[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/pol/ - Politically Incorrect


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




Engineer here, I crunched some numbers and it's not looking good.

Consider the vehicle statistics for Switzerland [1] as well as that of energy [2]. I extrapolated the daily energy consumption for all personal vehicles with ICE and got 1.68 GWh. If we were to replace all such vehicles by electric equivalents, it would still require 1.62 GWh.

Here's the catch tho: gasoline being put into fuel tanks has no charge on the system, lest a waiting line at the gas station in extreme worst case scenarios. Indeed, the load is distributed over the day or week simply because there's no need for everybody to rush and fill tanks up at the same time. Electric cars will require daily charging, because people will not risk being stranded out of juice, meaning we will have a surge in power consumption each day when people get home.

Put into perspective, the 1.68 GWh of ICE cars is more or less evenly spread out during the day, whereas the 1.62GWh of e-cars will actually be compressed and scale up at peak charging times, meaning we'd need much more than that amount of energy to simply keep the electrical grid afloat.

cont.

[1] https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/mobility-transport/transport-infrastructure-vehicles/vehicles.html
[2] https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/energy.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibstadt_Nuclear_Power_Plant
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Switzerland
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping#Electric_power_grid
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Level_2_events
>>
File: power grid.png (517 KB, 1881x1337)
517 KB
517 KB PNG
>>309396112
The most powerful nuclear plant we have is at Leibstadt [3] and produces just shy of 1GWh. In the last decade, we have set up a legal timebomb which will effectively deprive us from any and all nuclear power starting from 2029 [4]. What this means is: if we want to have e-cars we would need two additional big nuclear plants, but instead we're phasing them all out and switching to e-cars at the same time. I'm not even going to calculate the delta GWh because it's just silly at this point.

By now, you should see where I'm going. Namely, that we cannot forgo nuclear fission for the time being unless we are ready to tolerate systematic blackouts where entire regions are periodically disconnected from the grid in order for that same grid not to collapse because of overconsumption. Total blackouts require days to recover from with a process called bootstrapping [5], so really there's only one outcome if we let the future unfold as planned.

Renewable energy source are good to supplement large power plants with nuclear being the hands down best option. Remember that any plant is as safe as the people in charge, and this is especially true for nuclear ones. We've only had a level 2 INES incidents in Switzerland, and the actual cause is laughable [6]; all in all, we're doing it right unlike some USSR and Nippon folks. It should be remined however that cascade events (or chain reactions) can and do occur, where a mere solar plants brings down an entire grid or at least brings it on the verge of collapse (see pic related), so we should tread lightly.

This is now an energy thread.
>>
File: 4ily3z.jpg (48 KB, 500x575)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>309396112
>>
>>309396989
Hyarr !
>>
>>309396112
Which every sane person has known for years, only reality-denying green leftists will think otherwise.
>>
thanks swiss anon. This was a good read
>>
What about storage solutions?
>>
>>309397776
Gasoline is an excelent storage solution.
>>
>>309397284
I call them ecoterrorists but yeah that's the spirit
>>309397373
most welcome
>>309397776
what do you want to store, exactly ? inertia solutions like concrete towers are just emerging so it's still a bit early to say what it will yield

I should point out that a new fusion concept is underway but that's as advanced as ITER so YMMV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBInhPFFVog
>>
>>309396225
That switching to green disscussion is total bullshit. No plan above one year should be ever listened to.
>>
>>309398006
Oh so can I transform electricity out of powerplants into storaged gasoline?
>>
>>309396989
What does this thread have to do with somalians?
>>
>>309398357
They use electricity, don't they?
>>
>>309398218
>what do you want to store, exactly ?
Anything that can be converted back to eletricity. In Switz you probably have reverse hydroplants already
>>
>>309398302
Of course not. There is no solution to this. Just go and wiki energy density and find out why any storing solution is peanuts compared to needs. Hidro has a very limiyed capacity and that is about it.
>>
>>309398456
Do they?
>>
>>309396112
Great thread, OP was not a faggot today.
>>
>>309398302
Oh so I can pump electricity directly out of the ground?
>>
>>309398461
we do pump back water at night when it's cheaper, but I haven't found metrics for that nor would I consider that to be a major power source
>>309398302
the only way you can produce gasoline is through pyrolysis, but that process yields less energy than what it needs. it's just a means of not uselessly burning plastics
>>309398524
also fucks up nature, especially when they break
>>309398658
my pleasure, Pablo
>>
>>309398726
Look some eggs need to be broken. Otherwise the current civilisation is not sustainable.
>>
>>309398900
you're getting to where I'm at right now: either find a way to sustain current needs, or de-escalate steadily over time to meet a lower demand just from the POV of thermodynamics. that could be: travel less per day, or travel using less energy; both are connected to how people work and consume goods in society, so it's a multi-variable equation for which I have no solution just yet.
>>
File: Geothermal Plant.jpg (1.09 MB, 2400x1600)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB JPG
>>309398710
>Oh so I can pump electricity directly out of the ground?
Erm...yeah?
Discarding flippancy, I don't really see your point OP. Of course e-vehicles will lead to a demand in energy requirements. That's always been expected. But the idea here is that the difference can be plugged by expanded renewable energy. Now I personally don't think it can plug that gap, and that we should either a. discourage personal car ownership and focus on providing e-vehicle public transport, such as buses, light rail or trams or b. go for the hydrogen route, which will still require power to generate hydrogen from electrolysis plants but will resolve the issues with energy storage and peak demands.
>>
>>309398710
Retard
>>309398726
If we have enough renewables that produce more than needed energy on peak, and that's what governments are going for, we can deal with those kinds of inneficiencies. Hell, even liquid air LAES plants are now possible it seems.
>>
>>309396225
I look forward to Dark Switzerland. While you’re at it, tell Cavotec to stop putting my longshoreman brothers out of business with their silly robots.
>>
>>309396112
We know, all the green bullshit they keep promoting is not possible at our current consumer level. That is why they have the great reset. very few people will have access to a car and those that do will have to share it.
>>
>>309399133
Back to agrarian society where 60% are subsistence farmers with livestock. This because a good chunk of oil is used up for farming practices impossible to do with electricity.
>>
>>309399133
Ok, so thinking further, this could be a potential explanation for the lockdowns. Getting people used to a life of less energy consumption.
Renaissance man and all-round genius Karl Lauterbach said there will need to be climate lockdowns to fight global warming. Maybe this is why - there will be no other option.
>>
>>309396112
Hmmmmmm even if this were to be offset with solar parking at work places no way businesses will stand up enough for even half their employees cars.

What's the normal way to handle spikes in a grid ?
>>
File: 1613937231398.png (65 KB, 734x605)
65 KB
65 KB PNG
>>309396112
Good thread anon
>>
>>309396112
Good post
>bump
>>
>>309399552
Current fossil fuel levels are enough for 200 years of current population. Too soon.
>>
>>309399580
Think about apartment complexes and such too. Infrastructure is just not there for this but they keep pushing it.
>>
>>309399580
Less cars more ebikes.
>>
>>309399222
I've considered the use of public transport, aka the pooling of energy needs for transportation, but I've yet to find numbers to assess the Swiss case. We have a very dense and well-establish train network, so the only requirement for us would be to have more trains. As for hydrogen vehicles, we have them on the market but no charging stations... that's very silly. As >>309398900 said, we should perhaps consider scaling our needs down rather than trying to keep up with them.
>>309399462
topkek, I haven't heard from that company before. I'll keep it under the radar, thanks anon
>>309399527
modern problems require ancient solutions
>>309399552
I can think of an endgame with lockdowns as means for an end, but not necessarily energy stuff (at least not directly, perhaps on the very long run).
>>309399608
>>309399663
most welcome anons
>>
>>309399754
Sry when I said no other option, I should have said, no other option in the context of current Euro energy & EV policy. As you say fossil fuel is still an option and nuclear too, but that's not policy.
>>
>>309396112
this kills the green energy shill
>>
>>309399527
>Back to agrarian society where 60% are subsistence farmers with livestock
It doesn't have to be that either.
This sort of thinking is beloved by neoliberals, because it feeds into the argument that the only alternative to the hellworld they have created is medieval serfdom.
Instead, advocate for local, autonomous towns/villages which use off grid renewables and mini-fabrication plants to meet their demands will still maintaining a good standard of living support by technology. Not only is this feasible, it strengthens right wing traditional conservatism, because it places power back into the communities, and whenever this happens, personal morality becomes important.

>>309399133
>both are connected to how people work and consume goods in society
You've identified the problem. Globalism has realised it can only continue to exist if it both maintains current consumption and resolves the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, even though the two are impossible to resolve together. They keep jumping on magic solutions that will not work, such as e-cars. On paper this resolves all of their problems, eliminating most GHG emissions while keeping an important consumer market, the car, going, but as you've identified, it's not sustainable without a huge increase in electricity consumption.
Actual solutions, such as public transport or changing behaviours so that consumption is reduced, is anathema to these people.
>>
>>309399946
>the use of public transport,
ok, but what happens when those services are underutilized?
America runs them at a LOSS
>>
>>309399580

Regulation(making it illegal to have your thermostat above or below a certain temperature/making the temp monitors required by building code).

The only power generation that is good for something beyond base load is hydro/coal/nat gas, those are the types of plants that can adjust their output as needed.

you can do like some janky storage systems for renewables to allow you to adjust load too but they are really shitty, basically you make a gravity dam and use the solar/wind to pump the water up when solar/wind production exceeds base load, then when at peak you discharge the water through the dam. It's as horribly inefficient and takes up a massive amount of space. Another way is compressed air storage, which is exactly the same deal.

Nuclear is really great for base load though, it just can't adjust output nearly as easily. You could however build a massive excess of production and then use some inefficient storage method or run desal with the insanely cheap energy you get from it.
>>
>>309400203
Nothing plugged in can till. Or thrash or do any good size local transport for that matter. Trains might get back in vogue though.
>>
>>309399133
Build new nuclear plants for fucks sake.
>>
>>309399498
We could just build more nuke plants anon
>>
File: IMG_20200718_114003.jpg (2.73 MB, 2621x1960)
2.73 MB
2.73 MB JPG
>>309400251
Not very familiar with US transportation system apart from the fact that your rail network is pure garbage compared to what we have. Shit, even frog SNCF does a better job. Your country has successfully made it unbearable and easier to ditch, because personal transportation only has upsides for people. That's where you should start... but at this stage it's perhaps too late to fix.
>>309400504
fucking treehuggers made us ban new reactors mate, see links in OP
>>309400203
>You've identified the problem
exactly, solutions that magically make one problem disappear but bring 5 more by the time it's in place. as an engineer, this make no sense to me. engineers live to solve problems with solutions, yet we're trying to solve problems with more problems.

free Swiss scenery for yall
>>
>>309400504
>Build new nuclear plants for fucks sake.
Why? Uranium stocks are concentrated in just a few nations, nuclear power stations require a centralised state with immense powers, and everything can go to fucking shit if you have even a small slip up.
I understand that because Greens are faggots a lot of /pol/ sees renewables as also faggotry, but renewables are 1. fairly standard technology now with resources that can be gathered in most nations, 2. are off grid, allowing you to escape the centralised state, 3. can fail, but not catastrophically so and 4. are varied, so that even if power is lost in one form of generation (solar) another can pick up the loss (wind, or biofuel). They're literally perfect for the sort of small, agrarian socieities conservatives should want.
>>
File: bnsf.png (539 KB, 895x698)
539 KB
539 KB PNG
>>309400836
>US rail network is pure garbage compared to what we have
Just a point of correction, the US freight rail network is one of the best in the world.
>>
>>309401318
>They're literally perfect for the sort of small, agrarian socieities conservatives should want.
that's the problem: it requires us to completely change the paradigm of modern societies. good luck provoking that with current globohomos and their cult of NPCs, even tho such a switch is the only sane solution.
>>309401465
hm, I might have forgotten to specify it's just the public transportation which is crap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ
>>
>>309401465
Never read a headling from The Economist without considering things through the prism of thier neoliberalism.
They are correct that American freight network is extremely good. Passenger trains do not threaten that though. Why so anti public transport? Because the American aviation and auto industry basically keeps the American consumer industry alive. The Economist is obsessed with electric vehicles for the reasons I stipulate here >>309400203
>>
>>309401622
>that's the problem: it requires us to completely change the paradigm of modern societies. good luck provoking that with current globohomos and their cult of NPCs, even tho such a switch is the only sane solution.
It's a real shame, isn't it? Although I see some hope, if people actually start deciding to do it themselves, forming thier own off grid, high-tech Amish-tier communities, we meant see an upswing in uptake among the general population. That's unless they don't get Waco'ed first, which is a strong possibility.
>>
>>309396112
Jokes on you, I charge my Tesla at work.
>>
>>309401318
Few renewables excepting Hydro are of any use. Again only 3% is cars where about 20% is food and processing.
>>
>>309401979
>Waco'ed
Man I sure am delighted to see people with culture on this board, godspeed. Davidians were most probably fucked in the head, but glowniggers will always find a way to conspire against he who poses a threat to the state, even if that threat is fucking off and living off-grid. Perhaps a collective movement of societal denial is the only possible way to peacefully retract from a system bound to fail ? Personally I can't see myself fighting for a lost cause, I'd rather bail out and start from scratch.
>>309402103
I hope you work at a nuclear plant kek
>>
>>309396112
bump
>>
>>309396112
Electric vehicles don't make sense unless there's a solid battery leap to something better than lithium. I mean if an electric vehicle got 10,000 miles before the next charge refill then I could understand. But instead people want to go full electric that need constant charging while not using nuclear power. As you stated it's a recipe for disaster.
>>
Lol how many geniuses do you think will buy an electric car and now supplement their charging needs with a gas powered genny?
>>
>>309403489
some people already to that in places where grid isn't reliable, it's a fucking joke mate
>>309403008
still waiting for Elon's supermassive battery design to drop... will probably never deliver
>>
>>309401318

You do realize that a lot of third world shitholes have nuke plants right?
>>
>>309398302
Use electricity to farm biodeisels. Not so retarded right?
>>
>>309396112
Bump
>>
>>309400836
The rail network, and the trolley systems that were in place throughout the cities, were destroyed by the car moguls...who also worked with the oil and gas moguls to also destroy the ability we had to make our own gasoline.
When Henry Ford began his assembly line, every farmer had the ability to distill his own gasoline...and the early cars could take whatever fuel you put in them even if you made it from wood alcohol on your own farm.
So the brand new oil and gas companies pushed the liberal white women, who up till then were only calling for temperance in drinking, to demand total prohibition of alcohol. Once the oil and gas moguls had complete control of fuel, then they allowed drinking to come back, but never brought back the ability for people to make their own. And nobody fought to reclaim that ability because they were just so glad they could drink legally again.
(if you run your homemade likker through the still three times, you have ethanol).
But car moguls were not done. Only the well-to-do owned cars in the beginning and horses were the main means of individual local conveyance inside the cities. But the local line trolleys made it possible for everyone to move about freely, especially people not wealthy enough to keep a carriage.
Trolley lines spread out of and over the cities like spider webs by the 1940s. They brought people from the outlying areas into the cities to shop and to work, and took them out to parks and relatives. Packing a picnic and taking the trolley down to the beach or to the countryside was common practice till WW1.
WW1 changed many things including the horse, trolley, railroad and car situations in the United States. WWI was where the globalists, inheritors of the robber barons, really consolidated their wealth and power. Their push that everyone should own a car individually, meant sudden-death loss of revenue for local rail. And millions of horses were sent to slaughter... the birth of the canned pet food industry.
>>
>>309406521
I would articulate that post-WW2 was worse than that. It set the tone and accelerated all globalist outcomes, the full extent of which we can only see today. Very good post tho, thanks anon.
>>
>>309396112
Not just good enough to add plants and capacity, transformer substations and probably most associated transfer systems will have to be completely rebuilt as peak load will just to a stupid high height as everyone plugs their cars in for the night.

>>309396225
>Remember that any plant is as safe as the people in charge, and this is especially true for nuclear ones.
Nuclear are WAY safer then hydro plants, even with retarded operators. The number of people killed by radiation, nuclear weapons and nuclear plant failures combined is less then just the failure of Banquio dam. The 3gd is a much bigger time bomb just waiting. Then you add the fact that most dams have exceeded their life expectancy, and we have a massive time bomb all around the world.

>>309399222
>But the idea here is that the difference can be plugged by expanded renewable energy
The problem is timing. When demand will peak, is exactly when renewables contribute the least amount of energy to the grid (look up the duck curve and its problems). No amount of renewables can plug that gap, it has to be done by either fossil fuels of nuclear power. Further, the massive extra load to the grid will necessitate a completely new power grid, as the energy demand will skyrocket massively as everyone tries to get their 38.83 GWh/day in during the same few hours.
>>
>>309409270
that's actually a very good point, because I didn't even think let alone talk about the distribution of power once it's obtained, and this is an even bigger challenge (upgrading an entire nation's power lines).
>>309409270
exactly, it's safer itself but also comparatively to other means of electricity production. not quite sure how our dams are doing, but we've yet to have mishaps... Grand Dixence dam is one of the most famous one and pretty old at that



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.