Electric Car Economics

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by poiu

It is basically renewable energy storage. That is the biggest problem and cost burden on renewables, which otherwise would be the cheapest source of electricity. Hydrogen is not an energy efficient way of doing it, but at least it does work and where electricity generation is almost free then cost does not matter. There are times when electricity is almost free.

I think your assumption about Germans being hard headed is questionable. Look at their closure of the nuclear industry, that was soft headed in my view. Ditto their mad 2015 immigration policy and let’s not talk about their historical lunatic headed murderous politics.

I wasn't saying ALL Germans are hard headed -- that would be kind of racist, wouldn't it? I lived for years in Germany and speak German, and know them pretty well. I meant THOSE Germans, at Siemens. Yes, the German government shot themselves in the foot twice in the cases you mentioned, in my opinion.


As to storage of non-constant renewable energy, I thought that was more or less solved, with pumped water storage, which is very efficient.

[cherylchecheryl]

[QUOTE=a64pilot;3017341]

Originally Posted by Dave9111

I remember that, I was on a chat board called Prius Chat.
We voted on the sound and the majority wanted the George Jetson car sound
https://youtu.be/LnT1VgeXOF0

I don't know about that. Shoot it and put it out of its misery.

[cherylchecheryl]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Another Quartz article about 2 of the largest coal fired generating plants in the US shutting down this month. They shut down not because of regulation but because of economics.

https://qz.com/1749023/two-of-americ...ed-this-month/

Hmmm... The expense of complying with regulations is what dicates the economics. Or in other words, regulations can make it so expensive that the "whatever it is" is no longer profitable.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Correction: Regulations distorting the economics. You can argue that the distortion is a good thing...

But if you take away the recent heavy regulation changes and the threat of near future regulations, you would still see coal plants being built.

Just because there is a current slow down in additional regulations, doesn't mean the eco-faithful aren't still pushing for more and companies looking at economics, take that into consideration when building a plant with a 50yr lifespan...so claims that there are no regulation impacts is a falsehood.

PS: The Australia battery backup articles I've read gloss over, the fact that regulation drove traditional power plants out of business drastically raising peak demand prices...than they pointed out how battery backup was a savings even though it was drastically higher than prior to the regulations being implemented.

If you want to claim it's needed to save the earth, we can have that discussion but claims that EVs or green energy are anywhere close to the same price are disingenuous.

Renewable energy costs have fallen rather dramatically during the last few years, see here: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/19...-natural-gas/; https://www.irena.org/publications/2...-costs-in-2018



You can't compare the cost of coal power produced in the absence of any regulation at all. Burning coal produces different kinds of horrendous problems -- walk around in Bejing in the winter and you can literally see it. Climate change is by far not the only issue with coal. So once you've burned it in an even sort of clean way it's not really that much cheaper than wind, and it dumps huge amounts of carbon (naturally, coal itself being almost pure carbon) into the atmosphere. Then coal mining kills lots of people, causes water pollution, etc etc etc etc. Coal is just nasty and it will be really good to transition away from it pretty sharpish, and not just from the point of view of climate change.


Not that wind is absolutely perfect either -- it uglifies landscapes, creates hazards to navigation, kills birds and bats. But these are relatively minor compared to the drawbacks of fossil fuels, especially coal. And now that wind power has matured and the cost of the plant has fallen so far, so that the cost of wind power has fallen into line with other power sources, it's time to roll it out. The Danes get about half their power from wind already.


By building a lot of nuclear and renewable energy power plants it is absolutely realistic to get rid of fossil fuels in a reasonable amount of time, and without spending vast amounts of public money or turning the economy upside down or forcing people to drastically change their lifestyles, which is morally hazardous. It's already being done in a number of countries.



Finland for example has the cheapest electrical power in Europe -- 5 cents a kWh -- no heavy regulation of consumption so use as much as you like, cities heated by co-generation so no one telling you to turn your thermostat down, almost no carbon produced in electrical power generation, clean air everywhere -- man, that is the future.

[cherylchecheryl]

How many of the nuclear power supporters want to live next door to a nuclear power plant?

Life is NIMBY. People may love the idea, but they love it best when it is in your backyard and not theirs.

Where I live, the greens did everything they could including protests and filing a lawsuit to make sure a nuclear plant wasn't built.

People make mistakes, people are imperfect instruments. What happens when a wind turbine fails? It catches fire, blades fly off and kill someone, birds get chopped up? What happens when solar panels fail? They fly off and kill someone, birds get fried?

When nuclear fails, it fails big. Thanks, but no, I don't want that anywhere near me. If the nordic countries want to lead the charge, good for them. I'd rather see hydro, geothermal, or wave power explored more. A bursting dam would be a very bad thing, but I think "we" have a better handle on the construction of that then containing neutrons.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Correction: Regulations distorting the economics. You can argue that the distortion is a good thing...

But if you take away the recent heavy regulation changes and the threat of near future regulations, you would still see coal plants being built.

Just because there is a current slow down in additional regulations, doesn't mean the eco-faithful aren't still pushing for more and companies looking at economics, take that into consideration when building a plant with a 50yr lifespan...so claims that there are no regulation impacts is a falsehood.

PS: The Australia battery backup articles I've read gloss over, the fact that regulation drove traditional power plants out of business drastically raising peak demand prices...than they pointed out how battery backup was a savings even though it was drastically higher than prior to the regulations being implemented.

If you want to claim it's needed to save the earth, we can have that discussion but claims that EVs or green energy are anywhere close to the same price are disingenuous.

You are not taking into consideration the huge costs of cleanup foisted on the people of a country. The costs of cleaning up abandoned oil wells in Alberta, for instance, conservatively set at over $300 million. Of course the oil companies sell off wells that will soon become unprofitable to companies that drain the well and then declare bankruptcy leaving the cleanup to the citizens of the province.

If you have seen the destruction of the environment, like I have, of oil extraction then you would know about the horrendous corruption related to the fossil fuel industry. Like hiring a private train to park in the hinterland while oil companies set prices for and divided up the oil leases of the Alaska oil patch. Private security firms made sure now one got close. All very illegal but because it didn't take place on American soil it was allowed to happen, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Health costs and early death relating to coal burning has been known for centuries and yet it is still allowed. Absolutely shameful, no criminal, IMO.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Renewable energy costs have fallen rather dramatically during the last few years, see here: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/19...-natural-gas/; https://www.irena.org/publications/2...-costs-in-2018



You can't compare the cost of coal power produced in the absence of any regulation at all. Burning coal produces different kinds of horrendous problems -- walk around in Bejing in the winter and you can literally see it. Climate change is by far not the only issue with coal. So once you've burned it in an even sort of clean way it's not really that much cheaper than wind, and it dumps huge amounts of carbon (naturally, coal itself being almost pure carbon) into the atmosphere. Then coal mining kills lots of people, causes water pollution, etc etc etc etc. Coal is just nasty and it will be really good to transition away from it pretty sharpish, and not just from the point of view of climate change.


Not that wind is absolutely perfect either -- it uglifies landscapes, creates hazards to navigation, kills birds and bats. But these are relatively minor compared to the drawbacks of fossil fuels, especially coal. And now that wind power has matured and the cost of the plant has fallen so far, so that the cost of wind power has fallen into line with other power sources, it's time to roll it out. The Danes get about half their power from wind already.


By building a lot of nuclear and renewable energy power plants it is absolutely realistic to get rid of fossil fuels in a reasonable amount of time, and without spending vast amounts of public money or turning the economy upside down or forcing people to drastically change their lifestyles, which is morally hazardous. It's already being done in a number of countries.



Finland for example has the cheapest electrical power in Europe -- 5 cents a kWh -- no heavy regulation of consumption so use as much as you like, cities heated by co-generation so no one telling you to turn your thermostat down, almost no carbon produced in electrical power generation, clean air everywhere -- man, that is the future.

Again, you can argue that the recent regulations are a good thing but to claim that coal plants are closing based on economics that have nothing to do with the new regulations is false.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Again, you can argue that the recent regulations are a good thing but to claim that coal plants are closing based on economics that have nothing to do with the new regulations is false.

What "new" regulations? Do you mean the very strict EPA rulings of the Trump administration? I really don't get what "new" regulations you are talking about.

[DeepFrz]

Interesting that there have been no comments on the "Gridserve" initiative that I posted a link to.
https://www.gridserve.com/post/break...p5VyFkGwdtxpGY

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

What "new" regulations? Do you mean the very strict EPA rulings of the Trump administration? I really don't get what "new" regulations you are talking about.

Play dumb if you wish.

[fahtcha]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Play dumb if you wish.

The only new EPA regulations are ones that relax previous regulations. I know this for a fact but can't explain much more lest I would be unemployed.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by fahtcha

The only new EPA regulations are ones that relax previous regulations. I know this for a fact but can't explain much more lest I would be unemployed.

That's what I have been reading.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by cherylchecheryl

How many of the nuclear power supporters want to live next door to a nuclear power plant?

Meeee! Pick me!

Actually, some of the new proposals for nuclear generation are small, about the size of a big-box store (Nukes-R-Us!)

...When nuclear fails, it fails big. Thanks, but no, I don't want that anywhere near me. If the nordic countries want to lead the charge, good for them. I'd rather see hydro, geothermal, or wave power explored more. A bursting dam would be a very bad thing, but I think "we" have a better handle on the construction of that then containing neutrons.

Badly-designed or poorly-run nuclear reactors fail big. Most are very safe and well-managed. example: CANDU

Coal-fired generators are far more deadly than wind or nuclear - even counting Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. Solar would be safer too, if installers could stop falling off of the roof.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As to storage of non-constant renewable energy, I thought that was more or less solved, with pumped water storage, which is very efficient.

The problem is not solved. Pumped water is great if you have big lakes on top of mountains. Much of the World doesn’t have that. It’s a peak supply and grid balancing solution primarily.

How do you deal with a stable high pressure system in winter? So lots of fog and little solar and no wind every day for two weeks. That sort of thing is a big issue in a 100% renewable world.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by poiu

The problem is not solved. Pumped water is great if you have big lakes on top of mountains. Much of the World doesn’t have that. It’s a peak supply and grid balancing solution primarily.

How do you deal with a stable high pressure system in winter? So lots of fog and little solar and no wind every day for two weeks. That sort of thing is a big issue in a 100% renewable world.

Well, that's why God made nuclear power .


And I can see a future role for natural gas fired peak-shaving plants. Reducing carbon by 95% is pretty much as good as reducing it to 0.


But pumped water storage works really well and really does mostly solve the intermittent power issue, at least in combination with great base load generation which you get from the likes of nuclear. You don't need to have it right in the city you're trying to serve -- that's why we have electrical power grids