More on the Tesla electric car

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat I have observed many solar paneled roofs over parking with EV power plugs in the Silicon Valley. I doubt that the vehicles are powered at those locations are using electricity generated by coal or oil. Those that are plugged in at night are consuming electricity when generating facilities are wheeling more than is being consumed. The energy and materials used in the production of batteries is a different calculus.

We discussed this a while back - w/o the EV the solar panels would be reducing grid use and lowering pollution, adding the EV adds a draw from the grid, any way you slice it:

http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1331206

short excerpt:

Quote:

So we can see, adding solar cuts their grid pollution, and adding an EV increases the grid pollution. It makes no difference if they are done together or separately, one before the other or vice-versa. As I said earlier, they each need to stand on their own, there is no multiplier effect. So there is no justification for saying that having solar means they are charging their EV in a 'clean' way. The EV must be measured against other available vehicles. I can buy a pure hybrid and buy solar too. So compare apples-apples.

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras This is true, they compare "average cars". They also compare electrics to the most fuel efficient gas car out there, which yes, is the Prius (using EPA numbers). They actually have boiled it down to a very easy to read map showing the greenhouse gas equivalent mpg rating in each region. The info you quoted from their original study (45% of the population) has been updated to 60% as the EVs have gotten more fuel efficient. And that is 60% of the population that lives in areas where an electric car is cleaner that a Prius. I think electrics deserve more green cred than they get considering they local pollution gas cars emit. The Tesla is a laggard when it comes to efficiencies of electric cars, but outstanding when compared to all the cars out there.

And did they include the phantom power? I'm not even sure that study includes the charging losses (was the watts/mile measured from the battery?), or the evironmental production 'costs' (batteries), which must be amortized over the life of the battery/vehicle.

I think you are giving too much weight to the 'local' pollution issue. It is still pollution, and being 100's of times higher in some cases (I'd have to go back to find the exact numbers, but I think it was ~ 100x for NOx and several hundred x for SOx). Last time I checked, acid rain was not a 'local' issue. There are a lot of coal plants in some fairly populated areas, some are right within Chicago (may have just recently been closed?).

The attached chart shows a much higher cost for the externalities for a grid-powered EV compared to a hybrid. It shows pretty clearly the overall health effects from coal. Chart from the National Academy of Sciences:

Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States

Quote:

Our approach combines spatially, temporally, and chemically detailed life cycle emission inventories; comprehensive, fine-scale state-of-the-science chemical transport modeling; and exposure, concentration–response, and economic health impact modeling for ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline.

Again, looking at the big picture, none of this matters unless EVs make up some significant % of the miles driven. I have trouble picturing EVs making up say, 30% of miles driven. Since many would be used for shorter drives, and/or as a second car, that means more than 30% of the vehicles, so maybe 40%? IIRC, the average age of the fleet is > 10 years, so even if every car sold from today on was an EV, it would take years to hit 40% - and do 40% of the car buying public have access to charging ports that would support those kinds of miles (a 110 outlet probably won't hack it for regular use). Lots of people park in lots or the street. I just don't see it happening, and I don't see any reason why it should happen - the advantages are not that great (other than comparing high-performance sports cars - a limited market).

But, people can (and do!) buy hybrids today - and get all those environmental benefits today, w/o any added restrictions to their driving habits. And at a fairly low cost. It is much easier to picture a high % of the fleet as hybrids, than it is EVs, for all those reasons.

While EVs can utilize 'green' energy, when will the grid actually be green enough to really make a difference? And what other advances will be made by then, outside of EVs? Hybrids are not standing still either.

-ERD50

[Chuckanut]

Great new feature on Tesla automobiles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb7ZZqvSMOg

[calmloki]

NOT an EE. or an E.. That said, could this be the proverbial game changer?

Engineering three-dimensional hybrid supercapacitors and microsupercapacitors for high-performance integrated energy storage

"Batteries run just about everything portable in our lives such as smartphones, tablets, computers, etc. Although we have become accustomed to the rapid improvement of portable electronics, the slow development of batteries is holding back technological progress. Thus, it is imperative to develop new energy storage devices that are compact, reliable, and energy dense, charge quickly, and possess both long cycle life and calendar life. Here, we developed hybrid supercapacitors that can store as much charge as a lead acid battery, yet they can be recharged in seconds compared with hours for conventional batteries".

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calmloki NOT an EE. or an E.. That said, could this be the proverbial game changer? .... Here, we developed hybrid supercapacitors that can store as much charge as a lead acid battery, yet they can be recharged in seconds compared with hours for conventional batteries".

I'll have to look later to see if 'as much charge as a lead acid battery' is good enough for an EV, but off-hand I doubt it, that's why they use lithium batteries. I need to see if that is based on energy per weight and/or energy per volume.

But I can address this one from knowledge in my memory:

'recharged in seconds compared with hours'

That is something that always impresses the less technical, but it really isn't that big a deal. You can't break the laws of physics, battery charge cycles are pretty efficient (~ 90%), so if you charge it in half the time, you need to supply twice the power (amps x volts).

Seconds versus hours is a 3600x ratio, but that might be journalistic shorthand, let's take some realistic example, like stopping to recharge for the next 100 miles.

Telsa says it takes ~ 3 hours to charge for 100 miles with a 240V/40A outlet. That's 240*40 watts = 9.6 kW.

So to charge in ten minutes (600 seconds), that is only 18x faster (not 3600x), but we would need to provide 18x the power. A 240V, 720 AMP connector would be huge, and require huge conductors in the leads to this capacitor.

The Tesla 'superchargers' provide about half that (on a quick look, I need to 2x check that), 170 miles on a 30 minute charge?. I'm sure those superchargers are not cheap.

Probably just another 'breakthrough' like millions of others, but we will see.

More importantly, IMO, this would do almost nothing to change the fact that EVs aren't environmental in the first place (see my previous post), a super-cap EV would still need grid power which is dirtier than a hybrid, so why do we even want to pursue EVs (other than as a performance sports car)?

-ERD50

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 a super-cap EV would still need grid power which is dirtier than a hybrid, so why do we even want to pursue EVs (other than as a performance sports car)?

Because it's easier to clean up one power station vs. a million tailpipes.

It also improves local air quality where quality is usually poorest (in dense cities).

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro Because it's easier to clean up one power station vs. a million tailpipes.

This makes sense at one level, but then why haven't we done it?

Quote:

.. It also improves local air quality where quality is usually poorest (in dense cities). ...

See my post #442, here's the report:

Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States


it accounts for the 'local' affect - EVs on the present grid are far worse for the environment than a hybrid. And more people can drive hybrids today, w/o needing to install a charger, or worry about it if you don;t have access to a charger, and range issues no worse than present vehicles .

If sometime in the future, the grid is clean enough for EVs to be a better environmental choice than a hybrid (or other alternative - all of which will be improving on their own, and moving the goal-posts), then we might want to use them. But all those additional EVs will require more power from the grid, meaning even more renewable power will be needed to make the grid greener. But why EVs today? Makes no environmental sense to me.

Given what we know, I have no idea why self proclaimed 'environmentalists' are promoting EVs. Seems to me they have found their 'solution', and don't want to be confused by any pesky facts.

-ERD50

[Totoro]

We are cleaning up power, a bit slower in the US than most other places. Solar in California is now at 5% of total electricity use someone else posted somewhere here (yay for my vagueness). I think most current forecasts will put solar up near 30% within 20 years in most regions of the developed world?

Also EV is a tiny tiny market right now. These things need time - cars have a lifetime of up to 20 years. You won't have a sudden EV fleet and infrastructure market overnight if (when rather) all power is green.

At some point you have to start, why not now? Helps develop the infrastructure, learn the dynamics, build scale, drive down the costs .. there is no reason to wait. By the time EV starts making serious headway power will be clean(er) and we'll be ready.

Hybrids will get you there eventually too (bigger and bigger battery), but much slower. It makes sense to take the added environment and inefficiency hit right now to speed up adoption and conversion. In the end, full EVs are by definition less complex so should be cheaper, better and cleaner than hybrids (*).

Also, in other countries renewables are already much higher, so they already make sense there enviromentally speaking (maybe Germany, I believe Portugal too?).

(*) The biggest hurdle remains economical. Big battery doesn't have enough energy density (by weight and cost), needs to come down by a factor four to be viable in the marketplace. Luckily, there are hopeful VCs, irrational environmentalists and governments helping to create scale and push innovation.

But yes, you are right there is no real end of the world burning platform there. In fact, investment is probably better off in areas like better insulation and industrial energy efficiency. I guess that's no sexy as a topic, so there's that too ..

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut However, IMHO, the real issue is not one type of fuel versus another, but, the ongoing usefulness of private autos versus public transportation in the high density big cities. (Smaller cities, small towns and very rural areas are another matter entirely.)

I think the self-driving car will help with a lot of this, at least in the "not dense enough for true mass transit" areas. If the car can come when you call it, then it can be physically parked 20-30 minutes from where you are located (at work or home). In the city/near-city, highly-dense car parking mechanisms (automatically rack-n-stack cars with no need to be able to open the doors, etc) will enable cars to be stored with great space efficiency.
And self-driving cars make car-sharing services (Zipcar, etc) very practical, which can significantly reduce the total number of vehicles that need to be parked in the first place (most cars sit parked 90%+ of the time, there's clearly a lot of potential to get a higher use rate from each one, particularly if work schedules can be flexed a little).

The self-driving car brings so much more than "now I can just sit there and let the car do the driving". That part is really no big deal (except for handicapped folks who cannot drive). The bigger deal is that it gives greater flexibility in how cars can be used as part of a total transportation system.

Traffic congestion: "Dual Mode" technologies are highly promising--cars that can travel on regular roads that are also capable of traveling (via platforms or suspended tracks) on highly-dense, automatically switched/routed tracks. A single track can carry as many vehicles as a 6 lane highway, and can make use of the existing highway right-of-ways (saving a lot of money). 60 MPH to and from the city, and you are already in the car you'll need to go that last few miles (so no waiting for a connection). Self-driving EVs would be a natural for this.

[Fermion]

Imagine shorting out a 240V 7200 amp connector for a 60 second recharge. Got some coins you want to shrink?

[Chuckanut]

I deleted my message as I thought I was just hijacking the thread. But, the sentiment remains. The real need in congested big cities is some type of good mass transportation system. Being stuck in a rush hour mess is not fun whether one is driving a new Tesla, a hybrid, or a 1960's gas guzzling heap.

Personally, I hope Tesla succeeds if for no other reason than it gives the consumer another choice.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro We are cleaning up power ... Also EV is a tiny tiny market right now. These things need time - cars have a lifetime of up to 20 years. You won't have a sudden EV fleet and infrastructure market overnight if (when rather) all power is green. ....

It's true that fleet replacement takes a long time, but I still think we should wait on EVs as environmental 'solutions' (because there are very viable alternatives now - hybrids), until we have a better picture of their likely development curve, alternative developments (maybe pure serial micro-turbine hybrids?), and better see how the 'greening of the grid' is coming along (that is a slow path as well - power plants last even longer than cars!).

Remember that EVs add demand to the grid. Without EVs, that green power will make up a larger % of the total, and could be replacing old dirty sources if the grid greens faster than demand increases. But EVs will lead to the dirty sources staying on line longer, to meet the EV demand.

It's like my earlier point - adding solar panels to your home doesn't mean you are driving on 'green power', that power could have gone to replacing dirty power on the grid. The EV added demand to the grid, negating the panels (assuming all equal energy units).

When I have some time, I should be able to calculate just how green the grid needs to be to beat a hybrid. That source showed EVs were far worse on the present grid, but better on a totally renewable grid - where's the break-point? It might be very far away?

Quote:

At some point you have to start, why not now? Helps develop the infrastructure, learn the dynamics, build scale, drive down the costs .. there is no reason to wait. By the time EV starts making serious headway power will be clean(er) and we'll be ready.

See my above points, but cost is mostly a matter of the batteries. Batteries are being pushed for all the other uses, EVs make up a small part of the total demand. Evs won't drive down the costs of batteries, it's the other way around - battery development will drive down the cost of EVs. So yes, we can wait.

Quote:

Hybrids will get you there eventually too (bigger and bigger battery), but much slower.

Huh? They are better now, and without some of the other problems. And as batteries improve, that helps hybrids.

Quote:

It makes sense to take the added environment and inefficiency hit right now to speed up adoption and conversion.

But I don't think it will speed up adoption and conversion - improved costs will do that. And don't forget that much of the driving population has no access to an outlet overnight.

Quote:

In the end, full EVs are by definition less complex so should be cheaper, better and cleaner than hybrids (*).

EVs are less complex, and that's attractive. But it does not necessarily lead to your other claims.

Quote:

Also, in other countries renewables are already much higher, so they already make sense there enviromentally speaking (maybe Germany, I believe Portugal too?).

You have to be careful with that "% of renewables" claim from other countries. This should probably go in it's own thread, but (I'll use very round numbers as I'm going from memory now), the grid runs into trouble with relatively small % (~ 10%-20%?)of solar/wind due to the intermittent nature. But I read that Norway (Denmark?) was up to something like 80% solar/wind. How could that be? Easy, fuzzy math.

The country with the big % claim has its grid tied into neighboring countries. They provide that buffer when the sun/wind aren't available, and the bragging country exports when they have excess. So basically, they used an inappropriate denominator. The % needs to include all the neighboring grids as well, as they are part of the system. I bet that when you do that, you are down near that 10-20% (or whatever it is) number where others say you run into trouble w/o storage. The US doesn't have enough neighbors close enough to buffer our grid. And what do they do if they want to 'go green'? Nope, it has to be measured within the total grid connection.

Quote:

(*) The biggest hurdle remains economical. Big battery doesn't have enough energy density (by weight and cost), needs to come down by a factor four to be viable in the marketplace. Luckily, there are hopeful VCs, irrational environmentalists and governments helping to create scale and push innovation.

If your factor four number is a good one (it makes sense), I've read that batteries have been improving on a 7% annual basis. That's 20 years to hit 4x. Hmmm, a lot could happen between then and now in other areas. I say take a closer look as we get closer, and keep an open mind on alternatives, like series hybrids. IMO, too many people have already crowned EVs 'king', and I feel it is far too early to do that.

Quote:

But yes, you are right there is no real end of the world burning platform there. In fact, investment is probably better off in areas like better insulation and industrial energy efficiency. I guess that's no sexy as a topic, so there's that too .

Agreed. An energy unit not consumed doesn't even need any green power to be installed. It saved 100%, no ifs/and/buts (other than initial installation costs, or even not installing - sometimes we can do w/o, and be smart about it so it isn't 'suffering').

-ERD50

[cooch96]

I got the same 4-fold penalty when comparing mopeds to electric bicycles; which I think is a useful comparison because it reduces the variables. You get better range, speed, and cost by using gas.

Another 'green' detractor for lithium is how it's mined. If we started to scale up lithium strip mines, that would introduce its own environmental issues of huge swaths of ground being exposed and surface pools of acid brine for leeching. That seems every bit as likely to contaminate groundwater as fracking.

I just can't imagine paying for a power supply that is one quarter as effective without a clearly demonstrable upside.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Quote: Originally Posted by Totoro View Post We are cleaning up power ... .... When I have some time, I should be able to calculate just how green the grid needs to be to beat a hybrid. That source showed EVs were far worse on the present grid, but better on a totally renewable grid - where's the break-point? It might be very far away? ...

OK, I made some time for this.

Estimating numbers from that chart I posted, to get air quality of an EV on the grid to match a current hybrid, you would need to take the current grid average, and replace ~ 70% of it with near-zero emission renewables (Water, Wind, Solar - WWS on that chart).

70%! That is soooooo far away - I imagine that would require huge (and so far unobtainable), expensive storage. See what I mean - hybrids are the present, and foreseeable future best case for environmental reasons per mile driven. They don't require infrastructure changes, or much in the way of driver adaptation, and the cost adder is relatively modest (and pays for itself in higher mileage use cases). Not even close for EVs.

Maybe the new environmental slogan will be, "Pull the (EV) Plug!".

And with equal weighting for "climate change" (C02 emissions?), you still need to add > 30% renewables to the current grid. Again, by the time we get there, hybrids (or other tech) would have improved, moving the goal posts further out.

-ERD50

[clifp]

I haven't read the most recent posts carefully, so I apologies if I've missed some points you've made ERD.

Overall electricity consumption has been flat to down for the last decade, while capacity has also been flat. (As an aside, BTU/GDP $ has been decreasing pretty rapidly we are far more energy efficient nation than we were 20 years ago, conservation works). So I don't think it is bad thing at all the EV cause higher demand for electricity. The utility companies are pretty fortunate they have a pretty massive stick (EPA regulations about coal ) and very nice carrot super cheap natural gas. I think we should be building more electricity plants, and while I'd like to see more nuclear plants, I think natural gas is more than acceptable substitute. Much less risk of cost overruns, lower NIMBY, and yes no issue of nuclear accident. The electricity they produce is only marginally higher than coal, and causes far less out right dangerous pollution, and greenhouse gases. I personally would love to see much of the money spent on "cleantech" really be spent on moving US electricity generation to gas.

This makes not particularly concerned about the relative pollution of EV vehicles today, and lot more interested in EV in a primarily natural gas power plant future.

I don't disagree with your central point that hybrids are plenty good enough from green prospective. However, I think it is a lot easier to make a fine inexpensive ($15-20k) electric commuter car with 100-200 ish mile ranges, without having the added expensive of an gas engine. Let's not forget much of the expense of a gas engine comes years after the initial purchase in the form of maintenance which is typically hidden from consumers. For city dwellers who make intercity travel via plane this maybe good enough for 95+% of their travel needs. However, apartment and condo dwellers often have no access to electrical charging. So I think it makes sense for the government encourage pure electric cars just to provide pressure to develop the infrastructure for EV.

I guess I'd like to see most 2 car households have 1 EV, and 1 Hybrid and perhaps in some case 2 EVs.

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 See my above points, but cost is mostly a matter of the batteries. Batteries are being pushed for all the other uses, EVs make up a small part of the total demand. Evs won't drive down the costs of batteries, it's the other way around - battery development will drive down the cost of EVs. So yes, we can wait.

EV is driving battery development already, and will dwarf the current secondary (rechargeable) battery market (which is $5 billion or so).

Tesla itself is aiming in 2020 for 500.000 cars to be EV (worldwide fleet is 2 billion) and with its gigafactory will double the worldwide battery production:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/def...igafactory.pdf

As a result they expect battery costs to drop with at least 30%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 You have to be careful with that "% of renewables" claim from other countries. This should probably go in it's own thread, but (I'll use very round numbers as I'm going from memory now), the grid runs into trouble with relatively small % (~ 10%-20%?)of solar/wind due to the intermittent nature.

Do you have a source for that?

I'm asking because right now most countries in Europe are already above that level and coping. Germany is at 30% renewable, Norway at 100%, Spain at 45%, France at 15% (in addition to 77% nuclear). Italy is 40% or so. Note that renewable here is wind, solar, biomass (CO2 neutral), and hydro. It excludes nuclear (a separate category, some argue it is clean too). Only the UK is seriously lagging (at 11% or so).

And they don't manage to make this work by exporting/importing or employing fuzzy math. These countries have nowhere to export to as together they make up the bulk of the eurozone in population and electricity demand. France (66), Italy (60), Germany (80) and Spain (45) have 250m citizens.

The case of Norway is actually reverse of what you are saying: It has been at 100% renewable production for years, mostly from hydro. What they are actually doing is selling the emission certificates to other countries (Long story). There is very little electricity exported and almost none imported, instead they throttle the hydro.

In addition, the grid ties you are referring too in Europe are actually weaker than you suggest. To give an example, tiny Belgium (11M people) has a high risk of facing energy shortages because they had to shutdown a nuclear plant and cannot import enough energy from Germany, France and NL to make up for the shortage.

Even within Germany new cable connections are being rolled out to improve connectivity.

Long story short: In Europe taking a petrol or hybrid car of the road reduces emissions. Fully agree that in the US, China, and India this is not the case. Canada is >70% renewable too (large hydro).

And regarding the lifetime of power plants: it works differently than the cars themselves. As soon a power plant is no longer economical, it is decommissioned. In the Netherlands actually very recently a brand new (<2 years old) gas fired turbine was dismantled because it basically never was used. They moved it to China.

In your last post you say that 70% renewable will require lots of storage. Actually it doesn't. That's not me saying it, but Amory Lovins (a guy who really knows his stuff and leads a very respected institute, RMI) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgrahFln0s

[ERD50]

I see Totoro posted since I started this - give me some time to respond on that, got some things to do and I'll need to dig up that source ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp ... Overall electricity consumption has been flat to down for the last decade, while capacity has also been flat. ... So I don't think it is bad thing at all the EV cause higher demand for electricity.

Sorry clifp, but this sounds like more rationalization from the EV fan club. I know you understand math better than that.

Regardless whether overall demand is shrinking, level, or growing, adding demand from EVs 'waters down' the greening of the grid. Simple numbers to illustrate: Let's say demand dropped 10% and the grid reached 50% renewables. Add back 10% in EV demand, and now those renewables only make up ~ 45% of the grid*. To get back to 50%, you need to add more renewables to compensate for the added EV demand. And to belabor the point, if you added those renewables, but not the EVs, you'd be at ~ 55% renewables on that grid, rather than 50%.

* (edit/add): So does this means the EVs are in effect drawing completely from the dirty part of the grid? It would seem so. Oh No!

Quote:

I personally would love to see much of the money spent on "cleantech" really be spent on moving US electricity generation to gas.

Assuming we have a long term supply of NG (and I think we do, but I'm not up on the numbers). I fully agree. Coal is nasty, not only from burning, but from mining. Though it is domestic, but maybe that's a good reason to save it for the future, when maybe we can mine/burn it more cleanly? Let's use up everyone else's resources first! World domination! But yes, we need to look at all angles, including conservation.

Quote:

This makes not particularly concerned about the relative pollution of EV vehicles today, and lot more interested in EV in a primarily natural gas power plant future.

But again, look at those charts, 100% NG barely gets the EV ahead of a hybrid today, let alone the future. I may run the numbers on NG/grid mix later for completeness, but it looks like you'd need to get very high 80%?) NG to approach par with a hybrid.

Quote:

I don't disagree with your central point that hybrids are plenty good enough from green prospective. However, I think it is a lot easier to make a fine inexpensive ($15-20k) electric commuter car with 100-200 ish mile ranges, without having the added expensive of an gas engine.

Far easier? Then how come they aren't out there? And they still won't be ahead of hybrids in 'greeness', and you still need access to an outlet, and even at 200 miles, there are occasional range issues. Unless they can penetrate some significant % of the market, they don't make a real difference anyhow. And with those issues, how realistic is it to get to, say 30% of miles driven (which is likely far more than 30% of the fleet, since they will tend to be used for short trips)?

Quote:

Let's not forget much of the expense of a gas engine comes years after the initial purchase in the form of maintenance which is typically hidden from consumers.

How is it hidden? My mechanic hands me the bill.

I'll say it again, the simplicity of EV is attractive. But cars have become so reliable in the past few decades, I'm not sure it's a big issue. Especially when (you were waiting for this, weren't you ), compared to replacing that $$$ battery pack. And how much car maintenance is due to systems outside the engine/cooling/fuel systems - suspension, A/C, heat, window controls, etc? Those are still issues with EVs.

Quote:

For city dwellers who make intercity travel via plane this maybe good enough for 95+% of their travel needs. However, apartment and condo dwellers often have no access to electrical charging. So I think it makes sense for the government encourage pure electric cars just to provide pressure to develop the infrastructure for EV.

Isn't this circular logic? Why develop additional infrastructure (hey, let's not forget to count the pollution for this added infrastructure) when there isn't a clear benefit in the first place? What would be gained by spending millions/billions/? on 220V/40A outlets on city streets and apartment parking lots?

-ERD50

[HFWR]

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR

Ain't that the truth!

-ERD50

[Music Lover]

I see a lot of comments here about Germany's success with renewables, but all one has to do is type "Germany's green energy failure" into the internet to find several stories documenting the massive costs, lack of success, and increased pollution that have resulted.