|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 1, 2023 0:42:07 GMT
But fundamentally all marginal electrical production is coal there may be an exception I've not seen it, so if you add a million EV's to the market, coal use goes up and oil use goes down.
So the hard reality is that every EV car built will in its lifetime not only stimulate coal burning but reduce oil prices.
Solve the electric problem first.
As a corollary to that no where on earth have power prices fallen when "renewables" are forced into the market even at modest levels so should EV's become numerous and "renewables" become more popular then oil fire vehicles will likely be cheaper than EV's to run.
The worst thing is that the so called CO2 problem is made worse in the pursuit of this madness. I also have a PHEV to ensure my fair share of the social welfare available.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 1, 2023 0:58:39 GMT
But fundamentally all marginal electrical production is coal there may be an exception I've not seen it, so if you add a million EV's to the market, coal use goes up and oil use goes down. So the hard reality is that every EV car built will in its lifetime not only stimulate coal burning but reduce oil prices. Solve the electric problem first. As a corollary to that no where on earth have power prices fallen when "renewables" are forced into the market even at modest levels so should EV's become numerous and "renewables" become more popular then oil fire vehicles will likely be cheaper than EV's to run. The worst thing is that the so called CO2 problem is made worse in the pursuit of this madness. I also have a PHEV to ensure my fair share of the social welfare available. Do they give food stamps to those things? |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 1, 2023 1:25:54 GMT
But fundamentally all marginal electrical production is coal there may be an exception I've not seen it, so if you add a million EV's to the market, coal use goes up and oil use goes down. So the hard reality is that every EV car built will in its lifetime not only stimulate coal burning but reduce oil prices. Solve the electric problem first. As a corollary to that no where on earth have power prices fallen when "renewables" are forced into the market even at modest levels so should EV's become numerous and "renewables" become more popular then oil fire vehicles will likely be cheaper than EV's to run. The worst thing is that the so called CO2 problem is made worse in the pursuit of this madness. I also have a PHEV to ensure my fair share of the social welfare available. When you say "I've not seen it," what have you looked at that shows you the power sources currently in the US? After that, we can say what we are, and are not saying with EVs. This differs country by country, but according to this article written in December of 2018: www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-major-sources-of-energy-in-the-united-states.html#:~:text=What%20Are%20the%20Major%20Sources%20of%20Energy%20in,...%205%205.%20Natural%20Gas%20-%2031.8%25%20 Coal only accounted for 17.8% of the electricity consumed in the US. Natural gas was first at 31.8%, and petroleum was second at 28% leaving coal a distant third. Renewables were 12.7% and nuclear was 9.6% and that rounded out the top 5. Our infrastructure is in constant development, though, and I searched a few months ago and found a listing of 110 power plants under construction at that point in time. I can't remember the exact breakdown, but natural gas was the leading fuel for actual power plants. Renewables are not listed in the list of power plants, though, but a separate article I saw earlier showed sharp increases in production in the US by renewables in 2022. I don't have a source that takes us through the end of 2022 yet, but I'll be interested to see it. So no, EVs are not dependent on coal. Actually China has a bigger dependency on coal than the US, but that aside: Let's take coal as an example. How long does it take to fire up a coal fired boiler so that it is producing electricity? Several hours, is it not? So in a case like this, you would need to run your coal fired boiler at a level to meet the peak demand, even in off-peak hours. But if the boiler is running at that level, but electricity is not being consumed at that level, what happens to the electricity produced? This is waste inherent in a coal-fired turbine, and is only one reason they're not preferred. Storage, however, allows you to capture electricity that would not be consumed (wasting coal resources, and putting all the coal byproducts into the air) so that it can be used during peak hours. This is *one* reason for proposed storage on the grid, and is also an area where EVs actually excel. You can schedule your EV to charge during off-peak hours which means it is using wasted generation capacity, and in fact, that is why off-peak electricity is cheaper in many markets. The cheaper prices motivate the EV owners in those regions to schedule charging during the reduced rate times, and they just use wasted capacity. So now, it starts to sound a little better, does it not? Not all renewables are the same. My last time living in California, I had solar panels put on my house. The effect they had for me was to cut my electric bill to about 1/3 what it was before. But solar is great because it produces peak during peak demand for electricity. This allows the power plants to target a lower peak utilization, and also reduces (but not eliminates) wasted generation capacity. Note: I'm not a power engineer, but my job puts in in contact with a number of professions, and power engineers on two separate engagements did, in fact, partially educate me in this area - at least enough that I could assist them in their analytics. I'm not an expert, but some of these things begin to make sense to me, now, and after working with them, I will say that we have really high-caliber people planning and implementing our power supply. But here is another nonsense objection in the EV discussion: Nobody says that EVs don't need fuel. The point we make is that the fuel is converted into a mile of motion in the car much more efficiently than individual ICE engines. Individual ICE engines will never be as efficient as an EV because of the economy of scale of production on the grid. They also give the benefit of charging with wasted generation capacity, and as I pointed out above, not all of the generation is coal (which you can "see" if you will look). FWIW, other generation source such as hydro have different spin-up and spin-down times. Hydro spins up quickly, but is normally only used to smooth the peak in peak demand times. It's also subject to multi-year droughts in locations like California. Solar tends to produce more during these drought periods, though. So yes, we need power sources. More are being built out. Most are not coal, but most still burn something. None of those resources are infinite, but the efficiency we can gain now is worth something in how long our resources last. So I think "we" (as in the power engineers. Not so much "I") really are working on the electricity problem, and infrastructure to meet the demand of new housing and new appliances is being built out, and as that is being done, efficiency from things like EVs is significant. EDIT: When an EV charges at a home, it is, at most, about the same load as running a clothes dryer. I literally plug in with a NEMA 14-50 plug (just like a clothes dryer) and charge my car with that. It seems to me that the opponents who bring up endless objections greatly exaggerate the actual load caused by EV charging, and for certain, they don't take into effect the scheduled charging in off-peak hours. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 1, 2023 3:25:10 GMT
In the electrical sector it's described as the "order of merit" and coal resides as the last option in most jurisdictions, as such when you plug your car in you can nearly hear the scrapping of the shovels loading the coal into the boiler.
Regarding the quantity they add to the electrical demand its not critical now but when the world goes past a percent or two the projections are quite different and significant.
I love tech and EV's are seriously fun, but batteries are heavy and likely to see slow improvement from now, its quite a mature industry already.
The concept of a very small very efficient light motor supplemented with a modest battery and largish electric motors in other words a radical hybrid would be a lot cleaner, safer and cheaper to build and also environmentally miles better.
Our very smart bureaucrats and politicians are going to craft the outcome and that terrifies me more than the Chinese. Talk about the enemy within!
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 1, 2023 3:33:54 GMT
In the electrical sector it's described as the "order of merit" and coal resides as the last option in most jurisdictions, as such when you plug your car in you can nearly hear the scrapping of the shovels loading the coal into the boiler. Regarding the quantity they add to the electrical demand its not critical now but when the world goes past a percent or two the projections are quite different and significant. I love tech and EV's are seriously fun, but batteries are heavy and likely to see slow improvement from now, its quite a mature industry already. The concept of a very small very efficient light motor supplemented with a modest battery and largish electric motors in other words a radical hybrid would be a lot cleaner, safer and cheaper to build and also environmentally miles better. Our very smart bureaucrats and politicians are going to craft the outcome and that terrifies me more than the Chinese. Talk about the enemy within! Yes, I am interested in the hybrids, that seems to possibly work. I'm going to look into that. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 1, 2023 3:41:05 GMT
In the electrical sector it's described as the "order of merit" and coal resides as the last option in most jurisdictions, as such when you plug your car in you can nearly hear the scrapping of the shovels loading the coal into the boiler. Regarding the quantity they add to the electrical demand its not critical now but when the world goes past a percent or two the projections are quite different and significant. I love tech and EV's are seriously fun, but batteries are heavy and likely to see slow improvement from now, its quite a mature industry already. The concept of a very small very efficient light motor supplemented with a modest battery and largish electric motors in other words a radical hybrid would be a lot cleaner, safer and cheaper to build and also environmentally miles better. Our very smart bureaucrats and politicians are going to craft the outcome and that terrifies me more than the Chinese. Talk about the enemy within! Can I ask you to please show me what you are basing these bolded words on? I see things like this put forward without substantiation in advocacy articles very frequently, but what I want to see is actual substantiation of these exact bolded words. Without that substantiation, this needs to be relegated to the same bin as "urban legend," but I'd be happy to see the actual evaluation to put weight behind those very words. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 1, 2023 5:26:48 GMT
The cost both financially and environmentally of the batteries is not controversial they are bad news. And the key point is they run on coal for me no problem but apparently it's evil!
So the vehicle, take the battery pack of an EV from 400Km to 40Km range 90% less impact take my PHEV it has 330HP all up 210Hp from the 2 litre motor the balance from the electric motor. if I drive it on the electric motor only its fine up to 120Km/hr after that add petrol. My suggestion would to reduce the 2 litre motor to 800cc and for efficiency reasons make it diesel I'm thinking 80Hp that would be plenty to drive at 140Km/Hr for ever. Then use the electrics with a bit more than the current 120Hp maybe 200Hp for hard acceleration hill climbing and regen. braking.
My pick is that it would be a 25-30Km/Liter car, and its quite a large SUV (Q5 Audi) It would be able to run in battery only regions and have plenty of space unlike mine which has lost a lot to the quite big battery. The smaller battery would fit where the half size motor was no more.
The fuel tank would not be 70liters as it is now but 30 liters, range 750Km plus battery. (500Miles) The PHEV I described above currently does 16-20Km/Liter.
BMW tried to get this going but the left killed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 1, 2023 11:35:15 GMT
The cost both financially and environmentally of the batteries is not controversial they are bad news. And the key point is they run on coal for me no problem but apparently it's evil! So the vehicle, take the battery pack of an EV from 400Km to 40Km range 90% less impact take my PHEV it has 330HP all up 210Hp from the 2 litre motor the balance from the electric motor. if I drive it on the electric motor only its fine up to 120Km/hr after that add petrol. My suggestion would to reduce the 2 litre motor to 800cc and for efficiency reasons make it diesel I'm thinking 80Hp that would be plenty to drive at 140Km/Hr for ever. Then use the electrics with a bit more than the current 120Hp maybe 200Hp for hard acceleration hill climbing and regen. braking. My pick is that it would be a 25-30Km/Liter car, and its quite a large SUV (Q5 Audi) It would be able to run in battery only regions and have plenty of space unlike mine which has lost a lot to the quite big battery. The smaller battery would fit where the half size motor was no more. The fuel tank would not be 70liters as it is now but 30 liters, range 750Km plus battery. (500Miles) The PHEV I described above currently does 16-20Km/Liter. BMW tried to get this going but the left killed it. That falls far short of substantiation, now doesn't it? First of all "the cost financially" is totally misrepresented in many discussions, and I put an example earlier in the thread. You should look at that. The cost environmentally is what I challenged you on, and you're using words like "not controversial" instead of providing substantiation. Much like financial cost, this is a word game I see played a lot where, at best, someone finds someone else on the internet that is advocating a position and makes that assertion, but no actual work has been put into the article to quantify costs on either - just assumption built on hearsay. So sorry, but yes, it is controversial and advocated according to a person's particular political association, but I don't see you substantiating it. When you start saying things like "my suggestion would ... " based on what? There may be an idea in there, but is this based on engineering? Or is this more like where you said "But fundamentally all marginal electrical production is coal there may be an exception I've not seen it ... "? Or when you said that battery technology is mature? (I posted a bit of reading material on battery research earlier, but I don't think you caught it). I'm going to be honest here: This is the kind of thing I read in advocacy articles all the time, and basically I disregard them because the person is speculating and thinking by association. When you go from there into "BMW tried to get this going but the left killed it," I especially tune out as just thinking by association, and in light of the examples of other things you're doing in your thinking, that would seem a logical thing to do in order to conserve time, but here, I'll give you the chance to show us where you get that the "left" is killing BMW's ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Feb 1, 2023 12:36:14 GMT
Go easy on feeding the troll.
Anyone seen any good studies/articles lately on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? They've been out there in the R&D world for a while. I don't know enough to assess their real viability vs gasoline powered vehicles, but even a cursory glance at the methodology makes them look better than EV's for general use in the transportation industry.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 1, 2023 14:36:16 GMT
Go easy on feeding the troll. Anyone seen any good studies/articles lately on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? They've been out there in the R&D world for a while. I don't know enough to assess their real viability vs gasoline powered vehicles, but even a cursory glance at the methodology makes them look better than EV's for general use in the transportation industry. Thoughts? Maybe we should compare the technical content contributed to the discussion by "the troll" with the technical content you have contributed. How do you think they will compare? Hydrogen fuel cells are not just experimental or in study or R&D these days. There are three hydrogen fuel cell cars commercially available. They are the Toyota Mirai, and the Nexo and Clarity by Hyundai. The Mirai was first so let me link you to that: www.toyota.com/mirai/2023/ The first thing is that prices are comparable to similarly equipped BEVs or gasoline powered cars. A few technical notes: A hydrogen fuel cell IS an electric vehicle. That is part of why you see the mileage rated in MPGe. The difference is in how the energy is stored or produced. A hydrogen fuel cell will continue to improve like battery technology, so I don't expect that it is in its final state. Notice also that the MPGe ratings for the Mirai are about 1/2 - 2/3 that of the Tesla Model 3 (which would be its closest comp): www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2021_Tesla_Model_3.shtml (Note that the Model 3 prices start at 46,990 - comparable to the Mirai). Where are you going to fuel up your hydrogen car? Currently, there are very limited options. California has invested most in the hydrogen infrastructure, but a look here shows where hydrogen stations are available: afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?fuel=HY Hydrogen requires a system similar to gasoline cars to cover fueling needs, and that is a long ways out and a lot of expense to develop. (Notice too that it is California that has begun building out the hydrogen fueling infrastructure, so it will be difficult to claim that leftists are killing this alternative). But how is hydrogen produced to create the fuel? There is a lot of research in this area, but currently, most of it is produced by breaking down hydrocarbons like methane gas: www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/production-of-hydrogen.php So this doesn't really begin to sound like an alternative fuel unless a different way (such as algae production - one of many experimental methods) can be developed to industrial scale. Electrolysis is another way to get hydrogen, and it would offer you a way to produce your fuel at home. Currently the apparatus to do this is very expensive, but could come down if demand was enough to ramp up production. However; historically, electrolysis has been very inefficient so that only a fraction of the energy you consume from your wall socket gets converted into energy that moves your vehicle. There are more recent claims of breakthroughs for efficiency such as this one: newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electrolysis/ I don't see much follow-up afterwards on this, though. So either we still break down methane using steam reformation, or we need electicity from the grid for electrolysis, or maybe something else will become economically feasible, but currently, the combination of hydrogen production and needing fueling stations (or home electrolysis equipment) are big obstacles to adoption. Currently, the hydrogen fuel cell is simply not as efficient as the batteries we have. However; as I stated before, this is not dead, and in the future, more electric vehicles may store energy in fuel cells rather than our current battery technology. They do suffer from needing very expensive and rare elements currently, and all of this adds up to challenges that even Toyota is struggling to overcome. So I'm curious: When you state "even a cursory glance at the methodology makes them look better than EV's for general use in the transportation industry," what did your evaluation look like that led you to that conclusion? |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 1, 2023 14:41:12 GMT
Or rather than all that, a person could just buy an inexpensive, fuel efficient car which emits practically no CO2 and could be repaired for a couple of thousand, vs whatever parts and labor for a Tesla battery are running these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 1, 2023 14:52:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 1, 2023 15:31:51 GMT
I'm going to stick with standard ICEs with non-CVT transmissions for as long as I can. Even the newer variable valve timed engines seem unnecessarily spendy to repair. I work on my own vehicles and I have definitely learned to appreciate simpler designs which I can keep going economically. With the newer F150 trucks and ecoboost engines, you almost never gain any equity. Check what replacement ecoboost engines sell for. Similar economics to an EV battery vehicle with replacement looming somewhere in the future. I have a 2016 and a 2002 F150, I prefer the 2002 with it's standard V6. But so far neither has ever needed much beyond an oil change.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 1, 2023 16:01:10 GMT
Or rather than all that, a person could just buy an inexpensive, fuel efficient car which emits practically no CO2 and could be repaired for a couple of thousand, vs whatever parts and labor for a Tesla battery are running these days. If we wanted to discuss it technically, from what I can see where people really attempt to compare costs, costs of a Tesla are cheaper to a lifespan of 200K miles and primarily this is because there is so much less maintenance. (That's as far as the study reported). The objection I see in the studies they have is that they compare gasoline prices with the prices of public chargers, and it is only about 1/3 or 1/4 as expensive for electricity at home vs. a public charger. But I don't think you are proposing a technical point, and that is okay. I think what you are really saying is that you are comfortable with an ICE vehicle, and that's what you want to stick with. The good news for you is that it is likely you can do that for as long as you are still able to drive. That's pretty much the same situation I said about me and the year 2035. But another reality of the world is culture gap, and right now, we are on the high side of that divide. People in my kids age group (All in their 30s except my son. So all millennials, and nothing like the jokes about millennials) think differently, and they are beginning to exert themselves in shaping the future to their vision. Some of us don't like their vision and ideas, but it is their world, and we expect them to work and improve it. That's what they are doing, and when I evaluate this particular issue on the merits of their ideas, I think their ideas are very good, but I acknowledge that there are some challenges they will have to overcome. I'm not going to stand in the way of them moving that direction, though. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Feb 2, 2023 2:06:40 GMT
The one thing that will keep me out of an EV is spontaneous battery combustion. There is no way I could go to sleep at night with an EV charging in the garage. I know ICE vehicles catch fire too but that usually happens because of damage or poor maintenance, not driving on a freeway or parked. Thoughts? Florida, Jaguar iPace, driven out by owner:  |
|
