Batteries Produce More CO2 Than Coal and Gasoline.

[SWFLA]

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/448846/renewable-energy-national-academy-sciences-christopher-t-m-clack-refutes-mark-jacobson

[karrak]

Really!!!. That is one of the most lame statements I have heard yet from you.

Unless your car has a tiny tinker toy motor, a solar panel will provide next to nothing in the way of powering it.

I didn't mean putting the solar panels on the roof of the car, I meant putting them on the roof of your house.

[DanKegel]

http://amp.nationalreview.com/articl...-mark-jacobson

That refers to pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full ... which says "A number of studies, including a study by one of us, have concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost (1, 2)."

So the argument is about how to get from 80% clean to 100% clean. Both camps agree that 80% decarbonization is practical and can be achieved at reasonable cost... and heck, getting to 80% carbon-free would be great. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

[emartin00]

The study has been debunked a couple times: https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...rming-disaster

[SunEagle]

I didn't mean putting the solar panels on the roof of the car, I meant putting them on the roof of your house.

Ok. That makes sense.

I actually saw an article that stated Tesla will be building EV charging stations that are completely off grid using solar. I hope they at least have a big storage system somewhere for those cloudy days.

[SunEagle]

That refers to pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full ... which says "A number of studies, including a study by one of us, have concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost (1, 2)."

So the argument is about how to get from 80% clean to 100% clean. Both camps agree that 80% decarbonization is practical and can be achieved at reasonable cost... and heck, getting to 80% carbon-free would be great. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

The fuss is the "true cost" to the customers. Just because someone says it won't be expensive to go "80%" clean doesn't mean it is true. Especially when you have those yo-yos that think a solution are the solar roadways. If you believe that crap then I guess you can believe anything your read on the web.

[J.P.M.]

That refers to pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full ... which says "A number of studies, including a study by one of us, have concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost (1, 2)."

So the argument is about how to get from 80% clean to 100% clean. Both camps agree that 80% decarbonization is practical and can be achieved at reasonable cost... and heck, getting to 80% carbon-free would be great. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

Wait a minute ! don't try to legitimize what sounds like someone saying or perhaps attempting to make it easier to infer 80% R.E. based energy supply is possible without some backup as to when that might be achieved and how. That's a trap and one (common) way how crap like that from all sides of the issue sneaks into the dialog, gets a life of its own and some credibility in the repeating, and becomes part of the assumed reality by those who started it. It's a B.S. tactic.

[J.P.M.]

The fuss is the "true cost" to the customers. Just because someone says it won't be expensive to go "80%" clean doesn't mean it is true. Especially when you have those yo-yos that think a solution are the solar roadways. If you believe that crap then I guess you can believe anything your read on the web.

IMO, Dan's usual and common behavior with respect to what seems, to me anyway, to be selective belief (cherry picking) of what's written/viewed is a textbook example of seeing what you want to see and suspending serious attempts at critical thinking because, among other things, it may lead to inconvenient conclusions that are painfully contrary to current perceptions of reality.

Such approaches to situations gives a pass and a path to those ideas that make life easier (and also usually without much regard to how such ideas might fit a more cosmopolitan reality), by not playing the devil's advocate by not questioning stuff that gives the warm and fuzzies in a more critical way, and by such lack of questioning, buttressing currently held notions, be they right or wrong or most likely somewhere in between.

As in, "my mind's already made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

[jflorey2]

I actually saw an article that stated Tesla will be building EV charging stations that are completely off grid using solar. I hope they at least have a big storage system somewhere for those cloudy days.

They plan on-site storage for these. I strongly suspect that such stations will be ABLE to disconnect from the grid, but will remain connected normally (just plain cheaper.)

[SunEagle]

They plan on-site storage for these. I strongly suspect that such stations will be ABLE to disconnect from the grid, but will remain connected normally (just plain cheaper.)

Well I know of a number of large companies looking at building EV charging stations around the world. As far as I know they will all be grid tied at some voltage that is available from the local POCO.

So I would be surprised that Tesla doesn't reap the benefit of having a hybrid pv grid tie system that also has EV charging stations. But then again they may want to be the sole keepers of any energy that is produced from the pv system so that will require one of their larger energy storage systems or any excess electricity will be wasted.

[NorthRick]

So, a "bunch of dead miners" are insignificant compared to dirt?
Moving is not nearly as traumatic as losing your life.

You missed my point. Any workers killed in an accident is tragic. The difference between a nuclear accident and accidents involving other forms of energy is the number of other people affected. Chernobyl's exclusion zone is 1,000 square miles. Fukushima's is 500 square miles. That's a big part of why so many people are opposed to nuclear power.

[jflorey2]

But then again they may want to be the sole keepers of any energy that is produced from the pv system so that will require one of their larger energy storage systems or any excess electricity will be wasted.

Yeah. The problem there is that energy harvested vs energy dispensed will never quite be the same - so without any grid connection they either waste energy or turn people away. Even a small grid connection (i.e. a fraction of what a grid-dependent system needs) would alleviate that problem.

[SunEagle]

You missed my point. Any workers killed in an accident is tragic. The difference between a nuclear accident and accidents involving other forms of energy is the number of other people affected. Chernobyl's exclusion zone is 1,000 square miles. Fukushima's is 500 square miles. That's a big part of why so many people are opposed to nuclear power.

I believe it is the fear of radiation that has turned people away from nuclear power even tho the chances of getting hurt, sick or die is extremely remote.

Apparently fear is relative otherwise why are there about 1300 people dying each day from cigarettes. That is a much higher % chance for death but I still see people lighting up

[NorthRick]

What people are afraid of, and what they should be afraid of, can be considerably out of line with each other. Truly amazing at times.

[J.P.M.]

I believe it is the fear of radiation that has turned people away from nuclear power even tho the chances of getting hurt, sick or die is extremely remote.

Apparently fear is relative otherwise why are there about 1300 people dying each day from cigarettes. That is a much higher % chance for death but I still see people lighting up

Less familiarity == more fear. Most folks know someone who has died from smoking, maybe they know of many. It's unfortunate, but an everyday occurrence. Not as many know someone who died of radiation poisoning, and no one I know of wants to think about being forced to abandon their home due to radiation, regardless of likelihood. Logic and dispassionate reasoning do not apply in such situations. stampeders on all sides have fertile ground to plant in such emotion charged fields.