Jump to content

Fallacy of Electrics


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, slemke said:

Or we end up in a Cuba like situation where people keep their ice vehicles forever and don’t make the switch.  Mandating a solution that doesn’t work for an individual won’t get them to adopt.

That’s true it will be interesting to see how the transition plays out. As the years go on BEV market share is bound to increase. Many ppl are not gonna want to make the change like you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deanh said:

that happen to you often?...and no, its not a good thing in the slightest, but a relatively rare occurrence that can be addressed somewhat when it happens...I feel for the wildlife that suffers...some thankfully can be saved...possible extinction from being forced out of ones habitat cannot....where exactly DO the Environmentalists that lobby for Electrification disappear too at the mention of how the necessary minerals are obtained? Are they at a save a Smelt Fund raiser at the Huntington Beach Wetlands  Town Hall Meeting?....you know, the one with the parking lot full of Teslas?....lol...

Deep Water Horizon was the big one.  I think that took years off my life mentally.  Inshore shut down, bayous, inland waterways. That went well beyond wildlife, it brought down industries that needed to be helped by the Government.  Still trying to resuscitate them.  
 

Plus all the well and pipe ruptures/leaks you don’t hear about that make the local news.  That oily sheen folks just don’t know where it’s coming from.  

 

These things stack up. 
Edit: I’m hopeful for solid state batteries or anything to clean up the battery side of business.  

James

Edited by BarneyFord
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Article out today in Detroit News that NASA and Nissan are teaming to produce solid state batteries that weigh 50% less than lithium, full charge in 15 minutes, and need no exotic materials. Pilot production to start in 2024 and full production for BEVs in 2028. So looks like truly viable, affordable BEVs are at least 4-6 years away. Meantime, hybrids galore out there, especially from Toyota, Kia/Hyundsi, Ford, and Honda. 

That would be great! This solves part of the issue, but energy generation and infrastructure still is a problem. Wide adoption is pushed by politicians and they’d like the switch around the same time as the plan in the article. Current lithium production estimates 100,000 metric tons were mined in 2021. We can assume an average (emphasis on average!!) EV uses 22lbs of lithium. Given current production and if every single ounce of lithium was used (no other batteries - i.e. iPhones, cameras, electronics) for EVs, we could produce roughly 10M cars last year. 

As of 2020, there we 276M registered cars in the US alone. It would take about 27 years to replace all the cars in the US. Current USGS estimates place known global lithium reserves at 21M metric tons. Using the same math, that would allow us to replace the 1.4B estimated cars on global roads one time while leaving us with about 14M metric tons remaining. That’s just to replace what’s on the roads now. Obviously there would exponentials and we’d have to account for battery degradation along with vehicle replacement due to loss, but it illustrates the point that politicians are living a pipe dream with their current timetables. Yes, technology will get better, but what I’m saying is we have to be realistic with our goals and ability to achieve them. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarneyFord said:

Deep Water Horizon was the big one.  I think that took years off my life mentally.  Inshore shut down, bayous, inland waterways. That went well beyond wildlife, it brought down industries that needed to be helped by the Government.  Still trying to resuscitate them.  
 

Plus all the well and pipe ruptures/leaks you don’t hear about that make the local news.  That oily sheen folks just don’t know where it’s coming from.  

 

These things stack up.  Yeah energy development is very dirty.  
 

James

Exxon Valdez for me rings the bell loudly..all those innocent animals broke my heart.. That said...theres going to be issues every now and then, no avoiding it through either human or mechanical error, or just plain laziness in regards to maintenence...exactly the same rings true for what is required to source electricity..so..Ill ask again...what exactly is the improvement?...theres yet to be a valid answer, especially when it pertains to transportation.For every so called solution theres just a  different set of issues....and at least Oil and ICE have a track record where said weakness's and issues are well documented and thus can somewhat be addressed...the same is not for the supposed answer, which in reality in comparison is in its infancy in a vehicular sense...and as for the electrification of America as a whole, tell the benefits of Solar and wind to areas in the US where its just not viable...... it is NOT IMO the "Holy Grail" it is being made out to be.

Edited by Deanh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Article out today in Detroit News that NASA and Nissan are teaming to produce solid state batteries that weigh 50% less than lithium, full charge in 15 minutes, and need no exotic materials. Pilot production to start in 2024 and full production for BEVs in 2028. So looks like truly viable, affordable BEVs are at least 4-6 years away. Meantime, hybrids galore out there, especially from Toyota, Kia/Hyundsi, Ford, and Honda. 

The Koreans are more advanced on solid state batteries but different to the tech that NASA and Nissan are investigating. LG and SKI independently of each other have prototype hybrid batteries that bridge the gap between Terniary Lithium Ion batteries and true solid state batteries, the best part is that the new batteries can be produced in existing and near future plants. That to me is big news and should put the Chinese LFP manufacturers like BYD back on their heels.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NLPRacing said:

 

Most of the vehement disdain propaganda against electric cars comes from groups that are heavily influenced by oil & gas companies. I wonder why that is? History will look at these types of articles the same way tobacco companies used to advertise the health benefits of smoking.

 

I will often drive 300+ miles at a time for work making an electric vehicle a bit more of a challenge for me, but it would still be doable. I would just have to plan my trips around charging while eating meals and at hotels. But for many people, like my wife, kids, my employees, etc. Could easily live with an electric car. As long as you plug in every night you don't even need a fancy charger. My brother-in-law had a Tesla Model S and then a Model 3 that he used for years for commuting and would just plug into a 120V outlet at home at night and would use superchargers while traveling. Never had a problem. 

 

The anti-BEV may be so influenced, but the pro-BEV side are not exactly providing an accurate picture either.

 

None of them are considering where the electricity comes from. In the US, I believe they still have over 60% of the power generated from fossil fuels, so the BEV savings are minimal. If the US gets close to 100% clean/renewable electricity, then BEV's can be considered an improvement, if they are still around. I also suspect the average ICE burns cleaner with less emissions than generating stations, so as much, if not more emissions are created by the generating stations than the ICE vehicles replaced. At least in British Columbia, 98% of our power is generated with clean/renewable resources, but the greens still complain about building dams.

 

If BEV's are to save the planet, why do they not provide studies on how they create less emissions than ICE - comparing the efficiency of gas/diesel engines to the efficiency of coal/natural gas power stations and the amount of transmission losses. A BEV may produce less emissions than an ICE, but where did that electricity come from and what were the losses in transmission. In addition, what is the impact of the mining/construction and eventual recycling.

 

Regardless of emissions, BEV's don't work for me, so I'll stick with my F-450 6.7 Super Duty.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rangers09 said:

 

The anti-BEV may be so influenced, but the pro-BEV side are not exactly providing an accurate picture either.

 

None of them are considering where the electricity comes from. In the US, I believe they still have over 60% of the power generated from fossil fuels, so the BEV savings are minimal. If the US gets close to 100% clean/renewable electricity, then BEV's can be considered an improvement, if they are still around. I also suspect the average ICE burns cleaner with less emissions than generating stations, so as much, if not more emissions are created by the generating stations than the ICE vehicles replaced. At least in British Columbia, 98% of our power is generated with clean/renewable resources, but the greens still complain about building dams.

 

If BEV's are to save the planet, why do they not provide studies on how they create less emissions than ICE - comparing the efficiency of gas/diesel engines to the efficiency of coal/natural gas power stations and the amount of transmission losses. A BEV may produce less emissions than an ICE, but where did that electricity come from and what were the losses in transmission. In addition, what is the impact of the mining/construction and eventual recycling.

 

Regardless of emissions, BEV's don't work for me, so I'll stick with my F-450 6.7 Super Duty.

 

But that's false equivalence. The anti-BEV environmental arguments are propaganda. The pro-BEV environmental arguments are based on facts. Note that I said environmental arguments... I'm not talking about someone's personal preference or infrastructure challenges.

 

BEV is agnostic to power source so as the grid get cleaner, it gets cleaner, and grids do get cleaner every year. If all your electricity comes from renewable sources like in BC (98% per your claim), the carbon emission of your BEV is practically zero. There is no similar argument for ICE - it will continue to emit the same carbon (or more because ICE tends be become less efficient as they age) as long as you own it and drive it. If the grid goes from 50% renewable to 75% renewable, you just reduce the carbon emission of your BEV by 50% - there is no practical way to reduce ICE carbon emission like this over the life of that vehicle. This is a simple concept... BEV has this built in advantage to drastically reduce emission as the grid is cleaned up. 

 

The thermal efficiency of natural gas or coal power plant is significantly better than ICE. This concept is also not hard to understand. Would you rather have central heating in your office building that has 1000 rooms or 1000 individual heaters under desks in every room in the office building to achieve the same level of heating? Which one is more efficient? You don't need a study to tell you what is evidently obvious. Millions of tiny power plants (that's what ICE is) is of course more wasteful and produce more emission than a couple of large power plant. The thermal efficiency of ICE is roughly 20% at the high end - meaning the most modern fuel efficient engines converts only 20% of carbon input into energy, the other 80% is wasted as heat and emission. The thermal efficiency of natural gas power plant is between 40 to 60% depending on design and age. Even factoring in transmission lost (which is usually 3 to 5% but could be as much as 7 or 8% in failing grids in some 3rd world country), ICE is emitting at 2 to 3 times more carbon as the power plant. 

 

The impact of mining is also a red herring. Fossil fuel is not a magic potion from heaven. It is extracted from the ground - some people call that mining. Since you are Canadian, I'm sure you've seen picture of the oil sand tarpit in Alberta. Let's not pretend only batteries require mining. 

 

 

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bzcat said:

The impact of mining is also a red herring. Fossil fuel is not a magic potion from heaven. It is extracted from the ground - some people call that mining. Since you are Canadian, I'm sure you've seen picture of the oil sand tarpit in Alberta. Let's not pretend only batteries require mining. 


It goes both ways, let's not pretend mining for battery minerals is harmless.  it's far from it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Forddaddy said:

It’s not about carbon emissions. We have a heavy reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation in the US and the mining of rare earth minerals for the components in EVs isn’t the most environmentally friendly process. Until we have efficient, reliable and consistent renewable energy, I don’t think it make sense for electric to be our prodomient transportation source.

 

Hybrids bridge the gap until infrastructure, battery tech and renewables are in place. 

you are making too much sense!  Ever notice when there is an article on the wonders of EV you NEVER see a comment that goes with it about where the power is coming from to charge that EV.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

But that's false equivalence. The anti-BEV environmental arguments are propaganda. The pro-BEV environmental arguments are based on facts. Note that I said environmental arguments... I'm not talking about someone's personal preference or infrastructure challenges.

 

BEV is agnostic to power source so as the grid get cleaner, it gets cleaner, and grids do get cleaner every year. If all your electricity comes from renewable sources like in BC (98% per your claim), the carbon emission of your BEV is practically zero. There is no similar argument for ICE - it will continue to emit the same carbon (or more because ICE tends be become less efficient as they age) as long as you own it and drive it. If the grid goes from 50% renewable to 75% renewable, you just reduce the carbon emission of your BEV by 50% - there is no practical way to reduce ICE carbon emission like this over the life of that vehicle. This is a simple concept... BEV has this built in advantage to drastically reduce emission as the grid is cleaned up. 

 

The thermal efficiency of natural gas or coal power plant is significantly better than ICE. This concept is also not hard to understand. Would you rather have central heating in your office building that has 1000 rooms or 1000 individual heaters under desks in every room in the office building to achieve the same level of heating? Which one is more efficient? You don't need a study to tell you what is evidently obvious. Millions of tiny power plants (that's what ICE is) is of course more wasteful and produce more emission than a couple of large power plant. The thermal efficiency of ICE is roughly 20% at the high end - meaning the most modern fuel efficient engines converts only 20% of carbon input into energy, the other 80% is wasted as heat and emission. The thermal efficiency of natural gas power plant is between 40 to 60% depending on design and age. Even factoring in transmission lost (which is usually 3 to 5% but could be as much as 7 or 8% in failing grids in some 3rd world country), ICE is emitting at 2 to 3 times more carbon as the power plant. 

 

The impact of mining is also a red herring. Fossil fuel is not a magic potion from heaven. It is extracted from the ground - some people call that mining. Since you are Canadian, I'm sure you've seen picture of the oil sand tarpit in Alberta. Let's not pretend only batteries require mining. 

 

 

 

I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

However, in addition to being Canadian, I'm also a Brit and old enough to have experienced coal usage, and the resulting brutal pollution. I note, the US still uses coal for over 20% of their electrical generation. Yet they want us to believe BEV's use clean energy?????

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

 

I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

However, in addition to being Canadian, I'm also a Brit and old enough to have experienced coal usage, and the resulting brutal pollution. I note, the US still uses coal for over 20% of their electrical generation. Yet they want us to believe BEV's use clean energy?????

 

You want to make that an argument against EVs, but it's really an argument against coal. Coal has went from over half of our generating capacity to 20% in about 15 years.

 

Quote

you are making too much sense!  Ever notice when there is an article on the wonders of EV you NEVER see a comment that goes with it about where the power is coming from to charge that EV.

 

What bzcat said. And do you think the utilities are just sitting around doing nothing to plan for the increase in EVs? Plus the infrastructure law passed year has $65B in it to upgrade the electrical grid.

Edited by AGR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AGR said:

Plus the infrastructure law passed year has $65B in it to upgrade the electrical grid.


The problem with that is you have companies like DTE Energy that are REQUIRED to produce a 10% return so they've invested so little in their infrastructure over the years it basically requires a complete rebuild at this point 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AGR said:

 

You want to make that an argument against EVs, but it's really an argument against coal. Coal has went from over half of our generating capacity to 20% in about 15 years.

 

 

Thanks for confirming that coal clearly isn't environmentally friendly. Fortunately, at present only 20% of the power used by BEV's is generated by coal, as 15 yrs ago it was 50%. No wonder BEV brochures don't discuss what is used to generate the power.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, guys, Australia has 44% of the world’s know Uranium resources. I’m sure that we could work out some kind of deal, we give you access to the Uranium and you supply the nuclear power plants and we store all the waste underground in desolate outback Australia where the geology is stable/ no earth quakes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

Thanks for confirming that coal clearly isn't environmentally friendly. Fortunately, at present only 20% of the power used by BEV's is generated by coal, as 15 yrs ago it was 50%. No wonder BEV brochures don't discuss what is used to generate the power.

 

Nobody said it was. EVs and power generation are separate issues. Like bzcat said, an EV is agnostic towards where the electricity is coming from. Even the most biased studies (like one that was widely circulated in conservative media about 5 years ago) can only get EVs to be "dirtier" if the electricity comes from coal. Gas, and obviously nuclear and renewables are MUCH cleaner than ICE. So any attacks on EVs because of "coal generated electricity" are an indictment against coal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Guys, guys, Australia has 44% of the world’s know Uranium resources. I’m sure that we could work out some kind of deal, we give you access to the Uranium and you supply the nuclear power plants and we store all the waste underground in desolate outback Australia where the geology is stable/ no earth quakes.

 

I'd take you up on that, but the Greenies are getting our nuclear plants shut down.  And all the regulations to build new ones even on the sites of current ones are so onerous that they can't be built and operated without being heavily subsidized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next gen nuclear needs to be Thorium based.  If they can get that working, the waste is much less radioactive.  And the process can actually take uranium waste into the process and use it, while breaking it down to less radio active material.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering....what if instead of expending a lot of "energy"-no pun intended - on the ICE vs EV debate, the world's attention was focused on emissions of all sorts coming from China and India???

 

And as always, if only we could attack an issue at a measured pace.  No doubt many economies associated with EVs but given the politics in our country we seem to lose perspective-in particular when  we have a president who makes it clear he will push his agenda  to eliminate the fossil fuel industry..not a "political statement", but rather a fact that is relevant to this thread IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Guys, guys, Australia has 44% of the world’s know Uranium resources. I’m sure that we could work out some kind of deal, we give you access to the Uranium and you supply the nuclear power plants and we store all the waste underground in desolate outback Australia where the geology is stable/ no earth quakes.

 

Since it takes about 25 years to build a nuclear plant in the states, I think that plan has passed. And how many decades have we heard that Fusion is around the corner? Kind of tired hearing about Wind and Solar from politicians. Reminds me of "clean coal" line from last decade. Seems like natural gas power plants are the best we have for the foreseeable future. Wind and solar just won't do the heavy lifting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Just wondering....what if instead of expending a lot of "energy"-no pun intended - on the ICE vs EV debate, the world's attention was focused on emissions of all sorts coming from China and India???

 

And as always, if only we could attack an issue at a measured pace.  No doubt many economies associated with EVs but given the politics in our country we seem to lose perspective-in particular when  we have a president who makes it clear he will push his agenda  to eliminate the fossil fuel industry..not a "political statement", but rather a fact that is relevant to this thread IMO.

 

Lots of irony here....same politicians that hate the fossil fuel industry are now clamoring for the same industry to produce more oil to lower fuel prices. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

Wind and solar just won't do the heavy lifting. 


I believe they can for the individual, not the masses. Personally, I'm willing to try it. The problem is affordability. 98% of the general public probably can't afford it without government subsidies. 

Edited by fuzzymoomoo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Lots of irony here....same politicians that hate the fossil fuel industry are now clamoring for the same industry to produce more oil to lower fuel prices. 


Not irony, hypocrisy. It's an election year for many of them so they need to at least act like they care about the electorate and not their bullshit political agendas. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Lots of irony here....same politicians that hate the fossil fuel industry are now clamoring for the same industry to produce more oil to lower fuel prices. 

It’s about getting re-elected.  The best thing that can happen to reduce energy usage is higher prices.  But, those higher prices upset constituents, and that’s bad for incumbents in an election year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, slemke said:

It’s about getting re-elected.  The best thing that can happen to reduce energy usage is higher prices.  But, those higher prices upset constituents, and that’s bad for incumbents in an election year.

Regardless of what policy is set now, I think the die is already set in  most voters’ minds, a big chunk don’t like either party and that’s a big worry because no one knows the consequences of even small shifts in the seats up for grabs. I think it guarantees more arguments and less progress on strategies that actually help the public.

 

We also have a federal election in Australia in the next month or so (prime minister gets to call the date) and it looks like the conservatives are going to get kicked out, our labor party is a lot like the democrats with left thinking policies that soothe the electorate but just adds to the deceifit. So we’re probably on the opposite direction to the US…….

 

The opposition in Australia has a plan to make electrified vehicles bought for business exempt from fringe benefit tax (personal use) so this means vehicles purchased by employees under a novated lease  sponsored by the employer as part of salary package will be treated by the tax department as 100% company use. That’s seen as a way of getting more electrification into vehicles fleets…..

 

so I’m a kindred spirit with y’all, my American friends…

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...