Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jul 13 2018 9:26am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 6:22am

Electricity source. The words " energy" and "power" are bandied about with regard to Rebuildable Electricity as if this is the total of energy that we are using but electricity is just a small part. There is 5X very expensive work to be done to convert all of society's energy consumption to electric even after getting to 100% rebuildables for current electricity production. Just putting RE electricity instead of fossil fueled generation into the existing wires is actually the easiest part..
It's a quote.

Comparing RE primary energy with coal primary energy is more or less pointless, because 50-60% of coals primary energy is already wasted to heat rivers and make water vapor in those power plants. PV and wind are a lot more "elegant" in generating electricty not heating any rivers.

Yes, it is true that RE play a much smaller role for heating and mobility. That may change soon in the mobility sector with grwoning number of electric cars.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 13 2018 9:27am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 13 2018 5:06am
Punx0r wrote:
Jul 13 2018 3:35am
Renewable energy is a source of energy provided by nature. Simple. ?...
Hmm ? ..... So that would include oil, coal, gas, uranium, .etc ??....
With regards to the hydrocarbon fuels: of course. Just don't violate that rule about using it faster than it is replenished and all is cushty.

Uranium is renewable on the timescale of galaxy lifecycles. The timescale of Mankind is mostly concerned with screwing up Earth's carbon cycle, though.

You can burn coal as long as you catch all the toxic & radioactive nasties
Given the above you can burn as much as you want - as long as it doesn't exceed the rate at which new coal* is being formed :D Totally practical and affordable!

*Other methods of carbon sequestration may also be acceptable.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 13 2018 9:30am

Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 13 2018 5:37am
Image
Interesting that the contribution for solar is almost constant (7% +/- 0.3%[abs]) throughout the year. Even though we've learned in this thread that solar doesn't work during the winter...

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 13 2018 9:36am

Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 13 2018 9:26am
That may change soon in the mobility sector with grwoning number of electric cars.
A survey this week found that half of young people are currently receptive to owning an electric car, versus a quarter of middle-aged people. A government think-tank is pushing for charging points to be built into street light poles wherever there is kerbside parking to overcome the issue of people who live somewhere without off-road parking. There's also talk of pulling forward the ban on sales of ICE cars from 2040 to 2030 or 2025 (2040 was always a pretty weak effort).

The change will come, grumpy old obstructionists or not!

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 13 2018 9:49am

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 13 2018 9:30am
Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 13 2018 5:37am
Image
Interesting that the contribution for solar is almost constant (7% +/- 0.3%[abs]) throughout the year. Even though we've learned in this thread that solar doesn't work during the winter...
Fossil fuel heat processes for steel and concrete are very efficient. No way to make these temps with a heat pump.
.

Yes. Solar in Germany is contributing primarily in Summer peaks with a high percentage of fossil fuel redundant back up all Winter long at 500 gm/ kWh when the solar is averaging near zero for weeks at a time. Watch electricity map next year. Even today there is a big solar PV peak at over 50% capacity factor and 21 GW. But consumption is 76 GW. And wind is only chipping in 8% capacity and 4 GW. Multiply this demand by 3X at least and Trillions of Euros to replace all of the built out machines and infrastructure that are not currently electric in order to replace all energy.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... tryCode=DE
.

User avatar
gogo   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mar 17 2008 2:20pm
Location: Iowa USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by gogo » Jul 13 2018 10:09am

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 13 2018 9:36am

There's also talk of pulling forward the ban on sales of ICE cars from 2040 to 2030 or 2025 (2040 was always a pretty weak effort).

The change will come, grumpy old obstructionists or not!
All ICE will be gone from the roads by 2032 according to the futurist Tony Seba:

Tony Seba: Clean Disruption of Energy and Transport
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=90513
"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking." -Steven Wright

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 13 2018 10:15am

I believe he is sadly mistaken for heavy transport. Even though fuel prices will be 2X at least by then. Many new cars sold today will still be on the road in 15 years. Unless they are carbon taxed out of existence. which would obviously crush the remaining bottom 80% of developed countries.

User avatar
gogo   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mar 17 2008 2:20pm
Location: Iowa USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by gogo » Jul 13 2018 2:03pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 10:15am

Many new cars sold today will still be on the road in 15 years.
It will all be driven by economics. As fuel outlets diminish, fuel will be delivered by electric autonomous vehicles for a few years. The quick changeover from horses to ICE is an analogous and cogent example of what is about to happen. Consumers will suddenly become aware that investing in ICE is just throwing money to the wind.
"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking." -Steven Wright

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 13 2018 2:31pm

gogo wrote:
Jul 13 2018 2:03pm
It will all be driven by economics. As fuel outlets diminish, fuel will be delivered by electric autonomous vehicles for a few years. The quick changeover from horses to ICE is an analogous and cogent example of what is about to happen. Consumers will suddenly become aware that investing in ICE is just throwing money to the wind.
Fuel outlets will not diminish until after liquid fueled vehicles diminish. The liquid fueled vehicle quickly replaced the horse since they quickly became much more useful for transportation than a horse.

User avatar
parabellum   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2056
Joined: Nov 19 2010 9:55am
Location: Dominican Republic, north.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by parabellum » Jul 13 2018 2:46pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 2:31pm
Fuel outlets will not diminish until after liquid fueled vehicles diminish. The liquid fueled vehicle quickly replaced the horse since they quickly became much more useful for transportation than a horse.
Stone age ended not because stones where over. There always will be some use fore stone and fossil fuel is not nearly ideal to move things around.

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 13 2018 3:15pm

parabellum wrote:
Jul 13 2018 2:46pm
Stone age ended not because stones where over. There always will be some use fore stone and fossil fuel is not nearly ideal to move things around.
Metal is much more useful than stone for tools. That is why it came into use. You are assuming that electric drive is more useful for moving things around than liquid fuel. But it is not. Liquid fuel is ideal for moving things around. Other than it is finite and emits CO2. As for usefulness there is no comparison to it's energy density, storability, and transportability. And previously, price (for 20 more years).

User avatar
gogo   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mar 17 2008 2:20pm
Location: Iowa USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by gogo » Jul 13 2018 3:26pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 2:31pm

Fuel outlets will not diminish until after liquid fueled vehicles diminish. The liquid fueled vehicle quickly replaced the horse since they quickly became much more useful for transportation than a horse.
Useful = $. Fuel outlets will diminish as soon as its cheaper to deliver the fuel to the ICE vehicle than it is to drive the ICE vehicle to the fuel. Its all about the economics.
"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking." -Steven Wright

User avatar
parabellum   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2056
Joined: Nov 19 2010 9:55am
Location: Dominican Republic, north.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by parabellum » Jul 13 2018 3:51pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 3:15pm
Metal is much more useful than stone for tools.
I see a ray of sunlight. So, what about 4-5x energy conversion efficiency of EV to ICE. (think 5 stone hammers to 1 metal hammer)
sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 3:15pm
Liquid fuel is ideal for moving things around.
No, they are ideal to produce heat, it is what they do moving ICE mainly.
Even converting liquid full to electricity trough multi-stage power plant and considering all transmission loses, stages of chemical conversion of charge and discharge in EV battery, ICE is still magnitudes less efficient/ideal moving things around.
sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 3:15pm
And previously, price (for 20 more years).

I do not know what you mean but, electric km is ~ 8-10 times cheaper then liquid fuel km (on fuel cost) and I did my math by myself.

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 13 2018 4:39pm

The biggest problem with replacing liquid fuel with batteries is the energy density. Overtheroad diesel truck engines and farm tractors are operating at 40% efficiency so this is not that bad considering the truck can stop for a 20 minute fuel up and take on 400 gallons of fuel which is 15,000 kWh. Divide that by 2.2 for the efficiency advantage of electric drive and you can see that it would take 7,000 kWh of batteries in a truck to do the same job. And charge rates in the 1,000's of kW to be as useful.

User avatar
parabellum   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2056
Joined: Nov 19 2010 9:55am
Location: Dominican Republic, north.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by parabellum » Jul 13 2018 11:36pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 13 2018 4:39pm
Overtheroad diesel truck engines and farm tractors are operating at 40% efficiency so this is not that bad considering the truck can stop for a 20 minute fuel up and take on 400 gallons of fuel which is 15,000 kWh.
Yes, there are many mental deficiencies to overcome in areas of sufficient infrastructure (not about Alaska or so). There are many rules in many countries but, in my understanding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_driver), driver should take a break after 4 hours driving, 15-30 minutes minimum in our paradigm (to just comply a law) and 400 Gl diesel is good for hauling 50 metric tons (not permitted everywhere) for 4-6 of this periods.
But it gets irrelevant as the driver is the most expensive component and time dependant consumer, autonomous trucks will not have such a hurry, look at sea freight.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 13 2018 11:43pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 13 2018 9:30am
Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 13 2018 5:37am
Image
Interesting that the contribution for solar is almost constant (7% +/- 0.3%[abs]) throughout the year. Even though we've learned in this thread that solar doesn't work during the winter...
What gave you the impression that solar is constant ?
Check the data,.. It isnt.. In Germany solar is less than 2% of the generation source for the 3 winter months ..Nov, Dec, Jan.....As pcompared to 12% in the peak summer period.
PS:-... That 2% contribution from solar is approx an average of 1.4GW generated from the 40+ GW installed solar capacity ! :shock:
Last edited by Hillhater on Jul 14 2018 10:59pm, edited 2 times in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 14 2018 12:16am

Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 13 2018 9:26am
...
Yes, it is true that RE play a much smaller role for heating and mobility. That may change soon in the mobility sector with grwoning number of electric cars.
Its irrelevent how many electric cars are on the road...its the generation source that matters.
With Fossil fuels remaining predominant in electricity generation, and EV s making little inroads to the mass market, ..the impact of RE in transport will be minimal for many years yet.
Policy making and the idealistic dreams of our youth, will all have to face the reality of the actual markets.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7132
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Chalo » Jul 14 2018 1:10am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 14 2018 12:16am
Policy making and the idealistic dreams of our youth, will all have to face the reality of the actual markets.
Let us know how your buggy whip stocks are performing.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

User avatar
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2356
Joined: Feb 09 2007 3:02am
Location: Marlboro

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh » Jul 14 2018 6:12pm

Chalo wrote:
Jul 14 2018 1:10am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 14 2018 12:16am
Policy making and the idealistic dreams of our youth, will all have to face the reality of the actual markets.
Let us know how your buggy whip stocks are performing.
yeah, wheeze nozitallz haz alreddy figgurd wutz replay sinn WSCGN.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... om-edwards
Kick down the barricades Listen what the kids say.
From time to time people change their minds But the Frock is here to stay.
I've seen it all from the bottom to the top Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.
Around the world or around the block Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jul 16 2018 9:15am

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 13 2018 9:30am
Interesting that the contribution for solar is almost constant (7% +/- 0.3%[abs]) throughout the year. Even though we've learned in this thread that solar doesn't work during the winter...
Of course it is NOT constant.

A halfyear includes half a winter and half a summer, that's why it does not differ much from a whole year.

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jul 16 2018 9:19am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 13 2018 11:43pm

Check the data,.. It isnt.. In Germany solar is less than 2% of the generation source for the 3 winter months ..Nov, Dec, Jan.....As pcompared to 12% in the peak summer period.
PS:-... That 2% contribution from solar is approx an average of 1.4GW generated from the 40+ GW installed solar capacity ! :shock:
Yepp. German days in winter are dark and short.

That's not super bad, because in winter we have more wind than in summer, so combining both monthly production doesn't vary so much (of course still weather dependend).

So no need for seasonal storage.

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jul 16 2018 9:36am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 14 2018 12:16am

Its irrelevent how many electric cars are on the road...its the generation source that matters..
Of course not. One electric car more is one gasoline car less (+/-)

Even with actual electricity Generation e-cars are better in greenhouse gases and obviously much better compared in local Emission, which is the plague of many megacities.

And the electricity mix get's cleaner and cleaner every year (in most countries)

Goal for Germany is 60% RE electricity generation by 2030.

In 1990 we started at 4% (hydropower)

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 16 2018 10:13am

Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 16 2018 9:19am
So no need for seasonal storage.
You apparently did not look at electricitymap.org much last winter. You would have seen Germany over 450gm/ kWh all winter long from burning so much coal.

Ohbse   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 776
Joined: Dec 26 2013 5:15pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ohbse » Jul 16 2018 6:12pm

There's a perception that heavy transport will be the last sector to be disrupted by electrification, I think it will happen much sooner than the current thinking. As all of the rational people in this thread have discussed, it's economics that drive adoption and change. The economics for large trucks are already lining up and transport is ripe for RAPID disruption. Mining equipment is also coming for a lot of the same reasons.

A heavy vehicle has a bunch of factors where being an EV is a significant advantage

Very high utilisation rates (CAPEX costs are less of an issue compared to OPEX)
Predictable range requirements (Size battery packs for each requirement)
Torque focused powertrain, often running high loads at low speed (EV's are more efficient at lower speeds)
Significant braking issues while fully loaded (regen rules)
Tightening emissions regulation (Obviously EVs have none)
Transport hubs already have significant infrastructure at both departure and arrival points, (charging infrastructure buildout is easy)
Fueling and servicing are very significant slices of the total cost of operations and are increasing as liquid fuels become more expensive (at the same time as batteries are dropping in price)

If a business can spend $500k on a truck (financed at a few % of course) that reduces operational expenses even by a modest % (with other benefits) then it becomes a no-brainer. Every single mile driven on the old truck is just costing money compared to the electric alternative. That tipping point is just around the corner with the huge uptick in battery production capacity coming into the market over the next few years. The battery technology is *already* there, it's purely a matter of costs. Batteries will of course continue to improve, whilst also becoming cheaper. Beyond that tipping point, any company that's not taking advantage of all of the EV killer features will rapidly become noncompetitive in a very cutthroat industry. Big players will be the first movers as they're able to more easily finance the CAPEX, plus secure supply due to scale - this will pretty rapidly flow down other sectors of the transport industry though, certainly not a 20 year process.

City buses are another sector that will be very quickly electrified once the battery cost tipping point is breached. With fairly minimal incentives this is already happening in China with whole cities now entirely electrified. Margins on bus routes are slim, any decrease in vehicle running costs can make a huge impact on profit potential. In addition the advantages with absence of noise, fumes and more rapid acceleration have been proven to increase consumer demand for electrified routes.

This is not rose tinted futurist bullshit, this is already happening and is going to explode over the next few years. Ground based liquid fueled transportation is done, the technical challenges have largely been solved and what's coming is an economics driven paradigm shift. The only sector where the physics don't stack up (yet) is flight.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 16 2018 7:24pm

Ohbse wrote:
Jul 16 2018 6:12pm
City buses are another sector that will be very quickly electrified once the battery cost tipping point is breached. With fairly minimal incentives this is already happening in China with whole cities now entirely electrified. Margins on bus routes are slim, any decrease in vehicle running costs can make a huge impact on profit potential. In addition the advantages with absence of noise, fumes and more rapid acceleration have been proven to increase consumer demand for electrified routes.
Side note on this -

Seattle has electric buses that use catenary power. They also apparently have batteries. I was on one last week when the bus slowed down to about 10mph. The message board, lights, air conditioning etc remained on. The driver crept up to the next stop and got out; apparently one of the power poles had fallen off the catenary and so he had to go outside to reset it. The bus then accelerated normally.

This has pretty clear advantages over older electric bus designs, and foreshadows the day when a city needs build only a fraction of the catenary network to handle electric buses; they would then run on battery in between catenary locations.
--bill von

Post Reply