Follow up thread - electrical

[Loyal Coug1]

The other thread was getting messy - what a shocker!

Here's how I feel. I am all for more electric vehicles, but the alleged mandate by 2030 is complete BS. I'll never give up my Subaru or Chevy truck.

What kills me is all these granolas that want to breach the dams - but how do they replace the electricity that the provide? Here in YakiVegas County, the redneck commissioners put a moratorium on a couple of major solar projects. Preaching a bunch of BS about loss of AG land, etc. These projects, if you've ever been to eastern YakiVegas county, are deserted wastelands. Loss of what - sagebrush and rattlesnakes?

So yeah - let's promote electric cars, etc. But keep it reasonable, and promote solar, wind and dam preservation to enhance it. Once Inslee is out, maybe some sanity will flow in.

 

[95coug]

The other thread was getting messy - what a shocker!

Here's how I feel. I am all for more electric vehicles, but the alleged mandate by 2030 is complete BS. I'll never give up my Subaru or Chevy truck.

What kills me is all these granolas that want to breach the dams - but how do they replace the electricity that the provide? Here in YakiVegas County, the redneck commissioners put a moratorium on a couple of major solar projects. Preaching a bunch of BS about loss of AG land, etc. These projects, if you've ever been to eastern YakiVegas county, are deserted wastelands. Loss of what - sagebrush and rattlesnakes?

So yeah - let's promote electric cars, etc. But keep it reasonable, and promote solar, wind and dam preservation to enhance it. Once Inslee is out, maybe some sanity will flow in.

Not if Ferguson gets elected. Pretty sure he’s the one who’s been pulling Inslee’s strings the last few years.

Without a way to store power, solar and wind will never be sufficient to meet our needs.

 

[Suudy]

Not if Ferguson gets elected. Pretty sure he’s the one who’s been pulling Inslee’s strings the last few years.

Without a way to store power, solar and wind will never be sufficient to meet our needs.

Exactly. CA enacted years ago an energy storage mandate. They were supposed to have ~1GW of storage by 2020. And they have approved up to 1.3GW. But currently only have about 530MW operational right now. But that was before the electric vehicle market took off.

If they can't hit their mandate goals of energy storage, I don't know how they plan to hit the electric vehicle mandate.

Further, the idea is that the storage is restored at off-peak hours (i.e. night time). But that is exactly when people will be charging their cars, so off-peak demand will increase significantly. Frankly, I don't know if there is enough storage, and even if there was, generation still needs to increase. And with NIMBY, that's tough to do.

 

[whoisyaodaddy]

Exactly. CA enacted years ago an energy storage mandate. They were supposed to have ~1GW of storage by 2020. And they have approved up to 1.3GW. But currently only have about 530MW operational right now. But that was before the electric vehicle market took off.

If they can't hit their mandate goals of energy storage, I don't know how they plan to hit the electric vehicle mandate.

Further, the idea is that the storage is restored at off-peak hours (i.e. night time). But that is exactly when people will be charging their cars, so off-peak demand will increase significantly. Frankly, I don't know if there is enough storage, and even if there was, generation still needs to increase. And with NIMBY, that's tough to do.

I am still perplexed that hybrid technology is not pushed more. I think the CEO of Toyota is correct....maximize hybrid technology. We are never going to advance as a society and have a zero carbon footprint. Personally, I own 4 cars....two of which will be transferred to my two kids once they are 26. I am in no hurry to give up my two other cars...a 2005 Honda Accord (manual 5 speed...still love to drive it) and my 2006 Dodge 1500. What am I going to trade those in for? An electric that costs 60K? No thanks. IF my Accord ever breaks down to the point of no return, I will get a Toyota Prius.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

At some point, we all have to understand that nuclear power needs to be one of the solutions.

 

[Suudy]

At some point, we all have to understand that nuclear power needs to be one of the solutions.

I don't know if you've watched Sabine Hossenfelder's videos before, but she does a spectacular job giving balanced views on science topics (unlike Tyson, Nye, Krauss, etc.). She had a video on nuclear energy that has really got me questioning my love of nuclear energy. Her perspective seems quite balanced and its not quite the panacea I thought it was.

 

[BSpike76]

The other thread was getting messy - what a shocker!

Here's how I feel. I am all for more electric vehicles, but the alleged mandate by 2030 is complete BS. I'll never give up my Subaru or Chevy truck.

What kills me is all these granolas that want to breach the dams - but how do they replace the electricity that the provide? Here in YakiVegas County, the redneck commissioners put a moratorium on a couple of major solar projects. Preaching a bunch of BS about loss of AG land, etc. These projects, if you've ever been to eastern YakiVegas county, are deserted wastelands. Loss of what - sagebrush and rattlesnakes?

So yeah - let's promote electric cars, etc. But keep it reasonable, and promote solar, wind and dam preservation to enhance it. Once Inslee is out, maybe some sanity will flow in.

I hear you Loyal. i don’t think they’re going to take your subie, you just won’t be able to buy a new one, if they hold fast to the law. Trade in ‘29 and you’ll be good for another 15 years.

We traded our Outback for an EV6 this year. So far we like it but there are some things we miss about the Outback. Towing, ability to go anywhere, but the tranny was starting to have a few hiccups. We looked at plug in hybrid, but decided to go cold turkey.

A couple of years ago we put in a 6kw solar system, so we can cover our “fuel” needs with some leftover. With the new tax credits for home storage I’m looking at taking a credit on the purchase as it is capable of v2l.

i also have an ‘03 MR2 Spyder for Autocross. I have taken some runs in EVs. While the torque and acceleration is awesome, it doesn’t compare to being on the limiter through a slalom in the MR2.

I wish the pols could consider compromise, rather than all or nothing.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I don't know if you've watched Sabine Hossenfelder's videos before, but she does a spectacular job giving balanced views on science topics (unlike Tyson, Nye, Krauss, etc.). She had a video on nuclear energy that has really got me questioning my love of nuclear energy. Her perspective seems quite balanced and its not quite the panacea I thought it was.

View embedded media

Interesting video. I've already heard most of the talking points but she does a great job of explaining everything. I hadn't heard that there is only a 15-20 year supply of Uranium 235 if nuclear energy production is significantly increased, but I suspect that switching to the other forms of uranium use will be figured out.

My one critique is that she fails to acknowledge that if there were a concerted effort to streamline the design and construction processes, that the cost portion of the equation is going to be reduced. Of course, it doesn't help that the nuclear industry is so conditioned to believe that outrageous prices are ok and that there isn't a compelling reason to change that. I have a friend who works in the nuclear energy and he just thinks that spending a couple billion on a 80MW modular plant makes sense....because it makes his company money.

Nuclear energy isn't the end all solution and is only one piece of the energy production pie. Doesn't mean that it should be abandoned in my book.

 

[95coug]

Exactly. CA enacted years ago an energy storage mandate. They were supposed to have ~1GW of storage by 2020. And they have approved up to 1.3GW. But currently only have about 530MW operational right now. But that was before the electric vehicle market took off.

If they can't hit their mandate goals of energy storage, I don't know how they plan to hit the electric vehicle mandate.

Further, the idea is that the storage is restored at off-peak hours (i.e. night time). But that is exactly when people will be charging their cars, so off-peak demand will increase significantly. Frankly, I don't know if there is enough storage, and even if there was, generation still needs to increase. And with NIMBY, that's tough to do.

And, what they leave out is the fact that when they approve 1.3GW, that doesn't mean they get 1.3GW. It means that the manufacturer nameplate capacity - if all conditions are optimal all the time - is 1.3 GW. Once they're built, when you reduce that by the times when the wind doesn't blow hard enough or blows too hard, or when they're down for maintenance, or they're down because the grid is full, or whatever other reason, they produce significantly less. When I was working with wind, operational capacity was 25-30% of nameplate. If California is getting 530MW out of 1.3GW, that's almost 41%, so is a significant improvement. I doubt that's increased efficiency of the turbines though, it's probably artificial efficiency, created by prioritizing wind sources over everything else - like shutting wind off last when the grid is full.

Speaking of inefficiency...how much land area is dedicated to wind in order to get 1.3GW (that is actually less than half that)?

Oh, and I also have to add regarding dams:
Washington and Oregon have moved toward prioritizing wind over hydro. They force the dams to stop generation in favor of wind as the grid gets full. But the river doesn't stop flowing, so the dams still have to pass water. If it doesn't go through the generators, it has to go over the spillways. The greenies have loved this idea - 'let the river flow! Save the salmon!'
Problem with that - when dams spill water, they kill far more salmon than when they go through the turbines. So, in this way, wind farms kill salmon. And eagles. And skylines.

 

[BSpike76]

And, what they leave out is the fact that when they approve 1.3GW, that doesn't mean they get 1.3GW. It means that the manufacturer nameplate capacity - if all conditions are optimal all the time - is 1.3 GW. Once they're built, when you reduce that by the times when the wind doesn't blow hard enough or blows too hard, or when they're down for maintenance, or they're down because the grid is full, or whatever other reason, they produce significantly less. When I was working with wind, operational capacity was 25-30% of nameplate. If California is getting 530MW out of 1.3GW, that's almost 41%, so is a significant improvement. I doubt that's increased efficiency of the turbines though, it's probably artificial efficiency, created by prioritizing wind sources over everything else - like shutting wind off last when the grid is full.

Speaking of inefficiency...how much land area is dedicated to wind in order to get 1.3GW (that is actually less than half that)?

Oh, and I also have to add regarding dams:
Washington and Oregon have moved toward prioritizing wind over hydro. They force the dams to stop generation in favor of wind as the grid gets full. But the river doesn't stop flowing, so the dams still have to pass water. If it doesn't go through the generators, it has to go over the spillways. The greenies have loved this idea - 'let the river flow! Save the salmon!'
Problem with that - when dams spill water, they kill far more salmon than when they go through the turbines. So, in this way, wind farms kill salmon. And eagles. And skylines.

Similar to my solar system. in perfect conditions it can produce 6kwh/hour. That would require the temp to be below 85 and the sun directly over head at all times. On a good day it can produce a little over 30 kWh, which over a year will yield about 6000 kWh.

 

[COUGinNCW]

And, what they leave out is the fact that when they approve 1.3GW, that doesn't mean they get 1.3GW. It means that the manufacturer nameplate capacity - if all conditions are optimal all the time - is 1.3 GW. Once they're built, when you reduce that by the times when the wind doesn't blow hard enough or blows too hard, or when they're down for maintenance, or they're down because the grid is full, or whatever other reason, they produce significantly less. When I was working with wind, operational capacity was 25-30% of nameplate. If California is getting 530MW out of 1.3GW, that's almost 41%, so is a significant improvement. I doubt that's increased efficiency of the turbines though, it's probably artificial efficiency, created by prioritizing wind sources over everything else - like shutting wind off last when the grid is full.

Speaking of inefficiency...how much land area is dedicated to wind in order to get 1.3GW (that is actually less than half that)?

Oh, and I also have to add regarding dams:
Washington and Oregon have moved toward prioritizing wind over hydro. They force the dams to stop generation in favor of wind as the grid gets full. But the river doesn't stop flowing, so the dams still have to pass water. If it doesn't go through the generators, it has to go over the spillways. The greenies have loved this idea - 'let the river flow! Save the salmon!'
Problem with that - when dams spill water, they kill far more salmon than when they go through the turbines. So, in this way, wind farms kill salmon. And eagles. And skylines.

Build massive reservoirs and store the water until it’s needed.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Build massive reservoirs and store the water until it’s needed.

Have you been to the Snake River and/or Lake Roosevelt? That's exactly what they are.

 

[dgibbons]

The other thread was getting messy - what a shocker!

Here's how I feel. I am all for more electric vehicles, but the alleged mandate by 2030 is complete BS. I'll never give up my Subaru or Chevy truck.

What kills me is all these granolas that want to breach the dams - but how do they replace the electricity that the provide? Here in YakiVegas County, the redneck commissioners put a moratorium on a couple of major solar projects. Preaching a bunch of BS about loss of AG land, etc. These projects, if you've ever been to eastern YakiVegas county, are deserted wastelands. Loss of what - sagebrush and rattlesnakes?

So yeah - let's promote electric cars, etc. But keep it reasonable, and promote solar, wind and dam preservation to enhance it. Once Inslee is out, maybe some sanity will flow in.

I doubt the capacity exists to switch over to EVs with all of the dams. There will be increased demand between now and 2030 too. I have yet to hear how the demand will be met. And as far as I know nothing is underway to ensure the demand will be met, regardless of whether that capacity comes from solar, wind, nuclear, hamsters on a wheel, or whatever.

 

[dgibbons]

I am still perplexed that hybrid technology is not pushed more. I think the CEO of Toyota is correct....maximize hybrid technology. We are never going to advance as a society and have a zero carbon footprint. Personally, I own 4 cars....two of which will be transferred to my two kids once they are 26. I am in no hurry to give up my two other cars...a 2005 Honda Accord (manual 5 speed...still love to drive it) and my 2006 Dodge 1500. What am I going to trade those in for? An electric that costs 60K? No thanks. IF my Accord ever breaks down to the point of no return, I will get a Toyota Prius.

Or how about hydrogen? The emission is water.

 

[dgibbons]

I hear you Loyal. i don’t think they’re going to take your subie, you just won’t be able to buy a new one, if they hold fast to the law. Trade in ‘29 and you’ll be good for another 15 years.

We traded our Outback for an EV6 this year. So far we like it but there are some things we miss about the Outback. Towing, ability to go anywhere, but the tranny was starting to have a few hiccups. We looked at plug in hybrid, but decided to go cold turkey.

A couple of years ago we put in a 6kw solar system, so we can cover our “fuel” needs with some leftover. With the new tax credits for home storage I’m looking at taking a credit on the purchase as it is capable of v2l.

i also have an ‘03 MR2 Spyder for Autocross. I have taken some runs in EVs. While the torque and acceleration is awesome, it doesn’t compare to being on the limiter through a slalom in the MR2.

I wish the pols could consider compromise, rather than all or nothing.

Except for the spare parts and service disappearing.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

And, what they leave out is the fact that when they approve 1.3GW, that doesn't mean they get 1.3GW. It means that the manufacturer nameplate capacity - if all conditions are optimal all the time - is 1.3 GW. Once they're built, when you reduce that by the times when the wind doesn't blow hard enough or blows too hard, or when they're down for maintenance, or they're down because the grid is full, or whatever other reason, they produce significantly less. When I was working with wind, operational capacity was 25-30% of nameplate. If California is getting 530MW out of 1.3GW, that's almost 41%, so is a significant improvement. I doubt that's increased efficiency of the turbines though, it's probably artificial efficiency, created by prioritizing wind sources over everything else - like shutting wind off last when the grid is full.

Speaking of inefficiency...how much land area is dedicated to wind in order to get 1.3GW (that is actually less than half that)?

Oh, and I also have to add regarding dams:
Washington and Oregon have moved toward prioritizing wind over hydro. They force the dams to stop generation in favor of wind as the grid gets full. But the river doesn't stop flowing, so the dams still have to pass water. If it doesn't go through the generators, it has to go over the spillways. The greenies have loved this idea - 'let the river flow! Save the salmon!'
Problem with that - when dams spill water, they kill far more salmon than when they go through the turbines. So, in this way, wind farms kill salmon. And eagles. And skylines.

I like salmon. But Gawd, enough on "saving" them. You have to make choices. If some fish doesn't make it then bummer but get over it. Breaching the dams to save some fish is ridiculous. How about you go shoot some off those non-native sea lions that sit in the Columbia and schnauze on the salmon. Oh but we can't do that. Let's gut the economy in E. Wash instead.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Except for the spare parts and service disappearing.

Shit I'm driving my Subaru until I die. 213,000 miles and all I've had to do is change the oil and one brake job. Which I'm not even sure was needed. No F-ing way will this electric mandate stand. F-ing People's Republic of Washington. F-ing Seattle people, nursing on the government's tit.

 

[Suudy]

Or how about hydrogen? The emission is water.

I was talking with a guy that works at BNSF about what he thinks will happen with Wabtec/GE Transportation's FlxDrive (their battery locomotive). He didn't think it would work ultimately as a standalone application, at least for any long haul operations, unless battery technology dramatically changes to increase the joules/kg they can store.

But he did mention there is work on hydrogen fuel cells that he's heard they are working on. It does work, is far cleaner to operate, is far less risky in terms of disposal and environmental problems w/ battery leaks, and they explosion risk is easily mitigated. The kicker, though, is that it is hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the smallest element--just a single proton--and as such, managing leaks is extremely difficult. Especially on moving platforms that are subject to stresses that wiggle joints. Further, it is so small, that very dense metals with tight crystalline structures have to be used, otherwise the atoms "dissolve" into the metal and eventually work their way out, but this means the tanks are more brittle than standard steel tanks. He estimated that a fully fueled hydrogen locomotive would like 1-2% per day just sitting idle. Moving down the track it would jump to 10-20%. Hence the reasons for the fuel cell itself to keep hydrogen trapped and release it as needed.

Also, it seems the the generation of pure hydrogen isn't cheap. The cleanest method is electrolysis, but it requires very nearly pure water to keep the output product clean and space out maintenance cycles. Other options require high heat or dangers chemicals. So while "burning" hydrogen may be clean, generating it is another problem.

 

[BSpike76]

Except for the spare parts and service disappearing.

I still find parts for my ‘03 pretty easily. A ‘57 Chev might be a little harder. I don’t think they’ll outlaw getting your car serviced.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Shit I'm driving my Subaru until I die. 213,000 miles and all I've had to do is change the oil and one brake job. Which I'm not even sure was needed. No F-ing way will this electric mandate stand. F-ing People's Republic of Washington. F-ing Seattle people, nursing on the government's tit.

I'm in favor of most people switching to EV's eventually and both my wife and I will eventually have EV's. That said, I just bought a brand new F-150 and I'm driving that son of a gun into the ground and will own it at least 15 years.

 

[95coug]

Or how about hydrogen? The emission is water.

Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas by quantity.

Better to make it a closed system, use it to split the water, generate hydrogen, then burn it to re-create water. Rinse and repeat.

 

[dgibbons]

Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas by quantity.

Better to make it a closed system, use it to split the water, generate hydrogen, then burn it to re-create water. Rinse and repeat.

OK. So, the emission is nothing. Seems like a winner since you don't need (or I guess don't need very much, I'm far from an expert) the lithium and other dirty stuff needed for batteries.

 

[95coug]

Build massive reservoirs and store the water until it’s needed.

There are a limited number of places where you could do that too. And then when someone drops a fish into it that proliferates, now you have to protect the fish that shouldn't be there in the reservoir that shouldn't be there. And the birds that nest there, etc.

I like salmon. But Gawd, enough on "saving" them. You have to make choices. If some fish doesn't make it then bummer but get over it. Breaching the dams to save some fish is ridiculous. How about you go shoot some off those non-native sea lions that sit in the Columbia and schnauze on the salmon. Oh but we can't do that. Let's gut the economy in E. Wash instead.

They also fail to realize that the salmon populations were already pretty well decimated before the first dams were built on the mainstem Snake & Columbia. Or that salmon would benefit far more from removing obstacles on the small tributary streams and creeks - the irrigation diversions, farm/ranch dams, logging diversions, etc. - than they will from removing the mainstem dams. Salmon want to spawn in those shallow, fast-moving streams, not in the mainstem river.

They also ignore that west coast salmon have also been declining in rivers that don't have any dams. That doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[95coug]

OK. So, the emission is nothing. Seems like a winner since you don't need (or I guess don't need very much, I'm far from an expert) the lithium and other dirty stuff needed for batteries.

The hard part is, like someone pointed out above, sealing the system. Hydrogen leaks out of just about everything pretty easily, so every vehicle will need a new shot of hydrogen periodically. And, coming up with a system that can contain it and also tolerate cycles of heating/cooling and vibration will be a challenge.

 

[Stretch 74]

I doubt the capacity exists to switch over to EVs with all of the dams. There will be increased demand between now and 2030 too. I have yet to hear how the demand will be met. And as far as I know nothing is underway to ensure the demand will be met, regardless of whether that capacity comes from solar, wind, nuclear, hamsters on a wheel, or whatever.

Demand is increasing daily in the US from all the folks coming across the border illegally. I suppose the government will be giving them all new EV's as part of their welcome to the neighborhood package.

 

[Observer11]

I like salmon. But Gawd, enough on "saving" them. You have to make choices. If some fish doesn't make it then bummer but get over it. Breaching the dams to save some fish is ridiculous. How about you go shoot some off those non-native sea lions that sit in the Columbia and schnauze on the salmon. Oh but we can't do that. Let's gut the economy in E. Wash instead.

What if I told you that was the goal?

 

[95coug]

Demand is increasing daily in the US from all the folks coming across the border illegally. I suppose the government will be giving them all new EV's as part of their welcome to the neighborhood package.

Plus the fact that everyone keeps getting more and more devices and sucking more and more power

 

[moxeecoug]

The other thread was getting messy - what a shocker!

Here's how I feel. I am all for more electric vehicles, but the alleged mandate by 2030 is complete BS. I'll never give up my Subaru or Chevy truck.

What kills me is all these granolas that want to breach the dams - but how do they replace the electricity that the provide? Here in YakiVegas County, the redneck commissioners put a moratorium on a couple of major solar projects. Preaching a bunch of BS about loss of AG land, etc. These projects, if you've ever been to eastern YakiVegas county, are deserted wastelands. Loss of what - sagebrush and rattlesnakes?

So yeah - let's promote electric cars, etc. But keep it reasonable, and promote solar, wind and dam preservation to enhance it. Once Inslee is out, maybe some sanity will flow in.

My problem with what the state is doing is they are trying to dictate what we can buy and taking away our choices in purchasing legal products. I don’t think the governor or state legislature has the right to make these types of decisions for us and force us into something that quite a few of us don’t want. An EV may make more sense in places like Seattle but makes absolutely no sense for those of us who live in more rural settings and go into remote settings. I plan on being one of those who will go over to Idaho prior to enactment of this asinine law and purchase a gas operated vehicle in defiance of the governor and state legislature.

 

[BSpike76]

And in Florida kids have/use nick names unless the school has parents consent. Freedom!

 

[95coug]

My problem with what the state is doing is they are trying to dictate what we can buy and taking away our choices in purchasing legal products. I don’t think the governor or state legislature has the right to make these types of decisions for us and force us into something that quite a few of us don’t want. An EV may make more sense in places like Seattle but makes absolutely no sense for those of us who live in more rural settings and go into remote settings. I plan on being one of those who will go over to Idaho prior to enactment of this asinine law and purchase a gas operated vehicle in defiance of the governor and state legislature.

And, as the deadline gets closer, someone is going to make that legal claim. But they have to be "damaged" before they can file it. In the current court's originalist view, I can't imagine that this will be allowed to stand.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

My problem with what the state is doing is they are trying to dictate what we can buy and taking away our choices in purchasing legal products. I don’t think the governor or state legislature has the right to make these types of decisions for us and force us into something that quite a few of us don’t want. An EV may make more sense in places like Seattle but makes absolutely no sense for those of us who live in more rural settings and go into remote settings. I plan on being one of those who will go over to Idaho prior to enactment of this asinine law and purchase a gas operated vehicle in defiance of the governor and state legislature.

FWIW, there will be no plan to completely outlaw ICE powered vehicles in our lifetimes. They are too intertwined and widespread for that to happen without a politician committing political suicide. What we will see is a dramatic tightening of regulations on fuel production once EV ownership rate exceeds 75% overall...and maybe as soon as it hits 50%. Once the government can install strict new regulations that raise fuel prices significantly without hurting enough people to cost them elections, they will do it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if EV ownership has become a reality without a bunch of compromises. We'll see if that can happen though.

 

[dgibbons]

I was talking with a guy that works at BNSF about what he thinks will happen with Wabtec/GE Transportation's FlxDrive (their battery locomotive). He didn't think it would work ultimately as a standalone application, at least for any long haul operations, unless battery technology dramatically changes to increase the joules/kg they can store.

But he did mention there is work on hydrogen fuel cells that he's heard they are working on. It does work, is far cleaner to operate, is far less risky in terms of disposal and environmental problems w/ battery leaks, and they explosion risk is easily mitigated. The kicker, though, is that it is hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the smallest element--just a single proton--and as such, managing leaks is extremely difficult. Especially on moving platforms that are subject to stresses that wiggle joints. Further, it is so small, that very dense metals with tight crystalline structures have to be used, otherwise the atoms "dissolve" into the metal and eventually work their way out, but this means the tanks are more brittle than standard steel tanks. He estimated that a fully fueled hydrogen locomotive would like 1-2% per day just sitting idle. Moving down the track it would jump to 10-20%. Hence the reasons for the fuel cell itself to keep hydrogen trapped and release it as needed.

Also, it seems the the generation of pure hydrogen isn't cheap. The cleanest method is electrolysis, but it requires very nearly pure water to keep the output product clean and space out maintenance cycles. Other options require high heat or dangers chemicals. So while "burning" hydrogen may be clean, generating it is another problem.

Additional thoughts. I think this is (or mainly is) a passenger car discussion. I don't see trains, ships or aircraft switching power sources absent some miraculous technological breakthrough. As far as I know fossil fuel is the only source of energy that provides enough energy density (I believe that's the right term) for the massive amount of power necessary to get a plane off the ground, a ship across the sea, and train down the tracks.

And of course the mining equipment located in the middle of nowhere to dig up the lithium and cobalt for batteries, and whatever hydrogen fuel cells are made from, will continue to run on diesel.

 

[95coug]

FWIW, there will be no plan to completely outlaw ICE powered vehicles in our lifetimes. They are too intertwined and widespread for that to happen without a politician committing political suicide. What we will see is a dramatic tightening of regulations on fuel production once EV ownership rate exceeds 75% overall...and maybe as soon as it hits 50%. Once the government can install strict new regulations that raise fuel prices significantly without hurting enough people to cost them elections, they will do it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if EV ownership has become a reality without a bunch of compromises. We'll see if that can happen though.

I think you’re dreaming. Before petroleum gets regulated, the subsidies for it need to be phased out. That will also lead to higher prices.
The only way we’re getting to 75% EV - or even 50% - is if it’s economical for consumers. Prices for EV are not coming down much or quickly, so the only way it gets economical is if fuel prices are even higher than they are now. A significant portion of the population can’t afford either an EV or more expensive gas.

Add to that the limited infrastructure and the limited viability of EV for hauling, towing, and non-urban travel, and we’re still decades from that point of saturation

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I think you’re dreaming. Before petroleum gets regulated, the subsidies for it need to be phased out. That will also lead to higher prices.
The only way we’re getting to 75% EV - or even 50% - is if it’s economical for consumers. Prices for EV are not coming down much or quickly, so the only way it gets economical is if fuel prices are even higher than they are now. A significant portion of the population can’t afford either an EV or more expensive gas.

Add to that the limited infrastructure and the limited viability of EV for hauling, towing, and non-urban travel, and we’re still decades from that point of saturation

Note that I didn't give a timeline. Ford just cut Lightning prices by $10k. Only 2% of all car trips are over 50 miles in length. Battery technology is going to improve. A lot of elements are going to combine to make them more attractive over time. The last year proved that greedy manufacturers can stifle demand with unrealistic pricing though.

As long as the prices aren't ridiculous, my wife's next vehicle is going to be an EV. Frankly, I have to take her car sometimes just to get it warmed up enough to keep it from having engine troubles. It's likely that my next daily driver purchase (in 2028?) is going to be an EV. We are waiting until the time is right, but we are switching. A lot of other people will do the same.

Frankly, if Ford had dropped Lightning prices two months sooner, I would have given it a hard look. Probably wouldn't have done it, but I would have looked.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I think the key going forward is hybrids. We're not going to ever get off petroleum completely in our lifetimes, it's too imbedded within our society and economic infrastructure.

However, battery technology still has lots of room for improvement in all manner of transportation and can be both appealing and practical for a wide range of consumer needs within this country that has too wide and diverse geographical challenges to do an "either/or". That's all I have to say about that.

 

[random soul]

Interesting video. I've already heard most of the talking points but she does a great job of explaining everything. I hadn't heard that there is only a 15-20 year supply of Uranium 235 if nuclear energy production is significantly increased, but I suspect that switching to the other forms of uranium use will be figured out.

My one critique is that she fails to acknowledge that if there were a concerted effort to streamline the design and construction processes, that the cost portion of the equation is going to be reduced. Of course, it doesn't help that the nuclear industry is so conditioned to believe that outrageous prices are ok and that there isn't a compelling reason to change that. I have a friend who works in the nuclear energy and he just thinks that spending a couple billion on a 80MW modular plant makes sense....because it makes his company money.

Nuclear energy isn't the end all solution and is only one piece of the energy production pie. Doesn't mean that it should be abandoned in my book.

I've run across some people that are all about liquid thorium reactors, with one of the perks being that it can use current nuclear waste as fuel, runs on a fraction of the amount of material traditional uranium reactors run on, and generates far less waste that's far less hazardous to handle. That tech has its skeptics too, but it seems more promising to a layman like me than the traditional approach.

 

[random soul]

The hard part is, like someone pointed out above, sealing the system. Hydrogen leaks out of just about everything pretty easily, so every vehicle will need a new shot of hydrogen periodically. And, coming up with a system that can contain it and also tolerate cycles of heating/cooling and vibration will be a challenge.

Green hydrogen seems like a win on the surface, but any container you make for it is going to seep or leak or corrode/get brittle, because it's hydrogen, which means losses of efficiency that require the power put into generating and storing it to be practically free