A paradigm shift is under way

[skookerasbil]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

But s0n.....you're not getting something. Being a social oddball, you fail to realize that a huge majority of Americans don't want an EV. You may think the technology is fabulous but most people think EV's are ghey.......especially men. Only the feminized men or social oddball men want an EV. That little faggy car under the solar panel above...........GHEY!! Nobody wants those things.

10 Reasons Why Americans Don't Want Electric Cars

1. Average Consumers Can’t Afford $50,000-100,000 Price Tag
In this economy, money is tight. Consumers are dealing with high taxes, fees, and other financial burdens. The typical consumer just doesn’t have $100,000 dollars to spend on an electric car. If you consider loan percentages, even if a vehicle was financed at these prices, the consumer may end up paying up to $140,000 dollars after interest was paid on the loan. There are tax credits, but you must qualify for them and they don’t significantly reduce the total price of the vehicle. Americans can’t afford the steep price tag of electric vehicles.

2. Electric Cars Have Safety Issues
Electric car batteries have been known to cause sudden fires. The large batteries are dangerous, especially if the cells become damaged and can result in raging fires. Although manufacturers have tried to downplay these events, the results have been replicated in lab tests confirming the problem exists. There have also been reports of firefighters raising concerns over how they respond to electric vehicle crashes. First responders have techniques they use such as cutting battery wires to disable cars, but it isn’t that simple for electric vehicles. In addition, there are many high voltage lines that are hard to see and may present problems for rescuers.

3. No Recharge Station Network
So you’re running low on energy and you remember how easy it was to gas up at any one of the millions of gas stations in the US and now you’re out of luck because electric car charging stations are not widely distributed and are in fact hard to find. The government is trying to pump taxpayer monies into programs that promote car charging stations but so far the results are poor. Electric cars are not recommended for any long-distance transportation needs.

4. Hills, Mountains, Passengers Quickly Drain Electric Batteries
Electric car manufactures like to advertise vehicle mileage and 50 or 100 mile per gallon ratings might seem enticing but these numbers are misleading. Car mileage is almost always listed as a range you would see in completely optimal settings – no hills, perfect weather, no mountains, no long-distances and no passengers! If you plan on driving an electric car up a hill or in the mountains or taking your kids to their soccer practice, plan on quickly draining your car battery. Many people will not buy an electric car because they are scared of running out of battery power and becoming stranded. At that point, even a tow truck and gas can won’t save you.

5. Outrageous Parts Cost
Electric cars have expensive unique parts that you most likely won’t find in your local Walmart. Finding replacement parts may also become pricey. The US government says that a typical 100 mile battery costs about $33,000 dollars! In fact, the government has to subsidize electric car parts with taxpayer monies because they are too expensive to afford without cash cost reductions.

6. Home Charging Stations Cost Extra
If you thought buying a car and fueling it with gas was expensive, wait till you find out that you need a special home charger installation that costs between $1,500 and $6,000 dollars. Sometimes you get a small tax credit, but you still end up shelling out cash. The installation is done by a professional electrician and may cost even more if you don’t have the home requirements needed for wiring.

7. No Long-Distance Ability
Ask your car salesmen and they better admit that electric vehicles aren’t made for long distances. The typical vacation is much more than the 50 to 100 mile limitation on the average electric vehicle. By the time you reach these mileages, you need to stop and recharge. Good luck finding a charging station because they aren’t at gas stations.

8. Electric Cars Still Require Fossil Fuel Energy
Fossil fuels are considered non-renewable sources of energy because they take millions of years to form. The typical electric car must be plugged in frequently to recharge. Where do you think the electric energy comes from? Dirty coal-burning power plants that emit carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide continue to provide the main source of energy for electric cars. Although electric cars reduce emissions that might come from a conventional gas powered vehicle, they do not reduce dirty energy utilization. Scientifically, if you were to look at the lifespan of an electric car versus a gas powered car, the total greenhouse emissions would not be discernable – they both use dirty energy, only at different locations. Adding charging stations all over the US would significantly increase the fossil fuel burning emissions.

9. Limited Models, Poor Power and Bugs
Electric vehicles are severely limited to small sizes and lightweight materials in order to meet roadworthy specifications. Consumers have cited safety concerns of being smashed by larger conventional vehicles which may fare better as far as crash survival. You also won’t be towing boats or trailers due to the lack of power absent apart from gas vehicles. Other consumer reports include problems such as poor dashboard designs and a cheap feel of some electric cars. Consumer Reports has also noted that there have been numerous bugs with electric cars such as cars that suddenly shut off for no apparent reason.

10. The Parts Used in Electric Cars Already Caused Environmental Damage
The parts in the typical electric vehicle came from materials that require mining and refining – processes that cause significant environmental damage. Elements such as neodymium and dysprosium are rare earth elements mined in China resulting in water contamination and crop growth problems. These rare materials are often used in electric car motor parts such as magnets. The New York Times also reported that numerous Chinese mines are run by organized crime rings that disregard environmental regulations exposing humans to harmful acids and environmental hazards. Some will say that electric cars move pollution to a single point source, but the real issue is manufacturers that mislead consumers into thinking the pollution problem is solved if they buy their vehicles. It can also be argued that the production and environmental costs of electric vehicle manufacturing exceeds conventional gas powered vehicles.

10 Reasons Why Americans Don’t Want Electric Cars



All adds up to..................

 

[Old Rocks]

#1 Complete and utter bullshit. Tesla outsells any other large luxury sedan on the market;

And the Leaf and Bolt are well within the price range of most people that buy new cars. Not only that, but over 400,000 Americans have already put money down on the Tesla 3.

#2. Complete and utter bullshit. Those batteries are far safer than sitting on 20 gallons of extremely flammable gasoline.

2017 Tesla Model S Safety | U.S. News & World Report

#3 Complete and utter bullshit.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/2017.png

And those are just the Tesla supercharging stations. Many hotels, motels, and shopping malls have charging stations that are not as fast, but will still charge while you are shopping, or sleeping.

 

[Old Rocks]

#4 Complete and utter bullshit. You go up hills and mountains in an ICE and you lose mileage. Same with an EV. Except on the EV, when you go back down the hill, you get part of the energy back that you spent going up the hill. You get zilch back with an ICE.

#5. The batteries are presently expensive. But getting less so every quarter. As for the rest of the vehicle, less expensive than an ICE because it has far less parts.

#6 Home charging costs extra. Well, duh????????? You buy options on any vehicle, and you pay extra.

#7 At present. 330 for the P100D Tesla, about 100 for Leafs and 200 for Bolts. However, as we post there are people that are going to change that. Goodnough may have already done that. If his battery can be manufactured to get what his tests in the lab have gotten, that will put the Tesla at nearly a thousand miles per charge, and also have a far faster charge. That puts the Leaf at 300, and the Bolt at 600. That is comparable to ICE's for the Bolts and Leafs, way beyond the ICE's for the Tesla.

 

[Old Rocks]

#8 At present. However, for many, the fact that you can manufacture and store your own energy for an EV will result in most of the energy for those being made at home.Also, because of the inherent inefficiency of the ICE, even with transmission losses and getting electricity from a coal fired plant, the EV puts out less CO2 per mile than an ICE.



In coal heavy India, China, Australia and South Africa electric cars using grid power are just like typical gasoline vehicles, in the 25-30 MPGUS range. In the UK, Germany, Japan and Italy they are as good as the best petrol hybrids, in the 45-50 MPGUS range. But in low carbon supply places like France, Brazil, Switzerland and Norway they are in a different league, averaging well beyond 100 MPGUS for equivalent emissions.

It is important to remember that the electricity you get might not match your national average for any number of reasons. The night time intensity might vary, you might have solar panels or live in a country like the US, where the grid is actually a bunch of separate grids. For example in Colorado a grid powered electric car is equivalent to about 30 MPGUS, whereas in California it’s up around 70 MPGUS.


Read more at The ‘electric cars aren’t green’ myth debunked

#9 Limited models? Well, at present. But by 2025, that will not be the case. Poor power? What utter bullshit. Until the Dodge Demon, the P100D Tesla would run off and hide from all but the multi-million super cars. And when Musk brings out the 3 in Ludicrous mode, the Demon will be dethroned. The Leaf and Bolt have perfectly adaquete acceleration for what they are.

Bugs? Lordy, lordy, every other day there are about a million or so ICE's recalled for some bug or the other.

#10 You are kidding, right? Same mines that produce the materials for the ICE's. And the mines that produce the rare earth elements used in the electronics in the EV's produce those same elements for the screens in our computers and TV's. It could be argued that the environmental costs of manufacturing EV's could be more than the costs of manufacturing ICE's, but I suppose that it could be argued that the sun rises in the West, also. With just as much validity.

 

[80zephyr]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality. All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it. Right now. Right away. If they aren't, then these "studies" aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You can count on very few things when it comes to people, but the one thing you can count on is...greed.

If solar was a good deal for them, every house in every neighborhood would be sporting solar panels. Since they aren't, we can readily conclude which studies are correct, and which aren't.

Everything else is illogical.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality. All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it. Right now. Right away. If they aren't, then these "studies" aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You can count on very few things when it comes to people, but the one thing you can count on is...greed.

If solar was a good deal for them, every house in every neighborhood would be sporting solar panels. Since they aren't, we can readily conclude which studies are correct, and which aren't.

Everything else is illogical. If anyone here is telling us how great renewables are, without using them everyday themselves, are lying to the rest of us. If they are so good, why aren't you using them? If they are not providing you with 100% of your energy today, why aren't they?

Do what you preach, and I might believe you.

Mark

 

[bripat9643]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

But s0n.....you're not getting something. Being a social oddball, you fail to realize that a huge majority of Americans don't want an EV. You may think the technology is fabulous but most people think EV's are ghey.......especially men. Only the feminized men or social oddball men want an EV. That little faggy car under the solar panel above...........GHEY!! Nobody wants those things.

10 Reasons Why Americans Don't Want Electric Cars

1. Average Consumers Can’t Afford $50,000-100,000 Price Tag
In this economy, money is tight. Consumers are dealing with high taxes, fees, and other financial burdens. The typical consumer just doesn’t have $100,000 dollars to spend on an electric car. If you consider loan percentages, even if a vehicle was financed at these prices, the consumer may end up paying up to $140,000 dollars after interest was paid on the loan. There are tax credits, but you must qualify for them and they don’t significantly reduce the total price of the vehicle. Americans can’t afford the steep price tag of electric vehicles.

2. Electric Cars Have Safety Issues
Electric car batteries have been known to cause sudden fires. The large batteries are dangerous, especially if the cells become damaged and can result in raging fires. Although manufacturers have tried to downplay these events, the results have been replicated in lab tests confirming the problem exists. There have also been reports of firefighters raising concerns over how they respond to electric vehicle crashes. First responders have techniques they use such as cutting battery wires to disable cars, but it isn’t that simple for electric vehicles. In addition, there are many high voltage lines that are hard to see and may present problems for rescuers.

3. No Recharge Station Network
So you’re running low on energy and you remember how easy it was to gas up at any one of the millions of gas stations in the US and now you’re out of luck because electric car charging stations are not widely distributed and are in fact hard to find. The government is trying to pump taxpayer monies into programs that promote car charging stations but so far the results are poor. Electric cars are not recommended for any long-distance transportation needs.

4. Hills, Mountains, Passengers Quickly Drain Electric Batteries
Electric car manufactures like to advertise vehicle mileage and 50 or 100 mile per gallon ratings might seem enticing but these numbers are misleading. Car mileage is almost always listed as a range you would see in completely optimal settings – no hills, perfect weather, no mountains, no long-distances and no passengers! If you plan on driving an electric car up a hill or in the mountains or taking your kids to their soccer practice, plan on quickly draining your car battery. Many people will not buy an electric car because they are scared of running out of battery power and becoming stranded. At that point, even a tow truck and gas can won’t save you.

5. Outrageous Parts Cost
Electric cars have expensive unique parts that you most likely won’t find in your local Walmart. Finding replacement parts may also become pricey. The US government says that a typical 100 mile battery costs about $33,000 dollars! In fact, the government has to subsidize electric car parts with taxpayer monies because they are too expensive to afford without cash cost reductions.

6. Home Charging Stations Cost Extra
If you thought buying a car and fueling it with gas was expensive, wait till you find out that you need a special home charger installation that costs between $1,500 and $6,000 dollars. Sometimes you get a small tax credit, but you still end up shelling out cash. The installation is done by a professional electrician and may cost even more if you don’t have the home requirements needed for wiring.

7. No Long-Distance Ability
Ask your car salesmen and they better admit that electric vehicles aren’t made for long distances. The typical vacation is much more than the 50 to 100 mile limitation on the average electric vehicle. By the time you reach these mileages, you need to stop and recharge. Good luck finding a charging station because they aren’t at gas stations.

8. Electric Cars Still Require Fossil Fuel Energy
Fossil fuels are considered non-renewable sources of energy because they take millions of years to form. The typical electric car must be plugged in frequently to recharge. Where do you think the electric energy comes from? Dirty coal-burning power plants that emit carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide continue to provide the main source of energy for electric cars. Although electric cars reduce emissions that might come from a conventional gas powered vehicle, they do not reduce dirty energy utilization. Scientifically, if you were to look at the lifespan of an electric car versus a gas powered car, the total greenhouse emissions would not be discernable – they both use dirty energy, only at different locations. Adding charging stations all over the US would significantly increase the fossil fuel burning emissions.

9. Limited Models, Poor Power and Bugs
Electric vehicles are severely limited to small sizes and lightweight materials in order to meet roadworthy specifications. Consumers have cited safety concerns of being smashed by larger conventional vehicles which may fare better as far as crash survival. You also won’t be towing boats or trailers due to the lack of power absent apart from gas vehicles. Other consumer reports include problems such as poor dashboard designs and a cheap feel of some electric cars. Consumer Reports has also noted that there have been numerous bugs with electric cars such as cars that suddenly shut off for no apparent reason.

10. The Parts Used in Electric Cars Already Caused Environmental Damage
The parts in the typical electric vehicle came from materials that require mining and refining – processes that cause significant environmental damage. Elements such as neodymium and dysprosium are rare earth elements mined in China resulting in water contamination and crop growth problems. These rare materials are often used in electric car motor parts such as magnets. The New York Times also reported that numerous Chinese mines are run by organized crime rings that disregard environmental regulations exposing humans to harmful acids and environmental hazards. Some will say that electric cars move pollution to a single point source, but the real issue is manufacturers that mislead consumers into thinking the pollution problem is solved if they buy their vehicles. It can also be argued that the production and environmental costs of electric vehicle manufacturing exceeds conventional gas powered vehicles.

10 Reasons Why Americans Don’t Want Electric Cars



All adds up to..................

12. If the car runs out of juice, it has to be towed to a charging station.

13. Heating and air conditioning can quickly drain the battery.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality.

Nope!!!

You deal in fantasy, delusions and lies, as you have very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, zero.

All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

That's some really crackpot nonsense, zero. And you are even wrong about what people are doing.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it.

They are, you poor retard, and at an accelerating rate.

The American Solar Industry Had a Historic Year
The solar industry saw its biggest growth ever in 2016, and is expected to triple in size over the next five years.
BY ROBERT S. ESHELMAN
MARCH 9, 2017
America's solar industry is booming, showing its biggest growth ever in 2016, and it appears set to break additional records in the years ahead, according to a new industry report.

The solar sector nearly doubled the amount of solar power installed last year compared to 2015, GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association said in their annual analysis of the US solar sector.

Indeed, more solar power was added last year to the nation's electricity grid than any other source of energy - a milestone for the burgeoning industry. It's the latest evidence that solar, which was once considered an alternative form of energy, has arrived as a central player in America's energy portfolio.

The sector's growing scale is also steadily lowering its cost. Prices for solar are 18 percent below what they were in 2015 and 63 percent lower than five years ago.

SEIA's president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said it is hard to overstate the year's gains.

"Prices dropped to all-time lows, installations expanded in states across the country and job numbers soared," she said in a statement. "The bottom line is that more people are benefitting from solar now than at any point in the past, and while the market is changing, the broader trend over the next five years is going in one direction - and that's up."

 

[Old Rocks]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality. All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it. Right now. Right away. If they aren't, then these "studies" aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You can count on very few things when it comes to people, but the one thing you can count on is...greed.

If solar was a good deal for them, every house in every neighborhood would be sporting solar panels. Since they aren't, we can readily conclude which studies are correct, and which aren't.

Everything else is illogical.

Mark

The U.S.'s solar power capacity continues to grow after more than two gigawatts (GW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations took place during the second quarter of 2016, according to a report released on Monday.

The latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) stated that the installations represented a 43 per cent increase compared to the second quarter of 2015.

"We're seeing the beginning of an unprecedented wave of growth that will occur throughout the remainder of 2016, specifically within the utility PV segment," Cory Honeyman, associate director of U.S. solar research at GTM Research, said in a news release.


Solar is becoming an increasingly important part of the world's renewable energy mix. In 2014 the International Energy Agency stated that the sun could be the planet's biggest source of electricity by 2050.

"With more than 10 gigawatts of utility PV currently under construction, the second half of this year and the first half of 2017 are on track to continue breaking records for solar capacity additions," Honeyman added.
Big increase for US solar in 2016: Report

Now if what you said were true, the amount of solar would not be increasing as rapidly as it is. Get out of the doorway, don't stand in the hall.

 

[skookerasbil]

#1 Complete and utter bullshit. Tesla outsells any other large luxury sedan on the market;

And the Leaf and Bolt are well within the price range of most people that buy new cars. Not only that, but over 400,000 Americans have already put money down on the Tesla 3.

#2. Complete and utter bullshit. Those batteries are far safer than sitting on 20 gallons of extremely flammable gasoline.

2017 Tesla Model S Safety | U.S. News & World Report

#3 Complete and utter bullshit.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/2017.png

And those are just the Tesla supercharging stations. Many hotels, motels, and shopping malls have charging stations that are not as fast, but will still charge while you are shopping, or sleeping.

Response to #1............is that serious? Cant be serious........"outsells any large sedan.........". Heres another example where I blow a progressives argument to kingdom come by stating a simple question.........."As compared to what?"

The ONLY thing that matters is how many Tesla's are sold compared to ALL OTHER MODELS and NOT that it is the number one seller vs other models. Translation..........a mega-majority pick other large sedans and not a Tesla.


Responses to all the other points ( #2 - #10) are a bunch of hooey theory! C'mon now..............

All any person of reasoned judgment needs to do is look at overall sales numbers of conventional automobiles vs EV's.


Oh.....and ask 1,000 American males which theyd rather have..........a new Demon for 85K or a Tesla S for $130K

 

[skookerasbil]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality. All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it. Right now. Right away. If they aren't, then these "studies" aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You can count on very few things when it comes to people, but the one thing you can count on is...greed.

If solar was a good deal for them, every house in every neighborhood would be sporting solar panels. Since they aren't, we can readily conclude which studies are correct, and which aren't.

Everything else is illogical.

Mark

The U.S.'s solar power capacity continues to grow after more than two gigawatts (GW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations took place during the second quarter of 2016, according to a report released on Monday.

The latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) stated that the installations represented a 43 per cent increase compared to the second quarter of 2015.

"We're seeing the beginning of an unprecedented wave of growth that will occur throughout the remainder of 2016, specifically within the utility PV segment," Cory Honeyman, associate director of U.S. solar research at GTM Research, said in a news release.


Solar is becoming an increasingly important part of the world's renewable energy mix. In 2014 the International Energy Agency stated that the sun could be the planet's biggest source of electricity by 2050.

"With more than 10 gigawatts of utility PV currently under construction, the second half of this year and the first half of 2017 are on track to continue breaking records for solar capacity additions," Honeyman added.
Big increase for US solar in 2016: Report

Now if what you said were true, the amount of solar would not be increasing as rapidly as it is. Get out of the doorway, don't stand in the hall.

Solar power is a joke.............please...........terms like "increasing" are verbiage stunts to make shit look impressive as posted by progressives. Solar power is a little tiny sliver of the electrical grid for providing Americans power........as in, a sliver so small, it can barely be seen on a pie chart.

Umm..........its a whole 1% of the pie!!


My God......will a time ever come in this forum where people can be real?

 

[mamooth]

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car.

Let's run some numbers.

Assume 100 square meters of panels.

The panels generate 250W/m^2 at best, so let's say they generate an average of 100 over 8 hours a day.

100 * 8 * 100 * / 1000 = 80 kw-hrs.

A Tesla's battery pack holds 90 kw-hrs.

 

[80zephyr]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality.

Nope!!!

You deal in fantasy, delusions and lies, as you have very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, zero.

All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

That's some really crackpot nonsense, zero. And you are even wrong about what people are doing.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it.

They are, you poor retard, and at an accelerating rate.

The American Solar Industry Had a Historic Year
The solar industry saw its biggest growth ever in 2016, and is expected to triple in size over the next five years.
BY ROBERT S. ESHELMAN
MARCH 9, 2017
America's solar industry is booming, showing its biggest growth ever in 2016, and it appears set to break additional records in the years ahead, according to a new industry report.

The solar sector nearly doubled the amount of solar power installed last year compared to 2015, GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association said in their annual analysis of the US solar sector.

Indeed, more solar power was added last year to the nation's electricity grid than any other source of energy - a milestone for the burgeoning industry. It's the latest evidence that solar, which was once considered an alternative form of energy, has arrived as a central player in America's energy portfolio.

The sector's growing scale is also steadily lowering its cost. Prices for solar are 18 percent below what they were in 2015 and 63 percent lower than five years ago.

SEIA's president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said it is hard to overstate the year's gains.

"Prices dropped to all-time lows, installations expanded in states across the country and job numbers soared," she said in a statement. "The bottom line is that more people are benefitting from solar now than at any point in the past, and while the market is changing, the broader trend over the next five years is going in one direction - and that's up."

Lol. Compare solar to computers or cell phones. Those are technologies that actually cost people money, yet the globe was covered with those products in a very short time.

So, since you are so enamored by these alternative energy's tell me why you haven't replaced 100% of the fossil fuels in your own life?

I'll wait.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality.

Nope!!!

You deal in fantasy, delusions and lies, as you have very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, zero.

All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

That's some really crackpot nonsense, zero. And you are even wrong about what people are doing.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it.

They are, you poor retard, and at an accelerating rate.

The American Solar Industry Had a Historic Year
The solar industry saw its biggest growth ever in 2016, and is expected to triple in size over the next five years.
BY ROBERT S. ESHELMAN
MARCH 9, 2017
America's solar industry is booming, showing its biggest growth ever in 2016, and it appears set to break additional records in the years ahead, according to a new industry report.

The solar sector nearly doubled the amount of solar power installed last year compared to 2015, GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association said in their annual analysis of the US solar sector.

Indeed, more solar power was added last year to the nation's electricity grid than any other source of energy - a milestone for the burgeoning industry. It's the latest evidence that solar, which was once considered an alternative form of energy, has arrived as a central player in America's energy portfolio.

The sector's growing scale is also steadily lowering its cost. Prices for solar are 18 percent below what they were in 2015 and 63 percent lower than five years ago.

SEIA's president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said it is hard to overstate the year's gains.

"Prices dropped to all-time lows, installations expanded in states across the country and job numbers soared," she said in a statement. "The bottom line is that more people are benefitting from solar now than at any point in the past, and while the market is changing, the broader trend over the next five years is going in one direction - and that's up."

Thats great news!! So, when are we gonna quit subsidizing it, I mean, its so great, right?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.

That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.

How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...

Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.

You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?

Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).

However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.

Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”

The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”

...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?

Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.

It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.

But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(source)

Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.

More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?

In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.

Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.


(source)

Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.

It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly know "ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.

As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.

I deal in reality. All these studies are nice, but the true indication of what really is happening is reflected by the actions of the people.

If solar was really a panacea, everyone and their brother would be installing it. Right now. Right away. If they aren't, then these "studies" aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You can count on very few things when it comes to people, but the one thing you can count on is...greed.

If solar was a good deal for them, every house in every neighborhood would be sporting solar panels. Since they aren't, we can readily conclude which studies are correct, and which aren't.

Everything else is illogical.

Mark

The U.S.'s solar power capacity continues to grow after more than two gigawatts (GW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations took place during the second quarter of 2016, according to a report released on Monday.

The latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) stated that the installations represented a 43 per cent increase compared to the second quarter of 2015.

"We're seeing the beginning of an unprecedented wave of growth that will occur throughout the remainder of 2016, specifically within the utility PV segment," Cory Honeyman, associate director of U.S. solar research at GTM Research, said in a news release.


Solar is becoming an increasingly important part of the world's renewable energy mix. In 2014 the International Energy Agency stated that the sun could be the planet's biggest source of electricity by 2050.

"With more than 10 gigawatts of utility PV currently under construction, the second half of this year and the first half of 2017 are on track to continue breaking records for solar capacity additions," Honeyman added.
Big increase for US solar in 2016: Report

Now if what you said were true, the amount of solar would not be increasing as rapidly as it is. Get out of the doorway, don't stand in the hall.

You seem to be missing the point. If solar were as great as you say, EVERYONE would be installing it right now. Today.

Since you seem to believe it will work, can I now assume that your own home is 100% off the grid?

Mark

 

[bripat9643]

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car.

Let's run some numbers.

Assume 100 square meters of panels.

The panels generate 250W/m^2 at best, so let's say they generate an average of 100 over 8 hours a day.

100 * 8 * 100 * / 1000 = 80 kw-hrs.

A Tesla's battery pack holds 90 kw-hrs.

That's during the day in the summer. What about at night during the Winter? That means even in summer no power leftover to run your house. That hardly sounds practical.

 

[Old Rocks]

So what you are saying is that you run a full tank of gas through your car. Tell me, when do you have time to work.You 'Conservatives' are such idiots.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.

LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.

Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?

I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.

In the real world....

How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?

The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.

But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)

But s0n.....you're not getting something. Being a social oddball, you fail to realize that a huge majority of Americans don't want an EV. You may think the technology is fabulous but most people think EV's are ghey.......especially men. Only the feminized men or social oddball men want an EV. That little faggy car under the solar panel above...........GHEY!! Nobody wants those things.

10 Reasons Why Americans Don't Want Electric Cars

1. Average Consumers Can’t Afford $50,000-100,000 Price Tag
In this economy, money is tight. Consumers are dealing with high taxes, fees, and other financial burdens. The typical consumer just doesn’t have $100,000 dollars to spend on an electric car. If you consider loan percentages, even if a vehicle was financed at these prices, the consumer may end up paying up to $140,000 dollars after interest was paid on the loan. There are tax credits, but you must qualify for them and they don’t significantly reduce the total price of the vehicle. Americans can’t afford the steep price tag of electric vehicles.

2. Electric Cars Have Safety Issues
Electric car batteries have been known to cause sudden fires. The large batteries are dangerous, especially if the cells become damaged and can result in raging fires. Although manufacturers have tried to downplay these events, the results have been replicated in lab tests confirming the problem exists. There have also been reports of firefighters raising concerns over how they respond to electric vehicle crashes. First responders have techniques they use such as cutting battery wires to disable cars, but it isn’t that simple for electric vehicles. In addition, there are many high voltage lines that are hard to see and may present problems for rescuers.

3. No Recharge Station Network
So you’re running low on energy and you remember how easy it was to gas up at any one of the millions of gas stations in the US and now you’re out of luck because electric car charging stations are not widely distributed and are in fact hard to find. The government is trying to pump taxpayer monies into programs that promote car charging stations but so far the results are poor. Electric cars are not recommended for any long-distance transportation needs.

4. Hills, Mountains, Passengers Quickly Drain Electric Batteries
Electric car manufactures like to advertise vehicle mileage and 50 or 100 mile per gallon ratings might seem enticing but these numbers are misleading. Car mileage is almost always listed as a range you would see in completely optimal settings – no hills, perfect weather, no mountains, no long-distances and no passengers! If you plan on driving an electric car up a hill or in the mountains or taking your kids to their soccer practice, plan on quickly draining your car battery. Many people will not buy an electric car because they are scared of running out of battery power and becoming stranded. At that point, even a tow truck and gas can won’t save you.

5. Outrageous Parts Cost
Electric cars have expensive unique parts that you most likely won’t find in your local Walmart. Finding replacement parts may also become pricey. The US government says that a typical 100 mile battery costs about $33,000 dollars! In fact, the government has to subsidize electric car parts with taxpayer monies because they are too expensive to afford without cash cost reductions.

6. Home Charging Stations Cost Extra
If you thought buying a car and fueling it with gas was expensive, wait till you find out that you need a special home charger installation that costs between $1,500 and $6,000 dollars. Sometimes you get a small tax credit, but you still end up shelling out cash. The installation is done by a professional electrician and may cost even more if you don’t have the home requirements needed for wiring.

7. No Long-Distance Ability
Ask your car salesmen and they better admit that electric vehicles aren’t made for long distances. The typical vacation is much more than the 50 to 100 mile limitation on the average electric vehicle. By the time you reach these mileages, you need to stop and recharge. Good luck finding a charging station because they aren’t at gas stations.

8. Electric Cars Still Require Fossil Fuel Energy
Fossil fuels are considered non-renewable sources of energy because they take millions of years to form. The typical electric car must be plugged in frequently to recharge. Where do you think the electric energy comes from? Dirty coal-burning power plants that emit carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide continue to provide the main source of energy for electric cars. Although electric cars reduce emissions that might come from a conventional gas powered vehicle, they do not reduce dirty energy utilization. Scientifically, if you were to look at the lifespan of an electric car versus a gas powered car, the total greenhouse emissions would not be discernable – they both use dirty energy, only at different locations. Adding charging stations all over the US would significantly increase the fossil fuel burning emissions.

9. Limited Models, Poor Power and Bugs
Electric vehicles are severely limited to small sizes and lightweight materials in order to meet roadworthy specifications. Consumers have cited safety concerns of being smashed by larger conventional vehicles which may fare better as far as crash survival. You also won’t be towing boats or trailers due to the lack of power absent apart from gas vehicles. Other consumer reports include problems such as poor dashboard designs and a cheap feel of some electric cars. Consumer Reports has also noted that there have been numerous bugs with electric cars such as cars that suddenly shut off for no apparent reason.

10. The Parts Used in Electric Cars Already Caused Environmental Damage
The parts in the typical electric vehicle came from materials that require mining and refining – processes that cause significant environmental damage. Elements such as neodymium and dysprosium are rare earth elements mined in China resulting in water contamination and crop growth problems. These rare materials are often used in electric car motor parts such as magnets. The New York Times also reported that numerous Chinese mines are run by organized crime rings that disregard environmental regulations exposing humans to harmful acids and environmental hazards. Some will say that electric cars move pollution to a single point source, but the real issue is manufacturers that mislead consumers into thinking the pollution problem is solved if they buy their vehicles. It can also be argued that the production and environmental costs of electric vehicle manufacturing exceeds conventional gas powered vehicles.

10 Reasons Why Americans Don’t Want Electric Cars



All adds up to..................

LOL Back again for #2

 

[skookerasbil]

On substance, the AGW alarmists lose huge on this thread.........their crap is about as absurd as a palsy victim doing brain surgery with a pipe wrench. They live in an alternative universe as compared the rest of us.....the level of absurd off the hook!!

They make it like if you suddenly were given $130,000 for a car, every person would sprint to a Tesla dealer to buy a Tesla S.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, 400,000 lined up to put money down on the Tesla 3, even though they knew that the first deliveries would be a year from then.