America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Meredith Poor + 895]

"Complete electrification and close to 100 percent renewable energy generation: this is a vision of the United States 15 years from now."

I'm not sure where the 15 years came from, 10 years is more likely. Right now all of this is being framed as a 'possibility'. Even minor decreases in cost will make it a 'certainty'.

"Although it may sound counterintuitive at first, despite this greater electricity demand, total energy demand would fall substantially, the report’s authors say."

If one burns coal or splits atoms, the 'efficiency' is around 30%. 3X thermal watts go in for every electrical watt that comes out. Wind and solar produce electricity from the outset, so there is no thermal conversion. Natural gas combined cycle is a bit better at 60% to 80%, but there is still 'waste heat'. If our peak consumption is around 600Gw (summer day, 5:00 PM), then our thermal conversion at that point is 1800 Gw, or the equivalent in BTUs.

"And it will all cost as much as Joe Biden plans to spend on addressing climate change: some $3 trillion over a decade." $3 trillion / 10 years = $300 billion per year, or essentially 300Gw of new power plant investment each year (assuming utility costs of $1 per watt). Most of this, of course, is storage and transmission capacity, rather than outright generation.

Nuclear is not an option - existing plants aren't competitive. Anything with a boiler is uncompetitive. There are reasons we don't use steam locomotives, and they are similar to the reasons coal and nuclear plants are phasing out.

"Existing technology" of course is a laughable metric, since efficiencies, energy densities, and costs are changing fast. It might still cost $3 trillion due to f***ups. S*** happens. We'd spend the money anyway, even if it was to preserve the status quo. Power plants depreciate over 30 years.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

35 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Complete SNIP ... Horseshit

I do not know how you managed it, but you found a source where whoever wrote it, did not manage to write one single accurate statement in that article you quoted. 

Bravo. 

Why do you think anyone will take you seriously if you continually quote complete Horse Shit?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Here Let me help you since it appears your critical mind has flown out the window: https://energyindustryreview.com/energy-efficiency/baker-hughes-lm9000-worlds-most-efficient-simple-cycle-gas-turbine/

By the way combined cycle should be implemented on every single nuclear reactor and they would go from 30% efficient to 60% efficient overnight.  Oh the horrors, they would burn some natural gas. 

PS: Every single combined cycle(60% efficient) has a boiler.  Just in case you and your genius article can't figure that out...  Only difference is they call it an EVAPORATOR instead of boiler.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Easily disproved even using your own wrong math . EIA today in energy article shows 2019 all forms of power used at 80% fossil fuel. So even if fossil fuel was 30% efficient and green was 100% efficient  youd need another 1/3rd of power for that 80% of fossil fuels meaning a smidge less than 27% more renewable sources. Meanwhile the first 20% has taken 20 years and it's the easiest %. I dont see any more dams or waterfalls available for hydro. So your stuck with wind and solar both working at opposite times of the year solar summer and wind winter so you still need to double up some sources . But with nat gas power plants in the 50% diesel trucks closer to 35% and cars probably average 33% your looking at 35% average. Also weather isnt on demand so double up the system again. And if I pay 60k for a electric car and its 4$ to fill instead of 60$ I'm going to drive as much as possible to get my money's worth instead of save gas money. Ect ect ect . See ya in 10 years lol . I'll probably be in the same vehicles.  

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Let’s say we could go 100% electric right now...who the hell wants to?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

20 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Let’s say we could go 100% electric right now...who the hell wants to?

The global elites who will control everything the way they want to and eliminate the rights of the commoners. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

The global elites who will control everything the way they want to and eliminate the rights of the commoners. 

Ron,

In a nutshell, if it doesn’t have pistons I’m not interested...😂

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Ron,

In a nutshell, if it doesn’t have pistons I’m not interested...😂

Worlds largest diesel engine makes 109,000 horsepower. It is a marine engine. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

 

I snapped this photo of Douglas at a stop light the other evening when I was out for a quiet stroll:

[ronwagn + 6,290]

The most powerful motorcycles. https://newatlas.com/motorcycles/most-powerful-motorcycles/

Edited August 14, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[Meredith Poor + 895]

12 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I do not know how you managed it, but you found a source where whoever wrote it, did not manage to write one single accurate statement in that article you quoted. 

Bravo. 

Why do you think anyone will take you seriously if you continually quote complete Horse Shit?

Send me your references.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

33 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The most powerful motorcycles. https://newatlas.com/motorcycles/most-powerful-motorcycles/

That is one beautiful machine.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Send me your references.

Do yourself a favor: Learn something on your own for starters.... Why do you demand the world change your diapers?

Pick any fact the idiot stated and look it up yourself. 

EDIT: PS: YOU started the thread.  Fact check yourself before posting rubbish and looking a fool.

PPS: Sure we could go 100% electric: It is called nuclear Liquid fast breeder reactors. World has an infinite supply of Thorium/Uranium for such a civilization.  All it requires is a little bit of work to get them to work flawlessly.  It is criminal we are using PRESSURIZED highly dangerous shitty inefficient water reactors currently.  It is criminal breeder reactors have not been finished from the work stopped in the 70's after 3 mile island scare. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Worlds largest diesel engine makes 109,000 horsepower. It is a marine engine. 

Now THAT’S a piston!😂

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

25 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

That is one beautiful machine.

There are quite a few bikes on the market now making in the neighborhood of 200hp. They are all nice and incredibly engineered machines. The problem is, ‘Where the heck can you actually utilize that amount of power on the public road system - anywhere?’

Fuethermore, most people are not able to safely run one of these machines on the track, let alone a public highway. Contrary to popular opinion, riding a fast bike, fast, is a highly technical skill set. I have been riding for 34 years and have never mastered it. To be honest, I couldn’t care less as I ride for fun. I try to get better everytime out as a point of safety, not speed.

My bike is an 8 year old Harley (liquid cooled) that I have done a little work to. It is getting 120 horse to the rear tire. It’s powerband is between 5000-8250 rpm. I have never had it over 7000 rpm....it gets scary!

Last week I was scrubbing in a new set of tires and inadvertantly did a rolling burn out....scared the crap out of me.

I ride with a younger bunch of Chinese and Indian guys (plus one token Austrian and one Kiwi) who are all on naked bikes and sportbikes. Generally speaking, they can ride well and spend time on the track to hone their skills. A great bunch of guys who will always pull over and wait for the old, bald, white guy on the token Harley!

I recommend motorcycling as a form of stress relief.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Hey he he he... have a neighbor who we do quite a bit with.  He got a powerful new bike(I forget what... Yamaha I think), he had been riding for ~20 years at that point, but this bike with just a slight touch of the throttle would wheely on him and almost dumped him several times unintentionally and only reason he did not wreck both times was that there was no one around so he could go into adjacent lanes.  He finally had enough of its exuberant egregious power and traded for a MUCH lower powered bike.  Too damned dangerous. 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Do yourself a favor: Learn something on your own for starters.... Why do you demand the world change your diapers?

Pick any fact the idiot stated and look it up yourself. 

EDIT: PS: YOU started the thread.  Fact check yourself before posting rubbish and looking a fool.

PPS: Sure we could go 100% electric: It is called nuclear Liquid fast breeder reactors. World has an infinite supply of Thorium/Uranium for such a civilization.  All it requires is a little bit of work to get them to work flawlessly.  It is criminal we are using PRESSURIZED highly dangerous shitty inefficient water reactors currently.  It is criminal breeder reactors have not been finished from the work stopped in the 70's after 3 mile island scare. 

I run into people all the time that tell me that their statements are true 'because they say so'. They are the final authority. Providing verification or validation isn't needed. I get this from people on the 'left', people on the 'right', and people that are arguing over some arcane triviality. Usually these conversations are also laced with profanity and name calling.

Nuclear power is about 30% efficient. In the screen shot below, I've attached a single page from a regulatory filing with the NRC for the South Texas Nuclear Project units 3 and 4. This was a project intended to be done around the mid-2010s, however construction plans have been dropped.

If someone wants to challenge me on facts, it's helpful to do a bit better than 'total horseshit'. Tell me why. Explain the physics, the chemistry, and the math.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

12 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

I run into people all the time that tell me that their statements are true 'because they say so'.

Nuclear power is about 30% efficient.

Hey, dude YOU started the thread, pays to fact check yourself first. 

No, Coal, gas are not 30% eff.  They are 60% and yes, they use boilers.  We could wish they were 80%, but no one is even close to that. 

And yea, nuclear is 30% eff and it is criminal that they are not adding gas fired to boost it to 60%   Tiny amount of power is generated this way so why would one base their "numbers" on 30% eff unless they were pandering to fools or stroking their egos?  And more importantly, why would you post such drivel unless you are a fool or stroking your own ego?    And with a bit of $$$ that 30% nuclear if changed to liquid salt would push it well over 50%.  If one switches to liquid salt Uranium balls encased in silicone carbide the efficiency jumps to 60% if not 70% before we even talk about breeder reactors which means the amount of already extracted uranium/thorium in this would would power the entire world for the next several thousand years by itself instead of sitting in pools radiating its heat away doing nothing but being a poisonous hazard...

As I posted even the super simple single cycle peaker gas turbines are over 40%, so why the Hell would anyone use 30% unless they were being moralizing ego stroking assholes? 

I get tired of moralizing ego stroking masturbators every time solar/wind subject is brought up.  Stick to facts, and stop hiding inconvenient facts like requires battery backup for 24 hours a day operation, not 5 or 7 hours a day. 

PS: As far as I am concerned wind is a very niche tool for power.  Works for a very small portion of the world and sinking $$$ into it is stupid.  Solar on the other hand is very consistent and compared to wind is reliable.  Its cost efficiency might be poor but far more reliable than wind.  More importantly can act as a secondary function... ROOFing.

[Meredith Poor + 895]

15 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Hey, dude YOU started the thread, pays to fact check yourself first. 

So far you haven't been able to provide a single reference that disputes my assertions. In the meantime, I've rooted through the web to get some specifics.

The two charts come from this link:

https://www.power-eng.com/2016/12/22/power-plant-performance-in-2015/#gref

"In addition, today’s heavy-duty gas turbines, in combined-cycle mode, are more than 60-percent fuel efficient, thanks to better materials capable of withstanding higher firing temperatures, improved blade design and advanced cooling technologies. In a few short years, industry officials say combined cycle fuel efficiency could reach 65 percent thanks to new manufacturing techniques and improvements in metallurgy."

These charts show the 'best' operating efficiencies in 2015.

The EIA page explains how to convert Heat Rate to Efficiency.

The EIA Operating Heat Rates chart shows the average efficiency for each year up to 2018. Note that Coal and Nuclear are about equal, meaning they are each about 33% efficient.

You are good at cussing people out. So far, your demonstrated capacity for research is zero.

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Note that Coal and Nuclear are about equal, meaning they are each about 33% efficient.

Some gen IV technology should have no issues reaching 60% efficiency. I mean it’s not going to be all of them, but it should be noted. 

Don’t forget about supercritical coal either. 50%.

Edited August 16, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Meredith Poor + 895]

10 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Some gen IV technology should have no issues reaching 60% efficiency. I mean it’s not going to be all of them, but it should be noted. 

Don’t forget about supercritical coal either. 50%.

I'm not sure what Gen IV technology means. Is this related to nuclear, coal, or 'all of the above'? Whatever it is, it has to compete with solar at 70 cents per watt now and lower in future projects.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

Besides the efficiency, most of renewable energy simply trade CO2 waste into solid waste: old solar panels, old wind blades, batteries and it is not efficiency in recycling this.

Solar energy is only efficiency in waste land. Elsewhere it is useless in the north in the winter time and it compete with trees/agriculture  for sunlight. The progressive of renewable energy is similar to the progressive to socialism (both use far time frame  that they have gone long by then and will not be hold accountable). 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Besides the efficiency, most of renewable energy simply trade CO2 waste into solid waste: old solar panels, old wind blades, batteries and it is not efficiency in recycling this.

Solar energy is only efficiency in waste land. Elsewhere it is useless in the north in the winter time and it compete with trees/agriculture  for sunlight. The progressive of renewable energy is similar to the progressive to socialism (both use far time frame  that they have gone long by then and will not be hold accountable). 

What % of roof spaces provide agricultural land or forestry?

Solar panels on land can be grazed around so the loss is not as great as often suggested. 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

5 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Besides the efficiency, most of renewable energy simply trade CO2 waste into solid waste: old solar panels, old wind blades, batteries and it is not efficiency in recycling this.

Solar energy is only efficiency in waste land. Elsewhere it is useless in the north in the winter time and it compete with trees/agriculture  for sunlight. The progressive of renewable energy is similar to the progressive to socialism (both use far time frame  that they have gone long by then and will not be hold accountable). 

Some of the 'waste' land covered by solar panels:

https://goo.gl/maps/LLqmPr4HCaEqyA9p8

https://goo.gl/maps/Snawk9QBGijr8x628

https://goo.gl/maps/rGAs9eWokRy3zHVR8

https://goo.gl/maps/kRqhwNo8bXaK4jDZ6

Two in Florida and two in Texas. Note surrounding residential development, agricultural fields, or wildlife preserves.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

13 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

I'm not sure what Gen IV technology means. Is this related to nuclear, coal, or 'all of the above'? Whatever it is, it has to compete with solar at 70 cents per watt now and lower in future projects.

It’s just Gen IV nuclear reactors. You could call them experimental at this point. Several of the designs have been in operation for quite some time.