Electric Vehicles here to stay, for good or bad?

[striker55]

That is a gobsmackingly bad idea.

Solar panels deployed in the Pacific Northwest or New England will never produce enough power to offset the carbon cost of manufacturing them. Not enough sunshine. So little, in fact, that the ROI for the building owners won't be a net positive until long after the panels will have aged into uselessness.

Solar panels make sense in much of the southwest. For the rest of the country? Not so much. Usually, not at all.

When I was visiting family in upstate NY I saw a lot of solar panels in fields. Weather forecast for that area has rain every day, of course not 100% but enough cloud cover. Using solar panels to charge Ring camera charges even on cloudy days.

 

[Tnhawk]

....Using solar panels to charge Ring camera charges even on cloudy days.

Solar works well until you need it. Does a great job on my Ring cameras. I prefer my yard space be used for a pool not solar panels!

 

[black_ice]

Some of those ev drivers will have time to consider the wisdom of buying an ev. Maybe they can borrow a gasoline generator!

My whole home generator will charge my Tesla no problem.

Good luck waiting in line for gas. I’ll fill up my truck with diesel and my suv with gas before a big storm hits. If I need to run around town I’d do it in my Tesla unless there’s high water then I’d take the truck.

 

[Tnhawk]

My whole home generator will charge my Tesla no problem.

Good luck waiting in line for gas. I’ll fill up my truck with diesel and my suv with gas before a big storm hits. If I need to run around town I’d do it in my Tesla unless there’s high water then I’d take the truck.

The last time I waited in line for gas, it was $0.75/gal in Houston in 1978.

 

[Havok1]

My whole home generator will charge my Tesla no problem.

Good luck waiting in line for gas. I’ll fill up my truck with diesel and my suv with gas before a big storm hits. If I need to run around town I’d do it in my Tesla unless there’s high water then I’d take the truck.

if you have a full tank of gas, why would you be waiting in line for gas?

 

[Slimshaddy]

That is a gobsmackingly bad idea.

Solar panels deployed in the Pacific Northwest or New England will never produce enough power to offset the carbon cost of manufacturing them. Not enough sunshine. So little, in fact, that the ROI for the building owners won't be a net positive until long after the panels will have aged into uselessness.

Solar panels make sense in much of the southwest. For the rest of the country? Not so much. Usually, not at all.

So two small areas of America should dictate if the rest of the country can gain true energy independence?
As to polution, welcome to the side that thinks it a bad thing, more the merrier.
BUT the poison from fossil fuel use vastly outweighs solar panel production.

 

[benenglish]

So two small areas of America should dictate if the rest of the country can gain true energy independence?

Nope. For the sake of brevity, I mentioned obvious areas where solar will work and won't.

If you'd like a more complete take, I can ratchet up the word count.

First, energy independence is something we already have. Full utilization of our natural gas resources achieves that and will (barring regulatory interference) keep the U.S. as the biggest true achiever for the green movement in the world for the foreseeable future, easily as long as it will take to build the nuclear plants we should have.

That, however, is a completely different discussion. The original goal post, the one I'm going to continue to reach, was your assertion that solar panels should be everywhere, at least on every building. That's just silly.

What most people fail to realize is that solar is not cost-efficient or green in (by far) most of the country. People can quibble over the border lines between those two situations, sure. But the fact remains that if you want to get a net return on your money and/or a true healthier-planet result, the percentage of the U.S. that can reasonably and probably should use solar in a big way is very, very small. It's certainly under 15% of the land area of the U.S. and that's me being generous.

Lemme look for a reference.

OK, it's a secondary source but I think it's a decent overview. This is a guy who's been writing on energy issues for a very long time; his first book to tackle the subject in depth (even though it's not the focus of the book) was published about a decade ago. He's had his work scrutinized pretty carefully and I consider him trustworthy. He's not always right; on this issue, though, he pretty much knows his facts down cold.

Better, though, is the fact that he's able to distill and discuss complex subjects in a way most people can wrap their head around.




ETA: I should note that he mis-speaks at one point. He says that sufficient improvements to transmission tech require "relatively room-temperature semiconductors." I've heard him give the spiel more than once. He meant to say "relatively room-temperature superconductors." Two missed syllables don't derail the message, though.

 

[TheDan]

If I were king, every building in America would have to have solar panels installed.

yeah, talk dirty to me

 

[Havok1]

If solar were so great, it wouldn’t require having a king to force everyone to buy it. People would buy it willingly, just like we do cell phones. Personally, about the last thing I need is other people, especially government deciding what I need to spend my money on for the supposed greater good. I can’t put solar on my house for the cost of electricity, which is why I don’t have it.

 

[Tnhawk]

If solar were so great, it wouldn’t require having a king to force everyone to buy it. People would buy it willingly, just like we do cell phones. Personally, about the last thing I need is other people, especially government deciding what I need to spend my money on for the supposed greater good. I can’t put solar on my house for the cost of electricity, which is why I don’t have it.

Solar isn't a good option for my home at this point. An EV is much less a good choice to replace my current vehicles. As improvements are made in these technologies they may be become worthwhile at some time in the future. At that point I don't see the government will be attempting to force them on the public.

 

[jrbfishn]

So two small areas of America should dictate if the rest of the country can gain true energy independence?
As to polution, welcome to the side that thinks it a bad thing, more the merrier.
BUT the poison from fossil fuel use vastly outweighs solar panel production.

Pretty much everything you assert and want is so disconnected from reality, not to mention just plain stupid, it is mind boggling.
You do realize that over half the world's population is in a geographic area less than, IIRC, 25% of the total land mass? The same land mass where currently the vast majority of the world's man made polution comes from? The same area that is not bound by ANY air quality standards or treaties controlling such things?
Even if the U.S., Central and S. America and europe all stopped using ALL fossil fuels tommorow, it would not put a dent in what is produced globaly. Not to mention that we would instantly be at the mercy of those Countries for EVERYTHING we need to continue even close to our current level of quality of life. And then the uncontrolled emmissions would sky rocket to supply us if we could afford to buy from them. Which would not be at current levels because then they could raise prices as they see fit. Effectively giving them total global control. Of everything.

At the current level of technology, total green in most of the world is a fight you can't afford to win.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Pretty much everything you assert and want is so disconnected from reality, not to mention just plain stupid, it is mind boggling.
You do realize that over half the world's population is in a geographic area less than, IIRC, 25% of the total land mass? The same land mass where currently the vast majority of the world's man made polution comes from? The same area that is not bound by ANY air quality standards or treaties controlling such things?
Even if the U.S., Central and S. America and europe all stopped using ALL fossil fuels tommorow, it would not put a dent in what is produced globaly. Not to mention that we would instantly be at the mercy of those Countries for EVERYTHING we need to continue even close to our current level of quality of life. And then the uncontrolled emmissions would sky rocket to supply us if we could afford to buy from them. Which would not be at current levels because then they could raise prices as they see fit. Effectively giving them total global control. Of everything.

At the current level of technology, total green in most of the world is a fight you can't afford to win.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE NEEDED FOR SOLAR AND WIND FARMS LAND THAT IS PRETTY MUCH WORTHLESS FOR ANYTHING ELSE AFTERWARDS!

 

[OutlawStar]

LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE NEEDED FOR SOLAR AND WIND FARMS LAND THAT IS PRETTY MUCH WORTHLESS FOR ANYTHING ELSE AFTERWARDS!

I was really hoping that Tesla solar roof was going to take off. No [additional] real estate or land needed. If each roof could provide greater than 75% of a household's needs (including charging an EV) that'd be a decent power solution. They claim each roof should make 400% of a household's needs. Last I heard it was nearly impossible to get certified to install it, its prohibitively expensive, and just isn't worth it. No first hand knowledge or reasonable testimonials that I've seen. Solar roof, a couple of battery banks (that I'd install in a shed away from the house) and selling surplus power to the power company? Yeah I'd be down if it wouldn't cost more than a Mercedes every 20 years.

The not-so-strange ponderance I had is they have companies trying to make roads into solar or kinetic generators, likely because they know governments have unlimited money to throw at nonsense like that. We can't even make concrete roads work for more than 5 years. I'd rather see a roof, window, and fence solution for homeowners that doesn't cost $50k to maybe break even in 20 years.

 

[Axxe55]

I was really hoping that Tesla solar roof was going to take off. No [additional] real estate or land needed. If each roof could provide greater than 75% of a household's needs (including charging an EV) that'd be a decent power solution. They claim each roof should make 400% of a household's needs. Last I heard it was nearly impossible to get certified to install it, its prohibitively expensive, and just isn't worth it. No first hand knowledge or reasonable testimonials that I've seen. Solar roof, a couple of battery banks (that I'd install in a shed away from the house) and selling surplus power to the power company? Yeah I'd be down if it wouldn't cost more than a Mercedes every 20 years.

The not-so-strange ponderance I had is they have companies trying to make roads into solar or kinetic generators, likely because they know governments have unlimited money to throw at nonsense like that. We can't even make concrete roads work for more than 5 years. I'd rather see a roof, window, and fence solution for homeowners that doesn't cost $50k to maybe break even in 20 years.

I HAVE SEEN ESTIMATES THAT COST BETWEEN 50K TO OVER 100K FOR A SLOAR INSTALLATION ONLY WAY I WOULD CONSIDER SOLAR POWER IS IF ITWAS A NEW INSTALLATION ON A BRAND NEW HOUSE THEN I COULOFFSET THE COST OVER THE PERIOD OF THE MORTGAGE

 

[Brains]

I did the math for an array on my house. First, it wouldn't fit - not enough roof area for the kWh needed. Second, I wouldn't spend the over 100k on the array+battery, because the payback period is too close to the cutoff point where the efficiency drops below even the current electric consumption. Add an EV to the mix, and it gets even more unpalatable.

So, except for specific applications (e.g. gate openers, well pumps, emergency backup, supplemental power, etc.) we're just not there yet with PV.

 

[Grumps21]

Curious to know what the increase in homeowners insurance is to cover these panels in hail prone areas. Add, that the break even point is about when these things reach end of life and you are fronting the money up front that could otherwise be gaining interest. I’d be open to having them if the cost was 30% less, they were guaranteed to last at least 30 years without loss of efficiency, and my monthly note to the power company was guaranteed to be zero. As it sits, my break even point over 30 years is $54k. That’s assuming solar meets 100% of my needs and it does not take into account the time value of money and whatever insurance premium increases I would incur.

ETA: I’m on a city lot, so doubtful I even have enough available area to have enough panels to power my home. It would then be a situation of emergency power, which it would be cheaper for a home house LNG genny

 

[no2gates]

Curious to know what the increase in homeowners insurance is to cover these panels in hail prone areas. Add, that the break even point is about when these things reach end of life and you are fronting the money up front that could otherwise be gaining interest. I’d be open to having them if the cost was 30% less, they were guaranteed to last at least 30 years without loss of efficiency, and my monthly note to the power company was guaranteed to be zero. As it sits, my break even point over 30 years is $54k. That’s assuming solar meets 100% of my needs and it does not take into account the time value of money and whatever insurance premium increases I would incur.

My homeowners insurance went up $110/year when I added mine

 

[Brains]

Just read that John B. Goodenough (yes, that's his real name) passed. Who is Johnny B Goodenough? He's the guy who invented the lithium ion battery tech, and in the past years was a prof. at UT. He was reportedly working on a new solid state battery tech that was going to be the holy grail of power storage, but nothing commercial based on that has been developed.

John B. Goodenough passes at 100 years

 

[glenbo]

Article on Town Hall about efficiency of solar panels:

Too Hot for Solar Panels?

townhall.com

 

[jrbfishn]

And just think, all the problems and costs just to put solar on your home, the ecological costs and logistical costs still don't include the costs of disposing of that equipment when it is no longer usable.
Monetarily ond ecologically, the numbers just don't add up.
Don't get me wrong. I think the tech is great, for what it is. I have some solar panel yard lights, a camera and panels to charge a battery for camping. And the work great at relatively low cost compared to electrical charging and wiring. But at the current technology level, thay are not scalable at a cost, to produce, maintain, replace and dispose of, that makes any sense. No matter how bad you want them to.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk