Electric Vehicles

[thebruce44]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:27 PM, Fear The Chorizo said:

We haven't figured out how to mass produce hydrogen with green energy. 

To be fair, we haven't figured out how to mass produce green energy, either.  Not just economically (it's still all heavily dependent on tax incentives), but also environmentally.

There are some readily scalable options to mass produce hydrogen that can be used as a fuel source utilizing nuclear power.  

Sorry, I'm not following this. Are you not accounting for solar/wind/hydro/fission?

[thebruce44]

On 9/17/2024 at 5:24 PM, MrTPlush said:

I believe it is 8/120k for AWD. Looks like 2020s are easy to get for under $25k, though I have heard a better and (in theory) way more reliable battery started going in the ‘21s. So I suppose this may be a year off being a good plan for someone. You can find ‘21s, but they have around 80k miles

$21k for a Model 3 with 40k miles or so. Seems a lot more logical for a normal consumer to find as a real option.

 

I'm targeting a 2020-2023 VW ID.4 and I'm seeing them for around $16-$20k. I don't like VWs but that is an incredible value for a car that seems to be very functional outside of the horrible AV system (which I can live with).

[NeedMoreFans]

The ID.4 is on my list as well, but I've read horror stories about them having issues and being in the shop.  My hope is that a used one will have been repaired already, but perhaps it was returned/traded in because it's such a problem child.  It's probably one of the best options for us size-wise.

I want something that's a small-ish SUV with AWD, but I'm sort of lost figuring out what to get.  I'm looking at used because the depreciation is already built in, and I can pay cash for it rather than financing.  The Mach-E is on my radar, but not much else right now. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

5 hours ago, thebruce44 said:

Sorry, I'm not following this. Are you not accounting for solar/wind/hydro/fission?

Hydro is economically viable on its own and has demonstrated reliability to produce renewable energy - but its reach is limited due to impacts to watersheds.  New Hydro developments are few and far between because of that.

 

Solar and wind are simply not economically viable to the scale they would need to be developed in order to be considered "mass produced" in my opinion.  They've gotten closer, but still not there - and both of those options havent yet begun dealing with end of cycle decommissioning costs on a large scale when the panels stop being efficient and wind turbines reach their operating lifespan.  Unless people are fine with still calling them green when most of the elements of decommissioned wind and solar farms get tossed into landfills and replacing with new panels/components requires more materials mining and manufacturing.

 

I dont consider nuclear /fission "green"because of the waste it does generate that is a headache to deal with...but i do think its the longterm solution to cleaner energy from a generating capacity standpoint, and think the world did itself a disservice turning away from more nuclear development for power over the past few decades.  Hydrogen as a fuel is the holy grail, but we're not close to that even being a longterm goal.

[Samurai Bucky]

15 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Solar and wind are simply not economically viable to the scale they would need to be developed in order to be considered "mass produced" in my opinion.  They've gotten closer, but still not there - and both of those options havent yet begun dealing with end of cycle decommissioning costs on a large scale when the panels stop being efficient and wind turbines reach their operating lifespan.  Unless people are fine with still calling them green when most of the elements of decommissioned wind and solar farms get tossed into landfills and replacing with new panels/components requires more materials mining and manufacturing.

I know somebody who is closer than I am regarding solar -- especially solar farms.

He said, for example, once the solar arrays aren't viable anymore, the electric company would come and take out the solar panels and nothing else.  Any concrete, posts, etc. would stay.  There are an increasing amount of farmers that are electing to install solar farms.  I'm sure it will be a decade or so until this is proven to be true or not.

Here is a link to a 1,000 acre farm in Sheboygan county.

https://www.alliantenergy.com/our-energy/solar/wisconsin-solar/onion-river-solar-project

[Fear The Chorizo]

2 hours ago, Samurai Bucky said:

I know somebody who is closer than I am regarding solar -- especially solar farms.

He said, for example, once the solar arrays aren't viable anymore, the electric company would come and take out the solar panels and nothing else.  Any concrete, posts, etc. would stay.  There are an increasing amount of farmers that are electing to install solar farms.  I'm sure it will be a decade or so until this is proven to be true or not.

Here is a link to a 1,000 acre farm in Sheboygan county.

https://www.alliantenergy.com/our-energy/solar/wisconsin-solar/onion-river-solar-project

That would make the most sense if they want to continue using the space for solar - the old panels would likely get landfilled.  The aluminum racking would be the only thing recycled or re-used.  Its the panels that are full of layered metals and silica that carry the potential for leaching contaminants once they are destroyed/broken apart and placed in landfills.  At the moment, recycling solar panels isnt viable - im hopeful technology changes that, otherwise it's a mess for that industry in 10-15 years.  

 

Much of the racking on developments may not be set in concrete if geotech allows for it, and they are simply driven in - particularly if farmland may be returning to that use after the 1st solar farm lease expires.

[owbc]

If they can recycle almost everything from automobiles they can recycle wind turbines and solar panels. This barely registers as a concern. The planet is literally burning because of all the CO2 we’re dumping into the atmosphere. The solar panels on my house are still going to be there in 25 years, by then we might be at 2C of warming. 
 

The same was said about LI batteries…so many excuses why it wasn’t a viable mass technology. Turns out the car batteries just get repurposed to store wind/solar and they can last for decades, it ended up solving the main problem with wind/solar. 

[igor67]

It would be ideal as someone interested in Green Chemistry if they had worked out the economics of the recycling of solar and wind components, but I also recognize that if step 1 of the economic plan is wait 10 years until you have material that needs to be dealt with, the free market isn't going to have much to say on the matter since there is no income to generate from the issue.

[Fear The Chorizo]

10 hours ago, owbc said:

If they can recycle almost everything from automobiles they can recycle wind turbines and solar panels. This barely registers as a concern. The planet is literally burning because of all the CO2 we’re dumping into the atmosphere. The solar panels on my house are still going to be there in 25 years, by then we might be at 2C of warming. 
 

The same was said about LI batteries…so many excuses why it wasn’t a viable mass technology. Turns out the car batteries just get repurposed to store wind/solar and they can last for decades, it ended up solving the main problem with wind/solar. 

That is incorrect when it comes to solar panels, unless you want to spend a lot of dirty energy in a heavy industrial setting pulling the layers apart that make up a panel in an attempt to recover those materials.  Currently the cost to recycle a panel outweighs the value of all the recovered materials roughly 2x1.  Most of a wind turbine can be recycled besides the mountain of concrete dumped into the ground to hold each one up, however fiberglass blades are a problem unless you are ok with using roughly the same amount of energy using fossil fuels to break them down and repurpose the material they would have generated during their operating lifetime.  Thats why there are growing windfarm boneyards of blades piling up wherever theres a big plot of flat land to stockpile them.  I work with renewable developers often for work, and its a huge concern for them that isnt a recent epiphany.  Reusing old solar panels for other applications may be viable in some cases, but not nearly all. 

Li battery storage is a great option for renewables....as long as you dont worry about what it takes to process Li in the environmental risk assessment globally.

I'm about through with a chicken little argument about the world burning up because of a compound that we breathe out and plants need to live.  Not when more than half of the developing world's manufacturing industries operate like the United States did 125 years ago in terms of emissions controls, so people in the United States can buy all the stuff they make and feel good about reducing their carbon footprint much more than they actually are by not factoring how much of their impact has simply been shifted overseas.  Its NIMBY mentality, but unfortunately the entire planet should be viewed as our backyard and it isnt.

 

[owbc]

On 4/12/2026 at 8:26 AM, Fear The Chorizo said:

I'm about through with a chicken little argument about the world burning up because of a compound that we breathe out and plants need to live.  Not when more than half of the developing world's manufacturing industries operate like the United States did 125 years ago in terms of emissions controls, so people in the United States can buy all the stuff they make and feel good about reducing their carbon footprint much more than they actually are by not factoring how much of their impact has simply been shifted overseas.  Its NIMBY mentality, but unfortunately the entire planet should be viewed as our backyard and it isnt.

 

Well more CO2 equals warmer planet. Even the crude climate models from the 90s have done a decent job of predicting where we are now. Of course we're not all gonna die, but someone has to pay to deal with the water shortages, fires, sea level rise, extreme weather, etc. etc. It ain't cheap. That's why it bugs me to hear these concerns about renewables. You're not wrong about the recycling concerns, but I just don't see it as anywhere close to a reason to pump the breaks on solar/wind. It seems so minor and so solvable with a little investment compared with the elephant in the room.

I have no idea what your point is with the second part of this comment, I didn't bring up greenwashing but it is a thing. 
 

[nate82]

The last time I looked the US was already getting 20% of its power from renewables.  The sweet spot is somewhere around 25-30 percent.  I would rather see nuclear jump past 20% which maybe possible with the nano nuclear plants coming online soon.

I just don’t see renewables being a good idea as being the main source of energy.  Nuclear should really be 40 percent or higher.  Then you split the rest with natural gas and renewables.  Probably a 30-30 split then gradually reducing to a 40-20 split in favor of renewables.

Ideally you would want nuclear at 60 percent and then 30 percent renewables and the final 10 percent natural gas.  Economically this makes the most sense and environmentally it is far better.  

[owbc]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

The last time I looked the US was already getting 20% of its power from renewables.  The sweet spot is somewhere around 25-30 percent.  I would rather see nuclear jump past 20% which maybe possible with the nano nuclear plants coming online soon.

I just don’t see renewables being a good idea as being the main source of energy.  Nuclear should really be 40 percent or higher.  Then you split the rest with natural gas and renewables.  Probably a 30-30 split then gradually reducing to a 40-20 split in favor of renewables.

Ideally you would want nuclear at 60 percent and then 30 percent renewables and the final 10 percent natural gas.  Economically this makes the most sense and environmentally it is far better.  

It's a real shame that nuclear wasn't done safely the first time, it set us back at least 50 years. 

[Frisbee Slider]

On 4/13/2026 at 5:43 PM, owbc said:

It's a real shame that nuclear wasn't done safely the first time, it set us back at least 50 years. 

I’m not aware of any injuries as a result of nuclear energy in the United States, ever. That is a pretty good track record.

[owbc]

58 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

I’m not aware of any injuries as a result of nuclear energy in the United States, ever. That is a pretty good track record.

It needed to be done safely globally. 

[nate82]

39 minutes ago, owbc said:

It needed to be done safely globally. 

There was what one horrible tragedy and then another caused by a tsunami?  As far as safety goes nuclear has had less safety issues than any other type of power plant.

[LouisEly]

4 minutes ago, nate82 said:

There was what one horrible tragedy and then another caused by a tsunami?  As far as safety goes nuclear has had less safety issues than any other type of power plant.

This is a cognitive bias known as "availability bias" where people perceive things that are very catastrophic or things that they are very fearful of as happening more frequently than they really do.

It's like shark attacks.  They rarely happen*, but it's something people are deeply fearful of so even rare instances trigger over-concerns.

(*It happened to a friend of mine.  Got munched by a shark while surfing.  He survived but you can see the teeth scars all over his torso in the outline of the shark's mouth.  Some other surfers came to his rescue and started beating on the shark, getting him to let go and swim away.)

[owbc]

6 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

This is a cognitive bias known as "availability bias" where people perceive things that are very catastrophic or things that they are very fearful of as happening more frequently than they really do.

It's like shark attacks.  They rarely happen*, but it's something people are deeply fearful of so even rare instances trigger over-concerns.

(*It happened to a friend of mine.  Got munched by a shark while surfing.  He survived but you can see the teeth scars all over his torso in the outline of the shark's mouth.  Some other surfers came to his rescue and started beating on the shark, getting him to let go and swim away.)

Yep airplane crashes are the same way. If the risk of flying was the same as driving a car, nobody would fly. 

That’s just the way it is, the technology will have to prove itself to be beyond safe or it won’t gain traction.