3 ms·

Back to my nasty habit. I said I do not open my mouth unless I know what I am talking about and I do enough research to confirm it. This also means I am const

Back to my nasty habit. I said I do not open my mouth unless I know what I am talking about and I do enough research to confirm it. This also means I am constantly checking my assumptions. Back to energy and electric vehicles. I told you that my models predicted a requirement for a massive increase in energy generation capacity to be able to go to full electric vehicles. I then shared an image from one of my simulation model run calculations. This one: https://i.imgur.com/wTwm82a.png https://i.imgur.com/wTwm82a.png It shows a "new energy" need in the range of roughly 900 to 1,400 GW. Unimaginable. Right? That's over a thousand 1 GW class nuclear power plants. I am delusional. Right? Well, I decided to, once again, check my assumptions and math. They make sense to me. And then, looking around some more, I came across this from earlier this year: https://youtu.be/ESIjxVudERY?t=3680 https://youtu.be/ESIjxVudERY?t=3680 Here you have Elon Musk saying (paraphrasing) "If we convert all of our transportation to electric, electricity demand more than doubles". He goes on to explain that it isn't just about generation, it is, as I said, about transportation as well (which really means it is about POWER, not energy). So, what does "more than doubles" mean? Well, let's start with what our current energy generation capacity is in the US: https://www.publicpower.org/resource/americas-electricity-generating-capacity https://www.publicpower.org/resource/americas-electricity-ge... As of February of this year, it sits at 1,200 GW. Elon's "more than doubles" means we need more than 1,200 GW in new energy generation capacity. Interestingly enough, my model gave a range of between 900 GW and 1,400 GW. I created these models about five years ago. Yeah, I think I know what I am talking about.

robomartin 5y ago
And here's another one: We don't get to use all the solar energy landing on the planet. Not even close. Why? Because, if you did, you would kill every single forest and all of agriculture. You would kill every single animal. You would likely kill the oceans. You might kill bacteria, insects and seriously disrupt weather. I can't even think about all the variables that would be deeply disturbed if humanity decided we are going to attempt to use a big chunk of what solar energy lands on the planet. And blocking it from space? Seriously? Again, refer to the prior paragraph, let's go ahead and kill everything on earth. These ideas might sound good after a beer or two but are nothing less than laughable once someone sits down and really puts pen to paper. We are proposing to mess with forces we can't possibly understand. I have said this many times, we can't even take care of small-scale ecosystems and we are actually lending credence to nut-cases suggesting such things as deploying devices in space to block the sun. Wonderful.

robomartin 5y ago

And here's another one: We don't get to use all the solar energy landing on the planet. Not even close. Why? Because, if you did, you would kill every single forest and all of agriculture. You would kill every single animal. You would likely kill the oceans. You might kill bacteria, insects and seriously disrupt weather. I can't even think about all the variables that would be deeply disturbed if humanity decided we are going to attempt to use a big chunk of what solar energy lands on the planet. And blocking it from space? Seriously? Again, refer to the prior paragraph, let's go ahead and kill everything on earth. These ideas might sound good after a beer or two but are nothing less than laughable once someone sits down and really puts pen to paper. We are proposing to mess with forces we can't possibly understand. I have said this many times, we can't even take care of small-scale ecosystems and we are actually lending credence to nut-cases suggesting such things as deploying devices in space to block the sun. Wonderful.