Stand along the shore of Delaware Bay and look east. The wisp of steam you see is coming from the Hope River nuclear plant. Whatever else you say about nuclear, it produces gigawatts of power and zero emissions. In the NY metro area, the combination of Niagra hydropower and Indian Point nuclear supplies half of electrical consumption. So use your mighty solar array to charge your flashlight, there are better sources for your electric car.

Great Thread!
I think it's fundamentally an easy question to answer. You don't need a physics degree to understand the basic laws of thermodynamics nor will your efforts to convey these principles help persuade the masses that their Prius is behind the power curve. The question is to ask is, 'Whose bank account will benefit from any diesel automobile in the future?" Photovoltaic cells are improving but at what cost to the environment? Never mind the lack of effiiency. I agree with those in the know but it's irrelevant with regard to the topic question. The almighty dollar and powers that be dictate the science for the masses. Enjoy your diesels while you can or spend your free time lobbying for a lost cause in hoping that one day after youre gone will still be able to enjoy the diesel you relish today.

Ironic that just today i read in the news that 2 nukes under construction in South Carolina are being abandoned which will save rate payers $7 Billion.

Nukes all over the country are shutting down because they just can't compete, never mind the waste or terrorism potential.

Thermal power plants waste about 2/3 of their energy as heat (that wisp of steam) Solar PV's are even less efficient, about 20% max. BUT far more solar power than we could ever use is coming in daily, whether we use it or not (about 1000 watts / square meter), whereas fossil and nuclear fuels are finite, and have ever increasing costs ($'s and energy) of extraction and processing into usable forms. Solar energy is free and non polluting, and there are no waste disposal issues.

The environmental costs of solar are minimal. Solar thermal is basically sun heating through glass (made of sand). Photovoltaic cells are highly refined silicon (sand) with trace amounts of "dopants" typically phosphorous and boron. The energy required to make a PV panel is recouped in 6 - 12 months of operation.

The U.S. is 4th behind China, Japan, and Germany in solar. China installed 34 gigawatts in 2016 (equal to 34 nuclear power plants). In the U.S. 39% of all new capacity came from solar. We installed 14.6 GW in 2016, almost double 2015 figures. On a good day Germany approaches 100 % solar electric.

That's a lot of flashlights!

Well its sounds like you and Dr Seba have it all figured out....

I'd must say I was absolutely astounded to hear that Germany apparently has the capability to satisfy 100% of its energy needs via solar panels on a "good day"?

In doing some Google searches on the internet it appears to me that in 2016 Germany generated around 6% of its grid power from solar panels? Must have been a really sunny day I guess? It would also appear that over 2016 Germany generated 65-70% of its energy needs with fossil fuels or nuclear power. Makes sense to me since the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Can you explain to me why (other than it seems to fit your narrative) you think Dr. Seba's predictions shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt? I find it extremely ironic that the video you posted starts with a 3 minute discussion of how inaccurate 'expert' predictions of cell phone market in the year 2000 that were done in 1985 were off by a factor of 120X but then Dr Seba apparently goes on for 30 minutes making far-flung predictions about the strategies for energy production and distribution 20-30-40 years in the future? Don't you find this a little ironic?

99.5% of predictions made 20 years ago were dead wrong, I see absolutely zero reason to think Dr. Seba has a crystal ball going forward 20-30-40 years. I would never even try to predict whats going to happen in 30 years, its totally unknowable and its frankly just silly to use an argument from authority as the basis for defending your desires for the future.

Lets take this discussion back to the hear and now. You and others here have claimed that the economics of solar power and Li-on batteries will make EV cars a disruptive technology. We've just had the launch of the Model 3 Tesla, apparently the best EV for the masses ever created. The current market for EV's is 2-4 tenths of a 1 percent.

Given the absolute superiority of EV's coupled with falling price of solar panels AND the introduction of the most advanced EV vehicle ever created to leverage the new disruptive and inevitable technology what's your prediction of the overall percentage of EV sales in say 2020?

What level would they have to get before you'd say the new technology was "disruptive"?

My estimate is in 2020 they percentage of EV sales will be around 1%. What's yours? You can ask Dr Seba if you want.

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (123k)
13 GLK250 (135k)
06 E320CDI (323K)
16 C300 (62K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

Yep. In my previous house I could actually see the top of the cooling tower, didn't bother me a bit that I lived 40 miles away.

I wouldn't really mind if I lived in the shadow of the plant at Port Penn, DE.

I heard a couple of weeks ago that California is planning on shutting down a couple of Nucs and replacing them with natural gas plants. I guess carbon emissions are less important that nuclear waste these days?

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (123k)
13 GLK250 (135k)
06 E320CDI (323K)
16 C300 (62K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

Quite a bit I'd guess. It's very windy in coastal Sussex County. About 10 years ago there was a plan to install 150 wind turbines 10-20 miles of the coast. It was torpedoed because people at the beach didn't want to see wind turbines and the details of the increases in electric rates and how they would be allocated and paid for played out.

I can't remember the specifics but I think the projections were that the average electric bill would have jumped 30-40% when the costs of construction and operation were factored in. Haven't heard anything since.

It is impressive to see the number of wind turbines in west Texas, on a clear day from 30,000 feet they seem to go on for hundreds of miles. Seems like it would be a whole lot easier to install and maintain a turbine in west Texas as opposed to 20 miles off the Delaware coast in the Atlantic ocean.

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (123k)
13 GLK250 (135k)
06 E320CDI (323K)
16 C300 (62K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

I'm sure that nuke in the distance is just as attractive as off shore wind turbines would be.

The fossil industry has funded bogus opposition to renewables and climate denial for a long time. The Kochs and others funnel a lot of their money thru dark money laundering operations like Donors Trust. In the last millennium, they teamed up with big tobacco. As a Brown and Williamson Tobacco spokes critter put it, our product is doubt.

Replacing nukes with gas, especially fracked gas is a bogus solution driven by the fossil industry, which is scared sh@%less of being left with "stranded assets" as their product becomes non competitive. In NY, Idiot Point nuclear power plant is slated for closure, and they are building gas plants near Middletown, and Cricket Valley that nobody wants except the big boys.

By virtue of being decentralized, renewables give individuals greater independence from energy monopolies, a great conservative value. They also create more jobs per dollar than centralized energy sources, jobs that can't be exported. Nuclear power creates the fewest jobs per dollar of all.

Germany has a cloudy climate. They have enough solar installed that on a good sunny day during the peak solar season, they have approached 100%
of electricity generation. They are far from 100% renewable year round.

I have repeatedly said that nobody can predict the future with 100% reliability, and that my crystal ball is partly cloudy on the best days. Dr Seba is not God. Point well taken about the "grain of salt".

There are plenty of good reasons to hope he is right though, and those of us who can afford to, to help push the process along. I installed my solar PV system in '09 and it has worked flawlessly, totally off-setting my electric usage. Still haven't bought an electric car though. Now back to that tranny fluid change on the 300D ugh!

We got so off topic, partly my fault i guess!

Waste vegetable oil might be able to save the diesel. It would be going full circle back to the origin of the diesel motor, which was designed to run on vegetable oil. And our old Mercedes seem to have among the best of engines for running happily on it. Mine have been for over 10 years essentially trouble-free.

It has a near zero net carbon wheel-print, in that it is derived from growing plants, not fossil carbon. Unfortunately, there is not enough WVO to go around, and if we planted all the fallow land in oil crops, there still would not be enough to run our whole transportation system.

Solar powered EV's will be the mainstay, with considerable help from wind, hydro and tidal.

Wondering if my guesstimate of running an EV from a solar array in Delaware, about 1/10 the cost of running on fossil, comes anywhere near TimFreeh's calculations.

O.K. one more small excursion OT.

All of you anti-nuke power plant people are ignoring a safe, clean process for producing virtually unlimited electrical power. The U.S. Navy has had tens of thousands of people living within FEET of a nuclear reactor for the last 50 or so years. None of their kids has grown an extra limb to my knowledge.

Many of the anti-nukies are the same ones demand electrically driven autos. I submit that if we are to embrace that as the prime motive source of the future, we will need vastly more electrical charging capacity than we have today. Nuc plants are the answer. Solar is a pipe dream.

Sorry Rocky, but the facts on the ground and simple economics are shifting away from centralized power plants, especially nuclear and coal.

Nukes are great if we ignore the energy involved in building the plant, mining and refining, what to do with the waste, and godess forbid, the fossil fuels wasted as millions try to evacuate from even one accident.

China installed 34 gigawatts of solar, and the U.S 14.6 gigawatts in 2016 alone. That is equivalent of 48 nuclear power plants in ONE YEAR! Nukes take many years to build. There is zero possibility of a catastrophic solar accident. PV's last for decades, run on FREE FUEL, and are terrorism resistant.

Don't take my word for it, do your own research. Nuclear industry talking points notwithstanding, nuclear plants are closing down faster than they are being built.

We'll just bury all that wonderful nuclear waste in your back yard.
LOL

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

Britain has recently taken a very aggressive stance on the future of Diesels with a goal of banning them altogether by 2040. I'm not sure what or how that will effect the old ones there but as a Nation with one of the strictest emissions controls on motor vehicles, I'm pretty confident we'll be following suit post haste despite the present administration's lack of support in that direction. BioDiesel is a great fuel IMHO but has limiting factors in production to sustain Diesel technology for the world demands. There's an enormous supply of waste plastic in land fills and our oceans. If there was or is a way to process that into a useable and environment friendly fuel for our engines the future may be bright. Another alternative I believe has potential is aquaculture and ocean harvesting of phytoplankton for the production of biofuels. I think the General field of economics is pseudoscience with exception to the principle of supply and demand which again, IMHO is the most relevant factor in predicting "Future of old Diesels". The 1% has carefully, creatively, and systematically marketed to the masses. The demand is in their favor and the future of old Diesels is headed for the history book.. as you were, history websites and automotive museum. Enjoy them while you can.
P.S.
I think the energy discussion and debate is a great topic for a new thread. Lots of good stuff in here. I'd love to weigh in on toxic waste associated with the production of solar panels but... what the hell im going to start a new thread on the evolution of this thread.

Britain will ban ALL diesels? If true, I find that pretty preposterous. Considering that their transportation and shipping industries are all built on the backs of the diesel engine. What of the diesel trains, trucks, buses, delivery vans, tractors, construction equipment etc....the list goes on....One does not simply "ban" the diesel mordor.....ehh? anyone?

I know this. What I wanted you to explain is how Germany was able to generate 100% of their electricity from a grid that only generated 6% of its total power in 2016. I know that on sunny days solar panels can produce lots of power compared to cloudy days but given that the total production (including all cloudy and sunny days) was 6% for 2016 how in the world could any given sunny day turn 6% into 100%?

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (123k)
13 GLK250 (135k)
06 E320CDI (323K)
16 C300 (62K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

You forgot the part about ban the sale of new diesel and petrol cars by 2040 in the UK which is completely doable with a 23 year time frame. The devil is always in the details.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/britain-to-ban-sale-of-all-diesel-and-petrol-cars-and-vans-from-2040

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words