Would you drive the Prius if you lived in the snowy Midwest vs AZ?
Amount wasted on gas vs going hybrid or EV?
- Thread starter Toyfour14
- Start date
Would you drive the Prius if you lived in the snowy Midwest vs AZ?
BlackWorksInc
New member
Something to consider is that Wind, Wave, and Solar are all inefficient and/or environmentally dangerous when scaled up to a macro scale.
Wind and Wave Generators are causing micro climate changes and sand displacement when linked into large farms; this is something that was not accurately accounted for in small tests when jumping to macro scales needed to run cities and counties. These microclimate changes could potentially affect the very ecology of an area in terms of flora and fauna dispersion patterns. While the energy is "free" the consequences are not and may result in greater harm in the local ecology and environment than was previously thought. These should have been scaled up slowly over time and the long term environmental effects better studied as larger and larger "patches" are created. Unfortunately that would stall many politician's plans and companies attempts to make a quick buck from the government, so instead we rush the technology a little to fast and now have to hope that the consequences won't be too damaging on a terraforming scale (because basically that's what these effects are, drastic changes in wind speed, creation of micro climates, and displacement of coast line and wave patterns.)
Current Solar Technology is a joke, the only reason it's being touted is because huge government subsidies are backing it; sound familiar? Same thing that happened/is happening with the "wonder fuel" Ethanol, huge government money backing Ethanol which has resulted in more Corn used for an inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and economically damaging fuel than food. Now that's not to say that Solar Technology doesn't have a future, it's just we're pretty much at a stand still when it comes to improving the paltry 20~24% efficiency of the Silicon based Photo-Voltaic Cell.
Now a new generation of hybrid solar cells built possibly with carbon nanotube technology or Gallium cells (or even a hybrid between traditional Silicon and Gallium cells) could start producing easily in the 30% range and higher when the manufacturing and technology advance some. This is a much better alternative to the aging, barely pushing 20~24% efficiency of the average Silicon Solar Cell. These things haven't changed much since their days in early calculators and the progress in improving efficiency has been glacially slow. They are toxic and damaging to the environment to produce, they compete directly with the semiconductor market; which means they increase cost on electronics by competing for the same materials. All for a government subsidized panel that barely lasts 5~7years before tapering off in efficiency and having to be replaced. Bottom line, current gen Solar Technology is a joke backed by the government to appease the new hipster/eco-ignorant crowd; we should be less concerned about implementing the current gen Silicon technology and more concerned about pushing the new hybrid stuff to phase out the existing silicon units we have now.
Post Note-
I'm all for environmentalism and moving to a "greener" world, but the reality is that it's not as simple as buying a Prius, slapping some inefficient Solar Cells on your house, and wearing locally sourced Hemp undies. This is a complicated issue that has multiple causes, a few of them accelerated by us directly and indirectly; and it requires a persistent but cautious approach to achieving. We push too hard too fast, we may end up causing more damage to the environment than we realize in the pursuit of the "green fad" that everyone and their mother is obsessed at. Look at how CO2 regulations and limitations have basically backfired on us and resulted in larger quantities of other green house gases that we ignored because we thought CO2 was more important to focus on.
Wind and Wave Generators are causing micro climate changes and sand displacement when linked into large farms; this is something that was not accurately accounted for in small tests when jumping to macro scales needed to run cities and counties. These microclimate changes could potentially affect the very ecology of an area in terms of flora and fauna dispersion patterns. While the energy is "free" the consequences are not and may result in greater harm in the local ecology and environment than was previously thought. These should have been scaled up slowly over time and the long term environmental effects better studied as larger and larger "patches" are created. Unfortunately that would stall many politician's plans and companies attempts to make a quick buck from the government, so instead we rush the technology a little to fast and now have to hope that the consequences won't be too damaging on a terraforming scale (because basically that's what these effects are, drastic changes in wind speed, creation of micro climates, and displacement of coast line and wave patterns.)
Current Solar Technology is a joke, the only reason it's being touted is because huge government subsidies are backing it; sound familiar? Same thing that happened/is happening with the "wonder fuel" Ethanol, huge government money backing Ethanol which has resulted in more Corn used for an inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and economically damaging fuel than food. Now that's not to say that Solar Technology doesn't have a future, it's just we're pretty much at a stand still when it comes to improving the paltry 20~24% efficiency of the Silicon based Photo-Voltaic Cell.
Now a new generation of hybrid solar cells built possibly with carbon nanotube technology or Gallium cells (or even a hybrid between traditional Silicon and Gallium cells) could start producing easily in the 30% range and higher when the manufacturing and technology advance some. This is a much better alternative to the aging, barely pushing 20~24% efficiency of the average Silicon Solar Cell. These things haven't changed much since their days in early calculators and the progress in improving efficiency has been glacially slow. They are toxic and damaging to the environment to produce, they compete directly with the semiconductor market; which means they increase cost on electronics by competing for the same materials. All for a government subsidized panel that barely lasts 5~7years before tapering off in efficiency and having to be replaced. Bottom line, current gen Solar Technology is a joke backed by the government to appease the new hipster/eco-ignorant crowd; we should be less concerned about implementing the current gen Silicon technology and more concerned about pushing the new hybrid stuff to phase out the existing silicon units we have now.
Post Note-
I'm all for environmentalism and moving to a "greener" world, but the reality is that it's not as simple as buying a Prius, slapping some inefficient Solar Cells on your house, and wearing locally sourced Hemp undies. This is a complicated issue that has multiple causes, a few of them accelerated by us directly and indirectly; and it requires a persistent but cautious approach to achieving. We push too hard too fast, we may end up causing more damage to the environment than we realize in the pursuit of the "green fad" that everyone and their mother is obsessed at. Look at how CO2 regulations and limitations have basically backfired on us and resulted in larger quantities of other green house gases that we ignored because we thought CO2 was more important to focus on.
Last edited:
Blitzkrieg
New member
Not to throw salt in the wound, but with my King Soopers gas discount I filled my 4Runner with mid grade last week for $2.19 a gallon.
(that was a $ .60 per gallon discount - $600 in groceries spent - Hey, I eat well). So $ 2.79 per gallon for mid grade real cost.
sooperedd
Member
Don't know about heavy snow. If we know it is going to snow my wife drives the RAV4, the town she works in can get nasty fast, and I walk to work most of the time or drive my Burb.
So I don't know the limits of the Prius in heavy snow. It does not have a lot of ground clearance so that would definitely be a hindrance.
cf_coder
New member
In light snow with decent snow tires like blizzaks, I don't see why not. The only downside to the Prius is that you cannot disable the traction control. So, once you start spinning, you're not going anywhere.
_coder
Why does the Prius have such a horrible resale value? I read in another forum an owner had '13 with 36k miles. He paid 24k and only got $12j on a trade in. There goes his gas savings.
sooperedd
Member
The resale value has dropped with the drop in gas prices.
When gas was $4.00 + a few years ago I couldn't get a dealer budge off the sticker price. I waited until the gas prices dropped shortly after that and got a good deal.
Yeah, I totally agree with you that nuclear power has a lot of "political" baggage and misconception associated with it. I think a lot of people within the "green/eco" crowd are missing a big opportunity by alienating or ignoring nuclear, because it seems to be the only energy source that we are anywhere close to developing into a nearly perpetual (self-feeding) state...you might find these articles interesting, if you haven't already read them:
Rethinking the U.S. Surrender on Nuclear Power - WSJ
Sustainable nuclear fusion breakthrough raises hopes for ultimate green energy | Science | The Guardian
I would like to share your optimism on solar panels being incorporated into every household, I just don't see a reward that is proportional to the cost yet. I have some friends who recently installed a solar panel to help with their electrical needs; it cost thousands of $ but only provides enough power to charge a few cellphones and maybe a laptop. Yeah, every little bit helps, but in order for current solar technology to make even a noticeable dent in our energy consumption needs, we would require acres upon acres of solar panel arrays to be built and maintained. Maybe there will be advancements in that area that will improve the efficiency of that technology, but as of now I think it has a ways to go. Would you agree with that?
Jetboy
New member
Solar is very location dependent. Irradiance levels vary. In the southwest solar works great. for $6,000 I can buy sufficient solar generation for 100% of my energy use. But I live in an area with high irradiance and summer peak load. And I still have no way to store it. My home is not huge - about 2500 square feet - and very efficient. I use about 350kwh per month. I also live in a state with among the lowest electricity rates in the nation. My retail rate is $.08 per kwh. At that price it's hard to make solar pencil. When we see a carbon cost around say $40/ton the retail rates will go up and the formula looks a whole lot different.
A typical panel produces around 250 watts. So if you had 10 panels that's 2500 watts of instantaneous generation during peak hours. That's more than enough electricity to trip a typical 15 amp 120v circuit breaker. That's a lot more than charging a cell phone... more like running your entire house's energy needs, and then some. To give an example a welder running at 22 volts and 150 amps and a 50% duty cycle would easily be within the output ability of 10 panels if you had a capacitor or battery for storage.
Where you live in upstate NY you'd likely never see a name plate capacity from the same panels. You just don't live where there's good quality sunlight for solar generation. In Utah our system is adding about 10 square miles of utility scale solar this year alone. That's roughly 700MW of generation capacity. And the cost is set at avoided cost - so they are as cheap or cheaper than the existing generators available.
Solar and wind are viable - but only with storage. With storage they are competitive with other generation sources. And for a variety of reasons they are going to be the future of our energy supply whether we like it or not. The only real question is whether we'll have a grid with utility scale solar/wind/storage or we'll have home generation/storage as the model. And I think that's still an open question. Is utility scale solar and storage enough cheaper to pay for the cost of the transmission and distribution systems, or is home solar/storage cheaper?
A typical panel produces around 250 watts. So if you had 10 panels that's 2500 watts of instantaneous generation during peak hours. That's more than enough electricity to trip a typical 15 amp 120v circuit breaker. That's a lot more than charging a cell phone... more like running your entire house's energy needs, and then some. To give an example a welder running at 22 volts and 150 amps and a 50% duty cycle would easily be within the output ability of 10 panels if you had a capacitor or battery for storage.
Where you live in upstate NY you'd likely never see a name plate capacity from the same panels. You just don't live where there's good quality sunlight for solar generation. In Utah our system is adding about 10 square miles of utility scale solar this year alone. That's roughly 700MW of generation capacity. And the cost is set at avoided cost - so they are as cheap or cheaper than the existing generators available.
Solar and wind are viable - but only with storage. With storage they are competitive with other generation sources. And for a variety of reasons they are going to be the future of our energy supply whether we like it or not. The only real question is whether we'll have a grid with utility scale solar/wind/storage or we'll have home generation/storage as the model. And I think that's still an open question. Is utility scale solar and storage enough cheaper to pay for the cost of the transmission and distribution systems, or is home solar/storage cheaper?
Last edited:
1engineer
Moderator
Alright [MENTION=118321]Jetboy[/MENTION], enough. While the topics you speak of are theoretically possible the practicality of solar and wind being a viable energy source are not. You speak of storage. While you can come up with a way to store a few home's worth of energy doing so for the whole country is impossible. https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/ This link will tell you why and if you have any common sense you already knew this. Economically wind and solar, even on a smaller scale, don't make sense either. Why? Because as long as there are several different sources for energy, people (every single one of us) will only buy the cheapest possible form. Why? Because that is the way the economy works everywhere in the world. Now, 100 years from now if nobody comes up with a better way (fusion, nuclear, totally new concept on energy storage, etc) then wind and solar might be the best source. If it ever gets to that point though the world will have more problems than batteries though. Can you say wars?
Here's the deal: You call power generation from coal dirty and harmful to the environment. You say nuclear is clean. How clean is Chernobyl right now? Yep, all it takes is one tiny mistake to make clean into dirty. Back to batteries: Ever been to a lead mine? How about a lead smelter? How about a nickel mine? Forget about lithium batteries too because there simply is not enough elements out there for that. Could you imagine how dirty it would be if we started to seriously mine all that?
Right now politics dictate energy policy. That is all well and good while our energy costs are relatively low. Let the politicians think they are running things lol. Now, when energy costs start to go up you actually think people will pay a high price when there is cheap fuel laying in the ground? Won't happen. People will revolt. Don't give me any crap about carbon emissions and climate change either because anyone with half a brain knows that CO2 in the atmosphere is a lagging indicator of temperature, not the other way around. Politics again and no I will not debate you on that subject. Do your own research and I will counter every single point you make. Yes we need to be good stewards of our planet but unfortunately we humans have developed a standard of living and going back a few hundred years is unacceptable. So where exactly does that leave us? Burning coal and gas and dabbling in renewables until hopefully some smart person figures out a way to store the sun or develop a Mr. Fusion.
Jetboy
New member
You are free to ignore what's happening if you like. I can't help that. I have repeatedly said that we don't currently have viable storage options. That is the very important missing part of the equation. There's no question about it. Batteries are too expensive. OTOH someone is building what is likely to be the largest building in the world to manufacture batteries. I suspect he has some idea what he's doing. I guess you don't?
Coal is dirty. Coal is dead. That's not a hard conclusion to reach. Chernobyl isn't all that bad. It's a shithole because everyone moved away. But it's not actually that dangerous. If you live there for your entire life you would have roughly a 2% increase in risk of cancer. Compared to about 20% baseline risk, moving to 22% isn't as bad as some might make it out to be. And it's nothing like our reactors. Three mile island? Not so bad. Nuclear absolutely has its risks. But it's not inherently more dangerous. Have you ever been inside a reactor? It's probably not what you think it is.
I love how you make outlandish claims "anyone with half a brain knows.." Really? Practically every phd physicist in the world lacks half a brain? OK. Or are they all just bought off? You're certainly free to cling to your guns and bible. It won't change reality. Coal is not going to be a significant energy source in the USA in 20 years. Nuclear will. Solar will. Wind will. Natural Gas will.
And electric cars will be a significant portion of our vehicles.
Coal is dirty. Coal is dead. That's not a hard conclusion to reach. Chernobyl isn't all that bad. It's a shithole because everyone moved away. But it's not actually that dangerous. If you live there for your entire life you would have roughly a 2% increase in risk of cancer. Compared to about 20% baseline risk, moving to 22% isn't as bad as some might make it out to be. And it's nothing like our reactors. Three mile island? Not so bad. Nuclear absolutely has its risks. But it's not inherently more dangerous. Have you ever been inside a reactor? It's probably not what you think it is.
I love how you make outlandish claims "anyone with half a brain knows.." Really? Practically every phd physicist in the world lacks half a brain? OK. Or are they all just bought off? You're certainly free to cling to your guns and bible. It won't change reality. Coal is not going to be a significant energy source in the USA in 20 years. Nuclear will. Solar will. Wind will. Natural Gas will.
And electric cars will be a significant portion of our vehicles.
Last edited:
Construction on Chernobyl started in 1970, 45 years ago! The first commercial nuclear power plant started in 1954, so nuclear power was still relatively new when Chernobyl was designed. Now we can learn from problems in the past, but fear and regulation have prevented innovation in nuclear power.
The Fukushima disaster happened more recently, but that was built in the 60's and 70's, so that plant is relatively ancient, too.
Newer designs could mitigate or prevent the same disasters. I realize nuclear power plants are designed for insanely long lifespans, but if we build one now it could be much safer than these old designs, and in a generation or two they could be even better.
How clean or safe were cars in the 70's? Not very. But with 45 years of innovation we have cars that put out hundreds of times less pollution than before, and they are safer than ever.
Bevo
New member
Please don't start that shit in here.
You can disable TC, but it is isn't just pushing a button.
Sounds like a bad deal rather than a systematic problem.
Black Book on a 2013 Prius is 58% of MSRP.
Camry is 57%
Prius v 62%
Corolla is 63%
Prius c 64%
Tacoma 83%
4Runnner is 84%
The person you are referring to (Elon Musk) is investing craploads of $ into battery manufacturing because he is trying to corner the market on EV's. He's making the bet that EV's will be a major form of transportation, if not the pre-dominant form, in the years to come.
But just because one billionaire is putting a lot of money into battery production, doesn't mean that's the way of the future.
And as has been said before, batteries, whether in a car or in a household, are simply a mitigating factor for the impending energy crisis; they are not the end solution.
1engineer
Moderator
Only the ones who receive their paycheck from government grants.
Have you built a dome over the US that nobody knows about? Coal is being used in great quantities in most other countries with no letting up and won't even be revisited until 2035. The US is producing a lot of coal that is being sent overseas. Do you think India cares about climate change? China? Russia? Again, the US Energy Policies are being dictated by politicians instead of common sense right now. You can live in your utopian theory all you want but reality is much different.
Use that Physics degree you keep telling everyone you have and look at reality.
Jetboy
New member
Time will tell if he's right or not. I'm guessing he is. Toyota seems to think he might be on the right track. It owns 10%.
IMO there's no energy shortage, but a pollution problem. Solar panels are more than adequate to supply 100% of our energy in their current form. If you take all of the entire world's energy consumption in every form, it would take solar array about the size of Spain to provide 100% of the entire world's energy. That's a lot. And it's not going to happen in 20 years. It only works with storage though. A efficient low cost storage solution is a huge missing link.
In the next 20 - solar, wind, and natural gas will replace coal in the USA. And that results in electric car emissions being significantly cleaner than they would be today, and much cleaner than gasoline powered cars.
Jetboy
New member
Are you going to charge your electric car in mexico every night? Or India? China? Russia? I'd probably charge mine at home. So the emissions of my source of electricity are what matters to whether an electric car is cleaner or dirtier than gasoline.
You're dreaming when you keep thinking coal will be a viable energy source in the USA. It won't. And anyone with a brain should recognize that politics is a lagging indicator of science. I won't debate you on it - but any fact you put forward I will counter.
Musk is going all in for the EV game...Toyota (and many other car companies) are hedging their bets (which is why they own only 10%). Hybrid cars (EV+ICE) seems to be a likely trend for the near future, so of course it makes sense for a company like Toyota to have some stake in battery production.
That's the main issue I have with what you are saying...much of it seems to be derived from your opinion. Please show me some sort of study/paper which indicates solar power could realistically supply 100% of the world's energy demands.
Last edited:
Similar threads
