Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not advocating Storage. Just Grid-Tied Silicon Solar PV.
The generation that has traditionally needed Storage is Nukes. Biggest Storage on the Grid is because of Nukes. Nukes cannot hit the Daytime Peak, and about half of what they generate is surplus (worthless) at night. So storage was made to move surplus Nuke Electricity into daytime. Did not matter, the Nuke still went under and shutdown. Here is what is left >>>
You are quick with the put-downs yet you do not really seem to understand the issues. It is you that doesn't have a clue - if source is solar, then need something to cover when sun is not shining such as night or overcast. Wind has similar issues - you can't control power output to meet demand.
Nukes have been going under in the US but not the world - mostly due to those who are "fearful" and not really understanding the technology. Nukes need no storage - they can run whenever wanted - I am guessing that you do not really understand how the technology works, have never run a power plant or have any idea about meeting capacity.
BTW - Hydro storage is an older solution that is much less efficient in energy and space use than most other "storage" solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T
All true . . . however it conflicts with the Dinosaurs' Oil Forever nonsense . . . so it must be False?
Where did I say anything like that, you are way off on your understanding.
BTW - I have several EVs that I drive daily, I haven't bought gas in over a year.
Right now we can drive where we want, when we want, and fill up at a selection of 24 hour gas stations. If I want to drive, say, to North Carolina in the middle of the night I can. In an EV environment, will I have to take into account the ability to charge?
Your arguments are good considerations when evaluating the benefits/costs of EVs right now, but those will surely disappear as EV use becomes more widespread...There were no filling stations before 1915, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Electric vehicles are more energy-efficient than ICE vehicles. In passenger cars, EVs consume 25% the amount of energy in comparison to ICE vehicles and the EVs use less polluting sources of energy.
We've posted the calculations here before--EVs are not clearly so much more energy efficient than ICEs. A great deal of energy is wasted in transmission, charging and storage of electricity, and of course, when the juice is generated via fossil fuel, your co2 "pollutant" is released at the plant, not your tail pipe, but released just the same.
Not sure about the energy accounting of oil/gas drilling/processing/transportation vs mining/processing/transportation of Lithium for batteries, but I wouldn't be surprised if the difference greatly favors fossil fuel....
..and of course the strategic disadvantage reliance on materials (Li) & products (solar panels)the Chinese put us at if we depend heavily on EVs.
We've posted the calculations here before--EVs are not clearly so much more energy efficient than ICEs. A great deal of energy is wasted in transmission, charging and storage of electricity, and of course, when the juice is generated via fossil fuel, your co2 "pollutant" is released at the plant, not your tail pipe, but released just the same.
Not sure about the energy accounting of oil/gas drilling/processing/transportation vs mining/processing/transportation of Lithium for batteries, but I wouldn't be surprised if the difference greatly favors fossil fuel....
..and of course the strategic disadvantage reliance on materials (Li) & products (solar panels)the Chinese put us at if we depend heavily on EVs.
When you consider transmission of electricity, loss of electricity to heat over time in the battery and while charging, and EVs are much more efficient than ICEs.
Where your assumption outright fails is the amount of co2 released at the tailpipe of an ICE vs the plant. Power plans are much more efficient at generating electricity and recapturing heat energy than an ICE in a vehicle is at generating mechanical power.
When you consider transmission of electricity, loss of electricity to heat over time in the battery and while charging, and EVs are much more efficient than ICEs.
Where your assumption outright fails is the amount of co2 released at the tailpipe of an ICE vs the plant. Power plans are much more efficient at generating electricity and recapturing heat energy than an ICE in a vehicle is at generating mechanical power.
If you work thru the math, ICE are 15-25% (newest may be 30%) efficient at turning the potential energy of gasoline into kinetic energy of the vehicle.
If coal is the source of electricity for the EV, it's a break even proposition. If NG is the fuel, then the Ev gains 5- 10% in efficiency (ie- 10% less co2 per mile driven than an ICE.
The calculation becomes more complicated if solar or wind is the source of power, depending a lot on factors like the energy needed to mine ,process and manufacture solar cells, the amount of concrete used in wind rigs, etc.
The point is, EVs are not so clearly more efficient or environmentally friendly than ICE vehicles a the present time, given that alternative energy sources account for such a low portion of our power generation.
This discussion is relevant because fossil fuels are an ultimately finite and depletable resource, NOT because fossil fuels are bad for the environment. In fact higher co2 is better for the environment (air fertilization and if you think it causes warming, then biodiversity too) and better for the human condition-- more versatile and reliable than alternatives, and again, if you think it causes warming, then warmer is better for people. We evolved in East Africa, VERY warm, right?
The fully loaded cost of utility scale solar is well below the operating cost of a fuel based utility plant. So the rational thing for a utility is to duplicate all fossil fuel plants with solar. Then you run the solar whenever feasible and the fossil plants when it is not. And in the reasonably near future the cost of storage may reach a level where the utilities start moving toward all solar.
And the solid state batteries will hit in the next two or three years making EVs much more desirable and much safer. These batteries will not burn and will have much higher energy storage and life time.
Nuclear may well be part of the solution if the cost of the plants can be reduced to competitive levels. Do not believe that is true today but may be coming in the future. The scientists are also getting closer to fusion which will revise everything.
So the EV thing will roll merrily along getting better and better each year. The ICE folk need to consider getting their final ICE soon as they well start fading out by 2030.
Your arguments are good considerations when evaluating the benefits/costs of EVs right now, but those will surely disappear as EV use becomes more widespread...There were no filling stations before 1915, either.
We've posted the calculations here before--EVs are not clearly so much more energy efficient than ICEs. A great deal of energy is wasted in transmission, charging and storage of electricity, and of course, when the juice is generated via fossil fuel, your co2 "pollutant" is released at the plant, not your tail pipe, but released just the same.
Not sure about the energy accounting of oil/gas drilling/processing/transportation vs mining/processing/transportation of Lithium for batteries, but I wouldn't be surprised if the difference greatly favors fossil fuel....
..and of course the strategic disadvantage reliance on materials (Li) & products (solar panels)the Chinese put us at if we depend heavily on EVs.
I have seen the calcs and they are really biased, trying to make the case that the worst case losses are the norm - the actual studies that use real data show much higher efficiency. According to the US Department of Energy; “EVs convert over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12 per cent – 30 per cent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheelsâ€.
The calcs also ignores the environmental costs of fossil fuels that is much higher for continuing to feed the gas vehicle over its life vs one time to produce the batteries on an EV. According to the Breakthrough Institute, producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3 results in the emission equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 16,800 miles. Also the batteries for an EV can be recycled with a very low environmental impact.
Just to clarify also - the US has the 4th largest Lithium reserves (50% more than China) and most lithium that the US uses is from Chile, Australia and Argentina - not China. The main component in Solar panels is Silicon (sand) - many places make the panels outside of China.
BTW - My "juice" is not from fossil fuel - Most electricity where I live is from renewable energy - in NV it is almost all from renewable and in CA it is about 50% renewable.
If you work thru the math, ICE are 15-25% (newest may be 30%) efficient at turning the potential energy of gasoline into kinetic energy of the vehicle.
If coal is the source of electricity for the EV, it's a break even proposition. If NG is the fuel, then the Ev gains 5- 10% in efficiency (ie- 10% less co2 per mile driven than an ICE.
The calculation becomes more complicated if solar or wind is the source of power, depending a lot on factors like the energy needed to mine ,process and manufacture solar cells, the amount of concrete used in wind rigs, etc.
The point is, EVs are not so clearly more efficient or environmentally friendly than ICE vehicles a the present time, given that alternative energy sources account for such a low portion of our power generation.
This discussion is relevant because fossil fuels are an ultimately finite and depletable resource, NOT because fossil fuels are bad for the environment. In fact higher co2 is better for the environment (air fertilization and if you think it causes warming, then biodiversity too) and better for the human condition-- more versatile and reliable than alternatives, and again, if you think it causes warming, then warmer is better for people. We evolved in East Africa, VERY warm, right?
Not according to actual data from US DOE (energy.gov) - even if use the dirtiest source of coal for electricity production, an EV is about 2x less polluting than your average ICE vehicle - coal is less than 20% of US electricity production, slightly lower than nuclear. If use the national average in the US, an ICE has about 3X (actual data is 3.03X) more emissions than an EV and a hybrid is just under 2X that for an EV.
Try using actual data instead of your approximations.
Boom from forced obselescence. Technology is constantly forcing consumers into new purchases. This one will be a big one.
Britain's car firms on brink of golden age: Minister reveals investors set to pump billions into electric vehicles - in boom to rival 1930s
Lord Grimstone said the surge would be driven by billions of pounds of foreign investment into electric cars as manufacturers race to meet soaring demand
He said the investment into electric vehicles would turbocharge the car industry in the same way the boom in mass production did from the 1930s to the 1950s
Lord Grimstone revealed that the UK has 3,000 potential investment deals in the pipeline across the economy
Your arguments are good considerations when evaluating the benefits/costs of EVs right now, but those will surely disappear as EV use becomes more widespread...There were no filling stations before 1915, either.
I am sure there will be plenty of charging stations. Whether they have power to sell at all times is a different question. And whether the powers that be use the ability to ration to squelch our "affluent, self-indulgent" life-style is another. I smell a rat here.
I guess I don't understand why you think can't charge an EV at night - currently that is the low demand time so there are incentives to charge an EV then.* * * In my case in CA, the price of a KW drops from $0.27/KW to $0.09/KW from Mid to 6 am, in NV it drops from $0.11/KW to $0.044/KW from 10 pm to 8 am - in both locations basically paying for transmission costs and close to nothing for the actual electricity.* * In places in TX, you can charge for free at night.* * There is still demand and plants have to run so cost is very low.* **
Currently there is enough capacity and govt study shows that unlikely to have issues going forward.* *Even if 80% of all vehicles were EVs, the electrical demand would go up about 10% - not a huge increase - and could be covered currently with minor changes as plants are at about 65% of capacity.
Electric vehicles are more energy-efficient than ICE vehicles.* *In passenger cars, EVs consume 25% the amount of energy in comparison to ICE vehicles and the EVs use less polluting sources of energy.
In California they are getting flex alerts, planned outages, and rolling blackouts to worry about more and more often. Imagine having* no charge to drive out to evacuate for a wildfire.*They are now using the same concept for power bills as phone companies and dial up ISPs used to do for landlines pricing calls per minute based on demand times.* *
Alas Not everyone can wait to charge their car to sleep*hours, just as with filling up one may need to charge up when having dinner so you can be able to drive at a moment's notice after dinner. Not everyone has access to chargers during the day, or at work, or overnight if they live in multi family housing.* I remember seeing how a car charger charges 35c a kilowatt hour. Now the state is shutting down its last operational Nuclear plant the*electric*cost and the power crunch is only going to get worse. The state already needs to import large amounts of power to meet demand at evenings and when there is no wind.* I believe the state would need to mandate solar panels, windmills, and strong backup batteries for all structures and parking lots with EV chargers for this to work out mandating*alternative fueled*vehicles . Or that cars also work with another fuel i.e hydrogen or Compressed natural gas in addition to electricity.*
You know what I used to think it's foolish*to burn fossil fuels to power and cool houses during the summer when we have the sun, wind, and water. But now I realize there are always nights to contend with* and as well as days with no wind and droughts that can stall hydroelectric dams. Thus we seriously need backup batteries and power sources.*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
