Why large scale implementation of EV vehicles isn’t possible

Why large scale implementation of EV vehicles isn’t possible

The truck can drive 500 miles on a single charge, which was higher than some analysts had expected. That may mean that, in terms of range, the vehicle could meet the needs of long haul truck drivers. 

“There apparently were eight charging ports, and with a 100kw battery behind each that would be 800Kw.  To deliver 90% of capacity in 30 minutes you’d have to deliver approximately 1.5 Megawatts plus losses; batteries are 80-85% charge efficient during the bulk phase until they reach about 80% of capacity (at which point their efficiency goes down materially) and the electronics to control the charge have loss too — probably in the neighborhood of 10%.  So we have a 76%, more or less, efficiency on the charge rate which means we must deliver almost exactly 2 Megawatts to the truck for that 30 minutes.

I note that 500 kilowatts has to be dissipated somewhere for that entire period in the truck or the batteries, controller equipment or both catch on fire.  This is a serious problem all on its own that I am not convinced Musk can solve.

Then there is the economic issue.  Musk claims he’s going to “guarantee” a 7c/kwh price for all that power.  How he thinks he can do this in a commercial environment where demand meters are used by law is beyond me; the first time a trucker needs to be charged at 4:00 PM on a 95 degree day there will be a very large surprise delivered in the form of the bill.  Never mind that the trucker (or company) will be paying for the 25% losses too; you get to pay for the entire megawatt-hour even though you only keep 75% of it; the rest heats the air.  Apparently Musk thinks that he can simply build “battery packs” to store energy and thus charge them when the power is cheaper.  Ok, that’s fine and well, except (1) now you have another 25% loss, stacked (you take one when you charge the pack when “cheaper” and then when the truck is charged) and for each truck’s worth of capacity in said battery bank he gets to buy another battery that would otherwise go in the truck, plus another 25% to cover the losses when the truck is charged, plus the electronics to charge, discharge and control that “banked” pack.  Somehow this all is going to “work out” to 7 cents/kwh.

Let me make this clear: No it won’t.  If Tesla guarantees that rate to the buyer then Tesla will absorb billions in losses and the more trucks are on the road and the more miles they drive the more money the company loses.

But it pales beside what Musk claims to be able to do when it comes to charging these trucks in the first place.  The average house in the United States consumes about 12 megawatt/hours of energy over the entire year, or about a megawatt-hour per month.  Musk intends to suck twice as much energy from the electrical grid as your house consumes in a month in 30 minutes.

To put some perspective on this that means that one such truck charging will place approximately the same load on the grid as 1,400 houses.  One truck.

What happens when 20 of them show up at the truck stop?  You know they do that today — they fill their diesel tanks and they’re on their way, although they typically only fill said tanks half as often as these batteries will require charging.

So it won’t be 20 of them it will be 40 since their range-before-refueling is about half of common OTR trucks now.  Now we’re talking about the load of roughly 57,000 additional houses that will be instantly presented to the grid and which the grid must be able to support — per truck stop or terminal!

Who’s going to pay to build all that out and with what will they do so?”

Full Article

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

In this ‘study’ alcohol moodiness seems to ‘prove’ that the sort of alcohol ingested (liquor, wine, beer) influences the state of mind of the person.


” Main outcome measures Positive and negative emotions associated with consumption of different alcoholic beverages (energised, relaxed, sexy, confident, tired, aggressive, ill, restless and tearful) over the past 12 months in different settings.

Results Alcoholic beverages vary in the types of emotions individuals report they elicit, with spirits more frequently eliciting emotional changes of all types. Overall 29.8% of respondents reported feeling aggressive when drinking spirits, compared with only 7.1% when drinking red wine (p<0.001). Women more frequently reported feeling all emotions when drinking alcohol, apart from feelings of aggression. Respondents’ level of alcohol dependency was strongly associated with feeling all emotions, with the likelihood of aggression being significantly higher in possible dependent versus low risk drinkers (adjusted OR 6.4; 95% CI 5.79 to 7.09; p<0.001). The odds of feeling the majority of positive and negative emotions also remained highest among dependent drinkers irrespective of setting.”


Evidently the more one consumes in alcohol quantity, be it liquor/wine/beer/etc the influence will be more influential however to write and get accepted a paper stating that the sort of beverage influences the mood is beyond absurd.

The use of ‘report/reported’ in this paper should have been more than enough to have it refused for publication, how inebriated where the participants?

Unfortunately it’s not only with alcohol where self reporting has been used as a valid measurement.

I invite anyone to do a word search ‘report’ in the fields such as psychology, sociologically, psychiatry, air pollution or whichever field which can’t be empirically proven

Going by my personal experience self reporting in those fields is overwhelming



Why current EV vehicles will not replace ICE vehicles

Why current EV vehicles will not replace ICE vehicles

Simple. There is no national grid that can nor will supply the energy needed to replace the energy currently supplied by hydrocarbons. Not daily, not hourly.

I’ll keep it extremely simple to be comprehensible. To transport the equivalent of hydrocarbon energy content to electricity you need very high capacity 24/7 power plants. You need to have high capacity transport lines in the 1000 kV range which need multiple transformers to  step down the energy to the level it won’t blow up your car.

You need the cables, either from aluminum or copper to take up the charge. No national grid has this. So you need to replace the whole infrastructure down to the connection of your domicile to the grid.

The grid needs to be able to compensate for the wildly varying supply now that so called green power plants come on line. Solar doesn’t work at night, wind farms don’t work when there is either to much or to little wind.

But even if they would work 24/7 (current levels are at best 20% of rated capacity in the northern hemisphere) still no city has the infrastructure to cope with a projected demand of 100% EV vehicles, ships, airplanes.

In fact even the very big conglomerates with the most modern infrastructure won’t be able to supply all energy needs including vehicles without melting the transport lines.

On purpose i refrained from introducing the calculations of how much energy is generated using hydrocarbons and how there is noway anyone will be able to replace it by green energy nor realistically transmit it to the end-user.

The problem here is that those who profess this replacement live in large cities, with relatively few EV vehicles and electricity supplied by fossil fuels without realizing that the the rest of the world doesn’t have an infrastructure even capable to keep a refrigerator running without fail let alone charge an EV vehicle.

And don’t get me started on long haul trucks. Only a very small part of the world has flat straight roads with high capacity power lines.

Or transatlantic freight-ships. Where are you going to charge your 200.000 tonnes capacity container-ship? The Panama canal?




France’s electricity to remain cheap

There are artificial self-imposed targets, plans and even laws – and then there’s reality, if ‘keeping the lights on’ is a priority. Scrapping nuclear capacity implies either having something convincing to replace it with, or risking the wrath of the voters if/when things start to go wrong. The French environment minister Nicolas Hulot says the […]

via France delays reduction of nuclear power — Tallbloke’s Talkshop

The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization

The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization

Anyone with a classic education has read “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”

Those same persons will undoubtedly recognize the uncanny resemblance between that civilization and the reasons for its demise as what is happening now with is called the “Western Civilization”

Now granted most of the the latter is positioned geographically to the east of the Greenwich Meridian but for the sake of the argument i’ll use Western.

As with the Roman empire the Western ‘Empire’ suffers from the slow decay of  the cohesion once uniting them albeit for different reasons. Still the mechanism is alike as is the result.

In my opinion the basic problem in the Western civilization is the extreme rationalization of cultural differences. Worse still the rationalization of core values once fought for to the point they cease to exist.

Anyone with an open mind can easily see how since the Renaissance Europe became a beacon of all that  made the difference between humanity as being more than any given primate colony and the rest of the world’s population.

Take for example the African continent, I’ve written about it’s failures Africa’s forever wars which to this day still cause untold suffering. Than we have the Arabic Peninsula and the Middle East where war, pillage, rape and overall inhumanity are still rife.

No way no how is it possible to integrate those violent and intolerant cultures into the dying Western Culture (where children are indoctrinated there exist untold genders making the DSM definition of Gender Confusion the law of the land) without the Western Culture being overrun by barbaric tribes as happened to the Roman Empire.

The disease of over rationalization which plaques Western culture is no match for the cultures which live by the sword, which laugh at our weak convictions using them to their own goal:



Defending the car industry because it is too stupid to defend itself.

Defending the car industry because it is too stupid to defend itself.

Here’s what you need to know.

  1. Dieselgate was about higher than allowed NOx emissions caused by car manufacturers rigging their engines to cheat emissions tests.
  2. EPA imagines NOx as a precursor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
  3. It is claimed that PM2.5 causes millions of deaths every year.
  4. Scare Pollution debunks the claim that PM2.5 kills anyone. So NOx kills no one.
  5. So there is nothing to the extra NOx emissions and this study except a lot of junk science.

The media release is here

It must be said that none nowhere ever  managed to show a causal link between pm2.5 and health/longevity , at the very best one could show that in fact pm2.5 has no effect on health except when taken in extreme doses as in smoking (which counts for 20.000 times the pm2.5 per cigarette as compared to the outside air and even than it’s impossible to pinpoint if the smokers died from cancerous/toxic substances in that smoke rather than the particulate matter).

As of today nobody can show a death certificate which claims pm2.5 as cause of death but by setting the standards of air-pollution to the level of pm2.5 all air on the whole of earth can be deemed as being polluted as long as one keeps on setting the ‘safe’ level lower and lower.

So in fact in the western world there is no notable air-pollution if one just discounts the fairytale of particulate matter as a danger to public health.

It is however a perfect system to scare people to pay exorbitant prices for energy. The most ‘green’ countries have the highest consumer prices for energy which is great for the industry. Those benefit most since all subsidies for ‘green’ energy makes for a gorgeous business model. Money for free. No wonder many jump on the bandwagon 


How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?

Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average         100,000    (41% global electricity)

Coal – China                         170,000   (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S.                               10,000    (32% U.S. electricity)

Oil                                               36,000    (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas                                4,000    (22% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass                    24,000    (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop)                              440    (< 1% global electricity)

Wind                                                 150    (2% global electricity)

Hydro – global average          1,400    (16% global electricity)

Hydro – U.S.                                     5    (6% U.S. electricity)

Nuclear – global average              90    (11%  global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Nuclear – U.S.                                0.1    (19% U.S. electricity)



Evidently Nuclear is still the least lethal form of energy production and has the advantage of stifling the CO2 hysteria by being almost emission free