How can James Howard Kunstler, author of the "World Made By Hand", be classed as a "denier", Bushwalker?
I don't think that term fits.
Kunstler is one of the speakers on a panel organised last month by the Centre for Progressive Urban Politics titled "Reality is no Longer an Option".
I can thoroughly recommend watching the video of the discussion, which I have linked below. All seven panellists, including the moderator, are of the highest integrity, intelligence, and understanding of our current predicament.All of them "walk the talk" in their own lives.
The snag is, you must set aside two and a half hours to watch it. It held my attention although I had heard it all before. They strike sparks off each other.
This does take us far beyond the topic of electric cars, I'm afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOFc0ZEmaHI
Electric Vehicles
(705 posts) (66 voices)-
Posted Wednesday 5 Apr 2017 @ 4:12:08 am from IP #
-
Bushwalker
MemberBecause what he wrote on his blog is simply not correct.
Coal is NOT the main source of energy in the US. Did you read what I wrote? I read what he wrote, and I showed that his claims on his blog are simply false.
He may be different from what was written on his blog, but I read his blog and it is not based on facts.
Posted Wednesday 5 Apr 2017 @ 4:30:25 am from IP # -
Bushwalker, in the Kunstler passage that you quoted he does not say that coal is the main source of electricity in the US.
Like Kunstler, I have long thought that the energy embedded in cars when they are built is disastrous. That is why I still have my eighteen year old car. I hold that it would be irresponsible to buy a new one until the old one is worn out.
Kunstler is well known for his assertion that "the days of Happy Motoring are over."
Electric cars may have come on the scene too late to make a difference.Posted Wednesday 5 Apr 2017 @ 5:05:08 am from IP # -
Benny
MemberI'm sure I've seen studies that show that the embedded energy in a car is miniscule compared to the energy that is used to move it around over its lifetime. You're 18year old car is probably well in to this category by now - the embedded energy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are continuing to use fossil fuel to move it around and if its 18yrs old I guess not so efficiently ? And embedded energy is not all a lost cause - much of that can be recovered by recycling the materials.
While electric cars might be supplied power from a coal fired station, they don't have to be. Many people who have an EV will buy greenpower or charge it from their own solar. There's no easy way to generate your own petrol or gas to run a FF car.
Kunstler might not gave said coal was the major generator but its the only one he mentioned - as if using an electric car meant you must be using coal derived electricity.Posted Wednesday 5 Apr 2017 @ 8:01:13 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberCaptopsilia.
This is what your apparently hero said:
"A lot of what gets burned for electric power is coal."
He makes no difference between fossil fuel and electric cars, yet there is massive differences in production and use of energy over time. Much better to go electric than fossil fuel.
Posted Wednesday 5 Apr 2017 @ 8:02:37 am from IP # -
Benny, I do not think it is true that "the embedded energy in a car is minuscule compared to the energy that is used to move it around over its lifetime".
The RACQ is one body publishing costs of owning and driving a car in Austalia.
The relevant web-page is:
https://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs
From it, you can click "Car running costs >" to download a pdf for various typical models of car.
It is not simple matter to extract the comparison of fuel costs with embodied costs.[I have done my best, but I may have made mistakes.]
My model of car, the Subaru Forester, is in the tables for "Medium SUV Class".
[When I bought it in 1998, the class "SUV" was not used here. It was a light sedan with off-road capability - the cheapest option for glider towing.]
The table [for 2016] cites the list price for a Forester as $32,990.00, and the 5-year total costs, driving 15,000 km/year, as $53.973.76.
However, these totals are calculated as the 5-year sum of weekly costs, and the weekly costs are the sum of various standing cost components and running cost components.I think the weekly portion of the energy embedded the car, represented by the list price, is totally included in the weekly depreciation (because the money is all borrowed): $65.79 per week. That adds up to only $17,105.40 in five years. [Perhaps the car is still worth $32,990.00 - $17,015.40 = $15,884.60 after five years? Not likely.]
The cost of fuel is given as 8.3 cents per kilometre. At 15,000 km/year, that is $1245 per year, or $23.94 per week, and a total of $6225 in five years.
In dollar terms, the embedded energy of manufacture given by the list price of $32,990.00, is over five times the energy in the fuel used in a five-year "life": $6225. That cannot be called "minuscule".
My car has a proven life of 18 years so far, which is three-and-a-half times the 5-year figure used in the RACQ tables. To extrapolate, in an 18-year life, my car would still have more energy embedded in its manufacture than used in the fuel for driving it.Posted Thursday 6 Apr 2017 @ 4:32:09 am from IP # -
Benny
MemberI now agree with you that the embodied energy is not miniscule compared to operational energy use, but not because of your monetary argument. I couldn't accept any calculation using money as a proxy for energy, especially considering the huge variations we've seen in fuel prices.
So I did a quick search for information and although there are various answers around it looks like the embodied energy is generally comparable to the lifetime energy use. I find figures of about 20,000kWh for manufacture. My iMiev uses only 8kWh/100km so if I get 100,000km out of it that should be 8000kWh over that lifetime - far less than the manufacture but also far less than a petrol equivalent would have used. 5L/100kM = 5000L at 10kWh/L = 50,000kWh. Total for the electric is 28,000kWh and petrol is 70,000kWh. If you were to drive the petrol another 100,000kM it would use another 50,000kWh whereas buying a new electric and running 100,000kM would be 28,000. If I get all my electric car kWh from solar PV should I just use the embedded energy of the panels and not what they generate which would be even lower.Toyota published an interesting article on CO2 equivalent of manufacture vs operation here...
http://www.toyota.com.au/static/pdfs/sustainability/PwC_Assurance_report_Camry_Footprint_12May2011.pdf
10.2tonnes for manufacture, 44tonnes over lifetime (not specified mileage etc)Posted Thursday 6 Apr 2017 @ 7:30:41 am from IP # -
dlvb19
MemberThe latest fuel cell car - Honda Clarity - has a range of 590 km, which is slightly more than the 500+ km range of an upper range Tesla. So the promised range advantages of hydrogen over battery cars has not been kept.
So we are left with charge times as the biggest differentiation. Then of course fuel costs, availability and durability (of hydrogen cars).
https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-upslowlyon.html
Posted Saturday 15 Apr 2017 @ 5:59:34 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberSensitivity analysis:
A sensitivity analysis of different scenarios was carried out. The sensitivity analysis is a systematic procedure for estimating the effect of the choices made regarding methods and data on the results of the study.
Examples of the scenarios considered in the sensitivity analysis are:
Influence of the different consumptions and electricity production scenarios.
Influence of the data robustness on the life cycle assessment results.
Classification BMW i3 in relation to other vehicle concepts.
Influence of the environmental impact of the high-voltage battery cells and the
battery ́s lifespan.Ambitious sustainability targets had been already set in the early strategic phase of the BMW i3. These targets were pursued steadily and monitored by LCA.
Thanks these sustainability actions over the whole value chain and the ongoing monitoring the resulted global warming potential of the BMW i3 BEV is about 30% up to 50% (with renewable energy) less compared to a conventional vehicle (Green Car of the Year 2008).Posted Saturday 15 Apr 2017 @ 7:20:36 am from IP # -
Thunda
MemberThere is two alternatives, horse or steam, both are renewable, one for you poor fools that live in the city's the other for us smart farts that live the way we were all ment to live.
The whole problem is (and nobody seems to have recognized it) the world is over populated, and is causing ALL the problems that you are facing.
Technology is being stalled by oil company's and politics, we can live in both worlds with the right balance.
Grow Your fuel, live simply, work hard.Posted Friday 21 Apr 2017 @ 5:34:02 pm from IP # -
The promising research and development into increased high density battery storage, the soon to be released TESLA semi and the increased interest in the development of VTOL electric jet aircraft makes for exciting times.
I have heard that Mazda has decided not to embrace electric car development. a strange decision if true.
Posted Friday 21 Apr 2017 @ 11:27:03 pm from IP # -
I've decided to add the link to the hydrogen EV hybrid to this topic as the design thinking is worth considering in how EV's and humans are the 'driver' of change. Our behaviour is as important as any technology.
http://www.riversimple.com/batteries-hydrogen-wrong-question/
Posted Tuesday 16 May 2017 @ 9:48:09 pm from IP # -
Phil A
Memberdlvb19 said:
The latest fuel cell car - Honda Clarity - has a range of 590 km, which is slightly more than the 500+ km range of an upper range Tesla. So the promised range advantages of hydrogen over battery cars has not been kept.So we are left with charge times as the biggest differentiation. Then of course fuel costs, availability and durability (of hydrogen cars).
https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-upslowlyon.html
The realities of tesla
http://www.ract.com.au/teslatour
No wonder they did this in Tassy where no one would notice. How embarrassing, holding up the traffic to get barely half of the claimed range or to get to your destination.
Don't they beat Ferraris?
Ring any EV owner to get the range after two years....
At least hydrogen will be consistent.Posted Tuesday 16 May 2017 @ 11:17:55 pm from IP # -
Re the above. Yes the Tesla driver had to alter his behaviour, but he still got there.
We are all going to have to change our behaviour so we might as well start now.
And according to this article maybe battery deterioration is not an issue.
https://evobsession.com/wizzy-the-nissan-leaf-taxi-surpasses-100000-miles/
More here.
What prompted this article was a Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study showing that EVs will meet the daily travel needs of the vast majority of drivers longer than is typically assumed
http://livingleaf.info/2015/05/lets-talk-about-battery-degradation/
Posted Wednesday 17 May 2017 @ 2:31:59 am from IP # -
Lance
Key MasterYes, what the tesla tour article really shows is that the supercharger network needs to be extended to Tassie, which will happen in time. After all, there are petrol stations all over the place, so once fast charging is similarly distributed, the range anxiety issue just won't exist.
Posted Wednesday 17 May 2017 @ 7:47:13 am from IP # -
Lance
Key MasterDiver, exactly right, once you hit the hills, the claimed consumption figures in an ICE go out the window, not that any ICE actually meets their claimed figures in real-world driving anyway. And, of course, you don't get to recover any of it going down the hills.
Posted Wednesday 17 May 2017 @ 12:01:08 pm from IP # -
Phil A
MemberMy, we have got our rose coloured glasses on today haven't we.
Rockabye,
the comments on the leaf site are the most damning I have read for an EV if you read them with your eyes open....
A claim of 98% of battery life left after 100000km..... Rubbish, the leaf owners said in the comments that after 2 years they have a 50 mile range. 50 miles! Ive lived in a place where the driveway to the front gate was 40km...... you have to be joking....
Lance, don't you mean that the supercharger network needs to be extended outside the centre of Sydney and Melb?
Diver, you berate anyone who gets their rainwater calculation out by a few precent but its ok for professionals to get their spin wrong by 50%?... get real.
I agree, the fuel economy figures claimed by ice vehicles do suffer by 10-15% in the real world, but 40-50% give us a break.
Even the crap about not charging until the last minute to maximize battery life and then to only 80%..... WTF.... their goes 20% of your range to start with...
As you know, I am completely off grid and am trying my hardest to achieve a sustainable lifestyle, but to date EVs do not even come close to meeting a high enough standard to fit in with our lifestyle.
The Riversimple is the closest I've seen to date.
With ice cars regularly achieving 600,000km to 1 million km, what is wrong with simply using hydrogen as the fuel for them and having a genuine zero emissions over a 20year life span?
I guess that would be too easy......Posted Thursday 18 May 2017 @ 7:14:17 am from IP # -
Lance
Key MasterPhil,
the claimed consumption figures for ICE vehicles are a lot more than 10-15% out the way the average person drives them, recent testing showed the average was at least 20% higher consumption, and up to 35%, see http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/the-big-fuel-economy-lie-why-motorists-cant-match-the-consumption-figures-on-showroom-labels/news-story/6d77a54abaa3ff63ce27e2b07e549231 and this is for a testing regimen, many people have very heavy feet and burn through a great deal more fuel.
I wouldn't go by claims about the leaf, it is hardly state of the art in EVs nowadays, Tesla's batts show quite low degradation, averaging about 8% decrease after 160,000km, see https://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-s-battery-pack-data-degradation/ and this data is for the older batts, not the new ones from the panasonic partnership.
While it's true that EVs are a push and probably not viable for rural dwellers at the moment, that is changing, with a more extensive charging network and battery range steadily increasing, I expect in 10 years we will see EVs with realistic 1000km ranges. It's pretty early days yet for EVs, the bulk of the development work is yet to be done.
The problem with using hydrogen is that it isn't zero emissions, it nearly all comes from natural gas, nothing zero emissions about it, it's just remaining locked to fossil fuels in a different form. Sure you can use electrolysis, but the overall efficiency is woeful.
All of this has been written about and discussed in numerous publications and forums, it's easy to find, google is your friend...
Posted Thursday 18 May 2017 @ 8:48:33 am from IP # -
Phil A
MemberI worked for a GM dealership for years, I am well aware what was claimed and what was achievable. A bit of education could get the "average" person closer to the mark quite easily.
The tesla test was real world by an average person and you don't want us to believe the results.....
So you don't want me to believe what dozens of leaf owners say (no politics involved) in the real world but you want me to believe what a paid daily telegraph reporter says? (totally politically controlled organisation)
Can you please tell me where to take my boxes of lithium batteries for recycle? and don't tell me the local recycle bin.
I think some real world living and less google would open some peoples eyes.
EVs will as they have been since the beginning of the auto era be a part of a much larger system, exactly the same issues plague them now that have from the start. How many EVs were sold in oz last year was it? 215? who cares about 215 cars. How much energy has been wasted on covering the issue and creating spin. Tesla is a classic example. Your friend google will tell you that GM was building more cars in a week than tesla was building in 6 months....Who gives a damn about a Ponzi scheme like tesla. Have a look at their business plan......
Im just tired of having them rammed down my throat by those interested in money and politics (one and the same thing) not by those genuinely interested in looking after the environment, and this includes the greenies.Posted Thursday 18 May 2017 @ 11:43:22 pm from IP # -
Lance
Key MasterSorry Phil, I have heard all you rhetoric before from a poster who use to frequent here saying tesla was a scam etc. Tesla now builds close to 100,000 cars a year and the company is valued higher than GM, although that valuation is probably higher than it should be. They will be doing their own battery recycling, it's all part of their overall plan.
The Oz EV market is a really poor choice as an example, aussies are notoriously poor at making smart decisions when it comes to the environment, just look at the average house here compared to overseas, and the fact that SUVs and similar large vehicles are so popular here. Hate to say it, but aussies, by and large, are an ignorant lot. If you look at overseas markets you will see places like Norway where EV sales are headed to be the dominant vehicle type sold in the next decade or so, they have gone from 1% to over 5% of all cars on their roads being EVs since 2014. By generating their own energy from wind etc, they will eventually become completely independent for transportation energy requirements, whereas aussies and the yanks will still be funding terrorist states by buying middle-east sourced oil products.
As I said, the EV market is in its early days, vehicle range, charging infrastructure, battery recycling etc will all improve and evolve to cover the requirements to shifting to electric transport. Considering where the world was even 10 years ago with EVs, things have come a long way in a short time, and changes are happening rapidly globally.
The rest of the world is transitioning away from oil to electric transport of all types, you may not like it for whatever reason, but it's going to happen, and any country or corporation that doesn't get on board is going to be struggling in the next decade or two. Sure, there will be multiple fuels in use for the next few decades, but the move is definitely towards electrification.
Posted Friday 19 May 2017 @ 2:39:32 am from IP # -
Phil A
MemberPlease do no accuse me of rhetoric.
All of my items mentioned above a referenceable. Do your homework.
The leaf comments by owners are fact. The tesla test is fact. The cars sales are fact. The position of the Evs in the market are fact.
Even articles from the 3 posts mentioned above are based on rhetoric. Articles by a reporter. Rhetoric. statements by tesla, not verifiable by owners or anyone else for that matter. Spin.
I posted on this site re contacting tesla re the firewall months ago arguing that it could not possibly perform as claimed. Me and a lot of others I suspect.
4 or 5 months later they have increased the capacity by 40% to make it work. come to think of it 40% seems to be the average overstatement for electric things full stop.
If you can provide proof, not rhetoric, of any lithium cell that has completed its claimed 1000 cycles I would interested to see it.
Once again I have posted in the past have I have worked in a situation using lithium powered tools in a professional hard working situation in the marine industry. Thousands and thousands of dollars were and are being spent on state of the art equipment. Not once have those tools performed to spec. In fact they have never come close.
Don't use the oz market as an example you say.... this is where I live. these are the facts
I am not going to argue back and forwards with closed minded people for the sake of it.
I have spent 50 years in industry and the things stated above are factual which can be verified if you wish to do your homework.
As usual most of the populace are conned by those in power, I can see that nothing has changed. Boy am I pleased to have gone off the grid in the 1980s. Some of us could see all this coming.Posted Friday 19 May 2017 @ 3:47:03 am from IP # -
Lance
Key MasterAs I said, EV development is still in the early stages compared to other techs, as for batts, they have seen more development in the last few years than the previous 50, there are many, many companies working on improving cycle life etc. The tesla batt data is real data from their car telemetry system, not something they've just made up. They collect data constantly from all tesla cars, the tesla car fleet has driven around 5 billion km in total so far, that's a hell of a lot of data.
Power tool batteries are made down to a price and naturally have a shorter lifecycle, the tesla and similar batteries are a different, made for a purpose, not a price. Experience with one doesn't correlate with the other, regardless of how much experience you have with that one.
Posted Friday 19 May 2017 @ 6:26:16 am from IP # -
Phil A
MemberEVs in the early stages of development. ah ha ha. are you kidding. I have some info here somewhere of one pre 1900.
They have been proven a problem since then, so far.
You have no idea what power tools or cells we were testing or using..... Rhetoric once again.
What is your answer to fords admission that the only reason they make EVs is because legislation states that they are not allowed to make ice engines unless they make a certain percentage of EVs to off set them. If you do you favourite google homework you will find that they are about ready to start scrapping them. I cant wait to see your response to that one!
Tesla have admitted their cells were a failure by changing to a different design. Obviously done to a price in the first place. More rhetoric.Well I must admit one thing, tesla is fast racking up a list of firsts.
First car brand to catch fire under warranty on nearly every continent.
Most fires per km driven. Highest warranty claims. Are the door handles still falling off them? sounds that's like built down to a price to me.
First car under its own control to drive into the side of a truck and kill the driver.... the list goes on.Posted Friday 19 May 2017 @ 7:39:44 am from IP # -
dlvb19
MemberPhil I agree that Lances raw statement about development strains credulity somewhat, but the spirit of the statement is correct. Your assumption (phil) that you measure development in time only is clearly not an appropriate metric to use. Total dollars invested in RnD is the appropriate metric, and without any data to refer to I can only suggest that with so many historical industrial behemoths (Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen .etc) with a cumulative market caps in the hundreds of billions, the real RnD in ICE would obliterate RnD in BEV's.
I'm not sure why your so skeptical, maybe 10 years ago many would have echoed your sentiments, but in the past few years its clear BEV's will rapidly overtake ICE's sales. Even if the technology just continues to robustly evolve as it has been, it won't be long, however if there is a revolution in battery technology (which analyst's can never predict) change will occur even more rapidly. I guess 7 years before BEV annual sales overtake ICE sales, I'm predicting a carbon price along with that.
Posted Friday 19 May 2017 @ 10:43:16 am from IP # -
Phil A
Memberdlvb19 said:
Phil I agree that Lances raw statement about development strains credulity somewhat, but the spirit of the statement is correct. Your assumption (phil) that you measure development in time only is clearly not an appropriate metric to use. Total dollars invested in RnD is the appropriate metric, and without any data to refer to I can only suggest that with so many historical industrial behemoths (Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen .etc) with a cumulative market caps in the hundreds of billions, the real RnD in ICE would obliterate RnD in BEV's.I'm not sure why your so skeptical, maybe 10 years ago many would have echoed your sentiments, but in the past few years its clear BEV's will rapidly overtake ICE's sales. Even if the technology just continues to robustly evolve as it has been, it won't be long, however if there is a revolution in battery technology (which analyst's can never predict) change will occur even more rapidly. I guess 7 years before BEV annual sales overtake ICE sales, I'm predicting a carbon price along with that.
Only a fool is not sceptical. Look at history
Yes to some degree I agree but when someone has a swing at my facts with one eyed biased rhetoric I swing back.
One reason I am sceptical is this,
where are we going to get the power to run them? There are industries even in tas that have needed to shut down for various time periods, let alone SA who cant even keep the lights on.
Not one person has been able to give me a sensible let alone viable answer to this. I would love someone to start a discussion on this. Boy have I spent some time trying to work this out.
I make all of my own power, I know what it takes to run things even at a sensible level, let alone city dwellers rate of consumption. (on average 10 times mine!)
Another is, why arnt electric cars covered in solar panels? Its ok to put in oil powered charging stations but not sensible to fit solar panels to the cars. Give me a break....
Everywhere you look it reeks of politics.
The time argument is not totally invalid however as if you observe any number of products and developments over time and technology throughout history, the good ones usually take off and the problematic ones lag or die. We all hope that the sustainable ones are the winners and not the political ones.
Here is a good one for you, why is it ok to burn food in a heater but its not ok to burn trees which are renewable and sustainable? Im guessing starving people arnt as important as westerners warm arses.
Engineering wise it is easy to understand which systems are worthwhile and which ones are not, you just need to look at things with an open mind make the calculations and judge them for what they are.
If you cant see things from the bigger perspective or if you have a closed mind, you view things with confirmation bias and your arguments don't make any sense, as per some of the arguments in the above posts.Posted Friday 19 May 2017 @ 11:43:20 am from IP # -
Lance
Key Masterdlvb19 said:
Your assumption (phil) that you measure development in time only is clearly not an appropriate metric to use. Total dollars invested in RnD is the appropriate metric, and without any data to refer to I can only suggest that with so many historical industrial behemoths (Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen .etc) with a cumulative market caps in the hundreds of billions, the real RnD in ICE would obliterate RnD in BEV's.Which is what I meant. But there's more to it, sure, EVs have been around for over 100 years, but until 20 years or so ago they were all either slow lead-acid powered BEVs with crude brushed motors and drives or large vehicles like trains etc, which have control systems nothing like a modern BEV such as a tesla etc. Lithium powered BEVs have only existed for the last decade or so and the motors and drive/control systems used in the new crop of BEVs are far more advanced than the old brush-type motors and simple PWM controllers used up until then.
The EV1 was probably the first mass-produced advanced AC motor BEV road vehicle that used motors and drives designed for BEV use rather than industrial drives shoehorned into a car. And the EV1 was only 20 years or so ago, and even that used lead-acid and NiMH batts. Vehicles like the tesla are effectively recent developments as far as the tech goes, and lithium batt development was pretty stagnant until the demand came for better batteries for portable devices, power tools, and then EVs, and the real push for higher capacities has only happened in the last decade or so. Now, advances are coming all the time, in the next 10 years or so I expect we will have batts with twice the capacity of today's units, although they may not be lithium based.
Tasmania suffered power restrictions not because of a lack of available generation resources, but a lack of common sense and an excess of greed on behalf of those running the system. They were running the hydro here flat out for months, running down water reserves and pouring that energy through basslink into victoria to make as much money as they could, assuming we would get the rains to replenish the storage. The rains didn't happen and then basslink went down for 6 months at the same time, hence the lack of water for generation. Short sighted greed, nothing more.
As for SA's woes, that has been dealt with in several reports, I'm not going to rehash it here, look them up.
Solar panels on cars are pointless, the available surface area is too small to have much effect on range and cars are more often than not under cover anyway. What makes more sense, and what is happening overseas, is large solar arrays over carparks, which not only provide the energy for EV charging during the day but also protect the vehicles under them.
As for where the energy for all the EVs is going to come from, well for a start, it is well understood that as we shift to electric transport, we will also be shifting to distributed generation and renewables, with a lot more generation installed than we currently have. There are millions of unused roofs just begging for good sized solar arrays, which would then charge the EVs parked in the garages and parking lots of those buildings.
As has always happened, as demand has increased, so has installed generation, it just happens as a result of demand and supply, there's no reason to think this would be any different. As the grid becomes smarter, voltage regulation will become better as well, and we will see more independent mini-grids as well, with many of those tied to the mains grid for better stability and flow control.
All of this is possible now and wasn't 20 years ago, we have low cost, very fast processors now that just didn't exist back then, hence smart controls can be everywhere, in every appliance, in every part of a renewable energy system, and they can all talk to each other. Given time, it will all just happen (it already is), and we will eventually all just take it for granted.
Not sure what the comment about burning food is about, unless you are harking back to the wheat heater review from some time back, which was explained at the time that the grains used are stock grade only, they can't be sold as human consumption grade.
Posted Friday 19 May 2017 @ 1:56:38 pm from IP # -
Phil A
MemberThe rhetoric:
"they were all either slow lead-acid powered BEVs with crude brushed motors and drives or large vehicles like trains etc,"The fact: At one stage Evs held the land speed record.
The rhetoric:
"Tasmania suffered power restrictions not because of a lack of available generation resources, but a lack of common sense and an excess of greed on behalf of those running the system. They were running the hydro here flat out for months, running down water reserves and pouring that energy through basslink into victoria to make as much money as they could, assuming we would get the rains to replenish the storage. The rains didn't happen and then basslink went down for 6 months at the same time, hence the lack of water for generation. Short sighted greed, nothing more."The fact:
We didn't have enough power to process the aluminium to make one EV let alone run a fleet of..... how many cars in tas?The rhetoric:
"As for SA's woes, that has been dealt with in several reports, I'm not going to rehash it here, look them up."The fact:
The big picture is that SA didn't have enough power to watch the football!
As I said Im not going to go on and on about he said she said...The rhetoric:
"As for where the energy for all the EVs is going to come from, well for a start, it is well understood that as we shift to electric transport, we will also be shifting to distributed generation and renewables, with a lot more generation installed than we currently have. There are millions of unused roofs just begging for good sized solar arrays, which would then charge the EVs parked in the garages and parking lots of those buildings."The fact:
The average household array doesn't even make enough power to run the household let alone to run an EV AND charge it at NIGHT when the car is parked long enough to charge it.The rhetoric:
"There are millions of unused roofs just begging for good sized solar arrays,"The Fact:
These millions of people cant afford a solar array, otherwise they would already have one.The rhetoric:
As has always happened, as demand has increased, so has installed generation, it just happens as a result of demand and supply, there's no reason to think this would be any different.The fact:
Obviously it doesn't increase at the same rate, as.... the lights keep going out.The rhetoric:
Not sure what the comment about burning food is about, unless you are harking back to the wheat heater review from some time back, which was explained at the time that the grains used are stock grade only, they can't be sold as human consumption grade.The fact:
The comment about burning food for fuel is in response to my scepticism of the system in the comment in the post above. (a valid comment)
Burning food ALWAYS starts out on this premise, then before long there are tens of thousands of acres of land being taken up with growing food for fuel and not for food for the starving millions. Have you been to Europe lately, say, the last 15 years?You need to look at the big picture Lance.
It ALWAYS comes down to politics and money, it has nothing to do with the environment.....Posted Saturday 20 May 2017 @ 1:22:33 am from IP # -
Benny
MemberYou're incredibly patient her Lance but I don't think you're going to change Phil's attitude. I don't think I'll try either although ...
"The fact: At one stage Evs held the land speed record."
What has 1 car getting a record got to do with the general statement by Lance "they were all either slow lead-acid powered BEVs". Are you using this "fact" to dismiss his statement simply because he put "all" in there ? Surely we're talking about general EV's here not the odd record maker."didn't have enough power to process the aluminium". Why be so selective here regarding an extremely electricity intensive industry? I presume the aluminium refinery was established in Tas because of cheap, plentiful hydro but this is no longer the case. Maybe as Lance says Tas is better off exporting the electricity to Vic rather than making Aluminium ? Whats it got to do with power for cars ?
"big picture is that SA didn't have enough power to watch the football!" Thats the big picture ? Watching footy ?
"The average household array doesn't even make enough power to run the household let alone to run an EV ". We're in this category. Only have 1.5kW giving 6kWh/day and need on average about 8kWh/day to run our EV. City dwellers obviously. But the plan is to upgrade to at least 5kW soon, giving 20kWh/day. Plenty to run our home and EV apart from the occasional big country trip.
I think what you seem to be concentrating on what the facts are at present - not what they are likely to be in the future. Businesses and homes are continuing to install large amounts of PV and solar farms are becoming more common too - as a great investment even for community developers.
I'm pretty convinced by this prediction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM
Posted Sunday 21 May 2017 @ 4:49:53 am from IP # -
Phil A
MemberBenny, the point was I was accused of rhetoric, when in fact it was the accusers who were guilty of the rhetoric.
Why is rhetoric acceptable from some posters in "authority" yet supposedly, not from others
Why were my numerous valid questions not answered? I am not anti EVs I just like balanced discussion, not one eyed biased comment. This typical of forums where the dominant ones don't like their views questioned.
I realise that some of my comments go straight over peoples heads, a classic point is the football one. It has nothing to do with the football. It has everything to do with the fact that there was NO POWER...... not even the tiny bit would take to watch the football.
I thought dumbing it down a bit might help get the message across. obviously not.
The tassy one was similar.
I don't understand the need to defend politicians for a total failure of the national grid, they should be fired. I agree with lances argument, the system will grow, but that is not the point, it needs to be managed in the mean time to get to that viable point.
If you managed your home in the same way that they are PAID to manage the system you would be cold and hungry. Do I need to break this down and spell it out?
I guess its a case of if I need to explain you wouldn't understand.
I have been ridiculed on this forum for re purchasing gel cells over lithiums, (that the other poster was selling) To date I have been proven to be correct.
I was laughed at for posting years ago that the feed in tariff would fall. (after being refused a contract for a time period at the price at the time. Obviously I have been proven correct.
I was told it is impossible to thermosiphon hot water downhill into my hydronic heating system, all the time I was sitting here being warmed by that very system.
Other things I could also list but wont waste my time.
Maybe my ability to see the bigger picture could at least be questioned at times, rather than slandered.
Very few are even off the grid, let alone did it in the 1980s. Is that proof enough of forethought?
I dare not even bring up the technology in place here, that makes pumped hydro viable at a homesteader level, for fear of ridicule.
There was a thread recently, two from memory, that questioned the validity of the ATA at all, and the subjects that are covered here. I guess the fact that the discussion went nowhere is indicative of inability of the majority to think outside the square let alone see the futuristic alternative technology aspect that the site was originally aimed at.
A good example is the recent reference by a well informed poster re the riversimple.
Not one comment or discussion on this very promising tech, not to mention the sustainability and ethics of the company etc. Surely this is true alternative technology worthy of discussion?
Maybe it is time for me to move on and leave the keyboard warriors and self proclaimed experts to their narrow minded domain where they can continue to have in depth discussions on whether a 4 or 5 star electric clothes drier is the best.Posted Sunday 21 May 2017 @ 6:05:37 am from IP #
