Electric Vehicles In Germany Emit More Carbon Dioxide Than Diesel Vehicles

[achillea]

$1 Trillion Motherlode of Lithium and Gold Discovered in Afghanistan

 

[managing]

From the Independent: Donald Trump eyes Afghanistan's $1 trillion mineral reserves to pay for reconstruction after 16 years of war
Afghanistan, some reports say, even has the potential to become “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”, thanks to deposits of the raw material used in phone and electric car batteries.

That's interesting. I am cautiously optimistic that battery technology will have moved on from lithium before that can ever be tapped.

BTW, I didn't mean to deny the intent of the original post, ie, that "wars" are often about who is controlling resources and not "good guys" vs "bad guys".

 

[DrJ]

Misinformation.

???

A prius gets 54mpg (plugin even higher). So you aren't talking an improvement from 30 to 35mpg. In fact, going from 30 to 54 is quite similar to going from 6 to 12 percentage wise. Except its still more than 4x better.

Except it's not. Gallons per mile is the metric that matters in fuel usage (carbon emission) for traveling miles. So 1/MPG. Using those numbers:
6mpg -> 0.167gal/mi
12mpg -> 0.0833gal/mi
30mpg -> .0333gal/mi
35mpg -> 0.286gal/mi
54mpg -> 0.0185gal/mi

Finding out how much fuel it takes to go, say, 100 miles in each of those cases:
6mpg -> 16.7gal
12mpg -> 8.33gal
30mpg ->3.33gal
35mpg -> 2.85gal
54mpg ->1.85gal

The 30-35mpg civic is barely using more fuel in absolute terms than the exotic-material queen Prius. But the old 6mpg pickup is using massively more fuel than a newer 12mpg pickup. A single 'pickup upgrade' as such would count for ~8 Civic->Prius upgrades. It's rapidly diminishing improvement in absolute fuel once you get out far enough on the curve and are moving from point to point on it. More than a few people have pointed out that the best way to attack carbon emissions via the vehicle fleet is to target around sub-10mpg vehicles (generally large trucks putting in lots of miles and key to infrastructure) and bring them up to the mid-teens in mpg (considered feasible) as you will save far more gasoline (emissions) than getting every John Doe American to trade in their Civic for a Prius if it really isn't needed.

The only "environmentalists" saying not to buy a Prius were the ones on the energy company payrolls. Or the really forward thinkng ones who were holding out for EVs instead of Prius.

Nah man. Some of them were saying ride your bike instead. Some were saying take public transit. Quite a few of them were saying you don't really need to take out a loan to buy a new car (of any sort) requiring the mining and refining of many tons of raw materials to get around and live a low-impact life and not be a debt slave. Pretty far off ideology from being 'on the energy company payrolls'.

 

[achillea]

My concern with battery under the floor of the car is what is the EMF effects on the reproductive organs and the body in general.

I have noticed that radiation from batteries is intense at close range and as Dr. Peat said in the last newsletter the effects are transgenerational.

As far as I am concerned the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better!

 

[managing]

???


Except it's not. Gallons per mile is the metric that matters in fuel usage (carbon emission) for traveling miles. So 1/MPG. Using those numbers:
6mpg -> 0.167gal/mi
12mpg -> 0.0833gal/mi
30mpg -> .0333gal/mi
35mpg -> 0.286gal/mi
54mpg -> 0.0185gal/mi

Finding out how much fuel it takes to go, say, 100 miles in each of those cases:
6mpg -> 16.7gal
12mpg -> 8.33gal
30mpg ->3.33gal
35mpg -> 2.85gal
54mpg ->1.85gal

The 30-35mpg civic is barely using more fuel in absolute terms than the exotic-material queen Prius. But the old 6mpg pickup is using massively more fuel than a newer 12mpg pickup. A single 'pickup upgrade' as such would count for ~8 Civic->Prius upgrades. It's rapidly diminishing improvement in absolute fuel once you get out far enough on the curve and are moving from point to point on it. More than a few people have pointed out that the best way to attack carbon emissions via the vehicle fleet is to target around sub-10mpg vehicles (generally large trucks putting in lots of miles and key to infrastructure) and bring them up to the mid-teens in mpg (considered feasible) as you will save far more gasoline (emissions) than getting every John Doe American to trade in their Civic for a Prius if it really isn't needed.


Nah man. Some of them were saying ride your bike instead. Some were saying take public transit. Quite a few of them were saying you don't really need to take out a loan to buy a new car (of any sort) requiring the mining and refining of many tons of raw materials to get around and live a low-impact life and not be a debt slave. Pretty far off ideology from being 'on the energy company payrolls'.

meh, you're just playing with numbers and not getting anywhere. As a % its still about the same improvement.

But we apparently do agree that the biggest improvements come from replacing gas guzzlers with prius. Not replacing Honda Civics. I did say that.

 

[managing]

My concern with battery under the floor of the car is what is the EMF effects on the reproductive organs and the body in general.

I have noticed that radiation from batteries is intense at close range and as Dr. Peat said in the last newsletter the effects are transgenerational.

As far as I am concerned the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better!

Well, I guess that when the poles are tropical there won't be much PUFA left in the world. That seems to be a case of making lemonade, in extremis.

 

[DrJ]

meh, you're just playing with numbers and not getting anywhere. As a % its still about the same improvement.

But we apparently do agree that the biggest improvements come from replacing gas guzzlers with prius. Not replacing Honda Civics. I did say that.

Nah meh bro. Sorry you can't follow the arithmetic and its implications, but in 'just playing with numbers' I showed that it's far more important to replace the gas guzzlers (6mpg) with more efficient gas guzzlers (12mpg) than it is to replace other cars with Prius since it seems it's pretty clear you can't replace a truck in the fleet with a Prius for the same functionality (so 6mpg -> 54mpg upgrades are not an available upgrade pathway for same role in the fleet), and a single 6mpg->12mpg transition far outweighs a single 35mpg->54mpg transition (by about a factor of 8) in terms of fuel usage which is directly related to carbon emissions which is what you claimed to care about, not 'as a %' on 'just' some 'numbers'.

 

[managing]

Nah meh bro. Sorry you can't follow the arithmetic and its implications, but in 'just playing with numbers' I showed that it's far more important to replace the gas guzzlers (6mpg) with more efficient gas guzzlers (12mpg) than it is to replace other cars with Prius since it seems it's pretty clear you can't replace a truck in the fleet with a Prius for the same functionality (so 6mpg -> 54mpg upgrades are not an available upgrade pathway for same role in the fleet), and a single 6mpg->12mpg transition far outweighs a single 35mpg->54mpg transition (by about a factor of 8) in terms of fuel usage which is directly related to carbon emissions which is what you claimed to care about, not 'as a %' on 'just' some 'numbers'.

Uh, yeah, no trouble "bro". As I said, I made this point in my first post. You keep trying to make the same point I already made. As my dad used to say "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****". Yet you haven't baffled anybody.

So, yeah, like I've said all along, better to replace the inefficient with efficient. But the 54 mpg prius is STILL >4x more efficient than the 12mpg truck. A point you've been trying to pick apart with {numbers!} ever since.

Peace, I can't bear to watch you try again.

 

[DrJ]

As my dad used to say "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****". Yet you haven't baffled anybody.

Clearly it baffled you if you can't understand a simple concept of absolute fuel usage. Rednecks use those kind of phrases to rationalize their inability to understand what's going on. A real argument would address a flaw in calculation.

But the 54 mpg prius is STILL >4x more efficient than the 12mpg truck.

You can't replace the functionality of a truck with a Prius. It won't haul what you need to a work site etc.

Peace, I can't bear to watch you try again

Sorry to scare you off fren

 

[managing]

Clearly it baffled you if you can't understand a simple concept of absolute fuel usage. Rednecks use those kind of phrases to rationalize their inability to understand what's going on. A real argument would address a flaw in calculation.


You can't replace the functionality of a truck with a Prius. It won't haul what you need to a work site etc.


Sorry to scare you off fren

And now you resort to namecalling. Sad. The math isn't wrong, its the logic that is . . . aspirational.

 

[DrJ]

And now you resort to namecalling

I did not call names, only elucidate the type of 'logic' you are using. Since one could reply "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****" to effectively anything, it is not actually a specific argument or refutation. Behold:

Einstein: <Gives lecture on derivation of special relativity from light speed being assumed constant>
Redneck: "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****".

Maxwell: <Unifies electromagnetics by condensing a multitude of disparate equations into 4>
Redneck: "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****".

Fourier: <Derives the Fourier transform as an alternative frequency representation of all mathematical functions>
Redneck: "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****".

That can always be presented as a 'plausible' response by an uneducated person, but it has no meaning because it refutes no specifics of the information or arguments presented.

The math isn't wrong, its the logic that is . . . aspirational.

You seem to be the only one who can't grasp it, and there is no 'aspirational' fallacy in logic. You continue to be unable to refute anything with any specifics. But here are some things to help you...

Here's the authoritative peer-reviewed article in perhaps the most prestigious journal, Science:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1593.full?ijkey=3pScQm7pQBzqs&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

Here's a layman's explanation of the Science publication pointing out the EPA changed new-car fuel economy labels because of it:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/02/14/the_miles_per_gallon_illusion.html

Here's an even more detailed explanation you might be able to follow:
http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html

And here's some of the climate science folks riffing on the same topic in agreement:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/the-mpg-confusion/

And oh look, a similar explanation quoted from Issues magazine here that continues to point out the same thing with slightly different numbers used as example:

Although the term fuel economy (the number of miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) is widely used in the United States, it is the rate of fuel consumption (the number of gallons of fuel consumed per mile traveled) that is more useful in evaluating fuel use and GHG emissions. For example, consider improving the fuel economy of a large, gas-guzzling SUV from 10 to 15 mpg; this reduces the SUV’s fuel consumption from one gallon per 10 miles to two-thirds of a gallon per 10 miles, which saves a third of a gallon of gasoline every 10 miles. If, however, a decent gas-sipping small car that gets 30 mpg is replaced with a hybrid that achieves an impressive 45 mpg—the same proportional improvement in fuel economy as the SUV—this corresponds to a fuel savings of only about one-tenth of a gallon every 10 miles. Both improvements are important and worthwhile, but because of the inverse relationship between these two terms, a given increase in fuel economy does not translate into a fixed proportional decrease in fuel consumption. So even as most people probably will continue to talk about fuel economy, it is important to keep the distinction between fuel economy and fuel consumption in mind.

So you see, the logic is quite sound.

 

[Pulstar]

Yes but this is comparing a relatively nascent technology to a well-established one.

Electric vehicles and batteries is not really a nascent tech though. First experimental electric cars appeared decadeas ago. Trams, trolleybuses and trains - almost a century ago. I agree that we've seen some progress in Li-ion batteries and the electric engine itself has lots of advantages - it is still a stone age tech to me. We need a true revolution (in order of magnitudes in terms of energy density) in the battery tech. And I just don't see this happening. In this regard, the hydrogen cells or a hybrids with high MPG numbers look more interesting to me.

 

[aquaman]

CO2 - .04% of our atmosphere. And how much of the CO2 is man-made? 3% Much ado over nothing. And Ray Peat talks about how CO2 used to be a higher percentage of our atmosphere in earlier times.

Why aren't they comparing carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide?

Yes plus other considerations. For me one of the biggest benefits of EVs is that they are incredibly quiet. The noise from city roads is highly stressful. People living near freeways will be in comparative heaven!

Also there are other small particle emissions to consider. As Ray has said recently about small particles, they are particularly threatening to children. Many schools in cities have awful air quality from vehicle emissions.

 

[yerrag]

Yes plus other considerations. For me one of the biggest benefits of EVs is that they are incredibly quiet. The noise from city roads is highly stressful. People living near freeways will be in comparative heaven!

Also there are other small particle emissions to consider. As Ray has said recently about small particles, they are particularly threatening to children. Many schools in cities have awful air quality from vehicle emissions.

That's what the CO2 detractors should focus on. They shouldn't latch on to CO2 just because it's something they can pronounce easily.

 

[managing]

I did not call names, only elucidate the type of 'logic' you are using. Since one could reply "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****" to effectively anything, it is not actually a specific argument or refutation. Behold:

Einstein: <Gives lecture on derivation of special relativity from light speed being assumed constant>
Redneck: "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****".

Maxwell: <Unifies electromagnetics by condensing a multitude of disparate equations into 4>
Redneck: "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****".

Fourier: <Derives the Fourier transform as an alternative frequency representation of all mathematical functions>
Redneck: "if you can't dazzle em w/ brilliance, baffle em with bull****".

That can always be presented as a 'plausible' response by an uneducated person, but it has no meaning because it refutes no specifics of the information or arguments presented.


You seem to be the only one who can't grasp it, and there is no 'aspirational' fallacy in logic. You continue to be unable to refute anything with any specifics. But here are some things to help you...

Here's the authoritative peer-reviewed article in perhaps the most prestigious journal, Science:
The MPG Illusion

Here's a layman's explanation of the Science publication pointing out the EPA changed new-car fuel economy labels because of it:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/02/14/the_miles_per_gallon_illusion.html

Here's an even more detailed explanation you might be able to follow:
The MPG Illusion Website: What is the MPG Illusion?

And here's some of the climate science folks riffing on the same topic in agreement:
The mpg confusion

And oh look, a similar explanation quoted from Issues magazine here that continues to point out the same thing with slightly different numbers used as example:



So you see, the logic is quite sound.

Wow. A lot of effort to win an argument when the other person isn't disagreeing with you.

You keep making the point that its better to replace a low efficiency vehicle with a high efficiency vehicle. Yes, its a point I made in my original response to you. So, needless to say, regardless of your calisthenics, we still agree on this.

I feel sorry for how much time you've spent arguing a point that was never in contention.

 

[managing]

Electric vehicles and batteries is not really a nascent tech though. First experimental electric cars appeared decadeas ago. Trams, trolleybuses and trains - almost a century ago. I agree that we've seen some progress in Li-ion batteries and the electric engine itself has lots of advantages - it is still a stone age tech to me. We need a true revolution (in order of magnitudes in terms of energy density) in the battery tech. And I just don't see this happening. In this regard, the hydrogen cells or a hybrids with high MPG numbers look more interesting to me.

Solid state is the next big jump.

Electric cars: are solid-state batteries the future?

Fisker claims they will have one in production by 2022. Economical production will be somewhere beyond that.

I used to hold hope for hydrogen fuel cells. But I was convinced by an engineer who developed them that they are nowhere near ready to be produced economically and operate efficiently. The ones being sold are nowhere near profitable yet. Still, I do think this is a likely trajectory, but I believe its farther off than solid state (and will function eventually in conjunction with smaller solid state batteries.

As for hybrids, I see those as an inferior solution. You still have all of the moving parts (engine, drivetrain) which, although highly developed, are wildly complicated. And thos moving parts lose 40+% of the energy created. And they are no fun to drive, whereas an EV is super crazy fun to drive (don't knock it if you haven't tried it).

 

[managing]

Yes plus other considerations. For me one of the biggest benefits of EVs is that they are incredibly quiet. The noise from city roads is highly stressful. People living near freeways will be in comparative heaven!

Also there are other small particle emissions to consider. As Ray has said recently about small particles, they are particularly threatening to children. Many schools in cities have awful air quality from vehicle emissions.

Its probably obvious by now that I drive an EV. And, although I love the quiet, I do have to admit it requires me to be more attentive in parking lots!

 

[DrJ]

I feel sorry for how much time you've spent arguing a point that was never in contention.

Hey man no worries and no need to feel sorry. I was just trying to help you out because you said you didn't understand the math.

 

[managing]

Hey man no worries and no need to feel sorry. I was just trying to help you out because you said you didn't understand the math.

That didn't happen.

 

[Peatness]

Posting this here to avoid starting a new thread

Biden Infrastructure Bill Contains Hidden Kill Switch for All Future Cars - League of Power

Senate Republicans folded like a cowardly paper tiger two weeks ago and passed the fake Joe Biden infrastructure bill that contains no actual infrastructure projects in it. Biden immediately signed it into law. Now that the law has been passed, people are starting to read it and discover the...

www.lopmatrix.com