- Joined
- 22 May 2020
- Posts
- 1,276
- Reactions
- 681
Nah man remember that it's way more efficient to burn fossil fuels in a power station than a car. The greenies would get on board.
You really need to calm down.
I'm trying to make two points to you: Firstly, that this number-crunching you've listed, no matter who it's from or what it tells you, has a tremendous amount of utterly unknowable assumptions built in. How do you know how the market's going to react to a change in price before you change the price? You can't. Ergo, no matter what something like this says, it's BS.
I would be saying the same thing if the conclusion was the opposite and I have no doubt there's something done out there that says that electric vehicles make sense etc etc. It will be just as BS as anything else done in the same way. I have DONE these things myself.
The other thing is that you're not interpreting it or what I'm saying correctly. It's actually saying the same thing that I have been saying all along - that it is the increase in PEAK demand that is the problem. I've been saying this the whole time!
I'm in total agreeance that an increase in peak demand would need an infrastructure buildout. That's not even a matter of opinion - it's physics. What I'm saying to you is that if we have a way to minimise (or eliminate) that increase in peak demand then we thus eliminate the need for the infrastructure buildout. Hence why I keep talking about charging the cars overnight, not at 7 in the evening.
You can spend more time on this. This case is closed for me. My concerns were validated by KPMG analysts and the Australian energy peak association reviewed and endorsed it.
That is good enough for me to now move on and focus my time on more rewarding information and knowledge.
You can carry on with Smurf and Value Collector in their fantasy.