• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marc v E

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
1,106
Likes
1,606
Location
The Netherlands (Holland)
My first post in this immensely instructive, educative and eye-opening thread. I , actually would like to open a thread on energy production and invite the people here to it...

Let's take the example of a 1000 MW plant... From what I researched and this is an ignoramus speaking, about $7 Billions. 365/24 operations
Solar at current prices.. about $1,5 Billions... 365/???? operations. Power delivery will fluctuate immensely and that 1000 MW would be reached only at certain time of the day and even then... At night? Nothing. Zero output
Storage is a serious issue when it comes to solar. Storage carbon footprint is not trivial. Storage is expensive and its logistics monumental, at even a city block level. For EV.. It is a different issue. an EV is actually stored electricity vehicle

EV rely on that cheap power from , mostly ICE, since most plants on the planet and even in the USA are ICE-based be they coal or Diesel. I am asking the question in all honesty. How much power/energy to charge an average EV (No SUV please :) ) for say 50 miles/day? From there I could deduct how much solar would be required for my use case.

Peace.

The model 3 long range is a pretty good benchmark vehicle: 16 kwh/100 km, so 8 kwh/50 km. If you want real world numbers you could also cross check with what Bjorn Nydahl on youtube shows at the end of a car test. He maintains a sheet of all cars tested.

Edit: if you look at the column next to it you'll see the liter/100 km equivalent which shows a crazy efficiency. In fact if you'd burn all the oil required for ev's in a powerplant you'll use far less than what is burned by the same number of ICE cars. The reason is powerplants are far more efficient than a internal cumbustion engine. In short: even if everyone would take an ev and we'd still use oil to burn in powerplants for electricity, we'd save an enormous amount of oil compared to now. Crazy, right?
 
Last edited:

Laserjock

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
1,327
Likes
1,000
Location
Texas Coastal

The model 3 long range is a pretty good benchmark vehicle: 16 kwh/100 km, so 8 kwh/50 km. If you want real world numbers you could also cross check with what Bjorn Nydahl on youtube shows at the end of a car test. He maintains a sheet of all cars tested.

Edit: if you look at the column next to it you'll see the liter/100 km equivalent which shows a crazy efficiency. In fact if you'd burn all the oil required for ev's in a powerplant you'll use far less than what is burned by the same number of ICE cars. The reason is powerplants are far more efficient than a internal cumbustion engine. In short: even if everyone would take an ev and we'd still use oil to burn in powerplants for electricity, we'd save an enormous amount of oil compared to now. Crazy, right?
It’s not about how as much as when.
Have to spread that change over time. Right?
 

Marc v E

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
1,106
Likes
1,606
Location
The Netherlands (Holland)
It’s not about how as much as when.
Have to spread that change over time. Right?
Well, if we understand each other correctly, I would say even an instant change from all ICE cars to EVs will require significantly less running fuel and less energy overall after x years. (Don't know the exact numbers; only that an ev uses less energy than an equivalent ice car 5 years after production)
 
Last edited:

pseudoid

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
5,116
Likes
3,416
Location
33.58 -117.88
The boreal forests in Canada and Russia
I recall few decades back, there was a big move afoot in Western Canada (after it had taken off in US) for clear-cutting whole swatches of forests.
You would see streams of these lumber trucks on that beautiful route to Vancouver Island, while seeing (LIVE) the lush forest getting a buzz-cut!:mad:
The law/agreement/requirement [?] with the timber industry allowed that 'if you cut it, you have to replace it'. So, the industry was able to replace the old-forest with some "7-year" pines that they were thinking to repeat their sinister deed every 7-years!
I recall that they had gotten caught with their pants down and the cronyism-capitalism (forest clear-cutting) became illegal, permanently.
Yey!
 

Laserjock

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
1,327
Likes
1,000
Location
Texas Coastal
Well, if we understand each other correctly, I would say even an instant change from all ICE cars to EVs will require significantly less running fuel and less energy overall after x years. (Don't know the exact numbers; only that an ev uses less energy than an equivalent ice car 5 years after production)
I’m saying that it “can’t” happen instantly.
It takes time to make a switch as major as this.
I’m not saying it won’t happen or that it’s not the right approach.

We have different geographies and different types of uses that make some areas different to navigate the change.
My work vehicle is a hybrid and in the last week I’ve driven over 2000 miles. (Texas and Louisiana)
I couldn’t do what I do and wait for a charge of a fully EV.
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
545
Likes
776
It is very nice here, as well. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the southeastern U.S. at the moment :(

I was only quoting nasa.gov:

"Moreover, according to Knutson, most models show that climate change brings a slight increase in hurricane wind intensity. This change is likely related to warming ocean temperatures and more moisture in the air, both of which fuel hurricanes. While most models show either no change or a decrease in hurricane frequency in a warmer climate, a greater proportion of the storms that form will reach very intense (Category 4 or 5) levels. In other words, while there may be fewer storms, the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger."
Yes, this is "accepted", though there are many scientists who disagree that increased intensity is likely. That there is less cyclonic energy overall is widely accepted, because it makes sense and agrees with the historical record.

I cringe in the reliance on models in that statement. Models have been spectacularly poor (yes, some try to rationalize by taking a collection of models, averaging, then claiming it's basically agreeing with the trend), or that "they are getting better", which largely means earlier errors have been fed back in as fudge factors to get the models to agree with history. Modeling hurricanes, and even longer term whether (climate is the 30 year average of weather) is spectacularly difficult, since it's a complex chaotic system (again, clouds are the biggest pain—water in the air can either heat or cool the planet, depending on when and where clouds develop). Modeling short term weather is so difficult that it drives the need for the worlds most powerful supercomputers, and long-term is much harder (the reason we have 10-day forecasting is that ocean conditions move relatively slowly, so associated variable can be treated as constants over that short term).

Just read an article in the Wageningen University magazine for alumni, sharing that with better forest and agriculture management, we can achieve a 15% reduction on greenhouse gas emmisions.

The same article states that based on their research the 1.5 C degrees increase cannot be averted anymore. In fact we're heading toward 3 C degrees increase by 2100.
"Cannot be averted anymore"—never could be averted. Just saying that if anyone thinks this implies we didn't act quickly enough before and missed an opportunity, no. Maybe in a dream world where China decided to not industrialize, and India also decided to remain poor...

"In fact we're heading toward 3 C degrees increase by 2100"—"in fact" implies certainty. There is no certainty, we've created many models, all with shortcomings, and picking the ones we like (or they're getting picked for us by being newsworthy). For instance, the IPCC (supposedly the gold standard) AR6 (2022) Technical Summary charts five scenarios, with huge error bands. Ignoring the error bands and just going with the averages for each scenario, they start at about 1.4 C from the baseline (about +0.3 C from now), to ~ 4.7 C (+ 3.5 C). There is no "we will be X degrees hotter", there are a wide range of guesses.

And that's a problem of "consensus" determinations with these kind of unknowns. Basically, when a scientific organization comes out with a statement that gives numbers, a committee of bureaucrats has just chosen which ones to endorse. And most scientific organizations are advocacy groups for a particular segment (say, physicists), and their primary job is to get grants for their members.

Another part of "consensus" is that when you have multiple projections, consensus may pick something in between. Or just pick the highest of all, since that will drive headlines and in turn grants. And crude example of why this is almost always wrong: Say you have an athlete who is going to run in a different event for the first time. If one expert picks him to place second, and another picks him to place tenth, the only thing you know for sure is that there is a high level of uncertainty. You can't pretend there is certainty of him placing sixth, as a compromise.

Just food for thought, hopefully not for a food fight. I'll leave you with the IPCC's AR6 2022 temperature projections, in case anyone things I'm wrong and that scientists do really know where we're headed.

Screen Shot 2022-10-02 at 10.53.49 PM.png
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
"In fact we're heading toward 3 C degrees increase by 2100"—"in fact" implies certainty. There is no certainty, we've created many models, all with shortcomings, and picking the ones we like (or they're getting picked for us by being newsworthy). For instance, the IPCC (supposedly the gold standard) AR6 (2022) Technical Summary charts five scenarios, with huge error bands. Ignoring the error bands and just going with the averages for each scenario, they start at about 1.4 C from the baseline (about +0.3 C from now), to ~ 4.7 C (+ 3.5 C). There is no "we will be X degrees hotter", there are a wide range of guesses.
There are scenarios which are more likely than others, and they aren't just guesses. That implies there's no research or data to back them up.

But a note about models: they're all wrong, and they have so far been underestimating the warming, since we've been getting more than projected. So they've been very conservative. However, they continue to get better.
 

pseudoid

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
5,116
Likes
3,416
Location
33.58 -117.88
...But a note about models: they're all wrong, and they have so far been underestimating the warming...
I hate to do this (especially to a member that I trust): BUT that is one big accusation that I cannot believe w/o a definitive (and accurate) source.
It sez to me that you know better than "THEY"; who are ALL WRONG!
Sorry!
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
You are abusing the graph here. Those are different scenarios. I don't think anyone thinks scientists have a crystal ball and know the future specifics. Each of those graphs is the prediction based upon what might happen in the future. The lower predictions are if the world makes lots of changes and embraces a very green future between now and 2100. Those with higher temperature predictions are if nothing much changes and fossil fuel use is unabated or even increases. Those are quite reasonable ways to handle things since no one knows just how humans will react in the future. It in no way indicates they are just guessing or don't know what they are on about. Nor any indictment of their models. They don't claim the models are perfect, but they also are quite a bit more than useless, or guesses or unfounded.

This graph comes from their technical summary of the report and is itself 84 pages.

index.php
 

blueone

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
1,179
Likes
1,494
Location
USA
The reason is powerplants are far more efficient than a internal cumbustion engine. In short: even if everyone would take an ev and we'd still use oil to burn in powerplants for electricity, we'd save an enormous amount of oil compared to now. Crazy, right?
Assuming post-manufacturing measurement only, this is correct. Tesla claims its Model S powertrain is over 90% efficient, and so far I haven't read a single authoritative article that questions that claim. The most efficient production IC engines I've read about are ~40% efficient. EV powertrains are also more efficient, because there's less energy wasted in transmissions and gear-reduction differentials. Most EVs are direct drive. Furthermore, electrical transmission is far more efficient and less polluting than the best oil and gasoline pipelines and intra-region tanker truck distribution. Charger station inverters are likely around 90% efficient, that would depend on each implementation, but 90% is probably a decent round number. And pollution-wise, one can argue about coal power plants, but how about all that gasoline and diesel leakage at gas stations, not to mention that many - many - ICE-powered vehicles leak lubricants on an ongoing basis. Proof is in every parking lot. Most parking spaces will have oil spots.

The only controversy is about how much pollution and GHG generation the manufacturing of EVs and their batteries generate. All I can say is that it's very early in the EV battery manufacturing (and recycling) improvement timelines. Very early.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
There are scenarios which are more likely than others, and they aren't just guesses. That implies there's no research or data to back them up.

But a note about models: they're all wrong, and they have so far been underestimating the warming, since we've been getting more than projected. So they've been very conservative. However, they continue to get better.
What I've read, and I'm no expert, is that carbon emissions went up more than expected. That when the updated data which was known and not predicted was fed into those models they generally agreed with actual results. Even those early models. Better modeling thru better use of computers has improved results and reduced error ranges, but still no one can fully predict exact amounts into the future.
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
545
Likes
776
There are scenarios which are more likely than others, and they aren't just guesses. That implies there's no research or data to back them up.
Fair enough, I just had to use a word. I'd like to use "estimates", but when there is that much unknown, it feels like a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) ;-)

And yes, there are estimates that are noted to be more likely. BUT, the world's most distinguished climate authority saw fit to publish those five scenarios. That's like sports authority saying they think a certain running will likely come in third, but could possible take first with a new world record unimagined before. Or come it sixth or eighth. Again, my point is the great deal of uncertainty (recall the context—I made this point to someone who said, "In fact we're heading toward 3 C degrees increase by 2100". The fact is he could have read other temperatures too, and they wouldn't be low ones, because those don't get print).

But a note about models: they're all wrong, and they have so far been underestimating the warming, since we've been getting more than projected. So they've been very conservative. However, they continue to get better.
The famous models of the '90s into the first decade were all considerably off to the high side. I don't know what models you might be talking about, but I'd love to see, if you can provide. I first started watching the models in the late '90s, and watched them diverge over the next 10-15 years. Here is a graph—HadCRUT4 is Hadley Climate Research Unit (temperature series 4), the UK temperature standard, UAH is University Of Alabama Huntsville, one of the two main interpreters of the satellite temperature record, under the direction of Dr. Roy Spencer. In other words, the land and satellite measurements, and the black line is the average of models.

Screen Shot 2022-10-03 at 10.02.03 AM.png

Hm, doesn't have the years on the chart—I know it's an old one, maybe 2010 near the end of the temperature record. I think there was a paper associated with this, if I get a few more minutes I'll update this post with better info. If someone says, "ok, but they are much better now", as I said before, that only due to adjusting the models to agree better with the past, there is no guarantee that means anything for the future, in a complex chaotic system.

Update: Hears a new one, with just the linear trend, models called out by name; I found newer ones, but there were issues with the image links—and older ones make my point about there track record of the models anyway:
CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png
 
Last edited:

blueone

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
1,179
Likes
1,494
Location
USA
Hm, doesn't have the years on the chart—I know it's an old one, maybe 2010 near the end of the temperature record.
The x-axis lists 1979-1983.

Edit: corrected. The date range is on the y-axis.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Roy Spencer is a bit controversial. He doesn't agree with the IPCC. He thinks the warming is part of natural vartiation (mostly).
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
I hate to do this (especially to a member that I trust): BUT that is one big accusation that I cannot believe w/o a definitive (and accurate) source.
It sez to me that you know better than "THEY"; who are ALL WRONG!
Sorry!
You've heard the saying: all models are wrong. That's because they can't be 100% correct. However we shouldn't discard them when they are 90% or more correct :)

But they keep having to revise the projections upward at each IPCC report.
 
Last edited:

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
What I've read, and I'm no expert, is that carbon emissions went up more than expected.
Maybe. We know the CO2 readings taken in Hawaii every year, but there is a lag with temperature as the Earth takes some time to warm up. That's the most insidious part of greenhouse warming - it can make people think that if we make changes, it won't make a difference, because they don't see it right away.
 

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,027
Climate warming and cooling is part of nature, as an example take Saffron Walden in Essex England. It’s name was changed to Saffron Walden in 1540 during the 16th and 17th century the climate was warm enough to grow crocuses for Saffron production. Before and after this period in history the climate was and is too cold for Saffron production.
We should be more concerned with chemical pollution of our waterways, air and land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom