6 ms·

So, it does nothing to take into account the fact that if every car tomorrow switched to electric, we'd literally have no way to power the cars. The price of e

by tw04 10y ago

So, it does nothing to take into account the fact that if every car tomorrow switched to electric, we'd literally have no way to power the cars. The price of electricity would skyrocket to reflect the complete and utter lack of generation capabilities. It's great to talk about how electricity is cheaper at rates that are unsustainable, but unless we're willing to adopt nuclear, we're a LONG way from having enough energy and enough of it in a clean format to power our energy needs. I know, I know - solar and wind (which will help but not solve the whole issue). That being said, I still have questions about how pulling that much energy and heat from the earth will affect our larger ecosystem. I don't think we REALLY have a grasp on the macro effects of "renewable" energy.

durkie 10y ago
this dovetails nicely with our existing problem of excess heat on the earth :)
mikeash 10y ago
At least we have a pretty clear idea of how to reach a future where all electricity is sustainable. We don't really know how to do that with gasoline. I don't think the effects of removing that energy are significant. The amount of energy we use is utterly negligible compared to what the sun shines upon the Earth. Climate change is a problem because the impact of CO2 is orders of magnitude greater than the energy released in generating it.
- aianus 10y ago
  > At least we have a pretty clear idea of how to reach a future where all electricity is sustainable. We don't really know how to do that with gasoline. Sure we do (ish). Look at Brazil, they pump more renewable bio-ethanol into their flex-fuel cars than they do gasoline.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    They use sugar cane to produce their ethanol, which is far more efficient than corn ethanol in the US (which, might I add, is in no way sustainable). Are you suggesting we attempt to grow sugar cane, in the midwest, in the enormous quantities required to replace millions of barrels a day of petroleum consumption? Electricity will be the clear winner; we're simply awash in sunlight and wind.
    - aianus 10y ago
      I mean, there are some things you can't run on electricity, like commercial jetliners. If we run out of cheap oil, we could use biofuels in those applications. For any application where electricity works I'm sure it will win too.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Does that scale up to supply the fuel needs of the planet without starving a bunch of people to death? Renewable energy and storage does, it's "just" a matter of cost.
jsight 10y ago
A single 250 Watt solar panel can produce about 1 KWh per day in the US (a little more or a little less depending upon the part of the country and the aim). 20 of them would produce about 20 KWh. That ends up being between 60-80 miles of daily electric range for ~30 years. The panels themselves cost about $125 each, with a total panel cost of $2500. Unfortunately, installed costs will likely get you closer to $16,500 for this whole setup. Over the lifetime of the panels, you would expect over 600,000 miles worth of production. The equivalent amount of gasoline (assuming 36.5 mpg and 2.50/gallon) would be 41,000. Feel free to check my match, and Of course, I'm handwaving around some problems (the time value of money for one), but I think it is pretty easy to see that there are viable options for vastly increasing the amount of power production available and to do so largely in lockstep with the increase in demand for power from electric vehicles. I think it is also pretty easy to see how a Tesla salesman might frame a sales pitch for solar panels.
- zwily 10y ago
  The biggest problem with Tesla + solar panels is that most people charge their Tesla at night. So you need to add a battery to that equation to really drive on sunlight.
  - dba7dba 10y ago
    And that is why Tesla came up with Powerwall. Now Musk Inc. can sell not just a Tesla + solar panels, he can sell you Powerwall too.
  - jsight 10y ago
    That was another part of what I was getting at when I said that I was handwaving around some issues. :) In much of the US, net metering is currently available, so it isn't really a problem for the consumer in those places. On average, a US home consumes ~30KWh per day. A single Tesla P100D has a 100KWh battery. It isn't hard to imagine ways to shift the charging profile towards the day for a lot of people.
maxsilver 10y ago
> if every car tomorrow switched to electric, we'd literally have no way to power the cars. The price of electricity would skyrocket to reflect the complete and utter lack of generation capabilities. I think you might be overestimating how much electricity is needed. I own an electric car, and drive about 450 miles per month on electricity. My car charger uses just 12 amps. That's not a trivial amount of power -- but it is less than half of the amps any average appliance uses individually (like an electric dryer or electric stove or central AC). And my electricity bill reflects this, my car charger uses far less electricity (in total KWH) than my home central AC uses during summer months. The electrical grid handles all those other appliances (often simultaneously) in millions of homes today. I'm not sure why an extra 12 amps per adult is some nightmare scenario.
mcv 10y ago
If we could magically switch every car to electric overnight, I think we could also switch our gas infrastructure to electricity production overnight. Neither is physically possible, so it's a silly thing to be worried about. And here's the thing: even if all the extra electricity would be produced by coal plants, electric cars would still be cleaner than gasoline powered cars, because internal combustion engines are just that awfully inefficient. So moving to electric cars is good even if it temporarily increases the need for dirty electricity. Of course we should still continue moving energy production to cleaner sources. And: > I still have questions about how pulling that much energy and heat from the earth will affect our larger ecosystem. I don't think we REALLY have a grasp on the macro effects of "renewable" energy. Solar and wind don't "pull" energy and heat from the earth. They just don't add more to it that wasn't there before. Ultimately, all energy is turned to heat. The problem with fossil fuels is that it adds heat from energy that had been chemically locked away and not part of Earth's heat system for billions of years (same goes for nuclear), and makes the Earth absorb more heat from the sun (not an issue with nuclear). (And to keep things in perspective, the second effect is far bigger than the first.)

by tw04 10y ago

durkie 10y ago

this dovetails nicely with our existing problem of excess heat on the earth :)

mikeash 10y ago

At least we have a pretty clear idea of how to reach a future where all electricity is sustainable. We don't really know how to do that with gasoline. I don't think the effects of removing that energy are significant. The amount of energy we use is utterly negligible compared to what the sun shines upon the Earth. Climate change is a problem because the impact of CO2 is orders of magnitude greater than the energy released in generating it.

aianus 10y ago
> At least we have a pretty clear idea of how to reach a future where all electricity is sustainable. We don't really know how to do that with gasoline. Sure we do (ish). Look at Brazil, they pump more renewable bio-ethanol into their flex-fuel cars than they do gasoline.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  They use sugar cane to produce their ethanol, which is far more efficient than corn ethanol in the US (which, might I add, is in no way sustainable). Are you suggesting we attempt to grow sugar cane, in the midwest, in the enormous quantities required to replace millions of barrels a day of petroleum consumption? Electricity will be the clear winner; we're simply awash in sunlight and wind.
  - aianus 10y ago
    I mean, there are some things you can't run on electricity, like commercial jetliners. If we run out of cheap oil, we could use biofuels in those applications. For any application where electricity works I'm sure it will win too.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Does that scale up to supply the fuel needs of the planet without starving a bunch of people to death? Renewable energy and storage does, it's "just" a matter of cost.

jsight 10y ago

A single 250 Watt solar panel can produce about 1 KWh per day in the US (a little more or a little less depending upon the part of the country and the aim). 20 of them would produce about 20 KWh. That ends up being between 60-80 miles of daily electric range for ~30 years. The panels themselves cost about $125 each, with a total panel cost of $2500. Unfortunately, installed costs will likely get you closer to $16,500 for this whole setup. Over the lifetime of the panels, you would expect over 600,000 miles worth of production. The equivalent amount of gasoline (assuming 36.5 mpg and 2.50/gallon) would be 41,000. Feel free to check my match, and Of course, I'm handwaving around some problems (the time value of money for one), but I think it is pretty easy to see that there are viable options for vastly increasing the amount of power production available and to do so largely in lockstep with the increase in demand for power from electric vehicles. I think it is also pretty easy to see how a Tesla salesman might frame a sales pitch for solar panels.

zwily 10y ago
The biggest problem with Tesla + solar panels is that most people charge their Tesla at night. So you need to add a battery to that equation to really drive on sunlight.
- dba7dba 10y ago
  And that is why Tesla came up with Powerwall. Now Musk Inc. can sell not just a Tesla + solar panels, he can sell you Powerwall too.
- jsight 10y ago
  That was another part of what I was getting at when I said that I was handwaving around some issues. :) In much of the US, net metering is currently available, so it isn't really a problem for the consumer in those places. On average, a US home consumes ~30KWh per day. A single Tesla P100D has a 100KWh battery. It isn't hard to imagine ways to shift the charging profile towards the day for a lot of people.

maxsilver 10y ago

> if every car tomorrow switched to electric, we'd literally have no way to power the cars. The price of electricity would skyrocket to reflect the complete and utter lack of generation capabilities. I think you might be overestimating how much electricity is needed. I own an electric car, and drive about 450 miles per month on electricity. My car charger uses just 12 amps. That's not a trivial amount of power -- but it is less than half of the amps any average appliance uses individually (like an electric dryer or electric stove or central AC). And my electricity bill reflects this, my car charger uses far less electricity (in total KWH) than my home central AC uses during summer months. The electrical grid handles all those other appliances (often simultaneously) in millions of homes today. I'm not sure why an extra 12 amps per adult is some nightmare scenario.

mcv 10y ago

If we could magically switch every car to electric overnight, I think we could also switch our gas infrastructure to electricity production overnight. Neither is physically possible, so it's a silly thing to be worried about. And here's the thing: even if all the extra electricity would be produced by coal plants, electric cars would still be cleaner than gasoline powered cars, because internal combustion engines are just that awfully inefficient. So moving to electric cars is good even if it temporarily increases the need for dirty electricity. Of course we should still continue moving energy production to cleaner sources. And: > I still have questions about how pulling that much energy and heat from the earth will affect our larger ecosystem. I don't think we REALLY have a grasp on the macro effects of "renewable" energy. Solar and wind don't "pull" energy and heat from the earth. They just don't add more to it that wasn't there before. Ultimately, all energy is turned to heat. The problem with fossil fuels is that it adds heat from energy that had been chemically locked away and not part of Earth's heat system for billions of years (same goes for nuclear), and makes the Earth absorb more heat from the sun (not an issue with nuclear). (And to keep things in perspective, the second effect is far bigger than the first.)