I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

Tom1200 said:

So during the 24hrs race coverage most commercials were touting new EVs. 

Of late I've been really struck by the fact that I don't see EVs replacing ICEs. Here's why.

First: at current they are not a very good business model; I won't go into the whys but just  say the profit margins aren't there. 

Second: after you add in the increase emissions of EV production & the inevitable increase in emissions from building EV infrastructure the percentages of reduced emissions are low.

 The numbers I've seen vary as many studies are banking on numbers that can't be confirmed for several years. I've seen as low as 5% difference over the likely lifetime of the vehicle and as high as 25%.

Even if we use the 25%, the emissions due to automobiles in US is only 16%. That means we are looking at a 4% reduction if ever car on the road is an EV. I am highly skeptical of that it will be as high as 4%. We may end up with as little as 1% reduction. 

I think in 5-20 years as more people realize that EVs are not making any really meaningful changes in overall global emissions they won't feel compelled to give up their ICE powered car. This was all to save the planet. 

The other factor is road improvements are fueled by the gas tax; at some point EV owners are going to start getting hit with some sort of road usage tax (wildly unpopular) and be none too happy about it.

Due note as Nostra-Thomas I'm usually wrong about future predictions but at the moment this is where I'm at.  Feel free to eviscerate my thinking. 

Tom you are partially right. Legacy manufacturers are losing money on each EV they make.  GM is losing $9000 on each one but they have only made 20,000 Bolts  this year, 6 Cadillacs,  and 2 Hummer's  as of April 16     
  Ford is losing $20,000 on each EV they sell .  
  Tesla is making $9000 profit  on. each EV.  Plus employees  are making an average of $33.76 / hr  

    If you watch them building them in their Giga factories you understand why. In short it's efficiency.  
   Plus the biggest market of all.  The less than $30,000 car. Which is forecast as being 700 million units.  Elon Musk is saying that the New Mexico facility will manufacture 2 million units by end of 2024.  
   The model 2  will sell for $25,000 minus the full $7500 IRS  rebate so $17,500   !!!! 

manufacturing costs will be 1/2 of  of the $50,000 Tesla model 3    Elon Musk clearly laid out how that would be achieved.  
    
Back to legacy manufactures.   Ford is in debt 100 billion dollars  and is forecasting the need to spend 500 billion more  to be competitive.  
    GM is close to 200 billion in debt with even greater amount of borrowing required. 
  Yet GM and Ford are expected to be one of 10 companies out of 90 still in business in  a decade.   
         Not surviving are any Japanese manufactures.  European manufactures will equally be decimated.  Yup Jaguar is gone.  
     It's telling that both GM and Ford are pulling out of the Chinese market  Like Ford has pulled out of Europe.  

Next,  the Tesla super chargers.  Elon musk can make those chargers in New York for 10% of what his competitors can.   And they have a wonderful record  of working!!!    Since Tesla is taking advantage of the incentive Washington  is offering.  Some  of the Tesla superchargers will accept competitors.  For example if there are 16 superchargers  4 will accept Fords, Chevy 's, VW's. Etc. In addition to Tesla.   
      500,000 chargers across country.  Tesla's New York Giga factory is capable of creating 10,000 units annually and 20,000 units annually  by next year.  ( profit from charging is another major source of income for Tesla. ) 

     The new Sodium  Lithium batteries.  Are both lighter and cheaper than previous batteries,   Lithium is not the scarce commodity  claimed.  And with  the proven inventory prices are coming down.  Elon musk's target is 50% of current.  
  Tom you are right.    Building   new efficient factories  will  cost money and materials. But to continue to use the old factories simply won't be viable.   It's why so many companies won't survive.     
  But pollution wise,  it's trifling along side of war.  
    In that regard has anyone noticed the major change in American's defense program?  
     Hint;  count the number of super carriers and the number of destroyers. 
  Ask yourself why the change?  
  Nope. It's not one party.it's been going on for the last 5 presidents.

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Opti :

Nukes will never be viable, they are just too dangerous. The world has had 70 years to solve the nuclear waste storage problem but can't. Besides the meltdowns at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and now Minnesota's Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, let's not forget deliberate sabotage as in Russia possibly destroying Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station when they get kicked out of Ukraine out of spite. 

There is question worth asking.  You should ask why money isn't being spent on 3rd, 3+ and 4 th generation nuclear power plants.  The advances in safety are significant.  Nothing beats the atom for CO2 free power density.  To replace a 50 acre nuke site with windmills takes on the order of 250 square miles of wind mills.  That, in itself, is an interesting environmental dilemma that rarely gets discussed.

And yes never running out of oil and gas is tough to comprehend.  Step 1 is remove the phrase "fossil fuel" from your vocabulary since it is wrong.  The media which we all now agree isn't that great pushes the green agenda and is pretty dishonest about other forms of energy.  
 

Running out of oil and gas and the death of the world due to global warming, the ozone layer, and a new ice age have all been promised more than once im my lifetime.  And we are all here listening to the same scare tactic fear mongering nonsense.  You can stop this dynamic any day you choose to.  You don't have to make every decision in life from a position of fear.  You can tell all the fear mongers to E36 M3 off any day.  You really should try it.  Eliminating unnecessary fear frees the mind to do critical thinking,  

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/08/27/nuclear-power-could-cut-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-half/

They believe switch to nuclear could cut half of the world's carbon emissions. Obviously it would be hard for complete adoption especially in developing nations, so take it with a grain of salt. It does show how large of difference it can make, even without complete adoption.  I think it's like 20% of people live in industrialized nations but they account for like 70% of energy output.

As far as safety. Their is a lot of information about it, problem is much seems to come from nuclear advocates, so again grain of salt. As others have mentions we've come a long way in nuclear development and safety. Here is some safety data I found

if i grabbed the right one it should be from ourworldindata.org

nothing is completely safe, but using the cleanest, safest, most energy dense, and longest lifecycle energy source seems like a really good idea. To tie it back into the intention of the thread it even cleans up EVs and can make them actually help. The march to EVs is coming, lets atleast power them with clean reliable energy.

disclaimer: I understand some sources will put other renewables as slightly cleaner or slightly safer, but none of the other renewables can perform at the very top across the other areas.

It's really funny how Anthony refuses to understand that we don't WANT to burn more petroleum. He just always defaults to the same argument- America having elevety million billion tons of gasoline ready and waiting to be pumped out of the ground, which always leads to him brining up his own evidence that ends up proving him wrong instead, then dodges all questions only to repeat it a page later. Which is why I ask...

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

HEY ANTHONY YOU'RE IGNORING QUESTIONS AGAIN. You still need to prove what "natural processes" are pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere like you claimed last page.

But anyway, back to talking about how cool nuclear power is 

Opti said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/08/27/nuclear-power-could-cut-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-half/

They believe switch to nuclear could cut half of the world's carbon emissions. Obviously it would be hard for complete adoption especially in developing nations, so take it with a grain of salt. It does show how large of difference it can make, even without complete adoption.  I think it's like 20% of people live in industrialized nations but they account for like 70% of energy output.

As far as safety. Their is a lot of information about it, problem is much seems to come from nuclear advocates, so again grain of salt. As others have mentions we've come a long way in nuclear development and safety. Here is some safety data I found

if i grabbed the right one it should be from ourworldindata.org

nothing is completely safe, but using the cleanest, safest, most energy dense, and longest lifecycle energy source seems like a really good idea. To tie it back into the intention of the thread it even cleans up EVs and can make them actually help. The march to EVs is coming, lets atleast power them with clean reliable energy.

disclaimer: I understand some sources will put other renewables as slightly cleaner or slightly safer, but none of the other renewables can perform at the very top across the other areas.

Fear of the unknown  is the reason nuclear  lost acceptance.  It's going to take someone with great credibility, serious knowledge, and a willingness to be a long term proponent for Nuclear power.  Tom Hanks comes to mind. No politician because it violates their basic tenant of never risk losing votes.   
      The only real objection I have with nuclear is it puts the profit of electric power generation in the hands of  profit motivated big business.  I'll grant you with Government oversight that risk is greatly reduced.  
Solar and Wind keeps it at home.   
      

GIRTHQUAKE said:

It's really funny how Anthony refuses to understand that we don't WANT to burn more petroleum. He just always defaults to the same argument- America having elevety million billion tons of gasoline ready and waiting to be pumped out of the ground, which always leads to him brining up his own evidence that ends up proving him wrong instead, then dodges all questions only to repeat it a page later. Which is why I ask...

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

HEY ANTHONY YOU'RE IGNORING QUESTIONS AGAIN. You still need to prove what "natural processes" are pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere like you claimed last page.

But anyway, back to talking about how cool nuclear power is 

Let him make his points.  His view is shared by many ( not that I agree ). 
   The simple fact is long after we leave this world  they will be pulling oil from the earth to make plastics, fertilizer,  and fuel.  
       EV's are simply transportation to most people.   In the end that is what it's going to boil down to.  Costs.  
     Eliminate the transmission  and there is plenty of motivation for auto makers to switch to EV's.  The thousands of parts needed to make a piston engine is  plenty more reasons. 
  If Henry Ford was familiar with Electricity the Model T could very well have been an EV. We are lucky that Elon Musk  understands the value of simplicity.  He's managed to sell cars that are basically simple for more profit than legacy automakers could even dream of.  

In reply to frenchyd :

Explain how proft motivation is unique to nuclear, and not a concern with wind and solar. The people installing solar on my roof are definitely making a profit

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Opti :

Nukes will never be viable, they are just too dangerous. The world has had 70 years to solve the nuclear waste storage problem but can't. Besides the meltdowns at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and now Minnesota's Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, let's not forget deliberate sabotage as in Russia possibly destroying Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station when they get kicked out of Ukraine out of spite. 

There is question worth asking.  You should ask why money isn't being spent on 3rd, 3+ and 4 th generation nuclear power plants.  The advances in safety are significant.  Nothing beats the atom for CO2 free power density.  To replace a 50 acre nuke site with windmills takes on the order of 250 square miles of wind mills.  That, in itself, is an interesting environmental dilemma that rarely gets discussed.

And yes never running out of oil and gas is tough to comprehend.  Step 1 is remove the phrase "fossil fuel" from your vocabulary since it is wrong.  The media which we all now agree isn't that great pushes the green agenda and is pretty dishonest about other forms of energy.  
 

Running out of oil and gas and the death of the world due to global warming, the ozone layer, and a new ice age have all been promised more than once im my lifetime.  And we are all here listening to the same scare tactic fear mongering nonsense.  You can stop this dynamic any day you choose to.  You don't have to make every decision in life from a position of fear.  You can tell all the fear mongers to E36 M3 off any day.  You really should try it.  Eliminating unnecessary fear frees the mind to do critical thinking,  

You make many valid points.  Especially about fear of the unknown.  
    My objection to ICE  is it's based on steam engines.  Pistons sliding up and down a cylinder,  stopping and starting. extremely inefficient.  
   Even steam has gotten away from that design.  They are now using turbines.  
      Scale down turbine engines. Make them efficient at providing 100-200 horsepower with required torque and we can once again talk about using oil as fuel for transportation.   
 But that's not what has happened.  
     

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Opti :

Nukes will never be viable, they are just too dangerous. The world has had 70 years to solve the nuclear waste storage problem but can't. 

I kindly but fully disagree. Nuclear has several problems, but we do know the best places for it within most of our nations and the groups working on 5th generation systems are plotting "chains" where successive reactors are running off of wastes already spent by prior reactors. PUREX is how you can filter nuclear waste from spent fuel pellets, and it's a system that France continues to use- we DID use it in the 50s and into the 60s for all of our fuel until nuclear plants were privatized and the corporations decided it wasn't economically within their interest, Which really sucks since you can do it about 5 times and run ONE plant for 60 years off that one fuel cycle.

Now this next bit is scientific theory, but it's very possible that we could have a "chain" of power plants purpose-built to burn out the fuel as much as possible. LFTRs for instance, are a reactor type that India and China are now building that can run off of ~30% Thorium instead of Uranium, thanks to nuclear transmutation; they use the radiation produced in the nuclear cycle to transmute nuclear wastes like actinides or lanthanides into fissile fuels, thanks to alpha radiation literally being an excited helium ion. LFTRs are known as "Breeder" reactors for that reason, and they do have the drawback that they make the production of plutonium extremely easy- but said LFTR ALSO uses an element that's basically junk to us, as Thorium is only mostly used for watch faces and pigments that react to UV light.

The other reactors we can use for burning nuclear waste as fuel are examples like Traveling Wave Reactors that also use nuclear transmutation to burn waste, Fast reactors like the French Superphenix, and the sodium-cooled fast reactors all of which can take existing nuclear waste dating back to nuclear power's inception and burn it as fuel (I'm very sorry to keep linking wikipedia but they literally have all the links to the studies I looked at when I did college papers on Thorium fuel cycles ). Honestly, I could talk a mile a minute about Gen IV designs- all of them place safety as a key feature in their design and many of the fast reactors use molten lead or sodium metal as coolant, because they run molten at atmospheric pressures (thus no explosions) and don't take neutron radiation as heavily as some other metals. Hell, the lead cooled ones also suck and sequester lead out of the environment, I call that a win!

Besides the meltdowns at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and now Minnesota's Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, let's not forget deliberate sabotage as in Russia possibly destroying Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station when they get kicked out of Ukraine out of spite. 

3 Mile was not a meltdown- it was an equipment fault that prevented excess pressure from being let off, at which point another safety device took over. It released no radiation.

Chernobyl was intentional. The Russian crew was preforming that "Test" literally as proof of how badass the RBMK reactors were, but those reactors used graphite as a neutron moderator instead of water and none of the crew even knew how the plant worked properly. It doesn't help that much of the safety equipment literally was never functional, was stolen to be traded on black markets, purposefully shut down, or could never detect radiation levels past the now-meme of 3.6 rotgen.

Fukushima was a once in a thousand years issue- you hit a reactor with an earthquake, THEN a tsunami, and the core still doesn't crack? The level of rads released thankfully, is so low the WHO doesn't expect any increase in cancer rates or lifespan issues. Japan is putting in new reactors since, an action that tells me it's still not a big concern.

Deliberate sabotage is part of why all reactors are built to withstand 3 times the force of their own core going runaway. Japanese Nuclear reactors are built to withstand earthquakes, and the Russian built theirs hardy enough to withstand direct missile strikes. I can nab more info if you'd like, but it seems the NRCs rule of thumb is to make the plant 3 times harder than it genuinely needs to be lol

This thread wins the "Highest Average Words per Post" award

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Explain how proft motivation is unique to nuclear, and not a concern with wind and solar. The people installing solar on my roof are definitely making a profit

Excellent  question.  
 I have no objection to profit.   People can get quotes and make the decision based on price,  quality,  speed, etc as to who will sell the system. 
     What I can't do with a nuclear plant  is establish a philosophy that safety is paramount above  profit.  
      That expensive repairs or maintenance will not be short cut for budgetary reasons.   If income is reduced this quarter that means rates will need to be raised next term. Not that patches used to get through. Or needed personal are forced to work past  the point of safety. 
 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Thank you.  That was simple and direct explanation of nuclear accidents.  
 Correct me if I'm wrong but 3 mile Island didn't result in any deaths?  

loosecannon said:

This thread wins the "Highest Average Words per Post" award

That tells me that a great deal of thought is being put into posts.  

loosecannon said:

This thread wins the "Highest Average Words per Post" award

Heh, I'm using it as spit balling as I continue to work towards public office  

frenchyd said:

 Correct me if I'm wrong but 3 mile Island didn't result in any deaths? 

Zero deaths, zero rads. But it led to the plant's shutdown until the fault in the valve was fixed, and that fear of "meltdown" took hold in public zeitgeist. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I'm not ignoring your claims.  You just ignoring my simple reply.  In hood you claim we don't WANT to do something.  That isn't a good reason to destroy society.  I'm not going to submit to your desires when most of your reasoning is illogical.  That isn't a part to success.  
 

You not wanting this or that isn't a reason to upend society which will cause real actual harm to others.  Cheap reliable energy can easily be had for everyone.  Thanks for admitting you just don't WANT that.  That is exactly what I have been saying is the problem on this forum for years!  People want to control everyone and everything so much they will lie to get what they WANT!  

https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1655003504178601985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1655003504178601985%7Ctwgr%5E231f60b73cb3271d35ec51bbd328a1b1e54e2920%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriots.win%2F%3Ffrom%3D16b68sF7PV

I've seen photos and video from inside the core at TMI.  I wrote about what caused Chernobyl here already (an excess reactivity event as said on The Simpson's due to a design flaw and stupidity).  Fukushima was a tough lesson learned but the industry put compensatory measures in place worldwide.  New generation reactors are far safer, yet only Vogtle has been built in the US and it just recently went critical for the first time.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I'm not ignoring your claims.  You just ignoring my simple reply.  In hood you claim we don't WANT to do something.  That isn't a good reason to destroy society.  I'm not going to submit to your desires when most of your reasoning is illogical.  That isn't a part to success.  
 

You not wanting this or that isn't a reason to upend society which will cause real actual harm to others.  Cheap reliable energy can easily be had for everyone.  Thanks for admitting you just don't WANT that.  That is exactly what I have been saying is the problem on this forum for years!  People want to control everyone and everything so much they will lie to get what they WANT!  

 

https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1655003504178601985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1655003504178601985%7Ctwgr%5E231f60b73cb3271d35ec51bbd328a1b1e54e2920%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriots.win%2F%3Ffrom%3D16b68sF7PV

More proof "climate change" is a bullE36 M3 con job pic.twitter.com/mmNmviIEbT

— illuminatibot (@iluminatibot) May 7, 2023

 

ILLUMINATI LMAO

I, THE GIRTHQUAKE, WILL CONTROL THIS NATION AS AN EXTENSION OF MY ETERNAL WILL. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

You guys need to stop. So in the interest of moving this along I'll paraphrase:

Self: your opinion is bull-E36 M3

Them: agreed your opinion is bull-E36 M3.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

You won't but your continued support for those that are is a major problem.  Again destroying society for your WANT isn't going to help.  If you want to go hydrocarbon free, you could start by smashing all the plastic in your devices and stop posting on the internet which is built and powered by hydrocarbon in protest.  This is about the only way your position will ever get my full support.  Just like everyone else touting your proposed solutions for society; live it.  Your continued position that I and everyone else should live with the consequences of your wants is literally destroying society.  This is why things in every facet of life are headed in the wrong direction.  Trying to mock me for that also fails.  All of this nonsense is in published books, on TV and in every facet of life.  Heck you keep quoting it. Your dismissal of that is just proof you have no counter point.  
 

The real scary part is this forum is probably on average smarter than most of society and Congress.  And even here people are willing to actively destroy society or stand by cheering while it happens because it's what they WANT!  And then you all have the audacity to wonder why I oppose it.  Sorry, I just can't support bad plans that hurt future generations no matter how much you WANT it.  The fact most people continue to support stupid people with bad plans has consequences.  Those consequences are unnecessary death and suffering.  I can't support that.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

loosecannon said:

This thread wins the "Highest Average Words per Post" award

Heh, I'm using it as spit balling as I continue to work towards public office  

frenchyd said:

 Correct me if I'm wrong but 3 mile Island didn't result in any deaths? 

Zero deaths, zero rads. But it led to the plant's shutdown until the fault in the valve was fixed, and that fear of "meltdown" took hold in public zeitgeist. 

I'm pretty sure they released a large amount of radioactive Hydrogen from the containment dome because of a Hydrogen bubble.

History.com: Nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island

Wikipedia.org: Three Mile Island accident

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Aah you got me researching, and you got me on that one!

It was a cooling problem in the reactor itself that partially melted the 2nd core. On page 15: "Instead, the relief valve sticks in the open position as reactor system pressure drops. Steam rushes out through the stuck-open valve at a rate of some 110,000 pounds per hour (equivalent to loss of some 220 gallons of water per minute), which it will continue to do for more than 2 hours before operators realize that the valve has failed to shut. The result of the stuck-open valve, of course, is to further depressurize the coolant system."

This Book "Three Mile Island: A nuclear Crisis in Historical prospective" I thought would give more details but I ran out of free looks at the pages; but I got as far as it having 1-7 millirem per hour of radiation released into the areas surrounding the plant. I'll have to watch that netflix show now.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Lol, you're welcome. I remember when 3 Mile Island let loose.

What the hell happened in this thread? People are predicting death and suffering for future generations, the downfall of society and nuclear disaster because some people wanna drive electric cars???? 

Yep. Seems that electric cars have been totally covered, just logical that we cover world wide power next and eventually World Piece.

mblommel said:

People are predicting death and suffering for future generations, the downfall of society and nuclear disaster because some people wanna drive electric cars???? 

Yes, becuase this is how the Robot Overlords took over............did you not watch Battlestar Galactica?