The 129MWh storage capacity Tesla battery in Jamestown, South Australia brought tears of joy to the eyes of the politically-correct, greenie retards. Just look at how
they celebrate this. And here's more.
Little do they know, it's only good for topping up the electricity supply during times of peak demand. A battery can discharge quickly without preparation when needed. This battery is totally useless for coping with sizeable blackouts.
Let me explain some things so you will quickly know more than the Minister of Energy about electricity. For our purposes we are interested in a unit of used electricity. Household electricity is paid per kWh - kilowatt hour. A kWh represents an amount of work done. A watt is the rate of work made possible by the input of a certain amount of energy - a watt of electricity. Say your kettle is marked as 1,000W - one Kw. If you boil that kettle continuously for one hour you will have used 1kWh of electricity. A kWh is a unit of electricity used to make a certain amount of work possible, say cool your room for x minutes, light up a certain area for y hours, etc. When it comes to mass consumption a kWh is too small a unit and 1,000 of them are lumped together to make a MWh (megawatt hour) and 1,000MWh are lumped together to make a GWh (gigawatt hour). 1,000kWh = 1MWh. 1,000MWh = 1GWh.
What does 129MWh mean? It means they can supply 129MWatts for an hour. As the battery's maximum discharge capacity is 100MWatt/Hr it means the battery can actually go on for about 75 minutes discharging at 100MWatts/hour.
You will find much of what's in the paragraph above on the linked-to pages. But you won't find what it actually means as the media monkeys don't understand numbers. They don't answer the question of how long can it supply electricity to how many people. I wanted to see how long it can supply Adelaide with electricity but I could not find Adelaide's electricity usage.
My guess for Adelaide was less than 10 minutes. I did find this AEMO pdf document online. It gives the electricity usage for the whole of South Australia.
On page 18 you will see that in 2017-18 South Australia used 12,203 GWh. Giga is 1000 Mega. So, with minimal rounding, it comes out that South Australia used 33,433MWh/day, 1,393MWh/hour and 23MWh/minute in 2017-18. 23MW/h means 23MW delivered for an hour. But they need that delivered per minute. So, they need a supply of 1,380MW/h for business as usual. The supply rate of the battery is not remotely up to that - it's only 100MW/h. Immediately, it's going to hit the fan big-time. Now say the supply rate can be upped to the required 1,380MW/h, how long can SA keep running? That's easy, the battery capacity is 129MWh. Per-minute they need 23MWh. So, the battery can supply South Australia with less than 6 minutes worth of electricity. But, as already shown, even these six minutes won't happen. Only a few islands of light will be able to last the six minutes. And these must be decided in advance. Who will get the electricity and who won't? That'll be the night the lights went out in South Australia. Those backwoods, southern yokels will be crying into their beer for their battery to save them, but it won't.
Adelaide has about 515,000 homes. This battery can run 8,000 houses for 24 hours. That's 0.0155% of Adelaide's homes.
I wonder how many of the numerically and reality-challenged politicians in the various governments know this. I would not be surprised if the answer is none.
This is typical of this world – the world is mostly populated by retards led by their noses by the arts-and-humanities monkeys in governments using the arts-and-humanities monkeys in the media to disseminate their propaganda to the great unwashed. All three these groups have but a tenuous hold on reality and don't understand our technical world.
That's the world we live in – the hoi-polloi crying out to be deceived and the politicians and their flunkies, the politically-correct media people, are all too ready to oblige.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Monday, October 7, 2019
Who Created God?
In an interview featuring Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig the former said a higher intelligence, like God, as the agent responsible for the Universe, is not a satisfactory explanation. Roger Penrose wants a reason for the higher intellect as well.
Before Edwin Hubble demonstrated redshift in the nineteen-twenties, most people were happy that the Universe had just always been there. In Stephen Hawking's last book, Brief Answers to Big Questions, he states that with the Law of Gravity in place, the Universe could have just happened. Now the Law of Gravity had to be there for all time. Others say that fluctuations in a quantum vacuum or quantum space were responsible for the existence of the Universe. That means the quantum something must just always have been there.
So it's clear - most people are happy with something just always being there, as long as it's not a higher power to whom they are most likely accountable. A few come right out and say so, to their credit. But most are not that honest. They have to invent a "scientific" reason for their disbelief in a higher power. Their big question is if God created the Universe, who created God? Richard Dawkins asks that question frequently.
First, let's get our heads around what a chain of causation is. Say Y created Z, then the immediate question is who created Y? Why X of course. And who created X, you ask. That's W. And so on and so on. If we travel back along this chain of causation, we will eventually reach A.
In our quest to discover who created the Universe, we can start with anything in the Universe and then travel back along this chain of causation. There are only two possibilities. This chain can be:
1) Circular
2) Non-circular
If the chain is circular, we will eventually get to something that was created by something that it had created - the chicken came from the egg that the chicken had laid. That's Wheeler's Participatory Universe. In short, the Universe was created by intelligence the Universe had created. This concept has to do with particles acting like waves if not observed but acting like particles if observed. That means that the act of observing them after their creation made them go back in time and influence their own nature so they act like particles. That's enough to give anybody a headache and, not surprisingly, this explanation for the Universe's existence hasn't really caught on.
If the chain is not circular, there are only two possibilities:
1) Infinite regression - we never get to the ultimate creator, which will mean nothing can exist. We know this is not the state of things.
2) Somewhere we run smack-bang into an uncaused cause - the higher intelligence.
There are only these three possibilities:
1) The Participatory Universe possibility
2) Nothing exists because there's no ultimate creator.
3) The uncaused cause is behind everything.
One cannot ask where the Uncaused Cause came from - that's a stupid question. Just like people were happy to accept that the Universe was eternal and Stephen Hawking was happy to believe that the Law of Gravity was eternal and those of the Quantum faith have no problems with something quantum being eternal we have to accept that there may be an infinite higher intellect. Not only that, an eternal higher intelligence is by far the most satisfying explanation. After all, who would want the Law of Gravity or something like a quantum field as their God?
Before Edwin Hubble demonstrated redshift in the nineteen-twenties, most people were happy that the Universe had just always been there. In Stephen Hawking's last book, Brief Answers to Big Questions, he states that with the Law of Gravity in place, the Universe could have just happened. Now the Law of Gravity had to be there for all time. Others say that fluctuations in a quantum vacuum or quantum space were responsible for the existence of the Universe. That means the quantum something must just always have been there.
So it's clear - most people are happy with something just always being there, as long as it's not a higher power to whom they are most likely accountable. A few come right out and say so, to their credit. But most are not that honest. They have to invent a "scientific" reason for their disbelief in a higher power. Their big question is if God created the Universe, who created God? Richard Dawkins asks that question frequently.
First, let's get our heads around what a chain of causation is. Say Y created Z, then the immediate question is who created Y? Why X of course. And who created X, you ask. That's W. And so on and so on. If we travel back along this chain of causation, we will eventually reach A.
In our quest to discover who created the Universe, we can start with anything in the Universe and then travel back along this chain of causation. There are only two possibilities. This chain can be:
1) Circular
2) Non-circular
If the chain is circular, we will eventually get to something that was created by something that it had created - the chicken came from the egg that the chicken had laid. That's Wheeler's Participatory Universe. In short, the Universe was created by intelligence the Universe had created. This concept has to do with particles acting like waves if not observed but acting like particles if observed. That means that the act of observing them after their creation made them go back in time and influence their own nature so they act like particles. That's enough to give anybody a headache and, not surprisingly, this explanation for the Universe's existence hasn't really caught on.
If the chain is not circular, there are only two possibilities:
1) Infinite regression - we never get to the ultimate creator, which will mean nothing can exist. We know this is not the state of things.
2) Somewhere we run smack-bang into an uncaused cause - the higher intelligence.
There are only these three possibilities:
1) The Participatory Universe possibility
2) Nothing exists because there's no ultimate creator.
3) The uncaused cause is behind everything.
One cannot ask where the Uncaused Cause came from - that's a stupid question. Just like people were happy to accept that the Universe was eternal and Stephen Hawking was happy to believe that the Law of Gravity was eternal and those of the Quantum faith have no problems with something quantum being eternal we have to accept that there may be an infinite higher intellect. Not only that, an eternal higher intelligence is by far the most satisfying explanation. After all, who would want the Law of Gravity or something like a quantum field as their God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)