Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[nzjrs]

This thread has derailed massively, pleas mods, clean it up

I disagree. It's a polite conversation related to the general theme; trade offs 'viability' of energy vs cost. I think the discussion has run its course anyway.

[hollus]

Ok, guys, don’t be silly. The big bang and hospitality units are off topic in this thread.
A token effort to stay on topic would be appreciated by all.

[Cold Fussion]

Have they yet studied the climate change caused by removing so much energy from the wind?

One would expect in a macro system that this energy would normally have a purpose and a job to do in the self balanced cycles of nature.

What is the net effect of unbalancing this system by taking this energy out?

The mean solar polar hitting the earth is ~200 PW, the total world power consumption is ~20TW, a factor 10000 smaller. I don't think there is any danger of wind power ever de-stablising the climate.

[Just_a_fan]

Have they yet studied the climate change caused by removing so much energy from the wind?

One would expect in a macro system that this energy would normally have a purpose and a job to do in the self balanced cycles of nature.

What is the net effect of unbalancing this system by taking this energy out?

The mean solar polar hitting the earth is ~200 PW, the total world power consumption is ~20TW, a factor 10000 smaller. I don't think there is any danger of wind power ever de-stablising the climate.

It's also worth remembering that the small amount of the Sun's impinging energy that we do make use of isn't taken out of the system. The energy is still in the system and finds its way in to the atmosphere via frictional heating and other
inefficiency "losses" in the human systems. Although not strictly a closed system (the Earth radiates some of the Sun insolation back out to space, for example), we can assume that it is when considering the insolation energy that is used by humans because that energy stays within the system. Thus the energy is still available to create wind etc.

[J.A.W.]

Have they yet studied the climate change caused by removing so much energy from the wind?

One would expect in a macro system that this energy would normally have a purpose and a job to do in the self balanced cycles of nature.

What is the net effect of unbalancing this system by taking this energy out?

The mean solar polar hitting the earth is ~200 PW, the total world power consumption is ~20TW, a factor 10000 smaller. I don't think there is any danger of wind power ever de-stablising the climate.

It's also worth remembering that the small amount of the Sun's impinging energy that we do make use of isn't taken out of the system. The energy is still in the system and finds its way in to the atmosphere via frictional heating and other
inefficiency "losses" in the human systems. Although not strictly a closed system (the Earth radiates some of the Sun insolation back out to space, for example), we can assume that it is when considering the insolation energy that is used by humans because that energy stays within the system. Thus the energy is still available to create wind etc.

Sorry to ah, 'rain on your parade' - but - Chaos theory makes a mockery of such simplistic ideas.

Lorenz established decades ago that climate/weather is way too complex for any imposed 'models'
to effectively predict over extended time frames, human hubris/'magical thinking' notwithstanding.

Anyhow, back on topic, this article may be of interest to those who think direct (wireless) power
transmission per Nikola Tesla's ideas are likely needful for truly practicable EV utilisation:

https://theconversation.com/nikola-tesl ... led-158665

[Just_a_fan]

The mean solar polar hitting the earth is ~200 PW, the total world power consumption is ~20TW, a factor 10000 smaller. I don't think there is any danger of wind power ever de-stablising the climate.

It's also worth remembering that the small amount of the Sun's impinging energy that we do make use of isn't taken out of the system. The energy is still in the system and finds its way in to the atmosphere via frictional heating and other
inefficiency "losses" in the human systems. Although not strictly a closed system (the Earth radiates some of the Sun insolation back out to space, for example), we can assume that it is when considering the insolation energy that is used by humans because that energy stays within the system. Thus the energy is still available to create wind etc.

Sorry to ah, 'rain on your parade' - but - Chaos theory makes a mockery of such simplistic ideas.

Lorenz established decades ago that climate/weather is way too complex for any imposed 'models'
to effectively predict over extended time frames, human hubris/'magical thinking' notwithstanding.

Yes, all good, but the reality is that the energy being used by humans comes from two sources - the Sun and the Earth's internal heat (that includes nuclear power). That's it. It comes from nowhere else. Using one or the other doesn't alter the balance of the system because that energy was available anyway.

That's not to say that it will be manifest in exactly the same way irrespective of the method of the interaction between humans and the planet, merely that the overall effect will be broadly similar.

The total energy of a system is the total energy in the system. That is fundamental to all systems of understanding. If one suggests otherwise, then all the systems used by humans are fundamentally flawed - including Lorenz's ideas and Chaos Theory.

If the system can be adversely affected by wind turbines, then it can also be adversely affected by burning fossil fuels. Ergo, if you insist that wind turbines are bad for the system, then you must also insist that burning fossil fuels is equally as bad. So which is it? You can't have one without the other.

[DChemTech]

The mean solar polar hitting the earth is ~200 PW, the total world power consumption is ~20TW, a factor 10000 smaller. I don't think there is any danger of wind power ever de-stablising the climate.

It's also worth remembering that the small amount of the Sun's impinging energy that we do make use of isn't taken out of the system. The energy is still in the system and finds its way in to the atmosphere via frictional heating and other
inefficiency "losses" in the human systems. Although not strictly a closed system (the Earth radiates some of the Sun insolation back out to space, for example), we can assume that it is when considering the insolation energy that is used by humans because that energy stays within the system. Thus the energy is still available to create wind etc.

Sorry to ah, 'rain on your parade' - but - Chaos theory makes a mockery of such simplistic ideas.

Lorenz established decades ago that climate/weather is way too complex for any imposed 'models'
to effectively predict over extended time frames, human hubris/'magical thinking' notwithstanding.

Anyhow, back on topic, this article may be of interest to those who think direct (wireless) power
transmission per Nikola Tesla's ideas are likely needful for truly practicable EV utilisation:

https://theconversation.com/nikola-tesl ... led-158665

That's not how chaos theory works. Chaos theory means that we cannot make any accurate (specific, non-statistical) predictions about the evolution of a system sensitive to small perturbations in conditions. It doesn't mean that we cannot make predictions on the average long-term dynamics (as those are not sensitive to small, local perturbations). That's why we cannot make predictions on weather for more than a few days, but we can make predictions on climates ranging over years. It's why we cannot quantify the instantaneous realisation of the flow around a car at some particular time, but we can perfectly well determine the drag coefficient.

And, most importantly, any system is still constrained to the laws of thermodynamics. All the chaos in the world is not going to change that. If you know the amount of energy going in to a system, you know the same amount has to go out (or accumulate within the system). Sure, we cannot predict how the local distribution thereof evolves, but that's not really relevant for the question at hand. All we need to know is that the energy as such is there. The total energy balance is not affected by chaos.

[Zynerji]

It's also worth remembering that the small amount of the Sun's impinging energy that we do make use of isn't taken out of the system. The energy is still in the system and finds its way in to the atmosphere via frictional heating and other
inefficiency "losses" in the human systems. Although not strictly a closed system (the Earth radiates some of the Sun insolation back out to space, for example), we can assume that it is when considering the insolation energy that is used by humans because that energy stays within the system. Thus the energy is still available to create wind etc.

Sorry to ah, 'rain on your parade' - but - Chaos theory makes a mockery of such simplistic ideas.

Lorenz established decades ago that climate/weather is way too complex for any imposed 'models'
to effectively predict over extended time frames, human hubris/'magical thinking' notwithstanding.

Anyhow, back on topic, this article may be of interest to those who think direct (wireless) power
transmission per Nikola Tesla's ideas are likely needful for truly practicable EV utilisation:

https://theconversation.com/nikola-tesl ... led-158665

That's not how chaos theory works. Chaos theory means that we cannot make any accurate (specific, non-statistical) predictions about the evolution of a system sensitive to small perturbations in conditions. It doesn't mean that we cannot make predictions on the average long-term dynamics (as those are not sensitive to small, local perturbations). That's why we cannot make predictions on weather for more than a few days, but we can make predictions on climates ranging over years. It's why we cannot quantify the instantaneous realisation of the flow around a car at some particular time, but we can perfectly well determine the drag coefficient.

And, most importantly, any system is still constrained to the laws of thermodynamics. All the chaos in the world is not going to change that. If you know the amount of energy going in to a system, you know the same amount has to go out (or accumulate) within the system. Sure, we cannot predict how the local distribution thereof evolves, but that's not really relevant for the question at hand. All we need to know is that the energy as such is there. The total energy balance is not affected by chaos.

Where do time crystals fall into your full understanding of "energy in the system"?

Future batteries?

[Just_a_fan]

Where do time crystals fall into your full understanding of "energy in the system"?

Future batteries?

They don't break the laws of thermodynamics.

As they are at their lowest quantum energy (they are at their ground state), they're not batteries. If you add energy then they stop being time crystals.

[Zynerji]

Where do time crystals fall into your full understanding of "energy in the system"?

Future batteries?

They don't break the laws of thermodynamics.

As they are at their lowest quantum energy (they are at their ground state), they're not batteries. If you add energy then they stop being time crystals.

Love ya, buddy, but sometimes my questions are a bit rhetorical...

[J.A.W.]

It's also worth remembering that the small amount of the Sun's impinging energy that we do make use of isn't taken out of the system. The energy is still in the system and finds its way in to the atmosphere via frictional heating and other
inefficiency "losses" in the human systems. Although not strictly a closed system (the Earth radiates some of the Sun insolation back out to space, for example), we can assume that it is when considering the insolation energy that is used by humans because that energy stays within the system. Thus the energy is still available to create wind etc.

Sorry to ah, 'rain on your parade' - but - Chaos theory makes a mockery of such simplistic ideas.

Lorenz established decades ago that climate/weather is way too complex for any imposed 'models'
to effectively predict over extended time frames, human hubris/'magical thinking' notwithstanding.

Anyhow, back on topic, this article may be of interest to those who think direct (wireless) power
transmission per Nikola Tesla's ideas are likely needful for truly practicable EV utilisation:

https://theconversation.com/nikola-tesl ... led-158665

That's not how chaos theory works. Chaos theory means that we cannot make any accurate (specific, non-statistical) predictions about the evolution of a system sensitive to small perturbations in conditions. It doesn't mean that we cannot make predictions on the average long-term dynamics (as those are not sensitive to small, local perturbations). That's why we cannot make predictions on weather for more than a few days, but we can make predictions on climates ranging over years. It's why we cannot quantify the instantaneous realisation of the flow around a car at some particular time, but we can perfectly well determine the drag coefficient.

And, most importantly, any system is still constrained to the laws of thermodynamics. All the chaos in the world is not going to change that. If you know the amount of energy going in to a system, you know the same amount has to go out (or accumulate within the system). Sure, we cannot predict how the local distribution thereof evolves, but that's not really relevant for the question at hand. All we need to know is that the energy as such is there. The total energy balance is not affected by chaos.

Actually, its seems you've fallen in to the 'smoothing' trap that so many 'models' rely on, since the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood (& thereby ignored/dismissed), so to claim that "balance" exists sans "chaos" - is 'bogus'.

& I note you've managed to studiously ignore the cited/linked matter, too...

[Andres125sx]

the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood

Agree, but that´s the reason we should try to not affect that complex balance. But looks like your reasoning is the opposite

[J.A.W.]

the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood

Agree, but that´s the reason we should try to not affect that complex balance. But looks like your reasoning is the opposite

Hardly, since anthropogenic influence appears to be delaying a probably overdue slide back into
the regular-recent geo-status of the Earth as being in 'ice-age' climate, ironic really, esp' since while
superconductors might do well in the cold, batteries & renewables, generally don't.

The nuclear testing done ~60 years ago in near space - excited the van Allen belts 'all to hell',
when what was expected/'modelled' was a 'clearance' so Apollo space-farers could transit safely,
yet even if 'its all done & dusted' long since - no humans in 1/2 a century have gone there,
& why is that so?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/ ... e/12588828

[nzjrs]

Hardly, since anthropogenic influence appears to be delaying a probably overdue slide back into
the regular-recent geo-status of the Earth as being in 'ice-age' climate, ironic really, esp' since while
superconductors might do well in the cold, batteries & renewables, generally don't.

The nuclear testing done ~60 years ago in near space - excited the van Allen belts 'all to hell',
when what was expected/'modelled' was a 'clearance' so Apollo space-farers could transit safely,
yet even if 'its all done & dusted' long since - no humans in 1/2 a century have gone there,
& why is that so?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/ ... e/12588828

Whoa. Literally no idea what the underlying ideas, connecting hypothesis, or consistent intellectual principles you are trying to express here is.

Models are good/bad? small perturbation can/can-not move a large system? physical processes low order effects do / do-not dominate? it's simple/complicated so we can/can-never know anything?

[henry]

the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood

Agree, but that´s the reason we should try to not affect that complex balance. But looks like your reasoning is the opposite

Hardly, since anthropogenic influence appears to be delaying a probably overdue slide back into
the regular-recent geo-status of the Earth as being in 'ice-age' climate, ironic really, esp' since while
superconductors might do well in the cold, batteries & renewables, generally don't.

We seem to have over-achieved, perhaps we need to take our foot off the gas.