Trouble In Paradise For Future Electric Cars

No doubt EV’s are great, but they co-exist with the power grid in a mixture of pseudo-science and mysticism (to date, utterly lacking in reasoned outcome data)...Within a magnet of utopian psychology, virtue-signaling, and green political cultism, exist the popularized schema that fuels their conscripted subsidies and vehicle sales, all without a comprehensive, empirical, objective study or overall analysis - or even a debate, (“Climate Deniers”!!!! - lol!) about the long term impact or capabiity of a fractionalized, highly stressed, shared grid...

Yet (existing in a intellectual vacuum), some EV advocates fool heartedly dismiss the option of pleantyful, clean burning, easy to convert to, natural gas as a comprehensive, reliable National energy alternative (akin to “not my religion”!), while simultaneously sneering at the use of ‘clean-coal’ (relative to lesser grades or sources) used to generate electricity to power their (subsidized by often struggling neighbors...) personal extravagances...Asking for the empirical science or reasoned non-biased studies per a sustainable national energy plan yields only the predictable, theologically shallow rebuke and outcast ridicule... Welcome to Huxley’s Brave New World...

3 tons

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
16 x 24

The issue is range. Show me an electric car that has a 384 mile range. Long enough distance to fuel up outside the blackout envelope. I can cheaply store 240 miles in 2 5 gallon cans.

There are Electric vehicles with a range in excess of 300 miles. NOt sure what the maximum range is.. There are several ways to recharge yes that includes a gasoline driven portable generator (or other fossil fuel).

Solar.. Someone said Solar and wind are not practical in much of the US.. DTE Energy has a solar farm (Trying to think of the name of the the farm.. THinking of its name. (WHo was the human with Alvin and the Chipmunks. that may be it) But article about it and this is lower Michigan. (Just off I-69 between Flint and Port Huron)

We have lots of breeze (Wind) too.

That said. I do agree that there are issues with emissions beyond the vehicle. One of the thing though. Power plant emissions tend to NOT be in the middle of say Los Angle or NYC... So to some extend they are simply moving the problem to somewhere else.

NOTE: I can also argue against EV's..

The argument I use againt them is very close to the argument I use in favor of cooking with gas.

Cooking with electric: We start by using fuel to boil water turning it into high pressure steam which spins a turbine which spins a generator the power is then sent down miles of wires and through multiple transformers and eventually ends up in your kitchen heating a resistor (The burner element on your range) with the exception of the Resistor none of these are 100% efficient. ENergy is lost (As Heat) at every step. Heat from the hot resistor cooks your meal.

Cooking with Gas. We burn fuel to cook.

Wait. we had burning fuel at the start of the long paragraph.

road-runner wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

Please list the emissions produced by BEV's. Do NOT include any emissions created by the manufacturing or recharging process, unless those emissions are also included for ICE vehicle emissions.

Are you asking to not include the emissions produced from recharging an electric car's battery? I must be reading that wrong. The numbers have been crunched many times, and it's possible to find a study to argue either side of the debate. Here's one that does not include manufacturing, infrastructure, or disposal costs. It finds, on an individual county level, that sometimes the electric car results in less emissions, and sometimes in more emissions.
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/

How could the coal fired powerplant be poluting more when acording to prez Tramp its burning CLEAN COAL?
Or was he BSing about that too?

I was shocked in 2011 when I saw Live Oak branches within 3 feet of distribution wires in Santa Rosa. I went to the county of Sonoma and asked if friends could cull the thickets of Live Oak and was told ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Freaking weird political outlook radicals put pressure to allow zero firewood cutting, and by the way this is no fairy tale. I came away disgusted. All the way from Santa Rosa to Napa, it was the same story.

Ex-Hippies want wild vegetation growing right up to their structures. And where the Spanish were smart and built houses of stone and adobe the hippies insist on wood, asphalt or split cedar shingles. The fires like those that devastated Yellowstone were caused by stupidity and negligence. Those electrical wires FELL when tree branches took them down and not because of 10 mph dry winds which moved branches 10 feet.

It's unbelievable the ignorance in our society. When my broken arm healed I crawled back up the rabbit hole and I got the hell out of wonderland.

People have NO IDEA the amount of batteries needed to maintain an all electric home. My monster battery bank would last four hours. Cladding an entire roof in panels and a garage full of batteries to maintain 3 or four days worth of 50 miles commutes and household autonomy would be a serious endeavor. But the moment a 3 day storm would roll in all the solar panels go dormant. I do not understand how a grid engineer can pencil in a solar panel dominant generation and plan.

I live the life of battery/generator backup with poor conditions for solar. And I do it on 125 kWh per month.

Somebody's been out in the poison oak patch imbibing hidden herb. As Bug's Bunny used to put it "Ehhhhh, wotta bunch of maroons"

Twist the arms of the ignorant -- As I speak my Kubota and KATO is online. And tomorrow's solar intensity is forecast as "0"

3 tons wrote:
A first volley of even more Black Swan unintended affects...Looks like a reaction to wild fire suits...Should boost home genny sales exponentially, as rooftop full of solar is rendered impotent...Just another sad component to California going third world...

For those that don't know, the state decided to go after the utility company for fires started by sparking equipment.

The of unintended consequences has resulted. If you are going to sue the heck out of me for something that would be hugely expensive to avoid...I'll just shut down power until the risk has passed.

MrWizard wrote:
the 'all' electric car is 'zero emissions'

emissions produced by your utility company will vary from one area to the next

hydro plants don't burn coal or oil

the car mfg 'can not' tell you what your 'utility' emissions foot print will be

But is most certainly not zero, so they shouldn't be allowed to make a false claim.

Even hydro plants use fossil fuels in construction and maintenance. Then there are ancillary effects of flooding large areas of forest which would otherwise provide a negative emission value.

Even if you set it up with regional or state level numbers, that would be more realistic.

It's funny because, in most areas, EV would be far better...so why lie about it?

Dutch_12078 wrote:
I'm not looking to argue the point either way, but rather just looking for real world factual data for more accurate comparisons.

Me too, and I'm suspicious that the published comparisons have been engineered to provide a predetermined result. Personally, I would welcome having a BEV for the frequent close-in trips. But that's a different issue than debating the emissions. With food products, the ones that scream "no sugar" are usually loaded with fat, and "low fat" is similarly loaded with sugar. When the claim is zero emissions, I can't help feeling that there's a lot of bad stuff that's not being disclosed.

Dutch_12078 wrote:
just looking for real world factual data for more accurate comparisons.

My home solar produces more power than my vehicle consumes. Yes there was manufacturing and installation emissions but not many include the emissions to build and dismantle that central power plant either.

Otherwise you need to check with the local power company.

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

road-runner wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

Please list the emissions produced by BEV's. Do NOT include any emissions created by the manufacturing or recharging process, unless those emissions are also included for ICE vehicle emissions.

Are you asking to not include the emissions produced from recharging an electric car's battery? I must be reading that wrong. The numbers have been crunched many times, and it's possible to find a study to argue either side of the debate. Here's one that does not include manufacturing, infrastructure, or disposal costs. It finds, on an individual county level, that sometimes the electric car results in less emissions, and sometimes in more emissions.
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/

The emissions produced from recharging can only be included in a comparison if the emissions produced by refining ICE fuel are also included. It seems almost every comparison study I've seen leaves out factors on one or the other side to support their conclusions. I'm not looking to argue the point either way, but rather just looking for real world factual data for more accurate comparisons.

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Sorry I could not come to work today -- the dog ate my homework

https://www.sfgate.com/california-wildfires/article/5-things-we-know-about-the-PG-E-wildfire-power-13308084.php


Possible cure

MANDATORY DESIGN CHANGES FOR SOLAR ROOF INSTALLATIONS

Allowing direct charging of any and all home installed batteries. Something that is forbidden by utilities for intertie.

AND (this will kill California Democrats)...

EXEMPT such battery and equipment purchased from state sales tax

Have you heard of these yet..

https://electrek.co/?s=Tesla+powerwall