No Kim, you’re doing it wrong. The past and a bit of the present is the only indication of how things will be
Electric vehicle information:
- Thread starter RINGER
- Start date
- Status
i reckon honda's new (kei-class equivalent so don't mention range) car looks attractive and the dashboard is an industrial design win;
https://www.caradvice.com.au/960283/2021-honda-e-review/
but i had long thought the 'Q'-word was reserved for frogs ...
https://www.caradvice.com.au/960283/2021-honda-e-review/
but i had long thought the 'Q'-word was reserved for frogs ...
Last edited:
Polish Foreign Minister cited the British experience this week in support of Polish energy security. They are worried they will be relying on Russian gas via Germany. Poles were promoting a gas pipeline from Norway through Denmark to Poland but it has just been abandoned on environmental grounds. He sounded just like me - he said solar only works when the sun shines and wind when the wind blows. What the Poles want is called reliable base load power. If you watch the Australian sites on real time electricity generation you will see that wind and solar often provide little or no energy. Macarthur is often drawing energy from the grid to keep the turbines turning. Late summer and autumn are bad for sailing ships and wind turbines. And calm frosty mornings in winter. Europeans are getting their base load power from gas and nuclear, Asian countries have a heavy coal mix. It's a simple fact borne out by the figures - with the exception of Tassie with its hydro Australia relies on coal for base load power with some gas. South Australia made a big thing of reliance on wind and solar but reality was they relied on Victorian coal and diesel generators with massively expensive consequences when the interconnector shut down. So now they have a new gas fired station. As NSW is to get and Victoria will have to build soon. The size of output can be raised to accommodate electrification of road transport, you just need to increase power generation from coal, gas or nuclear.
There's no secret about it. Tonight Victoria is using 6676 MW of power. Brown coal is providing 3440 MW (Yallourn is offline) and Mortlake gas is providing 1904MW. Snowy Hydro is sending 738MW and all those wind towers are contributing 593MW. NSW black coal is supplying them with over 7300 MW.
There's no secret about it. Tonight Victoria is using 6676 MW of power. Brown coal is providing 3440 MW (Yallourn is offline) and Mortlake gas is providing 1904MW. Snowy Hydro is sending 738MW and all those wind towers are contributing 593MW. NSW black coal is supplying them with over 7300 MW.
Last edited:
Victoria has as yet very few wind turbines.
There are already some large gas fired stations in NSW, all used to supplement supply as required. There are doubts about the C'wealth proposal for Kurri, which will use diesel for back up; gas supply isn't always reliable. Meanwhile the coal burners are falling off their perches.
There are 40 odd wind farms in the state, very prominent near the ACT. Collectively, about 1500 MW, the size of one of the 5 remaining large coafield stations (1320 to 2640 MW). Liddell (1680) is listed to close.
The new legislation proposes to add 12 gigawatts of renewable energy and two gigawatts of storage, largely pumped hydro
There are 40 odd wind farms in the state, very prominent near the ACT. Collectively, about 1500 MW, the size of one of the 5 remaining large coafield stations (1320 to 2640 MW). Liddell (1680) is listed to close.
The new legislation proposes to add 12 gigawatts of renewable energy and two gigawatts of storage, largely pumped hydro
Last edited:
Gee, every time the wind doesn't blow
Gee, every time the wind doesn't blow
For those who have empty space between their ears, can I point out that worldwide, all windfarms are deliberately situated in areas where there is little or no wind. This increases the effectiveness of taxpayer subsidies so that they align with the goals of the anti-renewable lobby. (Coal, Petroleum & Gas). For those with even less than empty space between their lug holes it should also be pointed out that somewhere in Australia the wind will always be blowing and that is why windfarms are connected to a grid, just like coal fired power stations were before they started to be de-commissioned.
So true. Let's try to get back on topic & it is not windmills:
Petrol, Diesel and Hybrid: Which is Better? | Duffy Motors
Diesel cars are being affected by new legislation's, residual values are depreciating, and petrol and hybrid cars are becoming more and more fuel efficient.
duffymotors.co.uk
Having trouble with logic, now, David? Why are we (the world, apart from Australia) in a blinding hurry to introduce electric vehicles again?
There are moves to introduce electric cars in certain countries particularly western Europe, no move at all in others like Russia. No serious moves to replace combustion engines for general transport, agriculture and the military. So we may see electric cars and delivery vans in London or Paris but the UK government, so concerned with climate change, sees no contradiction in proudly boasting of hotting up its Challenger tanks with a turbo 27 litre 12000 bhp diesel engine that will drag off an Armata. So for many transport needs the ICE has no fear of competitors in the medium term and "green" governments all turn to it for serious work in their military.
People are welcome to buy electric cars of any make they wish in a free economy but others find petrol and diesel engined vehicles meet their needs. There is no problem at all with electric motor vehicles, the market will purchase and use the machines that suit the needs of individual buyers without government interference. If the new generation of electrics meet service demands they will succeed, if not they will go the way of Milburn.
People are welcome to buy electric cars of any make they wish in a free economy but others find petrol and diesel engined vehicles meet their needs. There is no problem at all with electric motor vehicles, the market will purchase and use the machines that suit the needs of individual buyers without government interference. If the new generation of electrics meet service demands they will succeed, if not they will go the way of Milburn.
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right............The Challenger tank engine is a derivative of a Rolls Royce CV12 engine, Challenger 2 having 1200 bhp. If Challenger 3 develops 12000 bhp the tank will likely be used in space! A more correct output figure is somewhere between 1200-1500 bhp.
Last edited:
Ok a typo like 4000 mm rims but the point remains - 1200 bhp it was but no environmental concerns. The diesel is king in the military. No worldwide rush to move to electrics in important strategic and production fields. Didn't notice any electric vehicles or machines parading through Red Square in May.
Last edited:
There are partisan claims on all sides about cost of power generation.
Hinkley Point C costs 24 billion for 3.2gw. But the capacity factor for nukes is 90%. So let's call that average 2.88gw, and that makes it 8.3bn / gw
The UK government has a goal of increasing offshore wind by 30gw capacity over the next over the next 20 years at an estimated cost of 50bn. The capacity factor for wind is about 25%, making that 30gw capacity a real world average of 7.5gw. So that is 6.7bn / gw.
www.theguardian.com
In short, no significant difference. And the latter case is based on rough estimates, which have a bad habit of doubling.
It is always amusing to see people who are concerned about saving the planet, and society as we know it, and touting the staggering cost of inaction, then talking about how expensive to build zero emission nukes.
Hinkley Point C costs 24 billion for 3.2gw. But the capacity factor for nukes is 90%. So let's call that average 2.88gw, and that makes it 8.3bn / gw
The UK government has a goal of increasing offshore wind by 30gw capacity over the next over the next 20 years at an estimated cost of 50bn. The capacity factor for wind is about 25%, making that 30gw capacity a real world average of 7.5gw. So that is 6.7bn / gw.
Powering all UK homes via offshore wind by 2030 'will need £50bn'
Aurora Energy Research calculates investment would have to quadruple capacity
www.theguardian.com
In short, no significant difference. And the latter case is based on rough estimates, which have a bad habit of doubling.
It is always amusing to see people who are concerned about saving the planet, and society as we know it, and touting the staggering cost of inaction, then talking about how expensive to build zero emission nukes.
I’m glad you’re amused. They divert/waste funds that could be spent on cheaper and actually sustainable energy production. And more importantly, renewables don’t take 10-20 years to build when we don’t have the time to spare.
And capacity factor is irrelevant to the consumer - who are locked into paying a lot more for Hinkley power than the already cheaper and still falling renewable electricity costs.
Electric cars are not controversial. Nor are petrol and diesel cars. They all provide transport for the buyer and hopefully a pleasing owner experience. It's a matter of respect. The choice of each buyer should be respected. It has always been unacceptable for others to tell us which type of car to drive. French car owners know all too well what it is like to be on the wrong end of political campaigns. How lucky we are to live in a country where we are free to choose the vehicle that suits us best without the dictate of politicians and others. So good luck to those who choose an electric, may it serve you well but respect the choice of others.
No, nuclear power plants do not take 10 to 20 years to build. That is anti nuclear disinformation.
South Korea, China and Japan build theirs in average of 5 years. They have been constructed in as little as 3 years. Anything can take as long as you like if you want to make it so.
or here
or here
And let's not forget, things can happen faster if you prioritise them. Like, because you are trying to 'save' humanity and the planet.
No, capacity factor is not irrelevant to the consumer. The consumer is paying for the electricity, and that is proportionate to the cost of building the generator in relation to how much electricity it produces.. As the cost per unit of output isn't much higher with Hinkely Point C, than is estimated for possible future wind power, which of course takes into account future falling wind power costs, it makes no significant difference to the consumer.
Your afactual general statements also overlook an important point: Even if all the extra north sea wind farms are built, there will be times when none of them are producing electricity. As is well understood by everyone, the higher the % of intermittent sources in the mix, the more that is a problem. And it requires energy storage. Lots and lots of it. The cost of that energy storage, which in the case of the UK can only be chemical batteries or hydrogen, will be huge in itself, and I note that is not taken into account in the 'cost of power generation' fake comparisons.
Needless to say, single or few very large generators are very easy to connect to a grid; it involves few HT power lines and synchronisation is not a problem. But connecting thousands of geographically remote wind generators involves vast lengths of cabling, and synchronisation problems. In NSW, there are PV farms in the north west of the state technically operational but not connected to the grid, due to technical problems with synchronisation, I read. That is not to say it isn't possible, but the costs involved need to be added to the cost per unit of output, which tends to favor wind turbines when omitted.
Last edited:
US navy seem to have reactors working, but they don’t run like a business …
Touchy
Maybe because there is some self doubt about what's behind your lugholes This is not me denying the desirability of having our energy from non pollution emitting sources. BTW, just out of interest, do you have solar PV and a well insulated house?- Status