Petroleum is the clear winner. The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
Even if you dont consider the sourcing and production of electric batteries, you have the losses from charging ba take into account. First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start) then you are generating about 1.3x the power thats being stored in your battery
If you are too hot or too cold, your batteries discharge less efficiently continuous versud just until it stabilzes to an operating temperature.
The use case for them "winning" on co2 and real pollution reduction is if they are in coastal California and hooked to an energy grid powered exclusively by nuclear.
EVs win on torque and power applied to the road. Ironically, if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
From what I have seen this is not a true statement. However, even if it is true, it doesn't account for the engineering process.
In engineering you iterate. IF (big "if") the EROI is higher on EVs at the moment, the only way to change that is to produce products that are as good as they can be right now, and iterate the product, and/or the infrastructure (battery recycling e.g.) until it becomes as good as or better. This is exactly how Tesla does business (or at least how they appear to do business. Who knows what is really happening behind the scenes). Even if your assessment is correct now, it may be woefully incorrect in the long term, given the nature of how Tesla is leading this... charge.
First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start)
A great deal of the energy that goes into electric cars comes from the sun directly. Now, not everyone cares about that, but people that own EVs that I know do (at least the two people I know who own Tesla's, the one person I know with a Prius doesn't, so YMMV).
Regardless, owning electric has the distinct advantage over petro in that you don't have to buy your fuel, you can harvest it yourself, and many people do.
if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines and (fewer) batteries, with the potential for the best of both worlds. I have always thought it a crime that such designs were not used.
As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well. Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve. Having said that, the people who really run the world don't want those issues solved, and that is why they exist. That is not a fundamental problem with EVs, but with "the system."
The same people who keep down battery tech and push pollution are also the same people who keep Cold Fusion tech from being worked on, which would put both petro and our current type of electrical systems (and indeed, the entire power production infrastructure of the world) out of business.
If people have independent power, which cold fusion (or LENR, or whatever you want to call it) would provide for everyone in the world, then the PTB lose a huge piece of their control. It's not about money, it's about control. Money is just one path to it, it is not the only one. That is why we have problems with batteries (most of those problems were solved long ago). That is why we have a world pushing for EVs without talking about the problems, or overamplifying petro problems. Because it's all about control. It's all about creating the illusion, and keeping people stuck within it.
If the lines of communication have been truly made free (which it appears they have), all of these issues will go away very soon. What was once forbidden and taboo (cold fusion) is now almost mainstream, or at least it has been mentioned by those who would have just a couple years ago called it "crackpot nonsense."
"From what I have seen this is not a true statement." It is true.
"In engineering you iterate." In engineering you iterate on the best solution. When a new solution appears, you compare it to whats already in use and you discard what is less effective. You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
"Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines"
Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
"As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well."
Hand waving. State them. 'My' efficiency issues are well know loss via transmission and conversion. These are not 'engineering' issues.
"Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve."
These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology. Next to no battery are easy to dispose of.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs. Even if everything you said was 100% true (heres where your 'big IF' goes, btw) why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy? Release the secrets - or better, build a business that exploits them - to make awesome EV tech for everyone.
As for cold fusion, thats a pipe dream. If you want high capacity, widely distributed power, start using LFT.
You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.
Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.
Hand waving. State them.
I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.
Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.
These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.
These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia, you can appreciate why the "problems haven't been solved in 100 years." (really only 30 years, since Li-ion hasn't been around that long). That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.
Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.
Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.
why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?
We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.
"You are conflating two completely different issues. "
No, Im not. People like you think EVs solve problems and ignore the very real problems they have to do so.
"Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever)."
Ah, goody. An op ed with weasel words. Im totally convinced. The math on this never works out, but dont let that stop you.
"Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible."
What waste? The reusing of old parts or the slagging down of parts people dont reuse to make more stuff? You'll notice, if you go to junkyards, that they dont have things there from the 70s, they have 10-15 model years of vehicles. Too old and its straight to the chipper to get steels and plastics return to the manufacturing chain.
"Oil from cars gets into the water system." Oil gets into the water table, mainly from prpduction incidents and industrial accidents. Even if you go pour oil doen a storm drain. Most treatment facilities separate and remove them.
"The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting."
The production of batteries is moreso.
"Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away."
CO2 being a pollutant is complete bullshit.
"These are problems we have solved."
So, show me the battery chemistry that is solves the problems of recycling and degrading.
You clutch at the PTB and say shit like "We are totally there, we just need the info these fucks keep from us!!!!" but fail to realize that, if they wanted control and could produce this they would have release this tech to make EVs useful. Their pinnacle of control would be everyone having EVs.
"I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs."
My criticisms are honest. I know EV tech thoroughly and have used it on many occassions, even working for a place that took government money to try to convert to them. Everything you complain about is specifically tailored to ignore the problems about EVs and exaggerate the problrms with ICEs.
"That's a hybrid."
A hybrid uses two power plants. In most cases, a battery and an engine. Otherwise, every car in existence is already a hybrid because they have car batteries. You computer would also be a hybrid because you power it with coal plants and it has a cmos battery in it.
Petroleum is the clear winner. The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
Even if you dont consider the sourcing and production of electric batteries, you have the losses from charging ba take into account. First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start) then you are generating about 1.3x the power thats being stored in your battery
If you are too hot or too cold, your batteries discharge less efficiently continuous versud just until it stabilzes to an operating temperature.
The use case for them "winning" on co2 and real pollution reduction is if they are in coastal California and hooked to an energy grid powered exclusively by nuclear.
EVs win on torque and power applied to the road. Ironically, if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
From what I have seen this is not a true statement. However, even if it is true, it doesn't account for the engineering process.
In engineering you iterate. IF (big "if") the EROI is higher on EVs at the moment, the only way to change that is to produce products that are as good as they can be right now, and iterate the product, and/or the infrastructure (battery recycling e.g.) until it becomes as good as or better. This is exactly how Tesla does business (or at least how they appear to do business. Who knows what is really happening behind the scenes). Even if your assessment is correct now, it may be woefully incorrect in the long term, given the nature of how Tesla is leading this... charge.
A great deal of the energy that goes into electric cars comes from the sun directly. Now, not everyone cares about that, but people that own EVs that I know do (at least the two people I know who own Tesla's, the one person I know with a Prius doesn't, so YMMV).
Regardless, owning electric has the distinct advantage over petro in that you don't have to buy your fuel, you can harvest it yourself, and many people do.
Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines and (fewer) batteries, with the potential for the best of both worlds. I have always thought it a crime that such designs were not used.
As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well. Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve. Having said that, the people who really run the world don't want those issues solved, and that is why they exist. That is not a fundamental problem with EVs, but with "the system."
The same people who keep down battery tech and push pollution are also the same people who keep Cold Fusion tech from being worked on, which would put both petro and our current type of electrical systems (and indeed, the entire power production infrastructure of the world) out of business.
If people have independent power, which cold fusion (or LENR, or whatever you want to call it) would provide for everyone in the world, then the PTB lose a huge piece of their control. It's not about money, it's about control. Money is just one path to it, it is not the only one. That is why we have problems with batteries (most of those problems were solved long ago). That is why we have a world pushing for EVs without talking about the problems, or overamplifying petro problems. Because it's all about control. It's all about creating the illusion, and keeping people stuck within it.
If the lines of communication have been truly made free (which it appears they have), all of these issues will go away very soon. What was once forbidden and taboo (cold fusion) is now almost mainstream, or at least it has been mentioned by those who would have just a couple years ago called it "crackpot nonsense."
We live in exciting times.
"From what I have seen this is not a true statement." It is true.
"In engineering you iterate." In engineering you iterate on the best solution. When a new solution appears, you compare it to whats already in use and you discard what is less effective. You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
"Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines" Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
"As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well." Hand waving. State them. 'My' efficiency issues are well know loss via transmission and conversion. These are not 'engineering' issues.
"Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve." These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology. Next to no battery are easy to dispose of.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs. Even if everything you said was 100% true (heres where your 'big IF' goes, btw) why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy? Release the secrets - or better, build a business that exploits them - to make awesome EV tech for everyone.
As for cold fusion, thats a pipe dream. If you want high capacity, widely distributed power, start using LFT.
You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.
I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.
I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.
Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.
These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia, you can appreciate why the "problems haven't been solved in 100 years." (really only 30 years, since Li-ion hasn't been around that long). That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.
Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.
Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.
We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.
"You are conflating two completely different issues. " No, Im not. People like you think EVs solve problems and ignore the very real problems they have to do so.
"Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever)." Ah, goody. An op ed with weasel words. Im totally convinced. The math on this never works out, but dont let that stop you.
"Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible." What waste? The reusing of old parts or the slagging down of parts people dont reuse to make more stuff? You'll notice, if you go to junkyards, that they dont have things there from the 70s, they have 10-15 model years of vehicles. Too old and its straight to the chipper to get steels and plastics return to the manufacturing chain.
"Oil from cars gets into the water system." Oil gets into the water table, mainly from prpduction incidents and industrial accidents. Even if you go pour oil doen a storm drain. Most treatment facilities separate and remove them.
"The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting." The production of batteries is moreso.
"Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away." CO2 being a pollutant is complete bullshit.
"These are problems we have solved." So, show me the battery chemistry that is solves the problems of recycling and degrading.
You clutch at the PTB and say shit like "We are totally there, we just need the info these fucks keep from us!!!!" but fail to realize that, if they wanted control and could produce this they would have release this tech to make EVs useful. Their pinnacle of control would be everyone having EVs.
"I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs." My criticisms are honest. I know EV tech thoroughly and have used it on many occassions, even working for a place that took government money to try to convert to them. Everything you complain about is specifically tailored to ignore the problems about EVs and exaggerate the problrms with ICEs.
"That's a hybrid." A hybrid uses two power plants. In most cases, a battery and an engine. Otherwise, every car in existence is already a hybrid because they have car batteries. You computer would also be a hybrid because you power it with coal plants and it has a cmos battery in it.