As If The Ugly Tesla Truck Was Not Enough

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by oldwave

The problem is the generation of hydrogen cheaply. However the next 20 years will be interesting, though it’s my kids and grandchildren that will witness the end of fossil fuels. Can’t come quick enough

There will never be an end to fossil fuels, at least for a long, long time. Aside from transportation, there is a big demand for heating, industry, transportion, etc. There is also the product manufacturing that uses oil products, as well as clothing.

This said, I am fully behind R&D, as well as manufacturing of alternate fuels made in a safe and environmentally sound way.

While the fossil fuel industry, using it for manufacturing, and end customer use has seen signification energy and waste improvements lately, there is still room for more, and this too needs to be constantly worked on.

As it is, many materials needed for these alternate fuels use fossil fuel products, as well as the plants that make them.

[oldwave]

Oh I think there will be an end of these fuels, I agree it will be a long time. Considering human existence without these was 20,000 years or so, we are a blip in time. I hope to live long enough to see the beginning of it. Perhaps by the time my grand daughter is my age she will see it.

[Greg A]

Saw some articles that said the UK is currently generating 33% of the electricity demand from renewables and is expected to be over 50% by 2030.
Pretty awesome, information in this article claiming they've hit 47% in Q1 2020:
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uarter-of-2020

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

Give credit where credit is due. SpaceX is the only company that I know of that has put satellites into orbit using unmanned boosters and then brought the boosters back to earth to be reused again and again, with the intent of driving costs down and making a profit. This is definitely an innovation.

The Space Shuttle cost a half-billion dollars per launch..

It's logical progress, based on previous work and using entirely existing ideas, but it is great progress and a job well done. By the way, the Falcon 9 doesn't have boosters - it has first and second stages, both of which now return for reuse; Falcon Heavy uses two additional Falcon 9 first stages as boosters... a configuration designed decades ago for Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V heavy (although presumably all of the Falcon Heavy stages return for reuse).

The Shuttle was, in hindsight, too complex to ever hit its cost target... but it could also do things that no other craft has ever done. It also introduced reusable large liquid-fuel engines; the current SpaceX engines are much easier to re-use, but after a few decades that should be expected.

My point is just that the Musk fanatics like to kneel before him and praise him for things that he hasn't done (and in most cases his company has not done), most importantly giving no credit to the people (in his companies or others) who have really done them. It's all about giving credit where credit is really due.

[emers382]

Originally Posted by Greg A

Saw some articles that said the UK is currently generating 33% of the electricity demand from renewables and is expected to be over 50% by 2030.
Pretty awesome, information in this article claiming they've hit 47% in Q1 2020:
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uarter-of-2020

Don't believe it. Right now at 4:15 am in Great Britain the demand is low, only 26GW, yet only 13.71% from wind, and of course zero from solar. When demand is high, up to 44GW, wind may produce up to 15GW but for the last couple of months that's rare. In the last month solar has been maximum of 3GW only at midday, and is usually no more than one GW and that's for a short winter day. Gas turbine produced power is often well over 50%. Rest is COAL, yes still using coal, imports from Europe, some pumped, a very small amount of hydro, and biomass. Now that biomass is a lot of wood chipped from southern USA forests and shipped over to Britain and how much fossil fuel is used for that. And they call biomass green energy. Wind and solar should not be called renewable, only "intermittent" energy.

ON edit: Oops forgot the nuclear which is a near constant 6GW.

[emers382]

Originally Posted by Telescopist

Back on recharging. One of the things owners of electric vehicles like is that they can plug in at home. Big convenience there. Not so if you live in an apartment. The other thing has to do with the average commute distance. Here in the States its 16 miles each way. In Canada its 8.7km.

Plug in at home? When all the electric cars are plugged in at home and charging overnight, how will most residential areas be able to supply sufficient power for this?

I don't know about those commuting distances but I've read that average commute times in Canada is 29 minutes and 26 minutes in the US. Guess we drive a lot slower

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by emers382

Plug in at home? When all the electric cars are plugged in at home and charging overnight, how will most residential areas be able to supply sufficient power for this?

If you're taking 8 hours to charge, a typical daily consumption would only require less than 3 kW to replace. Since this is off-peak, the ability of the system to handle peak loads implies the ability to handle that EV charging load.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Telescopist

The other thing has to do with the average commute distance. Here in the States its 16 miles each way. In Canada its 8.7km.

That's surprisingly short. Commuting 250 days at 8.7 km each way would be only 4350 km per year. With average personal vehicle use at over three times that, that's a lot of errands, nights out, and vacations.

Perhaps a more useful quantity is the distance travelled on a typical day (excluding occasional long trips), for any purpose. If that's (for example) 12,000 km over 300 days, a typical day has 40 km of driving, so that's all that has to be covered by overnight charging.

[Iowa Dave]

I tend not to jump into new markets. I am encouraged however, when I consider the evolution of products. As a grounds maintenance person for many years I remember the introduction of the first gasoline powered “weed eaters” Four hard to load spools, undependable two cycle engine, cumbersome and heavy, expensive. Fast forward 45 years. Battery powered, light, reasonably priced, easy to reload. Still available are gas powered or 110volt corded units but battery technology has come a long ways. Chainsaws, leaf blowers, small mowers included. So even though some current offerings in the vehicle fields are “marginal” and will be in museums in a few years, “it’s a start”. I’ve always liked the saying “ If you can dream it , you can do it. That’s how I see it.
Happy New Year from:
Geothermal, solar array, solar panel on the Escape, Milwaukee battery tools, outdoor clothesline. Gardening fool,
Iowa Dave

[Mike Lewis]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

By the way, the Falcon 9 doesn't have boosters - it has first and second stages, both of which now return for reuse.

The terms "stage 1" and "booster" are used interchangeably, and sometimes together, e.g. "stage 1 booster". I was unaware that SpaceX was recovering stage 2.

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by emers382

Plug in at home? When all the electric cars are plugged in at home and charging overnight, how will most residential areas be able to supply sufficient power for this?

I don't know about those commuting distances but I've read that average commute times in Canada is 29 minutes and 26 minutes in the US. Guess we drive a lot slower

What is complicated about those figures? The commuter is travleling at @37mph. [In the USA]

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

That's surprisingly short. Commuting 250 days at 8.7 km each way would be only 4350 km per year. With average personal vehicle use at over three times that, that's a lot of errands, nights out, and vacations.

Perhaps a more useful quantity is the distance travelled on a typical day (excluding occasional long trips), for any purpose. If that's (for example) 12,000 km over 300 days, a typical day has 40 km of driving, so that's all that has to be covered by overnight charging.

Do a Google search on commuting distances for Canada. Go ahead if pleases you and factor in a stop at a grocery store on the way home.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Telescopist

Do a Google search on commuting distances for Canada. Go ahead if pleases you and factor in a stop at a grocery store on the way home.

I did see the 8.7 km value from Stats Can; I'm not challenging it, just saying it was surprising to me. But the point is that with those stops and other trips, the relevant distance to EV range and home charging is the distance travelled during the day, whether it is to work or not. It doesn't matter much that you can make the commute on the charge at home if you need to find a charging station to go for groceries.

As for the time... yes, commuting can be very slow. The same reports which show 8.7 km for Canada also report over 20 minutes for the trip, corresponding to less than 25 km/h average speed... much slower than the U.S. figures. My guess is that the difference is the effect of more long freeway commutes in large U.S. cities, but in either case the amount of stop-and-go movement and idle time (at lights or stuck in traffic) in commuting is part of the reason that EVs and hybrids make sense for this use.

[ColoradoSwany]

From Wikipedia:

Renewable energy in Costa Rica supplied about 98.1% of the electrical energy output for the entire nation in 2016.[1] Fossil fuel energy consumption (% of total energy) in Costa Rica was 49.48 as of 2014,[2] with demand for oil increasing in recent years.[3] In 2014, 99% of its electrical energy was derived from renewable energy sources, about 80% of which from hydroelectric power.[4] For the first 75 days of 2015, 100% of its electrical energy was derived from renewable energy sources[5] and in mid 2016 that feat was accomplished for 110 consecutive days despite suboptimal weather conditions.[6] As a country, Costa Rica has a geographic advantage over others in that its high concentration per capita of rivers, dams, and volcanoes allows for a high renewable energy output. In addition, Costa Rica is the fourth highest nation in terms of rainfall per capita: it receives an average of 2,926 mm of precipitation per year.[7] As a smaller nation with a population of only 5 million and no major industry, the need for strong energy infrastructure is less than for larger countries of higher population density. The 1948 elimination of the military of Costa Rica freed up millions of dollars from the government defense budget which are now invested in social programs and renewable energy generation.[1] As president of Costa Rica in 1948, José Figueres announced that the nation's former military budget would be refocused specifically in healthcare, education, and environmental protection.[8]

While Costa Rica's largest source of energy is hydroelectricity, other sources include geothermal energy, biomass, solar power, and wind power.[4]

[Brian B-P]

There seems to be a lot of confusion and assumptions in discussions of energy sources, in general, not just in this forum. It would help if people looked at values for a reasonable period, rather than just snagging instantaneous values or selecting exceptional periods. With seasonal variations in both demand (which determines which sources need to be used) and production from some sources (especially solar but also wind and even hydro), the totals over a one-year period (starting at any day of the year but running for 365 days) are the most useful.

The agencies responsible for managing the generation and distribution of electricity in some jurisdictions provide excellent information. For instance, Energy UK provides a very reasonable summary of their situation, although it is three years out of date. Their nuclear production is steady... as long as the plants run; it will go down in steps as plants are retired. They used coal for 9% of their needs in 2016, and it is decreasing; that doesn't seem so terrible to me for a system in transition.

Here in Canada, a federal agency called the Canada Energy Regulator provides a very informative set of Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles. From those, it's apparent why Quebec and British Columbia are the big supporters of electric vehicles - they get their electrical energy almost exclusively from hydro, and have more than enough hydro capacity.

[Vermilye]

While an electric vehicle would have made great sense for my commute back when I was working (2 miles each way), at least in the winter I'd probably burn more energy melting the ice off the windshield than turning the wheels!

[BigSwede]

Originally Posted by Vermilye

While an electric vehicle would have made great sense for my commute back when I was working (2 miles each way), at least in the winter I'd probably burn more energy melting the ice off the windshield than turning the wheels!

Yeah, the dynamics of an electric vehicle change a lot when it is below zero out.

[emers382]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

The agencies responsible for managing the generation and distribution of electricity in some jurisdictions provide excellent information. For instance, Energy UK provides a very reasonable summary of their situation, although it is three years out of date. Their nuclear production is steady... as long as the plants run; it will go down in steps as plants are retired. They used coal for 9% of their needs in 2016, and it is decreasing; that doesn't seem so terrible to me for a system in transition.

Brian check out G. B. National Grid status It has current figures and shows the whole past year. I've been following this site for a couple of months since reading how well Great Britain has supposably been doing with "renewables." The best solar production I can see on this was in May once hit 4GW, wind the highest was in Feb. when it was up to about 13GW and actually surpassed gas for a short while. But demand ranges between 24 to over 40GW throughout the year and has been very high in Nov. and Dec.

Here in MB most of our power is hydro supplemented with some wind (2 wind farms). Our power is cheap but I still doubt I'd ever buy an electric vehicle.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by emers382

Brian check out G. B. National Grid status It has current figures and shows the whole past year.

Nice summary, with helpful descriptions.
It's too bad they only give longer-term data as thumbnail graphics, unless you want to download data sets and manage the presentation yourself.

It's a bit like the Dispatcho site which presents the official data from the Alberta Electric System Operator in a better form (to sell Dispatcho's software), but Dispatcho is more useful for the output of specific producers over selected longer periods.

Originally Posted by emers382

I've been following this site for a couple of months since reading how well Great Britain has supposably been doing with "renewables." The best solar production I can see on this was in May once hit 4GW, wind the highest was in Feb. when it was up to about 13GW and actually surpassed gas for a short while. But demand ranges between 24 to over 40GW throughout the year and has been very high in Nov. and Dec.

I find it really hard to understand this sort of data by watching snapshots. I downloaded the entire year ending today, selecting total demand and the three renewable sources (wind, biomass, and solar... ignoring hydro because they have so little and because I forgot to click the button). The data comes in roughly 5 minute increments so there are over 100,000 samples per variable, and working with that in an online free spreadsheet (Google Sheets) is really slow); however, I did notice that

• demand averaged 28.4 GW
• wind production averaged 6.2 GW, for 22% of demand
• biomass production averaged 2 GW, for 7.2 % of demand
• solar production averaged 1.3 GW, for 4.4 % of demand

My averages ignore the different time periods which apply to each sample, but samples are pretty regularly at 5 minute intervals so it's not a terrible shortcut. It would just take the online spreadsheet too long to calculate time differences between each pair of sequential samples and weight the average power (or calculate a total energy) by those times.

I'm not surprised that the major renewable contributor is wind. While it is hydro in many places, the UK is not well suited geographically to hydro. Solar gets much of the attention, but it is wind that has been viable for decades and has less seasonal variation, so in practice there is much more wind production than solar in most areas, including Canada.

The solar facilities are doing well to produce 1.3 GW average against a peak of only 4 GW. The longest-running grid-connected solar farm in Alberta averages 2.5 MW with a peak of 15 MW. Maybe the UK solar farms have never actually seen a sunny day.

Over the long haul and through all conditions of an entire year, renewables provided 34% of the UK's electricity, which seems to me to be exactly what was being claimed. The rest is mostly gas and a smaller amount of nuclear. A UK resident charging an EV overnight is using roughly 1/3 renewable solar and biomass energy, and 2/3 non-renewable natural gas and nuclear energy.

[emers382]

Boy Brian you've a lot of time on your hands! It's New Year's Eve get out and celebrate but guess you're likely in lockdown like us so cannot.

That nearly constant 2GW of power imported from France is also nuclear. I still disagree with "biomass" being called renewable, yes the trees grow back but like I mentioned before most of what they use at the Drax plant in northern England comes from the southern USA and is heavily subsidised. What's the environmental cost to processing and shipping all that wood? Read this..https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/...ass-subsidies/