GM is pulling back on EVs

[K4fxd]

Did some math on solar panels. At current consumption it will take 8 million square miles of panels to meet current demand. So the State of New Jersey.

These panels would have to be in an area with constant sun so AZ NM and West TX. Now I don't know how the panels are rated. IE do they need 24 hours of sun to produce the required number? So we might have to double the land mass to get the required power reliably.

This will kill off many plants and animal life due to loss of habitat. This is a whole lot less enviromentally responsible than burning coal with scrubbers and other polution reducers at the smoke stack.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

Another thing, these solar panels get hot during the day, they release heat at night. I wonder if panels in the amounts needed will add to the warming? Maybe more than the Co2 produced from burning coal.

 

[sk47]

What's the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? » Yale Climate Connections

Hello; This link favors WT’s. Compares WT Co2 to fossil fuel plants in grams per KW/hour I think. Something like 11 grams per Kw/hr if averaged over twenty years.

How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine? – STOP THESE THINGS

Hello; This link is critical of WT’s. Uses measures in tons of materials for construction and all. Impressive amounts of steel, aluminum, resins and concrete involved. Lots of real numbers of concrete, steel, epoxy and such.

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables (forbes.com)

Hello; This link favors WT. Again using a 20 year lifespan to average out the initial carbon impact from manufacture to set up on site.



Hello; I begin to see the way the figures are manipulated. If short term numbers are looked at the making and building in place a WT has an enormous carbon and other environmental footprint for each individual WT. Mining for raw materials. Refining things such as steel, aluminum. Making epoxies and fiberglass. (need to look up epoxy manufacturing.) Heating limestone to make cement. Fossil fuel transport and construction machinery involved. All this is upfront and totals winds up being very massive amounts of materials with carbon emissions associated. This impact is immediate and happening now. A spiking of Co2 today with the plan seeming to be a payoff over the twenty-year lifetime (estimate) of the WT. So pollute a huge amount now to hopefully do better later using an average of twenty years. The twenty-year time frame seems to be an odd way to couch the emissions and impact.

The emissions and impact will be real and very current. Adding to the atmosphere of today when at the same time we folks are being pushed to give up milk and beef along with other things in much less than 20 years.

The fossil fuel power plants they are compared to do already exist so will not have to be built in a short-term time. Not sure how it might tally up. But a more clear comparison might be to use the time frame for making a WT from scratch. Best I can find is one month to six months for small to large wind farms, not a good answer. So the real impact to the environment happens in say a month for each WT. Kinda made me recall the way China’s current coal consumption is excused by the champions because in some decades in the far future China promised to be clean.

 

[sk47]

Another thing, these solar panels get hot during the day, they release heat at night. I wonder if panels in the amounts needed will add to the warming? Maybe more than the Co2 produced from burning coal.

Hello; Panels are indeed dark and will absorb heat. Likely much as a dark car paint gets very hot in summer time.

 

[martinjlm]

Hello; Question. What will be the etiquette when buying a used EV? Say you have an EV you decide to sell. You have the 2nd level charger installed at your home. Does the charger unit go with the sale of the vehicle?
Say the charger unit is specific to the vehicle and not available retails any more? (orphaned)

Level 2 chargers are agnostic to vehicle brand. There are differences in terms of output capability so there is a chance that the older units are not capable of delivering at the peak rates that newer cars can receive. Translation…it will charge the vehicle more slowly. There is no “orphaning” of chargers or vehicles.

Say you are witching back to an ICE and just do not need/want the charger at your place. Who pays the electrician to remove the unit?

Say you sell an older EV, keep the charger and years later get a different EV which uses a different charger?

Who says it has to be removed? If you sell your EV and don‘t replace with an EV, you can leave the charger there (helps home resale in a lot of places). If you choose to remove it you really don’t need an electrician, as long as you interrupt the power. If you eventually come back to an EV years later you can use the old one or upgrade to a more capable unit. Most EVs in the US use a CCS standard connection. Tesla uses their own, but have an adaptor to allow for use with a CCS type charger.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Who says it has to be removed? If you sell your EV and don‘t replace with an EV, you can leave the charger there (helps home resale in a lot of places). If you choose to remove it you really don’t need an electrician, as long as you interrupt the power. If you eventually come back to an EV years later you can use the old one or upgrade to a more capable unit. Most EVs in the US use a CCS standard connection. Tesla uses their own, but have an adaptor to allow for use with a CCS type charger.

I wouldn’t remove it either. It will help with resale value. Some builders are making EV charging stations standards in new homes. Tucson, 30min north of me, in 2021 legislature was passed, that all homes within city limits had to be EV charger ready.

 

[Burkey]

We know that using a EV in areas with something like 48% coal -electric generation can take around 68,000 miles of driving to start to beat an ICE

I guess the first step would be to correct your understanding of the study you cited.
The 68,000 mile figure you keep quoting was based on the “Global energy mix” which (at the time of the study) was NOT 48% coal.

At the time of the study, the EU28 was sitting at at around 78% fossil fuels. The graph clearly showed that the global electrify mix was WORSE than that.

Where you pulled 48% coal from is anyone’s guess.

in 2019 (prior to the study), China was producing 26% of its power from renewables. Yes, better than the European Union. In 2022 that figure sat at 34%. I guess you wouldn’t know that though, because you sources keep talking about how China keeps expanding its coal power while ignoring that they’re also expanding in renewables at a faster rate (hence the tilt toward renewables).

Maybe get your figures straight before you ask questions that don’t make sense.

Worse than that, you’re inadvertently arguing that the US shouldn’t be in manufacturing….

 

[sirben711]

I know we are far along on this thread, but let me pose an argument.

Since hydrogen burns absolutely clean. Has the highest specific energy density than any fuel other than nuclear. It’s naturally the most abundant molecule/fuel. It’s definitely cleaner than EV battery sourcing/ making and even more so than conventional ICE engines. Why is Toyota the only one moving in this direction and what would EV proponents have against this?

Currently it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the energy we get from it.

I was reading how the Japanese are investing and researching in Red Hydrogen (color only denotes how it was produced). They believe they can harvest unused energy from the nuclear reactors to create "free" hydrogen while still producing energy for their country.

Its an interesting idea.

 

[AZlb5.0]

I was reading how the Japanese are investing and researching in Red Hydrogen (color only denotes how it was produced). They believe they can harvest unused energy from the nuclear reactors to create "free" hydrogen while still producing energy for their country.

Its an interesting idea.

The Japanese and Toyota are in the forefront of this. It’s amazing how they can open up research on a sustainable fuel especially when harvesting from nuclear power plants. I would think that with all the smart people we have here that it would also be another avenue for sustainable fuels we can research.

 

[Burkey]

Did some math on solar panels. At current consumption it will take 8 million square miles of panels to meet current demand. So the State of New Jersey.

These panels would have to be in an area with constant sun so AZ NM and West TX. Now I don't know how the panels are rated. IE do they need 24 hours of sun to produce the required number? So we might have to double the land mass to get the required power reliably.

This will kill off many plants and animal life due to loss of habitat. This is a whole lot less enviromentally responsible than burning coal with scrubbers and other polution reducers at the smoke stack.

How did you calculate your figures exactly?

Most experts put that figure at double or even triple what you calculated (although some of those figures are from older panels, so there’s that).

Elon Musk says it’s half of the size you calculated (based on “next gen” 20% efficient panels).

Regardless, all of this ignores that installing them on a rooftop reduces the land requirement, particularly if a household is able to produce more than 100% of their requirements, which is a reality in some states, depending on the size of the roof….and some other variables of course. But again, any rooftop contribution is better than using up land, yes?

Also, installing them on a rooftop (particularly a dark roof) drastically changes the albedo equation you were referring to in an earlier reply. Eg, if you have a black roof, the panels actually improve the albedo because smooth surfaces have a higher albedo than rough surfaces. On a white roof, you’re lowering the albedo, but you’re not using up land either.

 

[K4fxd]

Most experts put that figure at double or even triple what you calculated (although some of those figures are from older panels, so there’s that).

I used best case figures, Musk aside.

I also assumed commercial utility power panels, not home owner owned.

Using panels on roof and building sides is a good idea, using land is not.

Still have the eye sore deal. My Son was pres of his home owners association and one home owner installed solar panels on his roof. My son was flooded with complaints. Which he rightfully dismissed.

 

[Burkey]

China’s current coal consumption is excused by the champions because in some decades in the far future China promised to be clean.

Maybe China should just draw three lines on the map of their country, give the four newly established regions different names and governments and the “China” problem would be fixed. Right?
If done properly, each region would reduce its total emissions by 75% whilst still occupying more people than the US.

Problem solved.
Suddenly, the US would be the worst emitter of any nation. Congratulations.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[K4fxd]

Suddenly, the US would be the worst emitter of any nation.

It still is total released. I have a problem with the western world crippiling our lifestyles while China and India get a pass.

If it were a real problem the western world would stop buying CHinese goods till they reduced the total amount released. Per capita means nothing, except for statistics.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Maybe China should just draw three lines on the map of their country, give the four newly established regions different names and governments and the “China” problem would be fixed. Right?
If done properly, each region would reduce its total emissions by 75% whilst still occupying more people than the US.

Problem solved.
Suddenly, the US would be the worst emitter of any nation. Congratulations.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Well let’s be real that’s what everyone thinks

 

[Burkey]

It still is total released.

That’s my point though, isn’t it?
The global TOTAL doesn’t change, nor does the per capita. But, by shifting the borders, we can suddenly make the numbers say whatever we want….which is why you need to use per capita emissions. We can’t fudge the per capita numbers to suit an agenda. Your metric is easily manipulated, as I just demonstrated to you.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you.
There’s 8 billion people on this planet and somehow you think that because of your place of birth, you, individually, should be allowed to contribute twice as much as someone born somewhere else.

Cool. Let’s relocate you to China and see if you feel the same way. Actually, let’s shift every US citizen to China. Now China has a REAL problem with emissions whilst the US suddenly contributes basically nothing.

Again, problem solved. The US now leads the way in emissions reduction but every former citizen is worse off for it and you’ve made absolutely no change to global emissions (unless you start living like the Chinese, in which case, you’ve just reduced global emissions, because you’re now emitting half of what you used to).

It doesn’t matter where you come from, it’s how much YOU contribute as one of the 8 billion residents, that matters.

The atmosphere doesn’t much care where you put the people, or how you draw your lines.

I’m done discussing this point. If you can’t process it, that’s on you.

Sponsored