Volkswagen Teases EV That Costs Under $21,000

[Stoly]

I read somewhere about tide/wave powered generators. Those could run 24/7 and cost should be competitive.

 

[Endgame]

That would be great, if there was actually excess solar and wind power generated. There isn't, and never will be. The real estate needed for both just isn't feasible on a large scale. Nuclear is the future. And you don't need any of this gimmicky "gravity battery" b.s.. Nuclear is safe, powerful, small foot print, the fuel CAN be re-used if we would just change our laws around recycling it.

Huh, the power company must have been lying to me on my last bill when it showed 337 KWh of excess generation from my panels. Wouldn’t even need every home in the neighborhood to have rooftop panels to yield a surplus. Now, you might just say that my house isn’t reproducible at large scale. However, it is - just read about the Duck curve:

The Duck Curve Becomes Extreme in California - Enerdynamics

The “duck curve” is a name given to the shape of the net load curve in a market with a significant penetration of solar energy. What factors are making it so extreme in states like California?

www.enerdynamics.com

 

[Zarathustra]

It's a VW so a no for me.

Just because I am curious, what do you have against VW? The Emissions scandal thing?

They are by no means my favorite car brand, but I'm always impressed with how much you get for the money with a VW. They are stylish an have very high build quality yet are often priced similarly to budget cars.

My better half bought a 2022 Tiguan last year, and its very nice for the money IMHO.

My biggest complaint with them would be pedal sensitivity. They use those pedals that are super sensitive when you touch them making it difficult to drive smoothly without lurching forward from a standstill. You look at the accelerator wrong, and it jerks your neck back to the head rest. But that seemingly only applies to the very first mm of accelerator travel. After that, if you really get into the pedal it seems a little anemic. They are not the worst offender in this category though. Toyota's are way worse.

I'm used to cars that have slow, progressive accelerators and brakes, so it always winds up being jerky driving when I'm in the likes of a Toyota or a VW, and I hate it.

 

[Uvilla]

Just because I am curious, what do you have against VW? The Emissions scandal thing?

They are by no means my favorite car brand, but I'm always impressed with how much you get for the money with a VW. They are stylish an have very high build quality yet are often priced similarly to budget cars.

My better half bought a 2022 Tiguan last year, and its very nice for the money IMHO.

My biggest complaint with them would be pedal sensitivity. They use those pedals that are super sensitive when you touch them making it difficult to drive smoothly without lurching forward from a standstill. You look at the accelerator wrong, and it jerks your neck back to the head rest. But that seemingly only applies to the very first mm of accelerator travel. After that, if you really get into the pedal it seems a little anemic. They are not the worst offender in this category though. Toyota's are way worse.

I'm used to cars that have slow, progressive accelerators and brakes, so it always winds up being jerky driving when I'm in the likes of a Toyota or a VW, and I hate it.

If you are using said cars from someone that have been using it, it might not have to do with the car but the fact that as I understand it, the accelerator adapts the curve to the driver. There are ways to reset these things.

 

[MadMummy76]

Yes, they DO work like normal batteries in that regard.

The idea is that you use excess solar and wind to winch a weight. You know, during the day. Then during the night when the sun isn’t shining, you let the weight turn a generator. Bam, extra energy from the day available at night. Nice thing is, gravity is available everywhere on earth.

No, you don't winch a weight. That is a stupid kickstarter gimmick. You pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper one, then generate energy through turbines.

Huh, the power company must have been lying to me on my last bill when it showed 337 KWh of excess generation from my panels. Wouldn’t even need every home in the neighborhood to have rooftop panels to yield a surplus. Now, you might just say that my house isn’t reproducible at large scale.

My electricity provider just put a halt on new solar installations of that type last summer. The reason: the grid can no longer take any more surplus during the day. So the only way you can have solar now is off-grid installations with your own batteries. Doubling or even tripling the cost making ROI a pipe dream.

 

[Riccochet]

Oh, excess solar. Well, dang! Maybe I should go drop $20-30k on a solar system so I can save $50-100 a month and spend the next 30 years paying it off, maybe, if nothing breaks. And THEN have to convince EVERY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD in and around the city I live near to do the same.

LOL....good luck with that.

800,000 homes average in my area, times an average of $25,000, comes out to $20B in solar alone.

Average cost to build a nuclear power plant? $5-10B.

This whole gravity battery nonsense sounds like a solar industry scam.

 

[Brian_B]

That would be great, if there was actually excess solar and wind power generated.

There actually is if you look at it regionally. Globally, not so much, but all the grids in the world are not interconnected anyway so that isn’t worth considering anyway.

Even just looking at the US - we have 3 distinct and separate electric grids, and because of transmission constraints 2 of the 3 routinely see excess renewable generation that drives the wholesale price of energy negative and/or requires curtailment of generation.

No storage is 100% efficient, but that’s ok - you really are playing the total cost of charging vs the opportunity revenue of discharging. If you charge when retail rates are negative and discharge in the evening when the rates spike because all the peakers are coming online to make up for lack of solar — that makes even 35% efficient pump storage a good deal.

The trick is finding something that can last long enough without necessarily bursting into flames. I think energy generation really does take an “all of the above” strategy.

I do love nuclear, I hope to see it make a comeback, but the way we have it deployed now in just a few very large installations is not the best idea.

 

[Brian_B]

No, you don't winch a weight. That is a stupid kickstarter gimmick. You pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper one, then generate energy through turbines.

Both of those types exist. The weights are typically called gravity storage - the water called pump storage. Pump storage is widely used and has been for a long time. Gravity storage is still relatively new and not widely deployed - it may never be economically viable, but the goal is to find something that doesn’t require completely dedicating hundreds or thousands of acres rather than damming up more reservoirs.

I think underground gas storage may be one of the keys: we already do that for natural gas, and it could work the same way as pump storage.

 

[Brian_B]

And THEN have to convince EVERY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD in and around the city I live near to do the same.

Two things:

California did exactly that. And I agree with you: it’s not a good idea, especially since now the utilities are taking advantage of the net-zero housing law and essentially getting free generation; while charging extraordinarily high rates to sell it back to you.

Second, Solar isn’t the driving force behind all of this energy storage investment. It’s the Texas wind market - which is the single largest renewable generation source, by far.

 

[Zarathustra]

I do love nuclear, I hope to see it make a comeback, but the way we have it deployed now in just a few very large installations is not the best idea.

Nuclear still has the final storage problem to contend with.

Fun fact, all spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. is still sitting in open temporary storage pools near the plants where it was used, because NIMBY's lose their mind as soon as anyone comes up with an idea for final storage, making it politically impossible to achieve.

That, and the uranium mining operations aren't exactly carbon neutral.

Between these issues and the actual capital investments needed to build a safe working nuclear fission plant, it just does not wind up being cost effective. Only time Nuclear has worked well anywhere in the world is when it has been provided substantial government subsidies.

That said, I'm pretty optimistic that the time for energy positive fusion is getting close. Commonwealth Fusioin in my state has been making some huge leaps lately (essentially, new, orders of magnitude more energy efficient electromagnets for containment) reducing the energy bottom line and making their Tokamak reactors energy positive.

They are building a half scale one with private investor money, no more research grant stuff on the old Fort Devens grounds in central Mass. It will probably be operational in less than 5 years. If all goes as planned, full scale ones could start being built in 10-15.

Still a good chunk of capital investment to build a plant, but slightly less so than a fission plant due to the lesser safety requirements. That, and once up and running, you can power the thing for a year with a few quarts of sea water, and have negligible emissions. I think its an exciting time to be alive.

 

[Riccochet]

Nuclear still has the final storage problem to contend with.

Fun fact, all spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. is still sitting in open temporary storage pools near the plants where it was used, because NIMBY's lose their mind as soon as anyone comes up with an idea for final storage, making it politically impossible to achieve.

That, and the uranium mining operations aren't exactly carbon neutral.

Between these issues and the actual capital investments needed to build a safe working nuclear fission plant, it just does not wind up being cost effective. Only time Nuclear has worked well anywhere in the world is when it has been provided substantial government subsidies.

That said, I'm pretty optimistic that the time for energy positive fusion is getting close. Commonwealth Fusioin in my state has been making some huge leaps lately (essentially, new, orders of magnitude more energy efficient electromagnets for containment) reducing the energy bottom line and making their Tokamak reactors energy positive.

They are building a half scale one with private investor money, no more research grant stuff on the old Fort Devens grounds in central Mass. It will probably be operational in less than 5 years. If all goes as planned, full scale ones could start being built in 10-15.

Still a good chunk of capital investment to build a plant, but slightly less so than a fission plant due to the lesser safety requirements. That, and once up and running, you can power the thing for a year with a few quarts of sea water, and have negligible emissions. I think its an exciting time to be alive.

The storage of spent fuel wouldn't be an issue if our government would reverse the ban on recycling it. Yeah, we can't legally recycle it in the U.S. And we can't ship it to Europe to be recycled either. That's why nuclear is so strong in Europe, they recycle the fuel. 98% of a spent fuel rod is reused so there is very little waste. Over 80% can be re-enriched for fuel use, other materials have industrial and military uses. What waste there is has very low radioactivity. Makes no sense why we can't recycle in the U.S.

As for new plants there are number of plants in the final planning stages here in the U.S. And a number of coal plants scheduled to be converted to nuclear in the next 5-10 years. It's what my wife does for a living, civil engineering and project management side of nuclear development.

 

[Grimlakin]

That would be great, if there was actually excess solar and wind power generated. There isn't, and never will be. The real estate needed for both just isn't feasible on a large scale. Nuclear is the future. And you don't need any of this gimmicky "gravity battery" b.s.. Nuclear is safe, powerful, small foot print, the fuel CAN be re-used if we would just change our laws around recycling it.

While I am personally all for it.... can you just IMAGINE how the gas industry will fund so much negative press about that. "You thought a battery fire was bad... now if you have an accident you have to close an entire city!!" Yea it's BS... but you KNOW the fearmongering will be strong.

 

[Brian_B]

Nuclear still has the final storage problem to contend with.

Yeah but everything has it's issues - nothing is perfect. Part of the reason I think we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Spread the risks around so we aren't too heavily exposed to any one of them.

Yea it's BS... but you KNOW the fearmongering will be strong.

Oh it's already going full tilt in California. They didn't close down any cities, but they did shut down a freeway for a while.

Tesla Megapack caught on fire at giant battery project

A Tesla Megapack has caught on fire at a giant battery project operated by PG&E in Monterey County in California.

electrek.co

 

[Niner51]

Just because I am curious, what do you have against VW? The Emissions scandal thing?

Being in the car business, I have had numerous customers trade their VW's into the dealership. Most of it has been the reliability issues, and/or repair costs like a Subaru. Haven't seen many Tiquans come through though.