Tesla Truck will need power of 4,000 homes!
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Well I certainly believe that electric trucks will be a big thing, autonomous of course.
Do you back Musk's claims ?
That's what you are taking swipes at us over, pointing out the falsities in his argument.
Not will there be electric trucks...
So...do you back Musk to deliver everything that he has claimed about these trucks in his promised timeframe ?
Well I certainly believe that electric trucks will be a big thing, autonomous of course.
Do you back Musk's claims ?
That's what you are taking swipes at us over, pointing out the falsities in his argument.
Not will there be electric trucks...
So...do you back Musk to deliver everything that he has claimed about these trucks in his promised timeframe ?
No I have never backed Musk''s timeline. I don't doubt that what he envisions is something that can be developed.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No I have never backed Musk''s timeline. I don't doubt that what he envisions is something that can be developed.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
Pretty sure pointing out market facts, like who bought the truck, which everybody participating in this thread already knows, was the redirect. Engage in the discussion please. Do you think the claims, which Shannow outlined, will materialize? If you don't support his timeline, then what are your personal views on each of those claims with respect to a reasonable timeline for implementation and if you don't agree with the critiques of each of those points that have been provided by us, then please counter them in a manner that allows this discussion to continue in a productive fashion.
No I have never backed Musk''s timeline. I don't doubt that what he envisions is something that can be developed.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
Pretty sure pointing out market facts, like who bought the truck, which everybody participating in this thread already knows, was the redirect. Engage in the discussion please. Do you think the claims, which Shannow outlined, will materialize? If you don't support his timeline, then what are your personal views on each of those claims with respect to a reasonable timeline for implementation and if you don't agree with the critiques of each of those points that have been provided by us, then please counter them in a manner that allows this discussion to continue in a productive fashion.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Well they said solar airplanes would never work too.
I have to catch a flight to Monaco tomorrow. Where do I purchase my ticket to fly a solar airplane there?
Are you seriously comparing the reasonable claims of valid and established companies that actually build something useful and make money doing it to the outrageous and ridiculous claims by that Cornhole little outfit run by a James Bond villain?
It was a simple statement.
Are you saying there will not be electric trucks?
There will be electric trucks. I, myself have been eyeing the F450 plug in hybrid. Electric has a lot of good possibilities for commercial. Especially for congested cities where short-run trucks idle and waste fuel, while spewing emissions during excessive regeneration.
I do NOT think it will happen in the time frame, or at the level of the claims Musk is making up as he goes along. And for OTR? Get the heck out.
If he had dropped a concept of an electric delivery truck with reasonable expectations and timeline, I'd applaud him. But that's not what we have here. Everything he is claiming is so over the top and ridiculous that it's hard not to laugh.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Well they said solar airplanes would never work too.
I have to catch a flight to Monaco tomorrow. Where do I purchase my ticket to fly a solar airplane there?
Are you seriously comparing the reasonable claims of valid and established companies that actually build something useful and make money doing it to the outrageous and ridiculous claims by that Cornhole little outfit run by a James Bond villain?
It was a simple statement.
Are you saying there will not be electric trucks?
There will be electric trucks. I, myself have been eyeing the F450 plug in hybrid. Electric has a lot of good possibilities for commercial. Especially for congested cities where short-run trucks idle and waste fuel, while spewing emissions during excessive regeneration.
I do NOT think it will happen in the time frame, or at the level of the claims Musk is making up as he goes along. And for OTR? Get the heck out.
If he had dropped a concept of an electric delivery truck with reasonable expectations and timeline, I'd applaud him. But that's not what we have here. Everything he is claiming is so over the top and ridiculous that it's hard not to laugh.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No I have never backed Musk''s timeline. I don't doubt that what he envisions is something that can be developed.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
Pretty sure pointing out market facts, like who bought the truck, which everybody participating in this thread already knows, was the redirect. Engage in the discussion please. Do you think the claims, which Shannow outlined, will materialize? If you don't support his timeline, then what are your personal views on each of those claims with respect to a reasonable timeline for implementation and if you don't agree with the critiques of each of those points that have been provided by us, then please counter them in a manner that allows this discussion to continue in a productive fashion.
I believe the article about Anheuser Busch is more accurate for timelines.
And I will not tit for tat with Shannow as he projects his interpretations of what one says as if that is the persons comments. Ha and then carries it around the forum as baggage.......
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No I have never backed Musk''s timeline. I don't doubt that what he envisions is something that can be developed.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
Pretty sure pointing out market facts, like who bought the truck, which everybody participating in this thread already knows, was the redirect. Engage in the discussion please. Do you think the claims, which Shannow outlined, will materialize? If you don't support his timeline, then what are your personal views on each of those claims with respect to a reasonable timeline for implementation and if you don't agree with the critiques of each of those points that have been provided by us, then please counter them in a manner that allows this discussion to continue in a productive fashion.
I believe the article about Anheuser Busch is more accurate for timelines.
And I will not tit for tat with Shannow as he projects his interpretations of what one says as if that is the persons comments. Ha and then carries it around the forum as baggage.......
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No I have never backed Musk''s timeline. I don't doubt that what he envisions is something that can be developed.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
Pretty sure pointing out market facts, like who bought the truck, which everybody participating in this thread already knows, was the redirect. Engage in the discussion please. Do you think the claims, which Shannow outlined, will materialize? If you don't support his timeline, then what are your personal views on each of those claims with respect to a reasonable timeline for implementation and if you don't agree with the critiques of each of those points that have been provided by us, then please counter them in a manner that allows this discussion to continue in a productive fashion.
I believe the article about Anheuser Busch is more accurate for timelines.
And I will not tit for tat with Shannow as he projects his interpretations of what one says as if that is the persons comments. Ha and then carries it around the forum as baggage.......
Fine, then engage my points and Garak's then. Did you see my comment about cogeneration? If so, you didn't respond
I thought it was relevant, as it has become a thing for big consumers in Ontario, though I'm not sure how common it is in the USA.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No I have never backed Musk''s timeline. I don't doubt that what he envisions is something that can be developed.
You like to blow up what others comment when it disagrees with your agenda into what you want to argue about. They call that misdirect.
Pretty sure pointing out market facts, like who bought the truck, which everybody participating in this thread already knows, was the redirect. Engage in the discussion please. Do you think the claims, which Shannow outlined, will materialize? If you don't support his timeline, then what are your personal views on each of those claims with respect to a reasonable timeline for implementation and if you don't agree with the critiques of each of those points that have been provided by us, then please counter them in a manner that allows this discussion to continue in a productive fashion.
I believe the article about Anheuser Busch is more accurate for timelines.
And I will not tit for tat with Shannow as he projects his interpretations of what one says as if that is the persons comments. Ha and then carries it around the forum as baggage.......
Fine, then engage my points and Garak's then. Did you see my comment about cogeneration? If so, you didn't respond
Co generation will be a big thing and already is iin some areas. WalMart has many stores with solar panels. Connect that to some big battery banks, then battery to battery charging with the trucks.....
Another exapmle is generators put inside gravity fed piping.
Another exapmle is generators put inside gravity fed piping.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Co generation will be a big thing and already is iin some areas. WalMart has many stores with solar panels. Connect that to some big battery banks, then battery to battery charging with the trucks.....
Another exapmle is generators put inside gravity fed piping.
I think of grid-tied solar as a separate entity (I appreciate it actually isn't) because of the significantly lower output where you are just supplementing consumption, whilst the majority of what you use comes from the grid. With a traditional cogen the majority of your consumption, perhaps all, is covered by the cogen unit and only a small portion, if any, is bought from the grid, whilst selling back excess is the advantage. These units are normally natural gas, though some of them are hydro-electric.
Co generation will be a big thing and already is iin some areas. WalMart has many stores with solar panels. Connect that to some big battery banks, then battery to battery charging with the trucks.....
Another exapmle is generators put inside gravity fed piping.
I think of grid-tied solar as a separate entity (I appreciate it actually isn't) because of the significantly lower output where you are just supplementing consumption, whilst the majority of what you use comes from the grid. With a traditional cogen the majority of your consumption, perhaps all, is covered by the cogen unit and only a small portion, if any, is bought from the grid, whilst selling back excess is the advantage. These units are normally natural gas, though some of them are hydro-electric.
Replace 1,000MW of thermal with solar and you need 4,000MW of panels, just to harvest the same amount of energy in an average day.
Then 16,000MWh of storage (that's 133 of the south Australian Tesla Battery), at $250/MWh round trip lifecycle cost.
panel - battery - battery - motion is a pretty expensive and wasteful cycle.
Then 16,000MWh of storage (that's 133 of the south Australian Tesla Battery), at $250/MWh round trip lifecycle cost.
panel - battery - battery - motion is a pretty expensive and wasteful cycle.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Replace 1,000MW of thermal with solar and you need 4,000MW of panels, just to harvest the same amount of energy in an average day.
Then 16,000MWh of storage (that's 133 of the south Australian Tesla Battery), at $250/MWh round trip lifecycle cost.
panel - battery - battery - motion is a pretty expensive and wasteful cycle.
And in northern climates, like ours, it is even worse. Ontario has 380MW of industrial solar. Over the course of the year, it manages to produce 460,000MWh. That is ~1,200MWh per MW of installed solar capacity.
In contrast, we have 13,009MW of nuclear*, which produced 91,700,0000MWh in the same timeframe, which results in ~7,050MWh per MW of installed capacity.
*We are down a unit at Darlington right now for refurbishment, though I believe it is still factored into the generating mix, despite its output not being present.
Replace 1,000MW of thermal with solar and you need 4,000MW of panels, just to harvest the same amount of energy in an average day.
Then 16,000MWh of storage (that's 133 of the south Australian Tesla Battery), at $250/MWh round trip lifecycle cost.
panel - battery - battery - motion is a pretty expensive and wasteful cycle.
And in northern climates, like ours, it is even worse. Ontario has 380MW of industrial solar. Over the course of the year, it manages to produce 460,000MWh. That is ~1,200MWh per MW of installed solar capacity.
In contrast, we have 13,009MW of nuclear*, which produced 91,700,0000MWh in the same timeframe, which results in ~7,050MWh per MW of installed capacity.
*We are down a unit at Darlington right now for refurbishment, though I believe it is still factored into the generating mix, despite its output not being present.
Elon Musk is using a current day version of the Shell game to run his finances. Borrowing money using another one of his company’s collateral to purchase stock of another of his companies is fraud. Deception of shareholders by announcing pie in the sky goals and as the stocks rise, he sells. He may have a genius mind but he has ulterior motives as well.
What is the EPS of TSLA? What? There isn’t one?
What is the EPS of TSLA? What? There isn’t one?
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Elon Musk is using a current day version of the Shell game to run his finances. Borrowing money using another one of his company’s collateral to purchase stock of another of his companies is fraud. Deception of shareholders by announcing pie in the sky goals and as the stocks rise, he sells. He may have a genius mind but he has ulterior motives as well.
What is the EPS of TSLA? What? There isn’t one?
Eventually his house of cards will come crashing down and all the greenies will see his fraud.
Elon Musk is using a current day version of the Shell game to run his finances. Borrowing money using another one of his company’s collateral to purchase stock of another of his companies is fraud. Deception of shareholders by announcing pie in the sky goals and as the stocks rise, he sells. He may have a genius mind but he has ulterior motives as well.
What is the EPS of TSLA? What? There isn’t one?
Eventually his house of cards will come crashing down and all the greenies will see his fraud.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And in northern climates, like ours, it is even worse. Ontario has 380MW of industrial solar. Over the course of the year, it manages to produce 460,000MWh. That is ~1,200MWh per MW of installed solar capacity.
In contrast, we have 13,009MW of nuclear*, which produced 91,700,0000MWh in the same timeframe, which results in ~7,050MWh per MW of installed capacity.
*We are down a unit at Darlington right now for refurbishment, though I believe it is still factored into the generating mix, despite its output not being present.
OVERKILL, the standards for reporting Capacity factor are on installed capacity. So a Unit in Shutdown is still counted as a zero.
So with 8760 hours in the year, the 13,000MW COULD have produced 113,380,000 MWh, and produced 91,700,000....a capacity factor of 80.5%...about what our coalers do following the market (note that load following reduces capacity factor as you are not SCHEDULED to deliver those MW...still "available".
The solar capacity time 8760 is 3,328,800 MWh, while 460,000 actual generation gives a Capacity factor of 13.8%...yes, my 25% is Oz, not Canada, so you need to increase by at least 50% numbers that I gave (panels, not batteries)...
And in northern climates, like ours, it is even worse. Ontario has 380MW of industrial solar. Over the course of the year, it manages to produce 460,000MWh. That is ~1,200MWh per MW of installed solar capacity.
In contrast, we have 13,009MW of nuclear*, which produced 91,700,0000MWh in the same timeframe, which results in ~7,050MWh per MW of installed capacity.
*We are down a unit at Darlington right now for refurbishment, though I believe it is still factored into the generating mix, despite its output not being present.
OVERKILL, the standards for reporting Capacity factor are on installed capacity. So a Unit in Shutdown is still counted as a zero.
So with 8760 hours in the year, the 13,000MW COULD have produced 113,380,000 MWh, and produced 91,700,000....a capacity factor of 80.5%...about what our coalers do following the market (note that load following reduces capacity factor as you are not SCHEDULED to deliver those MW...still "available".
The solar capacity time 8760 is 3,328,800 MWh, while 460,000 actual generation gives a Capacity factor of 13.8%...yes, my 25% is Oz, not Canada, so you need to increase by at least 50% numbers that I gave (panels, not batteries)...
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Eventually his house of cards will come crashing down and all the greenies will see his fraud.
That's awfully optimistic about the greenies
Eventually his house of cards will come crashing down and all the greenies will see his fraud.
That's awfully optimistic about the greenies
When the house of cards falls, Musk will have plenty of fingers to point, and greenies and Muskologists will forever tell the tale of the Great Master Martyr brought down by the stone age cavemen who wanted to hide his miraculous mysteries for all time.
Muskologists
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And in northern climates, like ours, it is even worse. Ontario has 380MW of industrial solar. Over the course of the year, it manages to produce 460,000MWh. That is ~1,200MWh per MW of installed solar capacity.
In contrast, we have 13,009MW of nuclear*, which produced 91,700,0000MWh in the same timeframe, which results in ~7,050MWh per MW of installed capacity.
*We are down a unit at Darlington right now for refurbishment, though I believe it is still factored into the generating mix, despite its output not being present.
OVERKILL, the standards for reporting Capacity factor are on installed capacity. So a Unit in Shutdown is still counted as a zero.
So with 8760 hours in the year, the 13,000MW COULD have produced 113,380,000 MWh, and produced 91,700,000....a capacity factor of 80.5%...about what our coalers do following the market (note that load following reduces capacity factor as you are not SCHEDULED to deliver those MW...still "available".
The solar capacity time 8760 is 3,328,800 MWh, while 460,000 actual generation gives a Capacity factor of 13.8%...yes, my 25% is Oz, not Canada, so you need to increase by at least 50% numbers that I gave (panels, not batteries)...
I see what happened. They reported it because the unit was active until October of 2016, which is the year those figures are from. Our actual supply mix is as follows:
1. Bruce Nuclear - 8x Units - Total installed capacity 6,384MWe NET (annual output roughly 48TWh)
2. Darlington Nuclear - 4x Units - Total installed capacity 3,512MWe NET (annual output roughly 26TWh)
3. Pickering Nuclear - 6x Units* - Total installed capacity 3,094MWe NET (annual output roughly 20TWh)
Which gives us 12,990MW of installed capacity and 94TWh of output, a figure we've hit in previous years, which puts capacity factor at 82.6% average. The average CF factor for Darlington is listed as 83.83%, Pickering's is 73.85% and Bruce is 85.17%.
*Pickering is an 8-unit site but two units are permanently shutdown.
And yeah, northern climates and solar take a BIG hit as you can see
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And in northern climates, like ours, it is even worse. Ontario has 380MW of industrial solar. Over the course of the year, it manages to produce 460,000MWh. That is ~1,200MWh per MW of installed solar capacity.
In contrast, we have 13,009MW of nuclear*, which produced 91,700,0000MWh in the same timeframe, which results in ~7,050MWh per MW of installed capacity.
*We are down a unit at Darlington right now for refurbishment, though I believe it is still factored into the generating mix, despite its output not being present.
OVERKILL, the standards for reporting Capacity factor are on installed capacity. So a Unit in Shutdown is still counted as a zero.
So with 8760 hours in the year, the 13,000MW COULD have produced 113,380,000 MWh, and produced 91,700,000....a capacity factor of 80.5%...about what our coalers do following the market (note that load following reduces capacity factor as you are not SCHEDULED to deliver those MW...still "available".
The solar capacity time 8760 is 3,328,800 MWh, while 460,000 actual generation gives a Capacity factor of 13.8%...yes, my 25% is Oz, not Canada, so you need to increase by at least 50% numbers that I gave (panels, not batteries)...
I see what happened. They reported it because the unit was active until October of 2016, which is the year those figures are from. Our actual supply mix is as follows:
1. Bruce Nuclear - 8x Units - Total installed capacity 6,384MWe NET (annual output roughly 48TWh)
2. Darlington Nuclear - 4x Units - Total installed capacity 3,512MWe NET (annual output roughly 26TWh)
3. Pickering Nuclear - 6x Units* - Total installed capacity 3,094MWe NET (annual output roughly 20TWh)
Which gives us 12,990MW of installed capacity and 94TWh of output, a figure we've hit in previous years, which puts capacity factor at 82.6% average. The average CF factor for Darlington is listed as 83.83%, Pickering's is 73.85% and Bruce is 85.17%.
*Pickering is an 8-unit site but two units are permanently shutdown.
And yeah, northern climates and solar take a BIG hit as you can see
