KCRag Forum

100% renewables is possible if you have a strong base load (nuclear, hydro) + batteries. A lot of batteries. Supplement with solar and wind to charge leaker batteries.

It’s just going to take awhile to transition off NG, which is a good transition fuel as we cut coal.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 11:26 pm 100% renewables is possible if you have a strong base load (nuclear, hydro) + batteries. A lot of batteries. Supplement with solar and wind to charge leaker batteries.

It’s just going to take awhile to transition off NG, which is a good transition fuel as we cut coal.

This is the way. Base load is the biggest problem, as most states in the US have been decommissioning nuclear facilities in the last few decades. If we can get that issue sorted out then renewable future seems within reach

I worry about the hard to ignore facts like even if we could instantly replace all gasoline powered vehicles with EV’s tomorrow, it would actually result in more fossil fuel consumptive charging all those batteries.

The technology just isn’t advancing at a pace fast enough. Why we haven’t gone deeper into nuclear is frustrating. I get that it’s scary but come on!

Nuclear has to be part of it. Decarbonizing the grid without it it is a fantasy. Almost all the best dam sites in the US have already been dammed. We’re not getting anymore hydro.

I also worry about simply getting enough of the metals and rare earths needed for so many batteries especially where everyone is convinced they need 300 miles of range for their EV. I think plug in hybrids are really underrated for that reason.

Even if EVs need the fossil fuel power plants to provide the electricity, those plants are far far more efficient than any internal combustion engine could ever hope to be.

longviewmo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:29 am Even if EVs need the fossil fuel power plants to provide the electricity, those plants are far far more efficient than any internal combustion engine could ever hope to be.

Yes but we trade off less auto emissions for a massive increase in reliance on fossil fuels to charge them. Not to mention our electrical grid literally can’t handle the extra load at this time and there’s no solid plan to increase its capacity anytime soon.

As mentioned above, the battery manufacturing process is nasty and relies on some 3rd world countries to supply the raw material. Many of those countries with terrible human rights issues.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 10:09 am As mentioned above, the battery manufacturing process is nasty and relies on some 3rd world countries to supply the raw material. Many of those countries with terrible human rights issues.

Just as do many oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

FangKC wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:48 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 10:09 am As mentioned above, the battery manufacturing process is nasty and relies on some 3rd world countries to supply the raw material. Many of those countries with terrible human rights issues.

Just as do many oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

True but we don’t have to rely on other countries for oil like we do the raw materials needed for batteries.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:52 am

FangKC wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:48 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 10:09 am As mentioned above, the battery manufacturing process is nasty and relies on some 3rd world countries to supply the raw material. Many of those countries with terrible human rights issues.

Just as do many oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

True but we don’t have to rely on other countries for oil like we do the raw materials needed for batteries.

This country imports and exports oil for many reasons. One can be that the grade of oil cannot be refined in this country for environmental or economic reasons. Other oil we can import and refine because we need to in order to booster our supplies.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 8:20 am I worry about the hard to ignore facts like even if we could instantly replace all gasoline powered vehicles with EV’s tomorrow, it would actually result in more fossil fuel consumptive charging all those batteries.

The technology just isn’t advancing at a pace fast enough. Why we haven’t gone deeper into nuclear is frustrating. I get that it’s scary but come on!

Predicating anything climate change and fossil fuel related to the replacement of ICE cars with EVs is absolutely absurd. The two have almost no relation, yet here we are.. with most folks correlating a reduction in ICE vehicles with a reduction in oil use and global warming.

FACT: 80+% of the worlds oil is used for manufacturing processes. IE: To make everything in the modern world. NOT for fuel for vehicles. Vehicles ultimately use very little of the worlds oil supplies, and fossil fuels. ICE vehicles also have very little impact to global warming, as their emissions have been mostly clean since 1985.

longviewmo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:29 am Even if EVs need the fossil fuel power plants to provide the electricity, those plants are far far more efficient than any internal combustion engine could ever hope to be.

Actually, they are not. Neither is transmission of power. So, by the time the power reaches your outlet (Which isn't even yet into an EV) it has already lost nearly 60% of its energy.

im2kull wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:45 pm

longviewmo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:29 am Even if EVs need the fossil fuel power plants to provide the electricity, those plants are far far more efficient than any internal combustion engine could ever hope to be.

Actually, they are not. Neither is transmission of power. So, by the time the power reaches your outlet (Which isn't even yet into an EV) it has already lost nearly 60% of its energy.

Yes they are. This is not correct at all. Cite some
Sources if you are just going to be contrarian and aggressive.

n EV motor is around 85 - 90 per cent efficient when converting coal-fired energy to power. It’s estimated that technological improvements will see emissions from combustion engines falling by about 1.9 per cent a year through to 2040, according to Bloomberg, while EV emissions are anticipated to fall between 3 per cent and 10 per cent annually.“EVs convert over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12 per cent – 30 per cent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels,” according to the US Department of Energy[iii].

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analys ... efficient/

In addition, internal combustion engines (just the power rain) results in 75% drivetrain loss from explosion to motion. EV is 10%.

In addition, the grid will only get cleaner. Gas cars are at their peak. But we still need more transit. A lot more.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:28 am

im2kull wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:45 pm

longviewmo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:29 am Even if EVs need the fossil fuel power plants to provide the electricity, those plants are far far more efficient than any internal combustion engine could ever hope to be.

Actually, they are not. Neither is transmission of power. So, by the time the power reaches your outlet (Which isn't even yet into an EV) it has already lost nearly 60% of its energy.

Yes they are. This is not correct at all. Cite some
Sources if you are just going to be contrarian and aggressive.

n EV motor is around 85 - 90 per cent efficient when converting coal-fired energy to power. It’s estimated that technological improvements will see emissions from combustion engines falling by about 1.9 per cent a year through to 2040, according to Bloomberg, while EV emissions are anticipated to fall between 3 per cent and 10 per cent annually.“EVs convert over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12 per cent – 30 per cent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels,” according to the US Department of Energy[iii].

In addition, internal combustion engines (just the power rain) results in 75% drivetrain loss from explosion to motion. EV is 10%.

In addition, the grid will only get cleaner. Gas cars are at their peak. But we still need more transit. A lot more.

I think he's talking about the power grid before it even gets to the point of charging the EV's. Not comparing Gas Vs EV engines directly?

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:10 am

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:28 am

im2kull wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:45 pm

Actually, they are not. Neither is transmission of power. So, by the time the power reaches your outlet (Which isn't even yet into an EV) it has already lost nearly 60% of its energy.

Yes they are. This is not correct at all. Cite some
Sources if you are just going to be contrarian and aggressive.

n EV motor is around 85 - 90 per cent efficient when converting coal-fired energy to power. It’s estimated that technological improvements will see emissions from combustion engines falling by about 1.9 per cent a year through to 2040, according to Bloomberg, while EV emissions are anticipated to fall between 3 per cent and 10 per cent annually.“EVs convert over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12 per cent – 30 per cent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels,” according to the US Department of Energy[iii].

In addition, internal combustion engines (just the power rain) results in 75% drivetrain loss from explosion to motion. EV is 10%.

In addition, the grid will only get cleaner. Gas cars are at their peak. But we still need more transit. A lot more.

I think he's talking about the power grid before it even gets to the point of charging the EV's. Not comparing Gas Vs EV engines directly?

Right, sorry on my phone so somewhat jumbled. That number is not correct. Grid loss is more like 5%.
(https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-c ... gy%20bills).

Drivetrain loss is 10-15% vs. 75% for an ICE. "But what about all those nasty minerals from Congo?"

Well, first, we can make mining more efficient. We can get minerals domestically, and we should work on that. We can reduce the amount of minerals in the batteries by switching chemistries to things like LFP (Iron-Phosphate) which many companies already are using. Don't forget, gasoline has to be drilled, an environmentally harmful process that also requires significant water, chemicals, etc., often transported across the world, refined, and then trucked to a local gas station. It is correct that a gas car uses less ghg to manufacture, but once it is built, it will continue to emit carbon until it's scrapped. An EV will emmit no tailpipe emissions until it's scrapped, then the battery will be recycled into another EV.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:06 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:10 am

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:28 am

Yes they are. This is not correct at all. Cite some
Sources if you are just going to be contrarian and aggressive.

n EV motor is around 85 - 90 per cent efficient when converting coal-fired energy to power. It’s estimated that technological improvements will see emissions from combustion engines falling by about 1.9 per cent a year through to 2040, according to Bloomberg, while EV emissions are anticipated to fall between 3 per cent and 10 per cent annually.“EVs convert over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12 per cent – 30 per cent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels,” according to the US Department of Energy[iii].

In addition, internal combustion engines (just the power rain) results in 75% drivetrain loss from explosion to motion. EV is 10%.

In addition, the grid will only get cleaner. Gas cars are at their peak. But we still need more transit. A lot more.

I think he's talking about the power grid before it even gets to the point of charging the EV's. Not comparing Gas Vs EV engines directly?

Right, sorry on my phone so somewhat jumbled. That number is not correct. Grid loss is more like 5%.
(https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-c ... gy%20bills).

Drivetrain loss is 10-15% vs. 75% for an ICE. "But what about all those nasty minerals from Congo?"

Well, first, we can make mining more efficient. We can get minerals domestically, and we should work on that. We can reduce the amount of minerals in the batteries by switching chemistries to things like LFP (Iron-Phosphate) which many companies already are using. Don't forget, gasoline has to be drilled, an environmentally harmful process that also requires significant water, chemicals, etc., often transported across the world, refined, and then trucked to a local gas station. It is correct that a gas car uses less ghg to manufacture, but once it is built, it will continue to emit carbon until it's scrapped. An EV will emmit no tailpipe emissions until it's scrapped, then the battery will be recycled into another EV.

I get where you're coming from, and as someone not in the industry I can see how you might think that things are very efficient.. but the reality of the situation is vastly different. There's losses at every single stage of power production and transmission, which add up to at least a 60% total loss of power. Here's a good article on the subject.

https://www.edf.org/blog/2014/05/27/why ... ty-you-pay

As for your Tesla. A P90D takes 110 KWH to gain a 90 KWH charge. I'll let you do the math on that one. Before a tire ever turns. After the entire system has already resulted in a 60%+ loss to your EV charger.. a charger which will also lose another 5-10% itself. It's the nature of DC / AC inversions and transformations. You always lose power, each and every time a change occurs.. along with bleeding power over distance. Electricity is great, but it's a foul to believe that its somehow Earth saving to drive an EV. It's just as polluting as anything else. At the end of the day if you want to make a real impact, you MUST change your entire lifestyle. No more high rises. No more vehicles of any kind. Etc. But, of course, nobody is really devoted to making a real impact. They'd rather sip on some Starbucks and Tweet about all the bad things happening in the world that they are going to try to change by throwing money at those things.

The future will depend on attempting as much local on-site power generation as possible. That will minimize the transmission losses. If you can mainly power your house and vehicle from your property (via solar, wind, geothermal), that will put a significant dent in emissions. This includes making existing properties more efficient. If a current building can't handle solar panels, it might get much of its power from a local source like solar panels on a nearby shopping center, or panels in parking lots that provide energy and also shade parked vehicles.

We will need to build new homes better using thermal properties and shading windows, or partially underground. Just reducing the need for heating and cooling from better design will lessen the demand for power per unit of housing. Using lighter-colored roofing reduces the amount of heat absorbed by the roof.

Having a good tree canopy can reduce ambient summer heat around the structure by 10 degrees. That reduces the time your a/c runs and cuts power usage by 10-30 percent. Structures that are built closer together are better protected from strong winter winds. Ones that share walls offer passive thermal protection. Whenever I see two house lots combined for one house in older parts of the City I think it's a mistake. I see Habitat for Humanity doing this. They are building houses for the poor, but taking away the advantage of windbreaks of close neighboring houses, as well as creating big yards for poor residents to mow. Many are older and disabled, so they have to pay someone to mow their yard which they may not be able to afford.

Making small changes in city code with respect to new homes can also contribute. Having huge concrete driveways in front of homes raises temperatures and adds to the heat island effect. Instead, pave just the tracks your tires run on, and allow grass in the middle. You see this all over Kansas City with older houses. It also reduces the amount of rain run-off into the streets and storm drains. Another small thing that would reduce concrete driveway surface area is to push the houses closer to the street.

Two-story 2000 sq. ft. single-family homes require less roof surface than one-story 2000 sq. ft. homes. Less roof surface = less heat island effect.

It's just as much about being more efficient and doing a lot of small things to curb impact as it is about everything being net zero.

Encouraging people to have fewer children will also reduce stress on the climate and planet. Every human born will only require more sacrifice by those already here.

FangKC wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 1:54 am Encouraging people to have fewer children will also reduce stress on the climate and planet. Every human born will only require more sacrifice by those already here.

I agree with everything you presented above except this point. Discouraging children will lead to a dangerous situation of population decline, once a country falls below the threshold of population replacement rate, its nearly impossible to recover from the collapsing rate, not to mention the decimation it would deliver on nearly every facet of society. Technology is advancing rapidly, and individuals have a minuscule impact on the environment, the real culprit is multinational conglomerates that are free to operate unsupervised around the world. Fear mongering of people to not have children doesn’t solve any problem.

Good luck with that belief.

Lean towards fewer people but not to social engineer it in any form, in either direction. There shouldn't be tax breaks for more children or penalties for those who choose not to. As 3rd world countries become more educated they tend to have fewer children. We may still top out at 10B-12B people on planet and that might be too many. I'm in the camp we're already at too many people no matter what the economic impact may be (and there are ways that can be managed over time). Japan, a mostly mono-ethnic culture, is not managing it properly, lessons to be learned.

Economists with policy power need to find methods to adapt economy changes in harmony with reducing population, not rely on population growth as the engine. That is, engineer the quality of the economy, not the people/population. Engineer for higher quality of life for higher/broader % of reducing population, not towards higher quantity for the sake of quantity needing more more more resources (a form of gluttony).

Good TED-like presentation on population growth and when reduction occurs. Key points start around 20 minute mark...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

im2kull wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:44 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 8:20 am I worry about the hard to ignore facts like even if we could instantly replace all gasoline powered vehicles with EV’s tomorrow, it would actually result in more fossil fuel consumptive charging all those batteries.

The technology just isn’t advancing at a pace fast enough. Why we haven’t gone deeper into nuclear is frustrating. I get that it’s scary but come on!

Predicating anything climate change and fossil fuel related to the replacement of ICE cars with EVs is absolutely absurd. The two have almost no relation, yet here we are.. with most folks correlating a reduction in ICE vehicles with a reduction in oil use and global warming.

FACT: 80+% of the worlds oil is used for manufacturing processes. IE: To make everything in the modern world. NOT for fuel for vehicles. Vehicles ultimately use very little of the worlds oil supplies, and fossil fuels. ICE vehicles also have very little impact to global warming, as their emissions have been mostly clean since 1985.

you can find different numbers from different sources but they all tell pretty much the same story. These are from the US Department of Energy:

In the United States

67.2% of oil is used for transportation
26.9% is industrial oil (incl plastics)
2.8% Residential
2.5% Commercial
.5% Electric Power generation

I do not know for the remainder of the world. I would suspect the percentage relegated to transportation drops and power generation and industrial rise - but not by that much. There is a reason that the price of oil varies greatly in response to the demand for transportation fuel.