Zero Point Energy will change everything.
It looks like electric vehicles are going to be shoved down our throats
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
Fusion has a path, zero point energy while very interesting doesn't even have any theory that you can use to extract any energy from it. While you can get power from the Casimir effect, it takes more energy to move the plates apart.
I suppose the only application of it would be to warm yourself from a miniature black hole as it evaporates from hawking radiation, but the numbers just don't work to build a collider that could make them. You're probably better off just making anti-matter.
Here is a screen shot of some of the best selling vehicles sold in the US in 2019 (pre C). The total was 17 million cars. Tesla sold 171,000 Model 3 cars or about 1% of the cars sold. There are 200 million autos registered in the US. The average age is somewhere around 12 years. So theoretically you could replace almost all of them in about 12 years or so at 17 million per year. How many years will it be before electric cars become 10% of sales let alone 50 % of sales. The politicians can go ahead and buy 650,000 autos for the feds, but it barely makes a dent. The press makes it sound like electric cars are nipping at our heels but far from it.
Last edited:
Not only is that a lot in Back to the Future, that would be about half the output of the Bruce Nuclear reactor, correct?
I saw GM’s announcement the other day; “Zero emissions by 2035.”
To me, this looks like posturing for what I am calling “Too Big to Fail 2, Electric Boogaloo”. They are announcing this type of stuff now so if they continue their downward spiral into oblivion, they can beg for a bailout. It’s like a kid doing all of his chores and then some, right before a bad report card comes home.
To me, this looks like posturing for what I am calling “Too Big to Fail 2, Electric Boogaloo”. They are announcing this type of stuff now so if they continue their downward spiral into oblivion, they can beg for a bailout. It’s like a kid doing all of his chores and then some, right before a bad report card comes home.
Remember that emissions and pollutants are two completely different things. For example the emissions from combusting gasoline consist of CO2, heat, water, nitrogen oxide, various unburned hydrocarbons, etc. In this example water and nitrogen oxide are emissions but only nitrogen oxide is a pollutant. The Clean Air Act regulates emissions. GHG are not pollutants but are a group of gases which exhibit certain traits. As for the "climate change" issue I'll leave you with this. Do you remember when the carbon cycle was taught in middle/high school? There's a "natural rate" at which carbon enters and is sequestered from the environment. The "natural rate" is defined as whatever occurs naturally over a period of time. The burning of fossil fuels upsets that natural rate because it increases the rate at which carbon is introduced to the environment. The "climate change" piece is trying to figure out how that 'unnatural' introduction of carbon impacts the carbon cycle. It's 'unnatural' because humans are purposely doing it. Does is it create a new normal and what does it look like? Another way of looking at it: Envision GHG as the Colorado River and humans are the Hoover Dam. For years cities and towns built up downstream based upon the regulated flow of water from the dam Now you're required to turn a wheel which increases the amount of water (GHG) released downstream. You know you're sending more water downstream but you can't gauge how much it's impacting them because you can't see them from the dam. Some towns may do fine. Some towns may have more water for agriculture, some towns may get washed away and those people may want to move to other towns along the river or perhaps set up camp in your backyard. You don't know exactly how every town is being impacted as you turn the wheel sending more water (GHG) downstream but you're thinking everyone needs water.
Last edited:
Whoops. I believe there is a math error. 220 V @50 A is 11,000 W. Resulting load is 2.2 GW. Still huge.
See my link (Post 145)
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
If nighttime charger loading becomes a “thing” … I can imagine a significant investment coming because daylight HVAC load and day shift only work ain’t going away in the south …
And even with “reversible “ electric meters helping the consumer … something has to make power at night … that’s probably not solar … Much to solve ahead … and don’t just think of Tesla chatter … all car/LT OEM’s going EV and major deliveries made by electric trucks …
An example of helping one sector only: our nuclear plant has done the feasibility assessments … got permits to build 2 modern/safer nukes … then, stage down load on the older nukes … But the economics are tough. On hold, and so are the thousands of good jobs … These are not fast projects either …
When they get ignored … and O&G companies carbon capture efforts gets nothing … the money might only go to the sectors that can’t go it alone …
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
More than half! Bruce is 6,430MW right now (should be closer to 7K by the time the refurb is done).
There are 2.5 million registered vehicles in the city of Los Angeles, one of the cities that would benefit the most from E cars from the emissions standpoint. It would require over 20 gigawatts to charge them over night. More than 7 large nuclear reactors. Ok, they’ll charge at night, so subtract all of California’s solar energy production from the existing capacity. This is why Exxon Mobil is staying the course.
Last edited:
Since, solar is useless at night, most of California’s available night time power supply is from natural gas power plants. Nice.
This is 2018 data.
This is 2018 data.
Last edited:
The OEM's are looking to transition out of ICE by 2035, not that all cars on the road will be EV.
20 years ago, what was the outlook on hybrids? I bet none of us would have been willing to bet on their ramp-up. Now look at the ramp-up on AWD--and there is no government incentive to go AWD (maybe we could argue that people are "pushed" into CUV's just like into 4 door pickups, not sure but there might be an argument there). Now combine both government incentives plus consumer demand. Is it possible for a large swing like this?
Smartphones had a similar ramp. Granted, different commodity. But I think other technologies had disruptive changes similar to this. Ice boxes to fridges, microwaves, LED lighting.
The energy to run all this, yeah that's an issue, no doubt.
Hybrids are 2.4 % of US car sales. Almost as dismal as full electrics. 400,000 hybrids out of 17 million sales.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2014
- Messages
- 4,117
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste
When they quit working, whose yard can I dump them in? can be sad about batteries and solar panels... and all electronics tied to them
When they quit working, whose yard can I dump them in? can be sad about batteries and solar panels... and all electronics tied to them
Really? For some reason I thought it was higher than. Ok, I'll take that thought back then, was not correct on that one.
Mostly BS, everything has trade offs and the Chinese will trade the environment and good common sense to make cheaper smartphone batteries everyday. Heck the Chinese can’t even safely make lead acid batteries with similar horror stories, their overseas big screen factories emit dioxins. Even Chinese clothing kills salmon. If you can find a Chinese made product that doesn’t destroy the environment in some way I’ll give you a prize.
Even the safest mines for table salt
Salt dome mines also have terrible environmental effects including an increase in sink holes up to 25 miles away,
fracked oil wells also pollute the ground with heavy metals and other contamination like VOC in and around the well for fairly large distances. 5% of all fossil fuels have been spilled either underground, in the air, in the ocean or on land.
I bought my Volt because it was cheaper up front than a base Cruze and my charging was mostly free.
I later considered buying a $2000 leaf in place of a 2nd car and thankfully did not.
the state started taxing the $$$$ out of my Volt along with antique hybrids which made me change coarse since there are no savings after paying the taxes.
I am not the only one who has gone backwards due to the ever changing taxation schemes,
If government truly wants us to own efficient vehicles why remove the one benefit they have, saving money
Last edited:
Last I knew, fuel taxes raised only 30% of required money to upkeep our roads. I don't want to argue for more taxes but it appears we don't spend enough on roads as it is (potholes and collapsing bridges anyone?)--and we certainly don't raise enough to pay for the roads.
What the right way is to pay for road upkeep is beyond me, so far no single method seems to work well (registration, fuel tax, tolls).
What the right way is to pay for road upkeep is beyond me, so far no single method seems to work well (registration, fuel tax, tolls).
To be honest I was quite pleased with the progression of hybrids but the massive number of car sales overwhelms the numbers.
- Status
Similar threads
