What about airplanes?
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
lmao holy shit man you just keep doubling down when you're clearly wrong.
I'm not even talking about hydrogen, because I somewhat agree with the conclusions that hydrogen gas alone is not a good energy distribution medium. Hydrogen alone requires many energy conversion steps, each of which is lossy, while electricity has only a few energy conversion steps.
But this is an example of a broken analog clock being right twice a day. Your reasoning is wrong. And like an analog clock compared to a digital RTC, such reasoning is primitive, unrepeatable, and imprecise. It also means that sweeping, authoritative statements on the reasoning and on the extension of that 'logic', you're wrong, because you were only accidentally 'right' (and only somewhat) in the first place. A broken clock being right at 2 PM doesn't mean that the broken clock will be right at 3 PM.
You know in a battery, atoms move too? . You know what ions are? atoms. Charged atoms with almost all the mass of the atoms (+/- a few electrons), transported by diffusion. So clearly you do not understand the concept that atoms move in electrochemical processes and that batteries are electrochemical.
You also didn't understand secondary school chemistry if you double down on the 'speed' of an electron being 'estimated' at whatever. That's a popsci thing, not even wrong for a quantum mechanical object. as you see linked. Actual scientists use the where electrons are placed in orbitals which represent a probability distribution function, it isn't this little ball spinning around the nucleus.
You also seem to think that just because something is solid state that its better. No, the rate of improvement is hard capped by Carnot efficiency. Easy example of solid state being inferior to mechanical: thermoelectrics. Then, you don't even get solar panels right. . Multijunctions - extremely expensive to fabricate - are hard capped at 50%. So clearly, a given energy technology being solid state isn't enough to be superior to combustion.
Finally, you did not understand the concept of molar energy and energy density. IDK what to tell you on this one.
You know, I understand this feeling. I have opinions on many things too that I'm not a SME in. Nobody can be an expert in everything or right all the time. So I listen to the SMEs. I make clear that I'm not an expert and that this is my opinion. If I don't understand something, I ask. I don't make authoritative statements, I don't try to explain to SMEs, using my partial understanding. If I get corrected by a SME, I accept the correction. I misunderstood the role of heat in energy dumping during reentry. I have a degree yet because I am not in aerospace, this specific situation was something I got wrong. I got corrected by a SME, I accepted it, and I learned something about aerospace. Maybe you'll learn too.
I'm not really familiar with the Norwegian situation.
You just have to build a model of EV penetration per year and estimate the incremental electricity consumption based on mileage and electric fuel efficiency. Then compare against existing and expected non-vehicle electricity demand. It can be as detailed and granular as you want
In the cloudy UK for example, the final cost of commercial solar installations (eg. commercial buildings, farms, etc) looks around 6-10p/KWh. This is less than the "normal" electricity price of 15p pre-pandemic. which only includes some grid costs.
If you bundle all the grid costs into the unit cost of electricity, then grid electricity will be significantly more expensive. So I suspect even residential solar costs will be cheaper than grid electricity.
So you would want to install as much solar as possible, for your own use and to charge your EV. And then the EV has more than enough battery capacity and lifetime to power the house for a day.
The UK is generally low-density in terms of buildings, housing stock and land-use, so in general, there is enough space for local solar to meet local needs.
So if you were to bundle all the grid costs into the unit cost of electricity, wouldn't you end up with something like a spiral of ever increasing unit costs for utility-scale generated electricity? And wouldn't that be counterproductive if you want to encourage the use of lower-cost utility scale electricity over locally generated electricity.
I said Solar can generate "some or most" demand and its obvious that a 25 storey apartment won't be able to generate much electricity compared with its consumption. Plus using a 25 storey apartment as a reference point looks somewhat high. Isn't 12-18 storeys more the norm in Chinese cities?
But in general, China is a lot more densely populated than the UK and with current technology, only some electricity demand can be met with local solar. You could only get to "most" electricity generated locally in Chinese cities with cost breakthroughs such as solar films or solar windows, but it does look promising.
Well, there's another implication in the Third Industrial Revolution. You have to add self-driving cars to the mix.
So that will solve the car parking and charging element during daytime peak solar generation.
But then you have estimates that self-driving cars essentially means dirt cheap taxis, so the number of cars required will drastically reduce
And at the same time, large numbers of EVs will be scrapped as they reach the end of their service lives. Those batteries will essentially be available for their scrap value, yet they will be more than adequate to serve as batteries for homes or local storage.
It's difficult enough figuring out the trajectory of the various technologies involved (solar/wind/batteries/EVs/AI) and how they will mature/develop. And all these technologies interact with each other
Then you've got the economic, political, cultural, social etc elements as well, so the number of possible permutations in terms of short-term trajectory is impossible to predict beyond a few years.
What becomes economically feasible frequently depends on the timeframe or technological development.
But at a high-level, you know what is eventually coming and it's nice to have somewhere to exercise the imagination.
I'm an eternal optimist, and I wouldn't change that for the world.
Look @AndrewS I’m going to stop engaging with you. Considering how big of a fan of an EV future you are, it is actually ridiculous that you know nothing about Norwegian EV penetration. Like I said EV penetration is 20% the car park and the electricity demand has not changed nearly as much as you claim it is. Go study it before you come and make your big claims.
We are engaged in a discussion of reality, not a potential future of the Jetsons or Star Trek.
We are engaged in a discussion of reality, not a potential future of the Jetsons or Star Trek.
escobar
Brigadier
Growing volume of rare earths from China - including those needed for weapons systems, used in Ukraine - coming to Europe on train tracks through Russia...
In the segment, they mentioned that used cars now sell for higher than new ones. But this has to be a weird phase, because Chinese cars are now making huge inroads.
They also mentioned that planes are grounded for lack of spare parts, but I can't see that staying the same for long.
supercat
Major
Foreign investment is rushing into China again.
This seems like good news for recovery of travel in China. More than anything else, airlines has been an industrial hammered by the lockdowns. If they are recovering to and passed 2019 levels, that's a good area of growth not just for airlines themselves but for entire tourism/hotel/restaurant industry.
The airline I work for is bringing back daily flights from Heathrow to Shanghai at the end of April, Beijing-Daxing in June, and upping the existing daily flight to Hong Kong to twice daily starting in March... it does make me chuckle a bit whenever I read/hear the Brits moan about us hedging our bets on Mainland China instead of returning to Seoul, or introducing more services to less-busier American destinations amidst a "strengthening dollar"