over9k
So I didn't tell my wife, but I...
- Joined
- 12 June 2020
- Posts
- 5,346
- Reactions
- 7,650
Don't be prickly. I've never been so with you.Mate; I think I would take the word of a team of KPMG analysts, with their report being reviewed and published by the peak energy industry association in Australia ; rather than people that don't know what they are talking about like Smurf, Basilio and Value Collector.
It's over, over9k. I win and my assumptions weren't that bad after all.
See yah later then. I know it's difficult to face reality once you have been brainwashed.Don't be prickly. I never was with you.
I've also been trained to do those cost-benefit analyses. I know just what garbage in (and therefore garbage out) they get. They have a lot of assumptions built into them - the assumptions on which the final result is determined.
I asked the questions for a reason.
I think everyone is on the same page, just reading it differently, smurf knows the electrical system, VC knows the electric cars and you know it is all going to take a long time and cost a lot of money.Not sure I was here then. But have a read of the article I posted from the Australian energy peak association publishing the KPMG figures for Victoria. Looks like I was right all along Sprawler.
Good luck trying tell these people that we will need nuclear.I think everyone is on the same page, just reading it differently, smurf knows the electrical system, VC knows the electric cars and you know it is all going to take a long time and cost a lot of money.
But I think that everyone knows it will happen, whether we like it or not, there is no loss to the Government.
Infrastructure is built, new technology is developed, old infrastructure gets replaced, it all means more work and more money circulating.
Electric vehicles, have the added advantage of replacing all the old vehicles, with cars that will be very easy to monitor and fit control measures to.
The only thing that will limit their uptake, will be price and upgrading the electrical infrastructure to support them.
Which takes us back, to the nuclear debate, where we started.
Don't be prickly. I've never been so with you.
I've also been trained to do those cost-benefit analyses. I know just what garbage in (and therefore garbage out) they get. They have a lot of assumptions built into them - the assumptions on which the final result is determined.
I asked the questions for a reason. There's a guy here that literally runs a power station for a living. This is not as simple as just pumping some numbers into a massive spreadsheet.
If you bothered to read the article it explains the peak and off-peak demand factoring in the required electrical capacity with the scenarios of incentives vs no incentives.trawler - what kind of bump in off-peak electricity usage (let's go really off peak here, like between midnight & 6am) could we have before we need to start upgrading the grid and/or stations?
as far as I'm aware, increases in off peak change absolutely nothing?
I believe it all will be solved as was the introduction of motor cars to New York around the beginning of the last century by a different take on the problem.I think everyone is on the same page, just reading it differently, smurf knows the electrical system, VC knows the electric cars and you know it is all going to take a long time and cost a lot of money.
But I think that everyone knows it will happen, whether we like it or not, there is no loss to the Government.
Infrastructure is built, new technology is developed, old infrastructure gets replaced, it all means more work and more money circulating.
Electric vehicles, have the added advantage of replacing all the old vehicles, with cars that will be very easy to monitor and fit control measures to.
The only thing that will limit their uptake, will be price and upgrading the electrical infrastructure to support them.
Most of Australia's population live in major cities, so if the price is right a lot will buy them.
As Rumpy says hybrids will be the choice for country drivers, same as it is already for taxi drivers, that leaves a sadly lacking infrastructure problem with aging coal fired power stations which smurf has pointed out endlessly.
Which takes us back, to the nuclear/gas or renewables debate, where we started.
The more I think about it, batteries and plugging your car in at an electricity point is very 20th Century.I believe it all will be solved as was the introduction of motor cars to New York around the beginning of the last century by a different take on the problem.
The great horse manure crisis of 1894 is a notion in urban planning which stated that the greatest challenge of further urban development was a difficulty of removing horse manure from the streets. More broadly, it is an analogy for supposedly insuperable extrapolated problems being rendered moot by the introduction of new technologies. The phrase originates from a 2004 article by Stephen Davies entitled "The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894".[1][2]
The supposed problem of excessive horse-manure collecting in the streets was solved by the proliferation of cars which replaced horses as the means of transportation in big cities. The term great horse manure crisis of 1894 is often used to denote a problem which seems to be impossible to solve because it is being looked at from the wrong direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1894
gg
Good luck trying tell these people that we will need nuclear.
If you bothered to read the article it explains the peak and off-peak demand factoring in the required electrical capacity with the scenarios of incentives vs no incentives.
Furthermore you don't have a clue about my engineering and finance background.
I am training people to walk ahead of EVs with flags to warn unsuspecting folk of their presence, seeing they are silent vehicles and therefore dangerous.I believe it all will be solved as was the introduction of motor cars to New York around the beginning of the last century by a different take on the problem.
The great horse manure crisis of 1894 is a notion in urban planning which stated that the greatest challenge of further urban development was a difficulty of removing horse manure from the streets. More broadly, it is an analogy for supposedly insuperable extrapolated problems being rendered moot by the introduction of new technologies. The phrase originates from a 2004 article by Stephen Davies entitled "The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894".[1][2]
The supposed problem of excessive horse-manure collecting in the streets was solved by the proliferation of cars which replaced horses as the means of transportation in big cities. The term great horse manure crisis of 1894 is often used to denote a problem which seems to be impossible to solve because it is being looked at from the wrong direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1894
gg
The problem with plugging in 5 million electric cars between midnight and 6am at the moment is, most of the overnight generation comes from fossil fuel, so our emissions would sky rocket.You do not need to spend a fortune upgrading a grid for an increase in off-peak demand. If you did, the internet would have collapsed this year as a result of everyone working from home during the day (which is OFF PEAK) in response to coronavirus.
Hence why you could quite literally plug five million electric cars (or their equivalents, literally kettles) in to charge between midnight & 6am and the grid wouldn't even squeak.
The calcs you've linked are assuming a big (or slightly less big under the "incentivised" option) increase in PEAK demand, which are utter bull**** assumptions anyways. Fix the peak demand increase problem and you remove the necessity to upgrade the grid. Like, at all.
Yes and the reaction to those incentives is a complete assumption - people could react very differently to what's assumed.
When my uni prof was teaching us this stuff I even asked him what we did with inputs that we simply couldn't possibly know the number(s) for and his words were, and I'm quoting him verbatim:
"In that situation, you ask the client for the figure they want you to use".
You do not need to spend a fortune upgrading a grid for an increase in off-peak demand. If you did, the internet would have collapsed this year as a result of everyone working from home during the day (which is OFF PEAK) in response to coronavirus.
Hence why you could quite literally plug five million electric cars (or their equivalents, literally kettles) in to charge between midnight & 6am and the grid wouldn't even squeak.
The calcs you've linked are assuming a big (or slightly less big under the "incentivised" option) increase in PEAK demand, which are utter bull**** assumptions anyways. Fix the peak demand increase problem and you remove the necessity to upgrade the grid. Like, at all.
Yes and the reaction to those incentives is a complete assumption - people could react very differently to what's assumed.
When my uni prof was teaching us this stuff I even asked him what we did with inputs that we simply couldn't possibly know the number(s) for and his words were, and I'm quoting him verbatim:
"In that situation, you ask the client for the figure they want you to use".
You do not need to spend a fortune upgrading a grid for an increase in off-peak demand. If you did, the internet would have collapsed this year as a result of everyone working from home during the day (which is OFF PEAK) in response to coronavirus.
Hence why you could quite literally plug five million electric cars (or their equivalents, literally kettles) in to charge between midnight & 6am and the grid wouldn't even squeak.
The calcs you've linked are assuming a big (or slightly less big under the "incentivised" option) increase in PEAK demand, which are utter bull**** assumptions anyways. Fix the peak demand increase problem and you remove the necessity to upgrade the grid. Like, at all.
The problem with plugging in 5 million electric cars between midnight and 6am at the moment is, most of the overnight generation comes from fossil fuel, so our emissions would sky rocket.
The greenies would have kittens.
That is where it all becomes a case of staged introduction and why it will all take quite some time.
Well I have already got a top ranking university and a multi-million dollar corporation that are in the same ball park as me; as far as electrical capacity and costs are con
Go ask your mate Peter the geostrategist, maybe he can talk some sense into you.
Well, the only people that agree with you are just a few posters here.
Not enough for governments or nations to listen to you. They listen to entities like KPMG, who conduct studies from them.
First, we all know EV take-up will be incremental, so the cats are safe from Tom.The problem with plugging in 5 million electric cars between midnight and 6am at the moment is, most of the overnight generation comes from fossil fuel, so our emissions would sky rocket.
The greenies would have kittens.
That is where it all becomes a case of staged introduction and why it will all take quite some time.
Agreed. But I am not talking about what is easy today.Doesn't even need to be that complex to get something working right now rob: Just put a timer on the charger like people do with those timers that go between the device & the powerpoint to turn a lamp or something on & off at particular times of day.
Thank you so much for sparing your valuable time and sharing your ideas with the rest of us here on ASF on Electric cars. I will be able to tell my descendants that I once shared a comment thread with you.Anyway, I have a few things to do. I will pick this back up tomorrow.
Doesn't even need to be that complex to get something working right now rob: Just put a timer on the charger like people do with those timers that go between the device & the powerpoint to turn a lamp or something on & off at particular times of day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?