3 ms·

The US will need to at least double power generation and transport capacity to support 300 million EVs. Today our capacity is approximately 1200 gigawatts. We

The US will need to at least double power generation and transport capacity to support 300 million EVs. Today our capacity is approximately 1200 gigawatts. We need to double that, or more. And then we have to upgrade the entire power transmission infrastructure to support the change. No, solar alone cannot do it. At best, solar can deliver about 40% reliability. Wind alone isn’t much better. The combination of solar and wind (equal parts) can deliver 70% to 80% reliability. A more optimal mix, in most of the world, is 25% solar with 75% wind, overbuild by a factor of 2 and with 3 to 12 hours of storage. This gets you to over 90% reliability in most of the world. Places like Canada and Rusia need more wind and less solar to achieve this performance. The problem is equipment service life. The replacement cycle, given today’s technology, is approximately three decades. Recycling options are far from practical or mature. This means that mass conversion to th technologies we have today will result on a massive replacement/reconstruction event every 30 years. Nobody can even begin to imagine the ecological consequences of such a scenario. In short: We need better technology.

thebruce87m 3y ago
> The US will need to at least double power generation and transport capacity to support 300 million EVs https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele... > In the US, the grid is equally capable of handling more EVs on the roads – by the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity consumption.
- robomartin 3y ago
  Yeah, well, take the time to write a realistic simulation of 300 million EVs, from motorcycles to big rigs, driven and charged differently, across 1000 cities armed with population and other demographic data…and you quickly conclude some of these articles are delusional. It is also true that some nations will do a better job than others. And some have better circumstances and starting points. In the US? We have become so dysfunctional we would probably crumble if we added a few million EVs in most states. I was just in Zürich at a conference and had interesting conversations with experts and leaders in the energy sector; from hydro to geothermal and more. It is clear that some are taking the transition seriously, while others are not. The key differentiator is pushing ideology rather than reality. Only one of those stances gets us to the clean renewable energy future we all want.
  - robomartin 3y ago
    Here’s a dose of reality: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article285017617.html https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/othe... We can be ideological, and ignore this, or realistic and face the challenges head-on. The only way we achieve a clean energy future is by being brutally honest, because that’s the only way we solve real problems.
    - thebruce87m 3y ago
      I’m not sure that picking an opinion piece from a conservative publication in probably the worst state for managing energy is “reality”. Notice they are calling for more coal? Funny that. I’m not even sure that picking Texas is reasonable given the isolation of its grid which is where some of these problems stem from.
      - robomartin 3y ago
        > an opinion piece from a conservative publication With apologies and respect, that is a bigoted perspective. Humanity does advance if this is how we view each other. It is possible to have a conservative perspective and be right or wrong. It is also possible to have the opposite perspective and also be right or wrong. If you had bothered to read the article, you'd see they provide data and references. You can go and verify the claims, which boil down to wind and solar pretty much collapsing when needed due to conditions. Yet, you stopped at "Texas" and "Conservative" and that's all you needed to know about what they had to say. The source does not matter. Only the veracity or falsehood of what is being proposed does. If you stop at the source --however you choose to classify it-- you fail to use your intelligence to gain understanding. Are we to disbelieve academic publications because most academics lean to the left? How about this: Let's not believe anything a gay person says...just because they are gay. Or a black person...just because they are black. Or a white person...just because they are white. Or a child yelling "fire"...just because they are a child. How does progress happen if we behave this way? How does a gay person convince anyone of the merits of their claims if they are discounted just because they are gay? Read the article. Study the matter to a sufficient depth of understanding. Then, and only then, form an opinion or pass judgement based on understanding, not bigotry. Most people speaking on these matters do so out of abject ignorance. Few bother to take deep-enough dives into any of it. Just emotion and ideological alignment. Everyone wants to live in a clean world, with clean energy and a bright future for their kids and generations to come. That's a universal truth. I have yet to find anyone who, when asked, says they prefer filth and unbreathable air. There's another reality that escapes most, likely because few like to think beyond the headline or deeper than the superficial: Where we are today was an inevitable result of humanities reality. Up until not too many decades ago, the ONLY way for us to survive was to burn stuff for energy; to cook, move, build, heal, survive. The clean energy future we all want had to wait for such things as the invention of the transistor and its evolution into sophisticated electronics, computers, etc. Now, armed with better technology, better science, greater understanding and the ability to manufacture things we could not have even imagined just a few decades ago can we begin an energy transition that will benefit us all. The technologies we need are still in flux and in much need of improvement. The key take-away from this understanding is that vilifying half the universe as we transition to a better paradigm only serves to slow down that transition. We still have no choice but to burn stuff to make energy. That is a fact. If we hurry to transition given today's technologies all we are going to accomplish is to create a horrific ecological disaster in just a few decades. Lessons should be learned about what has happened in Germany with the demented "green" activists causing the shutdown of nuclear power plants, which led to actually having to burn massive amounts of fuel for energy...exactly the opposite of green. These people are crazy. The good news is that they are now seeing much-needed push-back in countries like Holland and Germany. The transition will likely take well into next century. And that's just fine. The world isn't going to end any time soon.
specialist 3y ago
Yes and: > The replacement cycle, given today’s technology, is approximately three decades. Every ICE vehical sold today can be expected to be in use for decades to come. And there's something like 1.2 billion passenger cars worldwide. I forget the details of the analysis, but the gist is with our current policies, worldwide personal transportation is unlikely to hit our 2050 net-zero targets. IIRC, I gleened this observation from Horace Dediu's Asymco podcast. (Or Micromobility?) Dediu has been promoting micromobility (scooters, e-bikes, cargo bikes, etc) for quite a while now (decade?), to address this challenge. Of course, Dediu and others also advocate public transportation, densification, etc. to further reduce miles traveled.
EricE 3y ago
Or we just need to remove the roadblocks to nuclear, stop deploying brain dead reactor designs and move on. The problem is the current "green" push is more about religious belief or the current "in crowd" making money that solving real problems, so don't expect arguments based on logic or reason to be welcomed.
- robomartin 3y ago
  While I do believe nuclear has to be part of the solution, it simply isn’t the entire solution. Full electrification in the US would require the construction of 1200 new nuclear power plants. This isn’t possible. A combination of technologies will have to be the answer. Nuclear offers over 92% capacity factor, which is invaluable. Wind is about 35% and solar 25%. Wind and solar, without storage, are unreliable. If that’s all you had to power a city it would be dark —without power— 50% of the time (even more during certain times of the year). This is where other technologies, like nuclear, can come in. The optimal mix depends on regional realities. For example, if you have hydro, other technologies might be less desirable or necessary.
yurishimo 3y ago
Wind is getting a lot more reliable as we build taller turbines. There are some states that are deploying units that are almost a kilometer tall. At those heights, currents are much more stable. The tech will get there and I don’t think we have that much longer to wait.

thebruce87m 3y ago

> The US will need to at least double power generation and transport capacity to support 300 million EVs https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele... > In the US, the grid is equally capable of handling more EVs on the roads – by the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity consumption.

robomartin 3y ago
Yeah, well, take the time to write a realistic simulation of 300 million EVs, from motorcycles to big rigs, driven and charged differently, across 1000 cities armed with population and other demographic data…and you quickly conclude some of these articles are delusional. It is also true that some nations will do a better job than others. And some have better circumstances and starting points. In the US? We have become so dysfunctional we would probably crumble if we added a few million EVs in most states. I was just in Zürich at a conference and had interesting conversations with experts and leaders in the energy sector; from hydro to geothermal and more. It is clear that some are taking the transition seriously, while others are not. The key differentiator is pushing ideology rather than reality. Only one of those stances gets us to the clean renewable energy future we all want.
- robomartin 3y ago
  Here’s a dose of reality: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article285017617.html https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/othe... We can be ideological, and ignore this, or realistic and face the challenges head-on. The only way we achieve a clean energy future is by being brutally honest, because that’s the only way we solve real problems.
  - thebruce87m 3y ago
    I’m not sure that picking an opinion piece from a conservative publication in probably the worst state for managing energy is “reality”. Notice they are calling for more coal? Funny that. I’m not even sure that picking Texas is reasonable given the isolation of its grid which is where some of these problems stem from.
    - robomartin 3y ago
      > an opinion piece from a conservative publication With apologies and respect, that is a bigoted perspective. Humanity does advance if this is how we view each other. It is possible to have a conservative perspective and be right or wrong. It is also possible to have the opposite perspective and also be right or wrong. If you had bothered to read the article, you'd see they provide data and references. You can go and verify the claims, which boil down to wind and solar pretty much collapsing when needed due to conditions. Yet, you stopped at "Texas" and "Conservative" and that's all you needed to know about what they had to say. The source does not matter. Only the veracity or falsehood of what is being proposed does. If you stop at the source --however you choose to classify it-- you fail to use your intelligence to gain understanding. Are we to disbelieve academic publications because most academics lean to the left? How about this: Let's not believe anything a gay person says...just because they are gay. Or a black person...just because they are black. Or a white person...just because they are white. Or a child yelling "fire"...just because they are a child. How does progress happen if we behave this way? How does a gay person convince anyone of the merits of their claims if they are discounted just because they are gay? Read the article. Study the matter to a sufficient depth of understanding. Then, and only then, form an opinion or pass judgement based on understanding, not bigotry. Most people speaking on these matters do so out of abject ignorance. Few bother to take deep-enough dives into any of it. Just emotion and ideological alignment. Everyone wants to live in a clean world, with clean energy and a bright future for their kids and generations to come. That's a universal truth. I have yet to find anyone who, when asked, says they prefer filth and unbreathable air. There's another reality that escapes most, likely because few like to think beyond the headline or deeper than the superficial: Where we are today was an inevitable result of humanities reality. Up until not too many decades ago, the ONLY way for us to survive was to burn stuff for energy; to cook, move, build, heal, survive. The clean energy future we all want had to wait for such things as the invention of the transistor and its evolution into sophisticated electronics, computers, etc. Now, armed with better technology, better science, greater understanding and the ability to manufacture things we could not have even imagined just a few decades ago can we begin an energy transition that will benefit us all. The technologies we need are still in flux and in much need of improvement. The key take-away from this understanding is that vilifying half the universe as we transition to a better paradigm only serves to slow down that transition. We still have no choice but to burn stuff to make energy. That is a fact. If we hurry to transition given today's technologies all we are going to accomplish is to create a horrific ecological disaster in just a few decades. Lessons should be learned about what has happened in Germany with the demented "green" activists causing the shutdown of nuclear power plants, which led to actually having to burn massive amounts of fuel for energy...exactly the opposite of green. These people are crazy. The good news is that they are now seeing much-needed push-back in countries like Holland and Germany. The transition will likely take well into next century. And that's just fine. The world isn't going to end any time soon.

specialist 3y ago

Yes and: > The replacement cycle, given today’s technology, is approximately three decades. Every ICE vehical sold today can be expected to be in use for decades to come. And there's something like 1.2 billion passenger cars worldwide. I forget the details of the analysis, but the gist is with our current policies, worldwide personal transportation is unlikely to hit our 2050 net-zero targets. IIRC, I gleened this observation from Horace Dediu's Asymco podcast. (Or Micromobility?) Dediu has been promoting micromobility (scooters, e-bikes, cargo bikes, etc) for quite a while now (decade?), to address this challenge. Of course, Dediu and others also advocate public transportation, densification, etc. to further reduce miles traveled.

EricE 3y ago

Or we just need to remove the roadblocks to nuclear, stop deploying brain dead reactor designs and move on. The problem is the current "green" push is more about religious belief or the current "in crowd" making money that solving real problems, so don't expect arguments based on logic or reason to be welcomed.

robomartin 3y ago
While I do believe nuclear has to be part of the solution, it simply isn’t the entire solution. Full electrification in the US would require the construction of 1200 new nuclear power plants. This isn’t possible. A combination of technologies will have to be the answer. Nuclear offers over 92% capacity factor, which is invaluable. Wind is about 35% and solar 25%. Wind and solar, without storage, are unreliable. If that’s all you had to power a city it would be dark —without power— 50% of the time (even more during certain times of the year). This is where other technologies, like nuclear, can come in. The optimal mix depends on regional realities. For example, if you have hydro, other technologies might be less desirable or necessary.

yurishimo 3y ago

Wind is getting a lot more reliable as we build taller turbines. There are some states that are deploying units that are almost a kilometer tall. At those heights, currents are much more stable. The tech will get there and I don’t think we have that much longer to wait.