Rick73 Posted November 13, 2023 Share Posted November 13, 2023 2 hours ago, LSchicago said: Illinois is trying to reach 40% renewables by 2030 and 50% by 2050. Illinois Legislation Outlines 100% Clean Energy Goal by 2050 (natlawreview.com) We are moving in right direction for sure which is a great thing, though I caution that data provided by politicians and environmentalist are often misleading; either intentionally to make themselves look better, or perhaps out of ignorance. I like technical accuracy and objectivity because it allows us collectively as a society to make best decisions, not just what’s most popular based on hype. One of the things I don’t like to see is when capacity for renewables is listed under peak conditions, which can be quite misleading if our goal is to reduce CO2 and thus global warming. It’s OK to report peak power, but we need to also report energy production which in my opinion means more . Below is data for Texas showing how Solar can be a large part of peak power, but because solar generation is limited to far less than 24 hours a day at peak power, energy production is much less than a first glance would suggest. I’m not against solar, just want best data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 13, 2023 Share Posted November 13, 2023 (edited) On 11/10/2023 at 6:22 PM, jpd80 said: Also think about America’s vast coastline and the availability of continuous tidal and current energy that’s basically untapped. People haven’t even begun to seriously consider it. for whatever the reason, and its personal, ihope they leave the friggen Oceans alone....man are we parasitic... Edited November 13, 2023 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSchicago Posted November 13, 2023 Share Posted November 13, 2023 3 hours ago, Rick73 said: We are moving in right direction for sure which is a great thing, though I caution that data provided by politicians and environmentalist are often misleading; either intentionally to make themselves look better, or perhaps out of ignorance. I like technical accuracy and objectivity because it allows us collectively as a society to make best decisions, not just what’s most popular based on hype. One of the things I don’t like to see is when capacity for renewables is listed under peak conditions, which can be quite misleading if our goal is to reduce CO2 and thus global warming. It’s OK to report peak power, but we need to also report energy production which in my opinion means more . Below is data for Texas showing how Solar can be a large part of peak power, but because solar generation is limited to far less than 24 hours a day at peak power, energy production is much less than a first glance would suggest. I’m not against solar, just want best data. Well, they don't call Chicago the windy city for nothing. It had nothing to do with wind speeds, rather the hot air from politicians mouths. Here is My States current electricity production stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted November 13, 2023 Share Posted November 13, 2023 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 13, 2023 Share Posted November 13, 2023 1 hour ago, LSchicago said: Well, they don't call Chicago the windy city for nothing. It had nothing to do with wind speeds, rather the hot air from politicians mouths. Here is My States current electricity production stats. Yeah, showing energy in kWh paints a better picture. Pretty good results between nuclear and non-hydro renewables. Looks like close to 2/3 of all energy. ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 Data shows another area that may need investment for future electric vehicles is charging speed. Ford Authority reported Mach-E came in second in a (limited size) comparison test at 32.5 miles of added range in 6 minutes of charging. Interesting that 6 minutes was used because it is the estimated average time it takes to fuel a vehicle. https://fordauthority.com/2023/11/ford-mustang-mach-e-ranked-second-in-fast-charging-test/ The very next day Ford Authority reported Mach-E came in 33rd place in a more-comprehensive charging comparison test conducted with assistance of P3. Mach-E did well at 332 miles per hour, same as Lightning, but latest vehicles have set the bar much higher, with 2024 Hyundai Ionic 6 reported at 868 miles per hour. https://fordauthority.com/2023/11/ford-mustang-mach-e-ranked-33rd-in-ev-charging-test/ Edmunds data for all tested vehicles is technically interesting, showing that “average” charging speed can vary considerably compared to peak charging rate. https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-charging.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 15 minutes ago, Rick73 said: The very next day Ford Authority reported Mach-E came in 33rd place in a more-comprehensive charging comparison test conducted with assistance of P3. Mach-E did well at 332 miles per hour, same as Lightning, but latest vehicles have set the bar much higher, with 2024 Hyundai Ionic 6 reported at 868 miles per hour. https://fordauthority.com/2023/11/ford-mustang-mach-e-ranked-33rd-in-ev-charging-test/ The other thing is the hyundai is using a 800V system vs what a 300-400V on the Mach E? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 34 minutes ago, silvrsvt said: The other thing is the hyundai is using a 800V system vs what a 300-400V on the Mach E? What I expect matters most is that a 15-minute charge can power vehicle 3 hours on Interstate (217 miles). That’s a pretty good ratio since most travelers would need to stop every 3 hours or less anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 17, 2023 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) On 11/14/2023 at 4:23 AM, Deanh said: for whatever the reason, and its personal, ihope they leave the friggen Oceans alone....man are we parasitic... The things I’m suggesting are not injurious to the ocean as fish and marine life can flow through slow spinning turbine blades, the Scottish are already doing current power. But I can imagine the greenies will be going oh no the fish……. Edited November 17, 2023 by jpd80 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.