VW and Shell accused of trying to block EV push

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: wemay
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...or-cleaner-cars

"...Campaigners point out that signs of an electric vehicles take-off this spring have included 400,000 pre-orders for the new Tesla’s Model 3, as well as a bid by the Dutch parliament to ban petrol and diesel engines by 2025. On Thursday Germany promised a €1bn subsidy boost for electric cars..."









And what nice clean source of electric power are they going to use....treadmills?
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
And what nice clean source of electric power are they going to use....treadmills?


Guess who just proved he doesn't have a clue about clean energy in Germany (or elsewhere for that matter)?

I keep hearing that same inane comment about clean energy, yet there are a number of places where wind, solar, biomass and other clean energy sources are quickly becoming the dominant energy sources. Even here in Iowa our electric utility is on track to be at 85% wind power by 2020. And before you start crowing about rising electrical rates, our rates are some of the lowest in the country and there are no proposals for any rate hikes in the near future.

Tax credits for construction? Sure. And those are more than made up by the added property tax revenues now and in the future; when the turbines are at full assessment they will contribute around 80 million dollars to our local county tax base in the form of property taxes, and we have already started reducing our tax burden to local residents. Add to that the lease payments that landowners receive, and it's a win-win for everyone.

There is a solid chance that within the next decade Iowa will cease burning coal completely, at the same time producing enough clean energy to be a net exporter to states to the east. So when you ask the question what nice clean source of electric power are they going to use you can just look to the Midwest and find the answer.
 
Yep. Germany is already 33% renewable energy, and that doesn't take into account nuclear. I know France gets like 60% of their energy from nuclear as well. European nations are trying to phase out nuclear along with fossil fuels, which I don't necessarily agree with. If the U.S. was to invest in renewables as well as nuclear energy, there is no reason we wouldn't be able to wean ourselves off fossil fuels within the next 10 years. Just have to get serious about doing it...
 
Between geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, wind and tidal you could be energy independent tomorrow. Alas, politicians invested in oil companies.
 
Ignore industry trends @ one's peril; just like recycling and generating less waste was once openly mocked by people, it is now standard practice by companies since disposal is more expensive.

It is 'in fact' good business; the same forces will drive renewables

Google Fox New's "analysis" on why Germans have more solar than the US. Lots of $$ invested in the status quo.

"They are a smaller country and have a lot more sun than we do"
 
Last edited:
Quote:
The Auto Fuels Coalition study, written by Roland Berger, makes a series of highly pessimistic assumptions about the costs of fuel efficiency improvements, and equally optimistic ones about greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels. A recent EU study found the dirtiest biofuels three times more polluting than diesel.

An EU source said: “these two industries have realised they have a shared interest. When you saw who was paying for the study, you knew what the answer would be.”


Quote:
Carlos Calvo Ambel, an analyst for the Transport and Environment thinktank, said that Europe would miss its greenhouse gas targets altogether if it followed the Auto Fuels Coalition paper’s advice.

Carmakers, oil companies and biofuels producers are making a desperate bid to dissuade Europe from undertaking fuel efficiency standards for cars, vans and trucks, a push for electric vehicles and many of the other badly needed actions in the transport sector,” he said.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with that. They're trying to protect their livelihoods and/or shareholders. I expect big oil to try to throw obstacles up against electric vehicles. If I was an oil company shareholder, I'd demand it.
 
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit

Guess who just proved he doesn't have a clue about clean energy in Germany (or elsewhere for that matter)?

...

There is a solid chance that within the next decade Iowa will cease burning coal completely, at the same time producing enough clean energy to be a net exporter to states to the east. So when you ask the question what nice clean source of electric power are they going to use you can just look to the Midwest and find the answer.


And this comment makes it clear that you do not understand how electrical distribution and generation works.

Yes, notionally the lowest impedance path for the wind generated in Iowa is the local Iowa homes and businesses. But unless Iowa is investing in SUBSTANTIAL energy storage systems, that capability also gets idled and arbitered even at rates up to ca. $10/kWh (yes kWh) due to the latencies and throttlability of other resources.

Further, just because Iowa stops burning coal, doenst mean that Iowa doesn't get its grid stabilized by coal and other types of resources from other states to net balance on the grid. What happens when the wind stops blowing? If there are TW worth of wind installed beyond anticipated load, maybe there's always a chance that some wind is blowing... But that's far from the model that utilities use to generate. And when the wind stops blowing, power plants just don't throttle up GVA/TVA in a matter of seconds to meet load. Therein lies the problem, and why wind must also be dispatched and controlled/throttled by the interconnects and part of the arbitrage formula.

Others on here can talk to how it all works better than I can, but irregular, stochastic sources, must be balanced by other base load plants and/or storage. Im all for renewables, but the chest thumping doesn't necessarily reflect accuracy in how everything works all the time...

And for the record Im in no way anti-renewables. They are quickly becoming a cost-effective generating scheme and I welcome them. It WILL reduce coal use substantially, and the ramp-up/down means a lot less coal burnt slightly less efficiently. But someone still pays to keep these assets online, and dealing with variables in load due to stochastic sources like wind... Coal, NG, oil, etc.

Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif
 
IMO the only viable way to work with renewable sources (other than tidal, which would be predictable) is to store the energy generated and use it from there, in stead of letting it get on the grid immediately. That way you get a warning when the reserves are going low and you need to ramp up conventional production. Pumping water up to a big basin or so would work, maybe storing heat with heatpumps etc...

Also, those solar panels on the rooftops can't be turned off, like you could do with windmills at least. Talk about finnicky...

Biomass can only run when there's a supply aswell, it doesn't make sense to put extra energy or non-waste products into a biomass plant to increase the output.

But I'm in no way an expert. I am in favour of renewable energy if it reduces dependance and/or waste, not for the sake of being renewable.
 
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
Yep. Germany is already 33% renewable energy, and that doesn't take into account nuclear. I know France gets like 60% of their energy from nuclear as well. European nations are trying to phase out nuclear along with fossil fuels, which I don't necessarily agree with. If the U.S. was to invest in renewables as well as nuclear energy, there is no reason we wouldn't be able to wean ourselves off fossil fuels within the next 10 years. Just have to get serious about doing it...


France gets like 80% of their power from Nuclear. Germany is burning coal again because of shuttering their nukes after Fukushima.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
There's nothing wrong with that. They're trying to protect their livelihoods and/or shareholders. I expect big oil to try to throw obstacles up against electric vehicles. If I was an oil company shareholder, I'd demand it.


So would I.
 
I would also suspect that VW had put its bet on diesel, as we're well aware. They haven't been doing much in the way of hybrids, much less electric vehicles. So, it's pretty fair to guess which way they're swinging on this one.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit

Guess who just proved he doesn't have a clue about clean energy in Germany (or elsewhere for that matter)?

...

There is a solid chance that within the next decade Iowa will cease burning coal completely, at the same time producing enough clean energy to be a net exporter to states to the east. So when you ask the question what nice clean source of electric power are they going to use you can just look to the Midwest and find the answer.


And this comment makes it clear that you do not understand how electrical distribution and generation works.

Yes, notionally the lowest impedance path for the wind generated in Iowa is the local Iowa homes and businesses. But unless Iowa is investing in SUBSTANTIAL energy storage systems, that capability also gets idled and arbitered even at rates up to ca. $10/kWh (yes kWh) due to the latencies and throttlability of other resources.

Further, just because Iowa stops burning coal, doenst mean that Iowa doesn't get its grid stabilized by coal and other types of resources from other states to net balance on the grid. What happens when the wind stops blowing? If there are TW worth of wind installed beyond anticipated load, maybe there's always a chance that some wind is blowing... But that's far from the model that utilities use to generate. And when the wind stops blowing, power plants just don't throttle up GVA/TVA in a matter of seconds to meet load. Therein lies the problem, and why wind must also be dispatched and controlled/throttled by the interconnects and part of the arbitrage formula.

Others on here can talk to how it all works better than I can, but irregular, stochastic sources, must be balanced by other base load plants and/or storage. Im all for renewables, but the chest thumping doesn't necessarily reflect accuracy in how everything works all the time...


well said JHZR2, the chest thumpers clearly have no idea about anything grid related, rather than a few sound bites pushed by those who profit from it (and it's subsidies).

South Australia is going to be an interesting test case...their last coal fired units are retired at the end of the week, to be replaced by yet more wind, which as you have correctly stated is not schdulable, and has no governing/frequency control process.

It all turned to whoop last year when the state was islanded.

When they are down to a couple of rankine cycle gas plants at the load end, and reliant on connection to brown coal out of state to regulate their frequency, it's a recipe for blackouts.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit

Guess who just proved he doesn't have a clue about clean energy in Germany (or elsewhere for that matter)?

...

There is a solid chance that within the next decade Iowa will cease burning coal completely, at the same time producing enough clean energy to be a net exporter to states to the east. So when you ask the question what nice clean source of electric power are they going to use you can just look to the Midwest and find the answer.


And this comment makes it clear that you do not understand how electrical distribution and generation works.

Yes, notionally the lowest impedance path for the wind generated in Iowa is the local Iowa homes and businesses. But unless Iowa is investing in SUBSTANTIAL energy storage systems, that capability also gets idled and arbitered even at rates up to ca. $10/kWh (yes kWh) due to the latencies and throttlability of other resources.

Further, just because Iowa stops burning coal, doenst mean that Iowa doesn't get its grid stabilized by coal and other types of resources from other states to net balance on the grid. What happens when the wind stops blowing? If there are TW worth of wind installed beyond anticipated load, maybe there's always a chance that some wind is blowing... But that's far from the model that utilities use to generate. And when the wind stops blowing, power plants just don't throttle up GVA/TVA in a matter of seconds to meet load. Therein lies the problem, and why wind must also be dispatched and controlled/throttled by the interconnects and part of the arbitrage formula.

Others on here can talk to how it all works better than I can, but irregular, stochastic sources, must be balanced by other base load plants and/or storage. Im all for renewables, but the chest thumping doesn't necessarily reflect accuracy in how everything works all the time...

And for the record Im in no way anti-renewables. They are quickly becoming a cost-effective generating scheme and I welcome them. It WILL reduce coal use substantially, and the ramp-up/down means a lot less coal burnt slightly less efficiently. But someone still pays to keep these assets online, and dealing with variables in load due to stochastic sources like wind... Coal, NG, oil, etc.

Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif



Well stated.

Installed wind turbine costs have increased 65% during the last decade, contradictory to statements made by those pushing so-called "renewable" energy.

A 2-Megawatt wind turbine now costs 4.5 million per unit on average.

Neither solar nor wind can replace a conventional power plant because of the intermittent nature of their energy.

And no one has taken into account the land areas required:

A conventional power plant occupies 1-4 sq. km, A Solar energy plant requires 300-400 sq. km, and lastly, a Wind turbine farm requires 800 to 1000 sq. km.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
Yep. Germany is already 33% renewable energy, and that doesn't take into account nuclear. I know France gets like 60% of their energy from nuclear as well. European nations are trying to phase out nuclear along with fossil fuels, which I don't necessarily agree with. If the U.S. was to invest in renewables as well as nuclear energy, there is no reason we wouldn't be able to wean ourselves off fossil fuels within the next 10 years. Just have to get serious about doing it...


France gets like 80% of their power from Nuclear. Germany is burning coal again because of shuttering their nukes after Fukushima.


Yep, shooting themselves in the foot to run faster.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
A conventional power plant occupies 1-4 sq. km, A Solar energy plant requires 300-400 sq. km, and lastly, a Wind turbine farm requires 800 to 1000 sq. km.

That's what always bugs me. In Saskatchewan, we have some pretty good winds and a lot of wide open spaces, with a very low population density. So, wind power could clearly be of benefit. I'm not sure how much good it would do in an extremely densely populated area with little spare space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top