Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I've even supplied links to both ...

Cars - 32.3million
Miles - 6787

Now, the latest EVs are averaging above/around 4miles/kWh,

Obviously this reflects my reasons for ignore, and I think yours were similar. Even when the information is simple and easy to find (my use of 30m and 7,900 miles was from memory, so appears to be a little out of date) as we both agree on a similar total UK car mileage, and a reasonable 4miles/kWh (roughly what the Tesla 3 can do, some cars will be smaller, some larger) ...... we still get these posts claiming we are wrong!

The engineer claim is, I admit a new one, but given previous claims, that the health impacts of burning coal can't be that bad because he's stood on a large pile of coal and it didn't smell bad, and the many months of claiming that all grid supply costs relate to the National Grid (when in fact 2/3rds relate to the Distribution Network), because he had no knowledge about the subject he was arguing about, I find the claim highly unlikely.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Obviously this reflects my reasons for ignore, and I think yours were similar. Even when the information is simple and easy to find (my use of 30m and 7,900 miles was from memory, so appears to be a little out of date) as we both agree on a similar total UK car mileage, and a reasonable 4miles/kWh (roughly what the Tesla 3 can do, some cars will be smaller, some larger) ...... we still get these posts claiming we are wrong!

The engineer claim is, I admit a new one, but given previous claims, that the health impacts of burning coal can't be that bad because he's stood on a large pile of coal and it didn't smell bad, and the many months of claiming that all grid supply costs relate to the National Grid (when in fact 2/3rds relate to the Distribution Network), because he had no knowledge about the subject he was arguing about, I find the claim highly unlikely.

You are arguing for the sake of it rather than for any substance

I think UK transport (not just cars) will need in the region of 140TWh of electricity and I posted and explanation as to my guess which was as follows

cars 255 billion miles @ say 3.5 miles per kWH = 73TWh
vans 50 billion miles @ say 2 miles per kWh = 25 TWh
HGVs 22 billion miles @ say 0.5 miles per kWh = 44 TWh
So somewhere in the region of 140 TWh for road transport electrification and this is 2017 figures add another 15% due to population growth to get the figures for around 2040s

Ypour pal suggests

Annual - 32300000*6787/4
= 54,805,025,000kWh
= 54,805,025MWh
= 54,805GWh
= 54.8TWh

I reckon my guess is better than his guess but what does it matter this is just a tiny forum with no influence its just a bunch of hobbyists making assumptions and guesses but for some reason my estimates and guesses and theories are to be derided and dear Mart & Co can go on patting each other on the back for how great their guesses are

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Obviously this reflects my reasons for ignore, and I think yours were similar. Even when the information is simple and easy to find (my use of 30m and 7,900 miles was from memory, so appears to be a little out of date) as we both agree on a similar total UK car mileage, and a reasonable 4miles/kWh (roughly what the Tesla 3 can do, some cars will be smaller, some larger) ...... we still get these posts claiming we are wrong

That is not information that is an estimate with assumptions.
Somehow your estimate with assumptions is gospel and my estimates with assumptions are clearly the work of the devil and big oil trying to influence sub forum lunatics

The engineer claim is, I admit a new one, but given previous claims

I am a physicist although I have worked as a process engineer

that the health impacts of burning coal can't be that bad because he's stood on a large pile of coal and it didn't smell bad

The health impacts of fossil fuel usage is grossly exaggerated and you agreed with this in the past when I proved to you the cost/benefit analysis was not much more than pure guess work. Generali a more neutral observer who you liked also agreed

and the many months of claiming that all grid supply costs relate to the National Grid (when in fact 2/3rds relate to the Distribution Network), because he had no knowledge about the subject he was arguing about, I find the claim highly unlikely.

My argument was the grid is a fantastic invention that is not going away you and general and your pals tried to argue the opposite that the grid is on borrowed time as people leave and go for batteries the cost will baloon for those that remain so more will leave.

Fast forward 5 years and an additional 300 million buildings have been connected to the grid. Who was right? Clearly I was

Do you still maintain that the grid will disappear thanks for batteries or have you dropped that silly idea?

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Absolutely not, your actual position was based on guessing the total energy requirements for the guessed number of vehicles, annual mileage & their associated consumption, then applying this to 8 hours of charging ... the logic errors apply whatever the generation source, evidenced by the assumption that 100% of the EV fleet would need to be available during the daylight hours (ie not available to drive at those times!) and that the calculated 50GW (or the 150GWp of PV capacity later postulated) would need to be available during the entire 8 hour period in question, but that's not the case at hand, the error made is in the estimated requirement for 50GW and how it's derived in this referenced post ...

You are claiming to know my position better than I know my position?

As basic errors have been made & exposed as such, any reasonable engineer would recognise this, accept it's happened & learn from the experience as opposed to employing a smoke & mirrors strategy to cover their mistake as they are aware of the potential consequences of engineering related denial & cover-ups!

I do not really care if I have made errors on a sub forum of hobbyists its not like we are designing infrastructure here. Although as I keep pointing out your estimates and guesses are just that assumptions and estimates. You can keep claiming it will take just 50TWh to electrify UK transport and I will disagree and say It is more likely closer to 3x that figure I have already provided my figures and assumptions and calculations and you can try to improve upon them or incorporate them into your model. You have not included Vans or HGVs as I did. Come back once you have and ideally we want to know 2040-2050 transport needs not 2018

Anyway, with engineer claims in question and a strategy akin to that utilised by serial trolls, I'm hopeful that everyone will carefully consider any further unsupported postulations as being suspect and deserving of a little basic sanity-test research! ...

Back to claiming your guess work is facts and my guess work is fiction?

An experienced senior engineer once quoted Aristotle to me as being a personal mantra which should be held by all engineers ... "The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think" ... I'm pretty sure that would apply and be most appropriate in the case of recent claims!

Oh another claim that you are on the side of truth, how surprising
How many times must a man claim he is on the side of truth to convince himself that his guesswork and assumptions are not guesswork and assumptions but 'the truth'?

GreatApe

NigeWick wrote: »

Hello pigeons, here comes the cat. IF @tonyseba is correct and his numbers & graphs suggest that he is, then if there are 30 million cars on the road now there will be less than 10 million when the transition to autonomous BEVs is complete.

If autonomous BEVs happen we will need far fewer cars but each car will do more miles than the average car does today. overall mileage probably wont go down

As to electricity generation and storage, he suggests that it is only about five years until solar and batteries will be cheaper than the transmission of electricity. It looks to me as though most of our home heating (heat pumps), lighting, cooking and transport could be locally generated, leaving wind and larger scale batteries to cope with everything else.

Maybe 25% can be local solar most the rest will have to be wind power ideally offshore for the uk

My point is, that this country could, if the will was there, generate enough electricity using just renewables with battery storage to live as we do now with no FF or nuclear generation.

The UK can and probably will be mostly wind powered by the 2050s but we will still need some FF but much less than today probably 80-90% less.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Obviously this reflects my reasons for ignore, and I think yours were similar. Even when the information is simple and easy to find (my use of 30m and 7,900 miles was from memory, so appears to be a little out of date) as we both agree on a similar total UK car mileage, and a reasonable 4miles/kWh (roughly what the Tesla 3 can do, some cars will be smaller, some larger) ...... we still get these posts claiming we are wrong!

Your assumptions are clearly wrong because transport is not just personal cars but also vans and HGVs and taxis etc and why do you need to try and guess the number of cars and average mileage when official stats exist for the number of road miles done by cars vans and HGVs?

But more important than this is that I dont care if your assumptions are wrong just rectify and improve them. Yet your belief and suggestion to others is that my assumptions being wrong somehow disqualify me from debate or warrant me being ignored not just by you and your bum chums but everyone else?

Self appointed gate-keeper of the truth.....sure mr truth your assumptions are facts everyone else's are fiction

GreatApe

and this is why I delete accounts form time to time. I end up arguing pointless things with pointless self appointed truth tellers until I realize I have better things to do and more intelligent people to talk to. Good luck to you all

Exiled_Tyke

GreatApe wrote: »

and this is why I delete accounts form time to time. I end up arguing pointless things with pointless self appointed truth tellers until I realize I have better things to do and more intelligent people to talk to. Good luck to you all

Is this an admission of creating multiple accounts to argue anti-RE cases (which wasn't the purpose of these particularly discussion threads)? I note that this particular flounce has attracted previous anit RE trolls. Once and for all I ask can't we simply use these threads for the purpose they were intended. If you want to argue points which aren't about Green and Ethical energy in the news, just go somewhere else: find somewhere where people want to hear that the earth is flat, that global warming is good for the planet, that fossil fuels will save us all from the scourge of wind turbines and solar panels. I come to this thread to read about interesting stuff on green and ethical energy which contributors make the effort to offer, not to find yet another pointless argument that flies in the face of logic and science.

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

You are claiming to know my position better than I know my position?

I do not really care if I have made errors on a sub forum of hobbyists its not like we are designing infrastructure here. Although as I keep pointing out your estimates and guesses are just that assumptions and estimates. You can keep claiming it will take just 50TWh to electrify UK transport and I will disagree and say It is more likely closer to 3x that figure I have already provided my figures and assumptions and calculations and you can try to improve upon them or incorporate them into your model. You have not included Vans or HGVs as I did. Come back once you have and ideally we want to know 2040-2050 transport needs not 2018


Back to claiming your guess work is facts and my guess work is fiction?

Oh another claim that you are on the side of truth, how surprising
How many times must a man claim he is on the side of truth to convince himself that his guesswork and assumptions are not guesswork and assumptions but 'the truth'?

Hi

One of another flurry of posts (6 this time!) seemingly describing a spiral of tangential diversion or what! - anyway, to assist by addressing the misunderstandings/misrepresentation in just the above-referenced one ...

- "You are claiming to know my position better than I know my position .." - no, just highlighting that you employ & maintain a strategy for ongoing argument involving seriously large compounded errors to postulate on a position whilst ignoring data supported logic.

- "I do not really care if I have made errors .." - As is eminently obvious to almost everyone, so why not simply attempt to correct them as opposed to continue argument on the basis of those errors? ..

- "Although as I keep pointing out your estimates and guesses are just that .." - The difference being supporting logic & references as opposed to pure unsupported speculation resulting in wildly erroneous postulations.

- "You can keep claiming it will take just 50TWh to electrify UK transport and I will disagree and say It is more likely closer to 3x that figure I have already provided my figures and assumptions and calculations and you can try to improve upon them or incorporate them into your model" ... But, as you're aware, that's not the case in hand as your own postulations were based on 35million 'cars' as opposed to the total for all 'transport' resulting in "380GWh of storage top up needed daily" (138.7TWh/year) requiring an additional power generation & delivery capacity of 50GW based on spurious charging pattern assumptions, which not only lies between 2.7x to 8x larger than the previous explained range of example options using recent references to official government sources, but, most importantly, 10x above that highlighted by NG as being the most likely effect of EVs (including vans!) on the required generating capacity by 2040, (ie ~5GW). Note, the 50GW additional generating capacity you raise is 20GW higher than that being countered by NG's "not 30 GW but more likely to be 5 GW"and that 5 GW is lower than the lower range estimate of 6.25GW (before offset caveat) provided in post #1538 to counter your postulated 50GW which you're still supporting

- "You have not included Vans or HGVs as I did. Come back once you have and ideally we want to know 2040-2050 transport needs not 2018 .." - Really?, then why specifically claim that "In the UK if we have 35 million cars using 4MWh / yr that is close to 380GWh of storage top up needed daily" and base the entire argument on unsubstantiated energy requirements based on this statement? ... as for 2040-2050 transport requirements, the official DfT source referenced for average car mileage suggests a generally reducing trend, should we look for sources suggesting reduced average annual mileage or simply accept that simply continuing the trend which suggests a reduction of around 1000miles/year over the decade to 2017 would result in a 2040/50 figure lower than, or statistically irrelevantly higher than, that the 6787miles reported for 2017) ... of course, as Nigewick has suggested, much will also depend on the uptake of autonomous EVs as a TAAS offering ... maybe, as suggested by some close to the industry, the average EV annual mileage will increase at the same time as the number of vehicles seriously collapses. - It's also relevant to highlight that the referenced NG document specifically addresses the 2040 period and includes both cars & vans in EV form. Overall, sorry, not going down that spinning path to help your smoke & mirrors defence,they're your errors, own them!

- "Back to claiming your guess work is facts and my guess work is fiction?" - Absolutely not, simply an observation (based on years of relevant experience) that unsupported statement & continual repetition of argument based on erroneous & exaggerated claims (/guesswork) isn't really what engineers tend to do, especially when challenged by logic supported by referenced content of official government departmental reports & clarification statements issued by the organisation tasked with delivering energy both now and throughout transition from ICEV to EVs! .... The argumentative pattern employed, far from being that of an engineer, simply seems to comply with what would be expected of one arguing for argument sake, whether for basic trolling or other reasons.

- "Oh another claim that you are on the side of truth .." - Absolute fallacy, that's just another example of misunderstanding or deliberate mischief .... If you care to check the context, it was the position of a senior engineer that all engineers should consider a saying attributed to Aristole as a being personal mantra ... effectively, when an error has been made, tell the truth, own up to the error and prevent it from causing inconvenience, cost, harm or potentially catastrophic consequences at a later date/stage even if there's fear that it may result in reputational standing amongst peers or personal embarrassment, hence ... "The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think" ... Over the years I've heard this and similar quotes used by a number of engineers and other professionals when conveying that consequences exist, so it's probably far more common than many may at first realise.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

Is this an admission of creating multiple accounts to argue anti-RE cases (which wasn't the purpose of these particularly discussion threads)? I note that this particular flounce has attracted previous anit RE trolls. Once and for all I ask can't we simply use these threads for the purpose they were intended. If you want to argue points which aren't about Green and Ethical energy in the news, just go somewhere else: find somewhere where people want to hear that the earth is flat, that global warming is good for the planet, that fossil fuels will save us all from the scourge of wind turbines and solar panels. I come to this thread to read about interesting stuff on green and ethical energy which contributors make the effort to offer, not to find yet another pointless argument that flies in the face of logic and science.

Hmm. The admission in the statement you quoted, matches my statements some time back, when I said I (and I suspect many others) had stopped discussing these issues with the previous account name, and I suspected the new name was to try to re-ignite arguments on which I no longer wanted to take part - mainly because they denied science, economics and facts.

So we now have confirmation that the new account was simply to draw in those that had taken 'ignore' action, either officially, or simply by avoidance.


But let's get back to the good news, the whole world (even the Kingdom of Trump (against his wishes)) is now taking action at an accelerating rate to address CO2 concerns and FF pollution.

And, cost wise, RE looks like being the cheaper option anyway. Nice.

Edit - Here's a timely article:

China Proposes 75% Increase To 2030 Renewable Energy Target