America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[NickW + 2,714]

13 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Here's the problem with street charging. As it is right now, meth addicts have been breaking into electrical substations to steal copper. Imagine you've got that nice, juicy 20' 2 gauge copper cord going to your car. The odds it survives the night in some neighborhoods? Approximately zero. 

use aluminium?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 hours ago, Wombat said:

PS: This is why I like to see the math in a peer-reviewed journal. There is no point in coming up with a theory like GWD if you can't do the math and make some testable predictions as to it's accuracy. There is a big difference in the way that general relativity was taught 30 years ago and the corrupted version that has been taught these last 20 years. You can see it in the original version of the book "The New Physics" compared to later volumes. Fraud of the century.

Key quote from NASA article

Quote

But string theory is highly controversial, in part because most of its predictions are virtually impossible to verify with experiments. If it's not testable, it's not science.

For decades I've been complaining about the un-falsifiable religion called AGW. No one has devised a legitimate test, although hundreds of billions have been spent. Simulations are cute and all, but completely meaningless. When they are running thousands upon thousands of simulations every year and one of those gives a pseudo accurate prediction, they trumpet it from the rooftops. They are extremely silent about the tens of thousands that were flat out wrong however. If real physicists were involved with climate science instead of these charlatans, I believe a real experiment could be devised and executed. Of course the political powers that be won't fund such an effort because they already know what it will prove. CO2 simply does not "force" water vapor the way they've been claiming. That flea on that dog's tail does not wag the dog. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

use aluminium?

Also recycled albeit less valuable per pound. However, you have to use considerably more aluminum than copper to carry the same current. It will get stolen regardless

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

42 minutes ago, NickW said:

Ok - assuming an apartment block has off road parking then there is the option of charge meters for overnight charging. They don't need to be 60 KW chargers.

Assuming a 120v supply I would have thought a 20-30 amp outlet  would suffice for this type of charging. 

No need for a link to the apartments consumer unit. Plenty of firms already developing such services.

https://pod-point.com/solutions/driver/apartment-charging

120V is capped at 20Amps and 12 gauge wiring, by NEC, but most apartments do not have 20Amp wiring, but rather cheaper 15Amp 14 gauge wiring which limits them to a maximum of 120V(its actually lower)*15A*80% = ~1.2KW continuous.  Kitchen outlets are always 20Amp.  In fact, most new housing in the USA have 15amp breakered outlets.  Not only cheaper but safer for shocks/fires.  All +30Amp wiring is 240V or 208V if source is 3phase in the USA. 

So, if limited to 1.2KW, then average car is going to have to charge for ~10hours.  Yes, crude approximation. Garage outlets are typically 20Amp 120V and often you will find a "welder" general purpose 240V 30Amp outlet in a garage.  Why all the chargers sold in USA use the 120V@20A or 30A@240V outlets in the USA and generally speaking if one wants an outside charger, this requires an electrician and putting new hardware in from service panel. 

EDIT: Woopsies, 15Amp is rated at 70% continuous and 80% peak.  Why appliances all go under 1.2kW sold in the USA.  Unless specifically for kitchen use and  then will be 1.5kW

Edited October 7, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

120V is capped at 20Amps and 12 gauge wiring, by NEC, but most apartments do not have 20Amp wiring, but rather cheaper 15Amp 14 gauge wiring which limits them to a maximum of 120V(its actually lower)*15A*80% = ~1.2KW continuous.  Kitchen outlets are always 20Amp.  In fact, most new housing in the USA have 15amp breakered outlets.  Not only cheaper but safer for shocks/fires.  All +30Amp wiring is 240V or 208V if source is 3phase in the USA. 

So, if limited to 1.2KW, then average car is going to have to charge for ~10hours.  Yes, crude approximation. Garage outlets are typically 20Amp 120V and often you will find a "welder" general purpose 240V 30Amp outlet in a garage.  Why all the chargers sold in USA use the 120V@20A or 30A@240V outlets in the USA and generally speaking if one wants an outside charger, this requires an electrician and putting new hardware in from service panel. 

Surely they just take a spur of the incoming main. The user pays via a code entered into the charge machine and is billed every month by the provider. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

Surely they just take a spur of the incoming main. The user pays via a code entered into the charge machine and is billed every month by the provider. 

And incoming mains are somehow immune to increased load???

Actually they sort of are as most can have their voltage doubled which doubles available power.  OF course this still requires a massive change in all transformers etc...

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And incoming mains are somehow immune to increased load???

Actually they sort of are as most can have their voltage doubled which doubles available power.  OF course this still requires a massive change in all transformers etc...

As I said before the chargers can be feathered to avoid overloading the circuit. As these chargers are primarily designed for off peak charging overnight this won't coincide with peak demand which is early evening. Seriously ho much juice is each apartment going to be drawing at 1am? a couple of hundred watts? 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

As I said before the chargers can be feathered to avoid overloading the circuit. As these chargers are primarily designed for off peak charging overnight this won't coincide with peak demand which is early evening. Seriously ho much juice is each apartment going to be drawing at 1am? a couple of hundred watts? 

Not how code regulations work

You must design to MAXIMUM.  What part of this reality can you NOT figure out?   

WHO the HELL do YOU think you ARE to determine that NO ONE WILL BE DOING ANYTHING AT NIGHT for 10 hours straight?  Sorry, no cooking, partying for you after 8pm... my neighbors car has to charge.....

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

@Wombat you might enjoy Roger Penrose talking about lots of stuff with Joe Rogan. The interview runs about 90 minutes

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Also recycled albeit less valuable per pound. However, you have to use considerably more aluminum than copper to carry the same current. It will get stolen regardless

We don't all live in dystopian slums.

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not how code regulations work

You must design to MAXIMUM.  What part of this reality can you NOT figure out?   

WHO the HELL do YOU think you ARE to determine that NO ONE WILL BE DOING ANYTHING AT NIGHT for 10 hours straight?  Sorry, no cooking, partying for you after 8pm... my neighbors car has to charge.....

 

I see the Largactil has worn off and this debate has descended into the usual insults.................

I'm not familiar with code regulations in the USA however regulations can be reviewed and changed to address changing needs as time passes. 

You have introduced 'the no one will be doing anything from 8pm'. All I said was that vehicle charging can easily be designed to be feathered so as to not risk tripping the switch during peak load periods. This type of charging is slow charge anyway so no one should be relying on it for a quick charge up. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

@Wombat you might enjoy Roger Penrose talking about lots of stuff with Joe Rogan. The interview runs about 90 minutes

Cheers, I will check it out soon.

[Wombat + 1,028]

18 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Key quote from NASA article

For decades I've been complaining about the un-falsifiable religion called AGW. No one has devised a legitimate test, although hundreds of billions have been spent. Simulations are cute and all, but completely meaningless. When they are running thousands upon thousands of simulations every year and one of those gives a pseudo accurate prediction, they trumpet it from the rooftops. They are extremely silent about the tens of thousands that were flat out wrong however. If real physicists were involved with climate science instead of these charlatans, I believe a real experiment could be devised and executed. Of course the political powers that be won't fund such an effort because they already know what it will prove. CO2 simply does not "force" water vapor the way they've been claiming. That flea on that dog's tail does not wag the dog. 

Unfortunately, we are all living through the experiment right now. The CO2 is being added, and we are all starting to see the horrible results. We will have to agree to disagree on this one

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

11 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

@Wombat you might enjoy Roger Penrose talking about lots of stuff with Joe Rogan. The interview runs about 90 minutes

Very interesting, always great to hear the personal views of a giant like Penrose. This may help you understand what he is saying in a little more detail:

https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmology-astronomy/The-Einstein-de-Sitter-universe

And this is the kind of thing that puts a spanner in the works for even the greatest of the great minds:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-darkmatter-idUSKBN26231N?taid=5f5c3f8d9ce301000129bc01&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

My personal favourite is this:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=graviton&cvid=53115729589e40d793d24b2b2c56ccfe&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

supported by this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1801-gravitys-quantum-leaps-detected/

However, I do not believe in string theory and agree with Penrose that there is something fundamentally wrong with Quantum Mechanics because it does not make common sense. Given that it requires vast amounts of energy to find the smallest particles, I believe the early universe, which involved temperatures and pressures that not even CERN can get anywhere close to, probably contained particles much smaller than the standard model predicts. ie: gravitons and anti-gravitons, an imbalance of which represent dark matter and dark energy. I am not that good at maths to be able to put together an article like the one above on cosmology, but the fact that they still can't marry Quantum Gravity with Relativity and have no idea what Dark Matter or Dark Energy actually is, suggests to me that Einstein's equivalence principle will continue to stand the test of time. The word Atom means "indivisible", and was long thought to be just that. Then along came Rutherford, who showed it had a tiny nucleus, and then the nucleus was found to consist of even smaller particles (neutrons and protons), then we got down to leptons and baryons....  

Making the assumption that the Standard Model is complete and that we have any idea what the conditions of the universe were like in that tiny, hot ball at 10 to the -43 seconds is foolish if you ask me. Indeed, I don't even believe in the singularity. Or infinity for that matter. What the hell are nothing or forever? Penrose does a great job of explaining what they mean mathematically, but I don't think us humans will ever be able to understand the true mysteries of existence and time, no matter how much information we have. As you can see, discovering the "God Particle" has not helped one iota in our understanding of cosmology yet

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

I see the Largactil has worn off and this debate has descended into the usual insults.................

I'm not familiar with code regulations in the USA however regulations can be reviewed and changed to address changing needs as time passes. 

You have introduced 'the no one will be doing anything from 8pm'. All I said was that vehicle charging can easily be designed to be feathered so as to not risk tripping the switch during peak load periods. This type of charging is slow charge anyway so no one should be relying on it for a quick charge up. 

Ah, you will now regulate(DEMAND) that all chargers magically measure current of entire system before turning on/off... Those hall effect sensors do not measure power factor... Oh this is genius... which means they have no idea if they can run or not.  Only gives a ballpark. Which means now we have to monitor incoming and outgoing voltage for your demand to work... Why?  Chargers destroy the power factor which makes the power company VERY unhappy(big businesses get charged extra based on power factor and now you want whole cities/neighborhoods charging at night).  This now means that the charger in question must be a VERY expensive high frequency chopper inverter instead of the dirt cheap variety which is used on everything.  Why?  1) Voltage differential and 2) wave forms are overlapping which has massive frequency implications on equipment.  Very expensive equipment. 

Great, your causal "demand" just blew up the cost on the charger to insane amounts so instead of upgrading panel, you now have to massively upgrade the charger cost and have a VERY expensive installation which also requires modifying your panel anyways... And has no future benefit as the panel is still too small and will need replaced next time some idiot new electrical code regulation is shoved down everyones throats irregardless of cost. 

EDIT: Yes, I will be VERY sarcastic to those with ZERO knowledge of engineering who casually "wave their hands" at problems and DEMAND results all the while sitting there all smug as if they said something brilliant... then get pissy when someone trounces their stupid shortsighted ignorant idea.

Edited October 8, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[NickW + 2,714]

18 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, you will now regulate(DEMAND) that all chargers magically measure current of entire system before turning on/off... Those hall effect sensors do not measure power factor... Oh this is genius... which means they have no idea if they can run or not.  Only gives a ballpark. Which means now we have to monitor incoming and outgoing voltage for your demand to work... Why?  Chargers destroy the power factor which makes the power company VERY unhappy(big businesses get charged extra based on power factor and now you want whole cities/neighborhoods charging at night).  This now means that the charger in question must be a VERY expensive high frequency chopper inverter instead of the dirt cheap variety which is used on everything.  Why?  1) Voltage differential and 2) wave forms are overlapping which has massive frequency implications on equipment.  Very expensive equipment. 

Great, your causal "demand" just blew up the cost on the charger to insane amounts so instead of upgrading panel, you now have to massively upgrade the charger cost and have a VERY expensive installation which also requires modifying your panel anyways... And has no future benefit as the panel is still too small and will need replaced next time some idiot new electrical code regulation is shoved down everyones throats irregardless of cost. 

EDIT: Yes, I will be VERY sarcastic to those with ZERO knowledge of engineering who casually "wave their hands" at problems and DEMAND results all the while sitting there all smug as if they said something brilliant... then get pissy when someone trounces their stupid shortsighted ignorant idea.

I see you are now switching the debate from the capacity of the building to import power and the ability of the grid to supply power. These are two separate areas. 

In terms of the building. Lets take this down to a single domestic property (you can scale up to suit large apartment blocks). In coming supply 240v / 80 amp. The charger simply monitors the incoming power and limits the total demand to say 75 amps and adjusts the charger accordingly to not exceed this. In the UK we already have this type technology routinely available for people who want to use their own solar panels to charge their cars. The charger controller automatically adjusts the charge rate amperage to reflect the surplus amount of solar available. 

As regards demand on the grid - well thats already resolved as anyone who can will routinely charge off peak utilising underused CCGT plant. In the UK for example, overnight we have about 15-20GW of CCGT idling. 

However if concerned about overloading  the grid then chargers can easily be fitted with dynamic demand response switches which basically switch off the charger if the grid frequency falls below say 49.75 Hz. 

However I dare say none of this could ever be done in America if you are to be believed. 

https://gridwatch.co.uk/frequency

 

 

 

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

8 hours ago, Wombat said:

Cheers, I will check it out soon.

If you ever have a few hours to spare (and a lot of patience to make it to the ends of these articles), I recommend:

https://www.britannica.com/science/subatomic-particle/Gravity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything

As you can see, we need an even bigger particle smasher than CERN if we are to discover heavier particles. However, these two articles kind of explain a bit more again about what Penrose was saying. That picture of the angels and demons kind of resembles E8! Thankfully, CERN ramps up from 3 TeV to 15 Tev in 2027 so who knows what they will find? Sure as heck got my lil brain working overtime, not to mention a bit of adrenaline and pumping heart! The whole reason I did Physics was to try and get a deeper understanding of the Universe but didn't think we would get there. 30 years later, I am blown away at the progress that has been made. Still so many questions, but at least now we are narrowing down the possibilities. After Physics, I did Environmental Science (more like an agriculture degree), and Business, but due to ill health, was never able to pursue a career so have stuck to providing free advice to govt of all levels on a variety of matters. Now, I will be eagerly awaiting the results of CERN that should be available by 2030. What a time to be alive! Now I have some idea what it must have been like to watch man go to the moon

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

Unfortunately, we are all living through the experiment right now. The CO2 is being added, and we are all starting to see the horrible results. We will have to agree to disagree on this one

Understood about added CO2 but that's not the premise, which is rarely articulated (for obvious reasons). Since CO2 is merely a trace gas and you have to sift through 2500 molecules in homogeneous atmosphere to find one CO2 molecule, its effect is clearly muted. The simulations immediately proved this, when they looked only at the CO2. Therefore to raise the hysteria and increase the funding, they added forcing, which has never been demonstrated, even though it's a fairly trivial experimental setup. So here's AGW properly stated:

Increasing CO2 levels force increased water vapor into the atmosphere, that water vapor (which is a considerably more powerful "green house" gas than CO2, absorbing nearly the entire infrared spectrum, rather than the 3 sub sections of IR frequencies that CO2 blocks) then goes on to heat up the planet. 

Even climate scientists aren't stupid enough to rail against water so they focus on the trace gas directly responsible for feeding the planet. Actual greenhouse operators love CO2 and routinely inject over 3000 ppm into their greenhouses, because obviously the plants love it. 

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Understood about added CO2 but that's not the premise, which is rarely articulated (for obvious reasons). Since CO2 is merely a trace gas and you have to sift through 2500 molecules in homogeneous atmosphere to find one CO2 molecule, its effect is clearly muted. The simulations immediately proved this, when they looked only at the CO2. Therefore to raise the hysteria and increase the funding, they added forcing, which has never been demonstrated, even though it's a fairly trivial experimental setup. So here's AGW properly stated:

Increasing CO2 levels force increased water vapor into the atmosphere, that water vapor (which is a considerably more powerful "green house" gas than CO2, absorbing nearly the entire infrared spectrum, rather than the 3 sub sections of IR frequencies that CO2 blocks) then goes on to heat up the planet. 

Even climate scientists aren't stupid enough to rail against water so they focus on the trace gas directly responsible for feeding the planet. Actual greenhouse operators love CO2 and routinely inject over 3000 ppm into their greenhouses, because obviously the plants love it. 

Works well if you have the available micronutrients (as do greenhouse operators) . However in the open environment once the ground is exhausted the Co2 will not increase growth rates because the micronutrients have now becoming the limiting factor. 

[NickW + 2,714]

44 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Understood about added CO2 but that's not the premise, which is rarely articulated (for obvious reasons). Since CO2 is merely a trace gas and you have to sift through 2500 molecules in homogeneous atmosphere to find one CO2 molecule, its effect is clearly muted. The simulations immediately proved this, when they looked only at the CO2. Therefore to raise the hysteria and increase the funding, they added forcing, which has never been demonstrated, even though it's a fairly trivial experimental setup. So here's AGW properly stated:

Increasing CO2 levels force increased water vapor into the atmosphere, that water vapor (which is a considerably more powerful "green house" gas than CO2, absorbing nearly the entire infrared spectrum, rather than the 3 sub sections of IR frequencies that CO2 blocks) then goes on to heat up the planet. 

Even climate scientists aren't stupid enough to rail against water so they focus on the trace gas directly responsible for feeding the planet. Actual greenhouse operators love CO2 and routinely inject over 3000 ppm into their greenhouses, because obviously the plants love it. 

So CO2 acts as a force multiplier. You have just articulated a very good sentence explaining one aspect of  AGW to counter the deniers & sceptics with. 😀

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

I see you are now switching the debate from the capacity of the building to import power and the ability of the grid to supply power. These are two separate areas.

Thank you for further demonstrating you have NO CLUE what the HELL you are talking about. 

Good day. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Thank you for further demonstrating you have NO CLUE what the HELL you are talking about. 

Good day. 

And neither do you. 

If America relied on people like you, the Country would still be looking up the arse of a horse while travelling from A to B. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

So CO2 acts as a force multiplier. You have just articulated a very good sentence explaining one aspect of  AGW to counter the deniers & sceptics with. 😀

CO2 is theorised to act as a force multiplier. That theory has never been proven! All the self serving climate scientists in the world can have a consensus that emperor has no clothes, but undressed he remains. Now you know why I am a skeptic! 

As for nutrients, I obviously know what Liebig published, perhaps better than you. Pretending that mother earth doesn't know how plants grow doesn't bolster the AGW argument. In places where conditions are good, plants will grow great. That includes my backyard and the forest beyond. Even California's forests have been growing fuel exceptionally well, even during droughts. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 hours ago, Wombat said:

 I don't even believe in the singularity. Or infinity for that matter. What the hell are nothing or forever?

Infinity, and zero, are mathematical concepts - your beliefs do not matter. 

Do you not believe in calculus? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sum

Or going for a walk and actually arriving at your destination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

 

 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

CO2 is theorised to act as a force multiplier. That theory has never been proven! All the self serving climate scientists in the world can have a consensus that emperor has no clothes, but undressed he remains. Now you know why I am a skeptic! 

 

Anti-science Ward.

Nothing outside of pure math is ever proven.