Chinese Economics Thread

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Couple of points

Well, I think it's poor form to drag Patch into this discussion as it is completely irrelevant to him.

I will just say that he hasn't responded to the followup where I outline where those SSNs should have a far larger tactical and strategic impact if employed at soft targets beyond the 2nd Island Chain and all the way to the Continental USA. This isn't a new line of thought either. We already had this sort of discussion in the SSN thread (IIRC some years ago) on how SSNs could operate.

And I'll add that when I notice Patch writing glaring errors or something which doesn't make sense to me, I don't use the laugh emoji as I don't think it's very mature or respectful in general.



Well, as stated earlier, this is a secondary school level explanation. Do I really want to get into the next level of details about subatomic particles also being a wave function and superposition? Electrons orbiting a hydrogen atom at 2200km per second is good enough, as that is what the scientists estimate is the speed and people can understand this.



When I say mechanical, I do mean atoms having to move.
And whilst current batteries predominantly use a liquid lithium electrolyte, it does look like semi-solid state and fully solid-state batteries are viable as they are being used in high-end cars.
And because the technology is still in its infancy, we can expect rapid improvements in cost and performance.







Not quite. I said this previously. It's the difference between:

1. In an electricity/battery energy pathway, you can have an entirely solid-state system where only the electrons move and I suspect this will be the norm in the future.

For example, a solar panel produces electrons, they flow through copper conductors almost instantly into the battery. That battery will likely be solid-state in the future, then the battery discharges to an electric motor at which point it is converted into motion to drive the wheels.

2. But in an Ammonia/Hydrogen energy pathway, you always have to move atoms around. You use electricity to split water molecules and then capture the hydrogen atoms. Then you have to mechanically compress the hydrogen, transport the hydrogen in tanker trucks and pump it into a hydrogen station storage tank. Then you have to pump it into yet another storage tank in the car. When the hydrogen is ready to be used, it then has significant losses in a combustion engine or fuel cell. A combustion engine wastes most of its energy, because the heat (moving atoms) can't be captured. All this creates significant losses at each stage and its difficult to create an alternative pathway because you are constrained by the requirement to work with hydrogen in chemical reactions.

I deliberately used the term ""mechanical"" in inverted commas as a gross simplification, because nobody really cares about technical jargon in the real world.

Yes, chemical reactions can and do have a far higher energy density than batteries.
But that by itself isn't directly relevant to the question, which is about energy pathways - hydrogen/ammonia versus electricity/battery energy.

So the underlying question is how much does it cost to propel a vehicle, because the lower-cost solution will be the winner. And I haven't even gone into how electricity is already available everywhere and the average socket is sufficient for the average car-owner. In comparison, a hydrogen energy pathway will require an entirely new and expensive infrastructure buildup.

I recall at least 3? discussions already on hydrogen versus electric vehicles in the NEV and other threads already. I see TPHuang has been helpful enough to post the energy pathway losses for hydrogen

And if you've read the works on future energy pathways (Third Industrial Revolution etc), you'll understand why electricity is going to be the predominant energy pathway in the future. Most cars and grids in the future will not be powered by hydrocarbons.
lmao holy shit man you just keep doubling down when you're clearly wrong.

I'm not even talking about hydrogen, because I somewhat agree with the conclusions that hydrogen gas alone is not a good energy distribution medium. Hydrogen alone requires many energy conversion steps, each of which is lossy, while electricity has only a few energy conversion steps.

But this is an example of a broken analog clock being right twice a day. Your reasoning is wrong. And like an analog clock compared to a digital RTC, such reasoning is primitive, unrepeatable, and imprecise. It also means that sweeping, authoritative statements on the reasoning and on the extension of that 'logic', you're wrong, because you were only accidentally 'right' (and only somewhat) in the first place. A broken clock being right at 2 PM doesn't mean that the broken clock will be right at 3 PM.

You know in a battery, atoms move too?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. You know what ions are? atoms. Charged atoms with almost all the mass of the atoms (+/- a few electrons), transported by diffusion. So clearly you do not understand the concept that atoms move in electrochemical processes and that batteries are electrochemical.

You also didn't understand secondary school chemistry if you double down on the 'speed' of an electron being 'estimated' at whatever. That's a popsci thing, not even wrong for a quantum mechanical object.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as you see linked.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Actual scientists use the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
where electrons are placed in orbitals which represent a probability distribution function, it isn't this little ball spinning around the nucleus.

You also seem to think that just because something is solid state that its better. No, the rate of improvement is hard capped by Carnot efficiency. Easy example of solid state being inferior to mechanical: thermoelectrics. Then, you don't even get solar panels right.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Multijunctions - extremely expensive to fabricate - are hard capped at 50%.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
So clearly, a given energy technology being solid state isn't enough to be superior to combustion.

Finally, you did not understand the concept of molar energy and energy density. IDK what to tell you on this one.

You know, I understand this feeling. I have opinions on many things too that I'm not a SME in. Nobody can be an expert in everything or right all the time. So I listen to the SMEs. I make clear that I'm not an expert and that this is my opinion. If I don't understand something, I ask. I don't make authoritative statements, I don't try to explain to SMEs, using my partial understanding. If I get corrected by a SME, I accept the correction. I misunderstood the role of heat in energy dumping during reentry. I have a degree yet because I am not in aerospace, this specific situation was something I got wrong. I got corrected by a SME, I accepted it, and I learned something about aerospace. Maybe you'll learn too.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Norwegian EV penetration is at 20% of the car parc - electricity demand has not increased nearly the degree you would expect it. Can you walk through the math on at what point will it impact electricity demand?

I'm not really familiar with the Norwegian situation.

You just have to build a model of EV penetration per year and estimate the incremental electricity consumption based on mileage and electric fuel efficiency. Then compare against existing and expected non-vehicle electricity demand. It can be as detailed and granular as you want


Economically it makes *zero sense* to separate the fee of using electricity vs. the grid with which you access electricity. I've had this exact conversation with utility regulators and electric utility companies across the world. You might as well say in Mawsynram India (most rainfall in the world) they should collect rain water on their roof top and not build a water pipe, ("cuz rainwater is cheaper than building water pipes").

The grid is a public good - unless everyone goes off grid, it needs to exist, and the cost of maintaining that infrastructure is necessary and a sunk cost. Whatever generation capacity you can do at roof top scale, you can do it cheaper at utility scale. Economics 101 ser.


In the cloudy UK for example, the final cost of commercial solar installations (eg. commercial buildings, farms, etc) looks around 6-10p/KWh. This is less than the "normal" electricity price of 15p pre-pandemic. which only includes some grid costs.

If you bundle all the grid costs into the unit cost of electricity, then grid electricity will be significantly more expensive. So I suspect even residential solar costs will be cheaper than grid electricity.

So you would want to install as much solar as possible, for your own use and to charge your EV. And then the EV has more than enough battery capacity and lifetime to power the house for a day.

The UK is generally low-density in terms of buildings, housing stock and land-use, so in general, there is enough space for local solar to meet local needs.

So if you were to bundle all the grid costs into the unit cost of electricity, wouldn't you end up with something like a spiral of ever increasing unit costs for utility-scale generated electricity? And wouldn't that be counterproductive if you want to encourage the use of lower-cost utility scale electricity over locally generated electricity.


Lol, walk me through the electricity demand of a 25 story apartment block and the solar efficiency of that apartment block's roof top - if you tell me that "wind is not available where it is needed", you can't possibly suggest that "solar is going to be generated at a place where it is needed".

I said Solar can generate "some or most" demand and its obvious that a 25 storey apartment won't be able to generate much electricity compared with its consumption. Plus using a 25 storey apartment as a reference point looks somewhat high. Isn't 12-18 storeys more the norm in Chinese cities?

But in general, China is a lot more densely populated than the UK and with current technology, only some electricity demand can be met with local solar. You could only get to "most" electricity generated locally in Chinese cities with cost breakthroughs such as solar films or solar windows, but it does look promising.


And where are we going to find the place to park all those cars? If you understand the real estate 'stock' in China - majority of places don't even have parking lots.

Well, there's another implication in the Third Industrial Revolution. You have to add self-driving cars to the mix.

So that will solve the car parking and charging element during daytime peak solar generation.
But then you have estimates that self-driving cars essentially means dirt cheap taxis, so the number of cars required will drastically reduce
And at the same time, large numbers of EVs will be scrapped as they reach the end of their service lives. Those batteries will essentially be available for their scrap value, yet they will be more than adequate to serve as batteries for homes or local storage.

It's difficult enough figuring out the trajectory of the various technologies involved (solar/wind/batteries/EVs/AI) and how they will mature/develop. And all these technologies interact with each other

Then you've got the economic, political, cultural, social etc elements as well, so the number of possible permutations in terms of short-term trajectory is impossible to predict beyond a few years.

I think if I were to summarize what I observe, you mistake/conflate "what is technically possible" with "what is economically feasible" on a regular basis.

What becomes economically feasible frequently depends on the timeframe or technological development.
But at a high-level, you know what is eventually coming and it's nice to have somewhere to exercise the imagination.

I'm an eternal optimist, and I wouldn't change that for the world.
 

abenomics12345

Junior Member
Registered Member
Look @AndrewS I’m going to stop engaging with you. Considering how big of a fan of an EV future you are, it is actually ridiculous that you know nothing about Norwegian EV penetration. Like I said EV penetration is 20% the car park and the electricity demand has not changed nearly as much as you claim it is. Go study it before you come and make your big claims.

We are engaged in a discussion of reality, not a potential future of the Jetsons or Star Trek.
 

mossen

Junior Member
Registered Member
With Russia now essentially aligning its brand and product line to all Chinese products, it's great opportunity for Chinese brands. And unlike in the 90s, China provides a more than worthwhile alternative to all Western products. This is like a great reset for the Russian society to adopt and appreciate Chinese product and to invest in the Chinese economy and export energy products to China.
In the segment, they mentioned that used cars now sell for higher than new ones. But this has to be a weird phase, because Chinese cars are now making huge inroads.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They also mentioned that planes are grounded for lack of spare parts, but I can't see that staying the same for long.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member

This seems like good news for recovery of travel in China. More than anything else, airlines has been an industrial hammered by the lockdowns. If they are recovering to and passed 2019 levels, that's a good area of growth not just for airlines themselves but for entire tourism/hotel/restaurant industry.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
The airline I work for is bringing back daily flights from Heathrow to Shanghai at the end of April, Beijing-Daxing in June, and upping the existing daily flight to Hong Kong to twice daily starting in March... it does make me chuckle a bit whenever I read/hear the Brits moan about us hedging our bets on Mainland China instead of returning to Seoul, or introducing more services to less-busier American destinations amidst a "strengthening dollar"
 
Top