Welcome Notice

Register Log in

pretty OT: boats...

S

server

Guest
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 12:13:52 -0700 (PDT), \"dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com\"
<dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-09-10 11:21, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.
My brother bought a used 15\' motor boat for ~$2.5k
Used for fishing andd beer drinking with the boys.
(no girls allowed. :^)

Yeah, with a fibreglass boat you can keep it looking nice for decades.
My Hobie 16 was 20 years old when I bought it for $1200 and 29 when I
sold it on eBay for $1k. (I did buy a swoopy new trailer for $750 and a
new trampoline for $150, so my TCO was about $120 per year not counting
boatyard space.)

I\'m from a family of planing dinghy sailors, but I once cartwheeled a
Hobie-16 in the Gulf of Mexico. :)

We were screaming along on in a lively breeze, heeled dangerously hard,
155# sea salt me in trapeze and 200# noob owner on the trampoline astern at
the helm. I \'bout lost my vocal chords \'requesting\' he slack off the
main or luff up a bit, when a wee bitty puff heeled us a mite harder, we buried
the lee bow, the boat stopped instantaneously, and the wire catapulted
me skyward...jolly good fun!

It looked a bit like this:
https://southern-born-and-bred.blogspot.com/2011/06/wipeout-crew-sent-flying-as-new.html
Yikes, fun as long as you don\'t get banged by the boom.

I had the good sense to be launched well over the boom and land in the
middle of the mainsail. :)

It would\'ve been incredibly easy to get badly hurt but no one did, and it was all
good fun after that.

The only ~sunfish* mishap I recall vividly is when we planted
the front half in a wave... boat on a broad reach. For a moment
I thought the boat was going to pop up backwards, but after coming
to a dead stop it mangled to shrug off the wave and continue on.
(slightly different tack afterwards :^)

George H.


*it was a bit bigger than a sunfish and no cockpit.

Yep, that\'s the idea. (cats are a lot faster than the monohulls, so the
\'contrast\' (aka deceleration, aka d(1/2mv^2)/dt) was a bit more pronounced.)

It\'s amazing, humbling, & awe-inspiring how Nature, with a careless flick
or a sneeze, can upset all the grandiosely tiny plans of man.

Cheers,
James
But overall, it\'s a very nice planet.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard
 
L

Lasse Langwadt Christensen

Guest
søndag den 13. september 2020 kl. 23.12.03 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 15:28:58 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-09-13 14:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 12:38:33 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-09-12 22:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:35:14 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-09-10 11:21, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.
My brother bought a used 15\' motor boat for ~$2.5k
Used for fishing andd beer drinking with the boys.
(no girls allowed. :^)

Yeah, with a fibreglass boat you can keep it looking nice for decades.
My Hobie 16 was 20 years old when I bought it for $1200 and 29 when I
sold it on eBay for $1k. (I did buy a swoopy new trailer for $750 and a
new trampoline for $150, so my TCO was about $120 per year not counting
boatyard space.)

I\'m from a family of planing dinghy sailors, but I once cartwheeled a
Hobie-16 in the Gulf of Mexico. :)

We were screaming along on in a lively breeze, heeled dangerously hard,
155# sea salt me in trapeze and 200# noob owner on the trampoline astern at
the helm. I \'bout lost my vocal chords \'requesting\' he slack off the
main or luff up a bit, when a wee bitty puff heeled us a mite harder, we buried
the lee bow, the boat stopped instantaneously, and the wire catapulted
me skyward...jolly good fun!

It looked a bit like this:
https://southern-born-and-bred.blogspot.com/2011/06/wipeout-crew-sent-flying-as-new.html
Yikes, fun as long as you don\'t get banged by the boom.
The only ~sunfish* mishap I recall vividly is when we planted
the front half in a wave... boat on a broad reach. For a moment
I thought the boat was going to pop up backwards, but after coming
to a dead stop it mangled to shrug off the wave and continue on.
(slightly different tack afterwards :^)

George H.


*it was a bit bigger than a sunfish and no cockpit.

Righting the beast in the blow and chop was a bear and we had to do it
over and over, as we\'d no sooner get righted than knocked down again
(it took the skipper several tries to grok pointing into the weather
long enough for us to re-board).

(Also, there was that first delay during the time I needed to stop laughing
hysterically, then convince the first-outing skipper that we weren\'t actually
going to die.)

In the end we got the boat up and had a great deal more fun that day before
sailing in, sunburned and smiling.

Good times!

Cheers,
James Arthur

In Lake Pontchartrain, if you flip a sunfish mid-lake, you can stick
the mast in the bottom. Makes it hard to flip it back over. Then you
have to clean the mud out of the rigging.

As they say, the lake is bottomless; it just gets thicker as you go
down.

And as they say, it\'s a good place to be from.
Grin, Well \'round here if you can swim down and touch the plants
or mud on the bottom we call it a pond, or wet lands if it drys
out in the summer. :^)

Did the shallow bottom lead to big waves?

No, Lake P was pretty placid, a huge 12-foot-deep saucer. The real
danger was a thunderstorm sneaking up on drunken sailors. Guy I know
killed a girl when a storm snuck up while they were swimming. His
anchor line was too short, it pulled out, and the boat took off and
left the swimmers behind.



Yikes, they left the sails up?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Knowing Bill, probably so. He managed to catch onto the anchor line
and eventually pulled himself into the boat, got control, and motored
back. Too late for one girl.

We used to sit on the lake levee and watch thunderstorms sweep in, a
vertical wall of water and lightning. Then sit in the refreshing warm
rain. I miss thunderstorms; we don\'t get them here.

I lived in San Mateo during the autumn of 1984, on account of a shortage
of married-student housing at the U. (We got back into student housing
at Christmas.)

In September that year, a really remarkable squall line came
through--the sky was full of lightning all night, on both sides of the
building. (We were on the north side, and had views east and west.) Mo
and I stayed up most of the night to watch it.

One of the two most impressive thunderstorm displays I\'ve ever seen.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

A few weeks ago, we were awakened by a gigantic light show in the
southern sky. That cluster was reported as 12,000 ground strikes. That
was the start of the current mess.

We go for years here without seeing lightning.
I think this was one of them, https://youtu.be/CctTDj6SN1U
 
L

Lasse Langwadt Christensen

Guest
søndag den 13. september 2020 kl. 15.47.08 UTC+2 skrev Bill Gill:
On 9/12/2020 9:20 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

If you drive around you will also see A LOT of cars parked in driveways, because that is WHERE they are parked when not in use. How many boats do you see in driveways that ARE in use? Answer: NONE.

Boats aren\'t used as often as cars - that is the nature of boats. That DOESN\'T mean they are NEVER used. I have an aircraft that spends MOST of its time on the ground; this year, do to COVID, it only spent 125 hours actually in the air (out of about 6,000). But if you drive by my airport you will see it tied down, day after day.

I had a neighbor who bought a boat and never took it out. At
least I don\'t remember it doing anything but sitting in his yard.
you don\'t have to put it in water to sit in it and drink beer ;)
 
C

Clifford Heath

Guest
On 14/9/20 5:13 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
We were screaming along on in a lively breeze, heeled dangerously hard,
[...] we buried
the lee bow, the boat stopped instantaneously, and the wire catapulted
me skyward...jolly good fun!
It looked a bit like this:
https://southern-born-and-bred.blogspot.com/2011/06/wipeout-crew-sent-flying-as-new.html
Yikes, fun as long as you don\'t get banged by the boom.
I had the good sense to be launched well over the boom and land in the
middle of the mainsail. :)
I\'ve seen a Hobie16 bury both hulls like that directly in front of the
club where I used to sail. Screaming (45 knot) south-easterly coming in
from the Tasman, three black balls hanging from the tower, and no-one
from the club was out sailing, all hanging around in front of the club
watching these maniacs hoot past...

The guy on trapeze swung up to the height of the tip of the mast, right
around and into the water on the far side. It took the crew 15 minutes
to right it and sort everything out, but we didn\'t need to launch a
rescue boat. They were only 150 metres offshore anyhow.

Apart from owning and sailing smaller fast (i.e. not Hobie!) cats, I
used to crew a bit on an internationally competitive Tornado, a
20-footer. The crew has to watch the water for gusts, because those
things accelerate so suddenly they can just slide out from under you,
despite the abrasive strips. It\'s embarrassing to be suddenly afloat
with the boat shooting ahead of you. It never happened to me, but I had
a few close calls.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_(sailboat)>

Clifford Heath
 
C

Clifford Heath

Guest
On 14/9/20 4:33 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
Dad sailed 505\'s and Aussie 18\'s; big brother and I sailed the 470, 420, and the
Moth (a single-hander mini Aussie 18). Moths came to the U.S. about contemporaneously
with the Laser, but neither was well-known or popular at the time time Dad ponied up for ours.

In the Aussie 18 tradition, the Moth class has shallow draft, unlimited sail, and it\'s unstable--it\'ll
fall over at the dock unless there\'s someone in it. And it screams.
We had a Moth for a while. The sail area and hull design is actually
unrestricted, apart from overall length and maximum beam. Most are
skiffs, but ours was a flat \"bread-board\" with aluminium butterfly wings
for hiking. It was definitely a handful.

I hate to think what the new hydrofoil Moths are like to sail. Those
things can pass 60km/hr, and riding above the water as they do, if you
lose control, it\'s a full-on crash.

<https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-30/how-moth-class-hydrofoil-sailing-boats-rocked-americas-cup/11748064>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moth_(dinghy)>

Clifford Heath.
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 2020-09-13 18:25, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 14/9/20 5:13 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
We were screaming along on in a lively breeze, heeled dangerously hard,
[...] we buried
the lee bow, the boat stopped instantaneously, and the wire catapulted
me skyward...jolly good fun!
It looked a bit like this:
https://southern-born-and-bred.blogspot.com/2011/06/wipeout-crew-sent-flying-as-new.html

Yikes, fun as long as you don\'t get banged by the boom.
I had the good sense to be launched well over the boom and land in the
middle of the mainsail. :)

I\'ve seen a Hobie16 bury both hulls like that directly in front of the
club where I used to sail. Screaming (45 knot) south-easterly coming in
from the Tasman, three black balls hanging from the tower, and no-one
from the club was out sailing, all hanging around in front of the club
watching these maniacs hoot past...
That\'s pitchpoling rather than cartwheeling. Generally safer if you
don\'t intersect the shroud on your way down. ;) Then the hulls aren\'t
spinning round trying to clobber you like an old time wooden surfboard.

The guy on trapeze swung up to the height of the tip of the mast, right
around and into the water on the far side. It took the crew 15 minutes
to right it and sort everything out, but we didn\'t need to launch a
rescue boat. They were only 150 metres offshore anyhow.

Apart from owning and sailing smaller fast (i.e. not Hobie!) cats, I
used to crew a bit on an internationally competitive Tornado, a
20-footer. The crew has to watch the water for gusts, because those
things accelerate so suddenly they can just slide out from under you,
despite the abrasive strips. It\'s embarrassing to be suddenly afloat
with the boat shooting ahead of you. It never happened to me, but I had
a few close calls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_(sailboat)
Hobies are fun beach sailors rather than real race boats. They give up
a great deal by not using daggerboards--you can\'t work to windward very
fast, but on a broad reach they\'re amazing.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
On 2020-09-13 17:27, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
søndag den 13. september 2020 kl. 15.47.08 UTC+2 skrev Bill Gill:
On 9/12/2020 9:20 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

If you drive around you will also see A LOT of cars parked in driveways, because that is WHERE they are parked when not in use. How many boats do you see in driveways that ARE in use? Answer: NONE.

Boats aren\'t used as often as cars - that is the nature of boats. That DOESN\'T mean they are NEVER used. I have an aircraft that spends MOST of its time on the ground; this year, do to COVID, it only spent 125 hours actually in the air (out of about 6,000). But if you drive by my airport you will see it tied down, day after day.

I had a neighbor who bought a boat and never took it out. At
least I don\'t remember it doing anything but sitting in his yard.


you don\'t have to put it in water to sit in it and drink beer ;)
But you do if you want to get away from the missus. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 
S

server

Guest
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 14:26:10 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

søndag den 13. september 2020 kl. 23.12.03 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 15:28:58 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-09-13 14:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 12:38:33 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-09-12 22:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:35:14 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-09-10 11:21, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.
My brother bought a used 15\' motor boat for ~$2.5k
Used for fishing andd beer drinking with the boys.
(no girls allowed. :^)

Yeah, with a fibreglass boat you can keep it looking nice for decades.
My Hobie 16 was 20 years old when I bought it for $1200 and 29 when I
sold it on eBay for $1k. (I did buy a swoopy new trailer for $750 and a
new trampoline for $150, so my TCO was about $120 per year not counting
boatyard space.)

I\'m from a family of planing dinghy sailors, but I once cartwheeled a
Hobie-16 in the Gulf of Mexico. :)

We were screaming along on in a lively breeze, heeled dangerously hard,
155# sea salt me in trapeze and 200# noob owner on the trampoline astern at
the helm. I \'bout lost my vocal chords \'requesting\' he slack off the
main or luff up a bit, when a wee bitty puff heeled us a mite harder, we buried
the lee bow, the boat stopped instantaneously, and the wire catapulted
me skyward...jolly good fun!

It looked a bit like this:
https://southern-born-and-bred.blogspot.com/2011/06/wipeout-crew-sent-flying-as-new.html
Yikes, fun as long as you don\'t get banged by the boom.
The only ~sunfish* mishap I recall vividly is when we planted
the front half in a wave... boat on a broad reach. For a moment
I thought the boat was going to pop up backwards, but after coming
to a dead stop it mangled to shrug off the wave and continue on.
(slightly different tack afterwards :^)

George H.


*it was a bit bigger than a sunfish and no cockpit.

Righting the beast in the blow and chop was a bear and we had to do it
over and over, as we\'d no sooner get righted than knocked down again
(it took the skipper several tries to grok pointing into the weather
long enough for us to re-board).

(Also, there was that first delay during the time I needed to stop laughing
hysterically, then convince the first-outing skipper that we weren\'t actually
going to die.)

In the end we got the boat up and had a great deal more fun that day before
sailing in, sunburned and smiling.

Good times!

Cheers,
James Arthur

In Lake Pontchartrain, if you flip a sunfish mid-lake, you can stick
the mast in the bottom. Makes it hard to flip it back over. Then you
have to clean the mud out of the rigging.

As they say, the lake is bottomless; it just gets thicker as you go
down.

And as they say, it\'s a good place to be from.
Grin, Well \'round here if you can swim down and touch the plants
or mud on the bottom we call it a pond, or wet lands if it drys
out in the summer. :^)

Did the shallow bottom lead to big waves?

No, Lake P was pretty placid, a huge 12-foot-deep saucer. The real
danger was a thunderstorm sneaking up on drunken sailors. Guy I know
killed a girl when a storm snuck up while they were swimming. His
anchor line was too short, it pulled out, and the boat took off and
left the swimmers behind.



Yikes, they left the sails up?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Knowing Bill, probably so. He managed to catch onto the anchor line
and eventually pulled himself into the boat, got control, and motored
back. Too late for one girl.

We used to sit on the lake levee and watch thunderstorms sweep in, a
vertical wall of water and lightning. Then sit in the refreshing warm
rain. I miss thunderstorms; we don\'t get them here.

I lived in San Mateo during the autumn of 1984, on account of a shortage
of married-student housing at the U. (We got back into student housing
at Christmas.)

In September that year, a really remarkable squall line came
through--the sky was full of lightning all night, on both sides of the
building. (We were on the north side, and had views east and west.) Mo
and I stayed up most of the night to watch it.

One of the two most impressive thunderstorm displays I\'ve ever seen.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

A few weeks ago, we were awakened by a gigantic light show in the
southern sky. That cluster was reported as 12,000 ground strikes. That
was the start of the current mess.

We go for years here without seeing lightning.

I think this was one of them, https://youtu.be/CctTDj6SN1U
Nice video, but his theory may be wrong. Lightning most likely starts
from the ground, because that\'s where the sharp objects are. Clouds
are pretty fuzzy.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:39:47 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 19:20:12 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

If you drive around you will also see A LOT of cars parked in driveways, because that is WHERE they are parked when not in use. How many boats do you see in driveways that ARE in use? Answer: NONE.

But I see a lot of cars on the road too. I see very few of those
anywhere but in the driveway.
If you swanned around in water on a boat, you might see more boats being used.

I know one guy who had his power boat shrink-wrapped to protect it
from the elements and critters. It hasn\'t been moved in years. His
wife isn\'t happy about any of that.

I see a lot more off-road vehicles being towed than I see boats.
Yesterday on I80 we passed the biggest pickup truck I\'ve ever seen. In
the bed was the biggest off-road jeepy thing that I\'ve ever seen. The
tires were about as tall as my car.
This isn\'t altogether surprising. If you don\'t head towards areas where boats are used, you won\'t see many of them on the road hat you are taking.

Boats aren\'t used as often as cars - that is the nature of boats. That DOESN\'T mean they are NEVER used. I have an aircraft that spends MOST of its time on the ground; this year, do to COVID, it only spent 125 hours actually in the air (out of about 6,000). But if you drive by my airport you will see it tied down, day after day.

If you\'re going to get enthusiastic for something and then get tired
of it, make it something small. Like an oscilloscope maybe.

What kind of scope do you have?
John Larkin reminding us that he thinks that he does electronic design.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
S

Steve Wilson

Guest
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I think this was one of them, https://youtu.be/CctTDj6SN1U

Nice video, but his theory may be wrong. Lightning most likely starts
from the ground, because that\'s where the sharp objects are. Clouds
are pretty fuzzy.
A stepped leader starts in the cloud and reaches towards the earth. When it
gets close, a streamer reaches up from the earth. When it reaches the
leader, a conductive path is formed that allows the discharge from the
cloud to the ground. Here are some videos in slow motion:

Sprites, Jets, and Glowing Balls: The Science of Lightning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzNk4w2k2h0

How does lightning work? Where does it come from? | Weather Wise S2E2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K-v-RJ-z2A

Lightning Strike at 103,000 FPS
- in Singapore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQKhIK4pvYo

Lightning in Super Slow Motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWIBrweSU8
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:59:58 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:25:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.

If you drive around you will also see A LOT of cars parked in driveways, because that is WHERE they are parked when not in use.

Apparently cars spend 95% of their time parked. This has lead to a tolerably serious proposal that batteries in parked electric cars could be used as back-storage for the power network, to help it cope with the non-dispatchable nature of wind- and solar-power.

Rick C doesn\'t think much of the idea, but it got aired back in 2008 in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

and hasn\'t been shot down since then.
You mischaracterize my opinion. I simply pointed out that the marginal cost of using auto batteries are quite high given that they are in autos, devices that are expensive without the battery. While in theory a battery can be replaced in an auto, the cost of that will not make the marginal cost of using the battery for not transportation uses significantly less since they are \"captive\" devices, only purchased from the automaker.
Car batteries wouldn\'t cost the power network anything if they didn\'t connect to them. They don\'t do anything for the car owner when they aren\'t being used. Renting them out to the power network when they aren\'t being used would make some money for the car owner, and would save the power network from having to buy their own storage. Since a certain number of cars get wiped off in car accidents, it may pay the car owner to let the power network use the battery in the car before it gets damaged in a car accident, and get extra value out of it that way.

> So if a fair market is establishes where informed sellers can offer their batteries to informed buyers, I think the high cost of auto batteries will make them much less useful (more expensive) than simply the utilities owning the batteries they use for grid peak supply and arbitrage.

The car owners have to own the batteries anyway. The question is whether the power network will pay enough to cover the wear and tear from the extra use. If they don\'t, the car owners won\'t rent them out.

> I did concede that there might be a limited market for such a market which depends on the highest prices paid at peak times. I have seen marginal rates exceed 10x price of normal electricity. However that will be some time off since even that portion of the market would be profitable for wholly owned batteries as shown by the many installations that are designed to do just that.

If we all drove electric cars, the power network would need to be 30% bigger to cover the power they consumed. This power is going to be consumed by the 5% of cars that are on the road at any one time. The power that the other 95% could feed back into the net is thus about six times the peak capacity of the net. It seems nuts to have the power network invest in providing that capacity separately.

Vanadium flow batteries seem likely to do a better job of grid storage than the lithium ion batteries designed for cars, but the famous South Australian battery storage supplied by Tesla was just a bunch of Tesla car batteries - they were being produced in volume, and vanadium flow batteries aren\'t - yet.

> The idea of a market selling electrical storage in the form of auto batteries requires there being a premium paid for the service at a price higher than the actual cost of the wear on the battery. Much like many market, there has to be a significant profit motive to the car owner (with the key word being \"significant\") and it would be more profitable for the utilities to simply own the capacity themselves.

If the car battery isn\'t being used, it isn\'t doing anything for you. If you can get money out of it while the car is parked on the charger, that\'s a win.

> But you failed to see that aspect of the issue claiming everything is for sale, in essence. I don\'t dispute the fact that this is true, I dispute the willingness of a auto owner to put wear on the most expensive part of the car without a sizable profit which the utility would be better off putting in their own pockets.

Batteries are replaceable, and the wear would be paid for.

How many boats do you see in driveways that ARE in use? Answer: NONE.

Boats aren\'t used as often as cars - that is the nature of boats. That DOESN\'T mean they are NEVER used. I have an aircraft that spends MOST of its time on the ground; this year, do to COVID, it only spent 125 hours actually in the air (out of about 6,000). But if you drive by my airport you will see it tied down, day after day.

Flyguy gets something right for once. I\'m amazed.

Only because it is much like something he already has taken a position on, owning an airplane which gets relatively little use. Otherwise he would have a hard time seeing this, much like Larkin.

I wish most boats were never used. They seem to be getting a lot of use this weekend for sure. 80° and sunny today with lots of boats out of the driveway here.
I\'m neutral. My inner suburb of Sydney is largely boat free. I can see one sail-boat and one speed-boat out on Sydney Harbour from our balcony, and they make the view marginally more interesting. Occasionally we see sailing dinghies racing on the other side of the harbour, but they are bit far away for their antics to make much sense.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:13:59 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-09-10 11:21, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
<snip>

It\'s amazing, humbling, & awe-inspiring how Nature, with a careless flick
or a sneeze, can upset all the grandiosely tiny plans of man.
How could any sane person not be aware that natural events involve spectacularly large forces?

The only kind of people who could be amazed or humbled by waking up to this obvious fact would have to have been deeply into self-delusion before they got the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:07:57 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 12:04:56 -0700 (PDT), \"dagmarg...@yahoo.com\"
dagmarg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 12:38:33 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-09-12 22:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gghe...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:35:14 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gghe...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-09-10 11:21, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The 17th Street Canal was one of the two man-made spears aimed at the
heart of New Orleans, the other being the Intracoastal waterway. They
both broke their pitiful levees in Katrina.

Blame Climate Change.
As opposed to not building up the levees to deal with predictable (if unlikely ) levels of flooding.

After the North Sea floods in 1953, the Dutch climate modellers were horrified to work out that the 5.6 metre North Sea surge (which had killed 1836 people in the Netherlands) could have gone 1.2 metres higher if all the various worst cases had lined more exactly. The government spent a lot of money on increasing the level of protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works

\"North and South Holland (excluding Wieringermeer): 1 per 10,000 years\"

Coping with sea level rise is going to be expensive.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:50:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:59:58 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:25:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.

If you drive around you will also see A LOT of cars parked in driveways, because that is WHERE they are parked when not in use.

Apparently cars spend 95% of their time parked. This has lead to a tolerably serious proposal that batteries in parked electric cars could be used as back-storage for the power network, to help it cope with the non-dispatchable nature of wind- and solar-power.

Rick C doesn\'t think much of the idea, but it got aired back in 2008 in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

and hasn\'t been shot down since then.
You mischaracterize my opinion. I simply pointed out that the marginal cost of using auto batteries are quite high given that they are in autos, devices that are expensive without the battery. While in theory a battery can be replaced in an auto, the cost of that will not make the marginal cost of using the battery for not transportation uses significantly less since they are \"captive\" devices, only purchased from the automaker.

Car batteries wouldn\'t cost the power network anything if they didn\'t connect to them. They don\'t do anything for the car owner when they aren\'t being used. Renting them out to the power network when they aren\'t being used would make some money for the car owner, and would save the power network from having to buy their own storage. Since a certain number of cars get wiped off in car accidents, it may pay the car owner to let the power network use the battery in the car before it gets damaged in a car accident, and get extra value out of it that way.
You continue to make the same fallacious claims showing you fail to understand the material issues.

Car batteries cost a premium because they part of a car and the car dealers have no incentive to sell replacements at a good price... captive market.

The car owner will be very concerned about this potential huge cost and want to see serious compensation.

Batteries are consumables. While they may presently be treated as capital that depreciates, anyone building an installation will realize that they wear with use like other consumables. So it will be less expensive for the utilities to simply buy their own batteries than to pay the inflated prices for the use of auto batteries.

Then on top of it all, as you have pointed out, there are other technologies that will likely serve the power utility industry at a better cost structure than auto batteries. So this market is unlikely to develop very much before it becomes obsolete.

Then there is the issue of looming battery shortage as EVs take off. Every lithium based battery on the market will end up costing a premium because of shortages of a few key raw materials. This will favor other technologies for the applications that can tolerate them (size, weight) while auto use can\'t. This will further accent the cost disadvantage of \"idle\" uses of auto batteries.


So if a fair market is establishes where informed sellers can offer their batteries to informed buyers, I think the high cost of auto batteries will make them much less useful (more expensive) than simply the utilities owning the batteries they use for grid peak supply and arbitrage.

The car owners have to own the batteries anyway. The question is whether the power network will pay enough to cover the wear and tear from the extra use. If they don\'t, the car owners won\'t rent them out.
As I have explained to you there is a fundamental price difference simply because the batteries are in cars where the replacement batteries will not be priced competitively. I know I\'m not going to stress my battery in any way I can avoid.


I did concede that there might be a limited market for such a market which depends on the highest prices paid at peak times. I have seen marginal rates exceed 10x price of normal electricity. However that will be some time off since even that portion of the market would be profitable for wholly owned batteries as shown by the many installations that are designed to do just that.

If we all drove electric cars, the power network would need to be 30% bigger to cover the power they consumed. This power is going to be consumed by the 5% of cars that are on the road at any one time. The power that the other 95% could feed back into the net is thus about six times the peak capacity of the net. It seems nuts to have the power network invest in providing that capacity separately.
I can\'t believe you are touting that nonsense. Car charging mostly will be done off peak so that it simply uses excess capacity lying fallow. The resulting higher utilization of the existing grid may well result in overall lower electricity prices.

Your numbers are nonsense, made up from thin air. The discharge rate of auto batteries is much higher than the rate they can feed the power line unless expensive equipment is installed... very expensive equipment. Homes are only wired for a total of about 50 kW. Anything above that will require major infrastructure changes in addition to the charge/discharge equipment. What you are talking about would be like having a Tesla supercharger in every home. Ain\'t gonna happen.


> Vanadium flow batteries seem likely to do a better job of grid storage than the lithium ion batteries designed for cars, but the famous South Australian battery storage supplied by Tesla was just a bunch of Tesla car batteries - they were being produced in volume, and vanadium flow batteries aren\'t - yet.

Yup, and they are still there working with very little accompaniment because of the expense. Currently it is only cost effective for the peak time arbitrage and the very few moments when they are needed to prevent black outs and brownouts. The costs need to come down considerably for them to be wide spread. Batteries in autos will remain the most expensive form of battery power available.


The idea of a market selling electrical storage in the form of auto batteries requires there being a premium paid for the service at a price higher than the actual cost of the wear on the battery. Much like many market, there has to be a significant profit motive to the car owner (with the key word being \"significant\") and it would be more profitable for the utilities to simply own the capacity themselves.

If the car battery isn\'t being used, it isn\'t doing anything for you. If you can get money out of it while the car is parked on the charger, that\'s a win.
You keep talking about the battery sitting fallow. The WHOLE CAR is sitting fallow and people are very happy with that because they don\'t want the cars worn out.


But you failed to see that aspect of the issue claiming everything is for sale, in essence. I don\'t dispute the fact that this is true, I dispute the willingness of a auto owner to put wear on the most expensive part of the car without a sizable profit which the utility would be better off putting in their own pockets.

Batteries are replaceable, and the wear would be paid for.
Only if the amount pays for the higher replacement cost of auto batteries. Price a new engine for your car and tell me if it would be worth wearing it out to power a generator? It would be the most expensive generator power source you can imagine. Same with the overpriced auto batteries.


How many boats do you see in driveways that ARE in use? Answer: NONE.

Boats aren\'t used as often as cars - that is the nature of boats. That DOESN\'T mean they are NEVER used. I have an aircraft that spends MOST of its time on the ground; this year, do to COVID, it only spent 125 hours actually in the air (out of about 6,000). But if you drive by my airport you will see it tied down, day after day.

Flyguy gets something right for once. I\'m amazed.

Only because it is much like something he already has taken a position on, owning an airplane which gets relatively little use. Otherwise he would have a hard time seeing this, much like Larkin.

I wish most boats were never used. They seem to be getting a lot of use this weekend for sure. 80° and sunny today with lots of boats out of the driveway here.

I\'m neutral. My inner suburb of Sydney is largely boat free. I can see one sail-boat and one speed-boat out on Sydney Harbour from our balcony, and they make the view marginally more interesting. Occasionally we see sailing dinghies racing on the other side of the harbour, but they are bit far away for their antics to make much sense.
Sail boats are sea going for the most part. If you aren\'t near the coast you won\'t often find enough wind to sail. Here there are a handful of days when there is enough wind to move a small sail boat and those are mostly when it is cold. It\'s about 200 miles to the Atlantic but only 100 miles to the Chesapeake Bay. It would be better if we were on the bay.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 2:06:23 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:50:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:59:58 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:25:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.

If you drive around you will also see A LOT of cars parked in driveways, because that is WHERE they are parked when not in use.

Apparently cars spend 95% of their time parked. This has lead to a tolerably serious proposal that batteries in parked electric cars could be used as back-storage for the power network, to help it cope with the non-dispatchable nature of wind- and solar-power.

Rick C doesn\'t think much of the idea, but it got aired back in 2008 in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

and hasn\'t been shot down since then.
You mischaracterize my opinion. I simply pointed out that the marginal cost of using auto batteries are quite high given that they are in autos, devices that are expensive without the battery. While in theory a battery can be replaced in an auto, the cost of that will not make the marginal cost of using the battery for not transportation uses significantly less since they are \"captive\" devices, only purchased from the automaker.

Car batteries wouldn\'t cost the power network anything if they didn\'t connect to them. They don\'t do anything for the car owner when they aren\'t being used. Renting them out to the power network when they aren\'t being used would make some money for the car owner, and would save the power network from having to buy their own storage. Since a certain number of cars get wiped off in car accidents, it may pay the car owner to let the power network use the battery in the car before it gets damaged in a car accident, and get extra value out of it that way.

You continue to make the same fallacious claims showing you fail to understand the material issues.
But you can\'t be bothered to say which claim is fallacious, or why.

> Car batteries cost a premium because they part of a car and the car dealers have no incentive to sell replacements at a good price... captive market..

They may be \"part of the car\" but it\'s going to be difficult to make them different enough that the same battery isn\'t going to be used in a range of different cars.

> The car owner will be very concerned about this potential huge cost and want to see serious compensation.

If there is a \"potential huge cost\".

> Batteries are consumables. While they may presently be treated as capital that depreciates, anyone building an installation will realize that they wear with use like other consumables. So it will be less expensive for the utilities to simply buy their own batteries than to pay the inflated prices for the use of auto batteries.

If they have to pay an inflated price. You seem to be a bit neurotic about the issue, and would probably demand an inflated price. Less annxious car owners might be less rapacious.

> Then on top of it all, as you have pointed out, there are other technologies that will likely serve the power utility industry at a better cost structure than auto batteries. So this market is unlikely to develop very much before it becomes obsolete.

Batteries haven\'t developed much in the past century or so. Vanadium flow batteries do seem to be better suited to the job, but the advantages aren\'t huge, and seem to be wiped out by the economies of scale vis a vis car batteries at the moment.

> Then there is the issue of looming battery shortage as EVs take off. Every lithium based battery on the market will end up costing a premium because of shortages of a few key raw materials.

Raw materials get found when you look harder for them. People are still finding new oil fields. Today\'s paper had a puff for rare earth mineral mines in Australia - the ores are there, but as long as China manipulated the market to bankrupt anybody who tried to compete, they didn\'t get exploited. Paint China as a strategic threat and the mine owners can get subsidised ..

>This will favor other technologies for the applications that can tolerate them (size, weight) while auto use can\'t. This will further accent the cost disadvantage of \"idle\" uses of auto batteries.

But won\'t wipe out the fact that can batteries aren\'t do anything useful when the car is parked.

So if a fair market is establishes where informed sellers can offer their batteries to informed buyers, I think the high cost of auto batteries will make them much less useful (more expensive) than simply the utilities owning the batteries they use for grid peak supply and arbitrage.

The car owners have to own the batteries anyway. The question is whether the power network will pay enough to cover the wear and tear from the extra use. If they don\'t, the car owners won\'t rent them out.

As I have explained to you there is a fundamental price difference simply because the batteries are in cars where the replacement batteries will not be priced competitively. I know I\'m not going to stress my battery in any way I can avoid.
The assumption that the car batteries won\'t be priced competitively is just an assumption. It\'s a very modular function, and trying to push the price up by making the modules less interchangable is going to run into a lot of resistance.

I did concede that there might be a limited market for such a market which depends on the highest prices paid at peak times. I have seen marginal rates exceed 10x price of normal electricity. However that will be some time off since even that portion of the market would be profitable for wholly owned batteries as shown by the many installations that are designed to do just that.

If we all drove electric cars, the power network would need to be 30% bigger to cover the power they consumed. This power is going to be consumed by the 5% of cars that are on the road at any one time. The power that the other 95% could feed back into the net is thus about six times the peak capacity of the net. It seems nuts to have the power network invest in providing that capacity separately.

I can\'t believe you are touting that nonsense. Car charging mostly will be done off peak so that it simply uses excess capacity lying fallow. The resulting higher utilization of the existing grid may well result in overall lower electricity prices.
If the energy is mostly coming from renewable sources, charging will mostly be done when the power is available. \"Off-peak\" refers back to the days when most of the power came from fixed capacity generating plants which weren\'t fully loaded at \"off-peak\" times.

> Your numbers are nonsense, made up from thin air. The discharge rate of auto batteries is much higher than the rate they can feed the power line unless expensive equipment is installed... very expensive equipment.

But the fact that cars are parked for 95% of the time means that there will be a lot of them connected to the grid. They can be charged a lot faster than they are discharged while being driven, but that does take expensive equipment. Home chargers, or trickle charging sockets in parking garages will be able to cope with just as much current discharging as they will when charging, and the current can be spread over a lot of cars.

You are being foolishly alarmist.

>Homes are only wired for a total of about 50 kW. Anything above that will require major infrastructure changes in addition to the charge/discharge equipment. What you are talking about would be like having a Tesla supercharger in every home.

No, it isn\'t. This is a ridiculous misconception.

>Ain\'t gonna happen.

Of course not. And there\'s absolutely no reason why it might need to happen..

Vanadium flow batteries seem likely to do a better job of grid storage than the lithium ion batteries designed for cars, but the famous South Australian battery storage supplied by Tesla was just a bunch of Tesla car batteries - they were being produced in volume, and vanadium flow batteries aren\'t - yet.

Yup, and they are still there working with very little accompaniment because of the expense. Currently it is only cost effective for the peak time arbitrage and the very few moments when they are needed to prevent black outs and brownouts. The costs need to come down considerably for them to be wide spread. Batteries in autos will remain the most expensive form of battery power available.
About half the capacity of the Tesla battery bank in South Australia is tied up in very short term phase management of the grid. It has replaced a lot of more old-fashioned gear designed tp do the same job, and is making a lot more money out of it than it does from buying excess power when it is cheap and selling it back when it worth more. That\'s still worth doing and more batteries have been bought to do more of the same work - about half as much again so far. There\'s room for pumped hydro storage on South Australia - at least one of them to pump sea-water.

https://arena.gov.au/blog/south-australia-pumped-hydro/

and there seems to be 1 Gwatt of it in the pipe-line.

The idea of a market selling electrical storage in the form of auto batteries requires there being a premium paid for the service at a price higher than the actual cost of the wear on the battery. Much like many market, there has to be a significant profit motive to the car owner (with the key word being \"significant\") and it would be more profitable for the utilities to simply own the capacity themselves.

If the car battery isn\'t being used, it isn\'t doing anything for you. If you can get money out of it while the car is parked on the charger, that\'s a win.

You keep talking about the battery sitting fallow. The WHOLE CAR is sitting fallow and people are very happy with that because they don\'t want the cars worn out.
Batteries are easy to replace.

But you failed to see that aspect of the issue claiming everything is for sale, in essence. I don\'t dispute the fact that this is true, I dispute the willingness of a auto owner to put wear on the most expensive part of the car without a sizable profit which the utility would be better off putting in their own pockets.

Batteries are replaceable, and the wear would be paid for.

Only if the amount pays for the higher replacement cost of auto batteries.. Price a new engine for your car and tell me if it would be worth wearing it out to power a generator?
Car engines aren\'t all that modular. The engine has to fit into the body of your car. Batteries are a whole lot more more flexible.

> It would be the most expensive generator power source you can imagine. Same with the overpriced auto batteries.

The lead-acid batteries that go into regular cars are lot easier to replace than the engine, and a lot more interchangeable. There\'s a very competitive market for them.

How many boats do you see in driveways that ARE in use? Answer: NONE.

Boats aren\'t used as often as cars - that is the nature of boats. That DOESN\'T mean they are NEVER used. I have an aircraft that spends MOST of its time on the ground; this year, do to COVID, it only spent 125 hours actually in the air (out of about 6,000). But if you drive by my airport you will see it tied down, day after day.

Flyguy gets something right for once. I\'m amazed.

Only because it is much like something he already has taken a position on, owning an airplane which gets relatively little use. Otherwise he would have a hard time seeing this, much like Larkin.

I wish most boats were never used. They seem to be getting a lot of use this weekend for sure. 80° and sunny today with lots of boats out of the driveway here.

I\'m neutral. My inner suburb of Sydney is largely boat free. I can see one sail-boat and one speed-boat out on Sydney Harbour from our balcony, and they make the view marginally more interesting. Occasionally we see sailing dinghies racing on the other side of the harbour, but they are bit far away for their antics to make much sense.

Sail boats are sea going for the most part. If you aren\'t near the coast you won\'t often find enough wind to sail. Here there are a handful of days when there is enough wind to move a small sail boat and those are mostly when it is cold. It\'s about 200 miles to the Atlantic but only 100 miles to the Chesapeake Bay. It would be better if we were on the bay.
I grew up on the north west coast of Tasmania. Small boat sailing wasn\'t popular, because strong winds could blow up dangerously rapidly.

My younger brother planned to sail back from England at one point, but he and his friends didn\'t get away as early as the should have, and nearly drowned in an autumn gale off Plymouth - they got towed back to safety by a passing French trawler, and gave up on the idea.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:50:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 2:06:23 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:50:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:59:58 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:25:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Up here in the country, I see a lot of motor boats parked in
driveways. I suspect that most are seldom or never used.

I got curious about cost. Seems like a dinky outboard motor costs
$1000, and some are $8K or $25K or even $45K. And a serious speed
freak will hang three on the stern.

I can envision some domestic discord.

If you drive around you will also see A LOT of cars parked in driveways, because that is WHERE they are parked when not in use.

Apparently cars spend 95% of their time parked. This has lead to a tolerably serious proposal that batteries in parked electric cars could be used as back-storage for the power network, to help it cope with the non-dispatchable nature of wind- and solar-power.

Rick C doesn\'t think much of the idea, but it got aired back in 2008 in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

and hasn\'t been shot down since then.
You mischaracterize my opinion. I simply pointed out that the marginal cost of using auto batteries are quite high given that they are in autos, devices that are expensive without the battery. While in theory a battery can be replaced in an auto, the cost of that will not make the marginal cost of using the battery for not transportation uses significantly less since they are \"captive\" devices, only purchased from the automaker.

Car batteries wouldn\'t cost the power network anything if they didn\'t connect to them. They don\'t do anything for the car owner when they aren\'t being used. Renting them out to the power network when they aren\'t being used would make some money for the car owner, and would save the power network from having to buy their own storage. Since a certain number of cars get wiped off in car accidents, it may pay the car owner to let the power network use the battery in the car before it gets damaged in a car accident, and get extra value out of it that way.

You continue to make the same fallacious claims showing you fail to understand the material issues.

But you can\'t be bothered to say which claim is fallacious, or why.
I have explained several times so far. If you can\'t figure that out, it\'s on you.


Car batteries cost a premium because they part of a car and the car dealers have no incentive to sell replacements at a good price... captive market.

They may be \"part of the car\" but it\'s going to be difficult to make them different enough that the same battery isn\'t going to be used in a range of different cars.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Every car maker with have totally different battery modules, the replaceable unit. They will have no incentive to offer good prices and will charge a heavy premium to anyone silly enough to wear out their battery. Then on top of that, there is no way to extract the power from the battery. For an auto maker to support that, there needs to be something in it for them other than increased manufacturing costs and warranty claims.


The car owner will be very concerned about this potential huge cost and want to see serious compensation.

If there is a \"potential huge cost\".
What part on a car is not very overpriced compared to something you buy separate. That\'s why after market parts are a large industry. But it won\'t happen for batteries because they are so expensive and a huge share of the auto cost.


Batteries are consumables. While they may presently be treated as capital that depreciates, anyone building an installation will realize that they wear with use like other consumables. So it will be less expensive for the utilities to simply buy their own batteries than to pay the inflated prices for the use of auto batteries.

If they have to pay an inflated price. You seem to be a bit neurotic about the issue, and would probably demand an inflated price. Less annxious car owners might be less rapacious.
My neuroses aside, anyone will be very concerned once they understand the battery is a consumable. They will look into the replacement cost and see just how expensive it will be. Once they understand that the utility will have to pay those costs and then pay a profit on top. Clearly this is more expensive than just owning the batteries unless it is a matter of some fraction of a percent of the time they are needed. So yes, there could be a tiny share of the market where this would work, but considering the obstacles in initiating such a program (mostly auto manufacturer participation and the large expense of bi-directional power transfer device) it won\'t get off the ground.


Then on top of it all, as you have pointed out, there are other technologies that will likely serve the power utility industry at a better cost structure than auto batteries. So this market is unlikely to develop very much before it becomes obsolete.

Batteries haven\'t developed much in the past century or so. Vanadium flow batteries do seem to be better suited to the job, but the advantages aren\'t huge, and seem to be wiped out by the economies of scale vis a vis car batteries at the moment.
Of course they have. Lithium ion batteries did not exist in practical form until about 20 years ago. Any new technology will have to fight the economies of scale. Doesn\'t mean it won\'t happen. Even within Li-ion batteries there are different formulations optimized for different features. Heck, there is a company using repurposed lead-acid batteries removed from high reliability service to power backup systems for commercial facilities.

There are many other options than trying to redirect autos into becoming backup batteries.


Then there is the issue of looming battery shortage as EVs take off. Every lithium based battery on the market will end up costing a premium because of shortages of a few key raw materials.

Raw materials get found when you look harder for them. People are still finding new oil fields. Today\'s paper had a puff for rare earth mineral mines in Australia - the ores are there, but as long as China manipulated the market to bankrupt anybody who tried to compete, they didn\'t get exploited. Paint China as a strategic threat and the mine owners can get subsidised ..
The fact that they can be new sources of minerals doesn\'t mean they won\'t be in short supply as the demand ramps up exponentially. Tesla is projecting 50% growth each year for the next decade. That\'s a lot of batteries.

Rare earth minerals are not really comparable because they aren\'t remotely rare, rather they are abundant. The US has huge supplies as do many sources.

China has done their damage by lowering prices and driving others out of the market. Now they are looking for the return with higher prices. If others restart production China won\'t repeat the low price and unlimited supply gimmick because their resources are finite and they need to conserve them.


This will favor other technologies for the applications that can tolerate them (size, weight) while auto use can\'t. This will further accent the cost disadvantage of \"idle\" uses of auto batteries.

But won\'t wipe out the fact that can batteries aren\'t do anything useful when the car is parked.
Which is an irrelevant fact.


So if a fair market is establishes where informed sellers can offer their batteries to informed buyers, I think the high cost of auto batteries will make them much less useful (more expensive) than simply the utilities owning the batteries they use for grid peak supply and arbitrage.

The car owners have to own the batteries anyway. The question is whether the power network will pay enough to cover the wear and tear from the extra use. If they don\'t, the car owners won\'t rent them out.

As I have explained to you there is a fundamental price difference simply because the batteries are in cars where the replacement batteries will not be priced competitively. I know I\'m not going to stress my battery in any way I can avoid.

The assumption that the car batteries won\'t be priced competitively is just an assumption. It\'s a very modular function, and trying to push the price up by making the modules less interchangable is going to run into a lot of resistance.
It\'s not an assumption, it\'s an observation. The battery in my car is $22,000. Do the math and you will find that\'s very expensive compared to the utility having their own batteries.


I did concede that there might be a limited market for such a market which depends on the highest prices paid at peak times. I have seen marginal rates exceed 10x price of normal electricity. However that will be some time off since even that portion of the market would be profitable for wholly owned batteries as shown by the many installations that are designed to do just that.

If we all drove electric cars, the power network would need to be 30% bigger to cover the power they consumed. This power is going to be consumed by the 5% of cars that are on the road at any one time. The power that the other 95% could feed back into the net is thus about six times the peak capacity of the net. It seems nuts to have the power network invest in providing that capacity separately.

I can\'t believe you are touting that nonsense. Car charging mostly will be done off peak so that it simply uses excess capacity lying fallow. The resulting higher utilization of the existing grid may well result in overall lower electricity prices.

If the energy is mostly coming from renewable sources, charging will mostly be done when the power is available. \"Off-peak\" refers back to the days when most of the power came from fixed capacity generating plants which weren\'t fully loaded at \"off-peak\" times.
The reason charging from renewable resources is needed is because the supply is not matched to the demand, not enough at peak usage times, too much off peak. Cars can charge at off peak demand times when excess supply is available without any increase in the grid capacity. You can\'t say cars need to charge when there is a generation surplus and also claim the power network has to be expanded to accommodate EV charging.


Your numbers are nonsense, made up from thin air. The discharge rate of auto batteries is much higher than the rate they can feed the power line unless expensive equipment is installed... very expensive equipment.

But the fact that cars are parked for 95% of the time means that there will be a lot of them connected to the grid. They can be charged a lot faster than they are discharged while being driven, but that does take expensive equipment. Home chargers, or trickle charging sockets in parking garages will be able to cope with just as much current discharging as they will when charging, and the current can be spread over a lot of cars.
Except that neither the cars nor the charging equipment support the reverse flow and neither are likely to do so in the future. You post made up numbers that you can\'t support. Then claim the network has to grow to accommodate EV charging.

The charging rate at Tesla superchargers is limited by the battery. Even that causes higher rate of wear and should be limited to required use. That brings us back to the issues of wearing out a very expensive battery.


> You are being foolishly alarmist.

No alarms, just facts. It is ignoring the facts that is foolish.


Homes are only wired for a total of about 50 kW. Anything above that will require major infrastructure changes in addition to the charge/discharge equipment. What you are talking about would be like having a Tesla supercharger in every home.

No, it isn\'t. This is a ridiculous misconception.
Actually, I have talked previously how the one impact to electric distribution may be that as homes add charging equipment it may present a higher than typical load to the local distribution network. If every other home in a neighborhood adds kW of charging equipment running continuously at the same time (such as at night) it can present the local distribution network with heavier than anticipated loads and require upgrades.


Ain\'t gonna happen.

Of course not. And there\'s absolutely no reason why it might need to happen.
I agree. There is no need for powering the grid from EVs.


Vanadium flow batteries seem likely to do a better job of grid storage than the lithium ion batteries designed for cars, but the famous South Australian battery storage supplied by Tesla was just a bunch of Tesla car batteries - they were being produced in volume, and vanadium flow batteries aren\'t - yet.

Yup, and they are still there working with very little accompaniment because of the expense. Currently it is only cost effective for the peak time arbitrage and the very few moments when they are needed to prevent black outs and brownouts. The costs need to come down considerably for them to be wide spread. Batteries in autos will remain the most expensive form of battery power available.

About half the capacity of the Tesla battery bank in South Australia is tied up in very short term phase management of the grid. It has replaced a lot of more old-fashioned gear designed tp do the same job, and is making a lot more money out of it than it does from buying excess power when it is cheap and selling it back when it worth more. That\'s still worth doing and more batteries have been bought to do more of the same work - about half as much again so far. There\'s room for pumped hydro storage on South Australia - at least one of them to pump sea-water.

https://arena.gov.au/blog/south-australia-pumped-hydro/

and there seems to be 1 Gwatt of it in the pipe-line.

The idea of a market selling electrical storage in the form of auto batteries requires there being a premium paid for the service at a price higher than the actual cost of the wear on the battery. Much like many market, there has to be a significant profit motive to the car owner (with the key word being \"significant\") and it would be more profitable for the utilities to simply own the capacity themselves.

If the car battery isn\'t being used, it isn\'t doing anything for you. If you can get money out of it while the car is parked on the charger, that\'s a win.

You keep talking about the battery sitting fallow. The WHOLE CAR is sitting fallow and people are very happy with that because they don\'t want the cars worn out.

Batteries are easy to replace.
Not sure about \"easy\", but \"cheap\", absolutely not!


But you failed to see that aspect of the issue claiming everything is for sale, in essence. I don\'t dispute the fact that this is true, I dispute the willingness of a auto owner to put wear on the most expensive part of the car without a sizable profit which the utility would be better off putting in their own pockets.

Batteries are replaceable, and the wear would be paid for.

Only if the amount pays for the higher replacement cost of auto batteries. Price a new engine for your car and tell me if it would be worth wearing it out to power a generator?

Car engines aren\'t all that modular. The engine has to fit into the body of your car. Batteries are a whole lot more more flexible.
Lol!!! Engines are so modular they are often used in many models of cars and even sold to other makers. Batteries can also be modular, but there is nothing about that which makes them cheap. If you have a Leaf, you are going to buy the replacement battery from Nissan, not Tesla and not from a third party.


It would be the most expensive generator power source you can imagine. Same with the overpriced auto batteries.

The lead-acid batteries that go into regular cars are lot easier to replace than the engine, and a lot more interchangeable. There\'s a very competitive market for them.
Yup, because they are not an integrated part of the car like a propulsion battery. There is zero market for third party batteries presently and there is none anticipated.


How many boats do you see in driveways that ARE in use? Answer: NONE.

Boats aren\'t used as often as cars - that is the nature of boats. That DOESN\'T mean they are NEVER used. I have an aircraft that spends MOST of its time on the ground; this year, do to COVID, it only spent 125 hours actually in the air (out of about 6,000). But if you drive by my airport you will see it tied down, day after day.

Flyguy gets something right for once. I\'m amazed.

Only because it is much like something he already has taken a position on, owning an airplane which gets relatively little use. Otherwise he would have a hard time seeing this, much like Larkin.

I wish most boats were never used. They seem to be getting a lot of use this weekend for sure. 80° and sunny today with lots of boats out of the driveway here.

I\'m neutral. My inner suburb of Sydney is largely boat free. I can see one sail-boat and one speed-boat out on Sydney Harbour from our balcony, and they make the view marginally more interesting. Occasionally we see sailing dinghies racing on the other side of the harbour, but they are bit far away for their antics to make much sense.

Sail boats are sea going for the most part. If you aren\'t near the coast you won\'t often find enough wind to sail. Here there are a handful of days when there is enough wind to move a small sail boat and those are mostly when it is cold. It\'s about 200 miles to the Atlantic but only 100 miles to the Chesapeake Bay. It would be better if we were on the bay.

I grew up on the north west coast of Tasmania. Small boat sailing wasn\'t popular, because strong winds could blow up dangerously rapidly.

My younger brother planned to sail back from England at one point, but he and his friends didn\'t get away as early as the should have, and nearly drowned in an autumn gale off Plymouth - they got towed back to safety by a passing French trawler, and gave up on the idea.
--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:36:59 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:50:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 2:06:23 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:50:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:59:58 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:25:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
<snip>

You continue to make the same fallacious claims showing you fail to understand the material issues.

But you can\'t be bothered to say which claim is fallacious, or why.

I have explained several times so far. If you can\'t figure that out, it\'s on you.
You have pointed out that you don\'t like the claims. That doesn\'t make them fallacious.

Car batteries cost a premium because they part of a car and the car dealers have no incentive to sell replacements at a good price... captive market.

They may be \"part of the car\" but it\'s going to be difficult to make them different enough that the same battery isn\'t going to be used in a range of different cars.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Every car maker will have totally different battery modules, the replaceable unit. They will have no incentive to offer good prices and will charge a heavy premium to anyone silly enough to wear out their battery. Then on top of that, there is no way to extract the power from the battery. For an auto maker to support that, there needs to be something in it for them other than increased manufacturing costs and warranty claims.
Every car could have totally different battery modules. That doesn\'t mean that they have to. With internal combustion engines - which are much more difficult to connect to the drive train - some manufacturers share engines.

Customers aren\'t going to be happy to get stuck with a bizarre, single-sourced battery module, so this is an approach which has an obvious down-side.

> > > The car owner will be very concerned about this potential huge cost and want to see serious compensation.

Anybody silly enough to own a car designed to let them get ripped off whenever they need a new battery pack probably wouldn\'t be to concerned.

If there is a \"potential huge cost\".

What part on a car is not very overpriced compared to something you buy separate.
The lead-acid battery?

>That\'s why after market parts are a large industry. But it won\'t happen for batteries because they are so expensive and a huge share of the auto cost..

Only if the customers are spectacularly gullible, and if the regulators have been thoroughly captured. If the power network has an interest in cars having easily replaceable and interchangable batteries, they may end up lobbying for legislation to make thus compulsory.

Batteries are consumables. While they may presently be treated as capital that depreciates, anyone building an installation will realize that they wear with use like other consumables. So it will be less expensive for the utilities to simply buy their own batteries than to pay the inflated prices for the use of auto batteries.

If they have to pay an inflated price. You seem to be a bit neurotic about the issue, and would probably demand an inflated price. Less anxious car owners might be less rapacious.

My neuroses aside, anyone will be very concerned once they understand the battery is a consumable. They will look into the replacement cost and see just how expensive it will be. Once they understand that the utility will have to pay those costs and then pay a profit on top. Clearly this is more expensive than just owning the batteries unless it is a matter of some fraction of a percent of the time they are needed. So yes, there could be a tiny share of the market where this would work, but considering the obstacles in initiating such a program (mostly auto manufacturer participation and the large expense of bi-directional power transfer device) it won\'t get off the ground.
Why do bidirectional power transfer devices have to be expensive? The domestic solar power market in Australia has taken to buying a battery to stick on the wall as well as the solar panels to go on the roof. The bidirectional power transfer devices that take power from the roof and puts it into the battery when the sun is shining, and feeds it out from the battery into the house clearly aren\'t prohibitively expensive.

Then on top of it all, as you have pointed out, there are other technologies that will likely serve the power utility industry at a better cost structure than auto batteries. So this market is unlikely to develop very much before it becomes obsolete.

Batteries haven\'t developed much in the past century or so. Vanadium flow batteries do seem to be better suited to the job, but the advantages aren\'t huge, and seem to be wiped out by the economies of scale vis a vis car batteries at the moment.

Of course they have. Lithium ion batteries did not exist in practical form until about 20 years ago. Any new technology will have to fight the economies of scale. Doesn\'t mean it won\'t happen. Even within Li-ion batteries there are different formulations optimized for different features. Heck, there is a company using repurposed lead-acid batteries removed from high reliability service to power backup systems for commercial facilities.

There are many other options than trying to redirect autos into becoming backup batteries.
True. But having a pile of batteries in parked cars that could potentially deliver six times as much power as the grid for a few hours makes them an interesting resource, and one that the grid wouldn\'t have to tie up much capital to exploit.

Then there is the issue of looming battery shortage as EVs take off. Every lithium based battery on the market will end up costing a premium because of shortages of a few key raw materials.

Raw materials get found when you look harder for them. People are still finding new oil fields. Today\'s paper had a puff for rare earth mineral mines in Australia - the ores are there, but as long as China manipulated the market to bankrupt anybody who tried to compete, they didn\'t get exploited.. Paint China as a strategic threat and the mine owners can get subsidised ..

The fact that they can be new sources of minerals doesn\'t mean they won\'t be in short supply as the demand ramps up exponentially. Tesla is projecting 50% growth each year for the next decade. That\'s a lot of batteries.
And if people take Elon Musk\'s extrapolations seriously, they will dig the mines to supply the market.
Rare earth minerals are not really comparable because they aren\'t remotely rare, rather they are abundant. The US has huge supplies as do many sources.

China has done their damage by lowering prices and driving others out of the market. Now they are looking for the return with higher prices. If others restart production China won\'t repeat the low price and unlimited supply gimmick because their resources are finite and they need to conserve them.
This will favor other technologies for the applications that can tolerate them (size, weight) while auto use can\'t. This will further accent the cost disadvantage of \"idle\" uses of auto batteries.

But won\'t wipe out the fact that can batteries aren\'t do anything useful when the car is parked.
Which is an irrelevant fact.
So if a fair market is establishes where informed sellers can offer their batteries to informed buyers, I think the high cost of auto batteries will make them much less useful (more expensive) than simply the utilities owning the batteries they use for grid peak supply and arbitrage.

The car owners have to own the batteries anyway. The question is whether the power network will pay enough to cover the wear and tear from the extra use. If they don\'t, the car owners won\'t rent them out.

As I have explained to you there is a fundamental price difference simply because the batteries are in cars where the replacement batteries will not be priced competitively. I know I\'m not going to stress my battery in any way I can avoid.

The assumption that the car batteries won\'t be priced competitively is just an assumption. It\'s a very modular function, and trying to push the price up by making the modules less interchangable is going to run into a lot of resistance.
It\'s not an assumption, it\'s an observation. The battery in my car is $22,000. Do the math and you will find that\'s very expensive compared to the utility having their own batteries.
I did concede that there might be a limited market for such a market which depends on the highest prices paid at peak times. I have seen marginal rates exceed 10x price of normal electricity. However that will be some time off since even that portion of the market would be profitable for wholly owned batteries as shown by the many installations that are designed to do just that.

If we all drove electric cars, the power network would need to be 30% bigger to cover the power they consumed. This power is going to be consumed by the 5% of cars that are on the road at any one time. The power that the other 95% could feed back into the net is thus about six times the peak capacity of the net. It seems nuts to have the power network invest in providing that capacity separately.

I can\'t believe you are touting that nonsense. Car charging mostly will be done off peak so that it simply uses excess capacity lying fallow. The resulting higher utilization of the existing grid may well result in overall lower electricity prices.

If the energy is mostly coming from renewable sources, charging will mostly be done when the power is available. \"Off-peak\" refers back to the days when most of the power came from fixed capacity generating plants which weren\'t fully loaded at \"off-peak\" times.

The reason charging from renewable resources is needed is because the supply is not matched to the demand, not enough at peak usage times, too much off peak. Cars can charge at off peak demand times when excess supply is available without any increase in the grid capacity. You can\'t say cars need to charge when there is a generation surplus and also claim the power network has to be expanded to accommodate EV charging.
Of course you can. The power network is already complaining that renewable power is being generated in the wrong locations for the current grid to move it to where it is being consumed. Change the location and timing of power consumption and the power transfer network is always having to have to be changed. Or the people who own the power network will tell you this, and charge you extra for wanting something different..

Your numbers are nonsense, made up from thin air. The discharge rate of auto batteries is much higher than the rate they can feed the power line unless expensive equipment is installed... very expensive equipment.

But the fact that cars are parked for 95% of the time means that there will be a lot of them connected to the grid. They can be charged a lot faster than they are discharged while being driven, but that does take expensive equipment. Home chargers, or trickle charging sockets in parking garages will be able to cope with just as much current discharging as they will when charging, and the current can be spread over a lot of cars.

Except that neither the cars nor the charging equipment support the reverse flow and neither are likely to do so in the future.
They may not be able to do so at the moment. The gear in the car supports charging the battery when the car is parked, and discharging it (to turn the wheels) when the car is in motion. Tesla didn\'t have any trouble turning car batteries into grid storage in South Australia\'s 128 MW grid storage unit, so it isn\'t difficult, expensive or technically demanding.

> You post made up numbers that you can\'t support. Then claim the network has to grow to accommodate EV charging.

All the numbers I\'ve been posting are the ones I can remember from the last time we had this debate, when I did dig out links to support them. They aren\'t remotely controversial.

> The charging rate at Tesla superchargers is limited by the battery. Even that causes higher rate of wear and should be limited to required use. That brings us back to the issues of wearing out a very expensive battery.

The argument is about cars parked for most of the day, and attached to chargers that can take hours to charge them back up to capacity. The Telsa super-charger is designed to serve people who need their cars recharged in the middle of a trip, not at either end of a daily commute.

You are being foolishly alarmist.

No alarms, just facts. It is ignoring the facts that is foolish.
And you do seem remarkably willing to ignore facts that don\'t suit your argument.

Homes are only wired for a total of about 50 kW. Anything above that will require major infrastructure changes in addition to the charge/discharge equipment. What you are talking about would be like having a Tesla supercharger in every home.

No, it isn\'t. This is a ridiculous misconception.

Actually, I have talked previously how the one impact to electric distribution may be that as homes add charging equipment it may present a higher than typical load to the local distribution network. If every other home in a neighborhood adds kW of charging equipment running continuously at the same time (such as at night) it can present the local distribution network with heavier than anticipated loads and require upgrades.
Peak load used to be when people were cooking dinner. Now it is during hot days when the air-conditioning is running flat out.

Trickle charging a car battery over six to eight hours isn\'t going to be a problem. The power grid has dealt with people building more houses, and putting in electric powered devices - most recently air conditioners - for it\'s whole existence. They will be able to cope.

Ain\'t gonna happen.

Of course not. And there\'s absolutely no reason why it might need to happen.

I agree. There is no need for powering the grid from EVs.
There\'s no need but it might be a cheap and convenient form of sort term storage.

Vanadium flow batteries seem likely to do a better job of grid storage than the lithium ion batteries designed for cars, but the famous South Australian battery storage supplied by Tesla was just a bunch of Tesla car batteries - they were being produced in volume, and vanadium flow batteries aren\'t - yet.

Yup, and they are still there working with very little accompaniment because of the expense. Currently it is only cost effective for the peak time arbitrage and the very few moments when they are needed to prevent black outs and brownouts. The costs need to come down considerably for them to be wide spread. Batteries in autos will remain the most expensive form of battery power available.

About half the capacity of the Tesla battery bank in South Australia is tied up in very short term phase management of the grid. It has replaced a lot of more old-fashioned gear designed tp do the same job, and is making a lot more money out of it than it does from buying excess power when it is cheap and selling it back when it worth more. That\'s still worth doing and more batteries have been bought to do more of the same work - about half as much again so far. There\'s room for pumped hydro storage on South Australia - at least one of them to pump sea-water.

https://arena.gov.au/blog/south-australia-pumped-hydro/

and there seems to be 1 Gwatt of it in the pipe-line.

The idea of a market selling electrical storage in the form of auto batteries requires there being a premium paid for the service at a price higher than the actual cost of the wear on the battery. Much like many market, there has to be a significant profit motive to the car owner (with the key word being \"significant\") and it would be more profitable for the utilities to simply own the capacity themselves.

If the car battery isn\'t being used, it isn\'t doing anything for you. If you can get money out of it while the car is parked on the charger, that\'s a win.

You keep talking about the battery sitting fallow. The WHOLE CAR is sitting fallow and people are very happy with that because they don\'t want the cars worn out.

Batteries are easy to replace.

Not sure about \"easy\", but \"cheap\", absolutely not!
You seem to think that electric car manufacturers will be able to get away with making replacement batteries something that only they can supply, at prices they can dictate. This doesn\'t seem to be happening - nobody is bitching about it yet - and if there\'s any public interest in stopping it from happening it won\'t ever hapen.

But you failed to see that aspect of the issue claiming everything is for sale, in essence. I don\'t dispute the fact that this is true, I dispute the willingness of a auto owner to put wear on the most expensive part of the car without a sizable profit which the utility would be better off putting in their own pockets.

Batteries are replaceable, and the wear would be paid for.

Only if the amount pays for the higher replacement cost of auto batteries. Price a new engine for your car and tell me if it would be worth wearing it out to power a generator?

Car engines aren\'t all that modular. The engine has to fit into the body of your car. Batteries are a whole lot more more flexible.

Lol!!! Engines are so modular they are often used in many models of cars and even sold to other makers.
So even they can be items of commerce in a moderatrely free market.

> Batteries can also be modular, but there is nothing about that which makes them cheap. If you have a Leaf, you are going to buy the replacement battery from Nissan, not Tesla and not from a third party.

So far. It would be lot easier for a third party to make a replacement battery than it would be for them to make a replacement engine. Think about ink cartridges for printers.

It would be the most expensive generator power source you can imagine.. Same with the overpriced auto batteries.

The lead-acid batteries that go into regular cars are lot easier to replace than the engine, and a lot more interchangeable. There\'s a very competitive market for them.

Yup, because they are not an integrated part of the car like a propulsion battery. There is zero market for third party batteries presently and there is none anticipated.
None that you know about.
The connection that integrates the battery into the car is a electrical, not mechanical. It\'s a whole lot more flexible than a drive shaft.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
R

Ricketty C

Guest
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:11:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:36:59 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:50:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 2:06:23 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:50:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:59:58 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:25:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

snip

You continue to make the same fallacious claims showing you fail to understand the material issues.

But you can\'t be bothered to say which claim is fallacious, or why.

I have explained several times so far. If you can\'t figure that out, it\'s on you.

You have pointed out that you don\'t like the claims. That doesn\'t make them fallacious.
I have explained very clearly why the claims were not valid. There\'s really nothing else to say about it. You can deny all you want, but I\'ve done nothing other than explain it to you in excruciating detail which you simply ignore and certainly don\'t refute with any evidence or even clear explanation.


Car batteries cost a premium because they part of a car and the car dealers have no incentive to sell replacements at a good price... captive market.

They may be \"part of the car\" but it\'s going to be difficult to make them different enough that the same battery isn\'t going to be used in a range of different cars.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Every car maker will have totally different battery modules, the replaceable unit. They will have no incentive to offer good prices and will charge a heavy premium to anyone silly enough to wear out their battery. Then on top of that, there is no way to extract the power from the battery. For an auto maker to support that, there needs to be something in it for them other than increased manufacturing costs and warranty claims.

Every car could have totally different battery modules. That doesn\'t mean that they have to. With internal combustion engines - which are much more difficult to connect to the drive train - some manufacturers share engines.
You are so far from accurate. People have been swapping out engines in cars as long as cars have been made. Amateurs, not just manufacturers. Doing that with battery packs means you have to assure so many electronic features are compatible. No one is supporting that and they have no incentive to support that. Car makers don\'t want interchangeable parts. They want captive markets.


> Customers aren\'t going to be happy to get stuck with a bizarre, single-sourced battery module, so this is an approach which has an obvious down-side..

LOL!!! Customers don\'t want to worry with replacing batteries, period!!! That\'s why they will be overly concerned with wearing out the most expensive part of their EVs and won\'t touch this arrangement unless it vastly over compensates them for the risk.


The car owner will be very concerned about this potential huge cost and want to see serious compensation.

Anybody silly enough to own a car designed to let them get ripped off whenever they need a new battery pack probably wouldn\'t be to concerned.
LOL you are really reaching now. In essence you just made the claim that everyone who has bought an EV to date is too stupid to understand the huge cost and risk of loaning out their batteries... not to mention the fact that they don\'t have the option because their cars can\'t do it.


If there is a \"potential huge cost\".

What part on a car is not very overpriced compared to something you buy separate.

The lead-acid battery?
Good! You found something. Go with that. So let\'s have everyone pool their starter batteries and support the grid with them! I bet there\'s a lot more kWHr in lead acid than in lithium ion presently!


That\'s why after market parts are a large industry. But it won\'t happen for batteries because they are so expensive and a huge share of the auto cost.

Only if the customers are spectacularly gullible, and if the regulators have been thoroughly captured. If the power network has an interest in cars having easily replaceable and interchangable batteries, they may end up lobbying for legislation to make thus compulsory.
You make such silly arguments. People buy EVs to drive. The batteries in Teslas will likely outlast most of the car. No one buying the cars even knows what it costs to replace them. I only know because I met someone who had to replace hers because of mechanical damage. $22,000!!! You seem to ignore this huge number. I have no doubt this is a huge multiplier over the cost of a grid support battery per kWhr. There\'s no incentive for a car company to sell parts cheap, that\'s why they don\'t.


Batteries are consumables. While they may presently be treated as capital that depreciates, anyone building an installation will realize that they wear with use like other consumables. So it will be less expensive for the utilities to simply buy their own batteries than to pay the inflated prices for the use of auto batteries.

If they have to pay an inflated price. You seem to be a bit neurotic about the issue, and would probably demand an inflated price. Less anxious car owners might be less rapacious.

My neuroses aside, anyone will be very concerned once they understand the battery is a consumable. They will look into the replacement cost and see just how expensive it will be. Once they understand that the utility will have to pay those costs and then pay a profit on top. Clearly this is more expensive than just owning the batteries unless it is a matter of some fraction of a percent of the time they are needed. So yes, there could be a tiny share of the market where this would work, but considering the obstacles in initiating such a program (mostly auto manufacturer participation and the large expense of bi-directional power transfer device) it won\'t get off the ground.

Why do bidirectional power transfer devices have to be expensive? The domestic solar power market in Australia has taken to buying a battery to stick on the wall as well as the solar panels to go on the roof. The bidirectional power transfer devices that take power from the roof and puts it into the battery when the sun is shining, and feeds it out from the battery into the house clearly aren\'t prohibitively expensive.
They don\'t have to be expensive, but they will be higher power than the 8 kW interface that comes with the car. You tout your 95% of cars not being driven, but that doesn\'t mean they are connected to anything. While it is possible to connect anywhere there is a connection, very few places have connections. Then the connections have to be designed to run power in both directions. It\'s no small undertaking to design, build and maintain what would be a huge infrastructure so parked cars can reverse charge where ever they are.


Then on top of it all, as you have pointed out, there are other technologies that will likely serve the power utility industry at a better cost structure than auto batteries. So this market is unlikely to develop very much before it becomes obsolete.

Batteries haven\'t developed much in the past century or so. Vanadium flow batteries do seem to be better suited to the job, but the advantages aren\'t huge, and seem to be wiped out by the economies of scale vis a vis car batteries at the moment.

Of course they have. Lithium ion batteries did not exist in practical form until about 20 years ago. Any new technology will have to fight the economies of scale. Doesn\'t mean it won\'t happen. Even within Li-ion batteries there are different formulations optimized for different features. Heck, there is a company using repurposed lead-acid batteries removed from high reliability service to power backup systems for commercial facilities.

There are many other options than trying to redirect autos into becoming backup batteries.

True. But having a pile of batteries in parked cars that could potentially deliver six times as much power as the grid for a few hours makes them an interesting resource, and one that the grid wouldn\'t have to tie up much capital to exploit.
Just the opposite. You talk about some huge number of kW available. Please put a number on this instead of a multiplier. Then we can do a bit of your math for you and see what it will cost to install all the grid connections you seem to think will be available.


Then there is the issue of looming battery shortage as EVs take off.. Every lithium based battery on the market will end up costing a premium because of shortages of a few key raw materials.

Raw materials get found when you look harder for them. People are still finding new oil fields. Today\'s paper had a puff for rare earth mineral mines in Australia - the ores are there, but as long as China manipulated the market to bankrupt anybody who tried to compete, they didn\'t get exploited. Paint China as a strategic threat and the mine owners can get subsidised .

The fact that they can be new sources of minerals doesn\'t mean they won\'t be in short supply as the demand ramps up exponentially. Tesla is projecting 50% growth each year for the next decade. That\'s a lot of batteries.

And if people take Elon Musk\'s extrapolations seriously, they will dig the mines to supply the market.
That\'s a big IF. That still doesn\'t mean the materials won\'t be in short supply with high prices. It\'s a much tougher sell to get someone to invest billions to expand an industry to recoup the same profits. Investors will want to see higher rates of returns, meaning higher prices which only result from short supply. The thing they fear the most is a lot of expansion and then oversupply and a collapse of prices.


Rare earth minerals are not really comparable because they aren\'t remotely rare, rather they are abundant. The US has huge supplies as do many sources.

China has done their damage by lowering prices and driving others out of the market. Now they are looking for the return with higher prices. If others restart production China won\'t repeat the low price and unlimited supply gimmick because their resources are finite and they need to conserve them.
This will favor other technologies for the applications that can tolerate them (size, weight) while auto use can\'t. This will further accent the cost disadvantage of \"idle\" uses of auto batteries.

But won\'t wipe out the fact that can batteries aren\'t do anything useful when the car is parked.
Which is an irrelevant fact.
So if a fair market is establishes where informed sellers can offer their batteries to informed buyers, I think the high cost of auto batteries will make them much less useful (more expensive) than simply the utilities owning the batteries they use for grid peak supply and arbitrage.

The car owners have to own the batteries anyway. The question is whether the power network will pay enough to cover the wear and tear from the extra use. If they don\'t, the car owners won\'t rent them out.

As I have explained to you there is a fundamental price difference simply because the batteries are in cars where the replacement batteries will not be priced competitively. I know I\'m not going to stress my battery in any way I can avoid.

The assumption that the car batteries won\'t be priced competitively is just an assumption. It\'s a very modular function, and trying to push the price up by making the modules less interchangable is going to run into a lot of resistance.
It\'s not an assumption, it\'s an observation. The battery in my car is $22,000. Do the math and you will find that\'s very expensive compared to the utility having their own batteries.
I did concede that there might be a limited market for such a market which depends on the highest prices paid at peak times. I have seen marginal rates exceed 10x price of normal electricity. However that will be some time off since even that portion of the market would be profitable for wholly owned batteries as shown by the many installations that are designed to do just that.

If we all drove electric cars, the power network would need to be 30% bigger to cover the power they consumed. This power is going to be consumed by the 5% of cars that are on the road at any one time. The power that the other 95% could feed back into the net is thus about six times the peak capacity of the net. It seems nuts to have the power network invest in providing that capacity separately.

I can\'t believe you are touting that nonsense. Car charging mostly will be done off peak so that it simply uses excess capacity lying fallow. The resulting higher utilization of the existing grid may well result in overall lower electricity prices.

If the energy is mostly coming from renewable sources, charging will mostly be done when the power is available. \"Off-peak\" refers back to the days when most of the power came from fixed capacity generating plants which weren\'t fully loaded at \"off-peak\" times.

The reason charging from renewable resources is needed is because the supply is not matched to the demand, not enough at peak usage times, too much off peak. Cars can charge at off peak demand times when excess supply is available without any increase in the grid capacity. You can\'t say cars need to charge when there is a generation surplus and also claim the power network has to be expanded to accommodate EV charging.

Of course you can. The power network is already complaining that renewable power is being generated in the wrong locations for the current grid to move it to where it is being consumed. Change the location and timing of power consumption and the power transfer network is always having to have to be changed. Or the people who own the power network will tell you this, and charge you extra for wanting something different..
That doesn\'t change the fact that cars can be charged easily without expanding any aspect of the grid other than possibly local residential distribution in areas where peak capacity is already in use at night, like here with the heat pumps kicking in the electric coil backup in the winter nights.

If for no other reason, the primary charging time will remain PM when people aren\'t using their cars. Trying to charge while shopping is not effective and charging at work requires businesses to support it. Much easier at home at night.


Your numbers are nonsense, made up from thin air. The discharge rate of auto batteries is much higher than the rate they can feed the power line unless expensive equipment is installed... very expensive equipment.

But the fact that cars are parked for 95% of the time means that there will be a lot of them connected to the grid. They can be charged a lot faster than they are discharged while being driven, but that does take expensive equipment. Home chargers, or trickle charging sockets in parking garages will be able to cope with just as much current discharging as they will when charging, and the current can be spread over a lot of cars.

Except that neither the cars nor the charging equipment support the reverse flow and neither are likely to do so in the future.

They may not be able to do so at the moment. The gear in the car supports charging the battery when the car is parked, and discharging it (to turn the wheels) when the car is in motion. Tesla didn\'t have any trouble turning car batteries into grid storage in South Australia\'s 128 MW grid storage unit, so it isn\'t difficult, expensive or technically demanding.
Who said it isn\'t expensive??? The two paths of energy flow in the car are separate and distinct. Powering the grid requires totally different electronics from what is presently in the car. Added cost when the goal is to lower the cost of EVs to that of ICE or less.

You just like butting your head against walls don\'t you?


You post made up numbers that you can\'t support. Then claim the network has to grow to accommodate EV charging.

All the numbers I\'ve been posting are the ones I can remember from the last time we had this debate, when I did dig out links to support them. They aren\'t remotely controversial.
I\'d like to know how many kW you think EVs can generate. You keep touting the 6x current generating capacity. How many kW? I\'d like to see how this number came about. I guarantee there is some BS when it is compared to the rest of your argument.


The charging rate at Tesla superchargers is limited by the battery. Even that causes higher rate of wear and should be limited to required use. That brings us back to the issues of wearing out a very expensive battery.

The argument is about cars parked for most of the day, and attached to chargers that can take hours to charge them back up to capacity. The Telsa super-charger is designed to serve people who need their cars recharged in the middle of a trip, not at either end of a daily commute.
Ok, remember that you said this. So far you have only waved hands about the when of using the charge and when of charging the car back up. I\'ll want to see something detailed that doesn\'t ignore the fact that very few autos will be participating.


You are being foolishly alarmist.

No alarms, just facts. It is ignoring the facts that is foolish.

And you do seem remarkably willing to ignore facts that don\'t suit your argument.
You mean the ones you trot out that I can shoot down? Yes.


Homes are only wired for a total of about 50 kW. Anything above that will require major infrastructure changes in addition to the charge/discharge equipment. What you are talking about would be like having a Tesla supercharger in every home.

No, it isn\'t. This is a ridiculous misconception.

Actually, I have talked previously how the one impact to electric distribution may be that as homes add charging equipment it may present a higher than typical load to the local distribution network. If every other home in a neighborhood adds kW of charging equipment running continuously at the same time (such as at night) it can present the local distribution network with heavier than anticipated loads and require upgrades.

Peak load used to be when people were cooking dinner. Now it is during hot days when the air-conditioning is running flat out.
It\'s both. Summer loads are 3 pm to 7 pm according to my utility. The other 8 months of the year it is 6 to 9 am and 5 to 8 pm. They back this up with rate structures.


> Trickle charging a car battery over six to eight hours isn\'t going to be a problem. The power grid has dealt with people building more houses, and putting in electric powered devices - most recently air conditioners - for it\'s whole existence. They will be able to cope.

\"Trickle\" charging won\'t accomplish much in 6 hours. Charging an EV at a useful rate takes as much CONTINUOUS power as the heat coils in my furnace which only runs sporadically on the coldest winter nights. That\'s the point.. One night the four homes on a common transformer may not charge at all. Another night they may all four be charging eight cars. This may not happen often, but the system has to be able to supply those extra kW compared to the loads they used to supply. In some neighborhoods this will require upgrades of the local distribution. Otherwise no other part of the grid will be remotely stressed.


Ain\'t gonna happen.

Of course not. And there\'s absolutely no reason why it might need to happen.

I agree. There is no need for powering the grid from EVs.

There\'s no need but it might be a cheap and convenient form of sort term storage.
Not at all convenient with the range issues EVs have and not cheap with the high costs of replacing auto batteries compared to the industrial rates utilities can get on the large installations they would be buying.


Vanadium flow batteries seem likely to do a better job of grid storage than the lithium ion batteries designed for cars, but the famous South Australian battery storage supplied by Tesla was just a bunch of Tesla car batteries - they were being produced in volume, and vanadium flow batteries aren\'t - yet.

Yup, and they are still there working with very little accompaniment because of the expense. Currently it is only cost effective for the peak time arbitrage and the very few moments when they are needed to prevent black outs and brownouts. The costs need to come down considerably for them to be wide spread. Batteries in autos will remain the most expensive form of battery power available.

About half the capacity of the Tesla battery bank in South Australia is tied up in very short term phase management of the grid. It has replaced a lot of more old-fashioned gear designed tp do the same job, and is making a lot more money out of it than it does from buying excess power when it is cheap and selling it back when it worth more. That\'s still worth doing and more batteries have been bought to do more of the same work - about half as much again so far. There\'s room for pumped hydro storage on South Australia - at least one of them to pump sea-water.

https://arena.gov.au/blog/south-australia-pumped-hydro/

and there seems to be 1 Gwatt of it in the pipe-line.

The idea of a market selling electrical storage in the form of auto batteries requires there being a premium paid for the service at a price higher than the actual cost of the wear on the battery. Much like many market, there has to be a significant profit motive to the car owner (with the key word being \"significant\") and it would be more profitable for the utilities to simply own the capacity themselves.

If the car battery isn\'t being used, it isn\'t doing anything for you. If you can get money out of it while the car is parked on the charger, that\'s a win.

You keep talking about the battery sitting fallow. The WHOLE CAR is sitting fallow and people are very happy with that because they don\'t want the cars worn out.

Batteries are easy to replace.

Not sure about \"easy\", but \"cheap\", absolutely not!

You seem to think that electric car manufacturers will be able to get away with making replacement batteries something that only they can supply, at prices they can dictate. This doesn\'t seem to be happening - nobody is bitching about it yet - and if there\'s any public interest in stopping it from happening it won\'t ever hapen.
You seem to fail to understand that batteries are the primary issue in EVs. Tesla will be the leading EV maker for some years because of their battery technology more than anything else. No EV maker is going to give up their lead in battery technology by giving away the family recipe or by using inferior technology in their cars so others can supply batteries... unless they have to because they are also ran EV makers. Basement dwellers that sell few cars.

When batteries last as long as the rest of the car, why would consumers care about the replacement cost? Why would a EV owner want to risk that to get a few pennies from the utilities? It is just a silly idea on all practical counts.


But you failed to see that aspect of the issue claiming everything is for sale, in essence. I don\'t dispute the fact that this is true, I dispute the willingness of a auto owner to put wear on the most expensive part of the car without a sizable profit which the utility would be better off putting in their own pockets.

Batteries are replaceable, and the wear would be paid for.

Only if the amount pays for the higher replacement cost of auto batteries. Price a new engine for your car and tell me if it would be worth wearing it out to power a generator?

Car engines aren\'t all that modular. The engine has to fit into the body of your car. Batteries are a whole lot more more flexible.

Lol!!! Engines are so modular they are often used in many models of cars and even sold to other makers.

So even they can be items of commerce in a moderatrely free market.
Sure, but batteries are harder to incorporate. But mostly the companies with advanced battery technology won\'t be supplying others because it is their competitive advantage. Actually Tesla has said repeatedly they would sell drive lines to others. But rest assured they will charge a pretty penny for them.


Batteries can also be modular, but there is nothing about that which makes them cheap. If you have a Leaf, you are going to buy the replacement battery from Nissan, not Tesla and not from a third party.

So far. It would be lot easier for a third party to make a replacement battery than it would be for them to make a replacement engine. Think about ink cartridges for printers.
Think about door knobs.


It would be the most expensive generator power source you can imagine. Same with the overpriced auto batteries.

The lead-acid batteries that go into regular cars are lot easier to replace than the engine, and a lot more interchangeable. There\'s a very competitive market for them.

Yup, because they are not an integrated part of the car like a propulsion battery. There is zero market for third party batteries presently and there is none anticipated.

None that you know about.
The connection that integrates the battery into the car is a electrical, not mechanical. It\'s a whole lot more flexible than a drive shaft.
Just the opposite, literally. There are so many more complications in supplying power from a battery than there are in connecting a motor to a car. It\'s even more simple than a drive shaft. It\'s the motor mounts and the bolt pattern at the transmission. The rest is pretty straight forward.

I think you don\'t actually know much about cars, EV or otherwise.

As usual, you ignore the facts and make up your own without support. You ignore important issues and the simple fact of human concerns with new technology. The bottom line is this ain\'t happening. People pay too much for an EV to loan out the battery to the utility who won\'t compensate them enough because it costs the utility more than it saves them.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:44:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:11:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:36:59 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:50:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 2:06:23 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:50:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 3:59:58 AM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:25:43 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

snip

You continue to make the same fallacious claims showing you fail to understand the material issues.

But you can\'t be bothered to say which claim is fallacious, or why.

I have explained several times so far. If you can\'t figure that out, it\'s on you.

You have pointed out that you don\'t like the claims. That doesn\'t make them fallacious.

I have explained very clearly why the claims were not valid.
You have made it perfectly clear that you are incapable of thinking about why the proposition might be attractive.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
K

ke...@kjwdesigns.com

Guest
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 23:44:12 UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
....
Except that neither the cars nor the charging equipment support the reverse flow and neither are likely to do so in the future.

....
Actually the DC path within the car (for fast charging) could probably support bidirectional operation with no physical changes or additional hardware.

Agreed, the external equipment would need to support the backward flow but the technology for that is getting much cheaper and more efficient.

As far as I know, none of the normal production vehicles support V2G operation although a couple of the car manufacturers are experimenting (Ford and Nissan). Nissan in particular seems to be getting serious.

Mitsubishi and Toyota seem to be promoting Vehicle to Home (V2H) to reduce loading on power distribution networks.

kw
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top