Electric cars?

[Chronos-Plutus]

Around 25kwh/100 for cars (tesla like)

OK, so here we are:


Now lets look at energy capacity for the required 1389375 GW/h per year

Are we happy with nuclear. Or do we want a combination/ an energy mix?

Then we will look at the costing for the energy mix.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

OK, so here we are:
View attachment 105926

Now lets look at energy capacity for the required 1389375 GW/h per year

Are we happy with nuclear. Or do we want a combination/ an energy mix?

Then we will look at the costing for the energy mix.

Should I put into the calculation Tesla Heavy vehicle truck 2kw/h per mile and ICE Heavy truck 6.5 miles per gallon? Is that fair?

 

[Value Collector]

I am talking about running transmission networks from solar farms in deserts to cities.

you mean as opposed to transporting oil from deserts on the other side of the planet???

as I said your worst case electric scenario is still only equal or better to normal operation of Oil fields.

———-

Battery charging losses are already factored into the figure when we say EV’s run at 85% efficient.

vampire drain is pretty insignificant, especially when weighed against losses routinely faced by petrol cars, eg idleing engines at lights or just to run the aircon while you wait for your wife etc.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

you mean as opposed to transporting oil from deserts on the other side of the planet???

as I said your worst case electric scenario is still only equal or better to normal operation of Oil fields.

———-

Battery charging losses are already factored into the figure when we say EV’s run at 85% efficient.

vampire drain is pretty insignificant, especially when weighed against losses routinely faced by petrol cars, eg idleing engines at lights or just to run the aircon while you wait for your wife etc.

Hang on; I am happy to work with your's, Smurf's and Frog's assumptions here.

You tell me what inputs and then we get the figure, then we decide on the energy mix, then we can do the costings.

 

[Value Collector]

Hang on; I am happy to work with your's, Smurf's and Frog's assumptions here.

You tell me what inputs and then we get the figure, then we decide on the energy mix, then we can do the costings.

these sorts of calculation have already been done, and EV’s come out on top.

do a bit of digging on google and you will mind a lot better data than you will get on your envelope system.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

these sorts of calculation have already been done, and EV’s come out on top.

do a bit of digging on google and you will mind a lot better data than you will get on your envelope system.

I have already found that it will cost $1.4 trillion for the USA and I posted it on here.

So now you want to stop people from doing their own basic research and discussing on here. Nice person you are.

 

[Value Collector]

I have already found that it will $1.4 trillion for the USA and I posted it on here.

check out this video, and look through the sources linked in the description, it will fill some of your gaps in knowledge.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

check out this video, and look through the sources linked in the description, it will fill some of your gaps in knowledge.

I am not interested in your videos. I am interested in building a metric that we can agree on, but perhaps to disagree on later.

You are only interested in telling people to be quiet and to just believe. Like believing in a new religion or cult.

 

[Value Collector]

I am not interested in your videos. I am interested in building a metric that we can agree on, but perhaps to disagree on later.

You are only interested in telling people to be quiet and to just believe. Like believing in a religion.

If you check out the sources in the description you will find the calculations have already been done to a much higher scientific standard than you are probably capable of.

And as I said earlier it’s irrelevant anyway, because uptake will be gradual, and any extra capacity needed will be added over time on a user pay basis.

And existing generation assets will become more profitable by not having so much idle time during off peak times, making new investments really attractive.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

If you check out the sources in the description you will find the calculations have already been done to a much higher scientific standard than you are probably capable of.

And as I said earlier it’s irrelevant anyway, because uptake will be gradual, and any extra capacity needed will be added over time on a user pay basis.

And existing generation assets will become more profitable by not having so much idle time during off peak times.

1. Who knows what technology we will have in the decades to come. EVs may become obsolete in a decade or two.

2. If you are the sort of person that doesn't embrace personal learning and growth, then I feel sorry for you.

3. If you would like to present me with a scientific paper from a university that has been published and peer-reviewed; then I am happy to read it.

4. I always said from the start that my initial figures were very rough. It was a quick calculation that took me less than 10 mins; to get just an idea of the scale of energy, electricity and costs that are involved. That was it. Like are talking GW, TW; are we talking billions or trillions. We are talking TWs of electricty and trillions of dollars here; that is very clear!

5. I said that I am happy to work with you guys, initially reluctant, to perhaps agree on some figures. That is obviously out of the question with you.

6. Now what would you like to talk about on this thread? Because you clearly won't accept people doing their own research and people independently looking at this EV theme critically.

 

[Value Collector]

1. Who knows what technology we will have in the decades to come. EVs may become obsolete in a decade or two.

2. If you are the sort of person that doesn't embrace personal learning and growth, then I feel sorry for you.

3. If you would like to present me with a scientific paper from a university that has been published and peer-reviewed; then I am happy to read it.

4. I always said from the start that my initial figures were very rough. It was a quick calculation that took me less than 10 mins; to get just an idea of the scale of energy, electricity and costs that are involved. That was it. Like are talking GW, TW; are we talking billions or trillions. We are talking TWs of electricty and trillions of dollars here; that is very clear!

5. I said that I am happy to work with you guys, initially reluctant, to perhaps agree on some figures. That is obviously out of the question with you.

6. Now what would you like to talk about on this thread? Because you clearly won't accept people doing their own research and people independently looking at this EV theme critically.

1, if in 20 years there is better tech we would just gradual move to that one, just like we will gradually move to ev’s because they are better tech today.

2, you obviously don’t know me, I am a 38 year old self funded multi millionaire retired guy because embracing self learning and figuring out facts is exactly what I do best.

3, to be honest, I think you are a lost cause, you can lead a horse to water but I can’t make you think.

4, it’s not that your figures are rough, it’s that you don’t understand some of the foundational differences between the two systems.

5, I don’t have to work with you, because they science is done, there is no point. And the few facts I have tried to explain you Have struggled to understand.

6, you haven’t been doing research, you refused to watch a video I linked or to look at the supporting sources listed in the discription.

to be honest you aren’t very interesting to engaged with because you aren’t interested in learning, speaking to you is like speaking to a climate change denier that doesn’t want to understand anything.

so I am out of this convo for now.

 

[basilio]

1, if in 20 years there is better tech we would just gradual move to that one, just like we will gradually move to ev’s because they are better tech today.

2, you obviously don’t know me, I am a 38 year old self funded multi millionaire retired guy because embracing self learning and figuring out facts is exactly what I do best.

3, to be honest, I think you are a lost cause, you can lead a horse to water but I can’t make you think.

4, it’s not that your figures are rough, it’s that you don’t understand some of the foundational differences between the two systems.

5, I don’t have to work with you, because they science is done, there is no point. And the few facts I have tried to explain you Have struggled to understand.

6, you haven’t been doing research, you refused to watch a video I linked or to look at the supporting sources listed in the discription.

to be honest you aren’t very interesting to engaged with because you aren’t interested in learning, speaking to you is like speaking to a climate change denier that doesn’t want to understand anything.

so I am out of this convo for now.

4, it’s not that your figures are rough, it’s that you don’t understand some of the foundational differences between the two systems.

And when these are pointed out you just refuse to accept them

Sums it all up.

 

[sptrawler]

I thought the banter was great, it evoked some interesting concepts, which in reality is what a thread like this should do.
Who is right or wrong doesn't really matter IMO, as the push toward electric vehicles will continue as will the continued change to 'clean' energy production.
As is usually the way, the actual end result, may well be something we haven't even thought of.

 

[basilio]

"Banter" is interesting. I take it to mean flying thought kites and a bit of BS. And if one wants to discard all current realities why not ?

Chronos was attempting to prove mathematically that powering all cars with electricity in the US could only be achieved with 1000 plus nuclear reactors. It became very clear through the "banter" that he was unaware or ignoring many basic factors that made his calculations wildly wrong.

And unfortunately he never seemed to acknowledge these. I mean why would anyone believe and use a figure of 89MPG as the average mileage for US cars ? It really undermines any credibility IMV.
________________
Your comments on my post about how much land is required to produce all the US were interesting. It certainly wasn't mentioned in the body of the story but, as you pointed out, in the reference.

Since then PV panels have become even more efficient and cheaper and wind power has accelerated as a cost effective 24 hour a day energy source. An PV on houses and commercial buildings going directly into the grid will have had a more dramatic effect.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

4, it’s not that your figures are rough, it’s that you don’t understand some of the foundational differences between the two systems.

And when these are pointed out you just refuse to accept them

Sums it all up.

I haven't refused anything here , in fact I have now made an effort to reach a compromise with the figures.

Basilio; you would be best to keep out of this. Go back onto to your fairy tale threads that are laced with emotive and delusional nonsense.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

"Banter" is interesting. I take it to mean flying thought kites and a bit of BS. And if one wants to discard all current realities why not ?

Chronos was attempting to prove mathematically that powering all cars with electricity in the US could only be achieved with 1000 plus nuclear reactors. It became very clear through the "banter" that he was unaware or ignoring many basic factors that made his calculations wildly wrong.

And unfortunately he never seemed to acknowledge these. I mean why would anyone believe and use a figure of 89MPG as the average mileage for US cars ? It really undermines any credibility IMV.
________________
Your comments on my post about how much land is required to produce all the US were interesting. It certainly wasn't mentioned in the body of the story but, as you pointed out, in the reference.

Since then PV panels have become even more efficient and cheaper and wind power has accelerated as a cost effective 24 hour a day energy source. An PV on houses and commercial buildings going directly into the grid will have had a more dramatic effect.

We haven't finished yet. I never said that it can only be achieved with nuclear.

Now you are deliberately trying to make stuff up.

Basilio; go to your other threads, rather than being an irritant who is attempting to shutdown this discourse.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

1, if in 20 years there is better tech we would just gradual move to that one, just like we will gradually move to ev’s because they are better tech today.

2, you obviously don’t know me, I am a 38 year old self funded multi millionaire retired guy because embracing self learning and figuring out facts is exactly what I do best.

3, to be honest, I think you are a lost cause, you can lead a horse to water but I can’t make you think.

4, it’s not that your figures are rough, it’s that you don’t understand some of the foundational differences between the two systems.

5, I don’t have to work with you, because they science is done, there is no point. And the few facts I have tried to explain you Have struggled to understand.

6, you haven’t been doing research, you refused to watch a video I linked or to look at the supporting sources listed in the discription.

to be honest you aren’t very interesting to engaged with because you aren’t interested in learning, speaking to you is like speaking to a climate change denier that doesn’t want to understand anything.

so I am out of this convo for now.

I am not interested in what your net wealth is. That means little to this discussion. Figuring out facts is clearly what you aren't good at.

I told you from the start that they were quick calculations, that only took minutes, with no research other than gasoline consumed, just to get a rough idea. Fact is that we are still looking at TWs of electricity and trillions of dollars.

More challenged the quick calculation, so I agreed to get a more precise metric. We had begun to work through the detail, and you derailed it because you can't handle that you are wrong in your belief that everything is going to be cheap and easy.

Did you know that Sydney University have estimated that it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to go 100% EV with renewables in Australia!

You don't seek facts and information, you seek religion. You don't understand the systems and processes, you are indoctrinated, just vomiting out what you have been told; just like Basilio on here.

Yes; please take your net wealth, your ego, your insidious and disingenuous character; and keep to yourself: rather than trying to take cheap shots at others on here.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

If you check out the sources in the description you will find the calculations have already been done to a much higher scientific standard than you are probably capable of.

And as I said earlier it’s irrelevant anyway, because uptake will be gradual, and any extra capacity needed will be added over time on a user pay basis.

And existing generation assets will become more profitable by not having so much idle time during off peak times, making new investments really attractive.

You wouldn't be able to read and understand a scientific publication in an energy journal; yet you have the audacity to troll me on scientific standards. Then you tell me that the scientific standards/metrics are irrelevant, because you know better than the scientists. You are a cooked goose mate.

As I said; Sydney University have already published that it will cost 100s of billions of dollars in Australia to go 100% EV with renewables.

So there is already 1 university that agrees with me that this will cost 100s of billions of dollars in Australia.

 

[over9k]

EV's don't have to use renewables though. If electricity is cheaper than burning fuel, that's enough.

Why are we acting as if EV's and renewables are mutual inclusives?

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I thought the banter was great, it evoked some interesting concepts, which in reality is what a thread like this should do.
Who is right or wrong doesn't really matter IMO, as the push toward electric vehicles will continue as will the continued change to 'clean' energy production.
As is usually the way, the actual end result, may well be something we haven't even thought of.

Value collector is emotionally compromised in his investments

EV's don't have to use renewables though. If electricity is cheaper than burning fuel, that's enough.

Why are we acting as if EV's and renewables are mutual inclusives?

But we still have to burn the fuel to create the electricity; then we have to build the recharge stations.

We were just starting to work on the figures here before the emotional and disconnected people like Basilio and Value Collector demanded that we stop all discussion. Because they were scared that we would reach a conclusion that they wouldn't like.