In reply to frenchyd :
Speach. I pulled numbers from manufacturers and averaged them out. High was 4Kwh/day and low was 2. This doesn't even take into account the expected increase in demand that has been pretty constant between 7-9%. If you bothered to even try you'd realize your 0.2% was a number you once again pulled out of your ass.
and you also completely ignored the fact that you made up E36 M3 about land usage in the us. Congrats. You are officially just a bullE36 M3ter with no facts. That's what I call a troll.
In reply to bobzilla :
Really? More than half of America? Now who's making up BS?
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
As far as land vs overcrowding, look how empty many of the states are west of the Mississippi River.
Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming...... most people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere or in tiny towns, myself included.
Most people want to live in cities with amenities like easy access to healthcare, etc.
frenchyd said:
In reply to bobzilla :
Really? More than half of America? Now who's making up BS?
Since you can't be bothered to read, the US Dept of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-value-tenure/#:~:text=Agricultural%20production%20is%20a%20major,data%20on%20Major%20Land%20Uses.)
Agricultural production is a major use of land, accounting for roughly 52 percent of the U.S. land base. (See data on Major Land Uses.)
In reply to z31maniac :
Im the opposite. I'll take a couple hundred acres 40 miles away from civilization. Im fully done with people. Let me have my wife, my dogs and peace and quiet.
z31maniac said:
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
As far as land vs overcrowding, look how empty many of the states are west of the Mississippi River.
Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming...... most people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere or in tiny towns, myself included.
Most people want to live in cities with amenities like easy access to healthcare, etc.
Well said.
The northern states of the Dakota's Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Northwestern Minnesota contain only 2% of the countries population.
If you look at China and America we are both roughly the same size. Yet they have over 1 billion 200 million.+ people crowded into less than 1/3rd of the country. The other 2/3 is mountains and desert.
America could easily double its population and still have plenty of empty land.
Drive through North Western Minnesota you will see miles upon miles of usable land simply waiting for someone to farm it or use it.
I once drove from North western Minnesota through to Idaho reading a book on the freeway. Every page I'd look up to ensure no other car was on the freeway and as the Sun came up. I saw a restaurant for breakfast. That whole evening/ night maybe 3 cars passed me going the same direction and 6-7 going the opposite.
Want to see even more vacant land? Take the empire builder railroad from St Paul to Seattle.
It will make you want to open the borders and let EVERYBODY In
z31maniac said:
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
As far as land vs overcrowding, look how empty many of the states are west of the Mississippi River.
Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming...... most people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere or in tiny towns, myself included.
Most people want to live in cities with amenities like easy access to healthcare, etc.
All of those states have everything you need plus a whole lot of nature. I love the western states. Even where I live on the edge of the Mississippi there is plenty of space. Amazon can bring anything I want and set it on my porch. There are plenty of great doctors right by my house. My daughter had a minor injury on Friday. At 6pm we decided to have it looked at. By 7pm she had her x rays, a brace, a follow up appointment and we were eating dinner. In DFW we'd have been at any medical facility until early into the next day. To each their own.
In reply to frenchyd :
Space isn't the issue with letting everybody in. It's not even a consideration.
frenchyd said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to frenchyd :
Total land use of all solar and wind combined to provide all the needed power for current use is .02 of available land.
OK, so your math is a little fuzzy here, kinda like you made it up. So I checked.
2022 the average global electricity consumption was 68Twh per day... or 6.8 trillion Kwh. Figuring the average 400w panel creates at peak .25Kwh per hour, in a 12 hour day average it will produce 3Kwh per panel. to produce 6.8T Kwh you would need 2.2 trillion panels. Each panel is approximately 25sqft, or .0005 acre. So for 2.2T panels they would take up 1.3B acres. There are 36.8B land acres on earth so they would take up about 3% of the surface area of the world.
3% of the world being a large heat sink. I can't imagine that will have any detrimental impacts on climate at all.
Fun fact, approximately 11B acres are used for crops, pasutures and storage for crops and agriculture... so 1.3B acres would be over 10% of our current farmland.
SECOND fun fact: all the urban areas of the world take up approximately 3% of the land mass available. So, we know that urban areas increase temps due to their makeup of concrete and pavement, but we would literally double that with solar panels.
Actually very little of American land is actually used for anything. Especially the further north or at you go.
I mean... if you consider 52% of the country as "very little" than I guess you're right. I don't know anyone that thinks over half is "very little" though except you. Data straight from the US dept of agriculture
Speaking of fuzzy math. You really are way off. Do rooftops count? That's where most of the solar panels will be. Wind generators will add significantly. Perhaps more than solar panels. Hard to tell with so many improvements coming. Right now the standard for solar panels is 22%. 2 years ago it was barely 18% But it grows so fast it's hard to track.
Your numbers seem remarkably low. My daughters solar panels Provide enough power for her house in Florida with a pair of 2&1/2 ton air conditioners. Plus all the energy a pair of teenagers use and her husband who as an electrician has never found a electronic anything he didn't have the biggest, newest, over the top thing.
Just for information the numbers I used were direct from Elon Musk's speech today.
Let's see if ol french ignores this a third time...
In reply to racerfink :
Well he's ignored actual math, direct links to USDA and facts for literally months. Why would you expect anything different?
Please just put this thread out of its misery.
maschinenbau said:
Please just put this thread out of its misery.
If you aren't interested in the subject, why are you bothering to read it?
Did you ever think others may find the matter interesting?
In reply to frenchyd :
sure its easy to be interesting when you make E36 M3 up and completely ignore facts.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to frenchyd :
Space isn't the issue with letting everybody in. It's not even a consideration.
I'll bite, Assuming we do our due diligence prior to admission, what is the problem?
This country was founded and grew from the " Wretched refuse yearning to be free".
While not every American wants to be a farmer in North Dakota, more people in North Dakota working as farmers would improve the states GDP.
frenchyd said:
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to frenchyd :
Space isn't the issue with letting everybody in. It's not even a consideration.
I'll bite, Assuming we do our due diligence prior to admission, what is the problem?
This country was founded and grew from the " Wretched refuse yearning to be free".
While not every American wants to be a farmer in North Dakota, more people in North Dakota working as farmers would improve the states GDP.
Again, your ignorance is glaring. 77% of land in ND is already being used for cropland (40%) and grassland for grazing (37%). Add in 4% for lakes and 4% forest along with 5% wetlands (protected) and you're looking at 90% of the land in ND is actually in use for something or can't be used.
https://gf.nd.gov/wildlife/habitats/land-classification
Not sure why I bother linking and doing the math. You're just going to ignore it and make up your own numbers anyway.
In reply to bobzilla :
Do yourself a favor. Look up the average age of farmers. Do you really believe those old men wouldn't welcome help?
Then when they pass on. Who will replace them? Very few children of farmers want to stay on the farm.
Wikipedia says that North Dakota is 70,705 square miles. Using your numbers that 10% is 705 square miles. Pretty massive. Plus if it's anything like around here there is a lot of farm land laying fallow simply because the owner can't or won't farm it. The land might be suitable for vegetables or something else but without the stoop labor to work it, it's laying fallow.
That plus a farmer may have it planted by One group, harvested by another. But that patch over there is too tight for the big machinery to work.
There is a lot of fallow land west of here. Owners pay the property taxes because sooner or later that land will be developed. Apples grow very well around here. But they have to all have be picked at about the same time.
More than 50% of my apple crop winds up unharvested. That's only 11 trees. As I age out more and more will fall unharvested.
We'd gladly pay $20/ hr to have the trees harvested. We give them away to friends family and neighbors anyhow. I often bring bags of apples, apple Butter, apple sauce apple jelly, to the bus company. Simply because we have way more than we can use.
Imagine how many trees could be harvested in all the 5-10 - 30 acre plots around here that are sitting unused?
Qaaaaa
New Reader
7/28/23 10:33 a.m.
Boost_Crazy said:
In reply to frenchyd :
racerfink said:
Any word about improving the existing (or even building new) power plants to supply all the needed energy for all these superchargers?
Solar and wind in many locations backed up by batteries.
Since they would be stationary. Simple Sodium Aluma ion batteries would be a lot less expensive
Australia and China both have seriously reduced the coal fired power plants and replaced them with renewables and batteries.
I was being generous when I said It would take a fair amount of solar. The truth is it would take an incredible amount of solar to power a level 3 charger. A real rough back of the napkin calc looks like a single level 3 charger would need around 30 modules on the low end to charge a Model 3 from 20-80%. If the sun shined 24 hours a day. Since it doesn't and you need to charge your battery storage, you need to at least double that. So 60 modules. Assuming good weather during the day. The standard for solar street lighting is 3 days worth of capacity for storms. Now, you won't have cars charging all day and night, so that helps a bunch, and they won't all charge from empty. So figure, what, 25% usage depending on location? Let's assume that we don't need to plan for weather, we have enough battery storage to get us through and enough dead time to keep them charged. 60 modules per charger then? That's around 1100 sq.ft. of modules per charger. Wow.
Looking at the gas station two minutes from my office on google maps, it sits on a plot about 200 x 150, so 30k sq ft. So if you covered the whole plot with elevated panels, you could conceivably have solar to support 27 level 3 chargers, right? Right now, it's got 16 pumps. I can't remember a time I've had to wait there to fill up. And there's like, eight stations within five minutes of where I'm sitting right now. I don't think the real estate will be a problem.
parker
HalfDork
7/28/23 10:42 a.m.
Yay! Another 100 page thread coming up!
I didn't read all of what's already been spewed but I did see some posts about land use. I don't understand why solar needs to be placed on land that's not already in use. I've always thought that every single huge parking lot could have a canopy of solar panels. Providing shaded parking and generating electricity without impacting any new land. I've finally seen a bit of this in New Mexico and Arizona. I power my whole off-grid house with six solar panels.
On another note. Not everybody wants every square inch of land converted to human use. Humans and their livestock already represent 96% of all mammals on earth. Some of us like wild places and wild animals.
Qaaaaa
New Reader
7/28/23 10:48 a.m.
In reply to parker :
Yeah, the Wal Mart near me (which is not a large one) has a ~500'x500' lot, with about as much store space. You're telling me there's no reason you can't put panels over at least some of that half a million square feet? Would also help reduce the heat island effect.
parker said:
Yay! Another 100 page thread coming up!
I didn't read all of what's already been spewed but I did see some posts about land use. I don't understand why solar needs to be placed on land that's not already in use. I've always thought that every single huge parking lot could have a canopy of solar panels. Providing shaded parking and generating electricity without impacting any new land. I've finally seen a bit of this in New Mexico and Arizona. I power my whole off-grid house with six solar panels.
On another note. Not everybody wants every square inch of land converted to human use. Humans and their livestock already represent 96% of all mammals on earth. Some of us like wild places and wild animals.
Solar panels aren't the only source of renewables. Wind Generators add to that. The towers last extremely long. The Generators themselves need overhaul every 20 years or so. But it's conceivable the tower would last a 100+ years. And could still be used for light poles.
Luckily for those who like wilderness there isn't a big demand for electricity in those areas. But parking lots, tops of buildings? Heck yes!
The Saudi's are putting a million solar panels up ( there is already 750,000 + up ) plus the worlds biggest battery.
They feel that's a good use of desert wasteland.
In reply to Qaaaaa :
If it took 30+ minutes to fill your gas cars instead of 6-10, you may have an issue with waiting to fill up.
I'm also reasonably certain if there was money to be made from EV chargers, gas stations would be more than willing to install them. The buy-in is pretty expensive right now. Numbers I'm seeing are $40k and up per port for a public station. The ROI at $10 per car is kind of long. Those numbers will come down as the tech matures. Give it another 5-10 years and I'll bet you'll be seeing charge ports at every gas station.
