2/3rds EVs by 2032... Realistic? (and time to horde diesels?)

[nwdiver]

What drove the initial warming in previous warm spells? That is always missed. Dinosaurs driving cars tipping the atmosphere into a feedback loop as you describe? Its the SUN!

Nope. Not missed. Named after the guy that discovered it. Milankovitch cycles. Cold ocean water is more soluble to CO2. CO2 cycled between the oceans and atmosphere. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere this increases radiative forcing amplifying the tiny warming caused by the shift in Earths orbit. Not the sun. The sun doesn't have a cycle that would explain the Ice Ages.

Governments force things on people they do not want and stand in the way of innovation,

The whole premise of 'The tragedy of the commons' is 'forcing' people to do something that's not in their individual self-interest to promote our collective interest.

The idea government stands in the way of innovation ignores all of history. .... are you not familiar with how VW was founded? Do you think we'd have Nuclear power without the Manhattan Project? To this day there isn't a single private source of enriched Uranium and not thru lack of trying. The internet started as a DARPA project. Do you like GPS? Should we not have cheap natural gas from fracking? That was a 30 year DOE project. Weather forecasting? Solar is only affordable because the German and Chinese governments scaled it to levels the private sector could only fantasize about. Etc, etc, etc.....

 

[P2B]

Radioactive decay and collision heating from 4.5b years ago I just dont buy it. This article says about half in radioactive decay.

What Keeps the Earth Cooking? - Berkeley Lab

From the planet’s core to its surface, heat enables Earth’s magnetic field, spreads the sea floor, and keeps continents on the move. Much of the heat is “radiogenic,” from the radioactive decay of elements in the crust and mantle, but how much? By measuring neutrinos from deep in the Earth...

newscenter.lbl.gov

Then why quote an article that says half is radioactive decay and the rest is primordial heat?

"One thing that’s at least 97-percent certain is that radioactive decay supplies only about half the Earth’s heat. Other sources – primordial heat left over from the planet’s formation, and possibly others as well – must account for the rest."

 

[gulfcoastguy]

Been off a couple of days dealing withe the new puppy currently called Poopster for obvious reasons.

The energy received from the Sun on Earth in a single day, estimated at 173,000 terawatts (TW), is approximately 277 times greater than the average daily energy generated from burning hydrocarbons, which is roughly 1.6 exajoules (EJ).

There would be no need for hydrocarbons if we developed better solar recovery technologies.

Now let's subtract the 70% covered by water(currently) then subtract the percentage used to grow food crops and currently covered by roads and other structures not conducive to being covered by solar panels. Then of the area that could hold solar panels allow 20% conversion factor during daylight hours and subtract 10% due to transmission loss. Okay China, India, Brazil, and other countries are going to want to increase their use of energy per citizen. Add to that and third world countries are still increasing in population. Now if we remove coal electricity we will have to increase solar electricity to compensate, the same with energy derived from petroleum and natural gas all assuming that we can persuade China and India to also stop using these fuels. Good luck finding the necessary minerals to produce all of these solar panels. Nuclear power plants could provide a sizable amount of the required energy in a microscopic fraction of the area and with modern plants could use the existing once used fuel rods stored by every nuclear power plant. The other solution is 70% less people. Volunteers? Soylent Green?

 

[turbobrick240]

There's no reason the decision has to be solar/wind or nuclear. We can have both. It just happens that renewable sources like solar/wind produce far cheaper energy and take a fraction of the time to bring online. That's why the market is installing wind and solar at breakneck speed and nuclear at a snails pace. I expect that will continue over the next decade or two at least.

Solar vs. Nuclear - Which One Should We Invest In? - Solar Living Savvy

You’ve probably heard (or read) about the political to-and-fro between Democrats and Republicans on climate change. Was Trump right to withdraw from the 2015

www.literoflightusa.org

 

[nwdiver]

There's no reason the decision has to be solar/wind or nuclear. We can have both. It just happens that renewable sources like solar/wind produce far cheaper energy and take a fraction of the time to bring online. That's why the market is installing wind and solar at breakneck speed and nuclear at a snails pace. I expect that will continue over the next decade or two at least.

Solar vs. Nuclear - Which One Should We Invest In? - Solar Living Savvy

You’ve probably heard (or read) about the political to-and-fro between Democrats and Republicans on climate change. Was Trump right to withdraw from the 2015

www.literoflightusa.org

Except ~$1/w renewables very quickly cannibalize the demand $15/w nuclear needs to maintain a 90% CF so it's only hilariously expensive instead of tragically expensive. Hard to maintain a 90% CF if there's no demand when there's any sun or wind.

More wind and more solar means more red and less black for nuclear budgets

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

 

[Abacus]

They’re installing it a breakneck speeds due to subsidies, subsidize coal at the same rate and it’d take off too. Let’s be honest here.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

So you want to spend taxpayer's dollars to subsidize the worst fuel?

 

[Abacus]

It’s called an example. I didn’t say I wanted to subsidize coal, I said if they did at the same rate it’d have the same growth.

But I’m curious, how did you get what you wrote from what I wrote?

 

[turbobrick240]

Except ~$1/w renewables very quickly cannibalize the demand $15/w nuclear needs to maintain a 90% CF so it's only hilariously expensive instead of tragically expensive. Hard to maintain a 90% CF if there's no demand when there's any sun or wind.

More wind and more solar means more red and less black for nuclear budgets

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

From that article:

“To hit these decarbonization goals, you need a lot of things to be put together, to be stitched together. And one of those is nuclear power,” Bilicic said.

Price on carbon could fix the market
One way to look at the problem is that in deregulated energy markets, there’s no accounting for greenhouse gas emissions in deregulated energy markets. Price alone wins.

Putting a price on carbon emissions might help sustain an otherwise deregulated energy market while still achieving climate goals.

“If we did have a carbon pricing environment, those nuclear power plants would be more valuable,” Bilicic said. “And implicit in this public policy debate is some recognition that that value is not being acknowledged in the marketplace, and we need these plants to produce that value.”

That’s one reason why Bilicic supports the government subsidy for nuclear power plants.

“In my view, it’s not like the money is being just given for no purpose,” Bilicic told CNBC. The money “is being given because of a recognition that these nuclear power plants produce a benefit that they’re not being paid for in the marketplace.”

 

[turbobrick240]

Fossil fuels and nuclear get enormous government subsidization. Renewables would the cheapest energy source even without subsidies.

Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies

Over recent years the march towards an energy industry ruled by renewables has been on the agenda of many countries and international bodies. Aside from their non-depleting and replenishing nature, renewable energy is poised to lessen the world's carbon footprint and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

www.forbes.com

 

[Abacus]

Then you agree with ending all subsidies. Great, we’re in agreement on that.

 

[nwdiver]

Then you agree with ending all subsidies. Great, we’re in agreement on that.

Yes. ALL subsidies. Including adding in the external costs.

THE TRUE COST OF FOSSIL FUELS

Fossil Fuels are getting a free ride to the tune of ~$1T/yr rising to >$4T/yr by 2030. Add that into the cost.

 

[dieseldonato]

The problem with wind and solar is the lack of wind and sunlight. In 21 we had solar panels put in the house 10.8 kw system. We would have went fully off grid, but between prices and the sheer volume of batteries needed to power the house it was 100% not worth going off grid. Even a diy solution would have been $20k in batteries. The genrac power wall would have been 6 fully loaded modules at about $10k each. Heck the rest of the system was under $30k. System cost per month works out to about $200.00. Regular electeic bills were $280-350 per month. With the battery bank you could triple the per month cost of the system. It's very rare for us to import power from the grid to the point where system production during the day doesn't cover it. Add in the $10.00 per month line fee, still under normal electric bill cost. Every component of the system has a 20 or 25 year warranties, and the panels are guaranteed to produce 97% at year 20. The best warranties for battery systems can't be extended past 10 years.... tech needs to catch up big time before everyone skates down this electric only slope....

 

[turbobrick240]

The problem with wind and solar is the lack of and sunlight. In 21 we had solar panels put in the house 10.8 kw system. We would have went fully off grid, but between prices and the sheer volume of batteries needed to power the house it was 100% not worth going off grid. Even a diy solution would have been $20k in batteries. The genrac power wall would have been 6 fully loaded modules at about $10k each. Heck the rest of the system was under $30k. System cost per month works out to about $200.00. Regular electeic bills were $280-350 per month. With the battery bank you could triple the per month cost of the system. It's very rare for us to import power from the grid to the point where system production during the day doesn't cover it. Add in the $10.00 per month line fee, still under normal electric bill cost. Every component of the system has a 20 or 25 year warranties, and the panels are guaranteed to produce 97% at year 20. The best warranties for battery systems can't be extended past 10 years.... tech needs to catch up big time before everyone skates down this electric only slope....

I'm in the same boat- haven't added any storage to my PV setup yet. Net metering is working well for now. Ultimately, I'd like to go completely off-grid once battery costs drop by 75% or so. Maybe sodium ion will be the dominant storage battery by then.

 

[dieseldonato]

I'm in the same boat- haven't added any storage to my PV setup yet. Net metering is working well for now. Ultimately, I'd like to go completely off-grid once battery costs drop by 75% or so. Maybe sodium ion will be the dominant storage battery by then.

There are several battery techs I've been following, a flow battery seems the best for stationary/ off grid use, but it uses some pretty nasty chemicals that make lithium fires look like child's play. I think solid state would be the next best, but I may be surprised with the sodium batteries.

 

[nwdiver]

believes in climate change.
also believes wind and sunshine reception will remain exactly the same, despite changing climate.

Is 2 + 2 = 4 a 'belief' or .... 'math'.

• Either CO2 has risen >40% in the past century to >400ppm or it hasn't
• Either we've emitted enough CO2 from burning hydro carbons to have caused that rise or we haven't
• That additional CO2 is causing an increase in radiative forcing of ~1.5w/m^2 or it isn't

 

[Daemon64]

I'm in the same boat- haven't added any storage to my PV setup yet. Net metering is working well for now. Ultimately, I'd like to go completely off-grid once battery costs drop by 75% or so. Maybe sodium ion will be the dominant storage battery by then.

vehicle to grid might be my solution to that. In the future but for now the panels I have are offsetting my electricity usage.

 

[Tin Man]

I'm worried about the economic impact of many of the carbon-related arguments, especially the costs involved. China and other countries are gaining industrial capacity and market share while building more coal-fired plants than ever. Sure seems to me there needs to be a free-market boost to any clean energy which has not occurred yet (i.e. no subsidies). If our economy suffers, so will our capacity for research and development of needed solutions.

Why not put a carbon tax on everything including imports from countries not so motivated to go carbon-neutral?

My $.02.

 

[jmodge]

2/3rds EV’s by 2032, 9 years. I wouldn’t say impossible, but it doesn’t seem likely to me. Does anyone know their market share now and what percentage of EV’s manufactured are actually sold?

 

[turbobrick240]

The EV market share nation wide was about 6% last year. In California it was close to 19%. The numbers have been trending rapidly upward over the last 5 years.

Analysis: Boosting EV market share to 67% of new sales is a huge leap, but automakers can rise to the challenge

Automakers typically push back against tougher rules and often lobby to get standards relaxed. However, U.S. car companies have also shown that they can meet ambitious goals.

www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[braddies]

More correctly it is what plants breath. Because we don't consider oxygen as food. It is a pollutant due to the warming effect. Just like many other things that come out of the tailpipe of cars. The point being is if we can reduce such particulate in existing cars it's massive and while giving these vehicles a better fuel for the boom is always a good thing. Win win

With plants "breathing" (transpiration) the effect is a seperation of the oxygen from the carbon, ecarbon is stored in the trees tissue as "wood" and the oxygen is released into our atmosphere

 

[jmodge]

I could see it in certain markets. I think it’s a reach to expect it will happen across the board that quick. Investors for infrastructure are essential. Perhaps if the oil and gas industry started investing (maybe they do?) into alternative energy, their profits could be transferred to where a nationwide charging infrastructure could be feasible. If not I would think both sides of that coin could suffer.
Supply and demand can be altered by low fuel costs. But if the government really wants to squeeze towards electric...., government runs on threats more than action, in my experience. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[JELLOWSUBMARINE]

Nope. Not missed. Named after the guy that discovered it. Milankovitch cycles. Cold ocean water is more soluble to CO2. CO2 cycled between the oceans and atmosphere. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere this increases radiative forcing amplifying the tiny warming caused by the shift in Earths orbit. Not the sun. The sun doesn't have a cycle that would explain the Ice Ages.



The whole premise of 'The tragedy of the commons' is 'forcing' people to do something that's not in their individual self-interest to promote our collective interest.

The idea government stands in the way of innovation ignores all of history. .... are you not familiar with how VW was founded? Do you think we'd have Nuclear power without the Manhattan Project? To this day there isn't a single private source of enriched Uranium and not thru lack of trying. The internet started as a DARPA project. Do you like GPS? Should we not have cheap natural gas from fracking? That was a 30 year DOE project. Weather forecasting? Solar is only affordable because the German and Chinese governments scaled it to levels the private sector could only fantasize about. Etc, etc, etc.....

Oh xxxx,
here goes @ nwdiver stoking a good thread out of existance again again. Wasnt your last time out enough? We get you sold your 03 and have a Tesla now.
Lets refocus please.
"2/3rds EVs by 2032... Realistic? (and time to horde diesels?)"

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Let him say his piece... It's not going to change any minds here. We don't have the infrastructure for electric cars out here and may never have, and if I ever get to buy an electric car it sure as hell won't be a Tesla!

 

[nwdiver]

We don't have the infrastructure for electric cars out here and may never have,

Where is 'out here'? If there's electricity you have the infrastructure for electric cars. Even places without electricity it's not hard to add it.

Off-Grid Solar Charging For EV Cars In Parking Lots Makes More Sense Than You Might Think

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

I've already priced it out and it's no where near competitive- To have off grid charging, battery storage 'cause solar capacity factor is only about 20%, and the cheapest electric car would cost about $100K. The solar panels might last 20 years, but battery storage and the electric cars battery life will probably be closer to 10. And given that I'm in high wind area a wind turbine would make more sense, but why compete with the big wind farm operators who are signing contracts for less than a penny a KWH? Makes more sense to maximize use of renewable fuels until the electric companies can reliably supply clean electricity.

 

[nwdiver]

I've already priced it out and it's no where near competitive- To have off grid charging, battery storage 'cause solar capacity factor is only about 20%, and the cheapest electric car would cost about $100K. The solar panels might last 20 years, but battery storage and the electric cars battery life will probably be closer to 10. And given that I'm in high wind area a wind turbine would make more sense, but why compete with the big wind farm operators who are signing contracts for less than a penny a KWH? Makes more sense to maximize use of renewable fuels until the electric companies can reliably supply clean electricity.

??? Where are you getting the idea that the cheapest electric car is ~$100k? There's a wide selection available for less than half that.

If you're in an area with abundant wind doesn't wind energy at less than a penny per kWh beat any renewable fuel by ~95%? For a 50mpg car that's the equivalent of ~$0.17 per gallon. Why not use that?

If you look at the available feedstocks aren't we already pretty much maximizing our use of renewable fuels? Why does it need to be reliable if you're using clean energy to charge a battery (EVs are batteries)? Isn't that the whole point of having batteries? To buffer the unreliability?

 

[oilhammer]

I thought she got booted? Or was it just temporary?

 

[turbobrick240]

I've already priced it out and it's no where near competitive- To have off grid charging, battery storage 'cause solar capacity factor is only about 20%, and the cheapest electric car would cost about $100K. The solar panels might last 20 years, but battery storage and the electric cars battery life will probably be closer to 10. And given that I'm in high wind area a wind turbine would make more sense, but why compete with the big wind farm operators who are signing contracts for less than a penny a KWH? Makes more sense to maximize use of renewable fuels until the electric companies can reliably supply clean electricity.

It's not difficult to factor in the capacity factor when sizing your PV system. You'd have to do that with a wind turbine as well. Solar is super cheap now if you're a DIY kind of person. And batteries are getting cheaper (and better) all the time. You don't have to go off grid with solar or wind- most states have some type of net metering.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

First off the grid here fails at least once a month and probably wouldn't support charging two electric cars at once, so my own power source would be needed for me to use an electric car. I've had situations where I have to drive the range of an electric car on back to back days, so I'd need 5 times the battery capacity of the electric car in both generating capacity and probably more in storage. 50 KWH is a small electric car battery and that's 4 Tesla power walls at about $50K. Figuring on an average 12 hour day times that 20% CF I'd need about 20KW solar panel capacity at the going price of $3-4/Watt and were looking at $60-80K there. Add it up and I'd have to spend over $100K just to get the capability to run an electric car here, plus the cost of the electric car. Keep in mind too that these batteries and solar cells have a life only 10-20 years before they have to be expensively replaced... Going solar to get "free" electricity is damn expensive!

Meanwhile, the 20 year old TDI I paid $17K for new is ready for more...