4 ms·

> Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just h

> Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything. Frozen world fallacy again. The 11% is the point of use stuff, embodied emissions come under industrial heat, or chemical, or electricity or or mining or shipping. What processes produce those emissions? How does a steel smelter produce emissions if it is running on solar electrolysed hydrogen? How does a mine produce emissions if it is electrified, and the nitrates are sequestered and the hydrocarbons it uses come from the air? Mining basalt hosted formations becomes carbon negative at about 120g/kg of host rock if you spread out the silicates after. > My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that. Good thing reality doesn't conform to the vague gut feelings of someone who is trying to spread FUD then. > For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere. You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. Some PHES or hydrogen is needed for seasonal storage, but this is a few dozen TWh. The part of first generation of PV and wind will produce around 20g/kWh. The rest will use PV and wind to produce the Al, ste, and polysilicon. Same with nuclear. This drops it to 5 or so. Electrifying a few other steps makes it negligible. And your claims of it taking centuries are incoherent. It will happen within 50 years simply because of resource depletion even with no intervention.

robomartin 4y ago
> You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. You continue to say thing that reveal you have never bothered to do the math at all. I have done this. I have written reasonably detailed simulations in order to understand just how much power full electrification of ground transport would require. My answer was in a range between 900 GW and 1400 GW. Years later Elon Musk confirmed this. His estimate is pretty much exactly in the middle of the range I predicted. What he said is that electricity demand will more than double when we shift all transport to electric. The US currently has a capacity of 1.2 TW. A doubling, then, means we need an additional 1.2 TW of power generation and, most importantly, the ability to deliver that power (today, we cannot). https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_Electricity_Generation_Capacity_2022_Update.pdf https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_... The 1.2 TW number comes from page 2 of the report linked above. It is also important to understand how we generate power. Page 2: Natural gas 43.9% Coal 18.5% Wind 10.7% Hydro 8.1% Solar 5.3% Geothermal 0.3% The balance of approximately 13.5% is pretty much all produced by burning different types of fuel. Anyhow, you go ahead and believe what you believe. Come back and check your notes against this discussion in ten years and see where your beliefs land you.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The available work of all oil that the US uses is around 300GW on average once it is refined and run through an ICE. EV motors do significantly less work than a typical ICE because they are more aerodynamic and have regen. With negligible chemical or hydro storage (or even fossil fuel backup at insignificant usage) for the 4 days a year where demand spikes, all you need to do is make it so most EVs are available to charge most of the time to spread the load. This can be achieved either by an extension cord, or if that is really too difficult for you to imagine, by taking a few days worth of EV battery (about 10-30%) and separating it from the car (either at point of charge, at the owner's house or on grid) most of the time so it can be charged whenever. Exclusively fast charging and peaking with nuclear is the stupidest possible way of achieving this. Please do share your simulation so it can become apparent what other unfounded assumptions you've made. You've also just attempted to move the goal posts with your "prediction". Peak capacity isn't generation. Markets shift, and much more than just transport will be electrified. There will be several net terawatts of renewables dedicated to US energy needs in the coming decades, but it has nothing to do with your logic. Finally appealing to authority using an ambiguous and off handed comment of a serial liar whose quantified predictions are consistently wrong is evidence against your case, not for it.

robomartin 4y ago

> You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. You continue to say thing that reveal you have never bothered to do the math at all. I have done this. I have written reasonably detailed simulations in order to understand just how much power full electrification of ground transport would require. My answer was in a range between 900 GW and 1400 GW. Years later Elon Musk confirmed this. His estimate is pretty much exactly in the middle of the range I predicted. What he said is that electricity demand will more than double when we shift all transport to electric. The US currently has a capacity of 1.2 TW. A doubling, then, means we need an additional 1.2 TW of power generation and, most importantly, the ability to deliver that power (today, we cannot). https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_Electricity_Generation_Capacity_2022_Update.pdf https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_... The 1.2 TW number comes from page 2 of the report linked above. It is also important to understand how we generate power. Page 2: Natural gas 43.9% Coal 18.5% Wind 10.7% Hydro 8.1% Solar 5.3% Geothermal 0.3% The balance of approximately 13.5% is pretty much all produced by burning different types of fuel. Anyhow, you go ahead and believe what you believe. Come back and check your notes against this discussion in ten years and see where your beliefs land you.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The available work of all oil that the US uses is around 300GW on average once it is refined and run through an ICE. EV motors do significantly less work than a typical ICE because they are more aerodynamic and have regen. With negligible chemical or hydro storage (or even fossil fuel backup at insignificant usage) for the 4 days a year where demand spikes, all you need to do is make it so most EVs are available to charge most of the time to spread the load. This can be achieved either by an extension cord, or if that is really too difficult for you to imagine, by taking a few days worth of EV battery (about 10-30%) and separating it from the car (either at point of charge, at the owner's house or on grid) most of the time so it can be charged whenever. Exclusively fast charging and peaking with nuclear is the stupidest possible way of achieving this. Please do share your simulation so it can become apparent what other unfounded assumptions you've made. You've also just attempted to move the goal posts with your "prediction". Peak capacity isn't generation. Markets shift, and much more than just transport will be electrified. There will be several net terawatts of renewables dedicated to US energy needs in the coming decades, but it has nothing to do with your logic. Finally appealing to authority using an ambiguous and off handed comment of a serial liar whose quantified predictions are consistently wrong is evidence against your case, not for it.