Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:38:54â¯PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jm...@4ax.com>,
upsid...@downunder.com says...
A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.
If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)
The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in.
It\'s not that the wires become radio antenna. Rather there is an effect called the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near the surface of the conductor. The work around, is to split the single fat cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look at high voltage power lines, you will often see each of the three phase conductors spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The three smaller wires carry more current than a single wire with the same copper, because of the skin effect.
alled the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near the
surface o f the conductor. The work around, is to split the single fat
cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look at high voltage
power lines, you will often see each of the three phase conductors
spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The three smaller wires
carry more current than a single wire with the same copper, because of
the skin effect.
afaik the big overhead lines are usually aluminium,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable
Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
alled the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near the
surface o f the conductor. The work around, is to split the single fat
cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look at high voltage
power lines, you will often see each of the three phase conductors
spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The three smaller wires
carry more current than a single wire with the same copper, because of
the skin effect.
afaik the big overhead lines are usually aluminium,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable
Long distance and undersea cables are usually DC. For example
fredag den 8. september 2023 kl. 19.54.14 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:38:54â¯PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jm...@4ax.com>,
upsid...@downunder.com says...
A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.
If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)
The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in..
It\'s not that the wires become radio antenna. Rather there is an effect called the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near the surface of the conductor. The work around, is to split the single fat cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look at high voltage power lines, you will often see each of the three phase conductors spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The three smaller wires carry more current than a single wire with the same copper, because of the skin effect.
afaik the big overhead lines are usually aluminium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 2:18:11â¯PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
fredag den 8. september 2023 kl. 19.54.14 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:38:54â¯PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jm...@4ax.com>,
upsid...@downunder.com says...
A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.
If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)
The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in.
It\'s not that the wires become radio antenna. Rather there is an effect called the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near the surface of the conductor. The work around, is to split the single fat cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look at high voltage power lines, you will often see each of the three phase conductors spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The three smaller wires carry more current than a single wire with the same copper, because of the skin effect.
afaik the big overhead lines are usually aluminium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable
I stand corrected. How is that relevant to what I was saying? The same principles apply for the skin effect.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:38:54â¯PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery
wrote:
In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jm...@4ax.com>, upsid...@downunder.com
says...
A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1
km has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km
(x2) cable is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current
density through the loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2
current density the total voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which
would be bearable for a 1000 kV system.
If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current
needs to be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross
section at 0.5 A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)
The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for
the whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw
copper would be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would
multiply the price several times.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other
AC frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added
in.
It\'s not that the wires become radio antenna. Rather there is an
effect called the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near
the surface of the conductor. The work around, is to split the
single fat cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look
at high voltage power lines, you will often see each of the three
phase conductors spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The
three smaller wires carry more current than a single wire with the
same copper, because of the skin effect.
fredag den 8. september 2023 kl. 21.59.43 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 2:18:11â¯PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
fredag den 8. september 2023 kl. 19.54.14 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:38:54â¯PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jm...@4ax.com>,
upsid...@downunder.com says...
A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.
If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)
The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in.
It\'s not that the wires become radio antenna. Rather there is an effect called the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near the surface of the conductor. The work around, is to split the single fat cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look at high voltage power lines, you will often see each of the three phase conductors spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The three smaller wires carry more current than a single wire with the same copper, because of the skin effect.
afaik the big overhead lines are usually aluminium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable
I stand corrected. How is that relevant to what I was saying? The same principles apply for the skin effect.
as it say right there on the page, you see everything as an attack?
On 2023-09-08 19:54, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:38:54â¯PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery
wrote:
In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jm...@4ax.com>, upsid...@downunder.com
says...
A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1
km has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km
(x2) cable is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current
density through the loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2
current density the total voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which
would be bearable for a 1000 kV system.
If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current
needs to be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross
section at 0.5 A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)
The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for
the whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw
copper would be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would
multiply the price several times.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other
AC frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added
in.
It\'s not that the wires become radio antenna. Rather there is an
effect called the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near
the surface of the conductor. The work around, is to split the
single fat cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look
at high voltage power lines, you will often see each of the three
phase conductors spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The
three smaller wires carry more current than a single wire with the
same copper, because of the skin effect.
That may be an issue, I don\'t know, but another is certainly to
reduce the E-field strength near the conductors, to reduce corona.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:58?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).
Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence
you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency
cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels
became wet due to the tsunami.
In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for
electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.
Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling,
passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat
for district heating and/or cooling.
Ok, once we have small, modular reactors ready to be sited, we can discuss them. But, until they are actually available and not just an idea on a Wikipedia page, we can ignore them as options for now.
Actually two KLT-40 icebreaker reactors are mounted on the Academik Lomonosov barge, which is currently parked at some town on a Siberian river.
In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jmcfqd3rh82u1k6cg7c@4ax.com>,
upsidedown@downunder.com says...
A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.
If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)
The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.
There is a lot off math involved there.
I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:02:01â¯AM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:58?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).
Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence
you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency
cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels
became wet due to the tsunami.
In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for
electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.
Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling,
passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat
for district heating and/or cooling.
Ok, once we have small, modular reactors ready to be sited, we can discuss them. But, until they are actually available and not just an idea on a Wikipedia page, we can ignore them as options for now.
Actually two KLT-40 icebreaker reactors are mounted on the Academik Lomonosov barge, which is currently parked at some town on a Siberian river.
And there are bunch floating around in nuclear submarines and US nuclear powered-aircraft carriers. They may be modular but they aren\'t sold off the shelf.
If you want to discuss \"the future\", we can talk about $0.01 per kWh batteries and total renewable energy costs (including storage) of $0.10 per kWh.
Not to mention the second hand market in modular reactors from nuclear submarines.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:02:19â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:02:01â¯AM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:58?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).
Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence
you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency
cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels
became wet due to the tsunami.
In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for
electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.
Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling,
passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat
for district heating and/or cooling.
Ok, once we have small, modular reactors ready to be sited, we can discuss them. But, until they are actually available and not just an idea on a Wikipedia page, we can ignore them as options for now.
Actually two KLT-40 icebreaker reactors are mounted on the Academik Lomonosov barge, which is currently parked at some town on a Siberian river.
And there are bunch floating around in nuclear submarines and US nuclear powered-aircraft carriers. They may be modular but they aren\'t sold off the shelf.
If you want to discuss \"the future\", we can talk about $0.01 per kWh batteries and total renewable energy costs (including storage) of $0.10 per kWh.
Not to mention the second hand market in modular reactors from nuclear submarines.
Yes, I hear business is \"booming\"!
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:43:49â¯PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:02:19â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:02:01â¯AM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:58?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).
Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence
you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency
cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels
became wet due to the tsunami.
In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for
electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.
Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling,
passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat
for district heating and/or cooling.
Ok, once we have small, modular reactors ready to be sited, we can discuss them. But, until they are actually available and not just an idea on a Wikipedia page, we can ignore them as options for now.
Actually two KLT-40 icebreaker reactors are mounted on the Academik Lomonosov barge, which is currently parked at some town on a Siberian river.
And there are bunch floating around in nuclear submarines and US nuclear powered-aircraft carriers. They may be modular but they aren\'t sold off the shelf.
If you want to discuss \"the future\", we can talk about $0.01 per kWh batteries and total renewable energy costs (including storage) of $0.10 per kWh.
Not to mention the second hand market in modular reactors from nuclear submarines.
Yes, I hear business is \"booming\"!
Nuclear reactors don\'t explode.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:07:28â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:43:49â¯PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:02:19â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:02:01â¯AM UTC+10, upsid....@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:58?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Yes, I hear business is \"booming\"!
Nuclear reactors don\'t explode.
You never did have much of a sense of humor. Whatever.
Nuclear reactors don\'t explode. They may melt into an intensely radioactive puddle of material that is thermally warm, but Chernobyl seems to be about as bad as it gets (which wasn\'t exactly innocuous). The point I was making was that the business doesn\'t actually exist - that kind of reactor isn\'t designed to be recharged so there is no second hand market. Modular reactors designed for civilian applications might well be designed to be recharged. I don\'t know anything about that at all. I don\'t know much about Rickover\'s nuclear reactors either, but nothing has ever been said about re-charging them - the design brief was to keep them compact, so rechargign would be a bug rather than a feature
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 04:07:22 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Nuclear reactors don\'t explode. They may melt into an intensely radioactive puddle of material that is thermally warm, but Chernobyl seems to be about as bad as it gets (which wasn\'t exactly innocuous). The point I was making was that the business doesn\'t actually exist - that kind of reactor isn\'t designed to be recharged so there is no second hand market. Modular reactors designed for civilian applications might well be designed to be recharged. I don\'t know anything about that at all. I don\'t know much about Rickover\'s nuclear reactors either, but nothing has ever been said about re-charging them - the design brief was to keep them compact, so rechargign would be a bug rather than a feature
To my understanding there are multiple icebreakers with KLT-40
reactors in Russia.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 04:07:22 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Nuclear reactors don\'t explode. They may melt into an intensely radioactive puddle of material that is thermally warm, but Chernobyl seems to be about as bad as it gets (which wasn\'t exactly innocuous). The point I was making was that the business doesn\'t actually exist - that kind of reactor isn\'t designed to be recharged so there is no second hand market. Modular reactors designed for civilian applications might well be designed to be recharged. I don\'t know anything about that at all. I don\'t know much about Rickover\'s nuclear reactors either, but nothing has ever been said about re-charging them - the design brief was to keep them compact, so rechargign would be a bug rather than a feature
To my understanding there are multiple icebreakers with KLT-40
reactors in Russia. I have no idea how much different these are
compared to nuclear sub reactors.
Anyway putting the reactors on a barge makes it possible to tow them
to the middle of nowhere (e.g. Siberia) and let them produce heat and
electricity for three years.
After that tow the barge back to civilization (Murmansk ?), replace
the fuel and tow it back to the middle of nowhere for the next three
year period.Thus very little infrastructure is needed at the middle of
nowhere.
Apparently they have tried to sell these barges also to other
countries without success so far.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:37:27â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:59:56â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:10:49â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:43:07â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:51â¯AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37â¯AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:19:27â¯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
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.
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.
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?
--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:04:38â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:37:27â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:59:56â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:10:49â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:43:07â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:51â¯AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37â¯AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:19:27â¯AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 9/1/2023 3:13 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
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.