Plug-in Hybrids: Renewable Energy Solution of the Month


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 thoughts on “Plug-in Hybrids: Renewable Energy Solution of the Month”

  1. hawkermustang says:

    Solar panels and wind mills are a joke. They make up 0.7% of the USA's total energy needs. Total waste of time and money.

  2. Fauler Perfektionist says:

    Do you know of any other YTers focusing on just the raw facts about renewable sources of energy like this?

  3. Ebony Hide says:

    I dont get why people are prettified about the idea of renewables!!! these things will be done with are without the influences of CC,
    anyway why whinge about paying for renewables when your already pays stupid amounts of money for fossil fuels that will only ever increase in price from here an in.

    The stark line is the we HAVE to to do this sooner or later.

  4. Dakayrus says:

    The mans got a point, better is actually better.

  5. jffryh says:

    @greenman3610 not sure if it's helpful to mock someone for having an accent.

  6. jffryh says:

    @hawkermustang Americans may buy products built in Korea and Koreans can buy products built in America. Trade can make everyone better off. Or do you think someone from Arkansas should refuse to buy anything built in Mississippi. The problem of trade is the fossil fuel burnt for transport.

  7. hawkermustang says:

    @jffryh I support equal trade with foreign nations. This is what we do not have with countries like China. What we should be doing is utilizing our own resources to create jobs and keep our wealth in our country instead of buying Oil from our adversaries. With conservative estimates we have enough oil to fuel the USA for at least 200 years. There is no reason we should be dependent on foreign oil.

  8. greenman3610 says:

    The 200 year figure is utter nonsense, no matter what kind of fuel you are talking about.

  9. hawkermustang says:

    @greenman3610 OK 300 years is more like it.

  10. hawkermustang says:

    Consumer reports just did a review on the Volt and it is a big flop! Last I heard they hadn't even sold 400 cars. That is even with the big tax payer subsidity. The Leaf is not doing much better. The range and power on these electric cars suck bro.

  11. greenman3610 says:

    wait and see what 5 dollar gas does to sales.

  12. hawkermustang says:

    @greenman3610 It should cause Obama to get voted out of office. He really sucks.

  13. greenman3610 says:

    Most people that say that voted for Bush twice.

  14. hawkermustang says:

    @greenman3610 Hell yeah, bro most conservative live in reality and not in fantasy island! You liberal clowns think you can power the world on rainbow juice but that shit ain't happening Tatoo!!

  15. greenman3610 says:

    I rest my case.

  16. Q-Hack! says:

    When my farm equipment can be run on this technology, I will consider it. However, currently the electric pickups I have seen won't handle the loads I need. You city folk can go ahead with your commuter vehicles, but I need the power of diesel to haul my crops to market.

  17. greenman3610 says:

    it's coming.
    we'll let you country folk know when it's ready.

  18. Q-Hack! says:

    @greenman3610 Yep. I am just worried that legislatures will make laws that hinder the old technology to promote the new. When that happens, you also affect the rural folk who rely on it. I am all for new tech, but don't make it cost prohibitive to those who provide the food on the table for the world. Like all things new, we have to bring about the change such that you don't hinder those who count on the older way to survive. When the technology is cheap enough, people will switch over.

  19. greenman3610 says:

    I suspect that this will be a continued role for liquid fuels for several decades – problem will either be solved by breakthroughs in battery or fuel cells, or by more widespread use of bioreactors in agricultural areas that will produce ethanol, bio-diesel, or methane from agricultural products. Probably all of the above.

  20. rorymccallum says:

    I love how the USA force world best technology out of they country and keep buying resources for the rest of the world.
    China is not going to take over the world, USA is going to hand it to them on a plate.
    The reason china wants electric cars is the same reason that the USA should, ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
    I think conservatives and liberals should at-least agree on that.
    Focus on the best way to get there with the cheapest technology and let ideology stand aside.

  21. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    Thanks for the video. However, I would like to point out a couple of stuff:
    1) Plug-in hybrid vehicles still use oil based fossil fuels, and of course batteries. I'd challenge you to make some calculations on the amount of energy you need to produce those batteries (take into account mining of lithium, processing and etc…)
    2) EV1 was a great success and was killed because of great oil interests. GM had profits with these vehicles rent. They were dismantled even… what a waste of resources.

  22. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    3) I'm well aware of the load diagram you showed. There are a lot of misconceptions:
    a) The solution you showed is assuming there will still be nuclear and coal plants to satisfy the load. Either way with a PHEV, the energy demands are going to increase. Your car can indeed be stopped 23 out of 24 hours, but the energy you charged during the night will all be most likely consumed in that 1 hour of moving. You seem to have forgot that cars serve the purpose to transport us, not serve as battery..

  23. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    b) At the current price batteries are, unless these solutions are subsided by state entities (with tax payers money), I don't see any of them making into the real market right now. c) 1 kWh costs around 10 cents. Each PHEV battery can hold no more than 10 kWh. That does 1 €/day of sold energy. Considering we have also to buy those 10 kWh, then I dont see the monetary point of draining my car's battery, just to gain nothing. Bare in mind that batteries have limited number charge/discharge cycles.

  24. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    Unless of course state entities subside energy selling by batteries, this is nothing more than an utopia and a decentralized waste of resources (batteries).
    c) Every energy transfer process has losses associated. You cannot transfer 1 J of one type of energy into 1 J of other type. Entropy must always rise, limiting the efficiency. Every battery charge/discharge cycle will impose losses, so you're not displacing completely the consumption by storing electricity. Some of it is lost.

  25. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    4) The concept of smart grids have existed for more than 30 years now. But it is often mistaken with the new approach to "internet" the power network. I've stated before that the grid in 100 years has grown always to increase its size, and to centralize production. Who works in the economic dispatch knows how stressful is to manage wind power, and how unstable can a grid be with too many wind turbines connected. You end up needing coal/nuclear, just in case wind stops blowing…

  26. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    That is why you have loads of MW of installed renewable power, but when you see the actual energy produced numbers, the mix makes a whole different picture.
    5) Don't get me wrong. We're going to face uranium/coal/oil depletion soon and the solutions/challenges presented here will eventually be the future. But we also need to get rid of money in the process and to ensure a safe transition between the current and that society. In that transition,the only viable and sustainable solution is nuclear.

  27. greenman3610 says:

    If I told someone from 15 years ago about the type of files I was working with currently on my computer, he woudl have said "nonsense! imagine the number of floppy discs that would take!"
    Most of your objections fall along those lines.
    I'm too pressed for time right now to go through them, but will return to these posts in coming days.

  28. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @greenman3610 I understand that point. But don't compare informatics with energy systems. Power systems have 100 years, computers have 35ish. Moore's law only applies to computers, not power systems…

  29. greenman3610 says:

    see my wind videos


  30. greenman3610 says:

    the example shows that we can move rapidly to electric vehicles without overburdening the system while we develop renewables. renewables with storage are already being deployed, even though the need for storage is overblown, with a well integrated system.
    just a decade or so ago, engineers thought that renewables could not be more than 5 percent or so of the system. now there are many examples of grids where renewables are 10 and 20 percent, with plans for more.

  31. greenman3610 says:

    you are making an argument for distributed energy systems, which is what we are beginning to see with the deployment of renewables. as solar photovoltaic costs go lower than coal over the next 5 years, we will see distributed generation become more and more part of "baseload" power, as the grid becomes more like the internet.
    It is an illusion that the electrical grid cannot be changed in less than 100 years.
    In the next 30 it will be completely remade.

  32. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @greenman3610 I agree with this. I'd love to see that happen. But until we get to that 30 year objective, we need a transition plan and that is my main fight here.

    The Germans are going to shut down all nuclear power plants until 2022. You want to bet on energy price levels their energy is going to be until and after then? And replace Nuclear with what in 10 years?? Coal?? This is the incongruities and demagogueries I can't stand.

  33. greenman3610 says:

    as I'll show in future videos, coal is not an option in any case. Nuclear takes 10 years to build one plant, and then is a 40 years committment, sucking up the capital we need for the transformation. No one outside of a highly controlled economy, ie france, russia, etc, is building nuclear plants. why? because they cannot stand the test of a market.

  34. greenman3610 says:

    I hope I don't have to emphasize that those controlled economies include outlaw states like IRan and n. Korea, where we are told, Nukes won't be allowed on threat of starting WWIII.
    parts of germany are already 50 percent wind powered. the renewables are simply competing much more strongly than anyone would have believed 10 years ago, and that is only going to increase as costs come down.

  35. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @greenman3610 China is building nuclear (german nuclear specialists were even invited to China lol), Iran is building nuclear, Poland will build nuclear, Baltic countries are building nuclear, Finland is building nuclear. What more??
    Building a nuclear plant takes no less than 4 years, things can last 10 years, but that's worst case scenario. Bill Gates is researching traveling wave nuclear reactors what for???

  36. greenman3610 says:

    you support my point about controlled economies. By the way, check out how "well" that Finnish plant is doing, google
    Areva Finnish Nuclear Plant Overruns Approach Initial Cost After Provision
    In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble

    that the inventor of Windows thinks nuclear is a good idea, is not comforting.

  37. greenman3610 says:

    moreover, by the time traveling wave reactors are ready, if ever, the revolution will be over.

  38. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @greenman3610 Bill Gates just gives the money to build the supercomputers that can simulate the particle models. Check is TED talk at 2010 about traveling wave nuclear reactors.

  39. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @greenman3610 «“We get sloppy” in the rich world, because we can afford to pay extra for solar or wind power. But in order to make a real impact, the costs have to become competitive with current fossil-based energy. (…) In 80% of the world, energy will be bought where it is economic. (…) You have to help the rest of the world get energy at a reasonable price.»
    Quoted from Bill Gates 1 month ago.

  40. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @greenman3610 "What about distributed energy where every house generates their own and feeds it back into the grid? Gates thinks that is a “cute” idea, but “it’s not gonna happen.” Bigger power generation facilities, such as solar fields in the desert, are necessary. “If you are going for cuteness, go after the those things at the home. If you want to solve the energy problem go after the big things in the desert.”

  41. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @mphello Dude you're highly radical and extremist. Greenman is a good listener and a good person to argue with, but you are just nuts. Throwing people into jail just for burning fossil fuels?? Do you know that we also emit CO2?? Do you want to throw me into jail for breathing too? Be my guest. That is not going to solve anything, and there is no possible way for you to create such as legislation worldwide. You would just force emigration and population displacement.

  42. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @mphello I'm saying need to get rid of money as concept. Not just person X getting rid of it to person Y. You're advocating free energy for all (Tesla vision) in this channel, yet you're still putting money in the equation for whatever reason. If you can distribute energy freely for all, food, shelter, water, etc. is just a matter of you wanting to do it. I bet you don't like nukes, but nuking the Fed would be cool, wouldn't it?? 😀

  43. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @mphello I take those issues more serious than terrorism too, don't get me wrong. I'm just sayin' that your measures are too extreme. First you suggest population control by extermination, then you say incarcerate people in jail for burning coal. You have to admit that you're too extremist. Just because similar abuses are currently done by other reasons, doesn't make your proposed abuses self righteous, on the contrary actually. Just chill, enjoy life and do your research. Tyvm.

  44. Gonçalo Aguiar says:

    @mphello I'm pondering in going vegan too, but that's not a thing I can transitate into because I have family and you know things are complicated. Also I don't quite believe in vegetals quality from where I can get them. Until I can't grow them for myself I won't do that transition.
    I challenge you again for a man-to-man argument in skype so you can understand my position. If you're interested just PM me. Thank you very much.

  45. ORIANA250 says:

    I am all for green energy but man made climate change is a farce, that is used to justifies a new carbon tax that will accomplish nothing but make a few rich people richer by making the rest of us poorer, it also justifies world depopulation aka killing mass amounts of people because it views us as a parasite to the planet. I am not saying there is no climate change I am saying we are not causing it.

  46. greenman3610 says:

    please reference where I have advocated depopulation.
    Note: the recent oil wars against third world people were started and shilled by climate deniers, ie Dick Cheney, Haliburton, Fox news etc.
    My take is, go renewable so we no longer can be blackmailed by climate denial pushers like Exxon.
    Obviously, you differ.

  47. ORIANA250 says:

    @greenman3610 I never said I was a climate change denier, I said climate change is not man made. we should label people that believe in man made global warming as "science deniers" or "natural cycle deniers" or "cosmic deniers" man made climate change is an invention to profit from, make every one believe the world is going to end so you can usurer in carbon taxes, sell over priced alternative energy's that should be cheap and depopulate the world because we are viewed as a parasite or virus.

  48. ORIANA250 says:

    @greenman3610 globalist are playing both sides, one says climate change the other says no climate change, either way big oil makes big money, you barely scratched the surface with the political side of the issue. I am not saying we shouldn't go as green as we can, I agree we should, but not because we are being scared into doing it but because it is better and more efficient, unfortunately big oil has all the patents to many alternative energy's and they will milk oil as long as they can.

  49. greenman3610 says:

    the science says the current warming is man made. sorry.
    again, your "depopulation" rant is Glenn Beck nonsense. I really think you'd be happier on some conspiracy site, don't you?

  50. ORIANA250 says:

    @greenman3610 I don't watch or listen to mr beck, I simply pay attention and can see where this is going so keep drinking that fluoridated water its good for you and enjoy those carbon taxes I am sure it will reduce c02 emissions.

  51. greenman3610 says:

    fluoridated water?
    "precious bodily fluids"

  52. kuvceebxab1 says:

    @ORIANA250 correction. We are not the sole cause of climate change is more correct; 60% by us human,
    40% natural…. To say we have nothing to do with climate change is also a farce or to say that all climate change is purely natural is also a farce.

  53. Zantorc says:

    I've often wondered, why aren't all air-conditioning units solar powered, swapping to grid power only when necessary?

  54. Arne Perschel says:

    Flying car /watch?v=aeQL-dUjlOg

  55. greenman3610 says:

    they had something like this back in the 50s.

  56. whodathunkit1960 says:

    "Climate Truthers" are absolutely PRICELESS in what they will ignore!

    compare the TRUE eco footprint of your green car vs a 1965 Ford that gets 12 mpg

    due to the exotics required your hybrid starts out with an Eco-footprint 4x that of the old dinosaur

    your eco-steed has batteries that must be replaced EVERY 5 YEARS (IF you are lucky and get that out of them)

    unless you are generating your own via solar, wind or whatever. your elecricity has a eco-footprint nearly equal to that of Gasoline.

  57. VictorLepanto says:

    I would have more respect for a man who believed in Santa Claus rather then in electric cars. People who believe in electric cars need to learn about a little something we like to call the laws of physics.

  58. cristoballs says:

    greenman, what are your thoughts on tariffs which artificially inflate the price of import vehicles? if we are truly interested in the best technology wouldn't it make sense to do away with the tarriffs on our foreign competitors?

  59. greenman3610 says:

    you make a good point. I'm not sure where I stand on that, but living in Michigan, I'm torn between anger at the smug, incompetent managers of our auto companies, and the real needs of our large corp of skilled workers – who can compete with anyone.
    It would appear that the rising price of energy is making all US products more competitive against foreign imports, due to increased costs of transport.

  60. Gary Hite says:

    @VictorLepanto I know its been a while since you message this video, but could you explain how the electric cars violate any of the laws of physics?

  61. VictorLepanto says:

    @Theimmortalwhitewolf: Electric cars are promoted on conservation or environmental grounds. It is this that is contrary to the laws of physics. Having cars run on electric instead of being directly fueled by their own engine will always require a GREATER use of fuel. In order to run an electic car you must have battery. A battery must be charged, to get a charge into a battery you must 1st use more power then the battery is capabe of holding. Electric cars mean HIGHER fuel consumption.

  62. Gary Hite says:

    @VictorLepanto Well not saying your wrong , but to point out the thermodynamic limit of most steel engines are 37%. However the average range is 18-20%(because 37% assume ideal conditions) . Electric motors convert 75% of the chemical energy from the batteries to power the wheels. So if you can have an efficient means of producing power in the local region, you could beat the overall system efficiency from energy source (oil well) to power delivered to the wheels.

  63. VictorLepanto says:

    @Theimmortalwhitewolf: The electric motor converting the energy from the battery has nothing to do w/ getting that energy in there in fhe 1st place. I am talking about ability of the battery to actually store the charge. Also, as a battery loses charge there is also a loss out put. No way do electric battering makes sense from an environmental perspective. I haven't even discussed the other drawbacks such as inconvenience & toxins. I've worked w/ electic engines professionally.

  64. greenman3610 says:

    see the climate crocks blog for a recent post on this — google
    Electric Vehicles New and Old. Musk and Lutz interview.

  65. greenman3610 says:

    there will always be idiots.

  66. MrJarth says:

    @rhinoboy111 well the electricity can be generated from non-fossile fuels. the importance of a hybrid is it doesn't make big oil as angry as a pure electric car.

    unfortunately shorter product time usage and more maintainance makes money on every selling front. when you say a normal car you mean today's car. the cars of yesterday were less efficient but ran longer and required less maintainance, like most other products. this trend most likely wont stop, its a burden of capitalism/industrialism

  67. greenman3610 says:

    sorry, but the video is right, your paranoia about smart grids is just that.
    The fleet of electric cars would indeed have a huge amount of battery storage. Progressive utilities like Austin Electric and San Diego Muni are already making plans for this. Electric Power Research Institute is working on it as well.
    If you have info they do not have, your future as a consultant is bright.

  68. greenman3610 says:

    I don't think the video says anywhere that there will be the same number of cars in the future, or that we should be as dependent on cars as now. For sure the chinese will not live like Los Angelenos.
    In fact, Americans are already starting to drive less, — google
    Lester Brown on the End of Coal and Sunsetting Carbon

  69. Quercuspalustris50 says:

    Can you please explain your premise that stored energy capacity is always going to be less than, or as you put it, "a fraction of", the stored energy source's capacity, for a finite period of time? Can you explain it using mathematics (the mathematics related to electricity)? For example, imagine a grid with one power plant that can deliver, on average, x units of energy over a given time period, t. (continued)

  70. Quercuspalustris50 says:

    (…continued) Now imagine there are 10 batteries hooked up to the grid which have the capacity to store 5x units of energy each. So that the entire capacity for all the batteries is 50x units of energy. Thus it would take 50 units of time (t) for the power plant to charge all batteries to their fullest capacity. The batteries could be slower, if you like at delivering energy themselves: Say they deliver 1/3x units of energy per our standard unit of time, compared with the power plant…

  71. Quercuspalustris50 says:

    (…continued) That would mean that the batteries could deliver (because there are ten of them) 10/3x/t. Or in other words they could deliver 3.33 units of power for a given period of time, while the power plant can only deliver 1 unit of power for that same time period. The batteries can't do it for a long period of time. After 5 times the standard time period, they are out of juice. But the point is the batteries, during short periods of time, can deliver more energy than the power plant.

  72. Quercuspalustris50 says:

    (…continued) Thus it is that the rate of discharge of the batteries is not a limiting factor for producing multiples of the amount of power that the plant can deliver, for small time periods.

  73. felderup says:

    about smart meters set up to share power from the car battery pack… there'd be no need for smart meter communications at all, there's already grid tie solar/wind stations that feed the grid without smart meters. all it takes is a meter that can run backward, when demand is high, power will flow out of the house. with a battery powered car, you set it to cut off after it's dropped by 5-10% of capacity, and it'd just do it all passively.

  74. Cody Lupardus says:

    Did I heard Donkey Kong Country 3 music in that? Boss fight music?

  75. TheCrankyCow says:

    (I know this is 3 months old but I did not see a response)
    12x the grid capacity is not a measurement of the ability to generate power it's a measurement of the ability to store electricity.
    As the batteries in this case act more like capacitors(they are batteries due to them storing energy by chemical means rather then electrical).

  76. TheCrankyCow says:

    Yes Im well aware you cant discharge a battery as quickly as a plate capacitor.
    You also cant drain a lithium battery that would power a car in 2 hours without it catcing something on fire (that would melt copper wires so let alone any plastic around). and yea that would be a stupid idea.

  77. TheCrankyCow says:

    you seem to be missing the fact the driver is a willing partisipant and there is a computer involved in cutting off the grid. You could set it up so 30% of the battery is used for the grid while the rest is for driveing. More then enough to get home and do whatever.

    as for the grid build on renewable energy is very far off but this is a good first step in the infrastructure change as grid capacitance is required simply to smooth out the voltage spikes from renewable sources.

  78. TheCrankyCow says:

    "multiple on the grid but only for a short time"
    i think the video addressed this
    the average car sits for 23 hours in the day so there would be plenty of time on the grid

  79. pilotlance says:

    At the end the narrator says something about free energy! Who pays for the infrastructure? They keep on talking about climate change. Since the beginning of time the earth has had climate change. From the ice age where a majority of the earth was covered with frozen water to a later time when a large portion of what we accept now as coastal areas was covered with water bodies. The earth is in a constant state of flux/change. We can't stop it. We can only decrease the rate of change a little.

  80. greenman3610 says:

    who pays for infrastructure now?
    climate change is mainstream science, which is the only thing I report on.

  81. drummer703 says:

    The Chevy Volt? Oh, isn't that the car that caught fire all the time? Yeah, there's a reliable car.

  82. greenman3610 says:

    actually, its not. its the car that won just about every engineering award that there is, and which is increasing sales by leaps and bounds. That one.

  83. drummer703 says:

    "it's not" you say? Yeah, I didn't think it was reliable either.

  84. greenman3610 says:

    wow dude, you got me. point for you.

  85. drummer703 says:

    Haha! Score one for me.

    Oh btw, you can thank my liberal professor my comments. He's the one forcing me to watch this garbage for his class.

  86. greenman3610 says:

    Car and Driver eval
    Motor Trend eval here

  87. Arnold Ziffel says:

    Highest in customer satisfaction.

  88. 64jcl says:

    Nice to see some positive videos coming now. 🙂 – I think we all need to look at the win win situation of going to non fossil fuel transport. Here in Norway the electrical car has literally taken off in sales and its very common here for the 2nd car a family owns is an electrical. Studies have shown that the electrical car is also used the most of the two cars after a while. Ofc a main reason for the success is almost no taxes on electrical vehicles and its use (no road tax/tolls).

  89. Darryl Jones says:

    ONE of them did and that was 3 weeks after its crash test; since when do gas or even diesel powered cars grant you that kind of a warning period before catching fire?

  90. greenman3610 says:

    what trolls?

  91. Philippe Cyr says:

    Honda Insight Hybrid System = equals my idea from a program that we had at my High school which also happened to have Honda Canada Mfg. as a sponsor

  92. Tex Murphy says:

    Chevy Volt
    380 lb battery charged = 1 gal of gas.
    supposedly 40 miles but if u run AC or heat it reduces it to 20mile.
    Now your hauling 380 lbs of dead weight.
    This is why other cars built in the Volt frame are more energy efficient in general than the Volt. They produce LESS carbon if driven more than 20miles.
    You have to include the battery, production, shippping, disposal, coal burnt to charge it.

  93. Yngve B says:

    That's not necessarily the case. The Volt can run its small gasoline engine at the RPM giving the highest torque output regardless of car speed. This means it runs at its most energy efficient. The electric motor will be 90% efficient and has a high torque at every RPM. You also have to take the weight of the gasoline engine into consideration. This may be smaller for the Volt.

  94. Tex Murphy says:

    Volt gets less mpg and range than the a Cruze who uses the same base, even when the Volt starts out with a fully charged battery.
    If you think the charged battery is eco frendly, you are wrong.
    Most electric is coal fired.
    There is 10% loss in power lines, another 10%, charging & 10% discharge. This negates the motor efficiency.
    You better off burning the fuel in the IC car.

  95. paz9iffy says:

    You obviously did not watch the whole video!

  96. Shawn says:

    I'm still waiting for the cars from Fallout 3 that make a huge explosion when shot with a pistol.

  97. Akira Mishtokaru says:

    @greenman3610 Hello there +greenman3610 ! I would like to know your toughts on the emerging technology of LIFTR, The molten salt thorium reactor. It is said that it could produce energy cheaper than coal (which is the cheapest now) and produce less than a tenth of the nuclear waste made by a nowadays nuclear reactor.
    What do you consider about this? youtube url last 11 characters: k6BXvw6mxtw

  98. Steven Peek says:

    I have used this [link here [Awesome Plan Here >>> ] book since taking the train the trainer course using the same book and feel it does more to explain the things you run into everyday in the field.

  99. Jean Shen says:

    Electrical engineers ( ) hate dealing with daily "peak power". Solar helps to take care of this because it's pretty much in-line to power demand. Then we don't have to run generators with crap efficiency and high latency and use the much more efficient gas turbine generators constantly

  100. lloyd leonard says:

    Electrical engineers ( ) hate dealing with daily "peak power". Solar helps to take care of this because it's pretty much in-line to power demand. Then we don't have to run generators with crap efficiency and high latency and use the much more efficient gas turbine generators constantly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *