I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

So yah, the grid isn't being managed in a way that supports the all EV dream.  There was a Berkeley (yes ultra liberal pro EV Berkeley) that said California's grid capacity needs to increase 20% to meet their EV goals.  I'm sure you'll try and blame this on me though and give me some nonsense about "your sources."  Or perhaps you'll try and explain to me how solar panels are "the grid."

I know that you already know this, but just pointing out for others that this doesn't mean we need to just need to add 20% more. It means that much of existing infrastructure needs to be largely scrapped and replaced. 

And before someone mentions batteries yet again, they are an expensive solution to the problem that large scale renewables bring to the grid. Pretty much any problem can be solved "easily" if you just ignore cost. 

In reply to bobzilla :

We are talking about oil wells, the grid, and Texas. Sorry, I can't discus those three things at the same time without going off on a tangent about that debacle. They deserve all of the criticism and blame for what happened and that still hasn't been corrected and winterized for the next big cold snap. The political party in charge at the time of any major screw-up gets all of the blame. It's also notable that North Dakota is also a bright red state.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I'm merely pointing out you're picking your "side" again to stick barbs into when the reality stupidity is everywhere. But you keep bitter clinging.  I'm sure it's good for your health and stuff 

In reply to bobzilla :

Everyone knows the definition of impartial is only focusing on the one side screwing you, instead of realizing youre getting boned by both sides.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

So yah, the grid isn't being managed in a way that supports the all EV dream.  There was a Berkeley (yes ultra liberal pro EV Berkeley) that said California's grid capacity needs to increase 20% to meet their EV goals.  I'm sure you'll try and blame this on me though and give me some nonsense about "your sources."  Or perhaps you'll try and explain to me how solar panels are "the grid."

I know that you already know this, but just pointing out for others that this doesn't mean we need to just need to add 20% more. It means that much of existing infrastructure needs to be largely scrapped and replaced. 

And before someone mentions batteries yet again, they are an expensive solution to the problem that large scale renewables bring to the grid. Pretty much any problem can be solved "easily" if you just ignore cost. 

Some areas of the country are great for wind while others are great for solar. While a few are great for both. Not all areas are excellent  for  renewables.   However the parts of the country suited for renewables should be fully developed.    Power generated in that area should be used and  not wasted.    That's like leaving gold laying around. 
    
      

Hey, I'm not even on the electric bandwagon, I just want civil discourse without name calling and people posting sources to back up what they claim as fact.

In reply to frenchyd :

This is a dumb analogy. Bending down to pick up gold is "free" as in there is no real opportunity cost. Solar and wind are some of the least power dense energy sources. As in they use large amounts of space, they arent "free." There are competing interests for the capital, resources and land they use.

Also there are plenty of other issues that we've discussed ad nauseam in this thread, the smallest of which is energy density

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to bobzilla :

We are talking about oil wells, the grid, and Texas. Sorry, I can't discus those three things at the same time without going off on a tangent about that debacle. They deserve all of the criticism and blame for what happened and that still hasn't been corrected and winterized for the next big cold snap. The political party in charge at the time of any major screw-up gets all of the blame. It's also notable that North Dakota is also a bright red state.

This is where I disagree.  It took two parties to destroy the grid.  On issues that are not important they divide us into groups and conquer minds.  On important things they screw everyone over behind our backs in the middle of the night and use words incorrectly on purpose.  Then the next day they blame the other party to pander to their core.   No one party destroyed the grid.  They did it together over a really long time.  They keep promising to fix fake problems while ignoring real ones.  

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

So yah, the grid isn't being managed in a way that supports the all EV dream.  There was a Berkeley (yes ultra liberal pro EV Berkeley) that said California's grid capacity needs to increase 20% to meet their EV goals.  I'm sure you'll try and blame this on me though and give me some nonsense about "your sources."  Or perhaps you'll try and explain to me how solar panels are "the grid."

I know that you already know this, but just pointing out for others that this doesn't mean we need to just need to add 20% more. It means that much of existing infrastructure needs to be largely scrapped and replaced. 

And before someone mentions batteries yet again, they are an expensive solution to the problem that large scale renewables bring to the grid. Pretty much any problem can be solved "easily" if you just ignore cost. 

Currently we are ignoring costs.   The medical effects  of living down wind of a coal fired power plant are well understood  and documented.    In fact it's also well documented about the effects of refineries.    
  I understand that is the side effects of  modern civilization.   But if there is a less damaging alternative shouldn't we use that?  If dealing with cost issues what are the costs of a human life?  Not only direct medical costs but also loss of income  and taxes collected? 
   

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

This is a dumb analogy. Bending down to pick up gold is "free" as in there is no real opportunity cost. Solar and wind are some of the least power dense energy sources. As in they use large amounts of space, they arent "free." There are competing interests for the capital, resources and land they use.

Also there are plenty of other issues that we've discussed ad nauseam in this thread, the smallest of which is energy density

OK.  So it's a poor analogy. 
   As far as free.  Compared to the costs of coal/oil or natural gas they are "free".  Actually comparing the costs of  a wind generator or a bunch of wind generators Solar panels is cheap compared to the cost of equipment to mine coal  drill for oil and then convert  into something we can use n our cars. 
 Or the equipment it takes to capture natural gas and pump it to where it can be used. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

I'll tell you this once. It's not that people don't believe you, or are afraid of facts and truth, as you say.

It's your tone.

It comes of as condescending and elitist. No one likes being talked down to. Shouting "Look at me, I'm the smartest guy in the room" turns people off.

I'll use Keith as an example (sorry, Keith) of being an expert and having a pleasant tone. Someone asks why their slammed Miata bounces all over the road. Keith might reply that there is little suspension travel left, and the bouncing is from bottoming out on the bump-stops. Try raising up the springs. You'll get a better ride and be faster to boot.

A reply, and an answer, direct, without talking down, and even a bit of positive encouragement.

I have never seen you do something like that, especially once a debate of sorts has started.

I hope this helps.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to bobzilla :

We are talking about oil wells, the grid, and Texas. Sorry, I can't discus those three things at the same time without going off on a tangent about that debacle. They deserve all of the criticism and blame for what happened and that still hasn't been corrected and winterized for the next big cold snap. The political party in charge at the time of any major screw-up gets all of the blame. It's also notable that North Dakota is also a bright red state.

This is where I disagree.  It took two parties to destroy the grid.  On issues that are not important they divide us into groups and conquer minds.  On important things they screw everyone over behind our backs in the middle of the night and use words incorrectly on purpose.  Then the next day they blame the other party to pander to their core.   No one party destroyed the grid.  They did it together over a really long time.  They keep promising to fix fake problems while ignoring real ones.  

How does fleeing the state for Cancun during the storm fit the "Both parties" narrative?

GIRTHQUAKE said:

 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to bobzilla :

We are talking about oil wells, the grid, and Texas. Sorry, I can't discus those three things at the same time without going off on a tangent about that debacle. They deserve all of the criticism and blame for what happened and that still hasn't been corrected and winterized for the next big cold snap. The political party in charge at the time of any major screw-up gets all of the blame. It's also notable that North Dakota is also a bright red state.

This is where I disagree.  It took two parties to destroy the grid.  On issues that are not important they divide us into groups and conquer minds.  On important things they screw everyone over behind our backs in the middle of the night and use words incorrectly on purpose.  Then the next day they blame the other party to pander to their core.   No one party destroyed the grid.  They did it together over a really long time.  They keep promising to fix fake problems while ignoring real ones.  

How does fleeing the state for Cancun during the storm fit the "Both parties" narrative?

Whoever gave this a thumbs up needs to reevaluate their entire view of politics.  I'm not going to read the article because I lived in TX a long time and was there for this storm.  This baiting dishonest post is about Ted Cruz one E36 M3 Senator who pretends to be tough but never does anything to help anyone but his self.  You thought I liked that guy?  Are you that much of a one party loyalist?  That's sad.  

It took decades to get the grid to the point it is in today.  In that very long time both parties have had their turn at the helm.  They've divided everyone on side issues while allowing infrastructure to crumble.  They've raised taxes and added all sorts of fees to fix the infrastructure which they never do.  And you are just enough of a one party loyalist to try and pin it on one guy.  
 

Stampie once said no Congress person cares about me.  Nearly all of you applauded that.  That's where you are all wrong.  We live in a representative Republic where each official is supposed to represent a group of people and be a steward over resources for their general welfare.  I'd say we have peak level dysfunction if no one cares about their constituents.  But my time is off?  Or is maybe the audience time deaf?  We live in a society that doesn't appreciate basic civics.  
 

Let's upvote more uniparty garbage.  I'm sure that will fix my tone so that it'll be more palpable.....  

The utter dishonesty of blaming a decades long problem on one stupid dudes untimely, uncaring vacation plans and thinking it proves me wrong in any way is peak red herring.

Oh and no one hear is afraid?  Yes you are.  You are peak afraid.  The govt is literally suing the entire country to hide three laptops from the public for 60+ years.  And the entire lot of you won't even discuss it.  There are at least a dozen easily identifiable topics your obvious political biases won't let you breach.  But when you censor me for talking about much easier things, you are being brave?  My tone though.  I don't like my tone either!  But it's hard to pretend people are really willing to have "open and honest" discussion given what I see here daily.  My time is a reflection of that fact.  
 

I don't know everything or think I do.  One of my core beliefs is everyone knows something I don't.  We can't discuss that though when people can't admit 10+ > 1/3 and think the TX power grid is Ted Cs fault.  If people can be honest and try to find the facts, my tone will change.  
 

I'm not going to accept the wind and sun provide "free power" stuff though.  That's the kind of thing both parties tell you to steal trillions from all of us. 
 

This level of dishonesty really leaves me little hope for the future.  I worry about my kids and everyone else's having to live in a world run by verifiable liars, thieves and low IQ people.  It can be stopped.  The first step is put aside fear, lies, and figure out WTF is going on.  That can't happen with this partisan it's all Ted Cs fault BS.  I can't stand that do nothing sternly tweeting clown either.  

You keep saying that you can't make steel without coal.

You know there are processes to make steel without coal, right? And these are gaining momentum? 

You also talk about the crazy 'zero carbon' goal, and conveniently forget the word 'net.'

Further , you accuse people of using trite arguments to misdirect and avoid debate, only shortly after claiming you'll pay no attention to someone using the word "debunked" because "it isn't a word". Not only are you disingenuous, you're incorrect.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I understand your point.  I also disagree a bit (shocker).  I agree there is too much hyperpoliticized rhetoric.  Where I differ is I think the average poster here cannot have an open or honest discussion and try to find common ground.  One side can pretty much say whatever they want and insult anyone without consequence.  As a matter of fact they often get praised for it for going along with their side.  Any different views get censored and downvoted.  And a whole slew of silly tactics get employed to try and shut anyone up that disagrees or shame them into silence.  As you can see, those tactics don't work in my case. I know you think it's "calling people out."  That's just a euphemism for bad behavior in this case.  Everything I have ever been accused of by anyone here is done worse by others and cheered on because it supports the popular opinion.  Being popular has nothing to do with truth.  

 

So yes, I am unyielding.  I know that can be a weakness, but it can also be a strength.  I don't see other posters acknowledging they have weaknesses and strengths, do you?

And for anyone that thinks I'm in "the wrong" here still.  Let me point out the last 5+ pages are a result that I disagreed with Frenchy that it takes 3 to 8 years to make productive oil and gas wells.  Every single poster here now knows that is in fact false.  Yet only one person is on record saying it's false:  this guy.  So keep coming at me if you like.  If you really want me to stop there are two ways.  Agree and admit it when I'm right or prove I'm wrong.  It's easy.  When I'm wrong I'm glad to learn from it and move on.  Sadly, most people can't do it.  The pathetic part is this is a simple topic.  It's not nearly as difficult as the one of many topics that cannot be discussed here.  
 

Oh and Happy Father's Day to the fathers out there.

 

So 5+ pages because zero people on this site can admit 10-12 is much greater than 0.125 (1/8) to 0.33 (1/3).  Yes 10-12 per year doesn't matter compared to 1 every 3 to 8 years by that logic. The only thing that matters is popularity and posting in an approved manner and tone.  Call me crazy but if that is what is needed to be considered cool and hip here, I  just can't do it.  I can't set aside simple verifiable facts in order to just get along.  My mind doesn't work that way, and I'm not willing to spend the time to reprogram it to do that.  You may see this as a character flaw.  I see it as a sign society is completely dysfunctional or well on that path.  
 

I'm not correct all the time.  I'm not the nicest person on GRM.  That's probably Stampie.  None of that changed my stance on how long it takes to drill and complete wells.  I spent 11 years analyzing borehole data from all over the world.  I'm not falling for "my trusted sources" on this issue.

Im guessing you're not a project manager. As has been pointed out multiple time, you're not accounting for any incubation period. The rate of wells per year is not an indicator of how long it takes to develop a well from discovery to full production.

60! 60! 60!

Let's go 60!!!

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

This is a dumb analogy. Bending down to pick up gold is "free" as in there is no real opportunity cost. Solar and wind are some of the least power dense energy sources. As in they use large amounts of space, they arent "free." There are competing interests for the capital, resources and land they use.

Also there are plenty of other issues that we've discussed ad nauseam in this thread, the smallest of which is energy density

OK.  So it's a poor analogy. 
   As far as free.  Compared to the costs of coal/oil or natural gas they are "free".  Actually comparing the costs of  a wind generator or a bunch of wind generators Solar panels is cheap compared to the cost of equipment to mine coal  drill for oil and then convert  into something we can use n our cars. 
 Or the equipment it takes to capture natural gas and pump it to where it can be used. 

It's all relative and all technology depends now the tech discovered before it.  You don't have any of it without steel.  And without coal, you can't have steel.  Any energy source has a "total cost."  This is actually called activity based accounting.  A lot of accounting actually employed isn't activity based and is incomplete.  So the carbon free, wind and solar are free argument is just buzz words for the uneducated.  It's up to us to educate everyone.  Then we need to make the best choices for all of us.  Part of that requires good information.  
 

And the argument for use of land is a pertinent one.  Isn't that the goal of environmentalism to be a good steward of the land?  Wind and solar power in their current firms use far more land than other sources to generate the same power output.  Do you care about that?  I drive through almost all forest to get to a power plant a few days a week.  That entire drive would have to be clear cut to accommodate wind power of similar output.  Does that sound like a great idea?  What about all the O2 producing trees that reprocess CO2 and all that wildlife?  The farms that grow food?  Care about those?  
 

Power density and grid stability are also environmental issues not just carbon emissions.  If you are really worried about C02 clearing land for solar and wind farms is counterproductive.  

You make a credible argument  about land usage.  In fact you are at least partly right.  In dense Forests it would not make sense to put up wind Generators.   Mainly because trees dramatically slow wind.   But in the Midwest plains there are a lot of wind generators because that is some of the windiest parts of the planet.  And it's relatively near people.  
     Plus please drive through some of the wind farms.  Many are in bare land of no commercial of scenic  value.   Even those in corn fields actually have corn growing right up to them and while it adds a measure  of difficulty  too harvest.  90% of the land is still corn!  
      There is plenty of places wind generators can be placed.  Down the center divide of freeways.  In parking lots.  Etc.  
      Then solar?  Nearly every roof top can be an excellent solar collector. Homes offices, manufacturing plants  college campuses.  Etc. 
      While I see occasional commercial sights in cleared fields.   Most of the time those cleared fields  were simply disused land of no real value. Selected because of low cost. 
          The great thing is our weather records will tell us exactly what the payback is regarding wind and solar. 
  Southern Minnesota is excellent  for both wind and solar but as you move north the payback becomes longer and longer.  The records go back  well over 100 years  and are as accurate as possible.  
       Finally we are learning a lot about  efficiency.   Current solar panels cost a lot less than even panels made last year! Plus earlier panels converted at most 18% of sunlite to electricity. The current standard is 22% and there are laboratory models generating over 50%.  
With regard wind?  The current wind speed to generate electricity  is as low as 4 mph compared to 8-10 mph for older designs.  

    

Nathan JansenvanDoorn said:

You keep saying that you can't make steel without coal.

You know there are processes to make steel without coal, right? And these are gaining momentum? 

You also talk about the crazy 'zero carbon' goal, and conveniently forget the word 'net.'

Further , you accuse people of using trite arguments to misdirect and avoid debate, only shortly after claiming you'll pay no attention to someone using the word "debunked" because "it isn't a word". Not only are you disingenuous, you're incorrect.

Well said.  Further you dismiss renewables as being  too costly while ignoring all the costs associated with coal, oil, and natural gas.  Not only acquiring those fuels. But also building the power plants to convert them into electricity. 
  What's worse totally ignoring the medical costs of those living in the wind shadow of those plants.  Finally I'll use London Fog  as a classic example of societal costs involved. 
 Most of that "Fog" wasn't caused by weather but by the common use of coal to heat  homes and businesses with Coal. 
     The British had a much higher rejection rate  for young men suitable for service during WW2  Then America.  At least in part due to inhailing coal dust. 

GIRTHQUAKE said:

 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to bobzilla :

We are talking about oil wells, the grid, and Texas. Sorry, I can't discus those three things at the same time without going off on a tangent about that debacle. They deserve all of the criticism and blame for what happened and that still hasn't been corrected and winterized for the next big cold snap. The political party in charge at the time of any major screw-up gets all of the blame. It's also notable that North Dakota is also a bright red state.

This is where I disagree.  It took two parties to destroy the grid.  On issues that are not important they divide us into groups and conquer minds.  On important things they screw everyone over behind our backs in the middle of the night and use words incorrectly on purpose.  Then the next day they blame the other party to pander to their core.   No one party destroyed the grid.  They did it together over a really long time.  They keep promising to fix fake problems while ignoring real ones.  

How does fleeing the state for Cancun during the storm fit the "Both parties" narrative?

If youd like we can go back and forth with dumb things each party has done. Ill take either side, makes no difference to me, but its not conducive or even relevant to this debate.

Do you understand that petitioning the federal government for funding and aide (which he did, even your article says that) is pretty much his only job in that scenario? Do you understand what a US Senators job actually is? Is leaving the state in the middle of a crisis politically dumb? Absolutely. Trying to blame the grid on him or making out him leaving to be a huge scandal is ridiculous.

There are plenty of valid reasons to be mad at him, this one is pretty low on that list. Quit making me defend people I dont like.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Solar is a power source.  It is not the grid!  The grid is the distribution network for the power sources.  A coal plant, gas plant, and nuclear plant are also not the grid.  Each supplies energy to the grid.  The grid is a network of wires and substations to distribute that power to all the users.  
 

And no major money is not being spent on the grid.  Just track blackouts over time in the US.  The grid is in near 100% reactive maintenance just going to failure after failure.  A proactive strategy of upgrades, maintenance and repair is not happening.  I know this too because I interact with major utilities in my new job.  
 

One company I interviewed with reverse engineers and repairs failed grid and distribution equipment.  They have to do this because a lot of the electrical infrastructure (the grid) is old and the companies that built it do not exist anymore.  
 

So yah, the grid isn't being managed in a way that supports the all EV dream.  There was a Berkeley (yes ultra liberal pro EV Berkeley) that said California's grid capacity needs to increase 20% to meet their EV goals.  I'm sure you'll try and blame this on me though and give me some nonsense about "your sources."  Or perhaps you'll try and explain to me how solar panels are "the grid."

Please clarify something for me.   You carefully explained the differences between the grid and power plans ( which we completely agree on )  did I misuse the two someplace?  
     I agree the grid may need work. Regardless of the power source.    
I believe the prime difference between you and I, is you believe  in big business consuming  coal/oil/natural gas  should be providing electricity  for everyone.  
 While I feel that as much as possible people should be responsible and create their own energy wherever it is viable.  Using the grid as backup .  
  Rooftops make for perfect solar generation ( which including  business)  who can put wind generators in their parking lots  

I will grant that some locations lack sufficient sunlite,  and even wind to make it viable.   There other solutions need to be considered   
Potential neglect is the fear that basically killed Nuclear power.  Which is a pity.   I believe though that a significant portion of those who advocate for Green recognize   The value of Nuclear. That if properly maintained it can provide a green solution to locations where renewables are not well suited.  
   
That is me trying to compromise because I understand the complexity of the power Grid.   I fully recognize that much of the green  revolution is a work in progress.  
       
     

Solar is improving dramatically as it's price has dropped to an astonishing degree.  If you looked at Solar 2-3 years ago it's time to relook it it again. Prices have dropped by as much as 50% per panel. While increased output by real numbers. 
   I've only looked at 5 different brands of panels so far  and in the past 18% conversion of sunlight to electricity was about as good as it gets.  Now , it's 22% so far.  While lab tests  are now  as high as 50%. 
     N addition all of the panels I've liked at so far have a 30 year performance guarantee.   The worst dropped down to 82% of the original while the best was 88% 

 with the price drop and output.  Plus a 30 year guarantee  I believe  we are at the pint where panels are a lifetime item.  Especially when you consider the reduced energy requirement of your last years alive .