Is that the /future/ ?

The article and everything it's referring to is based on the assumption that the power grid won't have to change with a heavy influx of electric cars. This always seems to be conveniently ignored when this topic is discussed. Right now, electric cars make up a negligible fraction of the hundreds of millions of cars on the road. If more people start driving EVs, the demand for electrocity is going to sky-rocket and it stands to question whether natural gas alone can provide for all the new demand, because renewables certainly won't, what with them being busy getting completely subsidised by the government.

>you drive a ship to work
>people live in the open ocean

>he doesn't know how sky-fuckingly polluting bunker fuel is

>because renewables certainly won't
Citation needed.

Electric cars really aren't that much cleaner than a modern ICE
jalopnik.com/mazda-would-like-to-remind-you-all-that-electric-cars-a-1802765273

How do you think all your chinese goodies get to you?

If we could just burn Jews instead of bunker fuel these problems would be over before too long.

>2. Power plants have very high efficiencies; new coal power plants have efficiencies over 40% and gas power plants over 60% (these have a ICE and a steam engine, providing for very high efficiency), whereas a car with a cumbersome gearbox and a tiny ICE running at varied RPMs can barely reach 20% at tiny speed itnervals.

According to eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html the best power plant efficiency is slightly under 45%.
> Engines in large diesel trucks, buses, and newer diesel cars can achieve peak efficiencies around 45%.[6]

according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

On the other hand lithon-ion battery efficiency is about 85%, charger efficiency I believe is about 98%, VFD or inventor which controls motor I have no idea but let's assume 98% as well, so we get 0.45 * 0.85 * 0.98 * 0.98 = 0.36 or 36% efficiency for EV (assuming you don't use heater or AC).

For ICE transmission/drive train efficiency is (IIRC for manual transmission) about 10%-15%, so we get 0.45*0.85 = 0.38 or 38% (and heater is free), 0.45 * 0.9 = 0.41 or 41%. However that's peak efficiency and you need decent transmission to keep engine in its peak efficiency band.

>Wouldn't one large powerplant constantly running at optimal efficiency be much more efficient at energy production than all the individual ICEs?

Looks like efficiency gap is not that big. Having high CR GDI engines (Otto or Miller cycle) and high CR diesel engines (some even run in turbo-compound configuration and have a dedicated turbine to utilize exhaust gas energy) makes cars pretty efficient things (especially when the right transmission is used).

ships aren't allowed to burn bunker fuel in port (ie near people)
most of the particulates that actually harm humans directly come from cars and trucks

let's ignore all the other source of power eh
this would be true for like china and Australia

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

>The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.
>Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.
>But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

enfos.com/blog/2015/06/23/behemoths-of-emission-how-a-container-ship-can-out-pollute-50-million-cars/

>What is less visible is the near-unfathomable amount of fuel emissions generated by a single container ship – an amount equal to the emissions of 50 million cars. For perspective: The 760 million cars that are currently operating worldwide emit as much sulfur as 15 container ships running at full capacity. There are currently over 6000 massive container ships operating globally and 85,000 commercial cargo ships on top of that.

Also the bad air quality in urban areas is mostly caused by giant trucks and buses, not hatchbacks or sports cars.

oy vey no it's your fault for not buying a Kosher car! Yours must go to the crusher and you must pay tax!

Why don't these ships just go nuclear like the Navy did long time ago?

Niggers on rafts with AK47's

Because they're standing on the edge of the crater.

So hire some mercs?
Wot

Like the prophets once said, the ashes are all cold now. They're out of bullets and the embers are dead.

Some corruptable mercs? One thing is to protect payload, another to protect fucking uranium.

Obviously, but then you have to figure in all of the efficiency losses due to transporting the energy and transforming the kinetic energy to electricity and back to kinetic energy. I'm not 100% sure but i believe that it is more efficient to burn diesel in the car itself than burning it at a powerplant and creating electricity. Of course nuclear and hydro or whatever are a whole different subject.

Yeah until Skyactiv-X comes out

Can't they just put so little amount of uranium in the reactors so that capturing a single ship wont make for such a big dirty bomb? I mean yeah it would be a hassle if there were so little uranium that you would have to refuel at every harbor but still, how much uranium would you even need for a single trip? less than a kilo?

Grade school physics. America's electrical grid already has trouble coping, a boatload of power hungry electric cars with giant batteries isn't going to help

Jesus Christ

You need to spend way more on a team of people who can refuel and maintain a nuclear reactor

I certainly don't believe that electric cars will improve emissions based on our current grid, and they would definitely put more piss on the grid too. But what they do provide is the ability to move away from using fossil fuels completely as renewables become cheaper and more efficient, especially solar, which is happening at a rapid rate. I also read about improvements in power transmission which would free up a lot of grid power while still using existing grid infrastructure, it had to do with "cleaning up" messy AC signals to improve transmission on the electron level.

>Niggers on rafts with AK47's
They spoil everything. Sigh.

>Flawed logic

Some power may come from nuclear and hydro. Further offsetting the cost and environmental impact of the energy.

Except we could easily generate all our energy from solar if we wanted to.

Let's be honest with ourselves; People in Veeky Forums dislike electric cars PRIMARILY because they are fun-free and reek of general cuckery (e.g. autonomous AI driving, must go to dealer and pay thousands to fix small problems, et cetera)

The one thing people overlook with EVs imo is that you're limited by battery capacity and recharge rate. With an ICE i can "recharge" in a minute or two. As of yet, EVs cannot. This puts a hard limit on your freedom of movement, limiting how far you can travel and extends the trip for recharging. Until the batteries can be swapped on the go or batteries recharge instantly EVs are just a huge virtue signalling meme

Another example:

See pic related (something vegans in Veeky Forums often post. Vegans argue that people in the future will eat insects and soy because they are much more energy efficient and "better for the environment," but they tend to forget one significant value/variable in the equation: the qualitative value of taste. Meat tastes much better than insects and soy. Something vegan activists are obviously naive and out-of-touch from.

They forget fun and flavor is a huge part of a value in something.

lol no

The going solution seems to be battery swaps. Not a bad idea for a class of people who tend toward Communism rather than private property ownership. The trick is to keep them from forcing the rest of us into it.

the ship a cars travels across the ocean in puts out a million cars worth of pollution per day.

>Implying electrical grid is in this immutable state FOREVAH
>Implying renevable energy tech isn't being developed like hell right now and it will never be better than today.

Last but not least:
>implying I care at all about outdated burgerland energy grid.

>meat taste much better than crickets

wrong, stop being a fucking soyboi

>mfw bulking on the crickets

going to get so fucking lean bro

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>what is reading comprehension

Well, if batteries can be used to store power during light load periods (i.e. during the night) they will actually be better for the grid. If they are charged on peak hours on the other hand, they're worse.

Too bad we're running out of materials needed for making solar panels, and the pollution and energy expended to make these panels far outweigh the benefits of them.

Same with the huge steel towers called "wind turbines."

Cars doubling as house batteries to balance and decentralize the grid is a neat idea. Here again though the trick is to pull it off with decentralization as the theme rather than UN Agenda 2030 slavery bullshit that they're trying to press on everybody.

>Well, if batteries can be used to store power during light load periods (i.e. during the night) they will actually be better for the grid.

Charger stations for EV are made to charge EV and do that FAST and not to balance grid load during the day.

Don't you think that charge stations would be inactive or provide highly limited current during peak load hours? That's ridiculous. Charging EV's takes much much much longer comparing to filling up a gas tank, why would you make that even worse?

>Too bad we're running out of materials needed for making solar panels, and the pollution and energy expended to make these panels far outweigh the benefits of them.

Citation needed 2: memeopinions bogaloo

>Too bad we're running out of materials needed for making solar panels
We won't figure out more economical ways to make this stuff by not making it.

meat doesn't taste much better than insects????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Shrimpmeats taste pretty dang good for instance. Not that I would want to eat it to the exclusion of a nice steak or similar from time to time.

>eating processed meat
enjoy your hormone imbalance you soyboi

>shrimp
>processed
nigga I don't even eat the ones that come from the Gulf of Corexit.

Yeah man, things are magically gonna get better because of feel good technology

Nuclear is the best answer but it makes hippies feel bad

>implying we're running out of materials to build mirrors

>We're running out of steel sheets

Yeah, mining uranium is safer, healthier and cheaper, I know. Fuck off.

do you have brain damage?

Yes. It's actually pretty close though, even considering the transport costs for fuel.
Renewable energy and nuclear blows ICE cars away though, as they obviously create no pollution.

>not bulking with motherfucking crickets

There's also refining efficiency penalty.

thats a cute girl

Whether that's a girl or a boy, it's going to wind up saggy and haggy at that rate. Glad it's enjoying the window of youth where it's still got some looks.

can't wait until we figure out a way to refine landfills

You have to account for the pollution created in the oil extraction/refinery/distribution process. And then it gets put into a car and burned.

Having the car portion not creating pollution is a big deal

>nuclear cooling stacks
>Soot

some coal and natural gas plants use those style of cooling towers.

coal power plants in the developed world haven't had visible emissions for decades. the only thing you see over coming from them is steam.

Imagine the Catalytic converters on those puppies

...

...

...

t. someone living in Germanistan
We are on route to spending a trillion euros on the renewable energy bullshit, but somehow it can't even replace our couple of nuclear plants and we have the single highest electricity prices in all of europe. To round it all off, our energy sector puts out about 5 times more pollution than that of france, so it's completely moot.

What's wrong with cat comverters?

...

wait wtf did the jews just do

t. Lifted f150 owner with small dick coal rolling syndrome

Yes boobs are great

>because renewables certainly won't
right now, probably not, but that's changing
natural gas should see us through for quite a while actually. it isn't ideal but it's way the fuck better than coal

Would you consider hydropower a waste of money and time? My entire corner of the US is powered on it and we sell a lot of electrcity to California

I don't want to be soyboy

hydro is actually THE SHIT. it has enormous output potential, it's rock fucking stable, it's easy to throttle with demand, and it's not that expensive per kwh. hydo is so fucking good the problem is your geographical requirements are rather specific

Mfw we get a shitton of power from the Canadians and their snow

Renewables don't fucking work on a commercial scale, they're only kept afloat by massive government subsidy. Even now it's impossible to have the majority of your countries energy grid supported by renewables, unless you're tiny like denmark and can build loads of windparks, or you're like norway and have access to hydropower, what do you think will happen once millions of electric cars are buzzing around?

There's still room for one more generator last I checked. Transmission lines seem to be a slight issue, along with the hippies not maintaining dams.

for one, the ev transition won't be that quick
for another, going full renewable won't be a thing for a long time, but residential solar subsidized would be much cheaper for the gubbmint over all and better for the consumer and reduces grid load, hooray for everyone

this is assuming we keep the steady downward trend in cost per kWh for panels and don't get some breakthrough that changes the game completely

If we can get Fusion to work then I'm all for EVs

Yeah but like there's a lizard. They do these studies, all these studies, and they do these studies, but they're like, they say, there's a certain lizard there, you know, in the water. And that's why they won't do it.

Folks, that's why we need these things, for the, you know, but we need these things, we can't have it if we can't have the hydro, it's very green, but we can't have these people, we need the smart people, and believe me, I know walls, I know dams, they won't let you do this if they have like, a snail or a frog in the way, and this needs to change.

...

Are you on crack?

so is this trumpspeak or joerogan speak

It won't, but once the sale of EVs is picking up, electricity consumption is going to explode. It's not like that new demand can't be satisfied, but it won't be in an environmentally friendly way, as it's going to require more reliance on coal again, unless nuclear can make a come-back. I also don't think residential solar will ever make a big impact, since most people will never bother with it, and the people that will, will only do so for the sweet government subsidy.

yeah, baseload providers are not touching coal, the only reason it's still there is because of subsidies it gets itself.
natural gas will fill the gap way more than coal will

natgas is a side-effect of fracking. The only good thing about your namefaggory is that you help people understand just how stupid the people who work at google are.

Yes but the cars won't be polluting which is the important thing. Extracting and refining fuel creates a lot of pollution aswell. An EV world would have less pollution even if the electricity is dirty

and we're getting so much of it that natgas companies are rapidly converting natrual gas importing routes to exporting routes, we're drowning in the stuff and it's cheeeeap now