Electric Vehicles

#2,551
#2,551
UT-Rex said:
"In another legal move that will likely go a step further in making Tesla’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure the de facto system in the United States, Texas has approved a plan ....
At stake is disbursement of part of $5 billion in funding set by National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program; Texas is the largest recipient of the grant."

Texas mandates new EV charging stations use the Tesla NACS plug (yahoo.com)
8/20/23
Click to expand...
Yep some of the most oblivious energy administrators in the country. Just this afternoon … 😂

Public Utility Commission of Texas calls for ‘voluntary power conservation’
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,553
#2,553
NorthDallas40 said:
Yep some of the most oblivious energy administrators in the country. Just this afternoon … 😂

Public Utility Commission of Texas calls for ‘voluntary power conservation’
Click to expand...

Future incoming EV transportation aside (e.g. if every Texas EV were quarantined tomorrow)

what basic changes would you make to TX's current system (to rectify usage/need and elect availability during these warm summer periods there) ??

E.G. how can you / we encourage TX's administrators to understand that better way?
 
#2,554
#2,554
UT-Rex said:
How the Tesla Model 2 Could Take Tesla Mainstream (msn.com)

$25k rumored.
250mile range (Superchargers can top it off in 15min)
more compact than M3, and 30% lighter

Looks affordable for families (where some will want a standard gasoline vehic and 2nd or 3rd, run-about EV -- e.g. 100 mile daily ranges)

Could be a game-changer for all competition.
Click to expand...
DCFC charging? So we’re back to ignoring the costs of public level 3 charging in order to convince people BEVs make sense? Pick a lane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#2,555
#2,555
UT-Rex said:
Future incoming EV transportation aside (e.g. if every Texas EV were quarantined tomorrow)

what basic changes would you make to TX's current system (to rectify usage/need and elect availability during these warm summer periods there) ??
Click to expand...
It’s already in work. And it’s already over budget. More fossil fuel natural gas power plants. So about that green energy BS to accommodate the expected increased demand? 😂

A plan for Texas to build its own power plants could cost $7 billion more than expected
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,556
#2,556
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s already in work. And it’s already over budget. More fossil fuel natural gas power plants. So about that green energy BS to accommodate the expected increased demand? 😂

A plan for Texas to build its own power plants could cost $7 billion more than expected
Click to expand...

As for the "?" -- that's beyond my scope at this time.

Sounds like there is a big (heat) storm on the way to TX and administrators are proactively asking communities to pull together and conserve energy in every possible, safe way.

I suppose that many EV drivers and pool owners will cooperate ("Set pool pumps to run early morning or overnight instead of peak hours").

From what I found, ERCOT is not under emergency conditions.
 
#2,557
#2,557
UT-Rex said:
As for the "?" -- that's beyond my scope at this time.

Sounds like there is a big (heat) storm on the way to TX and administrators are proactively asking communities to pull together and conserve energy in every possible, safe way.

I suppose that many EV drivers and pool owners will cooperate ("Set pool pumps to run early morning or overnight instead of peak hours").

From what I found, ERCOT is not under emergency conditions.
Click to expand...
ERCOT is not under emergency conditions. And no this is just summer in TX. It’s a hot summer but this isn’t the hottest by far. That was 1980. That’s life in TX.

And yes if ERCOT starts forcing power conserving EV charging will likely be near that top of the cut list. And I’d guess public level 3 chargers would only be available in off peak usage times.

TX cannot reconcile their own cognitive dissonance when it comes the power grid and adding capacity.
 
#2,558
#2,558
UT-Rex said:
I have a theory -- it's just theory still -- that you are simply over-speculating on the possible hypothetical negative --

"Time is the key to understanding this problem, Rothman says, because although the natural carbon cycle balances itself, it does so over exceedingly long timescales. For example, consider one part of the natural carbon cycle: how fossil fuels are created and released. Hydrothermal vents on the seafloor provide the carbon that—via heat, pressure, and other forces below the planet’s surface—is pressed into fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Over thousands or millions of years, the creeping movement of our planet’s tectonic plates brings those fossil fuels back to the Earth’s surface and slowly emits the CO2 into the air. But mining those fossil fuels and then burning them in cars or factories shortcuts nature’s method. “That full [natural] process would eventually bring it all up—but very slowly,” Rothman says. “What we're doing with taking oil and gas out of the ground is essentially speeding up the natural process.”
How much carbon dioxide does the Earth naturally absorb? | MIT Climate Portal

^^ that process is expressly describing / speaking about "surface" emission, VS the consideration of the potential abundant sub-surface, ever-producing deposits (think about it).

My second theory (based on certain written evidence and faith), is that ^ said process does not require "millions" of years, and well fewer than "thousands" (more like, continually every day at various locations around the globe).

^^ Sure, you can doubt each theory (but I'm offering it for thought in context of your claim).
Click to expand...
For someone with a PhD in geophysics he sure explains the source of fossil fuels very poorly and how they get to the earth's surface incorrectly, or maybe the author transcribed his comments wrong. If the premise is that far off the conclusion is useless.
 
#2,559
#2,559
kiddiedoc said:
I really can't believe this is such a crazy debate. I'm a pretty smart guy with a decent amount of common sense, and I settled on my position in like one hour of research and a test drive.

EVs aren't for everyone. They have significant limitations, primarily in long range travel. They have huge upsides, as well, including fuel/ maintenance savings, performance, and software features. Much of the "dangers" and drawbacks (like weight) are easily debunked with a little digging.
Click to expand...
For those who want one, have at it and have fun. My issue is with those who push them as an environmental panacea and those who push mandatory usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 85SugarVol, StarRaider and 2 others
#2,561
#2,561
EasternVol said:
For someone with a PhD in geophysics he sure explains the source of fossil fuels very poorly and how they get to the earth's surface incorrectly, or maybe the author transcribed his comments wrong. If the premise is that far off the conclusion is useless.
Click to expand...
It is a shiite article written to support a specific agenda. It isn’t a policy neutral (or narrative agnostic) academic paper. I don’t think the author could warp the professor’s words that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#2,562
#2,562
EasternVol said:
For someone with a PhD in geophysics he sure explains the source of fossil fuels very poorly and how they get to the earth's surface incorrectly, or maybe the author transcribed his comments wrong. If the premise is that far off the conclusion is useless.
Click to expand...

How would you (as briefly) explain the source ?

I'm looking at this from a perspective that the "fossil" fuels are not so limited.



 
#2,564
#2,564
UT-Rex said:
How would you (as briefly) explain the source ?

I'm looking at this from a perspective that the "fossil" fuels are not so limited.



Click to expand...

Fossil fuels are remains of organisms that have been subjected to heat and pressure, like by having thousand of feet of sediments on top of them for millions of years. We get them to the surface by mining and drilling.
 
#2,565
#2,565
EasternVol said:
Fossil fuels are remains of organisms that have been subjected to heat and pressure, like by having thousand of feet of sediments on top of them for millions of years. We get them to the surface by mining and drilling.
Click to expand...
There was a time when there was large supply close to the surface and more readily accessible. But I’ve never heard the angle that humans were responsible for the rapid reabsorbtion of hydrocarbons from decaying plant and animal life before. Not stated in that fashion anyway but I did get a good chuckle out of the premise.

I guess my take is it’s a play to acknowledge that the earth is a largely closed system with its own cycles and we’re impacting the rate of those cycles. I would think the logical assumption would be for us to make sure we can survive the cycles then 🤷‍♂️ That likely didn’t fit the preconceived notion of the paper however.

I do think we should be good stewards of our environment though. I’m more worried about trash solids and plastics choking us out. We are a nasty nasty species.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#2,566
#2,566
EasternVol said:
Fossil fuels are remains of organisms that have been subjected to heat and pressure, like by having thousand of feet of sediments on top of them for millions of years. We get them to the surface by mining and drilling.
Click to expand...

OK, that's what I figured your perspective is (that's why I'm speaking in terms of "fossil" fuels and why I provided the video of sample-type thermal vents).

The thermal vents activity suggests a different source (as that PhD describes -- whether or not he's describing it precisely 100% accurately).
 
#2,567
#2,567
NorthDallas40 said:
There was a time when there was large supply close to the surface and more readily accessible. But I’ve never heard the angle that humans were responsible for the rapid reabsorbtion of hydrocarbons from decaying plant and animal life before. Not stated in that fashion anyway but I did get a good chuckle out of the premise.

I guess my take is it’s a play to acknowledge that the earth is a largely closed system with its own cycles and we’re impacting the rate of those cycles. I would think the logical assumption would be for us to make sure we can survive the cycles then 🤷‍♂️ That likely didn’t fit the preconceived notion of the paper however.

I do think we should be good stewards of our environment though. I’m more worried about trash solids and plastics choking us out. We are a nasty nasty species.
Click to expand...
Plastics is an awful problem, especially in the 3rd world. I went to a beach not too long ago and it was perfect. A few days later the monsoon shifted and there were about 5 pieces of plastic per meter on the beach. Two days later it was 10 or more so it was time to head out. If there's that much on the beach there's a huge multiple of it in the sea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, StarRaider and NorthDallas40
#2,568
#2,568
UT-Rex said:
OK, that's what I figured your perspective is (that's why I'm speaking in terms of "fossil" fuels and why I provided the video of sample-type thermal vents).

The thermal vents activity suggests a different source (as that PhD describes -- whether or not he's describing it precisely 100% accurately).
Click to expand...
I think he's describing it with about 5% accuracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#2,570
#2,570
EasternVol said:
Fossil fuels are remains of organisms that have been subjected to heat and pressure, like by having thousand of feet of sediments on top of them for millions of years. We get them to the surface by mining and drilling.
Click to expand...

The Permian Basin --

looking at it surface map/area, how many decayed organisms (approx weight) would be required to fill that basin with the resulting liquid/gas ?

is it possible that "fossil" is a misnomer ?
 
#2,571
#2,571
UT-Rex said:
The Permian Basin --

looking at it surface map/area, how many decayed organisms (approx weight) would be required to fill that basin with the resulting liquid/gas ?

is it possible that "fossil" is a misnomer ?
Click to expand...
A lot, and they accumulated over very long periods of time. Fossil as in remains of an organism isn't a misnomer.
 
#2,572
#2,572
EasternVol said:
A lot, and they accumulated over very long periods of time. Fossil as in remains of an organism isn't a misnomer.
Click to expand...

"fossil" (the previously living organisms), as in the source of the liquid/gas, is considered by some as a misnomer (myself, and seemingly the PhD referenced ^, included).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top