Electric vehicles

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What a joke.

[ATTACH]11011[/ATTACH]

While there are a lot of reasons why electric vehicles aren't the panacea they are cracked up to be, I don't think the cost of battery replacement is one that will stop the average consumer. After all, we have been buying cordless tools for decades knowing full well that when the batteries die of old age, we will discard the tool and buy a new one because new batteries cost more than the tool did to start with. This is more a function of the throwaway society we live in, than it is a factor against electric vehicle adoption.

And as with most things in life, the original purchaser could care less about repair and maintenance costs 10 years down the road, and the manufacturer isn't at all concerned about the consumer buying the used product 10 years from now.
Of course, if any of this was actually about saving the environment, then throw away vehicles with non-recyclable batteries would matter. The fact that they don't, tells us all we need to know about the motivations of this movement.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And as usual, Chuck makes some ridiculous unfounded claims. And when called out on it, goes silent on the topic. But apparently still has time to rant and rave and name call and insult and LOL on every other active thread.
You would almost begin to suspect that he doesn't actually have any evidence of renewable energy not resulting in far higher costs.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here is an interesting article about the coming shortage of sulfur. I've brought this up before, many in the energy industry have been warning about this for years. And the most ironic part, is that demand for sulfuric acid will go up substantially for the batteries and processing of ores for the supposed renewable revolution, at the same time that supply will be dropping if these technologies do succeed in replacing fossil fuels.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/sulfuric-acid-shortage-2658114125

Could it get to the point where we go purposely drilling for sour gas or sour oil just to extract the sulfur, then flare off the hydrocarbons as a byproduct? With the added bonus of maintaining our slightly elevated CO2 levels.

[WiltonRanch]

Here is an interesting article about the coming shortage of sulfur. I've brought this up before, many in the energy industry have been warning about this for years. And the most ironic part, is that demand for sulfuric acid will go up substantially for the batteries and processing of ores for the supposed renewable revolution, at the same time that supply will be dropping if these technologies do succeed in replacing fossil fuels.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/sulfuric-acid-shortage-2658114125

Could it get to the point where we go purposely drilling for sour gas or sour oil just to extract the sulfur, then flare off the hydrocarbons as a byproduct? With the added bonus of maintaining our slightly elevated CO2 levels.

Already is a tightening supply of sulphur as the push is for sweet oil and no one wants the sour stuff. Unintended consequences of changes. I guess the ones who think they’re smarter have an answer for this or perhaps not.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Already is a tightening supply of sulphur as the push is for sweet oil and no one wants the sour stuff. Unintended consequences of changes. I guess the ones who think they’re smarter have an answer for this or perhaps not.

Around here, some of the formerly sour fields are becoming sweet apparently. Sour gas plants are being converted over to process sweet. Other sour plants are being closed outright.
Our creep wooded soils are very short on sulfur. Can't grow alfalfa or Canola without generous amounts of sulfur.
But according to the experts, we don't need fossil fuels.

[Landdownunder]

Not electric cars but but some reading following a news report about “clean air day”

Foreign governments are spending 30 times more on fossil fuel projects in Africa than on initiatives to lessen the impacts of the continent’s second-biggest killer, air pollution, research showed on Wednesday.

The report, released on the International Day of Clean Air, showed that 0.3 per cent of African countries’ development assistance received in 2015-21 had been specifically earmarked for air-quality projects, despite pollution being responsible for one in five deaths continent-wide.

The analysis by the Clean Air Fund found that during the same period, donor nations provided 36 times more funding for prolonging fossil fuel use in Africa.

It’s why I alluded the other day that climate change politics is going to ruin third world countries make them far worse. They need fossil fuels there untapped resource.

Not as polished as some of you with English dialect and don’t explain my self how I would like at times but blind Freddy can see the green dream and it’s affects on many countries.

Many won’t acknowledge it even for a moment.

[chuckChuck]

https://irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Remains-Cost-Competitive-amid-Fossil-Fuel-Crisis

Renewable Power Remains Cost-Competitive amid Fossil Fuel Crisis

13 July 2022| Press Release

New IRENA report shows almost two-thirds of renewable power added in 2021 had lower costs than the cheapest coal-fired options in G20 countries.

Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13 July 2022 – Costs for renewables continued to fall in 2021 as supply chain challenges and rising commodity prices have yet to show their full impact on project costs. The cost of electricity from onshore wind fell by 15%, offshore wind by 13% and solar PV by 13% compared to 2020.

Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021, published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) today, shows that almost two-thirds or 163 gigawatts (GW) of newly installed renewable power in 2021 had lower costs than the world’s cheapest coal-fired option in the G20. IRENA estimates that, given the current high fossil fuel prices, the renewable power added in 2021 saves around USD 55 billion from global energy generation costs in 2022.

IRENA’s new report confirms the critical role that cost-competitive renewables play in addressing today’s energy and climate emergencies by accelerating the transition in line with the 1.5°C warming limit and the Paris Agreement goals. Solar and wind energy, with their relatively short project lead times, represent vital planks in countries’ efforts to swiftly reduce, and eventually phase out, fossil fuels and limit the macroeconomic damages they cause in pursuit of net zero.

“Renewables are by far the cheapest form of power today,” Francesco La Camera, Director-General of IRENA said. “2022 is a stark example of just how economically viable new renewable power generation has become. Renewable power frees economies from volatile fossil fuel prices and imports, curbs energy costs and enhances market resilience – even more so if today’s energy crunch continues.”

“While a temporary crisis response might be necessary in the current situation, excuses to soften climate goals will not hold mid-to-long-term. Today’s situation is a devastating reminder that renewables and energy saving are the future. With the COP27 in Egypt and COP28 in the UAE ahead, renewables provide governments with affordable energy to align with net zero and turn their climate promises into concrete action with real benefits for people on the ground,” he added.

Investments in renewables continue to pay huge dividends in 2022, as highlighted by IRENA’s costs data. In non-OECD countries, the 109 GW of renewable energy additions in 2021 that cost less than the cheapest new fossil fuel-fired option will reduce costs by at least USD 5.7 billion annually for the next 25-30 years.

High coal and fossil gas prices in 2021 and 2022 will also profoundly deteriorate the competitiveness of fossil fuels and make solar and wind even more attractive. With an unprecedented surge in European fossil gas prices for example, new fossil gas generation in Europe will increasingly become uneconomic over its lifetime, increasing the risk of stranded assets.

The European example shows that fuel and CO2 costs for existing gas plants might average four to six times more in 2022 than the lifetime cost of new solar PV and onshore wind commissioned in 2021. Between January and May 2022, the generation of solar and wind power may have saved Europe fossil fuel imports in the magnitude of no less than USD 50 billion, predominantly fossil gas.

As to supply chains, IRENA’s data suggests that not all materials cost increases have been passed through into equipment prices and project costs yet. If material costs remain elevated, the price pressures in 2022 will be more pronounced. Increases might however be dwarfed by the overall gains of cost-competitive renewables in comparison to higher fossil fuel prices.

Read the full report Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021.

[shtferbrains]

IRENA??

That's the cheerleader team for renewable energy?

All to point out that gas plants are running at 3 to 4 times higher in the EU?
That makes renewables the solution?

The EU had all the power production they needed to run an industrial economy. They shut most of it down to go green.
The green part is progressing.
We will see how the economy works out.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, I asked for results that show lower costs to the end user. Not the meaningless generation costs. Somehow between producing free energy and getting that to the consumer, it always results in multiple times the cost of the reliable alternatives.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Not electric cars but but some reading following a news report about “clean air day”

Foreign governments are spending 30 times more on fossil fuel projects in Africa than on initiatives to lessen the impacts of the continent’s second-biggest killer, air pollution, research showed on Wednesday.

The report, released on the International Day of Clean Air, showed that 0.3 per cent of African countries’ development assistance received in 2015-21 had been specifically earmarked for air-quality projects, despite pollution being responsible for one in five deaths continent-wide.

The analysis by the Clean Air Fund found that during the same period, donor nations provided 36 times more funding for prolonging fossil fuel use in Africa.

It’s why I alluded the other day that climate change politics is going to ruin third world countries make them far worse. They need fossil fuels there untapped resource.

Not as polished as some of you with English dialect and don’t explain my self how I would like at times but blind Freddy can see the green dream and it’s affects on many countries.

Many won’t acknowledge it even for a moment.

Most of the air pollution in third world countries that is killing people is coming from burning dung and wood for cooking in poorly ventilated places. Easiest solution by far is fossil fuel energy.

[WiltonRanch]

Looked into an ev Polaris ranger. It’s gasoline counterpart is $4000 less. Wouldn’t mind one but cost difference too large. Thought it’d be ideal for my needs.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Looked into an ev Polaris ranger. It’s gasoline counterpart is $4000 less. Wouldn’t mind one but cost difference too large. Thought it’d be ideal for my needs.

I agree, that is a unique application where electric would be a big benefit. Range isn't a big issue, it comes back to the same location after short trips, where it is parked unused most of the time.

So how long would it take to pay back the $4,000 price difference?

Pretend that electricity is half the price of gasoline. It was even cheaper than that a while ago, recently I've heard it is now costing more to charge a Tesla than it would have to drive a gasoline vehicle, so half is probably a reasonable estimate.

Our ATV use is very sporadic. Mike burn 10 l a week during calving or Rock picking. Might not move at all most of the winter. Average of that out to 5 l a week. 250 l a year, saving half the cost of fuel call it 75 cents which is high right now.

Round it up to $200 to account for an oil change or two. So it would only take 20 years to break even on the additional cost of the electric atv.
And we all know that 20-year-old ATVs on the farm (especially those with cattle, their ATVs never get abused whatsoever) are all still in pristine condition***, with at least another 20 years of productive life left over to start actually making money on your investment.

And that is before taking into account the time value of that $4,000 that was spent up front.