[QUOTE=Guest]Costa Rica isn't the f@cking United States...it's a 3rd world SMALL country with no appreciable manufacturing sitting close to the Equator.

They IMPORT just about everything...someone else used energy to create it. IF they had to manufacture everything they use...they couldn't do it. Oil isn't used much for power production...it's much too valuable...NG and coal are the biggies for electricity production.

Apples and oranges again. Let me compare electrical demand for MY house compared to the Pentagon. Let me exaggerate like you are.

SMALL scale...just about ANYTHING can work. LARGE scale...not much works.

Fossil fuels drive the world...like it or not...there is NO replacement short of a "Mr Fusion".

Are those words small enough for you?

[QUOTE=Guest]Math analysis. Next year when your paying $3 for a gallon of gas and I'm paying $1 for electricity I'm not going to care about any of the big words I used or any of the words you copied from a website sponsored by the big oil companies. I have a minor in math and and I can say with complete certainty $1 is cheaper than $3 all the fancy words be dammed.

It's obvious; trying to explain something to you is like talking to a brick wall. Don did not use big words, he used fact and logic, both of those are the idiot's enemy. You might have a minor in arithmetic, but you have no common sense. If you doubt me, go ask your wife, she knows you are "dumb".

Oh you won't be paying $1 for electricity for long, none of the boys that own and operate energy companies are going to take a cut in pay...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=Guest]Germany gets 35% from renewables and is a a manufacturing country. They use a lot of nuclear. Should we build a nuke near The Villages.

[QUOTE=dumbete;1497990]Yes, one right next to your house so you can really enjoy it.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=Guest]OK...you just WON'T give up...and AS USUAL...you are completely wrong...

"Energy in Germany
Energy in Germany is sourced predominantly by fossil fuels, followed by nuclear power, biomass, wind, hydro and solar."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ermany.svg.png

"Germany is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world.[36]

Renewable energy is more present in the domestically produced energy, since Germany imports about two-thirds of its energy."

"Germany is the fifth-largest consumer of oil in the world. Russia, Norway, and the United Kingdom are the largest exporters of oil to Germany, in that order.[38]

Germany is the third-largest consumer of natural gas in the world,[citation needed] and imports gas from Russia via the Nord Stream; in 2016, Germany imported 49.8 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas from Gazprom.[39] A terminal in Emden opened for gas from Norway in 2016.[40] Germany imports more than half of its energy.[41]

Because of its rich coal deposits it has a long tradition of fuelling its economy with coal. It still is the fourth-largest consumer of coal in the world, even though domestic coal mining has been almost completely phased out, because German coal is a lot more expensive to mine than coal in China or Australia. Germany has the largest national market of electricity in Europe."

"The main source of electricity is coal.[5] The 2007 plan to build 26 new coal plants[6] is controversial in light of Germany's commitment to curbing emissions."

They can have "renewables" at 35% because they BUY 2/3rds of their energy from other countries.

Germany CANNOT sustain itself with regard to energy...they HAVE to buy 2/3rd of what they use.

HOW in the world can you use Germany as an example of a "successful" "renewable" energy country? They're 2/3rds short and must purchase energy from outside. It's as far fetched as comparing Costa Rica to the US.

Thank you for the correction.

You're welcome.

I usually know what I'm talking about.

Doug...it IS physics...oil is concentrated energy from the sun accumulated over hundreds of millions of years...(unless you subscribe to the abiotic oil theories)...we can just pump it out and use it...as is.

A battery must be manufactured and then it must be charged. As I said earlier...it takes 32 times more energy to MAKE a battery then you'll get out of it. It takes 32 barrels worth of energy to get out 1 barrel of energy from the battery.

You are concerned with PRICE of energy which is an artificial descriptor of "cost". Whereas I was talking about the amount of energy actually used to make the battery.

For a barrel of oil EQUIVALENT in energy...it takes 20% of that barrel to get 1 barrel of oil.

For a barrel of oil EQUIVALENT in energy...it takes 32 barrels of oil equivalent of energy...to make and charge your battery.

It takes 160X more energy to make a battery than it does to pump out a barrel of oil.

The PRICE paid in dollars has little to do with the ENERGY costs because NOW...using fossil fuels...energy is ALMOST FREE in dollars.

It's like water...it's almost free...leave your sprinklers on all night and it'll cost you less than $10.

I've got it! WATER!

Fossil fuels are like water...we pump it out of the ground and it's cheap.

Your batteries are like BOTTLING the water.

It adds an extra step. Extra hassle. It takes MORE energy.

You can't run a city ONLY on bottled water...bottled energy. A city needs open spigots.

Monetary value...the cost in dollars changes, it's variable.

The ENERGY cost of building batteries is enormous...160X the energy cost of pumping fossil fuels.

It is called physical chemistry, where physics and chemistry over lap. What type battery are you talking about. A flashlight battery runs on a one way chemical reaction. When everything reacts the battery is dead. With a rechargeable battery it is a reversible chemical reaction. I could believe it takes 32 times more energy to make it than it can store and this energy you would never get back. You won't get any energy out until you charge it and put energy into it. You get out slightly less than you put in but you can do it over and over.

"A battery must be manufactured and then it must be charged. As I said earlier...it takes 32 times more energy to MAKE a battery then you'll get out of it. It takes 32 barrels worth of energy to get out 1 barrel of energy from the battery."
Is the the rechargeable battery different. If it takes so much energy to make it why is practical?

And EVERY time you recharge it...you LOSE energy. You "soent" 32 units of energy to build it...energy you'll never get back...PLUS each time you recharge it, you lose even more...you go even more negative.

Money and energy are two different things...you need to keep the "units" correct. There is NO coloration between energy and money. You can pay $60 for a barrel of oil that has 8 man years of "work", of energy in it. OR, you can pay 32X that...$1,920 for a lithium battery that REQUIRES more than $60 in charging to release the energy of a barrel of oil.

It's NOT "practical" in an energy efficiency point of view. It's PORTABLE. It's self contained. You plug it in and everything works. It takes 32X the ENERGY in a barrel of oil to make a lithium battery...a $1,920 dollar lithium battery. The ONLY reason we HAVE batteries like we do is that fossil fuels are unbelievably cheap. $60 for 8 man years of energy? It's a steal. BTW...that is what ended slavery. To get a barrel worth of energy from a battery you'd need...20% more than a barrel because of inefficiencies.

Without the luxury of "unlimited cheap fossil fuel power"...we wouldn't have batteries...we couldn't afford them.

Can you explain why the renewable battery that starts your car is not impractical even though it is subject to the same laws of entropy.

A battery isn't renewable...it can be recharged several times...but after it's "life expectancy" it's done...in your golf cart, 5 years tops...in a car...10...then they MUST be replaced at ANOTHER 32X the energy cost of oil.

It's NOT practical...not in an "energy cost to manufacture" sense. A lithium battery takes 32X times the energy it will produce just in manufacture.

THEN you have to charge it which takes MORE energy than you get out...EACH time you charge it.

Your car battery IS taking power from the oil fueled engine to charge it back up after you use it to start the car. The alternator puts a drag on the engine to produce the energy needed for the battery to recharge.

That's where my "entropy" comment came from...from friction, loss due to inefficiency.

Whit a battery you start off with a 32X deficit and it only gets worse EVERY time you charge it.

"Energy" and "money" are two different things. You can buy a LOT of energy for very little money...IF you're buying fossil fuels...otherwise...you pay dearly...in up front manufacture costs.

Solar panels take a LOT of energy to make...more than they'll put out. Wind turbines are very energy intensive to manufacture.

Fossil fuels ARE the ONLY means of CHEAP energy right now and the foreseeable future.

First, entropy has nothing to do with mechanical loss. Don't believe me talk to someone else with a degree in chemistry, chem engineering or physics. This is a fact and is not open to debate. Mechanical loss is real. Next question, is if oil is so energy dense why is electricity from oil the most expensive type of electricity. Also why is hydropower electricity one of the cheapest sources for electricity.

dougie...you just won't give up!

Leave your car out in a field for 100 years...I'll show you entropy...as ORDER (your car) becomes DISORDER (a pile of rust). Chemical breakdown IS entropy. ALL order to disorder is entropy. Oil burning, going from a long complex organic chain with stored energy to CO2 and 2H2O and releasing energy IS entropy. A charged battery with stored chemical energy discharging IS entropy...from ordered to disordered.


You get stuck on WORDS and lose track of the IDEAS that they describe.

HOW many DIFFERENT ways can I explain it to you.

You KEEP going off on tangents.

Forget entropy...OK...stick to the point...you claimed batteries are/will be more efficient...than oil.

I showed you...you're wrong.


One last time...

Oil is the suns energy converted to chemical energy...agreed?

A battery is a man made...artificial holder of chemical energy...agreed?

Lets say you put a solar cell under the sun...you'll get whatever output the sun emits.

Your battery in comparison would be like building a bright light, as bright as the sun...this light is putting out the same energy onto a solar cell in a garage as the one under direct sunlight. So you have 2 solar panels...one under direct sunlight and the other in a garage being lit by an artificial light...getting the same amount of energy.

Which is more ENERGY efficient?

The one that is using sunlight. The sun is providing the energy, not a power plant

Oil is also more efficient because it is direct "saved" sunlight. And not a man made container that needs to be FILLED with energy...artificial sunlight...to work.

You're not impressing me with degrees...Tal supposedly has three.

You're also not impressing me with your reasoning skills.

I'm thinking you're just f@cking with me...you keep sucking me in.

Someone else's turn...to be the fool...or teach an idiot.