Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
39,753
'fast charge'

It will still charge left out on your drive (if you have on, and a charging port) slowly over night. Like the old storage heaters.

As for HGVs, they aren't on the road 24/7 they will charge from hubs most likely, hubs that charge their own batteries 24/7 depending on the grid.

You're a fucking tool.
 
Last edited:

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Some kind of hub.

Well that clears that up, was worried there
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
39,753
That might well be down to the fact you're a bit thick*.

*a lot
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
10,275
The problem with trucks is more to do with the amount batteries weigh, in essence the amount required on some trucks would result in a unacceptable decrease in load capacity.
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
39,753
Well, we also need to stop needing so much shit. Source food locally, repair and reuse equipment and consume less plastic tat.

...and travel less, both internationally and domestically.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
29,295
The problem with trucks is more to do with the amount batteries weigh, in essence the amount required on some trucks would result in a unacceptable decrease in load capacity.
When they self drive you can do away with the cab and just fill it full of whatever magic tech comes along next :)
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
10,275
When they self drive you can do away with the cab and just fill it full of whatever magic tech comes along next :)
The cab, the space the person sits in isn't much in terms of weight compared to the lorry and I won't expect driverless lorries any time soon :)
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
29,295
I will admit I wasnt aware they didnt know
They've had a decades old working model that they managed to prove experimentally.

You can't 'know' stuff until you've proven it - but if their models explain things well then they use them, all the time leaving them there for other scientists to tear down.

What a great way to advance knowledge :)
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Just an interesting set of calculations..feel free to point out mistakes.

We have 24GW of wind power in the UK.
24Gw is 32.2 million horsepower.

A truck is around 600hp, so roughly 53 thousand trucks worth of power, divide by 3 to match turbines actual output.
= around 18 thousand trucks, whose engines could replace the wind turbine blades, the average truck runs for 3000 hours a year, so roughly times by three to get back to 50 thousand ballpark.

There are 450 thousand trucks in the UK a drop from 490 thousand in 1990.
, So weve already dropped 80% of the power wind turbines make since 1990.

This does not take into account how much more efficient and useable an engine would be than a wind turbine to make electricity.

Consider that just trucks in the UK burn up 200GW of power.
I cant find out how often trucks are using full power , so halve it as a wild guess and still its an incredible amount of power.
And thats just trucks.
 

dysfunction

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,221
Just an interesting set of calculations..feel free to point out mistakes.

We have 24GW of wind power in the UK.
24Gw is 32.2 million horsepower.

A truck is around 600hp, so roughly 53 thousand trucks worth of power, divide by 3 to match turbines actual output.
= around 18 thousand trucks, whose engines could replace the wind turbine blades, the average truck runs for 3000 hours a year, so roughly times by three to get back to 50 thousand ballpark.

There are 450 thousand trucks in the UK a drop from 490 thousand in 1990.
, So weve already dropped 80% of the power wind turbines make since 1990.

This does not take into account how much more efficient and useable an engine would be than a wind turbine to make electricity.

Consider that just trucks in the UK burn up 200GW of power.
I cant find out how often trucks are using full power , so halve it as a wild guess and still its an incredible amount of power.
And thats just trucks.
nah cant be bothered since you dont provide the link to where you're getting your data from.
Really just safe to say that you have it wrong.
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
39,753
Just an interesting set of calculations..feel free to point out mistakes.

We have 24GW of wind power in the UK.
24Gw is 32.2 million horsepower.

A truck is around 600hp, so roughly 53 thousand trucks worth of power, divide by 3 to match turbines actual output.
= around 18 thousand trucks, whose engines could replace the wind turbine blades, the average truck runs for 3000 hours a year, so roughly times by three to get back to 50 thousand ballpark.

There are 450 thousand trucks in the UK a drop from 490 thousand in 1990.
, So weve already dropped 80% of the power wind turbines make since 1990.

This does not take into account how much more efficient and useable an engine would be than a wind turbine to make electricity.

Consider that just trucks in the UK burn up 200GW of power.
I cant find out how often trucks are using full power , so halve it as a wild guess and still its an incredible amount of power.
And thats just trucks.
So you are suggesting replacing wind turbines with truck engines....? To provide power to trucks?

What?

Also, sources, you fuckwit.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
29,295
We have 24GW of wind power in the UK.
24Gw is 32.2 million horsepower.
This is true.

The rest of it? Who knows. Starting with why he would divide by 3? We've got 24Gw of wind power, not 8.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
29,295

So, if the public are going to pay for it, be responsible for cost overruns, be responsible for never ending waste "disposal" costs - why hand over money to the french state and china so they can run away with the profit?

If it's going to cost 20bn then we can spunk that on the back of covid and control the whole shebang ourselves, no?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,035

So, if the public are going to pay for it, be responsible for cost overruns, be responsible for never ending waste "disposal" costs - why hand over money to the french state and china so they can run away with the profit?

If it's going to cost 20bn then we can spunk that on the back of covid and control the whole shebang ourselves, no?
The Tories would be horrified at the idea of the public owning anything.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
29,295
The Tories would be horrified at the idea of the public owning anything.
Yep.

It's madness. The only reason for public ownership in these cases is to ensure shareholders get a bite of the apple.
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
39,753
Coal has absolutely nothing to do with the electrification of vehicles, you utter pleb.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,035

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom