Electric cars?

[Value Collector]

I'm surprised that Tesla vehicles don't have solar panels on the bodywork so they can charge when in the sun.

It's not really ideal due to the space needed for an effective out put, and the fact that people prefer to park their cars in shade.

How ever the cyber truck is going to have options for solar panels.

 

[Value Collector]

The sad reality is that only about 4% of the world's surface can make an economic go of renewable energy in its current technological form. Not to say that that won't change, but the green revolution is not going to happen next week. Germany spent two trillion euro's trying to do it and they're now burning not just coal but the worst kind of coal there is for emissions.

What percentage of the worlds surface would need to be used to power the world? I bet its less than 4%.

and solar can be installed on existing buildings and structures, Urban areas already cover 3% of the globe, chuck solar panels on every building and structure, wind farms where they can go, and build different types of storage and then Roberts your fathers brother.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

As far as I can see your calculation is still wrong, you are still working on the same flawed assumptions.

1, You are still assuming EV's use the same amount of energy as Gasoline cars, when infact gasoline cars are only 30% - 40% efficient and EV's are about 85% - 90% efficient. (that would halve your energy requirement straight away)

2, You aren't allowing for the fact that once you stop refining gasoline you will have freed up a lot of electricity capacity that normally goes towards refining that gasoline. (That would cover about at least 50% of the Evs that need charging)

3, you are assuming the grid is already operating at 100% capacity, ignoring the fact that EV's could be charged at off peak times when the grid is only operating at 30% of its full capacity. (that use of the latent capacity would easily charge the bulk of Ev's by itself)

4, Natural growth in Solar by the Ev owners themselves and the charging companies.

Well my assumptions are very rough, I have said that from the start. I don't have any incentive to research and build a more accurate and precise figure.

What I can gather from my back-of-the-envelope figures, is that it will cost trillions of dollars in powerplants and support infrastructure.

If the electrical grid capacity isn't a big deal, then the private sector shouldn't need any government funding or support.

 

[sptrawler]

Some great points brought up by all, an interesting topic, that will be ongoing for a long time IMO.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Some great points brought up by all, an interesting topic, that will be ongoing for a long time IMO.

We can jump down this rabbit hole; however it will take up an enormous amount of our time and mental energy.

To get a precise metric we would need to factor in many variables like the energy cost to produce batteries relative to internal combustion engines, how often batteries need to be changed over, capacity factors of energy supply, transmission loss of network, battery power loss at recharge stations, recycling energy costs of batteries, stranded asset costs, associated infrastructure costs for battery stations, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I am happy knowing that it will cost trillions of dollars in the USA, and hundreds of billions of dollars in Australia; hopefully not at the expense of the taxpayer.

Here is an interesting read: https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/energy-usage-cost-gasoline-vs-electric/

Scomo can ask our Chief Scientist to get a team together and produce a full report on this issue. These people get paid to do this work.

 

[basilio]

How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
Critics claim that there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. for solar to power the country. While it’s not an immediately practical question, it’s still fun to ponder. So, ignoring practical constraints like storage and grid technology, let’s explore whether we can fit enough solar to electrify the U.S.
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

 

[sptrawler]

We can jump down this rabbit hole; however it will take up an enormous amount of our time and mental energy.

To get a precise metric we would need to factor in many variables like the energy cost to produce batteries relative to internal combustion engines, how often batteries need to be changed over, capacity factors of energy supply, transmission loss of network, battery power loss at recharge stations, recycling energy costs of batteries, stranded asset costs, associated infrastructure costs for battery stations, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I am happy knowing that it will cost trillions of dollars in the USA, and hundreds of billions of dollars in Australia; hopefully not at the expense of the taxpayer.

Here is an interesting read: https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/energy-usage-cost-gasoline-vs-electric/

Scomo can ask our Chief Scientist to get a team together and produce a full report on this issue. These people get paid to do this work.

I'm sure you are right, there are several aspects that haven't been addressed, the power generation currently used to make petrol, is fossil fuel fired so therefore it will have to be replaced anyway.
Then there is the issue of the rissidual chemical waste from depleted batteries, in their current configuration, cars can be quite easily recycled.
Then the issue of finite resources to make the batteries, there is always talk of new battery technology around the corner, untill now the road leading to the corner is proving long and straight.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I'm sure you are right, there are several aspects that haven't been addressed, the power generation currently used to make petrol, is fossil fuel fired so therefore it will have to be replaced anyway.
Then there is the issue of the rissidual chemical waste from depleted batteries, in their current configuration, cars can be quite easily recycled.
Then the issue of finite resources to make the batteries, there is always talk of new battery technology around the corner, untill now the road leading to the corner is proving long and straight.

People seem to forget that we still need to burn the gas/oil to produce the electricity, to then recharge the batteries

So I am happy with my basic and straight forward conversion.

 

[Smurf1976]

15 million gallons of gasoline an hour = 1,875 billion BTU an hour

1,875 billion BTU an hour = 549508197 KW used every hour = ~549GW used every hour

549GW per hour x 24 hours a day x 365 days a week = 4809240 GW hours of electricity needed per year.

The step missing in the calculations is the thermodynamic efficiency of the gasoline fuelled engine versus the efficiency of batteries and an electric motor.

There's no need for electricity to replace the heat input from gasoline, since heat itself from a car engine is not useful beyond minor amounts, it only needs to produce the same motive power to the wheels.

 

[Smurf1976]

People seem to forget that we still need to burn the gas/oil to produce the electricity, to then recharge the batteries

We would however be using far less of it.

Even the worst power station currently operating in the main grid in Australia achieves efficiency comparable to an average petrol car engine. Any modern power station is very much better than that.

 

[sptrawler]

How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
Critics claim that there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. for solar to power the country. While it’s not an immediately practical question, it’s still fun to ponder. So, ignoring practical constraints like storage and grid technology, let’s explore whether we can fit enough solar to electrify the U.S.
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

The first thing with the report is, they are quoting land area required for molten salt storage generators, which in 2013 was the holy grail.
The land requirement for PV panels is near double that of molten salt, then there is the issue of intermittency and storage.
Since then, they are finding molten salt generators don't produce anywhere near rated capacity, the U.S manufacturers have gone into liquidation.
So in reality using data from 2013, is a bit shaky, but it is a good article.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...olar-power-companies-have-all-but-disappeared

 

[sptrawler]

The big asset the electric car has at this point in time IMO is the battery, the storage aspect and feed in ability, will make it an attractive proposition for households.
The biggest liability is also the battery, it is the costliest part and they are only guaranteed to 60% capacity after 8 years.
But the push will continue regardless of what we think.
The other aspect we have talked about in various threads, is the fact that capitalism works on the premise consumers keep replacing stuff, what greater stimulus than changing over the transport fleet.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

We would however be using far less of it.

Even the worst power station currently operating in the main grid in Australia achieves efficiency comparable to an average petrol car engine. Any modern power station is very much better than that.

We will still be burning oil and gas to power the machines to extract all the resources to make the batteries.

We will still be burning oil, gas and coal in the power stations to generate the electricity to recharge all the batteries.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

The step missing in the calculations is the thermodynamic efficiency of the gasoline fuelled engine versus the efficiency of batteries and an electric motor.

There's no need for electricity to replace the heat input from gasoline, since heat itself from a car engine is not useful beyond minor amounts, it only needs to produce the same motive power to the wheels.

I still expect that we will be burning oil, gas and coal in our power stations to generate the electricity to recharge the batteries.

It was a simple and quick calculation to get a rough idea of the energy and electricity involved and the costs.

 

[Value Collector]

Well my assumptions are very rough,

Rough is an understatement, I can see you logic but as I said its just flawed for the reasons I have stated

If the electrical grid capacity isn't a big deal, then the private sector shouldn't need any government funding or support.

I agree, thats what I said from the start, it won't require much support at all, electric charging infrastructure is cheaper and simpler than petrol refuelling infrastructure, its so simple most of us just charge in our garage, and the public chargers are unmanned systems that install much quicker than building a petrol station.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Rough is an understatement, I can see you logic but as I said its just flawed for the reasons I have stated



I agree, thats what I said from the start, it won't require much support at all, electric charging infrastructure is cheaper and simpler than petrol refuelling infrastructure, its so simple most of us just charge in our garage, and the public chargers are unmanned systems that install much quicker than building a petrol station.

OK; we have obviously reached an impasse.

As I said to Smurf: I still expect that we will be burning oil, gas and coal in our power stations to generate the electricity to recharge the batteries.

We will still be burning oil and gas to power the machines to extract all the resources to make the batteries.

It was a simple and quick calculation to get a rough idea of the energy and electricity involved and the costs.

You can try to persuade our politicians that it isn't a big deal to go 100% EV.

Good luck.

 

[Value Collector]

I still expect that we will be burning oil, gas and coal in our power stations to generate the electricity to recharge the batteries.

It was a simple and quick calculation to get a rough idea of the energy involved and the costs.

yes for a while at least.

but 100% of gasoline comes from oil.

where as electricity comes from multiple sources, such as coal, gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass and others.

Even if you decide to continue using oil for some of the electrical demand its still better than a combustion engine and refinery model, an you have a whole list of alternatives that can compete, your aren't stuck with one energy source.

For a country that is a net importer of oil, having alternatives is a very good thing

 

[Value Collector]

You can try to persuade our politicians that it isn't a big deal to go 100% EV.

No need, it's going to happen regardless.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

yes for a while at least.

but 100% of gasoline comes from oil.

where as electricity comes from multiple sources, such as coal, gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass and others.

Even if you decide to continue using oil for some of the electrical demand its still better than a combustion engine and refinery model, an you have a whole list of alternatives that can compete, your aren't stuck with one energy source.

For a country that is a net importer of oil, having alternatives is a very good thing

Renewables aren't fit for purpose in many nations and countries.

This is like a religion now.

 

[Value Collector]

People seem to forget that we still need to burn the gas/oil to produce the electricity, to then recharge the batteries
.

No body forgets that, we just understand that moving from a system that is 100% dependant on one specific fossil fuel source, to another system that is still capable of exploiting that same fossil fuel sources in a much more efficient way, while also being able to use many other renewable energy sources is better.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, eg we don't need to find an answer that is 100% renewable energy from day one to begin the transition away from fossil fuels.

No one is saying electric cars are carbon neutral, although the may be one day, in the mean time they are much less carbon intensive than petrol cars, even if we used oil, gas and coal power plants, and ignored the growing renewable energy industry.