You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

[PigsDad]

You are correct that solar farms are typically in areas without a lot of trees and can be efficiently be used on farms without requiring a lot of space. I was actually thinking more about solar farms. I saw many areas in Georgia along I75 on a recent trip where trees were being chopped down for solar farms. Many farming fields in Ohio are also being replaced with solar farms. These make no sense to me because our forests and farms are essential for climate stabilization and food supply. There are many old industrial sites or former electric plants that would make more sense for solar farms. I also can't recall seeing oil wells in a forested area, but have seen a few on farms. Additionally, oil production in the US is much cleaner than similar production in many of the other countries that we buy from, so it would be better for the environment to produce more domestically. Solar energy is great for sunny climates and desert areas, wind energy works well in the plains with wide open field and steady win. We need to keep all options open and continue to utilize what makes the most sense in a specific area. Government intervention seldom encourages efficiency and affordability.

I agree with basically everything you are saying. We need to be smart in where we put these solar / wind farms. Doesn't make much sense to put a solar farm in a forest or take up valuable farm land. How about utilizing other spaces, such as on top of warehouses and other large buildings? And don't get me wrong, I'm not against oil production, I think we should be open to all energy production if done smartly and efficiently, minimizing impact to the environment; and that includes nuclear power.

Kurt

 

[Passepartout]

There is currently a big discussion here about a GIANT wind farm that is projected to put some 400 HUGE turbines covering parts of 3 counties near us. The land is barren, there is nothing but lava, sagebrush, and scrub grasses out there. The land is almost all BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land (we all 'own' it). These turbines will be near 700 feet tall! Each one (they say) will power like 300 homes. They have already approved transmission lines to send the power produced to Southern Nevada/Cal/Arizona. We won't directly get the benefit of all the power they will produce- except that it all feeds into the 'grid' from which all consumers buy the power. Not unlike in areas that produce oil, the oil is generally not much benefit to the local production area- it's sold or piped elsewhere.

There is a group of doom-n-gloom folks who are opposing it, and the developer is touting the number of jobs the project will produce. Maybe some 4,000 while it's under construction and perhaps some small number of hundreds going forward for maintaining the equipment.

Stay tuned.

Jim

 

[Superchief]

There is currently a big discussion here about a GIANT wind farm that is projected to put some 400 HUGE turbines covering parts of 3 counties near us. The land is barren, there is nothing but lava, sagebrush, and scrub grasses out there. The land is almost all BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land (we all 'own' it). These turbines will be near 700 feet tall! Each one (they say) will power like 300 homes. They have already approved transmission lines to send the power produced to Southern Nevada/Cal/Arizona. We won't directly get the benefit of all the power they will produce- except that it all feeds into the 'grid' from which all consumers buy the power. Not unlike in areas that produce oil, the oil is generally not much benefit to the local production area- it's sold or piped elsewhere.

There is a group of doom-n-gloom folks who are opposing it, and the developer is touting the number of jobs the project will produce. Maybe some 4,000 while it's under construction and perhaps some small number of hundreds going forward for maintaining the equipment.

Stay tuned.

Jim

It sounds like it will be a good place to film War of the Worlds 3

 

[Passepartout]

It sounds like it will be a good place to film War of the Worlds 3

It's sort of an otherworldly place. Sage grouse, pronghorns, wind. Lots of wind. There are big dairys/feedlots. There is some fertile areas that have access to groundwater. Hay is grown there- gotta feed all those cows. Student pilot fly over the area for practice. But it's really many, many square miles of fairly rough, dry, sagebrush and lava covered space without much economic value.

There was a WWII relocation camp where people of Japanese ancestry- many of them American Citizens were rounded up and sent. The group supporting this site oppose the wind farm- saying it would detract from the historical significance of the place. More here: https://www.nps.gov/miin/planyourvisit/index.htm

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Wow. Your experiences are a complete 180 degrees from mine. Most wind farms are in open, barren land. Plus, the base of a wind generator is what? 15-20'? Not much clearing needed even if they were in wooded areas.

Second, have you seen the typical pad needed to drill a single oil well? It is on the order of 5 acres for each well. To prove this point, I went to google maps in an area close to where I live in CO and used the measuring tool. This is just a typical oil / natural gas well in this area:
View attachment 75717

The total area of 227,000 sq. ft. = 5.2 acres. And these are peppered all over the country around here.

In comparison, here is a google map image of a typical wind generator:
View attachment 75718
Being very generous with the surrounding area, 7,652 sq. ft. = 0.18 acres. Quite the difference. And here is the wider image of the wind farm -- not a tree in sight (and there never was):
View attachment 75719
I count 23 wind generators. The total space used (and remember I was very generous) is less than that one oil well.

But you may say, "Hey, that picture of the oil well was while it was being drilled. After it is in production, it uses much less area." Nope. The oil companies keep those pads even after they are in production and put storage tanks and other equipment there. Here is a couple of production oil wells right next to each other, both taking up valuable farm/ranch land. The larger pad is just over 8 acres, and the smaller is over 6 acres:
View attachment 75720

And by the way, when you google "wind farm", here are the images that comes up:
View attachment 75721

Not seeing a lot of wooded areas where the wind farms were put in. Now, one can certainly find pictures of wind farms in wooded areas, but even then the area cleared out looks tiny compared to a single oil well pad. Sorry, your argument of wind farms taking up more space or eliminating more trees vs. oil wells is quite hard to believe.

Kurt

How so you know this is a single well pad? The industry standard in fracked horizontal wells are multiple wells (up to 6 to 8) from the same pad. Many of those wells now stretch 2 to 3 miles - each - under the ground.

Plus, in the Permian, they now do stacked plays from the same drill pad. A main well with more than one horizontal branch in different stratas, each at a different depth.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

And yet doing all that will use less land mass than we use today - meaning that on a per capita basis - using renewables with battery storage arrays is actually more efficient than what we’re using today. Why should we continue to use old outdated technology that is fossil fuel based given these facts? We should accelerate this change, not practice resistance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Practice resistance? If renewables were actually cheaper, there would be a gold rush of immense proportions, with no economic assistance required. The reality is they are net more expensive, and people are being forced to pay for the higher prices, to please a minority screaming for them.

I don't care a fig about virtue signalling, I care about my own budget.

 

[emeryjre]

Nuclear power is one of the least expensive ways to produce electricity. I have not seen a gold rush of immense proportions in that direction. Georgia will be bringing online 2 massive reactors in the very near future. I do not anticipate there will be any further large scale nuclear reactors built in the US. Small Scale could be built on large coal plant sites, but that is not going real quickly either.

 

[Ken555]

Have you already stopped using any airplanes, only drive an electric car, and run your house on only the electricity you can generate - all the time?

(And therefore, only vacation at places you can get to solely by the electric car?)

It's easy to "talk the talk", and demand others follow that dicta, but it only counts when you "walk the walk".

I don’t need to be an extremist to know what’s right and use common sense. Protecting natural resources and maximizing use of solar power only makes sense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[geist1223]

I can see you've been watching FoxNews again...

Kurt

Actually I have always avoided FoxNews. I do read BBC and CNN online.

 

[PigsDad]

How so you know this is a single well pad?

When zooming in, it was clear they were a single-pumper site. Yes, there are many multi-pumper sites, but those pads are even larger. Just seems like they waste a lot of acreage for those pads, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

Kurt

 

[PigsDad]

Practice resistance? If renewables were actually cheaper, there would be a gold rush of immense proportions, with no economic assistance required. The reality is they are net more expensive, and people are being forced to pay for the higher prices, to please a minority screaming for them.

I don't care a fig about virtue signalling, I care about my own budget.

Yes, it's clear you value your personal budget over the environment and future generations. Sad.

Kurt

 

[schreff]

I'm 76, just bought a gas powered pickup. It'll probably last 20 years. I couldn't give a rat's behind what you people drive 20 years from now, I don't care what gender you want to be associated with, I don't care what wars you think are necessary, I don't care if you ponder if peanut butter is healthy or not. I'm retired and I'm going to enjoy the next 20 no matter what issue you think is going to save the planet from destruction.

Summer is coming, it's nearly gin and tonic season. How to make a proper one is something to ponder and discuss.

Sensus communis needs to be resurrected before it's too late, have a great day! Ask the dinosaurs if you need advice on today's world.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell in 1984. It's all about lies, deceit and propaganda according to the crystal ball.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Yes, it's clear you value your personal budget over the environment and future generations. Sad.

Kurt

I also believe in civility over anger.

Technology over anti-technology.

Measuring all the facts before making any major decision.

And most of all, if one is going to tell other people how to live, they should be "walking the walk" of what they are saying.

Show me a town that has truly implemented a "zero carbon footprint"; at a cost comparable to the "fossil fuel" methods. (And no fossil fuel backup. Strictly renewables only.) A "pilot plant", if you will. As they say in Missouri, "show me".

As a retired, never married, bachelor, with no children, I see no reason to impoverish myself to fit your opinion of how the world should be.

Let me put it this way - you want me to follow your "moral" lifestyle, then you pick up the tab. (The cost, over and above what my lifestyle costs in a "fossil fuel" world.) If it's that important, it should be worth it to you to do so.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Practice resistance? If renewables were actually cheaper, there would be a gold rush of immense proportions, with no economic assistance required. The reality is they are net more expensive, and people are being forced to pay for the higher prices, to please a minority screaming for them.

I don't care a fig about virtue signalling, I care about my own budget.

Commercial scale solar and wind is now less expensive for commercial purposes than ANY fossil fuel and even Nuclear. That is now a proven fact:

So why aren’t we converting away from fossil fuel based power generation? Here’s a good article on the why along with a lot of good supporting information:

Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?

The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?

www.popsci.com

 

[HitchHiker71]

I also believe in civility over anger.

Technology over anti-technology.

Measuring all the facts before making any major decision.

And most of all, if one is going to tell other people how to live, they should be "walking the walk" of what they are saying.

Show me a town that has truly implemented a "zero carbon footprint"; at a cost comparable to the "fossil fuel" methods. (And no fossil fuel backup. Strictly renewables only.) A "pilot plant", if you will. As they say in Missouri, "show me".

As a retired, never married, bachelor, with no children, I see no reason to impoverish myself to fit your opinion of how the world should be.

Let me put it this way - you want me to follow your "moral" lifestyle, then you pick up the tab. (The cost, over and above what my lifestyle costs in a "fossil fuel" world.) If it's that important, it should be worth it to you to do so.

It has nothing to do with virtue signaling or morality - it has to do with simple economics per my previous post. People are misinformed and not educated about the current costs of solar and wind and how inexpensive these technologies have become for commercial scale power generation.

 

[emeryjre]

Remember the attack on Lithium batteries because of the lack of ability to recycle.

Another step in the right direction.

MSN

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Commercial scale solar and wind is now less expensive for commercial purposes than ANY fossil fuel and even Nuclear. That is now a proven fact:

View attachment 75739

So why aren’t we converting away from fossil fuel based power generation? Here’s a good article on the why along with a lot of good supporting information:

Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?

The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?

www.popsci.com

Does that cost include battery storage?

 

[emeryjre]

Using Lithium batteries for large scale solar and wind projects is changing quickly. The fire danger is a major factor. Stacking battery packs into container sized units is an unknown risk. It has not gone well in several large scale intallations sites. Cost in another factor. Flow batteries is the method Australia has chosen. There are many lab breakthroughs in alternate methods that are being scaled up to see if they can be utilized. Sodium batteries are happening, but the major manufacturers are being very secretive at this point.
In the next 6 months there will be announcements about preferred method to store energy from wind and solar farms.

 

[Rjbeach2003]

It is dismaying to read comments from people who don't give a damn about the future, ie, beyond their life expectancy. I am 76 so also will not benefit greatly from the changes to renewables being made now, but my children and grandchildren will. We know, scientifically what is causing the extremely rapid climate change, but we still have folks who prefer the view with their heads in the sand. I recognize that changes don't happen quickly at first, but if humans are the innovative animals we contend we are, then we have to expect that all of the complaints and arguments against renewables are head in the sand.

 

[MrockStar]

Iam all for consistent reliable no Co2 emitting Nuclear and Hydro, also hydrogen fuel cells lets expand and build more of those first please, Thanks.

 

[Superchief]

Commercial scale solar and wind is now less expensive for commercial purposes than ANY fossil fuel and even Nuclear. That is now a proven fact:



So why aren’t we converting away from fossil fuel based power generation? Here’s a good article on the why along with a lot of good supporting information:

Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?

The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?

www.popsci.com

I'm glad that the costs for these alternative energy sources are coming down as more power becomes available. I'm sure people in California and Arizona had fairly quick break even points for their investments in solar power, especially if they received tax credits. There is still a significant cost for installation of the solar panels and batteries in our area, and we really don't get much sun in Ohio. I will continue to explore installing enough panels to provide battery backup for when our power goes out, but I have several other expensive home repair and remodeling projects that need to be done first, and I hope costs will go down and more tax breaks are offered. Inflation and rising taxes have caused significant cost increases for most things that we buy and many of us are retired on a fixed income. This makes it much more difficult to be enthusiastic about spending more money to switch our energy sources, especially when some still need further refinement.

I've learned a lot on this thread regarding new sources that are being developed and improved. This illustrates that things continue to evolve, so each of us need to decide at what point it makes sense to change. Some of the clean energy sources available today will likely evolve and be replaced. We all have had experience with natural gas and fossil fuels, and they are much cleaner today than ever.

 

[emeryjre]

Iam all for consistent reliable no Co2 emitting Nuclear and Hydro, also hydrogen fuel cells lets expand and build more of those first please, Thanks.

Hydrogen extraction technology is just not there yet. It still costs to much to make a kilogram of hydrogen to be used as a regular fuel source. Every week brings a new bench lab announcement and breakthrough. A couple new technologies have been brought out of the lab and are in scaled up testing. One has real promise. I will try to post it soon. Hydrogen is still needed in certain industrial processes and it is produced for those needs.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I'm glad that the costs for these alternative energy sources are coming down as more power becomes available. I'm sure people in California and Arizona had fairly quick break even points for their investments in solar power, especially if they received tax credits. There is still a significant cost for installation of the solar panels and batteries in our area, and we really don't get much sun in Ohio. I will continue to explore installing enough panels to provide battery backup for when our power goes out, but I have several other expensive home repair and remodeling projects that need to be done first, and I hope costs will go down and more tax breaks are offered. Inflation and rising taxes have caused significant cost increases for most things that we buy and many of us are retired on a fixed income. This makes it much more difficult to be enthusiastic about spending more money to switch our energy sources, especially when some still need further refinement.

I've learned a lot on this thread regarding new sources that are being developed and improved. This illustrates that things continue to evolve, so each of us need to decide at what point it makes sense to change. Some of the clean energy sources available today will likely evolve and be replaced. We all have had experience with natural gas and fossil fuels, and they are much cleaner today than ever.

Residential solar, at least from what I have observed, isn’t as cost efficient nor is it at the low costs of commercial scale solar arrays. I wish it was, and there is talk about the democratization of solar toward residential to promote a distributed energy generation grid rather than what we have today, which is still largely centralized power generation distributed via an aging power grid, but we just aren’t there yet. I’ve priced solar for my home and I just cannot justify the conversion costs - my break even is 20+ years out given my current energy consumption and the limited sizing of a solar array I can put on my roof. My home faces due north, so I only have southern exposure on half of my roof that qualifies for solar roofing - whether panels or solar shingles. Even with the 30% federal tax credit I still cannot make the numbers work for residential solar for my specific scenario. I’d at least consider solar if the ROI was ten years or less, but we are also far from certain that we will be staying in our current home that long. There’s nothing wrong with taking personal economics into account - no one should have to fall on their own swords so to speak - until and unless is makes solid financial sense to do so.

That’s why I’m advocating for mass adoption of commercial scale solar arrays with megapacks to - at least initially - completely eliminate the need for peak power plants. This is already well under way - but I think we could accelerate the commercial transition quite a bit especially now that it makes more economic sense to do so.

 

[emeryjre]

Residential solar, at least from what I have observed, isn’t as cost efficient nor is it at the low costs of commercial scale solar arrays. I wish it was, and there is talk about the democratization of solar toward residential to promote a distributed energy generation grid rather than what we have today, which is still largely centralized power generation districted via the aging power grid, but we just aren’t there yet. I’ve priced solar for my home and I just cannot justify the conversion costs - my break even is 20+ years out given my current energy consumption and the limited sizing of a solar array I can put on my roof. My home faces due north, so I only have southern exposure on half of my roof that qualifies for solar roofing - whether panels or solar shingles. Even with the 30% federal tax credit I still cannot make the numbers work for residential solar for my specific scenario. I’d at least consider solar if the ROI was ten years or less, but we are also far from certain that we will be staying in our current home that long. There’s nothing wrong with taking personal economics into account - no one should have to fall on their own swords so to speak - until and unless is makes solid financial sense to do so.

That’s why I’m advocating for mass adoption of commercial scale solar arrays with megapacks to - at least initially - completely eliminate the need for peak power plants. This is already well under way - but I think we could accelerate the commercial transition quite a bit especially now that it makes more economic sense to do so.

The grid is still an issue. I can not install solar panels in my neighborhood. The developers put the electrical lines in the ground. In the late 60’s. The grid will not support 2 way electrical transmission necessary to sell power back to SDG&E. Unless I go completely off grid, solar is not an option. It is becoming more obvious many neighborhoods have this issue. All over the country. The easy neighborhoods with grids supporting 2way electrical flow were targeted by solar installers. So who pays to upgrade grids. Another bottleneck in distributed solar implementation.

 

[emeryjre]

Commercial level solar needs the storage problem solved as well. Peakers can be used anytime, day or night. If a major power plant suffers a setback for whatever reason. The peaker is there. Off peak storage needs a solution. First round of lithium is not the next round solution. It is a huge deal for renewable growth.