[roule]

Total energy use can decline in the future if we drive vehicles that get the equivalent of 2-3 times more mileage than current gas guzzlers. Every new EV may increase your home's electrical draw, but is drops the load far more on your friendly aging local refinery that right now is struggling to keep up. I look forward to the day when instead of paying an unpredictable volatile fuel price at the pump, homeowners might have the option to generate their own power.

The main thing holding back Wind and Solar is definitely not economics, logistics, or technology. It is politics. Despite the minority vocal naysayers, wind and solar are healthy growing industries. In the first half of 2022, 24% of US electricity generation came from renewable sources. In comparison: Coal is in structural decline and has been regardless of politician in office. Hydro power may be negatively affected by unpredictable climate. It remains to be seen how much harder the USA can frack its natural gas in the long term. Natgas probably will remain the best overall baseline electric generation fuel for decades, but obviously adding new renewable sources makes strategic sense. All this high level guesstimating of course ignores the known long term health and downstream factors for each energy we use -- add any consideration there and renewables are unbeatable infrastructure investments for the long term. So why is there any disagreement?

Sadly some entrenched utilitie$ actively prevent net metering in many areas, NIMBYs block large renewable installations using flimsy emotional arguments. (Cats kill more birds than wind turbines by far, and simple paint has proven effective at keeping birds from flying into rotating turbines. I don't complain about the ugly cat collar Fifi wears, why do you care what color the turbine blades are?). Anyway, installing new renewable infrastructure equivalent to a municipal electric plant takes a fraction of the time to build any nonrenewable powerplant. Incremental electrical power addition would skyrocket further if sunbelt states promoted solar roofs over disposable asphalt shingles and let homeowners profit by selling excess energy at full market rate; the basic problems most often reported are inadequate experienced installers and unnecessarily expensive up-front financing. The problem of energy storage - a fear loudly trumpeted by solar naysayers -- is solved by existing grid connection and/or having an EV or battery pack in your garage. Lo and behold, your MacBook Pro works in the dark too.

Gasoline is too precious of a resource to burn driving inefficient vehicles. As much of it as possible should be saved for racing Porsches.

Regardless of the wishes of the greenies, the long term economics will only tip further toward electrical transport. International hydrocarbon fuel price volatility will always be a challenge. The best thing from a security, environmental, and jobs perspective is to get to work installing renewables. It's time.

 

[acronymous]

weight is the enemy. you don't need a fat tall vehicle for epic offroad capability

I'm sure you're on the right track with that, or maybe this, the "Cruiser class" entry in the Australian World Solar Challenge, the Bochum BOcruiser, intended as a prototype for a road car:

or this by ThyssenKrupp:

Interestingly, both are German.

In response to the fabulous fantasy cars of the '50s and '60s like this one:

which were something of an indulgence heavy and drank ridiculous amounts of petrol we momentarily tried options like this:

We really don't need 2 ton+ cars to get us around and the designs are already here to allow light cars, that still have adequate carrying capacity to replace our current indulgence with size.

Make the change to lightweight solar and all of a sudden the range of an EV extends, maybe not to the 1100km of the ThyssenKrupp Sunriser but certainly into the range of acceptable for daily use.

The issue with EVs and solar power is not whether it can be done but whether we have the will to make the change and as you said roule "it's time"

Jules

 

[dave-t]

I am glad I am waiting on a 2023 Macan S and do not have to get one of these ev’s in their infancy. I have a feeling eventually we are all going to have to bite the bullet and get one eventually, but I hope I am wrong.

 

[Loins]

I am glad I am waiting on a 2023 Macan S and do not have to get one of these ev’s in their infancy. I have a feeling eventually we are all going to have to bite the bullet and get one eventually, but I hope I am wrong.

I’m with you there Dave. I had an electric scooter which went up to 60km/hr and it was definitely fun, but I want my car to be a car and not an appliance. Even if it’s slower, it’s not only about acceleration and speed for me, but the feel and sound of a combustion engine. Electric cars disgust me.

 

[[email protected]]

I'm sure you're on the right track with that, or maybe this, the "Cruiser class" entry in the Australian World Solar Challenge, the Bochum BOcruiser, intended as a prototype for a road car:

View attachment 261825

or this by ThyssenKrupp:

View attachment 261826

Interestingly, both are German.

In response to the fabulous fantasy cars of the '50s and '60s like this one:

View attachment 261827

which were something of an indulgence heavy and drank ridiculous amounts of petrol we momentarily tried options like this:

View attachment 261828

We really don't need 2 ton+ cars to get us around and the designs are already here to allow light cars, that still have adequate carrying capacity to replace our current indulgence with size.

Make the change to lightweight solar and all of a sudden the range of an EV extends, maybe not to the 1100km of the ThyssenKrupp Sunriser but certainly into the range of acceptable for daily use.

The issue with EVs and solar power is not whether it can be done but whether we have the will to make the change and as you said roule "it's time"

Jules

It probably "is time", but when the administration moves in that direction it seems the whole nation starts wailing about the immediate cost of the effort. You simply cannot win in our political environment. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[CourtneyNYC]

This is going to sound very familiar to those who read my long winded post above. There‘s much I can’t say. Teh Wall Street Journal can say what they want and share their research..……….

The latest report from New York state’s grid operator is a master class in everything wrong with the Western world’s approach to climate change.

That is: everything wrong with an approach that consists of throwing money at green business interests in defiance of any practical consideration. If you think something else is going on, such as abating climate change, think again.

To meet a legislated goal of emissions-free electricity by 2040, New York will need up to 45 gigawatts of what it delicately calls DEFRs, or dispatchable emissions-free resources. Not only is that more than the state’s total current generating capacity of 37 gigawatts, these DEFRs, which are carbon-free like wind and solar yet not interruptible like wind and solar, don’t exist and have no prospect of existing in the next decade. Starting very much sooner than 2040, New York’s real choicewill be Third World electricity reliability vs. paying fossil-fuel operators large fees to keep their plants up and running in a highly inefficient part-time fashion.

Many involved in the state’s energy “transition” might question whether purging the last 10% or 5% of fossil fuels from the system is worth the exorbitant cost. Don’t expect anyone to admit the bigger problem: The transition won’t likely do much to reduce global emissions.

This is the great unmentionable. When New Yorkers use less coal, oil or gasoline because of environmental mandates, the market price transmits the benefit to other global users, who then use more. Even more unspeakable is the corollary: Emission-spewing activities simply relocate from one part of the world to another. China’s emissions growth, from half the U.S.’s to almost 300% of the U.S.’s in 30 years, is partly the product of a transplant of emissions from the U.S. and Europe.

The full article may be enjoyed here. Think of it as a dose of actual reality.

CITE: Opinion | Western World’s Energy Folly in a New York Nutshell

I started to“go deep” into wind turbines (offshore, I know little about onshore units which will soon be gone) and solar ( we’ve 5 of these doozies underway . , , which I see as “feel good fodder for the woke”) but will leave that to the assembled brain trust.

Information seems to get spun to suit the mouth it came from . . . . Like listening to the big guy lecture me today on how “gas prices were over $5.00 a gallon the day I took office”. They were $2.38/gallon and when the NYT calls a democrat a liar . . . .yikes. I even believed his glowing review of Fetterman’s debate performance. . . Ya know ya gotta really dig to get meaningful facts.

Reading that WSJ article is a splendid place to start and a quick read.

At present if you . . . . In any way, shape or form can link the words “sustainable” . . “Renewable” . . . “Green” . . .or “Climate Change” to anything ….. you’ve an open vault to billions of government $$$ that will be tacked onto utility bills. Those of us in NY who got the $800 ( normal $250) bills last February have glimpsed the future.

Anyway . . . . No one more eager than I to see how it plays out. . . . To see if folks really “conserve” (they never have) and how the whole world energy game plays out.

I‘m proud of my F-250 monster truck diesel and thrilled it has less emissions than the wive‘s new Audi eTron. Her’s are just in another county and in the smoke stacks of those coal plants providing the charging power.

We’ll sort this out.

 

[acronymous]

I'm not able to access the Wall Street Journal but the extract you've quoted looks more like an editorial piece than methodical analysis and as Mediabias fact check says:

Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low-biased news reporting combined with a strong right-biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to anti-climate, anti-science views, and occasional misleading editorials.

and this piece, described as "opinion" by your link rather falls in their achilles heel zone, if I can put it that way.

Jules

 

[wwahl]

I'm not able to access the Wall Street Journal but the extract you've quoted looks more like an editorial piece than methodical analysis and as Mediabias fact check says:

Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low-biased news reporting combined with a strong right-biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to anti-climate, anti-science views, and occasional misleading editorials.

and this piece, described as "opinion" by your link rather falls in their achilles heel zone, if I can put it that way.

Jules

Until you put the World on a Worldwide standard, none of this green stuff is worthy of following. The reason is those that don't follow it takes away your creature comforts at your expense.

 

[acronymous]

Until you put the World on a Worldwide standard, none of this green stuff is worthy of following. The reason is those that don't follow it takes away your creature comforts at your expense.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying but I refer you back to my post #91. I have bought solar panels and a battery at my expense and I export 4X what I use back to the grid. I get paid about 9c for a unit of power for which the retail power supply Co. charges 25c to then supply it to other people in my street. This denies nobody of "creature comforts" though it does support an inefficient retail power company that keeps raising its charges and ripping off its customers.

I suggest that anyone who is concerned about the cost of power or fuel does the maths for themselves because it's already a wise move to set up your house with solar and a battery and it's rapidly approaching the point where you can add an EV to that mix and come out well on top.

You can choose not to follow "this green stuff" but even now you could be losing out.

Jules

 

[Jkirkerx]

I wouldn’t mind getting a Macan EV, but I really like my ICE version. So I’m sort of sitting on the wall on this. I need to get solar panels first, and think about a battery just so I can generate my own power and store it for days. I’m not a climate change activist, but last summers super heat wave in the west makes me want my own system so I can run the A/C all day.

But I don’t think it’s going to be EV cars alone. I see a future of this new nuclear technology that can create green hydrogen, which can be used in ICE engines with modifications. Just pull up to the same gas station and pump your hydrogen. It would be easy to transport and distribute. And compressed liquid hydrogen should be like 1/60 the amount of space as gasoline.

I’m the future, I see a mix of gas, electric and hydrogen cars in the mix. I see this electric thing just going in the wrong direction, such as crypto currencies that consume so much electricity, and the resources required to make EV cars. Just mining, transporting and fabricating these EV components would produce more Co2 than it will save over
the next 50 years. The earths soil and oceans absorb CO2 and when you dig up soil, it releases 1000s of years of CO2.

I don’t think Europe will make their targets because of over regulations, and lack of energy needed to fabricate EV parts.

 

[penslip]

Since it has been confirmed by Porsche that the current Macan (ICE) will still continue to be sold alongside with the Macan EV, will it be facelifted one last time?

It is without doubt they won't pour any large amount money into this platform, it's already been stretched to 10 years, but probably can't discount another minor facelift since they're low investment updates to keep it fresh. Two more years to overlap with the Macan EV will make it a 12 year generation, so what are the chances they do one more minor facelift/update to finish out the remainder 2-3 years. Thoughts?

 

[roule]

Since it has been confirmed by Porsche that the current Macan (ICE) will still continue to be sold alongside with the Macan EV, will it be facelifted one last time?

We can only hope. But please, Porsche, simplify the absurd mess of plastic you've increasingly messed up over the years, remove the sharp creases and blocky elements that don't work at all with the original muscular sheetmetal, and paint all your bodywork already.

 

[acronymous]

It's interesting to see how many auto designers struggle with the front of cars where there's no need for a radiator. In theory Porsche should be expert at this, with their history of rear engined cars, but the Macan EV appears to have a number of unnecessary ports and vents on the front of the car, where it's a fantastic opportunity to apply simple, classic Porsche design principles.

Jules

 

[wwahl]

If they made a new ICE model as a historical model with the original design, I would be up for that. Every try since then has been down hill.