Posted on 05/23/2021 3:43:09 AM PDT by Libloather
I just grabbed a photo to illustrate the expanse of a copper mine.
% efficiency was not part of my calc. 9 qBTU for all cars delivered so 26ish qBTU at point of generation already reflects the inherent inefficiencies including battery charge/discharge inefficiencies. That 65% is strictly Ohm’s Law. Line loss. Until there are room temp superconductors Ohm’s law will lead to those losses. Generating where it is used gets around this because wires would be short, but many industrial scale efficiencies of scale go away.
Nat gas and petro and coal cost money to transport, but there is no appreciable energy loss in the transportation other than the power to physically get it there. 65% of their cost is not transportation. Been a long time since I was involved in trucking but a load NY to LA costs what? 4 to 6 K? That works out to around $1.20 a gallon in the worst possible scenario. What is US average gas today? $2.85?
NY to LA is less than 50% loss on the most inefficient modality for gas.
Check out Morenci, or Bingham Canyon in Utah (not too far from Salt Lake City). Chuquicamata in Chile is really enormous.
Your reply is doubletalk and smokescreen, and Ive lost respect for your opinion. PE in EE and computing here. There is nowhere near 65 % resistive loss in the system. Not even controversial. Google it. Dont throw around Ohms law and “l calced”.
Depending on the definitions transmission losses are 2 to 15%. The reason transmission is that efficient is that those very economics cause the power transmission companies to jack up the transmisission voltage (E) so high. The current term (I) in ohms law is inversely lower for the same power transmitted (EI) . Transmission power loss ( I squared R) goes down by the inverse square of the voltage, at the same line resistance and power transmitted. since I=E/R.
To convince you of this without explaining it, I cited the very source you yourself presented, the 65% figure was explained in the source of the data cited in your chart using with the note I quoted, but now you disavow your own your own data source.
I hate to admit it but in reviewing your info, I was full of crap. Mea culpa. I ran the calcs and your numbers are right. 345,000 volts 3 phase AC coast to coast over copper or aluminum high tension with both resistive and coronal losses are in the 10-15% ballpark. I should have read your response more carefully and not been an ass.
Co-Gen power-generation unit aka kind of a Generac on Steroid's for your home. Natural Gas is prevalent in much of the country underground to your homes, distribution, check. Add said generator and liquid cool the engine and create a heat exchanger loop for the hot water heater, and if you want the turbocharger. A heat pump powered from the generator with a thermal mass (liquid) constant temp for the condenser vs it sitting outside for colder climates. It totally powers your home and charges your EV.
My engines of choice are the Erickson Engine or the Liquid Piston engine, although their low thermal losses would take my liquid cooling/turbo scenario and possibly make it less feasible .
BTW I am very pro-Nuclear.
Keep an Eye on Canada, they are way ahead of us with Gen 4 Small/Micro Reactors. To many companies and different approaches to mention here, that's another thread.
How about.......At home!............................
Well, Elon to the rescue
A major but overlooked Musk endeavor is the sale of solar systems to charge EV’s at home.
It’s under control
Gonna need a longer cord.........................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.