|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 1:20:38 GMT
? Bailouts for companies like GM and Ford?[/quote] heres the thing the bail out keeps people in jobs .. what should happen is all upper management should be booted on the spot ..they are the ones that messed up ..keep the doors open and put in fresh blood .. [/quote] People at Tesla are working, too. They also need to be in jobs. Yes, people in upper management messed up. What happened to them? All I hear is back-porch talk about that. I don't have any real information about what happened to them. If car companies mess up again and miss the new disruption, then they'll be back, but with GM announcing they are going to be all-electric by 2035, it seems they are expecting a disruption, and they're not wanting to get left behind again. That's really what I see happening with people of our generation - we're missing the disruptions. I actually want to make another post about that, though, and leave this post focused where it is.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 24, 2021 19:45:40 GMT
The oil companies pay a lot of revenue to all governments of the world. Much is made of subsidies to oil and companies what are they because we need some now. The energy output of a windmill is something like a few barrels per day equivalent how can that be unsubsidized. No fool would invest. The idea in most cases is one of internalizing externalities. Oil is used for cars, so we need infrastructure for cars. We would tax oil to build these roads, and also to build other infrastructure that depends on the oil. So what happens when gas-burning cars make up a lower percentage of the cars on the roads? I'm sure we'll see, but I'm certain that roads are not going to become cheaper, so something else will be taxed. The subsidies are a separate matter from internalizing externalities, though. I'm not really sure how you would compare a windmill energy output to a barrel of oil, to be honest. Only a relatively small percentage of the energy contained in a barrel of oil is usable, for starters, and I've never tried to dig into that comparison.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 24, 2021 0:20:37 GMT
The road runs both ways, though. Doesn't it? Contrary to the claim, nothing is sitting still, and nobody expects current infrastructure to meet the full demand. Infrastructure WILL need to be developed, and that is really the point of what is being discussed. Whether we are at 100% EV or just 20% EV in 14 years, infrastructure will need to be built to support it. Now from Toyota's statement, the author kind of took off on his own direction with a few unsupported statements to try to make a different point. Without supporting his statements a little better, he's not proving much, though. If someone is a true believe in that viewpoint, I guess proof will not be necessary, though, right? Yes it does. We had a Prius once. It was OK but not special. I think that EVs should be allowed to compete head-to-head ... no government subsidies ... and see who wins. Same for solar and wind ... on a non-emergency basis. Let the buyers decide and let the government stay out of it. Certain true believers seem intent on requiring everyone to do as they say. I partially agree. Shouldn't we also get rid of the oil subsidies while we're doing that? Bailouts for companies like GM and Ford?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 23, 2021 21:25:40 GMT
It's probably also worth pointing out that Toyota has invested pretty heavily in development of Hydrogen Fuel Cell electric vehicles. They're still really expensive, and still lack infrastructure in most places. I've followed this development for the last 10 - 15 years, and still have hope for it, but it just hasn't developed as quickly, nor become as economical as I hoped it would. It's falling behind, right now. Maybe another 14 years will see it caught up, but maybe not. Either way, new infrastructure is required.
CA has a number of hydrogen stations, but they will need a lot more. Unlike battery electric vehicles, fueling at home is no cheap nor easy undertaking currently, and even if using electrolysis to generate hydrogen at home, it is not as efficient from generator to road as batteries currently.
There are challenges in all of them. In all of them, development is underway. Is anybody listening to that?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 23, 2021 21:16:08 GMT
True Believers Never Listen. They already KNOW the answer. The road runs both ways, though. Doesn't it? Contrary to the claim, nothing is sitting still, and nobody expects current infrastructure to meet the full demand. Infrastructure WILL need to be developed, and that is really the point of what is being discussed. Whether we are at 100% EV or just 20% EV in 14 years, infrastructure will need to be built to support it. Now from Toyota's statement, the author kind of took off on his own direction with a few unsupported statements to try to make a different point. Without supporting his statements a little better, he's not proving much, though. If someone is a true believe in that viewpoint, I guess proof will not be necessary, though, right?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 3, 2021 1:00:48 GMT
Most people will spend more time at the gas station than Tesla owners will spend waiting for it to charge. Let me bullet a few things about this:
• In my ICE car, I always check how much gas I have when I start out. I may need to divert to a gas station. • In my Tesla, my car is always charged when I start out, I know I’m not going to need to charge for a while, and unless it’s a long trip, I know I’m not going to need to charge before getting back home. • In my ICE car, I always have to go to the gas station to fill, even if I’m only driving it locally. • In my Tesla, I never go to a gas or charge station if I’m only driving locally. • In my ICE car, gassing up is synchronous – I have to take it somewhere to gas up, and I must wait while it gasses up – very little parallel activity. • In my Tesla, charging is done in parallel with another activity, so I never wait. At home, I just plug in and go on. Even on road trips, it charges while I do other things. • In my ICE car, I most often gas up either at Costco, or at the Native-owned gas station. Those are 15 miles and 5 miles from home respectively, and they often have lines I must wait in because the price is much cheaper than other stations. • In my Tesla, I just plug in at home and go on with what I want to do. I don’t wait in line, and don’t have to drive anywhere to do it.
You probably spend more time total on oil changes than I spend at a supercharger, and I don’t have oil changes with the Tesla.
To some of the other criticisms I read:
Remote polluting? How much time have you spent in cities like LA, Seoul, or even Tulsa? What if you can take that pollution out of the city and control the emissions better in a centralized location? Even if it doesn’t mean less pollution, it does mean it’s not in high population concentrations.
More infrastructure? Of course. We need more infrastructure for more housing, too. We need more infrastructure for more gasoline cars, too.
Different taxes? I’ve never said politicians are smart, and one un-smart thing they do is tax things they say are undesirable, then develop dependencies on those taxes so that they suffer when they’ve taxed that tax source out of existence. Either way, they’re going to find a way to tax us.
I’m not looking down on ICE cars nor EVs. There’s no doubt that more EVs are going to be on the road. Maybe it’s time to stop playing like Sanballat and Tobiah on the issue and look at it more as an inevitability. Why the emotional opposition? Why do you care if I drive a Tesla?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 3, 2021 0:31:24 GMT
Wind in Texas produced until the wind stopped blowing. The pool of cold still air stretched from Manitoba to Texas. MISO, which my co-op is served by had wind drop from 18,000MW to 777. It did go lower at times. SWPA, which services Western ND had rolling blackouts. Each of the last 3 years MISO has faced eminent catastrophic failure. Always in midwinter. Each time was because of a calm cold stretch. The current way it is set up is wind gets 1st crack at supply. When wind IS performing, coal/gas are ramped down, loosing revenues required to run effectively and efficiently. The graph is what it is. Wind did underperform in Texas when it was needed most. Gas and coal likewise because they have become starved for revenue resulting in lowered reliability. In ND we are on the cusp of this happening. Coal Creek is being shut down because it can't compete. Why can't it compete? Because mandates in Minnesota determine wind comes 1st. Without Coal Creek a few weeks ago, we would have been screwed. Batteries. I will defer to your research. I know my phone has lost 25% of its ability to keep my phone running. The charge life cycle is running its course. Cold? When it is cold, the energy draw to keep the battery warm reduces the range. The occupants of an electric car desire a heated cabin, which further reduces its range. I think electric cars have a valid market in temperate zones. Not so much in non temperate zones. In the first 3 paragraphs, you're describing the need for forecasting and projection. I don't argue that those are needed. In the 4th paragraph, you again go to making excuses for wind and coal to advocate for them. Still, natural gas froze up and supplies to households that use it for heating was in danger. That has nothing to do with electrical generation. It does show a need for winterizing natural gas, though. Winterizing also reduces supply as happens with batteries. I honestly don't know what is happening with Coal Creek, so I can't comment there. Several of the articles I posted gave video examples of what happened to Teslas in cold weather in Toronto, the use of more efficient heat pumps to recapture waste heat off of the battery in Teslas, how auto batteries are different from cell phone batteries, etc. A lot of those questions are answered there. I actually said the cars will lose range, but it's nowhere near the 50% in "chilly weather" you asserted (although I know "chilly" may have been an intentional understatement), and the person can still stay comfortable in the cabin, and even in a heated seat if desired. The only time the reduced range even comes into play, and the only time charge time even comes into play for most of us would be a road trip. Climate control can also reduce the range of a gasoline vehicle, especially heated seats or air conditioning, but it would be silly of me to start exaggerating the effect it has on them. I certainly don't see what you've put forward as "proving the folly" of wind or solar, though. I don't advocate that everybody have one, but come on! The things that have been asserted about the vehicles in this thread often border on silly. It was time for someone to add a little reality to it.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 2, 2021 17:00:30 GMT
Sig, do you have the numbers behind that chart? There are several problems with reading it. 1. You have to read vertically, but eyes tend to look at the shortest distance from the color beneath it. When everything beneath that declines, and you put wind at top, it produces a thin band on top of all of the others. That's the way the eyes see it, but the actual number is not the thinnest part of the band, it is the height, and eyes can't really see that in areas of steep change. This is a time when a visualization produces something of an optical illusion, and we need the actual numbers to see what actually happened. 2. What is the geographic area covered by these numbers? If the wind doesn't blow in one area, because electricity travels near speed of light, you can use electricity produced in one area for another area. That's one of the things purported by one of the articles I posted above - power from one state was sent to Texas and Oklahoma, and specifically, they were talking about wind power. Texas provided power some time ago during California black-outs, and Kansas, as one example, was providing wind power to Texas during this time. 3. The claim in the article I posted above was that Wind was the only power source that met its projection, not that it was the only power source that produced at the same level. I think wind is probably the least reliable power source, and I've stated that quite clearly, but if it meets its projection while others don't, then that is an area that needs to be discussed. One thing I see in this area is that, while I'm not a meteorologist, I can't see how a comparison of June numbers and February numbers would ever be valid because weather is just different. If it is different, then projections for the two are not going to be the same. 4. There's no doubt that the biggest part of the drop in production in real numbers came from drops in production from gas and coal. Even Nuclear saw some drop. But you're wanting to optimize by having less wind and solar? That's not normally how an area should be targeted for optimization. I looked at the Car and driver article you mentioned. One of the articles I posted above addresses the issue much more honestly. What car and driver did was not normal use, and then they applied linear extrapolation from the area known to be the biggest area of decline, and draw a conclusion based on that. That is an invalid method, and no improvement in batteries is really necessary for that to not be relevant. FWIW, yes, tesla batteries have improved. You've said that it was lack of winterization that caused the natural gas shortage in Oklahoma and Texas. I can agree with that. What I find curious is that you can see that in something you advocate, but you don't see winterization as relevant in things like batteries on Tesla cars, even though I've posted several different items about winterization of those batteries, such as how the battery warms up and the unusable charge area becomes usable after some time of use. Bottom line: I'm not advocating cutting over to wind or solar power entirely. I think it should be used where it can, though, and the sun really does shine in North Dakota, too. Your weather will need to be taken into account, sure. But I see what you're trying to do legislatively as being deeply flawed, and not really aimed at an area that will avoid a repeat in the future. The real numbers showed that the power sources you are advocating saw the biggest decline when they were most needed. You say that's because of lack of winterization. My response is that those sources are not the only sources that can be winterized. I think it would be much wiser to focus on winterization of all of them, but also recognize that the small slice of energy production you are targeting as the culprit still produced at some level even in the extreme cold weather, and purports to be the only source that met its projections. Maybe, just maybe, those energy sources are not the real culprit. I have to get to work.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 1, 2021 23:19:18 GMT
Valid points. Now a northern cold perspective. 12 months out of the year, solar is not cost effective at all. It gets close in June. Clouds prevent June from being effective. Wind sounds great until you don't have wind. Our usage is actually pretty flat. A/C, drain tile pumps etc provide our summer usage. In winter, cold temperatures provide the reason for draw. We get cold still Arctic air masses. MISO and SWPA both were on the brink of catastrophic failure during the last cold spell. Solar didn't produce much, wind was less than 10% of rated capacity. I am working on an amendment to a bill that mandates 85% of peak load in ND be firm energy supplied. Am hoping to get SD, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma on board. This will send a clear signal to the Feds that baseload energy is critical. We have cold spells of similar magnitude about every decade. Texas clearly showed us the folly of being 25% renewable. Baseload generation must be used consistently to provide the income to effectively run a plant. In my area there is approximately 2,000 MW of coal fired energy slated to be taken offline/decommissioned. This is a slow motion train wreck. In areas of our country, solar can work. Green folks think the battery to provide night time energy will be car batteries. This sounds good until you realize that in the morning, people want a full charge. Also, all batteries have what is called life cycle charges. Lead acid batteries have this, is why batteries eventually fail. Lithium ion batteries suffer the same fate. My car battery costs about 130.00 to replace. A Lithium ion battery cost is similar to me replacing the engine. I can currently get 300,000+ miles out of my car engine. A Tesla battery will last about 80-90,000 miles. That is why EV cars depreciate so fast. 1,000 life cycle charges, then they go downhill very fast. Add night time charge cycles. Outcome won't be good. Highlight #1: I just read this morning that wind produced what was predicted in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas during that cold snap. However; Oklahoma and Texas are both big natural gas producing states. Natural gas production and delivery froze up. I don't have a source on if solar provided anything appreciable, but there seems to be a big disconnect between the narrative I get on social media (which matches what you're saying) and what those who produce the power are saying about the shortage. I know from friends in Oklahoma, and also from news sources there that Natural gas delivery was short there, to the point that industrial plants were given lower priority so that residential properties could be supplied with gas because gas was in short supply, and Oklahoma in a big natural gas producing state. It froze up, and could not be delivered. If this is true, then your bill is likely to backfire. www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article249296195.html Highlight #2: If what I said in response to #1 is accurate, then no, it really didn't show any such folly. There is no doubt about natural gas delivery being limited because it froze up, though. Petroleum can and does become thicker in extreme cold and that can limit delivery. (I lived in Oklahoma until I was 17, then moved back there for about 13 years after my military days finished. I remember winter temps getting to 0, but the lowest Tulsa temp according to the meteorologist there was -13 during this last snap. This one was more extreme than most.) Highlight #3: Where are you getting that the Tesla batteries will only last about 80K-90K miles? The warranty itself is 8 years or 120K miles, and what I'm reading pretty much everywhere (including non-Tesla sites) are that the batteries should be good for 300K - 500K miles. I personally know people with more than 80K miles on their Teslas, though. undecidedmf.com/episodes/2019/10/29/how-long-does-a-tesla-battery-last-my-tesla-is-losing-rangewww.solarreviews.com/blog/how-long-do-tesla-batteries-last
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 1, 2021 15:33:27 GMT
yes smoothing but not days not weeks not months so still need all the same backup. Those types of time periods are why I made the point about predictability of weather in California, and how sunlight coincides with peak demand. It may seem mysterious to us discussing it on this board, but it is implemented with some success. The East Bay area, central valley area, and Sacramento area in California is really a desert where solar is practical and helpful. By contrast, the San Jouquin reservoir may go months or years without producing power due to drought. Even with backuo systems in place, generation cosys are saved, as is the fuel to run the systems if solar can be used. Predictability of sunlight, and a sufficiently large geographic area with a known quantity of rooftop solar power generation allows for lower power plant generation for peak which also results in less waste during off-peak. When I lived in the East Bay area in California, most of the day, my electric meter ran backwards, so I was part of the power generation for those using more power during peak. It ran forward during the time my AC compressor was actually running, or if I ran the dryer, etc. It doesn't provide all of the power that is needed, and nobody claims it does. However, since it takes hours to bring a generator online at our power plants, having predictable solar power has a net benefit greater than the power it actually generates. Wind is much less predictable, and so historically, has less such benefit. The storage makes wind more predictable because you know what your storage capacity is. In Western Washington, we are a temperate rain forest. We're not going to get much solar power in the winter. However, we have much longer days in the summer than California has, and our temperatured are cooler which makes solar panels more efficient. I don't have solar here, but Puget Sound Energy highly encourages it. I would have net metering if I installed it. I'm don't think the net benefit here would be as great as it is in California, though. Nobody claimed the storage was going to provide power for days or more. It doesn't need to to make solar or wind power have a greater net benefit, and that's really the point of it. People are installing backup storage at their houses for things like our frequent outages from wind storms, and some use it nightly to get more personal benefit from the power their solar panels produced during the day. The equation is different than it was a few years ago. I know on this board people often talk about the foolishness of moving away from fossil fuels before a viable alternative is in place. It's equally foolish to cling to fossil fuels and not get the benefits when these sources become viable. Becoming viable is a process, but it is actually happening. These are just a couple of examples, but in the examples, you can probably see you're not paying more for someone installing solar - quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 1, 2021 5:44:07 GMT
Let me drop something in about the grid, and excess production which you brought up in conjunctionwith solar power:
In the past, we assumed there was no storage on the grid. This is no longer true, but the extent of storage is difficult for me to determine. Look up the use of vanadium flow batteries, and you will likely encounter the topic. As I understand, the largest such storage facility is not too far from me in the Seattle area. It's not going to supply all of Seattle for days, but it does allow a power plant to safely produce closer to the peak predicted demand, and a spike above that will not result in a disastrous outcome. It also can cover for equipment failure on some scale for some period of time.
These batteries allow for more predictable capacity from wind and solar, too as power can be stored there and quantified, thus smoothing peaks and dips.
Where I lived in CA last time, weather was relatively predictable, and people with solar allowed the power company not only to produce less power at peak, but it also meant less waste in off-peak because the generation did not ramp up as high for peak demand. Peak demand coincides with the sun shining there, as industrial scale HVAC as well as home air conditioning also operates more heavily when the sun is actually shining there. For there, hydro was much less reliable than it is in the Seattle area.
In the past, Vanadium Flow was for grid scale storage, but now, companies are just beginning to target consumers. Li Ion batteries are currently used for home emergency power storage, but for non-mobile uses like home storage, Vanadium Flow seems to me to show more promise.
All of this is developing to better use renewable power that can be produced, and reduce the waste that has existed for so long where nothing could be depended on to allow the main genetators to produce less for peak hours, and the latency in bringing their production up and down.
It currently exists on some scale, and is continuing to develop. It changes a bit of how we've thought of this in the past, although I'm not expert enough to quantify it for you.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 1, 2021 4:11:55 GMT
Li ion batteries are very good and a quick look at the periodic table will illustrate why Li is a high energy density option. (not many better options) The discussion of their use in planes defies logic and when you fly and accidentally put a battery in you stowed baggage they retrieve it for good reason, they burn when frozen all the way through the side of the plane. Solar, would it be used if we had to pay for the cost of intermittency because somebody does. Regardless we know that the cost of MSR power will be 5C/KwHr and they are dispatchable and better located to usage. If the developing world has power at 8C and the "first world" is at 20C who is going to be the first world soon and driving sensible cars electric, hybrid, natural gas or liquid fuel. What I do know is that fossil fuels are being shunned by the west and we will use a lot for a long time yet, the developing world will own the production largely, and we may regret our destruction of production without a fully developed solution for just our maybe even falling demand. The point about freezing sent me looking. The references, more than the article itself, are interesting here: en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Battery_Power/Lithium_Ion_Batteries#:~:text=Note%20that%20most%20lithium-ion,reached%20by%20most%20household%20freezers. It looks like the freezing point for electrolytes in a Li Ion battery is usually about -40 degrees. (I think -40 is the intersrction between F and C, but the article specified C). There was more interesting in that article about different cathodes and safety, but I didn't follow to the cited sources on that. But again, the manufacture of these batteries includes protection of the battery, including temperature. When I talk about a Tesla conditioning the battery for supercharging, regulating the temperature is a part of that. Same for regaining the usable charge in cold weather. While most of us are not going to encounter temperatures of -40, airplanes do encounter those temperatures in flight. The luggage hold should not reach that, but I can see the sense of not allowing Li Ion batteries in luggage. If it reached that temperature in the cabin, batteries would not be our biggest concern.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 1, 2021 1:23:50 GMT
That's not what I'd call good analysis. It excited caricaturization with a touch of eloquence. Unfortunately, that is what passes as analysis very often. If I took the same approach from the opposing viewpoint, I could start with my old high school buddy Monte who posted from Tulsa when he was able to start his gasoline car for the first time in a week at the end of that cold snap. There are a lot of things to be learned from the Texas cold snap, but the end of the EV future in the US? No. That's an advocacy piece.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 28, 2021 22:31:19 GMT
I have little argument with EV cars as such. How you use a car defines the need and the consequent solution against cost. (not withstanding subsidies to distort the equation) The argument that they are clean is simply daft on a full cycle basis. If nuclear MSR were the norm then electric vehicles in the city loop will also become the norm. But to hear "fools" discussing electric trucks and tractor's is childish even if MSR were everywhere. I agree with the first two sentences. What is the comparison of an ICE vehicle vs. EV on a full cycle basis? Especially if you add in lower density power production from sources like Solar which are becoming more and more of a norm in places like California? (In my last house in California, I had solar on my roof. My house did not sit optimally for solar, but it still reduced my net usage by more than half, for example, and my peak production was during peak demand on the grid). Most times, when I read discussion in this area, it turns into very shaky sets of "facts" to support one argument or the other. I'd like to hear a little less daft discussion in this area. I'd also like to see more of our power production coming from Nuclear MSR, FWIW. Discussion of electric cars was foolish just a couple of decades ago. (I actually remember a joke that Red Skelton told about that back in the 1970s). Now, EVs are reality. I don't think long-haul trucks or tractors are currently a practical application for electric motors, but I also don't know what the future holds. I don't want to limit R&D due to current ideas or technologies. Hydrogen is also not currently practical, for example, but I'm all for continuing to allow it to develop. One last note on the hazard of lithium ion batteries - they're ubiquitous. Almost all of us have several lithium ion batteries in our houses from cell phones to laptops to radios, and flashlights. In my case, my snow blower is also powered by such a battery, although it is probably the most limited such device in our house. I know my laptop and phone travel with me, so they definitely get some rough and tumble, especially my cell phone as my butter-fingers just seem to get worse. Still, we have a remarkably low number of incidents. It doesn't mean there isn't a hazard, of course, but the manufacture of the batteries seems to make it a very rare occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Feb 28, 2021 21:56:30 GMT
An issue not discusses is the use of EV's in a tunnel. Here in NZ a transport of explosives is excluded from all tunnels. Petrol and diesel vehicles are permitted not because the energy content is modest its not but modest, but because the oxidizer is not "mixed" with the fuel, this is never discussed with respect to EV's. The woke will not address this because their story will fade. I'll have to disagree about it not being discussed. In fact, in a few places in the US, tunnels are being discussed for the exclusove use of EVs. Fire is regularly discussed in conjunction with project discussion. However, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about petrol cars since a leak where a fire could start exposes the fuel to a much greater amout of oxidizer. Any such fire tends to expand the size of the leak thus producing a vicious cycle. It seems that the real motivation on this side of the argument is whether the idea being argued against is considered "woke." I don't personally care about that aspect, but a weak argument is a weak argument. Statistically speaking, where is a fire more likely to occur: in an ICE vehicle or an EV? When they occur in either, what is the scope of the fire? Is that difference statistically different?
|
|