Batteries Produce More CO2 Than Coal and Gasoline.

[jflorey2]

But then again they may want to be the sole keepers of any energy that is produced from the pv system so that will require one of their larger energy storage systems or any excess electricity will be wasted.

Yeah. The problem there is that energy harvested vs energy dispensed will never quite be the same - so without any grid connection they either waste energy or turn people away. Even a small grid connection (i.e. a fraction of what a grid-dependent system needs) would alleviate that problem.

[NorthRick]

So, a "bunch of dead miners" are insignificant compared to dirt?
Moving is not nearly as traumatic as losing your life.

You missed my point. Any workers killed in an accident is tragic. The difference between a nuclear accident and accidents involving other forms of energy is the number of other people affected. Chernobyl's exclusion zone is 1,000 square miles. Fukushima's is 500 square miles. That's a big part of why so many people are opposed to nuclear power.

[SunEagle]

They plan on-site storage for these. I strongly suspect that such stations will be ABLE to disconnect from the grid, but will remain connected normally (just plain cheaper.)

Well I know of a number of large companies looking at building EV charging stations around the world. As far as I know they will all be grid tied at some voltage that is available from the local POCO.

So I would be surprised that Tesla doesn't reap the benefit of having a hybrid pv grid tie system that also has EV charging stations. But then again they may want to be the sole keepers of any energy that is produced from the pv system so that will require one of their larger energy storage systems or any excess electricity will be wasted.

[jflorey2]

I actually saw an article that stated Tesla will be building EV charging stations that are completely off grid using solar. I hope they at least have a big storage system somewhere for those cloudy days.

They plan on-site storage for these. I strongly suspect that such stations will be ABLE to disconnect from the grid, but will remain connected normally (just plain cheaper.)

[J.P.M.]

The fuss is the "true cost" to the customers. Just because someone says it won't be expensive to go "80%" clean doesn't mean it is true. Especially when you have those yo-yos that think a solution are the solar roadways. If you believe that crap then I guess you can believe anything your read on the web.

IMO, Dan's usual and common behavior with respect to what seems, to me anyway, to be selective belief (cherry picking) of what's written/viewed is a textbook example of seeing what you want to see and suspending serious attempts at critical thinking because, among other things, it may lead to inconvenient conclusions that are painfully contrary to current perceptions of reality.

Such approaches to situations gives a pass and a path to those ideas that make life easier (and also usually without much regard to how such ideas might fit a more cosmopolitan reality), by not playing the devil's advocate by not questioning stuff that gives the warm and fuzzies in a more critical way, and by such lack of questioning, buttressing currently held notions, be they right or wrong or most likely somewhere in between.

As in, "my mind's already made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

[J.P.M.]

That refers to pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full ... which says "A number of studies, including a study by one of us, have concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost (1, 2)."

So the argument is about how to get from 80% clean to 100% clean. Both camps agree that 80% decarbonization is practical and can be achieved at reasonable cost... and heck, getting to 80% carbon-free would be great. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

Wait a minute ! don't try to legitimize what sounds like someone saying or perhaps attempting to make it easier to infer 80% R.E. based energy supply is possible without some backup as to when that might be achieved and how. That's a trap and one (common) way how crap like that from all sides of the issue sneaks into the dialog, gets a life of its own and some credibility in the repeating, and becomes part of the assumed reality by those who started it. It's a B.S. tactic.

[SunEagle]

That refers to pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full ... which says "A number of studies, including a study by one of us, have concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost (1, 2)."

So the argument is about how to get from 80% clean to 100% clean. Both camps agree that 80% decarbonization is practical and can be achieved at reasonable cost... and heck, getting to 80% carbon-free would be great. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

The fuss is the "true cost" to the customers. Just because someone says it won't be expensive to go "80%" clean doesn't mean it is true. Especially when you have those yo-yos that think a solution are the solar roadways. If you believe that crap then I guess you can believe anything your read on the web.

[SunEagle]

I didn't mean putting the solar panels on the roof of the car, I meant putting them on the roof of your house.

Ok. That makes sense.

I actually saw an article that stated Tesla will be building EV charging stations that are completely off grid using solar. I hope they at least have a big storage system somewhere for those cloudy days.

[emartin00]

The study has been debunked a couple times: https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...rming-disaster

[DanKegel]

http://amp.nationalreview.com/articl...-mark-jacobson

That refers to pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full ... which says "A number of studies, including a study by one of us, have concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost (1, 2)."

So the argument is about how to get from 80% clean to 100% clean. Both camps agree that 80% decarbonization is practical and can be achieved at reasonable cost... and heck, getting to 80% carbon-free would be great. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

[karrak]

Really!!!. That is one of the most lame statements I have heard yet from you.

Unless your car has a tiny tinker toy motor, a solar panel will provide next to nothing in the way of powering it.

I didn't mean putting the solar panels on the roof of the car, I meant putting them on the roof of your house.

[SWFLA]

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/448846/renewable-energy-national-academy-sciences-christopher-t-m-clack-refutes-mark-jacobson

[jflorey2]

The ignorance here expressed by some is astounding. All nuke accidents you speak of are WWII designs using pressurized water cooling. Modern reactors are passively safe and pose no threat to the public.

That's great! But we don't have any yet. Every operating nuclear reactor in the US is either a PWR or a BWR; those WWII designs you are talking about. The only "passively safe" GenIII reactors (all AP1000's) we have are under construction but are at least three years behind in construction, and have at least a year to go before they produce any power. And since the Westinghouse division that designed and sold the AP1000's is now bankrupt there is some question as to whether they will ever operate.

And BTW all the "WWII" designs we have operating are not PWR; about half are BWR. The PWR is safer in theory due to its additional isolation from the outside environment, but the one big US accident involved a PWR.

IF we get the AP1000 up and running - and it develops a track record, and we can build more of them - then that's a good solution. Unfortunately that's getting less and less likely.

Today the number one threat to human life is Cell Phones and Pads, followed by alcohol and ganja. In the USA there are only 3 deaths from nuclear accidents in recorded history. 11 people will be killed today by a Cell Phone, 3 wil killed by alcohol, and 3 by ganja. Only 3 people killed in the USA in 70 years by nuclear. Those three deaths were not power generation related NEOH. Get educated.

That's the argument I generally use. Compare those 3 people killed by nuclear accidents (none of which involved commercial nuclear power) with the 7500 people killed by coal power plant fine-particulate pollution every year.

[adoublee]

Hope you left out the comic sans serif script in error on that one.

You don't know how to selectively choose electrons? /sarcasm

[J.P.M.]

To big to fail nuclear should not be built on taxpayer's dime.

And in the opinion of some, neither should big oil, solar or most anything else not specifically legislated and voted on by the taxpayers. But, for better or worse, that's not the way the game seems to be run in the U.S. and probably never has been. So, for us in the U.S. of A, this conversation is mental masturbation.