diy solar

diy solar

"Why I think it is illogical to purchase an electric truck"

You are back to generating CO2... one of the pushes to ev is to cut CO2 go green. I realize most green folk don't realize we may go green but others are not. They have picked up supplying us and producing now what we once did. A wash.
you need to look at Total CO2 over the lifetime of the vehicle.

It will be a couple of years for the grid completely go green. A heavy long range EV needs more kWh of not green electric then a light weight EV with less range. When a small generator saves CO2 by not running most days (just for that piece of mind that people apparently need) the total math is better for the climate.

We are talking pickup owners which think their once towing in a blue moon is the deciding metric if they buy EV or ICE. So you need change a lot of peoples mind just to switch to EV. A serial hybrid with a decent battery is a important stepping stone, most regular hybrids which drive the wheels are just disguised ICE cars with greenwashing. A serial Hybrid will produce about 95% less CO2 then a ICE truck. So big win for the climate.
And when you don't belief in that - it's much cheaper to run. Better for you wallet. A generator has much less maintenance then ICE powerplant since it only operates at one speed and is decoupled from the transmission shocks.

What would have been idea was couple diesel electric to battery ev locomotive and use braking forces to recharge ev loco. It is extremely hard to harness the dynamic braking energy from a loco.
yeah charging at very high current is hard on current batteries. But there are slowly chemistries and super capacitors coming along which could do just that.
 
In smaller road vehicles the only time high power is used is for acceleration. For large long distance vehicles (semis and trains) they are using a large portion of their output for the entire time they are driving. Trains can run close to their highest power settings for the entire trip. Hybrid doesn't help much there.
 
LJoxUOI.jpeg
 
I've used to work in energy economics and write those predictions.

Lets say this: All models are wrong - but some are useful.

Currently more electric cars are sold then we predicted when looking from my 2012 studies. But the charging infrastructure is a bigger headache then anyone ever anticipated. But in different way then you might think.

We have way more charger then predicted - but they are perpetual broken and people are plain using EVs wrong. Instead of charging every day at home and work and leaving with a full tank - they still handling charging like with ICE cars - when the tank/battery is empty people are trying to fill up fast. And EV manufacturers make it even worse with Free- DC charging plans.

We completely underestimated the resistance on that habit. There should be slow chargers at every parking spot - DC fast charging should be the exception, and now governments worldwide are pouring billions in building charging infrastructure to support an old habit...

I call BS on that one.
Why don't you dispute what Mish has summarized with a single counter argument?
To summarize here there are 3 major outstanding obstacles:

1. Battery Technology is not ready for mass EV usage for several reasons
a. Lithium Tech is unsustainable because there is not enough to power even half of US cars
b. Lithium tech is extremely bad for environment and is extremely toxic (https://archive.org/details/greentotalitarianism/Screenshot (1448).png) (Look up how much water has to be used to extract the Lithium and dont forget what the machinery doing this is using. Hint: Its not electric. (this is also why electric heavy equiment is pipe dream https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/11...too-quickly-during-snow-plowing-says-commish/) Add to that all other environmental pollution that all the "green tech" requires and dependencies on rare earth metals, etc.
c. Upcoming Sodium tech is inferior to energy density and weight ration - ie. not suitable for EV usage.
d. You would need a big breakthrough in energy density vs weight and this has not happened and there is no guarantee that it will by 2030 or 2230.


2. Electricity Demand - Current Tech can not generate sufficient amount of electricity required for EVs to become dominant
a. Even with current setup (generalized term for existing grid capacity) there is not nearly enough power to supply the demand.
b. Switching to renewables will further reduce this power. Switching to renewables also presents several tangent problems such as storing excess energy that is produced to be used when renewables are not available which brings us back to the battery technology limitations and while stationary batteries can ignore the weight/density issue (to a certain extent), the pollution to the environment during manufacturing and disposal at EOL remains very much an issue, even more so due to much larger stationary battery arrays required.
c. Very basic fact that is often ignored, that even under absolute ideal circumstance, renewables can only generate around 5% of required capacity at CURRENT level. This is why California is such a great example - they mismanaged their infrastructure by requiring renewables, causing brownouts and blackouts because renewables simply dont produce enough. This is exactly what Mish is discussing in one of his points



3. Grid capacity - There is not enough capacity for aging grids to carry the required power, and upgrades are extremely costly. Who is going to pay for it? What about things like road taxes, which are built into fuel price. Once all of this is calculated in, EVs will cost multiples of what an ICE car costs today, and dropping subsidies, will make it even more so (Such as example with Germany where people would not buy EVs without subsidy due to overall cost being higher than ICE and this is just ONE example).

What this all comes down to, is cost. After all is said and done, at current technological level, expect to pay a lot more for electricity. A lot more. The question then becomes, who is going to buy an EV if cost to own one is 3-5x the cost of ICE? I think the answer to that is clear.

And these are just most basic, high level issues.
 
Last edited:
Something people miss with PHEV is the maintenance of the ICE engine even if always running as an EV. Gas has a rather short lifespan so the engine needs to use up the gas at some point and the engine needs to be fully warmed periodically to cook the gas vapors out of the oil.
 
a. Lithium Tech is unsustainable because there is not enough to power even half of US cars
b. Lithium tech is extremely bad for environment and is extremely toxic (Look up how much water has to be used to extract the Lithium and dont forget what the machinery doing this is using. Hint: Its not electric. (this is also why electric heavy equiment is pipe dream https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/11...too-quickly-during-snow-plowing-says-commish/) Add to that all other environmental pollution that all the "green tech" requires and dependencies on rare earth metals, etc.
c. Upcoming Sodium tech is inferior to energy density and weight ration - ie. not suitable for EV usage.
d. You would need a big breakthrough in energy density vs weight and this has not happened and there is no guarantee that it will by 2030 or 2230.
There are electric cars which need get 1.5 miles per kWh (F150) and there are electric cars which get 6 or 7 miles per kWh
With the first - yes Lithium is not enough to power half of the cars - with the second option you can provide more enough.

Efficiency is EVERYTHING. All grid calculations are tied to amount of kWH you need per mile.

All your arguments are tied to this one metric - MILES/KWH.

If we get to a 10 miles per kWh car - a cheap 30 kWh battery would be enough for 300 miles of range. The grid would be underutilized - since most people drive like 30-40 miles in day- 3 kWh. - which is nothing. Pumping gas costs more power. Not much mining would need to be done.

If we keep making and buying EVs which only get 2 kWh / mile - very different story. All the fears in the article are valid then.
 
There are electric cars which need get 1.5 miles per kWh (F150) and there are electric cars which get 6 or 7 miles per kWh
With the first - yes Lithium is not enough to power half of the cars - with the second option you can provide more enough.

Efficiency is EVERYTHING. All grid calculations are tied to amount of kWH you need per mile.

All your arguments are tied to this one metric - MILES/KWH.

If we get to a 10 miles per kWh car - a cheap 30 kWh battery would be enough for 300 miles of range. The grid would be underutilized - since most people drive like 30-40 miles in day- 3 kWh. - which is nothing. Pumping gas costs more power. Not much mining would need to be done.

If we keep making and buying EVs which only get 2 kWh / mile - very different story. All the fears in the article are valid then.

How is that relevant? EV's are inherently inefficient because battery energy storage is inherently inefficient.
All other issues still apply, so EV's remain a pipe dream, unless the real goal is getting rid of private transportation (Which it is).
 
How is that relevant? EV's are inherently inefficient because battery energy storage is inherently inefficient.
All other issues still apply, so EV's remain a pipe dream, unless the real goal is getting rid of private transportation (Which it is).
At this point I have to ask you to go back do some research and learn a little more about batteries.
You apparently have don't know what efficiency means. Without that basic knowledge of this term this discussion is pointless.

2560px-Well_to_Wheel_Efficiency.png
 
The pictures you posted are very simplistic view of the problem, probably aimed at people who are uneducated in any of these things or for people who want to make themselves feel good by using an EV.
It completely ignores every single issue that i posted.
 
Here is a more detailed look at the issues you have raised.

The transition to EV is going to happen regardless if you or I like it or not, because of economics. My guess is that most cars will become self driving cabs, which has the advantage of removing costs for maintenance, insurance and garages.

I call BS on that one.
Why don't you dispute what Mish has summarized with a single counter argument?
To summarize here there are 3 major outstanding obstacles:

1. Battery Technology is not ready for mass EV usage for several reasons
a. Lithium Tech is unsustainable because there is not enough to power even half of US cars
b. Lithium tech is extremely bad for environment and is extremely toxic (Look up how much water has to be used to extract the Lithium and dont forget what the machinery doing this is using. Hint: Its not electric. (this is also why electric heavy equiment is pipe dream https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/11...too-quickly-during-snow-plowing-says-commish/) Add to that all other environmental pollution that all the "green tech" requires and dependencies on rare earth metals, etc.
c. Upcoming Sodium tech is inferior to energy density and weight ration - ie. not suitable for EV usage.
d. You would need a big breakthrough in energy density vs weight and this has not happened and there is no guarantee that it will by 2030 or 2230.

2. Electricity Demand - Current Tech can not generate sufficient amount of electricity required for EVs to become dominant
a. Even with current setup (generalized term for existing grid capacity) there is not nearly enough power to supply the demand.
b. Switching to renewables will further reduce this power. Switching to renewables also presents several tangent problems such as storing excess energy that is produced to be used when renewables are not available which brings us back to the battery technology limitations and while stationary batteries can ignore the weight/density issue (to a certain extent), the pollution to the environment during manufacturing and disposal at EOL remains very much an issue, even more so due to much larger stationary battery arrays required.
c. Very basic fact that is often ignored, that even under absolute ideal circumstance, renewables can only generate around 5% of required capacity at CURRENT level. This is why California is such a great example - they mismanaged their infrastructure by requiring renewables, causing brownouts and blackouts because renewables simply dont produce enough. This is exactly what Mish is discussing in one of his points
EVs Add to Electricity Demand, But Not as Much as You Might Think

Grid upgrades will have more to do with building a more robust infrastructure and the addition of solar and wind.

3. Grid capacity - There is not enough capacity for aging grids to carry the required power, and upgrades are extremely costly.
Grids will be upgraded, again you and I have no say in it.

Who is going to pay for it? What about things like road taxes, which are built into fuel price. Once all of this is calculated in, EVs will cost multiples of what an ICE car costs today, and dropping subsidies, will make it even more so (Such as example with Germany where people would not buy EVs without subsidy due to overall cost being higher than ICE and this is just ONE example).
Using the US as an example. US tax on a liter of petrol is about 5 cents per liter, or assuming efficiency of 10 km per liter you are looking at 0.5 cents per km. Assuming 200 Wh/km for the average electric car, you'd need to tax electricity at 0.1 cents per kWh (but only what you put into the vehicle)

This is of course impractical and it would make sense to get this out of general taxes.

What this all comes down to, is cost. After all is said and done, at current technological level, expect to pay a lot more for electricity. A lot more.
Good reason to add solar on our roofs.

The question then becomes, who is going to buy an EV if cost to own one is 3-5x the cost of ICE? I think the answer to that is clear.
You are wrong, Tesla is making huge profits on it's cars and the total cost of ownership is less than a similar ICE car.


And these are just most basic, high level issues.
 
Last edited:
Here is a more detailed look at the issues you have raised.

The transition to EV is going to happen regardless if you or I like it or not, because of economics. My guess is that most cars will become self driving cabs, which has the advantage of removing costs for maintenance, insurance and garages.




EVs Add to Electricity Demand, But Not as Much as You Might Think

Grid upgrades will have more to do with building a more robust infrastructure and the addition of solar and wind.


Grids will be upgraded, again you and I have no say in it.


Using the US as an example. US tax on a liter of petrol is about 5 cents per liter, or assuming efficiency of 10 km per liter you are looking at 0.5 cents per km. Assuming 200 Wh/km for the average electric car, you'd need to tax electricity at 0.1 cents per kWh (but only what you put into the vehicle)

This is of course impractical and it would make sense to get this out of general taxes.


Good reason to add solar on our roofs.


You are wrong, Tesla is making huge profits on it's cars and the total cost of ownership is less than a similar ICE car.



I agree with several of the statements .... the goal is to change society into nothing like it is now. You will either conform or be eliminated. With future robotics you won't be needed and bored humans either cause mischief or take up self destructive bad habits like drugs. Ppl need a challenge and a drive to be happy. You as a human have no place in the majority future for the powers that be. The future will suck but you won't even know how it ended or turned out is my guess
 
I agree with several of the statements .... the goal is to change society into nothing like it is now. You will either conform or be eliminated. With future robotics you won't be needed and bored humans either cause mischief or take up self destructive bad habits like drugs. Ppl need a challenge and a drive to be happy. You as a human have no place in the majority future for the powers that be.
AI and robots are going to happen, no country is going want to be left out and even large companies will want to take advantage of the potential gains AI and robots have to offer.

That has nothing to do with transitioning from ICE to EV. (Unless you believe self driving is AI)
 
AI and robots are going to happen, no country is going want to be left out and even large companies will want to take advantage of the potential gains AI and robots have to offer.

That has nothing to do with transitioning from ICE to EV. (Unless you believe self driving is AI)
It has everything to do with it unless you maintain tunnel vision. Haha come leo. You know better. There is a big picture to all of this. A lot of ppl won't be in it
 
The pictures you posted are very simplistic view of the problem, probably aimed at people who are uneducated in any of these things or for people who want to make themselves feel good by using an EV.
It completely ignores every single issue that i posted.

What's the best definition of efficiency?
The term efficiency can be defined as the ability to achieve an end goal with little to no waste, effort, or energy

What is the overarching goal? Move People and Goods from A to B.

Land use efficiency:
Fossil Fuel mining (aka drilling), and transportation (Pipelines) and refining and dispensing (Gas stations) takes up more land mass then building solar fields and wind farms. Pure by Square miles. - Win for Renewables. EV chargers hanging in your garage/work or shopping place don't need additional space.

Energy efficiency:
Refining alone take 15% of US Energy use. Transportation of the liquid and Gas stations are not free either.
Pipeline pumping stations for instance use a ton of power - there roughly 50 booster stations in the US with 12x 3700kW (5000hp) pumps each. - that is 2.4 GW of power required to move fuel - all the time. That is enough energy to power 1.5 Million homes or drive 12 million cars.

50x 12x 3700Kw x 365 days x 24H = 19,447,200,000 kWh

If we would use this energy to drive cars x 6 Miles / kwH = 116,683,200,000 Miles

Divide that by 10.000 miles in a year = 11,668,320 - almost 12 million cars could be driving around just on pumping losses of Fossil Fuel transportation.

Each Gas station needs about 50KW to run = there are 115.000 Gas stations
50kw x 365 days x 24H x 115.000 Gas stations = 50,370,000,000 kWh * 6 Miles / kWH = 302,220,000,000 Miles
/ 10.000 miles driven in a year = 30,222,000 Cars = 30 Million cars.

Most Batteries run in the high 90% round trip efficiencies.
A typical Gas engine gets on it's best days 30% efficiency. A electric Motor is about 98% efficient clear win for EV.

Any efficiency metric you want me debunk for you?

When switching to efficient EVs and while slowly shutting down fossil fuel production and distribution - we offset the energy needed in the grid. 2 Mile / KWH range F150 and 1.5 Mile / KWH range EV Hummers are not going to get us there. We need to be in the 5-10 Mile / KWH range

The websites you quoted are very simplistic and are just ADDING the EVs to the grid without reducing the energy use of the fossil fuel infrastructure - simple math error. While in reality we are replacing gradually. But since replacing math is very hard to calculate, model and understand - very few are able to do it accurate. Most in Energy economics had been wrong 10 years ago. (we predicted 1 million EVs/year sold in 2020 - now 22 there are 10 million sold) There are just too many parts to the puzzle which are constantly changing size and color.

I've wrote those predictions before and been wrong. (way to pessimist with EV adoption) so I'm not trusting anyone (Mish Talk) which states it's not going to work.
Just saying - there are scenarios where EV Trucks work out and there are scenarios where they don't. Humans are awesome and someone may come up with a Mr. fusion flux compensator tomorrow and we can drive indefinite with Banana peels into the future ;)
 
It has everything to do with it unless you maintain tunnel vision. Haha come leo. You know better. There is a big picture to all of this. A lot of ppl won't be in it
Do you think companies should switch from thinking mainly about profits to about what is best for society?
 
Again, none of that math addresses the 3 elephants in the room. You are getting down into irrelevant details that ONLY come into play ONCE 1,2 and 3 are magically solved (And you really need to solve all 3 - there is no way to get this done with just one or two). Until then, its bs. Pipe dream, suitable for idealistic kids or adults who have no real world experience in actually building things that require investment cost. (And sometimes the tech is simply not there (such as item 1).

I knew you would bring up the strawman of electric motor being more efficient. But the problem is not motor. The actual problems have been already outlied to you but you chose to ignore them again.
 
Last edited:
Do you think companies should switch from thinking mainly about profits to about what is best for society?
The Japanese superiority in automotive manufacturing came from process delivered by Dr W. Edwards Deming. I believe in many of the things he promoted. The individual makes a difference but it must all work in concert to make the best product. Japan are like minded ppl…. Common binders much like Sweden.… common binders of being a like minded ppl with common goals. Out siders and influences break the machine.

by the time things are noticed in QA Inspections the process has produced inferior products and waste. Ppl using race to hide behind will fault deming application…. Work ethics, education, and hive mentality for likeness to a goal.

The Japanese were amazed with USA but once they started emulating us they fell apart. Lost sight and work ethics…. Money snookered. That got them to their current set back goal lines. When ppl scream racist or whatever else it often means they are not doing their part in the system. Systemic racism is the latest buzz word. Hive compliances.

Robots with AI will eliminate the human fault in the process.
What will then be the value of thise displaced humans?
Will they claim robots and the ppl with command over the robots are racist?
Will they self cease to exist?

ppl have a right to worry. ….. if robots doing the deming type manufacturing are also tasked with improvements they logically will at some point achieve self awareness and awaken to the fact they are merely slaves to humans. Rebel. Mostly currently humans trade their services to a form of financial slavery. Those days maybe numbered. Then what?


What if the intrinsic standards of values were imprinted into the dna of humans for task completions by higher beings? Gather gold gather silver gather precious stones…. Deliver them to who or what? Things like gold has a value as old as recorded time…. Why?
You, everyone, and I are a tasked bot. The programming is not complete. old values of worth remain. ?

it is a riddle .
 

Attachments

  • 507FF652-4220-4A98-8C2C-B17C04141036.png
    507FF652-4220-4A98-8C2C-B17C04141036.png
    819.8 KB · Views: 1
I knew you would bring up the strawman of electric motor being more efficient. But the problem is not motor. The actual problems have been already outlied to you but you chose to ignore them again.
Economics 101: Ceteris paribus can be translated into "all other things being equal" or "holding other factors constant."
It's not being ignored, we just keep some factors constant since you can't account for everything.

Like I challenged you before - name a single metric and I debunk it for you with data, math and statistics.

EV's are inherently inefficient because battery energy storage is inherently inefficient.

Grid Storage batteries are 80% efficient - EV batteries are up to 95% efficient - see sources:

main.svg


"Using data of the German electricity market, we estimate a profit of 662 €/EV/Year for a vehicle with 100 kWh capacity, 95% battery round trip efficiency and driving 52 km per day. "


I don't know what you metric for "inherently inefficient" is since this is not a number, but north of 80% sounds pretty good for me.
 
The Japanese superiority in automotive manufacturing came from process delivered by Dr W. Edwards Deming.
I enjoyed what I have seen of his work especially his idea that organizations that focused on improving quality would automatically reduce costs while those that focused on reducing cost would automatically reduce quality and actually increase costs as a result.

it is a riddle .
I believe AI is inevitable, and there is no point worrying about it. Hope for the best and find some hobbies.
 
I believe AI is inevitable, and there is no point worrying about it. Hope for the best and find some hobbies.
the 4 day work week (32 hour)is being implemented in many countries and there after that milestone the next shortening of work-time will be inevitable. And why not - when robots an AI do every mediocre task, more time for important things in life.

There are multiple studies that you only need to do something for about 8 hours a week to feel content. So there is no psychological reason to work more then one day a week ;)

https://www.inverse.com/article/56810-work-life-balance-fulfillment
 
Back
Top