mybkvu Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 With BEV's and manufacturing being a common theme here, I thought a few of you might be interested in this. https://theconversation.com/why-a-measured-transition-to-electric-vehicles-would-benefit-the-us-126256 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzach Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 Second, even if the EV transition were to move as rapidly as the most aggressive plans call for, it would not necessarily maximize benefits for the climate. The climate advantage of an EV relative to a car with an internal combustion engine over its life cycle depends not only on the fuels used to generate the electricity it runs on, but also on emissions created during manufacturing. An EV charged by West Virginia’s coal-heavy system today, for instance, would actually emit more greenhouse gases than a hybrid gasoline-electric car, according to a recent MIT study. The same study points out that because most EV batteries today are sourced from Asia, a lot of coal is likely to be burnt to make them. This is what people that think we need to rush into electric don't seem to understand. Now of course this will change over time and in the long run everything being electric will be cleaner, but rushing into it doesn't solve anything. Not to mention it is just unrealistic. We need to clean up making electricity on a large scale first. Wind and solar should definitely be part of the plan but I don't think they are the whole solution because of the limitations. Cold fusion would be nice but we are no closer today the twenty years ago as far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 I agree with that article...politically, with an aggressive push to lectrics michigan and ohio voters are to become critical to any prez hopeful..the amount of unemployed people in both those states is going to be thousands if not hundreds of thousands as there skill set is no longer needed with lectrics....another aspect at play here as well is the cult has decided (duh) they will need juice generation on days enviro conditions are not conducive to supply there needs (no wind, clouds blocking sun, etc)..the cult seems to be leaning nuclear generation as there preferred go to...i would rather deal with an oil spill then a nuke melt down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampede.Offroad Posted November 26, 2019 Share Posted November 26, 2019 2 hours ago, tzach said: ... Not to mention it is just unrealistic. We need to clean up making electricity on a large scale first. Wind and solar should definitely be part of the plan but I don't think they are the whole solution because of the limitations. Cold fusion would be nice but we are no closer today the twenty years ago as far as I know. Building those masssive numbers of tiny turbines for wind or panels full of rare metals for solar etc. isn't exactly efficient or good for the environment either. Plenty of perfectly good clean modern nuclear plants could have been built to prevent the ramp up in coal and gas usage but greentards opposed those. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve557 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 Every time I hear about electric this and that I remind myself of stuff like this: https://www.wwaytv3.com/2018/01/14/duke-energy-asks-customers-to-reduce-electricity-use-during-cold-snap/ No thanks, I will keep my ICE vehicles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 5 hours ago, Stampede.Offroad said: Building those masssive numbers of tiny turbines for wind or panels full of rare metals for solar etc. isn't exactly efficient or good for the environment either. Plenty of perfectly good clean modern nuclear plants could have been built to prevent the ramp up in coal and gas usage but greentards opposed those. Because there's a certain segment of the public that is convinced that every nuclear plant on the planet is a Chernobyl waiting to happen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 7 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said: Because there's a certain segment of the public that is convinced that every nuclear plant on the planet is a Chernobyl waiting to happen Then again who wants to live next to nuke plant if you don't have to? The thing is that nothing is ever static-there are going to be improvements to solar panels, wind mills and the like to help increase energy production of them. Getting oil out of the ground isn't exactly clean either (see fracking in the US) or helping supporting people that have a 15th century mentality isn't smart either. Over the next 20 years or so, there are going to be alot more improvements to batteries and electrification/generation then their will be with ICE, which are more or less at their peak right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 3 hours ago, silvrsvt said: Then again who wants to live next to nuke plant if you don't have to? I live just outside of the 'danger zone' of Fermi II (it literally ends at the end of my street less than 1/4 mile away). Thought nothing of it when we move here. It actually kinda makes me chuckle when DTE sends the annual safety pamphlet every year. Also I know about the meltdown that Fermi I had that lead to its closure. Still doesn't bother me at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 17 hours ago, Stampede.Offroad said: Plenty of perfectly good clean modern nuclear plants could have been built to prevent the ramp up in coal and gas usage but greentards opposed those. I live in rural northern Michigan and get our power from an energy co-op. They just published their "where your energy comes from" summary. Surprisingly, to me, 42.5% comes from nuclear. I had no idea it was that high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 4 hours ago, silvrsvt said: Then again who wants to live next to nuke plant if you don't have to? The thing is that nothing is ever static-there are going to be improvements to solar panels, wind mills and the like to help increase energy production of them. Getting oil out of the ground isn't exactly clean either (see fracking in the US) or helping supporting people that have a 15th century mentality isn't smart either. Over the next 20 years or so, there are going to be alot more improvements to batteries and electrification/generation then their will be with ICE, which are more or less at their peak right now. You really think so? What about the valve train? A Piezo (sp?) changes spray pattern during the intake cycle how many times and we can't eliminate camshafts, etc. To say nothing of what improved materials will do to continued ICE improvements. I'm not saying electrics won't take over, I guess I just agree with the point that started this thread. At what pace? And are we considering all the other factors. Example, tree comes down and wipes out a roof full of solar panels. What is the chain for disposal and the cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgeh Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 I was in California last month when PG&E was doing scheduled blackouts due to the fire risk. As public service announcements municipalities were warning people to be sure they had enough non-perishable food and to charge up their phones and cars. Thought the last point was a little exclusive as gas pumps also won't work when the power goes off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 Here are a couple of great videos on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mybkvu Posted November 27, 2019 Author Share Posted November 27, 2019 4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said: I live just outside of the 'danger zone' of Fermi II (it literally ends at the end of my street less than 1/4 mile away). Thought nothing of it when we move here. It actually kinda makes me chuckle when DTE sends the annual safety pamphlet every year. Also I know about the meltdown that Fermi I had that lead to its closure. Still doesn't bother me at all. Dammit, another rabbit hole. My hardening brain wants to think that decommissioning was becoming a major problem for old plants some time back, even to the point where operators were leaving them online to avoid dealing with the problem. Maybe I'm just making stuff up again, or at least confabulating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 3 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said: You really think so? What about the valve train? A Piezo (sp?) changes spray pattern during the intake cycle how many times and we can't eliminate camshafts, etc. To say nothing of what improved materials will do to continued ICE improvements. I'm not saying electrics won't take over, I guess I just agree with the point that started this thread. At what pace? And are we considering all the other factors. Example, tree comes down and wipes out a roof full of solar panels. What is the chain for disposal and the cost? Solid points to consider...the main problem with solar is at best the photovoltaic cell is 23% efficient...but most are at 18-20%...of course if you ask the cult MIT has it solved with break thru announcement next week.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 1 hour ago, mybkvu said: Dammit, another rabbit hole. My hardening brain wants to think that decommissioning was becoming a major problem for old plants some time back, even to the point where operators were leaving them online to avoid dealing with the problem. Maybe I'm just making stuff up again, or at least confabulating. After the partial meltdown in 1966, Fermi 1 was restarted in 1970 and ran until 1972. It has been decommissioned since 1975 but only been partially dismantled. It's bounced back and forth between SAFESTOR and active dismantling since it was originally decommissioned because they found more radioactive material than originally thought inside. A third reactor on the site was was approved for construction and operation in 2015 but DTE says they have no plans to actually build it at the moment. I'm not going to deny there is some inherent danger to nuclear energy but I will say there's definitely a lot of hyperbole involved in some of the arguments against it fueled in part by the Soviets and their stupid poorly thought out science experiment that caused Chernobyl to explode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 1:32 PM, Bob Rosadini said: You really think so? What about the valve train? A Piezo (sp?) changes spray pattern during the intake cycle how many times and we can't eliminate camshafts, etc. To say nothing of what improved materials will do to continued ICE improvements. I'm not saying electrics won't take over, I guess I just agree with the point that started this thread. At what pace? And are we considering all the other factors. Example, tree comes down and wipes out a roof full of solar panels. What is the chain for disposal and the cost? You might get some improvements that way, but the biggest issue is that BEVs offer so much more performance at a lower cost (simpler “engine” vs ICE) that apples to apples an Electric motor offers more performance then a ICE does. The problem is power density-batteries vs gasoline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampede.Offroad Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) On 11/28/2019 at 12:50 PM, silvrsvt said: You might get some improvements that way, but the biggest issue is that BEVs offer so much more performance at a lower cost (simpler “engine” vs ICE) that apples to apples an Electric motor offers more performance then a ICE does. The problem is power density-batteries vs gasoline It has been the case for a century, and I honestly don't see it changing for the next couple decades either. The advantages of electric motors have been known for a very long time (before 'motor cars' replaced all the horses, there were more electrics), it's just that our batteries suck compared to the energy density of liquid fuels. While batteries have certainly improved in the last few decades, there are plenty of every day applications that our battery tech is not a reasonable replacement for ICE in the foreseeable future yet either. The biggest polluters on the road, by far, are commercial, heavy duty, and/or long distance -- things today's batteries still aren't good enough for and no one has produced a viable sellable product for. Edited December 1, 2019 by Stampede.Offroad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 Let the market decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said: Let the market decide. How about let the market decide without the taxpayer subsidizing electrics . Take away the incentives that we are paying for and just where would electric sales be? As others have pointed out, electrics are not new. Perhaps we could go back to R. G. LeTourneau's concept for off road equipment where a diesel powered electric traction motors. That provides the benefit of a simplified power train. Admittedly, his concept survived for maybe 30 years or so but of late, starting with Cat who came out with the D7E dozer a few years ago, others are now coming out with diesel/electrics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said: How about let the market decide without the taxpayer subsidizing electrics . Take away the incentives that we are paying for and just where would electric sales be? As others have pointed out, electrics are not new. Well that should play itself out in less then 6 months- Tesla is just about to lose its tax break status. I believe other manufactures will drop the price approximately by the same tax credit they are getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 On 11/30/2019 at 7:48 PM, Bob Rosadini said: How about let the market decide without the taxpayer subsidizing electrics . Take away the incentives that we are paying for and just where would electric sales be? As others have pointed out, electrics are not new. Perhaps we could go back to R. G. LeTourneau's concept for off road equipment where a diesel powered electric traction motors. That provides the benefit of a simplified power train. Admittedly, his concept survived for maybe 30 years or so but of late, starting with Cat who came out with the D7E dozer a few years ago, others are now coming out with diesel/electrics. Even better! LeTourneau was a genius, BTW. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.