3 ms·

> So you're getting around a 8-10% capacity factor on a cloudy day in winter. Sounds pretty good to me especially if you're somewhere like NY. No. This is Los

> So you're getting around a 8-10% capacity factor on a cloudy day in winter. Sounds pretty good to me especially if you're somewhere like NY. No. This is Los Angeles. And this happens every day, not in winter. We might not have tons of rain, but we do have clouds up there all the time. Here's April of this year: https://i.imgur.com/8lYKImD.png https://i.imgur.com/8lYKImD.png > Also why 1.2TW? Because that's what we need. My model predicted a range between 900 GW and 1.4 TW. I could not confirm the accuracy of this model until recently. So, good news, don't take my word for it, here's Elon Musk confirming my number: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcI6FaaDp8g&t=3510s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcI6FaaDp8g&t=3510s I you want to argue against the 1.2 TW estimate, you need to argue against the guy who is, quite literally, pushing the EV industry forward. These numbers are real. I will admit that they are counterintuitive. I didn't understand how it would work until I took the time to create a reasonably realistic simulation model to try to answer the question. Most people think "just charge at night" or "just charge at work", not realizing that none of those are solutions. You need a tremendous amount of power (again, talking about energy is the wrong metric) to support a full EV fleet. Power we do not have. And what's needed isn't trivial at all. Even Elon mentions nuclear in that interview. He has to be careful because he can't scare people by painting a "this is impossible" picture. He knows the real numbers and he knows what it will take to get there. Policy and thinking has to get there eventually, because the dream is impossible given the current path. Even worse, if we start talking about electric air and ocean freight it could easily add another 1.2 TW requirement. This is easy to see when you consider there are over 60K merchant ships in the world and up to 15K sailing the oceans simultaneously. Each one of those ships is burning about 150 tons of bunker fuel per day. When we stop using oil for ground transport, we might have a situation where using bunker fuel will be impossible. Bunker fuel is, quite literally, the crap that is left after you extract all the other fuels and derivatives from oil. If you don't distill oil at the rate we do today, bunker-fuel powered ships will not have fuel. They will have to go electric. Which means a demand for power over and above what a full EV fleet would require. So, yeah, the 1.2 TW estimate might be two low, by a factor of two, if not three. Solar panels are just not going to make that happen.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> No. This is Los Angeles. And this happens every day, not in winter. We might not have tons of rain, but we do have clouds up there all the time. Here's April of this year: > https://i.imgur.com/8lYKImD.png https://i.imgur.com/8lYKImD.png Looks like a graph of 4-5kWh/day/kW in spring to me. Which is about DNI for the area. I'm sorry you had wildly unrealistic expectations for a home solar array. Did you get a system with bypass diodes? How is it positioned? Did you pick a chemistry with linear performance in low light? > My model predicted a range between 900 GW and 1.4 TW. I could not confirm the accuracy of this model until recently. So, good news, don't take my word for it, here's Elon Musk confirming my number: Then share your model, or at least the outrageous assumptions you used to get there. Also your argument from authority doesn't work when your authority constantly says any idiotic thing that would benefit his luxury car company. > So, yeah, the 1.2 TW estimate might be two low, by a factor of two, if not three. So 3.6TW of nuclear. Which requires 1/4 of all known and inferred uranium reserves for a single fuel load for a single country? This is your realism?
- robomartin 4y ago
  OK, I've had enough of your constant need to deliver insults and misinterpretation. Live long and prosper.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Let's try a less crazy town model. Assumptions: - Renewables do not exist. - Nuclear is on time and on budget. - Seasonal driving variability is 20% with rare spikes of 100% for periods of a week or longer. - Batteries will still be $200/kWh in 8 years. - No efficiency improvements by switching to EV beyond moving the waste heat to the nuclear reactor. - All oil is for cars The total energy of oil that the US consumes is 1.5TW. It would provide 450GW of work in an ICE. With variability that's ~600GW Each car needs 2kW of capacity. Get all of your 2kW from AP-1000s at $6600/kW Buy 1kW of electrolyser at $300/kW. Buy 1kW of Gas Turbine at $1000/kW Fuel the turbine with hydrogen stored in salt caverns or ammonia (or even fossil fuels) for the 2% of the time you need it. This is $13k per car. Spend $7200 on 36kWh of stationary batteries at the charging site. Now every car can charge a day's worth of power in a single 15 minute window. On the rare spikes during holidays, use your gas turbine to top them back up. This costs less, is more resilient, is more convenient, and uses less carbon than your most optimistic all nuke scenario. Does it not?

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> No. This is Los Angeles. And this happens every day, not in winter. We might not have tons of rain, but we do have clouds up there all the time. Here's April of this year: > https://i.imgur.com/8lYKImD.png https://i.imgur.com/8lYKImD.png Looks like a graph of 4-5kWh/day/kW in spring to me. Which is about DNI for the area. I'm sorry you had wildly unrealistic expectations for a home solar array. Did you get a system with bypass diodes? How is it positioned? Did you pick a chemistry with linear performance in low light? > My model predicted a range between 900 GW and 1.4 TW. I could not confirm the accuracy of this model until recently. So, good news, don't take my word for it, here's Elon Musk confirming my number: Then share your model, or at least the outrageous assumptions you used to get there. Also your argument from authority doesn't work when your authority constantly says any idiotic thing that would benefit his luxury car company. > So, yeah, the 1.2 TW estimate might be two low, by a factor of two, if not three. So 3.6TW of nuclear. Which requires 1/4 of all known and inferred uranium reserves for a single fuel load for a single country? This is your realism?

robomartin 4y ago
OK, I've had enough of your constant need to deliver insults and misinterpretation. Live long and prosper.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Let's try a less crazy town model. Assumptions: - Renewables do not exist. - Nuclear is on time and on budget. - Seasonal driving variability is 20% with rare spikes of 100% for periods of a week or longer. - Batteries will still be $200/kWh in 8 years. - No efficiency improvements by switching to EV beyond moving the waste heat to the nuclear reactor. - All oil is for cars The total energy of oil that the US consumes is 1.5TW. It would provide 450GW of work in an ICE. With variability that's ~600GW Each car needs 2kW of capacity. Get all of your 2kW from AP-1000s at $6600/kW Buy 1kW of electrolyser at $300/kW. Buy 1kW of Gas Turbine at $1000/kW Fuel the turbine with hydrogen stored in salt caverns or ammonia (or even fossil fuels) for the 2% of the time you need it. This is $13k per car. Spend $7200 on 36kWh of stationary batteries at the charging site. Now every car can charge a day's worth of power in a single 15 minute window. On the rare spikes during holidays, use your gas turbine to top them back up. This costs less, is more resilient, is more convenient, and uses less carbon than your most optimistic all nuke scenario. Does it not?