• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
really should be speaking on watts to compare. the voltage is only part of the equation and kind of meaningless without the amps.

edit

as it relates to car charging in the us, a typical 120v branch circuit in a home is on a 20 amp breaker. a 240v circuit might be 50 amps.

the switch to 240 from 120 is to save money on wire btw. you could run a 120v to deliver the same wattage at 100 amps but you’d need really heavy gage wire to do so. you get the same amount of power running 240 at a smaller gage.
 
Last edited:
Nitpick: 230V is the standard across Europe.

Used to be a mix of 220V (in most of Europe) and 240V but they came up with a compromise 230V standard without actually changing anything except the permitted tolerance range. So countries could keep on supplying 220 or 240 as they were now condidered close enough to 230 to be acceptable.
 
Nitpick: 230V is the standard across Europe.

Used to be a mix of 220V (in most of Europe) and 240V but they came up with a compromise 230V standard without actually changing anything except the permitted tolerance range. So countries could keep on supplying 220 or 240 as they were now condidered close enough to 230 to be acceptable.
Same in the States, sort of. Our voltage is running anywhere from 110-120, read on a voltmeter, and nominally they will be calling it 110, 115, or 120 fairly indiscriminately.
 
Then I'm sure it will surprise you to know Saudi Arabia is very big on the environment.


I remembered reading years ago about a high prince in SA becoming very green-conscious.

Though their aim is net zero by 2060, not 2050.
It's bovine excrement driven by a rich kid who a) doesn't know what he's doing and b) wants the kudos without any of the effort. This is brought to you by the same idiots who drempt up the line.
 
Mexico and a lot of Central American nations rely on 110 to 120VAC feeds into the home.

They redid our power lines recently vastly improving 90-110 to a solid 120 at peak hours.
And put us on stiff rates for what they call excessive usage.
Stay below the limits it's not too bad.
And put us on a 15 amp breaker at the post. We can't really turn on everything in the house on that. I could change the breaker to 30 amp but it keeps us frugal.

We aren't charging a plug in EV on that.
 
Plus growing plants for fuel replaces crops grown for food, which is not sustainable either.
Globally there is no shortage of food crops.There is a distribution problem. And fuels such as butanol can be produced from waste material.
 
Hmm, if only someone had done the math on that.


Sustainable energy implies citizens of US, European and other nations with similar levels of economic development using a lot less energy, including flying. SAFs as an excuse to maintain or grow the aviation sector are yet another lie fed to us by the high (and not so high)-functioning psychopaths we call "leaders".
That data is more than a decade old.
 
Mexico and a lot of Central American nations rely on 110 to 120VAC feeds into the home.

They redid our power lines recently vastly improving 90-110 to a solid 120 at peak hours.
And put us on stiff rates for what they call excessive usage.
Stay below the limits it's not too bad.
And put us on a 15 amp breaker at the post. We can't really turn on everything in the house on that. I could change the breaker to 30 amp but it keeps us frugal.

We aren't charging a plug in EV on that.
Good that you're now getting the full line voltage but wow, 15 amps limit at 120V? 1.8kW for the whole house. I don't think I could cook a 2-pot meal.
 
That data is more than a decade old.
So? Are you claiming his analysis is wrong*, or that there has been some major technological breakthrough that invalidates it? If anything the overall trend is still heading in completely the wrong direction, particularly in the aviation sector. But I understand the appeal of the fantasy that technology is going to allow us to not only avoid having to scale back our consumption, but to actually consume ever more.

*Most of his analysis is based on fairly simple and well established laws of physics, so unless those get dramatically updated the analysis is valid forever.
 
So? Are you claiming his analysis is wrong*, or that there has been some major technological breakthrough that invalidates it? If anything the overall trend is still heading in completely the wrong direction, particularly in the aviation sector. But I understand the appeal of the fantasy that technology is going to allow us to not only avoid having to scale back our consumption, but to actually consume ever more.

*Most of his analysis is based on fairly simple and well established laws of physics, so unless those get dramatically updated the analysis is valid forever.
Given that the now deceased author used data from even further back, then yes, there have been numerous technological developments.
 
Good that you're now getting the full line voltage but wow, 15 amps limit at 120V? 1.8kW for the whole house. I don't think I could cook a 2-pot meal.
This is where Europe has a bit of an advantage over North America. They standardized on 220 volts where North America standardized on 110 volts. The same wire can deliver twice as much electricity in Europe. For a reasonable charge in the US, a 220 volt circuit must be installed.
 
I have zero confidence that biofuels can offer a clean viable alternative to fossil fuels. They actually pollute far more than people realize. But that isn't the big problem with them. The big problem is affordability. Any alternative needs to be inexpensive, run 24/7. Provide a base load. Be safe and clean. Wind solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear are presently the only serious alternatives. And only nuclear is capable of providing a base load. Battery storage is too expensive but getting cheaper.
 
I have zero confidence that biofuels can offer a clean viable alternative to fossil fuels. They actually pollute far more than people realize. But that isn't the big problem with them. The big problem is affordability. Any alternative needs to be inexpensive, run 24/7. Provide a base load. Be safe and clean. Wind solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear are presently the only serious alternatives. And only nuclear is capable of providing a base load. Battery storage is too expensive but getting cheaper.
Biofuels may have a place in planes until we get electric motors and batteries light enough and get jet across the pacific.
 
Biofuels may have a place in planes until we get electric motors and batteries light enough and get jet across the pacific.
I don't think so. Not at 3 to 5 times the cost. Entire fleets of commercial aircraft are replaced with 5% gains in efficiency.
 
Biofuels may have a place in planes until we get electric motors and batteries light enough and get jet across the pacific.
But will they technically be “jets”?
I’m ready for them to be (erroneously) called eJets, but at the moment all the viable ones are eProps, or eScrews?
 
But will they technically be “jets”?
I’m ready for them to be (erroneously) called eJets, but at the moment all the viable ones are eProps, or eScrews?
It's hard to imagine them being anything like a jet turbine.

The entire principle of action of a jet engine is to inject fuel into compressed air, ignite it, and harness the resulting energy release, either as thrust or as work for a turbine (primarily to drive the compressor). It's hard to imagine an electrically driven ducted fan being anywhere near as powerful as an engine that harnesses the power of eons of geologic processes working on vast reservoirs of biomass.
 

Back
Top Bottom