The Second Sign of the Apocalypse

[Ridenfool]

39 minutes ago, June Bug said:

Listened to an interestig piece on  NPR discussing the shift to battery-powered cars and the price paid by the people who live where the raw materials are mined and the ecological impact of mining those materials vs the impression that battery power is completely green and clean.  

But, I digress.  These last few weeks, I've really started looking at e-bikes, knowing one is in my future.  Advancing age + difficulty in recovering due to some health issues + plus the side effects of medication for those health issues  -- I'm there.  My main concern is how long a ride will a battery support because I'd like to use one for short, overnight bikepacking trips that would likely be on two-track or bladed roads with no options to stock up on water. Yup, we're talking SE Utah and SW Colorado.  

Thanks for the TREK Marlin link, it looks like a possibility, but I'll be looking around.  A few weeks ago I did find a website on hardtail e-bikes, comparing battery storage capacity. 

 

 

I think most of the "battery materials mining is eco-unfriendly" stories are written by oil companies. Consider how fossil fuels are mined to provide the power to mine the oil, transport the oil, refine the oil, and then continuously mined to provide fuel that is burned and cannot be recycled for the life of a gas/diesel powered vehicle.

Battery materials are only mined to create the first battery, after which 98% of the battery can be recycled into new batteries. As the supply of produced batteries grows, the mining needs will eventually be reduced. This is the part of the story rarely shared.

As for the e-bike, I regret purchasing one with a 500 Ah battery. The most utility will be derived from having a larger capacity battery. Also, for extended trips a second battery can be carried along if necessary. Most are very easy to swap out. Batteries are very pricey though.

Edited March 18 by Ridenfool

[AustinBike]

2 hours ago, June Bug said:

These last few weeks, I've really started looking at e-bikes, knowing one is in my future...my main concern is how long a ride will a battery support because I'd like to use one for short, overnight bikepacking trips...

 

I would suggest that there is a bigger determinant out there: modularity and standardization. If I were investigating an e-bike, one of my top criteria would be the modularity of the batteries. My wife has an Electra Townie Go e-bike and she loves it. But the battery is integrated into the downtube and not really user accessible. I also have some friends with REI city e-bikes that have modular, removable batteries - a much better design.

But what the industry needs is some standardization. That will drive adoption faster than anything. Additionally, while it is not optimal, if you had a removable battery you could actually carry a spare with you on an overnight trip if you needed to. Sure, its not optimal because of the weight, but it would be a consideration.

[AustinBike]

duplicate

Edited March 18 by AustinBike
duplicate

[AustinBike]

duplicate

Edited March 18 by AustinBike
duplicate

[AustinBike]

duplicate

Edited March 18 by AustinBike

[June Bug]

5 hours ago, AustinBike said:

But what the industry needs is some standardization. That will drive adoption faster than anything. Additionally, while it is not optimal, if you had a removable battery you could actually carry a spare with you on an overnight trip if you needed to. Sure, its not optimal because of the weight, but it would be a consideration.

This is such a good point.  I went to the Trek website and read about the Marlin.  Battery life is only 2 - 4 hours, depending, which is hugely suboptimal. Of course, the power option would be for climbing only, but still. The Marlin battery is not removable. Trek will have an additional battery option: 

"When you want to pedal farther, partner your Marlin+ with a 250 watt-hour Bosch PowerMore range extender battery (sold separately) to increase range by over 60%. (Coming soon!)"   That battery mounts on the down tube and just plugs in. 

Fortunately, there are a lot of websites comparing various e-bikes, battery life, weight, and all the things.   

Things will be moving along in the ebike bike packing world when the e bike battery can be charged with a small solar panel. Someone has done it already:  HERE  This is Scandanavia; a hot Texas sun or clear sky in the desert Southwest might work faster. 

Edited March 19 by June Bug

[RedRider3141]

4 hours ago, Ridenfool said:

I think most of the "battery materials mining is eco-unfriendly" stories are written by oil companies. Consider how fossil fuels are mined to provide the power to mine the oil, transport the oil, refine the oil, and then continuously mined to provide fuel that is burned and cannot be recycled for the life of a gas/diesel powered vehicle.

I disagree, 100%. Watch a few videos on cobalt mining in Africa. Compare that to the BP rigs on the North Slope in Alaska. Night and day difference in environmental impact and human safety/ impact. I'm not saying Big Oil's hands are clean but I'd rather live next to a refinery (I actually did for 4 years in college) than anywhere near a heavy metal mine. None of the kids being raised in Blaine, WA or Ferndale, WA have birth defects from the refinery. Greenwashing by switching to batteries as fast as we have is having a much bigger global and individual impact than anyone realizes. Money goes where the demand is much faster than any regulations.

Here's a few to choose from: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cobalt+mining+in+congo

Oil refinery in Alaska: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=oil+refinery+north+slope+alaska

 

[June Bug]

The point of the NPR piece is that mining for the types of raw materials needed to make batteries can and does have adverse/detrimental impacts, and those impacts are borne on the backs of  poor/powerless people in places where there are zero regulatory processes to protect humans and environment and that those impacts are invisible to end users in countries like the US.  

 

[Ridenfool]

 

At least the wars fought over oil rich lands did no harm to the people and environment of Vietnam, the Middle East, Afghanistan (pipeline ROW), etc., right?

Nor has there ever been any displacement of people or destruction of water supplies due to drilling. Thank goodness.

 

Lithium, fortunately, can be found on every continent and in seawater. Nobody will be fighting over it, nor does it create toxic by-products when used. Batteries produced today are expected to last for a million vehicle miles. But, they are just getting started, and will make better ones in the future.

 

Energy.gov article on reducing/replacing Cobalt in Lithium batteries: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/reducing-reliance-cobalt-lithium-ion-batteries

From the EPA Website: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths Click the link for more EV myths being busted, and colorful charts that present the supporting data graphically.

Excerpt from above:

Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.

FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.

Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above).

For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.

Estimates shown2 from GREET 2 2021 are intended to be illustrative only. Estimates represent model year 2020. Emissions will vary based on assumptions about the specific vehicles being compared, EV battery size and chemistry, vehicle lifetimes, and the electricity grid used to recharge the EV, among other factors.

Above, the blue bar represents emissions associated with the battery. The orange bars encompass the rest of the vehicle manufacturing (e.g., extracting materials, manufacturing and assembling other parts, and vehicle assembly) and end-of-life (recycling or disposal). The gray bars represent upstream emissions associated with producing gasoline or electricity (U.S. mix), and the yellow bar shows tailpipe emissions during vehicle operations.

Recycling EV batteries can reduce the emissions associated with making an EV by reducing the need for new materials. While some challenges exist today, research is ongoing to improve the process and rate of EV battery recycling. For more information on EV battery development and recycling, visit:

U.S. Department of Energy’s ReCell Center

National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries, 2021-2030 (pdf) (June 2021, report published by the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries)

Edited March 19 by Ridenfool

[mack_turtle]

15 hours ago, AustinBike said:

But what the industry needs is some standardization. 

That's crazy-talk!

[Ridenfool]

1 hour ago, mack_turtle said:

That's crazy-talk!

 

As funny as that is true, a standardized replaceable battery would result in an economies of scale cost reduction and interchangeability between brands.

The bicycle industry has a long history of only standardizing as a last resort.

Edited March 19 by Ridenfool

[AustinBike]

26 minutes ago, Ridenfool said:

 

As funny as that is true, a standardized replaceable battery would result in an economies of scale cost reduction and interchangeability between brands.

The bicycle industry has a long history of only standardizing as a last resort.

Tires.

Hubs and wheels.

Drivetrains.

Brakes.

Handlebars.

Grips.

Seatposts and seats.

The industry has a ton of standardization. Go shop for a dropper and you'll find that you have 3-4 diameters to choose from and no mention of what kind of bike it is going on.

Bike companies are very proprietary on their shock mounting, derailleur hangers and small spare parts. 

I would say that the industry is incredibly standardized. The biggest outlier always seemed to be Cannondale with their Lefty and their Headshock. The industry brought them in line pretty quick. Those are still products per se, but mostly from an ego perspective.

[Ridenfool]

1 hour ago, AustinBike said:

Tires.

Hubs and wheels.

Drivetrains.

Brakes.

Handlebars.

Grips.

Seatposts and seats.

The industry has a ton of standardization. Go shop for a dropper and you'll find that you have 3-4 diameters to choose from and no mention of what kind of bike it is going on.

Bike companies are very proprietary on their shock mounting, derailleur hangers and small spare parts. 

I would say that the industry is incredibly standardized. The biggest outlier always seemed to be Cannondale with their Lefty and their Headshock. The industry brought them in line pretty quick. Those are still products per se, but mostly from an ego perspective.

 

How many "standard" freehubs are there?

Which "standard" seatpost diameter does your bike have? Oh? Mine is the other standard.

Handlebars have at least two "standard" mounting diameters.

Drivetrains cover a plethora of the "standard" number of gears, shifter/derailer combos that cannot be mixed between brands, chains are in many varieties, an abundance of cassette mounting options, etc. Drivetrains require practically arcane knowledge in order to assure buying the part that will work.

Brakes have at least two "standard" mountings for rotors, as well as proprietary brake/shifter combo mounts. Mineral oil or DOT?

Axle types. How many unique ones are currently found in production based upon the "standard" dimensions?

Buying a replacement rear wheel is very complicated due to all the options that must be accounted for. Freehub type, hub width, brake rotor mounting, rim width, wheel diameter, etc.

Yes, the industry is "incredibly" standardized. 🙄

The rate of development in bicycles really does not lend itself to standardization in many cases. However, with batteries it might be possible to have two or three standard sizes based on a common dimension for mounting, and contacts, varying by amp hour capacity and which share a common firmware/BCM/communication/charging standard.

Edited March 19 by Ridenfool

[mack_turtle]

I agree that the trend does lean toward standards of one sort or another. there are often a few different standards, but you don't see every single bike company making its own specific size seatpost, bottom bracket, hub sizes, etc. new standards arise, but they are few and far between. the same could be done for mounting batteries and motors. IIRC, boost spacing was a collaboration with Trek and ... SRAM? the UHD is another example. If a heavy-hitter like Shimano or Bosch worked with Specialized, Giant, or Trek, the others would follow suit and we would have something that more closely resembles a "standard" within a few short years. I don't know why bike manufacturers keep shooting themselves in the foot.

[mack_turtle]

56 minutes ago, Ridenfool said:

 

How many "standard" freehubs are there? this is tricky and I think it makes sense that freehubs are not interchangeable. otherwise, I can think of four: HG, Microspline, XD, and Campy. Four is not a lot, if that's what you are thinking.

Which "standard" seatpost diameter does your bike have? Oh? Mine is the other standard. I can think of four sizes that cover 99% of the bikes out there (aero bikes notwithstanding): 27.2, 30.9, 31.6, and 34.9. personal opinion: four is not excessive, and some of those will might out over time.

Handlebars have at least two "standard" mounting diameters. two is not a lot, but you forgot 25.4 and 26 for old road bikes. 22.2 for BMX. still, two is all you need to worry about for mountain bikes, and one of those mis-matches can be easily solved with a shim.

Drivetrains cover a plethora of the "standard" number of gears, shifter/derailer combos that cannot be mixed between brands, chains are in many varieties, an abundance of cassette mounting options, etc. Drivetrains require practically arcane knowledge in order to assure buying the part that will work. CUES is one attempt to solve this. I also wonder why these are not a little more simple to mix.

Brakes have at least two "standard" mountings for rotors, as well as proprietary brake/shifter combo mounts. Mineral oil or DOT? two standards for each of those interfaces doesn't seem like a problem to me. 6-bolt or CL, post-mount or flat mount, mineral oil or DOT. it's not difficult to navigate.

Axle types. How many unique ones are currently found in production based upon the "standard" dimensions? are you talking about how the thru-bolt attaches to the frame and fork dropouts? I haven't found there are really as many different ones as you might think. it would be nice if they would simplify that a bit, though.

Buying a replacement rear wheel is very complicated due to all the options that must be accounted for. Freehub type, hub width, brake rotor mounting, rim width, wheel diameter, etc. naturally. we have choices, but compatibility is not the same thing as options. 

Yes, the industry is "incredibly" standardized. 🙄

The rate of development in bicycles really does not lend itself to standardization in many cases. However, with batteries it might be possible to have two or three standard sizes based on a common dimension for mounting, and contacts, varying by amp hour capacity and which share a common firmware/BCM/communication/charging standard.

notes.

Edited March 19 by mack_turtle

[AntonioGG]

4 hours ago, mack_turtle said:

That's crazy-talk!

SRAM: "hold my beer" 

(b/c of UDH...)

[Ridenfool]

1 hour ago, mack_turtle said:

notes.

 

A standard in common terms will enforce limits when applied. Though, as evidenced above, rarely is a standard likely to find total inter-compatibility across this industry, sometimes even within one manufacturer's offerings.

Industry leaders can get together and agree on a standard if it makes sense to do so. Making sense covers a wide spectrum of qualifications that boil down to improving their margins. There has to be good reason for them to adopt a policy of doing something a certain way. Rarely does everyone in the bicycle industry agree. So, there have been hundreds of standards and overlapping designs through the years that rarely coalesce into any permanent standard.

Two wheels and handlebars with controls seem to be something nearly all have adopted. Beyond that, it is a toss up as to what any particular bike might include.

As stated in the last paragraph, Bicycles have always been very individual and prototype-ish. That is the nature of cutting edge technology. Bike tech evolves fairly quickly. So, there are lots of variations which we euphemistically call "standards" when they are each and all deviations attempting to offer some advantage gained by the change. Rarely is a change embraced or adopted by all, forever. That would be impossible in a dynamic industry where so many are trying to out-engineer each other to find a better way.

This is great for us. We get fantastic new ways to approach old problems thrown at us faster than any single person would reasonably expect or be able to adopt. We just deal with what our bike has, until it is time to leapfrog into the next one with all its differences.

This makes for variety, and variety is the spice of life.

Variety, is also the only real standard that fully encompasses the bicycle industry. The spice must flow.

 

For electric bikes, it might be possible for a standard battery to be adopted. This could lead to advantages for both the manufacturers and the consumers. Cost savings and competition would lead to making the best product for a lower price. Availability would be better. Services like battery swap locations might be a result.

This sort of standard would be a significant departure from the norm in the world of high end, custom-fitted, leading edge bicycles that a modern mountain biker may currently select from.

 

[AustinBike]

I view standards from a higher level. If a bike company is pushing a proprietary standard then there is a lock in - buy brand X I am tied to brand X for some small universe of parts.

But my wheel spacing, wheel size, brake mounting, handlebar clamp, bottom bracket, etc. are all standard. I can change components far easier today than in the past. 

Now, bike component makers might have proprietary parts, but you have the choice. I can choose between SRAM and Shimano because they will both fit on any of my standardized bikes. But when I broke a Shimano brake lever blade like I did earlier this year, I could only buy Shimano. So what. 

I think the bike industry has gotten much more standardized, the bike component industry is still proprietary but I'd rather have proprietary at the $35 brake lever blade than the $800 suspension fork.  

[Ridenfool]

1 hour ago, AustinBike said:

I view standards from a higher level. If a bike company is pushing a proprietary standard then there is a lock in - buy brand X I am tied to brand X for some small universe of parts.

But my wheel spacing, wheel size, brake CALIPER mounting, handlebar clamp, bottom bracket, etc. are all standard. I can change components far easier today than in the past. 

Now, bike component makers might have proprietary parts, but you have the choice. I can choose between SRAM and Shimano because they will both fit on any of my standardized bikes. But when I broke a Shimano brake lever blade like I did earlier this year, I could only buy Shimano. So what. 

I think the bike industry has gotten much more standardized, the bike component industry is still proprietary but I'd rather have proprietary at the $35 brake lever blade than the $800 suspension fork.  

FTFY- added "Caliper" above, as the Rotor and Master do not follow a single standard. Also, handlebar clamp is not standard. Last time I was shopping for bars I bought the smaller diameter with a set of adapter shims, as it was 30% lower cost than buying the same bar with a diameter matching the stem on the bike.

 

Granted, it has gotten better.

For those who have dealt with this for long enough to learn the ropes it has become second-nature to take the steps to assure the right part is ordered. Still, for new people coming into the sport it can be frustrating having to wallow through all the minutiae just to make sure the part you receive is the part that will work.

But, this is veering further off topic. Which was that a standard battery spec could lead to several significant advantages for the OEMs and their customers.

Based upon reality, the complexities of the higher spec bicycle industry, and a long history of branded designs geared more toward finding their own way than collaboration, I won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen. It is the nature of the beast.

Edited March 20 by Ridenfool

[ATXZJ]

On 3/18/2024 at 10:43 AM, June Bug said:

Listened to an interestig piece on  NPR discussing the shift to battery-powered cars and the price paid by the people who live where the raw materials are mined and the ecological impact of mining those materials vs the impression that battery power is completely green and clean.  

 

 

 

Agree there is no free lunch. All it takes is a few days around the American SW, WV, or PA to see the effects of mining on the landscape and ecosystem. I come from a family of a strip miner, and know this well. Until there are some actual long term plans on how to improve our electrical grid, I.E. nuclear, then I'll still hold the same opinion of this supposed renewal movement. A total grift.

FWIW, polygon has some pretty good deals on e-bikes

https://www.bikesonline.com/polygon-siskiu-t7e-all-mountain-ebike-size-l~8114772?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwkuqvBhAQEiwA65XxQExDVqwgVYNyc5cOoszG6ZHuYqfzuV3PR13wuJzrtSC6XFQxXB-1PhoCKygQAvD_BwE

 

IMHO, YT makes some of the best looking full sized e-bikes

https://us.yt-industries.com/products/bikes/decoy-29/core-4/678/decoy-29-core-4/

 

The only time I see smaller/lighter ebikes like the Pivot shuttle SL being practical is for smaller or weaker riders. I wouldn't stick my wife on a 50+ pound ebike because at some point she's going to have to lift or carry that thing up something. The 700ft hike-a-bike at MT Lemmon comes to mind. A sub 40# e-bike is high on the wishlist for her.

The group I ride with has a few guys with nice big travel ebikes. They are fairly fit, and still struggle on the hike a bike sections to get to the trailhead. Carrying those things up 300ft goatpaths up a a mountainside at almost 5k feet doesn't look like fun. We usually end up waiting for them at the top for a few minutes.

[Ridenfool]

6 hours ago, ATXZJ said:

Until there are some actual long term plans on how to improve our electrical grid, I.E. nuclear, then I'll still hold the same opinion of this supposed renewal movement. A total grift.

 

There are plans. It isn't a grift. Repurposing the grid is already happening with the installation of local renewable power generation and battery storage.

The costs to build a new battery + solar or wind energy production facility is on parity with the cost just to maintain an existing coal, natural gas, or nuclear plant of the same production capacity.  That is something the folks who make money producing energy consider as a really good reason to replace their costly existing production facilities with this almost maintenance-free alternative.

The lion's share of new power projects in the US are sustainable energy projects such as solar production supplemented by batteries to hold the energy until it is needed. Something the existing grid cannot do. Less chance of an outage when a fuel-based plant is unable to spin up to meet demand when the electricity is stored and waiting to be deployed.

Because the grid will become less critical as local generation and storage grows, it won't be as much of a worry going forward. More and more residential and commercial new construction are including solar and battery installations. Retrofitting existing homes and other buildings is a growing business. Large scale energy projects with solar, wind, and battery dominate all prior methods in the current projects underway. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424

 

Edited March 20 by Ridenfool

[AustinBike]

You say US. You don't say Texas.

My guess is that with the way Texas fights to stay off the US grid that any declaration about US plans will have little to no impact on Texas.

 

[Ridenfool]

2 hours ago, AustinBike said:

You say US. You don't say Texas.

My guess is that with the way Texas fights to stay off the US grid that any declaration about US plans will have little to no impact on Texas.

 

Let me Google that for you...

 

Texas surpassed California in 2023 as the state with the most Solar Energy Production

https://www.ktbs.com/news/texas-surpasses-california-as-grid-scale-solar-energy-production-leader/article_55771e12-7467-11ee-8cf3-cf48685088c8.html

 

Here's another article that mentions how Texas leads in Wind Power Production as well.

https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/texas-unique-energy-industry-is-helping-the-state-become-a-renewables-leader/

 

Edited March 21 by Ridenfool

[ATXZJ]

It's a massive grift. That's what greedy people do. Even Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have realized this. My wife who was a massive greenie, has changed her mind about nuclear after being exposed to more information. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans

https://www.nuclearnowfilm.com/

 

Solar is also a joke and more and more people are realizing it. It would take me almost 20 yrs to recoup the outlay for solar at my house, and we see over 300 days of sunshine. How outdated and broken will that platform be when and if it's ever paid off? Care to scale that model up to a national level under government contracts at the taxpayers expense? Hard pass. The massive solar unit taken out in Nebraska by a hailstorm was proof of how flawed this system is and admittedly was oddly gratifying. Wind is equally unpredictable and flawed. All of which will require batteries to store energy during downtime and fossil fuels to back it up. Depending on the source, there's not enough rare earth minerals to accomplish going green by the timelines laid out, if ever. There are companies claiming to make efficient batteries out of more available elements but I'll believe it when I see it. Seems like most things, a lot of vaporware. By all means, build an aircraft powered by solar, wind or batteries. Battery powered ships? LoL Those are your high polluters using low grade fuels. Not my 2009 Tacoma or my stove.

As a 30 year car industry guy, electric cars are toys, and aren't practical. How unpractical are they for most Americans? Two cars can drive from NYC to LA obeying all speed limits and laws. One an electric car of your choice. The other, lets just go extreme and use a Lamborghini Huracán STO, a road legal RACING car. Even with its high fuel consumption, the RACE CAR will arrive first because fuel is available practically anywhere and takes less than 10min to be back on the road. In what magical universe is a full blown race car more effective at making it cross country than electric, yet this is being crammed down our throats. 

There are two practical options: Nuclear and synthetic fuel.

 

 

 

Edited March 21 by ATXZJ

[Ridenfool]

1 hour ago, ATXZJ said:

It's a massive grift. That's what greedy people do. Even Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have realized this. My wife who was a massive greenie, has changed her mind about nuclear after being exposed to more information. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans

https://www.nuclearnowfilm.com/

 

Solar is also a joke and everyone knows it. It would take me almost 20 yrs to recoup the outlay for solar at my house, and we see over 300 days of sunshine. How outdated and broken will that platform be when and if it's ever paid off? Care to scale that model up to a national level under government contracts at the taxpayers expense? Hard pass. The massive solar unit taken out in Nebraska by a hailstorm was proof of how flawed this system is and admittedly was oddly gratifying. Wind is equally unpredictable and flawed. All of which will require batteries to store energy during downtime and fossil fuels to back it up. Depending on the source, there's not enough rare earth minerals to accomplish going green by the timelines laid out, if ever. There are companies claiming to make efficient batteries out of more available elements but I'll believe it when I see it. Seems like most things, a lot of vaporware. By all means, build an aircraft powered by solar, wind or batteries. Battery powered ships? LoL Those are your high polluters using low grade fuels. Not my 2009 Tacoma or my stove.

As a 30 year car industry guy, electric cars are toys, and aren't practical. How unpractical are they for most Americans? Two cars can drive from NYC to LA obeying all speed limits and laws. One an electric car of your choice. The other, lets just go extreme and use a Lamborghini Huracán STO, a road legal RACING car. Even with its high fuel consumption, the RACE CAR will arrive first because fuel is available practically anywhere and takes less than 10min to be back on the road. In what magical universe is a full blown race car more effective at making it cross country than electric, yet this is being crammed down our throats. 

There are two practical options: Nuclear and synthetic fuel.

 

It should be interesting watching as the disruptive technologies converging demonstrate the flaws in such a perspective.

 

Grid scale solar and battery deployment have proven themselves around the world, regardless of subsidies. "Peaker Plants" that would have been spun up for high demand and in critical emergencies remain dormant, rather than being able to charge exorbitant rates. Battery storage can respond in milliseconds to trouble. This is how these systems have become the dominant choice for power in a scant few years in Australia, Europe, Pacific Islands, Asia, and the Americas.

https://www.torquenews.com/video/tesla-big-battery-australia-pays-itself-25-years-huge-profit

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/09/12/solar-power-europe-predicts-eu-will-reach-its-renewable-energy-goal-3-years-early/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/business/india-adani-green-energy-plant-climate-intl-hnk/index.html

 

Regarding hail and solar panels. I was just reading about how it has been found recently that Solar panels oriented vertically, rather than horizontally, with panels facing both East and West actually produce more power than do those facing skyward and South. (Northern Hemisphere perspective)

This offers several advantages, the least of which is that hail is unlikely to be a problem. They can be erected in place of a fence, they can have crops planted by tractor between arrays, they can more easily be installed and serviced, and they produce more power each day than horizontal systems.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/11/15/mysterious-higher-energy-yields-in-vertical-pv-systems/

https://spectrum.ieee.org/agrivoltaics

 

Please, do explain in some detail just how this grift works?

Provide detail that includes cost/benefit analysis for near and long term. This would be helpful to set straight all of those who studied the problem long and hard on every continent and came to the conclusion that this was the best option. I'm sure they will be grateful for the knowledge.

Who is taken to the cleaners when the money spent on grid level energy projects creates near "free" energy going forward, as maintenance costs are minuscule in comparison to legacy power generation?

Who was taken for a ride when renewables helped eliminate the EU's dependence upon Russian oil? Maybe the Russians?

How are the Pacific Islands that have installed Solar/Battery systems to replace generators and no longer have to import expensive diesel in order to power them having the wool pulled over their eyes?

And these synthetic fuels, do they require fuel or electricity in order to create them to then burn them, once, to make electricity? How is that more efficient than taking electricity from the sun and putting it directly into batteries from a source that works day after day after day?

In the face of the abundant evidence to the contrary any such argument that these renewables are a scam appears to be completely unfounded.

 

Lastly, for a comprehensive presentation on the convergence of disruptive technologies and how, historically, such disruptions always play out, watch this 5 part series. See if it offers a perspective that illustrates the path ahead.

 

 

Edited March 21 by Ridenfool