So how exactly are EVs going to save the planet?

[Donald]

In 20 to 30 years they will have mastered fusion and the fuel used to generate electricity will be free.

We can also afford to run huge scrubbers to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store the carbon underground.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Al

The ony reason the planet is not long dead is that 75% of the 7.5 billion is using about 10% of The energy you use/waste.


I think I'll go fly my Cessna. While I still can.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Whatever effort humans try to apply the planet will do whatever it wants. EVs can provide cleaner transportation but a new waste problem arises plus the generating grid to charge these batteries.

The planet is very resilient. Example; a point I thought of a couple of weeks ago. If several ships were sunk in a close radius today’s environmental movement might say that the area is ruined forever. Yet in WW2 there are multiples of sites were dozens of ship were sank not to mention the unknown tonnage of lead pumped into the ocean. Yet these sites flourish today with vibrant coral reefs and fish.



What waste problem exactly are you speaking of?

Grid may or may not be an issue depending upon dispatch. Still can't beat density of liquid fuels so the grid part of it may be less of a player in the long run.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
Will this new ev thing work on airplanes, ships, cranes, jackhammers, stoves, Mcd's french fry makers and so on??


Actually ships and cranes have shown huge advantage, not just on efficiency but power system size and mass.

Airplanes are more electric than ever before. The same tech is necessary to,stabilize the electric power system there.

The rest you're just showing how knee jerk is used to avoid being informed.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Nonsense.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Donald
In 20 to 30 years they will have mastered fusion and the fuel used to generate electricity will be free.

We can also afford to run huge scrubbers to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store the carbon underground.


I believe they said the same about nuclear power, too cheap to meter.

Even if you don't believe in saving the planet, eventually oil will run out and it's useful for a bunch of other things so making gas out of wouldn't be the most efficient thing to do with it.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
If electricity is so great why does it cost 3x as much as #2 oil to heat my house with it?


1)Your electric rates are insanely high.

2)You aren't using a heat pump.

3)You are using a heat pump, but it's broken and running on aux/emergency heat all the time.

4)Your climate doesn't work for heat pumps.

Where I live, electric is 12 cents/kwh, and anyone with a brain uses a heat pump to heat their house if natural gas isn't available.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: eljefino
If electricity is so great why does it cost 3x as much as #2 oil to heat my house with it?

1)Your electric rates are insanely high.
2)You aren't using a heat pump.
3)You are using a heat pump, but it's broken and running on aux/emergency heat all the time.
4)Your climate doesn't work for heat pumps.
Where I live, electric is 12 cents/kwh, and anyone with a brain uses a heat pump to heat their house if natural gas isn't available.

I'm guessing at least two of the above

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: eljefino
If electricity is so great why does it cost 3x as much as #2 oil to heat my house with it?


1)Your electric rates are insanely high.

2)You aren't using a heat pump.

3)You are using a heat pump, but it's broken and running on aux/emergency heat all the time.

4)Your climate doesn't work for heat pumps.

Where I live, electric is 12 cents/kwh, and anyone with a brain uses a heat pump to heat their house if natural gas isn't available.


Heat pumps only work well in certain climates. Your milder one makes sense. Here our electricity is more like 24 cents a kilowatt, and the winters are cold so a heat pump wouldn't make sense, oil is cheaper per btu than electric. 138500 btu's per gallon of oil. 3412 btus in 1 kilowatt. Oil is about $3 a gallon and 80-90% efficient depending on boiler whereas electric is about 100%. Using 80%, oil is about 2.7 cents per 1000 btu's and electric is 7 cents per 1000 btu's.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This chart doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
In the real world, my wife and I do around 36K a year between us, 80% of which would be practical with currently available EVs charged in our garage. Any free charging at any destination would be mere icing on the cake.
In terms of reducing and not merely shifting carbon emissions, a sensible energy policy would be promoting nuclear fission plants for electricity generation rather than natural gas as well as increased funding for work on controlled fusion.
The potential for dramatically reduced emissions of all kinds is there. We just have to be smart enough to make the right policy choices, which would also involve ignoring the pleas of those heavily leveraged natural gas developers who have benefitted richly from the current mania for natural gas generating plants that they've done so much to create.


I agree that Nuclear is a most interesting, CO2-free electrical generating solution. But look at what the Green crowd talks and embraces ... a city going IC-engine free in 22 years; a Nation going IC free in 22 years.* It takes more than 22 years to build and begin generating Nuclear based electricity. That is simple reality, and with increased sensitivity to environmental issues, that could easily stretch beyond the now typical 25 years from pencil to spark. Plus they are huge capital expenses; you are not likely to find multiple Nuclear plants in construction at least early in that cycle.

The truth is it's already too late to plan for Nuclear to take the edge off the generation capacity shortfall.

* I am, as usual, surprised that people in London or France don't see the hidden agenda in these pronouncements ... the talk is all about "replacing" IC transport with EV transport. But not mentioned is "replace what with what?" If you think that they mean 'replacing my IC car with a newer EV car' you have a rude shock in your future. There is no intent to rebuild a private car ownership network with these all-electric futures.

It's buses and Rapid Transit for you folks. The City of London (and every other City on the planet) has been trying to move people onto Public Transit for ... let's see here ... oh yeah, there it is ... 120 years (the first city passenger rail networks). Whether by a gentle push (doesn't work) or a cattle prod (the "all EV future") they don't care. They just want the taxpayer to agree to the capital expenditure, and if ridership has to be forced by a ban on private vehicles (which the IC bans will turn out to be, effectively), well so be it. We got our LRT.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Johnny2Bad
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This chart doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
In the real world, my wife and I do around 36K a year between us, 80% of which would be practical with currently available EVs charged in our garage. Any free charging at any destination would be mere icing on the cake.
In terms of reducing and not merely shifting carbon emissions, a sensible energy policy would be promoting nuclear fission plants for electricity generation rather than natural gas as well as increased funding for work on controlled fusion.
The potential for dramatically reduced emissions of all kinds is there. We just have to be smart enough to make the right policy choices, which would also involve ignoring the pleas of those heavily leveraged natural gas developers who have benefitted richly from the current mania for natural gas generating plants that they've done so much to create.


I agree that Nuclear is a most interesting, CO2-free electrical generating solution. But look at what the Green crowd talks and embraces ... a city going IC-engine free in 22 years; a Nation going IC free in 22 years. It takes more than 22 years to build and begin generating Nuclear based electricity. That is simple reality, and with increased sensitivity to environmental issues, that could easily stretch beyond the now typical 25 years from pencil to spark. Plus they are huge capital expenses; you are not likely to find multiple Nuclear plants in construction at least early in that cycle.

The truth is it's already too late to plan for Nuclear to take the edge off the generation capacity shortfall.


And that's almost entirely due to increased red tape. You guys build relatively small nukes compared to what we build, two of our facilities are 8-unit, built in banks of 4, whilst most of the American sites never reach anywhere near that density.

Pickering, our oldest 8-unit site, began construction in 1966. The "A" side came online in phases between 1971 and 1973. The "B" side came online between 1983 and 1986. From construction to generation we are looking at 5 years.

Bruce, currently the largest operating Nuclear facility in the world, was constructed on the heels of Pickering's success, but with significantly higher output units. Construction started in 1969 with the "A" side, which started producing power in 1976. The entire "A" side was online by 1978. The "B" side started construction in 1978 after the successful activation of the "A" side. The "B" side started making power in 1984 and the entire "B" site was online by 1987.

I know both up here and stateside there is a ton of work being put into developing and commercializing SMR's, however I think expanding existing sites using existing mature technology makes sense presently. OPG's approved plan to expand Darlington was halted b y the idiotic McGuinty Liberals, who thought dumping billions into private wind, solar and gas was a better idea. It wasn't. >60% of Ontario's power is from Nuclear, and that will go up once the Darlington refurbishment is completed and all four units are operational again. We will then lose 14% of our generating capacity in 2024 when Pickering is shut down.

The plan is to keep Bruce operational until 2064. The site will be shut shy of 100 years old at that point.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: Claud

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..


Sounds like you've been reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature"

 

[fdcg27]

The earth currently supports an industrialized population of more than three times that and a multiple of that industrialized population in developing countries, maybe more accurately called by that non-PC term the third world.
This is all probably sustainable.
What is unsustainable is for the masses of India and China to adopt EU and American lifestyles, yet this is what they aspire to, as do their governments.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The earth currently supports an industrialized population of more than three times that and a multiple of that industrialized population in developing countries, maybe more accurately called by that non-PC term the third world.
This is all probably sustainable.
What is unsustainable is for the masses of India and China to adopt EU and American lifestyles, yet this is what they aspire to, as do their governments.


Everyone wants what they see others have (within reason)....and t's unfair of us in privilige to deny them.

Read this book a long time ago...
https://www.clubofrome.org/report/factor-four-doubling-wealth-halving-resource-use/

It's well worth the time taken.

If we follow the economically "rational" approach to the future, for resource consumption and energy, we get the wrong answers.
* Goods that don't last, and take the shortest possible time to get to landfill while still being considered worth buying
* inefficient use of energy across the board.

Like I posted previously, the exponential growth of energy use is the issue, not population...trying to match the curve with renewables is a fool's errand.

An example from the book, and as a Mechanical Engineer, I've been at all facets of this part of the chain.
* design engineer designs a heat exchanger.. The codes have fouling factors, and he applies these. Designs for specified heat rejection with 10% of the tubes plugged after 25 years of service. The kit needs flow X at temperature Y
* the guy writing the supply spec for the process will look at that, and knowing that pumps wear and degrade over time, will give a +10% margin on the specified pump, and insert a performance test clause with penalties to ensure that the needs are met.
* Bidder gets the spec, notices the performance test requirements, and has two paths...custom trimmed impeller to meet the spec, or next size up pump, guaranteed to meet the spec comfortably...latter is easier and cheaper, plus he has remedies if his pump supplier doesn't meet target.
* Customer, knowing how expensive inventory is, doesn't want custom impellers sitting on a shelf forever, wants an off the shelf solution..prefers the latter too...for plant standardisation, they may in fact specify that the pump needs to be same as the handful already on site.

So the pump is 1.1 X 1.15 bigger than it needs to be, and even THAT was allowing a 10% plugged future state....1.1 x 1.15 x 1.1 ~ 1.4...the pump is 1.4 times bigger than it needs to be.

While the performance test is passed, the process is unstable, so that discharge valves are throttled back, or (better) an orifice plate installed.

For the next 25 years, that pump is now using 40% more energy than it has any GOOD reason to.

It's just our "get it done for the least cost" drivers that push the behaviours.

 

[Claud]

Originally Posted By: Donald
In 20 to 30 years they will have mastered fusion and the fuel used to generate electricity will be free.

We can also afford to run huge scrubbers to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store the carbon underground.


60 years ago nuclear energy was going to provide unlimited electric power too cheap to be worth metering.

Claud.

 

[Claud]

Originally Posted By: Linctex

Originally Posted By: Claud

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..


Sounds like you've been reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature"


Actually this is the first time I've heard of it. But mankind cannot maintain its current lifestyle indefinitely. Especially as more and more people want a "Western" lifestyle. Who can blame them?.

Claud.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Claud
Originally Posted By: Donald
In 20 to 30 years they will have mastered fusion and the fuel used to generate electricity will be free.

We can also afford to run huge scrubbers to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store the carbon underground.


60 years ago nuclear energy was going to provide unlimited electric power too cheap to be worth metering.

Claud.


Nuclear is still cheaper than any other source. However, huge legal challenges, some of which delayed plant construction for decades, drove the costs way up. By a factor of ten in some instances.

And it's still cheaper than other sources.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Linctex

Originally Posted By: Claud

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..


Sounds like you've been reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature"


Who selects those 500 million?

What happens to the other six billion?

Technology has continued to change the supportable population of earth.

Agriculture, in particular, dramatically changed the human population potential over the limits of a hunter-gatherer society.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Who selects those 500 million?

What happens to the other six billion?

Technology has continued to change the supportable population of earth.

Agriculture, in particular, dramatically changed the human population potential over the limits of a hunter-gatherer society.


Who built the guidestones ?
They might have an idea on the selection criterion that they advocate, and what happens to the rest of us.

There's a strong body of evidence that agriculture bought much pain and suffering to the early adopters...we've only evolved lactose metabolism fairly recently as an example.

Skeletons of the new agriculturists show that they WERE the beasts of burden, they were malnourished and starved. We substituted other people's labour for our own for millenia, and now have fossil fuels to to our bidding.

gobekli tepe was built by hunter gatherers...we built temples before we built houses...we built houses when we were tamed by grasses.

 

[Astro14]

Agriculture made two things possible: beer (through fermentation of the surplus grain) and bureaucracy (to administer the surplus grain).

Still wonder whether that trade-off was worth it...