Kubota Electric Tractor Survey

[Jchonline]

Carbon capture is going to change all this.

Nukes? you can clean carbon out of the atmosphere, you can't clean up radiation, only move it from one place to another.
If Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima haven't taught people a lesson, they must be living under a rock, man has proven they can not handle nuclear power.

Bob can you explain to us in detail why Chernobyl failed, why Fukushima failed.

While you are at it can you remind us how many civilians died as a result of radiation from Fukushima. Let’s not forget to mention the Tsunami itself with 40 foot waves that caused it killed 19,500 people.

Now lets jump over to coal. Can you tell us how many people die as a result of coal power plants per year. You can leave out the pollution based deaths…just do material gathering and plant operation.

We will run out of fossil fuels in the next Century or 2. Why would we not just try and solve the problem now?

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: You are absolutely right…a few hours of charge on a smaller machine might be fine for 30% of B or LX owners…why not give them the option.

Cub Cadet did that with their 42" rider... battery version is 3X the cost out the door...,there's the ACTUAL runtime vs what they 'say', recharge time, etc. For most 'suburbanites' that'd mean mowing the lawn becomes a TWO day ordeal.

I heard Cheb failed due to 'operator error', Fuku, bad weather.
If Canada didn't sell it's coal 'offshore', oil to the USA, we'll never ,ever run out of fossiil fuels
BTW heard that STELCO buys coal, converts to coke, sells to South America.....

 

[Geezer3d]

Fossil fuels may not be in infinite supply, but neither are the raw materials required to produce solar collectors and windmills. And some parts of those solar collectors and windmills are not currently recyclable.

Some carbon based fuels are actually renewable, for example the wood I use to heat my home. I'm not advocating that we cut down all the trees to make energy, just providing an example of renewable carbon based fuel.

My point is that the switch to alternate sources of energy is happening faster than the science to support it. We need to slow down and ensure that the solution is actually better in the very long run than what we currently have.

 

[jyoutz]

If you look at the TRUE costs, solar is far more 'dirtier and expensive' than any fossil fuel.
It's in the 'details'....
one simple example..
cost to get electrons from natgas is constant 24/7,rain or shine,day or night....
cost for solar...increases dramatically on cloudy days and at night. To get power from solar after sunset, you need batteries, chargers, auto switches, etc. NOT cheap !!

That’s why most homes that have solar are still tied to the grid. They meter power into the grid when the sun is shining, and pull power from the grid at night. My neighbor does this and actually gets a check from the power company because his system generates most power than he uses.

 

[lynnmor]

Fossil fuels may not be in infinite supply, but neither are the raw materials required to produce solar collectors and windmills. And some parts of those solar collectors and windmills are not currently recyclable.

Some carbon based fuels are actually renewable, for example the wood I use to heat my home. I'm not advocating that we cut down all the trees to make energy, just providing an example of renewable carbon based fuel.

My point is that the switch to alternate sources of energy is happening faster than the science to support it. We need to slow down and ensure that the solution is actually better in the very long run than what we currently have.

Don't forget the incredibly dirty business of producing the batteries.

We do seem to have an infinite supply of tax dollars to support this nonsense.

 

[Elliott in GA]

That’s why most homes that have solar are still tied to the grid. They meter power into the grid when the sun is shining, and pull power from the grid at night. My neighbor does this and actually gets a check from the power company because his system generates most power than he uses.

Having solar functioning in that manner could be great - helping lower demand during peak times (when businesses are open, at least on sunny days) and saving the homeowner money.

Unfortunately, government subsidies, tax credits and mandated inflated/artificially high utility buy rates for this solar generated power have distorted the market.

Most of this type of system were installed due to the above. Without these incentives (tax and rate payer subsidies), this type of system is a money loser for the homeowner; instead, it is a money loser for the tax and rate payers. Even with the falling cost of solar equipment, it is doubtful that such systems make economic sense, especially when solar equipment life cycle costs (just the equipment costs not including disposal and etc.). Unfortunately, the areas of greatest efficiency for solar (like the South and South West) are also subject to dangerous weather (tornados, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms with lightning, high winds and hail) conditions that damage solar equipment. Our house was hit by a confirmed F1 tornado spawned by a tropical storm. My roof and yard were covered by debris; we had to replace a section of rain gutter and the glass in one window - about $2K in damage. We also had a 50+ ft oak tree fall in our natural area. More than half of our neighbors got new roofs; some had large limbs completely penetrate their roofs. How much more damage would we and our neighbors have suffered if we had solar panels all over our roofs?

Also, such solar systems do not reduce the number/size of power plants the utilities have to build. The utilities have to size the potential production for the greatest need, and a cloudy/rainy day completely negates any solar power contribution to the system. To avoid grid failure (a reset could take days to weeks), the utilities have to match electrical demand within seconds. When I lived in Honolulu, HI, HECO (Hawaiian Electric Co.) knocked down their grid during some testing (they took too much generation off line which cause a collapse within seconds); we had no power for 24 hours. The island is about 10 by 35 miles in size - smaller than most counties.

I wish the above were not true, and in the future I hope that it will not be.

 

[Jchonline]

Fossil fuels may not be in infinite supply, but neither are the raw materials required to produce solar collectors and windmills. And some parts of those solar collectors and windmills are not currently recyclable.

Some carbon based fuels are actually renewable, for example the wood I use to heat my home. I'm not advocating that we cut down all the trees to make energy, just providing an example of renewable carbon based fuel.

My point is that the switch to alternate sources of energy is happening faster than the science to support it. We need to slow down and ensure that the solution is actually better in the very long run than what we currently have.

I dont disagree, just a few points.

1. A solar panel should last 20 years or so. They can be recycled and the raw materials reused (expensive right now but we will catch on hopefully). Batteries used to store solar energy are also recyclable, but I dont see these being a utility level on demand solution. They do work great for an individual home.

2. Fossil fuels take a very long time to replenish. Trees arent bad, coal/oil are terribly long. Also if countries like China and India continue to industrialize (remember hundreds of millions of people in India still don't have regular electricity, but they may in 50 years) our supply dwindles faster. I just don't see oil, coal, even wood being something that can keep up. We need to be smarter and devise something that doesn't destroy the environment but that lasts a long time.

 

[jyoutz]

I dont disagree, just a few points.

1. A solar panel should last 20 years or so. They can be recycled and the raw materials reused (expensive right now but we will catch on hopefully). Batteries used to store solar energy are also recyclable, but I dont see these being a utility level on demand solution. They do work great for an individual home.

2. Fossil fuels take a very long time to replenish. Trees arent bad, coal/oil are terribly long. Also if countries like China and India continue to industrialize (remember hundreds of millions of people in India still don't have regular electricity, but they may in 50 years) our supply dwindles faster. I just don't see oil, coal, even wood being something that can keep up. We need to be smarter and devise something that doesn't destroy the environment but that lasts a long time.

I agree that wood cannot supply the needs, but it can be a far greater supplement than it is currently. In the western US, most forests are overstocked with too many trees, fueling uncharacteristic high severity fires. Forest thinning can be a part of the energy picture. A much larger component than it is currently.

 

[Jchonline]

There will never,ever be a shortage of gas or diesel..now you may not like the price they'll charge but seriously we HAVE to have oil and gas.
Quick, how many cargoships are 'battery powered' ?? Lookup the gallons of fuel it takes for ONE ship to make one, one way crossing. Just how BIG are those engines ! To get your stuff from China to North America, there are just 3 options... Plane, boat or rail(well to Spain...)
Once in North America, 3 options.. same ones, just a shorter distance.
There's no way in Hades, you can build recharge stations from coast to coast, boarder to boarder, economically and power them from wind and solar....it'll never happen.
Now IF goods were locally made, you can greatly reduce transportation costs,and if you build a network of midsized nuke power plants, then EV of some ,small scale is almost,maybe,kinda doable.
I remember EV milktrucks (early 1960s), trolleycars(70s).....all gone.
What gets my goat are the hypocrits that say we need EVs but THEY don't use them.....

Not in our lifetime, but there absolutely will be a shortage, then it will be gone. There is no way around that. Usage will continue to go up in China, India. Especially India. I wish it were not true, but the EIA projections are not something I am comfortable with personally.

Just remember the same governments telling us there is enough oil also managed COVID.....

Wind/Solar are awesome, efficient producers when they are working. 100 sq miles of solar panels could power the entire US if the Sun is out. What we need are better ways of storing that energy for later use. Battery technology just isnt there. Hydroelectric is super expensive, climate and geographically dependent.

I would convert all coal/oil power to natural gas in the short term. It is much cleaner. I would continue to build nuclear while investing in research to find better ways to store from wind/solar.

 

[SDT]

Fossil fuels may not be in infinite supply, but neither are the raw materials required to produce solar collectors and windmills. And some parts of those solar collectors and windmills are not currently recyclable.

Some carbon based fuels are actually renewable, for example the wood I use to heat my home. I'm not advocating that we cut down all the trees to make energy, just providing an example of renewable carbon based fuel.

My point is that the switch to alternate sources of energy is happening faster than the science to support it. We need to slow down and ensure that the solution is actually better in the very long run than what we currently have.

Well said.

SDT

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: 100 sq miles of solar panels could power the entire US if the Sun is out.

hmm, love to see where that was calculated....
curious, I asked google...
seems in the usa, a person uses 12.1KW a day, typical solar panel(new,sunny,etc) makes 10 watts/sq ft.
so each person needs 1200 sqft of solar, 330 million , means 396,000,000,000 sqft which is about 14,200 square miles
BTW solar panels loss their conversion abilityas they get older and NOT recyclable.

 

[lynnmor]

re: 100 sq miles of solar panels could power the entire US if the Sun is out.

hmm, love to see where that was calculated....
curious, I asked google...
seems in the usa, a person uses 12.1KW a day, typical solar panel(new,sunny,etc) makes 10 watts/sq ft.
so each person needs 1200 sqft of solar, 330 million , means 396,000,000,000 sqft which is about 14,200 square miles
BTW solar panels loss their conversion abilityas they get older and NOT recyclable.

Their 100 sq miles is a common mistake, they meant a 100 mile by 100 mile square. Even that comes up short, and a considerable amount needs to be added for the time when the sun isn't shining.

 

[DaveFromMi]

The smarter more realistic car companies (Toyota, Honda) have developed fuel cell technology. The cleanest run on hydrogen. Byproduct is water. Fuel cell powertrains can run on gasoline, diesel and natural gas as well.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

so...
what's old...

Allis-Chalmers Fuel Cell Tractor

In its search to develop electric power through chemical reactions, Allis-Chalmers in 1951 began research on fuel cells. In October 1959 near West Allis, Wisconsin, this fuel cell tractor plowed a field of alfalfa with a double-bottom plow.

americanhistory.si.edu

is new again ???
Today's car companies are only building on what Allis-Chalmers came out with in 1959...

 

[SDT]

re: 100 sq miles of solar panels could power the entire US if the Sun is out.

hmm, love to see where that was calculated....
curious, I asked google...
seems in the usa, a person uses 12.1KW a day, typical solar panel(new,sunny,etc) makes 10 watts/sq ft.
so each person needs 1200 sqft of solar, 330 million , means 396,000,000,000 sqft which is about 14,200 square miles
BTW solar panels loss their conversion abilityas they get older and NOT recyclable.

Bingo.

I just about fell out of my chair when I read that claim but decided to pass, expecting others to debunk it.

SDT

 

[greg86z28]

re: 100 sq miles of solar panels could power the entire US if the Sun is out.

hmm, love to see where that was calculated....
curious, I asked google...
seems in the usa, a person uses 12.1KW a day, typical solar panel(new,sunny,etc) makes 10 watts/sq ft.
so each person needs 1200 sqft of solar, 330 million , means 396,000,000,000 sqft which is about 14,200 square miles
BTW solar panels loss their conversion abilityas they get older and NOT recyclable.

and we have 300+ days of sunshine. Lots of windy days too. Dropping coal is a win-win: less pollution and cheaper e

Kilowatts is power. Energy is power sustained over time - kWh. A person does not “use” 12.1 kW a day because kW is a power unit. On the other hand, if you ran a 12.1 kW motor all day long you would use 290.4 kWh in a day. Thats a lot (like $1000/month electricity bill at $0.12/kWh)

The best panels on the market have a peak power production of 400-450 watts. Panels are usually 65”x40”.

Typically a small array of roughly ~3kW can produce about half of a typical household’s kWh consumption annually. If you had an energy efficient house it could cover a large % I’m sure.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

wow, I'd like to see $0.12/kWh on my hydro bills ! On a GREAT mont, I'm 20 cents per kWh.
solar panel 'peak power output' is really a misleading number once you factor in weather(clouds), trees and birds, seasonal changes,temperature, etc. you will be lucky to get 1/2 the 'rated output'. As well the panels degrade over time,so you might get 10-12 yeras of useful life out of them. 10kWh systems are common here and do NOT run an average house here in souther Ontario

 

[jyoutz]

Kilowatts is power. Energy is power sustained over time - kWh. A person does not “use” 12.1 kW a day because kW is a power unit. On the other hand, if you ran a 12.1 kW motor all day long you would use 290.4 kWh in a day. Thats a lot (like $1000/month electricity bill at $0.12/kWh)

The best panels on the market have a peak power production of 400-450 watts. Panels are usually 65”x40”.

Typically a small array of roughly ~3kW can produce about half of a typical household’s kWh consumption annually. If you had an energy efficient house it could cover a large % I’m sure.

My neighbor has a 3000 square foot house and solar panels tied to the power grid. His excess power feeds the grid during the day, and he uses grid power at night. He told me that every six months he gets a check from the power company because he generates more power than he uses. But in our high elevation climate, we only use AC about 2 months a year.

 

[Elliott in GA]

My neighbor has a 3000 square foot house and solar panels tied to the power grid. His excess power feeds the grid during the day, and he uses grid power at night. He told me that every six months he gets a check from the power company because he generates more power than he uses. But in our high elevation climate, we only use AC about 2 months a year.

As I noted in my previous post (#66), it is very probable that the power company is buying his excess power at a highly inflated (possibly several times market price) rate - such are the incentives/mandates. So, the rate payers are subsidizing your neighbor's system. Many countries, like Germany, and many states in the US have or have had such a rigged system. In some places they have started to phase them out due to costs (high price electricity for customers), and the growth of solar installations have decreased significantly.

Germany is one of the best examples of what not to do. After massive electricity rate increases and unreliable power, they have begun firing up coal generation stations.

 

[Rdrcr]

I got the survey too. I submitted my honest feedback.

I have zero interest in an electric tractor of any kind.

Mike