On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:04:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:37:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:59:56 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:10:49 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:43:07 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:51 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:19:27 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 9/1/2023 3:13 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher
load if all cars are EVs. He didn't mention trucks.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained>
But you don't leave your car on a charger for 24 hours as
you likely drive it to work, errands, etc. It's only
when you are *done* using it that you'd "retire it"
to the charger.
So, you'd be home, using electrical loads that would have been off while you were at work (TVs, stove, lighting, HVAC, etc.) and have to complete the recharge before you next needed
the vehicle ("Am I *in* for the evening?")
What are you trying to say? Why not just come out and say it?
It's always the ones who don't have an EV who don't understand them or how they charge.
I added this comment to the video:
You ignore the fact that the Woke crowd is hell-bent on shutting down ALL fossil-fueled power plants.
Of course he did. It's not just the Woke crowd, but everybody who understands that anthropogenic global warming is seriously damaging our environment who wants to see all fossil-fueled power plants shut down.
Hey, that IS the Woke crowd.
That is your deluded opinion. "Woke" is usually taken to mean people who base their opinions on what is currently fashionable, and lots of people took climate change seriously long before it got fashionable/
<snipped the usual reaction to a typo>
Solar and wind can't replace this production because they are unreliable and require huge amounts of land.
They aren't unreliable, merely intermittent, and while 1% of the planet's land area is a huge amount of land it's not a problem to find enough of it, particularly when you can grow crops and graze animals between the solar panels. Wind turbines
are even less of a problem. Sewage Sweeper doesn't really seem to believe in grid storage. There isn't enough of it yet, but is is getting bought and installed.
Same difference, Bozo. You can't SCHEDULE the wind or the sun.
The sun is extremely predictable - clouds less so - but you can design your system to cope. You probably couldn't, but you are an idiot.
Are you REALLY this DUMB, Bozo? REALLY??? Tell me, HOW are you going to schedule CLOUD COVER such that it doesn't coincide with power demands???? Cloud cover can persist for WEEKS, you IDIOT!!!!!!!!!
In specific areas, You don't put solar farms there.
Yes, land use IS a problem, Bozo, especially if you want to locate generation close to population centers.
That's what high voltage transmission lines are designed to cope with. You need to learn about them.
LOL! You were the idiot that claimed we could just INCREASE the voltage on these lines to increase power transmission!! You are FUCKING CLUELESS what the issues are involving the planning, funding, design, regulation and construction of HV power
transmission lines.
Some times you can, with taller towers and longer insulators. The problems of getting approval for new high voltage power lines shown up regularly in our newspapers. It takes time to sort them out - and intervention from higher levels of government in
some cases - but it does happen and it has been happening for as long as I can remember
This is yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE of your fucking IDIOTIC CLUELESSNESS, Bozo! No, you CAN'T jack up the voltage on a transmission line. If you think otherwise, CITE just one example of this being done. You are a FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!!
Also, it is not just that they want us to switch our cars to electric, they want ALL of our energy use to be electric: no gas furnaces, air conditioners, water heaters, stoves, ovens, etc. This WILL impact the peak usage of electricity.
Air conditioners are electric anyway. Running air-conditioner backwards (reverse cycle air-conditioning, which is what I've got) replaces gas furnaces. Using a heat pump to warm your hot water is less popular (though it would save you money).
Around here stoves are mostly electric, and induction hobs are replacing gas rings on cook-tops.
Hey Bozo, another example of your shot-from-the-hip mentality; you better do your homework. Yes, there ARE gas a/c units.
Einstein invented and patented the basic idea. It works but it isn't very efficient.
Electric heat pumps stop working below around 0 C and require resistive heating for colder temps.
They don't. The thermodynamics become less favourable, but Stirling engines work down to very low temperatures.
The FUCK THEY DON'T! "Less favorable" means that resistive heating is more energy efficient, or in other words they DON'T FUCKING WORK!
"Less favourable" doesn't extend to making resistive heaters more energy efficient. The resistive loses in the motors driving the pumps becomes part of the heat that the customer is buying, but only part of it.
You are SO STUPID! As temperatures drop so does the efficiency of the heat pump to the point that the system can't keep the house at temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
Sorry,, but heat pumps AREN'T Stirling engines.
Stirling engines are heat pumps, and are routinely used to liquifiy gases like hydrogen and helium. You may have studied thermodynamics as part of you undergraduate course (as I did) but it doesn't seem to have stayed with you.
The power for those resistive heaters comes from GAS generators, so TWICE as much gas is used to heat the SAME area than if gas furnaces were used from the get-go.
The power for those imagined resistive heaters comes from imaginary gas generators. so Sewage Sweeper is engaged in his usual argument by deluded assertion.
No, Bozo, the power comes from REAL gas generators - it DOESN'T come from imaginary renewables.
There's nothing imaginary about renewables, They are producing a significant amount of utility power, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
None of it will make as much difference as moving over to electric vehicles, and getting more grid generating capacity has never been a problem in the past - in the US it went up but 5% per year every year from 1950 to 2000 without anybody
making any fuss about it.
LOL! You can FORGET that growth IF they start shutting down fossil plants, IDIOT!!
They are shutting fossil plants rapidly in Australia and investing a lot in cheaper renewable generation - solar farms and wind-farms. You do make fatuous assertions.
Which is EXACTLY what I am saying - "cheaper" renewables AREN'T cheaper when you include the cost of backing them up with fossil-powered plants.
You don't backed them up with fossil-powered plants but rather with grid-scale storage. And they are still cheaper even after you figure that in.
You cite exactly ZERO references, Bozo. Typical of your shoot from the hip posts.
If the US utilities were controlled by half-wits like you, they might not invest in getting more of their energy from cheaper renewable sources, but this doesn't seem to be true.
Well, the US utilities AREN'T controlled by <snipped usual insult> so they will NOT put all of their eggs into the renewable basket. Hawaii might be the exception, however.
What makes you think that - beyond your usual irrational faith in your demented delusions?
Observed action plans by real utilities, Bozo.
--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney
Bozo's SEWAGE SWEEPER
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)