The future of electric vs gas powered vehicles

[Hammer Smokin']

generating renewable energy without dirty carbons is not a fad, it is the future.

[helix]

For sure and sooner than later.

[Hammer Smokin']

the generation of clean power is already here.

it is the storage of the clean power that is being worked on/invested/improved on.

I've been part of some amazing projects that store energy without any lithium or traditional battery sources.

There is billions being invested in storage of energy.

The generation of the power is already here, and it already quite efficient (especially solar, wind, hydro electric, and bio).

Where we are going to see remarkable advancements is in how the power is stored. Some of the ideas I've read have blown my mind. Yes, they are just ideas, but HUGE companies are pouring massive amount of money into making these ideas real.

Starting to see some prototypical energy storage methods that are so easy, I can't believe they weren't thought of sooner. Just none are available in "small scale" ... yet.

[Kitchen]

24 minutes ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

generating renewable energy without dirty carbons is not a fad, it is the future.

Wind and solar is a fad.  They are just not practical in the long term or in any large scale.  

They produce a fairly small amount of energy given the large amount of geography they take up.  

Not only do they not produce energy all of the time, but the wind blows the least and the sun shines the least (aside from night) at dawn and dusk, exactly when we use the most amount of energy.  This is exacerbated by the fact that we have no way of storing large amount of electrical energy.  So they produce the least amount of energy when we need the most and the most when we need the least.  

Both wind and solar require a significant amount of mining and refining rare earth elements, and then transportation and installation, all of which uses hydrocarbons.  

Both require a fairly large amount of service techs to keep the power running, especially compared to a concentrated coal, oil, gas or nuclear power plant.  Electricity really is a service and the more people needed to provide that service, the more expensive it gets.  This has already become evident in countries going all in on wind and solar.  

Additionally, since all electrical grids need a energy source that can provide electricity on demand, of which wind and solar are not, coal, oil, gas or nuclear power plants still need to be in the mix.  With the exception of nuclear, constantly running a coal, oil and gas power plant on and off actually burns more then just keeping it going 24/7.  

Last, and I may be wrong on this but my source was an architect I work with that I trust, solar panels are not recyclable.  This creates landfill issues.  

Personally, I think nuclear is the only electrical energy source that can replace coal.  Politicians will eventually come around, but it may take 10 years of us going down the wind and solar rabbit hole before we actually consider it.  

I posted this before I saw your other posting.  On the note of hydro, and geothermal too, they are only really applicable in relatively limited locations of the world.  So, although great for those locations, neither are practical for overall production.  Additionally, hydro-electrical is bad for the environment as well.  

[JamesKPolkEsq]

>Wind and solar is a fad.

LOL 

[Hammer Smokin']

with all due respect, you make a large number of mistakes in your post.

I work directly with solar farms, wind farms, hydroelectric facilities, as well as traditional coal, gas, and nuclear.

To suggest a nuclear, coal, or gas facility requires less service and techs to keep the power running than solar, is, well, extremely incorrect.

And if you had any idea the amount of dollars (billions) being invested in storage of energy, you'd change your tune about time of day production.

The safety and reliability of solar and hydro electric power is substantially better than coal, gas, or nuclear (nuclear will always be present, and will always be the "base load" for any modern power grid). Solar panels are as recyclable as TV's. Every house hold has TV's, and often replace them every few years. There are literally millions of TV"s that have been discarded, and we seem to be handling that waste.

In 10+ years any modern energy grid will consist of nuclear + Renewable Energy (and what RE will depend on the geographic location). Here in Canada we have TONS of land for solar and wind farms, as well as tons of water for hydro electric. We could remove all carbon based power production in less than 5 years if it wasn't for the jobs they generate.

I'll be honest, that is one of the real reasons it hasn't happened sooner. Solar Farms and Wind Farms operate without "operators". I'm not sure if you are familiar with the costs associated (human costs) in running carbon based power facilities. Jobs pay well above average, and employ many people who do not have transferable skills.

We have 500MW solar farms operate with little no maintenance (aside from the Transformer/Substation maintenance), and can operate with an employee base of less than 10 operators.

The real issue many have is they see the jobs generated by carbon based power production being removed...and that might be worse for the economy than the benefit of the RE power production.

 

(and that is an entirely different discussion. do we remove high paying jobs from the economy in order to generate cleaner energy.....)

[Kitchen]

First, like I said, I was not sure if recycling solar panels was in deed possible, I was merely relying on the info I received.  If they are, which you say, then great.  Furthermore, aside from this, you did not really explain why any of my other points are incorrect.  

Second, just because there are billions of dollars being invested in electrical storage, does not mean it will come to fruition.  What large scale storage solutions are their currently (being built without any rare earth elements that come directly from mining and refining, using large amounts of hydro-carbons for the processes, not to mention destroying the land)?  

Third, I have no issue with us getting rid of coal power, and I would like to see it happen.  However, I don't think wind and solar will get is there with out greatly raising the cost of electricity.  Like I said, this is already evident.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/25/yes-solar-and-wind-really-do-increase-electricity-prices-and-for-inherently-physical-reasons/#296a2d517e84 

A large raise in the cost of energy will just destroy the economy.  

Last, if we are going to have our energy produced by a large amount of (100,000+) wind turbines and solar panels, compared to concentrated power plants, I just dont see how this would require less techs.  All those things need to be maintained, not the mention the additional amount of transportation lines required, which will require a workforce spread out over a large area.  Please explain how I am wrong, not just tell me I am wrong.  

[Hammer Smokin']

No, most of a panel is not recyclable, just like a TV. But TV's are in every household, multiplied by 2 or 3, and replaced every few years. That was my point.

I've been part of large scale storage solutions that include taking produced power and turning it into kinetic energy. These include using energy to transfer water from a low point to a high point and cap it. When you want the energy again, you release the "cap" and allow it to fall, using gravity. Once falling, it turns a turbine. So the power is transferred through the use of pumps, then held, and released.

A 2nd option is the opposite. I've been part of projects that use motors on the bottom of a lake. The take a balloon like structure and using power then pull down an inflated balloon to the bottom. It then is "held" on the bottom. When the power is needed they release the balloon to float to the surface. In doing so, chains turn a turbine while the balloon is raising, regenerating the power.

Both of these options are examples of storage of energy without any form of battery.

Then there is a really cool thing that I've not actually been part of, but it is being looked at. Essentially an oversized elastic (for lack of better term) is wound up and locked. When release, again, turns a turbine.

No mining or rare elements involved in any of the above energy storage methods.

Finally, your question on techs. While wind turbines need millwrights for the upkeep and maintenance, not nearly the amount that a coal facility or gas power facility employ's on a daily basis. Solar farms have no moving parts. Once installed, they require so little maintenance and upkeep it is actually startling. They are by far the cheapest form of energy production, well below any form of carbon based energy. They need very little replacement, and are quite durable. Wind farms need more, and costs are higher. Hydro Electric sits in the middle.

Again, the biggest challenge of moving away from carbon based power is all the workers employed in the carbon based facilities. The tradesman can be re-employed in alternate industries, but the "operators" cannot. That is the challenge. What do you do with hundreds (or in a big country like Canada or USA), thousands of employees no longer needed.

Much of the incorrect information spread on renewable's is done from companies or employees who will no longer be needed or employed if carbon based production is reduced. That is a real problem. And again, might be a bigger problem than the benefits (environment, safety) generated by Renewable Energy.

Just the elimination of the various federal subsidies currently in place for carbon based power (again, nuclear is here to stay, forever) will offset increased costs for RE power production.

Hope this helps build your knowledge on the future of both production of power as well as storage of power. If not, that's cool too. The future cannot be stopped.

[LLC]

At this point electric cars aren’t of interest to me but maybe someday down the road that will change. For now I like my naturally aspirated engine with my performance exhaust and the visceral feel and smile on my face.

I did hear today that you can now lease Tesla’s model 3’s but at lease end you cannot buy it out. It is how they plan to build their fleet of cars for an autonomous car service; Uber without the driver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kitchen]

Interesting input on the storage solutions; I was not aware of those designs.  Although these are interesting, I would imagine they would still require a large geographical footprint for any practical use.  So, in order for them to work, they would need to be far from any urban center, just to allow for the land to cheap enough.  This then increases utility line length, which increases cost of building and maintaining.  

But going back to power supply, (did you read the article by the way?) how do you overcome the fact that solar and wind farms are in general much further away from urban environments, requiring longer utility lines, which also increase cost in building and maintaining?    

Additionally, it takes 20 more power plants, as compared to one modern concentrated plant, to produce the same amount of power requiring 20 times more lines, all with installation and maintenance issues; how is this cheaper?  

Last, how do we justify the cost of all these lines, knowing full well that most of the time they will be used at far below max output and sometime not at all?  Seems like a waste of resources.  

There were additional points in that article that I just don't see wind and solar overcoming, ever.  

And insofar as your disinformation comment, and I am not sure you directed it at the provided article, but Forbes is a fairly reliable publication with well thought out articles.  And all other well written and researched articles, which look at the full cost of wind and solar, I have seen all come to the same conclusions. I just don't see wind and solar ever being more then a dream accounting for only a small portion of the grid.  

Nuclear is where my bets are placed.  

One more thing, you seem to imply wind turbines and solar panels need very little maintenance.  I just don't buy this.  Anything with moving parts (wind turbines) will break eventually.  Maybe it is not happening now, but I attribute that to them being so new.  Give them some years of service and they will surely need an army of technicians and mechanics.  Second, don't solar panels work less when they get dusty?  Do they clean themselves?  

[Hammer Smokin']

wind farms are often in more remote/rural areas, but solar facilities are built directly within existing infrastructures, as are hydro electric facilties. Just in the city of Toronto there is over 3,500 operating rooftop solar arrays. Smart grid technology will improve the transfer of energy. Solar is the best option for "local" power production. Some of the tests for the gravity storage is being done underground, which could be incorporated into cities for local power storage.

yes I did read the article you posted. I believe that is where your 20 times is coming from. That is comparing solar to nuclear. No educated person will ever argue that solar is more efficient than nuclear. But if you take the same comparison with coal or gas, that number gets thrown out the window.

Nuclear will never ever go away. Nor should it.

But 100% of carbon based power could be replaced with Renewable Forms already.

I like to try to keep these discussions away from Nuclear, because nuclear is the ultimate form of power production. Nothing (at least that we are currently aware of) will ever be able to replace it. But a healthy grid will use a base load of nuclear and supplement with the best form of RE available at the specific grid, whether that be wind, solar, hydroelectric, or even bioenergy.

good discussion. I've enjoyed it. But I need to get up in 4.5 hours for my fishing trip.

So I'll check back this thread tomorrow.

Cheers,

[DaBoot]

On 4/11/2019 at 6:41 PM, Philc2001 said:

Personally I think the long-term viability of EVs is very limited. I worked in the car manufacturing and distribution business, and I learned a lot about how the auto manufacturers think about the future. I am in the camp that thinks EVs are a stop gap for the moment, rather than an end goal. I believe electricity as a power source for cars just won't make the grade. It won't happen overnight, but an alternative power, such as hydrogen or some other renewable source of energy, will eventually become more economically viable, and will provide more power, distance, durability and most importantly; liberty.

Autonomous vehicles will get better especially when V2V and V2E communication catches on, and then vehicle sharing will become more viable also. 

Ultimately, I think there will be another major revolutionary breakthrough in automobiles, and probably within our lifetime. Cars today are inherently inefficient, in large part because it takes a lot of power to move such heavy objects. But at some point a new technology like maglev (such as the high speed trains) will actually change our roadways, and levitating vehicles (no, not flying vehicles) will become a reality. Levitating cars, riding just a couple of millimeters above the mag surface, will eliminate rolling resistance and friction, they will require less maintenance, and will virtually be non-polluting. 

I hope I'm around to see and experience these advancements.

Agree with ya here, and it will be very soon, just worry about the “ethics” of cars communication, ie: the vehicle knows a 60yr old is driving, there is a second vehicle with a family of four.. to avoid a deadly all around collision, one vehicle will need to drive off a cliff, existing computing power can make this decision in less than a second, what to do?? How do you write that code into the programming?? Do the “elites “ or govt officials get a different programmed vehicle to survive??? 

[WABOOM]

This thread would be closed on a lot of forums due to the political nature and heated opinions.

[Hollywood Ninja]

I won't pretend to drive an EV because I'm trying to save anything ($$ or the environment), but my car is fast and fun to drive and I dig waking up every morning with a full "tank".  Nearly zero maintenance as others have mentioned.  Haven't even changed the brakes in over 125k miles.  With all that being said, the car's soul feels different and I do miss working on my own vehicle.  I don't like that there is virtually no where to get my car serviced except the already completely over-worked service center (which there are only 2 of where I am).  You know how your phone feels obsolete after a year, well, the same sort of holds true for how computerized some of these EVs are, although I suppose that could also apply to how computerized CE vehicles in general are nowadays too.

[El Presidente]

3 hours ago, Kitchen said:

Please explain how I am wrong, not just tell me I am wrong.  

Di has had her solar panels for 14 years. 

She did get a bill last quarter for household electricity. It was 45 cents .

If she could store the power she generates (as opposed to putting it back in the grid), she would be self sufficient in terms of power and that includes an EV. 

maintenance cost of the solar system over 14 years is $0.  Warranty, 25 years. 

 

[El Presidente]

2 hours ago, WABOOM said:

This thread would be closed on a lot of forums due to the political nature and heated opinions.

We are learning. Play the ball and not the man. 

[Hookmaker]

2 hours ago, WABOOM said:

This thread would be closed on a lot of forums due to the political nature and heated opinions.

What heated discussion? For once I feel that a subject in here that may be politically associated is being discussed in a moderate tone. There are opinions and then there are opinions, - that’s how the world works?

[David88]

While I love 'traditional' combustion engine cars I understand and see the desperate need for a lot of people to convert to electric vehicles. Many governments now seem to be pushing towards this and are setting ambitious aims for the course of the next 10 years with regards to electric car sales. How likely this is, is another question. The infrastructure isn't in place currently to support such a big change, but it has to start somewhere I suppose. 

When I move back to the UK (sometime in the next 10 years) I will look to buy an EV. Fuels costs are just too high now, I dread to think what they will go up to. It is certainly going to be interesting to see what governments do when they take a big hit in fuel duty!

[dominattorney]

23 hours ago, gweilgi said:

That's only half the calculation.  For the true cost of car ownership, we also have to factor in the cost of maintenance and servicing, and generally depreciation.  If I buy a new car tomorrow, the rate of depreciation is -- very generally speaking -- around 19%  in the first year, half of which occurs immediately after I take possession ... followed by a 15% drop in years two and three.  So that new $50,000 vehicle will be worth maybe $30,000 three years hence ... and those 20 grand alone could pay for a lot of Uber rides in those three years. 

I dont value depreciation the same way I guess. I just see it as I pay a certain amount per month for my car. When I pay it off I buy a new one. 

[Colt45]

20 hours ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

I like to try to keep these discussions away from Nuclear, because nuclear is the ultimate form of power production.

We shouldn't, I think - spent fuel is no joke. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. To the main point of discussion, I've no problem with non combustion engine vehicles. On a side note as has been broached already, there is a real problem with "technology" putting people out of work.....

[Philc2001]

21 hours ago, DaBoot said:

Agree with ya here, and it will be very soon, just worry about the “ethics” of cars communication, ie: the vehicle knows a 60yr old is driving, there is a second vehicle with a family of four.. to avoid a deadly all around collision, one vehicle will need to drive off a cliff, existing computing power can make this decision in less than a second, what to do?? How do you write that code into the programming?? Do the “elites “ or govt officials get a different programmed vehicle to survive??? 

The theory among autonomous vehicle designers for several years was that if the programming ran out of options (the no-win scenario), they would transfer control to the driver. The belief in the early days was that this would avoid liability. But eventually they realised the company would still be liable because the program effectively puts the vehicle in a life threatening situation, and handing off the controls at this point is the worst thing to do. Once they got past this roadblock Google basically concluded there is no scenario where the vehicle should hand off to the driver, and at that point they eliminated the steering wheel in their autonomous vehicles.

However, V2V communication is supposed to avoid the scenario you described, it prevents collision by automatically applying the brakes and slowing down one or both of the vehicles, even bringing both cars to a complete stop, before it reaches the fatal situation. Nothing is 100% failsafe, there will always be some no-win scenarios, but in most cases the computers are usually better at dealing with them than 99.9% of humans. For those situations, you have airbags and emergency braking.  

[Philc2001]

20 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

On a side note as has been broached already, there is a real problem with "technology" putting people out of work.....

Creative destruction makes some jobs obsolete, but it creates many other jobs that usually offsets. Farming, manufacturing and mining have been bleeding jobs globally for decades, but more jobs continue to be created and more people are employed now than ever before. The jobs are just different, laborious, repetitive, mindless and dangerous jobs will always be ripe for automation. 

[Philc2001]

23 hours ago, Kitchen said:

 

Personally, I think nuclear is the only electrical energy source that can replace coal.  Politicians will eventually come around, but it may take 10 years of us going down the wind and solar rabbit hole before we actually consider it.  

I don't think solar, hydro and wind will go away any time soon, I believe we will see all these industries grow for several decades. As someone posted earlier, the biggest challenge is storing the energy, and that tech will only get better.

Unfortunately nuclear power gets a bad reputation, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Early reactors used fuel rods, which was a rushed and very bad and inefficient wasteful early design, and ultimately died in highly publicised melt-downs, i.e. Chernobyl, 3-mile Island, Fukushima. The Oil companies seized on these mistakes to lobby for and enact moratoriums and once they had successfully killed off nuclear, they systematically bought out the nuclear plants and much of the tech for pennies, and diligently kept it from becoming a competitive threat to oil. But fuel rods and light-water reactors were outmoded about 50 years ago by molten salt reactors, fuel orbs and other better designs, which pose no threat of meltdown. These modern reactors use up over 95% of the fuel and generate 700+ percent more power than light-water reactors, but because of the moratoriums they can't be built here. Another plus is modern reactors, such as molten salt reactors, can actually run on the spent fuel from other types of reactors, so there is a lot of available fuel already. 

Sadly, this technology will likely be developed in China and other parts of the world, before it gets approved in the U.S., so the U.S. is in danger of losing the energy race, mostly because of the greed of the oil industry. 

[Colt45]

1 hour ago, Philc2001 said:

Creative destruction makes some jobs obsolete, but it creates many other jobs that usually offsets. Farming, manufacturing and mining have been bleeding jobs globally for decades, but more jobs continue to be created and more people are employed now than ever before. The jobs are just different, laborious, repetitive, mindless and dangerous jobs will always be ripe for automation. 

Being employed and being able to earn a living are not always the same thing.

[Philc2001]

1 minute ago, Colt45 said:

Being employed and being able to earn a living are not always the same thing.

Jobs that sicken, injure or kill people are not a good way to make a living.