Where is the Electricity going to come to charge EVs ?

[OVERKILL]

I get what you're saying, I suppose the reason I commented is because my experience is with people that had a daily commute on the 401 where they would regularly get 30mpg with these vehicles, but the majority of the public thinks (and comments) that those vehicles would never get better than 15mpg. A lot of people think they get as bad as a modern v8 4 wheel drive, half ton, which isn't typically true.

Yup, I understand the reason for the comment, but I thought it important to acknowledge the appeal to standardized methodology that @Wolf359 was making.

 

[Badgerstate]

Thats why we need to invest in green energy and getting electricity fromf

I see that many are excited about EVs, I can understand part of it but I myself stand by my thoughts that it will not be possible for EVs to come close to replacing gasoline vehicles for at least 20 years, more or less I can see EVs maybe getting to a saturation point of 20% of new vehicle sales, if that much, I think maybe closer to 10%. I think once people see the cost of charging them AND the fact that we do not have the power plants and infrastructure to carry the electricity to everyones home to charge the cars.
So where is the power going to come from to charge these cars? We barely have enough power in the USA to run our home air conditioners at any time of the day.
Until people wake up to the fact that we need nuclear plants, its just not going to happen.

View attachment 95148

Source = https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/map-of-nuclear-power-in-the-us-see-where-reactors-are-located.html

Thats why we need to be investing in solar, wind and hydro electric power generation. Coal is dead and most people dont want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.
A lot of the things that I see the EV naysayers talking about in how EVs are never going to work are probably many of the same things that people who owned horses said when cars were invested.
As it always goes with innovation, they will figure it out. Just because we dont have all the anwers right now and everything isnt perfect, that doesnt mean you dont try.

 

[PimTac]

Thats why we need to be investing in solar, wind and hydro electric power generation.

Good luck on the hydro. A lot of the people in charge want to tear out the dams and bring the rivers back to their once natural states. Not only would we lose electrical generation but also irrigation which these projects provide.

 

[PandaBear]

Good luck on the hydro. A lot of the people in charge want to tear out the dams and bring the rivers back to their once natural states. Not only would we lose electrical generation but also irrigation which these projects provide.

There's always a trade-off between "environment" and utility of the water. Unless you have "free energy too cheap to meter" you are not going to be able to work around it.

Actually there's one: birth control, let population decline so we don't need so much resource.

 

[PimTac]

There's always a trade-off between "environment" and utility of the water. Unless you have "free energy too cheap to meter" you are not going to be able to work around it.

Actually there's one: birth control, let population decline so we don't need so much resource.

In a way that is happening as the growth rate is slowing but maybe not as slow as some would like. That gets into dangerous territory.

 

[OVERKILL]

Thats why we need to invest in green energy and getting electricity fromf

Thats why we need to be investing in solar, wind and hydro electric power generation. Coal is dead and most people dont want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.
A lot of the things that I see the EV naysayers talking about in how EVs are never going to work are probably many of the same things that people who owned horses said when cars were invested.
As it always goes with innovation, they will figure it out. Just because we dont have all the anwers right now and everything isnt perfect, that doesnt mean you dont try.

Please read my lengthy post earlier in the thread on wind and solar.

 

[Slow Car Sport Mode]

Please read my lengthy post earlier in the thread on wind and solar.

While I, personally, declined a job at a coal plant (because it could very well be very dangerous work..) I do believe wind could be something good. There are a decent number of wind turbines around I see. I suppose there is nothing can be done about some that explode in an intense windstorm, if that is a minority occurrence, but.. if they can provide decent power, it doesn't seem so bad.

For solar panels, I would say, perhaps, same.. if they can avoid being ripped up in a windstorm..

How efficient do you feel these two means of energy will become?

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Lol, give up yet Overkill? Apparently your words are invisible to the True Believers.
For what it's worth, I appreciate your posts. Opinions based upon experience in the field, economics based upon real math and practicality are a breath of fresh air.

Speaking of economics, might I mention the Nellis AFB solar array? The Air Force is able to save $1M a year buying power from this array for it's lifespan of 30 years (maybe 31). This large array made use of 140 acres of donated leased land from the base and cost the U.S. Government only $100 million to build. So even with free land, and not factoring in the time value of money, it loses 70 cents for every dollar spent. Being more realistic and attaching a value to current dollars over future dollars, it lost 100% of the money "invested". Government economics.

 

[c502cid]

Thats why we need to invest in green energy and getting electricity fromf

Thats why we need to be investing in solar, wind and hydro electric power generation. Coal is dead and most people dont want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.
A lot of the things that I see the EV naysayers talking about in how EVs are never going to work are probably many of the same things that people who owned horses said when cars were invested.
As it always goes with innovation, they will figure it out. Just because we dont have all the anwers right now and everything isnt perfect, that doesnt mean you dont try.

"we" and "invest" are words that seem to make my paycheck smaller for "innovation" that I'll never see because I live in a rural area and not the big city.

 

[c502cid]

You have a myopic view of the big picture, focusing on a small part of the overall situation. Your thinking is in the past, your vision is rearward focused.

It seems many naysayers want everything now, and don't seem to acknowledge that this move to electric and alternative energy is an evolving process. Tomorrow will be better, and next week, better yet.

They scoffed at the Wright Brothers, and now we're headed to Mars and living in space; Edison tried to halt electricity's progress, but he was run over by the ideas and skill of Westinghouse; Nikola Tesla was considered by some to be a madman, now we're driving around in cars that carry his name.

Are you really equating that Nikola Tesla's reputation is now favorable because there are cars driving around now with his name? For real?

 

[OVERKILL]

While I, personally, declined a job at a coal plant (because it could very well be very dangerous work..) I do believe wind could be something good. There are a decent number of wind turbines around I see. I suppose there is nothing can be done about some that explode in an intense windstorm, if that is a minority occurrence, but.. if they can provide decent power, it doesn't seem so bad.

For solar panels, I would say, perhaps, same.. if they can avoid being ripped up in a windstorm..

How efficient do you feel these two means of energy will become?

Sounds like you need to read my earlier post too, lol.

 

[350Rocket]

While I, personally, declined a job at a coal plant (because it could very well be very dangerous work..) I do believe wind could be something good. There are a decent number of wind turbines around I see. I suppose there is nothing can be done about some that explode in an intense windstorm, if that is a minority occurrence, but.. if they can provide decent power, it doesn't seem so bad.

For solar panels, I would say, perhaps, same.. if they can avoid being ripped up in a windstorm..

How efficient do you feel these two means of energy will become?

Overkill spent a lot of time explaining the problems with the local wind farms and solar farms. My dad retired from the local natural gas powered hydro plant and basically everything overkill stated including having to pay the united states to take our excess power is what I have heard through my dad.
It was under the table pay offs that got most of the projects going. Imo the only benefit was jobs created to build these things.

 

[alarmguy]

Thats why we need to invest in green energy and getting electricity fromf

Thats why we need to be investing in solar, wind and hydro electric power generation. Coal is dead and most people dont want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.
A lot of the things that I see the EV naysayers talking about in how EVs are never going to work are probably many of the same things that people who owned horses said when cars were invested.
As it always goes with innovation, they will figure it out. Just because we dont have all the anwers right now and everything isnt perfect, that doesnt mean you dont try.

Nuclear is the only reliable answer.
I am curious why the proponents of wind? Are those the people who are worried about planet earth and global warming?
If so, are the proponents of wind aware that tens of thousands of wildlife birds are killed every year in North America by the wind turbines?
As wind farms expand it will be hundreds of thousands of birds, maybe some even into extinction. But I think they get sold on the marketing by the wind and solar energy companies, as well as the "gulp" politicians.

I dont get it but I do get it, I think people "pick" something without the actual knowledge of the consequences of their choice.
Nuclear Power is the most earth friendly realistic energy production that an earth hugger can hope for.
The ignorance of not wanting to live near a nuclear plant is because or media sensationalism and not reality. The public thought process so EASY to control.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Nuclear is the only reliable answer.
I am curious why the proponents of wind? Are those the people who are worried about planet earth and global warming?
If so, are the proponents of wind aware that tens of thousands of wildlife birds are killed every year in North America by the wind turbines?
As wind farms expand it will be hundreds of thousands of birds, maybe some even into extinction. But I think they get sold on the marketing by the wind and solar energy companies, as well as the "gulp" politicians.

I dont get it but I do get it, I think people "pick" something without the actual knowledge of the consequences of their choice.
Nuclear Power is the most earth friendly realistic energy production that an earth hugger can hope for.
The ignorance of not wanting to live near a nuclear plant is because or media sensationalism and not reality. The public thought process so EASY to control.

Not sure I agree. I struggle with "only" answers. For example, solar works for me but does not make sense in all envirornments.
Science is man's endless search for truth in nature; we will continue to learn.

People seem to think they have all the answers; the "only" way, or maybe it just sounds that way to me. I know I have barely enough knowledge to get me through today! Ha!

 

[alarmguy]

Not sure I agree. I struggle with "only" answers. For example, solar works for me but does not make sense in all envirornments.
Science is man's endless search for truth in nature; we will continue to learn.

Oh... I agree with solar energy, dont think otherwise but another source is needed as well.
Actually for me, Solar and Nuclear.

Wind= no and in time, decades we will have people protesting wind, just not at moment because it is an inconvenient truth about the turbine blades slicing up migrating birds.

 

[OVERKILL]

Oh... I agree with solar energy, dont think otherwise but another source is needed as well.
Actually for me, Solar and Nuclear.

Wind= no and in time, decades we will have people protesting wind, just not at moment because it is an inconvenient truth about the turbine blades slicing up migrating birds.

It might surprise you, but many of the host communities have indeed protested the wind turbines, it just doesn't get much media coverage because it doesn't fit the narrative. My mom was one of several hundred people in their rural New Brunswick hamlet that worked to organize a movement against these eyesores behind their expansive, and extremely beautiful rural property.

Here in Ontario, many of the communities that were forced to accept these large wind projects fought them tooth and nail. South Kent experienced, and continues to experience, huge issues with well water now due to how the infrasound from the wind turbines interacts with the shale.

Germany is currently having this problem, communities rallying against and rejecting wind farms because they are a blight on the landscape.

If all goes as expected/hoped, 2026 will mark the beginning of the end for existing wind projects in Ontario. That's the year the 20-year contracts start expiring and, barring some insane renewal or extension, this is when they will begin to be dismantled, as market rate, due to how grossly out of phase with demand wind produces, will not provide sufficient revenue to keep these things operating.

You might like this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421515300495

And this:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/new...tance-rules-threaten-countrys-competitiveness

The new rules included in Germany's Climate Action Programme stipulate a minimum distance of 1,000 metres between wind turbines and residential housing but allow the federal states and municipalities to deviate and impose less strict rules. Thousands of planned onshore wind projects in Germany are currently put on hold, mainly due to regulatory conflicts with aviation authorities but also due to protest groups challenging new installations in court. Engineering association VDMA Power Systems has recently warned that a persisting slump in wind power expansion would put nearly one-third of all jobs in the industry at risk.

This is being seen elsewhere too.

 

[PimTac]

It makes me scratch my head when I see all the studies and concerns raised about cutting down any tree for fears of disrupting wildlife or landscape, even if the tree/s are dangerous yet there seems to be less concern to cover thousands of acres of land with windmills or solar panels which would have a even greater effect on landscape and wildlife.

 

[OVERKILL]

It makes me scratch my head when I see all the studies and concerns raised about cutting down any tree for fears of disrupting wildlife or landscape, even if the tree/s are dangerous yet there seems to be less concern to cover thousands of acres of land with windmills or solar panels which would have a even greater effect on landscape and wildlife.

Yes, bulldozing nature to "save it".

 

[ripcord]

Yes, bulldozing nature to "save it".

Never underestimate the power of activist bureaucrats to overcome reason and logic.

 

[Wolf359]

Oh... I agree with solar energy, dont think otherwise but another source is needed as well.
Actually for me, Solar and Nuclear.

Wind= no and in time, decades we will have people protesting wind, just not at moment because it is an inconvenient truth about the turbine blades slicing up migrating birds.

While they do kill birds, they don't kill as many as other sources and with larger and larger blades, they kill less birds.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...or-trend-helping-turbines-to-kill-fewer-birds

But you have to break eggs to make omelets as the saying goes.