Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
- Thread starter JoeS
- Start date
Help Support Mitsubishi i-MiEV Forum:
PV1
Well-known member
To meet these claims, new charge connectors would need to be developed. I calculated that a true near-300 mile range, highway driving, would require at least a 75 kWh battery in a Chevy Bolt. To dump 75 kWh in 5 minutes, a 900 kW charge rate is required, which is 2,400 amps at 375 volts. Current 50 kW quick chargers push a theoretical max of 140 amps, although I've never seen more than 125 amps.
10 minute charge is way more likely, only requiring 1,200 amps or 450 kW. I'd hate to lug that cable.
10 minute charge is way more likely, only requiring 1,200 amps or 450 kW. I'd hate to lug that cable.
Is that really needed, as that's still faster than the time it takes to go to the bathroom and then grab a cup of coffee? For example, starting from a low SoC in the Tesla M3, one can presently pump in around 100 miles' worth of charge in ten minutes. Edit: I fixed this number as I had previously misread a graph posted on TMC.PV1 said:
Anyone have any scary math examples to add to this thread, as we're focusing more on the solutions rather than the problem itself?
The connectors and cables aren't quite so scary as voltage rises to keep the amps down. Here's a 440V 500A (220 kW) marine umbilical.
http://generalmarineproductsinc.com/ProductSheet.pdf
I have a friend working on a quite novel DC connector for buses and ships.
No wonder Porsche is pursuing 800V EV architecture...
http://generalmarineproductsinc.com/ProductSheet.pdf
I have a friend working on a quite novel DC connector for buses and ships.
No wonder Porsche is pursuing 800V EV architecture...
I would love to see a big jump in battery life, capacity per pound/weight, use of easily available materials, faster charge times.
An EV driving friend just retired last year from a career as an automotive engineer.
He thinks we are approaching the limits of the laws of physics with currently available batteries before they
are unstable and at risk of blowing up.
He sees room for incremental improvements, such that ten years from batteries might be 10% better.
Will be interesting to see if any disruptive technology lands on the actually for sale shelf, at reasonable cost.
Thanks and good health, Weogo
An EV driving friend just retired last year from a career as an automotive engineer.
He thinks we are approaching the limits of the laws of physics with currently available batteries before they
are unstable and at risk of blowing up.
He sees room for incremental improvements, such that ten years from batteries might be 10% better.
Will be interesting to see if any disruptive technology lands on the actually for sale shelf, at reasonable cost.
Thanks and good health, Weogo
"Submerged in deep water" makes me think of the Titanic - In 50 years I'm thinking it may be more like ankle or knee deep in some places. In 150 years, maybe ten or 15 feet. "Deep water" . . . . even as bad as things look now, I doubt that's very likely . . . . certainly not in just 50 yearsabledrew said:
The current IPCC "High End Estimate" for 2099 is 3 feet (revised upward from their 2007 estimate of 2 feet) . . . . though 6 to 9 feet is "physically plausible". I guess it all depends on your definition of 'deep water' . . . . but the shallow end of a swimming pool is far deeper than what's currently projected
Don
PV1
Well-known member
So, with all the fanfare over COVID-19, what hasn't been making the news, for good or bad reasons, is the environmental benefit of shutting down much of China's manufacturing. While it's still too early to get a clear signal, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has mostly leveled off at 414 ppm. There has been a slowdown this time of year anyway for most of the last 20 years due to Chinese New Year, but the next couple weeks will be telling if Corona had an impact and by how much.
So far, the data is hinting that March could have a lower monthly average concentration than February, which would be a first in the Mauna Loa record. With many facets of US life set to shut down next week, this could be a reality.
Data and interactive charts found here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
So far, the data is hinting that March could have a lower monthly average concentration than February, which would be a first in the Mauna Loa record. With many facets of US life set to shut down next week, this could be a reality.
Data and interactive charts found here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
PV1
Well-known member
Sadly, CO2 concentration is still climbing and is currently at 415.43 ppm, so a 2-month long 10-15% reduction in global emissions didn't make a measurable difference on the curve.
Combine that with the fact that most environmental progress made hasn't kept up with total emissions, ever feel like you're fighting a structure fire with a spray bottle?
Combine that with the fact that most environmental progress made hasn't kept up with total emissions, ever feel like you're fighting a structure fire with a spray bottle?
PV1
Well-known member
And away it goes
I'm old enough to remember when 350ppm was the target max -
The good news is that the very recent curtailment of vehicle and air travel due to the pandemic is already having measurable results. For example -
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ng-carbon-emissions-to-fall-but-not-for-long/
The good news is that the very recent curtailment of vehicle and air travel due to the pandemic is already having measurable results. For example -
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ng-carbon-emissions-to-fall-but-not-for-long/
PV1
Well-known member
Scary times on the west coast. Hope everyone is staying safe from the fires.
No wildfires in Pittsburgh, but we can see the smoke from here :shock:. It actually cooled us off about 10-15 degrees and made for some interesting sunsets. Today’s high was 69 F, last Saturday (9-12) was in the mid-80’s.
No wildfires in Pittsburgh, but we can see the smoke from here :shock:. It actually cooled us off about 10-15 degrees and made for some interesting sunsets. Today’s high was 69 F, last Saturday (9-12) was in the mid-80’s.
Nice photo. Our sun as been obscured far more for the last week. Last Wednesday when it was really dark during the day my solar panels put out only 1.4kWh for the whole day, compared to their usual 60kWh at this time of year. I cannot believe that climate disruption is even being questioned - the whole world should be mobilizing to address this issue (like we did back in the '90's to take care of the ozone hole). Future generations will be cursing us...PV1 said:
PV1
Well-known member
My panels are surprisingly productive, making around 54 kWh for each of the past two days when I would expect about 40 kWh (when the sun does shine through, it looks like it did during our solar eclipse a few years ago, sunny but dim).
The large solar project I was a part of last year (pictures below) has exceeded production estimates considerably. I guess panels laying flat out-perform angled panels considerably in cloudy weather. What I’d give just to have one section of that array at my house; power output in the rain is higher than my system is capable of producing at full output.
A friend of mine is in San Luis Obispo and reports a lot of smoke, and from what I gather, he’s upwind of the fires.
The large solar project I was a part of last year (pictures below) has exceeded production estimates considerably. I guess panels laying flat out-perform angled panels considerably in cloudy weather. What I’d give just to have one section of that array at my house; power output in the rain is higher than my system is capable of producing at full output.
A friend of mine is in San Luis Obispo and reports a lot of smoke, and from what I gather, he’s upwind of the fires.
Attachments
I had noticed that, as my flat panels on the boat always seemed to put out more (percentage-wise) than my angled panels at home.PV1 said:
Yay, this morning our AQI = 0, what a difference when compared to the horrors of last week! But it's only temporary, as the wind is going to shift again...
Find your ownL https://www.iqair.com
PV1
Well-known member
Crazy. And it's sad that, as a whole, we're nowhere near even starting to tackle the problem. Iceland did just get a carbon capture plant up and running, but on the stats provided, they could've provided a $10,000 incentive for about 1,200 EVs for the same cost. With how clean Iceland's power grid is, this probably would've been a smarter investment unless they manage to make this scale.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/09/worlds-biggest-plant-to-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-rock-opens-in-iceland-orca
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/09/worlds-biggest-plant-to-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-rock-opens-in-iceland-orca
Some questions after seeing Tim's photos,
So in an angled versus "flat" PV installation, might the flat version capture some energy during the morning and afternoon while the angled version is in shadow?
Once the Sun comes up to the front side then the angled version dominates at Noon with a higher peak maximum output due to the pointing angle, but on average thru the day a flat version might be acceptable even though it creates a lower peak but longer duration output?
So in an angled versus "flat" PV installation, might the flat version capture some energy during the morning and afternoon while the angled version is in shadow?
Once the Sun comes up to the front side then the angled version dominates at Noon with a higher peak maximum output due to the pointing angle, but on average thru the day a flat version might be acceptable even though it creates a lower peak but longer duration output?
