3 ms·

I love the ridiculous hyperbole. Calling the behavior of anyone who currently uses a block heater a 'nice little robot', as well anyone who reacts to informatio

I love the ridiculous hyperbole. Calling the behavior of anyone who currently uses a block heater a 'nice little robot', as well anyone who reacts to information (like it costing $100 to fast charge on the way home but $5 to get a charge by parking daily in a spot with a L1 charger), but anyone who follows your simulation blindly is a free thinker. Around 90% of cars in the US cover under 60 miles a day. This can easily be provided by an L1 charger during off peak. The overwhelming majority of cars are parked the overwhelming majority of the time. Adding level 1 chargers (ie. A standard household extension cord with a bit of weatherproofing) to parking spots is about two to three orders of magnitude cheaper than the nonsense of massive overprovision of thermal generators, and massive overbuild of transmisikon to only run them 12% of the time. Margins on trucking are razor thin. Nobody in their right mind will pay your 8x overprovisioned $200/MWh nuclear power at $1600/MWh to pay for the down time or even $100/MWh overprovisioned fossil fuel power when they are already crossing hundreds of miles and anyone with a few hectares can build a battery buffered charging station at $30/MWh. They'll just book a slot on a charger as soon as they hit the highway to match the mandatory rest breaks and they'll have 4-6 hours and several hundred miles of flexibility to avoid peak charging in addition to the arbitrage supplied by the battery on the charger which is necessary to provide the 3MW or so to fast charge.

robomartin 4y ago
> I love the ridiculous hyperbole ? Truly. ? You have been chasing me around HN insulting me at every turn. Please. Stop it. I am more than willing to have a conversation with you. Use facts. Use math. Stop with the insults. OK? I'll repeat what I said: "once you pass a certain number of cars on the road things quickly become stochastic" If you were to model things and play with the numbers you would learn quite a bit, including gaining an understanding of how and why the things you are saying do not align with reality at scale. Once things go beyond a threshold (which is regionally dependent), there is no way to avoid the need for massive amounts of power that we do not currently produce. You seem to require an explanation for my sarcastic "behave as nice little robots" comment, next time I'll label it as such. It refers to the ideas pushed by people who seem to think they will be able to control how everyone behaves and, therefore, through this control, in turn, have some degree of control or mitigation for the power issues we are sure to have to face. Another example of this is people saying things like "just drive less". <sarcasm> Sure. Of course. Why didn't I think of that? </sarcasm>
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  If I keep seeing the same idiotic lie, I'll keep calling it an idiotic lie. I don't care if it's coming from the same person or not. You seem to want to denigrate other people, then put words in their mouth and insult them for what you imagined. Then arrogantly insult other people's ability to perform basic logic, but when your straw man is pointed out you cry victim. Your numbers are only as good as your assumptions, and when you keep insisting on ridiculous assumptions like people treating EVs exactly like ICEs in spite of there being cheaper, more convenient options that don't lead to the conclusion you decided on before you started you will get ridiculous numbers. Driving less is similarly an option to contribute. People do it everywhere the infrastructure lets them.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    Please chill, stop with the insults and go learn something. I have ignored your attacks and continued to provide data and enough math to understand my perspective (and refute it with math and physics if desired). I have used articles you provided to show I am likely right. I am more than open to dialogue and a discussion on any of this. I am more than open to being wrong. That cannot happen if you refuse to engage in conversation. Rather than repeat myself, here's the parallel thread where I use your own article to, multiple times, show you that your perspective might not be aligned with reality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35131368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35131368
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Building a ridiculous straw man isn't dialogue. You've been spoon fed the answer over and over, but you still do things like pretend the only options are 100% wind or 100% solar, and pretend there is zero flexibility in load. Try adding existing hydro, existing flexible loads and w2e to the highlighted parts of the paper you're reading rather than only looking at the corners of the graphs. Or try doing the actual math with actual reality which isn't the bizarro absolute world of a single generation technology where EV owners prefer to charge at precisely 5pm, pay 10x as much and sit around for 20 minutes rather than plugging in while parked you've invented. Then try not referring to an offhand comment by a serial liar as some kind of argument from authority. Or try having a single shred of integrity or honesty or respect for anyone around you.

robomartin 4y ago

> I love the ridiculous hyperbole ? Truly. ? You have been chasing me around HN insulting me at every turn. Please. Stop it. I am more than willing to have a conversation with you. Use facts. Use math. Stop with the insults. OK? I'll repeat what I said: "once you pass a certain number of cars on the road things quickly become stochastic" If you were to model things and play with the numbers you would learn quite a bit, including gaining an understanding of how and why the things you are saying do not align with reality at scale. Once things go beyond a threshold (which is regionally dependent), there is no way to avoid the need for massive amounts of power that we do not currently produce. You seem to require an explanation for my sarcastic "behave as nice little robots" comment, next time I'll label it as such. It refers to the ideas pushed by people who seem to think they will be able to control how everyone behaves and, therefore, through this control, in turn, have some degree of control or mitigation for the power issues we are sure to have to face. Another example of this is people saying things like "just drive less". <sarcasm> Sure. Of course. Why didn't I think of that? </sarcasm>

Schroedingersat 4y ago
If I keep seeing the same idiotic lie, I'll keep calling it an idiotic lie. I don't care if it's coming from the same person or not. You seem to want to denigrate other people, then put words in their mouth and insult them for what you imagined. Then arrogantly insult other people's ability to perform basic logic, but when your straw man is pointed out you cry victim. Your numbers are only as good as your assumptions, and when you keep insisting on ridiculous assumptions like people treating EVs exactly like ICEs in spite of there being cheaper, more convenient options that don't lead to the conclusion you decided on before you started you will get ridiculous numbers. Driving less is similarly an option to contribute. People do it everywhere the infrastructure lets them.
- robomartin 4y ago
  Please chill, stop with the insults and go learn something. I have ignored your attacks and continued to provide data and enough math to understand my perspective (and refute it with math and physics if desired). I have used articles you provided to show I am likely right. I am more than open to dialogue and a discussion on any of this. I am more than open to being wrong. That cannot happen if you refuse to engage in conversation. Rather than repeat myself, here's the parallel thread where I use your own article to, multiple times, show you that your perspective might not be aligned with reality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35131368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35131368
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Building a ridiculous straw man isn't dialogue. You've been spoon fed the answer over and over, but you still do things like pretend the only options are 100% wind or 100% solar, and pretend there is zero flexibility in load. Try adding existing hydro, existing flexible loads and w2e to the highlighted parts of the paper you're reading rather than only looking at the corners of the graphs. Or try doing the actual math with actual reality which isn't the bizarro absolute world of a single generation technology where EV owners prefer to charge at precisely 5pm, pay 10x as much and sit around for 20 minutes rather than plugging in while parked you've invented. Then try not referring to an offhand comment by a serial liar as some kind of argument from authority. Or try having a single shred of integrity or honesty or respect for anyone around you.