Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[Andy_Ross]

In the end we are talking about an x amount of produced electricity and the amount of losses during each phase of transfer and conversion.

Yes, the Coaldsmobile was powered by a turbine engine. It used powdered coal as fuel. This was not a steam turbine, but it was a turbine engine.

It's bollocks.

 

[Worm]

Please elaborate if there is any other way, I'll read along eagerly and without insult.

I don't believe my post was insulting, but feel free to think otherwise.

You're combining percentages wrongly - you're using addition/subtraction where you should be using multiplication.

As a simple example, if you take an initial output, through one stage of 50% efficiency, then another stage of 50% efficiency, you don't end up with 0% efficiency (1 - 0.5 - 0.5 = 0) - you end up with 25%. ( 1 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 )

I have no idea if your actual figures were correct - I am not a thermodynamics expert - but using the maths correctly, you end up with more like :

0.33 - 0.5 = 0.28

0.28 * 0.9 = 0.252

0.252 * 0.9 = 0.2268

So about 23% - not 8%

Note: I have no idea if the 23% is actually accurate in terms of the science, it's merely the result of applying the correct mathematical process to your figures.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well you can't get your bitcoin locked out, except losing your passwordm in which case the money is gone.
But you can get your exchange account locked out. And as I mentioned before, during panic times, exchanges are usually down anyway. Bitcoin itself will process just fine because of its decentralized nature. Conversion to fiat not so much.

But what do you get if you sell bitcoin but no conversion to fiat?

 

[Dr.Sid]

But what do you get if you sell bitcoin but no conversion to fiat?

What do you mean by selling bitcoin, if not conversion to fiat ?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I don't believe my post was insulting, but feel free to think otherwise.

You're combining percentages wrongly - you're using addition/subtraction where you should be using multiplication.

As a simple example, if you take an initial output, through one stage of 50% efficiency, then another stage of 50% efficiency, you don't end up with 0% efficiency (1 - 0.5 - 0.5 = 0) - you end up with 25%. ( 1 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 )

I have no idea if your actual figures were correct - I am not a thermodynamics expert - but using the maths correctly, you end up with more like :

0.33 - 0.5 = 0.28

0.28 * 0.9 = 0.252

0.252 * 0.9 = 0.2268

So about 23% - not 8%

Note: I have no idea if the 23% is actually accurate in terms of the science, it's merely the result of applying the correct mathematical process to your figures.

Ah, I see where you're going. That would be correct if we were talking about conversions of different energies, but in this example the product is limited to electricity. Each phase of the conversion process presents a loss of electrical energy getting to its intended end use.

As a simple example, look at charging an EV battery. The process of charging an EV battery converts AC into DC. Unfortunately there are losses as we cannot get out more than we put in. If you were to input 1KWH of energy from your wall, the EV battery will only receive about 0.9KWH, the missing 0.1KWH is lost thru heat at the charger. (it converted some of that electrical energy into BTUs of heat.)

 

[Worm]

Ah, I see where you're going. That would be correct if we were talking about conversions of different energies, but in this example the product is limited to electricity. Each phase of the conversion process presents a loss of electrical energy getting to its intended end use.

Sigh.

Yes, it does, something is lost at each stage, but not in the amounts you were using. I'm not talking about the physics - I'm talking about the maths. You are combining percentages incorrectly.

I'm not a maths teacher, I'm not going to walk you through it line by line - you have made an error, and I have pointed it out. I'm not qualified to speak on many subjects on this site, but when it comes to GCSE level maths, I think I can speak with some confidence.

Your figure of 8% is incorrect. Not because of the physics, not because of different energies, not because of conversions, just because that's not how percentages work.

 

[The Don]

Ah, I see where you're going. That would be correct if we were talking about conversions of different energies, but in this example the product is limited to electricity. Each phase of the conversion process presents a loss of electrical energy getting to its intended end use.

As a simple example, look at charging an EV battery. The process of charging an EV battery converts AC into DC. Unfortunately there are losses as we cannot get out more than we put in. If you were to input 1KWH of energy from your wall, the EV battery will only receive about 0.9KWH, the missing 0.1KWH is lost thru heat at the charger. (it converted some of that electrical energy into BTUs of heat.)

Can you at least acknowledge that your calculations upthread were wrong and that Worm and others who have pointed this out are correct.

 

[lomiller]

Ah, I see where you're going. That would be correct if we were talking about conversions of different energies, but in this example the product is limited to electricity. Each phase of the conversion process presents a loss of electrical energy getting to its intended end use.

To calculate the overall efficiency of an electrical system you multiply the efficiency of each stage, you do not subtract.

 

[lomiller]

Can you at least acknowledge that your calculations upthread were wrong and that Worm and others who have pointed this out are correct.

Worm's were not correct either, but that has more to do with ChrisBFRPKY's post being somewhat difficult to decipher. See the relevant section below.



"Let's start with 33% efficiency maintained at the power station for our new electricity. A loss of 5 to 6% due to heat transmission lines knocks our efficiency of our new electricity down to 28%.

Now we must convert AC into DC to charge the battery in our Tesla. A typical Tesla charger averages between 85% to 95% efficiency depending on if it's connected to 120V or 240V. Let's average it out to 90% to convert AC into DC for the batteries"

Let's start with 33% efficiency
not unreasonable for a coal plant. A modern natural gas plant is in the 60% range.

"a loss of 5 to 6% due to heat transmission lines"
Transmission line losses are lower unless you are transmitting it a long distance, but losses in this range are typical if you also factor in distribution. A loss of 6% means 94% of the total power makes it to the consumer.

A typical Tesla charger averages between 85% to 95% efficiency depending on if it's connected to 120V or 240V. Let's average it out to 90%
Seems fine

the overall efficiency from power plant to charging the battery is as follows

Coal plant:
0.33 * 0.94 * 0.9 = 0.2792 = ~28%

Natural Gas
0.6 * 0.94 * 0.9 = 0.507 = ~51%


If you are worried about CO2 emission, natural gas produces slightly more heat per CO2 molecule released so the CO2 emission efficiency difference is even higher.

 

[portlandatheist]

Once that energy is inside the vehicle, an electric motor is between 85% to 90% efficient and an internal combustion engine is between 17% and 21% (source)
another thing worth mentioning is that during the lifetime of the EV, the grid will continue to get cleaner and cleaner over time.

 

[Samson]

Will we see carnage in the bitcoin market next week? Curious what others think, but the daily chart is in a vicious and dense trend.
If it loses the characteristic 80 to 90% in value, that takes us to 6 to 12k in value.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Will we see carnage in the bitcoin market next week? Curious what others think, but the daily chart is in a vicious and dense trend.
If it loses the characteristic 80 to 90% in value, that takes us to 6 to 12k in value.

After 2017 bubble it went down to 30%, then to less than 20%, so it's quite possible. It took 1 year to reach the lowest point. Then it went 2000% up.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Worm's were not correct either, but that has more to do with ChrisBFRPKY's post being somewhat difficult to decipher. See the relevant section below.



"Let's start with 33% efficiency maintained at the power station for our new electricity. A loss of 5 to 6% due to heat transmission lines knocks our efficiency of our new electricity down to 28%.

Now we must convert AC into DC to charge the battery in our Tesla. A typical Tesla charger averages between 85% to 95% efficiency depending on if it's connected to 120V or 240V. Let's average it out to 90% to convert AC into DC for the batteries"

Let's start with 33% efficiency
not unreasonable for a coal plant. A modern natural gas plant is in the 60% range.

"a loss of 5 to 6% due to heat transmission lines"
Transmission line losses are lower unless you are transmitting it a long distance, but losses in this range are typical if you also factor in distribution. A loss of 6% means 94% of the total power makes it to the consumer.

A typical Tesla charger averages between 85% to 95% efficiency depending on if it's connected to 120V or 240V. Let's average it out to 90%
Seems fine

the overall efficiency from power plant to charging the battery is as follows

Coal plant:
0.33 * 0.94 * 0.9 = 0.2792 = ~28%

Natural Gas
0.6 * 0.94 * 0.9 = 0.507 = ~51%


If you are worried about CO2 emission, natural gas produces slightly more heat per CO2 molecule released so the CO2 emission efficiency difference is even higher.

Great post. You covered almost every detail except that Tesla claims a 90% efficiency at putting that power from the grid to the pavement. You left that part out. 33% efficient power plant, 94% efficient grid transfer, 90% conversion from AC into DC, and finally 90% putting that power to the pavement.

 

[The Don]

Great post. You covered almost every detail except that Tesla claims a 90% efficiency at putting that power from the grid to the pavement. You left that part out. 33% efficient power plant, 94% efficient grid transfer, 90% conversion from AC into DC, and finally 90% putting that power to the pavement.

Do you therefore acknowledge that your 8% efficiency calculation upthread is complete garbage ?

Do you have any evidence to support your contention that burning coal in the vehicle would be more efficient ?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But what do you get if you sell bitcoin but no conversion to fiat?

Wouldn't that just be buying something else with bitcoin instead of exchanging it for cash?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Do you therefore acknowledge that your 8% efficiency calculation upthread is complete garbage ?

Do you have any evidence to support your contention that burning coal in the vehicle would be more efficient ?

It's been a long road but we're finally getting here. Do you admit that modern turbine engines are multifuel and at least 40% efficient?

 

[gabeygoat]

It’s okay to admit when you’re wrong. Hell, it’s a sign of intelligence

 

[The Don]

It's been a long road but we're finally getting here. Do you admit that modern turbine engines are multifuel and at least 40% efficient?

I don't have to "admit" this, I've never said anything to the contrary.

You on the other hand made a specific claim and have failed to support it with anything other than handwaving and poor mathematics.

It is kinda funny when you think about it. Most of the people driving Tesla cars seem to forget that they're refueling on fossil fuel produced electricity more often than not. I think it's safe to say that in some places in the World electric cars run on coal.


Added: In fact it would be more efficient to build a car that burns coal directly rather than electricity produced by coal. You're losing lots of energy during the conversion process of coal to electricity.

What is your evidence for this?

Only energy transformation, Thermodynamics. Chemical reactions, losses from conversion of 1 form of energy to another.....Stuff like that.

 

[lomiller]

It's been a long road but we're finally getting here. Do you admit that modern turbine engines are multifuel and at least 40% efficient?

Not running is a car they aren't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not running is a car they aren't.

Ah but if you have them running a generator that charges a battery that then drives the car you can only operate them in high efficiency zones, thus improving efficiency. And just made a form of hybrid car instead of a turbine powered car.