Norway ....

[Seanut]

Here is a link to what the Germans are doing in their energy transformation. To answer Seanuts question on who benefits..... The citizens because they are the ones that are creating that new energy at home and in small cooperatives on a local bases. They are decentralizing their grid and the benefits are enormous to locals, not so much to the big corporations who are trying the best to hold onto their place where they are faced by the rise of the new clean energy economy.

https://book.energytransition.org/

I read some of the policies in that initiative GLG, seems exactly to be what I was talking about and same with most renewable energy initiatives. Sounds nice and appeals to people of your mindset (not too worried about being effective, just "feels good").

Couple points stuck out to me: How the Political decision was made in 2011 to shut down Nuclear plants, must have just been political fuzz, now since Fukushima, they made the decision again, with coal and gas to make up the lost supply, "aiming for 2025" shut down. I laughed out loud. Just political apeasement to nutty greens.

2nd was that Investment in producing renewable energy is GUARANTEED by the government and returns on the investment guaranteed. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This is all just a cash grab by the exact type of people you say you don't like. They have just dusted off their image to actually get you guys to support, not protest. Really quite smart, shame you don't see it.

Renewables WILL NOT be an answer to replace the energy sources already in place for many decades yet, even with Gov cooking the books for their buddies.

 

[GLG]

Well Seanut you must be angry that Site C is getting built for a cost of 9 cents a kWh and being sold at 4 cents a kWh to industry. So in fact commercial and residential ratepayers will have to make up the difference on our bills. Talk about the previous government picking winners and losers with subsides. Just think if the would have given a chance with renewables.......

For the record I'm for wind, sun, geothermal and upgrading our current Hydro sites. If we put half the effort into it we could be the powerhouse of clean energy in Canada.

It just seems to me that we are having a conversation about telephones and one side is saying landlines are the way to go and the other side is talking about cell phones. The game is over and you can't stop renewables even if you think you can.

 

[walleyes]

http://business.financialpost.com/o...xist/wcm/2a1f30a4-88f1-47c2-aba4-8b619c0129f0

 

[OldBlackDog]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/wind_and_solar_energy_are_dead_ends.html

 

[GLG]

I guess we are living in interesting times..... Between the the coming revolution of clean energy transportation and renewable energy transformation, it's going to be exciting. I had a chance to ride in a low end Tesla (still above my paygrade) and it was the quickest car I have ever been in. That includes all the high power muscle cars of my youth. Till you experience that many may not get it. I understand. There will be challenges as the far right will do everything in their power to stop it but I suspect the meltdown of the far right is just around the corner and the drip, drip that is playing out right now. They will be busy, at some point covering there tracks, to care what is happening. Others from the right that are honorable people have nothing to fear and I suspect will look at this as a golden opportunity that only comes around once every 50 years or more.

 

[GLG]

Oh I think she gets it... but time will tell and we may find out sooner than we think.

 

[TheHurtLocker]

Well Seanut you must be angry that Site C is getting built for a cost of 9 cents a kWh and being sold at 4 cents a kWh to industry. So in fact commercial and residential ratepayers will have to make up the difference on our bills. Talk about the previous government picking winners and losers with subsides. Just think if the would have given a chance with renewables.......

For the record I'm for wind, sun, geothermal and upgrading our current Hydro sites. If we put half the effort into it we could be the powerhouse of clean energy in Canada.

It just seems to me that we are having a conversation about telephones and one side is saying landlines are the way to go and the other side is talking about cell phones. The game is over and you can't stop renewables even if you think you can.

Hydro's rate for industry for the most part is .12 flat rate with no scale. Unless you are a huge consumer of power then you can negotiate with your BCH key account rep. Never the less, what should really up set everyone is what we pay IPP's for power and what we sell it for. Look up the financials and see what we pay IPP's 50 million, 100 million, and there are hundreds like this.

Everyone bashes Site C, like everyone bashed the Bennett dam when they were built.

Getting back to electric cars, they would be similar to what you pay for your house. They are getting better, but industry prepares for electric cars as one car is like one more house being added to the system.
When I was working down in SoCal in the mid 2000's the car industry know what areas could afford an electric car and would give the utilities money to upgrade their systems in those areas i.e. conductor size and transformers.

If you look at the last numbers on oil and gas, they still are way larger then electric, but for the first time oil and gas numbers have come down and electric has gone up through out the world. We are using more and more compared to oil and gas.

 

[GLG]

Currently charging at home is not that big of a deal. You could in theroy make it a big deal if you wanted supercharging but for most people you have 2 options. Here is a cut and paste from another website.

Level 1 (120 volts): 3 to 20 Hours Charge Time

A full charge at Level 1 can take as little as 3 hours, depending on your EV type and how empty your battery is. Since the charging cord set provided with your vehicle will use a customary household 120-volt outlet, there is no need for equipment installation. We recommend that you charge at this level on a dedicated 20-amp circuit. It’s always a good idea to have your electric infrastructure inspected by a licensed electrician before your first charge.

Level 2 (240 volts): 1 to 8 Hours Charge Time

Level 2 charging is faster and may take as little as 1 hour, again depending on your EV type and how empty your battery is. If you want a Level 2 charging station at your home, you’ll need a 240-volt line installed by a licensed electrician.

I think that Level 2 can be configured for 30 amp or 40 amp depending on what you want. There was some talk in the past that we would have to upgrade all the houses and all the lines in the neighbourhood but that turned out to be not the case as the vast majority of the charging is done at night when no other loads are being used on the system. Here in BC we have some older 100 amp and more common 200 amp service to our houses. There should be plenty of capacity depending on your needs and we just need to be prudent on our use.


Yes I know about IPP's ... that's a huge mistake from our past leaders. Seems some got rich on that deal (why does that not surprise me). Can you imagine that IPP's only produce power when BC Hydro is spilling water from its dams because we have too much. Wasted energy because we made the wrong decision and that's something we need to look at with Site C. If you can find the business case for Site C the people of BC would be eternally grateful to you because so far it was for an industry that may not show up. After that our past leader was trying to sell the power to Alberta and they have declined. Seems they know they can get renewables for less cost. It would be good to learn what Alberta is doing to meet there future needs. Perhaps some member knows.

As for this comment... "Getting back to electric cars, they would be similar to what you pay for your house." don't take this the wrong way but I'll take 2 of those houses, just let me know where they are..... seriously ... price still need to come down but the question is how far down is the right price..... 25K , 35K or 45K

Thanks for your input..

 

[OldBlackDog]

Ban could be placed on charging electric cars during peak times as energy demand is set to TRIPLE by 2050
Harry Bradfield
ELECTRICITY demand could rise by a THIRD by 2050 with bans in place on when electric cars can be charged, experts have warned.

The surge in plug-in motors popularity could cause “challenges” for energy providers, according to National Grid forecasts.

Getty Images

1
Electric cars will have to charged at certain times to avoid blackouts
By 2050, 90 per cent of new cars are expected to be electric sending demand for electricity soaring, especially at peak times.

And the National Grid said peak time demand could rise by 18 gigawatts (GW) – the equivalent of nearly six Hinkley Point nuclear power stations.

It said “smart chargers” could have to be introduced to only fill up car batteries when power networks could cope.

Drivers would have to wait until times of day when there was surplus electricity.

And cars with existing charge left could be used to plough resources back into the grid.

Dustin Benton, acting policy director at the Green Alliance, a think-tank, told the FT to keep costs down consumers may have to “accept some control over when and how they charge their cars”.

MOST READ IN MOTORS
He said: “The government should require smart chargers to be installed which support the grid by default, while ensuring people are able to drive their cars whenever they need them.

“The alternative is a dumb charging system where everyone charges their car at 6pm, putting huge pressure on the grid.

“This would be much more expensive and have a higher carbon footprint.”

Manufacturers are rushing out more and more electric models with Volvo the most recent to declare a drive for zero-emissions vehicles.

The move comes as toxic taxes hang over the head of diesel.

 

[cracked_ribs]

I have an off-grid place, and one thing I can tell you is that you don't realize exactly how inefficient and expensive PV solar is until you start messing with it.

There's a lot of hype about alternative energy, but anyone who has experience with it will tell you the same thing: it's not what people think it is. It doesn't work especially well, and it's really, really expensive. And storage is a huge problem.

If people go to electrical cars en masse - and that really has not happened, as Kevin Libin's article pointed out; the North American fleet is around 0.1% electric and even California appears to have sold an electric car to everyone who wants one; they hit 3% of new car sales in 2014 and haven't budged since then - but if people do, the load on the electrical grid will significantly increase; it's already way beyond what alternative energies would supply so you're really just looking for efficiencies gained by larger scale fossil fuel power plants.

Those are more efficient than a billion tiny gas engines...but then the energy from the larger, more efficient plants has to get transported, and contained in storage media. Current estimates for Tesla batteries put the pollution associated with production at around 8 years of running a small gas-powered car according to a Swedish study; the combination of electrical transport loss and battery pollution may mean that even if we got everyone into electric cars, we might not reduce the environmental problem at all.

There is absolutely a problem, but alternative energy (unless people mean nuclear power) and electrical cars are probably not a big part of the solution.

 

[OldBlackDog]

https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/26/wind-power-future-impossible/

 

[cracked_ribs]

https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/26/wind-power-future-impossible/

That's probably about right. People have no idea of the scale of energy required to power human industry at its current level; they radically overestimate the impact of "alternative energies" because of the glowing coverage they constantly receive in the media, and because they've never sat down to do the math on any of it (which, incidentally, is partly why reporters are so easily sucked in by it as well; they're not much for math).

As soon as you take a critical look at the numbers, you realize that if CO2 production is a serious problem - and I think it very likely is, although we have essentially no idea what the earth's self-regulating mechanisms are and consequently what the timelines for when it actually becomes a problem look like - if it's really a serious problem, it's way, way, way more serious than anybody is solving with a Nissan Leaf in their driveway and a few panels on their roof. That's just guilt eradication hardware. Or, potentially, wealth distribution via tax incentives.

Generally speaking, EV sales are almost entirely dependent on credits that come from general revenue. I don't really blame anyone for taking that money - I sure write off every cent I can - but if a person can buy an EV for a significant amount under market value, after a manufacturer has established market value only after themselves receiving tax credits for building it, thereby again transferring wealth to people tied to that system, well...hopefully everyone innately grasps that this is only possible if EVs are a tiny fraction of vehicle sales.

 

[GLG]

Ban could be placed on charging electric cars during peak times as energy demand is set to TRIPLE by 2050
Harry Bradfield
ELECTRICITY demand could rise by a THIRD by 2050 with bans in place on when electric cars can be charged, experts have warned.

So if energy demand is going to triple by 2050 and it's also going to rise by a THIRD by 2050 do you think the fella has math issues..... seems like someone needs "take it with a grain of salt"

 

[cracked_ribs]

Well, energy demand and electricity demand are two different things, so those statements are not mutually exclusive, although it is poor wording. But the person who writes the headline is rarely the same person as the one who writes the article, which is often how this kind of confusion arises.

 

[GLG]

If people go to electrical cars en masse - and that really has not happened, as Kevin Libin's article pointed out; the North American fleet is around 0.1% electric and even California appears to have sold an electric car to everyone who wants one; they hit 3% of new car sales in 2014 and haven't budged since then - but if people do, the load on the electrical grid will significantly increase; it's already way beyond what alternative energies would supply so you're really just looking for efficiencies gained by larger scale fossil fuel power plants.

Those are more efficient than a billion tiny gas engines...but then the energy from the larger, more efficient plants has to get transported, and contained in storage media. Current estimates for Tesla batteries put the pollution associated with production at around 8 years of running a small gas-powered car according to a Swedish study; the combination of electrical transport loss and battery pollution may mean that even if we got everyone into electric cars, we might not reduce the environmental problem at all.

There is absolutely a problem, but alternative energy (unless people mean nuclear power) and electrical cars are probably not a big part of the solution.

Yea I would not put much stock into what Kevin Libin of FP/NP say's.... he and others have an axe to grind and evidence of their honor on this subject is in question. Let's just say they think free speech is for people and people sometimes lie therefore lying is protected by free speech.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/01/2015BCSC0165.htm

 

[cracked_ribs]

Considering the only thing taken from Libin is the numbers on sales, which are really, really, really easy to look up, pointing out that he's a bad person is fairly meaningless.

Electric cars sold in California 2016: around 60,000
Total cars sold in California 2016: 2,000,000

Electric cars sold in the US in 2016: 160,000
Total cars sold in the US in 2016: 17,550,000

I could go on but the numbers are clear, whether you think Kevin Libin reporting them makes a difference or not. They're a tiny fraction of auto sales. The numbers aren't that different in Canada and despite the media enthusiasm for them, they're just not anywhere close to playing a role even if the environmental costs of using them were drastically lower than using fossil fuel vehicles - which we don't currently know.

 

[cracked_ribs]

Previous year was 62,000.

Year before that 60,000.

It's not exponentially growing at all. It's actually declining as a percentage of sales.

 

[GLG]

Yes the sales numbers you can look up but what about this line....
"Current estimates for Tesla batteries put the pollution associated with production at around 8 years of running a small gas-powered car according to a Swedish study; the combination of electrical transport loss and battery pollution may mean that even if we got everyone into electric cars, we might not reduce the environmental problem at all."

neat trick using Tesla when the study did not include Tesla. Have you heard about the gigafactory and that it runs on 100% renewable energy? Like I said they have an axe to grind and will use all the tricks in the book to grind it.

It would also be interesting to second source his sales numbers....

 

[cracked_ribs]

That line is not Libin's, it is mine, and I reference the study commissioned by the Swedish government to study lithium cell life cycle costs, which does include Tesla. The study is peer reviewed and extensively cited and the methodology seems reasonable.

And the numbers I posted above are not from Libin, but from general (and often supportive) sources like Clean Technica and Fleet Carma.

So once again it does not seem to be the side questioning the role of electric cars which has major issues with numbers and slant. Everything I have posted is readily available information from a wide range of sources and I only mentioned the Libin article since it had already come up in the thread and the figures he gives are easily backed up by a vast array of sources, as I found when I initially googled them before posting.

 

[GLG]

"Not helping is that environmental claims about environmental cars are falling apart. In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving."
That was from the Libin Op-ed of the FP.
My experience is that when fellas like this make claims they do have a problem with the "maths."
I have not read the study but heard about it with some back and forth with Musk saying that the claim was nonsense. If you have a link to the study please post.