Re: Cyber attack EMP attack discussion Not Political
Yes I've heard of batteries. That's why I mentioned graphene for electric cars. That technology is just starting to show up in li-ion batteries and has the potential to shorten charge time similar to that of filling up your car with a tank of gas.
This insistence that EV's "won't work" until they can match gas station fillup time is mystifying. On a typical day the average personal automobile travels less than 60 miles and spends a good 8+ hours parked in one of two set locations - a workplace or the owner's residence. Something like > 2/3 of Americans live in single-family detached homes, the overwhelming majority of which have private off-street parking. "Slow" L2 charging
(a 240V 50A dryer outlet sits squarely in the middle of L2) over the course of ~8 hours will completely satisfy the needs of EVs as commuter vehicles with plenty of overhead for surprise errands.
Everyone I've spoken to that's taken a Tesla on a long road trip along their supercharger network has had no complaints about the 20-30 minute break every ~2 hours to recharge. Other charging networks are building out and will invariably figure out the operations model to get as close as possible to Tesla's convenience.
I suspect the next big leap on batteries - the variations of solid-state li-ion that have been teasing out press releases from the labs - will manage far faster charge time in addition to their more-desired increases in power density and charge cycles - and thus satisfy this need EV 'skeptics' have have for ~weekly visits to the gas station or something like it. Assuming anyone wants to deal with the absurd instantaneous power delivery and waste heat management requirements
However, as I mentioned, batteries have their temperature limits that will not be able to totally replace fuel sources that work during cold winters and hot summers.
Today's li-ion technology works well in a surprising number of climates. As best I can gather It's pretty much only the Nissan Leaf that suffers unacceptable hits to range and pack lifespan due to their abysmal thermal design with the first-generation vehicles taking the biggest hit because of their relatively tiny battery pack.
And I'm sure there are some extreme environments where today's better EVs aren't ready for prime time - such as large swaths of Alaska and southern Arizona - but they're not trying to be everything to everyone either; the
emergency trumpet repair use case isn't gonna work out for you.
The TL;DR is that EVs are aimed at
commuting in metro areas. They've come some ways since the short-range, slow-charging, fiddly, grudgingly-produced
compliance cars of ~20 years ago in CA. You now don't have to structure your life around whatever reliable fraction of that daily
range envelope you can hope to realize under all conditions for the life of the vehicle. And you can take highway trips with them -
with some compromises.
Fusion may be 10 to 20 years away, but that doesn't mean a power plant will instantly materialize. Past nuclear power plants took 7-10 years to build. New ones can be built in as little as 5 years. If fusion takes 20 years, that puts the first plants built after 2046. In California, we are down to one aging nuclear plant that will be decommissioned in a few years. Some of our natural gas plants are being phased out as well. Hydroelectric near our northern border is being destroyed to save the salmon. Hetch Hetchy Hydroelectric Dam near Yosemite is scheduled for destruction as well. Oroville Dam almost fell apart a few years ago. Our electric infrastructure is crumbling. PG&E has a 100+ year backlog on repairs for transmission lines. Do you think we can replace all of this lost capacity and transmission lines, update it to a smarter grid, and increase capacity to handle the electric cars for nearly 40 million people in 14 years? I don't think so. Not with the attitude Californians have with power plants (Not in my backyard).
We need to expand generation capacity and improve the grid anyway, but for all the pearl-clutching over EVs, noone talks about the steady increase in HVAC compressors, all-electric homes, megalomarts. EV adoption is proceeding at a pace such that there's no real risk of overloading the grid.
Renewable storage doesn't have to be expensive Tesla utility-scale 'powerwalls' either. There are forms of compressed-air energy storage
(that don't demand peculiar geology), gravity storage ala
ARES, thermal storage, and a number of emerging battery technologies with less cost and more cycle life than Li-* technologies
(albeit without the density, but that's not relevant for stationary utility-scale storage vs transportation). With such storage - ideally onsite - an intermittent renewable operation can smooth supply against its inttermittency or buffer excess production against supply curtailment.
And for the record I'd like to see more nuclear too. NuScale received regulatory approval for their SMR design, so perhaps there's hope for scaling nuclear power to meet the baseload at a far cheaper price - and faster - than we've experienced in the past. I also feel that
HTGR concept needs more work - especially since the problems with the single example in the United States (Fort St Vrain) were largely due to odd peculiarities with its steam plant rather than inherent problems with the reactor itself. And even maintaining the present inventory of Generation II reactors is preferable to expansion of coal, oil, and even gas plants in my opinion.
Solar is a mess in California. I have it at home. You get grid tied solar to get the tax credits to reduce your bill or pay a solar company monthly for panels they own. Few homes invest in battery backup and you're usually locked into a contract that limits you to a battery system that the company makes. No Tesla Powerwalls or Generac systems that actually work well allowed.
A grid-tie inverter is markedly cheaper than one capable of operating standalone and the cost of a battery bank only makes sense in regions with very expensive electricity. If you need occasional backup power, a small gas/LPG/NG generator is a far cheaper option than a battery bank. I believe the economics of real net metering combined with TOU billing makes selling that solar (generated during higher daytime rates) to the grid more favorable than storing it - even if that means you can sell it to the grid at the absolute TOU peak in the early evening after solar production has dropped or disappeared.
I do agree that much of the regulation around distributed generation is needlessly restrictive and byzantine. While I respect that utilities need to plan and play a relatively long game, they cannot simultaneously complain about how terrible that small distributed generation is while also complaining that they're struggling to meet demand. Even in my area some utilities have absolutely forbidden offgrid-capable solar systems - Because Reasons™ despite adhering to industry safety requirements and reliably cutting off that infeed the instant the grid goes down.
Do you know what types of birds are around Primm, Nevada? Just the roasted kind. The Solar plant there is a deathray for birds.
I assume you're talking about the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, which is a form of concentrating solar entirely different from commonplace rooftop photovoltaic solar or hot water. In addition to the problems this facility causes with birds it's also proven to be a hazard to aviation due to the intensity of reflection off of the central "power tower". Most concentrating solar is of the
parabolic trough variety which focuses light along a linear axis specific to each trough.
