AI

[ivconic]

As I said; things are moving too fast. Today can deny yesterday.
Of course I'm kidding, this is only for the gullible!
Social media is spreading the word about this from the picture below, why do I get the impression that the race is already lost!?




Aluminum Ion Batteries:
Emerging battery technology
Uses aluminum ions
Higher theoretical energy density
Challenges in practical implementation
Lower current commercial viability

Chinese Salt (Sodium-Ion) Batteries:
More developed technology
Uses sodium ions
Lower energy density than lithium
Lower cost
Better suited for stationary storage
Promising in grid and renewable energy applications
China leading global research and production
More environmentally sustainable
Less resource-intensive compared to lithium batteries

[Carl-NC]

Let me break down the typical electricity requirements for charging an electric car:

Your analysis assumes everyone will need a full charge every day. On average, Americans drive 1200 miles/month, or 40 miles/day. Instead of a daily 60kW-hr charge, it's more like 10kW-hr. This adds ~33% to the household electric bill. Since residential usage is ~40% of total electricity consumption, if everybody switched to EVs it would increase overall consumption by ~15%. If commercial vehicles were also EV, this would obviously go higher.

Even if petroleum power plants were built to supply this additional need, it's still an environmental win. Petrol-burning cars are horribly inefficient at converting petrol to motion, whereas petrol-burning power plants are highly efficient and the end result is that EVs get about 3-5x more energy from every gallon of petrol.

There are other issues (lithium, ferinstance) but the overall energy math is not at all prohibitive and even favors EVs.

[ivconic]

Yes you are right. Whenever I calculate something like that: I follow the "worst case scenario rule".
It is unlikely that all BEVs will be at a charging stations during the day, especially not at the same time.
As it is unlikely that everyone will charge at home in a similar period.
These are phenomena that are impossible to predict and put into safe patterns, that's why one always starts with the worst scenario.
Of course, BEVs are ecologically much cleaner, more efficient and more acceptable than petrol cars.
I'm not absolutely against BEVs, but prefer hybrids because it makes more sense.
A slow transition to hybrids will cause a much smaller and much milder impact on the energy system.
The assumed quantities of crude oil at the world level will certainly last until 2050 (I read somewhere) and until then there is enough time,
that with the current pace of technology development; comes to a better solution.
At the root of the whole story, I am actually bothered by only one thing; very noticeable and increasingly loud calls for starting a much larger number of nuclear power plants in the future.

[Alexismex]

The assumed quantities of crude oil at the world level will certainly last until 2050..." they say always that argument , before they say until 2000".............the better fuel ... the best energy is hydrogen, there is a huge reserve deep within the earth, for example in France they found this type of reserve of millions of cubic meters and they have the technology of the engines, for example in Paris and Berlin there has been bus transportation for several years...

[ivconic]

Yes, it is possible that it is so,
it is possible that this information is in the service of some interests and in the service of intimidating the population and in the service of pushing some agenda.
I read that somewhere, and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
All the better, we won't have to give up that kind of energy.
And it is also possible that technology has advanced so much that today it is possible to extract that energy form from deposits that, until yesterday,
were simply unprofitable with the old technology.
I know the latter from the example of extracting copper ore in my country.
While local ingenuity used local outdated technology; domestic resources have become unprofitable for further exploitation.
And then we left the resources to the Chinese who brought new technology and now those resources are again current and very profitable.
...
I'm glad you mentioned France, because I was hesitant. But now you have given me a clue to say what I wanted to say the previous days.
The French economy would not exist today if the majority did not rely on nuclear power plants, I don't know if you knew that?
This is information that is deliberately not highlighted in public.
As well as the fact that Germany is slowly renouncing the green agenda and is starting to restart abandoned mining technologies.
This is a bit funny to the point of paradox because Germany is the most serious producer and exporter of solar plantations in the world!
Some have known this for a long time in those countries, and some will be shocked and will not believe.

[Mario-j23]

"As well as the fact that Germany is slowly renouncing the green agenda and is starting to restart abandoned mining technologies."
I agree with most of them, but it's not true. According to the latest information for last year, production in lignite power plants decreased by 8%, and in hard coal power plants by as much as 32%.
During periods when there is a lack of wind and solar generation, the remaining coal-fired power plants on the market must operate at 100 percent capacity. its capabilities to replace renewable energy sources. However, the plants are not currently being restored from reserve to regular market operations.
Global warming is facts, not myths.

[ivconic]

You have raised two topics, each of which is complicated in its own right.
First; Germany has not yet initiated the process of returning to concessional mining, but is in the process of preparing.
Everything will depend on global political developments.
Not to write too much, but everything will depend on the outcome and (I hope) an end to the war in Ukraine as soon as possible,
but also on what Mr. President Trump will actually achieve in practice from the bunch of threats he has already sent to the EU.
The second, more interesting question in my opinion, is the issue of global warming. You wrote that "...it is not a myth but a fact..."
I agree and disagree with you here at the same time! So I have to explain this in detail.
Apart from being a privileged member of the nation to which the great Nikola Tesla belonged,
I equally have the honor of belonging to the nation to which Mihajlo Pupin and
(in this case much more importantly) Milutin Milanković also belonged.
Why do I mention this? Because we in Serbia, in schools, had a specially adapted Physics curriculum to these facts.
So we studied the detailed work and legacy of the aforementioned great men.
Milutin Milanković created a model that directly shows and proves the "phenomenon" of the planet's climatological changes, which occur cyclically at regular intervals.
In other words; this is old news, nothing new, nothing that is not already known.
Climate change and global warming, which have been talked about so much in recent decades, have only been misused by some interest groups to push some agendas.
Classic misuse of science on the ignorant masses.
In other words; global warming is nothing that man has produced with his activities, it is a general misconception.
It is just a part of the natural cycle that the planet goes through for the umpteenth time in the history of its existence.
No increased CO2 emissions, no excessively farting cows...horses...raccoons...whatever farts on this planet: can't affect the natural processes of the planet even 1 part per million.
So, to cut a long story short, yes; I agree with you: global warming is a reality. But no, I will not agree with you if you connect global warming with everything that has been written on this topic so far.

[ivconic]

BTW... Germans are the nation that farts the most, especially during the Oktoberfest when huge amounts of beer and potatoes are consumed, should they also be accused of global warming and all their beer and potatoes taken away?
This is not a joke, I have personally been to Munich a couple of times during the Oktoberfest.
If I hadn't been drinking enormous amounts of otherwise fantastic German beer; i would probably die of gas!

[EL NINO]

Global warming is a fact that occurs in different periods...and the fact is that for example in Central Europe around the year 900 it was so warm that vines were grown in different regions...this is proven by archaeological findings..
It is also clear that...even in the times of prehistoric civilizations, the ruling classes, with the help of shamans, used meteorological and natural phenomena to enforce certain government practices..

True ecology is strongly in conflict with a consumer society...

Because it is not ecological to produce products with a short lifespan and this also applies to cars..

It is clear that every country must be prepared to be able to cover the electric energy consumption of its population and industry..

Nuclear energy appears here as the most economical and most stable option for ensuring such an electric energy demand...

Now, as for AI, it is clear that artificial intelligence will generationally improve..,, and in my opinion it can also strongly influence the development of metal detector technology... in my opinion most in the analysis and filtering of the received signal from the detector's RX coil..with the help of various IA algorithms..

[Mario-j23]

Milutin Milanković created a model that directly shows and proves the "phenomenon" of the planet's climatological changes, which occur cyclically at regular intervals.
In other words; this is old news, nothing new, nothing that is not already known.
Climate change and global warming, which have been talked about so much in recent decades, have only been misused by some interest groups to push some agendas.
Classic misuse of science on the ignorant masses.
In other words; global warming is nothing that man has produced with his activities, it is a general misconception.
It is just a part of the natural cycle that the planet goes through for the umpteenth time in the history of its existence.
No increased CO2 emissions, no excessively farting cows...horses...raccoons...whatever farts on this planet: can't affect the natural processes of the planet even 1 part per million.
So, to cut a long story short, yes; I agree with you: global warming is a reality. But no, I will not agree with you if you connect global warming with everything that has been written on this topic so far.

I don't deny the model he created Milutin Milankowić.The ice age cycle consists of longer, cold periods interrupted by shorter, warmer periods, like the one we live in today. This is a cyclical process, so the tilt of the Earth's axis changes again, the climate returns to a warmer state. But this does not explain the current warming. Contrary. We are now at the point in the Milankovitch cycles where our planet should begin to cool again. In the next 60 thousand years, global temperatures should drop by about 5 degrees, leading to another ice age. Everything indicates that it will not happen due to ongoing warming. Life on Earth existed and thrived at a time when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than today, and when global temperatures were so high that crocodiles lived on Spitsbergen. However, there is one important caveat: the climate in these eras was relatively stable. Living things have had millions of years to adapt to such conditions. Today, changes that once occurred over millennia are occurring over decades. Living things have no chance of adapting to them or escaping their effects. In late antiquity, the global temperature began to drop slightly - this is probably the result of the aforementioned Milankovitch cycles, leading to the next ice age. But this "little ice age" ended abruptly with the advent of the industrial age. The temperatures that prevail on Earth in the 21st century are unparalleled in the last 125,000 years. years. And this warming is just beginning.

This is just my opinion on the matter and everyone can have their own.

Sorry for the mistakes, but I don't speak English and I use a translator, so we may not fully understand each other.

[ivconic]

I mostly agree with what you wrote.
The poles have shifted by 11 degrees, I've learned that indirectly over the past 20 years playing with magnetometers.
Of course, I would later receive confirmation of those changes from the professional literature... which always lags some time behind the events.
It will sound paradoxical, but this age we are living in is actually a "mini ice age" even though we are talking about global warming.
But the climate changes that all of us more or less already know about personally, because we have noticed ourselves; first of all,
they come from shifting the real magnetic poles, and least of all from human activities.
There is no reason to panic, these are long-term processes.
And man with his activities still does not significantly affect the changes on the planet.
If we look at the total surface of the planet, and then look at the very small part of the surface of the planet that human activities have an impact on
(not to mention the depth of impact that is ridiculous on the scale of the size of the planet); it becomes clear that all humanity on the planet resembles
a microbe sitting on the back of an elephant.
I am really angry about stories about global hunger, thirst, lack of living space, too much "gas", etc.
The planet has enough resources to feed, water and house 100 billion if not many more people.
Human greed is the only obstacle to this. Politics, greed and various agendas and interests.
The planet will certainly survive and life on it will survive. Will the man survive? It depends on the man himself.
The path to multiplying nuclear power plants and other resources based on nuclear technology; it does not lead to a secure future.
Chernobyl is our living proof. It is an area where life has been disrupted for very big number of centuries.
Such questions go beyond the narrow fields of a single science and require a much broader view.
Most general forecasts say that humanity is rushing towards self-destruction. Nuclear war is mostly feared.
However, I think that we do not need such a war at all and that we will destroy ourselves in a much more "peaceful" way.
The alternation of nature is the root cause.

[ivconic]

I came across this and I like it, lol:

[EL NINO]

Remember one thing... In history, climate change has always been decisive in regions and could influence the migration of entire nations and cultures to the lands of the earth..where there was enough water and good climatic conditions for the life of people and animals...

All advanced technology and electronics are useless in a place..where a person does not have enough natural resources for a normal life..

so all advanced technological achievements are, so to speak, only a pleasant bonus ...when they are in a place where you can live well..

In the near future, geopolitics will be key in the further development.. of the world and civilization..

[ivconic]

[kt315]