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

[Suffolkhifinut]

The Chevy Bolt is what I would buy if I was in the market for a zero-emissions vehicle. Here is the USA price for a semi-loaded car. I consider a car to be a poor investment so I like the economy of this model
View attachment 164938

Another thing to consider is the residual value after 8 to 10 years. A young woman in Florida had a 2012 Ford Focus EV for her school runs, cost $11000. After a few months problems started and it needed a new battery at $14000. Around here there are many cars over 20 years old, people on low incomes depend on them, rural bus services are virtually non existent.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Latest (April 2022) data on US power generation (EIA latest monthly report):

• Natural Gas: 107 TWhr (35%)
• Renewables: 91 TWhr (29%)
• Coal & Oil: 56 TWhr (18%)
• Nuclear: 55 TWhr (18%)

No reason we can't double both nuclear and renewables.

Are the figures relating to their maximum generating capacity or how much they actually generated? There is a massive difference,

 

[samsa]

No, that's generation, not nameplate capacity. Click on the link, and look at the report yourself. (This is why, unlike some people, I provide links to my sources.)

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

No, that's generation, not nameplate capacity. Click on the link, and look at the report yourself. (This is why, unlike some people, I provide links to my sources.)

Thanks for the info would like to know the nameplate capacity, would be interesting to see the comparison.

 

[samsa]

Another thing to consider is the residual value after 8 to 10 years. A young woman in Florida had a 2012 Ford Focus EV for her school runs, cost $11000. After a few months problems started and it needed a new battery at $14000. Around here there are many cars over 20 years old, people on low incomes depend on them, rural bus services are virtually non existent.

Plenty of reports of Teslas (mostly Model S's, since they're the only EVs that have been on the road, in nontrivial numbers, for long enough) lasting 200k, 300k, even 1million(!) miles.

The battery pack is warrantied for 8yrs/100k miles.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Another thing to consider is the residual value after 8 to 10 years. A young woman in Florida had a 2012 Ford Focus EV for her school runs, cost $11000. After a few months problems started and it needed a new battery at $14000. Around here there are many cars over 20 years old, people on low incomes depend on them, rural bus services are virtually non existent.

A little more to that story. One reason the cost was so high is that car and battery are discontinued. Also I don't know much about that particular EV. It may be like the Nissan Leaf. A cousin purchased one. They were abysmal as in a poor design. No thermal battery management. Many lost capacity and already had short range when new so that by 50,000 miles or less they were nearly useless unless you can get by with car having 25-30 miles range.

All part of growing pains to switch to something different. I do wonder about battery availability for older cars 20 years from now. OTOH, all USA EV's and hybrids currently have to have an 8 year/100,000 mile warranty on the battery. That Florida car was a 2014 and probably just over 8 years old.

Florida family drives into electric car problem: a replacement battery costs more than vehicle itself

A Florida family ran into a major problem after buying an electric vehicle, the replacement battery costs more than they bought the car for.

www.yahoo.com

Of course ICE cars often last 250,000 miles and repairs tend to be cheaper until engine or transmissions play out. Those can cost a large amount to renew. They also have smaller maintenance and repair costs along the way that add up over time. If it goes through a few owners then no particular person has to pay a big bill. An EV is more likely to be fine, fine, fine and then oops the only fix is one big repair bill all falling on the last person holding the bag so to speak.

For those reasons I think low income people will need to stick with ICE cars for quite a long time. EV's are too expensive up front, and will for some time be too expensive near the end. And it will take time for the repair infrastructure and repair experience to shake out.

 

[samsa]

Thanks for the info would like to know the nameplate capacity, would be interesting to see the comparison.

I already posted the info on nameplate capacity above (my source).

• 44% Natural Gas (552GW)
• 21% Coal & Oil (262GW)
• 27% Renewables (335 GW)
• 8% Nuclear (101 GW)

I also posted a graph of how the nameplate capacity has changed over the last decade (my source) above. There, you can see that there's one country that's more than tripled its nameplate capacity of renewables (starting from a higher baseline than the US) in a decade.

Update: I added the nameplate capacity numbers (in addition to the percentages of the total: 1251GW) for those too lazy to click on the link.

And, for those who are also too lazy to do arithmetic, 91 TWhr in April is an average output of 126 GW, which is 38% of the 335 GW nameplate capacity.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I already posted the info on nameplate capacity above (my source).

• 44% Natural Gas (552GW)
• 21% Coal & Oil (262GW)
• 27% Renewables (335 GW)
• 8% Nuclear (101 GW)

I also posted a graph of how the nameplate capacity has changed over the last decade (my source) above. There, you can see that there's one country that's more than tripled its nameplate capacity of renewables (starting from a higher baseline than the US) in a decade.

Update: I added the nameplate capacity numbers (in addition to the percentages of the total: 1251GW) for those too lazy to click on the link.

Sorry missed it can’t wear glasses at the moment, tend to skim over things.

 

[samsa]

I've read an analysis by a utility industry expert who calculated a wind/solar/battery grid in the US (with a little bit of other stuff, but nukes are gone) would raise electric rates 100 fold.

Source, please?

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Source, please?

Battery storage ouch! How many would you need and the environmental impact caused by their manufacture and disposal at the end of their service life.

 

[samsa]

For grid-level battery storage (unlike for EVs), you don't need the energy-densities that lithium-ion batteries afford. There are plenty of other battery technologies that are cheaper/more ecologically-friendly that would work as well or better.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

For grid-level battery storage (unlike for EVs), you don't need the energy-densities that lithium-ion batteries afford. There are plenty of other battery technologies that are cheaper/more ecologically-friendly that would work as well or better.

Would still need massive battery capacity, how near to the 335 GW renewables capability (at the moment)) would be needed. As I’ve posted before good debate. Ultimately of no consequence if people can’t afford to pay for energy renewables aren’t the answer. If the majority have to live without power then the game is up for all of us. Keep the temperature rise below 1.5C by any means and there will be millions rising to take from those that can afford to pay.

 

[Willem]

We will have to keep the temperature rise below 1.5 C, like it or not. Achieving this is not that hard, if we set ourselves to do it, and it will not make us destitute. That is just scaremongering nonsense. We can generate energy in a sustainable way, and at low cost (and certainly at lower cost than current fossil fuel prices).
On top of that, many processes have already become far more energy efficient than they were, and continue to become more energy efficient. Near zero energy homes are a real possibility in the Netherlands, and are rapidly becoming the norm for new housing. Many current electrical appliances only consume about a quarter of what they did a decade ago, thanks in part to EU regulations.
And as I wrote earlier, the price mechanism has a wonderful capacity to concentrate the mind. I just had a look at Dutch consumption of natural gas (within the country, so separate from changes in import and export). For the last five months this has been about 20% less than during the same period last year. I have not yet seen a detailed analysis, but I guess this is largely due to lower industrial and office energy consumption in response to higher prices. And this is only the beginning.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

We will have to keep the temperature rise below 1.5 C, like it or not. Achieving this is not that hard, if we set ourselves to do it, and it will not make us destitute. That is just scaremongering nonsense. We can generate energy in a sustainable way, and at low cost (and certainly at lower cost than current fossil fuel prices).
On top of that, many processes have already become far more energy efficient than they were, and continue to become more energy efficient. Near zero energy homes are a real possibility in the Netherlands, and are rapidly becoming the norm for new housing. Many current electrical appliances only consume about a quarter of what they did a decade ago, thanks in part to EU regulations.
And as I wrote earlier, the price mechanism has a wonderful capacity to concentrate the mind. I just had a look at Dutch consumption of natural gas (within the country, so separate from changes in import and export). For the last five months this has been about 20% less than during the same period last year. I have not yet seen a detailed analysis, but I guess this is largely due to lower industrial and office energy consumption in response to higher prices. And this is only the beginning.

It isn’t scare monger in the UK think 25% of my energy bill is a subsidy for renewables. In less than a year my average monthly charge for electricity has risen to £245 from £95, for a well insulated small cottage. You say industrial consumption in the Netherlands has fallen by 20% has industrial output stayed the same? If all industry shut down it would fall by 100%, not trying to be contentious but the claims of cheap renewable energy isn’t realistic.

 

[Willem]

Your increased electricity bill is not due to subsidies but to higher market prices, and those are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So the economist in me says that you should reduce your consumption. There are plenty of opportunities for that. In our own household we have reduced annual electricity consumption by about a third over the last few years. In effect, our annual consumption is now about equal to what our PV panels produce. The rate of return on the PV panels was already very good before the current price hikes, and has obviously improved even more. At current electricity prices you earn back the investment within at most three years. The economics of heat pumps for home heating has similarly improved (though not to the same extent), so we are waiting for ours. I have seen the numbers of a few of our neighbours, and they are now earning back their recent investment in heat pump systems in about five years (provided they already had floor heating for a low temperature system). High energy prices really changed the equation. So we also invested heavily in additional home insulation, which makes the house more comfortable as well.
Of course the output of the Dutch economy has not declined by 20%. It is doing very well.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Your increased electricity bill is not due to subsidies but to higher market prices, and those are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So the economist in me says that you should reduce your consumption. There are plenty of opportunities for that. In our own household we have reduced annual electricity consumption by about a third over the last few years. In effect, our annual consumption is now about equal to what our PV panels produce. The rate of return on the PV panels was already very good before the current price hikes, and has obviously improved even more. At current electricity prices you earn back the investment within at most three years. The economics of heat pumps for home heating has similarly improved (though not to the same extent), so we are waiting for ours. I have seen the numbers of a few of our neighbours, and they are now earning back their recent investment in heat pump systems in about five years (provided they already had floor heating for a low temperature system). High energy prices really changed the equation. So we also invested heavily in additional home insulation, which makes the house more comfortable as well.
Of course the output of the Dutch economy has not declined by 20%. It is doing very well.

We really have triEd to reduce our consumption including having our roof insulated, the floor is also fibreglass lagged. It’s the same story for everyone around here. The subsidies for renewables have been levied for several years now, we’ll before current market prices came into play. So we have been ordered to invest in renewables and what did we get? Out of control energy bills. Where will it all end? Just wait for next Winter, we have already seen demonstrations in the Netherlands nothing compared to what is coming.

 

[Willem]

Your energy bills did not go up because of subsidies on renewables, but because of the increased market price of fossil fuels. So the rational response would not be less renewables, but more of them.
The demonstrations by farmers in the Netherlands had nothing to do with energy, but with new restrictions on nitrogen emissions from farming.
I agree something has to be done for the poor, and in the Netherlands that is already being done, although perhaps the current income subsidies for the poor will probably have to be increased.

 

[Blumlein 88]

We will have to keep the temperature rise below 1.5 C, like it or not. Achieving this is not that hard, if we set ourselves to do it, and it will not make us destitute. That is just scaremongering nonsense. We can generate energy in a sustainable way, and at low cost (and certainly at lower cost than current fossil fuel prices).
On top of that, many processes have already become far more energy efficient than they were, and continue to become more energy efficient. Near zero energy homes are a real possibility in the Netherlands, and are rapidly becoming the norm for new housing. Many current electrical appliances only consume about a quarter of what they did a decade ago, thanks in part to EU regulations.
And as I wrote earlier, the price mechanism has a wonderful capacity to concentrate the mind. I just had a look at Dutch consumption of natural gas (within the country, so separate from changes in import and export). For the last five months this has been about 20% less than during the same period last year. I have not yet seen a detailed analysis, but I guess this is largely due to lower industrial and office energy consumption in response to higher prices. And this is only the beginning.

Frankly you are living in fantasy land. No matter what staying at 1.5 degrees rise is nearly impossible because it is so late. Nothing easy about it. Most of the world is not the Netherlands so zero energy housing is impossible. Granted much can be improved and a mostly "sustainable " energy world is doable. It cannot be done quickly enough to prevent more than a 1.5 degree rise nor is doing it that quickly at all affordable.

 

[Ron Texas]

Frankly you are living in fantasy land. No matter what staying at 1.5 degrees rise is nearly impossible because it is so late. Nothing easy about it. Most of the world is not the Netherlands so zero energy housing is impossible. Granted much can be improved and a mostly "sustainable " energy world is doable. It cannot be done quickly enough to prevent more than a 1.5 degree rise nor is doing it that quickly at all affordable.

Glad to hear a little sanity around here.

 

[samsa]

Frankly you are living in fantasy land. No matter what staying at 1.5 degrees rise is nearly impossible because it is so late. Nothing easy about it. Most of the world is not the Netherlands so zero energy housing is impossible. Granted much can be improved and a mostly "sustainable " energy world is doable. It cannot be done quickly enough to prevent more than a 1.5 degree rise nor is doing it that quickly at all affordable.

1.5℃ is better than 2℃; 2℃ is better than 2.5℃; 2.5℃ is better than 3℃ ...

Frankly, we need to decarbonize as quickly as possible and very likely engage in some massive geo-engineering projects over the next 70 years, because doing so (which will be expensive) will be far cheaper than not doing so.