Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Making Tesla pt. 2

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 09:53:58

Shaved Monkey wrote:
SeaGypsy wrote:The areas where the Australian Artesian Basin is not very deep, there's no fall. Look at altitude & terrain maps. The basin is nowhere near any significant population areas, the entire area has a population of less than 250,000 people & 95% of it is under flat or nearly flat lowlands. (Roughly the central 1/3 of the continent from north to south).

It doesnt need fall just a hill with a dam on top and a dam below
Excess wind and solar pumps it up the hill.
The one out the back of Townsville is near a national grid connection the salt water one proposed for SA is near a decommissioned coal fired power plant so theres wires there too

Its not energy efficient ,its just a battery to rival Teslas and it will compete on scale and size and maintenance and length of service Im not sure on cost but it probably will on that too.
Roughly it takes 3 times more energy to push water up hill than it makes in power coming back down hill.
But its basically set and forget when you build it and it enables solar and wind power to be stored and makes it base load or rapid peak demand.
Its an option its not the solution on its own
But if we are going to move to electric cars we are going to need more power to charge them.

It will come down to the cost of land, concrete, turbines and pipes V other forms of energy storage (Tesla, solar thermal ,making/storing/transporting hydrogen ) and obviously base load coal will still be there until its not


"Roughly it takes 3 times more energy to push water up hill than it makes in power coming back down hill. ???

33% efficient? Where did you get this figure? I've seen efficiencies in the 70% to 90% range.

It is called a potential energy because it is possible to put the invested energy on a shelf—literally, in fact—to be accessed later. A dropped brick that had previously been given gravitational potential energy can do useful work, like driving a nail into a piece of wood (huge force times small distance = same work). The stored energy does not degrade one iota over time: in that sense it represents perfect long-term storage.

The idea for pumped hydro storage is that we can pump a mass of water up into a reservoir (shelf), and later retrieve this energy at will—barring evaporative loss. Pumps and turbines (often implemented as the same physical unit, actually) can be something like 90% efficient, so the round-trip storage comes at only modest cost.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/


...The round trip efficiency of this process is dependent on pump, motor, turbine and generator efficiencies as well as evaporation rates. It is not unusual for these plants to expect a 70 – 85% round trip efficiency.
http://energystoragesense.com/pumped-hy ... orage-phs/[/b]



Pumped storage is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2017, the DOE Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for over 96% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed nameplate capacity of over 168 GW.[3] The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%–80%,[4][5][6][7] with some sources claiming up to 87%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-st ... lectricity



There are hundreds (thousands?) of pumped storage facilities around the world. That would be unlikely at one third efficiency.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 02:37:51

The efficiency figure was something I remember reading regarding Australias Snowy Mountain Hydro scheme (I will keep looking to find it written down)
It is basically water pumped up hill by brown coal generators in Victoria at night when demand and the wholesale price is low and its stored until hot days for when people come home from work and turn their air cons on in Sydney.

It makes economic sense as a battery used for peak power.

The other systems I was referring too was about turning an intermittent renewable power source into a reliable 24/7 base load source.
It would need lots more wind and solar to generate more than demand so it could pump water up hill too and it would require a water storage that could allow for the slow constant release of energy when the sun wasnt shinning or the wind wasnt blowing.
Obviously the size of he dam would need to include insurance for cloudy still days

There are already days in SA and Qld when they are 100% renewable energy they produce all their power from renewables)

SA is a temperate climate with lots of wind turbines and solar so on a warm sunny and windy spring day there would be lots of power and no need for heating.
Adding storage will increase those days adding extra capacity and storage increase them even more.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austra ... day-86069/
then add
the salt water pumped hydro in the Spencer Gulf
and
Solar thermal at Port Augustas
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/s ... ta/8804628

and all of a sudden Teslas batteries arent really needed except as a short term fix
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 00:43:28

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 03:59:54

I think the main storage solution will be the electric cars themselves when there are enough of them in the mix. Thousands of batteries plugged in more hours of each day then they are being driven can be topped off when there is excess power and drawn from as needed. The communication and control systems needed will take a bit of development but there is certainly no insurmountable problem there.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 09:51:59

vtsnowedin wrote:I think the main storage solution will be the electric cars themselves when there are enough of them in the mix. Thousands of batteries plugged in more hours of each day then they are being driven can be topped off when there is excess power and drawn from as needed. The communication and control systems needed will take a bit of development but there is certainly no insurmountable problem there.



There is a problem there in that those batteries are privately owned and this scheme increases the cycling rate of those batteries. Energy companies are using private batteries for their own for-profit use as they choose; the same companies that object to grid-tied residential solar owners using the grid for their battery. How will power companies compensate individual EV owners for reduced battery life and using their property? Free charging for those EV owners who sign up? Who keeps that tally of give and take? What does said EV owner do when (s)he gets in their car to make a long drive and discovers their battery just dumped a lot of its charge to the grid? Who is responsible if that process overheats the EV's batteries (further taxing that EV's systems while going nowhere)?
The whole thing seems problematic and complex. The last thing we can tolerate is even more complexity.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:26:40

GHung wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:I think the main storage solution will be the electric cars themselves when there are enough of them in the mix. Thousands of batteries plugged in more hours of each day then they are being driven can be topped off when there is excess power and drawn from as needed. The communication and control systems needed will take a bit of development but there is certainly no insurmountable problem there.



There is a problem there in that those batteries are privately owned and this scheme increases the cycling rate of those batteries. Energy companies are using private batteries for their own for-profit use as they choose; the same companies that object to grid-tied residential solar owners using the grid for their battery. How will power companies compensate individual EV owners for reduced battery life and using their property? Free charging for those EV owners who sign up? Who keeps that tally of give and take? What does said EV owner do when (s)he gets in their car to make a long drive and discovers their battery just dumped a lot of its charge to the grid? Who is responsible if that process overheats the EV's batteries (further taxing that EV's systems while going nowhere)?
The whole thing seems problematic and complex. The last thing we can tolerate is even more complexity.

Let us assume a bit of artificial intelligence actually shows up here. You're EV car will know all your past trips and habits and may even have asked you when you next want to drive it and to what destination. The smart charger will only let the grid take power it needs if it can be done without disrupting the owners next trip.
Of course letting the grid use your cars battery will come with compensation that will make it a good deal most want to sign up for. Perhaps a free battery change when needed or at least a greatly reduced cost for that change.
A person that doesn't drive much might buy a EV and hook it up to the grid and have his house electric bill cancelled out by his parked EV.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:34:17

vtsnowedin wrote: Let us assume a bit of artificial intelligence actually shows up here. You're EV car will know all your past trips and habits and may even have asked you when you next want to drive it and to what destination. The smart charger will only let the grid take power it needs if it can be done without disrupting the owners next trip.
Of course letting the grid use your cars battery will come with compensation that will make it a good deal most want to sign up for. Perhaps a free battery change when needed or at least a greatly reduced cost for that change.
A person that doesn't drive much might buy a EV and hook it up to the grid and have his house electric bill cancelled out by his parked EV.


You seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that our society/economy can't support our current level of complexity much longer, much less, many more.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby kublikhan » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:56:04

GHung wrote:There is a problem there in that those batteries are privately owned and this scheme increases the cycling rate of those batteries. Energy companies are using private batteries for their own for-profit use as they choose; the same companies that object to grid-tied residential solar owners using the grid for their battery. How will power companies compensate individual EV owners for reduced battery life and using their property? Free charging for those EV owners who sign up? Who keeps that tally of give and take? What does said EV owner do when (s)he gets in their car to make a long drive and discovers their battery just dumped a lot of its charge to the grid? Who is responsible if that process overheats the EV's batteries (further taxing that EV's systems while going nowhere)?
The whole thing seems problematic and complex. The last thing we can tolerate is even more complexity.
PGE-BMW run a pilot program similar to this. The asked several BMW i3 owners to participate. Participants received $1000 cash up front for their participation and up to an additional $540 for ongoing participation. Customers also got cheaper rates for charging at low demand times, like night. In this case the vehicles themselves were not drained, but the charging was smart charging. IE, if the utility told the charger there was currently a demand event(demand is too high), charging could be delayed for up to 1 hour. This could be overridden if the customer had a particular need that day. Also, BMW took a bunch of old EV batteries and gave them a second life to use them as a grid battery bank for this project. So part of the demand event response would be met by delayed charging from the vehicles. The other part was met by actually drawing power from this second life grid battery bank. The program had a 98% customer satisfaction rate.

BMW and PG&E Prove Electric Vehicles Can Be a Valuable Grid Resource

The project between Nissan and OVO energy will actually let the utility drain the vehicle's battery. However the customer can specify how much they will allow the utility to draw. The utility said the credits for allowing this will about cover the costs of the electricity for charging the EV and the the EV will more or less be able to charge for free.

Electric car owners 'can drive for free by letting energy firms use battery'
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 19:06:46

GHung wrote:There is a problem there in that those batteries are privately owned and this scheme increases the cycling rate of those batteries. Energy companies are using private batteries for their own for-profit use as they choose; the same companies that object to grid-tied residential solar owners using the grid for their battery. How will power companies compensate individual EV owners for reduced battery life and using their property? Free charging for those EV owners who sign up? Who keeps that tally of give and take? What does said EV owner do when (s)he gets in their car to make a long drive and discovers their battery just dumped a lot of its charge to the grid? Who is responsible if that process overheats the EV's batteries (further taxing that EV's systems while going nowhere)?
The whole thing seems problematic and complex. The last thing we can tolerate is even more complexity.

As if rules couldn't be set up, such as a minimum battery drain level, with exceptions. Or as if people couldn't decline to participate. As if normal partial drainage of some charge for EV batteries will "overheat" them. More doomer FUD.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 19:58:53

"As if normal partial drainage of some charge for EV batteries will "overheat" them. More doomer FUD."

More engineering reality. Sorry. The more you work batteries, the more you shorten their lives. It's called "cycling". Creates a lot of heat as well, especially in large vehicle batteries.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 21:33:18

GHung wrote:"As if normal partial drainage of some charge for EV batteries will "overheat" them. More doomer FUD."

More engineering reality. Sorry. The more you work batteries, the more you shorten their lives. It's called "cycling". Creates a lot of heat as well, especially in large vehicle batteries.

I didn't say cycling doesn't matter. However, you seem to ignore all the data that says shallow cycling of LI EV batteries to the 60 to 80 percent level has shown to allow the batteries to last for MANY years.

Now, as far as the overheating via reasonable usage -- go ahead. Show us all the articles that show how EV's frequently overheat and cause big problems under NORMAL usage -- with thermally managed batteries. (Unlike the Leaf, for instance. And Nissan having the 2018 Leaf without serious thermal management makes them morons, IMO, unless the sources claiming they still don't have such thermal management are false).

Again -- FUD. Like pstarr constantly claiming EV's can't work because of X, and then when X is shown to be false or not be a significant barrier, he just makes up some new X.

After enough years, he's not worth paying attention to, which is why I rarely see his comments now, unless they're quoted by another poster. Signal ratio of roughly zero, and little or no inclination to change that.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 22:27:45

As of next year Im entitled to a an interest free loan towards batteries and/or solar,through the state government.
This should drive up the amount of batteries installed.
Qld already has the highest solar panel uptake in the country so you just add lots of storage.
https://www.qld.gov.au/community/cost-o ... ery-rebate

Downside for me is I am on a very generous feed in tariff and that would reduce from 44 cents to 8 cents making my savings form batteries obsolete.
but there are plenty of late changers who only get 8 cents now and would benefit.
There are incentives for tenants and landlords too

Ill take up the $300 rebate on an energy efficient bit of white goods though my washing machine is leaking

Got to love a left wing government rebate.
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 00:43:28

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 00:54:15

"We’re going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years."

Fortune, December 21, 2015

Elon has a week or two to make good on his promise
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26521
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 03:51:28

GHung wrote:You seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that our society/economy can't support our current level of complexity much longer, much less, many more.
If I did not think future oil supplies will eventually decline I would have never joined this board. So no I'm not "uncomfortable" or in denial about our future prospects but I see no reason to think the future will be less complex due to a shortage of energy. Most likely the alternatives we adopt to deal with declining oil supplies will be more complex then drilling a long hole in the ground and pumping the oil out to a refinery.
You on the other hand seem very pessimistic about our future and every innovation that might be of use in the future. Pessimistic people often fail because they give up without ever trying to find a solution to their problems.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8116
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby baha » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 05:13:43

I think mechanical complexity is different than electronic. Drilling holes, pumping fluids, and running a refinery is a constant process. It has to be monitored and maintained to keep working.

Writing an algorithm to control a fleet of batteries and connecting them with wires and controllers is a one time deal. Hook it all up...you're done. Of course there will be failures and updates but the process runs by itself.

An analog process has to be constantly tuned to stay within operating parameters. A digital process either works or it doesn't. This is a simplification but it's true. A digital clock is much more reliable and hands-off than one full of gears.

Energy efficiency is the tell-tale. As available energy declines we have no choice but to find the most efficient ways to use it. Electric motors, batteries, digital controllers, and wires are much more efficient than ICEs, pumped fuel, analog transmissions, and pipelines.

During the commissioning of a Powerwall there is a user agreement that must be signed by the customer. You can elect to be part of a grid support program or not. There aren't many programs yet but Tesla expects them to come and they want you to think about it on day one. There is no reason a car couldn't be part of that and many reasons to make them part of it. You would have control over how much you share and would be paid for it.

I already plan to make my EV battery available to my house. In reality the EV will store 3 times the power of the house battery. A P100d would be about 8 times as much.

I think the business model will change. If Duke power is to survive they will have to decide whether it is cheaper to provide everyone a battery or build two new nukes plants in SC. Maybe Westinghouse should have decided to make batteries :)

You all talk about economics controlling the energy transition while TPTB play games with money...you can't play games with energy.
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 09:37:35

VT said; "So no I'm not "uncomfortable" or in denial about our future prospects but I see no reason to think the future will be less complex due to a shortage of energy. Most likely the alternatives we adopt to deal with declining oil supplies will be more complex then drilling a long hole in the ground and pumping the oil out to a refinery.
You on the other hand seem very pessimistic about our future and every innovation that might be of use in the future. Pessimistic people often fail because they give up without ever trying to find a solution to their problems."


I suppose you've never read Tainter or haven't been a student of deep history. Or maybe you think 'this time is different' somehow.

I don't share the hubris exhibited by so many on this board, and have done more to mitigate my own circumstances than just about anyone here. Of course, if you are utterly dependent on hyper-complex top-down systems over which you have no control at all, you have to believe in the perpetuity of our current systems. Me? I can go either way.

Predicaments generally have no 'solutions'. They have to be adapted to, and our society has racked up a shit-load of predicaments. Running your power grid off of car batteries won't fix that. Stop gap, maybe? More like a band-aide for one tiny cut of thousands. I see it as another desperate attempt to prolong BAU.

BAU is being handed its hat by reality.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 11:20:53

GHung wrote:I don't share the hubris exhibited by so many on this board, andhave done more to mitigate my own circumstances than just about anyone here. Of course, if you are utterly dependent on hyper-complex top-down systems over which you have no control at all, you have to believe in the perpetuity of our current systems. Me? I can go either way.


This is an instructive paragraph. Note that while you accuse people of being cornies out of the bias that flows from being "utterly dependent" on BAU while you yourself are heavily invested in the collapse narrative by virtue of having "done more to mitigate my own circumstances than just about anyone here".

These are merely two sides of the same coin as far as the biased viewpoints go.

People put their money where their mouth is based on their reading of the future and it's no surprise they dig in their heels to defend their sunk investment.

How this has played out so far (since 2008) is that doomers have been guilty of...not so much being wrong in the general sense, but in that of timing. They jumped the gun. And it's this frustration from having made sacrifices, of not gorging on the last feast of BAU, that drives them to continue to make overly eager predictions, so that everyone else can be thrust into the same boat of austerity that they voluntarily took in order to prepare them for a world of less and less.

This also, of course, bleeds over into technophobia, hence the FUD on constant display in this thread. A doomer doesn't want to see anyone live higher on the hog than they are as it retroactively threatens their choice to proactively powerdown. The longer society marches off into a higher and higher tech future the more that bitterness grows.

GHung wrote:You seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that our society/economy can't support our current level of complexity much longer, much less, many more.


You seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that our society/economy can support our current level of complexity for a while longer.
Last edited by asg70 on Sun 10 Dec 2017, 11:34:09, edited 2 times in total.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 11:31:44

GHung wrote:"As if normal partial drainage of some charge for EV batteries will "overheat" them. More doomer FUD."
More engineering reality. Sorry. The more you work batteries, the more you shorten their lives. It's called "cycling". Creates a lot of heat as well, especially in large vehicle batteries.


Perhaps the biggest gamble on the part of Tesla was to roll with lithium cobalt batteries, because that had early economy of scale by virtue of using off-the-shelf laptop batteries, and the highest energy density. However, these have the worst cycle-life compared to other chemistries. Those other chemistries have not stood still in the interim. For instance, Toshiba is working with lithium titanate which has MUCH MUCH better cycle life, really game-changing cycle-life. But the challenge with that has been to get enough energy density to weight ratio to make sense in a long-range BEV. That durability also enables faster charge times.

http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/1485 ... ute-charge

So the problem with the FUD talking points is they always imply that current technology never changes. While it's true battery technology does not progress anywhere near the rate of Moore's Law, it does, nevertheless, still progress in a meaningful way.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 11:49:40

asg70 wrote:[

Perhaps the biggest gamble on the part of Tesla was to roll with lithium cobalt batteries, because that had early economy of scale by virtue of using off-the-shelf laptop batteries, and the highest energy density. However, these have the worst cycle-life compared to other chemistries. Those other chemistries have not stood still in the interim. For instance, Toshiba is working with lithium titanate which has MUCH MUCH better cycle life, really game-changing cycle-life..... While it's true battery technology does not progress anywhere near the rate of Moore's Law, it does, nevertheless, still progress in a meaningful way.


The "best" technology does not always wind up dominating the marketplace.

Tesla is gambling that by being the "first mover" they can become dominant in EVs, and lock in their Li battery technology as the industry standard.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20622
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 12:00:21

asg70 wrote:This is an instructive paragraph. Note that while you accuse people of being cornies out of the bias that flows from being "utterly dependent" on BAU while you yourself are heavily invested in the collapse narrative by virtue of having "done more to mitigate my own circumstances than just about anyone here".

These are merely two sides of the same coin as far as the biased viewpoints go.

People put their money where their mouth is based on their reading of the future and it's no surprise they dig in their heels to defend their sunk investment.


It isn't a "sunk" investment. It has been working quite well for over 20 years and I could pivot to full BAU any time I want simply because I'm not all-in on any scheme. And where did I call anyone here a "cornie"? Again, you inject your own venom into my comments.

How this has played out so far (since 2008) is that doomers have been guilty of...not so much being wrong in the general sense, but in that of timing. They jumped the gun. And it's this frustration from having made sacrifices, of not gorging on the last feast of BAU, that drives them to continue to make overly eager predictions, so that everyone else can be thrust into the same boat of austerity that they voluntarily took in order to prepare them for a world of less and less.


I'm decidedly NOT frustrated, especially for the reasons you assume. Indeed, I'm quite satisfied, and never was when I bought into the idea of "featsing" on BAU. Brought me no joy whatsoever. Again, your assessment fails, and your insistence on name-calling says a lot.

This also, of course, bleeds over into technophobia, hence the FUD on constant display in this thread. A doomer doesn't want to see anyone live higher on the hog than they are as it retroactively threatens their choice to proactively powerdown. The longer society marches off into a higher and higher tech future the more that bitterness grows.


I'm not a technophobe. Indeed, I've devoted much of my life to supporting certain technologies. If you want to equate an understanding of diminishing returns relative to resources expended with being "phobic", be my guest. Again, you would be wrong. What you can't accept is that some of us can actually have full and productive lives without sharing your world view. I accept that many (most?) of you are quite happy living as you do, with your biases. I have my own biases, but don't assume people who don't share those are somehow deficient and miserable. I just disagree with your assessments of where we are and where it's likely to lead us. Do you not have the character to grant me that?

The fact that you insist that I must be miserable because I don't agree that hooking millions of car batteries to the grid will solve much tells me that you are likely unsure of your narrative. In reality, that's what set off your rant in the first place. Really?

Stomping on dissent is a tool of scared fools.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Making Tesla pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 10 Dec 2017, 13:38:33

GHung wrote:Stomping on dissent is a tool of scared fools.

Perhaps you should read that several times before you react the way you do to any idea that fast crash doom isn't a certainty. :roll:
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 12 guests