On Jul 26, 12:35 pm, "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>>>>>> 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.
>
This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could
be smaller, to meet the demands of space in cities and allow swap
stations to be in as many places as gas stations are now, if the racks
were just trucked in and out.
> And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.
>
That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the
needed solar power. The company that is getting ready to attempt to
power Albuquerque New Mexico, with 4 square miles of mirrors, claims
that it would take a couple hundred spuare miles in the desert west to
power the entire country.
>> 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 apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and
out. I believe they could be charged where they are swapped in some
types of service stations. But in others they would be trucked in and
out. Maybe you should define "viable" so we can have a criterion to
work with.
>> 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.
>
Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or 40 batteries with
the right amperage and current? At many auto stores they can
completely charge one battery in about an hour, but it gets hot. When
you say "[plain] won't work" it sounds like you have some pretty solid
evidence to back that up with. Its like your saying certainly without
a doubt it won't work now or ever. I am curious about that,
considering you strong and emotional looking language.
>> 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.
>
Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable" I can
accept that language for logic sake. Upon reading my statement of "all
hung up" I am sorry, I should have said "dogmatic about how the issue
of how to get from here to there.
>> 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.
>
When you claim 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" do you mean now or ever? Also to make such a strong claim it
seems that you would be ready to provide at least an outline of how
much energy is available and how much per space we might get from it.
Can you do that?
>> 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 ?
>
Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells.
This company in New Mexico has determined that they would only need 4
square miles of mirrors, steam engines and generators, to power
Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day.
But as for the possibility of charging 3 or 4 times as many batteries
as people could use, would the limitation be upon how much space is
present or how much is usable. And the idea that things can be trucked
around the country in very large scales is not odd. The idea wouldn't
seem strange to Walmart considering the tonage they move around the
country daily.
>> which of course would be begging the question itself.
>
> Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.
>
Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more
premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion.
Premises are supposed to support and give warrent to a conclusion.
When you correctly claim 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" you are simply assuming that
the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises and
this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion; the implied
conclusion that since the unequal times of use and charge, then there
will not be enough space to charge all these batteries on a massive
scale.
>> 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.
>
When you say not feasable do you have at least a ball park figure to
shine some light on how absurd my proposition looks in light of your
contention about my proposal?
>
> Just more mindless silly shit.
>
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is
substituted for evidence in an "argument." If we consider your
argument it would be like saying that grammar is silly, but you would
have to continue using it else your words would be nonsense. Afraid
your trapped with logic since all arguments you propose necessarily
are constructed logically.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
>>>> 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.
>
How much solar is available and how mush is usable. Please explain, is
it the amount of space required or would all these batteries use up
the energy of all available light on earth?
>> 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.
>
Oh. Well I concede that I don't know as much about this subject as you
people, but I noticed some shakee logic and responded.
>> You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet.
>
> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>
If The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position, and this sort of "reasoning"
is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position
simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself [i.e.] One
might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt
the person; then please point to where I did that so I can stop doing
that.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>>>> 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.
>
Well I concede that at some stations, that are very large for whatever
reason, could charge from the grid, but others would be trucked in, as
when the stations need to be smaller for whatever reason. I think my
reasoning behind that was that we want battery packs available in as
many places as gas is now.
>> 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.
>
OK, if you don't sound like one of them, there were people who
believed that it would never be possible to replace harses and buggies
with gas powered autos. The book I am thinking about has a vast amount
of quotes from people who were skeptical of the major inventions we
use daily now, when they were new.
>>>> 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.
>
I am not claiming that you doing a straw man on my argument but I can
honestly tell you that I never dwelled upon the idea that all
batteries must be trucked in when I made this theory up.
> YOU get to show how it can be done viably.
>
> THATS how it works.
>
I agree, but first we need a defnition of viable to satisfy the
conditions of the case.
>
> Just more mindless silly shit that misses the point utterly.
>
Same stuff you must use to present any clear idea. Its clled grammar/
rhetoric/logic
>>>> 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.
>
Whenever you present an argument in any way, is has a form. In
predicate logic, which you are using whether you know it or not, you
are using common grammar with subjects and predicates. Sometimes
argument forms can be shown to be sufficient but not necessary, but
they appear to be both.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm
>> 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.
>
I you sure you might not have missed the important point about the
strange logical move you made? You could easily remake you statement
in an airtight fashion which I would not be able to avoid instead of
dragging this superflous proof thing in front of us as a distraction.
>>>>> 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.
>
Can you clearly state the point so we can be clear. Was it a point I
or you made?
>> 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.
>
Can you explain why it makes more sense to use nukes, in what sense I
mean?
>> Sorry about the logic ribbing
>
> Its actually desperate wanking.
>
Welcome to the philosophy world.
>> 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.
But I have been arguing in alt.philosophy for many years. How could I
be wrong?
