[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The problem with mandates such as California is it actually stifles innovation. It takes the possibility of using a higher efficiency of ICE in non-conventional drivetrains, because the burning of carbon fuel is seen as killing the planet.

Some people choose to believe it is, and other choose to believe it's not. So it becomes a debate on ideology.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think your observation of a hybrid is the best economical engineering solution for both near term implementation and long term viability. It is the least disruptive to both electrical grid impact and established industry supply chain. Nothing needs to be reinvented nor forced through disruptive policy change.

Disruption is the catalyst for change. The question is, removing the question of if it will be difficult or not, is change needed? Some people choose to believe it is, and other choose to believe it's not.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Tear away all the BS, and the end game for Cali is an EV society solely powered by Solar and Wind energy production.

Less emissions, renewable resources, and flexible energy delivery for individual vehicles? Sounds pretty good to me.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Pitiful and narrowminded.

Some people choose to believe it is, and other choose to believe it's not. I think you are mistaken.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The problem is battery storage of energy is just not dense enough and range recovery is just too slow. Gasoline and diesel are just to far up on the energy density scale for battery technology to catch up.

It sounds like you think we've reached the limits of the BEV and technological advancements are either too difficult or impossible. That's what they said about stricter emissions standards on the ICE, and we managed to make those improvements. Why would the BEV be exempt from the same efforts in innovation? It honestly sounds like people just don't want to try because of some ideological belief.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by jmg

Disruption is the catalyst for change. The question is, removing the question of if it will be difficult or not, is change needed? Some people choose to believe it is, and other choose to believe it's not.

Sure, the problem is the disruption of EVs is the only one that's being permitted. Do you think switching over to hybrids with synthetic fuels would not be a disruption? It's single-minded and foolish to put all your eggs into one basket (don't come back with "but hydrogen and fuel cells!!" - everyone knows this is not scalable and won't be any time soon)

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I have no ideological belief against EV. I was EV way before it was cool; my father bought a GE Electrak (google it) in 1973. I used that garden tractor for 15 years cutting our 2-acre yard. I have other battery electric equipment where it makes sense. None of it is mandated.

By Cali mandating EV through the banning ICE, it kills the breadth of innovation. EVs will improve some simply because the market will drive it. Cali tried this once before in 1990 and it didn't work. Had I been not 8 years old when Feds started mandating emission regs, I'd still be of the same position I am now. Educate and let the market work. What you don't know is where we'd be now if Fed (and Cali) hadn't started mandating emissions and fuel consumption regs 40 years ago; we could be even more efficient.

At this point I'm very aware of your history with the EV in another thread. However, I'm (edit) not here to change your mind, because it's already been made up, no matter how convincing an argument anyone can make.

At this point, I'm only replying to make it aware that this isn't an echo chamber. The opinions are as diverse as can be with plenty of valid points on both sides. Many people have already made up their minds and have chosen the hill they will die on. For those who are still open minded, willing to soak up new info and different opinions, my replies are for them.

The loudest voices aren't always the most correct.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Sure, the problem is the disruption of EVs is the only one that's being permitted. Do you think switching over to hybrids with synthetic fuels would not be a disruption? It's single-minded and foolish to put all your eggs into one basket (don't come back with "but hydrogen and fuel cells!!" - everyone knows this is not scalable and won't be any time soon)

It depends what the goal is. To eliminate all individual vehicle emissions, it's probably the EV. Hybrids with Synthetic fuels I wouldn't be opposed to it. Perhaps they could allow for them in the future.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Some people choose to believe it is, and other choose to believe it's not. So it becomes a debate on ideology.

Some base their ideology on internet news articles and TV shows, others by a lifetime of first hand industry experience coupled with a college education in the exact sciences of discussion. That's not an ad-hom attack on anyone, simply a point of fact. Everyone has an opinion, but where and how they formed that opinion differs greatly.

People should feel free to embrace their own beliefs, but should also be open to challenge when those beliefs are held up as having been formed by equal merits.

if my Dr. tells me to try a dietary change, I'm more inclined to listen than if my landscaper gives me the same advice. My Dr. may be wrong, but it's less likely, and his advice is probably based on a lot more relevant experience, and he probably used a more scientific process to come to his conclusions. Not all opinions/ideologies are equal.

Believe what you want, but consider your source while you are at it.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Some base their ideology on internet news articles and TV shows, others by a lifetime of first hand industry experience coupled with a college education in the exact sciences of discussion. That's not an ad-hom attack on anyone, simply a point of fact. Everyone has an opinion, but where and how they formed that opinion differs greatly.

People should feel free to embrace their own beliefs, but should also be open to challenge when those beliefs are held up as having been formed by equal merits.

if my Dr. tells me to try a dietary change, I'm more inclined to listen than if my landscaper gives me the same advice. My Dr. may be wrong, but it's less likely, and his advice is probably based on a lot more relevant experience, and he probably used a more scientific process to come to his conclusions. Not all opinions/ideologies are equal.

Believe what you want, but consider your source while you are at it.

In this particular instance, I was referring to the argument regarding carbon fuels "killing the planet", in which case I would probably trust an environmental or chemical engineer over an electrical or mechanical engineer. I trust one role would be proficient in assessing the difficulty and plausibility of a project, and the other in whether or not the project is necessary. Those are largely mutually exclusive issues that somehow have to become mutual.

Ex: Design team tells engineers they have to make X to meet a goal. Engineers tell them it's too difficult and close to impossible. They are both right.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

In this particular instance, I was referring to the argument regarding carbon fuels "killing the planet", in which case I would probably trust an environmental or chemical engineer over an electrical or mechanical engineer. I trust one role would be proficient in assessing the difficulty and plausibility of a project, and the other in whether or not the project is necessary. Those are largely mutually exclusive issues that somehow have to become mutual.

Ex: Design team tells engineers they have to make X to meet a goal. Engineers tell them it's too difficult and close to impossible. They are both right.

Climate science is not settled and the data sources are in dispute, where as most electrical and mechanical engineering sciences are pretty well sorted out.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Climate science is not settled and the data sources are in dispute, where as most electrical and mechanical engineering sciences are pretty well sorted out.

Even if "Climate science is not settled" I would trust someone who actually specializes in that field over a mechanical or electrical engineer. That is simply not their speciality.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when someone claims to a chemical or environmental engineer that what they have studied their whole academic and professional career aren't "sorted out". I do know people who work at NASA who would love to dress down such a comment. FYI they do employ many chemical and environmental engineers for their Mars projects. They are, after all, very interested in Mars for what it's history tells us about our own planet. That's something I don't think a mechanical or electrical engineer is qualified to dismiss as not "sorted out".

I'd also argue that science, even electrical and mechanical engineering sciences are never completely settled. Once we believe it is, we've stopped allowing ourselves to learn, and science is always learning and correcting itself.

Case in point, while the understanding of any complex model, like climate change, quantum mechanics, even cancer, is growing, that also involves correcting inaccuracies, since becoming more accurate means observing how inaccurate it was previously.

Skeptics who dismiss scientific models wholesale by using self-correction as proof of ineptitude don't understand how necessary self-correction is to science. It's a contradiction. The ability to change actually makes it more credible since the priority is truth, not dogma, even if they have to admit they were wrong in the past.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

What you don't know is where we'd be now if Fed (and Cali) hadn't started mandating emissions and fuel consumption regs 40 years ago; we could be even more efficient.

That's a bombshell of a claim that I'm sure like minded people love to hear because it sounds convincing. But you haven't really backed it up.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Even if "Climate science is not settled" I would trust someone who actually specializes in that field over a mechanical or electrical engineer. That is simply not their speciality.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when someone claims to a chemical or environmental engineer that what they have studied their whole academic and professional career aren't "sorted out". I do know people who work at NASA who would love to dress down such a comment. FYI they do employ many chemical and environmental engineers for their Mars projects. They are, after all, very interested in Mars for what it's history tells us about our own planet. That's something I don't think a mechanical or electrical engineer is qualified to dismiss as not "sorted out".

I'd also argue that science, even electrical and mechanical engineering sciences are never completely settled. Once we believe it is, we've stopped allowing ourselves to learn, and science is always learning and correcting itself.

Case in point, while the understanding of any complex model, like climate change, quantum mechanics, even cancer, is growing, that also involves correcting inaccuracies, since becoming more accurate means observing how inaccurate it was previously.

Skeptics who dismiss scientific models wholesale by using self-correction as proof of ineptitude don't understand how necessary self-correction is to science. It's a contradiction. The ability to change actually makes it more credible since the priority is truth, not dogma, even if they have to admit they were wrong in the past.

I wouldn't trust a Dentist to predict the weather, but I would if he told it it was going to cost $1800 and and 2 hour visits to do a root canal. If the weatherman said differently about needing the root canal, I'd probably not trust him either.

[x622]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The only convincing arguments have been the two gentlemen from the power industry who have given reems of data to explain that the electrical grid in Cali is not now ready for EV charging and will not be in 13 years. They understand the planning it takes to implement expansion. I've worked with the utility companies in a previous career on implementing cost effective inspection techniques of the power grid, so I have a good background in their subject matter. Your arguments are based on ideology; "legislate it and it will come to fruition". I do not agree government has the authority to ban a fuel source. You had an opportunity to convince me otherwise but you made no arrangements in favor of it.

I 100% agree the EV drivetrain is more efficient in converting stored energy to kinetic motion. I disagree with the methology of supplying the electricity for it. Also, I'm not going to be scared into believing anthropogenic climate change has any material effect on the time that humans will continue to inhabit the planet. The sheer mass of geological and paleolithic data says otherwise. The time we humans inhabit the Earth is a matter of natural law, not California law.

I actually wasn't sure if he wanted me to math out what it would look like if you put a solar panel on every single house in California.

I checked this thread and felt like doing some off the cuff math because why not.

There are a total of 14.5 million single family homes in California.

Average solar panel installation size seems to be between 3-5kW, so we'll use an average of 4kW

We know that tracking panels ala what solar farm installations use have at best case 30% of their nameplate as average generation, and that the tracking adds around 8% efficiency. Just to be really nice and say that solar panels are going to be great, lets be optimistic and say 30%.

If every single family house installed an average of 4kW of panels, it would be a total installation of roughly 58GW worth of solar (wow!) with a "realistic" best case scenario of adding ~17.4GW of total average generation, which still isn't quite good enough to cover all these cars.




Realistically, because of how panels work, your real power curve looks something like this;


What would this mean?

California's issue of having too much solar generation during the day would become a very serious issue, with the vast majority of that generation happening around noon seeing a full 50+GW being shoved into the grid. All this power would need to be sold to other grids to prevent overload, or generation would need to be shut (opposite of a peaker plant). Magic meme batteries ain't gonna do shit when you're talking this scale of power, unless every single house also has some battery back to try and help be a "decentralized" grid.



I'd recommend reading this, it's a little dated but a great article.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/426...become-obvious

[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Human farts often contain little to no methane. For sure, they still often stink, especially if your wafting the air over a turd before its emission. Anyway, many farts are just air we've gulped in and then hammered out our posteriors. Now cattle and various other critter, because of the way their digestive systems work, do fart out a lot of methane. They can be a problem globally.

If you're into lighting your own farts, you'll know this well. Sometimes you can get a lighter, spark one up, and make it into the blueflame club. Other times you get nothing. This is typically due to the specific species of air biscuit you've pushed out.

Correct. Human fart contains close to no methane. It stinks due to H2S. Cows produce a lot of methane because they are able to ferment cellulose (from vegetation) in their gastrointestinal tract. This is only possible because they have specialized methanogenic bacteria in their rumen.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Climate science is not settled and the data sources are in dispute, where as most electrical and mechanical engineering sciences are pretty well sorted out.

Um, what is settled (as much as anything in science) is that there are gases in the atmosphere that help trap heat and have made this a livable planet. It is settled that our combustion of fossil fuels has increased the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere. It is know that the earth has warmed as these gases have increased in concentration, consistent with the physical properties of these gases. We have not just a correlation, but a mechanism the explains the warming.

It's wrong to suggest that there isn't an overwhelming body of science that substantiates the prediction, made over 100 years ago, that fossil fuel combustion has caused significant warming.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Um, what is settled (as much as anything in science) is that there are gases in the atmosphere that help trap heat and have made this a livable planet. It is settled that our combustion of fossil fuels has increased the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere. It is know that the earth has warmed as these gases have increased in concentration, consistent with the physical properties of these gases. We have not just a correlation, but a mechanism the explains the warming.

It's wrong to suggest that there isn't an overwhelming body of science that substantiates the prediction, made over 100 years ago, that fossil fuel combustion has caused significant warming.

Um, what is settled (as much as anything in science) is that there are limits in how and were we can generate and store power. It is settled that our use of energy has increased, and the combinations where and when these loads are applied is outpacing the growth of infrastructure that supports it. It is known that the needed generation and infrastructure to deliver this energy takes a monumental amount of planning and time to implement, consistent with the physical properties and limitations of these resources. We have not just a correlation, but a mechanism the explains the inability to sustain this planned growth.

It's wrong to suggest that there isn't an overwhelming body of science that substantiates the prediction, made long ago that we can't keep adding load to the grid

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Um, what is settled (as much as anything in science) is that there are limits in how and were we can generate and store power. It is settled that our use of energy has increased, and the combinations where and when these loads are applied is outpacing the growth of infrastructure that supports it. It is known that the needed generation and infrastructure to deliver this energy takes a monumental amount of planning and time to implement, consistent with the physical properties and limitations of these resources. We have not just a correlation, but a mechanism the explains the inability to sustain this planned growth.

It's wrong to suggest that there isn't an overwhelming body of science that substantiates the prediction, made long ago that we can't keep adding load to the grid

That's not climate science. Wasn't discussing that. It's an interesting discussion here, but I was addressing and different question.

[zx10guy]

It's comical that a couple of posters don't have a sense of humor and failed to recognize a tongue in cheek joke about flatulence. Yet ignore the other parts of my post such as where their pie in the sky hopes of California meeting this 2035 lofty goal dependent on a utility which was found civilly responsible and under criminal charges for their shear negligence. Negligence that lead to a number of human deaths and property/environmental destruction.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

What you don't know is where we'd be now if Fed (and Cali) hadn't started mandating emissions and fuel consumption regs 40 years ago; we could be even more efficient.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm not sure about it being a bombshell claim, but it's the same point about controlling climate change.

That was my point with making such a statement. It's all prediction rather than actuality. When the politicos start messing with my income and lifestyle, they need to bring actualities and specifics. It's a fair request.

You are insinuating that we would be more efficient without emissions and fuel consumption regulations. That's not a prediction, and, like you said, it "can't be backed up either."

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Trying to control the Earth's climate by controlling anthropogenic climate source inputs can't be backed up either. H2ODoc claims we have it figured out, but when pressed, he has no specifics.

Like I have said in another post, I have family members with masters degrees and careers in areas of study that are actually pertinent to climate change that would disagree with you. I would tend to take the word of them over someone who has specialities elsewhere.

It simply seems like people are against the ICE ban because they do not believe in climate change and our role in it. IMHO that is a position of convenience.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I wouldn't trust a Dentist to predict the weather, but I would if he told it it was going to cost $1800 and and 2 hour visits to do a root canal. If the weatherman said differently about needing the root canal, I'd probably not trust him either.

That's not the same scenario I described at all.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by x622

I actually wasn't sure if he wanted me to math out what it would look like if you put a solar panel on every single house in California.

I checked this thread and felt like doing some off the cuff math because why not.

There are a total of 14.5 million single family homes in California.

Average solar panel installation size seems to be between 3-5kW, so we'll use an average of 4kW

We know that tracking panels ala what solar farm installations use have at best case 30% of their nameplate as average generation, and that the tracking adds around 8% efficiency. Just to be really nice and say that solar panels are going to be great, lets be optimistic and say 30%.

If every single family house installed an average of 4kW of panels, it would be a total installation of roughly 58GW worth of solar (wow!) with a "realistic" best case scenario of adding ~17.4GW of total average generation, which still isn't quite good enough to cover all these cars.




Realistically, because of how panels work, your real power curve looks something like this;


What would this mean?

California's issue of having too much solar generation during the day would become a very serious issue, with the vast majority of that generation happening around noon seeing a full 50+GW being shoved into the grid. All this power would need to be sold to other grids to prevent overload, or generation would need to be shut (opposite of a peaker plant). Magic meme batteries ain't gonna do shit when you're talking this scale of power, unless every single house also has some battery back to try and help be a "decentralized" grid.



I'd recommend reading this, it's a little dated but a great article.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/426...become-obvious

I think you've misunderstood. I can only speak for myself, but I already know there are complications. When you bring these issues up, I don't think "we can't reach our goal, because this problem is difficult, complicated and will take a long time."

I say "How do we solve this problem so we can reach our goal."

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It would be interesting to know the fuel type of the imported sources. Thats a lot of supply that is imported through the day. I wonder how green Cali's power really is. Kind of like offshoring the real dirty (smokestack) industrial work to other countries.

Nice post. Thanks.

I asked that same question earlier in this thread and stated how it can potentially be solved in regards to EV charging.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

That's not the same scenario I described at all.

Originally Posted by jmg

I would probably trust an environmental or chemical engineer over an electrical or mechanical engineer. I trust one role would be proficient in assessing the difficulty and plausibility of a project, and the other in whether or not the project is necessary. .

You state you will trust an (we need to do X) expert that says some need for X solution is valid. You say you will also trust an (this is how it will get done) expert that the proposal to address X will required Z time/resource. Correct?

When the (this is how it will get done) expert says Z can't be accomplished to address X as proposed, you then question his expert conclusion as if it were some opinion? Is it not then reasonable for others to question the conclusion of the (we need to do X) guy too?

Follow your own reasoning to conclusion, this thread is the result. If you only trust experts that agree with you, you aren't practicing science, you are practicing ideology.