Discussion:
Electric Cars Won't Bring Down Oil Prices Anytime Soon -- Evs Might Be 10% Of New Vehicle Sales By 2025 (Only 8 Years From Now!) [giggle]
(too old to reply)
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-16 05:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon

David Yager, OilPrice.com

Jul. 29, 2017, 1:00 PM 3,490

FILE PHOTO -- A Tesla Model S charges at a Tesla Supercharger station in
Cabazon, California, U.S. May 18, 2016. REUTERS/Sam Mircovich/File PhotoA
Tesla Model S charges at a Supercharger station in Cabazon,
CaliforniaThomson Reuters

Hardly a day goes by without another media report about the impending
demise of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) as petroleum powered cars
and trucks are replaced by uber-clean Electric Vehicles (EV). It is just a
matter of time before EVs start to materially reduce global oil demand
thereby capping a meaningful oil price recovery now and creating an ever-
shrinking industry in the future. EVs are yet another reason why the
decline of petroleum production and consumption is inevitable.

Except it isn't true. Your writer read dozens of articles and attended a
conference on the future of EVs. The evidence overwhelming proves they
pose no threat to oil prices anytime soon. Following is a summary of the
major points.

The forecasts for EV growth are all over the map. Late last year
investment research outfit Morningstar figured EVs will be 10% of new
vehicle sales by 2025 (only 8 years from now!) compared to 1% in 2015.
Washington's Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted in January
cumulative sales of EVs (cars and light trucks) would push 1.4 million by
2025. Last month Morgan Stanley predicted 1 billion EVs would be sold by
2050 and 70% of European vehicles would be electric. Bloomberg New Energy
Finance wrote a glowing report on EVs in early July titled The Electric
Car Revolution is Accelerating stating "...adoption of emission-free
vehicles will happen more quickly than previously estimated because the
cost of building cars is falling so fast. The seismic shift will see cars
with a plug account a third of the global auto fleet by 2040 and displace
about 8 million barrels a day of oil production. In just eight years,
electric cars will be as cheap as gasoline vehicles, pushing the global
fleet to 550 million by 2050". When Volvo recently announced it will only
produce vehicles with electric motors of some sort - pure EV or hybrid -
in a couple of years made global headlines.

http://www.businessinsider.com/electric-cars-oil-price-2017-7

EV sales forecasts don't look intimidating once all the numbers are
presented. For perspective, how many cars are there in the world?
According to Automotive News, in the U.S. alone there were 18.4 million
new cars and light trucks sold in 2016. A year ago, U.S. research house
Alliance Bernstein reported that in 2015 there were 1.1 billion cars and
377 million trucks on the world's roads, quantities expected to rise to
1.5 billion and 507 million respectively by 2025 and 2 billion and 790
billion by 2040. These figures are interesting because if the number of
vehicles doubles but EVs are only 25% by 2050 (Bloomberg's high case) this
doesn't equate to an 8% reduction in oil demand. If the Morningstar
prediction above comes true, this would equate to 8.8 million new EVs in
2025 based on worldwide sales of 88 million units in 2016. One of the big
issues now emerging is the significant petroleum consumption and emissions
of transport trucks for which electrification is not currently practical.
And, of course, airplanes only run on refined crude. Bernstein figures Air
Revenue Passenger Kilometers, or RPK, which was 9 trillion in 2015, will
rise to 12 trillion in 2025 and more than double to 20 trillion by 2040.
Oil required for transportation will continue to grow. Of a 42 US gallon
barrel of crude 86% ends up transportation fuel (20 gallons gasoline, 12
diesel and 4 jet fuel). And EVs will only capture a meaningful portion of
the market if several problems are solved, some highlighted below.

Growth in EV sales thus far have been supported by significant government
subsidies. The Tesla website points out just how much the sticker price of
its vehicles can be reduced. In America, everyone gets a federal US$7,500
income tax credit then Louisiana adds on as much as US$9,500 "depending on
battery choice". A typical amount from is other states is an additional
$1,000 to $$2,500. In Canada Ontario will chip in a Cdn$14,000 tax rebate
plus carpool lane access for a single driver. Quebec is at Cdn$3,000
according to the Tesla website. But it is noteworthy how sales plunge when
subsidies end. Website qz.com wrote on July 10 how "Nobody in Hong Kong
Wants a Tesla Anymore". Sales plummeted once the subsidy was capped at US
$12,500 which raised the cost of one of the higher-end models to US
$118,400 from US$72,900. In China BYD, which was once the world's largest
manufacturer of EVs thanks to domination of that market, saw EV sales drop
34% in Q1 2017 once state funding was reduced in January. Late last year
Forbes wrote EV sales in Europe were declining in the fall of 2016. In
April U.S. auto research firm Edmunds concluded, "Elimination of federal
tax credits likely to kill U.S. EV market", predicting EV sales would
crash when the subsidies are withdrawn. Norway proudly trumpets how it has
the highest level of EV adoption in the world, but the government pays
people to do it. In a great article by thedrive.com in mid-July, the
writer reports there are no sales taxes on EVs, owners don't pay for
vehicle registration, ferries and roads tolls are free, and they can drive
in bus or HOV lanes. To make sure drivers get with the program Norway
charges nearly US$7 a US gallon for gasoline. Norway gets all its EV
subsidy money by selling oil to the rest of the world. At US$45 a barrel
Norway's average 2016 production of 2.1 million b/d was worth US$35
billion last year and its sovereign wealth fund is currently totals US$960
billion. Britain and France have announced that by 2040 - 23 years from
now - vehicles powered only by ICEs will be banned. But however gloomy
that may sound for the oil industry today, that is enough time for 6
elections in both countries which could change everything, the development
of new technologies to make ICEs even cleaner and more efficient, and is
sufficiently distant to be meaningless for all crude producers except the
supermajors.

Are EV's really green? There has been much written about this subject but
it doesn't make headlines. You have to hunt for it. In article in
wired.com on March of 2016 the writer questioned whether or not Tesla was
really environmentally friendly. If you recharge with coal-fired
electricity the emissions are higher than burning gasoline. The vehicles
must be lighter to extend battery life so they require a lot of high
performance metals which is hardly environmentally benign to produce (more
on lithium later). A researcher wrote, "...the greenhouse gas emissions
footprint of electric vehicles can be pretty high on the front end, as
they're being built. We're shifting pollution, and in the process we're
hoping that it doesn't have the environmental impact". Then there's the
safe disposal of the battery after it dies and the local landfill is not
the place. In June, the Montreal Economic Institute released a report that
claimed subsidizing EVs was "an inefficient way to reduce CO2 emissions".
A spokesman said, "It's just a waste. Not only do these programs costs
taxpayers a fortune, but they also have little effect on GHG emissions".
The study claimed current subsidies in Quebec and Ontario, driven by lofty
public government ambitions to grow EV use significantly, cost taxpayers
Cdn$523 per tonne of reduced carbon emissions in Ontario and Cdn$288 in
Quebec. The cap and trade system Ontario is adopting, mirroring than in
California, taxes carbon at Cdn18 per tonne. Alberta's new carbon tax,
which the NDP are selling as a first step in saving the planet from
climate change, is Cdn$20.

Beware of looming electricity and lithium shortages. When Bloomberg did
its analysis it predicted, "Electricity consumption from EVs will grow to
1,800 terawatt-hours in 2040, or 5 percent of global power demand, from 6
terawatt-hours in 2016". This is a staggering 3,000 percent increase.
Where will it come from? Better not be coal or possibly even natural gas.
At a conference held April 3 in Calgary sponsored by ARC Energy Research
Institute (AERI) a representative of Bruce Power, the Ontario nuclear
electricity generator, said to economically reduce carbon emissions
recharging EVs only made sense at night, not during peak load hours. If
everybody drove their EVs to work and tried to plug in at the office it
would overload the system. Meanwhile, there is speculation whether the
world has enough lithium to build all the batteries skyrocketing EV growth
would ensure. One analyst has predicted lithium shortages as soon as 2023
and have already delayed Tesla's output. The solution, which is not all
bad for the oil industry, is dual fuel whereby the battery is smaller, the
lithium required per vehicle is lower, and mobility is augmented by a
smaller ICE using good old-fashioned gasoline.

Then there's the morality of EV subsidies, which is rarely discussed in
the pursuit of slaying the climate change beast. Until Tesla rolled out
its Model 3 with a suggested sticker price of US$35,000, earlier models
cost a small fortune restricting the number of people able to purchase
one. At the AERI conference an automotive industry speaker noted Tesla
dominated the market because it was "sexy". But a look at used vehicle
website showed these vehicles costing as much as Cdn$170,000, even second
hand. Four pages of ads didn't have one listed below Cdn$63,700. Is it
politically acceptable that Ontario provides Cdn$14,000 in subsidies from
all taxpayers to allow the richest people in the province to buy an EV in
the same price range as a Porsche, Ferrari or Maserati? And while the
subsidies are directed to the vehicle purchase so politicians can count
sales numbers, the recharging network is years behind. This will require
even more government money because in most places there is insufficient
commercial demand for the private sector to justify the investment. EVs
are range-restricted with 300 km. being the outer end. Then they take
hours to recharge. Colder temperatures impair battery performance as every
Canadian driver knows. Is this an intelligent and sustainable use of
taxpayer dollars?

Kevin Libin, an editorial writer for the Financial Post, wrote a column
July 11 titled, "The awesome, unstoppable revolutionary electric-car
revolution that doesn't actually exist". He wrote, "...because nobody's
really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to
breathless news reports about how the EV revolution is about to rock our
world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a percent of all passenger vehicles
in North America, despite the media's endless hype and efforts of green-
obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag".

Libin continued, "The real story being missed is just how pathetic things
look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned
historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless
cars...Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that
making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of
gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by
Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery
manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per
cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines".

Calgary's voice of sober second on all matters oil, Peter Tertzakian of
AERI, agreed with Libin in an article the same day. He wrote, "The demand
for oil is as robust as it's ever been, thanks to barrels that are priced
60 percent lower than they were three years ago.; the linkage of petroleum
to the world economy is actually strengthening, not weakening. But it
doesn't matter. EV mania is affecting the psychology of investors who
finance oil assets, services and infrastructure. Fog lights of reason are
finding it increasingly difficult to see the future of oil past 2020,
because a cloud of uncertainty is thickening around long-term demand".

Tertzakian wrote how more people are asking him somewhat rhetorically,
"Looks like the petroleum business is finished, eh?" He responds, "Really?
Have you bought an electric car or hybrid?" and the answer is universally
no. And nobody else has either. He figures there are two scenarios. The
first is tighter capital will "clean out" inefficient oil producers but
technology will help oil prices stay lower, "making the consumer decision
to switch to EVs more difficult". The other is shrinking capital
investment reducing future production thus leading to a price spike.
Tertzakian concludes, "Ironically, progressive oil companies will do well
under both scenarios".

Meanwhile, you won't see any EVs in the oilpatch anytime soon. The EV
maximum range of 300 km. remains what many in this business drive before
mid-morning when there's work to be done. And the destination is nowhere
near a charging station.
Rudy Canoza
2017-10-16 14:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>
> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon

That's not what they're expected to do.
dr. postalman
2017-10-16 15:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 8:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>
>> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>
> That's not

I think it's time for shitbag tRudey/Jonathan Ball to be TOS'd.

What say people?

Complaints to:

https://help.easynews.com/customer/portal/emails/new

https://help.easynews.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2190634-easynews-abuse

How do I contact Easynews Abuse?
Easynews Abuse handles all correspondences and inquiries via email. You
can contact Easynews Abuse via email at ***@easynews.com.

Please include the message header or sample of the message headers for
the post(s) in question.


***@easynews.com

https://easynews.com/agreement.html

SPAM. Easynews enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our users
posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion of
Easynews to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. A
definition of spam can be found at http://spam.abuse.net. If Easynews
has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles of spam, that
user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and the user's account
will be canceled immediately and all reasonable efforts will be made by
Easynews to prevent the user from using our network anytime thereafter.

CONTENT. Customer shall not use the system to post or transmit any
illegal material, including without limitation any transmissions that
would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or
otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Easynews may remove content from the system at any time and
at its sole discretion. Easynews is not liable for the loss or removal
of any data posted on our system. By using our services, the customer
expressly waives the right to seek damages with respect to any such loss
or removal.

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in
an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose
to receive it.
Unum
2017-10-16 16:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 9:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>
>> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>
> That's not what they're expected to do.

The article assumes that several large countries and cities scheduled to
phase out ICE vehicles over the next few years won't actually do it, lol.

Also some bias errors;

"One of the big issues now emerging is the significant petroleum consumption
and emissions of transport trucks for which electrification is not currently
practical."

Tesla and Cummins will both have this licked shortly.

http://mashable.com/2017/08/30/cummins-aeos-all-electric-truck/#.uz2tB0v.iqw
"Cummins, a company that is synonymous with diesel engines, just unveiled a
vehicle called the AEOS that's an electric-powered Class 7 semi truck cab
concept. The truck swaps out the semi's standard gas-guzzling 12-liter engine
for an electric one powered by a 140 KWh battery pack."

"The EV maximum range of 300 km. remains what many in this business drive
before mid-morning when there’s work to be done. And the destination is
nowhere near a charging station."

Both statements clearly false.
TomP
2017-10-16 16:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/10/2017 11:08 AM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 9:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>>
>> That's not what they're expected to do.
>
> The article assumes that several large countries and cities scheduled to
> phase out ICE vehicles over the next few years won't actually do it, lol.
>
> Also some bias errors;
>
> "One of the big issues now emerging is the significant petroleum
> consumption
> and emissions of transport trucks for which electrification is not
> currently
> practical."
>
> Tesla and Cummins will both have this licked shortly.
>
> http://mashable.com/2017/08/30/cummins-aeos-all-electric-truck/#.uz2tB0v.iqw
>
> "Cummins, a company that is synonymous with diesel engines, just unveiled a
> vehicle called the AEOS that's an electric-powered Class 7 semi truck cab
> concept. The truck swaps out the semi's standard gas-guzzling 12-liter
> engine
> for an electric one powered by a 140 KWh battery pack."
>
> "The EV maximum range of 300 km. remains what many in this business drive
> before mid-morning when there’s work to be done. And the destination is
> nowhere near a charging station."
>
> Both statements clearly false.

I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be used
for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel engine. This
is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is produced from water and
electricity with emissions of water only.
BumbleBee
2017-10-16 22:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be used
> for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel engine. This
> is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is produced from water and
> electricity with emissions of water only.


And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?

Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?

Mmmm hmmm....

Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
TomP
2017-10-17 04:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is produced
>> from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>
>
> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>
> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>
> Mmmm hmmm....
>
> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.

The infrastructure would have to be built. Right now, you can fill up
tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
BumbleBee
2017-10-17 14:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is produced
>>> from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>
>>
>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>
>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>
>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>
>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>
> The infrastructure would have to be built.

Ya think?

And who's PAYING for it???

> Right now, you can fill up
> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.

So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane tanks
in lieu of diesel, right?

They have THAT MANY propane hoses?

Yeah?

Cite????
TomP
2017-10-17 15:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is
>>>> produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>
>>>
>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>
>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>
>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>
>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>
>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>
> Ya think?
>
> And who's PAYING for it???
>
>> Right now, you can fill up
>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>
> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane tanks
> in lieu of diesel, right?
>
> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>
> Yeah?
>
> Cite????

Now you're just being stupid!
What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
years ago? The same questions were asked. Where are you going to fill
up? Who's going to pay for all these gas stations we need?
Today we don't need to set up refilling stations. They already exist. If
someone wants to cash in on the new fuel then they will invest in the
new filling stations. As with any changes, the market will adjust.
Don't be afraid of new technologies. That's how we advance as a
civilization. We no longer ride horses as our main mode of
transportation.
BumbleBee
2017-10-17 15:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is
>>>>> produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>
>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>
>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>>
>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>
>> Ya think?
>>
>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>
>>> Right now, you can fill up
>>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>>
>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane tanks
>> in lieu of diesel, right?
>>
>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>
>> Yeah?
>>
>> Cite????
>
> Now you're just being stupid!

So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of propane
fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????


> What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
> years ago?

This ends HERE!

EAT

SHIT

AND

DIE

YOU

NINNY

ALARMIST!
TomP
2017-10-17 15:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>>>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>>>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is
>>>>>> produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>>>
>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>
>>> Ya think?
>>>
>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>
>>>> Right now, you can fill up
>>>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>>>
>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>
>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>
>>> Yeah?
>>>
>>> Cite????
>>
>> Now you're just being stupid!
>
> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of propane
> fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>

I never said they fill up trucks with propane. I said you can fill up
tanks. You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these stations.
The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for trucks much like
they would set up propane to fill tanks.
Now walk away and go pout!!!!

>
>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
>> years ago?
>
> This ends HERE!
>
> EAT
>
> SHIT
>
> AND
>
> DIE
>
> YOU
>
> NINNY
>
> ALARMIST!
BumbleBee
2017-10-17 19:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 9:50 AM, TomP wrote:
> On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would
>>>>>>> be used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a
>>>>>>> diesel engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen
>>>>>>> is produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>>>>
>>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>>
>>>> Ya think?
>>>>
>>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>>
>>>>> Right now, you can fill up
>>>>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>>>>
>>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>>
>>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah?
>>>>
>>>> Cite????
>>>
>>> Now you're just being stupid!
>>
>> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of propane
>> fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>>
>
> I never said they fill up trucks with propane.

Liar:

"Right now, you can fill up
tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same."


> I said you can fill up
> tanks.

Trucks have tanks.

> You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these stations.

Which takes about HOW long per gallon?

> The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for trucks much like
> they would set up propane to fill tanks.

Right...one single 2,000 gal. cylinder with a hose and scale - brilliant!

Line those semis up back to the interstate off ramp!

> Now walk away and go pout!!!!

When I can span the crap outta you?

No way.

>
>>
>>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
>>> years ago?
>>
>> This ends HERE!
>>
>> EAT
>>
>> SHIT
>>
>> AND
>>
>> DIE
>>
>> YOU
>>
>> NINNY
>>
>> ALARMIST!
>
Dhu on Gate
2017-10-17 21:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:50:29 -0500, TomP wrote:

> On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>>>>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>>>>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is
>>>>>>> produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>>>>
>>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>>
>>>> Ya think?
>>>>
>>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>>
>>>>> Right now, you can fill up
>>>>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>>>>
>>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>>
>>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah?
>>>>
>>>> Cite????
>>>
>>> Now you're just being stupid!
>>
>> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of propane
>> fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>>
>
> I never said they fill up trucks with propane. I said you can fill up
> tanks. You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these stations.
> The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for trucks much like
> they would set up propane to fill tanks.
> Now walk away and go pout!!!!

The equipment is probly > an order more expensive to install/operate than propane.

Methanol makes a better fuel/energy transport than most: you can use it in
internal combustion engines AND fuel cells. If we use only current solar
energy supplied thru biological systems (e.g. TREES or DEAD COWS) to make
methanol (i.e. not from fossil carbon stores) you have a system that is
potentially sustainable for as long as the Sun shines.

Dhu

>
>>
>>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
>>> years ago?
>>
>> This ends HERE!
>>
>> EAT
>>
>> SHIT
>>
>> AND
>>
>> DIE
>>
>> YOU
>>
>> NINNY
>>
>> ALARMIST!





--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
BumbleBee
2017-10-17 21:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 3:51 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:50:29 -0500, TomP wrote:
>
>> On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>>>>>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>>>>>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is
>>>>>>>> produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ya think?
>>>>>
>>>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, you can fill up
>>>>>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite????
>>>>
>>>> Now you're just being stupid!
>>>
>>> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of propane
>>> fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>>>
>>
>> I never said they fill up trucks with propane. I said you can fill up
>> tanks. You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these stations.
>> The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for trucks much like
>> they would set up propane to fill tanks.
>> Now walk away and go pout!!!!
>
> The equipment is probly > an order more expensive to install/operate than propane.

Um...YEAH!

> Methanol makes a better fuel/energy transport than most: you can use it in
> internal combustion engines AND fuel cells.

Sucks in cold weather though.


> If we use only current solar
> energy supplied thru biological systems (e.g. TREES or DEAD COWS) to make
> methanol (i.e. not from fossil carbon stores) you have a system that is
> potentially sustainable for as long as the Sun shines.
>
> Dhu

But with associated H2O separation issues.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
>>>> years ago?
>>>
>>> This ends HERE!
>>>
>>> EAT
>>>
>>> SHIT
>>>
>>> AND
>>>
>>> DIE
>>>
>>> YOU
>>>
>>> NINNY
>>>
>>> ALARMIST!
>
>
>
>
>
Dhu on Gate
2017-11-02 18:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:58:12 -0600, BumbleBee wrote:

> On 10/17/2017 3:51 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:50:29 -0500, TomP wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>>>>>>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>>>>>>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is
>>>>>>>>> produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ya think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now, you can fill up
>>>>>>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>>>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite????
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're just being stupid!
>>>>
>>>> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of propane
>>>> fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never said they fill up trucks with propane. I said you can fill up
>>> tanks. You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these stations.
>>> The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for trucks much like
>>> they would set up propane to fill tanks.
>>> Now walk away and go pout!!!!
>>
>> The equipment is probly > an order more expensive to install/operate than propane.
>
> Um...YEAH!
>
>> Methanol makes a better fuel/energy transport than most: you can use it in
>> internal combustion engines AND fuel cells.
>
> Sucks in cold weather though.

No. It's called "gasline antifreeze" up here. Works like a damn in the cold.

>
>
>> If we use only current solar
>> energy supplied thru biological systems (e.g. TREES or DEAD COWS) to make
>> methanol (i.e. not from fossil carbon stores) you have a system that is
>> potentially sustainable for as long as the Sun shines.
>>
>> Dhu
>
> But with associated H2O separation issues.

Who cares? 40% methanol will still burn.

Dhu


>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
>>>>> years ago?
>>>>
>>>> This ends HERE!
>>>>
>>>> EAT
>>>>
>>>> SHIT
>>>>
>>>> AND
>>>>
>>>> DIE
>>>>
>>>> YOU
>>>>
>>>> NINNY
>>>>
>>>> ALARMIST!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>





--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Ultra Magnus
2017-11-02 18:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/2/2017 12:25 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:58:12 -0600, BumbleBee wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2017 3:51 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:50:29 -0500, TomP wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells would be
>>>>>>>>>> used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power of a diesel
>>>>>>>>>> engine. This is a very clean energy source since hydrogen is
>>>>>>>>>> produced from water and electricity with emissions of water only.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag canucklehad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ya think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now, you can fill up
>>>>>>>> tanks at propane sites. This would be much the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>>>>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you're just being stupid!
>>>>>
>>>>> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of propane
>>>>> fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never said they fill up trucks with propane. I said you can fill up
>>>> tanks. You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these stations.
>>>> The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for trucks much like
>>>> they would set up propane to fill tanks.
>>>> Now walk away and go pout!!!!
>>>
>>> The equipment is probly > an order more expensive to install/operate than propane.
>>
>> Um...YEAH!
>>
>>> Methanol makes a better fuel/energy transport than most: you can use it in
>>> internal combustion engines AND fuel cells.
>>
>> Sucks in cold weather though.
>
> No. It's called "gasline antifreeze" up here. Works like a damn in the cold.

Iow you're willing to have to do the equivalent of adding an octane
booster each time you fill up - madness!


>>> If we use only current solar
>>> energy supplied thru biological systems (e.g. TREES or DEAD COWS) to make
>>> methanol (i.e. not from fossil carbon stores) you have a system that is
>>> potentially sustainable for as long as the Sun shines.
>>>
>>> Dhu
>>
>> But with associated H2O separation issues.
>
> Who cares? 40% methanol will still burn.
>
> Dhu

After being massaged to do so!

>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the automobile 100
>>>>>> years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>> This ends HERE!
>>>>>
>>>>> EAT
>>>>>
>>>>> SHIT
>>>>>
>>>>> AND
>>>>>
>>>>> DIE
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU
>>>>>
>>>>> NINNY
>>>>>
>>>>> ALARMIST!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
Dhu on Gate
2018-01-11 12:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 12:28:51 -0600, Ultra Magnus wrote:

> On 11/2/2017 12:25 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:58:12 -0600, BumbleBee wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/2017 3:51 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:50:29 -0500, TomP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells
>>>>>>>>>>> would be used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power
>>>>>>>>>>> of a diesel engine. This is a very clean energy source since
>>>>>>>>>>> hydrogen is produced from water and electricity with emissions
>>>>>>>>>>> of water only.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag
>>>>>>>>>> canucklehad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ya think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right now, you can fill up tanks at propane sites. This would be
>>>>>>>>> much the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>>>>>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now you're just being stupid!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of
>>>>>> propane fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I never said they fill up trucks with propane. I said you can fill
>>>>> up tanks. You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these
>>>>> stations. The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for
>>>>> trucks much like they would set up propane to fill tanks.
>>>>> Now walk away and go pout!!!!
>>>>
>>>> The equipment is probly > an order more expensive to install/operate
>>>> than propane.
>>>
>>> Um...YEAH!
>>>
>>>> Methanol makes a better fuel/energy transport than most: you can use
>>>> it in internal combustion engines AND fuel cells.
>>>
>>> Sucks in cold weather though.
>>
>> No. It's called "gasline antifreeze" up here. Works like a damn in
>> the cold.
>
> Iow you're willing to have to do the equivalent of adding an octane
> booster each time you fill up - madness!

We put it in the GASOLINE here. Octane "booster" is total bs.

Dhu

>
>
>>>> If we use only current solar energy supplied thru biological systems
>>>> (e.g. TREES or DEAD COWS) to make methanol (i.e. not from fossil
>>>> carbon stores) you have a system that is potentially sustainable for
>>>> as long as the Sun shines.
>>>>
>>>> Dhu
>>>
>>> But with associated H2O separation issues.
>>
>> Who cares? 40% methanol will still burn.
>>
>> Dhu
>
> After being massaged to do so!

Massaged with a match. Ya.

Dhu

>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the
>>>>>>> automobile 100 years ago?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This ends HERE!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EAT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SHIT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AND
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DIE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NINNY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ALARMIST!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>





--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Polar Vortex
2018-01-11 17:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/11/2018 5:33 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 12:28:51 -0600, Ultra Magnus wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2017 12:25 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:58:12 -0600, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2017 3:51 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:50:29 -0500, TomP wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/10/2017 10:15 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2017 9:06 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2017 9:46 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:34 PM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/10/2017 5:08 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2017 10:19 AM, TomP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read an article that suggested that hydrogen fuel cells
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be used for heavy trucks since it can produce the power
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a diesel engine. This is a very clean energy source since
>>>>>>>>>>>> hydrogen is produced from water and electricity with emissions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of water only.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And WHERE does on go to FUEL UP with it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Santa Barbara, Caliphonya perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mmmm hmmm....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, ya got the Encino to Berdoo run covered, ya assbag
>>>>>>>>>>> canucklehad.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The infrastructure would have to be built.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ya think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And who's PAYING for it???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right now, you can fill up tanks at propane sites. This would be
>>>>>>>>>> much the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So your claim is that every truck stop is set up to fill propane
>>>>>>>>> tanks in lieu of diesel, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They have THAT MANY propane hoses?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now you're just being stupid!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So there is NO CITATION you can provide for the prevalence of
>>>>>>> propane fast fill hoses at national truck stops...right????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said they fill up trucks with propane. I said you can fill
>>>>>> up tanks. You can fill up BBQ tanks or fork lift tanks at these
>>>>>> stations. The idea is you set up a hydrogen fill up stations for
>>>>>> trucks much like they would set up propane to fill tanks.
>>>>>> Now walk away and go pout!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The equipment is probly > an order more expensive to install/operate
>>>>> than propane.
>>>>
>>>> Um...YEAH!
>>>>
>>>>> Methanol makes a better fuel/energy transport than most: you can use
>>>>> it in internal combustion engines AND fuel cells.
>>>>
>>>> Sucks in cold weather though.
>>>
>>> No. It's called "gasline antifreeze" up here. Works like a damn in
>>> the cold.
>>
>> Iow you're willing to have to do the equivalent of adding an octane
>> booster each time you fill up - madness!
>
> We put it in the GASOLINE here. Octane "booster" is total bs.
>
> Dhu

No, octane booster is NOT "total bs", you blithering self-spank idjit!

http://mycarneedsthis.com/the-best-octane-boosters-and-reviews/

Introduction To Top 5 Best Octane Boosters

What you put into your vehicle, will dictate what happens on the inside.
The higher the octane number, the more compression the fuel can
withstand before detonating.
A handful of octane boosters can really make a difference. This guide
will show exactly which ones they are.

A handful of octane boosters can really make a difference. This guide
will show exactly which ones they are.

This is a very common thing with premium vehicles such as BMW’s,
Mercedes, some Nissans, and a whole bunch other above average vehicles.

In some instances, using an octane booster is necessary to make the
internal combustion process flow smoothly. Whether you are using an
octane booster for racing purposes, or simply to boost up your current
vehicle ratings to help eliminate some internal carbon build-up.

We’ve put together a list of the best octane boosters that are current
available for the public to purchase. While there’s a few dozen brands
advertising “10,20,30, 40 etc number boost” which sounds impressive, but
when you narrow it down, these numbers only mean 1,2, 3, maybe 4 octane
levels of boost.

The products recommended below are proven to work in boosting current
octane levels (by various levels), no compromises here. Take a look…


5 Best Octane Boosters To Buy On The Market Today 2017

Ranking Product Overall Rating
1 Torco Accelerator Fuel Additive/Octane Booster
4.6 Stars (4.6 / 5)
View on Amazon.com
2 Klotz Octane Booster
4.9 Stars (4.9 / 5)
View on Amazon.com
3 Royal Purple Max-Boost Octane Booster and Stabilizer
4.7 Stars (4.7 / 5)
View on Amazon.com
4 Lucas-Oil Fuel Octane Boost
4.7 Stars (4.7 / 5)
View on Amazon.com
5 104+ Fuel Octane Boost
4.5 Stars (4.5 / 5)
View on Amazon.com



>
>>
>>
>>>>> If we use only current solar energy supplied thru biological systems
>>>>> (e.g. TREES or DEAD COWS) to make methanol (i.e. not from fossil
>>>>> carbon stores) you have a system that is potentially sustainable for
>>>>> as long as the Sun shines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dhu
>>>>
>>>> But with associated H2O separation issues.
>>>
>>> Who cares? 40% methanol will still burn.
>>>
>>> Dhu
>>
>> After being massaged to do so!
>
> Massaged with a match. Ya.
>
> Dhu
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think happened when they first introduced the
>>>>>>>> automobile 100 years ago?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This ends HERE!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EAT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SHIT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AND
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DIE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NINNY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ALARMIST!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
Wally W.
2017-10-17 03:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:08:38 -0500, Unum wrote:

>On 10/16/2017 9:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>>
>> That's not what they're expected to do.
>
>The article assumes that several large countries and cities scheduled to
>phase out ICE vehicles over the next few years won't actually do it, lol.
>
>Also some bias errors;
>
>"One of the big issues now emerging is the significant petroleum consumption
>and emissions of transport trucks for which electrification is not currently
>practical."
>
>Tesla and Cummins will both have this licked shortly.
>
>http://mashable.com/2017/08/30/cummins-aeos-all-electric-truck/#.uz2tB0v.iqw
>"Cummins, a company that is synonymous with diesel engines, just unveiled a
>vehicle called the AEOS that's an electric-powered Class 7 semi truck cab
>concept. The truck swaps out the semi's standard gas-guzzling 12-liter engine
>for an electric one powered by a 140 KWh battery pack."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck
Power requirements in standard conditions are 170 hp at 55 mph

170 hp = 127 kw

So the 140 KWh battery would be drained in

140 / 127 = 1.1 hours.

Nice: long-haul truckers turned to long-wait truckers ... waiting for
their battery to recharge so they can drive for another hour.

Where *do* you come up with these great ideas, Unum?



>"The EV maximum range of 300 km. remains what many in this business drive
>before mid-morning when there’s work to be done. And the destination is
>nowhere near a charging station."
>
>Both statements clearly false.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-17 04:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:08:38 -0500, Unum says...

> "One of the big issues now emerging is the significant petroleum consumption
> and emissions of transport trucks for which electrification is not currently
> practical."
>
> Tesla and Cummins will both have this licked shortly.
>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Get back to me in "shortly", so I can BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
AlleyCat
2017-10-16 23:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:12:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...

>
> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
> >
> > Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>
> That's not what they're expected to do.

*I* know that... *YOU* know that, but the idiots in...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.global-warming

... don't.

They post articles that DO say things like that, to try and convince
THEMSELVES they are doing their climate screecher "duty".

Here's a PRIME example of their wacko version of "environmentalism".

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/u9Ln6vD7wRA

You can't have "environMENTALism, without "mental" cases.

http://tinypic.com/r/2d0xmyc/9

http://tinypic.com/r/5ca7vk/8
Rudy Canoza
2017-10-16 23:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 4:36 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:12:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...
>
>>
>> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>>
>> That's not what they're expected to do.
>
> *I* know that... *YOU* know that, but the idiots in...
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.global-warming
>
> ... don't.

In fact, the emergence of electric vehicles *will* bring down the price
of oil, because there will be far less demand for the stuff.
TOS tRudey Ball now!
2017-10-17 00:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> In fact,


I think it's time for shitbag tRudey/Jonathan Ball to be TOS'd.

What say people?

Complaints to:

https://help.easynews.com/customer/portal/emails/new

https://help.easynews.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2190634-easynews-abuse

How do I contact Easynews Abuse?
Easynews Abuse handles all correspondences and inquiries via email. You
can contact Easynews Abuse via email at ***@easynews.com.

Please include the message header or sample of the message headers for
the post(s) in question.


***@easynews.com

https://easynews.com/agreement.html

SPAM. Easynews enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our users
posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion of
Easynews to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. A
definition of spam can be found at http://spam.abuse.net. If Easynews
has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles of spam, that
user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and the user's account
will be canceled immediately and all reasonable efforts will be made by
Easynews to prevent the user from using our network anytime thereafter.

CONTENT. Customer shall not use the system to post or transmit any
illegal material, including without limitation any transmissions that
would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or
otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Easynews may remove content from the system at any time and
at its sole discretion. Easynews is not liable for the loss or removal
of any data posted on our system. By using our services, the customer
expressly waives the right to seek damages with respect to any such loss
or removal.

http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in
an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose
to receive it.
AlleyCat
2017-10-17 01:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:49:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...

>
> On 10/16/2017 4:36 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:12:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...
> >
> >>
> >> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
> >>
> >> That's not what they're expected to do.
> >
> > *I* know that... *YOU* know that, but the idiots in...
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.global-warming
> >
> > ... don't.
>
> In fact, the emergence of electric vehicles *will* bring down the price
> of oil, because there will be far less demand for the stuff.

I'm not sure about your assertion that there will be "far less demand for
the 'stuff'", and even if there does come a time when EVs drive the price
of oil down, it's a lonnnng way off, and people will just start buying GAS
cars again.

Electric Cars Won't Bring Down Oil Prices Anytime Soon
David Yager, Oilprice.Com
Jul. 29, 2017, 1:00 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/electric-cars-oil-price-2017-7


And that's exactly what I told them. They get all proud of themselves,
when they brag (NOT deservedly so), on EVs driving the price of oil down.
They can't think past their crooked noses, and realize, cheaper gas equals
FEWER EVs being sold.

Cheap Gasoline Will Kill The Electric Car Again - Michael Lynch,
Contributor

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2016/01/14/will-low-gasoline-
prices-whipsaw-the-auto-industry-again/#585c8727175b

"We" will be ENJOYING the lower gas prices and EV makers will be the ones
asking for handouts, when they can't sell a fucking thing because gas
prices are (so) low.
Rudy Canoza
2017-10-17 01:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 6:42 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:49:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...
>
>>
>> On 10/16/2017 4:36 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:12:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>>>>
>>>> That's not what they're expected to do.
>>>
>>> *I* know that... *YOU* know that, but the idiots in...
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.global-warming
>>>
>>> ... don't.
>>
>> In fact, the emergence of electric vehicles *will* bring down the price
>> of oil, because there will be far less demand for the stuff.
>
> I'm not sure about your assertion that there will be "far less demand for
> the 'stuff'",

I am right about that. Vehicle fuel accounts for the majority of
petroleum use. In the U.S., gasoline alone accounts for 48% of crude
oil use. Add diesel to that and the percentage is well over 50%.
AlleyCat
2017-10-17 02:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:47:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...

> > I'm not sure about your assertion that there will be "far less demand for
> > the 'stuff'",
>
> I am right about that. Vehicle fuel accounts for the majority of
> petroleum use. In the U.S., gasoline alone accounts for 48% of crude
> oil use. Add diesel to that and the percentage is well over 50%.

I have no doubt that EVs will cause "less demand", but that's only while
gas prices are still relatively "high". Once they go down? Gas cars make
yet ANOTHER "comeback".

It'll be the early 1900s all over again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

https://youtu.be/qIxn68IHCU4
Rudy Canoza
2017-10-17 02:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 7:01 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:47:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza says...
>
>>> I'm not sure about your assertion that there will be "far less demand for
>>> the 'stuff'",
>>
>> I am right about that. Vehicle fuel accounts for the majority of
>> petroleum use. In the U.S., gasoline alone accounts for 48% of crude
>> oil use. Add diesel to that and the percentage is well over 50%.
>
> I have no doubt that EVs will cause "less demand", but that's only while
> gas prices are still relatively "high". Once they go down? Gas cars make
> yet ANOTHER "comeback".

No, idiot - they're not going to be manufactured any longer. Several
countries around the world, including China, have already announced that
gasoline and diesel powered cars are going to be *banned*, and
California moving closer to banning them. Other states and countries
will follow suit.
Unum
2017-10-17 02:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 9:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 7:01 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:47:33 -0700,  Rudy Canoza says...
>>
>>>> I'm not sure about your assertion that there will be "far less demand for
>>>> the 'stuff'",
>>>
>>> I am right about that.  Vehicle fuel accounts for the majority of
>>> petroleum use.  In the U.S., gasoline alone accounts for 48% of crude
>>> oil use.  Add diesel to that and the percentage is well over 50%.
>>
>> I have no doubt that EVs will cause "less demand", but that's only while
>> gas prices are still relatively "high". Once they go down? Gas cars make
>> yet ANOTHER "comeback".
>
> No, idiot - they're not going to be manufactured any longer.  Several
> countries around the world, including China, have already announced that
> gasoline and diesel powered cars are going to be *banned*, and California
> moving closer to banning them.  Other states and countries will follow suit.

You got to wonder why anyone, even denialist scum on the internet, would
want polluting vehicles on the road dumping noxious gases into the
air where they would breathe it everywhere they go.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-17 04:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:52:42 -0500, Unum says...

> > No, idiot - they're not going to be manufactured any longer.  Several
> > countries around the world, including China, have already announced that
> > gasoline and diesel powered cars are going to be *banned*, and California
> > moving closer to banning them.  Other states and countries will follow suit.
>
> You got to wonder why anyone, even denialist scum on the internet, would
> want polluting vehicles on the road dumping noxious gases into the
> air where they would breathe it everywhere they go.
>

How does your mommy take you to the dentist, little nerd?
AlleyCat
2017-10-17 02:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 19:04:53 -0700,

Judy Canoza says...

>
> On 10/16/2017 7:01 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:47:33 -0700,

> Judy Canoza says...
> >
> >>> I'm not sure about your assertion that there will be "far less demand for
> >>> the 'stuff'",
> >>
> >> I am right about that. Vehicle fuel accounts for the majority of
> >> petroleum use. In the U.S., gasoline alone accounts for 48% of crude
> >> oil use. Add diesel to that and the percentage is well over 50%.
> >
> > I have no doubt that EVs will cause "less demand", but that's only while
> > gas prices are still relatively "high". Once they go down? Gas cars make
> > yet ANOTHER "comeback".
>
> No, idiot - they're not going to be manufactured any longer. Several
> countries around the world, including China, have already announced that
> gasoline and diesel powered cars are going to be *banned*, and
> California moving closer to banning them. Other states and countries
> will follow suit.

Well, asshole... I WAS trying to keep this civil, but you showed your true
colors... AGAIN. A typical fence-riding, everybody hating ('cept mommy, of
course) Bernie-voting, socialist/anarchist/hedonist, nerd & dumbass, who
NEEDS the government to take care of him, because mommy will be gone
sooner or later... am I right?

I, along with assholes like you, will probably NEVER see the "end" of
manufactured GAS or diesel cars and trucks. You can hold me to that, even
bring it back up "when" it happens. I KNOW I'll be dead, but since you
seem to be a 12 year old little girl, you MIGHT see that day.

Naaaah... even at 12 years old, bitch, you won't.

Ta... Judy.
Chom Noamsky
2017-10-16 18:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/15/2017 10:41 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>
> Electric cars won't bring down oil prices anytime soon
>
> David Yager, OilPrice.com
>
> Jul. 29, 2017, 1:00 PM 3,490
>
> FILE PHOTO -- A Tesla Model S charges at a Tesla Supercharger station in
> Cabazon, California, U.S. May 18, 2016. REUTERS/Sam Mircovich/File PhotoA
> Tesla Model S charges at a Supercharger station in Cabazon,
> CaliforniaThomson Reuters
>
> Hardly a day goes by without another media report about the impending
> demise of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) as petroleum powered cars
> and trucks are replaced by uber-clean Electric Vehicles (EV). It is just a
> matter of time before EVs start to materially reduce global oil demand
> thereby capping a meaningful oil price recovery now and creating an ever-
> shrinking industry in the future. EVs are yet another reason why the
> decline of petroleum production and consumption is inevitable.
>
> Except it isn't true. Your writer read dozens of articles and attended a
> conference on the future of EVs. The evidence overwhelming proves they
> pose no threat to oil prices anytime soon. Following is a summary of the
> major points.
>
> The forecasts for EV growth are all over the map. Late last year
> investment research outfit Morningstar figured EVs will be 10% of new
> vehicle sales by 2025 (only 8 years from now!) compared to 1% in 2015.
> Washington's Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted in January
> cumulative sales of EVs (cars and light trucks) would push 1.4 million by
> 2025. Last month Morgan Stanley predicted 1 billion EVs would be sold by
> 2050 and 70% of European vehicles would be electric. Bloomberg New Energy
> Finance wrote a glowing report on EVs in early July titled The Electric
> Car Revolution is Accelerating stating "...adoption of emission-free
> vehicles will happen more quickly than previously estimated because the
> cost of building cars is falling so fast. The seismic shift will see cars
> with a plug account a third of the global auto fleet by 2040 and displace
> about 8 million barrels a day of oil production. In just eight years,
> electric cars will be as cheap as gasoline vehicles, pushing the global
> fleet to 550 million by 2050". When Volvo recently announced it will only
> produce vehicles with electric motors of some sort - pure EV or hybrid -
> in a couple of years made global headlines.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/electric-cars-oil-price-2017-7
>
> EV sales forecasts don't look intimidating once all the numbers are
> presented. For perspective, how many cars are there in the world?
> According to Automotive News, in the U.S. alone there were 18.4 million
> new cars and light trucks sold in 2016. A year ago, U.S. research house
> Alliance Bernstein reported that in 2015 there were 1.1 billion cars and
> 377 million trucks on the world's roads, quantities expected to rise to
> 1.5 billion and 507 million respectively by 2025 and 2 billion and 790
> billion by 2040. These figures are interesting because if the number of
> vehicles doubles but EVs are only 25% by 2050 (Bloomberg's high case) this
> doesn't equate to an 8% reduction in oil demand. If the Morningstar
> prediction above comes true, this would equate to 8.8 million new EVs in
> 2025 based on worldwide sales of 88 million units in 2016. One of the big
> issues now emerging is the significant petroleum consumption and emissions
> of transport trucks for which electrification is not currently practical.
> And, of course, airplanes only run on refined crude. Bernstein figures Air
> Revenue Passenger Kilometers, or RPK, which was 9 trillion in 2015, will
> rise to 12 trillion in 2025 and more than double to 20 trillion by 2040.
> Oil required for transportation will continue to grow. Of a 42 US gallon
> barrel of crude 86% ends up transportation fuel (20 gallons gasoline, 12
> diesel and 4 jet fuel). And EVs will only capture a meaningful portion of
> the market if several problems are solved, some highlighted below.
>
> Growth in EV sales thus far have been supported by significant government
> subsidies. The Tesla website points out just how much the sticker price of
> its vehicles can be reduced. In America, everyone gets a federal US$7,500
> income tax credit then Louisiana adds on as much as US$9,500 "depending on
> battery choice". A typical amount from is other states is an additional
> $1,000 to $$2,500. In Canada Ontario will chip in a Cdn$14,000 tax rebate
> plus carpool lane access for a single driver. Quebec is at Cdn$3,000
> according to the Tesla website. But it is noteworthy how sales plunge when
> subsidies end. Website qz.com wrote on July 10 how "Nobody in Hong Kong
> Wants a Tesla Anymore". Sales plummeted once the subsidy was capped at US
> $12,500 which raised the cost of one of the higher-end models to US
> $118,400 from US$72,900. In China BYD, which was once the world's largest
> manufacturer of EVs thanks to domination of that market, saw EV sales drop
> 34% in Q1 2017 once state funding was reduced in January. Late last year
> Forbes wrote EV sales in Europe were declining in the fall of 2016. In
> April U.S. auto research firm Edmunds concluded, "Elimination of federal
> tax credits likely to kill U.S. EV market", predicting EV sales would
> crash when the subsidies are withdrawn. Norway proudly trumpets how it has
> the highest level of EV adoption in the world, but the government pays
> people to do it. In a great article by thedrive.com in mid-July, the
> writer reports there are no sales taxes on EVs, owners don't pay for
> vehicle registration, ferries and roads tolls are free, and they can drive
> in bus or HOV lanes. To make sure drivers get with the program Norway
> charges nearly US$7 a US gallon for gasoline. Norway gets all its EV
> subsidy money by selling oil to the rest of the world. At US$45 a barrel
> Norway's average 2016 production of 2.1 million b/d was worth US$35
> billion last year and its sovereign wealth fund is currently totals US$960
> billion. Britain and France have announced that by 2040 - 23 years from
> now - vehicles powered only by ICEs will be banned. But however gloomy
> that may sound for the oil industry today, that is enough time for 6
> elections in both countries which could change everything, the development
> of new technologies to make ICEs even cleaner and more efficient, and is
> sufficiently distant to be meaningless for all crude producers except the
> supermajors.
>
> Are EV's really green? There has been much written about this subject but
> it doesn't make headlines. You have to hunt for it. In article in
> wired.com on March of 2016 the writer questioned whether or not Tesla was
> really environmentally friendly. If you recharge with coal-fired
> electricity the emissions are higher than burning gasoline. The vehicles
> must be lighter to extend battery life so they require a lot of high
> performance metals which is hardly environmentally benign to produce (more
> on lithium later). A researcher wrote, "...the greenhouse gas emissions
> footprint of electric vehicles can be pretty high on the front end, as
> they're being built. We're shifting pollution, and in the process we're
> hoping that it doesn't have the environmental impact". Then there's the
> safe disposal of the battery after it dies and the local landfill is not
> the place. In June, the Montreal Economic Institute released a report that
> claimed subsidizing EVs was "an inefficient way to reduce CO2 emissions".
> A spokesman said, "It's just a waste. Not only do these programs costs
> taxpayers a fortune, but they also have little effect on GHG emissions".
> The study claimed current subsidies in Quebec and Ontario, driven by lofty
> public government ambitions to grow EV use significantly, cost taxpayers
> Cdn$523 per tonne of reduced carbon emissions in Ontario and Cdn$288 in
> Quebec. The cap and trade system Ontario is adopting, mirroring than in
> California, taxes carbon at Cdn18 per tonne. Alberta's new carbon tax,
> which the NDP are selling as a first step in saving the planet from
> climate change, is Cdn$20.
>
> Beware of looming electricity and lithium shortages. When Bloomberg did
> its analysis it predicted, "Electricity consumption from EVs will grow to
> 1,800 terawatt-hours in 2040, or 5 percent of global power demand, from 6
> terawatt-hours in 2016". This is a staggering 3,000 percent increase.
> Where will it come from? Better not be coal or possibly even natural gas.
> At a conference held April 3 in Calgary sponsored by ARC Energy Research
> Institute (AERI) a representative of Bruce Power, the Ontario nuclear
> electricity generator, said to economically reduce carbon emissions
> recharging EVs only made sense at night, not during peak load hours. If
> everybody drove their EVs to work and tried to plug in at the office it
> would overload the system. Meanwhile, there is speculation whether the
> world has enough lithium to build all the batteries skyrocketing EV growth
> would ensure. One analyst has predicted lithium shortages as soon as 2023
> and have already delayed Tesla's output. The solution, which is not all
> bad for the oil industry, is dual fuel whereby the battery is smaller, the
> lithium required per vehicle is lower, and mobility is augmented by a
> smaller ICE using good old-fashioned gasoline.
>
> Then there's the morality of EV subsidies, which is rarely discussed in
> the pursuit of slaying the climate change beast. Until Tesla rolled out
> its Model 3 with a suggested sticker price of US$35,000, earlier models
> cost a small fortune restricting the number of people able to purchase
> one. At the AERI conference an automotive industry speaker noted Tesla
> dominated the market because it was "sexy". But a look at used vehicle
> website showed these vehicles costing as much as Cdn$170,000, even second
> hand. Four pages of ads didn't have one listed below Cdn$63,700. Is it
> politically acceptable that Ontario provides Cdn$14,000 in subsidies from
> all taxpayers to allow the richest people in the province to buy an EV in
> the same price range as a Porsche, Ferrari or Maserati? And while the
> subsidies are directed to the vehicle purchase so politicians can count
> sales numbers, the recharging network is years behind. This will require
> even more government money because in most places there is insufficient
> commercial demand for the private sector to justify the investment. EVs
> are range-restricted with 300 km. being the outer end. Then they take
> hours to recharge. Colder temperatures impair battery performance as every
> Canadian driver knows. Is this an intelligent and sustainable use of
> taxpayer dollars?
>
> Kevin Libin, an editorial writer for the Financial Post, wrote a column
> July 11 titled, "The awesome, unstoppable revolutionary electric-car
> revolution that doesn't actually exist". He wrote, "...because nobody's
> really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to
> breathless news reports about how the EV revolution is about to rock our
> world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a percent of all passenger vehicles
> in North America, despite the media's endless hype and efforts of green-
> obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag".
>
> Libin continued, "The real story being missed is just how pathetic things
> look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned
> historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless
> cars...Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that
> making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of
> gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by
> Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery
> manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per
> cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines".
>
> Calgary's voice of sober second on all matters oil, Peter Tertzakian of
> AERI, agreed with Libin in an article the same day. He wrote, "The demand
> for oil is as robust as it's ever been, thanks to barrels that are priced
> 60 percent lower than they were three years ago.; the linkage of petroleum
> to the world economy is actually strengthening, not weakening. But it
> doesn't matter. EV mania is affecting the psychology of investors who
> finance oil assets, services and infrastructure. Fog lights of reason are
> finding it increasingly difficult to see the future of oil past 2020,
> because a cloud of uncertainty is thickening around long-term demand".
>
> Tertzakian wrote how more people are asking him somewhat rhetorically,
> "Looks like the petroleum business is finished, eh?" He responds, "Really?
> Have you bought an electric car or hybrid?" and the answer is universally
> no. And nobody else has either. He figures there are two scenarios. The
> first is tighter capital will "clean out" inefficient oil producers but
> technology will help oil prices stay lower, "making the consumer decision
> to switch to EVs more difficult". The other is shrinking capital
> investment reducing future production thus leading to a price spike.
> Tertzakian concludes, "Ironically, progressive oil companies will do well
> under both scenarios".
>
> Meanwhile, you won't see any EVs in the oilpatch anytime soon. The EV
> maximum range of 300 km. remains what many in this business drive before
> mid-morning when there's work to be done. And the destination is nowhere
> near a charging station.

It's not rocket science, EVs have a limited use case scenario, period.
Good for short urban commutes, or if you're rich, you can actually buy
an EV with enough range to make it to the cottage and back. Over 50% of
first time EV buyers trade-in for an ICE because EVs are simply
inadequate for what most people want a vehicle for, which is to go
places, where and when people want to. Basically, EVs don't move off
dealer lots unless massive subsidies are involved. If someone tells you
everyone will be driving EVs 20 years from now, remind them that back in
the 50s, everyone was going to be driving solar-powered electric cars by
the 1970s. You just can't take these deluded EV advocates seriously, no
farther than you can throw 'em.
SteveGG
2017-10-16 19:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In case anyone hasn't considered it, EVs run off energy from the
combustion of carbon related products, including oil, coal and natural
gas, albeit much more IN-efficiently, except for clean nuclear energy.
The effective carbon footprint of EVs is greater than equivalent ICE
powered vehicles.
Unum
2017-10-16 19:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 2:10 PM, SteveGG wrote:
> In case anyone hasn't considered it, EVs run off energy from the
> combustion of carbon related products, including oil, coal and natural
> gas, albeit much more IN-efficiently, except for clean nuclear energy.
> The effective carbon footprint of EVs is greater than equivalent ICE
> powered vehicles.
>

Nope, it isn't. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation
fuels, not electricity production. The proportion of electricity
from coal is way down and dropping like a rock. So while EV-charging
does use some fossil fuels (unless you buy 100% renewable electricity
like me), it is way cleaner than the 100% fossil fuel burning of
ICE vehicles.
SteveGG
2017-10-16 20:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
>Nope, it isn't. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation
>fuels, not electricity production. The proportion of electricity
>from coal is way down and dropping like a rock.

Carbon fuels are burned and the heat used to drive turbines, which
turn generators to produce electricity. Very inefficient.

Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
of these steps.

So the complete energy of the EV comes from where ? If not from oil,
and less and less from coal, then what ? Natural gas ?

Point is, the effective carbon footprint of an EV is much greater than
an ICE powered vehicle.

EVER HEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING ?!

The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
Unum
2017-10-16 22:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 3:59 PM, SteveGG wrote:
>>
>> Nope, it isn't. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation
>> fuels, not electricity production. The proportion of electricity
>>from coal is way down and dropping like a rock.
>
> Carbon fuels are burned and the heat used to drive turbines, which
> turn generators to produce electricity. Very inefficient.

More efficient than ICE engines though, which average 20%.

> Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
> transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
> of these steps.

Oh really? How big?

> So the complete energy of the EV comes from where ? If not from oil,
> and less and less from coal, then what ? Natural gas ?
>
> Point is, the effective carbon footprint of an EV is much greater than
> an ICE powered vehicle.

Certainly not showing from anything you are saying here.

> EVER HEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING ?!
>
> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.

You mean nuclear fission? At this point that's about as likely
as nuclear fusion, the entire industry is bankrupt in the US. Can't
compete. And besides, your same argument about heat driving
turbines, electricity transmission, and charging batteries is
exactly the same for nuke.

On the other hand, you can charge your batteries with wind and solar
just fine, competitive and clean.
Exeter!
2017-10-16 22:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 4:45 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 3:59 PM, SteveGG wrote:
>>>
>>> Nope, it isn't. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation
>>> fuels, not electricity production. The proportion of electricity
>>> from coal is way down and dropping like a rock.
>>
>> Carbon fuels are burned and the heat used to drive turbines, which
>> turn generators to produce electricity. Very inefficient.
>
> More efficient than ICE engines though, which average 20%.

So you ARE ok with fossil fuels masquerading as renewables...OK!

>> Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
>> transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
>> of these steps.
>
> Oh really? How big?

https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-currently-does-it-take-to-produce-a-lithium-ion-battery-with-1-kWh-of-energy-capacity-on-average

I blindly use Leaf battery weight (218 kg [2]) to get how many kWh per
kg to be used as a multiplier. At 9.1kg per kWh, that means the energy
required to produce lithium batteries (including all the
interconnection, BMS, packaging, etc) is 828MJ per kWh.

When you compare this figure with other studies:

This study [3] said 360 Mcal/kWh (or 1500MJ/kWh);
This study [4] said 0.386MJ/kg (or 3.5MJ/kWh using bad data conversion
approach as above).
Average of 3.5 and 1500 MJ/kWh? That will be 750MJ/kWh.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/store-electric-grid-030513.html

To quantify the long-term energetic costs, Barnhart and Benson came up
with a new mathematical formula they dubbed ESOI, or energy stored on
investment. "ESOI is the amount of energy that can be stored by a
technology, divided by the amount of energy required to build that
technology," Barnhart said. "The higher the ESOI value, the better the
storage technology is energetically."

When Barnhart crunched the numbers, the results were clear. "We
determined that a pumped hydro facility has an ESOI value of 210," he
said. "That means it can store 210 times more energy over its lifetime
than the amount of energy that was required to build it."

The five battery technologies fared much worse. Lithium-ion batteries
were the best performers, with an ESOI value of 10. Lead-acid batteries
had an ESOI value of 2, the lowest in the study. "That means a
conventional lead-acid battery can only store twice as much energy as
was needed to build it," Barnhart said. "So using the kind of lead-acid
batteries available today to provide storage for the worldwide power
grid is impractical."

>
>> So the complete energy of the EV comes from where ? If not from oil,
>> and less and less from coal, then what ? Natural gas ?
>>
>> Point is, the effective carbon footprint of an EV is much greater than
>> an ICE powered vehicle.
>
> Certainly not showing from anything you are saying here.

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/july/greenest-vehicles-by-region.html

“Some past estimates of electric vehicle carbon footprints have decided
that an electric vehicle should be responsible for the average emission
rates of power plants in the state, grid region, sub-region or country
where the vehicle is charged,” Michalek said. “But if you want to know
the emissions consequences of owning an electric vehicle instead of a
gasoline vehicle, you have to look at the way the electricity grid
responds to electric vehicle charging load compared to how it would
behave without that load.”

Because the electricity grid is strongly interconnected, it is difficult
to know exactly which power plants respond to changes in load, the
researchers explained.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatchenergy/2010/02/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-electric-car/

Electric vehicle: .14 lbs of CO2 per mile

Gasoline vehicle: .71 lbs of CO2 per mile

Another reader who says he’s an engineer provided me with this insight
on the notion of electric vehicles versus gasoline vehicles:

If all the principals of Math, Science, Physics, Engineering and, yes,
Thermodynamics I took nearly 30 years ago still hold true, then it takes
3 TIMES the fossil fuel to generate the electricity required to boil a
pot of water than just burning the fossil fuel. Same principals hold
true with cars, it will take 3 TIMES the fossil fuel to charge the
environmentally deadly NiCad or Li+ (Nickel Cadmium or Lithium Ion)
battery in this thing to go the same distance than just burning the gas.

Burning 3 TIMES the fossil fuel to drive the same distance, dry the same
clothes, heat the same water, etc. DOES NOT stretch our energy resources
nor “SAVE the PLANET”!!!! If you believe that burning fossil fuels is
bad, then this car KILLS US THREE TIMES AS FAST!!!

>=
>> EVER HEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING ?!
>>
>> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
>
> You mean nuclear fission?

Why not pebble bed fusion, dipshit?

> At this point that's about as likely
> as nuclear fusion, the entire industry is bankrupt in the US. Can't
> compete.

Oh my, so cost DOES matter...

> And besides, your same argument about heat driving
> turbines, electricity transmission, and charging batteries is
> exactly the same for nuke.

Except the fuel source is NOT.

> On the other hand, you can charge your batteries with wind and solar
> just fine, competitive and clean.

ONLY when the sun shines and the wind blows, ASSHOLE!
SteveGG
2017-10-17 11:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
>More efficient than ICE engines though, which average 20%.
>
ICE efficiency is nothing to brag about but
probably a lot higher than 20%.

>> Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
>> transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
>> of these steps.
>
>Oh really? How big?
>
I consider this obvious.
>>
>> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
>
Check out France. They're already doing it.

>And besides, your same argument about heat driving
>turbines, electricity transmission, and charging batteries is
>exactly the same for nuke.
>
BUT no CO2 or other emmissions.

>On the other hand, you can charge your batteries with wind and solar
>just fine, competitive and clean.

Wind and solar are not and will never be significant contributers to
energy production.
Exeter!
2017-10-17 14:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 5:35 AM, SteveGG wrote:
>>> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
> Check out France. They're already doing it.
>

And shipping their nuke waste to...wait for it...

http://www.new.areva.com/EN/operations-4912/the-12th-shipment-of-german-vitrified-nuclear-waste-from-france-to-germany.html

This shipment comes under commercial contracts entered into by German
power companies and AREVA for the recycling in France of used fuel from
German nuclear power plants. Return shipment of the vitrified waste
resulting from the processing operations is required by French
legislation and governed by intergovernmental agreements signed by
France and Germany.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-security/frances-nuclear-spent-fuel-pools-major-security-risk-greenpeace-idUSKBN1CF1HJ
Unum
2017-10-17 15:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 6:35 AM, SteveGG wrote:
>>
>> More efficient than ICE engines though, which average 20%.
>>
> ICE efficiency is nothing to brag about but
> probably a lot higher than 20%.

You are welcome to google it.

>>> Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
>>> transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
>>> of these steps.
>>
>> Oh really? How big?
>>
> I consider this obvious.

5% doesn't seem very big.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

>>>
>>> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
>>
> Check out France. They're already doing it.

France is aggressively moving to non-nuclear renewable energy.

>> And besides, your same argument about heat driving
>> turbines, electricity transmission, and charging batteries is
>> exactly the same for nuke.
>>
> BUT no CO2 or other emmissions.

True, but those other factors seemed very important to you with regard
to other zero-emission energy production.

>> On the other hand, you can charge your batteries with wind and solar
>> just fine, competitive and clean.
>
> Wind and solar are not and will never be significant contributers to
> energy production.

That seems unlikely since they are already significant contributors
in many places today.
Exeter!
2017-10-17 19:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 9:43 AM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/17/2017 6:35 AM, SteveGG wrote:
>>>
>>> More efficient than ICE engines though, which average 20%.
>>>
>> ICE efficiency is nothing to brag about but
>> probably a lot higher than 20%.
>
> You are welcome to google it.

Why is it you are incapable of doing ANY of your own research?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98966/maximum-theoretical-efficiency-of-internal-combustion-engine

>
>>>> Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
>>>> transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
>>>> of these steps.
>>>
>>> Oh really? How big?
>>>
>> I consider this obvious.
>
> 5% doesn't seem very big.
>
> https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

Multiply it, troll.

>>>>
>>>> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
>>>
>> Check out France. They're already doing it.
>
> France is aggressively moving to non-nuclear renewable energy.

Good, they must have gotten enough grief from the Krauts who are sick of
taking their nuke waste!

>>> And besides, your same argument about heat driving
>>> turbines, electricity transmission, and charging batteries is
>>> exactly the same for nuke.
>>>
>> BUT no CO2 or other emmissions.
>
> True, but those other factors seemed very important to you with regard
> to other zero-emission energy production.

yawn

>>> On the other hand, you can charge your batteries with wind and solar
>>> just fine, competitive and clean.
>>
>> Wind and solar are not and will never be significant contributers to
>> energy production.
>
> That seems unlikely since they are already significant contributors
> in many places today.

Not at night.
SteveGG
2017-10-17 20:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
>>>> Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
>>>> transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
>>>> of these steps.
>>>
>>> Oh really? How big?
>>>
>> I consider this obvious.
>
>5% doesn't seem very big.
>
This is just for the tranmission and distribution. Transformers, lines
and the like. Not surprizing although it's probably more.

The combustion and generation has far greater losses, and this is what
equates more dirrectly to the ICE

>https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
>
>>>>
>>>> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
>>>
>> Check out France. They're already doing it.
>
>France is aggressively moving to non-nuclear renewable energy.
>
>>> And besides, your same argument about heat driving
>>> turbines, electricity transmission, and charging batteries is
>>> exactly the same for nuke.
>>>
>> BUT no CO2 or other emmissions.
>
>True, but those other factors seemed very important to you with regard
>to other zero-emission energy production.
>
Emissions are the paramount concern and nuclear has none. We're
already beginning to see the effects of rising CO2.
>>
>> Wind and solar are not and will never be significant contributers to
>> energy production.
>
>That seems unlikely since they are already significant contributors
>in many places today.

In some places yes but not very many. Total wind is little, and solar
is essentially non-existent. What fraction of total energy production
is wind ?

Come back in 100 years and, IF we're still around, you'll find a world
running on nuclear. Waste will be glassified and stored in appropriate
places, and / or reprocessed. The volume of material is probably quite
small in the overall scheme. How big is the inside of just one
mountain?
Unum
2017-10-17 21:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 3:04 PM, SteveGG wrote:
>>
>>>>> Then the electricity has to be transformed and transmitted, and
>>>>> transformed again at the EV to charge the batteries. Big losses in all
>>>>> of these steps.
>>>>
>>>> Oh really? How big?
>>>>
>>> I consider this obvious.
>>
>> 5% doesn't seem very big.
>>
> This is just for the tranmission and distribution. Transformers, lines
> and the like. Not surprizing although it's probably more.
>
> The combustion and generation has far greater losses, and this is what
> equates more dirrectly to the ICE
>
>> https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The right answer is cleanly and carefully managed nuclear energy.
>>>>
>>> Check out France. They're already doing it.
>>
>> France is aggressively moving to non-nuclear renewable energy.
>>
>>>> And besides, your same argument about heat driving
>>>> turbines, electricity transmission, and charging batteries is
>>>> exactly the same for nuke.
>>>>
>>> BUT no CO2 or other emmissions.
>>
>> True, but those other factors seemed very important to you with regard
>> to other zero-emission energy production.
>>
> Emissions are the paramount concern and nuclear has none. We're
> already beginning to see the effects of rising CO2.

Reduction of GHG emissions is a paramount concern I agree.

>>>
>>> Wind and solar are not and will never be significant contributers to
>>> energy production.
>>
>> That seems unlikely since they are already significant contributors
>> in many places today.
>
> In some places yes but not very many. Total wind is little, and solar
> is essentially non-existent. What fraction of total energy production
> is wind ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
For calendar year 2016, wind power in the United States amounted to 226.5
terawatt-hours, or 5.55% of all generated electrical energy.
More than 35 percent of the electric power generated in Iowa now comes from
wind power.

https://thinkprogress.org/wind-industry-continues-to-boom-7c5a2fcdfdae/
The wind energy industry reached an important milestone in 2016 when it passed
the generating capacity of hydroelectric power for the first time to become
the nation’s top renewable generating source

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-solar-market-grows-95-in-2016-smashes-records
In its biggest year to date, the United States solar market nearly doubled its
annual record, topping out at 14,626 megawatts of solar PV installed in 2016.

> Come back in 100 years and, IF we're still around, you'll find a world
> running on nuclear. Waste will be glassified and stored in appropriate
> places, and / or reprocessed. The volume of material is probably quite
> small in the overall scheme. How big is the inside of just one
> mountain?

Perhaps you have not been following the recent news on this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sc-utilities-halt-work-on-new-nuclear-reactors-dimming-the-prospects-for-a-nuclear-energy-revival/2017/07/31/5c8ec4a0-7614-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

The long quest to revive the nation’s nuclear power industry suffered a
crippling setback Monday when two South Carolina utilities halted construction
on a pair of reactors that once were expected to showcase a modern design for
a new age of nuclear power.

The project has been plagued by billions of dollars in cost overruns, stagnant
demand for electricity, competition from cheap natural gas plants and
renewables, and the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric,
Exeter!
2017-10-17 21:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 3:53 PM, Unum wrote:
>
> The long quest to revive the nation’s nuclear power industry suffered a
> crippling setback Monday when two South Carolina utilities halted
> construction
> on a pair of reactors that once were expected to showcase a modern
> design for
> a new age of nuclear power.
>
> The project has been plagued by billions of dollars in cost overruns,
> stagnant
> demand for electricity, competition from cheap natural gas plants and
> renewables, and the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric,


Bring in FLUOR then!
SteveGG
2017-10-17 23:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There's been a lot of unfair negativity and hype against nuclear power
in recent times ( e.g. movie China Syndrom ). The only alternative we
are discussing is wind power which is still only 1/20th. I believe
things will eventually even out as a practical matter and nuclear will
prevail.
Exeter!
2017-10-17 23:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 5:05 PM, SteveGG wrote:
> There's been a lot of unfair negativity and hype against nuclear power
> in recent times ( e.g. movie China Syndrom ).

Recent as in 30 years ago???

> The only alternative we
> are discussing is wind power which is still only 1/20th. I believe
> things will eventually even out as a practical matter and nuclear will
> prevail.

Cold fusion, please!
Unum
2017-10-18 04:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 6:05 PM, SteveGG wrote:
> There's been a lot of unfair negativity and hype against nuclear power
> in recent times ( e.g. movie China Syndrom ). The only alternative we
> are discussing is wind power which is still only 1/20th. I believe
> things will eventually even out as a practical matter and nuclear will
> prevail.
>

Actually we are discussing solar power as well. Nuclear has clearly
failed as I have shown.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4112930-free-energy-will-power-coming-roaring-twenties

the price of a watt of solar generated electricity has plunged by 99.03% since
1977, from $76.67 to $0.74.

Just in the past six years, retail prices for completed solar panels dropped
by a staggering 80%.

That is cheaper than electricity supplies generated by new natural gas plants,
which now costs 7 cents per kwh.

The potential price declines for natural gas from here are near zero. After
all, its hard to improve on the near 100% burn rates you get with gas, and
many producers are already losing money at current price levels of $2.86 per
MM btu.

Squeezing efficiencies out of our existing solar technology through improved
software, production methods, chemistry, and design are nearly unlimited, are
expected to drive solar costs by half down to 3 cents per kwh by 2035.

The car industry will start to move towards carbon fiber in five years, which
has five times the strength of steel at one-tenth the weight. The only issue
now is mass production cost.

Some 67% of the weight of a Tesla S-1 is in the body, with the four motors at
13%, and the 1,200-pound lithium ion battery at 20%.

What happens when the body weight falls by 90%? The battery weight, and cost
declines by two thirds. That cuts the effective cost of the battery to
$66/kilowatt.

At a $66/kilowatt effective battery cost it will make absolutely no sense to
build internal combustion engines in new cars.
Wally W.
2017-10-18 04:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:16:31 -0500, Unum wrote:

>On 10/17/2017 6:05 PM, SteveGG wrote:
>> There's been a lot of unfair negativity and hype against nuclear power
>> in recent times ( e.g. movie China Syndrom ). The only alternative we
>> are discussing is wind power which is still only 1/20th. I believe
>> things will eventually even out as a practical matter and nuclear will
>> prevail.
>>
>
>Actually we are discussing solar power as well. Nuclear has clearly
>failed as I have shown.

It has not been clearly shown.

What we have seen is whingeing greenies and their lawyers exasperating
people who would have built nuclear instead of coal power plants.

<http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/19/us/decision-to-halt-nuclear-project-in-michigan-brings-hardships.html>
Like many nuclear power projects, Midland was plagued with
construction delays brought on by tightened safety regulation after
the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in
Pennsylvania. In addition, some former workers at Midland say,
progress was slowed by bureaucratic management.

''You had needed four permits to tighten a bolt and six more to loosen
it up again,''
Exeter!
2017-10-18 13:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 10:16 PM, Unum wrote:
> Actually we are discussing solar power as well. Nuclear has clearly
> failed as I have shown.

No it hasn't.

Cost overruns and a manufacturer bankruptcy on ONE plant are not
systemic failure, you MORON!
Exeter!
2017-10-16 22:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 1:24 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 2:10 PM, SteveGG wrote:
>> In case anyone hasn't considered it, EVs run off energy from the
>> combustion of carbon related products, including oil, coal and natural
>> gas, albeit much more IN-efficiently, except for clean nuclear energy.
>> The effective carbon footprint of EVs is greater than equivalent ICE
>> powered vehicles.
>>
>
> Nope, it isn't.

GODDAMNED FUCKING LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://chargedevs.com/newswire/new-study-nighttime-ev-charging-may-increase-carbon-footprint/

Delayed charging, which allows EV drivers to shift consumption away from
peak-use hours, often translates to higher emissions, because the energy
mix at night tends to include a higher proportion of coal.

Another interesting situation (but one that’s not likely to change):
Differences in state subsidies do not align well with regional
difference in carbon efficiency. For example, the state with that once
had the largest state subsidies ($7,500) for BEVs is coal-happy West
Virginia, where the carbon advantages of EVs are comparatively small.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/11/average-electric-car-produces-more-carbon-than-gas-powered-car/

The U.S. government has pumped $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans
into manufacturing and promoting electric cars and batteries. But
research by Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center finds that
a typical electric car driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime emits more
carbon-dioxide than a similar-size gas-powered car driven the same distance.
The reason: manufacturing electric cars, which involves mining for
lithium, produces over twice the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions
(30,000 pounds for an electric car versus 14,000 for a conventional
vehicle) as gas-powered cars.

Lomborg says electric cars would have to be driven “a lot” to “get ahead
environmentally,” and that is only if the driver somehow avoids
coal-powered electricity. Even then, says Lomborg, the gains would be
minimal.

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays
away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less
carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin….Over its entire
lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon
dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it’s not…An
optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an
electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in
climate damage.

Last month, the “father of the Prius,” Takeshi Uchiyamada declared that
electric cars were simply “not viable.” “Because of its
shortcomings–driving range, cost and recharging time–the electric
vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars,” said
Uchiyamada. “We need something entirely new.”

http://blog.wegowise.com/2012-06-26-your-cars-carbon-footprint-hybrid-vs.-gasoline-vs.-electric-cars
Exeter!
2017-10-16 22:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 1:24 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 2:10 PM, SteveGG wrote:
>> In case anyone hasn't considered it, EVs run off energy from the
>> combustion of carbon related products, including oil, coal and natural
>> gas, albeit much more IN-efficiently, except for clean nuclear energy.
>> The effective carbon footprint of EVs is greater than equivalent ICE
>> powered vehicles.
>>
>
> Nope, it isn't. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation
> fuels, not electricity production. The proportion of electricity
> from coal is way down and dropping like a rock.

So what?

You focus on ONE thing to the exclusion of all others

ASSHOLE!

> So while EV-charging
> does use some fossil fuels

"Some"???

WTF?

Citation for that?

> (unless you buy 100% renewable electricity
> like me), it is way cleaner than the 100% fossil fuel burning of
> ICE vehicles.

Nope.

It's a fossil fuel transfer medium at best, period.

NO, I repeat NO mass market EV runs off solar only, let alone its solar
roof panels.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-17 04:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:25:23 -0600, Exeter! says...

> > Nope, it isn't. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation
> > fuels, not electricity production. The proportion of electricity
> > from coal is way down and dropping like a rock.
>
> So what?
>
> You focus on ONE thing to the exclusion of all others
>

That's his MO. He starts losing a discussion, then changes the topic to
what HE wants to talk about, or just makes up some batcrap crazy shit, to
try and confuse the topic.

It's in the climate screechers Bible. Get people talking about a topic, to
talk about another topic they don't care about, because it's bullshit.

eUnuch did it with the Aramco IPO. The author of the article wrote a
headline that had NOTHING to do with the story.

Aramco is considering an IPO, but the author wrote that, "according to a
strategist, oil will go down to $10 a barrel, because of EVs".

Quite laughable, since one didn't have anything to do with the other.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.global-warming/$2410
$20barrel%7Csort:relevance/alt.global-warming/u9Ln6vD7wRA/5x7ag9Q3AQAJ

They used the IPO story as an "in" for the lie, that some unknown
"strategist" talks about, to talk about alternative energy.

I STILL don't know what eUnuch is happy about... with $10 barrels of oil,
NO ONE will buy EVs. Can you imagine $1.09 gas prices [1]?

Hot rods will make a comeback, travel will INCREASE causing CO² to
continue to rise, doing absolutely nothing? (the same as it does now)

I'll take my boat out more than twice a month and ride my motorcycle till
the tires wear out... buy another pair... and ride my motorcycle till the
tires wear out... buy another pair... and ride my motorcycle till the
tires wear out... buy another pair... and ride my motorcycle till the
tires wear out... buy another pair.

[1] http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/06/gasoline-price-calculator
Exeter!
2017-10-17 14:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 10:35 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:25:23 -0600, Exeter! says...
>
>>> Nope, it isn't. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation
>>> fuels, not electricity production. The proportion of electricity
>>> from coal is way down and dropping like a rock.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> You focus on ONE thing to the exclusion of all others
>>
>
> That's his MO. He starts losing a discussion, then changes the topic to
> what HE wants to talk about, or just makes up some batcrap crazy shit, to
> try and confuse the topic.
>
> It's in the climate screechers Bible. Get people talking about a topic, to
> talk about another topic they don't care about, because it's bullshit.
>
> eUnuch did it with the Aramco IPO. The author of the article wrote a
> headline that had NOTHING to do with the story.
>
> Aramco is considering an IPO, but the author wrote that, "according to a
> strategist, oil will go down to $10 a barrel, because of EVs".
>
> Quite laughable, since one didn't have anything to do with the other.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.global-warming/$2410
> $20barrel%7Csort:relevance/alt.global-warming/u9Ln6vD7wRA/5x7ag9Q3AQAJ
>
> They used the IPO story as an "in" for the lie, that some unknown
> "strategist" talks about, to talk about alternative energy.
>
> I STILL don't know what eUnuch is happy about... with $10 barrels of oil,
> NO ONE will buy EVs. Can you imagine $1.09 gas prices [1]?
>
> Hot rods will make a comeback, travel will INCREASE causing CO² to
> continue to rise, doing absolutely nothing? (the same as it does now)
>
> I'll take my boat out more than twice a month and ride my motorcycle till
> the tires wear out... buy another pair... and ride my motorcycle till the
> tires wear out... buy another pair... and ride my motorcycle till the
> tires wear out... buy another pair... and ride my motorcycle till the
> tires wear out... buy another pair.
>
> [1] http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/06/gasoline-price-calculator
>

I APPROVE this post!
Chom Noamsky
2017-10-16 19:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 12:10 PM, SteveGG wrote:
> In case anyone hasn't considered it, EVs run off energy from the
> combustion of carbon related products, including oil, coal and natural
> gas, albeit much more IN-efficiently, except for clean nuclear energy.
> The effective carbon footprint of EVs is greater than equivalent ICE
> powered vehicles.

That carbon inputs alone making a Tesla S battery require driving one
for eight years just to hit the break even point.
Exeter!
2017-10-16 22:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/16/2017 1:10 PM, SteveGG wrote:
> In case anyone hasn't considered it, EVs run off energy from the
> combustion of carbon related products, including oil, coal and natural
> gas, albeit much more IN-efficiently, except for clean nuclear energy.
> The effective carbon footprint of EVs is greater than equivalent ICE
> powered vehicles.
>

Thank you!

The Fisker Karma (which is a hybrid with a full length EV roof) is only
able to power its cabin cooling fan from solar.
Loading...