|
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.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 20, 2024 6:01:02 GMT -5
Peter, I appreciate your criticism of the government's push to electric. But, I think that, historically the USA government's push for better MPG, seat belts, and air bags has served us well. And I suspect that the Chinese government's push (mandate) to create E-cars that are competitive with Tesla's, Volvos, etc., has caused a better, lower cost car to be available to many. I do not like it, but it is competition and it raises the bar. And yes, I understand that government subsidies, air quality standards, worker wages, etc come in to play. So how are Ford,Tesla, and GM going to react? Depends on what happens with Chevron. And, no, forcing vehicles to be electric like the EPA is doing has nothing to do with competition. It's the elimination of the free market for the first time in our history. And it will be devastating if allowed to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 19, 2024 21:38:13 GMT -5
I wouldn't worry about it in this country. If Chevron gets overturned in June, it will cancel EPA's authority to regulate CO2 emissions (and maybe a lot of other things). A big part of that falling will be eliminating the government pushed adoption of EVs and letting automakers get back to selling real, technically better, traditional internal combustion engines.
That will leave Tesla as the only one at risk of being impacted by China's actions. And given that they've managed to scam $9 billion from other manufacturers in the EPA mandated regulatory scheme to convert the entire country to EVs, can't say I feel sorry for them.
Of course, maybe Chevron won't fall in June. In that case Chinese EVs are the least of the countries worries.
But there will be time for worrying about that later.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 17, 2024 19:35:30 GMT -5
I've been through that three times now. Wife can't deal with it so I draw the short straw every time.
But I look at it as a humane duty. To many pets are abandoned to die alone without a familiar face anywhere in sight. Mine die being held in my lap. I choose to believe it makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 13, 2024 18:49:35 GMT -5
Behold, the veena: I see shades of Jimi Hendrix just before he lit his guitar on fire.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 11, 2024 21:41:04 GMT -5
About time Joe set the record straight on TV for everyone to finally, and inarguably, make the case that he's unfit for office.
Now all that's needed is for Chevron to be overturned in June and Trump's a lock for another term. Can't argue with demonstrated competence no matter what lies the left wants to tell.
Heck, they may give him a third term just because of the BS he's had to put up with.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 11, 2024 9:42:07 GMT -5
In my dysfunctional family, two siblings did not have funerals. It still bothers me years later. There was no closure. They were here one day and forever gone the next with no chance to share memories, tell stories, laugh, cry, or say goodbye, or do any of the things those of us left behind need to do. I am still pissed at my brother 12 years later. My sister thought her plan of no funeral, no nothing, was a good one, but it wasn’t. It still bothers me to think of it. I recognize that is a person’s right and they can make the plans they feel are best, but there are things to consider. Funerals serve an important function for the living, not the dead. A funeral is an important thing for family and friends. The tears, the laughter, the stories, and even the meal after burial, all serve to heal us and move us on our way through life. We who are left behind need to not be ignored or forgotten. One day I will no longer be pissed at my brother, but it hasn’t happened yet. Maybe at my own funeral. Bring your guitar. My family has only had one death of a sibling and we didn't have a funeral. Rather, he was a diabetic that simply got tired of living with all the pain and suffering. So to make up for the lack of a funeral, we all went up to Mom's house to hang out while he had the medical stuff shut off. 3 or 4 days of hanging out, talking smack, giving Jim whatever the heck he wanted to eat, and basically having a nice going away party for him. That's not the first time that's happened in my family, but I still think it's way cooler than a funeral, if you have the luxury of knowing the time of death ahead of time anyways.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 9, 2024 20:28:57 GMT -5
I love real country music. 😛
(Always have.)
I love both kinds. Country and western?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 8, 2024 21:15:21 GMT -5
Interesting cross thread stuff. Guess who gave her her first record contract?
Toby Keith.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 8, 2024 21:07:58 GMT -5
His lead guitarist plays some great twangy licks on this song.
Thanks Howard, I haven't seen this for years. Still touches me. The sentiment of that song rings true, despite my 68 years. You and more than a few of the rest of us. (By the way, love that song. Count me as a big Toby fan.)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 7, 2024 11:46:57 GMT -5
I found out he was just shy of 4 months younger than me. This is a great song, and the performance of it was about 3 or 4 months ago. youtu.be/pFfQDqY6mC4?si=LvzgfEKNJ1Il4BQdDon't let the old man in indeed. RIP brother.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 1, 2024 14:57:05 GMT -5
Zack Bornstein won a Peabody award for political satire. Must not have been much competition.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 1, 2024 11:58:20 GMT -5
No dumb ass (the guy in the meme, not Marshall), they're mocking you and like the bone head you are you just ate it up.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 31, 2024 21:16:59 GMT -5
The Clean Air Act in 1963 authorized the EPA to set air quality standards, leaving the details up to the EPA. The Clean Air Act was passed by Congress. It has been amended by Congress many times. In general, the EPA has broad authority to regulate environmental pollutants. Most recently, the Clean Air Act was amended by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which clarified that CO2 was among the "pollutants" the EPA had the responsibility to regulate (within the guidelines stipulated in the original act). Some question how CO2, a natural and needed compound, can be called a pollutant. (I have wondered myself). But, "pollutant" is a general term that can refer to anything introduced into an environment that is judged to be degrading and harmful to that environment and the organisms within. Thus, a pollutant can be darn near anything if it is in excess and that excess is deemed to be harmful or degrading to environment. The poison is in the dose. For example, salt is a natural and needed ingredient for life. But, excess salt discharged into a freshwater environment will degrade that environment and can become a poison to the inhabitants. On a farm field, manure is a natural, useful and 100% organic addition. In an aquifer, manure is an unwanted pollutant. Same with heavy metals. In small quantities, needed for life. Deadly if discharged in excess into drinking water. Ditto sulfer. All natural and needed. All harmful in excess and subject to EPA regulations if so deemed. The EPA has been granted the authority by Congress to regulate pollutants. But, he EPA must do so in accordance within the fuzzy limits outlined in the Clean Air Act, which fuzzily stipulates that the cure can't be worse than the disease. Wherein lies the rub. Wow. From the NRDC no less. You really should have read that crap more carefully. Specifically, "The Clean Air Act of 1963 aimed to reign in air pollution with expanded research efforts and a new public health program". If you had you'd notice that that piece of legislation was a precursor to the actual Clean Air Act of 1970 that created EPA and gave it regulatory authority. And then there's that stupid bit about the Inflation Reduction Act clarifying that CO2 was among the pollutants that EPA had the responsibility to regulate. Except the complete jackwad that wrote that (typical of a hardcore progressive NGO) is lying. The IRA was a spending bill, not legislation. Since Harry Ried changed the Congressional rules to abandon the 60 vote Senate requirement in order to continue to spend waaayyy beyond anything reasonable (now it has become almost the only thing Congress can do) it means nothing as far as actual legislation goes. They could write into a spending bill that they were all legally now twice as attractive and it still wouldn't make any of them look better. To actually make CO2 a pollutant, the actual current Clean Air Act (last actually amended in 1990) would have to be amended again to somehow include CO2 as a pollutant that EPA can regulate which would still require 60 votes in the Senate. And if anybody had actually done that, the current controversy would have no basis at all since we all would have participated in that through our duly elected Congressional representation. Instead, 1984s Chevron v. NRDC gave us what's called Chevron Deference, where the agencies themselves are given deference when actual authorizing legislation is unclear. Now technically there are supposed limits to how far the agencies can go but Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is all about Congress being so careless in its legislating that fisheries have to pay the salaries of the government agents who regulate them. Somehow I can't imagine what those supposed "reasonable" limits might be if they can do that. What this means in practice is that the most partisan branch of government can give itself complete authority to do whatever the hell it wants to do, free of any requirement to even acknowledge that there's another side. But then it gets worse. In 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA took essentially the same argument as Chevron and turned it around. In that case, EPA originally argued that, correctly, they did not have Congressional authority to regulate CO2. Massachusetts argued that under Chevron, they sure did. Ultimately Massachusetts won and EPA was ordered to regulate CO2 or come up with a good reason they couldn't. Now pay close attention to how that is phrased. That is exactly how it was presented. I was actually there at the time. This absolutely blew everyone's mind in DC, particularly the Bush Administration who took the unique approach of issuing an ANPRM featuring an opinion piece from every cabinet member on their agencies position on the matter and opened it up to public comment. Ultimately, since it was late in the Bush administration, they punted to the next administration which happened to be Obama. Obama was all over that like a dog humping a football. They got California to write the endangerment finding, and BOOM! just like that CO2 was a pollutant within about 3 months of Obama's swearing in. The rest is history. Obama's EPA raised the equivalent gas mileage requirements (g CO2/mile is the exact inverse of MPG. That helps baffle the public. 0g CO2/mile is infinite MPG) from 27.5 mpg to something like 40 mpg. But they screwed up and Trump revoked those, replacing them with a much more reasonable 30 or so mpg. Now Biden's EPA is proposing requiring a number that requires 67% of all new vehicles be EVs (0g CO2/mile) by 2032 (8 years from now). And that's only light duty. Every other class of vehicle (heavy duty- ie. semitrucks, off-road- ie. combines and road pavers, stationary source- ie. generators, etc.) is regulated not by the vehicle, but by the engine only. Little known fact: 30ish % of an engine's exhaust is CO2, another 30ish % is water, and the remaining 40% is nitrogen like 78% of the earth's atmosphere. Wonder how those idiots at EPA will screw that up. And there you have it. For the first time ever in America the internal combustion engine will end up being banned and not a single person or person's Congressional representative will have voted for it. Ever. So much for democracy. The slide to totalitarianism is almost complete. Except for maybe Loper. We can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 31, 2024 11:20:45 GMT -5
There are governmental regulations we abide by. We can no longer dump dead cows in public waterways. You can't use leaded paint on baby toys. Drugs must pass tests for safety and efficacy. A 12 ounce can of beer must contain 12 ounces of beer. And new cars must have mufflers. And seat belts. And pollution controls. Regulations. Love em, hate em, whatever. We have them. And, basically, we have them by common consent. CO2 regulations are more of the same. We have them. We will have more of them. And we will be able to live with them just as we have learned to live with all the other safety, health, and well being regulations we are currently living with. And it isn't just the EPA doing this EV stuff. A host of states have passed their own laws and regulations pushing the adoption of EVs... and all of them down the road. 2035, 2040, whatever. Down the road. And if we get down that road, and EVs just are not ready for full deployment, or if some other form of power (fuel cells, combo gas/electric, mystery newcomer) pops on the scene, regulations will be modified, new laws will be passed. Or maybe Chevron will pull the rug out of all of it. Time will tell. If something we plan to do ten or twenty years from now just doesn't prove doable come that down the road day, it won't be done. Something else will be done. And it is just that simple. If it can't be done, it won't be. Something else will be. Something that is doable. Maybe a 100% reduction of emitted CO2 across the entire transportation fleet will just not prove feasible. Period. Then an 80% reduction will be deemed good enough. And there will be a whole new set of regulations to complain about. Which is entirely wrong. Anything that has been done in the past has been done with appropriate Congressional debate and Congressional approval for regulatory agencies to act. That's the heart of our democratic system. The people have the final say on what government can and cannot do. So now I'll ask you a simple question. Who actually voted (either individually or through duly elected representatives) to let EPA regulate CO2? Don't worry, I'll wait. And remember, this has been my job and career for 35 years. So, who voted to say this was OK?
|
|