Grid overload! friendly thoughts and ideas...

Subscribe
Jun 27, 2023 | 07:17 PM
  #46  
Quote: Exactly.
Our nations infrastructure is already weak and has been waaaaaaaay before EVs due to population growth in general and if not today, eventually.

No excuses,
No blaming,

Build some dam power stations, they're charging by the KWH anyway! lol
Let's do it man... me and you! Dam power stations! Build it, and they will come
Reply 1
Jun 27, 2023 | 07:19 PM
  #47  
dam power stations I see what you did there.
Reply 1
Jun 27, 2023 | 07:32 PM
  #48  
Quote: Let's do it man... me and you! Dam power stations! Build it, and they will come
Aren't people already getting tired of the excuses and taking matters into their own hands?

People are installing solar panels in their homes, they've had enough of the games. Lol

My opinion! Just ideas so plz don't laugh. Lol

Reply 1
Jun 27, 2023 | 07:44 PM
  #49  
Quote: Aren't people already getting tired of the excuses and taking matters into their own hands?

People are installing solar panels in their homes, they've had enough of the games. Lol

My opinion! Just ideas so plz don't laugh. Lol
So true. I originally installed solar panels to cut costs on my AC bills, which were insane! I had no idea EV'S were even in my future at that time
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 07:19 AM
  #50  
Quote: These "EV'S are going to destroy our power grid" arguments sounds like an environmentalist screaming about oil drilling being bad for the environment, but saying Monsanto helps small farmers LoL
I haven’t seen anyone make that argument and it’s certainly not what I have been saying. My concern is simply one of increasing demand and either slow change or no change on the power supply side.

The issue is a hot button one for some who oppose using fossil fuels to generate electricity. It’s not realistic to demand that this not be the case. Progress before perfection is a perspective I suggest.
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 07:45 AM
  #51  
Quote: I haven’t seen anyone make that argument and it’s certainly not what I have been saying. My concern is simply one of increasing demand and either slow change or no change on the power supply side.

The issue is a hot button one for some who oppose using fossil fuels to generate electricity. It’s not realistic to demand that this not be the case. Progress before perfection is a perspective I suggest.
​​​​​​I was just trying to make a point, yes nobody said this. And I wasn't directing the to you my friend. And I totally get your concerns. If EV adoption is too move forward (even if it's only in California and some other states), the grid will definitely be strained. Also just to let you know, I'm not against fossil fuels, even as a part of powering the grid.

BTW I have a friend that works for Chevron, and he told me that they are working on cleaner burning fuels made of soybeans and even animal fats. This would reduce the amount of crude needed. You probably know more about this than I do
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 08:13 AM
  #52  
Quote: ​​​​​​I was just trying to make a point, yes nobody said this. And I wasn't directing the to you my friend. And I totally get your concerns. If EV adoption is too move forward (even if it's only in California and some other states), the grid will definitely be strained. Also just to let you know, I'm not against fossil fuels, even as a part of powering the grid.

BTW I have a friend that works for Chevron, and he told me that they are working on cleaner burning fuels made of soybeans and even animal fats. This would reduce the amount of crude needed. You probably know more about this than I do
I appreciate your kind reply and did not think you were saying anything negative. We are working on clean fuels. I am somewhat removed from that side of our business which is amusing because that’s the bulk of it. My view is everything we do to improve air quality is good and perhaps zero emissions is the end objective. We should continue to make improvements along the way.

My role is specifically teaching power management at charge sites, so not fuel side. Their strategy is up to them. I just tell them how to do it.
Reply 1
Jun 28, 2023 | 08:33 AM
  #53  
Burning oil will never be clean no matter the source of said oil. And even if it was possible the life cycle efficiency is still poor.
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 08:41 AM
  #54  
Quote: Burning oil will never be clean no matter the source of said oil. And even if it was possible the life cycle efficiency is still poor.
The thing is, we are not going to get away from fossil fuels anytime soon. America was built on them. You would have to make a radical disruptive change to move away from them. Even if you can make them slightly cleaner burning, that's a step in the right direction, IMHO of course. Also, by using less crude, you lower it's footprint and have to refine less of it
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 08:49 AM
  #55  
Quote: The thing is, we are not going to get away from fossil fuels anytime soon.
Agreed. But suppose we had an infinite supply of crude, should we keep burning it? Heck no combustion byproducts are literally deadly. It may seem simplistic but the farther you live from major roadways the better your health.
Quote:
America was built on them. You would have to make a radical disruptive change to move away from them.
Oil built the modern world and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the process. Modern medicine would be impossible without oil.
Quote:
Even if you can make them slightly cleaner burning, that's a step in the right direction, IMHO of course. Also, by using less crude, you lower it's footprint and have to refine less of it
We don't need oil as energy for transport, not in the long term. Millions of different products made via oil we don't have a replacement for that yet, maybe never.
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 09:13 AM
  #56  
keep in mind we have never been this clean pollution wise mankinds history, but its still not enough I suppose. Car emissions have dropped something like 96% since the 1950-1960s. How far do we want to go and at what cost?

Quote: ​​​​​​BTW I have a friend that works for Chevron, and he told me that they are working on cleaner burning fuels made of soybeans and even animal fats. This would reduce the amount of crude needed. You probably know more about this than I do
ethanol fuel is a disasterous policy, lets make it worse
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 09:36 AM
  #57  
Quote: Agreed. But suppose we had an infinite supply of crude, should we keep burning it? Heck no combustion byproducts are literally deadly. It may seem simplistic but the farther you live from major roadways the better your health.

Oil built the modern world and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the process. Modern medicine would be impossible without oil.

We don't need oil as energy for transport, not in the long term. Millions of different products made via oil we don't have a replacement for that yet, maybe never.
As of today, crude is still a vital lifeline. For energy, we can slowly move away from it, but it's going to take decades, and Billions to transition to alternate renewable energy (wind, solar, nuclear etc). Think of all the transportation companies that have fleets of trucks they invested in, hundreds of thousands on. It's going to take years for them to replace them. I'm just looking at things realistically
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 09:37 AM
  #58  
Quote: keep in mind we have never been this clean pollution wise mankinds history, but its still not enough I suppose. Car emissions have dropped something like 96% since the 1950-1960s. How far do we want to go and at what cost?

ethanol fuel is a disasterous policy, lets make it worse
This is high risk of being a stupid comment from me, but I’m going for it anyway. One of my favorite TV shows as a kid was CHiPs and it’s available on YouTube TV now. One striking thing is how awful the air quality was. I grew up in SoCal playing soccer for many years and I remember the burning feeling in lungs after practice (practice was worse because I had to train as backup tender and starting fullback).

Lungs typically don’t burn now and it’s very noticeably cleaner in terms of air quality. Sure we can improve on it. The progress is also very significant.
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 09:43 AM
  #59  
Quote: keep in mind we have never been this clean pollution wise mankinds history, but its still not enough I suppose. Car emissions have dropped something like 96% since the 1950-1960s. How far do we want to go and at what cost?



ethanol fuel is a disasterous policy, lets make it worse
I don't make policy, neither government or company or have control over these polices. BTW I was in in San Antonio on a project last summer, and the pollution was extremely bad. When we were descending, it looked like we were penetrating a force field. Houston was worse
Reply 0
Jun 28, 2023 | 09:48 AM
  #60  
Quote: This is high risk of being a stupid comment from me, but I’m going for it anyway. One of my favorite TV shows as a kid was CHiPs and it’s available on YouTube TV now. One striking thing is how awful the air quality was. I grew up in SoCal playing soccer for many years and I remember the burning feeling in lungs after practice (practice was worse because I had to train as backup tender and starting fullback).

Lungs typically don’t burn now and it’s very noticeably cleaner in terms of air quality. Sure we can improve on it. The progress is also very significant.
It's still pretty bad in SoCal. Not as bad as when I was a kid growing up in the 70's and 80's of course. I was just in Eastvale where my brother lives (near Corona), and I could see the mountains covered in a haze of smog. So saying cars don't pollute, I don't buy that. They burn cleaner, yes, but they still pollute. Just turn your car on in a closed garage for 15 minutes and lets see how that works out . I could sit in my garage for an hour with either my Polestar or Model Y with zero worry, unless my battery decides to explode
Reply 0
4/7
1  2  3  4  5  6  7