Suddenly FUD has switched to defending ICE vice ridiculing BEV

Discussion in 'General' started by 101101, Feb 15, 2020.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    I noticed on a show that has pushed ICE FUD and tried to for instance criticize Tesla pulling a market average F150 up a hill backwards that the show was suddenly defending ICE saying it would continue to be around. I'll go through some of its claims because they are telling.

    It tried to say the weight and volume of batteries mean they take up too much space in vehicles. Does a Tesla look like it has more room or less room in it after all the ICE junk is yanked out. It tried to say this means batteries can't be used for bigger vehicles like a semi, again clearly not true. There are already battery powered ferries, electric full locomotives that even on lead acid run 24 hrs on a charge and have way less down time than regular locomotives- been around since 2009, and aroudn since WWI before that.

    It talked about carrying around all that battery weight and volume. But think about the 5+ swimming pools of weight and volume of gasoline that has to be carted all over the world before to gasoline car over its life and all the waste that entails.

    It tried to act like its just all down to consumer choice. Clearly that is not the case and even if it were the public prefers BEVs now. It tried to bring up the cheap gas gaff or in this case moderate priced gas. Noticed Ellen Wald saying well that bit of fossil fuel industry delusion has been debunked because of the Tesla share price rocketed in the face of artificially low retail gasoline. It tried to cite studies that 2 billion ICE engines would be made between now and 2040 so we might as well improve them and tried to imply that 10% gains in ICE would be reasonable over that period. And at that point it was pure paid shill stuff for Mazda in this case. It also tried to say profit was the most important unquestionable motive. Again not true.

    There was no citing that electric is 7x more efficient and requires much less maintenance and will last 5x longer meaning 5x less vehicles or in addition to carting around 5 swimming pools of fuel its 4 extra cars worth of parts that don't have to be carted around and their 5x pools of gasoline each to be hauled all over the globe. And the immediate impact under self driving EV may be closer to a 10-18x reduction in cars on the road. And its all that energy we don't have to spend trying to get all that carbon back out of the air or that cancer causing pollution out of our drinking and agricultural waters.

    It tried to say if you live in an apartment EV is not as convenient. That is simply not true all else considered especially in light of savings and maintenance. It also tried to say EVs had to be 48K or more to make a profit. And that EVs were 16K more expensive to make than ICE. None of that is true as Tesla proves.

    The important thing now is the FUD has switched phases. We've moved out of the BEV ridicule phase to the ICE defense phase. That is a sea change. This is Sophenhauer's first they ridicule, then violently oppose, and then say it was obvious all along.

    I'd also like to point out what the negative goodwill of the usual suspects creates. Let us say that the global population has suddenly switched to being vegan organic- a great climate anti war choice. Do they want to buy their produce from Phillip Morris and Oscar Meyer? Do they even trust the purveyors of chemical laced meats and tobacco? Would they want to buy their food from Merc? Would they fell comfortable if Merc had bought Hershies or Mars candies? No, they'd wonder about the accuracy of the labels and they'd be looking for strange new drug like additives in the candies. And they also think of these oldsters with a taint as if Magnavox or RCA was supposed to make a good smart phone. They also remember exploding Pintos and a big 3 that opposed seat belts and air bags and opposed lemon laws and sold disposable cars that decreased in quality over years to a total reliability crisis in the 70s and 80s and which had rivers so polluted he caught fire and which has gone bankrupt and had to be bailed out multiple times and which blames its unions for its failures but does massive layoffs in the face of stock buy backs.

    But I think we can all agree hydrogen is still super stupid for transport and sourcing it from fossil fuels in a long tail pipe scam should be illegal. It is also stupid for energy unless we are talking fusion.

    Also noticed Charlie Munger going through a lot of rhetoric saying Musk convinced people he could cure cancer (veiled assertion of fraud) and that he Munger would never short Tesla, which I think may be technically true but the opposite of what his group has actually done. I've long suspected its Buffet and his group behind the shorts to a large degree. I think you can lump Buffet, Gates, Charles Koch and Hillary in the same group, you can throw Biden and Burisma in that group too. But this group is expiring just in time. Maybe the unraveling tax havens will catch them up before they make it out the door linking them to Epstein, Madoff, Lay and others in the history books. Fraud Inc is on the defensive.
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    My simpler approach is the rough cost per mile both urban and highway:
    • EV ~1 unit per mile
    • Hybrid ~2 units per mile
    • Diesel ~4 units per mile
    • Gas ~5 units per mile
    For more precise metrics, use fueleconomy.gov and do a proper survey.

    Bob Wilson
     
    Dag Lindquist likes this.
  4. interestedinEV

    interestedinEV Well-Known Member

    @101101 I normally never respond to your posts (or even read them) as the ideas you espouse are far fetched, often ridiculous and always are unsubstantiated.

    The Tesla vs F150 was a gimmick, the field was not level (not a fair test) bit it has not proved anything in my opinion, one way or the other. No fair person can deny it. I am not saying that the cybertruck will not win a fair competition (it may well), only that this was not a fair competition.

    Any proof that Warren Buffet is behind the Tesla short sellers? Any proof at all? Remember Buffet owns electric utilities? Why would he be against them?
    Berkshire Hathaway Energy (BHE) owns 10% of BYD, is a Chinese manufacturer of automobiles, battery-powered bicycles, buses, forklifts, solar panels, rechargeable batteries (varied inc. bulk-storage from renewable energy), trucks, etc[5] with its corporate headquarters in Shenzhen. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Company). Yes, Warren Buffet has interest in natural gas, but electric generation, transmission and distribution is a much bigger part of BHE.


    I realize it is a free country and you can say or do what you want, but there is a little thing called credibility.
     
  5. According to a new IEA report the US was the only country to actually reduce energy-related C02 emissions in 2019. This was thanks to easing regulations for fracking NG. That dramatically reduced the cost of NG domestically and helped displace coal burning for electrical energy production. In general, developed nations fared better than emerging economies with their efforts to reduce C02 emissions. China, of course, is the worst as they are still implementing more new coal electric generation plants.

    Of course the cleanest electric generation is actually nuclear. Just need to reduce the risk (perceived or otherwise), and figure out how to better deal with the nuclear spent waste. But even still, more people have fallen off of roofs installing solar panels than have been killed in the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S. And hundreds of thousands of people around the world have died when dams have broken.
     
  6. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Actually China is implementing high temperature coal plants that get more electricity per unit of coal burned than our USA legacy, lower temperature, plants. I give them credit for using more advanced technology.

    I've been following the molten salt reactor design and test efforts and think this is the way to go.

    The molten salt is not at an elevated 'steam explosion' temperature and the fission by-products are constantly removed at the plant for rapid 'aging' to safe radiation levels. Meanwhile, the usable reactor fuel remains and nearly complete fission occurs.

    The high neutron flux volume does not have a substantial inventory of irradiated material (i.e., control rods and fuel assemblies.) So the container and piping don't become a high-level, radio active waste. Positive thermal expansion reduces the density and becomes a primary reactor control mechanism. To get more energy, run the turbine loop harder to draw out the heat. Best of all, completely passive, safety systems will scram the reaction (salt plugs) and it appears no active cooling post scram is needed. In part this is because the highly radioactive fission products have already been removed during normal operation.

    There will remain significant waste heat to deal with as this draws on water cooling towers. You really don't like cooking your sea food and fish stocks before harvesting.

    Bob Wilson
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Batch reply to he above comments

    As for the F150 pull test, it is not misrepresentative, put the Cyber on the bottom same result. As Musk said he Semi for instance will pull any class 8 diesel up a hill backwards. There is a reason locomotives have electric drive motors.

    Buffet and Gates talk a good game but take a look at Buffet and NRG and the impact on solar city in Nevada because of the utter BS they pulled. Sure Buffet bought into BYD but he is probably the reason they took the solar panels off their busses where the solar provided most of the power. His deal is natural gas and natural gas is a scam just like hydrogen.

    As for idiotic criminal NG lowering CO2 what a bunch of BS- is was moribund prior to Trump using our tax base to try to bail it out again, mid west banks were failing over derivatives related to it. And don't quote the IEA they are the definition of not credible. Fracking with its methane and water pollution etc., not worth it. As for thousands of new coal plants coming on line globally, that is BS because battery backed solar is cheaper and quicker to set up than coal pretty much everywhere. As for China revving up its coal- again doubt it seriously- the central government may have trouble controlling its cantons but it is not that bad.

    And Bob as for the units we might as well put Hydrogen on there at 15 units or so given the inefficiency of the full stack and of course hybrid is worse than what's shown with he full stack considered.

    Bob, wonder if they could take he waste heat and circulate it through a massive stack of IR PV cells to extract the remaining energy?
     
  9. What..., we should quote you instead?...LOL. For the first time in recent history, the US is actually reducing its energy-related C02 emissions. We should celebrate that. EVs have had the non-deserved rep of being coal burners. And also with the gradual (but slower than we want) increase in renewable energy production, we are actually now making real progress towards C02 emissions reduction.

    Unfortunately, can't say that for the rest of the world (despite all the countries that hypocritically signed the Paris Accord). After Fukushima, Germany shut down its nuclear plants. That led to higher electricity prices and increased carbon emissions because Germany burned more coal to make up for the loss of nuclear power.

    And ironically, the country with the best record of EV adoption, Norway, is also one of the world's largest exporters of oil. But smartly, they are using that revenue to subsidize and encourage EV adoption. A lot of oil is being consumed in the world, no matter where it is produced. But would rather have it coming from a country that is also promoting EVs and trying to reduce carbon emissions. And have to hope the US can also find its way to utilize the oil/gas production bonanza to better promote EV adoption. In addition to lowering C02, cleaner air cities would be a very nice benefit.
     
  10. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    A couple of technical details: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11
    Code:
    Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
    
    Coal (anthracite)              228.6
    Coal (bituminous)              205.7
    Coal (lignite)                 215.4
    Coal (subbituminous)           214.3
    Diesel fuel and heating oil    161.3
    Gasoline (without ethanol)     157.2
    Propane                        139.0
    Natural gas                    117.0
    


    As for hydrogen, I have no problem with your projection of "15" units of cost as a fuel for an engine. Technically, I would have used "3" for hydrogen fuel cells since the base is "1" for electricity. I don't consider hydrogen fuel cells to be competitive.

    Bob Wilson
     

Share This Page