tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post8562362788330328513..comments2024-02-01T01:41:38.306-08:00Comments on A Chemist in Langley: Starting a Dialogue - Can we really get to a "fossil fuel-free BC"?Blairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-91618768146398307812015-11-05T22:49:39.684-08:002015-11-05T22:49:39.684-08:00P@J,
Based on the research, the estimate is an im...P@J,<br /><br />Based on the research, the estimate is an improvement of about 30% when going from liquid fuels to electrical. So the number goes down to about 41,000 Gwh and that ignores charging efficiency and transmission loss for vehicles. I included the refined numbers in my HuffPro blog. Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-47682667366995536532015-11-05T13:31:33.711-08:002015-11-05T13:31:33.711-08:00OK, my turn for a picky point. the equivalent of 5...OK, my turn for a picky point. the equivalent of 59,750 GWh of transportation fuel may have been consumed, but how much of that energy was actually used for transportation? A quick look at LLNL data and about 80% of transportation fuel energy is rejected through the various limits to internal combustion efficiency, even after 100+ years of improvement to the technology. Current electric vehicles are more than 60% efficient, and it may be assumed that this number will increase with battery technology. So your 60,000 GWh becomes morel like 20,000 Gwh. Still a crazy number, but Site C alone could supply 1/4 of it. P@Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04751993807476880734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-83067053342901208612015-08-05T19:31:02.309-07:002015-08-05T19:31:02.309-07:00crf,
Given the multiplicity of possible conventio...crf,<br /><br />Given the multiplicity of possible conventions, I chose the one preferred by our local regulator in their documentation and on their web site. Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-66576753590974487932015-08-05T19:14:49.030-07:002015-08-05T19:14:49.030-07:00There are a few mistakes or inaccuracies in your p...There are a few mistakes or inaccuracies in your post (But keep up the good work!):<br /><br />* " Killowatt/hr (KWh), Megawatt/hr (MWh)and Gigawatt/hr (GWh) "<br /><br />It's Kilowatt-hr , Megawatt-hr and Gigawatt-hr <br />(It may look to readers that you are saying to divide kilowatts by hours (kW/hr), but it should be clear that you multiply them. A watt is 1 Joule per second, and so multiplying this by unit of time will give Joules, a unit of energy).<br />Also it is usual to write kW (small k).<br /><br />* "Household energy is measured in KWh (1000 watts)"<br /><br />You may wish to write:<br />"Household energy is measured in kWh (1000 watt-hours)"<br /><br />And correct the similar problem with MWh and GWh. <br /><br />Finally, I'll just do the calculation for however many GWh are equivalent to a PJ. It is just algebra, but even simple things, like the difference between a Watt and Joule, is lacking in public commentary about energy in popular culture and newspapers. <br /><br />GWh = 10^9Wh = 10^9(J/s)(h)(3600(s/h))=(3.6)10^12 J<br /><br />The prefix Peta means 10^15 and Giga, 10^9. <br />How may GWh in a petaJoule? Let this be X:<br />X GWh = 1 PJ<br />X(3.6)10^12 J = 10^15 J<br />X = 10^15 / ((3.6)(10^12) = 1000/ 3.6 = 10000/36 = 277.777...<br /><br /><br />crfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10726414637021391906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-82591060539338193292015-04-11T07:58:10.299-07:002015-04-11T07:58:10.299-07:00In order to reduce our fossil fuel use we need to ...In order to reduce our fossil fuel use we need to enhance usership of transit and thus a "yes" would be the vote if climate change is your concern. Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-10570971270825402112015-04-11T01:14:26.444-07:002015-04-11T01:14:26.444-07:00So .... in light of your enlightenment above ... w...So .... in light of your enlightenment above ... would I be correct (for want of a better word) in following my (admittedly non-science based) instincts by voting "No" to the (4 envelope ... and how many trees were sacrificed for this, I wonder!) "Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite"?! Hilary Ostrovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11388908429577941821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-38700165390924552892015-04-09T13:34:14.262-07:002015-04-09T13:34:14.262-07:00I think you can replace fossil fuels with 36 nucle...I think you can replace fossil fuels with 36 nuclear power plants and a wind turbine kit = to 3 times the hydro capacity. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.com