5 ms·

Batteries are, thankfully, a longer time horizon problem. In my opinion the real question is about power generation. Unless we get serious about fast-tracking

Batteries are, thankfully, a longer time horizon problem. In my opinion the real question is about power generation. Unless we get serious about fast-tracking next-generation nuclear, I don't think we can support a massive deployment of electric vehicles. Or, put a different way, the electricity will have to be generated by burning even more coal than the baseline. Wind and hydro are not an option, as there's a strong limit function on expanding capacity. While solar sounds great it has its own set of issues, including a narrow generation region (both geographical and time-of-day) that would require a massive deployment of batteries to even out. This, in turn, would also require a hard look at the environmental effects caused by the manufacturing of these technologies at scale. And then there's the question of energy conversion efficiency. Let's start from the principle that all conversion of energy happens at < 100% efficiency. A switching power supply of automotive class is likely in the 85% efficient, maybe less. Power generation itself is less than 100% efficient. And, finally, charging isn't 100% efficient. Efficiency math for a chain of devices is simple, just multiply the efficiencies of each device in the chain to obtain the system efficiency. If power generation efficiency is 80%; charger station another 80% and battery charging (the battery stores less than 100% of the energy that goes into it) 80%, the total system efficiency is 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.5 or 50%. Yikes! In other words, HALF the energy used to charge an electric vehicle is wasted, likely as heat. That's assuming it is a three step process. The truth is there are additional links in the chain. For example, the transmission of electricity though power lines and transformers isn't 100% efficient. In California we are at about 90% [0]. This would bring my prior estimate down to about 45%. I would not be surprised if a full accounting of losses, from generation to energy stored in a battery, is in the 30% range. From that to energy-in-battery to energy delivered to the wheels is a different matter. Maybe 90%? I haven't seen a study analyzing the realities of mass electric vehicle deployment from an energy efficiency perspective. Does such a study exist? EDIT: The real question needs to look at deployment at scale. We have about 300 million vehicles in the US. Assuming all of them are replaced with electrics and accounting for generation-to-wheel losses, how much new energy generation would we require? Other than burning coal and natural gas, how do we get there? I suspect electrics are not even close to being as "green" as people think they are. They sure feel good because, locally, in front of your own eyes, they feel clean. However, the real evaluation has to take into account the entire system. [0] http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...

hannob 5y ago
The big advantage of solar compared to next-generation nuclear is that it actually exists.
- robomartin 5y ago
  We have known how to build better, safer nuclear for quite some time. That’s what “next generation” means to me.
  - rswail 5y ago
    We have numerous designs that claim to be better and safer. They haven't been built. You can blame "NIMBY", but the nuclear industry hasn't exactly done what it can to fix its current reputation for continually costing multiples of initial estimates, taking multiple times longer to build, and failing multiple safety and other regulatory requirements. We have a really good, efficient, nuclear fusion supply, guaranteed to work for at least the forseeable billions of years, safely located 8 light-minutes away from the ecosystem that we're trying to protect. We also have a thermal side effect from that fusion supply, combined with the rotational energy of our planet, that provides atmospheric fluid energy transfer capabilities that can also be used to generate power.
    - robomartin 5y ago
      That sounds great, yet the realities of solar are very different from the dream of solar. I say this as someone who purchased and installed his own 20 kW array on a custom- built structure (not on the roof). To put it in simple terms, the system will likely never be profitable. The overall cost and ten to fifteen year lifetime of the components is such that I can’t see or predict when it will break even. My assumption is that all the panels will need replacement in 15 to 20 years, possibly less for the electronics. Note that this does not include a battery system. This, given the short and long terms economics of the system would be a ridiculous purchase today. And this is at a reasonably favorable latitude. Start going north and solar becomes far less attractive. I genuinely wish we had not gone solar. This was likely the single dumbest and worst investment of my life. Anyone thinking otherwise likely doesn’t have solar or never truly analyzed the real economics of their systems. I also have lots of neighbors with solar, most of which were installed by companies. In nearly every case they are worse off than they were before. The only ones who are not are those who did not pay for their systems directly. Theory vs. reality are very different things. I am not even going to analyze the cost of such installations when government agencies are the builders. I’ll just guess the number us somewhere between 5x and 10x “civilian” costs. I say this as someone with experience selling technology to government agencies. Simple example: The California high speed train. We were told it would cost ten billion. We are at a hundred billion and I don’t think we have completed ten miles of slow speed train yet.

hannob 5y ago

The big advantage of solar compared to next-generation nuclear is that it actually exists.

robomartin 5y ago
We have known how to build better, safer nuclear for quite some time. That’s what “next generation” means to me.
- rswail 5y ago
  We have numerous designs that claim to be better and safer. They haven't been built. You can blame "NIMBY", but the nuclear industry hasn't exactly done what it can to fix its current reputation for continually costing multiples of initial estimates, taking multiple times longer to build, and failing multiple safety and other regulatory requirements. We have a really good, efficient, nuclear fusion supply, guaranteed to work for at least the forseeable billions of years, safely located 8 light-minutes away from the ecosystem that we're trying to protect. We also have a thermal side effect from that fusion supply, combined with the rotational energy of our planet, that provides atmospheric fluid energy transfer capabilities that can also be used to generate power.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    That sounds great, yet the realities of solar are very different from the dream of solar. I say this as someone who purchased and installed his own 20 kW array on a custom- built structure (not on the roof). To put it in simple terms, the system will likely never be profitable. The overall cost and ten to fifteen year lifetime of the components is such that I can’t see or predict when it will break even. My assumption is that all the panels will need replacement in 15 to 20 years, possibly less for the electronics. Note that this does not include a battery system. This, given the short and long terms economics of the system would be a ridiculous purchase today. And this is at a reasonably favorable latitude. Start going north and solar becomes far less attractive. I genuinely wish we had not gone solar. This was likely the single dumbest and worst investment of my life. Anyone thinking otherwise likely doesn’t have solar or never truly analyzed the real economics of their systems. I also have lots of neighbors with solar, most of which were installed by companies. In nearly every case they are worse off than they were before. The only ones who are not are those who did not pay for their systems directly. Theory vs. reality are very different things. I am not even going to analyze the cost of such installations when government agencies are the builders. I’ll just guess the number us somewhere between 5x and 10x “civilian” costs. I say this as someone with experience selling technology to government agencies. Simple example: The California high speed train. We were told it would cost ten billion. We are at a hundred billion and I don’t think we have completed ten miles of slow speed train yet.