DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Collapse
HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 180--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 1, 2021, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Nobody goes anywhere to get laid when the risk v reward
calculus is Russian roulette and if they do, they don't
procreate[/quote]
We live in a strange historical bubble, likely to be temporary
where getting laid and procreating are not the same thing.
Contraception made the difference. It makes a huge difference
comparing how much CO2 is used up in the two activities also.
[code]If (getting laid) {
fuel_burned = 4 // US gallons;
CO2 = 19 * fuel_burned; // lbs per gallon;
}
Print CO2;[/code]
76 pounds.
CO2 generated by actually procreating: (from birth to adulthood
only)
HTML https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Tank_truck%E3%82%BF%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC9274341.jpg/220px-Tank_truck%E3%82%BF%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC9274341.jpg
[code]If (having baby) {
fuel_burned = 11600 // US gallons;
CO2 = 19 * fuel_burned; // lbs per gallon;
}
Print CO2;[/code]
220,400 pounds.
That is more than a little bit of difference.
Now take the second code block and think: 'Eight billion meat
packages.'
#Post#: 181--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 1, 2021, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Nobody goes anywhere to get laid when the risk v reward
calculus is Russian roulette [/quote]
HTML https://149478393.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/brazilprostitutes.jpg
On Monday, a group of sex workers from the Association of
Prostitutes of Mins Gerais took over a street full of shuttered
hotels where they once worked, in pre-pandemic times. Now they
have been forced out onto the street to solicit for clients,
still legally, but in a much less secure environment,
prostitutes reveal.
HTML https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Spica-Russian-Roulette.jpg
“We are in the front line, moving the economy and we are at
risk,” the association’s president Cida Vieira, who took part in
the protest, told AFP. “We need to get vaccinated.”
Cida is in the top pic I believe.
#Post#: 192--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 1, 2021, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://youtu.be/Uc1vrO6iL0U
HTML https://chasingthesquirrel.com/public/pics/co2.png
#Post#: 207--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 2, 2021, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[spoiler][quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg205#msg205
date=1619970759]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg175#msg175 date=1619852853]
I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel
shown):
HTML https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/maxWidth503/usb70mbc801a0101.png
You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000. Eddy has (or had) one
too. If you get a good one you have great value for the money.
I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty
good. 27 MPG on the freeway). What matters is how much I drive
it. Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place
farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter
what else you drive.
[/quote]
Can you explain the logic on this? In part because after you say
this, you say this:
[quote author=k-dog]If people really cared about fuel
efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in
traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through
Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for
cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was
sold. Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the
mileage is where I live.
The answer is not to drive an electric. [/quote]
Driving an electric means it doesn't emit while idling. And it
is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel efficient
Mercedes in 1. So why isn't electric part of (but not
necessarily the entire) the answer?
Emissions become a power generation issue, as opposed to a "get
rid of cars" angle. The Pacific Northwest being a great example,
based on the fuels for their power generation. WV? Not so much.
[/quote][/spoiler]
[quote]And it is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel
efficient Mercedes in 1.[/quote]
You will have have a very hard time convincing me that the trip
ratio difference is more than 2 / 1. Batteries also need a lot
of lithium and don't last forever. Everything considered
driving old cars as long as we can might be smarter than going
green with electrics. The power generated at the power plant
and the environmental costs to manufacture and deal with a fleet
of electrics is as bad as what we have now. The best thing is
drive as little as you can without 'driving' yourself crazy.
The drive through at Starbucks demonstrates how poorly the
American Public understands energy issues. It is not a
statement for or against electrics.
Electrics are part of the solution as long as you only drive it
on days you are licensed to do so. We will have to ration power
or too much CO2 will be emitted at the coal burning plants than
the current Paris or whatever agreement will be allowing. If
you don't think you will need new coal fired power plants to
charge 100 million new electric cars in America you are
dreaming. Nothing else could give that much power in the time
frame needed.
Nobody to my knowledge has done this math so I will. Lets say
it takes 17 kW to get Karen to
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.brandenwilliams.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fstarbucks-coffee-logo.gif%3Fresize%3D150%252C150%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1[/img]<br
/> where yes, she can wait in line and message on her phone with
no idle emissions. It took her 17kW to get there. That does
not change.
So 100 million new electrics won't be driven all the time. Lets
say 15% use each day and the rest of the time they are parked.
If you dispute the ratio, dispute the 100 million as well.
That means 15 000 000 cars are using 17kW for a total of 255 Gw.
[quote]U.S. coal-fired capacity peaked at 318 gigawatts (GW) in
2011 and has been declining since then because many plants
retired or switched to other fuels and few new coal-fired plants
came online. By the end of 2019, U.S. coal-generating capacity
totaled 229 GW[/quote].
[quote]In 2020, net generation of electricity from utility-scale
generators in the United States was about 4,009 billion
kilowatthours (kWh)[/quote]
4,009 billion kWh / 8760 hrs (hours in a year) => 458.0 GW
This little exercise reveals the US is getting exactly 50% of
its electricity from coal.
Cutting to the chase: 100 million new electrics will require
increasing electric generating capacity by ((255/458)x100%.
After the math crunches 100 million new electrics will require
increasing National Electric Generating Capacity by 58%.
I wonder why nobody pushing [glow=green,2,300]the green new
deal[/glow] has pointed this out?
HTML https://i.imgflip.com/2/2w6m27.jpg
I wonder why nobody else has pointed this out?
Does this mean we are screwed?
* the math can be customized to reflect your country of
residence
#Post#: 208--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 2, 2021, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Answer is Carbon Dividends.
HTML https://youtu.be/nrzyNsDOgX8
Go 15 minutes in to get straight to the Dividends.
HTML https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
#Post#: 209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: Nearings fault Date: May 2, 2021, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg207#msg207 date=1619973792]
[spoiler][quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg205#msg205
date=1619970759]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg175#msg175 date=1619852853]
I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel
shown):
HTML https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/maxWidth503/usb70mbc801a0101.png
You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000. Eddy has (or had) one
too. If you get a good one you have great value for the money.
I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty
good. 27 MPG on the freeway). What matters is how much I drive
it. Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place
farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter
what else you drive.
[/quote]
Can you explain the logic on this? In part because after you say
this, you say this:
[quote author=k-dog]If people really cared about fuel
efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in
traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through
Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for
cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was
sold. Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the
mileage is where I live.
The answer is not to drive an electric. [/quote]
Driving an electric means it doesn't emit while idling. And it
is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel efficient
Mercedes in 1. So why isn't electric part of (but not
necessarily the entire) the answer?
Emissions become a power generation issue, as opposed to a "get
rid of cars" angle. The Pacific Northwest being a great example,
based on the fuels for their power generation. WV? Not so much.
[/quote][/spoiler]
[quote]And it is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel
efficient Mercedes in 1.[/quote]
You will have have a very hard time convincing me that the trip
ratio difference is more than 2 / 1. Batteries also need a lot
of lithium and don't last forever. Everything considered
driving old cars as long as we can might be smarter than going
green with electrics. The power generated at the power plant
and the environmental costs to manufacture and deal with a fleet
of electrics is as bad as what we have now. The best thing is
drive as little as you can without 'driving' yourself crazy.
The drive through at Starbucks demonstrates how poorly the
American Public understands energy issues. It is not a
statement for or against electrics.
Electrics are part of the solution as long as you only drive it
on days you are licensed to do so. We will have to ration power
or too much CO2 will be emitted at the coal burning plants than
the current Paris or whatever agreement will be allowing. If
you don't think you will need new coal fired power plants to
charge 100 million new electric cars in America you are
dreaming. Nothing else could give that much power in the time
frame needed.
Nobody to my knowledge has done this math so I will. Lets say
it takes 17 kW to get Karen to
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.brandenwilliams.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fstarbucks-coffee-logo.gif%3Fresize%3D150%252C150%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1[/img]<br
/> where yes, she can wait in line and message on her phone with
no idle emissions. It took her 17kW to get there. That does
not change.
So 100 million new electrics won't be driven all the time. Lets
say 15% use each day and the rest of the time they are parked.
If you dispute the ratio, dispute the 100 million as well.
That means 15 000 000 cars are using 17kW for a total of 255 Gw.
[quote]U.S. coal-fired capacity peaked at 318 gigawatts (GW) in
2011 and has been declining since then because many plants
retired or switched to other fuels and few new coal-fired plants
came online. By the end of 2019, U.S. coal-generating capacity
totaled 229 GW[/quote].
[quote]In 2020, net generation of electricity from utility-scale
generators in the United States was about 4,009 billion
kilowatthours (kWh)[/quote]
4,009 billion kWh / 8760 hrs (hours in a year) => 458.0 GW
This little exercise reveals the US is getting exactly 50% of
its electricity from coal.
Cutting to the chase: 100 million new electrics will require
increasing electric generating capacity by ((255/458)x100%.
After the math crunches 100 million new electrics will require
increasing National Electric Generating Capacity by 58%.
I wonder why nobody pushing [glow=green,2,300]the green new
deal[/glow] has pointed this out?
HTML https://i.imgflip.com/2/2w6m27.jpg
I wonder why nobody else has pointed this out?
Does this mean we are screwed?
* the math can be customized to reflect your country of
residence
[/quote]the tesla x is rated at a little over 200 watt hrs per
km
HTML https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/support/european-union-energy-label&ved=2ahUKEwjfqfu0zqvwAhUQbc0KHUgEDPYQFjAKegQIGBAC&usg=AOvVaw3bu5di3U0kTWpjTNG_L4dF
While I do not disagree with a renewed grid being a
prerequisite for electric cars. I think the math should be as
close to right as possible...
I do think we will see the same thing happen as did with fuel
injection. Watts per km will lead to heavier vehicles until
efficiency is about the same... I forget what that energy law is
called.
#Post#: 212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 2, 2021, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[spoiler][quote author=Nearings fault
link=topic=14.msg209#msg209 date=1619979960]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg207#msg207 date=1619973792]
[spoiler][quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg205#msg205
date=1619970759]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg175#msg175 date=1619852853]
I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel
shown):
HTML https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/maxWidth503/usb70mbc801a0101.png
You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000. Eddy has (or had) one
too. If you get a good one you have great value for the money.
I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty
good. 27 MPG on the freeway). What matters is how much I drive
it. Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place
farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter
what else you drive.
[/quote]
Can you explain the logic on this? In part because after you say
this, you say this:
[quote author=k-dog]If people really cared about fuel
efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in
traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through
Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for
cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was
sold. Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the
mileage is where I live.
The answer is not to drive an electric. [/quote]
Driving an electric means it doesn't emit while idling. And it
is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel efficient
Mercedes in 1. So why isn't electric part of (but not
necessarily the entire) the answer?
Emissions become a power generation issue, as opposed to a "get
rid of cars" angle. The Pacific Northwest being a great example,
based on the fuels for their power generation. WV? Not so much.
[/quote][/spoiler]
[quote]And it is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel
efficient Mercedes in 1.[/quote]
You will have have a very hard time convincing me that the trip
ratio difference is more than 2 / 1. Batteries also need a lot
of lithium and don't last forever. Everything considered
driving old cars as long as we can might be smarter than going
green with electrics. The power generated at the power plant
and the environmental costs to manufacture and deal with a fleet
of electrics is as bad as what we have now. The best thing is
drive as little as you can without 'driving' yourself crazy.
The drive through at Starbucks demonstrates how poorly the
American Public understands energy issues. It is not a
statement for or against electrics.
Electrics are part of the solution as long as you only drive it
on days you are licensed to do so. We will have to ration power
or too much CO2 will be emitted at the coal burning plants than
the current Paris or whatever agreement will be allowing. If
you don't think you will need new coal fired power plants to
charge 100 million new electric cars in America you are
dreaming. Nothing else could give that much power in the time
frame needed.
Nobody to my knowledge has done this math so I will. Lets say
it takes 17 kW to get Karen to
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.brandenwilliams.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fstarbucks-coffee-logo.gif%3Fresize%3D150%252C150%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1[/img]<br
/> where yes, she can wait in line and message on her phone with
no idle emissions. It took her 17kW to get there. That does
not change.
So 100 million new electrics won't be driven all the time. Lets
say 15% use each day and the rest of the time they are parked.
If you dispute the ratio, dispute the 100 million as well.
That means 15 000 000 cars are using 17kW for a total of 255 Gw.
[quote]U.S. coal-fired capacity peaked at 318 gigawatts (GW) in
2011 and has been declining since then because many plants
retired or switched to other fuels and few new coal-fired plants
came online. By the end of 2019, U.S. coal-generating capacity
totaled 229 GW[/quote].
[quote]In 2020, net generation of electricity from utility-scale
generators in the United States was about 4,009 billion
kilowatthours (kWh)[/quote]
4,009 billion kWh / 8760 hrs (hours in a year) => 458.0 GW
This little exercise reveals the US is getting exactly 50% of
its electricity from coal.
Cutting to the chase: 100 million new electrics will require
increasing electric generating capacity by ((255/458)x100%.
After the math crunches 100 million new electrics will require
increasing National Electric Generating Capacity by 58%.
I wonder why nobody pushing [glow=green,2,300]the green new
deal[/glow] has pointed this out?
HTML https://i.imgflip.com/2/2w6m27.jpg
I wonder why nobody else has pointed this out?
Does this mean we are screwed?
* the math can be customized to reflect your country of
residence
[/quote]the tesla x is rated at a little over 200 watt hrs per
km
HTML https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/support/european-union-energy-label&ved=2ahUKEwjfqfu0zqvwAhUQbc0KHUgEDPYQFjAKegQIGBAC&usg=AOvVaw3bu5di3U0kTWpjTNG_L4dF
While I do not disagree with a renewed grid being a
prerequisite for electric cars. I think the math should be as
close to right as possible...
I do think we will see the same thing happen as did with fuel
injection. Watts per km will lead to heavier vehicles until
efficiency is about the same... I forget what that energy law is
called.
[/quote][/spoiler]
Driving at 80 kilometers an hour you move 80 kilometers in one
hour. <-- Don't say Duh.
(80 kilometers) x (200 watts/kilometer) = 16000 kW.
Your number is 16kW and mine is 17kW. No difference, mine was
an educated guess and my math is still valid.
The distinction between kW and kwh is frequently overlooked. kW
is the rate at which energy is being used. kWh is how much has
been used. 200 W is how much energy it takes to cover a
kilometer and a speed was not given.
I picked 50 mph which works out to 80 kph.
#Post#: 213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 2, 2021, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Oh, I don't think you'll find anyone arguing for a coal
buildout.[/quote]
No there won't be any. The expectation will be the needed
Giga-Watts will be farted out a unicorns' ass.
HTML http://www.supernaturalwiki.com/images/thumb/e/e8/Rainbow.jpg/350px-Rainbow.jpg
#Post#: 214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 2, 2021, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I've got a nice 20 year old Chrysler sitting outside, it
hadn't been running for a month, and I finally got the intake
torn apart and it back together and running. Unfortunately, I
seem to be the only one in the family interested in driving a
clunker.[/quote]
I find with the car only running once every ten days or so it is
a lot harder to keep clean. The wheels stay free of brake dust
but driving does not blow pollen and dust away. If I don't keep
it clean it can get crusty fast.
#Post#: 216--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: Nearings fault Date: May 2, 2021, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg212#msg212 date=1619988990]
[spoiler][quote author=Nearings fault
link=topic=14.msg209#msg209 date=1619979960]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg207#msg207 date=1619973792]
[spoiler][quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg205#msg205
date=1619970759]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg175#msg175 date=1619852853]
I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel
shown):
HTML https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/maxWidth503/usb70mbc801a0101.png
You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000. Eddy has (or had) one
too. If you get a good one you have great value for the money.
I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty
good. 27 MPG on the freeway). What matters is how much I drive
it. Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place
farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter
what else you drive.
[/quote]
Can you explain the logic on this? In part because after you say
this, you say this:
[quote author=k-dog]If people really cared about fuel
efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in
traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through
Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for
cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was
sold. Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the
mileage is where I live.
The answer is not to drive an electric. [/quote]
Driving an electric means it doesn't emit while idling. And it
is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel efficient
Mercedes in 1. So why isn't electric part of (but not
necessarily the entire) the answer?
Emissions become a power generation issue, as opposed to a "get
rid of cars" angle. The Pacific Northwest being a great example,
based on the fuels for their power generation. WV? Not so much.
[/quote][/spoiler]
[quote]And it is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel
efficient Mercedes in 1.[/quote]
You will have have a very hard time convincing me that the trip
ratio difference is more than 2 / 1. Batteries also need a lot
of lithium and don't last forever. Everything considered
driving old cars as long as we can might be smarter than going
green with electrics. The power generated at the power plant
and the environmental costs to manufacture and deal with a fleet
of electrics is as bad as what we have now. The best thing is
drive as little as you can without 'driving' yourself crazy.
The drive through at Starbucks demonstrates how poorly the
American Public understands energy issues. It is not a
statement for or against electrics.
Electrics are part of the solution as long as you only drive it
on days you are licensed to do so. We will have to ration power
or too much CO2 will be emitted at the coal burning plants than
the current Paris or whatever agreement will be allowing. If
you don't think you will need new coal fired power plants to
charge 100 million new electric cars in America you are
dreaming. Nothing else could give that much power in the time
frame needed.
Nobody to my knowledge has done this math so I will. Lets say
it takes 17 kW to get Karen to
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.brandenwilliams.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fstarbucks-coffee-logo.gif%3Fresize%3D150%252C150%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1[/img]<br
/> where yes, she can wait in line and message on her phone with
no idle emissions. It took her 17kW to get there. That does
not change.
So 100 million new electrics won't be driven all the time. Lets
say 15% use each day and the rest of the time they are parked.
If you dispute the ratio, dispute the 100 million as well.
That means 15 000 000 cars are using 17kW for a total of 255 Gw.
[quote]U.S. coal-fired capacity peaked at 318 gigawatts (GW) in
2011 and has been declining since then because many plants
retired or switched to other fuels and few new coal-fired plants
came online. By the end of 2019, U.S. coal-generating capacity
totaled 229 GW[/quote].
[quote]In 2020, net generation of electricity from utility-scale
generators in the United States was about 4,009 billion
kilowatthours (kWh)[/quote]
4,009 billion kWh / 8760 hrs (hours in a year) => 458.0 GW
This little exercise reveals the US is getting exactly 50% of
its electricity from coal.
Cutting to the chase: 100 million new electrics will require
increasing electric generating capacity by ((255/458)x100%.
After the math crunches 100 million new electrics will require
increasing National Electric Generating Capacity by 58%.
I wonder why nobody pushing [glow=green,2,300]the green new
deal[/glow] has pointed this out?
HTML https://i.imgflip.com/2/2w6m27.jpg
I wonder why nobody else has pointed this out?
Does this mean we are screwed?
* the math can be customized to reflect your country of
residence
[/quote]the tesla x is rated at a little over 200 watt hrs per
km
HTML https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/support/european-union-energy-label&ved=2ahUKEwjfqfu0zqvwAhUQbc0KHUgEDPYQFjAKegQIGBAC&usg=AOvVaw3bu5di3U0kTWpjTNG_L4dF
While I do not disagree with a renewed grid being a
prerequisite for electric cars. I think the math should be as
close to right as possible...
I do think we will see the same thing happen as did with fuel
injection. Watts per km will lead to heavier vehicles until
efficiency is about the same... I forget what that energy law is
called.
[/quote][/spoiler]
Driving at 80 kilometers an hour you move 80 kilometers in one
hour. <-- Don't say Duh.
(80 kilometers) x (200 watts/kilometer) = 16000 kW.
Your number is 16kW and mine is 17kW. No difference, mine was
an educated guess and my math is still valid.
The distinction between kW and kwh is frequently overlooked. kW
is the rate at which energy is being used. kWh is how much has
been used. 200 W is how much energy it takes to cover a
kilometer and a speed was not given.
I picked 50 mph which works out to 80 kph.
[/quote]an 80km trip to Starbucks? I believe I got my energy
denotation right. 200watts hr is the consumption number.
Instantaneous would be watts and it is probably many times 200
for short durations.
I would say we generally agree that the best answer is driving
much much less.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page