Fortunately for EV charging, there are Energy Management Systems compatible with NEC 625.41 A to manage overall load to the grid. This can address both the spikes (the rate of change in load, impacting voltage flicker) as well as the maximum load from the grid from a collection of chargers.

You're right that 350 kW is an incredible amount of power, but in many parts of the US, the distribution feeders operate at 12.47 or 13.8 kV. A 1/0 ASCR conductor (overhead) is rated for 242 amps, so at that voltage the circuit has a thermal rating of 5,000 kVA. Assuming 0.9 power factor, that's enough for 12 of the 350 kW chargers (at full output). A more typical conductor for a utility would be 336 MCM, rated for 519 amps, allowing for more than 27 of the 350 kW chargers (again, assuming all are at full output). Of course, the chargers are sharing the distribution circuit with other customers -- the indicative numbers would be for dedicated service.

1,500 kW is already claimed on paper through the Megawatt Charging Standard. That quickly gets to what you talk about -- taking service at transmission voltages.

I support your decision to buy whatever you like in the market, though my experience is different than what you describe.

I paid less than 1/2 that ($40k) in March 2018 (more than five years ago) and have had no failure (though my range has decreased about 10%). Doing the math, assuming 75 mph, 2 hours is 150 miles. At 0.250 kWh/mi (what my car uses), that is 37.5 kWh. If it takes 16 hours to charge 37.5 kWh, then the person would be charging at approx 2.3 kW. Most home chargers are 3x that and most fast chargers are between 25x and 100x that rate.

Regarding your points:
1) Your observations on their business model are speculation. They offered you terms to lease your land based on a royalty. You weren't comfortable with that and appropriately decided not to lease your land. Other developers offer a fixed lease, or a combination of fixed and royalty. Regardless, this point is unrelated to abandonment of wind turbines.
2) The turbine locations they proposed would have created unacceptable risk (regardless of the compensation discussed in point 1). You appropriately decided not to lease the land. However this is unrelated to turbine abandonment.
3) As lessor, you requested remediation security (commonly requested) and they declined. That the location was on a ridge line instead of flat plains would have undoubtably increased the cost to both install and remove (or repower). You're correct that they were blowing smoke -- at the end of a 25 year lease they would not be "valuable equipment"

However, what would be valuable, is a site that is permitted for wind power with infrastructure to connect to the grid, and a grid configured to allow for that interconnection. It is these attributes which make old wind-farms valuable and attractive to investors and developers who want to replace existing turbines (typically 15-25 years) with new technology which produces substantially more energy from the same amount of wind.

Source: I develop greenfield and repowered wind and solar power plants.

Unless we get electricity too cheap to meter, the old wind turbines will be replaced with new wind turbines. These old turbines are located in the best wind resource (and already paid the fixed infrastructure cost to connect to the grid), so the most desirable to repower.

There are many examples in California where turbines were first installed in the 1980s which have already, or are in the process now, of repowering.

Yes, I don't smoke tobacco. And I generally avoid sitting in confined spaces with tobacco smokers.

However, I don't believe hydrocarbons will kill me, my offspring, or the planet. I do think that atmospheric CO2 negatively impacts the climate and lowers all of our standards of living. And I think ocean acidification is bad. Furthermore, I don't think you should be subsidizing my price of hydrocarbons.[1] And if I choose to use hydrocarbons once the direct and indirect subsidies are removed, that should be my right -- that's how a well functioning free market works. People who don't drive cars shouldn't subsidize those who do. Government, through fossil fuel subsidies, shouldn't be "picking winners"

This isn't about "setting examples" but is about an off-balance sheet liability for the planet which will be a drag on productivity and standards of living for future generations.

[1] http://www.worldenergyoutlook....

My read is not that the academics and scientists are trying to counter "speech" but to counter "crime." The way you counter crime you don't agree with is change the LAWS.

So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?

And about time?

If I had modpoints, I'd mod you up.

Stanford receives electricity from two sources -- Cardinal Cogen, an onsite natural gas cogeneration unit, and PG&E. Neither of which use coal.

Ideal for me would be to have a Google Earth layer that when I edit, my edits appear on others who share the layer and vice-versa. Any solutions?

Perhaps the Mammoths were too preoccupied trying to "save the earth" when it was themselves that needed saving!

Rarely have I wished to have mod points as much as I do now to mod parent up.

Pollution is an externality. By not internalizing the cost (through a revenue-neutral tax), we are subsidizing the polluter. Yes, level the playing field and let the market figure it out.

At $24/ton CO2, the price of electricity (100% coal) would increase $0.024/kWh. For natural gas derived electricity, $0.013. Assuming a fuel mix of 50% coal, 25% gas, 25% CO2 free, then that's an increase of $0.015, assuming no market-based substitution. And if revenue neutral, that money would be returned to tax payers.

Perhaps someone can explain why we should continue to subsidize coal?

Yes, but in general we don't go to heroic lengths to save them. People are intrinsically motivated to work in their own best interest. Which is why "save the earth" isn't a message that resonates with anyone other than the environmentalists.

Headline is hyperbolic. Astroid sized impacts aren't going to destroy Earth. It'll be fine. It's the humans for which we need to be concerned.