26 Replies to “This Is Awkward”

  1. Electric vehicles should only be allowed to charge by wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear power. Anything else is a violation of the alleged purpose of owning one. I’d go farther and say that the production of such worthless vehicles should be held to the same standard.

    2. There really is no cure for stupid. The more education people seem to have the dumber they are. Just try and build one without using coal, oil and gas. Can’t be done. The stupid is far too strong for man to survive the current onslaught of idiocy.

  3. To EV owners, it’s OK to have a diesel engine powering electric chargers. One only has to have that goody-goody feeling inside knowing one is earning environmentalist brownie points.

  4. At least there’s little in the way of transmission losses between the generator and the vehicle battery. It’s likely actually more efficient than charging off the grid.

    1. wrong.
      unless you are being facetious, its the consumption of hydrocarbon a lot LESS efficient and lot more pulluting than hydro or nuke generators. you are doing *precisely* what the greens and stop oil do, very limitied focus on only 1 aspect of energy

  5. Seeing Tesla trucks around Saskatoon a lot lately. That right there is proof that Wexit will never happen.

    1. Are you seeing different license plates, or is there one and it stands out so much you keep noticing it?

  7. Somewhat related, but Honda and Toyota have apparently developed a thingamajig called a Solid State Battery. If it works, it likely will revolutionize things, or make elec vehicles a viable option.

    If the progressives and environmentalists start screaming to ban it, you know it works.

    1. It’s just another lithium-ion battery. It uses solid electrolytes instead of liquid ones. It will not reduce the battery combustion problem whatsoever. Because they are lithum batteries, they will be just as difficult to extinguish once the battery fire starts.

      This battery will not change anything. It will remain just as expensive relative to the rest of the vehicle as current LI technology.

      1. I thought I read that the solid electrolyte pretty much negated the dendrite(?) growth from anode to cathode. Making them safe relative to liquid electrolyte. And the energy density is supposed to be twice the existing.

        ?

  8. I see 30-50 spots most occupied in the very recent past little bit because the snow isn’t as heavy in the spots.

    All powered by a diesel generator. Not 30-50 gas engines.

    Seems to me the payback on the fleet is going to be pretty quick just on fuel savings… even if they don’t use the grid to charge.

    Trains been running diesel electric for years. Where was the whining about them??

    1. Given EVs are more expensive than ICE vehicles, not winning there. Paying for the generator and charging stations too. Starting way behind economically.

      Diesel generator vs diesel engine have comparable efficiencies (around 40% depending on the engine).
      Around a 12% loss on charging the EV battery and another 12% loss in the EV operation so you are in the hole in the order of 25%. As noted above, line loss has at least been minimized at this site.
      Energy wise it is a bad set up: better to have diesel engines rather than EVs with diesel generator.

      In Ontario, peak electricity charges are 30 cents KWH.
      Litre of diesel has energy of 10 KWH so call it 10 cents KWH if diesel is $1/L (we are talking straight up diesel not inflated pump price loaded with taxes); given the efficiency rating of the generator, it will cost 25 cents KWH which is less expensive than charging off the grid. Need to cover capital cost of generator and maintenance.
      So, if you must have EVs, it can make economic sense to have a diesel generator depending on local electricity prices and local diesel prices (if you have time of day pricing for electricity, it may vary by time of day whether you charge off grid or by diesel generator).

      1. Yup.

        There are costs for evs and charging, etc.

        Now do purchasing fuel for the 50 vehicles. 400 km a day. At 11 l/100km instead of 4leq/100km

        Times 50 vehicles.

        My calculator says a million a year in differences bwtween fuel and maintence… is the price of a 50 evs and a generator savings after 3 years? 4?

        There is costs for maintenence, batteries, oil changes, motors, transmissions, idling, etc.

        It works out. It’ll be paid off quickly. I don’t care about the green propaganda, or the anti green propaganda. Just the dollars and cents.

        And this makes sense.

    2. Because diesel-electric locomotives were an engineering solution arrived at for rational reasons.

      This virtue-signaling stupidity is an expensive idiotic Rube Goldbergian non-solution to a mythical problem.

  11. As always … yeah, the air is cleaner in Palo Alto for the precious children of the ungodly wealthy because of Electric Amazon delivery vans leaving huge stacks of boxes on their front porch … but who lives next to the diesel generator used to keep the lungs of the rich children clean? That’s right … poor kids. The poor kids get the diesel generator treatment.

    But leftists EV fanbois … lovvvvvvvvve … the poor.

  12. And of course a lot of the electricity in SK is generated in natural gas power stations. So same thing as illustrated here, but one step further removed so it is not so blatantly obvious. EV’s may have a role but they are not replacing all ICE vehicles any time soon. Except maybe in the imaginations and wild meanderings of the minds of radical environmentalists like Justin Trudeau, Steven Guilbeault, Greta Thunberg and lets not forget Mark Carney.

    1. Yes, any power generation from hydrocarbons (NG, diesel/oil, coal) that is used to charge EVs requires more burning of hydrocarbons than sticking with ICE vehicles. The power plant operates at roughly the same efficiency as the ICE vehicles but with EVs you lose around 25% of the power (charging, operation) plus the line loss which is substantial (another 10%). So you have have to burn about 50% more hydrocarbons if that is what is powering the grid if you use EVs rather than ICE vehicles. (150 x (1-10%) x (1-25%) = 100)
      Unless the power is nuclear, hydro, wind or solar the EVs go directly against the supposed purpose. You need to be at under 66% of electrical power generation from hydrocarbons to break even.
      In AB, 70% of electricity is from hydrocarbons so EVs charged in AB cause more hydrocarbons to be burned.
      SK is 75% from hydrocarbons.
      NS is 80% from hydrocarbons.
      Other provinces are below this threshold.
      USA as a whole is 62% from hydrocarbons so with a connected grid, you could argue that EVs in the USA are really of no purpose in the pursuit of burning less hydrocarbons.

      1. As I always say, call when you can build any of it without coal, oil and gas. Discussions are pointless. CO2 is not pollutant or a climate driver. Good grief.

  13. In the calculus, it would be interesting to factor in the costs of the wind turbines. The energy used to build them, the energy used to install them (fuel for cranes, trucks & transportation, excavation and concrete), the amount of oil used for lubrication, de-icing fluid, environmental costs and of course, disposal. Same goes for heat pumps. They are the end product of a long industrial chain and I’m betting they never save enough energy to compensate for their fabrication.

  14. 1 comment, multiply the above analysis to cover the 10s of millions of ICEs and EVs needed to replace them in n america, THEN what do we have?
    you are required to ask stevieboysteve gill boat and ONLY him and he is required to give a FULL COMPLETE AND SATISFACTORY ANSWER.
    ya that gill boat, mr edict-from-on-high-mandate.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation