[VMarcHart]

Yesplease, thanks for answering the questions; you don't owe an EV, you never installed a WTG, and you're very book smart indeed.

I'm through with this thread.

All the best and good luck!

[mos6507]

you don't own an EV

Do you?

[isgota]

I think at most we would see about half that, assuming we ended up w/ nothing but 5,000lb SUTs/SUVs for the passenger vehicle fleet. Even if we tossed every single ton-mile of freight at electric rail we would only need ~75,000 1.5MW turbines.

Just that? 75,000 1.5MW turbines? Well, AWEA's report says that there are already >25,000 wind turbines installed on USA, but they only cover about 1% of the electricity demand. Are you sure that only 3 times more wind power is enough to power all road and rail transport?

Sorry but I have to give you a reality check. My own country is generating near 11% of electricity demand from wind power, and 3 spanish urban areas are among the most extensive railways networks of the world, but I can guarantee you that we are VERY FAR of oil independence in transport.

And actually, I have just seen an electric powered bus once, in a country with so much wind power. It's not so easy to get rid of that black stuff called oil, sadly.

Best.

[VMarcHart]

you don't own an EV

Do you?

Unfortunately not, mos ... or not yet. I own an IL6 ICE. Love it, but can't wait for the Teslas or similar become popular or affordable, if you will. I really think that's the way to go, especially with all that torque and breaking straight into and from each wheel. Can you imagine how fun it must be? If you buy yours before I do, please promise you'll take me for a spin.

The thing with EVs is that they aren't a live load. You re-charge them when you do, and the wind farms may or may not be spinning at that time. If 300M EVs want to re-charge randomly, you're talking base load. (Please picture an enormous golf resort with hundreds of electric golf carts. A given number of carts will be re-charging regardless of weather conditions.) You either need to offset the NCF with more wind farms and transmit the power across country --which it really doesn't work like that and I'll be honored to explain why--, or you create very fancy and sophisticated energy storage systems, ie, hydrogen, compressed air, hydro deposits, etc, which are in their infancy. My 2 cents.

[VMarcHart]

My own country is generating near 11% of electricity demand from wind power, and 3 spanish urban areas are among the most extensive railways networks of the world, but I can guarantee you that we are VERY FAR of oil independence in transport.

And Spain is 20 smaller than the US, has an electrical network about 20 better, and a no-nonsense government that take matters in hands regardless of re-election outcome. To think we just install a few thousand WTGs and, voila, we're oil independent ... man, it's something I'd give my right nut to see it.

[mos6507]

The thing with EVs is that they aren't a live load. You re-charge them when you do, and the wind farms may or may not be spinning at that time.

Which is why wind power by itself is not a panacea. We already know the ICE is dead man walking, so no amount of FUD about EVs impact on the grid will change that fact. We have to pick the least objectionable adaptation and accept the compromises. That could mean anything from a Tesla class vehicle all the way down to a bike.

[yesplease]

Just that? 75,000 1.5MW turbines? Well, AWEA's report says that there are already >25,000 wind turbines installed on USA, but they only cover about 1% of the electricity demand. Are you sure that only 3 times more wind power is enough to power all road and rail transport?

If we toss all the ton-miles on electric rail, probably. Trucking and rail ran around 3 trillion ton-miles per year as of 2005 in the US.

Googling comes up w/ ~350btu/ton-mile and 423 ton-miles per gallon, which are both are .1kWh/ton-mile. 75,000 1.5MW turbines pump out about 315,000,000,000kWh/year at 32% of the nameplate output, so that should be enough to cover the 3 trillion ton-miles at .1kWh/ton-mile. In reality, it may actually be a smaller number of turbines since peak efficiency for a diesel drivetrain on a locomotive is at best ~50%, and while transmission losses may be significant, I doubt they're 50% for electric rail, probably more like ~90% so we could probably get by w/ 40,000 1.5MW turbines. In any event, we likely wouldn't toss every ton-mile onto electric rail, but it's a nice little comparison to illustrate how little energy freight really needs. If we want to blast stuff across the country at 75mph in semis, then that's our choice, but it consumes about three to four times more energy per ton-mile, energy which has gone up in price drastically, and that's something that'll be reflected in costs until we toss more stuff on rail and/or electrify rail, which atm requires expansion IIRC.

Sorry but I have to give you a reality check. My own country is generating near 11% of electricity demand from wind power, and 3 spanish urban areas are among the most extensive railways networks of the world, but I can guarantee you that we are VERY FAR of oil independence in transport.

Unfortunately reality includes capital costs too, so for some sections of rail electrification may not be economically viable even at $10/gallon (see 80/80 rule in the link below). Just because something is more energy efficient doesn't mean it will be implemented. It's been proposed but considering the difference in energy requirements tossing truck freight on rail would save more than electrifying rail, although they would both save a decent chunk, and have other benefits as well.

In any event, if cost effective, the first to go would probably be passenger vehicle, since they have the worst efficiency on average and use most of the oil produced today. W/ fuel prices at ~$8-10/gallon in some markets manufacturers seem keen on developing and selling electric cars there since they're at cost parity give or take, or less if incentives are included.

And actually, I have just seen an electric powered bus once, in a country with so much wind power. It's not so easy to get rid of that black stuff called oil, sadly.

Best.

It's not that it isn't easy strictly speaking, just that it may not be cost effective. It also may simply not be possible for certain applications where energy-density is needed like aviation/shipping/long range travel w/o fueling every couple hundred miles

[yesplease]

The thing with EVs is that they aren't a live load. You re-charge them when you do, and the wind farms may or may not be spinning at that time. If 300M EVs want to re-charge randomly, you're talking base load. (Please picture an enormous golf resort with hundreds of electric golf carts. A given number of carts will be re-charging regardless of weather conditions.) You either need to offset the NCF with more wind farms and transmit the power across country --which it really doesn't work like that and I'll be honored to explain why--, or you create very fancy and sophisticated energy storage systems, ie, hydrogen, compressed air, hydro deposits, etc, which are in their infancy. My 2 cents.

That's why wind power is kept at ~20% of grid output according to estimates.

Costs of integrating intermittent wind power into the grid are modest. 20 percent wind can be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.

Since we all probably won't be driving three trillion miles a year electric SUVs/SUTs, we'll probably need significantly less than 25% of the grid's output. Something like 15% if on average we had vehicles similar in size/design to a Prius or Civic.

Granted, w/ demand management that could probably be higher since on average there would be an eight (or more) hour window to work with in terms of charging, so greater than 20% could probably be incorporated into the grid, but as it stands, given the average consumer's budget and battery costs we simply can't afford enough large enough EVs to suck down more than 20% of the grid's output any time soon.

[VMarcHart]

If this, if that, we could this and we could that, per this study and that estimate.

Yesplease, whereas I applaud your fierceful desire to make things better, you have a huge gap between books and trenches. It does not work like that. It's like stating that to avoid heart attacks all studies show you need to exercise 20 minutes a day, yet more and more people are obese and having more and more heart attacks. I'm talking from empirical observations, not from what the books say.

A WTG does not work like it says in the commercial brochures, the costs aren't like the DOE says, and transmission and distribution in this country is perhaps the most complex in the world.

You don't own an EV, nor know how to install a WTG. When you gain personal experience in at least one, we can resume this conversation.

[yesplease]

VMarcHart, you say it doesn't work like that, yet you also say that we need four times current production to power vehicles that can at most use an sixteenth to a thirty-second of your claim. You have a huge gap between the books and the books while providing no validation of any experience you claim to have in the trenches.

If you would like to provide a logical and well reasoned piece of info as to why 20% of the grid couldn't power a reasonable EV fleet, in other words one that the country could afford, I'm all ears!

[VMarcHart]

If you would like to provide a logical and well reasoned piece of info as to why 20% of the grid couldn't power a reasonable EV fleet...

Did I already ask how many EVs do you own?

[yesplease]

If you would like to provide a logical and well reasoned piece of info as to why 20% of the grid couldn't power a reasonable EV fleet...

Did I already ask how many EVs do you own?

Just like I already asked you how many EVs you owned.

Like I said before, if you're interested in trolling/flaming instead of discussing this reasonably, I'm fine with that too.

[VMarcHart]

Just like I already asked you how many EVs you owned. Like I said before, if you're interested in trolling/flaming instead of discussing this reasonably, I'm fine with that too.

None. I currently own an IL6 ICE. You?

There's no flaming here. You say it can be done, yet you have not presented any creditials on your know-how --other than links. I say it will need way more, and I'm a professional of the renewable energy industry. Two different opinions. I say if we can substitute 20mbpd with 276K WTGs, that's terrific, but in my professional experience, it's too little.

Let's start with ... where would you install them?

[yesplease]

None. I currently own an IL6 ICE. You?

What's an IL6? I have a couple ICEs and an EV.

There's no flaming here. You say it can be done, yet you have not presented any creditials on your know-how --other than links.

Sure there is. Appeals to authority are common flames.

Anyway, it's not my opinion that it can be done, just the facts and estimates from the DOE about wind power expansion and various individuals/groups regarding EV energy consumption.

I say it will need way more, and I'm a professional of the renewable energy industry. Two different opinions. I say if we can substitute 20mbpd with 276K WTGs, that's terrific, but in my professional experience, it's too little.

You say it'll need way more but you don't say why... According to the DOE we're well beyond the growth rate assumed for 20% wind by 2030.

This capacity addition of 5,244 MW in 2007 exceeds the more conservative growth trajectory developed for the 20% Wind Scenario of about 4,000 MW/year in 2007 and 2008. The wind industry is on track to grow to a size capable of installing 16,000 MW/year, consistent with the latter years in the 20% Wind Scenario, more quickly than the trajectory used for this analysis.

Wind power is outstripping EV consumption by leaps and bounds right now. The only way we couldn't install enough capacity to cover EVs would be if we stopped putting up turbines cold turkey and every new vehicle was electric, and even then, given the price/design of current offerings, we would have two decade window before EV electricity demand caught up with window power electricity supply.

You say it can't work, but it's working right now, so I suppose the better question is how won't it work in the future?

Let's start with ... where would you install them?

That's a great starting point! Of course, it isn't about where I would install them, but where they are likely to be installed. Like I said before, this isn't my opinion, just DOE facts/estimates. Carrying on, what's the energy consumption per mile of the EVs you're considering?

[VMarcHart]

None. I currently own an IL6 ICE. You?

What's an IL6? I have a couple ICEs and an EV.

In-line 6-cylinder engine. Which EV do you own? Can you send pictures with you in it?

There's no flaming here. You say it can be done, yet you have not presented any creditials on your know-how --other than links.

Sure there is. Appeals to authority are common flames.

I'm appealing to my authority, which I do have, and asking you what you do for a living, which we don't know.

According to the DOE we're well beyond the growth rate assumed for 20% wind by 2030.

You believe what the Bush admnistration says, like that inflation is at 5%? I don't.

You say it can't work, but it's working right now, so I suppose the better question is how won't it work in the future?

Wind is only produced in certain areas, and you need to transmit across country on a base load basis, which the country does not have infrastructure for, unlike the interstate system. Two strikes against replacing 20mbpd with wind, much less from Kansas.

Let's start with ... where would you install them?

That's a great starting point! Of course, it isn't about where I would install them, but where they are likely to be installed. Like I said before, this isn't my opinion, just DOE facts/estimates.

You need to answer my question with a concrete answer, not with a question. I want to know if you know where to install them.

Carrying on, what's the energy consumption per mile of the EVs you're considering?

2-4 times more what the vendor is stating. Like we don't know car salesmen.


Once again, Yesplease, if you say it can be done and you do it, the better for me and everybody. I don't see it. I know what it takes to install 1 WTG. I think this thread is pointless. You're stuck in your government statistics, and I have field experience. I don't feel like educating someone who already knows everything.

[yesplease]

None. I currently own an IL6 ICE. You?

What's an IL6? I have a couple ICEs and an EV.

In-line 6-cylinder engine. Which EV do you own? Can you send pictures with you in it?

Do you mean an I6 or L6, or do you have some revolutionary new six cylinder engine that's even straighter than an in-line six!

I own the most popular electric vehicle (type) on the planet. As for pictures, that's a bit personal. Next thing ya know you're asking for A/S/L. Keep it in your pants mister interweb troll.

There's no flaming here. You say it can be done, yet you have not presented any creditials on your know-how --other than links.

Sure there is. Appeals to authority are common flames.

I'm appealing to my authority, which I do have, and asking you what you do for a living, which we don't know.

And that's considered flaming. At the very least if you had reasonable estimates regarding EV electricity consumption I might be more inclined to believe that you actually do something for the wind industry, but as it stands all you've shown you are is a troll, or quite possibly one of the nuttiest people to ever work around wind power if you really think we need four times current electricity production for EVs or that the government, business, and private individuals are all conspiring to lie about the energy consumption of EVs while only you know the truth.

According to the DOE we're well beyond the growth rate assumed for 20% wind by 2030.

You believe what the Bush admnistration says, like that inflation is at 5%? I don't.

The DOE isn't the Bush administration, in case you haven't noticed. Hell, even if they were, w/ Bush at the helm, somehow the administration has increased the rate of new capacity installed per year past the ramp up needed over 2007/2008 according to the report. Regardless of whether or not you agree w/ the change in accounting for inflation, unless we're installing imaginary wind power we're more than on-track for the 20% by 2030 goal.

You say it can't work, but it's working right now, so I suppose the better question is how won't it work in the future?

Wind is only produced in certain areas, and you need to transmit across country on a base load basis, which the country does not have infrastructure for, unlike the interstate system. Two strikes against replacing 20mbpd with wind, much less from Kansas.

It actually doesn't matter much whether or not specific output from a specific site charges an EV or another electricity source does. That's kinda like saying Bakken doesn't increase world oil production because people in China aren't using it. What does matter is if we need however much of an increase in total generation, say 15%, we can do that reliably with wind. Not every kWh into a battery pack has to be from wind, since what it generates can displace plenty of other electricity use, just that we can add enough reliable generation capacity to the grid to offset the increase in overall consumption from EVs. As of now we've added ~20GW and have another ~10GW under construction without a MW of EV demand in sight. The distribution seems to be even baring the south east US which isn't suitable for wind, but given the drop in demand compared to transmission capacity we could likely handle a ~15% increase in load at that time. The SERC and FRCC certainly have the capacity to handle a few percent of demand in terms of energy consumption to charge vehicles off-peak.

Let's start with ... where would you install them?

That's a great starting point! Of course, it isn't about where I would install them, but where they are likely to be installed. Like I said before, this isn't my opinion, just DOE facts/estimates.

You need to answer my question with a concrete answer, not with a question. I want to know if you know where to install them.

I didn't answer your question w/ a question. I responded by posting the facts. If you don't like them, and instead choose to believe what you want to believe regardless of what everyone else involved including businesses, government, and individuals have to say, that's fine, but a statement ain't a question.

Carrying on, what's the energy consumption per mile of the EVs you're considering?

2-4 times more what the vendor is stating. Like we don't know car salesmen.

So the manufacturers, the DOE, and every single electric car builder are conspiring to lie about EV power consumption, and only you know the true energy consumption which is four times all the electricity we generate now? I suppose we could see as much a ~20-50% swing, but that sure isn't the 1600% difference you mentioned earlier or the 200-400% different you just mentioned. The goal of the RAV-4 EV was 60 miles and it exceeded that for the SAE test while meeting it plus or minus the usual difference via drivers/route in real world applications. An increase of 2-4 times the energy consumption would cut range to a half or a quarter of what was expected, and it certainly hasn't been seen in examples so far. I think SCE would've noticed in the hundreds of thousands of miles they've driven the vehicles if range was actually ~15-30 miles instead of the goal ~60 miles.

Once again, Yesplease, if you say it can be done and you do it, the better for me and everybody. I don't see it. I know what it takes to install 1 WTG. I think this thread is pointless. You're stuck in your government statistics, and I have field experience. I don't feel like educating someone who already knows everything.

It ain't me saying it can be one, it's the DOE, utilities, and vehicle manufacturers both small and large. Those aren't just government facts/estimates. Everyone from home builders to private companies to the government has the same rough figures. You're the only one who has stated we would need to increase current electricity production by a factor of four for EVs that aren't even on the road yet. I guess that you, as a self proclaimed internetz wind power "expert" with all your "field experience" knows more than the DOE, Toyota, GM, etc... Put together.

[VMarcHart]

None. I currently own an IL6 ICE. You?

What's an IL6? I have a couple ICEs and an EV.

In-line 6-cylinder engine. Which EV do you own? Can you send pictures with you in it?

Do you mean an I6 or L6, or do you have some revolutionary new six cylinder engine that's even straighter than an in-line six!

IL is the common term, opposite to V, a v-shaped engine, like a V6.

Good luck with your books, websites and the DOE. All the best. I rest my case. You win. I lose. You're smart. I'm ignorant. So long.

[yesplease]

I6 or L6 is the common term, IL6 is tossing the two common terms together for whatever reason. Kinda like calling a straight 6 or inline 6 an inline-straight 6.

Anyway, like I said before, it's not about being right or wrong. There is plenty of information both about wind power expansion rates and EV energy consumption out there. It's about using that information in a reasonable context, not saying that it's all wrong and only you know that EVs use 16 times, or 2-4 times, the energy per mile. Even if just about everyone else, large and small auto manufacturers, the government, individuals, and small groups say they don't...

To reiterate, it's not about being right or wrong, just using estimates that aren't batshitcrazy, and/or shying away from the idea that everyone else is lying and only you know how much energy EVs really need.

[VMarcHart]

You win. I lose. You're smart. I'm ignorant. So long.

[yesplease]

It isn't about losing or winning, just using reasonable estimates. No additional headwear required.