Falacy of the Electric Car

pat > wrote:
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>Centimetres aren't SI.

>Ahem. Centimetres are SI.
>See the list of prefixes on the official SI website:
>http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochur.../prefixes.html

I was too terse. Centimetres are not _preferred_ SI units; especially
in science and Engineering.

Similarly, cm and other similar multiples are not legal units for
trade and legal metrology in many countries; except in special
circumstances: e.g. hPa in meterology.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx

Bernd Felsche wrote:
>I was too terse. Centimetres are not _preferred_ SI units; especially
>in science and Engineering.

OK. I understand.

On Nov 17, 1:06*pm, Bernd Felsche >
wrote:

> You also indicated that nuclear power plants are being built all
> over the USA. *WHICH YOU CAREFULLY SNIPPED!

I did NOT say "they are being built".

> You don't think.

Now you're being rude.



> It costs more, in the developed world, to pay people to work at
> night than during the day. For most manufacturers, the savings in
> energy consumption don't offset the increases in pay. If you're
> operating a smelter or similar, it *might* pay off.

You don't know our business.


> Frankly, the deals that you negotiate with your electricity supplier
> for commercial use aren't relevant to domestic supply; especially if
> you are already a heavy, industrial consumer of electricity. *The
> reasons should be evident. The electricity supplier is using your
> (thermal and other energy storage) resources to try to reduce your
> peak demand during the day. The peaking plant is less efficient than
> base-load, and the reduction in peakcapacity is not to be sneezed
> at.

Power rates are significantly lower during off peak hours--that the
power company defines, not us--because they have a massive quantity of
fixed plant that is unused. As you said, they also use more efficient
generation means.

The same would apply to charging cars; they would be charged during
the off-peak time.

Allow me to repeat: the battery technology to power a car and be so
charged is not here today; if it was, we'd be driving electric cars.
But battery and propulsion technology is undergoing research and the
future is another story. Likewise for the future in gasoline
supplies.

It is entirely possible we'll see a mix of battery and gasoline fueled
vehicles in the future. Motorists will use the mode most beneficial
to them. Today, many families have multiple cars in a single
household, often one vehicle is a larger van for family use and longer
trips and the other is a compact for local driving, sometimes by the
teenage drivers. The electric car could serve there quite well.


> The real-world demand curves look like this:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagesgang_engl.png>
> <http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Stromnetz_Lastkurve.j....>
>
> I provided you with off-peak rates and times for electricity supply
> by a few typical suppliers for domestic use. But your eyes will not see.

I know what we and other commercial users pay for power. I work with
cost accountants who study commercial rate schedules and consumption;
they work with the power companies. Unlike home consumers who rarely
deal with the power company, heavy commercial users have assigned
customer reps who are in regular contact. (There are also technical
issues that require periodic discussion).

Note that different states and regions have different power costs and
rate structures.

Your writings below suggest that _overnight suddenly_ everyone will
have an electric car to plug into _today's_ grid. Electric cars will
not suddenly roll out en masse; when one is perfected consumers will
not suddenly scrap their existing autos. When they are perfected the
transition will be gradual. During the transition the grid will be
upgraded to accomodate the needs; however, the grid probably already
will be upgraded anyway.


> It is the actual load curves, not the rates that one pays, that
> determines the availability of spare generating capacity to recharge
> electric toys from a domestic supply. You only get 9 hours or so to
> do it at off-peak rates.
>
> In previous postings, I've already established that the charging
> process will be at least the order of "normal" domestic electricity
> consumption; compressed into the charging period; and on top of
> background domestic consumption.
>
> As lowest off-peak load is usually no less than 70% of peak, there
> isn't enough generating capacity available to charge everybody's
> electric car battery during the off-peak period.
> Back-of-the-envelope estimates (based on 30% of baseload being
> domestic) put the required generating capacity to be around 350% of
> existing capacity if one could load-shed "each" battery charger
> individually to level out the demand. Such control is presently
> intractible for very large (100,000+) "populations" of
> grid-connected chargers, and larger "chunks" will need to be
> controlled with the side-effect that some cars won't be charged at
> all if they're not connected during their allocated time.
> (It's conceivable that chargers could be controlled individually,
> if a secure supply data network is established and all the
> appliances always play nice. Such networks are almost impossible to
> keep secure and can be exploited by criminals and lunatics to
> potentially disrupt not only electricity but also transport.)
>
> Most of the electricity to charge the traction batteries will have
> to be supplied by the peaking plants; the least-efficient generating
> systems. One cannot simply "upgrade" the base-load plant because the
> demand cannot be fully controlled. If the cars aren't plugged in,
> then turning on the charger places no additional load on the
> generating kit. Perhaps worse is when cars' charging is prematurely
> terminated; possibly producing power surges in the neighbourhood.

wrote:
>On Nov 17, 1:06=A0pm, Bernd Felsche >
>wrote:

>> You also indicated that nuclear power plants are being built all
>> over the USA. =A0WHICH YOU CAREFULLY SNIPPED!

>I did NOT say "they are being built".

You wrote in >:
Nuclear plants and an expanded power grid are coming,
regardless of electric cars.

It is well known that there are no nuclear plants to be built in the
USA in the foreseeable future.
<http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/LAMAR%20ALEXANDER%20on%20NUCLELAR%20vs%20WIND.pdf>

>> You don't think.

>Now you're being rude.

Calling it as I see it. If you think the truth is rude; then what
about your ridiculous fantasies that are an insult to the
intelligence?

>> It costs more, in the developed world, to pay people to work at
>> night than during the day. For most manufacturers, the savings in
>> energy consumption don't offset the increases in pay. If you're
>> operating a smelter or similar, it *might* pay off.

>You don't know our business.

Tell me what sort of business employs the feckless.

>> Frankly, the deals that you negotiate with your electricity supplier
>> for commercial use aren't relevant to domestic supply; especially if
>> you are already a heavy, industrial consumer of electricity. =A0The
>> reasons should be evident. The electricity supplier is using your
>> (thermal and other energy storage) resources to try to reduce your
>> peak demand during the day. The peaking plant is less efficient than
>> base-load, and the reduction in peakcapacity is not to be sneezed
>> at.

>Power rates are significantly lower during off peak hours--that the
>power company defines, not us--because they have a massive quantity of
>fixed plant that is unused. As you said, they also use more efficient
>generation means.

>The same would apply to charging cars; they would be charged during
>the off-peak time.

>Allow me to repeat: the battery technology to power a car and be so
>charged is not here today; if it was, we'd be driving electric cars.
>But battery and propulsion technology is undergoing research and the
>future is another story. Likewise for the future in gasoline
>supplies.

Hand-waving. You avoid providing answer with any substance.

I can only surmise that you don't have a clue.

>> The real-world demand curves look like this:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagesgang_engl.png>
>> <http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?..._Lastkurve.j.=
>..>
>>
>> I provided you with off-peak rates and times for electricity supply
>> by a few typical suppliers for domestic use. But your eyes will not see.

>I know what we and other commercial users pay for power. I work with
>cost accountants who study commercial rate schedules and consumption;
>they work with the power companies. Unlike home consumers who rarely
>deal with the power company, heavy commercial users have assigned
>customer reps who are in regular contact. (There are also technical
>issues that require periodic discussion).

Hand-waving.

You're trying to accept that your fantasy cannot be realized.

>Note that different states and regions have different power costs and
>rate structures.

Hand-waving.

>Your writings below suggest that _overnight suddenly_ everyone will
>have an electric car to plug into _today's_ grid. Electric cars will
>not suddenly roll out en masse; when one is perfected consumers will
>not suddenly scrap their existing autos. When they are perfected the
>transition will be gradual. During the transition the grid will be
>upgraded to accomodate the needs; however, the grid probably already
>will be upgraded anyway.

You fail to observe that the grid would have to supply several times
more during the "off-peak" period than what it does now at peak
times.

Your "argument" is irrational. You have NO figures to back up
anything that you assert.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx

In article >,
Bernd Felsche > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>Bernd Felsche > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>Bernd Felsche > wrote:
>>>>>"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote:
>
>>>>Nonsense, the odd divisions (deciliters, centiliters, centimeters) are
>>>>legal as well even in SI countries.
>
>>>Show me where cl are legal in Australia.
>
>>See Schedule 3 in
>>http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/0/22803A4C4E09475ACA2575EC001FA5B3/$file/NatMeasurement1999.pdf
>
>Maybe I need new spec's. Where does it say "cl" or "centilitre"?
>
>Schedule 3 defines prefixes. Not legal units.
>Non-SI legal units are defined in Schedule 2, along with the
>restrictions on use.
>
>>and see
>
>>http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/0/5D3FB022BD58A67CCA25760400201672/$file/NationalMeasurementGuidelines1999.pdf

The guidelines specify that the prefixes in Schedule 3 can be used
with the SI base units in Schedule 1, thus making centiliter as valid
as milliliter or liter.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

In article >,
Alan Baker > wrote:
>In article
>,
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 15, 1:37*am, Bernd Felsche >
>> wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > >On Nov 11, 8:57=A0pm, Bernd Felsche >
>> > >wrote:
>> > >> >Battery technology has a long way to go.
>> > >> Based on what?
>> > >> Certainly not on anode-cathode potential.
>> > >> Batteries have had two centuries to step up to the plate.
>> > >Sophisticated calculating machines have been around for centuries,
>> > >too. *But only in the last few decades have powerful units, along with
>> > >sophisticated communications links, been cheap enough for recreational
>> > >use in the home.
>> > >The same applies to any science or technology.
>> >
>> > So why don't commercial airlines fly at Mach 8?
>>
>> Why don't they still use DC-3s?
>
>Answer his question.
>
>You claim that there aren't limits on technology, so answer his question.

In fact, there used to be airlines flying at over Mach 2. There are
currently none which exceed Mach 1. Technology must be regressing.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.