rebuttals to comments, for those that are inclined:
1) Energy Return on Investment (EROI) to run a modern industrial society is at least 7 (that is, an input of 1 "unit" of energy to mine, make and use an energy source must yield at least 7 units of energy to make it worthwhile). Solar is nowhere close to 7.
They're made of glass, copper, aluminum and food dye. 100 dollars of cells will pump out 100 watts per hour. that's 1 KW hours a day averaged over the year's insolation of 10 hours (that's averaged over the whole year for north America including night and overcast) you'll have an ROI (@$0.10/KW) of 2.5 years.
Are you seriously claiming that the EROI is worse than the customer ROI? Cause if you are, I have no idea what to tell you. Yes I know installers will soak you for 10s of thousands for a turnkey system, however, have you priced any other alternative turnkey system? DIYs are not paying those prices. Life span of a Solar panel is 25 years for no less that 90% output and 50 years at 50% output iirc. This source seems a bit bullshitty for me.
It states quite clearly that an EROI of greater than 1 is required for a system to work (duh) then arbitrarily determines 7 is the magic number. Why is 700% return reasonable? on top of that, solar looks to me like it's vastly superior than the 3.5 in the article.
I can invest 2 years worth of power bills (avg $2136 for average use of 15KW/H per day, could buy and install this system https://www.amazon.ca/RENOGY-Monocrystalline-Grid-Tied-Listed-Panels/dp/B00DJF8J4M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503342344&sr=8-1&keywords=2+kw+solar which will exceed my needs by 5KW/h per day. If I then spend a 3rd years power bills I can buy a 20KW power wall and go off the grid. that's a financial ROI of 3 years. There is no way the panels will be dead in 21 years. They should still be providing 90% their output by then, exceeding the EROI of 7 the article requires, and on top of that, they should go another 29, providing a EROI of at least 1-15. This is assuming the manufacture is making them at cost, which would be ludicrous. Therefore the EROI is more like 20.
2) What if I only buy a Nissan leaf and ignore the vastly superior custom made EVs or the Tesla that's just hit showroom floors that is cheaper than a Leaf, and want to drive to Kamloops?
No one said you wouldn't have a gas car too, I just get sick of hearing how inefficient EVs are compared to ICE, I didn't say DOWN WITH ICE LONG LIVE EVs! Besides, if you did need to go to Kamloops, you'd plan your trip accordingly just as you would with an ICE. I've been stranded waiting for gas stations to open on the northern ON TransCanada route many times. The Tesla cars can be recharged in 30 minutes for about 5 bucks, and have hyper-miled for over 1000km before. this is a non issue shortly. Especially if the glass based batteries pan out. People will be like (well what if I want to drive across the continent non stop twice, I couldn't do that in an ICE!!)
3) Our what happens if you try this in Edmonton, in Jan, at -30c? Not only is battery storage affected, but you have to heat the interior of the car. And I believe that you glossed over conversion losses inherent in any battery charging system.
In under zero conditions, a heater draws 5 watt/hour from the 80 000 watt battery pack(about a year to draw the battery down to half), and keeps the insulated battery compartment warm. When you start the car, your heat comes from the computer and motors. There is no additional load to the system while engaged, anymore than a conventional car. Non of the Tesla drivers in Edmonton are having any problems. And no I didn't, it's in there as heat loss in the electrical to chemical battery conversion.
4) C_Canuk, do you have any references for your efficiency (or lack thereof) figures?
I've looked them up many times. they are rounded to easy to chew on numbers. 25% is a car running on the highway, city driving without an assist like hybrids drops to 10%. Diesels are more efficient due to their method of combustion and fuel being more stable. Again 40% is max efficiencies on the highway. Either way, when you have people crowing about how total energy costs of an EV are as bad or worse than ICE, I get irritated that the best numbers possible are still half the numbers of an EV when including the distribution network, before you count the distribution network for ICE.
Quick throttle Nat Gas plants are about 75-80% efficient, high efficiency are 90+%. Nuclear is 90+, and Coleson Cove in NB was at 65% converted from coal to bunker crude, so I assumed most coal was around there and better since they've been cleaning up their act. Hydro is like 99% efficient. Etc. If you're going to take issue with them, you can look them up. I'm confident they're well within the ball park. they're all more efficient that ICE including line loss and charging, regardless.
5) Oh, wait...I see you may have forgotten to add the electrical charge/discharge losses of the lithium-ion batteries as used in EVs. Don't forget to add that into your calculations too for EV efficiency.
Nope they are there as heat loss in the conversion from electrical to chemical and back, and included in heat loss in electrical to kinetic.
If you want to get all nit picky, I can start looking up the losses in transporting crude to refineries, refining, and the distribution network. I'm sure my numbers will be vastly improved and you'll look really silly.
6) When a car's electricity tank can be refilled as quickly as another car's gasoline tank, I might become a little more interested - but still not enough.
Well, the majority of people's commute is well within most EV's range, so it actually saves you having to find a place to fill up. Tesla's can use the super chargers that will top you up in 30 minutes. which is pretty close to the 10-15 most stops would take. The next gen of glass batteries should, if they pan out, be extremely fast. This is assuming this would be the only car you'd own. I'm not arguing that, I'm just arguing that the numbers people keep regurgitating from biased sources are wrong, and the technical efficiency of EVs is way better than ICE. individual practicalities not withstanding.
7) Has anyone seen the ecological and environmental damage they do digging out the components of these batteries. The oil sands look like my grandmother's garden compared to the huge open pit mines for lithium. The oil patch returns their property back to nature. These huge open pit mines are there forever.
you do realize, most of the materials for EVs come from the same mines as everything else right? there aren't special mines for EV production. They will exist regardless of the existence of EV. Many of the materials are used in traditional cars as well. Mining is Mining. you can't compare it to Oil extraction.
8) Any possible carbon footprint reduction for your electric car is offset by the huge carbon footprint required to make your battery.
This argument again....
Ok, difference between and EV and ICEV is one has an electric motor, and a battery, the other has a gas tank, oil tank, radiator, engine, pumps, transmission, clutch or torque converter.
The batteries are belts of thin stainless, with an electrolyte, dielectric and another electrolyte smeared on it, rolled up, capped and insulated, the motor is a crude iron casting with light machining wound with copper. You're going to claim making those is a bigger carbon footprint than the other components for an ICE? It's no contest.
You want to know why you're hearing all this BS about EVs? there isn't a spare parts supply chain for them like an ICE cause they're too simple. Simple = more efficient production chain.
9 ) The whole thing is a farce. Everything used by green energy is manufactured using petroleum. They will never recover the cost of their complete inefficiency. We are actually increasing the amount of petroleum required for today's world due to manufacturing. If you wish to move back to the 1700's. Stop drilling and processing world wide. Everything will come to a total stop in a matter of weeks. I'm not saying to trash green energy, but turbines and panels have to drop exceedingly in price (I'll throw a figure of 75% less than now, in order to make people change over to make it worth it).
in my original post, this is why I said it's barbaric that we're burning our best feedstock for advanced materials for crude heat. I never said I wanted to go back to the 1700s. You're making incorrect assumptions. I said EVs are the way of the future and we need to stop burning petroleum cause we need it for manufacturing. That said, turbines and panels in the mass consumer market are luxury items with about 10 000% markup right now. DIY people have been doing it themselves for quite some time with ROI of under 5 years.
10) Very few people consider an all-aspect, "cradle-to-grave" cost to the environment of particular means of transportation. EV types it seems, however, have a particular ability to believe that they are far purer than others in the "my [poop] doesn't smell" category
Oh please, did you not notice I included the entire chain for EVs but left out the distribution and refining for ICE and EVs still came out looking better, purely efficiency wise?
I never said EVs are the be all end all, I just said I cringe every time I hear you guys go on about how they're less efficient than ICE which is bullocks.
R version- the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) to run a modern industrial society is at least 7 (that is, an input of 1 "unit" of energy to mine, make and use an energy source must yield at least 7 units of energy to make it worthwhile). Solar is nowhere close to 7. And it is intermittent. Try going solar in Edmonton, or Yellowknife in December (I stipulate that, in July you do much, much better in both those places). Solar, in my view, is best used in remote areas where transmission lines are too expensive to run.
)
