# Tesla EVs Could See Swiss Ban. Electricity Might Be in Short Supply.



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

Tesla stock is down quite a bit today after possible Swiss Ban due to concerns about electricity that might be in short supply. Is this just an European thing or could Big Oil use this fear to influence legislatures to stop the electrification of transports?

Link


----------



## skygraff (Jun 2, 2017)

Even after reading the story, I find this super hard to believe. Unless it’s a ploy by oil lobbyists or climate change deniers, it doesn’t make much sense.

Switzerland uses more electricity than a lot of its neighbors but their primary source is hydroelectric (could be diminished due to reduced mountain snow) followed by solar, wood, wind, waste, and nuclear. Granted, they import more than they export and use more than they generate but, that imbalance appears to be artificially imposed for political reasons and, maybe, a lack of battery storage.

I’m a complete doofus on this subject but I don’t see how limiting electric vehicles would offset the country’s energy needs when the concern about reduced oil for electricity should also raise concerns about fuel oil for ICE vehicles. This would be the time to encourage EVs and battery storage (even V2G) since it would serve to both reduce dependency on outside sources and help reverse the trend toward smaller mountain snows.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

skygraff said:


> Switzerland uses more electricity than a lot of its neighbors but their primary source is hydroelectric (could be diminished due to reduced mountain snow) followed by solar, wood, wind, waste, and nuclear. Granted, they import more than they export and use more than they generate but, that imbalance appears to be artificially imposed for political reasons and, maybe, a lack of battery storage.


The worry is this:

"Switzerland considering a ban on driving electric vehicles this winter due to concern over electrical capacity of the grid,” green energy critic Patrick Moore tweeted. “The logical conclusion of a dysfunctional energy policy. 100% EVs requires doubling electricity generation.”

This seems to me like a valid concern for 15 years from now. It's not like they will go full EV during the coming winter. Maybe Swiss Banks are worried about their investments?


----------



## jsmay311 (Oct 2, 2017)

The first sentence of the linked article explains the situation perfectly clearly:

“_Switzerland is prepping to ban the use of electric vehicles for non-essential journeys in case of a nationwide energy shortage spurred by the war in Ukraine.”_

Notes:

It’s a *draft* *contingency plan*, only to be enacted if there’s a severe energy shortage.
It’s due to the Ukraine war and Europe being cut off from Russian energy supplies (mainly natural gas, which is widely used for building heating and electricity generation), not because of an inadequate Swiss grid.
It has nothing to do with conspiracies involving Swiss banks, Big Oil, the Illuminati, or lizard people.
The contingency plan envisions 3 tiers of action in response to energy shortages, with the EV restrictions only being implemented in the third/final “emergency” tier.
It would only apply to “non-essential” EV trips.
It would apply to all EVs, not just Teslas.
It would also impose severe restrictions almost everywhere else across the economy: on homes, businesses, public buildings, etc.
It was first reported last week and has nothing to do with Tesla stock price drop today, which is reported due to production issues in China.


----------



## skygraff (Jun 2, 2017)

I agree that this isn’t about Teslas but I disagree that the headline is perfectly clear. Even reading further, the article is clickbait and further muddies the water with mention of electric leaf blowers and public restroom hot water.

Yes, this is about Russia’s war on Ukraine but, based on the forms of energy being imported and generated, the language of that contingency plan is being picked apart to focus this on one or two segments rather than the full spectrum. Even the draft concepts miss some major aspects of energy generation, storage, and transport; common shortfalls of governmental energy policies on a global scale.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

jsmay311 said:


> ... or lizard people.


 I read somewhere the Lizard People controlled everything.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

francoisp said:


> This seems to me like a valid concern for 15 years from now.


Not necessarily, because gasoline doesn't come bubbling out of the ground. Oil has to be pumped out, which takes electricity - or burns diesel, if it's away from the grid, but then that diesel takes electricity to refine from oil. Oh yes, the refining takes electricity too. Then you use some more electricity to make extra diesel which gets the fuel to the gas stations via trucks, ships, and rail. And then finally, the gas is pumped out of the ground by 3-phase electric industrial motors, which are not particularly efficient.

That's not quite break-even with EV electric usage, though. But then there is economy of scale. With traditional electric generation, the costs increase in steps. So if they can have EV's charging at random times of the day and not all at once, that creates a plateau at any part of the day where generating power will be efficient. It should actually make it easier for power companies to figure out demand, purchase equipment, decide how much capacity and how many plants they need.

So maybe they might need to increase overall maximum capacity at some point, but EV's are not going to suddenly overwhelm the grid.


----------



## Eskay (1 mo ago)

Its only for Tesla of course if EV= Tesla 😊. Love to keep that way.

I hope offices will be closed before we reach final stage of contingency .. then you can go for a trip in neighbouring cities in DE FR …


----------



## bwilson4web (Mar 4, 2019)

We’ll if they are also turning off the street lights and illuminated advertising signs, it would have some credibility. It isn’t as if they don’t have windy mountains for wind turbines.

Bob Wilson


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

francoisp said:


> Tesla stock is down quite a bit today after [reasons] ...


 That statement is true almost every day for the past year+.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

bwilson4web said:


> We’ll if they are also turning off the street lights and illuminated advertising signs, it would have some credibility. It isn’t as if they don’t have windy mountains for wind turbines.


I think it's more of what we've been facing as EV drivers since day 1: The perception we're doing something abnormal, and that somehow it's causing an impact on everyone else. That's why the anger toward EV's and EV owners that we see from time to time.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

JasonF said:


> I think it's more of what we've been facing as EV drivers since day 1: The perception we're doing something abnormal, and that somehow it's causing an impact on everyone else. That's why the anger toward EV's and EV owners that we see from time to time.


I wish there would some coloring agent added to fuel to turn the car exhaust black or some other color so these ICE drivers would become conscious of who is harming who. At least in the days of horses and carriages the pollution was visible to all.


----------



## bwilson4web (Mar 4, 2019)

francoisp said:


> I wish there would some coloring agent added to fuel to turn the car exhaust black or some other color so these ICE drivers would become conscious of who is harming who. At least in the days of horses and carriages the pollution was visible to all.


Worn rings give blue smoke and out of tune give carbon soot. We have both in Alabama.

Bob Wilson


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

JasonF said:


> I think it's more of what we've been facing as EV drivers since day 1: The perception we're doing something abnormal, and that somehow it's causing an impact on everyone else. That's why the anger toward EV's and EV owners that we see from time to time.


You should read the article.
Or at least jsmay311 's post above.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

garsh said:


> You should read the article.
> Or at least jsmay311 's post above.


I did, but it doesn't change my impression all that much. 

Because the question I would ask is why pick on EV's as one of the first items? The answer is that it's because that's more acceptable than most of the other items they considered. Those who drive EV's would be higher income and/or more likely to have alternate gas-powered transportation, and/or have the ability to absorb any negative effects of not being able to drive their EV for a few months. And since the vast majority of people drive gas cars, or at least have access to a gas car if they have an EV, it would not seem to do much harm overall.

Thing is, all of those reasons are actually correct! But they also don't save that much electricity compared to a lot of other measures. Which leaves me thinking that they're either badly educated about EV charging (maybe they believe 18% of cars being EV's means they will save 18% of electrical consumption by stopping them? or that a 70 kWh battery means each car uses 70 kWh every moment it's driving around?) or they're reaching for convenient, low hanging fruit in order to look like they're doing something.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

JasonF said:


> Because the question I would ask is why pick on EV's as one of the first items?


And this shows me that you didn't read carefully. EVs are NOT one of the first items - it's in the _third_ level of Emergency restrictions, which includes limiting electric heating to only 65 degrees and forcing retail stores to limit the hours they are open. Plus, it doesn't prevent EV use - it says to limit use to "necessary journeys".


----------



## christagan (1 mo ago)

jsmay311 said:


> It’s due to the Ukraine war and Europe being cut off from Russian energy supplies (mainly natural gas, which is widely used for building heating and electricity generation), _not because of an inadequate Swiss grid._


 That last part seems important. If you're reliant on another country for...well, anything...and that country's leadership goes b-s crazy, you are going to be in a jam from an infrastructure perspective. The downside of globalization of everything. In addition to these types of contingency plans, smart leadership (oxymoron) should be making plans for self-sufficiency including food and energy production.


----------

