My Nissan Leaf Forum

Oilpan4 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:16 pm

Let's say ...

When you pile one lousy assumption on top of another, and then another, you end up with nonsense.

Try this instead:
The US consumes 20 * 10^6 barrels of oil a day
20% of energy is lost to refining
Clean energy to wheels is about 4x the efficiency of the equivalent ICE pathway
>> A full electric conversion therefore requires 4 * 10^6 barrels of oil equivalent

A barrel of oil is about 40*40 kWh
A kW of utility scale clean energy produces about 8 kWh a day
>> A barrel of oil daily is replaced by (40*40)/8 = 200 kW

>>> Total replacement requires 4 * 10^6 * 200 kW
= 800 * 10^6 kW
= 800 * 10^3 MW
= 800 GW

------
Which completely misses the point that clean energy coming on line even at the snails's pace due to the retarded Trumpers far outpaces EV production.

There you go talking about generation capacity when the problem is in total units of power. I can do it your way.

Any way in 2018 it looks like the US has 62gw of solar and 97gw of wind.
Solar had 2/3 the name plate capacity of wind but only made 1/4 the kwh.
That's the flaw in saying "we only need 700gw more" . More what?
700gw of hydroelectric would be way more than enough. 700gw of solar, not even close.

If it's 700gw of 3 parts wind to 2 parts solar like we have now it replaces coal power generation, provides enough power to replace gasoline vehicles and natural gas power generation.
That leaves nothing to replace natural gas direct heating applications.
So it looks like you will still be heating your home with natural gas.

It took 10 years to build most of the 160gw we have now. So best case scenario it takes at least 30 years to build 700gw.
Based on my observations I don't think these lazy millennials like my sister or phone and video game addicted Gen z have what it takes to repower the country.

Oilpan4 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:42 am

There you go talking about generation capacity when the problem is in total units of power. I can do it your way.

You do not understand the calculation. Read it again

Oilpan4 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:42 am

It took 10 years to build most of the 160gw we have now.

.
That sort of extrapolation is nonsensical because the build-out is far, far from linear.
Try calculating with a growth curve of 20% a year, 50% a year if people with brains run the government instead of Trumper monkeys.

1/3 utilization on 700gw works.
About the only way it's not going to take 30 years is if lots of large off shore wind projects could be built fast.
NJ has 3.5gw proposed, NY has 2.4gw proposed, MA has 1.6, VA proposed 2gw, MD 1gw. Not a bad start but it will still take at least 5 years and up to 10 years to build all that.
Actually the trump admin doesn't seem to care about holding up off shore wind farms with ridiculous "environmental worries" proposed by the nimbys. Not over worrying about the environment seems to be helping the environment. Out of All the off shore wind farms proposed between 2008 and 2016 only 1 has been built. A single 30mw farm in DE. That tells you all you need to know.

GCC:

Hyundai Hydrogen Mobility and Hydrospider partner to promote green hydrogen ecosystem; Hyundai H2 Xcient fuel cell electric truck

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/0 ... 7-hhm.html


Going to use an existing Swiss hydro plant to power a 2MW electrolyser and produce H2, planned in service for the end of the year. Linde is a partner. Also details of Hyundai's FCEV commercial truck.

ABG:

Explosions and subsidies: Why hydrogen is struggling to catch on in Korea
Accidents and infrastructure are holding it back

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/29/hyd ... uth-korea/

Oilpan4 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:52 am

Actually the trump admin doesn't seem to care about holding up off shore wind farms with ridiculous "environmental worries" proposed by the nimbys. Not over worrying about the environment seems to be helping the environment. Out of All the off shore wind farms proposed between 2008 and 2016 only 1 has been built. A single 30mw farm in DE. That tells you all you need to know.

.
As usual you are uninformed. The Trumpers just put on hold approval the largest off-shore wind project on the East coast to study bird concerns some more. It is classic Trumper: use regulation to hamper whatever Trump feels like using for political gain. Years and years are obviously not enough. Your conclusion based on review of wind farm approvals from 2008 - 2016 compared to afterwards is lousy. New tech often has a slow go for the first cases and then grows exponentially as confidence in it grows from the initial small scale experience.

My idea of a bird study would be build it and study how many and what kinds of birds it kills.

Oilpan4 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:01 am

My idea of a bird study would be build it and study how many and what kinds of birds it kills.

That type of study has been done, in the Altamont Pass and elsewhere, and it's a result of those that concerns over bird kills are raised.


GCC:

Loop Energy forms JV with IN-Power of China for heavy-duty truck and bus fuel cell electric systems

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... -loop.html