Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Maizerunner08]

I don't mind solar or wind energy, however the initial cost of these energy sources is incredibly high. If you think companies are going to eat that cost you're sorely mistaken. The consumer would ultimately pay the cost for any such upgrade, not the business.

[SubGod22]

I don't mind solar or wind energy, however the initial cost of these energy sources is incredibly high. If you think companies are going to eat that cost you're sorely mistaken. The consumer would ultimately pay the cost for any such upgrade, not the business.

This is why I'm an all of the above person and why I think these alternative sources should be phased in when they make more sense. Though if I read things correctly this $20M project should be able to power 750K homes year round which just spitballing a monthly bill on average, for SoCal and naturally higher rates, it would more than pay for itself in short order.

I also admit I don't have any clue how the energy sector works and how costs/profits are distributed through things like this, but things are getting better. Especially when you consider some of the other things that have been mentioned in this thread on things that should improve a lot of durability and cost effectiveness in the near future. And California is probably one of the better states for solar, and if this can help mitigate drought conditions in the process, it's a double win (potentially).

I think I saw a stat recently that Kansas now gets something like 43% of its energy from renewable sources (wind). I'm not sure if I saw that correctly or if the percentage was a little out of context, but I do know we are seen as a leader in that department, which would generally make sense with the open prairie land that would be good for such things.

I still want to see nuclear get a push. I know there are a couple of plants that have been in the works, but I don't know the status.

But back to solar, it has come down some over the years. Any new and improved technology is going to be outrageous at first. The first HD flat screens went for thousands of dollars and now you can get a 60 inch for hundreds. As solar, and others, continue to improve and make up some of the R&D costs it will come down and has. There are a lot of promising new developments to make that happen and for improved battery storage that is also cheaper and safer. Progress is being made. We just need Washington to stay the hell out of the way and let it naturally happen instead of driving up costs doing the bullshit they always do which is make things worse.

[Maizerunner08]

This is why I'm an all of the above person and why I think these alternative sources should be phased in when they make more sense. Though if I read things correctly this $20M project should be able to power 750K homes year round which just spitballing a monthly bill on average, for SoCal and naturally higher rates, it would more than pay for itself in short order.

I also admit I don't have any clue how the energy sector works and how costs/profits are distributed through things like this, but things are getting better. Especially when you consider some of the other things that have been mentioned in this thread on things that should improve a lot of durability and cost effectiveness in the near future. And California is probably one of the better states for solar, and if this can help mitigate drought conditions in the process, it's a double win (potentially).

I think I saw a stat recently that Kansas now gets something like 43% of its energy from renewable sources (wind). I'm not sure if I saw that correctly or if the percentage was a little out of context, but I do know we are seen as a leader in that department, which would generally make sense with the open prairie land that would be good for such things.

I still want to see nuclear get a push. I know there are a couple of plants that have been in the works, but I don't know the status.

But back to solar, it has come down some over the years. Any new and improved technology is going to be outrageous at first. The first HD flat screens went for thousands of dollars and now you can get a 60 inch for hundreds. As solar, and others, continue to improve and make up some of the R&D costs it will come down and has. There are a lot of promising new developments to make that happen and for improved battery storage that is also cheaper and safer. Progress is being made. We just need Washington to stay the hell out of the way and let it naturally happen instead of driving up costs doing the bullshit they always do which is make things worse.

Really solid post, Sub. I'm with you.

Particularly on nuclear, I think the media have spooked everyone into thinking another disaster is a given if we build more plants. Now the disposal piece--that's still a legitimate concern.

I personally haven't found myself intentionally going green. With that said, I found a cheap electric lawnmower during the Prime days and it's pretty slick. Is it as powerful as my old gas one? Heck no. Does it still cut my grass? It sure does. If costs continue to go down, "choosing green" will become more the natural/economical choice for most people.

[SubGod22]

Really solid post, Sub. I'm with you.

Particularly on nuclear, I think the media have spooked everyone into thinking another disaster is a given if we build more plants. Now the disposal piece--that's still a legitimate concern.

I personally haven't found myself intentionally going green. With that said, I found a cheap electric lawnmower during the Prime days and it's pretty slick. Is it as powerful as my old gas one? Heck no. Does it still cut my grass? It sure does. If costs continue to go down, "choosing green" will become more the natural/economical choice for most people.

Disposal isn't near the concern many would lead you to believe. There's been tech for a while now that can actually utilize the nuclear waste and reuse it. The end result is minuscule.

I think most of us are in a similar place as you in regards to going green. If/When it makes sense people will do it. Most of us know that we can do things to clean up our world and it has nothing to do with warming or cooling. Who wouldn't want cleaner air? Cleaner waters? Just a cleaner environment in general? Most haven't been able to or still can't afford it, though things are improving. I have an electric weed-eater and small saw for trimming trees and such. I'll get an electric lawnmower soon. They work fine and I don't have to worry about storing gas and such. Always paranoid something will happen and harm my dogs. I'm not going to be in the market for a car for quite some time, and while currently I wouldn't even consider an EV due to lack of range, long charge times and the current lack of infrastructure, I would definitely look into a hybrid option for a vehicle. By the time I'm in the market for a car, maybe things will have changed with EVs. I know there are companies pumping a lot of R&D into them and a lot of work going into batteries to make them hold better charges and charge faster. There's also a lot of work trying to use different materials to make things more cost effective. The US government is also pumping a **** ton of money into things to improve the EV infrastructure. I know there was a conference in Wichita a few weeks ago about how KS is going to proceed with those funds and you're going to see a lot more options along 70 and 35 over the next few years. I do work for a company that has some involvement in installing and maintaining EV charge stations, though it's not our primary business and we end up doing a lot of work for companies like Proterra and a couple of others. I do know at least one of our executives was at the conference.

All of this come back to private companies will do more for green tech on their own than the federal government could ever mandate. Work is being done and will continue to improve.

Now I'm wondering if putting solar panels in western Kansas over some areas of rivers and such would do anything. I know the Arkansas River has a lot of issues out there, but that's mostly due to Colorado dams diverting water for use in eastern Colorado. I know wind makes sense on some level out there, or will as that tech continues to improve. I still think it has further to go to be more financially sensible, but it is what it is.

I also like what I read a while back about some solar company that utilizes rooftops of storage units and such that helps power neighborhoods. Those are relatively little things that could add up. Maybe some of that doesn't work, or isn't worthwhile with some of our weather. I don't know how durable some of these panels are. But it's more about the little things. Government tries too hard to be big and massive and that just inflates costs and probably does more harm than good when it comes to keeping things cost effective and trying to stay away from bad publicity, which renewables have had a lot of for a long time because of moves like that.

That was way more than I meant to say.

[ShockTalk]

I know there was a conference in Wichita a few weeks ago about how KS is going to proceed with those funds and you're going to see a lot more options along 70 and 35 over the next few years. I do work for a company that has some involvement in installing and maintaining EV charge stations, though it's not our primary business and we end up doing a lot of work for companies like Proterra and a couple of others. I do know at least one of our executives was at the conference.

I feel very much like you do on this post, but the above part is what bugs me the most.

When traveling, I notice not only how many vehicles are on an interstate highway, but how many are at rest stops and any gas station I pull into. Also, how quickly one can fill-up and be on their way. Even if we do not reduce the number of "stations/rest stops" and "pumps" and assume one can get a full charge in 30 minutes. How many chargers would be needed? Now, add in that those fast chargers may not be that safe and are very expensive. That means you are likely not to go any farther in a day's travel than is safe for you find an overnight place to stay and charge.

Also, batteries work best when they are between 20% and 80% charged and cold weather can create problems. If, you think running out of gas is a pain in b**t, just wait until you run out of electric juice. That will cost you a tow or a "mobile charger" truck that I'm guessing will cost a bunch.

To me, good nationwide availability for charging must be in place before getting rid of gasoline powered vehicles. That does not mean a family (assuming they can afford it) can have an electric car for in town and traditional car for travel.

Setting these target dates out for complete change-over are totally out of line until the infrastructure can be assured to be in place well before those dates. Even then, the infrastructure for distance travel may still be even further out.

[SubGod22]

I feel very much like you do on this post, but the above part is what bugs me the most.

When traveling, I notice not only how many vehicles are on an interstate highway, but how many are at rest stops and any gas station I pull into. Also, how quickly one can fill-up and be on their way. Even if we do not reduce the number of "stations/rest stops" and "pumps" and assume one can get a full charge in 30 minutes. How many chargers would be needed? Now, add in that those fast chargers may not be that safe and are very expensive. That means you are likely not to go any farther in a day's travel than is safe for you find an overnight place to stay and charge.

Also, batteries work best when they are between 20% and 80% charged and cold weather can create problems. If, you think running out of gas is a pain in b**t, just wait until you run out of electric juice. That will cost you a tow or a "mobile charger" truck that I'm guessing will cost a bunch.

To me, good nationwide availability for charging must be in place before getting rid of gasoline powered vehicles. That does not mean a family (assuming they can afford it) can have an electric car for in town and traditional car for travel.

Setting these target dates out for complete change-over are totally out of line until the infrastructure can be assured to be in place well before those dates. Even then, the infrastructure for distance travel may still be even further out.

I agree that California is dumb by putting the cart before horse. But it's only Cali that has gone and said they're cancelling gas cars isn't it?

But, for more people to be open to EVs, we do need better access to charging stations. I'm not sure how long it takes to charge, I've generally heard anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour. That's very inconvenient for a lot of people, unless you can somehow guarantee it coincides with meal time and that there will be an available charging station near where you want to eat.

I don't know how it all works, or will work, but in Kansas, at this point having access to could be a benefit. I'm no fan of government handouts and I'm pretty sure I've made that clear, but Kansas has received a lot of money for this project from DC and it is going to happen. I don't think Kansas is in any real power grid crisis like CA has been, and I know Evergy is banking on increasing even more renewable output over the next couple of years. I still wish we had some more focus on clean coal and nuclear here, but that's not the current case. But I don't think Kansas is under any threat to not have ample resources to power more EVs. I also don't think that you're going to see an influx of EVs in Kansas just because of this. More people will slowly move in that direction as access to stations improves.

With the way things currently are, and from what I've heard from co-workers, people will find a station wherever they can. Had a guy here who was at a hotel for a baseball tournament somewhere in Kansas and he was amused at how many people would pull off the highway and charge at the hotel and that people would literally park and wait for access there. That's highly inconvenient for EV drivers and potentially hotel guests dealing with non hotel traffic in the parking lot.

But I don't disagree with you. There's still a ways to go from a tech standpoint before they become more widespread, especially in states like Kansas where it's not uncommon to travel and need more range than those who live in and never leave their cities. I love to travel, which is why an EV is not on my list of things I'd consider at the moment. But part of that is also lack of access/convenience of charging stations.

Though I will say, now that I think about it, as EVs become more popular, it would make a lot of sense to have charging stations at hotels and restaurants. Places where you're generally going to spend more time and charging is less of an inconvenience. But that still doesn't change the importance of better range and such.

[ShockTalk]

How Often You Have To Charge An Electric Car: Purchase with Confidence – The Plugin Report


Level 3 / DC Fast Charge: These are special charging stations typically located in public places and rest stops. Every 30 minutes of charging equals approximately 90 miles of travel distance. Only fully battery electric vehicles are able to use the fast charge systems.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

How Often You Have To Charge An Electric Car: Purchase with Confidence – The Plugin Report


Level 3 / DC Fast Charge: These are special charging stations typically located in public places and rest stops. Every 30 minutes of charging equals approximately 90 miles of travel distance. Only fully battery electric vehicles are able to use the fast charge systems.

Wanting to replace gas powered engines with this is pie in the sky fanasyland nonsense.

[Shockm]

How Often You Have To Charge An Electric Car: Purchase with Confidence – The Plugin Report


Level 3 / DC Fast Charge: These are special charging stations typically located in public places and rest stops. Every 30 minutes of charging equals approximately 90 miles of travel distance. Only fully battery electric vehicles are able to use the fast charge systems.

But at least, America has a surplus of the raw materials that are needed to equip cars with fully battery electric vehicles in the next 10 years, right? They are in the process of being mined in the near future. Right?

[atlwsu]

Wanting to replace gas powered engines with this is pie in the sky fanasyland nonsense.

I am not sure. I never thought I would get phone calls on my watch or emails on my phone. I am 73 and won't see the technology I'm my life but my kids or their kids will.

I just bought my first hybrid. On my 4th tang of gas. Enjoying the 36+MPG in town.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

I am not sure. I never thought I would get phone calls on my watch or emails on my phone. I am 73 and won't see the technology I'm my life but my kids or their kids will.

I just bought my first hybrid. On my 4th tang of gas. Enjoying the 36+MPG in town.

Yes, but they are pushing for everyone to have an EV and they don't have near the amount of infrastructure in place to support it. Not nearly enough charging stations, insufficient production of batteries, etc... Typical cart before the horse...

You are going to turn a 5 hour road trip in to 10 hours when you factor in the time stopping to charge the stupid batteries. It's insane.

[SubGod22]

Longer ranged EVs are closer than you think. First one is said to be out before the end of the year and Tesla has a planned release of 2023 with this new design/battery concept that should get over 600 miles per charge. If these play out and are as advertised, it very well may push more people to actively consider them for their next vehicle.

Wired - A New Approach to Car Batteries Is About to Transform EVs

If you want to build an EV with better range, slapping in a larger battery to provide that range is not necessarily the solution. You would then have to increase the size of the brakes to make them capable of stopping the heavier car, and because of the bigger brakes you now need bigger wheels, and the weight of all those items would require a stronger structure. This is what car designers call the “weight spiral,” and the problem with batteries is that they require you to lug around dead weight just to power the vehicle.

But what if you could integrate the battery into the structure of the car so that the cells could serve the dual purpose of powering the vehicle and serving as its skeleton? That is exactly what Tesla and Chinese companies such as BYD and CATL are working on. The new structural designs coming out of these companies stand to not only change the way EVs are produced but increase vehicle ranges while decreasing manufacturing costs.
.....
Redistributing the batteries’ bulk will also free up space in a car’s design for a roomier interior, since designers will no longer need to raise the floor height of an EV to stash the cells underneath in a big slab. Freed from these previous constraints, as the cells can make up the entire chassis, manufacturers will be able to squeeze more cells into each EV, thereby increasing range.

CATL estimates that production vehicles of this design will achieve ranges of 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) per charge—a 40 percent increase over conventional battery tech.
.....
McTurk explains: “Integrating cells into the chassis allows the cells and the chassis to become multi-purpose. The cells become energy-storing and structurally supporting, while the chassis becomes structurally supporting and cell-protecting. This effectively cancels out the weight of the cell casing, turning it from dead weight into something valuable to the structure of the vehicle.”

According to Tesla, this design, along with its die-casting, could allow vehicles to save 370 parts. This cuts body weight by 10 percent, lowers battery costs by 7 percent per kilowatt-hour, and improves vehicle range.

While Tesla’s 4680 battery with its larger volume seems to play an integral role in the company’s ability to move to a cell-to-body design, CATL’s new Qilin battery boasts a 13 percent increase in capacity over the 4680, with a volume utilization efficiency of 72 percent and an energy density of up to 255 watt-hours per kilogram. It is set to become a key part of CATL’s third-generation cell-to-pack solution and will likely form the basis of the company’s cell-to-chassis offering.

This doesn't change the fact that this country needs more nuclear on the power grid, as well as other sources, but it is showing that work is being done to make EVs better and more appealing to the masses.

Personally, my longest sustained drive was around 680 miles and I had to get gas once along the way. The alleged range of these new concepts wouldn't have gotten me quite as far, but pretty damn close. I'd say this is definitely a step in the right direction in regards to EVs. If the infrastructure were there, instead of hitting a drive thru I could have stopped and got some charge while enjoying a meal and then made it to my destination, even if it only added 90 miles or so (based on previous post) while I ate. Then the car would recharge while at the hotel or something.

We're not completely there yet, but we are moving in that direction with new and improved tech, we just need the infrastructure and grid power to handle it, and that is being worked on at least in Kansas. I can't speak to every state and I ignore California because it's all kinds of screwed up.

[Shockm]

Elon Musk totally understands (more than any of us) the needs for energy for his EV Tesla's, and other technologies. He knows how much energy we have for the grid to work. He understands the possibilities of nuclear energy and isn't against it either. He knows how much the cost of heating homes in northern areas of America and Europe will be higher in the coming winter. He understands the consequences of the world (Europe and the United States) unilaterally moving away from fossil fuels, while Russia and the Middle East horde the oil, and the prices they command from it.

Yet, Musk, still repeatedly says, that the United States, and Europe aren't ready to move away from producing fossil fuels. Why would people in the West, still say he doesn't know what he's talking about (Biden and the rest of his leftist energy supporters).

We may be close to EV technology, and being able to heat our homes, and businesses from renewables, and nuclear, because nuclear plants have to be built too.

However, We are still years away (it could be 15 years, but my guess is that it's closer to 25-50 years away) from the average consumer in America being able to afford Electric Vehicles, and our homes/businesses heated by renewables, even if the technology is here which it isn't.

[CBB_Fan]

I may be totally off the mark, but I think plug-in hybrid vehicles are immensely more practical for mass adoption than full EVs, at least once they start getting up to 40-60 miles of EV-only range. That would put them within the vast majority of urban and suburban commuter's two-way daily commute, with some room to spare for wind and weather (which can greatly affect batteries). In that scenario, even a full-size SUV would use only about 6 kWh. At 10.5¢ per kWh, that's just 63¢ a day. A gas SUV getting 20 MPG would instead need 2 gallons of gas for the same 40 mile commute, or about $7.00.

But for long-range driving? The plug-in hybrid just fills up the tank, using our awesome preexisting infrastructure. And it gets 35-40 MPG as a regular old hybrid along the way. With a 15 gallon tank, it can go 600 miles and only needs the usual fill-up time to get back on the road, beating both the gas SUV and its EV equivalent. And unlike a 'regular' hybrid, the plug-in isn't limited to a dinky low horsepower CVT engine. It can combine actual electric motors to get far more instant torque and overall HP when combined with the gas engine.

Aside from current cost, extreme lack of availability, and the fun of manual engines, they just seem like the best of all worlds to me. Faster, more efficient, better at towing, less maintenance, and no need to fill up weekly at the gas station.

[wufan]

I may be totally off the mark, but I think plug-in hybrid vehicles are immensely more practical for mass adoption than full EVs, at least once they start getting up to 40-60 miles of EV-only range. That would put them within the vast majority of urban and suburban commuter's two-way daily commute, with some room to spare for wind and weather (which can greatly affect batteries). In that scenario, even a full-size SUV would use only about 6 kWh. At 10.5¢ per kWh, that's just 63¢ a day. A gas SUV getting 20 MPG would instead need 2 gallons of gas for the same 40 mile commute, or about $7.00.

But for long-range driving? The plug-in hybrid just fills up the tank, using our awesome preexisting infrastructure. And it gets 35-40 MPG as a regular old hybrid along the way. With a 15 gallon tank, it can go 600 miles and only needs the usual fill-up time to get back on the road, beating both the gas SUV and its EV equivalent. And unlike a 'regular' hybrid, the plug-in isn't limited to a dinky low horsepower CVT engine. It can combine actual electric motors to get far more instant torque and overall HP when combined with the gas engine.

Aside from current cost, extreme lack of availability, and the fun of manual engines, they just seem like the best of all worlds to me. Faster, more efficient, better at towing, less maintenance, and no need to fill up weekly at the gas station.

Don’t disagree with this, but need to consider that many people need/want larger vehicles that haul lots of people, tow, or both. When looking at the “comparable” gas SUV to the Hybrid SUV, the savings aren’t quite as much.