On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:41:01 +0200
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> Another interesting question is... _if_ as climate hysterics love to
> say, it is so easy to just store all the worlds electricity needs from
> solar and wind, in a few batteries, why haven't we done so?

Because it's not a few batteries it is a very large number of very
large batteries which will take a long time and a lot of money to build
and install.

The currently available battery technology is only just up to
the job and very new - I expect there will be better ones long before we
can possibly build enough batteries to get off fossil fuels - battery
research gets a lot of support. But what we have today is (just) good enough
and seems to be going in about as fast as possible.

It will take decades to install enough battery capacity to ditch
fossil fuels.

Finally - yes technically it would be simpler and cheaper to build
enough nuclear plants to cover the load and only enough batteries to
stabilise the grid but for one major problem which is not technical,
financial or physical but social - it's called NIMBY and it makes it nearly
impossible to site a nuclear power plant let alone a reprocessing centre.

It is socially impossible to build anything like enough nuclear
plants to get off fossil fuels. There are also questions about how long the
available nuclear fuels will last - suffice it to say that estimates vary
even more wildly than those about how long the oil will last.

In the end we'll have a mix of solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, tidal,
geothermal etc. generation backed by battery and pumped storage. We may or
may not have to cut down our usage to match our supply capability when the
age of oil inevitably grinds to a halt.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 2024-08-03 6:07 p.m., Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/3/24 04:54, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 07:19:43 -0400
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>
>>> Hippies tend to forget that lithium batteries are not only in EVs but
>>
>>     I haven't seen a hippy in decades.
>
>     Really? Where do you live?  Of course in San Francisco we see few
> survivors of the 60s and 70s but around the nation there are people
> who emigrated for lower rent and more chances to make money.  One large
> group with quasi-religious overtones went to the South-East and I think
> they went under the title of the Farm.

If you're from San Francisco, I suddenly have a great explanation for
your idiocy.

>>> laptops and cell phones as well. How long does the battery in your
>>> laptop last before you need to replace it if you charge it all the way
>>> to 100%? What about your cell phone? If they offer you a long warranty
>
>     As Hippy approximation I never forget that batteries are all over
> the place like it or not.

They are. However, lithium is not. It is a finite resource. There is not
enough lithium in the world to ensure that everyone who needs a car gets
one if EVs are the only option. That's why you're better off sticking to
oil and, when the costs become prohibitive, push the producers to
consider synthetics that _progressively_ transition away from the
traditional product to something cleaner. This way, you would hold onto
the existing network of gas stations, keep the costs of owning a car
from becoming prohibitive, maintain the network of garages and limit the
need for re-training of mechanics. What you are the other brain-damaged
hippies are proposing is to radically change the car industry to
something which doesn't actually lower the carbon footprint while making
the costs of owning a car much more prohibitive for regular people.

Additionally, gas-powered cars, once they are too old to be reliable for
regular people, can still be purchased by poor individuals as long as
they are willing to invest in their maintenance. It's not unusual to see
ten or twenty-year-old gas-powered cars on the road. Meanwhile, your
electric car, once it's ten, becomes completely useless because nobody
will be willing to pay the $10,000 or more to replace the battery in
addition to what it costs just to buy the used car. Your battery
solution is not only not lowering the initial carbon footprint since
producing the batteries causes enormous pollution, but the car itself is
not re-used and won't be recycled. Therefore, you hippy idiots are
creating lots of car graveyards like this one:
<https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/>

> My digital thermometer had to have its
> AAA set replace recently.  My battery opparated sphigomomanometer needs
> it AA replaced but I have lost the Knack of getting them in.
> On my laptop Dell 7450 the original battery was damaged and I bought two
> replacements one of which worked. So I do not forget ever about
> batteries and used to have my 12 volt charger for my late model Motorcycle.

Who gives a shit?

>>     Vehicle batteries and laptop/cellphone batteries are made to
>> different standards - specifically vehicle batteries are optimised for
>> fast
>> charging. They still last a lot longer if they don't get too many fast
>> charges.
>>
>>     Experience with the oldest EVs around is that the batteries last
>> longer than was originally expected and the batteries don't die they just
>> take steadily less charge until they don't hold enough to be useful.
>>
>>     All that being said for all practical purposes an EV *is* the
>> battery and when it dies the EV is scrap. The current crop of 400-500km
>> range EVs can take a lot of battery degredation before they reach the
>> level
>> of an original Leaf (which sold very well).
>
>     Batteries are expensive but are in most cases replaceable.

According to Bing, replacing a battery in a used EV car will cost
between $5,000 to $20,000. Does that price seem appropriate for a used
car which would itself be worth about $3k? Additionally, each
manufacturer makes batteries in a radically different way. You can't
even be sure that the battery you'll need will be available a decade
after the initial purchase of the car. The absolute _least_
manufacturers can do is make a standard form for the battery.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-03 6:09 p.m., Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/3/24 06:36, chrisv wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that other people make
>>> such plans too. Not only do you have to wait for them to be done with
>>> their 30-minute charge to 80%, you have to wait after the person who is
>>> waiting after them.
>>
>> 80% if they are following "charger etiquette".  There will be those
>> who want to stay on an extra hour so that they can get "topped up".
>> "Charge rage" has already been coined to describe the conflicts that
>> occur.
>>
>> I cannot imagine having to wait in a queue for *hours* to get a
>> charge.  Which *will* happen, and a *lot*.  Anyone who doesn't think
>> so is *stupid*.
>>
>>> I wonder how this is more convenient than stopping
>>> at _any_ gas station and filling up in the time it takes for your wife
>>> to get in the station and get everyone a chocolate bar.
>>
>> And the gas station actually works reliably.  It's not broken down, or
>> locked-up, or the hose cut off for its copper.
>>
>> Those who think that we can "go electric", any time soon, are GD
>> *idiots*.
>>
>
>     Not in urban or suburbam California are you?  Soon needs to be
> defined as by a relatively early date no more gasoline burners will
> be sold in the State.

Yeah, I can't imagine the transition to electric vehicles only being a
disaster for California:
<https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-blackouts-power-grid/story?id=89460998>

I can only imagine why companies like Chevron are fleeing the state
<https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/companies/chevron-to-leave-california-for-texas-as-regulations-mount-in-golden-state/ar-BB1r5DLC?ocid=BingNewsSerp>
and why the people don't want to be there anymore
<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-08/why-californians-are-fleeing-this-once-golden-state>

Perhaps they are disgusted that there isn't enough wokeness?

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-03 6:38 p.m., Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/3/24 06:43, chrisv wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> I remember reading one article where a guy's Tesla spontaneously
>>> combusted and when asked, he still said "I'd buy another one.
>>
>> It must not have caught fire in his garage and burned his house down.
>>
>
>     Well the accidents I read about with Tesla's catching fire
> mostly happen on the highway for some reason. Other batteries as
> in cell phones, tablets, electric bikes,etc. are the ones causing
> problems and perhaps burning down houses.  I haven't heard of a
> Tesla wall battery burning any thing down yet.

How inconvenient that I show up with facts!
<https://www.businessinsider.com/couples-tesla-caught-fire-charging-overnight-caused-a-house-fire-2021-8>

>     Often these charging batteries have been badly situated
> for charging such as in spaces or in materials that obstruct
> the cooling of the battery.  Right now I have 2 laptop charging
> along with two wireless home phones and so far no problems with
> setting fires at all.
If ever we stop seeing your posts here, we'll know what happened. What
will be most important is that after your house burns down and there are
third-degree burns all over your body, your last words to whoever you
talk to should be "I would buy one again."

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 4:34 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 15:38:55 -0700
> Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/24 06:43, chrisv wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember reading one article where a guy's Tesla spontaneously
>>>> combusted and when asked, he still said "I'd buy another one.
>>>
>>> It must not have caught fire in his garage and burned his house down.
>>>
>>
>> Well the accidents I read about with Tesla's catching fire
>> mostly happen on the highway for some reason. Other batteries as
>
> Lithium battery fires are spectacular and *very* hard to put out
> but there are enough battery cars on the road for solid statistics,
> they're a good deal less likely to catch fire than petrol (gasoline) cars.
>
> No I don't have a cite handy - google it!

The media keeps saying that electric cars are less likely to catch fire
than gas cars but I find it striking that they never produce ratios
proving this point. When gas cars spontaneously combust, it is usually
because they were retrieved from the bottom of a river or lake, restored
and the internals eventually catch fire. Otherwise, you need some sort
of impact. With electric cars, merely driving or charging them will do it.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 12:04:09 +0200
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> This is an interesting question from a survivalist point of view. Is it
> possible to hook up your EV to solar panels?

Of course it is - the hookup (for off grid) looks like this:

PV ----+
|
Wind --+--> Charge Controller -> Battery -> Inverter -> Isolator switch
| -> Fuse box -> Load
|
Etc ---+

Once you get out of the inverter it's mains just like the grid so
it can power a car charger or anything else. This is all off-the-shelf kit
order it all from Amazon if you like (you can probably get better deals
though).

The expensive bit is having enough battery to hold for several
days (say 100-200kWh), LifePo (which doesn't catch fire) comes in at
€250-€350/kWh (€25-70k). Domestic scale flow battery companies are still in
startup phase no sign of products on the market yet and DIY designs are
unreliable - good flow battery electrodes are difficult and the subject of
patents so for now Lithium or Lead/Acid are the only options for small
scale - Lead/Acid cheaper to buy, Lithium more expensive to buy but lasts
much longer so cheaper in the long run.

Because of this expense (and the reliability of the grid overall) a
common variant is to add the grid under "Etc" above and use cheap night
rate electricity to top up a (much cheaper) 10-20kWh battery when the
renewables are wanting (ie. turn on at night when the battery is below some
percentage).

This doesn't achieve survivalist goals of independence but it does
work wonders on reducing electricity bills and makes power cuts and
brownouts unnoticable. On the other hand a grid tie setup with no battery
storage gets the financial benefits for less outlay and can even make the
bills go negative.

> Now... let's look at the other side, producing fuel from vegetable oil or
> mix of alcohol. What would be needed in terms of raw materials and in
> terms of technology to make that happen?

Much depends on your engine - if you modify the engine to run on
pure alcohol (spark engine) or pure vegetable oil (diesel) then making fuel
is very simple (ferment/distil, grow oil seeds/press) but your engines
aren't very good.

If you want to make proper biodiesel that will run in most diesel
engines with no more modification than possibly replacing some seals and
the filters after a bit (because biodiesel tends to clean pipes) then you
will need a supply of (pure) methanol and sodium hydroxide (other alcohols
and alkalis are possible but these are the easiest) and you'll need to make
(or buy) a biodiesel reactor which can be made from a domestic hot water
tank (including the immersion heater), copper pipes and valves -
instructions are easy to find.

Most biodiesel reactors you can buy are plastic - you might
consider the possibilities inherent in the combination of hot flammable
fluids and plastic containers for a while before buying one.

I have no idea how you'd go about making a good petrol (gasoline)
substitute.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 03/08/2024 14:41, chrisv wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> There's plenty of iron and chlorine easily available everywhere. If
>> we wanted to build enough tanks we could hold a year's supply of electricity
>> for the planet without impacting the availability of raw materials - but we
>> only need about ten days (that's still about a competition sized swimming
>> pool of tanks per 100k poeople
>
> Are you saying that a battery the size of a competition sized swimming
> pool could power 100k people for ten days? No fscking way.
>
Its totally bonkers

These ArtStudents™ always leave the numbers out so the working cannot be
checked

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 2024-08-04 5:46 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-03 6:28 a.m., D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> You mean cars that run on batteries whose production leaves a
>>>> massive carbon footprint
>>>> <https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/article/22026518/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon-footprint>, which are only recycled at a rate of 1% <https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/lithium-costs-a-lot-of-money-so-why-arent-we-recycling-lithium-batteries/>, which spontaneous combust "rarely" <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lithium-ion-battery-fires-electric-cars-bikes-scooters-firefighters/> and which are 79% less reliable than gas cars <https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2023/11/electric-vehicles-are-improving-but-charging-and-battery-issues-persist-in-consumer-reports-2023-annual-auto-reliability-survey/?msockid=287d4f79ae8b60c3236c5bb1afb0613d>.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, you are a ridiculous cretin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Bobby, I have analyzed the thread and it does in fact seem like
>>> you are a ridiculous cretin. CrudeSausage is the clear winner here.
>>
>> Truth is the clear winner, not me.
>
> Can't you let a man troll in peace? ;)
>
>> When I was buying my first car in 2004 (late bloomer, I had a train
>> station nearby that always brought me straight to university and
>> work), I actually wanted a Prius. I had no interest in paying for gas
>> because, at the time, I
>
> Last time I did the calculation, electric didn't even come close to the
> economy of a gasoline car. Hyrbid was much closer.

The Chevrolet Volt has the best idea, in my opinion. It's too bad that
the company abandoned it. An electric car that can rely on a gasoline
recharge whenever the battery is depleted makes the most sense. Hybrids
are good too, but I think that what you get from a hybrid vehicle can be
reproduced by simply injecting hydrogen to the burning process in a
regular car. Apparently, it allows for fuel to be burned in its
entirety, resulting in less pollution and a ten-fold improvement in
efficiency.

There is no way EVs could compete with such a solution.

> I think today (many years later) the I could probably make a financial
> case for a hybrid over gasoline, but would have to run the excel
> spreadsheet again if I can find it.

I just read that hybrids tend to be less reliable than traditional
gasoline engines. I imagine it's the electric car of the car which
causes the greatest number of issues.

>> didn't want to enrich Arabs. That's when I started doing a lot of
>> research on hybrid and electric cars and started realizing the
>> pitfalls of having one.
>>
>> A lot of people love their electric cars, but a lot of people love
>> their unreliable Jeeps too. I remember reading one article where a
>> guy's Tesla
>
> It's marketing and virtue signalling. I find it hilarious when I debate
> climate hysterics that they have an iphone worth 1000 USD and I have a
> button phone worth 50 USD. In addition, I keep mine until it breaks,
> while they somehow find the money to buy a new smart phone every 2-3 years.
>
> Isn't consumption supposed to damage the planet? ;)
>
> Marketing and virtue signalling. Creating a need where there is none.

Funny enough, I got an iPhone specifically because it gets at least five
years of support from the manufacturer. I wanted to avoid having a phone
which would become insecure two years from purchase, and I also wanted
to avoid constantly replacing it.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 04/08/2024 10:41, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/2024 11:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:16:55 +0100
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you DO Sums?
>>>
>>>     Yes.
>>>
>>>> Can you calculate how much 'battery' is needed, and how much actually
>>>
>>>     Yes done that - with a generous overhead.
>>>
>>>> exists in the real world?
>>>
>>>     There's plenty of iron and chlorine easily available everywhere. If
>>> we wanted to build enough tanks we could hold a year's supply of
>>> electricity
>>> for the planet without impacting the availability of raw materials -
>>> but we
>>> only need about ten days (that's still about a competition sized
>>> swimming
>>> pool of tanks per 100k poeople - that's the answer I got when I did the
>>> sums). I'm not so sure about Vanadium but it's not in short supply.
>>> Now if
>>> we had to depend on Lithium for storage we'd be in trouble.
>>>
>>>> Can you calculate how many Hiroshima sized nuclear  explosions the
>>>> energy in the battery would need to be to keep just a small country
>>>> going overnight?
>>>
>>>     The Battery ??? You call yourself an engineer ? Reminds me of the
>>> time when people thought there would be *a* computer. District scale
>>> (and
>>> downwards) batteries make a lot more sense.
>>>
>>
>> So no mathematical refutation, just an ad hominem attack?
>>
>>>     There are already a *lot* of batteries distributed around the
>>> world's power grids and there will be more as fast as they can be built
>>> because they make money for their owners. On top of all the grid scale
>>> batteries many homes now have some battery storage (usually only about a
>>> day's worth but larger flow batteries are appearing) which lets them buy
>>> cheap night rate electricity and use it in the day time or ignore an
>>> outage
>>> of a few hours. Some EVs and chargers support V2L and can power the
>>> house
>>> from the car.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. I calculated we have enough energy storage  to keep the worlds
>> grid up for nearly three minutes
>>
>> You havent done the sums. You use words like 'a lot'  . Yiu even think
>> an 'outage pf a few gpurs is acceptable'
>> Try telling that to a patient on a life support machine.
>>
>>
>>>     It all adds up - but we do need to build a *lot* of batteries
>>> (swimming pool per 100k with current commercial offerings) before we can
>>> depend on intermittent sources alone, rather fewer batteries if we bring
>>> some nuclear into the mix but even with 100% nuclear we need enough
>>> batteries to handle the fast peaks and troughs.
>>>
>>
>> Oh dear. We need to build 'a lot' of batteries.
>> Or nuclear power stations.
>> Oh Nuclear power stations are *cheaper* than renewables plus
>> batteries., Whoda  thunk it?
>>
>> Not you, apparently.
>>
>> Your post contains not one quantity. It is full of *qualitative*
>> statements.
>>
>> "Yes done that - with a generous overhead." I know you havent. Because
>> I *have* That's simply bullshit.
>>
>> Never confuse carefully crafted bullshit with carefully calculated
>> engineering solutions.
>>
>
> Another interesting question is... _if_ as climate hysterics love to
> say, it is so easy to just store all the worlds electricity needs from
> solar and wind, in a few batteries, why haven't we done so?
>
> Surely we would no longer bother with nuclear, but just throw a few
> batteries here and there and the problem is solved.
>
> Or could it be that it is actually financially and physically impossible
> with current technology?
>
Correct.

> Or is it that climate rationalists like the Philosopher and myself are
> somehow engaged in a conspiracy to keep this technology off the market?

They alarmists would blame big Oil so that there would still be a need
for gas.

But big oil has far more to fear from nuclear, than from batteries
running on fairy farts

--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On 2024-08-04 5:50 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-03 6:36 a.m., D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-08-02 1:50 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:57:36 -0400
>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Power lines aren't the problem, you ridiculous cretin. Power
>>>>>> _production_ is the problem. There is no shortage of videos of
>>>>>> electric
>>>>>> cars owners lined up to the few charging stations that work
>>>>>> because not
>>>>>> only is there not enough electricity being produced there (because we
>>>>>> had to close coal factories after all), the stations themselves
>>>>>> cease to
>>>>>> work and nobody is ever around to fix them.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>>>>> garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking advantage
>>>>> of the
>>>>> times when the grid is underutiliosed and electricity is cheap.
>>>>
>>>> And what do you do when you're on a road trip, pray tell? Do you
>>>> drive as many kilometres you can, come back home to charge, drive
>>>> the same kilometres and come back home to charge? Or do you use a
>>>> charging station?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's also add that it is very entitled to assume that everyone just
>>> have a house so they can charge overnight. Many people in the world
>>> live in apartments, which makes this impossible.
>>
>> Great point. The time when housing was still affordable has passed.
>> Here in Quebec, a person coming out university and landing a job with
>> a starter salary might have been able to afford a house in some
>> distant suburb a few years ago, but even those distant homes now have
>> unreasonable prices. It wouldn't be a problem if our government wasn't
>> trying to convince us that there is a labour shortage (there isn't)
>> and that we need a ton of immigrants (legal or illegal) to solve it.
>> Instead, we have lots of useless people coming in who need to live
>> somewhere, the government expects them to help build homes but they
>> are wholly incapable of even hitting a nail into a plank of wood. Even
>> if they were capable of doing something other than sticking their hand
>> out for money, stabbing or raping people, the construction companies
>> which would have been willing to build these homes aren't willing to
>> do it with the restrictive costs of materials today. If they build, it
>> will be homes for the rich where they can make a profit, but the
>> government needs homes for the wretched where there is no money to be
>> made. The result is that more parasites come in looking for a handout,
>> they get money from the taxpayer merely for existing, and they band
>> together with other cockroaches to buy whatever shithole they can in
>> whatever distant municipality that will have them. They'll put twenty
>> families into a small home if they have to as long as they can stay
>> and prevent a _working_ couple from getting that modest home.
>>
>
> Fear not! Let yourselves be inspired by swedens unregulated and
> unrestricted immigration! ;) This created many new millionaires among
> the socialist party, because the government would pay for the immigrants
> to live somewhere, so crafty socialists started immigration housing
> companies extracting millions and millions of dollars from the
> government for something which should not have happened in the first place.
>
> But this is very common in sweden.
>
> When they privatized schools (which was a wise decision) over night,
> plenty of socialist politicians popped up in school company boards
> getting nice extra salaries on top of their party salaries, and on top
> of the parliament salary (which is corruption and should have landed
> them in prison).
>
> When it comes to the housing situation in Stockholm, a new graduate from
> univeristy would not be able to afford a small 1 room apartment á 25 m^2
> in the city center without parents helping out with the cash needed and
> with the security for loans.
>
> I think, if you work hard, that it should be possible to save for a
> 1 room apartment in about 4-5 years or so if you don't live too freely.

In exchange for the money they made, those same people have doomed their
country into becoming yet another dysfunctional Islamic state. It might
not happen immediately, but Sweden will be unrecognizable in the next
two decades. Their culture will disappear, replaced by some generic
Muslim one. Women will be unable and unwilling to go out at night at
all, during the day they will be forced to wear a headdress (even if
they aren't Muslim) for fear of being raped or killed, and anyone White
will need to carry a weapon for fear of being attacked by a handful of
Muslims. The same is already happening to France, Belgium and England,
and now Ireland is joining in on the fun.

I've worked with these people and taught their kids. They are not here
to integrate; they are here to conquer.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 5:51 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-03 6:40 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2024 08:11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:49:30 -0400
>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-08-02 1:50 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:57:36 -0400
>>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Power lines aren't the problem, you ridiculous cretin. Power
>>>>>>> _production_ is the problem. There is no shortage of videos of
>>>>>>> electric
>>>>>>> cars owners lined up to the few charging stations that work
>>>>>>> because not
>>>>>>> only is there not enough electricity being produced there
>>>>>>> (because we
>>>>>>> had to close coal factories after all), the stations themselves
>>>>>>> cease
>>>>>>> to work and nobody is ever around to fix them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>>>>>> garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking advantage
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> times when the grid is underutilised and electricity is cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what do you do when you're on a road trip, pray tell? Do you drive
>>>>
>>>>     I don't go on road trips, that's a peculiarly American thing. The
>>>> longest journey I make (rarely) is about 350km of driving, most
>>>> current EVs
>>>> can easily do that on a charge. I wouldn't want to drive more than that
>>>> in a day and then only for one day but if I was going to I'd be
>>>> planning
>>>> rest stops at places with chargers thus recharging self and car at
>>>> the same
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>>> as many kilometres you can, come back home to charge, drive the same
>>>>> kilometres and come back home to charge? Or do you use a charging
>>>>> station?
>>>>
>>>>     Obviously when away from home it is usually necessary to depend
>>>> on the charging network (unless you're staying somewhere with a
>>>> charger or
>>>> can use a "granny cable") but "charging station" not so much. I see
>>>> chargers in supermarket, shopping centre, hotel and municipal car
>>>> parks as
>>>> well as motorway service stations. I rarely see all of the chargers
>>>> in use
>>>> anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>     The thing is that long journets are the exception not the norm,
>>>> most of the time most cars travel less than 100 miles per day which
>>>> means
>>>> that overnight charging easily keeps them full and even quite small
>>>> batteries suffice. A great many people were happy with the original
>>>> Nissan
>>>> Leaf with its 24kWh battery and 120km range (on a good day) - with
>>>> an EV
>>>> that limited I'd hire a car for long journeys and still come out way
>>>> ahead
>>>> on driving costs - 2c/km instead of 10c/km in fuel costs and much
>>>> cheaper
>>>> services (there's usually nothing to do but check everything in an EV
>>>> service).
>>>>
>>>>     EVs have only two serious downsides - they're expensive to buy and
>>>> they depreciate quickly at first because the new models are always much
>>>> better every year. These are good reasons not to buy a *new* EV, second
>>>> hand ones are getting interesting.
>>>>
>>> Evs have no upsides at all. Not really.
>>> Even fuel cost will be forced to rise on account of them not paying
>>> fuel duty
>>>
>>> The answer is in the sales figures of tthe major EV manufacturers.
>>> People are stinging away on droves.
>>
>> The local news just announced that our rates are going to increase 3%
>> every year to make up for demand. The 3% seems low until you realize
>> that is the maximum legal amount they can charge since our production
>> is owned by the state. If they could raise prices by 10 or 20%, they
>> would.
>>
>> It's just a matter of time before charging your EV will cost more than
>> gassing your car. To hippies, this won't matter because they will
>> still be "saving the planet" even though they never consider where
>> that battery goes after it is depleted (it's never recycled), where
>> the CAR goes after it is obsolete (its parts are never recycled
>> because doing so is lethal), and how much they polluted the
>> environment simply building the car in the first place.
>>
>>
>
> Add to that the fact that the whole in the public budget, when people
> are no longer getting taxed by the gas pump, is going to shift to EV
> charging.
>
> I think the gasoline tax in sweden is 50%. I would expect this to shift
> over to electricity once enough people switch, which will hopefully only
> happen in 20-30 years or so.

They will sell it as necessary to pay for the power plants they will
need to build to produce the electricity needed for the multitude of
things connected to the grid. Computers, televisions, phones and cars,
everything will be connected to the grid owned by the government. If the
population becomes too rowdy, they will produce a little less; if the
population goes along with their plans, they will produce a little more.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 6:04 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-03 11:45 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Those who think that we can "go electric", any time soon, are GD
>>>>> *idiots*.
>>>>
>>>> Every one of us has had a moment where we woke up late AND happen to be
>>>> low on gas to get to work. In such a situation, stopping at a gas
>>>> station for a five-minute fill-up to then make it to work is still a
>>>> reality; imagine doing that with an electric car after you find out
>>>> that
>>>> you're low and that there was a power outage overnight.
>>>
>>> And what happens if, say, a hurricane is approching, and they advise
>>> people to evacuate the city?
>>>
>>> All the the public chargers would get immedately overwhelmed, leaving
>>> *everyone* stranded.
>>
>> And the people lining up to charge at those stations would create
>> pockets of traffic which would block those whose cars are charged from
>> getting anywhere.
>>
>> What most people don't seem to realize is that becoming the owner of
>> an electric vehicle is no different than becoming a welfare recipient.
>> The same way you rely on the government to give you taxpayer money
>> every month to pay your bills, you rely on the government to produce
>> the electricity that allows you to move from place to place. With a
>> gas-powered car, I can buy from Esso, Shell, Petro-Canada, Ultramar or
>> some tiny family gas station to fuel up my car. If I have a diesel
>> vehicle and there is some sort of oil crisis, I can produce fuel from
>> vegetable oil or even a mix of alcohol to get around. Other than
>> connecting to a charger which requires electricity that is produced by
>> the state, what choice do I have?
>>
>
> This is an interesting question from a survivalist point of view. Is it
> possible to hook up your EV to solar panels?

I'm going by what I learned from the 8-bit guy but I believe you will
first have to connect the solar panels to your existing grid which will
then supply the charging station. However, the amount of electricity
produced by the solar panel is a fraction of what the electric car needs
to charge. If it takes 24 hours for an EV to charge using a standard
110v outlet, you'd be looking at days with solar. I think it's possible
to connect it directly using the equipment that is sold to you when you
buy the panels, but the rate would still be too slow to be useful.

> Given the right equipment
> I'd say yes. That still leaves the problem of what to do during winter
> in the northern hemisphere, so I imagine that wind or your own built
> hydro might be necessary there.
>
> But...
>
> Those solutions are all based on components which you cannot manufacture
> yourself.
>
> Now... let's look at the other side, producing fuel from vegetable oil
> or mix of alcohol. What would be needed in terms of raw materials and in
> terms of technology to make that happen?

For biodiesel (the vegetable oil solution), from ThoughtCo
<https://www.thoughtco.com/make-biodiesel-from-vegetable-oil-605975#:~:text=Biodiesel%20is%20a%20diesel%20fuel%20that%20is%20made,the%20result%20is%20a%20less-expensive%2C%20renewable%2C%20clean-burning%20fuel.>

1 liter of new vegetable oil (e.g., canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil)

3.5 grams (0.12 ounces) sodium hydroxide (also known as lye). Sodium
hydroxide is used for some drain cleaners. The label should state that
the product contains sodium hydroxide (not calcium hypochlorite, which
is found in many other drain cleaners).

200 milliliters (6.8 fluid ounces) of methanol (methyl alcohol). Heet
fuel treatment is methanol. Be sure the label says the product contains
methanol (Iso-Heet, for example, contains isopropyl alcohol and won't work).

Blender with a low-speed option. The pitcher for the blender is to be
used only for making biodiesel. You want to use one made from glass, not
plastic because the methanol you will use can react with plastic.

Digital scale to accurately measure 3.5 grams, which equals 0.12 ounces

Glass container marked for 200 milliliters (6.8 fluid ounces). If you
don't have a beaker, measure the volume using a measuring cup, pour it
into a glass jar, then mark the fill-line on the outside of the jar.

Glass or plastic container that is marked for 1 liter (1.1 quarts)
Widemouthed glass or plastic container that will hold at least 1.5
liters (2-quart pitcher works well)

Safety glasses, gloves, and an (optional) apron

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:58:37 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> According to Bing, replacing a battery in a used EV car will cost
> between $5,000 to $20,000. Does that price seem appropriate for a used
> car which would itself be worth about $3k? Additionally, each

This is why it is usually said that for all practical purposes an
EV is a battery on wheels, once the battery is dead so is the EV.

Now a quick look at ten year old EVs on the second hand market show
a lot of original model (24kWh) Nissan Leaf with displays indicating better
than 100km of range. Still quite viable for a good many people.

When the current crop of EVs are ten years old they will be much
more practical than those ten year old Leafs since they'll be degraded
60+kwH batteries not degraded 24kWh batteries. They'll be viable options
for most people.

> manufacturer makes batteries in a radically different way. You can't
> even be sure that the battery you'll need will be available a decade
> after the initial purchase of the car. The absolute _least_
> manufacturers can do is make a standard form for the battery.

There's no point because as you rightly observe nobody will put a
$20k battery in a $3k car - it's far more effective to essentially build
the battery into the car and optimise the overall design.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 04/08/2024 11:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> It is socially impossible to build anything like enough nuclear
> plants to get off fossil fuels. There are also questions about how long the
> available nuclear fuels will last - suffice it to say that estimates vary
> even more wildly than those about how long the oil will last.

This is actually not so

The total energy consumption of Great Brtiain, *including* indiustrial
and transport use of gas an oil, could be covered by somewhere between
100 and 300 medium sized nuclear plants.

Its hard to be more definite than that, on account of not knowing how
the market for energy would change cased with a high differential
between nuclear electricity and say synthetic gas.

That is not a huge number of power stations and it would cover less land
area than existing wind farms.

The current contribution to energy cost of the raw uranium is now around
$0.001c per kWh.

That means the price of nuclear electricity is very insensitive to the
price of uranium, which is currently around $50/lb.

A Japanese study calculated that to access the 4 billion tonnes of
Uranium in seawater could be done at $200/lb, so would be viable if
there was no other option.
As uranium prices rise the viability of reprocessing increases. And also
of breeder reactors and the use of thorium.

For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
current western lifestyle for 10,000 years

Which should be long enough to make fusion work.

So neither of your arguments stack up in the face of reality.

The greater risk is that we will run out of v cheap fossil fuels
required to kickstart nuclear power having wasted it all building
windmills and solar panels

Oh and the current lie that we will need 'nuclear AND renewables' is
utter bollocks.,
Once you have nuclear there is no reason to build a single solar or wind
farm ever again
And the renewable advocates know this.

They are the NIMBYS.

They want you to buy windmills, instead.

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:59:07 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> I'm going by what I learned from the 8-bit guy but I believe you will
> first have to connect the solar panels to your existing grid which will

No you don't - but that is the easiest and cheapest way. Off grid
works just as well but the battery costs are prohibitive for all but
survivalists.

> then supply the charging station. However, the amount of electricity
> produced by the solar panel is a fraction of what the electric car needs
> to charge.

That rather depends on how many solar panels you have.

Realistically on a good day you'll get about 200W/m^2 so if you
want to charge at 7kW (standard domestic charger) you'll need at least
35m^2 of solar panels, it would probably be a good idea to go to 50m^2 and
get a decent (but not full) charge in winter.

If the car is not parked at home during the day you'll also need a
battery to hold the charge until the car is there.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 2024-08-04 7:31 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:58:37 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> According to Bing, replacing a battery in a used EV car will cost
>> between $5,000 to $20,000. Does that price seem appropriate for a used
>> car which would itself be worth about $3k? Additionally, each
>
> This is why it is usually said that for all practical purposes an
> EV is a battery on wheels, once the battery is dead so is the EV.

Which makes EVs the worst possible car purchase a hippy can make since
the battery won't get recycled and neither will the car since recycling
such a car is dangerous because of the battery.

> Now a quick look at ten year old EVs on the second hand market show
> a lot of original model (24kWh) Nissan Leaf with displays indicating better
> than 100km of range. Still quite viable for a good many people.

Sure, people living in metropolitan areas going no farther than 10km a
day might find a use to them... unless they believe there is a chance
they might get stuck in traffic where the battery will deplete.

> When the current crop of EVs are ten years old they will be much
> more practical than those ten year old Leafs since they'll be degraded
> 60+kwH batteries not degraded 24kWh batteries. They'll be viable options
> for most people.

Wishful thinking.

>> manufacturer makes batteries in a radically different way. You can't
>> even be sure that the battery you'll need will be available a decade
>> after the initial purchase of the car. The absolute _least_
>> manufacturers can do is make a standard form for the battery.
>
> There's no point because as you rightly observe nobody will put a
> $20k battery in a $3k car - it's far more effective to essentially build
> the battery into the car and optimise the overall design.

No, it is far more efficient to keep the gasoline car and encourage
development of a synthetic fuel which would be compatible yet cleaner.
If that is not yet possible, encourage a system that injects hydrogen
into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg vehicle
immediately becomes a 280mpg one which makes it far and beyond more
environmentally-friendly than any electric vehicle since it is also
recyclable when it is no longer useful to a driver.

There is _no_ scenario where an electric car is good for the environment
if it uses a lithium battery which is finite and never recycled.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 8:13 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:59:07 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> I'm going by what I learned from the 8-bit guy but I believe you will
>> first have to connect the solar panels to your existing grid which will
>
> No you don't - but that is the easiest and cheapest way. Off grid
> works just as well but the battery costs are prohibitive for all but
> survivalists.
>
>> then supply the charging station. However, the amount of electricity
>> produced by the solar panel is a fraction of what the electric car needs
>> to charge.
>
> That rather depends on how many solar panels you have.
>
> Realistically on a good day you'll get about 200W/m^2 so if you
> want to charge at 7kW (standard domestic charger) you'll need at least
> 35m^2 of solar panels, it would probably be a good idea to go to 50m^2 and
> get a decent (but not full) charge in winter.
>
> If the car is not parked at home during the day you'll also need a
> battery to hold the charge until the car is there.

So it would be a lot more complicated than to try to produce biodiesel.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 13:03:09 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/08/2024 11:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > It is socially impossible to build anything like enough nuclear
> > plants to get off fossil fuels. There are also questions about how long
> > the available nuclear fuels will last - suffice it to say that
> > estimates vary even more wildly than those about how long the oil will
> > last.
>
> This is actually not so
>
> The total energy consumption of Great Brtiain, *including* indiustrial
> and transport use of gas an oil, could be covered by somewhere between
> 100 and 300 medium sized nuclear plants.

The UK is currently constructing one nuclear reactor, five years
ago it was predicted to go online in 2026 but it is recently reported that
the project expects a "multiyear delay" and the cost estimate has risen to
£46B. The decision to build this plant was made in 2016 after three years
of negotiations. So let's be generous about that multiyear delay and call
the whole project 15 years to build a plant with a 60 year planned lifespan
on a site that already holds nuclear plants. There is also talk of emplying
25,000 people but I haven't foiund out what they're doing (probably mostly
building it). At this rate the UK can only build four Hinkley C sized
plants before it must decomission one.

So pray tell me how on earth do you think it is socially possible to
go from one plant in fifteen years (for an easy case) maybe to at least two
plants per year (in order to keep up with the replacements). First thought
is that if it takes 25,000 peoople ten years to build a plant then there
would need to be at least half a million people in the nuclear plant
building industry permanently.

Did you do any sums ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg vehicle
> immediately becomes a 280mpg

If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 7/30/24 6:54 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/07/2024 10:43, Andreas Eder wrote:
>> On Di 30 Jul 2024 at 09:32, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/07/2024 06:37, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> On Mo 29 Jul 2024 at 21:55, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/07/2024 13:27, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>>>>>> with <v85fdr$3uder$4@dont-email.me> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/07/2024 12:26, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>>>>>> On So 28 Jul 2024 at 10:54, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28/07/2024 06:44, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/24 8:55 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-26 3:32 a.m., 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/24/24 9:30 PM, Heil Lunduke! Mein Forther! wrote:
>>>>>> *SKIP* [ 11 lines   7 levels deep]
>>>>>>>>>> Linux isn't, and should not   pretend to be, Winders.
>>>>>>>>> Well why not?  A GUI is essentially if you are doing any sort of
>>>>>>>>> graphical work, even typesetting needs some kind of WYSIWG
>>>>>>>>> interface.
>>>>>>>> No, not at all. Try TeX / LaTeX or Context. No GUI necessary.
>>>>>>> Thiose are not typesetting languages per se.
>>>>>> I'm pretty much certain, you can win this claim *only* by redefining
>>>>>> terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is what everyone else is doing ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I know what I mean., A multi page brochure in nice colors with
>>>>> pictures and
>>>>> text interwoven, is not what you do with TEX.
>>>>> Whjich is why Quark Xpress and a Macinstosh were de rigeur back in the
>>>>> nineties
>>>> Such things a regularly done with Context.
>>> No they are not.
>>> No creative studio runs on anything by Xpress or  Adobe creative
>>> suite.
>>
>> I'm not talking about marketing junk, I am talking about serious work.
>>
> Do you really think that graphic design is not serious work?
>
> Sheesh

Indeed ... it's MAJOR $$$ these days !

NOT sure what he meant by "serious" - pure
whatever servers perhaps ?

Those ARE "serious" - and at the moment I'd rec
OpenBSD.

But the word "serious" extends to MANY Big-$$$
kinds of apps - text/marketing, GIS and Video
and now "AI" access. Linux/Unix is NOT always
the best for those alas - most everyone writes
for Winders ... so GOTTA COPE.

As for those servers ... for most Biz they're
moving to 'cloud' apps. It's dangerous and
stupid but they're doing it anyway. SEEMS
so wunnerful ... and you don't need to hire
any annoying smelly systems geeks !

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:26:34 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04 8:13 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:59:07 -0400
> > CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm going by what I learned from the 8-bit guy but I believe you will
> >> first have to connect the solar panels to your existing grid which will
> >
> > No you don't - but that is the easiest and cheapest way. Off
> > grid works just as well but the battery costs are prohibitive for all
> > but survivalists.
> >
> >> then supply the charging station. However, the amount of electricity
> >> produced by the solar panel is a fraction of what the electric car
> >> needs to charge.
> >
> > That rather depends on how many solar panels you have.
> >
> > Realistically on a good day you'll get about 200W/m^2 so if you
> > want to charge at 7kW (standard domestic charger) you'll need at least
> > 35m^2 of solar panels, it would probably be a good idea to go to 50m^2
> > and get a decent (but not full) charge in winter.
> >
> > If the car is not parked at home during the day you'll also
> > need a battery to hold the charge until the car is there.
>
> So it would be a lot more complicated than to try to produce biodiesel.

Going the PV route is complicated once - all the work is in setting
it up then you can forget about it until the batteries need replacing in a
decade or so.

Producing biodiesel also has some complex setup (building a
biodiesel reactor requires skill) as well as developing a steady supply of
oil, methanol and sodium hydroxide. Perhaps a little less complex but there
are specialists who will come and put your solar setup in for you, explain
all the options and so on. Biodiesel you have to do it all yourself unless
you want to trust a plastic reactor bought off eBay.

Producing biodiesel also means regularly dealing with large
quantities of toxic chemicals (methanol, methoxide) and flammable chemicals
(methanol, vegetable oil, biodiesel) and a moderately finicky bit of
chemical processing. There are also the byproducts to dispose of - the crud
you filtered out of the oil, the glycerol that gets produced as a byproduct
of the reaction, everything that gets washed out of the equipment between
runs. Putting any of this down the drain will not be popular.

I know which I think is easier.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 8/4/24 01:30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 15:30:28 -0700
> Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh sounds like sweet setup but not for the apartment-dwelling urban
>> resident. Some of the building in San Francisco were not built with
>> roofs capable of solar panel support but some are flaunting solar
>> panels and gardens.
>
> A common trend in Europe for apartments is to hang some panels
> (usually two or four) over the balcony attached to a grid-tie microinverter
> that simply plugs in. There are any number of outfits selling balcony solar
> kits the cheap ones hang the panels vertically the more expensive have
> angled sluminium brackets. Either way it's a dead easy DIY job.
>

That is nice for people who have balconies or even adequate solar
exposure under windows. Many do not have such nor do I. I look
forward to eventually buying a window mounted heat exhanger as
recently deployed in NYC public housing.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 8/4/24 02:50, D wrote:
>
>

[snip]

>
> Fear not! Let yourselves be inspired by swedens unregulated and
> unrestricted immigration! ;) This created many new millionaires among
> the socialist party, because the government would pay for the immigrants
> to live somewhere, so crafty socialists started immigration housing
> companies extracting millions and millions of dollars from the
> government for something which should not have happened in the first place.
>
> But this is very common in sweden.
>
> When they privatized schools (which was a wise decision) over night,
> plenty of socialist politicians popped up in school company boards
> getting nice extra salaries on top of their party salaries, and on top
> of the parliament salary (which is corruption and should have landed
> them in prison).
>
> When it comes to the housing situation in Stockholm, a new graduate from
> univeristy would not be able to afford a small 1 room apartment á 25 m^2
> in the city center without parents helping out with the cash needed and
> with the security for loans.
>
> I think, if you work hard, that it should be possible to save for a
> 1 room apartment in about 4-5 years or so if you don't live too freely.

Due to the Financiers buying up homes and apartment houses all over the
USA the prices of a first home even as a rental are being driven into
un-affordability. In San Francisco where I live in a Studio apartment
under rent control the price since I moved in in 1974 has moved up to 6
times what my original rent was. This has been due to Speculation and
inflation. Speculation conned at least a dozen buyers in my tenancy to
try to make more money. Inflation of about 10 X in my lifetime.
Due to the failure of the corporations and the very well compensated
to take care to honestly pay taxes on the profits they made in the
exploitation of War and of Economic War resulting in Recession and
Depression. While the recent Pandemic continues the big companies
have increased the profits skimmed off by their billionaire owners.
Now you can find some few properties in San Francisco that are less
than $1,000,000 but generally not livable spaces. If you have
that million it would be best to save it and live elsewhere but
if you are bound and determined to live in the beautiful tip
of the Peninsula between the Ocean and the Bay where we have
natural air conditioning you can spend a much larger fortune on
finding and upgrading a older place to modern standard of
living.

In ancient times the rich feared the poor which they called the Mob
gaining control and voting themselves benefits but in the modern
USA the wealthy have been in control and of course pay their elected
legislators since the Kennedy regime. He was a rich man and of
course he cut the taxes on the rich. Trump was just the latest
to do the same. As soon as he did so I anticipated the present
inflation though of course the Covid-19 and Putin's war on the
Ukraine have added to that. The Rich are the Mob these days. And
the rich benefit most from the Government they seem to hate.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:03:24 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04 9:46 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
> > CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> >
> >> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
> >> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg
> >> vehicle immediately becomes a 280mpg
> >
> > If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
> > put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.
>
> Can I submit a Wikipedia page and win a Nobel prize? I mean, Obama did
> far less when he won his:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle>

A simple quote from the middle of that article

"The efficiency of a hydrogen combustion engine can be similar to that of a
traditional combustion engine."

So I don't see any support for your claim of getting ten times the
efficiency. Also that article talks about engines converted to burn
hydrogen instead of petrol not some kind of hydrogen injection which is
what you seemed to be on about.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 8/4/24 02:41, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/2024 11:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:16:55 +0100
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you DO Sums?
>>>
>>>     Yes.
>>>
>>>> Can you calculate how much 'battery' is needed, and how much actually
>>>
>>>     Yes done that - with a generous overhead.
>>>
>>>> exists in the real world?
>>>
>>>     There's plenty of iron and chlorine easily available everywhere. If
>>> we wanted to build enough tanks we could hold a year's supply of
>>> electricity
>>> for the planet without impacting the availability of raw materials -
>>> but we
>>> only need about ten days (that's still about a competition sized
>>> swimming
>>> pool of tanks per 100k poeople - that's the answer I got when I did the
>>> sums). I'm not so sure about Vanadium but it's not in short supply.
>>> Now if
>>> we had to depend on Lithium for storage we'd be in trouble.
>>>
>>>> Can you calculate how many Hiroshima sized nuclear  explosions the
>>>> energy in the battery would need to be to keep just a small country
>>>> going overnight?
>>>
>>>     The Battery ??? You call yourself an engineer ? Reminds me of the
>>> time when people thought there would be *a* computer. District scale
>>> (and
>>> downwards) batteries make a lot more sense.
>>>
>>
>> So no mathematical refutation, just an ad hominem attack?
>>
>>>     There are already a *lot* of batteries distributed around the
>>> world's power grids and there will be more as fast as they can be built
>>> because they make money for their owners. On top of all the grid scale
>>> batteries many homes now have some battery storage (usually only about a
>>> day's worth but larger flow batteries are appearing) which lets them buy
>>> cheap night rate electricity and use it in the day time or ignore an
>>> outage
>>> of a few hours. Some EVs and chargers support V2L and can power the
>>> house
>>> from the car.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. I calculated we have enough energy storage  to keep the worlds
>> grid up for nearly three minutes
>>
>> You havent done the sums. You use words like 'a lot'  . Yiu even think
>> an 'outage pf a few gpurs is acceptable'
>> Try telling that to a patient on a life support machine.
>>
>>
>>>     It all adds up - but we do need to build a *lot* of batteries
>>> (swimming pool per 100k with current commercial offerings) before we can
>>> depend on intermittent sources alone, rather fewer batteries if we bring
>>> some nuclear into the mix but even with 100% nuclear we need enough
>>> batteries to handle the fast peaks and troughs.
>>>
>>
>> Oh dear. We need to build 'a lot' of batteries.
>> Or nuclear power stations.
>> Oh Nuclear power stations are *cheaper* than renewables plus
>> batteries., Whoda  thunk it?
>>
>> Not you, apparently.
>>
>> Your post contains not one quantity. It is full of *qualitative*
>> statements.
>>
>> "Yes done that - with a generous overhead." I know you havent. Because
>> I *have* That's simply bullshit.
>>
>> Never confuse carefully crafted bullshit with carefully calculated
>> engineering solutions.
>>
>
> Another interesting question is... _if_ as climate hysterics love to
> say, it is so easy to just store all the worlds electricity needs from
> solar and wind, in a few batteries, why haven't we done so?

Not a few batteries but as many batteries as it takes and
flow batteries which are wonderful and would restore the service
station where the old electrolyte would be dumped for reprocessing
and new electrolyte would fill the tank. The technology is still
being developed for manufactur and distribution.

>
> Surely we would no longer bother with nuclear, but just throw a few
> batteries here and there and the problem is solved.

Why do you find it needful to say a few batteries? We may end
up with a Wall of Batteries and the equipment to charge them along
the Southern border.
>
> Or could it be that it is actually financially and physically impossible
> with current technology?
>
> Or is it that climate rationalists like the Philosopher and myself are
> somehow engaged in a conspiracy to keep this technology off the market?

You define yourself as rationalist and yet you keep up
Denialist objections to the ongoing conversion to electrical
vehicles and stoves. Well you are likely just old farts with
some money in the game of fossil fuel production but we will
likely end up with more battery farms than current number of Oil
Refineries. At 87 I hope to see coffin lining or crematory
long before most of the sea level rise which is likely eventually
to flood the Central Valley of California and best of all,
Los Angeles. I feel for your descendants who will have to endure
the result of the pursuit of Convenience without thought of the
consequences.
bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com