Electric Vehicles. Can anyone make this make sense?

[jyoutz]

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but with the air scrubbers that are on coal power plants now I have to imagine it’s a lot better than 50 years ago. I think we should say screw it and just go for nuclear supplemented with natural gas or the other way around. Currently the “environmentally friendly” solutions all have massive drawbacks and are not actually friendly to the environment or landscape.

The new pebble reactor design that is being tested seems to be the most safe. With the nuclear waste there are hundreds of qualified companies that handle toxic disposal, storage, and monitoring, and they really do not produce that much waste.

I was just referring to the ash disposal, not the smokestack emissions. That’s a whole different issue. Coal ash disposal now must be treated as toxic waste.

 

[jyoutz]

Coal started out in the earth, so I don't believe it is more toxic than turbine blades when you consider the turbine blades had to be produced. But, how do we know what else is in turbine blades and how they break down.

In any case, I'm not sure there are any people who've done studies that we can trust.

The ash is very soluble, much more than solid coal. The ash disposal now is treated as toxic waste and must go to sealed landfills because of soil/water pollution.

 

[jimh406]

The ash is very soluble, much more than solid coal. The ash disposal now is treated as toxic waste and must go to sealed landfills because of soil/water pollution.

It's in sealed landfills, but you are mentioning how bad it is? Sounds like they have a solution.

 

[jyoutz]

It's in sealed landfills, but you are mentioning how bad it is? Sounds like they have a solution.

Yes, but it adds a lot of cost and labor to coal as a fuel source compared to other options. And it creates acres of wastelands.

 

[Trustable]

I was just referring to the ash disposal, not the smokestack emissions. That’s a whole different issue. Coal ash disposal now must be treated as toxic waste.

Ah, okay, I see what you’re saying. I was not thinking about it like that. Not a whole lot of coal power plants in Michigan anymore so I’m not super familiar. In 2019 it was 33% and im sure it’s fallen more since then. Funny this post came up, the place I moved to isn’t super far from the old big rock nuclear plant in Michigan. Right now it’s just a basketball sized plot with some spent fuel casks. We do have a lot of wind generation here, so I don’t like the disposal of that but it’s gotta be better than coal or oil fired plants.

 

[lynnmor]

Although I do accept and understand your environmental concerns you have to realise that pump storage power plants are the only efficient way to store electricity.

I do understand all of that but how about Philly, Baltimore and New York build the units there where the demand is instead of the continuous dumping on us? How about they quit increasing the electric rates on us so that large cities get the benefit and we get the bill. How about all of that infrastructure pay for our schools since we are losing the tax base? Maybe I sound like a NIMBY but it really is others that won't have the power plants in their backyards and only want to reap the benefits. Again, I count for nothing in this political landscape. A data center is threatening a nearby farm, how much data and electricity do you think my neighbors use? Hint...... they are Amish.

 

[Russell King]

Although I do accept and understand your environmental concerns you have to realise that pump storage power plants are the only efficient way to store electricity.

While I agree that this is a good storage method I disagree about the efficiency of this system. I understand they buy “cheap” electricity to pump water uphill. There is a lot of losses in that system but let’s say it is 99% efficient. Then they have to generate the electricity when demand is high and that system has losses, let’s say another 99% efficient system. So if I remember correctly that gets you to a 98% overall efficiency which isn’t bad but still you are losing electricity in the overall scheme. Now it is supposedly very efficient in making money!

I believe the Swiss buy power from Germany (daytime I think) for this storage then generate electricity in the demand time (night) that Germany’s solar plants can’t produce. Of course at a higher rate!

An interestingly cunning business plan.

 

[TheOldHokie]

While I agree that this is a good storage method I disagree about the efficiency of this system. I understand they buy “cheap” electricity to pump water uphill. There is a lot of losses in that system but let’s say it is 99% efficient. Then they have to generate the electricity when demand is high and that system has losses, let’s say another 99% efficient system. So if I remember correctly that gets you to a 98% overall efficiency which isn’t bad but still you are losing electricity in the overall scheme. Now it is supposedly very efficient in making money!

I believe the Swiss buy power from Germany (daytime I think) for this storage then generate electricity in the demand time (night) that Germany’s solar plants can’t produce. Of course at a higher rate!

An interestingly cunning business plan.

More like 60-70% efficient.

Dan

 

[GreensvilleJay]

Pretty sure that one of those Physics Laws we were told decades ago says it takes MORE energy to pump the water back up to the reservoir than what you can get out of using it. If that is still true, then someone has pull a great con job that 'pumping water uphill is a money maker.

 

[McMXi]

Pretty sure that one of those Physics Laws we were told decades ago says it takes MORE energy to pump the water back up to the reservoir than what you can get out of using it. If that is still true, then someone has pull a great con job that 'pumping water uphill is a money maker.

Yeah, that's not a simplistic approach at all.

For example, coal and oil power plants aren't efficient when running at low power output. They need to run at near 100% to be efficient. So what happens when demand drops off during the day? One way to deal with the problem is to keep running the plant at peak efficiency and to direct the unused energy to pump water or some other form of energy storage. Of course there's some loss of efficiency in the final energy conversion, but it's a lot better than choking the output down, and then the stored energy can be released almost instantly to account for a sudden increase in demand as people get home, turn on their lights, tvs, ovens, a/c etc.

Oil and coal power plants can't react quickly to a change in demand, either up or down. This is where secondary and tertiary storage with quick release is the way to go.

 

[jimh406]

Many power companies sell excess energy, they have switching networks to pull that off.

 

[Russell King]

Pretty sure that one of those Physics Laws we were told decades ago says it takes MORE energy to pump the water back up to the reservoir than what you can get out of using it. If that is still true, then someone has pull a great con job that 'pumping water uphill is a money maker.

I think you are recalling the “perpetual motion machine” (PPM) that violates the first law and possibly the second law of thermodynamics.

Pumping water uphill will use energy and have losses in the system as I stated. The amount of potential energy that is stored in the lake is converted into kinetic energy as it flows down hill. There will be losses along the way as I stated. There is nothing in this system that resembles a PPM.

The difference in money per kilowatt-hours to pump uphill versus the selling price in kilowatt-hours when producing the electricity is where the money is made.

Sort of like the stock market plan of buy low and sell high!

 

[Hugo Habicht]

So if I remember correctly that gets you to a 98% overall efficiency which isn’t bad but still you are losing electricity in the overall scheme. Now it is supposedly very efficient in making money!

It's not about making money. If you want to generate electricity with solar panels and wind power you need storage capacity. Also they are used to even out the load for the power plants during the day. You cannot switch on or off a power plant, it takes time.

I remember figures of about 96% operating efficiency for pump storage power plants (last one built in Germany). This is way better than the 80% you can achieve with battery storage.

Apart from that battery storage has extremely high cost and extremely low life time of battery storage plus environmental damage when disposing of the batteries and, more important, associated electronics.

Keep in mind that pump storage capacity only depends on height difference and lake volume. Cost near to nothing per kWh stored.

No, battery storage will be a dead end in evolution, it is no rocket science to predict that. Chemical storage (e-fuels) and use in combustion engines (sustainable due to recyclability) is way superior in any aspect. Also, the whole distribution infrastructure exists already.

 

[PoTreeBoy]

I think you are recalling the “perpetual motion machine” (PPM) that violates the first law and possibly the second law of thermodynamics.

Pumping water uphill will use energy and have losses in the system as I stated. The amount of potential energy that is stored in the lake is converted into kinetic energy as it flows down hill. There will be losses along the way as I stated. There is nothing in this system that resembles a PPM.

The difference in money per kilowatt-hours to pump uphill versus the selling price in kilowatt-hours when producing the electricity is where the money is made.

Sort of like the stock market plan of buy low and sell high!

Think of it as buying at off-peak rate and selling at on-peak rate, minus the cost of the energy lost due to inefficiency.

 

[PoTreeBoy]

i remember figures of about 96% operating efficiency for pump storage power plants (last one built in Germany). This is way better than the 80% you can achieve with battery storage.

I'd question that, my recollection is motor efficiency of 98-99% at near-full load, pump efficiency maybe 80%. Assuming hydraulic turbine/motor and generator efficiencies roughly equal to pump and motor efficiencies, you get a round-trip efficiency of ~65%. With optimum design and advances in development, some improvement is probable, but I'd be surprised if it reached 80%.

 

[Daylight]

43 million tons of used turbine blades per year in the USA?

I am not a great proponent of wind turbines myself, partly because it's not a stable form of power generation, but primarily because they are a huge visual pollutant (Even the sea isn't exempt nowadays: one cannot go sailing in the English Channel anymore without seeing these things all around. And I remember a study3 in France on the impact of wind turbines on tourism - would you like to see Mont St. Michel surrounded by wind turbines?), but let's get some more accurate figures:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092134492100046X

And compare that to the annual production of household trash, which doesn't seem to be an issue for most wind energy opponents:

=https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figur...national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials

All is good with wind energy! lol.

At least when millions of tons of used turbine blades get buried there is not a leaching problem. At this point in time no scalable use or recycle technology to deal with them other than digging a big hole and burying them.

Forward thinking , yeah right.

The article is an older article but current estimates are that roughly 80% of used turbine blades are not recycled in any manor and end up in land fills.

Typical scenario . Rush into technology without considering the long term consequences , bury the waste , as long as not in my back yard, out of sight out of mind, wait till things come to a head and then cry that the sky if falling.

by-2050-used-wind-turbine-blades-will-exceed-43-million-tons-of-waste-every-year

View attachment 169407

 

[Hugo Habicht]

I'd question that, my recollection is motor efficiency of 98-99% at near-full load, pump efficiency maybe 80%. Assuming hydraulic turbine/motor and generator efficiencies roughly equal to pump and motor efficiencies, you get a round-trip efficiency of ~65%. With optimum design and advances in development, some improvement is probable, but I'd be surprised if it reached 80%.

I checked, you are right, the efficiency is 80%.

Still way better than this battery nonsense.

 

[ken erickson]

43 million tons of used turbine blades per year in the USA?

The link title I posted is misleading. When you read the article 43 million tons of turbine blade waste is the expected TOTAL by 2050. Not 43 million tons per year.

I , nor the article stated that is the USA production of waste blades by 2025. Article states world wide.

The link title caught me by surprise also.

 

[torch]

Makes the battery fires look like one of the more minor issues. I’ve been to training classes for responding to lithium battery fires and for O&C investigation after, but it’s been a couple years so maybe they’ve come up with some miracle to handle them. Couple years ago they were a total nightmare.

They are still a nightmare. There's lots of mutually exclusive advice on how to handle them and no way to definitively determine when or if a compromised battery pack is "safe". Heck, no way to tell if a freshly manufactured cell is "safe" short of CAT scanning every cell coming off the line. (To be fair, one such study showed name-brand cells are much better consistency than low-cost off-brand cells. Surprise surprise.)

 

[William1]

Old vehicles repairing and disposal.
In the 1950's, you were lucky to go 50,000 miles before you needed major engine work, Tune ups (points, cap, rotor, plugs) were a 'must do' every 5,000 miles. Suspension pivots wore out, cars out of alignment all the time. Brakes needed manual adjustments and balancing. Cars rusted out. no one car lasted to 100,000 miles. But... if you were determined, no matter what, you could fix it with basic tools. A crash? New fender and a frame straightening.

Now we have vehicles that will easily go over 200,000 miles often with few services. But, when anything fails, it can be catastrophic and financially unsound to repair. Crash? Throw away. Very few places recycle (junkyard) vehicles as a swapped in part needs a dealer computer to link it up, dealers do not want to install used parts and often will not link up a part a owner put in. Gotchya.
A reality is, we get more miles before the average vehicle is junk. Less repair costs. But once no longer running, it is garbage and in some cases, cannot be recycled at all so we have this big hunk of material of questionable safety just sitting there, waiting for the rain to eventually turn it back into dirt (while the same rain is flattening mountains).