The Numerous Problems of Green Energy....

[Pavel Mosko]

Normally I speak about this in academic terms like "Energy Density" etc. This thanksgiving however a parable is playing out. One of my relatives, married a lady substantially more liberal than the rest of the family and twisted his arm in various causes etc. When it comes to the holidays it is driving green and taking their electric car up from their San Diego County home, my folk's house in the Santa Cruz mountains which is at least an 8-hour drive if you use a nice gas car. Taking an electric car at least adds 3 hours to the trip, if you really plan things out and have some kind of spare battery recharger thing also to help you too. But this time around, Murphy's law is afoot, and this time the trip is taking much, much longer.... Good Luck, I will see you in the morning I guess... hopefully. Maybe, I should start a thread on the Prayer Wall....


But this seems like a perfect example of the problems of so-called green energy initiatives. It is policy based more on idealism, hope, ideology than practical considerations. Green vehicles are not really made for long distance trips. Sure, with a lot of planning and some extra equipment you can sort of due it if you take more time and want more hassle, but for the most part you are just adding extra layers of difficulty unnecessarily. And this doesn't get into all the normal issues I raise on how the energy, manufacturing, and disposal of such vehicles is not really that green. Not to mention, the prohibitive cost, that is going to take years for it to come down for working class people to actually afford such vehicles.

 

[mindlight]

The era of fossil fuels cannot last forever because there is only so much of the stuff in the ground. Green technologies are therefore essential if we are to keep the gadgets and toys we have become accustomed to and the easier lifestyle that comes with them. So no sane person is opposed to Green technologies.

Also, there is an impact on the environment of burning fossil fuels that is trending badly for mankind as a whole. So the replacement of Oil, Gas, and Coal has an immediate urgency to it.

That said I would never take an 8-hour journey to a rural area in an electric car. Electric cars are for local driving until we have battery swap centers or faster recharging with the same frequency as with gas stations in the current era. I would however take a train and a bus over that distance that might be fully electric. Of course, public transport might not be as developed in the USA as in Europe.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I don't know why people opposed to green initiatives think that it is all or nothing. It will be a transition as prices continue to decline and technology continues to improve. The next car I get will be a small EV for me to do my regular driving. The other will be our used gas powered CRV for my wife and for long distance drives. There is a 2015 Nissan Leaf with a range of 80 miles for sale for $15000. My daily commute is 30 miles round trip. So I could charge it every other day and rely on the CRV for day trips.

Yes, new technology is always pricey until economies of scale begin to take effect. Just take a look at computers: 1977 the Apple II was released for $1,300 or $5,400 in today's money. Yet now you can get a Chromebook for a couple hundred dollars. Even my 3 year old cell phone that I bought for $350, has more computing power than that Apple II.

Recycling will improve as time goes by as well. In fact, Nissan's solution is to “But by far the easiest thing to do take the complete battery out of the vehicle, put it in a shipping container in a rack and plug that into a solar farm.” Electric Car Batteries Lasting Longer Than Predicted Delays Recycling Programs

 

[Fantine]

The main problem with green energy is the polluting profiteers who fight it tooth and nail and the misguided people who believe them.

The continuous pushback makes it harder for them to establish the momentum that would increase production and lower prices.

 

[Tuur]

The main problem with green energy is the polluting profiteers who fight it tooth and nail and the misguided people who believe them.

The continuous pushback makes it harder for them to establish the momentum that would increase production and lower prices.

The problem, to steal a riff on a famous SF engineer, is "Ya canna change the laws o' physics. Not even if you press that wee button over there." It's really simple: Fossil fuels are energy dense; the alternatives not so much. With vehicles, energy density translates into range. An average passenger car with a tank full of gasoline or diesel will have a further range than an average passenger car with a battery.

How, if common sense was involved at all, the best solution is a hybrid vehicle. A hybrid gets by with a smaller fossil fuel engine because it tops off the battery, and doesn't run constantly. That means less CO2 production without sacrificing range. I seem to remember hybrids beginning first with pickup trucks, the idea at the time being that it would cut fuel costs for fleet use and save from having to carry a separate generator to power tools. That never caught on, and it moved to passenger vehicles. But we don't hear much about hybrid anymore. No, we hear all electric.

All electric works where you don't need to drive far and can charge it nightly. It doesn't when you need to drive long distances and can't charge it. Want more charging stations? Fine. We can do that. All we need to do is to increase generation, build transmission and distribution lines, and upgrade conductors and transformers and entrance panels, and so forth. Then what do you do when the power goes out?

Starry-eyed dreams are nice. So is wishful thinking. But dreams and wishful thinking are no more than that if you can't make it work. And right now the focus is on the wrong things. You want "green" energy? Fine. You have to make a way to store it and a way to quickly recharge vehicles, or step sideways and try something else. The most reliable way to make "green" energy with today's technology is nuclear. Otherwise, prepare to sit cold and shivering in the dark, unable to go anywhere because you can't charge your electric vehicle. Then you can talk about "bad" corporations all you want, but you'll still be cold and shivering in the dark, unable to go anywhere.

 

[Fantine]

I agree that a hybrid is a more secure alternative. I only have one friend who has an electric car that she bought used on eBay, but I know a number of people with hybrids.

 

[NinjaPirate777]

The problem with green energy is its not cost effective yet. The wealthy people who push for it don't use it themselves.

As for fossil fuels, there is an almost infinite supply of it underground. The deeper we go the more of it they find. The idea that it came from dinosaurs is silly. If we dig up old dead people we don't find oil or anything like it. When we find fossils they are not bathed in oil.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

EV cars vs. Gas by Car and Driver - It depends on the car and what you are comparing it to

EV vs. Gas: Which Cars Are Cheaper to Own?

We use data and simple math to attempt to answer this very complicated question, and in the process find both enlightenment and more questions.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The era of fossil fuels cannot last forever because there is only so much of the stuff in the ground. Green technologies are therefore essential if we are to keep the gadgets and toys we have become accustomed to and the easier lifestyle that comes with them. So no sane person is opposed to Green technologies.

Also, there is an impact on the environment of burning fossil fuels that is trending badly for mankind as a whole. So the replacement of Oil, Gas, and Coal has an immediate urgency to it.

That said I would never take an 8-hour journey to a rural area in an electric car. Electric cars are for local driving until we have battery swap centers or faster recharging with the same frequency as with gas stations in the current era. I would however take a train and a bus over that distance that might be fully electric. Of course, public transport might not be as developed in the USA as in Europe.

You need to listen to the scientists who don't rely on government grants to survive.

Dr Patrick Moore on Fossil Fuel YouTube - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

You need to listen to the scientists who don't rely on government grants to survive.

Dr Patrick Moore on Fossil Fuel YouTube - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58] Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

 

[Fantine]

You need to listen to the scientists who don't rely on government grants to survive.

Dr Patrick Moore on Fossil Fuel YouTube - Search Videos

www.bing.com

And the alternative is listening to scientists who are in the employ of fossil fuel companies.

Oil companies hire climatologists and attorneys and scientists specifically to do their own research geared to finding answers that are favorable to the oil companies (or at least to dispute the claims of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.)

Our city has an oil company headquartered here (Hanna). I was recently told that they own a solar field in Oklahoma and use solar energy to power their physical plants and office buildings. They even hosted a climate workshop for us (and that's where I learned they power their buildings with solar energy.)

It is a relatively small oil company but I wonder why they decided it was better and more economical to run their buildings and plants on solar.

Hmm...maybe they have some smart, honest scientists on staff to advise them.

 

[WolfGate]

Normally I speak about this in academic terms like "Energy Density" etc. This thanksgiving however a parable is playing out. One of my relatives, married a lady substantially more liberal than the rest of the family and twisted his arm in various causes etc. When it comes to the holidays it is driving green and taking their electric car up from their San Diego County home, my folk's house in the Santa Cruz mountains which is at least an 8-hour drive if you use a nice gas car. Taking an electric car at least adds 3 hours to the trip, if you really plan things out and have some kind of spare battery recharger thing also to help you too. But this time around, Murphy's law is afoot, and this time the trip is taking much, much longer.... Good Luck, I will see you in the morning I guess... hopefully. Maybe, I should start a thread on the Prayer Wall....


But this seems like a perfect example of the problems of so-called green energy initiatives. It is policy based more on idealism, hope, ideology than practical considerations. Green vehicles are not really made for long distance trips. Sure, with a lot of planning and some extra equipment you can sort of due it if you take more time and want more hassle, but for the most part you are just adding extra layers of difficulty unnecessarily. And this doesn't get into all the normal issues I raise on how the energy, manufacturing, and disposal of such vehicles is not really that green. Not to mention, the prohibitive cost, that is going to take years for it to come down for working class people to actually afford such vehicles.

This train of thought reminds me of the time I spent in engineering in the cellular phone world. There are always initial skeptics who see things just as they are today. Early on the cell phone critics sounded a lot like this - “cell phones will never take off because the phones are huge, who wants to carry that bag/brick around, the batteries don’t hold a charge, minutes are too expensive…”. All those reasons were true at the time but the conclusion was myopic silliness, really, just like what I hear about EVs now.

Of course technology is rolled out while there is still much room for improvement. There are always early adopters who are willing to buy and they help fund continuing research for those among us who wait for maturity. That money with cell phones justified the large groups of engineers working to develop the technology. Innovation happens - a startup in NC (now a multibillion dollar a year company) believed a technology (GaAsHBT) could be made viable for mass production. The industry joke on this technology was that it was “the technology of tomorrow and always will be”. They convinced Nokia to invest, figured out how to make it mass produceable, and the cell phone industry was able to make huge advances in size reduction, increased power, battery efficiency among others. People scoffed and laughed at the early cell phone adopters, but we are all following them now.

Many of those same technology companies who powered cell phone innovations (and many other less visible innovations in defense, medical and other areas) are also working to improve technology for EV’s. I know because while I am approaching the end of my career my current employer interacts with many in that market. History tells us when future demand is apparent for technology, the innovation will happen - why would people doubt success this time? I don’t disagree that many of the challenges listed in the OP utilizing EVs today are true, but it is being stuck in the present with no sense of vision to think that means it isn’t worth pursuing. Those problems are simply definitions of desired improvement to the companies working in this space - and I have full faith there will be much success.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58] Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

Actually, Moore doesn't work for anyone.

Also, he was co-founder of Greenpeace, back when it was for conservativism. He quit when they started treating
human existence as the enemy.

He also pointed out the fraud the government and media have put out about climate change

Even National Geographic admitted to using false photos to support the anti-fossil fuel ideology.

You don't have to listen to him of course, but it's good to hear a different opinion than the one's who
rely on government grants and have to stick with the government lies about green energy.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And the alternative is listening to scientists who are in the employ of fossil fuel companies.

Oil companies hire climatologists and attorneys and scientists specifically to do their own research geared to finding answers that are favorable to the oil companies (or at least to dispute the claims of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.)

Our city has an oil company headquartered here (Hanna). I was recently told that they own a solar field in Oklahoma and use solar energy to power their physical plants and office buildings. They even hosted a climate workshop for us (and that's where I learned they power their buildings with solar energy.)

It is a relatively small oil company but I wonder why they decided it was better and more economical to run their buildings and plants on solar.

Hmm...maybe they have some smart, honest scientists on staff to advise them.

Heaven forbid that the oil companies use scientists, eh?

No problem when those promoting wind and solar power use their so-called scientists, who must
give the government line or lose their government funding.

Moore along with Bjørn Lomborg don't deny that climate change exists. What they oppose is
the fear mongering that the government is using to move us toward solar and wind, which
are not capable of replacing fossil fuels. They both warn of the consequences of moving
away from fossil fuels before a replacement is ready.

I don't agree with Moore on nuclear energy yet. Although it's a clean source, they still
don't have a good way of getting rid of nuclear waste.

China and Inda continue to build coal power electric plants, while Biden wants to pay so-called
developing countries to use green energy instead.

As it is, this winter, those developing countries like Shri Lanka, are going to face starvation, because
they banned fertilizers which their farmers depend on. Even Europeans are looking at freezing
in their own homes, because Russia cut off their supply of oil and gas, and the US stopped
exporting gas and oil as the president and his minions cut production of fossil fuels.

I try and be open to both sides of the debate, but those opposing the government lies are
winning the argument.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Actually, Moore doesn't work for anyone.

Also, he was co-founder of Greenpeace, back when it was for conservativism. He quit when they started treating
human existence as the enemy.

He also pointed out the fraud the government and media have put out about climate change

Even National Geographic admitted to using false photos to support the anti-fossil fuel ideology.

You don't have to listen to him of course, but it's good to hear a different opinion than the one's who
rely on government grants and have to stick with the government lies about green energy.

Well, I am a degreed Chemical Engineer, Engineer in Training certificate from the State of Ohio, with some background in environmental engineering. I spent a year designed fuel ethanol plants in 1999 before transitioning into IT. While I may not have a doctorate, we were discussing the various climate change issues back in the 1980s while I was in college. So this isn't something new to me.

 

[Torah Keeper]

The problem with green energy is its not cost effective yet. The wealthy people who push for it don't use it themselves.

As for fossil fuels, there is an almost infinite supply of it underground. The deeper we go the more of it they find. The idea that it came from dinosaurs is silly. If we dig up old dead people we don't find oil or anything like it. When we find fossils they are not bathed in oil.

That's correct. And what's more, after oil or gas reservoirs have been thoroughly pumped out, the oil and natural gas slowly refill the reservoirs. There is a theory that oil actually is created deep in the Earth's mantle, from geologic processes, and some of it comes up to the surface through cracks, similar to how lava behaves. (Although lava is certainly not oil, and the process is not exactly the same. Lava may in fact be created from nuclear processes).

The idea that oil is made from dead dinos is laughable nonsense. I once did a calculation to estimate how many dead things it would take to produce the amount of "fossil fuels" in the entire world. I found that if there was a global extinction of all life on Earth, and, 100% of this decayed into the maximum percentage of coal, oil, and such "fossil fuels", and, 0% burned up, or was dispersed or absorbed by the environment, that it would take about 1 trillion of these global extinction level events to produce the amount of "fossil fuels" in existence. In other words, coal is not made from dead plants, and oil is not made from dead dinosaurs. Charcoal is not coal. Salt is not made from dinosaur bones. Natural gas is not the trapped farts of an army of dead dinosaurs. These are just pseudo-scientific ramblings used as duct tape to patch the many holes in the theory of evolution.

 

[Tuur]

This train of thought reminds me of the time I spent in engineering in the cellular phone world. There are always initial skeptics who see things just as they are today. Early on the cell phone critics sounded a lot like this - “cell phones will never take off because the phones are huge, who wants to carry that bag/brick around, the batteries don’t hold a charge, minutes are too expensive…”. All those reasons were true at the time but the conclusion was myopic silliness, really, just like what I hear about EVs now.

Then you know that R&D is where you explore options and try to make dreams come true. Other aspects of engineering builds what's needed based on existing technology. Develop it first in R&D, then it can be used. The problem is that just because we can dream it doesn't mean we can develop it. Otherwise, we'd have fusion power, and flying cars in every garage. But that's where R&D comes in, to find what's feasible and what's not.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that cell phones came out of already proven technology: radio and radiophones. Cell phones added the concept of radio cells, where a radiophone switched between towers. I don't think anyone built cell towers until that tech existed, and then only when there was a demand for the tech.

 

[mindlight]

You need to listen to the scientists who don't rely on government grants to survive.

Dr Patrick Moore on Fossil Fuel YouTube - Search Videos

www.bing.com

The case for change is clear-cut and not dependent on biased science at all. I did not oppose the development of nuclear energy as a complementary addition to green energy, though it carries its own risks. Ideally, a more completely Green solution is my preferred option for the future with a combination of wind, solar, and hydrogen in the mix.

 

[Tuur]

The case for change is clear-cut and not dependent on biased science at all. I did not oppose the development of nuclear energy as a complementary addition to green energy, though it carries its own risks. Ideally, a more completely Green solution is my preferred option for the future with a combination of wind, solar, and hydrogen in the mix.

Without building a way to store electricity, wind and solar won't cut it. That's the Achilles' Heel of wind and solar and why I keep harping on energy storage.

Side note: It's baffling that some don't seem to understand this. Back in the day, wind powered water systems had a tank mounted on the windmill tower. This did two things: Provide water pressure and serve as storage. The latter is important because wind is inconsistent, in some places more than others. But with a storage tank, it allows water to collect over time. Size the water tank large enough, and it overcomes the problem of inconsistent wind. The same thing holds with electricity as with water. But do policy makers understand this? Noooo. You can see this in their policies.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Without building a way to store electricity, wind and solar won't cut it. That's the Achilles' Heel of wind and solar and why I keep harping on energy storage.

Side note: It's baffling that some don't seem to understand this. Back in the day, wind powered water systems had a tank mounted on the windmill tower. This did two things: Provide water pressure and serve as storage. The latter is important because wind is inconsistent, in some places more than others. But with a storage tank, it allows water to collect over time. Size the water tank large enough, and it overcomes the problem of inconsistent wind. The same thing holds with electricity as with water. But do policy makers understand this? Noooo. You can see this in their policies.

Serious question on that. How can lawmakers have to know all the ins and outs of the policies that they legislate? I'd be happy if they just understood basic science, philosophy, law, medicine, and ethics.

As for water batteries, Switzerand just completed a closed loop dam for dealing with the variables in green energy.

This giant 'water battery' under the Alps could be a game-changer for renewable energy in Europe | CNN

New pumped storage hydropower facility Nant de Drance uses state-of-the-art technology to store renewable energy for on-demand use. It could play a vital role in stabilizing Europe's grid as the continent transitions to renewable energy.

www.cnn.com