Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

[macdoc]

Cuddles

We really don't. With current technology, we are entirely capable of powering the entire world solely on renewables. Throw in nuclear as well and you don't even need to worry about setting up storage and smart grids, you could just do it. The issues preventing it are entirely economic and political. If the costs of fossil fuels rise, renewables become more attractive. If we reduce the cost of building renewables through economy of scale, they become more attractive. If the problems associated with fossil fuels cause more societal and political pressure against them, renewables become more attractive. We don't need to rely on a sudden unpredictable scientific breakthrough for renewables to overtake fossil fuels, we just need the various factors weighing them against each other to shift a bit, and there are all kinds of different ways that could happen.

I have a hard time understanding how you can power industry without a grid upgrade.
Can you be more specific.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The primary issue with alternative powered personal vehicles is primarily energy storage density.

Agreed. Hard to beat gasoline or diesel on that front.

To produce a personal vehicle that has the full range of capabilities that people expect from even a compact car (4 people with baggage/stuff and a 400 mi range in freeway traffic with the capacity for refueling in under 5 minutes), is probably technologically a bit beyond the current state of battery storage.

Just because that is what we get from ICE vehicles is not an indication of what we really need. I only drive my car over 100 miles in a single day once or twice a year. Having two cars in my household, if one were fully electric I would be just fine.

That was the real point of my post. As we bring more convenient ways to share vehicles online there will be less need for every vehicle to meet every need you list above. If there was a way for me to effectively borrow an SUV two or three times a year, I could get by with a two seater electric and my wife could have a four seater electric.

But, if I have to plan ahead and then get a ride to the rental shop and then deal with an ******* salesperson trying to sell me insurance I don't need and then deal with some clown accusing me of scratching the paint on the underside of the bumper, then yeah, I'm more likely to make sure I have at least one versatile vehicle, if not two.

Hybrid systems that use a small gas turbine generator to supplement the batteries might be the best compromise we can do for now for these types of applications.

That is where I disagree. Why should I drag a gas engine and gasoline to work every day if I only need it on the rare occasions where I will exceed 100 miles in a single day. That is wasteful in my mind.

The problem is that if I don't drag that engine around, then the rare days when I need it become a pain in the rear, rather than just a bit of extra driving. That is where the car sharing apps and such are really changing the equation, or at least that is my hope.

For applications like heavy equipment, construction equipment, farm equipment and even long-haul trucking and busses, there is nothing wrong with plug-in electrics completely replacing ICE systems.

I would have thought the opposite and would love to see your reasoning on this. I've seen the battery storage and replacement issues for something as low powered as a forklift in a warehouse and most of the guys I know in that field much prefer the nat-gas versions over electric. I guess you could have a standard battery that all construction equipment used and then set up a battery charging and replacement station on each worksite, but the energy density of liquid fuel makes this hard for me to visualize. Maybe I'm just stuck in the old way of thinking on this issue . . .

 

[GlennB]

For applications like heavy equipment, construction equipment, farm equipment and even long-haul trucking and busses, there is nothing wrong with plug-in electrics completely replacing ICE systems.

I would have thought the opposite and would love to see your reasoning on this.

Me too.

Gliding 100 miles over smooth tarmac in a lightweight electrically powered car is one thing, but driving a monster excavator (or similar) on rough terrain requires grunt that batteries just don't deliver. I really have trouble seeing an 18-wheeler hauling 100 tons for 200 miles on batteries, on severe terrain and in deep cold, where battery-swap stations will be few and far between.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Me too.

Gliding 100 miles over smooth tarmac in a lightweight electrically powered car is one thing, but driving a monster excavator (or similar) on rough terrain requires grunt that batteries just don't deliver. I really have trouble seeing an 18-wheeler hauling 100 tons for 200 miles on batteries, on severe terrain and in deep cold, where battery-swap stations will be few and far between.

It has me puzzled, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is a system that makes electric work well in those situations. That's why I asked. Cat and some of the other big equipment companies have surely looked into this, I just can't recall seeing anything about it.

I remember walking into the back room of a warehouse that had electric forklifts and seeing how much infrastructure was dedicated to the battery chargers and the swapping. Maybe it was just a cumbersome system or maybe I don't know enough about how much more cumbersome gas is in those situations, but it seemed fairly . . . cumbersome.

 

[Trakar]

Agreed. Hard to beat gasoline or diesel on that front.

Just because that is what we get from ICE vehicles is not an indication of what we really need. I only drive my car over 100 miles in a single day once or twice a year. Having two cars in my household, if one were fully electric I would be just fine.

Oh, I agree with you, but what I am talking about isn't what is practical, I'm talking about general population-wide expectations. And when it comes to personal transportation, especially in the US, expectations are generally way beyond what is practical.

That was the real point of my post. As we bring more convenient ways to share vehicles online there will be less need for every vehicle to meet every need you list above. If there was a way for me to effectively borrow an SUV two or three times a year, I could get by with a two seater electric and my wife could have a four seater electric.

But, if I have to plan ahead and then get a ride to the rental shop and then deal with an ******* salesperson trying to sell me insurance I don't need and then deal with some clown accusing me of scratching the paint on the underside of the bumper, then yeah, I'm more likely to make sure I have at least one versatile vehicle, if not two.

And "rightly or wrongly," most individuals, especially those who don't live in dense urban environments, want to own and use their own personal vehicle (or three+). At least with Americans, choosing a personal transportation vehicle is often more about finding one that fits your personality and perceptions of your station in society than it is about mpg, price or carrying capacity.

That is where I disagree. Why should I drag a gas engine and gasoline to work every day if I only need it on the rare occasions where I will exceed 100 miles in a single day. That is wasteful in my mind.

The problem is that if I don't drag that engine around, then the rare days when I need it become a pain in the rear, rather than just a bit of extra driving. That is where the car sharing apps and such are really changing the equation, or at least that is my hope.

I'm sure, over time, that perspective will probably become much more prevalent. But, just as the same people who currently drive (on average) under a hundred miles a day don't pull into a gas station and only buy 10$ of gas every day, because they don't want to carry around the extra few hundred pounds of gas every day, instead, fill their tanks up every time it gets down to a quarter of a tank so that they only stop for gas once every week or two. I don't think that the "expectations of capability" people who make up most owners are going to balk at carrying around the extra couple of hundred pounds or so that would make up a small gas-turbine electrical generator and a 30-liter CNG tank. Most of the people you are speaking of should probably not be owning personal transportation for their daily travels anyway, but should probably be encouraged to push for expanded public/private mass transit systems (where we again run into "expectation" issues more than pragmatic efficiency concerns).

I would have thought the opposite and would love to see your reasoning on this. I've seen the battery storage and replacement issues for something as low powered as a forklift in a warehouse and most of the guys I know in that field much prefer the nat-gas versions over electric. I guess you could have a standard battery that all construction equipment used and then set up a battery charging and replacement station on each worksite, but the energy density of liquid fuel makes this hard for me to visualize. Maybe I'm just stuck in the old way of thinking on this issue . . .

Again, I'm speaking mainly to heavy equipment, where size, mass, and wheeled speed aren't as important considerations. On-site charging/battery-pack swap-out stations, the simplicity of design translating to ease and reduction of maintenance, control, little or no site emissions or noise,...there is a long list of potential benefits to using electric powered heavy equipment. This also translates well to long-range transportation systems (trucks and buses) where batteries and electric motors make up a comparatively smaller % of the overall system mass and volume as opposed to the % in personal vehicles.

I'm more than willing to discuss the topic in more detail.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh, I agree with you, but what I am talking about isn't what is practical, I'm talking about general population-wide expectations. And when it comes to personal transportation, especially in the US, expectations are generally way beyond what is practical.

No argument from me on that.

I would say that I know more people today who don't have cars then I did a few years ago. Although all live in major metropolitan areas where cars are more of a burden than a blessing, most use some sort of car sharing program to make it a bit easier. I think that could be the change that will allow people buy cars that better suit their average needs.

And "rightly or wrongly," most individuals, especially those who don't live in dense urban environments, want to own and use their own personal vehicle (or three+). At least with Americans, choosing a personal transportation vehicle is often more about finding one that fits your personality and perceptions of your station in society than it is about mpg, price or carrying capacity.

Hey, I resemble that statement!

I would add that this is why I thought GM should have come out with the Caddy version of the Volt first. Then the Chevy version would be the "cheap" knock off of the Caddy, rather than the Caddy being a dolled up Chevy. Perception is everything.

I'm sure, over time, that perspective will probably become much more prevalent. But, just as the same people who currently drive (on average) under a hundred miles a day don't pull into a gas station and only buy 10$ of gas every day, because they don't want to carry around the extra few hundred pounds of gas every day, instead, fill their tanks up every time it gets down to a quarter of a tank so that they only stop for gas once every week or two. I don't think that the "expectations of capability" people who make up most owners are going to balk at carrying around the extra couple of hundred pounds or so that would make up a small gas-turbine electrical generator and a 30-liter CNG tank. Most of the people you are speaking of should probably not be owning personal transportation for their daily travels anyway, but should probably be encouraged to push for expanded public/private mass transit systems (where we again run into "expectation" issues more than pragmatic efficiency concerns).

You are right, for now. I have hope for the future.

I was doing the math on buying a truck vs a sedan 20 years ago and it was a no-brainer. Still, every time I had to rent or borrow a truck it pissed me off and I wished I hadn't bought the sensible sedan.

I have hope that if we can reduce the friction of having the right tool for the job at the time you need it, then we can increase the attractiveness of only buying the right tool for the job.

Again, I'm speaking mainly to heavy equipment, where size, mass, and wheeled speed aren't as important considerations. On-site charging/battery-pack swap-out stations, the simplicity of design translating to ease and reduction of maintenance, control, little or no site emissions or noise,...there is a long list of potential benefits to using electric powered heavy equipment. This also translates well to long-range transportation systems (trucks and buses) where batteries and electric motors make up a comparatively smaller % of the overall system mass and volume as opposed to the % in personal vehicles.

Maintenance is a huge advantage of electric over diesel. I think I'm coming around on the construction equipment.

I just see the long haul situation as harder to grasp. Maybe with swappable batteries. I get stuck on the fact that the energy needed to get a rig from rest to cruising speed in an acceptable amount of time is fairly significant and the differential between the energy density of diesel and the best current batteries is also fairly significant. Maybe I just need to think a bit more broadly on that.

I'm more than willing to discuss the topic in more detail.

Only if you are interested.

Although, let me ask you this: do you think it will be harder to sell electric cars to American commuters or electric tractors to American farmers?

 

[Trakar]

Me too.

Gliding 100 miles over smooth tarmac in a lightweight electrically powered car is one thing, but driving a monster excavator (or similar) on rough terrain requires grunt that batteries just don't deliver. I really have trouble seeing an 18-wheeler hauling 100 tons for 200 miles on batteries, on severe terrain and in deep cold, where battery-swap stations will be few and far between.

Actually, electric motors deliver much better (more precise and individually controllable) torque and power to wheels or tracks. As for transport, ice-road truckers are not the typical application of 18-wheelers, but in general the range of battery powered vehicles is more a function of the mass of the batteries you can practically carry. It is much more difficult to fit a half ton of batteries into a compact car than it is to fit 4 to 5 tons of batteries into a big rig or a bus. Again, maintenance and repair reductions are nothing to sneeze at when considering benefits.

 

[macdoc]

Not sure that batteries are the correct storage medium tho...there is work being done on hydraulic assist and of course flywheels.

But yeah max torque a zero speed is a big benefit and even if it helped the big vehicles get moving there is a benefit.

There is a "green" locomotive and hybrid

http://www.greenrailnews.com

 

[Trakar]

I would say that I know more people today who don't have cars then I did a few years ago. Although all live in major metropolitan areas where cars are more of a burden than a blessing, most use some sort of car sharing program to make it a bit easier. I think that could be the change that will allow people buy cars that better suit their average needs.

I've been watching these systems over the last year or so, it will be interesting to see what becomes of them. Currently they seem more social experiment than tech rollout, but even in high density urban environments where such seems most applicable, a lot of the general downsides of owning individual transportation in that environment still apply (e.g. traffic, parking, fuel, etc.). I will continue to watch with interest.

Hey, I resemble that statement!

I was looking in the mirror when I wrote that!

I have hope that if we can reduce the friction of having the right tool for the job at the time you need it, then we can increase the attractiveness of only buying the right tool for the job.

Well, and we need to get over the desire to own every tool we might need for any job we only rarely undertake.

Maintenance is a huge advantage of electric over diesel. I think I'm coming around on the construction equipment.

I just see the long haul situation as harder to grasp. Maybe with swappable batteries. I get stuck on the fact that the energy needed to get a rig from rest to cruising speed in an acceptable amount of time is fairly significant and the differential between the energy density of diesel and the best current batteries is also fairly significant. Maybe I just need to think a bit more broadly on that.

A big part of this is the limited high torque range of ICEs and the transmissions that transfer the power to the drive wheels. Electric motors deliver much more torque throughout their range of operations and are mostly limited by available current, and mechanical design.

If we standardize and basically use loadable cargo containers instead of independent trailer units, you could potentially have 18 drive wheels each with their own independent hub electric motor (not that you'd need such most of the time, but this illustrates the potential versatility of electric 18 wheeler systems). In general, you are eliminating the large, complex ICE drivetrain system (which maxes out at between 20-30% efficiency at turning the potential energy of diesel into motive force), the fuel weight and space, and replacing it with more efficient and effective (average 80% efficiency) electric hub motors and battery power storage units. You don't need to replicate the energy storage density of diesel fuel, you just carry more energy storage units.

I have no problem with standardized swappable battery packs, or quick-charge systems that could recharge such systems over a couple hour period. but I'm not convinced that they are essential to creating an effective long-haul transport system.

I would like to see dedicated commercial transport lanes and the interlinkable automated convoy systems for vehicles that use such lanes, I think that these systems provide much higher levels of both efficiency and highway safety for both the Truckers and the other private drivers on the highways. (but this is neither here nor there with regards to the technology issues of ICE vs. electric/alternative/hybrid transport systems).

Although, let me ask you this: do you think it will be harder to sell electric cars to American commuters or electric tractors to American farmers?

Well, going by my personal (biased) experiences and consideration, farmers generally tend to be very conservative in that they don't usually rush to change from what they know. As people whose personal livelihood exists in the margins of the fruit of their labor, however, they tend to be very pragmatic and practical in their outlook on the world. They don't rush to replace their paid for old tractor for a new tractor whose annual payments total more than the entire cost of their existing tractor when it was new, just because it has a lot of gadgets and features. Show them, however, how an electric tractor can cut their work load, lower their costs and/or provide benefits that neither their current tractor, nor any new comparable ICE tractor can provide, and financing becomes the only issue that most will be concerned about.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I've been watching these systems over the last year or so, it will be interesting to see what becomes of them. Currently they seem more social experiment than tech rollout, but even in high density urban environments where such seems most applicable, a lot of the general downsides of owning individual transportation in that environment still apply (e.g. traffic, parking, fuel, etc.). I will continue to watch with interest.

I think they really make it easier to live a more efficient life. By breaking down the barriers to a more efficient life they may save more energy than a major breakthrough in battery tech.

But as you say, we'll see.

I was looking in the mirror when I wrote that!

Truth in expression comes from experience.

Well, and we need to get over the desire to own every tool we might need for any job we only rarely undertake.

I read a young adult fiction book based on the premise of a library of things in New York City. It was a fascinating idea, everything from a silver tea set to a vacuum cleaner. All available to paying members. Because it was fiction there was a floor of magical items, but the basic premise was pretty cool. I doubt it was original to the author, but it was my first exposure.

I suppose any rental company is essentially the same thing, just with a different payment system.

A big part of this is the limited high torque range of ICEs and the transmissions that transfer the power to the drive wheels. Electric motors deliver much more torque throughout their range of operations and are mostly limited by available current, and mechanical design.

Understood.

If we standardize and basically use loadable cargo containers instead of independent trailer units, you could potentially have 18 drive wheels each with their own independent hub electric motor (not that you'd need such most of the time, but this illustrates the potential versatility of electric 18 wheeler systems). In general, you are eliminating the large, complex ICE drivetrain system (which maxes out at between 20-30% efficiency at turning the potential energy of diesel into motive force), the fuel weight and space, and replacing it with more efficient and effective (average 80% efficiency) electric hub motors and battery power storage units. You don't need to replicate the energy storage density of diesel fuel, you just carry more energy storage units.

Standardized cargo containers are clearly the future. And I have no problem with the efficiency numbers. I guess the thing I never considered was that the trailer could contain some of the energy storage since electrical interconnects are so much easier than fuel line interconnects. Hmm. The design options for a long haul tractor trailer really open up when you start moving weight aft. I guess you have to worry about max axle loads for those rear axles and how that may impact container loads, but interesting.

And if the batteries are on the trailer, the trailer is already stupid expensive, so hub motors are no big deal.

I have no problem with standardized swappable battery packs, or quick-charge systems that could recharge such systems over a couple hour period. but I'm not convinced that they are essential to creating an effective long-haul transport system.

Fair enough.

I would like to see dedicated commercial transport lanes and the interlinkable automated convoy systems for vehicles that use such lanes, I think that these systems provide much higher levels of both efficiency and highway safety for both the Truckers and the other private drivers on the highways. (but this is neither here nor there with regards to the technology issues of ICE vs. electric/alternative/hybrid transport systems).

Don't get me started on infrastructure changes. If you're building dedicated lanes for automated convoys why not just lay out the rail?

Well, going by my personal (biased) experiences and consideration, farmers generally tend to be very conservative in that they don't usually rush to change from what they know. As people whose personal livelihood exists in the margins of the fruit of their labor, however, they tend to be very pragmatic and practical in their outlook on the world. They don't rush to replace their paid for old tractor for a new tractor whose annual payments total more than the entire cost of their existing tractor when it was new, just because it has a lot of gadgets and features. Show them, however, how an electric tractor can cut their work load, lower their costs and/or provide benefits that neither their current tractor, nor any new comparable ICE tractor can provide, and financing becomes the only issue that most will be concerned about.

Exactly what I was thinking. Make it worth their investment and the small businessman will be more risky than the yuppy with a hankering for a new status symbol. The question is whether it can be shown to be worth their investment, yet.

 

[Trakar]

I think they really make it easier to live a more efficient life. By breaking down the barriers to a more efficient life they may save more energy than a major breakthrough in battery tech.

But as you say, we'll see.

One thing I've never really looked into with respect to this subject, how is insurance handled on these vehicles?

Standardized cargo containers are clearly the future. And I have no problem with the efficiency numbers. I guess the thing I never considered was that the trailer could contain some of the energy storage since electrical interconnects are so much easier than fuel line interconnects. Hmm. The design options for a long haul tractor trailer really open up when you start moving weight aft. I guess you have to worry about max axle loads for those rear axles and how that may impact container loads, but interesting.

And if the batteries are on the trailer, the trailer is already stupid expensive, so hub motors are no big deal.

You aren't just moving the loads rearward, you are also lowering the CG. Hub motors shift your CG a lot lower and towards the perimeter than ICE drivetrains. As to the batteries, they don't have to be "in" the trailer. They can be configured in "tractor" section, and/or in a modified, hinged "flatbed" configuration the batteries can be aligned underneath and along the central support spine of the flatbed, again getting your CG lower.

Don't get me started on infrastructure changes. If you're building dedicated lanes for automated convoys why not just lay out the rail?

I'm fully online with an upgrading and expansion of the nation's railways, both regional systems and national throughways to connect regions. Perhaps a combined public and private funding system. Most rail systems already take advantage of electric-hybrid systems, we just need to swap out the diesel for either CNG, or better, use the rail lines as the pathway for a networked national electrical grid system and direct feed the current to the trains from tapping into the grid.

Exactly what I was thinking. Make it worth their investment and the small businessman will be more risky than the yuppy with a hankering for a new status symbol. The question is whether it can be shown to be worth their investment, yet.

The maintenance and repair issues would be big factors for farmers. Coops which allowed groups of farmers to join together to purchase equipment and services are both traditional and ease sticker shock (have you seen what harvesters/combines go for currently!!). Windmills/solar panels to charge equipment and provide supplemental income year-round. Lot's of possibilities.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

We really don't. With current technology, we are entirely capable of powering the entire world solely on renewables. Throw in nuclear as well and you don't even need to worry about setting up storage and smart grids, you could just do it.

Evidence?

 

[macdoc]

Yes please.....Sweden is pretty smart and motivated and they are working their way to carbon neutral by 2050 but I suggest it far more fraught than Cuddles is making it out to be

 

[lauwersw]

I was doing the math on buying a truck vs a sedan 20 years ago and it was a no-brainer. Still, every time I had to rent or borrow a truck it pissed me off and I wished I hadn't bought the sensible sedan.

When do you need a truck?

That's a genuine question, because here in Belgium we barely have any of your American trucks. People would rather borrow, rent or buy a small 2 or 4 wheeled trailer and put that behind their sedan. More sensitive stuff fits easily in an MPV or a van, of which we have plenty. Their fuel consumption is not much higher than a sedan. But why a truck?

 

[Cuddles]

Evidence?

Yes please.....Sweden is pretty smart and motivated and they are working their way to carbon neutral by 2050 but I suggest it far more fraught than Cuddles is making it out to be

I really have no idea what you two think you're arguing with here. Do you agree that we are able to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity with current technology? Do you agree that given enough money we could build any arbitrary number of them? If yes to both of those questions, then you agree that we could power the entire world solely on renewables with current technology. If you also agree that nuclear power plants are capable of providing base load and that replacing all fossil fuel plants with nuclear would not require any kind of smart grid upgrade, then you also agree that we could entirely eliminate fossil fuels without needing any kind of mass storage or smart grid upgrades.

I didn't say it would be cheap or easy to do any of this, I simply said that it was possible and would not require some unknown scientific advances to make it so, which was the claim I was replying to. That actually convincing people to pay for it to happen is a little tricky does not say anything about the capabilities of existing technology.

Just because that is what we get from ICE vehicles is not an indication of what we really need. I only drive my car over 100 miles in a single day once or twice a year. Having two cars in my household, if one were fully electric I would be just fine.

Part of the problem here is contingency planning. I may not need to make long journeys often, but what happens if I do need to make one but can't because my car can't drive that far? Electric cars may well be fine for the majority of people for the majority of their driving, but convincing people to ignore that nagging little "what if" and actually buy one is always going to be rather tricky.

 

[Dinwar]

Do you agree that we are able to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity with current technology? Do you agree that given enough money we could build any arbitrary number of them? If yes to both of those questions, then you agree that we could power the entire world solely on renewables with current technology.

Not really. The issue is space. Wind turbines create turbulance, and need to be a certain distance apart in order to function (that distance being determined by the specific make and model of the turbine). Put too many turbines in an area and none of them will work. Also, there needs to be relativley constant wind--something that can be problematic in some portions of the world. It would take more land than the continental USA has to power the continental USA via wind power.

Solar power runs into similar problems--it takes a large area to produce appreciable power. It also reqiures relatively constant sun. Again, there are limited areas where this technology can be employed.

There are other issues involved as well, but the acreage requirements and the restrictions on implementation mean that we cannot simply build more and be done with it. The current technology cannot be implemented in such a fashion.

For the record, I spent this summer helping construct a wind farm, and have worked extensively helping to construct wind and solar power plants throughout the southern portions of California and Nevada. I've asked engineers why we build things here and not there, and that's what they tell me. All of this can be found in the Environmental Impact Statements of any wind power plant or solar power plant.

 

[Dr. Keith]

When do you need a truck?

Very rarely do I really "need" a truck, but often it would be nice to have at least a van or sturdy trailer. But mainly for yard work or house work.

Really, most companies will deliver stuff like sand or mulch for a pretty reasonable price, and Most house repair stuff like appliances and such are the same. I fit a hot water heater in my wife's van, but it would have been easier in a truck, and I wouldn't have had to worry about tearing up her van.

Honestly, I probably never "need" a truck. "Prefer" is a better word.

That's a genuine question, because here in Belgium we barely have any of your American trucks. People would rather borrow, rent or buy a small 2 or 4 wheeled trailer and put that behind their sedan. More sensitive stuff fits easily in an MPV or a van, of which we have plenty. Their fuel consumption is not much higher than a sedan. But why a truck?

Yeah, I've been to Europe, I get the difference. But we really like trucks. The Ford F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the USA. I looked at getting one recently, but the damn thing is huge! I learned how to drive on an old shortbed and it was so much smaller than current trucks. It's absurd.

 

[Dinwar]

Very rarely do I really "need" a truck,

Trucks are like channel-lock pliers or stumpy screw drivers: you don't need them often, maybe not even once a year, But when you do need them, generally nothing else works.

My dad and grandfathers all had trucks at one point, and my grandparents still have them. One does a lot of farming, and uses his truck extensively to haul livestock, feed, equipment, brush, etc. around the state. The other was a delivery man before he passed away, and was a civil engineer before retirement. He hauled construction equipment around in his truck (the suspension in that thing SUCKS now!). Dad did the same with his truck.

Also, there's a lot of desert in the USA. Ever try to drive on sand dunes with a standard car? I have. The tow truck driver that got me out laughed at me. And it's not like I was off-roading, or even on back roads--this was a county road in a state that constitutes one of the top twenty global economies.

So there are reasons to own a truck.

The Ford F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the USA. I looked at getting one recently, but the damn thing is huge!

No argument there. I once had to turn around on a mountain road (unpaved, lucky me!) in one. I'm fairly surprised that I survived that event. The truck was wider than the road! Fortunately it had good traction and 4-wheel drive, otherwise I'd be in a wash somewhere right now, turning into a fossil....

 

[Trakar]

I really have no idea what you two think you're arguing with here. Do you agree that we are able to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity with current technology? Do you agree that given enough money we could build any arbitrary number of them? If yes to both of those questions, then you agree that we could power the entire world solely on renewables with current technology. If you also agree that nuclear power plants are capable of providing base load and that replacing all fossil fuel plants with nuclear would not require any kind of smart grid upgrade, then you also agree that we could entirely eliminate fossil fuels without needing any kind of mass storage or smart grid upgrades.

I didn't say it would be cheap or easy to do any of this, I simply said that it was possible and would not require some unknown scientific advances to make it so, which was the claim I was replying to. That actually convincing people to pay for it to happen is a little tricky does not say anything about the capabilities of existing technology.

Part of the problem here is contingency planning. I may not need to make long journeys often, but what happens if I do need to make one but can't because my car can't drive that far? Electric cars may well be fine for the majority of people for the majority of their driving, but convincing people to ignore that nagging little "what if" and actually buy one is always going to be rather tricky.

Fully agreed, I notice you don't mention thermal solar, which to me is more useful for providing base-load power to a grid and feeding industrial needs. I see panels as a more distributed, residential source of supplemental energy. Likewise, there are many other alternative sources of energy, but they (like wind) are often limited to specific regions and localities where they can be easily tapped (e.g. Tidal, geothermal, wave, small scale hydro, etc.)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I really have no idea what you two think you're arguing with here.

Well, we are off to a good start.

Do you agree that we are able to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity with current technology?

Yes.

Do you agree that given enough money we could build any arbitrary number of them?

No. There are obvious resource management and logistics issues, not to mention money issues.

If yes to both of those questions, then you agree that we could power the entire world solely on renewables with current technology.

There have been entire books written on this subject (one you can read for free here). You have to do better than that.

I didn't say it would be cheap or easy to do any of this, I simply said that it was possible and would not require some unknown scientific advances to make it so, which was the claim I was replying to. That actually convincing people to pay for it to happen is a little tricky does not say anything about the capabilities of existing technology.

Well, it is also possible if you ignore quality of life and have everyone live in slums.