94 replies to this topic

[MeridianStarGazer]

When people compare the energy density of batteries vs gasoline, they fail to count the weight of the oxygen.

I just thought of it when thinking of astronauts exploring the moon with robots. No oxygen unless it is brought.

Batteries are still bad because they wear out in 10-15 years.

And solar energy is the other issue: 20% efficient. I wonder how much more efficient solar steam electric generators could be. Maybe they would weigh more. Maybe not. MIT found that infrared is not the only wavelength that evaporates water.

[NinePlanets]

I've always been fascinated by the Sterling cycle engines. I made one heavyweight and started a second at one time.

With modern ceramics and materials, I wonder just how efficient could they could get? On the moon they may be a very attractive option? (Well, while the sun is shining, anyway.)

Edited by NinePlanets, 16 June 2025 - 09:04 AM.

[archival]

It is the extraction of the rare earth element ores required that does most harm to the poor locals (economically poor) via environmental degradation and poisoning by these materials.

 

People forget that we had the chalcolithic then the bronze age then the iron age (well, not everywhere, but independently in a few places at slightly different times) because copper and tin not only come in high percentage of material to substrate levels but even directly in the pure form.  Even if not pure until iron simple relatively low temperature heating, whether discovered by design or accident, could remove the metal.  Before that copper could likely be cold worked via the same methods used for stone and flint work.

 

In some of the elements required for batteries we are not so much talking ore as talking trace levels, a lot of rock to obtain little.  No, Lithium, the alkaline metal mostly used in batteries does melt at low temperatures but you will never find a pure form as all the alkali metals are highly reactive in water.  Before modern health and safety I remember being shown at school the relative reactivity of the first three alkaline metals (as then called, don't know about now) Lithium, Sodium and Potassium at school by bits of them being directly dropped in water (they are so reactive with water that a lump of them was kept in bottles in oils because moisture in the air could cause them to burn, a slither being cut off as needed).

 

So they have to chemically removed.  As Lithium has a strong affinity for water it is difficult to separate from compounds.  I can't be bothered to look up how it is extracted from the rock but I'm sure noxious strongly reactive chemicals are used, or possibly electrolytic routes like with Aluminimum from bauxite.

 

NiCad was of course far worse as these as Nickel can be and Cadmium most certainly is a poisonous metal in their ionic forms (eg if getting into the groundwater or other water supply), and were geopolitically embarrasing in the past as most of these metals came South Africa or the Soviet Union so you either traded with two condemned regimes or you did without.

 

However, whether Solar electricity is provided directly or whether indirectly via heating of water batteries are still needed in modern grids so they can run efficiently at full capacity all the time and store excess electricity at off peak times whilst making spare electricity for other times such that rapid response fossil fuel backup power stations can be reduced in number (for example gas turbine ones which are immediate in their supply and can be switched in when needed).

 

One other relevant point is that you can lay a wire everywhere.  Some developing and geologically diverse countries (eg in South America) put quite a lot of investment into mobile phone infrastructure because for the first time they could have national level telephony even in the most remote and obscure areas in a way far, far cheaper than any wire based infrastructure would be.  Many places would have still been cut off.  This requires batteries.  Assuming these places have an electricity supply!

 

People look at things far to simplistically without including the full or even wider context.

 

Batteries and constellations of communication satellites are bad but if you want the current level of civilisation conveniences they are beyond essential, there harmful effects during raw material procurement can possibly be reduced and their disposal enforced such that trash based pollution can be ameliorated.  The former reduces (easy) profit and/or unacceptable knock prices to the customer and the latter gets stuck in the freedom of the individual issue as well as impossible to police (how many people are fined for littering compared to how many litter?).

 

Batteries are batteries, if you're worried go back to using non-rechargeable zinc ones and ruining the inside of your equipment when they go icky.

 

Of course I haven't mentioned the recharging aspect yes.  I've worked at places that officially banned the plugging in of smartphones into the work computer (not because of security because USB ports can be made to be power only by the IT department, and mostly some places only ban them because of ability to take screen shots, eg financial departments) simply because of the increase in the business's power bill due to people doing that every day.  That was in the earlier smartphone days when the things needed recharging regularly, though they still don't hold charge worth a dam now.

 

 

Some geomorphologically well situated power stations use the spare electricity to pump water into an underground reservoirs or giant tank when there is surplus output and then during extra draw times let gravity pull that through a turbine.  Simple but clever but needs a good natural water source, space and infrastructure investment which can be hard to justify in their is no power need to speak of within long distances.

[bobzeq25]

Solar cell efficiency of 20% is COMPLETELY unimportant. The input source is free.

Batteries are constantly getting better. They're now good enough that people are building large arrays of of them to level the energy produced by wind and solar. Cars are being made that charge about as fast as filling up.

We're getting pretty good at this stuff. Renewable energy and electric cars are economically and practically comparable to the old stuff. Many would say they're significantly cheaper, but a full analysis is complex.

No magic breakthroughs are needed. We got this. Cost, and a solar/battery project that's under construction.







Electric cars with batteries that charge about as fast as filling up with gas.

https://www.yahoo.co...-190142217.html

Did I mention that no new exotic technologies are needed? <smile> The future is quite clear.

Edited by bobzeq25, 16 June 2025 - 10:44 AM.

[SuiGeneris]

When people compare the energy density of batteries vs gasoline, they fail to count the weight of the oxygen.

I just thought of it when thinking of astronauts exploring the moon with robots. No oxygen unless it is brought.

Batteries are still bad because they wear out in 10-15 years.

And solar energy is the other issue: 20% efficient. I wonder how much more efficient solar steam electric generators could be. Maybe they would weigh more. Maybe not. MIT found that infrared is not the only wavelength that evaporates water.

 

You can fairly easily calculate gasoline energy density accounting for oxygen, as the usually reported energy density of gasoline is determined by the amount of energy released by combustion but ignores the mass of oxygen used. You need ~3.4 kg of O2 to combust 1 kg of gas, meaning that the fuel density of gas, when you account for oxygen, is 3.4 times lower than what is normally stated - e.g. 13.5 MJ/kg. Lithium batteries are around 0.7 MJ/kg.

 

Batteries do not wear out in 10-15 years, that is a myth. Older EV batteries degrade to 80% capacity in that time (newer batteries appear to take 15-20 years to reach the same degree of degradation). But 80% is hardly worn out - a car with a 400 mile range when new would still get 300 miles on a charge - far, far, far more than the average daily drive. And since most US cars last 12 years, most won't see that degree of degradation before something else takes them off the road. It's also worth noting that gas-powered cars have a larger loss of fuel economy (e.g. range) at the same age. If batteries are "still bad", than gas is "even worse" when measured with the same ruler.

 

As mentioned previously, solar efficiency is irrelevant - cost per MW generated is all that really matters. And on that front, solar has become cheaper than most other forms of electricity generation.

Edited by SuiGeneris, 16 June 2025 - 12:39 PM.

[MeridianStarGazer]

Gasoline engines are only 25% efficient. Then add in the 3.4x factor for oxygen weight, and suddenly the energy density of batteries does not look too far off, for space flight. On Earth, some humanoid robot companies are looking into power issues.

I'd still like to see more drilling into vulcanos for geothermal energy. And steam recycling on power plans with radiator fins.

Edited by MeridianStarGazer, 16 June 2025 - 02:18 PM.

[bobzeq25]

Gasoline engines are only 25% efficient. Then add in the 3.4x factor for oxygen weight, and suddenly the energy density of batteries does not look too far off, for space flight. On Earth, some humanoid robot companies are looking into power issues.

I'd still like to see more drilling into vulcanos for geothermal energy. And steam recycling on power plans with radiator fins.

If it's cost efficient you will. A ton of very smart people are working on this, they don't miss much. <smile>

[NinePlanets]

Is the low cost of solar power per megawatt inclusive of taxpayer subsidies?

[moefuzz]

A ton of very smart people are working on this, they don't miss much. <smell>

 

 

Well apparently they've missed the part where international insurance companies are beginning to pull insurance from large offshore EV carrying ocean delivery vessels which seem to be catching fire at a rate of 1 or 2 per year.

 

Most recent was the EV automotive delivery ship "Morning Midas" which is either still adrift, sunk or ? in the north Pacific due to one of the cars lithium batteries "self igniting" thus setting the entire ship and entire lot of 400 EV's on fire all the while a vast toxic plume of hazardous smoke billowed forth from the 400 EV's fully engulfed toxic mess.

 

Within the last year or so there were 2 other such ships (one with 2500 high end European EV's engulfed) and the year before yet another.

 

So unless these European and Asian EV's are going to magically drive themselves across the ocean, soon they may well be disallowed on shipping vessels, unless of course the shipping company (owner of the vessel) declines to have insurance for loss or damage caused by the inherently explosive nature of certain manufacturers batteries and vehicles.

 

 

Engineers (Smart People) have also seemed to "forgotten" to include the huge costs to the environments whether it's 2500 or just one EV  "self igniting".

-As even one self ignited EV takes 10's of thousands of gallons of precious clean water to dose once engulfed..

 

And where does that 10's of thousands of gallons of lithium and cadmium contaminated water go to while the fire fighters are dousing the EV?

 

Into the soil, ground water, lakes, sewers, streams, fish etc

 

 

Yep, sure, it all Sounds totally enviromentally friendly and self sustaining to me <smell>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Midas is popularly remembered in Greek mythology for his ability to

turn everything he touched into pure gold <smell>

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by moefuzz, 16 June 2025 - 09:14 PM.

[bobzeq25]

Is the low cost of solar power per megawatt inclusive of taxpayer subsidies?

No.

"utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies)"

That's from that well known environmental group (sarcasm), the Financial Times.

https://markets.ft.c...0616_BW578610-1

Edited by bobzeq25, 17 June 2025 - 02:17 AM.

[moefuzz]

.

 

 

No.

"utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies)"

That's from that well known environmental group (arsecasm), the Financial Times.

 

 

 

 

What, no <smeile> this time?

 

 

 

.

[SuiGeneris]

Well apparently they've missed the part where international insurance companies are beginning to pull insurance from large offshore EV carrying ocean delivery vessels which seem to be catching fire at a rate of 1 or 2 per year.

I searched for this claim and found nothing about insurance companies no longer insuring these ships. I suspect this is something you've made up. The same search told me that three are 6-8 shipping vessel fires each year, constant over the past 30 years - so no increase with EVs (overall its actually a decrease, as there is more shipping today, so fewer fires/ship/passage). Oh, and that ship you're mentioning had 800 EVs and 2200 ICE cars. Again, not an EV-only thing.

 

We get it, you don't like EVs. But if you're going to tell lies to try and make them seem bad, perhaps trying something a little less easy to fact-check.
 

Edited by SuiGeneris, 17 June 2025 - 07:22 AM.

[russell23]

Is the low cost of solar power per megawatt inclusive of taxpayer subsidies?

There are plenty of articles online discussing the subsidies associated with solar fields. It was part of the 2022 Inflation reduction act. These subsidies come in the form of large tax breaks (30%) and federal loans.  And many states, like New York have additional subsidies.  In my area we are seeing large fields of what used to be farmland being turned into these solar fields. I'm not sure how much sense these solar fields make in an area that gets so little sunlight and lots of snow.   But they do generate some electricity.  I would think you get more value out of the ~25 year lifespan of these solar panels if they were installed in sunnier climates.

 

There is nothing wrong with including solar energy as one source of electricity, but it is time for the US to grow up where nuclear power plants are concerned.   If we generated most of our electricity from nuclear power we could eliminate the coal and oil burning plants used to generate electricity.  

 

As for the batteries, they can be a hazard.  I know of people locally that had their house burn up because they parked their hybrid car and the battery ignited it.  And multiple times over the last couple years I've been driving on the highway and seen an EV car fully engulfed in flames. So whatever we are going to use for batteries - they need to make sure the newer technologies are free from these sorts of hazards.

[Bubbagumps]

There are plenty of articles online discussing the subsidies associated with solar fields. It was part of the 2022 Inflation reduction act. These subsidies come in the form of large tax breaks (30%) and federal loans.  And many states, like New York have additional subsidies.  In my area we are seeing large fields of what used to be farmland being turned into these solar fields. I'm not sure how much sense these solar fields make in an area that gets so little sunlight and lots of snow.   But they do generate some electricity.  I would think you get more value out of the ~25 year lifespan of these solar panels if they were installed in sunnier climates.

 

There is nothing wrong with including solar energy as one source of electricity, but it is time for the US to grow up where nuclear power plants are concerned.   If we generated most of our electricity from nuclear power we could eliminate the coal and oil burning plants used to generate electricity.  

 

As for the batteries, they can be a hazard.  I know of people locally that had their house burn up because they parked their hybrid car and the battery ignited it.  And multiple times over the last couple years I've been driving on the highway and seen an EV car fully engulfed in flames. So whatever we are going to use for batteries - they need to make sure the newer technologies are free from these sorts of hazards.

The biggest challenge faced by the Nuclear Power Industry is still public sentiment. In the US, the nuclear power industry never fully recovered from the aftershocks of the Three Mile Island incident. The psychological effect this incident had on the public led to a drop-off in construction. Plans for new facilities were cancelled and contracts dropped off dramatically. Over the next few years, the industry did a fair job of calming public anxiety. Then Chernobyl happened and all of a sudden, citizens were calling their politicians telling them they don't want to live anywhere near a reactor facility.

 

Whether justified or not, Nuclear Energy suddenly came with negative connotations. People quipped about water that was glowing green, fish emerging from the water with legs etc...Johnny Carson was on TV making jokes ..etc..The bottom line is these incidents scared the public and they saw the industry as tainted goods. Time has passed but it's still a hard sell with the public.

[russell23]

The biggest challenge faced by the Nuclear Power Industry is still public sentiment. In the US, the nuclear power industry never fully recovered from the aftershocks of the Three Mile Island incident. The psychological effect this incident had on the public led to a drop-off in construction. Plans for new facilities were cancelled and contracts dropped off dramatically. Over the next few years, the industry did a fair job of calming public anxiety. Then Chernobyl happened and all of a sudden, citizens were calling their politicians telling them they don't want to live anywhere near a reactor facility.

 

Whether justified or not, Nuclear Energy suddenly came with negative connotations. People quipped about water that was glowing green, fish emerging from the water with legs etc...Johnny Carson was on TV making jokes ..etc..The bottom line is these incidents scared the public and they saw the industry as tainted goods. Time has passed but it's still a hard sell with the public.

That is exactly what I meant when I said it is time for the US to "grow up" regarding nuclear power plants.  Three Mile Island was a big nothing burger in which the safety systems worked to prevent an accident.  Robert Zubrin talked about this in his 2023 article in Skeptic magazine.  Everyone should really read that article if they are concerned about energy and related topics. 

 

Nuclear planets would be a much more effective strategy to reduce emissions while maintaining the power needs modern civilization demands than continuing to build solar farms in cold and cloudy climates. 
 

[areyoukiddingme]

That is exactly what I meant when I said it is time for the US to "grow up" regarding nuclear power plants.  Three Mile Island was a big nothing burger in which the safety systems worked to prevent an accident.  Robert Zubrin talked about this in his 2023 article in Skeptic magazine.  Everyone should really read that article if they are concerned about energy and related topics. 

 

Nuclear planets would be a much more effective strategy to reduce emissions while maintaining the power needs modern civilization demands than continuing to build solar farms in cold and cloudy climates. 
 

 

I've been seeing more buzz around thorium reactors lately. Evidently there are advanced projects in India, China, and Denmark. Given their greater safety and the abundance of thorium, that will hopefully get things moving in the right direction.

 

I suspect the constraining force here is not so much public concern from disasters as it is politics surrounding nuclear weapons proliferation.

[MeridianStarGazer]

I've been seeing more buzz around thorium reactors lately. Evidently there are advanced projects in India, China, and Denmark. Given their greater safety and the abundance of thorium, that will hopefully get things moving in the right direction.

I suspect the constraining force here is not so much public concern from disasters as it is politics surrounding nuclear weapons proliferation.

Thorium looks good for northern states. Hydroelectric too. But I really want to see thorium powered space probes with a lot more sensors and that don't need to turn off sensors for hundreds of years.

[Bubbagumps]

That is exactly what I meant when I said it is time for the US to "grow up" regarding nuclear power plants.  Three Mile Island was a big nothing burger in which the safety systems worked to prevent an accident.  Robert Zubrin talked about this in his 2023 article in Skeptic magazine.  Everyone should really read that article if they are concerned about energy and related topics. 

 

Nuclear planets would be a much more effective strategy to reduce emissions while maintaining the power needs modern civilization demands than continuing to build solar farms in cold and cloudy climates. 
 

 

The safety system worked as intended. But it still scared the bejeebers out of everyone nonetheless. Then when Chernobyl happened, Nuclear Power Plants became something that conjured up glowing green water and fish with  legs growing out of the heads. IMO the scientific community and engineers are partly to blame for the how receptive the public has been to Nuclear Power. I am not sure about the age group of the folks here but I was just entering college when the Three Mile Island incident occurred. There was already existing public concern about reactor safety and the scientific community always came out with a condescending and brow-beating approach in response to concerns and questions by the public. e.g. - 'We are experts and you are not. Everything is under control.' 

 

Edward Teller single-handedly caused a loss of national confidence when he totally blew off any question about reactor safety with the response, 'nuclear reactors are completely safe.' He would threaten to end interviews if the subject of safety was brought up. This was literally within weeks of the incident. Then he got into it with Jane Fonda. Many in the public decided that they no longer trust those who are providing info about the safety of nuclear power. IMO many of the key players involved in the industry dropped the ball with the arrogance they displayed when dealing with the public. Many displayed an attitude similar to the engineers who built the Titanic by flouting to the public that the ship was unsinkable. 

 

..also, I am not taking a position against Nuclear Power. Not at all. With proper safety protocols and redundancies. it is a safe form of energy production. But the arrogance that was displayed is partly to blame for many of the PR issues. On the PR front, many players in the industry totally dropped the ball. 

Edited by Bubbagumps, 17 June 2025 - 05:58 PM.

[SuiGeneris]

In my area we are seeing large fields of what used to be farmland being turned into these solar fields. I'm not sure how much sense these solar fields make in an area that gets so little sunlight and lots of snow.   But they do generate some electricity.  I would think you get more value out of the ~25 year lifespan of these solar panels if they were installed in sunnier climates.

 
Most modern agri-solar is designed to allow for farming under the panels. Many crops actually grow better shaded than in open sun and benefit from the panels overhead. Hay crops, combined with ruminant (cows, sheep, goats, etc) farming has become quite popular here on our solar farms - the hay grows well under the panels, and the animals benefit from more/better food and shade during the summer. We were at an equipment show in February, and several companies are now selling seeders, sprayers and harvesters designed to work alongside solar.
 
You also over-estimate the energy difference across the US. The highest average annual solar incidence is 5.5 to 6 kW/m^2/day in the south-west. The lowest is 4.5 to 5 kW/m^2/day in the upper-most corner of the NE. Solar panels are also more efficient in the cold, and suffer large efficiency losses at temperatures above 28C (82F). So at the end of the day its somewhat of a wash; overall efficiency doesn't vary much regardless of where you install. Areas with more sun suffer more heat-associated inefficiency; areas with less sun gain an efficiency boost, especially in winter.
 

As for the batteries, they can be a hazard.  I know of people locally that had their house burn up because they parked their hybrid car and the battery ignited it.  And multiple times over the last couple years I've been driving on the highway and seen an EV car fully engulfed in flames. So whatever we are going to use for batteries - they need to make sure the newer technologies are free from these sorts of hazards.

Again, this is somewhat of a myth. ICE vehicles are about 20 times more likely to catch fire than are BEVs. So the risk of a fire is actually lower with a battery vehicle than with a gas one.

Edited by SuiGeneris, 18 June 2025 - 01:46 PM.

[moefuzz]

.

 

 

 

Again, this is somewhat of a myth. ICE vehicles are about 20 times more likely to catch fire than are BEVs. So the risk of a fire is actually lower with a battery vehicle than with a gas one.

 

 

 

Over and above all the other talking points that seem to have been quoted directly from the Solar Panel's Salesman Brochure, this in particular is especially noteworthy as being highly over inflated.

 

Luckily, over the past 10 years or so an ever increasing number of educated people are learning not to trust those in both the industry and the media that publish such overly hyped falsehoods.

 

 

 

.

Edited by moefuzz, 18 June 2025 - 06:53 PM.

[russell23]

 Most modern agri-solar is designed to allow for farming under the panels. Many crops actually grow better shaded than in open sun and benefit from the panels overhead. Hay crops, combined with ruminant (cows, sheep, goats, etc) farming has become quite popular here on our solar farms - the hay grows well under the panels, and the animals benefit from more/better food and shade during the summer. We were at an equipment show in February, and several companies are now selling seeders, sprayers and harvesters designed to work alongside solar.

 

The solar farms being put on farmland in this area are not compatible with farming.  The panels are not elevated more than a couple feet off the ground.  In addition, farm equipment is large in height, length, and width.  For the crops being farmed around here you are going to need the solar panels elevated to at least 20 feet off the ground with at least 40 feet between support posts to be able to fit the tractors, combines, etc underneath and  have room to turn them.  

 

As for crops grown in the shade? What crops do you think would do better in the shade?  You need sunlight, water, and proper nutrients in the soil to get decent production from your crops.  Corn in the shade?  Good luck.  Hay?  Not happening. Anybody who pays attention to their yard can see the difference in grass growth in the middle of their yard vs. the shaded edges. One of the fence posts for our dog yard is actually just a tall tree that we incorporated since it fell right on the fence line we wanted.  The grass hardly grows in the shaded area underneath the tree.  But just outside that shaded area the grass is thick. 

 

 You also over-estimate the energy difference across the US. The highest average annual solar incidence is 5.5 to 6 kW/m^2/day in the south-west. The lowest is 4.5 to 5 kW/m^2/day in the upper-most corner of the NE. Solar panels are also more efficient in the cold, and suffer large efficiency losses at temperatures above 28C (82F). So at the end of the day its somewhat of a wash; overall efficiency doesn't vary much regardless of where you install. Areas with more sun suffer more heat-associated inefficiency; areas with less sun gain an efficiency boost, especially in winter.

 

So assuming your numbers are correct, then there is a 25% difference in solar flux across the US.  That is the minimum difference.  In practice it will be larger once you factor in climate and clouds.   The south-west gets a ridiculously larger number of sunny days than the Northeast.  All you have to do is pay attention to the discussions of who is observing 200+ nights a year vs. who is saying - "wow, finally had my first clear night in 3 months" to understand this. 

 

Clouds and rain cut down on the amount of solar flux that reaches the surface.  The Northeast has much more rain and clouds.  In addition, to maximize the efficiency it would help if the solar panels tracked the Sun's movement.  None of the solar fields around here track.  They are fixed to maximize the average yearly solar position.  So they are generally facing south and angled approximately 45 deg which is roughly the noon sun angle on the equinoxes.  So your 25% difference is likely much larger when you factor in climate.  And if the Southeast does a better job of putting up panels so that they can track the sun's movements then that would make the difference even worse. Not sure if they do, but I've only seen one solar field in my area that "might" be set up to track solar movement. 

 

 Again, this is somewhat of a myth. ICE vehicles are about 20 times more likely to catch fire than are BEVs. So the risk of a fire is actually lower with a battery vehicle than with a gas one.

 

You mean what I have observed directly and learned about from local examples is a myth?  I have friends in the local fire departments.  They have special rules for handling EV and hybrid car fires - rules that make it harder to quickly put them out.  I don't know a single person that has had a gas powered car burn up.  I do know of - and have personally seen EV and hybrid cars that have burned up and if the car is parked near or in the garage, then the car is not all that is lost. 

 

One of my cars had to go in for repair work after we hit a deer.  I was talking with the manager.  We got to talking about EVs because I was offered an EV to drive while my car was in the shop.   The manager of the repair shop explained that when an EV comes in for body work, they remove the battery and transport it to a separate facility so that if it goes up in flames it doesn't take all the cars being worked on with it.  When they are done with the body work they have the battery shipped back over and install it again.  

[bobzeq25]

You can ignore the naysayers, the real world does not REMOTELY reflect their position.

It's very clear where electric cars are going. The number sold increases every year, by ever increasing amounts.

"1 in 4 cars sold in 2025 will be EVs, and that’s just the beginning."

https://electrek.co/...-the-beginning/

That figure does not include the ones that burned up in shipping. <grin>

This is what they call a trend. I'd cheerfully take a bet that it doesn't reverse. And saying that millions of people are being fooled is ridiculous.

I suppose the horse and buggy advocates took the same position about fossil fueled cars.

Edited by bobzeq25, 18 June 2025 - 07:37 PM.

[russell23]

You can ignore the naysayers, the real world does not REMOTELY reflect their position.

It's very clear where electric cars are going. The number sold increases every year, by ever increasing amounts.

"1 in 4 cars sold in 2025 will be EVs, and that’s just the beginning."

https://electrek.co/...-the-beginning/

That figure does not include the ones that burned up in shipping. <grin>

This is what they call a trend. I'd cheerfully take a bet that it doesn't reverse. And saying that millions of people are being fooled is ridiculous.

I suppose the horse and buggy advocates took the same position about fossil fueled cars.

EV sales.jpeg

And?  If you want an EV car, then get an EV car.  If you want a gas powered car, then get a gas powered car.  That is what freedom looks like. Not everyone's circumstances are the same.  If I lived in a city, I would probably find an EV the perfect choice.  Out in rural, hilly, cold areas like mine - the charge of an EV is not going to last nearly long enough.  If you force everyone to get an EV car before the underlying infrastructure is set up to handle it - in terms of electricity generation and charging stations and utility of the vehicles - and before the ability of the EVs matches the ability of gas powered vehicles, then you end up with more problems then just letting the market naturally grow.

 

I was talking with the bus driver on one of my basketball team's trips this winter.  NYS has the grand idea that all buses should be electric in the not too distant future.  So some schools have purchased current generation EV buses to test them.  They are a disaster.  They don't have the capacity they need for a lot of the road trips.  They run out of charge.  One school couldn't even get the bus to hold charge enough to get it on the road.  The EV technology being used is just not ready for heavy equipment.  Cars are one thing, but buses, farm equipment ... someday, but not yet. 

 

Eventually gas powered vehicles won't be necessary.  Right now, and for many years to come, you will not be able to eliminate them.  We could reduce the concerns about emissions if we would immediately start a common sense plan to replace coal and oil burning electricity generation with nuclear over the next 15 years. 

 

Notice also that your chart includes hybrids.  What does it look like for straight EVs?

Edited by russell23, 18 June 2025 - 07:53 PM.

[moefuzz]

.

 

 

News continues to trickle in from around the world including some of the latest news

coming from international Courts where Auto Manufacturers are being sued by the ocean going vessel corporations as well as the issuing insurance companies in hopes of recouping costs of vessel loss/claims.

 

 

At this pace it won't be long before Electric Vehicle Transport is made near impossible due to the many costly fires that have damaged the environment as well as marred some of the the biggest automitive manufacturing names in the industry.

 

Large insurers are actively cancelling insurance contracts for vessels that haul Electric Vehicles.

 

In each case listed below, even though it was a small minority of Electric Vehicles being transported, the cause of fire was proven to be Electric Vehicle Self Igniting.

 

In more recent cases, Vessel Operators are cordoning off EV's into special decks and areas in an effort to prove of disprove the fires actual cause.

 

 

==================

 

 

June 2025

 

 Morning Midas completely burned through as salvors arrive on scene

 

https://splash247.co...rrive-on-scene/

 

 

The car carrier Morning Midas, which experienced a fire in its electric vehicle cargo deck on June 3, shows no more signs of active fire according to salvage teams that recently assessed the vessel.

 

The car carrier was loaded with 3,159 vehicles, among them 65 fully electric cars and 681 hybrids. The vessel is also carrying around 350 tonnes of gas fuel and 1,530 tonnes of very low-sulphur fuel oil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

======================

 

 

 

Sincerity Ace  December 31, 2018, in the Pacific Ocean

 

Burning Car Carrier Sincerity Ace Abandoned in Pacific Ocean; Two Missing, Three Fatalities Confirmed

 

https://gcaptain.com...ties-confirmed/

 

 

Update (1/2/2019): 

The U.S. Coast Guard, Navy and two merchant vessels are continuing searching for two missing crew members from the burning car carrier Sincerity Ace approximately 1,800 nautical miles (2,000 miles) northwest of Oahu, Hawaii, the Coast Guard updated Tuesday.

 

 

 

==========================

 

 

February 16, 2022

 

 

Report: Volkswagen Sued by MOL for the Loss of Felicity Ace Car Carrier

https://maritime-exe...ace-car-carrier

 

 

The Panama-flagged car carrier caught fire in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 90 nautical miles southwest of the Azores while transporting around 4,000 vehicles

 

The lawsuits are reported to involve Mitsui O.S.K. Lines which operated the Felicity Ace. Insurer Allianz, which has been outspoken on the dangers of EV fires, is also reported to be a plaintiff in the suits.  

 

Fire aboard the car carrier Felicity Ace is being blamed on the EVs it was transporting

 

 

 

 

 

============================

 

 July 25 2023

 

Crewmember Killed as Burning Car Carrier is Evacuated in the North Sea

 

 

The vessel loaded 2,857 vehicles in Bremerhaven, Germany departing yesterday

 

 

https://maritime-exe...n-the-north-sea
 

One crewmember was killed and several others injured at taken to hospitals in the Netherlands.

 

Speculation is centered on one of the electric cars possibly having caught fire. The Dutch Coast Guard is pointing out that the presence of electric cars makes the fire more difficult to fight, and especially in an enclosed space like a ship.

 

 

Edited by moefuzz, 18 June 2025 - 08:07 PM.

[moefuzz]

.

 

 

Recent Lawsuits Filed:

 

 

Two lawsuits have been filed in Germany against Volkswagen, specifically targeting its Porsche brand, alleging that a lithium-ion battery in a Porsche EV sparked the fire on the Felicity Ace.

 

The plaintiffs, including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (the ship’s operator) and Allianz SE (an insurer),

claim Volkswagen

failed to disclose the risks associated with transporting EVs, particularly the challenges of lithium-ion battery fires.

 

 The lawsuits are significant, with estimates suggesting Volkswagen’s losses from the Felicity Ace incident could reach at least $155 million,

this over and above the total estimated loss of $438 million for the ship and its cargo.

 

The vehicles on board included Porsche, Audi, Volkswagen, Bentley, and Lamborghini models, with a notable portion being Volkswagen’s ID.4 electric SUVs.

 

.