Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 24 Sep 2019, 15:35:58

So we've triggered Plant again and he'll keep pounding the EMI FUD drum for the next few weeks. Great.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 25 Sep 2019, 00:01:03

Plantagenet wrote:More studies need to be done since this is a rare cancer and the number of children who got leukemia after prolonged exposures to EM fields is small.

But of course, ignore this quote from what you cited, because it might mean instead of hanging your hat on one POSSIBLE exception, you should just flatly claim EV's cause cancer.

Because of course, the exception is the rule, and you'd never admit you might possibly be wrong, be stretching things, be distorting things, etc. :roll:

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau ... /radiation

Radiation

Radiation of certain wavelengths, called ionizing radiation, has enough energy to damage DNA and cause cancer. Ionizing radiation includes radon, x-rays, gamma rays, and other forms of high-energy radiation. Lower-energy, non-ionizing forms of radiation, such as visible light and the energy from cell phones, have not been found to cause cancer in people.


But of course, let's ignore the basic statement from the National Cancer Institute because Planty wants to preach about one possible exception.

Okey Dokey.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 25 Sep 2019, 11:29:05

Outcast_Searcher wrote:let's ignore the basic statement from the National Cancer Institute because Planty wants to preach about one possible exception.


Outie, the National Cancer Institute is part of the Trump administration. They never found a pollutant or a carcinogen that they didn't like and wanted corporations to release more of it.

I've worked as a research scientist for the federal government and I've seen how science is done there. The way political interference manifests in the scientific agencies is the admin writes the titles and the summaries for the reports, but the scientists write the rest of the report. That way the admin can feel that they have "spun" the report while the scientists in the agencies feel that they got the data out in the body of the report.

You're never going to get the full story if you just read the headlines....you've got to read as much as possible to get at the real data in the body of the report yourself.

-------------------------

One reason there is doubt about the carcinogenic effects of EM fields is that the bio scientists say there is no known mechanism to produce cancer. Now I'm a physicist and a physical scientist and not a medical doctor or biologist, but it took me about two minutes to think of a mechanism by which EM fields could produce cancer.

First consider that the research cited at the Cancer Institute seems to show a strong carcinogenic effect producing more leukemia (blood cancer) in children. Why blood cancer?

Well.....blood has lots of iron in it. And iron (Fe) is dipolar, i.e. it strongly orients in a magnetic field. That means the magnetic field is exerting a force on every atom of iron within the magnetic field. The field will actually work to force the iron to align itself with the field.

I'm wondering, if you do that to blood, if the magnetic field is strong enough to break some chemical bonds around the Fe atoms. And altering the chemistry of biologic cells is how you get cancer. For ionizing radiation, an electron or beta particle blasts through a cell and alters it. In a magnetic field, the Fe in blood would be shifting and perhaps altering things, and perhaps that is why blood cancer appears in children exposed to EM fields.

Just a thought.

Image
There is Fe in blood hemoglobin.......
Image
And an EM field will exert a force on the Fe in blood cells, attempting to align it with the magnetic field. If this force alters the cell in a mutagenic way, then its possible this would result in blood cancer.

Cheers!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 25 Sep 2019, 11:35:48

Have all you jokes figured out a way to make a suv with a sodium battery, new electronics, and practically no heat use in the rest of the materials.

Of course not.

You're all a bunch of low-life degenerate money printers.
Banking: Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 25 Sep 2019, 12:04:26

StarvingLion wrote:Have all you jokes figured out a way to make a suv with a sodium battery, new electronics, and practically no heat use in the rest of the materials.

Of course not.

You're all a bunch of low-life degenerate money printers.
Always a pleasure to read your insightful comments StarvingLion.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby EdwinSm » Fri 27 Sep 2019, 03:56:34

Meanwhile back to news....

If the trial works this might be a big thing (given how IKEA is a "big thing" in European retailing). At least it would provide good PR for EV in the commercial sector.

Swedish furniture giant IKEA plans to start testing out emission-free home delivery in Finland, with Tampere set to be the first city for the trial.

According to IKEA, this will be the first trial of its kind in the Nordics, and the pilot truck that is set to arrive in Finland is of a size never before seen in the region. The company said it will begin testing the DAF/Emoss brand electric truck in the southern city in early October.
....
KEA plans to use electric vehicles for home delivery in other parts of Finland as well. It also aims to gradually incorporate renewable diesel in home deliveries in the Greater Helsinki area and Raisio in southwest Finland from this autumn onwards.

According to the company, renewable diesel achieves approximately 90 percent lower emissions than conventional diesel.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/ikea_to_start_emission-free_deliveries_in_tampere/10989619
EdwinSm
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu 07 Jun 2012, 03:23:59

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 01 Oct 2019, 10:56:19

EdwinSm wrote:Meanwhile back to news....

If the trial works this might be a big thing (given how IKEA is a "big thing" in European retailing). At least it would provide good PR for EV in the commercial sector.

Swedish furniture giant IKEA plans to start testing out emission-free home delivery in Finland, with Tampere set to be the first city for the trial.

According to IKEA, this will be the first trial of its kind in the Nordics, and the pilot truck that is set to arrive in Finland is of a size never before seen in the region. The company said it will begin testing the DAF/Emoss brand electric truck in the southern city in early October.
....
KEA plans to use electric vehicles for home delivery in other parts of Finland as well. It also aims to gradually incorporate renewable diesel in home deliveries in the Greater Helsinki area and Raisio in southwest Finland from this autumn onwards.

According to the company, renewable diesel achieves approximately 90 percent lower emissions than conventional diesel.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/ikea_to_start_emission-free_deliveries_in_tampere/10989619

Given Amazon and Ikea already, this looks like a big thing. Then you have outfits like UPS, which have been experimenting with vehicles of all kinds for years. For local delivery trucks and areas seeking to limit ICE's, this seems like a no-brainer, re using BEV's, especially as costs decline.

But given practicality, reliability, efficiency, cost, service, etc. are likely to be central requirements of serious commercial vehicle fleets, despite all the claims of how dominant Tesla must be (according to Tesla fanbois, who almost religiously pretend the competition can't possibly matter) -- I don't see Tesla being a big player in that space unless they actually put up something seriously good in the Semi Truck area fairly soon. Given their cash constraints and their other commitments, further delays wouldn't surprise me at all.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 01 Oct 2019, 11:45:21

I hadn't heard of Emoss before. It turns out Emoss is a Dutch EV manufacturer offering EV buses, EV semi-trucks, and an EV delivery van (actually a small truck) for urban and home delivery.

emoss.nl/en/electric-vehicles/electric-delivery-van

Cheers!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 02 Oct 2019, 22:04:42

Nio, sometimes called the Chinese Tesla, has seen its stock plummet by over 50% in the last week, and over 80% in total, partly because their EV cars keep catching on fire

new-york-listed-nios-electric-suv-keeps-catching-fire

When a stock goes south it is sometimes compared to a dumpster fire. In Nio's case, the stock should be compared to an EV fire.

Image
Doubt thou the stars are fire? ---William Shakespeare.

Cheers!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 03 Oct 2019, 12:12:14

TSLA stock down 6%. No dividend. The stock has been a turd for the past 5 years.

Why not admit the obvious? There aren't enough rich people to keep this pile-o-shit called EV Madness afloat.

Without claim on ME Oil you are freaking broke. As in cannot afford Lithium EV sedan.

Where is the affordable Sodium Battery Compact SUV? Doesn't exist.

Where is Father KaiserJeep and his sermons?
Last edited by StarvingLion on Thu 03 Oct 2019, 12:17:52, edited 1 time in total.
Banking: Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 03 Oct 2019, 12:15:42

Plantagenet wrote:Nio, sometimes called the Chinese Tesla, has seen its stock plummet by over 50% in the last week, and over 80% in total, partly because their EV cars keep catching on fire

new-york-listed-nios-electric-suv-keeps-catching-fire

When a stock goes south it is sometimes compared to a dumpster fire. In Nio's case, the stock should be compared to an EV fire.

Image
Doubt thou the stars are fire? ---William Shakespeare.

Cheers!


And the realization that The Lithium Battery cannot be monetized. Its as useless in the real world as the dangerous RBMK fission reactor that resulted in Chernobyl.

The only sensible policy is to:

Ban The EV Lithium Battery
Banking: Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 04 Oct 2019, 13:15:40

StarvingLion wrote:TSLA stock down 6%. No dividend. The stock has been a turd for the past 5 years.

Why not admit the obvious? There aren't enough rich people to keep this pile-o-shit called EV Madness afloat.


If Tesla were the whole EV industry, you might have a point.

But as usual, you don't.

HEV's continue to improve. Competitors get cranking much more solidly on new BEV models in '20, '21, and beyond. Vehicles at a WIDE range of price points.
Last edited by Tanada on Fri 04 Oct 2019, 21:09:21, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed broken quote
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Fri 04 Oct 2019, 14:45:19

StarvingLion wrote:
And the realization that The Lithium Battery cannot be monetized. Its as useless in the real world as the dangerous RBMK fission reactor that resulted in Chernobyl.

The only sensible policy is to:

Ban The EV Lithium Battery


Even with the fire risks from these batteries, an EV equipped with such is less likely to catch fire than a gasoline-powered car. The risks are similar to a cell phone or a laptop computer, which people charge in their homes without worry(and they do cause fires on occasion).

I am of the opinion that eventually there will come another battery to replace lithium-ion and its variants, probably a solid state one. Then the fire risk would virtually disappear.

With mass production volume in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of units per year, combined with used 1st gen models on the 2nd hand market, EVs are finally becoming affordable to the low-end buyer. Had the major automakers been on board with the idea 25 years ago instead of openly hostile to it, we could have had 150+ mile range EVs in some form even back then at an affordable price relative to the rest of the new car market. Instead, we had to wait for Tesla to take a few bold steps to prove to the naysayers that the market was there, even though the auto industry's own marketing studies had demonstrated such a market existed while the industry was dragging their feet. The major automakers are trying to play catch-up with Tesla, and in spite of Tesla's fuck-ups(which are many), they still aren't there.

Porsche's new Taycan, the pinnacle of what offerings are available outside of Tesla, is basically where the top of the line Model S was 5 years ago, and Tesla is about to come out with something much faster, so much faster that the acceleration it will be capable of is at the physical limits of available street legal tires on standard types of pavement, no matter how much power you add or mass you take off.

With the new chemistries available, the theoretical possibility exists that we could soon have battery packs demonstrating more than 1 million miles of use before they need to be replaced. The drive systems themselves are already capable of this level of reliability. It's just a matter of making the rest of the car itself durable enough to last as long.

EVs offer the prospect of building a durable automobile that lasts an entire lifetime. Which, is the way it should be if reducing resource/energy consumption is the goal. Barring a full-scale fast crash in the near term, it is highly likely that EVs will soon exceed the sales of gasoline powered cars, probably within a decade or two.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 04 Oct 2019, 16:43:42

Don't engage StarvingLion. He isn't capable of conducting a fully fledged debate.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 05 Oct 2019, 12:30:07

The_Toecutter wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:
And the realization that The Lithium Battery cannot be monetized. Its as useless in the real world as the dangerous RBMK fission reactor that resulted in Chernobyl.

The only sensible policy is to:

Ban The EV Lithium Battery


Even with the fire risks from these batteries, an EV equipped with such is less likely to catch fire than a gasoline-powered car. The risks are similar to a cell phone or a laptop computer, which people charge in their homes without worry(and they do cause fires on occasion).

I am of the opinion that eventually there will come another battery to replace lithium-ion and its variants, probably a solid state one. Then the fire risk would virtually disappear.

And if successful, solid state batteries will have a far better power to weight ratio, and power to cost ratio.

If outfits like Toyota, who are working on the solid state battery (which long term, I have more confidence in than Tesla as they're the opposite of a clown car operation) are successful, then that really does fundamentally change things as far as the economic viability of running a BEV for many applications. (This assumes adequate durability, reliability, etc. of course).

In the mean time, I still think Tesla bulls and many others just basically ignoring the HEV, which as improved a LOT as of the latest Toyota licensed generation (see the new Camry and Accord for examples of this technology applied) are making a big mistake. The gas savings, especially in the city, are just phenomenal, vs. the conventional ICE for the same model. And with almost no sacrifices re driveability, no sacrifices re space or convenience, etc. And with the 8 year, 100,000 mile warranty on the hybrid system from Toyota, the main risk is that after 150,000 miles or so, the traction battery might need to be replaced. And that's not cheap, but neither is the gasoline it saves during the course of its life -- not to mention the pollution and CO2 burning that gas produces.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby careinke » Sat 05 Oct 2019, 21:45:24

Our local power company put out a cost comparison for "fuel" between an average of the five top selling EVs and a comparable ICE getting 24 MPG. They used 15,000 miles per year, with a gallon of gas costing $3.50 and a KW of electricity costing $0.078. These are our current local prices.
Bottom Line: It cost the Ice $2187.00 per year for gas, and just $381.00 per year for the EVs electricity.

They also gave a lot of links promoting EVs in general. Now throw in the fact that our electricity comes from renewable sources, it's a compelling argument.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 06 Oct 2019, 00:07:01

careinke wrote:Our local power company put out a cost comparison for "fuel" between an average of the five top selling EVs and a comparable ICE getting 24 MPG. They used 15,000 miles per year, with a gallon of gas costing $3.50 and a KW of electricity costing $0.078. These are our current local prices.
Bottom Line: It cost the Ice $2187.00 per year for gas, and just $381.00 per year for the EVs electricity.

They also gave a lot of links promoting EVs in general. Now throw in the fact that our electricity comes from renewable sources, it's a compelling argument.

But it depends a LOT on the assumptions you make.

Gas costs more like $2.50 across most of the US these days. A very fuel efficient ICE car or modern HEV gets more like 48 mpg vs. 24.

So just on the gasoline, using a figure of $3.50 / 24 = 14.6 cents per mile, or $2.50 / 48 = 5.2 cents per mile. Nearly a third the cost for fuel. Now, suddenly the figure is FAR less compelling for the BEV.

Oh, and as of August, the average US rate for electricity is more like 13+ cents per KW hour.

https://www.electricchoice.com/electric ... -by-state/

Then if you look at the fact that the average BEV costs in the range of $40K or so, and inexpensive but fairly comfortable ICE sedans can be had for about half that -- or modern HEV's for more like $25K (I'm less sure about real world discounts for HEV's, since there are less of them on dealer lots) -- you also get a substantial savings on the vehicle.

I think the cost case will be compelling, eventually. I think the cost case COULD be compelling soon, if the cowards in Washington would implement a serious and escalating CO2 tax on motor fuels as part of the tax structure.

I think that now, the cost case is not compelling or FAR more people would be doing the arithmetic, and showing far more interest.

...

For modern HEV's the cost case would be there for people willing to drive a new car until it's worn out or, say, 200K miles -- IF there were NO additional costs/risks re the hybrid system once the hybrid warranty runs out.

200,000 miles / roughly 25 mpg = 8,000 gallons of gas.

200,000 miles / roughly 50 mpg = 4,000 gallons of gas. So with a mid-sized family hybrid, let's call it fuel savings of about 3500 gallons of gas at $2.50 a gallon or $8750. Well, the hybrids cost $4K or $5K more. Higher gas prices obviously make the case more compelling.

If the traction battery and/or other expensive components of an HEV fail after the typical 8 year 100,000 mile warranty, and lots of traction batteries do fail around 150,000 miles or so, then you can be looking at a rather expensive ($multi thousand) repair bill. So that risk takes away the confidence in the cost case, unfortunately.

Clearly EV's, including BEV's are making progress re "making sense" for the middle class, but I don't think we're close to a compelling case for either HEV's or BEV's (or the in-between PHEV), or, again, the middle class would be paying FAR more attention to them.

Now, that doesn't mean that people with interest in "X" (be it HEV sellers, electricity sellers, gasoline sellers, oil companies, solar companies, and on and on), won't try to claim the figures are compelling for you to buy whatever technology they're selling. But clearly, one must be wary of what is being assumed. YMMV.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 06 Oct 2019, 13:55:43

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
careinke wrote:Our local power company put out a cost comparison for "fuel" between an average of the five top selling EVs and a comparable ICE getting 24 MPG. They used 15,000 miles per year, with a gallon of gas costing $3.50 and a KW of electricity costing $0.078. These are our current local prices.
Bottom Line: It cost the Ice $2187.00 per year for gas, and just $381.00 per year for the EVs electricity.

They also gave a lot of links promoting EVs in general. Now throw in the fact that our electricity comes from renewable sources, it's a compelling argument.

But it depends a LOT on the assumptions you make.

Gas costs more like $2.50 across most of the US these days. A very fuel efficient ICE car or modern HEV gets more like 48 mpg vs. 24.

So just on the gasoline, using a figure of $3.50 / 24 = 14.6 cents per mile, or $2.50 / 48 = 5.2 cents per mile. Nearly a third the cost for fuel. Now, suddenly the figure is FAR less compelling for the BEV.

Oh, and as of August, the average US rate for electricity is more like 13+ cents per KW hour.

https://www.electricchoice.com/electric ... -by-state/

Then if you look at the fact that the average BEV costs in the range of $40K or so, and inexpensive but fairly comfortable ICE sedans can be had for about half that -- or modern HEV's for more like $25K (I'm less sure about real world discounts for HEV's, since there are less of them on dealer lots) -- you also get a substantial savings on the vehicle.

I think the cost case will be compelling, eventually. I think the cost case COULD be compelling soon, if the cowards in Washington would implement a serious and escalating CO2 tax on motor fuels as part of the tax structure.

I think that now, the cost case is not compelling or FAR more people would be doing the arithmetic, and showing far more interest.

...

For modern HEV's the cost case would be there for people willing to drive a new car until it's worn out or, say, 200K miles -- IF there were NO additional costs/risks re the hybrid system once the hybrid warranty runs out.

200,000 miles / roughly 25 mpg = 8,000 gallons of gas.

200,000 miles / roughly 50 mpg = 4,000 gallons of gas. So with a mid-sized family hybrid, let's call it fuel savings of about 3500 gallons of gas at $2.50 a gallon or $8750. Well, the hybrids cost $4K or $5K more. Higher gas prices obviously make the case more compelling.

If the traction battery and/or other expensive components of an HEV fail after the typical 8 year 100,000 mile warranty, and lots of traction batteries do fail around 150,000 miles or so, then you can be looking at a rather expensive ($multi thousand) repair bill. So that risk takes away the confidence in the cost case, unfortunately.

Clearly EV's, including BEV's are making progress re "making sense" for the middle class, but I don't think we're close to a compelling case for either HEV's or BEV's (or the in-between PHEV), or, again, the middle class would be paying FAR more attention to them.


EXCELLENT POST!

That was very interesting.

Thank you for actually going through the numbers and then using the data to make your point logically and clearly.

CHEERS!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 06 Oct 2019, 17:02:45

+2

Thanks Outcast_Searcher for going through the trouble and showing that ICE still makes financial sense at this time.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4517
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 9

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 06 Oct 2019, 23:16:59

Thanks Outcast_Searcher for going through the trouble and showing that ICE still makes financial sense at this time.


and that, to my mind, is one of the main issues that need to be put out there to the public. Unfortunately, we have ill-informed press telling people who can't think for themselves (or are just stupid) that as a society we could just stop using hydrocarbons tomorrow and everything would be tickety-boo.

I'm a huge believer in gradually converting over much of our usage to renewables but I also realize that all the renewables combined at this point in time cannot replace the fossil fuels. It just does not work when you do the math. The problems as I see it are:

- wind is great...when it is windy and when you don't need wind farms the size of the ones you see in California that are not only an eye sore but also have a huge environmental footprint (massive land use, erosion, danger to birds etc). Even in southern Alberta which apparently is the most consistent and steady wind in all of North America (at least that's what Environment Canada says) has days of no wind. The thing about power is it has to be consistent which is why gas producers are penalized if they can't meet the volumes they elect.
- water is fine, where it is available which is not most of North America. If you live in Quebec or Ontario, Bob's your uncle, if you live in Saskatchewan or North Dakota forget about it to a large extent.
- nuclear is probably something that could work other than it freaks out pretty much everyone because the watched a movie about a reactor meltdown.
- solar in principle sounds good but for much of North America, it just isn't consistent enough. I have a friend who installed a full-on solar panel setup on his very large ranch style house. We live in an area that gets more sunlight than pretty much most of North America but the problem appears to be (according to him) days of cloud cover and the fact that through half of the year the sun is low on the horizon and just doesn't work as well. You can't store the energy effectively at this point in time so as a standalone it just won't work.

But together an increase in all of these sources of power along with considerable improvements in battery storage can take the load off of hydrocarbon usage. Convert the fleet to reliable electric vehicles that are safe and will work in extremely snowy conditions and deep cold you can experience in much of North America and that will take a considerable load off of the need for hydrocarbons. Combinations of other power sources can also reduce the amount of natural gas that might be burned for electricity. To my mind, this puts us on a path to sustainability. There is no way we will be able to get rid of hydrocarbons entirely, petrochemicals are too important and people need to realize that.

The big issue I still see is how cities and suburbs will be able to supply consistent power given the new demands that will come from a entire fleet that wants to plug in between 6PM and 6AM. That power demand will be hugely significant and I doubt any city is ready for it.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests