Sen. Schumer gas for electric car trade in program?

[Brett327]

I live in Kauai like @Treetop Flyer guessed. It is mostly sunny year round. Gets rainy sometimes but enough sunlight to power the place.

Oh, then you and I are going to get to hang out soon. ?

 

[nodropinufaka]

Oh, then you and I are going to get to hang out soon. ?

sounds like a plan.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Our house is completely run by Solar. Doesn't use any power from the grid. In fact the meters run backwards. It can charge an electric vehicle as well enough to commute daily.

I think we should move away from our reliance on oil and non renewable energy.

That's good and all, but solar and wind and most forms of renewable energy don't have the constant generation capacity to provide a good baseline level of power or surge capacity during especially high power consumption such as the record heat waves during Summer 2020 on the West Coast. During those heat waves, California had rolling blackouts that initially weren't announced. The reason for those blackouts was the solar grid (California's grid became too reliant on solar power) couldn't keep up in the afternoon and early evening once the sun dropped below the optimal generation horizon. Solar, wind, et al simply cannot get around occurrences like this and battery technology is not advanced enough to be able to make up for these dips in power generation.

 

[Flash]

This is the thing so few understand about EVs. The environmental impact of battery production and disposal is huge...

As is the extraction of fossil fuels, fortunately folks are working on the disposal and recycling of batteries for everything from computers to electric cars which will improve with the disposal and production issues.

we're just shifting our carbon production from individual cars to the power grid which is still reliant on coal, oil, and gas for baseline generation and surge capacity.

The emissions impact of electric vehicles depends a lot on where they get their electricity from, the cleaner it is the 'cleaner' the vehicle, which is why the shift from coal-fired power stations to natural gas powered power stations helps with the emissions.

Then why aren't we pushing for real change?

What would that be?

Germany is widely considered to be the leader among first-world countries to commit to renewable energy. The price tag thus far is in the billions of euros for direct costs and trillions if you consider indirect costs. While they top the list of % of renewable energy used its still only just under 13%.

Where'd you get that?

Also, the average cost of electricity in Germany is 30 cents per kWh compared to the 13 cents in the US. Bottom line is you have to pay a lot of money for a technology that isn't mature enough to replace conventional energy production sources in a meaningful capacity. Cost/benefit > 1 when compared to said conventional sources.

The price of energy in Germany has a lot more to do with where they get it than renewables, as they rely quite heavily on imported natural gas that comes mainly from Russia while we are relying more and more on domestic production.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

As is the extraction of fossil fuels, fortunately folks are working on the disposal and recycling of batteries for everything from computers to electric cars which will improve with the disposal and production issues.



The emissions impact of electric vehicles depends a lot on where they get their electricity from, the cleaner it is the 'cleaner' the vehicle, which is why the shift from coal-fired power stations to natural gas powered power stations helps with the emissions.



What would that be?



Where'd you get that?



The price of energy in Germany has a lot more to do with where they get it than renewables, as they rely quite heavily on imported natural gas that comes mainly from Russia while we are relying more and more on domestic production.

How much does Germany’s energy transition cost?

www.cleanenergywire.org

It's a bit of a read and most of the indirect costs come from shuttering and disposing of nuclear generation facilities.

 

[Flash]

It's a bit of a read and most of the indirect costs come from shuttering and disposing of nuclear generation facilities.

Interesting read, thanks for linking. The costs associated with decommissioning reactors were almost certainly going to come due sooner or later with or without Germany's transition to more renewable energy, from the article you linked though the total cost of the decommissioning would be about €65 billion to include waste disposal and storage. It looks like the biggest cost in their transition will be from commitments for renewables during the transition when the cost of renewables is highest.

An important quote from the article, from a compilation of studies on the energy transition to renewables:

Overall, the energy transition has a slightly positive effect on the economy, mainly thanks to efficiency measures decreasing the need for coal, oil, and gas imports. In contrast to paying other countries for fossil fuel imports, Energiewende-related investments stimulate value added and growth in Germany.

Would I want us to be the guinea pig in a race to transition to all renewable energy generation like Germany? Nope, but I see little downside in trying to get to cleaner fuel sources that are more efficient and produce less waste than what we have used in the past and today.

 

[nodropinufaka]

That's good and all, but solar and wind and most forms of renewable energy don't have the constant generation capacity to provide a good baseline level of power or surge capacity during especially high power consumption such as the record heat waves during Summer 2020 on the West Coast. During those heat waves, California had rolling blackouts that initially weren't announced. The reason for those blackouts was the solar grid (California's grid became too reliant on solar power) couldn't keep up in the afternoon and early evening once the sun dropped below the optimal generation horizon. Solar, wind, et al simply cannot get around occurrences like this and battery technology is not advanced enough to be able to make up for these dips in power generation.

All true.

but hopefully we can move and transition toward better renewable energy sources. It will take time but I think it’s a worthwhile endeavor

Like @Flash said there is little downside towards working towards cleaner renewable energy.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

All true.

but hopefully we can move and transition toward better renewable energy sources. It will take time but I think it’s a worthwhile endeavor

Like @Flash said there is little downside towards working towards cleaner renewable energy.

Besides cost, complexity, reliability, availability of materials, and land use, very little downside

 

[nodropinufaka]

Besides cost, complexity, reliability, availability of materials, and land use, very little downside

Well the only way to get past that is advance technology.

We have to do something. The carbon footprint is causing climate change and it is both a threat to national security and global security. Further it allows the PRC to advance their interests in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

Do we just want to sit idly by when that happens or do we want to address it and look at using renewable energy instead?

 

[AllAmerican75]

As is the extraction of fossil fuels, fortunately folks are working on the disposal and recycling of batteries for everything from computers to electric cars which will improve with the disposal and production issues.

But we aren't there yet. We keep throwing out programs that focus on the wrong end of the problem such as EVs instead of power generation and the grid itself.

The emissions impact of electric vehicles depends a lot on where they get their electricity from, the cleaner it is the 'cleaner' the vehicle, which is why the shift from coal-fired power stations to natural gas powered power stations helps with the emissions.

Which is why we should focus on generation and delivery first. It has a higher cost of entry but much more payback. Not saying "green" generation systems shouldn't be part of the solution but they aren't the end all, be all as I've discussed already.

What would that be?

Shifting away from fossil fuels for generation, focusing efforts to modernize our nuclear infrastructure, modernize our power grid and delivery infrastructure, better waste disposal systems, and subsidizing more efficient light bulbs and appliances (Set an efficiency rating and let the tech sort itself out, don't repeat the debacle with CFLs). We lack the infrastructure for widespread EV adoption, especially in rural areas.

The price of energy in Germany has a lot more to do with where they get it than renewables, as they rely quite heavily on imported natural gas that comes mainly from Russia while we are relying more and more on domestic production.

But why have they had to bring new LNG power generation capacity online when they were supposed to be shifting to all "green"? Why did closing their nuclear power stations bite them in the ass?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Well the only way to get past that is advance technology.

We have to do something. The carbon footprint is causing climate change and it is both a threat to national security and global security. Further it allows the PRC to advance their interests in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

Do we just want to sit idly by when that happens or do we want to address it and look at using renewable energy instead?

How exactly is climate change allowing the PRC to advance their interests?

 

[AllAmerican75]

Well the only way to get past that is advance technology.

Yes, and there are better ways to do that than pushing specific technologies over others.

The carbon footprint is causing climate change and it is both a threat to national security and global security. Further it allows the PRC to advance their interests in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

This is entirely up for debate as many in this thread have stated. China is one of the worst polluters, what makes you think they'll agree? Why have so many countries failed to meet their commitments in the Paris Accords? Why have so many countries failed to meet their commitments and/or lowered their commitments in the Kyoto Accords? Don't they care?

We have to do something. Do we just want to sit idly by when that happens or do we want to address it and look at using renewable energy instead?

So what should we do? We've been reducing carbon emissions over the last decade and yet the cries for alarm haven't changed a bit. Those same cries for alarm have remained steady since the late 1890s. What evidence is there to show that reducing carbon emissions will save us? What evidence is there that returning to a pre-industrial state will save us?

 

[nodropinufaka]

This is entirely up for debate as many in this thread have stated. China is one of the worst polluters, what makes you think they'll agree? Why have so many countries failed to meet their commitments in the Paris Accords? Why have so many countries failed to meet their commitments and/or lowered their commitments in the Kyoto Accords? Don't they care?

I think we are talking about two different things.

The small PINs are now looking to china due to effects of climate change. Do we want islands from the second and third island chain going to china for help or going to the United States? China is going to advance their interest in exactly that way.

 

[nodropinufaka]

How exactly is climate change allowing the PRC to advance their interests?

Some Pacific Island Nations Are Turning To China. Climate Change Is A Factor

The Solomon Islands and Kiribati recently established ties with China. Economic considerations are a key driver, but both nations also cite concerns about climate change as a reason for the decision.

www.npr.org

Climate risk and response in Asia

Climate change in Asia: A detailed analysis of the extent of climate risk facing the region and effective responses for adaptation and mitigation

www.mckinsey.com

Step-up with China in the Pacific on climate change and development aid - Disruptive Asia

Australia has recognised the need to adjust its approach to development in the Pacific, particularly with respect to its changing relationship with China. The ‘Pacific Step-up’ is becoming a whole of Government approach to rethink our relationship with our Pacific neighbours. However, rather...

asiasociety.org

And like I said earlier Department of State/USAID is already publishing about the threat to stability that climate change will have in the INDOPACIFIC.

I can't publish it here for obvious reasons but it is allowing the PRC to advance their interests. The PRC is already moving quick with BPC missions, military aid, funding, etc both west towards the IO and East towards PINs.

The PINs are specifically stating that climate change is a threat to themselves as well (As well as data sets that support it).

So we have to at least acknowledge it and move towards sustainability and renewable energy. Otherwise if we don't the messaging is going to be that we don't care in climate change, don't believe it, and its not necessarily human caused.

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

I'm no hippy or environmentalist (I own a 2 stroke dirtbike) but I never understood the total unwillingness of people to take care of the environment and their push back against renewable energy. Some of the people I served with were convinced anyone who drove a Prius or Tesla were eco-terrorists.

I don't think the gov't should force solar. But, I also don't think there is anything wrong with Teslas. I at least try to minimize my impact and don't support needless destruction of the environment.