Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
Solar and wind energy are both the result of nuclear energy that is being produced 93 million miles away from us. And there are a couple billion years worth of it left.
Yeah, but that energy is so diffuse and non-dispatchable (doesn't respond to demand).

I could make an equally pointless observation that fossil fuels are merely concentrated nuclear energy from 93 million miles away. That doesn't inform us on what is the best form of energy.

It's a very uninteresting observation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
Where's my coupon for riding my bike to the store? I'm paying for all that "free parking" for cars in everything I buy. :unsure:
That's precisely what I'm getting at when I rail against braindead EV subsidies to the wealthy. EVs aren't THE solution, they're (probably) among the trillions of "solutions", including riding a bicycle. Why aren't bicycles subsidized? How do you discourage unnecessary trips? What about carpooling, or working from home?

The only reasonable way to reward all alternatives to burning fossil fuels is to place a tax on burning fossil fuels. Avoid fossil fuel consumption, and that's your "coupon". Those that want to burn more subsidize more tax revenue.

I think you’re missing the point regarding his comment about solar/wind being derived from “nuclear energy.” He’s responding to the person who said that these technologies can’t put out more power than they take in.

Duh - but what they can do is convert the naturally occurring flows of energy into a form we can use in our everyday life. And as they say, once you’ve got the turbines/panels, the fuel is free.
I see your point and agree that I might have missed that detail.

That said, the fact that the sun might produce useful energy for a billion years doesn't mean a solar panel will.

I'll say that I stand somewhere between both incorrect extremes of "solar panels are worthless" and "solar panels are THE solution". They have applications where they are the best solution, and in other use cases they aren't. My evidence for this position is the fact that we don't have 100% solar/wind, just like we don't have 100% of hardly anything, because different problems require different solutions. My evidence for the fact that they aren't worthless is that we have some.

Oh yeah, and how many billion years left do we have of fossil fuels?
All of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
You've earned a one way trip to my ignore list. I really dislike people who constantly only argue in bad faith.
I have never argued in bad faith and you'll find no evidence to support that absurd claim.

Just because you had a poorly formed question doesn't mean I'm responding in bad faith. Your question was as absurd as asking "how far can you walk into a forest?", and the answer would be "all the way".

You asked how many billions of years fossil fuels will last, and I answered as precisely as possible (but with no explanation). The explanation is that;

a. the earth will never run out of fossil fuels because as things become scarce, price increases so that there will always be some supply.

b. fossil fuels are constantly being created within the earth

c. we'll have largely moved away from fossil fuels in far less than even 1 billion years

Ergo, fossil fuels will exist on earth at least as long as humans do

I can lead a horse to water...

Vermont has 100% renewables.
...They have a unique advantage with Hydro, but it just goes to show that it can be done.
You're making my point, not refuting it. Vermont having 100% renewable electricity doesn't suggest that globally we've got 100% renewable electricity. Our sources of electricity generation is eclectic because every market has unique demands and resources.

You noted the special circumstance of Vermont having hydro, which accounts for 60% of their electricity. For most electricity markets, this would mean extremely cheap rates, but somehow Vermont is the 10th highest state for cost of electricity. They pay nearly twice the national average despite cheap hydro.

As EV's proliferate, utilities will be over loaded and make up for it by raising rates. Eventually a mile on electricity may cost as much as a mile of gas (at least at rates prior to our current mess). Also, as the demand for gasoline drops, the cost will also go down
That's not how commodities work. The more the consumption, the cheaper it gets. If you consume just 1 kWh per month, that 1 unit will cost a fortune. If you're a manufacturer consuming the most electricity from the utility, the cost per kWh is dirt cheap.

There's a pretty good chance EVs will bring utility costs down by increasing baseload demand. The closer baseload and peak demands are together, the cheaper it is to deliver electricity.

Regarding fossil fuels, there's a large portion of the world still in the developing stage and they will ensure fossil fuel demand remains strong. The only way fossil fuel prices will permanently plummet is for alternatives to become cheap and plentiful such that there's little demand for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
It's a counterexample to what you wrote. So... no, I'm not making your point.
You took a sentence I wrote out of context and made a strawman out of it. In fact, you cut out the preceding sentence "They [renewables] have applications where they are the best solution, and in other use cases they aren't."

You showed an example of where renewables might be the best solution, so how is that a counter example to what I said in the full context?

I'm confused as to what you argument actually is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
Yeah, OK. I didn't think of that possibility. People somehow generating their own energy to reduce infrastructure cost on the utility.

I honestly don't know what to expect. I think it will be a modest increase, but nothing like gasoline prices today!
Residential solar doesn't decrease utility expense, but increases it. The "fuel" isn't the main cost of constantly providing exactly the amount of electricity consumers demand every fraction of a second.

The only realistic way utilities would fail to expand generation capacity to meet demand is misregulation and government interference. Utility costs would only go up if there were continued impediments to energy production, or regulations that force a particular type of energy production.

Yeah, you know... because VERMONT, of all places, is a vast spacious desert where solar and wind are the "best solution" and makes a ton of sense.
More confused than ever on what you're implying, as I made no mention of deserts... you seem to be saying renewables were a bad decision for Vermont.

Vermont's in-state electricity net generation has come almost entirely from renewable resources since the permanent shutdown of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station at the end of 2014.21,22 Prior to its shutdown, Vermont Yankee alone accounted for nearly half of the state's generating capacity and contributed more than three-fourths of the state's net generation.23,24 Today, the state's electric utilities own little generating capacity and do not generate enough electricity to meet demand.25 Vermont relies primarily on imports from Canada and in-state independent power producers for electricity.26,27,28 The largest share of Vermont's electricity supply comes from hydroelectric power, most of it generated in Canada.29

More than half of Vermont's electricity supply comes from out of state.
U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis

Here's the answer to why Vermont pays so much for electricity. They shut down their own production and then started importing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
Markets don't necessarily need to pick "best application" sources of energy and can be 100% renewable. You seem to think the opposite.

Yes, Vermont pays a premium for the privilege to have entirely CO2-free electricity. I don't know their policy intentions, but I'm guessing that's the entire point!
That is an important distinction. Markets may not need to specify best application, but locations do. A location can't build a hydro plant if there's no water at elevation.

You're still ignoring the fact that I'm speaking in global terms, and globally we couldn't do 100% hydro if we wanted to, or solar, or wind... which is why we have an eclectic mix of generation sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
If it makes you feel better, he's the same type of guy that will be defending EVs and attacking the thing that threatens to replace it, once EVs become mainstream.

There is tension in society between those bringing many bad ideas and a few good ones, and those resisting change. The resistance is to ensure only the very good ones displace previous accepted norms.

Of course, this is hardly a conscious effort on the part of the individuals, but nature seems to have selected this method for moving things along.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,478 Posts
I mean, I'm not going to click the link.

Environmental disaster is always applicable, the question is always the environment of what / who?

If solar was always a great idea, there'd be no need for coercion. We can identify a bad idea when we identify coercion. Pretty darned simple.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top