Science & Technology News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As to using cars as possible grid storage batteries perhaps you should do some more research

Here is a starter article for you.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...h=dda1f6459299

Perhaps you should read your own links. They don't mention anything about people's cars being drained and dead in the morning. Smart charging, newhaul. As I said, who would deliberately create a system that would be likely to do that?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Perhaps you should read your own links. They don't mention anything about people's cars being drained and dead in the morning. Smart charging, newhaul. As I said, who would deliberately create a system that would be likely to do that?

From the article
If those EV batteries are connected to the grid by smart chargers, they could not only provide sufficient power but also many of the system services needed by a grid that relies on intermittent renewables.

Those services include primary and secondary power reserves, fast-frequency reserves, arbitrage, voltage control, and congestion management through load shifting and peak shaving, said Arina Anisie, who collaborated with Boshell and other analysts on an IRENA report on the topic.


Do you really think they would tell you that part / possibility of using your car as a grid storage/ powers source?
I know your smarter than that .

[Pelagic]

Would EV systems still work OK in extreme Tenperatues?.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . . The “Jevons paradox” [rebound effect] asserts that increasing “the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.” In essence the rebound effect is the fact that as energy efficiency goes up, using energy consuming products becomes less expensive, which in turn leads us to consume more energy. It's true, but has a minor effect.. . .

It's true and depending on how cheap it becomes, it could have a MAJOR effect, and so what? Conserving energy (or anything else) is not a good in and of itself. If the energy consumed doesn't harm the environment, then the cheaper the better, and let people use all they want. What kind of twisted thinking could come up with this being somehow a bad thing?

[Midnight Son]

They have battery heaters in them for my area. Northern Manitoba. We are an extreme cold weather test site. Although the only testing I know of this winter is the jet engine facility did a full run. Trucks started turning up, so I think they are breaking the engine down for shipping out.
Best wishes all.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

From the article
If those EV batteries are connected to the grid by smart chargers, they could not only provide sufficient power but also many of the system services needed by a grid that relies on intermittent renewables.

Those services include primary and secondary power reserves, fast-frequency reserves, arbitrage, voltage control, and congestion management through load shifting and peak shaving, said Arina Anisie, who collaborated with Boshell and other analysts on an IRENA report on the topic.

Do you really think they would tell you that part / possibility of using your car as a grid storage/ powers source?
I know your smarter than that .

Thanks. I get that EV batteries could form part of the grid storage. They would not deliberately design-in the possiblity of leaving owners with discharged EV batteries. Give people some credit...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thanks. I get that EV batteries could form part of the grid storage. They would not deliberately design-in the possiblity of leaving owners with discharged EV batteries. Give people some credit...

The potential is there so people should be informed so they can plan for the possibility.

It's no different than you planning for a tornado in Toronto . It's not likely but it is a possibility . So your emergency plans should provide for that possibility

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Conserving energy (or anything else) is not a good in and of itself. If the energy consumed doesn't harm the environment, then the cheaper the better, and let people use all they want. What kind of twisted thinking could come up with this being somehow a bad thing?

We have better sources and worse sources, but we do not yet have an energy source that doesn't harm the environment in proportion to its consumption.

There's also harmful secondary behaviours from unrestricted energy consumption... I mean, what exactly would all this energy be doing?

Overconsumption without regard for consequences is the root cause of most of the planet's pressing issues.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Government supported yes but if mandated most people will resist feverishly.
Back off and support the free market and it would happen rather fast . But the politicians want federal mandated so they get their cut of the pie.
( and no not necessarily financial )

What federal mandates? You mean around environmental standards? I thought we were talking about EV viability with regard to grid and charging capabilities. Now we're talking...what?

I'm all for environmental standards as well, as are most private companies. They just want certainty and an even playing field.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

What federal mandates? You mean around environmental standards? I thought we were talking about EV viability with regard to grid and charging capabilities. Now we're talking...what?

I'm all for environmental standards as well, as are most private companies. They just want certainty and an even playing field.

Get rid of the purchase subsidies on ev's. There is no purchase subsidy that I'm aware of on gasoline fueled vehicles
If there is eliminate it as well.
As an example the Solo is $18,500 but it will qualify for a $7,500 purchase subsidy so it is cheaper than the Nissan we got for my oldest to commute with . ( it was $17,500 no subsidy)
Yes both brand new

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...50/6893882002/

Federal mandates on ev's disguised as environmental protection issues .
It has all the buzz words .

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Get rid of the purchase subsidies on ev's. There is no purchase subsidy that I'm aware of on gasoline fueled vehicles
If there is eliminate it as well.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...50/6893882002/

Federal mandates on ev's disguised as environmental protection issues .
It has all the buzz words .

There's no disguise. The rebates mentioned in this article are specifically aimed at reducing green house gas emissions. Government's use incentives all the time to influence behaviour. It's how we got (most) people to stop smoking, or wear seatbelts.

Purchase subsidies are hardly new. I received one when I bought my current gasoline car. And the fossil fuel industry has long benefited from various forms of direct and indirect government subsidies.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

There's no disguise. The rebates mentioned in this article are specifically aimed at reducing green house gas emissions. Government's use incentives all the time to influence behaviour. It's how we got (most) people to stop smoking, or wear seatbelts.

Purchase subsidies are hardly new. I received one when I bought my current gasoline car. And the fossil fuel industry has long benefited from various forms of direct and indirect government subsidies.

Bull they are specificly aimed at pushing ev and a liberal agenda . CO2 is not a pollutant it is plant food we all know that some just need to admit it to themselves.
The planet will be just fine it doesn't need saving .
Dig deep at who stands to actually gain from all of it and no its not the average person on the planet .

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Bull they are specificly aimed at pushing ev and a liberal agenda . CO2 is not a pollutant it is plant food we all know that some just need to admit it to themselves.
The planet will be just fine it doesn't need saving .
Dig deep at who stands to actually gain from all of it and no its not the average person on the planet .

Yes, I know you don't believe in the science of anthropogenic climate change. I don't care to have that discussion with you. I listen to actual climate scientists. So sorry, it's not bull. It's a public policy aimed at achieving a public good. Your "liberal agenda" and conspiracy theory comments are just silly partisanship.

[fgd3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You're missing the point. We could have a meltdown once a month and do less damage than we do with coal. The fact that we've had only 2 in 70 years shows the difference in destructiveness -- it's orders of magnitude.

No, I didn't miss the point, nor do I disagree with it. I was just pointing out that the safety trend is in the wrong direction. In the first half of the 70 year period there were no meltdowns. In the second half there were two. And I wasn't being entirely serious. I know two data points don't do much to establish a trend.



Nuclear power does seem to offer the best solution to meeting our growing need for electricity without making the planet uninhabitable due to climate change or air pollution (or both). But better reactor designs that offer safer operation are an essential part of that plan.


A reactor that requires uninterrupted operation of an active cooling system to prevent a catastrophic failure is inherently risky. Would you drive a car that would kill you if the water pump failed? Better reactor designs are in the offing and will push the balance even further in favor of nuclear power generation.

[Fbfisher]

Risky? No doubt. And the radioactive by product of the spent fuel rods, what to do with those, have a Musk designed rocket shoot them into the sun, or turn the moon into a toxic waste dump? Energy companies are the new client for SpaceX! Win-win!