|
Post by John B on Feb 20, 2024 19:15:44 GMT -5
Don't know if this means anything, but I drove a Tesla the other day. Was first in line at a red light. Stepped on the gas as it turned green, and my head snapped back and I was shoved hard back into the chair. I was surprised and pleased. That was fun. That’s great news, Doc. For some reason, I thought you weren’t driving anymore. I suppose the question is, did anyone else know Doc was driving?!?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 20, 2024 19:35:35 GMT -5
The speakers for my first stereo were EV.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Feb 20, 2024 19:38:44 GMT -5
drove a Tesla the other day. Stepped on the gas Ummmmmmm…….
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 20:11:05 GMT -5
And I'm looking at how much work is required to accomplish a particular task. Like the task of moving a commuter (with or without briefcase) X miles to a destination in Y minutes. I suspect it requires less work than running an assembly line. OK, back to this. You are correct. A force that moves a load over a distance is work. Applying a force of any size to something that doesn't move also doesn't accomplish any work. Famously, as illustrated by Coachdoc, an EV goes to full torque instantly to the delight of boy racers everywhere. But what this also means is that the current draw from the battery increases proportionally as the load increases. The more you're hauling, the faster the battery gets sucked dry. Which means that the only application that's appropriate for EVs is literally commuting to work with no real load. In contrast, an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) is part of a powertrain system which includes gearing that matches the power/torque output to what the road conditions demand rather than going full bore all the time, lowering fuel consumption. Let's take a real world look at what that means. I know from previous conversations that Cosmic Mike has an F150 like mine. Now I seem to recall his engine is one of the Ecoboost systems while mine is the 5.0L V8. That probably means he gets somewhat better mileage than mine. My truck has a range unloaded of about 650 miles. Assuming he has the same 36 gallon fuel tank as mine, Mike probably safely gets let's say 750 miles in unloaded range. So far, so good. Now my F150 has a tow rating of about 8500 lbs. I think Mike has said that his chassis is spec'd for about 10,000 lbs. or maybe a bit more. So to simplify the math, let's just call it 10,000 lbs. Now Mike has a nice Airstream trailer that he uses a bunch. Just for ease, let's say that weighs in at 10,000 lbs. I'm guessing my truck when fully loaded probably drops the range to maybe 500 miles. I'll guess that when Mike tows his range drops to, say, 550 miles all else being equal. Still quite reasonable. Loaded he probably adds 1 or 2 fuel stops at 10 minutes apiece virtually wherever he goes. Now lets look at the direct EV competitor- the F150 Lightning. Max optional EV range is 300 miles. Now perusing various evaluation videos on Youtube it appears that towing 5000 lbs. with a Lightning lowers that range to about 80 miles. Towing Mike's trailer it probably drops to 40 miles. And that doesn't even account for the inevitable battery degradation that doesn't happen with ICE. Once EPA bans new ICE as planned for 2035, Mike is screwed if his current truck can't last until the second coming. Next we'll look at heavy duty vehicles and how the government plans to screw that up.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 20, 2024 20:59:55 GMT -5
I know a bunch of people with Teslas. They all rave about the car. "Best car I've ever had." Of course these are in-town people who can charge at home or at work. I think they all have a second gas car.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 21:16:49 GMT -5
No. EVs suck at doing work. And that's due to the intractable problem of having a battery. Yeah, you're right about batteries. The motor itself is much simpler than the internal combustion engine/transmission. But it's the fuel thing. And EVs have to drag around a lot of weight in batteries to get the same OOMF of a gas engine. Somebody posted once a thing where a guy shows that the volumetric amount of batteries required to provide the same energy in a gallon of gas is 13 times larger. And the weight is even more than 13 times as much. And filling up a tank of gas is so much quicker. But I think the battery/charger issues will get worked out. But it's not likely to happen in my driving life time. Of course, simple urban commuter driving is presently workable for an EV. Just not open road long hauls. I believe, while Sue and I are still driving, we'll always have a gas car for trips. But my car (now a Civic 32.7 mpg) will be the more environmentally friendly vehicle. Next one will probably be a hybrid of some sort. I looked this up a month or two ago for another forum and if I recall correctly the energy density of diesel and gasoline is roughly 50 times greater than a Lithium Ion battery. Meaning that to equal the energy in a gallon of gasoline (I think that's about 8 pounds) takes a 400 lb. Lithium Ion battery. You can get more out of some experimental batteries but the explosion risk is off the charts.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 20, 2024 21:19:28 GMT -5
It’s not a complicated world.
China and Climate Change.
If your information comes from the “Climate Change is a hoax or the cure is worse than the disease” camp, it is in their interest (game plan) to diminish, disparage, and deny any action China might be taking or be credited for as regards their efforts to diminish their greenhouse gas emissions ( i.e., (1) it’s all a hoax and China is just out to screw us, or (2) if China isn’t doing anything, there is no use or reason for us to do so. We’ll just get screwed (by China).
On the other hand, if your information comes from the other camp, the one that holds that Climate Change is a serious matter that needs to be globally dealt with, then what you hear and read will be the opposite (i.e., (1) China is beginning to take Climate Change seriously and is doing X,Y, &Z, and (2) so don’t give up hope or action on climate change, all are beginning to dip their oar so we mustn’t lag).
It’s really not that complicated. China is doing something (Team PBS). China is doing nothing (Team FOX). Both teams have graphs and stuff.
(but only one the clear plurality of scientists that have considered the data… just can’t get away from that one).
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 20, 2024 21:24:16 GMT -5
Anyway, what China does clearly matters. So, what is China doing?
Well, at least as far as encouraging their domestic transportation fleet to go electric, it does appear China is doing something. Depending on source, between 25%-35% of all new car sales in China are electric. Ok, admittedly, China isn’t the most transparent country, so it is fair to question anything and everything China.
But, if reason is given rule over emotion, reason does suggest the figures on EV sales in China are reasonable, even the higher ones. While I wouldn’t discount environmental concerns, China’s economic and national security concerns alone are enough to credit a strategic push to electrify their transportation fleet.
China needs to import 60% of their oil. China can’t control the price of oil, or even guarantee its availability in event of a global crisis. On the other hand, China is awash with coal, there is coal coming out China’s ears. And China can control the price of coal and China can guarantee its supply of coal.
Oil is gas. Coal is electricity. There are good, sound reasons for China to move towards electrifying its fleet. And I believe they are doing so.
(and I don’t think one of the EV hurdles our government is facing, driver convenience and charging ease, is something that the Chinese government is especially concerned about. ((so factory grunt Wu has to take a shorter vacation and skip some discretionary trips: "tsk, tsk, tsk” go the big dogs in China))
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 20, 2024 21:44:44 GMT -5
I wonder what Chinar is doing about the charging infrastructure. A controlled economy can decide to do whatever it wants (until it goes bankrupt).
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 20, 2024 21:45:59 GMT -5
Now, some discerning readers are going to note that electricity from coal still produces all kinds of CO2 emissions, so what’s the big deal?
(do note that I excused China’s push to EVs from environmental concerns in lieu of the economic and strategic)
But, China’s grid is powered by more than coal. Whatever percentage of their grid’s power comes from wind, hydro, and nuclear is a percentage that favors the EV side of the greenhouse ledger.
And, while there is no way to know if or to what extent China might ever do so, there currently are, and this I know, Chinese scientists visiting North Dakota who are very interested the current work being done in western ND to sequester the CO2 from coal-fired power plants. And not just ND, globally there is interest and work in progress on reducing the greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Everyone is interested in sequestering CO2 (or stopping the sequestration of CO2), and there is no way to know if it will ever amount to anything (or be permitted to amount to anything), but it is there. And China, and China’s coal people, are looking at it. China may never leave coal completely, but it can be hoped that China’s use of coal will gradually diminish or become “cleaner” (as regards the release of greenhouse gasses).
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 21:48:50 GMT -5
It’s not a complicated world. China and Climate Change. If your information comes from the “Climate Change is a hoax or the cure is worse than the disease” camp, it is in their interest (game plan) to diminish, disparage, and deny any action China might be taking or be credited for as regards their efforts to diminish their greenhouse gas emissions ( i.e., (1) it’s all a hoax and China is just out to screw us, or (2) if China isn’t doing anything, there is no use or reason for us to do so. We’ll just get screwed (by China). On the other hand, if your information comes from the other camp, the one that holds that Climate Change is a serious matter that needs to be globally dealt with, then what you hear and read will be the opposite (i.e., (1) China is beginning to take Climate Change seriously and is doing X,Y, &Z, and (2) so don’t give up hope or action on climate change, all are beginning to dip their oar so we mustn’t lag). It’s really not that complicated. China is doing something (Team PBS). China is doing nothing (Team FOX). Both teams have graphs and stuff. (but only one the clear plurality of scientists that have considered the data… just can’t get away from that one). I personally can't generate half a damn for either China or climate change. My specialty is vehicles and powertrains. I was fired (well, they did offer me the option of quitting which I took so as not to leave a negative record behind) from my job at NHTSA almost 14 years ago 4 hours before my 1 year anniversary when I would have become permanent. I then went bankrupt in 2011. Lost my home in 2012. Moved 5 times in the 3 years after that. Bought our current house in 2015. And paid that house off 2 weeks ago. I'm still married and the kids live nearby, both either married or engaged. NHTSA posted my old job again 3 1/2 years ago and I applied. Due to the nature of the posting I believe I've got a decent shot at it again if Chevron is reversed and takes EPA with it. Should they want me back, and I believe God is calling me back there (hold your snark, it's irrelevant), I'm going in armed and ready for anything. They simply can't fuck me again. Global warming be damned. And I didn't get any of that from Fox News. What's your excuse?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 20, 2024 21:54:36 GMT -5
Well, I hope you get the job...
but the thread topic, generally, is about China and EVs.
And there are sides. And the arguments the sides are armed with, are designed, and purposely so, to serve the respective sides' purpose. I posited that, regardless of our sides and arguments, China is likely making a genuine move to EVs for their own reasons (and not just building them to screw over Europe and (down the road) the U.S.... as someone here intimated). And I made a reasonable, if considered, argument to this effect.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 20, 2024 22:11:33 GMT -5
And further, any argument in favor of EVs or against EVs is dependent on the position that argument holds on climate change with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
It is a given, EVs are not going to be as convenient, handy, or as useful as gas cars in our lifetime. Rather, in the lifetime of the youngest member of this forum, who, for argument's sake, will live to be 95. EVs just won't be. The gasoline-powered car is a darn near perfected mode of transportation. Hell, I'll call it perfected. They run like a charm and do so for a hell of a long time.
So, if you think climate change is a hoax or that the cure is worse than the disease, then of course EVs are dumbest damn thing that ever rolled down a highway. There is no reason to put up with them and their issues.
But, if you think that EVs are needed to reduce greenhouse emissions in our transportation fleet, emissions that are having a harmful effect on our climate, then that is the argument you need to make and stick with. Don't try argue that EVs are better, they aren't. Don't try argue that there won't be any inconvenience, there will be. And don't turn a blind eye to the EV issues that are looming, they are clearly looming and they will be a hell of challenge.
But, this EV deal isn't being done because it is wanted, it is being done because it is needed... rather, there are enough who believe that it is needed. Something is needed.
(and I admit I just passed up on my chance to buy an EV, or even a hybrid. I went with a gas-powered Honda, an absolute mechanical marvel. But, I do think that Marshall should buy a new hybrid Honda CRV. And get the loaded one.)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 22:45:58 GMT -5
And further, any argument in favor of EVs or against EVs is dependent on the position that argument takes on climate change with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. It is a given, EVs are not going to be as convenient, handy, or as useful as gas cars in our lifetime. Rather, in the lifetime of the youngest member of this forum, who for argument's sake, will live to be 95. They just won't be. The gasoline-powered car is a damn perfected mode of transportation. Hell, I'll call it perfected. They run like a charm and do so for a hell of a along time. So, if you think climate change is a hoax or that the cure is worse than the disease, then of course EVs are dumbest damn thing that ever rolled down a highway. But, if you think that EVs are needed to reduce greenhouse emissions in the transportation fleet, then that is the argument you need to make and stick with. Don't try argue that they are better, they aren't. Don't try argue that there won't be any inconvenience, there will be. And don't turn a blind eye to the issues that are looming, they are looming and they will be a hell of challenge. This EV deal isn't being done because it is wanted, it is being done because there are enough who believe it is needed. (and I admit I just passed up on my chance to buy an EV, or even a hybrid. I went with a gas-powered Honda, an absolute mechanical marvel. But, I do think that Marshall should buy new hybrid Honda CRV. And get the loaded one.) I was working in DC dealing with exactly this back in 2007 when Massachusetts v. EPA was decided and everyone began having these discussions about how we were going to deal with it. I remember two things distinctly. One was a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The issue was stated as an equation, namely the amount of CO2 produced in a society is the product of population size and the population's GDP. So if you want to reduce CO2 production, which factor do you screw? The other one was how a regulatory scheme could be designed. It was generally agreed that that last people you wanted to handle that was EPA. And look, now we've got EPA deciding who's going to die or get economically destroyed. Ain't life grand?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 20, 2024 22:58:14 GMT -5
But, I do think that Marshall should buy a new hybrid Honda CRV. And get the loaded one.) Maybe someday. Sue is driving a 7 YO Honda CRV now. When she gets around to wanting a newer set of wheels that might happen. I want something smaller and more maneuverable. Maybe a Prius hybrid or a Corolla or Camry. Or an Accord. But I'm another year or so away I figure. My Civic is 9 YO. Get's 32.7 mpg, so says the dashboard.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 21, 2024 20:23:53 GMT -5
And I'm looking at how much work is required to accomplish a particular task. Like the task of moving a commuter (with or without briefcase) X miles to a destination in Y minutes. I suspect it requires less work than running an assembly line. OK, now I'll look at your question from another angle. Right at the moment all the news is about Light Duty (under 14,000 lbs. GVWR). But there are a bunch of other classifications of vehicles that are powered by ICE- trucks, trains, motorcycles, farm equipment, lawn mowers, etc. I'll get to that in a minute but first, let's establish some basic understanding of the technical side of the question. 1. Engine exhaust is roughly 30% CO2, 30% H2O, and 40% Nitrogen (that's also 78% of our atmosphere). Actual pollutants are an incredibly small portion of engine exhaust, particularly in modern engines with modern pollution control technology. In fact, it's tough to kill yourself these days by running your engine in a closed garage (note that I said tough, not impossible. Don't try it at home). The amount of Carbon Monoxide (CO) put out by a modern engine will have a tough time accumulating in the inherent leakiness of normal building construction. 2. CO2 is roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water (H2O) is roughly 1%- 25 times CO2. Additionally, water is roughly 10 times the climate forcing factor of CO2. Anytime someone says we need to reduce CO2, try not to laugh thinking how obviously stupid he would sound if he proposed banning water. This is an inherent difficulty in trying to communicate this stuff to normal people. Some things normal people can understand, like water. It gets more difficult if it's a chemical compound. 3. Miles Per Gallon (MPG) is an exact mathematical inverse of grams per mile of CO2 if you do the unit conversions. Helpful tip: every gallon of gasoline when burned yields 19.6 pounds of CO2. That means that 0 g/mile of CO2 equals infinite MPG. Again, that's why things are often stated the way they are: obfuscation. 4. CO2 is what you exhale and what plants inhale. It has never been and never will be a pollutant regardless of how environmentalists try to redefine it as one. Even the Federal government is careful to never call CO2 a "pollutant", ever. It's not called a pollutant on their websites or in any official communications.
|
|
|
Post by david on Feb 21, 2024 20:53:58 GMT -5
And I'm looking at how much work is required to accomplish a particular task. Like the task of moving a commuter (with or without briefcase) X miles to a destination in Y minutes. I suspect it requires less work than running an assembly line. OK, now I'll look at your question from another angle. Right at the moment all the news is about Light Duty (under 14,000 lbs. GVWR). But there are a bunch of other classifications of vehicles that are powered by ICE- trucks, trains, motorcycles, farm equipment, lawn mowers, etc. I'll get to that in a minute but first, let's establish some basic understanding of the technical side of the question. 1. Engine exhaust is roughly 30% CO2, 30% H2O, and 40% Nitrogen (that's also 78% of our atmosphere). Actual pollutants are an incredibly small portion of engine exhaust, particularly in modern engines with modern pollution control technology. In fact, it's tough to kill yourself these days by running your engine in a closed garage (note that I said tough, not impossible. Don't try it at home). The amount of Carbon Monoxide (CO) put out by a modern engine will have a tough time accumulating in the inherent leakiness of normal building construction. 2. CO2 is roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water (H2O) is roughly 1%- 25 times CO2. Additionally, water is roughly 10 times the climate forcing factor of CO2. Anytime someone says we need to reduce CO2, try not to laugh thinking how obviously stupid he would sound if he proposed banning water. This is an inherent difficulty in trying to communicate this stuff to normal people. Some things normal people can understand, like water. It gets more difficult if it's a chemical compound. 3. Miles Per Gallon (MPG) is an exact mathematical inverse of grams per mile of CO2 if you do the unit conversions. Helpful tip: every gallon of gasoline when burned yields 19.6 pounds of CO2. That means that 0 g/mile of CO2 equals infinite MPG. Again, that's why things are often stated the way they are: obfuscation. 4. CO2 is what you exhale and what plants inhale. It has never been and never will be a pollutant regardless of how environmentalists try to redefine it as one. Even the Federal government is careful to never call CO2 a "pollutant", ever. It's not called a pollutant on their websites or in any official communications. Peter, I understand that cars, especially those which have not had their catalytic converter stolen, produce very little carbon monoxide. I also understand that carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant." If I understand the argument of environmentalists, the question is how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere at any one time. Again, I am spitballing here and pardon me if I get this completely wrong: The earth has only so much carbon dioxide. When plants grow they hold or capture a certain amount. As they decompose or burn, or when fossil fuels burn, they release the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If there are fewer trees and other plants and more burning fossil fuels, then there is likely a higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. With more CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a higher "greenhouse" effect to heat the earth.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 21, 2024 22:12:57 GMT -5
OK, now I'll look at your question from another angle. Right at the moment all the news is about Light Duty (under 14,000 lbs. GVWR). But there are a bunch of other classifications of vehicles that are powered by ICE- trucks, trains, motorcycles, farm equipment, lawn mowers, etc. I'll get to that in a minute but first, let's establish some basic understanding of the technical side of the question. 1. Engine exhaust is roughly 30% CO2, 30% H2O, and 40% Nitrogen (that's also 78% of our atmosphere). Actual pollutants are an incredibly small portion of engine exhaust, particularly in modern engines with modern pollution control technology. In fact, it's tough to kill yourself these days by running your engine in a closed garage (note that I said tough, not impossible. Don't try it at home). The amount of Carbon Monoxide (CO) put out by a modern engine will have a tough time accumulating in the inherent leakiness of normal building construction. 2. CO2 is roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water (H2O) is roughly 1%- 25 times CO2. Additionally, water is roughly 10 times the climate forcing factor of CO2. Anytime someone says we need to reduce CO2, try not to laugh thinking how obviously stupid he would sound if he proposed banning water. This is an inherent difficulty in trying to communicate this stuff to normal people. Some things normal people can understand, like water. It gets more difficult if it's a chemical compound. 3. Miles Per Gallon (MPG) is an exact mathematical inverse of grams per mile of CO2 if you do the unit conversions. Helpful tip: every gallon of gasoline when burned yields 19.6 pounds of CO2. That means that 0 g/mile of CO2 equals infinite MPG. Again, that's why things are often stated the way they are: obfuscation. 4. CO2 is what you exhale and what plants inhale. It has never been and never will be a pollutant regardless of how environmentalists try to redefine it as one. Even the Federal government is careful to never call CO2 a "pollutant", ever. It's not called a pollutant on their websites or in any official communications. Peter, I understand that cars, especially those which have not had their catalytic converter stolen, produce very little carbon monoxide. I also understand that carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant." If I understand the argument of environmentalists, the question is how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere at any one time. Again, I am spitballing here and pardon me if I get this completely wrong: The earth has only so much carbon dioxide. When plants grow they hold or capture a certain amount. As they decompose or burn, or when fossil fuels burn, they release the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If there are fewer trees and other plants and more burning fossil fuels, then there is likely a higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. With more CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a higher "greenhouse" effect to heat the earth. OK, fair question. The general claim of the "climate change" set is that "greenhouse gases" work like a greenhouse works, reflecting thermal energy (oddly only in one direction) coming off the earth back at the earth and heating it. CO2, currently around 0.04% of the atmosphere, is the most prominent of the GHGs, but there are a few others like methane (aka cow farts). This idea dates back to someone named Arrhenius sometime around the 1900s. The theory has enough holes to drive a semi through, however. Among them are the fact that it can't be empirically (i.e.- experimentally) proven, instead relying on complicated models that are so full of degrees of freedom that they can't be seriously relied on to be accurate to any reasonable degree. There's also the fact that "climate change" violates things like the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann, and 2 or 3 other laws of physics. And then there's my favorite. Remember, an engine puts out equal amounts of CO2 and water (chemically, combustion is: HC + O2 => CO2 + H2O). Water is a full 1% of the atmosphere and according to climate scientists, has a climate forcing factor ten times that of CO2. Now one has to ask himself, "why is the push to reduce CO2 and not water?" The answer to that can only be "you've got to be kidding if we said that out loud." Remember, this is very complicated for normal people to understand. Confusing the plebes is the goal of international groups of the rich and richer that make up the IPCC. Semantics plays a huge strategic role in disguising the real goal of "climate change" which, in the words of Scrooge, is "reducing the surplus population". And feel free to ask any question or challenge me as you see fit. Like I've said earlier, I believe this is a calling. And if that comes true, I'll need all the practice I can get. Because when it comes to wealthy, arrogant pieces of shit, DCs got that in spades. I've been there and found out for myself.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 21, 2024 23:22:01 GMT -5
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths"Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says." skepticalscience.com/argument.php
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 22, 2024 5:58:43 GMT -5
skepticalscience.com/argument.phpThat's good to read. I noticed some time ago (when the internet became a thing and folks started "debating" therein) that lists defeat debate -- and not in the way intended. Create a list and have just one item wrong and the whole debate will then center around that. The list is extremely oversimplified and flawed.
|
|