- Staff
- #21
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 48,082
- Reaction score
- 32,189
- Location
- Edmonton/Sherwood Park
- Website
- www.bumpertobumper.ca
So can one carry a small generator and charge the batteries on the fly? Just curious
So can one carry a small generator and charge the batteries on the fly? Just curious
wouldnt be a small generator.
Thats exactly what a diesel electric locomotive does, but nothing is small or light.
So can one carry a small generator and charge the batteries on the fly? Just curious
Let’s face it. Powering a vehicle using electric motors is a fantastic idea that falls flat almost immediately due to the shortfalls in battery technology. Unless and until a technology is developed that turns some bulk, cheap, easily sourced and environmentally friendly fuel into electrical power, the electric vehicle is a trendy, niche idea that does little more than make its owners poorer but feeling good about themselves.
Glad these people feel so good about themselves.
10 years ago I spent hundreds of hours researching off grid power systems for a home I was building on 80 acres in the South Kettle valley. I was forced into this due to the outrageous charges Extortis wanted to supply grid power.
My research was done on Solar, wind and Co-Gen. I learned through research that real life results for residential wind power were much lower than the owners original expectations. Most honest people communicating on wind power forums were less than happy with their real life, in the field results.
The technology has made huge changes in the last 10 years though. But you are very right that residential wind power systems aren't the solution for most people, they can easily cost 3 times more than a solar system of the same output and still have mechanical parts subject to failure and regular maintenance.
The problem with off-grid is you have to over size the system to produce more power than needed to compensate for less than ideal days and seasons, money that effectively goes to waste because at times much of the energy produced isn't used. Grid tied at this time is more viable as any excess can be sold back to the grid, while allowing to buy back at times of shortage.
kind of a disingenuous statement in bold above. This isn’t “ over sizing” the system, it’s designing it to be a system that will provide a power system reliable and big enough to provide for your needs whenever you need it. That’s what makes a 100% renewable off grid system unrealistic and unaffordable. So people install an off grid system that is enough to make themselves feel good and appear green and trendy to their peers, and then have a diesel generator hidden out back with a big fuel tank for the majority of the time when the renewable system doesn’t do the job.
Oh, and to reduce their carbon footprint by not using fossil fuels for heat, install a couple of wood burning stoves instead. The carbon burnt in the wood is not included in the carbon footprint calculations, because it comes from “clean “ trees and not “dirty” oil, propane or natural gas.
kind of a disingenuous statement in bold above. This isn’t “ over sizing” the system, it’s designing it to be a system that will provide a power system reliable and big enough to provide for your needs whenever you need it. That’s what makes a 100% renewable off grid system unrealistic and unaffordable. So people install an off grid system that is enough to make themselves feel good and appear green and trendy to their peers, and then have a diesel generator hidden out back with a big fuel tank for the majority of the time when the renewable system doesn’t do the job.
Oh, and to reduce their carbon footprint by not using fossil fuels for heat, install a couple of wood burning stoves instead. The carbon burnt in the wood is not included in the carbon footprint calculations, because it comes from “clean “ trees and not “dirty” oil, propane or natural gas.
Yeah ok, but can your 1 ton diesel spin itself around like a tank and do 0-60 in 3 seconds ?
Compared to a grid-tied system it is over-sized, if it was grid tied the excess would be sold back to offset generation elsewhere.
Wood stoves can be considered carbon neutral, when the tree is cut down and burned the tree that grows back in its place re-absorbs the same amount of carbon burnt from the first. Burning carbon based fuels that have been locked away in the earth for millions of years is not carbon neutral, as they would have stayed in the earth for millions more if it were not for human intervention.
Thats a pretty big stretch arguing that for carbon neutrality..... so the 60 years it takes for that tree to re-grow we just pretend the carbon added to the atmosphere from burning the tree doesn't exist??? using your argument, Eventually all the carbon being released from burning fossil fuels will be returned to the earth by the trees that absorb the CO2, then die, decompose and become trapped in the earth just like it did millions of years ago....the payback is just a little longer......HOLY CRAP!!! I just solved the climate change problem....(Nobel prize please!!!)
No.... but can your Tesla go from a standing start to 60000 feet at mach 1.6 in 2 minutes, track, lock on, fire at and shoot down 4 targets simultaneously like an F22??
just thought I'd ask since we're making unrelated comparisons here......