Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>>>>>> Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
>>>>>>> warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
>>>>>>> switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
>>>>>>> deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"
>>>>>> Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
>>>>>> be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
>>>>>> rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
>>>>>> a single decent interstate ?
>>>>>> It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.
>>>>>> It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.
>>>>> Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
>>>>> truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.
>>>> That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.
>>> One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.
>> Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is the amount of
>> time it takes to recharge them and return them to where you put them into cars.
>> That approach of centralised charging would just make that problem much worse
>> and you would need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.
> I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.
There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they
are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them.
And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.
> Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution"
> nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way.
I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach
would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
> I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods.
You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes
too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar.
> I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated
> assumptions about how we get from here to there?
Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would
be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
> That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as I have addressed the topic.
Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt the problem, how the batterys are swapped.
>>>>> Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would
>>>>> probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard
>>>>> arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in,
>>>>> in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in.
>>>> The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.
>>> Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there wouldn't
>>> be enough light to charge more batteries than each station could use?
>> No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which
>> they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate.
> Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even
> four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day?
Using solar, yep.
> It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence to support the logic,
Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much
area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many
batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ?
> which of course would be begging the question itself.
Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.
> Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate
> to existing energy production an distribution methods?
Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar.
Just more mindless silly shit.
>>> Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day.
>> They cant be with solar charging.
> What if water was superheated and then stored in
> thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling
> at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators.
There just isnt enough solar to charge that many batterys that way.
> Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of
> batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to
> charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce?
Nope.
> You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>> Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but
>>> charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies.
>> If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt
>> any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more
>> sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations.
> Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their
> oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges.
Nope, nothing like. Its completely trivial to distribute the
charging to the battery swapping stations when you are
recharging them from the grid. Its nothing like that with
oil refinerys which dont work at the level of gas stations.
It makes sense to distribute gasoline from refinerys instead of
trying to have a refinery at each gas station, but makes no sense
at all to be moving the batterys to a central recharge station when
its so easy to have a recharger at each battery swapping station
when the recharging is done from the grid.
> For that matter you sound like one of those cynics complaining when the automobile
> was invented that they would never be able to replace the horse and buggy.
Then you need to get your ears tested, BAD.
>>> Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project.
>> And wouldnt be viable either.
> Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling
> down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio.
Wrong again. YOU proposed the silly impractical scheme.
YOU get to show how it can be done viably.
THATS how it works.
Just more mindless silly shit that misses the point utterly.
>>> Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day
>>> to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24
>>> hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it.
>> You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer
>> than the discharging.
> If we replace the subject and predicate of your argument with X and Y we see how weak it is.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.
> Maybe you could learn of a way to say what your trying to say with more strength.
Or maybe you could go and shove your head up a dead bear's arse.
> How you say it has as much strength as the descriptive/explaination
> that; refining crude into gas takes longer than burning it in an engine
> therefore it is impractical and may be impossible.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.
>>>> Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.
>>> Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread.
>> Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours.
> The urls were in reference to boiling water and the further possibility
> of storing highly heated water in thermoses to run steam engines at night.
Like I said, misses the point utterly.
> Steam engines which turn generators, this without solar panels or batteries.
Like I said, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead.
> Sorry about the logic ribbing
Its actually desperate wanking.
> but I come from alt.philosophy and I am going into normal mode now loc.
Wrong again. You've actually got your dick in your hand and will end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
