|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 4, 2024 20:07:37 GMT -5
I know nothing about dog sled races. But in my bird hunting days I took some of my dogs along on quail hunts. It was as if I'd seen the real dog for the first time. They were born to hunt. They were in their element and they loved it. About a year ago now we picked up a couple of dogs to help fill our time in old age. The first was a English Setter mutt (we think) rescue from Texas named Annie. Big, sweet, dopey, and definitely the mellow one of the pair. A couple months after that my wife discovered a neighbor with an absolutely gorgeous Irish Setter named Monty. My wife's always loved Irish Setters so she then figured out where the breeder was (Oklahoma) and we arranged to get a little 8 week old half-sister puppy that we've named Iris (Iris H. Setter- get it?). Irish Setters, we have learned, are uncontrollable bird dogs and absolutely fearless and voracious hunters of anything else that moves and they can get close enough to. She's been quite a trip. She snagged a small bird in our backyard last summer and then proceeded to play with the body while my wife watched in horror. The neighbor who clued her into Irish Setters has 50 acres of undeveloped land on the other side of the freeway at the base of the Alleghenies that he lets us take the dogs out to just to let them run. Annie, being slower and dopier specializes in finding piles of poop (deer, bear, mouse, whatever) and rolling in it. I forgot to mention she's pure white. Last Saturday, she went down in the tall grass and came up a sick blend of brown and green with big wads of poop stuck in her prodigious hair. Yikes. Iris, on the other hand, runs full bore from the moment the car door is open. She got a mole about a week ago and proceeded to do the same victory dance with that. Now every time we go out, she finds the gradually disintegrating corpse (how the hell does she do that on 50 acres?) and rolls all over it, before springing up and chasing flocks of birds all over the property. My wife joined an Irish Setter board on Facebook and asked about it. The answer- "what do you mean that they haven't brought it into the house yet? Get used to it." That dog's a stone killer.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 26, 2024 14:45:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 25, 2024 11:32:27 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. So how did NHTSA's CAFE program work at reducing national fuel consumption? Not well at all. Being an averaging program, automakers started making small, fuel efficient glorified roller skates like the Ford Aspire (or Expire as we used to call it) and taking small loses for them. Because that let them build things like the Lincoln Mark VIIIs for a profit of $8000 apiece effectively allowing them to game the ratings. This leads to two car families, commuting further to work, suburban sprawl, increasing interest in trucks and vans particularly from women who appreciate being able to see over traffic in a heavy, safe vehicle while driving the kids to school while counting toward the lower CAFE standard for trucks, which leads to minivans and other small trucks, which leads to supercabs, which leads to crew cabs which can seat 5 or 6 adults, which then leads to trucks being the biggest sector and biggest selling vehicles in the country (crossed that line about 5 years ago) and the F150 being the best selling vehicle in the country followed by the 4 or 5 other companies competitive trucks as the best selling vehicles in the country, which leads people like me to be a 2 truck family with an F150 crew cab and a little Jeep Renegade to take the puppies out to the neighbor's property on the other side of the freeway. Which ultimately leads to generally increasing fuel consumption. Go figure. So now back to Mike's situation with nothing but EVs left to not tow his Airstream. The CAFE example would suggest he can bump up in vehicle class. And indeed, Ford has a Class 3 (> than 14,000 lbs. GVWR- bigger trailer!) that can be optioned out as nicely as the F150 with a whole range of big, beautiful diesel and gasoline engines which currently are not subject to CAFE standards. But wait! EPA CO2 standards are identical to CAFE standards but are not averaging. They are hard numbers each vehicle must meet or you can't sell the vehicle in this country. This effectively means that CAFE standards can't ever be violated. So what? Well, EPA regulates pollutants and, although CO2 is not a pollutant, it has to be treated like one. So every vehicle class needs to be regulated for CO2. So why not do heavy duty EVs? Heavy duty EVs really demonstrate the point about work. Tesla's new EV semi, for instance, has a range of 500 miles which is OK for applications like delivering potato chips or soda, which is exactly what Pepsi is trying out. But a standard diesel engined truck can be fitted with a 300 gallon tank, which is good for 2400 miles. Put 2 of those on the truck and you can drive the entire perimeter of the US without refueling. Which is what a lot of trucks do with husband and wife teams that take their puppies with them on an endless vacation. That's 10 times the range of the Tesla truck. And that same truck can be configured as a crane that can build a factory in the middle of 1000 acres of wilderness in the middle of Nebraska or Montana. And it can operate continuously for 5 years just by continually bringing in tank trucks of diesel and refueling the crane on the fly without shutting down the crane. No need to shut down to go to a charging station. Just work, work, work. Which leads to the critical and unresolvable absurdity. Light duty is regulated as a full chassis which allows measurements like MPG and g/mile. Every other class of vehicle is regulated as engine only by EPA. They have no MPG measure. Light duty is tested for emissions by the EPA as a vehicle on a dynamometer. It's run over a standardized government-mandated test cycle. Pollutants are measured as well as everything else, like water, CO2, and nitrogen, that comes out of the tailpipe. This is how NHTSA rates vehicles for MPG to use in the CAFE program. Every other class or type of vehicle (motorcycles, trains, planes, combines, pavers, lawn mowers, etc.) is regulated engine-only against work output as grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). Measuring CO2 against work produces the same number every time (roughly 30% of what goes in). There's no feasible ramp in possible for a transition to EV trucks. And there's the inevitable rub of this nonsensical push towards EVs. There's no way to get there from here. So where do things stand at this moment? EPA has already published CO2 standards for the 2027-2032 timeframe for public comment that will ramp to requiring 67% of all new light duty vehicles be EVs. They are expected to publish the final version this summer, likely just revising the ramp up curve (still meeting Biden's stated policy goal to be ICE free by 2035). Chuck Schumer and several other Senators have also sent a letter to EPA wanting to know when we will see proposed heavy duty standards. My guess is that the poor person in EPA tasked with this turd is probably shitting themselves in anticipation of being forced to admit the truth in public on TV in a Senate hearing. And to be fair, EPA did say it can't be done. Massachusetts sued them to force them to do it and won. But EPA would probably welcome Chevron being overturned in June in order to avoid the whole thing. And if that happens, the focus will fall back to NHTSA's mandate and they may hire me back to do it. If so, I just have to spend some months (timer restarts) "exploring" the technical question only to determine it can't be done. And I no longer care if they drag me in front of a committee and make me explain why. As to the original post that got me started on this, the biggest competitor of cheap Chinese EVs is normal ICE vehicles. Tesla merely has a virtual monopoly on a small market segment. Should the effort to overturn Chevron fail, the auto industry itself will ultimately collapse from insanity and Tesla, if they can survive, will be killed by cheaper Chinese crap and the US and the rest of the West will be vassal states to China. Without firing a shot.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 25, 2024 9:29:42 GMT -5
I don't see a conspiracy. I see public sector management that, in the end, isn't impacted by losing $10 million in a year getting their clocks cleaned by private sector management that would have been fired long ago for doing the same. "So you set the rate you charge us based on two weeks (in February no less)?" Who wouldn't spend a bunch of money for those two weeks when you can set your fixed price for the other 50? That's a no brainer. Peter, It is interesting how suspicious each of us are of government vs corporations. I tend to go with John B, that is, I suspect Amazon is working the system, with total disregard for postal workers. You see the failure in govt. Perhaps our perceptions are based on personal experience with which entity has screwed each of us more frequently. Again, I think corporations generally disregard the well being of individuals, looking only for profit and that our government does tend to take individual well being into account. Crazy, broad generalizations, with countless examples of the opposite result. John B and I basically agree. I just don't ascribe things to malice when incompetence suffices. USPS is still a government operation. I'm still working on the final installment of my response to Russell in the Chinese EV thread. You'll see exactly the same thing there only infinitely bigger and more destructive. The whole issue with the USPS would vanish if it had to make money like private sector entities. But USPS isn't allowed to make money. And losing $10 billion every year won't make a difference since they're still Federal government so technically they don't lose money and haven't been similarly "not losing money" for decades now. When will it die? Never.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 24, 2024 23:02:04 GMT -5
I don't see a conspiracy. I see public sector management that, in the end, isn't impacted by losing $10 million in a year getting their clocks cleaned by private sector management that would have been fired long ago for doing the same.
"So you set the rate you charge us based on two weeks (in February no less)?"
Who wouldn't spend a bunch of money for those two weeks when you can set your fixed price for the other 50?
That's a no brainer.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 23, 2024 21:34:19 GMT -5
That is a horrible headline and a disgustingly slanted article. The human drive to survive will always trump any moral and ethical sense and I don't believe I will live to see the day that our government volunteers to divest itself of power. I don't care how the court rules, nothing will change. Can't say I blame you. My wife is also convinced that shit's gotten so bad there's no real reason to live. Liberalism will do that to you by doing things that hype all the ways you can die so you'll look to them to solve everything. And I certainly can't say I blame either of you. But I still have faith, at least until I can't find a logical way out. When that happens, I guess I won't fight back and will just march myself to the gas chamber without a fight. God bless you buddy.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 23, 2024 8:58:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 22, 2024 22:19:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd heard something like that last night. But as is usually the case, Ars Technica has mangled the reporting so it's tough to tell what it means. Won't matter at all if Chevron is overturned in June though. EPA will be out of the game entirely at that point. Yeah, I get that. But if Chevron is overturned, doesn’t that kind remove the Supreme Court from the legislation game? Not that anyone on the court would act in their own self-interest or anything like that. Would they hang on to Chevron just to keep their hand in? For this installment I'd like to revisit this question from Dub and explain the confusion. The first CO2 regulation in the US were Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards implemented in 1975. The purpose of these was to reduce fuel consumption. This was at the time of the Arab oil embargoes. And to jog your memory of what cars were at that time I once bought a 1975 LTD station wagon. 'Nuff said. This was a Constitutionally proper regulation meaning it was authorized and controlled by Congress through legislation. The automakers were represented in Congress by the legendary John Dingell (D) from Detroit. Dingell was famous for being able to cap standards at a reasonable level, which is how the Founders envisioned it in the Constitution. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a division of the Department of Transportation (DOT) administered the regulations. The way it works (it's still in force, at least in theory) is that every automaker after each model year reports how many vehicles they've sold and what their MPG is. If the average fuel economy for the fleet is above the Congressionally mandated standard, that automaker pays a fine for that year. Strictness of adherence to the standards was a simple matter of how much the automaker chose to afford. Typically Japanese companies complied completely. Europeans (typically with more expensive cars) didn't really care and paid the fines as a cost of doing business, and American companies negotiated different vehicle classifications to try to bin cars and avoid fines. The Ford Probe, for instance, was designed and built by Mazda in a factory in Flat rock, Michigan. Therefore it was classified as a "domestic" vehicle. The Crown Victoria on the other hand, was built in Canada and was therefore officially an "import". It's probably also helpful here to mention that on-road vehicles are classified by size by DOT. There are 8 weight classifications. Light duty- the vehicles covered by CAFE- are cars and trucks up to 13,999 Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), basically up through an F350 or equivalent. Medium and Heavy duty goes up from there with Class 8 being above 67,000 GVWR. Class 8 is capable of hauling up to 250,000 lbs. However roads are limited to typically 80,000 lbs. except for Michigan where 120,000 lbs. is allowed. This little bit of trivia will become important later. EPA never regulated CO2 until 2009. They've only regulated pollutants before that (EPA was created in 1970). So how on earth did that work? Well, again, it's complicated. In my opinion deliberately. It helps hide what's actually happening. This is where I became personally involved in the story. I was a powertrain engineer in Volvo's engine plant in Hagerstown, MD working on at that time new exhaust aftertreatment (the diesel version of gasoline's catalytic convertors) systems in 2007. At that time both of the people in the Washington DC office quit the company at the same time. Volvo hired a guy who came from the EU in DC to head up the office as Vice President of Government Relations. He needed someone with a technical product background to work with him. I interviewed and already lived equidistant from both Hagerstown and the Volvo office on the 4th floor of the Swedish Embassy on the Georgetown waterfront. I got the job and became Director of Government Regulation. The next couple years were spent as a registered lobbyist. And one of the first turds that landed on my desk was the Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v EPA that granted EPA the right (duty actually, the way the decision was framed) to regulate CO2. At that point it was a brave new world that the entire town was struggling to get a handle on. In early 2009 my wife who was already a Fed ran across an ad for someone to work at NHTSA and develop new heavy duty CAFE standards that she felt would be a great fit for me. I felt just a twinge of hesitancy, but also felt some sense that I owed it to the industry I loved to actually do a fair, competent job and so I took the job. And remember, nobody at that time actually understood what was happening. It's in many ways so mind blowingly absurd that it defies rational analysis. I started on the first Monday in August and in July of 2010 we met with EPA. They proposed that they would develop the regs for both of us and we would merely copy their regs, change the units, and enact exactly the same standards. Nobody could think of a reason that wouldn't work so we all agreed. 3 weeks later on the last Friday of July I was called to human resources at noon and told I had a choice of quitting or being fired. No, I couldn't call anyone. Yes, we'll give you 45 minutes to clean out your desk and be escorted out of the building. After some hearty swearing I opted to quit, put my stuff in a box, and walked to the Metro which I took to the Vienna station where my wife picked me up after she left her work for an emergency. So when I read that story and they refer to MPG I'm pretty sure they mean g/mile of CO2. And it's about EPA. Biden promised in his campaign to ban ICE by 2035 so I'm pretty damn sure that the latest round of CO2 standards that are going to start in 2027 and ramp up to demanding 67% of new vehicles sold in 2032 be EVs has been altered. Mostly to just jigger the ramp up curve so maybe 55% EVs in 2032 and jam the other 45% in between 2032 and 2035. But that's just an educated guess. Won't know until the actual revisions come out. Next I promise to actually get an answer for Russell.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 22, 2024 8:48:47 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. Exactly, John. But as it relates to my mini series (if anyone still cares I promise only 2 or maybe 3 more episodes to fully answer Russell's original query) I would encourage everyone to read through it. I'd particularly point to the very subtle changes in common word definitions and semantics. Even something as straightforward as "science" doesn't mean what it used to mean. My hope is to show how far down the road to totalitarianism we've managed to come. One of the effects of the internet is that these days everyone's an expert. Go deeper into the skeptical science site and look at who runs it. A bunch of folks who might have had a biology class in high school. Maybe. So please check it out and vet what I say against what skeptical science says. And ask questions. And more than anything remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Literally.
|
|
|
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 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 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 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 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 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 aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 17:29:06 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, I can work with that. But it'll be later after I've walked the pups for the last time this evening.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 15:15:20 GMT -5
EVs suck at doing work. And that's due to the intractable problem of having a battery. The same basic motor systems in EVs are also used in factories, etc. to run conveyors, etc. The difference is that the motor in the factory is hard wired into the grid where it can pull as much juice as it needs. Wire that to a battery and put it under load and it will suck the battery dry in no time. An EV is really only good for morning commutes with the load being a driver and a briefcase. I suppose it depends on 1) what you mean by "work" and 2) the value of reducing the emissions from all those morning commuters. On 1), I suspect that a plug-in hybrid the size of our '06 Outback is capable of all the work I ask of a vehicle, which does not, to be sure, include towing trailers or boats but does occasionally involve carting around stuff that will fit in the cargo area. And I specified a hybrid because we do drive to the Cities or Iowa or other places where charging stations are not readily available. On the other hand, a friend has a Chevy Bolt that he has been driving cross-country for several years with no recharging issues. (I think he has a phone app that maps stations.) Then there's the possibility that a car is not a factory, though a long-haul big rig might start to mimic those demands on a battery system. On 2), amelioration of problems is a real thing, and a technology that significantly reduces pollution, even if it does not eliminate it, is worth adopting and promoting. If enough of those commuters were driving low- or no-emission cars, the air would be cleaner and the carbon load causing climate change would be decreased. I'm talking about work in the physics sense of the word. Look it up.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 15:13:36 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd heard something like that last night. But as is usually the case, Ars Technica has mangled the reporting so it's tough to tell what it means. Won't matter at all if Chevron is overturned in June though. EPA will be out of the game entirely at that point. Yeah, I get that. But if Chevron is overturned, doesn’t that kind remove the Supreme Court from the legislation game? Not that anyone on the court would act in their own self-interest or anything like that. Would they hang on to Chevron just to keep their hand in? They've never been in the legislative game. It's old Schoolhouse Rock stuff. Legislative legislates, Executive executes, and the Judicial judges disputes. The problem with Chevron is that they didn't send it back to Congress to clarify (I suppose declaring it null and void until fixed). They opted to give the agency (in the Executive) the deciding vote in a clear conflict of interest. But EPA itself came out of that 60s/70s thinking that agencies should be the experts because life has gotten just too complicated. Which is why no one can know for sure how much damage overturning Chevron will do. The Clean Air Act is kind of a noncommittal mess. Largely on purpose. Should be fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 12:37:06 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd heard something like that last night. But as is usually the case, Ars Technica has mangled the reporting so it's tough to tell what it means. Won't matter at all if Chevron is overturned in June though. EPA will be out of the game entirely at that point.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 8:44:14 GMT -5
I'm torn on the issue of EVs. Mechanically, they're better. It's the whole battery thing and the infrastructure to support them that is lagging behind the push (mandate) to go there. Personally, I'm liking Toyota's approach with hybrids. The US is not ready to support full EVs. Nor are full EVs ready to support the full American life style. Yet. I'm intrigued by the Chinese push into the modern manufacturing world. It's not a free market, but a government encouraged (controlled, helped) market. Too bad they want to crush us. I'm an old guy. There's a lot about the modern world I don't particularly like. And I have fears for my children and grand children. But the modern whiskeys are really good. A little pricey, but enjoyable just the same. No. EVs suck at doing work. And that's due to the intractable problem of having a battery. The same basic motor systems in EVs are also used in factories, etc. to run conveyors, etc. The difference is that the motor in the factory is hard wired into the grid where it can pull as much juice as it needs. Wire that to a battery and put it under load and it will suck the battery dry in no time. An EV is really only good for morning commutes with the load being a driver and a briefcase. Sad reality that has no solution. And the Chinese are merely taking advantage of the West's hubris. They too signed on to the Paris Accords. But they negotiated a time-line to start looking at reducing CO2 in 2030. They aren't committed to even thinking about it for another 6 years. Meanwhile, the West is all on fire to shoot themselves in the dick. And all China's doing is smiling and selling us stuff made with child and slave labor where we can't compete. There's a good reason we used to not trust them. But somehow we forgot.
|
|