Posted on 02/12/2023 12:22:09 PM PST by Hojczyk
Here’s the math. Suppose that, on a cold winter’s day in 2050, all 3.5 million EVs are connected to the state’s power grid. None are being driven and all are fully charged. And suppose that improved battery technology means each provides an average of 100 kWh of electricity. That’s 350 million kWh in total, or 350 gigawatt-hours (GWh).
Sounds like a lot. According to the most recent forecast prepared by New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which oversees operation of the state’s electric generating plants and transmission system, total electricity demand in 2050 will be just under 200,000 GWh. That’s an average of 540 GWh per day. So, on an average day these EVs could provide around 15 hours of electricity.
But extra electricity will be most needed on cold, windless, and cloudy winter days, which are not uncommon for New York. According to NYISO, electricity demand on such a day will peak at almost 45 gigawatts. If that load persisted for an entire day, it would be over 1,000 GWh of electricity. Suppose, though, total electricity consumption on a peak day is just 50% higher than an average day, or around 800 GWh. Then those 3.5 million EVs could supply enough back-up electricity for just 10 hours.
In reality, of course, not all of those EVs would be connected to the power grid. Many would be in use. And not all of them would be fully charged. If only 50% of total EVs are available to supply electricity to the grid, they would supply just five hours of back-up.
Moreover, once those batteries were drained, they would have to be recharged. Were a second consecutive cloudy, windless day to occur – again, not uncommon in New York – millions of EVs would sit useless in garages and parking lots.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Buttplug thinks that’s a great idea.
Green means SCAM
He discusses EV batteries in detail.
“He discusses EV batteries in detail.”
What does he say?
“Not if you have a heat pump, electric stove, and electric water heater.”
Show the math.
There is a WSJ article this afternoon that references a “think tank” paper from a group in California, that sets out the problems with having everyone switch to EVs. Lack of electrical infrastructure and sources, environmental harm and needed water and other resources to mine the necessary components, and the lack of sufficient cobalt, lithium and other minerals necessary for EV’s. Of course critical thinking people have been pointing out these issues for years now.
Their solution? Move everyone into urban “housing centers” and not allow private transportation or rural living. The peons can walk, bike, or take public transportation to pre-determined locations if they can just be shepherded in to “5 or 15 minutes cities”. I’m sure those that “make the rules” will be exempt from these requirements for they will be living on large acreage plots in mansions surrounded by fencing and guarded by armed security.
Raise your hand if you didn’t see this one coming so I can call you naive!
See for yourself.
Gimme my gots new green deal for my stupid BIPOC aszzz. As if these doped up clowns could care about green anything anywhere at anytime in this universe that has 14 billion years to go
BTW shouldn’t these (autism) rainmakers being talking trillions of dollars these days? The way the DC Federals bat around trillions of dollars casually. It’s not their money or pension
And they WFH doing jack squat
“Take an hour and watch this. It provides a first order estimate as to the total amount of materials needed to go “green”.”
From your professor ... We are past peak oil and we must go green!
Very nice but what are these clowns doing for work? OK I get it. They are all Gov’t pretend employees. And WFH no less! While out buying Gyros and walking their and neighbors dogs.
Did you watch the whole bloody thing? The lady which introduced the professor appears to be a woketard but the prof is not.
He’s an Australian professor of engineering with a PhD in mining engineering. He is currently working for the Finish government and was asked to compile a list of the quantity of materials necessary to implement the “green” transition by 2050. He did just that. That does not mean he is a greenie.
The video covers two papers, one of which has been peer-reviewed and the other was pending review at the time of the publication of the video.
This idea assumes that battery charging ports and chargers are bidirectional. I’d bet they are not.
He my not be woke but believes we have to go green and that will result in a lower standard of living.
Did you finish the video?
“Did you finish the video?”
What did he say?
To paraphrase:
“Eat, Drink and be Merry for tomorrow we die.”
If you are implying the "won't die everywhere" means the current grid can meet the demand you are wrong, and the current grid will never do that, other than the case of wind exporting areas with lines built to constantly export the power.
Suffice to say you are going to use your truck battery for emergencies only because utilities will turn on fossil when the wind dies.
“If you are implying “
My sentence was a straight- forward statement of fact. Nothing implies.
One sentence. Don’t excerpt from it and try to give give those three words any implication.
You posted: “My cars suit idle most days.” Hence, I was telling you how to take advantage of different power rates in the day without having to spend money on an EV you’d hardly drive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.