|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 2, 2021 17:35:41 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. 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.
|
|
|
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 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 sigurdur on Mar 3, 2021 2:15:42 GMT
I agree with everything you said about ICE fill time verses EV.
I think about 2/3 of the US could use EV tech effectively. Infrastructure will have to be built to accommodate the required energy needs. Wind/solar won't fill that requirement.
Natural gas. The reason natural gas failed was because the pumps are on "interruptable" status. Basically "off peak". They got turned off in Texas and Oklahoma resulting in less gas pressure in the pipelines resulting in lower quantities delivered. Most people don't know how this works.
I recognize how wind mills work. Used to be one on my farm.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 7, 2021 4:17:09 GMT
Looking from a different perspective .....
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 7, 2021 5:41:06 GMT
He seems to have forgotten a lot of issues. Also, 30% 1920 perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 7, 2021 8:46:13 GMT
Its his spin on things and we tend to be a little polarised in our positions at times also.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 7, 2021 16:07:53 GMT
Looking from a different perspective ..... It is a good video but neglects to state that fuel for vehicles is now really a byproduct of oil refining. Plastic items of all sorts from pill bottles to cable insulation to clothes are created from oil refineries. Coal fired power stations have to get their coal and that takes a lot of energy too. Saab some years back did an experiment in London where they drove one of their cars through the city and compared it's exhaust gases to ambient air. They claimed that the air from the exhaust was cleaner than the intake of ambient air. In Germany it was reported that in one of the towns that limits cars to reduce PM2.5 pollution; the sensors carried on running while the pandemic lock down was in place and the PM2.5 pollution was unchanged despite almost no traffic. These are not simple comparisons. Oil is a feedstock not solely for vehicles and a lot of the pollution in cities can come from other sources than vehicles and exhausts. Simplistic measures usually give the wrong results.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 7, 2021 16:35:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 23, 2021 4:23:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 23, 2021 18:11:44 GMT
True Believers Never Listen. They already KNOW the answer.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 23, 2021 19:46:13 GMT
True Believers Never Listen. They already KNOW the answer. Truth.
|
|
|
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 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 missouriboy on Mar 23, 2021 23:49:25 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? 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.
|
|