Electric Cars Are Not Particularly Green - Blowing Up Mountain Not Environmental Virtue (pollution, heating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I must apologize for not relaying another more important point- Not only are the costs of back-up ignored, but the cost figures are based on potential generating capacity, ignoring the fact that the renewables deliver far less than their potential-- the intermittency problem.
The author makes no calculations along the lines you suggest. Hs only calculation is to use the EIA's own cost figure which is based on potential[ power generation and diminishes that by EIA's figure of actual efficiency.
But I must apologize for not relaying another more important point- Not only are the costs of back-up ignored, but the cost figures are based on potential generating capacity, ignoring the fact that the renewables deliver far less than their potential-- the intermittency problem.
The author makes no calculations along the lines you suggest. Hs only calculation is to use the EIA's own cost figure which is based on potential[ power generation and diminishes that by EIA's figure of actual efficiency.
Good thing you were better in the medical field than you are in Engineering.
The Run-Time (or Capacity) is all built on Real-World numbers. If you have the average Silicon Solar PV system in an average place in the US you are going to an average of 6 hours per day "Run-Time." That would 25%. They are showing 30%, which for large utility arrays is likely correct. NREL has been tracking data on this for around 40+ years, now. We know the numbers.
And the daily Time of Production closely matches daily Time of Demand, both of which are very predictable, so that is fine, too.
But no, your author -- dumb as he may be -- does not wander into "efficiency" . . . which would not matter anyway, as that aspect is already covered within the Power (Volts X Amps) of the system output from the start.
Look, YOU were the one who put in the link showing that Silicon Solar PV has become the Cheapest, Fastest, Cleanest, and Lowest Risk thing going. Most of us already knew that, it would seem like you could follow your own information? What is so hard with acceptance?
Renewables have won and the Dinosaurs (Carbon and Nukes) have lost. Big Deal. Get over it. This in not an age thing, is it? I know plenty of sharp old folks who are deep into renewable. Or is this like a New Thought think? Like cannot teach an old dog new tricks?
Look at Figure 3 in the article--Nameplate capacity of wind & solar generating capacity (each ~5000TW-hr/yr) and actual delivered power --only 14% and 26% respectively of name plate capacity.
The EIA bases cost per kW-hr on nameplate capacity. If they used the delivered power in the calculation, wind and solar would be significantly higher.
That author then additionally offers the line of deductive reasoning that if wind and solar really were cheaper, then there would have been a mad rush to convert to them--- but it hasn't happened. One must conclude that in practice, alternatives are not cheaper than conventional generation.
Look at Figure 3 in the article--Nameplate capacity of wind & solar generating capacity (each ~5000TW-hr/yr) and actual delivered power --only 14% and 26% respectively of name plate capacity.
The EIA bases cost per kW-hr on nameplate capacity. If they used the delivered power in the calculation, wind and solar would be significantly higher.
That author then additionally offers the line of deductive reasoning that if wind and solar really were cheaper, then there would have been a mad rush to convert to them--- but it hasn't happened. One must conclude that in practice, alternatives are not cheaper than conventional generation.
guido -- that "chart" looks like some nonsense the author made up. The link listed on the graph does not show anything like that.
Really, check with DC Forever, or me, or any other Grid Level Engineer. We actually KNOW and work in legit capacity of all sorts of sources -- in the US actual average Solar PV "Run-Time" is about 6 hours per day, average across the year. 6 hours across a 24 hour day = 25%. The EIA model is saying 30% for Utility Scale, which is likely because Utility is likely to choose an optimal site.
As far as growth -- it is running full bore for the workers available, even with the Trump 25% Punitive Import Tariff. If it were not for the Tariff -- Solar PV would be even cheaper, and eating the market even faster. Part of my work I do includes Permitting. I can see the look ahead for the next 3 years. Most everything is Solar PV. Take a look at the real chart(s) from the "our world in data" site >>>
You and DC have vested interest in painting a favorable picture for alternatives. We take your opinions with a grain of salt.
Not being formally indoctrinated in these matters, I'm free to think freely.
I agree with the deductions of the author-- If alternatives are so cheap, why aren't old, retiring installations being replaced? Answer- no gov subsidies to make them economically viable.
The fantasies about the low cost of alternatives reminds me of Jack Benny's explanation to Dennis Day how his $25 a week pay for singing a 2 minute song translates into a half million dollar a year salary-- it would IF he sang 40 hrs a week.
You and DC have vested interest in painting a favorable picture for alternatives. We take your opinions with a grain of salt.
Not being formally indoctrinated in these matters, I'm free to think freely.
I agree with the deductions of the author-- If alternatives are so cheap, why aren't old, retiring installations being replaced? Answer- no gov subsidies to make them economically viable.
The fantasies about the low cost of alternatives reminds me of Jack Benny's explanation to Dennis Day how his $25 a week pay for singing a 2 minute song translates into a half million dollar a year salary-- it would IF he sang 40 hrs a week.
DC and I are actually degreed Engineers in this field. You are . . . . ummm . . . clueless?
Is that kind enough?
You are over a Decade OUT. OF. DATE.
=====================
From your own link . . . .
Data source for the table: Average Capacity Factors by Energy Source, 1998 through 2009, U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 2011.
=====================
Silicon Solar PV has increased massively since then.
Look up some details on Silicon PERC cells.
You really do not have anything (once again), do you?
DC and I are actually degreed Engineers in this field. You are . . . . ummm . . . clueless?
Is that kind enough?
You are over a Decade OUT. OF. DATE.
=====================
From your own link . . . .
Data source for the table: Average Capacity Factors by Energy Source, 1998 through 2009, U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 2011.
=====================
Silicon Solar PV has increased massively since then.
Look up some details on Silicon PERC cells.
You really do not have anything (once again), do you?
New tech? Great. I'll change my opinion when it's put into service and the data changes. Until then, alternate sources are only 25% efficient and cost 4x more than we're told.... We might also suspend the discussion until they finally develop cold fusion, but don't hold your breath.
Back to the OP-- a timely paper summarized here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/...opean-leaders/ EVs produce 2x the co2 the EU planned on in their regs to eliminate ICEs by 2030. That makes them worse than Diesels.
New tech? Great. I'll change my opinion when it's put into service and the data changes. Until then, alternate sources are only 25% efficient and cost 4x more than we're told.... We might also suspend the discussion until they finally develop cold fusion, but don't hold your breath.
Back to the OP-- a timely paper summarized here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/...opean-leaders/ EVs produce 2x the co2 the EU planned on in their regs to eliminate ICEs by 2030. That makes them worse than Diesels.
When we poo-poo impractical ideas, the response is "we have to start somewhere" or "we have to do something." Generally that's interesting for a Fourth Grade civics project such as picking up roadside trash. It doesn't do much but it sure feels good.
Electric cars use more energy than ICE cars when we include the energy used to build the cars. That alone is enough to end the fad when energy prices jump.
Electric cars use more energy than ICE cars when we include the energy used to build the cars. That alone is enough to end the fad when energy prices jump.
No, not even maybe.
Electric Motors are SO much better than what is called the "Wells-to-Wheels" path of Oil, that EV total use is lower by entire multiples, and by the time we get to Electric Roadways, it will be by a factor of 10X -- or 1/10th the overall Energy.
Most Oil-to-ICE use is lost as Heat. Between the Heat Losses and the Transport and Refinery Energy required, by the time Oil hits the Tires, only about 10% makes it through to do work. By contrast, with Electric Motors -- at least 80% and up to 90% get through the path.
Meanwhile, the Energy to run Electric Vehicles is getting cheaper all the time due to Silicon Solar PV. Numbers of 1 cent per kWh are now being bid ahead for the next three years. This has the potential to wipe out everything else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
