Joined
·
3,723 Posts
..and I’d finally get my hover bike - like Blue Peter promised me in 1974
EV or Synthetic Fuel ?
21 - 40 of 95 Posts
Joined
·
69 Posts
Actually there is probably a role for both. EVs are just not practical in a large country with vast distances between urban areas as is. As a previous poster stated, the biggest problem with EVs as most people are using them is the battery. A sad fact is if battery manufacturing and mining were limited to the countries consuming the the batteries, EVs would probably be dead due to Greta worship. A good compromise regarding this would be hydrogen fuel cells. This would nullify or minimize a lot of the problems associated with large heavy batteries. Keep in mind batteries for EVs are VERY heavy and are one of the major drawback with most EVs. Synthetic fuels are a interesting development that, believe it or not the Germans during WW2 researched a lot to offset the losses in the Balkans and North Africa. Germans were literally trying to extract blood from stones towards the end of the war.
John Stossel sums up some of the problems pretty well in his vid:
Stossel's EV facts
ICE have a lot of life left in them and it's history shows. ICE's beat out the competition at the time, horses, steam, without the gov't pushing it or subsidizing it like gov't are doing to EVs now. That should be an important factor in take into account. In fact, ICEs have a lot more room for improvement and it turns out, are a lot less polluting then most EVs, mostly due to the batteries and the energy sources used to charge them. For some strange reason, a lot of people don't know this.
Oh, one more thing, using Gore's terminology, all fossil fuels are solar power... 🤣
John Stossel sums up some of the problems pretty well in his vid:
Stossel's EV facts
ICE have a lot of life left in them and it's history shows. ICE's beat out the competition at the time, horses, steam, without the gov't pushing it or subsidizing it like gov't are doing to EVs now. That should be an important factor in take into account. In fact, ICEs have a lot more room for improvement and it turns out, are a lot less polluting then most EVs, mostly due to the batteries and the energy sources used to charge them. For some strange reason, a lot of people don't know this.
Oh, one more thing, using Gore's terminology, all fossil fuels are solar power... 🤣
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
I think you should check he so-called facts and figures in that vid for yourself...and who the physics expert is and who he works for (previously defended tobacco industry)
some small examples
It takes as much electricity to produce a gallon of fuel as it does to power my electric over the distance that gallon would take it - so if “dirty” electricity is the issue, ICE still looses by a very long way.
Sourcing exotic materials? Where do the the exotic materials in an ICE manufacture and oil/petrol additives come from and why wasn’t it in the video? Slavery and human rights issues there too.
EV car production has a carbon footprint, no mention of the ICE total carbon footprint, strange thing to omit from a “fair” conversation.
US renewable energy production overtook coal production in 2020, making it the 2nd largest source today.
Somebody is being dishonest and giving fake info dressed up to look like science.
Joined
·
966 Posts
Society shapers have always had powerful ways to sway public habits, most recently by never ending media broadcasts of associations between things that we perceive as negative, and by drawing a conclusion to what they want changed.
Bad hurricanes never happened before in earth’s history. There’s never been unusually warm years, etc… It’s all our fault, and you need to go buy a $60,000 battery vehicle immediately, to stop all this.
CO2…. Hmmmm… How many citizens know that CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Think about that for a minute….
How many know that CO2 levels actually used to be higher than they are today?
![Rectangle Handwriting Font Slope Parallel]()
I guess all the Oil burning we were doing 400,000 years ago….
The earth’s temperature and climate conditions have always changed. What makes us think we are “right “ to try to lock it into a stagnant period of our choosing?
What about all the cloud seeding we are doing? Cloud seeding good…driving your ICE car bad?
Remember 40 years ago, we only had 15 more years of oil? That didn’t work. Need a new plan.
As I posted before, I find electric to be more efficient motor vehicles than internal combustion , but I cynically view the data and methods, such as certain states with insufficient power grid resources, passing laws outlawing ICE engines in a few years. Ridiculous laws, masquerading as taking a moral high ground.
Bad hurricanes never happened before in earth’s history. There’s never been unusually warm years, etc… It’s all our fault, and you need to go buy a $60,000 battery vehicle immediately, to stop all this.
CO2…. Hmmmm… How many citizens know that CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Think about that for a minute….
How many know that CO2 levels actually used to be higher than they are today?
I guess all the Oil burning we were doing 400,000 years ago….
The earth’s temperature and climate conditions have always changed. What makes us think we are “right “ to try to lock it into a stagnant period of our choosing?
What about all the cloud seeding we are doing? Cloud seeding good…driving your ICE car bad?
Remember 40 years ago, we only had 15 more years of oil? That didn’t work. Need a new plan.
As I posted before, I find electric to be more efficient motor vehicles than internal combustion , but I cynically view the data and methods, such as certain states with insufficient power grid resources, passing laws outlawing ICE engines in a few years. Ridiculous laws, masquerading as taking a moral high ground.
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
We know the current CO2 increase is from human activity,
Yes, the level has fluctuated between 170 and 300 ppm over the last 800,000 yrs iin a relatively regular pattern.
What it hasn’t done before is rocket to 414 ppm in a few decades with no sign of stopping..
(why is that line missed off the graph?)
With the missing part of the graph above, looks a little different.
![]()
Yes, the level has fluctuated between 170 and 300 ppm over the last 800,000 yrs iin a relatively regular pattern.
What it hasn’t done before is rocket to 414 ppm in a few decades with no sign of stopping..
(why is that line missed off the graph?)
With the missing part of the graph above, looks a little different.
Joined
·
966 Posts
My chart came from US government. It states 414.7 ppm ( 0.04%) at 2021.
Variations through time of 0.018% to 0.04%.
One’s view of if that means the certain end of the world, and feeling warm and fuzzy about having a new battery car manufactured for you, is up to you. It’s basically like a religion. I think the earth is more resilient than people realize.
Variations through time of 0.018% to 0.04%.
One’s view of if that means the certain end of the world, and feeling warm and fuzzy about having a new battery car manufactured for you, is up to you. It’s basically like a religion. I think the earth is more resilient than people realize.
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
The earth is indeed resilient, it can do perfectly well without humans - who might not be.
CO2 increased rapidly once before millions of years ago, it killed off an estimated 82% of all species, known as the Permian mass extinction - the earth didn’t end, but most of complex life did.
CO2 increased rapidly once before millions of years ago, it killed off an estimated 82% of all species, known as the Permian mass extinction - the earth didn’t end, but most of complex life did.
Joined
·
966 Posts
So …. We can’t nail down the origin of a worldwide virus just 2 years ago, or the cause of some recent plane accidents, or even predict the weather correctly 2 days out, but you want me to believe we accurately know for certain, that CO2 caused most creatures to die 250 million years ago?
Sorry😂😂
Joined
·
966 Posts
Who is in possession of Earth’s original owners manual? Surely in the back pages must be the maintenance section, stating the manufacturer’s intended percentage for CO2?
In Earth’s billions of years, does it specify a “preferred “CO2 level to our 1960?
Higher CO2 favors plant life and greens the planet. A less green, colder planet is better?
Where is it written which planet condition through its billions of years, is the “correct “ settings? Is another ice age better?
Who decided CO2 from all sources ok except from humans ( oops forgot, now from cows bad too). ?
In Earth’s billions of years, does it specify a “preferred “CO2 level to our 1960?
Higher CO2 favors plant life and greens the planet. A less green, colder planet is better?
Where is it written which planet condition through its billions of years, is the “correct “ settings? Is another ice age better?
Who decided CO2 from all sources ok except from humans ( oops forgot, now from cows bad too). ?
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
That is like saying the presence of water favours human life- therefore floods or falling in the sea cannot cause us any harm.
Joined
·
966 Posts
That’s not even remotely a good analogy to what I wrote.
This planet has evolved with plants processing/converting CO2. If CO2 was to be dramatically reduced, so would plant life, and animals that rely on plant life. Would that be better? Says who? How cold should we make it?
Again, of our total great big atmosphere around the planet, only 0.04% of it is CO2. If you actually believe all the required mining, building millions and millions of battery cars, sending the old cars to South America?, producing huge new electric infrastructure, in the hopes of one day, the planet cooperates, and goes to 0.03%, then you are enjoying the current political environment
THE MANUFACTURER is the only possessor of the OWNERS manual. And that information is withheld as trade secrets. But how to handle the Earth's resources are clearly spelled out in the USER manual. We just haven't been very good at following instructions (oh surprise). But I agree that human mishandling of this planet is not the only reason there is any perceived trouble happening. We can, and do, definitely have some affect on it. But there is really no good information about how much effect our actions have.
Uh oh, please don't lead us into... the political arena.
Joined
·
69 Posts
Your statements are themselves are what we call 1 of the major fallacies in logic. Primarily this one:
Appeal to authority..
Are you an authority? More than Stossel's authority? I'm not a biologist
I did sleep at a holiday in express once..I'm not appealing to authority to try to convince anyone. I'm depending on readers understanding and life experience to interpret (judge) information based on RESULTS. NOT peoples INTENTIONS.
More experienced people get this. People's intentions good or bad DOESN'T MATTER. I won't speak to individuals intentions here. Media and a increasingly inferior education system are major factors for the propagation of a lot of logical fallacies.
Decades of RESULTS... for this and many other things...
As far as results go and trying to stay on topic of thread originator. This hasn't been the first face off between EV's and ICE. As the RESULTS show, EVs LOST to ICEs. People can have their opinions on why that was but I think most will agree, ICE's were superior in the USA for many reasons not just technical. In fact, you could make many of the same arguments from a technical perspective back then that they do today. A lot of them are related to economics. One of the few benefits of taking Engineering Econ course that was required for my (BS) electrical engineering degree. At the time, I considered it a (mandated) blow off course. Keep in mind the primary competitor to automobiles / motorcycles back then was horses and steam. Wide spread use of Electricity and Oil (transportation) were fairly new back then in the US. As a side note, horses and steam generators, generate more pollutants than ICEs, not to mention ship
The NYT use to run stories of how cities would be buried in horse patties if things didn't change. They still cry about it but they replaced horse patties with fossil fuels. Thing is, we are still not ready to take advantage of current storage techniques. Back in college we were studying car EV car designs with an emphasis in modular construction. Basically for an EV, each wheel would have it's own electric motor, EV motor was another module, that could be supplied with current with another 'module' that supplies the current.. That module could be a battery or a H fuel cell or EVEN AN ICE! ICE technology has many advantages when used purely to generate electricity, look at modern trains for an example. Problems with battery technology back in the 90s precluded it's sole use as a current source, look at success of modern hybrids. Unfortunately, these problems still exist today. Back then the original chevy volt had a design similar to what we were designing, utilizing a ICE to generate current for the electric motors to power the wheels.
Quick aside, modern hybrids, utilize both ICE and EV motors to run a transmission to spin the wheels. Our designs had no transmission to spin the wheels, just to spin generator/alternator to generate current to power the electric motors at each wheel.
This is another example BTW where ICEs can stick around regardless of how they are used. A lot of energy lost is recaptured when ICEs run at ideal RPMs and not at varying speeds. This is even before taking into account further improvements in ICE design itself, like getting rid of cams etc..
There are a lot of problems with EV's that don't get a lot of 'media' coverage or distribution, why, you be the judge. To be 'fair?', most of them are related to the source of current for the electric motors, NOT the electric motor itself. The problems with the first EV's were not with the electric motor but the current source for them. These problems are shared with 'green' energy. The 'motors' are great and super advanced, ICE or electric. The problems are how you feed them and or store the feed
Regarding a lot of info manipulation clashing with reality, outside of this topic but can be applied to this question and many others.. Check out Thomas Sowell. You won't regret it.. Take the red pill
Funny, my generation called the red pill reality, now they got a pill for that. One more thing outside of this thread, please indulge me since I took the time to share my exp, I was always ticked that we had to take the weed out courses for Mechanical Eng and they didn't have to take our weed out classes, circuits. Money scam..
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
Stossel appealed to authority (his pretend expert). I haven’t named one.
Do I know more about electric/ICE vehicle production and sciences? Yes - but it doesn’t matter.
As I said,check his numbers and omissions for yourself, check the ones I spotted in the first few minutes.
Doesn’t matter who he is or who I am, it’s basic numbers you can check using google to go to the source.
Joined
·
69 Posts
What do you mean, previously defended the tabacco industry? Was he an expert hired by the tobacco industry? Was this a court case? Is he a lawyer? If he was a lawyer and he defended the tobacco industry, we should discount what he says in the video concerning EVs? Was he lying in his 'defense' of the tobacco industry? I think this is a bit of bias on your part here. Just saying. If he's lying in this video, state where he's lying. You could be correct? You haven't pointed out anything he said is wrong.
The vid doesn't specify anything to contradict what you said here. If you are trying to make an inference with your quote and the vid statement, para phrasing here, "your EV emitted 10 to 20 tons of CO2 by the time it gets to your driveway", about 3:49 in vid.. You can argue that you may want to see a study comparing the 2 but again, the EV's weakpoint, the battery, is a huge problem when comparing CO2 emissions... you can't argue that. You can look over the study cited in the vid, the one VW did, and say it's flawed but they do state after you drive the EV approx 60k miles you do reach parity with ICE cars when it comes to CO2 emissions. I'm willing to bet the battery is the biggest problem here. But you could be write, the study VW did may have some problems. I didn't read the study but from my past experience, the current types of batteries in use doesn't bode well on your 'assertion'? I'm not clear what your assertion is.
This I'm sure though, you and I do agree on this. Batteries as used commonly today are still far inferior in energy density to gasoline, especially when compared to diesel.
Of course ICEs use some 'exotic' materials.. EVs and ICEs have a lot of commonality of parts, the big diff is the power source... Most cars, motorcycles don't use fancy batteries. I use lead acid in my vehicles, I know Li ones are available but to my knowledge most ICE don't use them.. Most don't consider Pb as a 'exotic' material and is fairly easy to obtain. I used to do paint and play with lead miniatures when I was a kid, D & D and military figs. Li on the other hand is a lot more expensive. This may indicate it's harder to obtain, hence it's price. Keep in mind, the battery for a tesla can weigh over a 1000 pounds!!!!! That's a ship half ton of 'exotic' whatever..
I'm afraid to even look up a battery for a larger vehicle. Dude, that's a huge drawback that's hard to put lipstick on. Your quote mentioning slavery and human rights, is an important factor and I hope it is for you also but not the major reason EVs are problematic. BTW, most of the materials used in refining are not 'exotic' but you may have different tolerances for exotic than I do.Dude, part of your statement is true, it did overtake in 2020 by a small amount but that wasn't because there was a problem with coal as an energy source. That's was due to gov't interfering with the coal industry since obamalama time. Coal had been declining year over year. Do you remember, the 1st occurrence of 'learn to code'? Natural gas started taking over because gov't wasn't interfering with that source as much. I digress though, I inserted my opinions here. But this is fact:
It overtook coal for the 1st time, 2020. Still way below natural gas though.
2021, went below coal again due to uncertainty of renewables as a steady source, ie wind blowing sun shining etc..
IT'S not the 2nd largest source today.
Someone is either lying to you or I'll say your intentions while good, and you made a mistake.
Just out of curiosity, do you own an EV? Nothing wrong with that if you do but..., don't end up like the emperor w/o clothes... Every tech has it's drawbacks.
Looking over some of the previous posts on this topic, it seems the bottom line for you and for others is this 'green' thing and global warming. It seems to me you are falling for 'authority' with a dash of dissonance.. Every time you display a chart w/o sourcing the data you are appealing to authority. You are depending on the source of the chart to be an 'authority', you haven't verified it IOW. Your statement, '2nd largest source today', you are appealing to authority, you didn't check this, you regurgitated this w/o verifying this. Either that or you are lying.
Try to be your own authority. Work with data, plot it yourself, look up the facts that are printed and see if they are true and what there sources were.
Live long and prosper, along with your EV if you got one.
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
I work in vehicle/aircraft science and research.(almost 40 yrs)
I created design tools used by electric and ICE industry designers to investigate and reduce their emissions and increase energy efficiency (amongst other things). Done real world testing, R&D and developed virtual prototyping, etc. etc.
Yes, I own an EV built as my personal test bed away from the industry.
I created design tools used by electric and ICE industry designers to investigate and reduce their emissions and increase energy efficiency (amongst other things). Done real world testing, R&D and developed virtual prototyping, etc. etc.
Yes, I own an EV built as my personal test bed away from the industry.
Joined
·
966 Posts
One thing that should be noted: When “renewables “ are statistically compared to coal, or another source, as commonly done lately, it is an intentional, somewhat disingenuous statistical comparison, meant to make the common folk believe it is a larger proportion than it really is. Coal for example, is a single type of fossil fuel. “Renewables”, on the other hand, lumps wood burning, hydro dams, wind, solar, refuse, and yes, even landfill gas, as a big group and statistically compares it to just coal. Obviously a less misleading statistical comparison, would be between the 2 groups, that being renewables and all fossil fuels, which includes natural gas, oil, coal,. Etc, but it would show renewables as a much smaller contributor, that it is right now.
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
That is kind of the point -
The video lumps coal in with cleaner natural gas as a single category to suggest coal use is more significant than it is.
It mentions wind and solar, but leaves out hydro etc to diminish cleaner sources.
The video talks of “polluting” but bait-and-switches to “oil use” as it’s parameter to fudge the figure.
(power stations are more efficient than engines, etc)
It claims 60k miles to reach emissions parity, where does that come from? It was between 10k to 15k on the last 2 projects I had contact with.
The video lumps coal in with cleaner natural gas as a single category to suggest coal use is more significant than it is.
It mentions wind and solar, but leaves out hydro etc to diminish cleaner sources.
The video talks of “polluting” but bait-and-switches to “oil use” as it’s parameter to fudge the figure.
(power stations are more efficient than engines, etc)
It claims 60k miles to reach emissions parity, where does that come from? It was between 10k to 15k on the last 2 projects I had contact with.
21 - 40 of 95 Posts
