contractors will buy millions of Lightnings

[TaxmanHog]

And not to get political, but government regs and controls are a innovation killer. They need to stop getting in the way of innovation.

Amen, keep the Pol's out of engineers hair and we could get immense things done, unfortunately constituencies are played back and forth by these politicians.

Off my soap box....

Sponsored

 

[sotek2345]

Cannot have grid without fossil fuels and/or nuke. Facts.

We should be building so many new nuke plants right now, but politics (and surprisingly environmentalists) stand in the way.

 

[vandy1981]

Below is a graph of the US electrical grid demand curves over the last seven days. Most BEV charging is going to happen in the overnight valleys, not the daytime peaks.

EVs offer multiple opportunities to balance demand and load--load shaving, smart EVSEs, etc.--so I think it's not outside the realm of possibility that the grid will be in better shape with more EV adoption.

 

[Nick Gerteis]

We should be building so many new nuke plants right now, but politics (and surprisingly environmentalists) stand in the way.

Naw, nuclear is a overpriced and potentially dangerous boondoggle. Takes 20 years to build where much cheaper renewables take 20 months. Outdated.

 

[Nick Gerteis]

Peddling what? Debunking what? Nothing I wrote is untrue.

And you cannot run the grid on solar and wind. That is a fantasy.
The technology does not exist today. That is fact.

And 20 yrs is no where long enough to rebuild the grid. Not even close.

The technology is already mature, cheaper than fossil, and being deployed at large scale, today. We’ll be done with the transition in 10 years, just as the last gasmobiles are being sold. Updating the grid to connect nationwide and smooth out renewables’ intermittency will happen simultaneously. We are watching a major step in our societal progress in real time, I think it’s super exciting and I don’t get the handwringing and lack of forward thinking.

 

[Mtnman1]

We should be building so many new nuke plants right now, but politics (and surprisingly environmentalists) stand in the way.

Yup. Best sollution we curently have.

 

[Mtnman1]

The technology is already mature, cheaper than fossil, and being deployed at large scale, today. We’ll be done with the transition in 10 years, just as the last gasmobiles are being sold. Updating the grid to connect nationwide and smooth out renewables’ intermittency will happen simultaneously. We are watching a major step in our societal progress in real time, I think it’s super exciting and I don’t get the handwringing and lack of forward thinking.

10 years in very unrealistic. And technolog is no where near mature.

Fun fact. Those 75, 100 foot blades on the turbines? Have to be replaced every 20 years. The ones removed cannot be reused. They cannot be recycled. They cannot be burned.

There is a problem without solution.

And storage for the power from wind in solar is a huge problem. Technology does not exist yet to make these viable long term.

 

[SuperRaptor]

Having a mid-size fleet myself that already has 6 late model F-150’s in it I would probably would have ordered a Lightning in-Liu of the Maverick for one of my guys who drives ~50-80 miles per day. But with them not available and no real time table for the work truck I didn’t have much of a choice. Hell with the lack of trucks I just bought one a special order a guys backed out on for 66K. It was that or no truck. As you can imagine he isn’t too unhappy driving around in a pretty much loaded high lariat.

 

[thudnblunder]

30 years of engineering and designing power generarion plants. How is that for a source?

30 years of experience in an industry where night time load was always lower and things were done a certain way. Change is coming. Those who can adapt will thrive, those who can not will have a difficult time.

Isn’t it more expensive per unit of power generated to run a power plant at a lower capacity than higher capacity given the sunk cost of infrastructure and losses in scaling up/down daily? If more of that production capacity that’s left underutilized is used, isn’t it more profitable for the power producers?

 

[Mtnman1]

30 years of experience in an industry where night time load was always lower and things were done a certain way. Change is coming. Those who can adapt will thrive, those who can not will have a difficult time.

Isn’t it more expensive per unit of power generated to run a power plant at a lower capacity than higher capacity given the sunk cost of infrastructure and losses in scaling up/down daily? If more of that production capacity that’s left underutilized is used, isn’t it more profitable for the power producers?

That is generally true.

The coordination that goes into what plants are needed to run, those that are on standby, etc. Is very complicated. Gernerally, a plant will not be called to run if it is going to run on 20% capacity.

There are Peaker plants. These are usually smaller plants that are on standby most of the time. They are called to run if demand calls for extra MW.

This is why solar or wind cannot be the only source. This is why coal, natual gas, or nuke is needed.

Extra demand, fire up the peaker, or call for 90% instead of 75% of a plant already contracted to run.

You cant make more wind or sunlight to increase MW on the grid.

There is also voltage contol and other factors that need to be considerded.

 

[Mtnman1]

Naw, nuclear is a overpriced and potentially dangerous boondoggle. Takes 20 years to build where much cheaper renewables take 20 months. Outdated.

Renewables CANNOT be the only generation on the grid. This is fact.

And it does not take 20 yrs to build.

How many issues have we had with all the nuke plants in the USA? There's like 55-60 in operation currently.

 

[thudnblunder]

That is generally true.

The coordination that goes into what plants are needed to run, those that are on standby, etc. Is very complicated. Gernerally, a plant will not be called to run if it is going to run on 20% capacity.

There are Peaker plants. These are usually smaller plants that are on standby most of the time. They are called to run if demand calls for extra MW.

This is why solar or wind cannot be the only source. This is why coal, natual gas, or nuke is needed.

Extra demand, fire up the peaker, or call for 90% instead of 75% of a plant already contracted to run.

You cant make more wind or sunlight to increase MW on the grid.

There is also voltage contol and other factors that need to be considerded.

Unlike fossils fuels, the total stockpile of renewable energy is not finite. There isn’t a shortage of sunlight or wind, only of installed capacity.

Solar in particular is installed closer to where it’s used so transmission losses are lower and static batteries can help level the demand curve.

I agree that where we stand today we need fossil fuels to fill gaps but this is something we can solve.

 

[Mtnman1]

Below is a graph of the US electrical grid demand curves over the last seven days. Most BEV charging is going to happen in the overnight valleys, not the daytime peaks.

EVs offer multiple opportunities to balance demand and load--load shaving, smart EVSEs, etc.--so I think it's not outside the realm of possibility that the grid will be in better shape with more EV adoption.

Not disagreeing.

The issue is that now plants will be asked to run more than normal. More than they were designed for. That is a lot of stress on a 80 year old system.

 

[Mtnman1]

Unlike fossils fuels, the total stockpile of renewable energy is not finite. There isn’t a shortage of sunlight or wind, only of installed capacity.

Solar in particular is installed closer to where it’s used so transmission losses are lower and static batteries can help level the demand curve.

I agree that where we stand today we need fossil fuels to fill gaps but this is something we can solve.

It will be solved eventually. Renewable is a great supliment. But that is all it is currently.

Without the ability to store all that energy, the unlimited sun and wind are useless.

 

[sotek2345]

That is generally true.

The coordination that goes into what plants are needed to run, those that are on standby, etc. Is very complicated. Gernerally, a plant will not be called to run if it is going to run on 20% capacity.

There are Peaker plants. These are usually smaller plants that are on standby most of the time. They are called to run if demand calls for extra MW.

This is why solar or wind cannot be the only source. This is why coal, natual gas, or nuke is needed.

Extra demand, fire up the peaker, or call for 90% instead of 75% of a plant already contracted to run.

You cant make more wind or sunlight to increase MW on the grid.

There is also voltage contol and other factors that need to be considerded.

Energy storage solutions can cover this in the long term, but the tech (more accurately manufacturing infrastructure) for across the board usage isn't there yet (battery storage at grid scale). It could be done in some locations with pumped hydro, but local geography is the driver there.

Sponsored