Still want an EV?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by ianoob

If you're talking demand of people, automation in other industries are getting them freed up.
If you're talking demand of electricity, I fall to see your point. We have a solution and a path for future growth.
As far as solar on roofs, you are correct. However, we have more than enough space as a whole. Especially when you factor in wind and fire improvements. A current PV panel is only ~20% efficient, but they have lab tested up to 30%. Wind and batteries keep improving too. Again, you are comparing current to future... not future to future

When I got my degree in electrical engineering in 1993, prototype solar panels were ~ 16% efficient in lab testing, and passed 20% in a lab a year later. That was almost 30 years ago. In 2022 the actual scaled production of product on the market is now ~20%. How much progress have we made in 30 years? It took 30 years to bring that 20% to market.

Looking at the past and comparing to the present is a method to predict the future.

I can't compare the future to the future, and neither can you. If you want to take a whack at it, go ahead. Just don't expect me to believe in your conclusions. I don't own a magic 8 ball, so I can't compete with you on that level.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by ianoob

You're only stating problems, no solutions, so you do come off as a hater. How would you enable the net-zero goals?

Have you considered that there is no solution at the present time? Maybe net zero is not achievable? I don’t understand why taking a measured approach that gets us closer to the “goal” is viewed with the same connotation as abject failure.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Cos270

To your point, sure, maybe we can bump back the timing for regulations that mandate EVs so the infrastructure catches up. But all these car makers are already banking on the dates that have been established. I’ve posted something similar in another thread, but these companies do not have the capital to make quality ICE and EV lines in large volumes. Product lines are being cancelled, tooling purchased, buildings built, and facilities retooled. Investments so large that if these vehicles don’t sell in the volumes they need to, companies will fold. Sure, it’s not the end of the world, but I hope people remember what it looks like when car companies go bankrupt (and it won’t just be GM and FCA/Stellantis this time) - tax payers get to bail them out.

I think a lot of us will be driving a Toyota hybrid in 20 years.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by ianoob

You're only stating problems, no solutions, so you do come off as a hater.

You are only stating goals, and no solutions that are viable. In't not proposing solutions because you haven't asked. You are busy mandating.

You are putting the onus to solve the problem on the subject matter experts. I'm one of those experts, and you won't listen to what I have to say.

Do what you want, just know I can't cheat the laws of physics, or make some things happen that you expect to me to just snap my fingers to solve. To that I say good luck

How would you enable the net-zero goals?

slow down and listen to the experts, and don't alienate them when they say your plan isn't feasible on the timeline you have proposed. It probably wont happen in your lifetime, but I hope we get close.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I think a lot of us will be driving a Toyota hybrid in 20 years.

Fuckin eh. Not sure what it is like in other jurisdictions but the sneaky fucker of a Pm we have here gets all high andmighty about EV adoption but allows Hybrid as part of the transition goals in 2035. I am damn near certain we see a big bump in EV adoption then slam headlong into a wall and PHEV's take off.

[ianoob]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

When I got my degree in electrical engineering in 1993, prototype solar panels were ~ 16% efficient in lab testing, and passed 20% in a lab a year later. That was almost 30 years ago. In 2022 the actual scaled production of product on the market is now ~20%. How much progress have we made in 30 years? It took 30 years to bring that 20% to market.

Looking at the past and comparing to the present is a method to predict the future.

I can't compare the future to the future, and neither can you. If you want to take a whack at it, go ahead. Just don't expect me to believe in your conclusions. I don't own a magic 8 ball, so I can't compete with you on that level.

In 17yrs, we have gotten 15 points better efficiency. 2050 is 18yrs away, simple math says 45%. More power hits the earth every hour than we can consume in a lifetime, so scale and improvements make me positive about the future.

Originally Posted by Cos270

Have you considered that there is no solution at the present time? Maybe net zero is not achievable? I don’t understand why taking a measured approach that gets us closer to the “goal” is viewed with the same connotation as abject failure.

I'm not hearing any "measured approach" alternatives. Please elaborate.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Fuckin eh. Not sure what it is like in other jurisdictions but the sneaky fucker of a Pm we have here gets all high andmighty about EV adoption but allows Hybrid as part of the transition goals in 2035. I am damn near certain we see a big bump in EV adoption then slam headlong into a wall and PHEV's take off.

It's not so bad, I enjoyed the heck of that hybrid we owned ('09 nissan Altima). Only sold it to upgrade to a nicer car. That was the best car I've ever owned. Other than gas, tires and braked, oil and filters, that car needed nothing in 180K miles, and still sold it for $4K. Probably still on the road.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by ianoob

In 17yrs, we have gotten 15 points better efficiency. 2050 is 18yrs away, simple math says 45%. More power hits the earth every hour than we can consume in a lifetime, so scale and improvements make me positive about the future.

You have 13 years to have this all planned, bought, and built, and it has to be built with tech that doesn't' yet exist. It's not a math problem, it's a logic problem.

[ianoob]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You have 13 years to have this all planned, bought, and built, and it has to be built with tech that doesn't' yet exist. It's not a math problem, it's a logic problem.

I ask again, what is your alternative? Our are you just breaking out the marshmallows and/or sandbags?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by ianoob

I ask again, what is your alternative? Our are you just breaking out the marshmallows and/or sandbags?

Do everything you have planned, but more slowly than you want. Don't force it. It's already happening exponentially - without mandates. Get the fuck out of the way of progress, it doesn't need your help. It's already working.

The government sucks at pretty much everything it gets involved in.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by ianoob

I ask again, what is your alternative? Our are you just breaking out the marshmallows and/or sandbags?

Take the money we are blowing on solutions that don't work and use those funds to support the squillions of people who will be out of work when we realise the only way out of this is via a massive reduction in consumption. Be that population reduction and/or legislation to reduce consumption, not just of fossil fuels, of EVERYTHING.

That's your true inconvenient truth. There is no way out of this with "emissions free energy", deck chairs on the titanic.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Take the money we are blowing on solutions that don't work and use those fund to support the squillions of people who will be out of work when we realise the only way out of this is via a massive reduction in consumption. Be that population reduction and/or legislation to reduce consumption, not just of fossil fuels, of EVERYTHING.

That's your true inconvenient truth. There is no way out of this with "emissions free energy", deck chairs on the titanic.

F'n a

you know how much plastic and cardboard I have to throw away? I hate it. I recycle everything, even stuff I have to hand wash to be able to recycle it. reality is most of that still ends up in the dump anyway because the recyclers lose money on the recycled product most of the time. The solution to so many problems is to stop consuming. It will require a change to the structure and fabric of society, but nobody wants that. So here we are, arguing about deck chairs on a sinking ship, so we don't have to change our flawed path into that iceberg that doesn't give a flying F about our culture.

[Tejas1836]

Communism limits consumption. I don't think most rational people with a knowledge of history want that.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Tejas1836

Communism limits consumption. I don't think most rational people with a knowledge of history want that.

And yet western democracies seem to be sliding into socialism which inevitably leads to communism. It's nice to dream and say it will happen, and it might but not within the timelines being mandated, it just isn't possible to get there, and it certainly won't be using wind and solar. Those experiments have been tried and are underway and aren't reliable enough to produce a fraction of the power we use now, never mind the doubling of capacity we will need to achieve net zero. Nuclear is the only real option to get us there quickly and to double the capacity using nuclear given environmental studies, design, government red tape and construction we are likely 30 years away. Not to mention the cost, most governments are carrying staggering debt and deficits right now, the interest to service these debts alone is crippling economies. Where is the extra money going to come from?

Nobody is saying that none of this can happen, but common sense dictates it can't happen by 2035, not likely by 2050 frankly.

[ianoob]

Unfortunately your timelines are correct, but people procrastinate. The major governments have to tell people 2035/2050 just to complete it by 2050/2075.
With the push we have companies developing "green" fuel, companies going hybrid that never considered it before, investments into heat pumps and solar, etc
We will miss the goals, but we can minimize the miss by aiming high.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by ianoob

Unfortunately your timelines are correct, but people procrastinate. The major governments have to tell people 2035/2050 just to complete it by 2050/2075.
With the push we have companies developing "green" fuel, companies going hybrid that never considered it before, investments into heat pumps and solar, etc
We will miss the goals, but we can minimize the miss by aiming high.

The reality is most politicians aren't that bright, they don't think things through and believe their own nonsense. They spend too much time drinking their own bathwater.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I honestly think they spend too much time smoking weed.

No no. They are all to busy doing insider trading!! Fucking crooks

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

. Nuclear is the only real option to get us there quickly and to double the capacity using nuclear given environmental studies, design, government red tape and construction we are likely 30 years away. .

A Wyoming nuclear power plant has been delayed by at least two years because of a shortage of special fuel which is only available from Russia.

TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates, said a 345MW nuclear demonstration plant to be built in Kemmerer, Wyoming, would be delayed because of difficulty in getting the enriched uranium fuel it needs. The plant is backed by the US Department of Energy (DOE).

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/e...l-from-russia/

It's too bad, this is a good direction for us to transition to. This type of Nuclear can be ramped up or down in grid supply because it includes local thermal storage. Nuclear itself has to be run at a steady state.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

A Wyoming nuclear power plant has been delayed by at least two years because of a shortage of special fuel which is only available from Russia.

TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates, said a 345MW nuclear demonstration plant to be built in Kemmerer, Wyoming, would be delayed because of difficulty in getting the enriched uranium fuel it needs. The plant is backed by the US Department of Energy (DOE).

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/e...l-from-russia/

It's too bad, this is a good direction for us to transition to. This type of Nuclear can be ramped up or down in grid supply because it includes local thermal storage. Nuclear itself has to be run at a steady state.

Yep. People in the US are scared because of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And don't realize the 1st one was tiny, the other reactors at Chernobyl operated into the 90s and I think one as last as 2001.

And Fukushima likely would have been fine if the backup generators had been located in a different place.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

Yep. People in the US are scared because of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And don't realize the 1st one was tiny, the other reactors at Chernobyl operated into the 90s and I think one as last as 2001.

And Fukushima likely would have been fine if the backup generators had been located in a different place.

My brother is a nuclear engineer. You'd be surprised how many close-calls and near-misses there have been. There are some good accounts available if you start looking. This is basically a no-option-for-failure industry and requires extreme regulation to achieve. With that comes all the huge costs that make it impractical in many (but not all) situations. The continuing mess of Fukishima is a good example of how bad it can get, not necessarily the worst case scenario, but how it can continue to spiral. Many people tend to think that fuel rods are the only radioactive waste too...

[x622]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

Yep. People in the US are scared because of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And don't realize the 1st one was tiny, the other reactors at Chernobyl operated into the 90s and I think one as last as 2001.

And Fukushima likely would have been fine if the backup generators had been located in a different place.

Fukushima like most of the other issues are related to first generation NPPs running way past their service life because politicians don't want to build new ones and sunset the old ones.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by RM7

My brother is a nuclear engineer. You'd be surprised how many close-calls and near-misses there have been. There are some good accounts available if you start looking. This is basically a no-option-for-failure industry and requires extreme regulation to achieve. With that comes all the huge costs that make it impractical in many (but not all) situations. The continuing mess of Fukishima is a good example of how bad it can get, not necessarily the worst case scenario, but how it can continue to spiral. Many people tend to think that fuel rods are the only radioactive waste too...

One of the things I've read is that all plants in the US are essentially one-offs, vs being standardized in design designs places in like France who rely on nuclear power for ~80% of their grid.

Originally Posted by x622

Fukushima like most of the other issues are related to first generation NPPs running way past their service life because politicians don't want to build new ones and sunset the old ones.

Yeah, I read years ago that Thorium reactors are the way to go.