EV drawbacks

grandpaul said:

According to that article, it hinges on the EV being able to travel a certain distance without emissions.

OK, so I suppose it matters not how many tons of carbon the CHARGING FACILITIES emit? How about the actual PRODUCTION of the materials used in the MANUFACTURE of the EVs themselves? Doesn't matter, I suppose, as long as the little bitty EV doesn't "emit" anything.

"It's a greeeeeeeeen world, after all"

Click to expand...

concours said:

Again, ALL the proponents of electric vehicles have absolutely NO IDEA of the MAGNITUDE of power plants and power lines needed to provide the needed electric power.
Regurgitating buzzwords like "infrastructure" is the wildly inaccurate response.

Click to expand...

Stephen_Spencer said:

Hi Concours. Are you actually saying that the vast majority of the worlds environmental scientists have ‘no idea‘ about power generation requirements for their own modelling? Big call mate. Lots (and lots) of data and information published on just how they believe this will be achieved, with caveats for projections/variabilities. ‘No idea’ might be a bit of a stretch!

Click to expand...

concours said:

Thanks, but I'll not have words put in my mouth.
I've seen the movie too many times.

Click to expand...

Stephen_Spencer said:

You might have misread the comment on distance without emissions GP - I think it was referring to the continued sale of hybrids.

We seem to be talking about the electrification process as though targets and deadlines are arbitrary, without any assessment given to wider implications; including the obvious downside of (some) current power generation and vehicle/battery production costs (financial, environmental and human). With respect, I believe that to be a flawed narrative.

The process used to make these hugely significant changes appears to have factored in all conceivable implications. There is a mountain of literature available covering this without going anywhere near dry and lengthy IPPC reports. We just need to be willing to look, and maybe broaden thinking away from individual drawbacks (exploding EV’s etc) that may form from a mind already made up. My thoughts only.

View attachment 106625

Click to expand...

Stephen_Spencer said:

Hi Concours. Are you actually saying that the vast majority of the worlds environmental scientists have ‘no idea‘ about power generation requirements for their own modelling? Big call mate. Lots (and lots) of data and information published on just how they believe this will be achieved, with caveats for projections/variabilities. ‘No idea’ might be a bit of a stretch!

Click to expand...

Fast Eddie said:

I wouldn’t say they have ‘no idea’.

What I would say is the numbers and models very often get distorted to fit an agenda, and if they still don’t fit they get distorted until they do. And when someone points out an issue, they get ignored.

Models are the easiest thing in the world to play around with because they are based entirely on ASSUMPTIONS. Base assumptions can be many, and varied, and interdependencies can be very complex.

Base assumptions can also be buried very deep… so it’s quite easy to play around with them (relatively) undetected… one only has to look at some of the covid examples to see how the unscrupulous use / manipulation of model input assumptions is actually commonplace (read about Neil Ferguson in the U.K. and his impact on govt thinking at the time).

I‘ve told this before but it’s relevant here:

I did some work for (at the time) the largest off shore windmill producer in the world.

They used models to demonstrate viability, like all models they’re based on assumptions.

I forget exactly, but it went something like this, the models were based on:

80% utilisation, reality was low 40s.

A 25 year lifespan of the ‘turret‘ (the key part of a windmill in terms of raw materials and carbon footprint, etc) but they needed changing every 5.

To change this many turrets they had to commission a fleet of ‘platform ships‘ c/w own cranes etc (I do not know the carbon footprint of building a fleet of ships and heavy cranes… but its obviously huge).

These turrets are a big deal, the main shaft was 4 meters in diameter and run in huge bronze bushes, as soon as I saw one of these shafts on the floor I thought ‘what’s the carbon footprint in THAT piece alone’?!

They had to use 10 times the assumed amount of concrete on the sea bed per windmill.

So in summary: a little over half of the assumed utilisation… 5 times the renewal / maintenance rate of the turret… an extra / unplanned fleet of platform ships… 10 times the assumed amount concrete.

And guess what? The assumptions in the viability model had NOT been amended …

Click to expand...

kommando said:

Opps,

German electricity to be rationed as EVs and heat pumps threaten collapse of local power grids

The Federal Network Agency is planning to ration the power supply to heat pumps and EV charging stations in order to protect the distribution grids from collapse. Charging times of three hours to charge electric cars will be allowed so that they can cover a distance of 50 kilometers. Electric cars,

www.netzerowatch.com

The Federal Network Agency is planning to ration the power supply to heat pumps and EV charging stations in order to protect the distribution grids from collapse. Charging times of three hours to charge electric cars will be allowed so that they can cover a distance of 50 kilometers.

Electric cars, heat pumps and private solar systems are booming. This is pushing the power grids in cities and communities to their limits.

An expert quoted by the “FAZ” warns that the local power grids are in danger of becoming the bottleneck for the energy transition. According to estimates, expanding it would cost a three-digit billion amount.

The Federal Network Agency wants to ration electricity for consumers to prevent a collapse in supply.

Click to expand...

Stephen_Spencer said:

Don’t doubt there are agendas on both sides FE, but I‘m assuming that the consensus reached by the IPCC is as definitive as it can be, notwithstanding the variables/assumptions made.

Remembering that the IPPC does not do its own research, but collates peer reviewed research to prepare its assessment reports. Their work is open to scrutiny. I’m guessing there are enough interested parties out there that would kill to disprove this work to keep the IPPC honest, if that were required (I think not). In short, no space for cooking the books methinks, with the scientific world watching your every calculation and projection.

View attachment 106627

The offshore windmill story is interesting but probably not unique - new technologies will always have hiccups; sometimes huge ones - history is littered. Not sure that is really indicatIve that other projections/assumptions will be so deleterious. Will there be f@$k-ups, almost certainly! With the stakes so high we better hope they are minimised.

Click to expand...