Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Bad Choice of Location (Score 1) 220

They're also very old and only interested in profit today. They have no interest in anything that requires real investment. Every serious energy projection shows renewables including wind and solar beating out coal and grid storage coming online. But the fact is, these old farts won't be around for another decade and could care less.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

It's all relative, right. My Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel can do nearly 700 miles on a tank. Should someone with a Civic have range anxiety because they can only do 350 miles? No, because even on longer trips, most of us stop every 2-3 hours even if we don't need fuel because we're not masochists.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

Honda Civic starts at $18k. I bought a 2001 new for $14k, so you must be older than me to think they go for $12k ;-) Average price for a new car is $32k, so that's the mainstream target.

For those that can, charging at home is soooooooo much better than stopping and filling at the gas station. That's my experience. For apartments and condos, even a few cheap 110V outlets is a good start and would be sufficient for day to day charging.

There is a huge opportunity being overlooked here though. How many businesses would jump at the chance to have a customer for 30-60 minutes. I've already seen shopping centers with Level 2 chargers. I think as more EVs hit the road we'll see a charging infrastructure in restaurants, grocery stores, movie theatres, malls, and so on. Chargers pretty much everywhere.

Comment Re:I'm just here (Score 1) 303

"The climate change proponents ask for a lot."

All I (and I suspect most rational people) want is for deniers to quit acting like it's all a hoax or that there's this huge uncertainty. You don't need to lift a finger since science and engineering is obviously not your field ("The science" is actually a mass of utterly impenetrable papers - tens of thousands of them, all refering to each other, and usually without complete data sets. Almost no one can read and understand them all.").

It's not like we're trying to control the climate (a statement I frequently hear from deniers). We're already manipulating the climate because we're changing the atmospheric composition with emissions. The goal is to STOP changing the atmosphere and therefore STOP affecting the climate.

"the only thing they are interested in is reducing the rest of humanity to a standard of living last seen before electricity became a thing"

Bull shit. I heard Rush Limbaugh say the same thing today. Just as we used to burn wood, and moved on after we saw the forests were becoming depleted, it's time to move on again. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Comment Re:Fool and his money are soon parted (Score 1) 303

Can you post a link to this study please? I'm assuming the wind solar numbers don't include storage. It would be interesting to run these with storage at projected values (say $150 and $100 per kWh) . Time is certainly a factor as is resiliency. For instance, 20 distributed battery backed solar installs would be more resilient than a single nuclear plant.

Comment Re:Fool and his money are soon parted (Score 4, Informative) 303

I checked out the second article and followed the sources. The root source was http://ufosightingshotspot.blo.... What a crock.

And from the first article you linked to: "one scientist's controversial theory" That says it all. If it had merit, other scientists would follow up.

The people who SHOULD be embarassed are the ones yelling "hoax" and screaming "government grants" and "government conspiracy", while ignoring the largest and biggest financial interests, oil and gas. Unfortunately, in a country where Donald Trump can be a presidential contender, who knows. When the denial finally ends, they'll probably just blame Obama like they do for everything else.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 238

While I mostly agree with you and would prefer a subsidy free solution, you left out an important economic factor. External costs. Hard to measure and define, but very real and econ 101 stuff. Burning stuff pumped out of the ground and into the air has a cost associated with it that the beneficiaries do not pay. One argument FOR tax breaks for stuff is to level the playing field in this respect. The other option to factor in externalities is to tax them as in a tax on pollution.

So just playing devil's advocate. An EV buyer gets a $7500 tax credit. That's $7500 of what they owe the IRS that they don't have to pay. 150,000 miles @ 20 mpg average for a Tesla sized sedan is 7500 gallons of gasoline. That's 7500 gallons not drilled, pumped, transported, refined, transported, pumped, and burned. With some portion of the oil possibly imported from national enemies. That's 22,500 lbs. of CO2 possibly not put into the atmosphere. That's $18,750 not paid for gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Now where that energy DOES come from will determine how advantageous it is. Though in nearly any case, electricity generation wins out over oil and it is 100% domestic. From an energy perspective It is certainly beneficial environmentally, nationally, and financially. How beneficial? Someone put a number of $7500 on it.

Comment Re:title seems to be misleading, at best. (Score 1) 263

"Wind and especially solar can never guarantee that."

Careful with that word never. Grid storage makes for a better design than produce on demand. It is not certain how/when grid storage will become economically viable, but it is inevitable. The way we run the grid today is insane, trying to match production to demand. It's only designed that way out of necessity.

Comment Re:For those who still want diesel (Score 1) 179

I agree, this will be one of the more difficult hurdles to overcome. The most obvious solution is to have outlets (even 110) close to the parking spaces, but I don't know how one would provide the incentive to get it done. For early adopters (we're certainly in that stage), kindly try to work out a solution with your landlord. It could become a valuable amenity. Offer to pay some or all of the installation cost. On a recent trip, at the place I was staying I stayed topped up using 110V at 12 amps driving 30-50 miles each day. If you're home 10 hours per day, that's about 13kWh or 16kWh at 15 amps, enough for 40-50 miles.

I think it's obvious for stores to offer charging. Some already do. Charge up while you grocery shop, have dinner, wash clothes, or watch a movie. Interesting times.

Comment Re:EVs aren't that much better (Score 1) 630

"An ICE engine can hit about 30% efficiency." Yes, but they don't operate near this most of the time. This only happens at a particular engine speed (RPM) and load. This might happen on the highway if the motor is at its optimum speed. You're giving ICE way too much credit on efficiency. There are no measured numbers available that I'm aware, but if you factor in most people's driving habits, which include start-up, warm-up inefficiencies, stop-and-go which runs RPMs out of optimum bands and brakes which throw energy away, I would guess 15% is much more likely and even 10% or less for many drivers. By contrast, power plants run at optimum points all of the time.

You also forgot EV regen, which gives them a significant boost in stop-and-go driving over ICE.

ICE: 15% * 92.5% = 13.8%
EV: 36.3%
H2: 30% * 80% * 50% * 85% = 10% (see below)

You also left out something very important. Gasoline/Diesel REFINING!!! Estimates by EPA put the energy cost at roughly 6 Kwh per gallon of gasoline. Also add in transport and pumping. Try factoring that into the ICE equation. I'm guessing it puts it way below 10%.

Your H2 calculation has a serious problems too. Electrolysis starts with electricity, so it gets the 50% hit plus 98% transmission hit before electrolysis even starts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you factor that into your 30% number. But you left out transport, and compression (10,000 psi) and pumping 85%. Then the fuel cell charges a battery because it can't produce sufficient power on demand. So you have to apply the 80% charging hit you applied to the EV.

"EVs and hydrogen in inextricably linked in this way"

Hell no, they're not! Hydrogen comes from natural gas now, which will always be cheaper than electrolysis. The hydrogen economy is a natural gas economy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.

Working...