There's a story in the news today about a new power plant in Oregon that uses solar, wind power, and large scale batteries.

https://apnews.com/article/oregon-po...3d399ac59fe42b

A renewable energy plant in Oregon that combines solar power, wind power and massive batteries to store the energy generated there officially opened Wednesday as the first utility-scale plant of its kind in North America.

The project, which can generate enough electricity to power a small city at maximum output, addresses a key challenge facing the utility industry as the U.S. transitions away from fossil fuels and increasingly turns to solar and wind farms for power. Wind and solar are clean sources of power, but utilities have been forced to fill in gaps when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining with fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.

At the Oregon plant, massive lithium batteries store up to 120 megawatt-hours of power generated by the 300-megawatt wind farms and 50-megawatt solar farm so it can be released to the electric grid on demand. At maximum output, the facility can produce more than half of the power that was generated by Oregon’s last coal plant, which was demolished earlier this month.

On-site battery storage isn’t new, and interest in solar-plus-battery projects in particular has soared in the U.S. in recent years due to robust tax credits and incentives and the falling price of batteries. The Wheatridge Renewable Energy Facility in Lexington, however, is the first in the U.S. to combine integrated wind, solar and battery storage at such a large scale in one location, giving it even more flexibility to generate continuous output without relying on fossil fuels to fill in the gaps.

The project is “getting closer and closer to having something with a very stable output profile that we traditionally think of being what’s capable with a fuel-based generation power plant,” said Jason Burwen, vice president of energy storage at the American Clean Power Association, an advocacy group for the clean power industry.

“If the solar is chugging along and cloud cover comes over, the battery can kick in and make sure that the output is uninterrupted. As the sun goes down and the wind comes online, the battery can make sure that that’s very smooth so that it doesn’t, to the grid operator, look like anything unusual.”

The plant located in a remote expanse three hours east of Portland is a partnership between NextEra Energy Resources and Portland General Electric, a public utility required to reduce carbon emissions by 100% by 2040 under an Oregon climate law passed last year, one of the most ambitious in the nation.

PGE’s customers are also demanding green power — nearly a quarter-million customers receive only renewable energy — and the Wheatridge project is “key to that decarbonization strategy,” said Kristen Sheeran, PGE’s director of sustainability strategy and resource planning.

Under the partnership, PGE owns one-third of the wind output and purchases all the facility’s power for its renewable energy portfolio. NextEra, which developed the site and operates it, owns two-thirds of the wind output and all of the solar output and storage.

“The mere fact that many other customers are looking at these types of facilities gives you a hint at what we think could be possible,” said David Lawlor, NextEra’s director of business development for the Pacific Northwest. “Definitely customers want firmer generation, starting with the battery storage in the back.”

Large-scale energy storage is critical as the U.S. shifts to more variable power sources like wind and solar, and Americans can expect to see similar projects across the country as that trend accelerates. National Renewable Energy Laboratory models show U.S. storage capacity may rise fivefold by 2050, yet experts say even this won’t be enough to prevent extremely disruptive climate change.

Batteries aren’t the only solution that the clean energy industry is trying out. Pumped storage generates power by sending huge volumes of water downhill through turbines and others are experimenting with forcing water underground and holding it there before releasing it to power turbines.

But interest in batteries for clean energy storage has grown dramatically in recent years at the same time that the cost of batteries is falling and the technology itself is improving, boosting interest in hybrid plants, experts say.

Generating capacity from hybrid plants increased 133% between 2020 and 2021 and by the end of last year, there were nearly 8,000 megawatts of wind or solar generation connected to storage, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is managed by the University of California.

The vast majority of such projects are solar power with battery storage, largely because of tax credits, but projects in the pipeline include offshore wind-plus-battery, hydroelectric-plus-battery and at least nine facilities like the one in Oregon that will combine solar, wind and storage. Projects in the pipeline between 2023 and 2025 include ones in Washington, California, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois and Oregon, according to Berkeley Lab.

Many researchers and pilots are working on alternatives to lithium ion batteries, however, largely because their intrinsic chemistry limits them to around four hours of storage and a longer duration would be more useful.

“There is no silver bullet. There’s no model or prototype that’s going to meet that entire need ... but wind and solar will certainly be in the mix,” said PGE’s Sheeran.

“This model can become a tool for decarbonization across the West as the whole country is driving toward very ambitious climate reduction goals.”

Electric Companies have been using Wind Parks for years (about 10 years) to generate
electric power inm the Thumb of Michigan.

https://www.newlook.dteenergy.com/wp...df?MOD=AJPERES

Same deal with areas in the southwest that get a lot of wind daily.

Tom V.

There are quite a few power plants using wind and/or solar as part of their power generation, the place in Oregon is the first major one that uses them exclusively without some other source like gas or coal.

Just read this earlier this morning:

"Tesla charging costs equal fueling of gas vehicles in California as it raises Supercharger prices and limits off-peak hours"

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-....658607.0.html

What's this all about?

"tesla has both raised Supercharger pricing and narrowed off-peak hour windows in California. Citing energy costs in the Sunshine State, Tesla increased Supercharger pricing to $0.65 per kWh at 'select' locations, hitting parity with a gas car consumption at US$6 a gallon."

When you artificially make fossil fuels more expensive, you increase demand for other fuels. As a result, demand increases for those alternative fuels and those prices increase.

Doing this in California where the electric grid is currently not able to consistently meet the demand for power is just adding insult to injury.

Their are very good applications for electric vehicles. But the decision to ban ICE sales totally by 2035 and forcing the purchase of EV's for all applications is not the solution to any problem.

I saw this on the Today show this morning: https://www.edisonmotors.ca They're a startup company that is developing a diesel electric logging truck, with a large battery pack on board. So far they've built a proof of concept truck using a 1962 Kenworth. It has a 3306 CAT diesel generator charging a battery bank, running a frame mounted electric drive motor into a traditional set of 46,000 rear ends. From what the owner said, they want to move towards motors in the wheels for production trucks, and are also planning on retrofit kits for existing trucks. It will be interesting to see if they can succeed.

This is why we aren’t hearing from the oil companies that have an investment in every corner gas station. They know it isn’t sustainable.

Interesting test, seemingly designed to bring out all of the electric haters.

I really like Tom V.'s comments about EV's reducing emissions in the cities.

I live in rural Missouri, and don't really think an EV, as an ONLY vehicle, would be a good purchase at this time for me. I am about 35 miles from a hospital, and not sure I could make that trip at zero degrees F.

I have 2 John Deere electric riding mowers from the late 1960's, and early 1970's. These use three 12-volt marine batteries (the system is 36 volt). These will mow about 3/4 of an acre as long as one does not allow the grass to get too tall. Batteries are EXPENSiVE (about $1000 for the 3), but will last maybe 10 years. Deere offered a snow blade, but I have never seen one. I would really have enjoyed seeing what the time would be in the cold.

As to the electric grid: 50~60 years ago, some of the rural electric co-ops in north central Missouri really had less supply of electricity than needed to serve their customers under extreme conditions. Their solution was time regulated hot water heaters. Customers that were willing to place a regulator (preventing the heater from working from about 5~9 P.M.) were offered a reduced electric rate from those that refused to allow the regulators. Virtually everyone I knew had the regulator. The same technology could be applied in reverse, where customers working 8-5, could plug in their EV's when they returned home but no charging would occur, until maybe midnight a device would then turn on the charger, and the EV would be charged for the next day.

Electric grids can provide a lot of electricity if the AVERAGE demand is increased, without increasing the MAXIMUM demand.

Jon

I certainly agree that EV’s have their place. My wife drives 10 miles to and from work. She is probably the ideal candidate for an EV. However, she drives to her parents at least once a month- 3 hours each way. Often times she will drive right back which an EV (currently) would not be able to do.

I don't think most people are EV haters as much as they are "Being forced to buy an EV" haters. Can't say I really blame them. Best way to make me NOT want to do something is to tell me I HAVE to do it :)

Yes what they are doing in Cali is crazy. To ban ICE vehicles from the new car lots is going extreme. Technology of the electric vehicles ,charging stations,charge times ,etc is not far along yet to ban ICE vehicles. I dont mind a hybrid vehicle,,I would consider one,at least it wouldnt be totally reliant on the batteries.. But you cant drive this stuff down peoples throats,,especially when it doesnt make sense. Also if I need a diesel generator to charge my batteries? Kinda a hybrid.

Consider this.
So far EV'S are Not " FARAD" Protected.
Imagine a EMP. Then imagine a terrorist with a small EMP device. Could put a halt to the whole Santa Anna freeway in an Instant.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:Heaven Forbid, you can't drive on the Santa Anna Freeway. LOL!

An EMP damages modern electronic devices by injecting an unexpected electrical current into their circuits and overloading them. The external wires that attach to most electronic devices (i.e., data cables and power cords) act as antennas that collect the pulse’s energy and funnel it straight into fragile circuits. The longer the wire to the device, the more EMP energy that wire directs into the interior of that device where it can do damage.

The more modern the circuits in a car or device, the more sensitive they are to smaller changes in current. So as our electronics get more advanced, shorter wires can collect enough current to overload them.

HEMP is not actually a thing preppers should worry about. Or, to be more precise, a HEMP attack on the continental US is a nuclear attack, so if it happens then it’ll be in the context of a full-scale nuclear war. In such a scenario, you’ve got far more immediate problems than a dead starter.

Solar EMPs are much more likely than any kind of man-made EMP, but a solar storm can’t generate the kinds of high-frequency EMP needed to knock out small electronics like those found in cars. So the more plausible solar EMP scenario is not a direct threat to your ride. (It is, however, an indirect threat via its impact on the country’s energy infrastructure, but more on that, below.)

All of society’s detailed knowledge about which cars will likely survive a nuclear-generated, high-altitude EMP (HEMP) and which won’t, is classified by various governments. But we do know enough to give some general guidelines:



The newer the car, the more vulnerable it is to HEMP.
Pre-1970’s cars are best, but are probably still vulnerable, depending on various factors.
Any car of any make/model/year needs its critical electrical parts to be protected by a metal Faraday cage for best results.

The fact that cars are made of metal does give them some limited shielding from EMP. But this spotty shielding just reduces the odds of damage by an unknown (and unknowable) degree that’s dependent on a ton of variables related to the blast and the vehicle.

Here’s a brief, incomplete list of the factors that will determine how your car responds to a HEMP:

The size and elevation of the nuclear blast
Geographic and seasonal variations in the earth’s magnetic field at both the location of the blast and the location of the vehicle
The location and physical orientation of the vehicle with respect to the blast
The amount and position of the metal parts of the car
The number, locations, and designs of the critical electronic systems inside the car
The length of the wires and cables attached to the vehicle’s electronics


All of the above factors and more work together to determine if a particular automobile in a particular place in the country survives an EMP of a particular size at a particular elevation.

What all of that “particular” talk in the previous sentence translates to in practical terms, is that in the wake of an EMP, my ’80s diesel farm tractor could have smoke coming out of its ignition, while your Tesla Model S parked a few states away could suffer a temporary, non-fatal glitch but remain drivable.

Why? Neither of us would be able to say with any confidence.

Even if you eliminate all the above variables in one stroke by enclosing your vehicle in a conductive Faraday cage, there’s still a high likelihood that you’re wasting your time with all this vehicular EMP-proofing. Because the main thing we know for certain about the “cars and EMP question” is this: finding a working vehicle will be among the least of your problems in a post-EMP scenario.

Actually getting around in the aftermath, and keeping your ride fueled, are much larger challenges.

Here is the key sentence in the information:

Finding a working vehicle will be among the least of your problems in a post-EMP scenario.

Some of this stuff really makes me laugh. I grew up on a fame in Missouri with 3 nuke
Minuteman Silos on the property. The teachers at the time were telling the children to:
Hide under your desk if the attack comes. True Information.

The Nukes are many times more powerful vs the 1950s/1960s weapons.

But you did make me smile at your post concerning a EMF / EMP device vs driving your electric vehicle.

Tom V.

I'd worry more about emergency evacuation situations. About 150 miles out when people start running out of juice the lines form at the charging stations, the lines back up into the roads, the roads back up into the interstate, all traffic comes to a halt. Five minutes to fill up compared to minimum hour to charge makes for very long lines.

The upside ... if and when charging times come down to five minutes, as long as the grid is up, there is an endless supply of juice ... so no "Out of Gas" signs at stations which is often seen in large evacuations.

Sounds just like when the Gas at the Pumps went away years ago and people were waiting for a long period of time to get a partial fill-up.

Or in the stores, with the pandemic and the toilet paper being gone as well as
many other items. Americans are REACTIVE people.

Talking about "Getting out of Dodge" if the Nukes come is pure insanity.

Nukes at atomic sites will kill the grid then no electricity for EVs or gas station pumps unless they have back-up generators and the fuel WILL run out.

Subject for conversation but not reality in an actual situation.
Just stirring the Chit because people are bored. And this whole thread was caused by a video by a known chit stirrer.

Tom V.

This has been the main issue for the past 130 years with EV's. Nothing has changed except the push by gov't for EV's.

Spirited but polite debates are a wonderful thing. Always something to learn.

I don't believe this thread was started by a chit stirrer. It's a legitimate problem that will need to be addressed. Saying the ev truck the way it is is fine doesn't make it so.

Since I worked for one of the companies that did the initial work on the EV vehicles (as did Keith Seymore at GM on the Volt,
personally I think that the only reason we are having this thread is that the State Of California is pulling another "We don't want
emissions in our air" (like in the early 1960s) (as thousands of Acres are burning due to very poor forestry management).

I will say nothing new in the State of California with their Forked Tongue demands.

(Basically no vehicles allowed on the road unless EV).

Tom V.

interesting point.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/th...n-soon.360321/

If things remain the way they are the lithium supply problem is going to strike in a very big way in a couple of years. However, a slight loosening of environmental standards and there is plenty of lithium to be had. The US has some extremely large lithium and rare earth deposits that are off limits due to environmental concerns. The southwest US states has huge rare earth potential but most of it is on protected or government land.
But then mining and refining rare earth materials is a nasty business, and recycling/end of life processing is WAY behind what it should be ... unless battery technology changes soon we will be once again backing ourselves into an uncomfortable corner.