to store this excess energy and then distribute around the world during times when it's needed, is largely a pipe dream.
One of the things I find interesting is real time data of how much "clean" electricity my house actually uses. You always hear the pundits promoting how much of our electricity is renewable. Problem is they never factor in the seasonal and weather issues and sun not shining at night when most people use electricity at home, charging their EVs over night. My utility provides this data and I can see it in the Apple Home app. For example here is last week. All of 27% of the electricity I actually used was clean. My annual average is not much better at about 34%. Even if I had solar panels on my roof. What's coming out of the wall is the same for everybody. There's only one grid in a given area. Only exception is if you have a home battery and can power your home with the energy from your panels directly, but even then, in the winter that usually isn't enough. Would need a much bigger battery.
Yeah, people think we can just produce enough energy from sunshine and wind. Not considering seasonal changes and not every place has plenty of sun and wind. Some places have too much sun and don't know where to go with all the energy, so it gets wasted. That's the problem here in California. The kind of energy storage we'd need to store this excess energy and then distribute around the world during times when it's needed, is largely a pipe dream.
One of the things I find interesting is real time data of how much "clean" electricity my house actually uses. You always hear the pundits promoting how much of our electricity is renewable. Problem is they never factor in the seasonal and weather issues and sun not shining at night when most people use electricity at home, charging their EVs over night. My utility provides this data and I can see it in the Apple Home app. For example here is last week. All of 27% of the electricity I actually used was clean. My annual average is not much better at about 34%. Even if I had solar panels on my roof. What's coming out of the wall is the same for everybody. There's only one grid in a given area. Only exception is if you have a home battery and can power your home with the energy from your panels directly, but even then, in the winter that usually isn't enough. Would need a much bigger battery.
An effective, durable and cost efficient energy system is not one type of generation. It is complex portfolio of technologies fit together and optimized for the location and its population size, weather, an other factors. Some places have more sunshine, some have more wind, some have water flow, some have reservoirs of water that can store pumped energy. No utility uses only solar or only wind or only nuclear or only coal or natural gas. The blend keeps changing as technology and costs change. Sometimes it gets out of whack when the wrong incentives are used. But it is all headed in the direction of less coal and natural gas in the long run.
An effective, durable and cost efficient energy system is not one type of generation. It is complex portfolio of technologies fit together and optimized for the location and its population size, weather, an other factors. Some places have more sunshine, some have more wind, some have water flow, some have reservoirs of water that can store pumped energy. No utility uses only solar or only wind or only nuclear or only coal or natural gas. The blend keeps changing as technology and costs change. Sometimes it gets out of whack when the wrong incentives are used. But it is all headed in the direction of less coal and natural gas in the long run.
We don't have coal anymore in California. The last coal plant was shut down. What I posted was not about coal. Natural gas on the other hand isn't gonna go away anytime soon unless we find another energy source that can be used to stabilize the grid. The problem with many renewables is that they are volatile. They don't produce stable electricity. Especially solar and wind, so natural gas plants which can be quickly ramped up and down take up the slack. Coal isn't very suitable for that as it can't be quicky ramped up and down, neither is nuclear and water flow based generation. Those are good at covering the base load.
Last edited by superswiss; Feb 2, 2026 at 01:57 AM.
We don't have coal anymore in California. The last coal plant was shut down. What I posted was not about coal. Natural gas on the other hand isn't gonna go away anytime soon unless we find another energy source that can be used to stabilize the grid. The problem with many renewables is that they are volatile. They don't produce stable electricity. Especially solar and wind, so natural gas plants which can be quickly ramped up and down take up the slack. Coal isn't very suitable for that as it can't be quicky ramped up and down, neither is nuclear and water flow based generation. Those are good at covering the base load.
Agreed. There is a lot of research going into energy storage. One very effective solution is to use solar or wind energy to pump water uphill to a reservoir. At night the reservoir is drained down hill to power hydro generators. This way excess daytime capacity is shifted to the night rather than being lost.
Agreed. There is a lot of research going into energy storage. One very effective solution is to use solar or wind energy to pump water uphill to a reservoir. At night the reservoir is drained down hill to power hydro generators. This way excess daytime capacity is shifted to the night rather than being lost.
Rube Goldberg power...when we could just make WAY more than we need (Nuke) and steam off the excess energy as needed. Huh, can be so safe and simple....
Rube Goldberg power...when we could just make WAY more than we need (Nuke) and steam off the excess energy as needed. Huh, can be so safe and simple....
It's not as simple as that.
Nuclear costs 3 to 4 X solar or wind per Mwh. Solar power costs have dropped 90% since 2009 and continue to drop.
A nuclear plant takes 15 years to build while a solar farm can be online in 1 year.
For these and other reasons utilities use a variety of power generation methods in combination. Using power sources in a complimentary way has gotten more sophisticated over time.
Agreed. There is a lot of research going into energy storage. One very effective solution is to use solar or wind energy to pump water uphill to a reservoir. At night the reservoir is drained down hill to power hydro generators. This way excess daytime capacity is shifted to the night rather than being lost.
Many of these have major geographical challenges. You can't have Pumped Storage Hydropower just anywhere, and building new ones is nearly impossible. The environmentalists seem to have an issue with flooding entire valleys. They even want the existing dams to be torn down and the valleys restored. Here in California we have a battery storage plant in Moss Landing. It caught fire twice so far within a couple of years. It's near a nature preserve area. The entire area had to be evacuated due to the toxic gases and a recent study found extremely high concentration of heavy metals in the soil everywhere around there now. Not sure that's any better than burning natural gas.
Last edited by superswiss; Feb 2, 2026 at 01:51 PM.
Many of these have major geographical challenges. You can't have Pumped Storage Hydropower just anywhere, and building new ones is nearly impossible. The environmentalists seem to have an issue with flooding entire valleys. They even want the existing dams to be torn down and the valleys restored. Here in California we have a battery storage plant in Moss Landing. It caught fire twice so far within a couple of years. It's near a nature preserve area. The entire area had to be evacuated due to the toxic gases and a recent study found extremely high concentration of heavy metals in the soil everywhere around there now. Not sure that's any better than burning natural gas.
Agreed. Can't have pumped storage hydropower anywhere. Also batteries (stored chemical reactions) are the least desireable. There is also thermal storage, and various others.
Solution for any location tailored to its features and the available technologies. Driven by cost efficiency and power supply stability.
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Slideshow: A one-of-one U.S.-spec Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster became even rarer after a factory-backed transformation at McLaren's headquarters.
