- Joined
- 22 May 2020
- Posts
- 1,276
- Reactions
- 681
Aside from your references to KPMG and the IEA, here are the areas you fall down:
I have challenged you on your understanding of the above, and your responses are not enlightening.
- Off-peak charging is unlikely to be a problem for years to come
- Daytime charging is currently happening and @Value Collector demonstrates how
- AEMO's ISP shows pathways to increased capacity - you seem oblivious to this
- It is improbable that the uptick in EV ownership over time will come as a surprise so network operators will have years to adapt
- KPMG's assumptions cannot be regarded as definitive future events
- You were unaware that AEMO has reported on EV penetration and has it under regular review, rendering your subsequent ideas on "planning" poorly based
- You are unaware of how quickly capacity can be added to the grid
- Your points on CST, offshore wind and batteries were barely relevant
- Your thoughts on regulating EV take-up were not substantiated
- Your ideas about taxes are not in keeping with industry preferences and did not reflect a "user pays" principle
I presume that more handy people than I could drop a Tesla battery in to the Arnage and modify it as the bloke did in the video above that @basilio posted. It was a bloody Range Rover, so I guess it's possible.
I love my Arnage.
gg
Nope, I actually agree with what they're saying if we assume that their conditions hold - I would have said it long before you posted the report if you'd asked.
You do not understand what the reports are actually saying, which is what I have been trying to explain to you the whole time:
The reports don't say what you think they do. I'm not saying that what the report says is wrong, I'm saying that what you think it says is wrong.
Yep, we're all wrong and you're right.
Lol
Once again: The report doesn't say what you think it does. Their calculations are accurate. Their assumptions are not. You clearly do not understand the distinction.
More lol.
Let me ask this again chronos: Tell me exactly what you think the report says and why it says it.
I am reliably informed by @qldfrog that this shows @Smurf1976 converting his Phantom (not the comic character):I presume that more handy people than I could drop a Tesla battery in to the Arnage and modify it as the bloke did in the video above that @basilio posted. It was a bloody Range Rover, so I guess it's possible.
I love my Arnage.
gg
Nope, I actually agree with what they're saying if we assume that their conditions hold - I would have said it long before you posted the report if you'd asked.
You do not understand what the reports are actually saying, which is what I have been trying to explain to you the whole time:
The reports don't say what you think they do. I'm not saying that what the report says is wrong, I'm saying that what you think it says is wrong.
Yep, we're all wrong and you're right.
Lol
Once again: The report doesn't say what you think it does. Their calculations are accurate. Their assumptions are not. You clearly do not understand the distinction.
More lol.
Let me ask this again chronos: Tell me exactly what you think the report says and why it says it.
That is incredible. Well not incredible really. It works.I am reliably informed by @qldfrog that this shows @Smurf1976 converting his Phantom (not the comic character):
(I believe there are subtitles for Victorians.)
I haven't fallen down at all. The KPMG report is clear: ~50% increase in electrical consumption and ~120% in installed capacity for a 100% EV uptake. The IEA report is clear: 640TWh of global electrical consumption under their NPS scenario and 1110TWh of global electrical consumption under their EV30@30 scenario. I don't think that you understand these figures.
1. You said that you don't work on guesses and you're just guessing.
2. Value Collector has a great hobby with his Tesla and with solar panels.
3. I want to see a full working report on EV uptake scenarios in Australia.
4. Nothing wrong with forward planning.
5. No they can't, however they are an indicator.
6. AMEO better have it under control. However incompetence often leads to promotion in government agencies.
7. I am not unaware at all. Onshore wind and roof-top solar can be added quickly. Offshore wind and CST aren't as cheap or as easy to add capacity into the grid.
8. They are completely relevant. You just like making guesses.
9. EV regulation will happen in my opinion. You might not think so.
10. The government are not going to just let their fuel taxes vanish. They will tax EVs to plug the government revenue shortfall. Again, you might not think so.
I have posted the reports, make of them or interpret them as you wish. You are not challenging me, you are challenging the reports. If you can't understand them, well I am sorry. You need to start educating yourself.
Thanks @basilio . Well, well, I never thought I'd be converted to Electric Cars.For GG
Rolls Royce electric conversions
Once again I will point out that KPMG’s numbers are for the year 2046, your numbers were based on today.
——————
however more importantly let me point out how ridiculous your original calculation was.
you simply converted the BTU’s in gasoline to the BTU’s in Electricity.
however This means that 1 gallon Of gasoline is equal to 36.34 KWH of electricity.
My car can go nearly 300km of 36KWH, where as the average petrol car will on do 40km on a gallon.
——————
So you were essentially saying EV’s will use 90 KWH / 100km instead of only 12 KWH.
So your calculation means we need 7.5 times more electricity than we actually would need in reality to replace gasoline, that is why we were saying you were wrong.
12 KWH per 100,..... not 90 KWH as you claimed. Your calculation wasn’t rough, it was wrong by a factor of 7.5, not to mention you didn’t allow at all for utilization Of off-peak or incremental growth over time as EV’s slowly phase in.
View attachment 106193
I'll run all this past a few mates who are "handy". I'm more cerebral.Yep, there is actually a market for Tesla's batteries after cars get written off after accidents etc.
Check out this video of these guys pulling out the Battery modules out of a Tesla Model S battery pack.
(when the guy in the Range Rover video said the Range Rover a 8 Tesla batteries under the hood, he meant 8 of the battery modules, not 8 whole Tesla battery packs)
Thanks @basilio .This is why GG loves his Arange.
https://www.autotrader.com/car-video/ownership-report-1-year-used-bentley-arnage-270554
By the year 2046, populations will grow. If anything, more cars will be on the road.
Don't worry about my rough and quick numbers, it was a way to see what was the amount of energy involved,
Exactly, finally you understand.
Part of the reason KPMG is saying that by 2046 there will need to be additional capacity is because of population growth, not just more cars but all more Air cons, Heaters, toasters, hot water systems and TV's.
And, this population needs more infrastructure regardless, even if we stay 100% committed to Petrol and diesel, we would need more upgrades refineries and import terminals, more petrol stations, more tanker trucks, more pipelines, more underground tanks etc etc etc.
Thats what we were pointing out, you massively over estimated.
and then tried to claim KPMG agreed which they didn't, because their numbers are for 2046, and as I said include growth in all electrical usage, which would need to be catered for either way, and growth in total cars that need to be catered for (even if the growth was in petrol cars)
it will take us to the end of the century and dramatically slow the EV uptake; if we pegged EV uptake with the lifecycle of crude oil infrastructure.
It's a bit less than China consumes in 2 months.Maybe ask Smurf if 1110TWh of electrical consumption is nothing.
Not sure if English is your first language
Whatever our disagreements may be here; perhaps we can agree that our government must start building robust policy to address the electrical consumption needs for EVs
Put another way, between 2018 and 2019 China added enough capacity to meet an additional 570TWh.It's a bit less than China consumes in 2 months.
So it's something, but not a lot given that it's 10 years away.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?