EV drawbacks

marshg246 said:
Certainly cannot to a tornado as it would be impossible to keep turned into the wind and even if it could, the support would likely not withstand it. If a strong enough hurricane, it might also not be stay able to turned into the wind and may fail.

But for the vast majority of wind over 55mph it should already be turned into the wind, feathered, and should easily withstand 100mph gusts from the same direction. If you install one where you are LIKELY to see over 200 mph wind, you are stupid! Very few hurricanes are anywhere near that wind speed in VA, MD, NJ, NY or north or in any interior portions of the US and that is a risk they must factor in.

These are commercial companies, and you would hope that they have factored in the replacement cost for abnormal risks and decided that the risks are acceptable.
Click to expand...
Greg, I have flown aircraft and I have a decent comprehension of flight dynamics.
Don't overthink this.
My point is simple, like the guy in the movie said, "nature finds a way".
I am saying that if a wind farm is hit with sustained winds of 225+ mph the whole contraption is going in the drink no matter what the status of the propeller is.
Todays safe "build it here" site is tomorrow's hurricane hit zone.
 
Lineslinger said:
Greg, I have flown aircraft and I have a decent comprehension of flight dynamics.
Don't overthink this.
My point is simple, like the guy in the movie said, "nature finds a way".
I am saying that if a wind farm is hit with sustained winds of 225+ mph the whole contraption is going in the drink no matter what the status of the propeller is.
Todays safe "build it here" site is tomorrow's hurricane hit zone.
Click to expand...
Tried pretty hard to agree with your premise!

However, mine should be clear! If a company chooses to build a turbine where there is a likelihood of 225+ mph winds, then I hope they have done a proper risk assessment and determined that the potential loss of that turbine is an acceptable risk. When they built them in the ocean from VA north there is very little likely hood of hurricane winds over 100mph in the turbine's lifetime and certainly not in their payback time. Yes, I know the companies only consider the cost to them and the real cost compared to other energy can be/probably is higher. In fact, I'm clearly against the ocean wind farms because there are solutions that costs less, are not dangerous to the environment and potentially people, are not an eyesore, and produce power 24x7x365 for way lost cost.

Forgetting the ocean, the US Midwest has areas where the wind blows almost continuously. In South Dakota and Norton Dakota that is very true, and they have sometimes have windstorms in the 80-90mph range and other than the smallish cities, they are underpopulated. Move further south and at times in the year the tornados are common. It is unlikely that you can protect a wind farm in any was from a smallish tornado, and definitely not from EF4 or 5 even though their max windows are around 200mpg, they are too tightly packed. Still, near the bigger cities and electrical grid infrastructure they can be overall profitable. Top 10 US states producing electricity from wind: TX, IA, OK, KA, IL, CO, NM, CA, ND

Top ten states for electricity produced by wind by percentage (IA [81.8%], SD, OK, NM, NB, MN, CO, WY, TX [29%])

BTW, the record wind gust in Ocean City, Maryland (where I got into the recent incarnation of this discussion): "September 12, 1960 – Hurricane Donna passes just offshore, producing wind gusts of over 100 mph (160 km/h) in Ocean City." So, in recorded history the strongest wind is in the range I've been talking about and not 225+mph. So, for the last 64 years, no issue.

Virgina, hurricanes Camille and Agnes were massive disasters, killed people, it took me 3 days to get 32 miles from DC, and pretty much everything was flooded. The max wind gusts were 71 mph.

Delaware, no hurricane hits.

New Jersey, highest wind gust recorded in the state: 108. Much less at the beach.

New York, new the coast, highest recorded wind gust 100 mph.

Like real-estate, it's location, location, location that matters and for a company to invest in a windfarm, they do their best to define risk before starting.

I AM NOT fighting your 220+ mph wind premise - a wind farm would probably take significant damage. Please tell me where anyone in the US was so stupid to build a wind farm where wind cost them to lose money.
 
I haven’t followed this important discussion closely nor commented at all till now so please excuse me if this has been beaten to death already.

The root of the EV discussion is that we humans use too damned much energy. Some estimates are that we use more than falls on earth from the sun each day. That seems like a lot but is food for thought.

My question is why do we use so much energy? Aside from inefficiency, I believe it is the way our society is organized, particularly in auto-centric America and increasingly Europe and Asia. A major contributor is transportation. Peeling the onion, I wonder why. So much is wasted through inefficiency with the best gasoline engines about 15% thermally efficient and diesels half again that. But aside from that one has to ask why so much transportation is needed.

Mostly I believe its because of land use patterns. Compare Phoenix or LA with central London. One is walkable, two are not. How we got this way is a long discussion, the upshot of which is that it will take us a very long time to recast our built environment to require less transportation. In the meanwhile if we don’t become more efficient we’re doomed.

EVs use electricity. Electricity is mostly generated by heat engines using some form of the Carnot Cycle as do internal combustion, reciprocating engines. However, the most efficient coal-fired electric power plants are approaching the theoretical limits of the Carnot cycle at about 69% last I read So even including energy state changes, line loss across the grid, battery use and charging inefficiencies, it’s a long way between 69% and 15% for gasoline powered cars. One reference I saw was 40% for diesels as of 1969.

Certainly, EVs powered by electricity generated at high efficiency are environmentally better but one must consider the cost of building and maintaining the energy generating systems. Electricity is after all not an energy source per se but a means of moving energy from one place to another.

In the end though, we must use less transportation. I’d rather travel for pleasure than work or shopping but I don’t have that choice.
 
Thomasa said:
I haven’t followed this important discussion closely nor commented at all till now so please excuse me if this has been beaten to death already.

The root of the EV discussion is that we humans use too damned much energy. Some estimates are that we use more than falls on earth from the sun each day. That seems like a lot but is food for thought.

My question is why do we use so much energy? Aside from inefficiency, I believe it is the way our society is organized, particularly in auto-centric America and increasingly Europe and Asia. A major contributor is transportation. Peeling the onion, I wonder why. So much is wasted through inefficiency with the best gasoline engines about 15% thermally efficient and diesels half again that. But aside from that one has to ask why so much transportation is needed.

Mostly I believe its because of land use patterns. Compare Phoenix or LA with central London. One is walkable, two are not. How we got this way is a long discussion, the upshot of which is that it will take us a very long time to recast our built environment to require less transportation. In the meanwhile if we don’t become more efficient we’re doomed.

EVs use electricity. Electricity is mostly generated by heat engines using some form of the Carnot Cycle as do internal combustion, reciprocating engines. However, the most efficient coal-fired electric power plants are approaching the theoretical limits of the Carnot cycle at about 69% last I read So even including energy state changes, line loss across the grid, battery use and charging inefficiencies, it’s a long way between 69% and 15% for gasoline powered cars. One reference I saw was 40% for diesels as of 1969.

Certainly, EVs powered by electricity generated at high efficiency are environmentally better but one must consider the cost of building and maintaining the energy generating systems. Electricity is after all not an energy source per se but a means of moving energy from one place to another.

In the end though, we must use less transportation. I’d rather travel for pleasure than work or shopping but I don’t have that choice.
Click to expand...
Do you live in the city?
 
Last edited:
I have lived my life as a scientist working at developing materials and processes. I suggest we might all be thinking the wrong way. There seems to be two major objectives in our lives - making money and having pleasure. We are doing it through maximum exploitation of resources. I live in a small regional town in Australia. We have a factory which makes concrete and another which makes munitions. If Australia wants to decentralise, we need to find more jobs in regional towns. I like making things out of steel and aluninium. However I could become just as interested in making music and theatre productions, which would require much less energy. I don't believe Australia can become a service economy like Singapore or a tax haven like Eireland.
 
estimates are that we use more than falls on earth from the sun each day
Click to expand...

Out by several decimal points. We use less than 1%, you could provide all the power from solar panels from 200,000 sq miles and PV panels are only 20% efficient. At 100% you would only need 40,000 sq miles.
 
kommando said:
Out by several decimal points. We use less than 1%, you could provide all the power from solar panels from 200,000 sq miles and PV panels are only 20% efficient. At 100% you would only need 40,000 sq miles.
Click to expand...

I recently watched a PBS documentary about the cycle of life on the Serengeti. It focused on the energy requirements of the major players, starting with cheetahs balancing the energy expenditure of a chase vs the energy return of a successful catch. Then it showed the rainy season replenishing a partched and dry plain, making ready an environment for phenomenal grass growth,

Next it focused on the millions of wildebeest and their need to gain energy from grass, driving them to make their annual migration to the vast plains of energy in the form of grass.

Then the documentary made the statement.... "there is more solar energy falling on the Serengeti in one second, than the entire world produces and uses in one year."

I tried to substantiate this factoid, but no success. However, if true, and why would it not be true, it came from govt run PBS, then the whole man made global warming hypothesis is a colossal scam. One second of energy falling on the Serengeti, not to mention the remainder of the earth's surface is equal to all the energy man produces, means man's effect on the planet is but a drop in a 55 gallon barrel, or more like a drop in an Olympic swimming pool.

Slick
 
If the PBS and other estimates are true, and I have no ability to dispute them, then all should be well if we can harvest the sun's energy directly and not release the stored up carbon. We'd better get started developing that. In the meantime the Carnot cycle rules.

I live in a rural area and have to travel by car except when I walk the mile to the mailbox and return for exercise. We have plenty of sun most seasons so I could charge up a car from photovoltaic panels. I rarely travel more than 10 miles from home so range isn't an issue except for a 200 mile trip every couple of months. Perhaps a solar electric system would be a worthy project whether or not we get an electric car. We use lots of electricity to pump water and some for lights. So maybe a battery backed up system would be good.

For decades both my wife and I commuted more than 20 miles through congested traffic. I'd rather not have done that. I'd rather have walked and saved my travel expenditures for pleasure.
 
kommando said:
Here is the closest I could get to the PBS, a Govt source too.

Solar Energy Basics

www.nrel.gov www.nrel.gov

More energy from the sun falls on the earth in one hour than is used by everyone in the world in one year.
Click to expand...
One hour or one second is irrelevant! The sun drives the climate, not man's activity. Those who assert it is the other way around, are either:
1) unknowledgeable
2) so attached to their own dogma, politics, or passions, they refuse to open their minds
3) useful idiots to those who know better, but wish to push the man made climate change agenda, for some other reason, i.e. their own ends.

Beware the new Green Scam.

Slick
 
Thomasa said:
then all should be well if we can harvest the sun's energy directly
Click to expand...
Intermittency and storage kill renewables economically, the previous millennia have stored sun power underneath our feet, we just dig or drill and burn it. Just a couple of centuries ago the CO2 PPM was at 280 ppm just above the critical level where plant life dies.

By burning the stored energy we have released CO2 and the earth is blooming not dying.

By the time the fossil fuels start to run out the CO2 increase will no longer increase temperatures as its a logarithmic relationship. 280 to 560 ppm increase has the same effect as 560 to 1120 ppm and as 1120 to 2240 ppm.

By burning this CO2 we are delaying the next ice age and feeding the human population, nothing to be concerned about.
 
Thomasa said:
If the PBS and other estimates are true, and I have no ability to dispute them, then all should be well if we can harvest the sun's energy directly and not release the stored up carbon. We'd better get started developing that. In the meantime the Carnot cycle rules.

I live in a rural area and have to travel by car except when I walk the mile to the mailbox and return for exercise. We have plenty of sun most seasons so I could charge up a car from photovoltaic panels. I rarely travel more than 10 miles from home so range isn't an issue except for a 200 mile trip every couple of months. Perhaps a solar electric system would be a worthy project whether or not we get an electric car. We use lots of electricity to pump water and some for lights. So maybe a battery backed up system would be good.

For decades both my wife and I commuted more than 20 miles through congested traffic. I'd rather not have done that. I'd rather have walked and saved my travel expenditures for pleasure.
Click to expand...
So move to the inner city, you can rest easy with a clear conscience.
 
Thomasa said:
If the PBS and other estimates are true, and I have no ability to dispute them, then all should be well if we can harvest the sun's energy directly and not release the stored up carbon. We'd better get started developing that. In the meantime the Carnot cycle rules.

I live in a rural area and have to travel by car except when I walk the mile to the mailbox and return for exercise. We have plenty of sun most seasons so I could charge up a car from photovoltaic panels. I rarely travel more than 10 miles from home so range isn't an issue except for a 200 mile trip every couple of months. Perhaps a solar electric system would be a worthy project whether or not we get an electric car. We use lots of electricity to pump water and some for lights. So maybe a battery backed up system would be good.

For decades both my wife and I commuted more than 20 miles through congested traffic. I'd rather not have done that. I'd rather have walked and saved my travel expenditures for pleasure.
Click to expand...
Knock yourself out with all the PBS news, they are a Govt'/taxpayer supported entity. The Govt' uses my tax dollars to push their propaganda. If you want to walk or ride a bicycle, that's your choice. Don't push it on me. I'm tired of putting batteries in my grandsons' toys. Let's not forget about the windfarms, totally ridiculous. I saw them my first time when I drove to Sturgis is 2012. Not on the Norton, but on the Harley. It was UnF*%#ing believable. Now they are putting them up on the Peoples Republic of New Germany aka New Jersey https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...1&cvid=9b31c76989704c15bf3f5ffdf7d7bff5&ei=21 OMG. PS, the girlfriend ran out of batteries once, then I was obligated to give it to her the old-fashioned way.:cool:
 
NORTSTER1974 said:
Knock yourself out with all the PBS news, they are a Govt'/taxpayer supported entity. The Govt' uses my tax dollars to push their propaganda. If you want to walk or ride a bicycle, that's your choice. Don't push it on me. I'm tired of putting batteries in my grandsons' toys. Let's not forget about the windfarms, totally ridiculous. I saw them my first time when I drove to Sturgis is 2012. Not on the Norton, but on the Harley. It was UnF*%#ing believable. Now they are putting them up on the Peoples Republic of New Germany aka New Jersey https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...1&cvid=9b31c76989704c15bf3f5ffdf7d7bff5&ei=21 OMG. PS, the girlfriend ran out of batteries once, then I was obligated to give it to her the old-fashioned way.:cool:
Click to expand...
Knock yourself out with all the PBS ("(news?") slanted, biased, unobjective, unaccountable information source as they are a Govt'/taxpayer supported entity.") And I got an up close and personal look at their specific agenda having worked for PBS, for years.
 
Last edited:
Lineslinger said:
Knock yourself out with all the PBS ("(news?) slanted, biased, unobjective, unaccountable information source as they are a Govt'/taxpayer supported entity.") And I got an up close and personal look at their specific agenda having worked for PBS, for years.
Click to expand...
...and I worked in a machine shop for a week as a guest repairing a 5-axis mill, where they had NPR radio blasting. Propaganda garbage. 🤮👋🏻
 
In Australia the Liberal Party are right-wing conservatives and the National Party farmers' preferences keep them in power. The farmers know the truth about climate change, but money talks. Many years ago I was in a laboratory - my boss was a metallurgical engineer.. I had a block of dry ice about 6 X 6 X 1 inches, a muffle furnace at 1400 degrees centigrade and a pair of shielded tongues. I asked him what thought would happen if I put the block of dry ice into the furnace. He said 'don't be silly, it would just go 'ffft' and disappear. So I showed him. The block of dry ice will sit inside the furnace for a vey long time. Carbon dioxide is an excellent insulator. So it never pays to speculate and suppose. Many university professors and other teachers do that. The biggest joke is when they try to teach management.
The most basic engineering skill is Project Management - where I have been, most engineers do not know how to do it. I taught one guy and he used it for every task. Then he got a job managing a factory. By the time he had been there a week, the guys had slashed his tyres and cut the power off the factory. He was an ex-Navy guy. It really appeals to my sense of humour.
 
Last edited:
acotrel said:
In Australia the Liberal Party are right-wing conservatives and the National Party farmers' preferences keep them in power. The farmers know the truth about climate change, but money talks. Many years ago I was in a laboratory - my boss was a metallurgical engineer.. I had a block of dry ice about 6 X 6 X 1 inches, a muffle furnace at 1400 degrees centigrade and a pair of shielded tongues. I asked him what thought would happen if I put the block of dry ice into the furnace. He said 'don't be silly, it would just go 'ffft' and disappear. So I showed him. The block of dry ice will sit inside the furnace for a vey long time. Carbon dioxide is an excellent insulator. So it never pays to speculate and suppose. Many university professors and other teachers do that. The biggest joke is when they try to teach management.
The most basic engineering skill is Project Management - where I have been, most engineers do not know how to do it. I taught one guy and he used it for every task. Then he got a job managing a factory. By the time he had been there a week, the guys had slashed his tyres and cut the power off the factory. He was an ex-Navy guy. It really appeals to my sense of humour.
Click to expand...
So show US! Surely there is a youtube video....
 
Lineslinger said:
Greg, I have flown aircraft and I have a decent comprehension of flight dynamics.
Don't overthink this.
My point is simple, like the guy in the movie said, "nature finds a way".
I am saying that if a wind farm is hit with sustained winds of 225+ mph the whole contraption is going in the drink no matter what the status of the propeller is.
Todays safe "build it here" site is tomorrow's hurricane hit zone.
Click to expand...
Turbine blades washed ashore https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...1&cvid=aa091831a9cc44fa9eae3e950dce8528&ei=16
 
Back
Top