So how exactly are EVs going to save the planet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
8,888
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
This chart has me convinced it won't be anytime soon, regardless of incentives. The only way I see a true paradigm shift is through forced intervention, not from pure, honest market demand.
density.png
 
Yeah, I'm not sure what that tells you aside from the energy density of gasoline. Natural gas is pretty clean too, but there's no infrastructure and it's still a fossil fuel. If it were all electric, you could get 0 carbon emissions if you have a mix of renewable and nuclear. But of course nuclear isn't growing and is actually shrinking.
 
EV are going to save the planet? Remember everyone have leg issues from cellphone in pants pockets all day? Sitting in a electronic box on wheels ain't any better. JDM petrol head my entire life getting 40mpg on pure fuel 87 with 150k miles on a car in less than 3 yrs. Imagine the load on the grid if everything was EV? I'll follow Jeremy Clarkson and stay w petrol.
 
The NIMBYs would have to learn that Nuclear power is not the boogeyman that the media makes it out to be. Maybe after that we can start widespread adoption of battery powered everything.
 
I've never heard anyone say it's going to save the planet. Did you make that up?

It's a step in the right direction. At least they're trying something. Not everyone will adopt electric, sometimes it's just cool and interesting to switch to electric cars. I've considered it a few times.
 
Originally Posted By: Marco620
EV are going to save the planet? Remember everyone have leg issues from cellphone in pants pockets all day? Sitting in a electronic box on wheels ain't any better. JDM petrol head my entire life getting 40mpg on pure fuel 87 with 150k miles on a car in less than 3 yrs. Imagine the load on the grid if everything was EV? I'll follow Jeremy Clarkson and stay w petrol.


Somehow everyone thinks the grid is a problem that can't be solved. The grid has lots of excess capacity at night. The only time it's maxed out is the afternoon on a hot summer day. With gas generation, it's a two fold problem, higher temperatures means less oxygen so gas plants make less power, but demand is higher because all the A/Cs are on max. With smart meters, you'd just have people charging their cars at night. No one is charging at 3pm in the afternoon, they're all on the road or in their office.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
No one is charging at 3pm in the afternoon, they're all on the road or in their office.


Ca and Hawaii want you to charge your EV at exactly the time that you are out in it.

That's the next thing to happen, "off peak" becomes midday. Charging at night will become VERY expensive.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
No one is charging at 3pm in the afternoon, they're all on the road or in their office.

At Arizona State University where I'm a student you can charge your electric car while in class. Powered by solar panels.

We also have charging stations at work

 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I've never heard anyone say it's going to save the planet. Did you make that up?

It's a step in the right direction. At least they're trying something. Not everyone will adopt electric, sometimes it's just cool and interesting to switch to electric cars. I've considered it a few times.


Even without the cool/interesting factor, one can make an argument that the electric motor is FAR superior to an internal combustion engine for a car. Torque, throttle response, smoothness, size, simplicity, durability, maintenance, noise levels. As charging speed and price gets better, it’s a no-brainer the market will continue to grow. I welcome it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
No one is charging at 3pm in the afternoon, they're all on the road or in their office.

At Arizona State University where I'm a student you can charge your electric car while in class. Powered by solar panels.

We also have charging stations at work


According to their website, daytime peak generation they are manufacturing 50% of their demand on site with the solar...50% comes from someone else. It annually replaces 7.5% of their GHG.

So look at the coverage that you already have to provide that much...then consider that to become carbon neutral they need 20 times that much in terms of panels, PLUS storage so that you can use it the rest of the day/year.

Storage (per Lazard Levelised Cost of storage) is 25c(US) per KWh round trip.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
No one is charging at 3pm in the afternoon, they're all on the road or in their office.

At Arizona State University where I'm a student you can charge your electric car while in class. Powered by solar panels.

We also have charging stations at work


According to their website, daytime peak generation they are manufacturing 50% of their demand on site with the solar...50% comes from someone else. It annually replaces 7.5% of their GHG.

So look at the coverage that you already have to provide that much...then consider that to become carbon neutral they need 20 times that much in terms of panels, PLUS storage so that you can use it the rest of the day/year.

Storage (per Lazard Levelised Cost of storage) is 25c(US) per KWh round trip.

Better than 0%
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Better than 0%


As long as you get back as much energy as you put into making them...

EROI%2B-%2Buse.jpg


Panels and batteries combined are nearing the point of digging holes, then filling them up with the proceeds of the next hole.
 
The graph does so some useful points. Look at propane versus CNG. Now, propane isn't as widespread as it used to be here, but it did take off much more than CNG, particularly where vehicles required a greater range. CNG works fine on buses driving around the city, with lots of fuel storage space, no concern for long range, and no worry about public refuelling infrastructure. I still don't see me hopping into an electric vehicle and driving off to Calgary or Edmonton any time soon.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I've never heard anyone say it's going to save the planet. Did you make that up?

It's a step in the right direction. At least they're trying something.


A step in the right direction? To which destination? Without making this into a discussion about religion, which this is not, let me ask you this: people who do not believe in religion and argue with those who do, base their arguments on the point that all religions are based on "faith" in something without having any "proof". Well, considering we truly have no idea of all of the forces at play in our little rock's weather, temperature, and seasonal cycles (we are making inferences based on things that we THINK drive the global weather patterns) that we cannot possibly measure since we do not know all of the variables, how is this any different than the previous faith discussed? Monkeys fling poo at the wall of the zoo, but hey, at least they're trying something, right?

Batteries do not eliminate the underlying issue of overall consumption, and especially waste. I'm saying there's still got to be some better, possibly yet undiscovered way to solve our energy issues regarding transportation.
 
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Batteries do not eliminate the underlying issue of overall consumption, and especially waste. I'm saying there's still got to be some better, possibly yet undiscovered way to solve our energy issues regarding transportation.
Then what's the solution? Or at least your ideas?
 
EV's will cause a dramatic change in the economy that has nothing to do with making batteries and electricity. They will put a lot of people out of work in the manufacturing end of the deal to say nothing of the service and repair industry including the manufacture of replacement parts. EV's will put dealerships out of business in a heartbeat.
 
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I've never heard anyone say it's going to save the planet. Did you make that up?

It's a step in the right direction. At least they're trying something.


A step in the right direction? To which destination? Without making this into a discussion about religion, which this is not, let me ask you this: people who do not believe in religion and argue with those who do, base their arguments on the point that all religions are based on "faith" in something without having any "proof". Well, considering we truly have no idea of all of the forces at play in our little rock's weather, temperature, and seasonal cycles (we are making inferences based on things that we THINK drive the global weather patterns) that we cannot possibly measure since we do not know all of the variables, how is this any different than the previous faith discussed? Monkeys fling poo at the wall of the zoo, but hey, at least they're trying something, right?

Batteries do not eliminate the underlying issue of overall consumption, and especially waste. I'm saying there's still got to be some better, possibly yet undiscovered way to solve our energy issues regarding transportation.



I have a problem with your brand of logic. It's the same problem I had for 30 years in dealing with my many & varied American colleagues. It's a philosophy based on 'we cannot know everything so by implication, we therefore cannot know anything'. This sort of thing has it's place in a legal court room, where the sole objective is 'to win' regardless of whatever the facts say. Applied to something like climate change, it's downright dangerous!

Now I know you like arguments to be backed up by 'proof' so here's mine...

Back in the 1960's a Brit, Peter Higgs, postulated the existence of a sub-atomic particle. You would have dismissed this as no different from FAITH; unproven & so worthless. Yet five decades on, the people at the LHC discover the Higgs-Boson, exactly as Peter Higgs predicted.

Yes, the scientific community are today trying to predict what's going to be happening to the planet many decades into the future, and yes, it is horrendously complicated and yes, their conclusions they're drawing are tenuous, but that does not make them WRONG!!
 
Last edited:
EV's, all the EPA regulations every nation can think of, nuclear power, all band aid solutions not addressing the elephant in the room.
There are simply too many people on the planet to maintain the status quo. Maybe the planet can support an industrialised human population of 500 million?. That's an uninformed guess, I don't know. But it can't support anything like the current population for much longer.
It may happen in my lifetime, or in a hundred years, but mankind is heading inexorably to a massive population crash. All the EV's ever built won't stop that.

Claud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top