Do you know what per capita means?

https://tradingeconomics.com/germany...a-wb-data.html



https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/CO2-emissions-per-capita

If you also factor in the relatively high GDP per capita of Germany its emissions profile is even more favorable.

Also, your "mate" Lomberg advocates an R&D driven approach. Well Germany is doing that intensively, too. The whole world is already benefitting from that, and the yield will increase further over time as the technology improves and disseminates.

Germany is paying ~60% more for electricity for the privilege of using renewables and often importing nuclear and coal generated electricity from Poland/France whenever the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

Renewables definitely have a place in our energy mix on the margins but the data so far is, when deployed at large scale, they increase electricity costs dramatically and have much larger environmental footprint than some people would like to admit.

Not all panels are created equal but it's widely known that most solar panels in the market are of dubious net benefit on the environment. Most the life cycle analyses of solar panels (and paper straws too by the way) agree that wind turbines and solar panels, as they are produced and deployed today, are of dubious benefit in terms of CO2equivalent/power generated.

60% more than what or when?

I love the weird pride despacito has in Germany's massive embarrassing failure on renewables (160 billion euro spent for 2x the electricity price in nuclear France and 10x the electricity emissions, one of the worst per capita emissions in Europe). It's like someone being a Nazi after WWII or trusting in Musk during "funding secured" despite all the signs, then losing half your money. You lost bro, don't you get it? It's over. You backed the wrong horse, the race is done, everyone is going home.

You sanctimonious moron.

"In terms of global disease burden, air pollution is the cause of over one-third of deaths from stroke, lung cancer, and chronic respiratory disease, and one-quarter of deaths from ischaemic heart disease."

Source: World Health Organization

https://www.who.int/vietnam/news/fea...health-in-2019

Like I quoted to you above, outcomes matter, and people like you and El Sapo with your toxic irrationality and high certainty in your own opinions do exactly the kind of massive damage you want to avoid.

As an example, thanks to Merkel's decision to avoid nuclear in favor of renewables, Germany has 7 of 10 of the dirtiest coal fired plants in Europe which can't be shut down (in fact, more are being built) because renewables are too unreliable:

This what irrational uninformed voters who want renewables create - massive needless coal and CO2 pollution. All of this while spending 160 billion euro and having power that costs 2x the price of (far less polluting) France thanks to useless renewables.

Outcomes, not intentions, matter. Merkel is too much a moron to realize this, as are you. It's an open and shut case that renewables have been and are a massive expensive fail. You've (unintentionally) made the case yourself very well with your own data.

It's the same thing with Musk and Tesla. He talks a great talk (mostly to appeal to morons) but in reality the only thing he's done is burned vast sums of wealth and defrauded investors and the government to make needlessly environmentally damaging sports cars for rich people.

Quoting that dubious stat is a fine example of why you're a quack.

The raw number of power plants relative to Europe is irrelevant.

Per capita emissions is far more significant (even if you don't adjust for GDP, but arguably you should do that too).

The stat you slavishly quote ignores the big picture and focuses on a deceptive and irrelevant local comparison.

Seems evident you're just trolling now and don't take these important issues seriously. Also call BS on your physics background.

The stat I quoted from Forbes and the UN?
This per capita red herring is a nice touch, but it's just nonsense and desperation from you. France has 66 million people, Germany has 83 million people. France, because it doesn't have a brain-dead renewables-loving moron/loser like Merkel in charge, has:

- 1/10th of the electricity CO2 emissions of Germany.
- Power that costs its population half as much (16c vs 30c)
- Highly reliable power (Germany has to import electricity from France often when its renewables fails).

Meanwhile Germany has 7 of 10 of the dirtiest coal fired plants in Europe which it can't shut down because the complete moron Merkel made a 160 billion euro bet on a hopeless technology (renewables) 8 years ago.

That's it bro. The end. You lost. Don't you get it? You're yelling at an empty track with the losing ticket in your hand while everyone else is going home to spend their winnings.

How am I trolling? I'm telling the stone cold truth and you are so incredibly thick you can't get it even with copious facts laid out for in detail. This isn't murky or contentious. Renewables have been a massive failure in Germany for the environment, for the economy, for the poor, for emissions. It's quite amazing that you still don't get it. No wonder you're a Musk fanboy with that level of reasoning and evidence-evaluating capacity.

And yes this is an incredibly important issue which is why I'm frustrated that people like you and El Sapo are backing policies that are extremely harmful to your very own aims (lower emissions, less pollution).

https://carbuzz.com/news/porsche-tay...-tesla-model-s

Article reminded me of the clip of the chevy volt beating a tesla in longer race because the tesla overheated.

But the other interesting thing was the 800volt technology with faster charging. Anyone know what's going on therE? Does Porsche have tech advantages over Tesla?

power delivered = voltage x current. So a higher voltage means you delivery more power (kWh per minute) for the same current.

Current is the limiting element on batteries and charging cables, and with higher voltage you can have less current for the same power. It's why you can send a city's worth of energy through a smallish wire on long distance high voltage transmission lines (100,000 volts+) yet need a gigantic cable for a 12V DC car charger so it doesn't overheat. Higher voltage, more power for the same currrent before you overheat/overload the battery's charging capacity.

Meanwhile the power consumed in a resisting material is (current^2) * resistance. So if you 2.2x the voltage (Tesla is 350, Porsche is 800), you 5.2x the amount of current you can pass through before overheating. Thus Porsches can charge a lot faster than Teslas.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/2...ormance-range/

"Unique on the market for the time being, an 800-volt charging system will give the battery an 80% charge (about 250 miles) in under 20 minutes — at least theoretically. Porsche predicts 800-volt technology will help make the Taycan more convenient to drive while also making it more dynamic. It’s not just an electric car — it’s an electric Porsche.

Porsche concedes that, while bringing an EV with an 800-volt charging system to the market is feasible, it’s a little bit useless unless there’s a vast network of 800-volt charging stations that it can be plugged into. Blume said Porsche is currently talking to government officials in Europe, the United States, and China about investing in 800-volt stations. Digital Trends can reveal inductive charging technology will be offered on the Taycan, too."

Very interesting. TY. The faster charging seems like a huge advantage. Surprised Tesla hasn't pursued higher volts.

More than France.

What do you think the super charging stations are?

There are technical and regulatory issues that dramatically increase the cost of charging stations if you increase the voltage that high. Not the least of which is the electrical grid just isn’t built to handle that much power draw in most of the country. This is part of why when you want to build a factory with high powered machinery, you need local regulatory approval and negotiate with power companies on sharing the cost of upgrading the grid.

NO?

Isn't that where the solar panel roofs come in?

Don’t forget giant battery packs filled with toxic heavy metals.

Rocky Mountain Power has an interesting project in Utah where they are working to co-locate electrified transportation options(a light rail system, electric buses, interstate and urban passenger and truck traffic). SDG&E in San Diego just got approved for a $100M program aimed at commercial transport electrification.

It's coming.

SDG&E also got approval to test using school buses as grid resources, allowing them to sell the renewable energy they store into the California ISO market.

So Tesla's can already do what the Porsche can with the 800 volt stuff?

They can easily build chargers and batteries capable of 800v, even more if they wanted to.

They just can’t do it at scale. Porsche probably has same issues.

800v is still not enough anyway. That still implies 15-30 minute charging time. Imagine if it takes everyone 15 minutes to “fill it up” at the gas station. It’s not happening.

I think the real path forward is ubiquitous charging with even parking lots having chargers or even induction charging enabled by some wireless payment tech.

Yes? France is 72% nuclear, and 15% hydro/wind, and 13% other.



France's type of nuclear plants have CO2 emissions of 4g, solar PV about 40g, and coal about 900g CO2 per kWh.

Thus France has 0.72*4 + .15*20(hydro/wind) + .13*~270 (solar, hydrothermal, gas, 1.5% coal) = 41g CO2 per kWh.

Germany has 35% coal + 13% natural gas + 35% renewables + other various.

Thus Germany has 0.35*900 + 0.13*400 = 367g of CO2 from coal and gas alone, and that's only half their electricity. Precisely as I said:

What's more, expensive power like Germany has encourages the use of dirty heating fuels in winter (over far more efficient electric heat pumps) and non-electric cars (France has many more BEVs than Germany despite lower wealth and smaller population). Oh and it cost 160 billion euro for this pile of massive fail.

What's coming?

Electrification will explode once it makes economic sense, which will happen somewhere in 2021-2023. It's driven by battery density and cost which proceeds on its own timeline unrelated to electric cars. Nothing electric cars do before then makes any difference to the climate or anything else. It's just stupid and pointless and wasteful to spend lots of money making the (far worse) economic option when it makes next to no different to the long term result.

What's more, each year after the flip battery technology shifts to get cheaper and cheaper (up front) than ICE. As Musk says about his own "production ramps", the start of the exponent doesn't matter one bit.

This isn't a difficult concept. They should really teach better in schools.

I bought a Tesla Model 3 today. Wish me luck.