Joe Biden has taken us down a rabbit hole

Moving dirt from one place to another is a problem we don't have. Of course there is energy spent and emissions doing this.

People out there throw around big numbers like 500000lbs to prove a point, but reality is it's half a truckload.

Here's an interesting big number. One battery costs about 16 barrels of oil equivalent to produce.

Therefore, the total energy cost of producing and using the Tesla Model S Long Range battery pack, including battery production, lithium extraction, transportation, the energy cost of building the Gigafactory, battery transportation, battery recycling, diesel fuel required to generate electricity to charge the battery, and the environmental costs of battery disposal and battery fires, is equivalent to about 3,088,431 barrels of oil.

That battery that costs 16 barrels of oil to produce will save 240 barrels of oil over a 10 year lifetime. With about 3 million EVs on the road that is 720 million barrels of oil saved over a 10 year lifespan. And the batteries will go longer than that. 3 million vehicles accounts for about 1% of the registered cars on the road. Imagine if it was 2% then 10%. That's some huge numbers. 10% would be around 7.2 billion barrels saved over 10 years.


https://famguardian.org/3-million-ba...els%20of%20oil. Originally Posted by royamcr

I'm sure the people bitching about the border crisis don't see the same thing. Who the fuck do they think is going to get dirty?

Moving dirt from one place to another is a problem we don't have. Of course there is energy spent and emissions doing this.

People out there throw around big numbers like 500000lbs to prove a point, but reality is it's half a truckload.

Here's an interesting big number. One battery costs about 16 barrels of oil equivalent to produce.

Therefore, the total energy cost of producing and using the Tesla Model S Long Range battery pack, including battery production, lithium extraction, transportation, the energy cost of building the Gigafactory, battery transportation, battery recycling, diesel fuel required to generate electricity to charge the battery, and the environmental costs of battery disposal and battery fires, is equivalent to about 3,088,431 barrels of oil.

That battery that costs 16 barrels of oil to produce will save 240 barrels of oil over a 10 year lifetime. With about 3 million EVs on the road that is 720 million barrels of oil saved over a 10 year lifespan. And the batteries will go longer than that. 3 million vehicles accounts for about 1% of the registered cars on the road. Imagine if it was 2% then 10%. That's some huge numbers. 10% would be around 7.2 billion barrels saved over 10 years.


https://famguardian.org/3-million-ba...els%20of%20oil. Originally Posted by royamcr

Well that looks good on paper. But it would have to coincide with reality. The price of these cars would have to come down, way down. I can't afford one not even close. I am not poor but far from wealthy. A 40 or 50,000 EV is way out of my range. One big advantage to EV's though is low maintenance. No Oil Changes, Coolant, ATF ect.

Moving dirt from one place to another is a problem we don't have. Of course there is energy spent and emissions doing this.

People out there throw around big numbers like 500000lbs to prove a point, but reality is it's half a truckload.

Here's an interesting big number. One battery costs about 16 barrels of oil equivalent to produce.

Therefore, the total energy cost of producing and using the Tesla Model S Long Range battery pack, including battery production, lithium extraction, transportation, the energy cost of building the Gigafactory, battery transportation, battery recycling, diesel fuel required to generate electricity to charge the battery, and the environmental costs of battery disposal and battery fires, is equivalent to about 3,088,431 barrels of oil.

That battery that costs 16 barrels of oil to produce will save 240 barrels of oil over a 10 year lifetime. With about 3 million EVs on the road that is 720 million barrels of oil saved over a 10 year lifespan. And the batteries will go longer than that. 3 million vehicles accounts for about 1% of the registered cars on the road. Imagine if it was 2% then 10%. That's some huge numbers. 10% would be around 7.2 billion barrels saved over 10 years.


https://famguardian.org/3-million-ba...els%20of%20oil. Originally Posted by royamcr

I'd trust this a lot more, the carbon footprint report for the Volvo C40:

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-...lca-report.pdf

From the chart on page 5, the Volvo XC40 ICE (internal combustion) vehicle over its life has a carbon footprint of 59 metric tons of CO2, compared to 50 tons for the C40 EV with global electricity mix and 42 tons with the EU-28 (European Union, 28 states) electricity mix.

From the chart on page 6, the carbon footprint for the EV is greater than for the ICE vehicle for the first 77 months with the EU-28 electricity mix and 110 months with the world electricity mix.

I did not read the report, only looked at the graphs. But I read elsewhere that Volvo doesn't take into account the carbon emissions attributable to replacement batteries, which makes the EV's look better than they really are. That might be true and it might not. I doubt that Volvo takes into account the per vehicle carbon footprint from the additional infrastructure to convert to and use EV's, for example upgrades to the grid and construction of charging stations.

Ya definitely less maintenance, reduced brake wear also since the motor does braking also. You can get model 3 or model y for less than 40k, using the 7k tax credit makes it cheaper. If most of driving is in town or regional range shouldn't be an issue. The Achilles heel of EV is interstate travel, but it can be managed with planning. EV companies really need to get away from this 0-60 selling point and focus on range. Short term Goal for baseline models should be 400+ miles per charge plus some reserve capacity. Long term goal should be 500-600 to make up for extended charge times. 500-600 would get you easily to each stopping point if driving long distance and staying overnight.

Somebody should be working on interstate battery charging stations.

The latest from a Google "battery charging stations" search:

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-stations


https://driveelectric.gov/stations.











I got this.

In my view, electric cars will be very popular and appealing to consumers when and only when we're a lot further along the road toward dramatic breakthroughs in battery technology, which many observers believe will come to fruition within the next 10 years or so. A battery with twice the capacity at half the cost would be a real game-changer.

At that time, however, we are going to need massively greater quantities of power generation for all the new EVs, in addition to the demands placed on the grid by power-hungry data centers and AI infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the "net-zero" clean energy transition dreamed of by so many is, for the foreseeable future anyway, an Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy.

For starters, consider what one expert on the topic dubs the "energy storage conundrum."

The "green energy revolution" will require battery or other energy storage on an almost unimaginable scale, as wind and solar production is, to say the least, wildly inconsistent.

Check out this report, which ought to serve as an eye-opener for even the dreamiest of the climate change alarmists.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...-Conundrum.pdf

(Nuclear, anyone?)

In my view, electric cars will be very popular and appealing to consumers when and only when we're a lot further along the road toward dramatic breakthroughs in battery technology, which many observers believe will come to fruition within the next 10 years or so. A battery with twice the capacity at half the cost would be a real game-changer.

At that time, however, we are going to need massively greater quantities of power generation for all the new EVs, in addition to the demands placed on the grid by power-hungry data centers and AI infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the "net-zero" clean energy transition dreamed of by so many is, for the foreseeable future anyway, an Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy.

For starters, consider what one expert on the topic dubs the "energy storage conundrum."

The "green energy revolution" will require battery or other energy storage on an almost unimaginable scale, as wind and solar production is, to say the least, wildly inconsistent.

Check out this report, which ought to serve as an eye-opener for even the dreamiest of the climate change alarmists.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...-Conundrum.pdf

(Nuclear, anyone?) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

On which of the many topics here (loosely connected by an assumption of climate change denialism) is this guy an expert? My guess, you just got the wrong forum--maybe here?

World has at least 50 years of proven oil reserves at current production rates (World Oil Statistics - Worldometer). The US alone has at least 87 years of proven natural gas reserves at current US demand (US EIA).

6000 different products are made from oil:
http://www.ranken-energy.com/index.p...rom-petroleum/

India and China are not shutting down coal plants…

But sure let’s regulate out gasoline and diesel and 1000s of products by folks who couldn’t find their ass even if you physically placed one of their hands on their left or right butt cheek.

Biden, his advisers and puppet masters, pause (he reads “pause” or even “end” from the teleprompter) are idiots who want to stay in power. How do you do that? Control the media, technology, unfettered illegal immigration, and give out “free” stuff. It’s really fairly simple how they (along with Soros, his son, and other wealthy Ds) are seeking to control us.

In my view, electric cars will be very popular and appealing to consumers when and only when we're a lot further along the road toward dramatic breakthroughs in battery technology, which many observers believe will come to fruition within the next 10 years or so. A battery with twice the capacity at half the cost would be a real game-changer.

At that time, however, we are going to need massively greater quantities of power generation for all the new EVs, in addition to the demands placed on the grid by power-hungry data centers and AI infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the "net-zero" clean energy transition dreamed of by so many is, for the foreseeable future anyway, an Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy.

For starters, consider what one expert on the topic dubs the "energy storage conundrum."

The "green energy revolution" will require battery or other energy storage on an almost unimaginable scale, as wind and solar production is, to say the least, wildly inconsistent.

Check out this report, which ought to serve as an eye-opener for even the dreamiest of the climate change alarmists.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...-Conundrum.pdf

(Nuclear, anyone?) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

No kidding. Nuclear sounds like the only way to get there. But will the left go for that? Where are we going to store the waste with the "not in my backyard" sentiment that predominates in the USA?

For anyone like yeahsurewhatever who's not going to read the link, we would have to pay $23 trillion to $350 trillion for battery storage for the USA, and then repeat that when the batteries conk out. And the other alternative to nuclear and backup batteries, green hydrogen, costs 5 to 10 times more than natural gas. That assumes the electricity used for electrolysis to produce hydrogen from seawater is generated by natural gas. If it's to come from solar or wind, then the additional investment in generating capacity would be huge.

The politicians and planners in places like California and Germany must be nut cases. Rushing headlong into achieving "0" net carbon emissions assuming battery storage will be the answer to our prayers is lunacy. You need to base policy on more than a wish. From the link,

Jurisdictions claiming that they intend to achieve Net Zero have their heads in the sand as to the amount of energy storage they will need. Existing plans call for just a tiny fraction of the capacity required. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the people planning the Net Zero transition have no idea what they are doing.

For example, on April 11, 2022 consulting firm Wood Mackenzie issued a report on the plans of various European countries over the next decade to dramatically ramp up their energy storage capacity on the path to Net Zero. The title is Europe’s Gridscale Energy Storage Capacity Will Expand 20-fold by 2031. 6 But this seemingly massive increase in capacity will still leave these countries with less than one-one thousandth of the storage capacity needed to back up their grids without fossil fuels.

In the case of Germany, Wood Mackenzie states that the planned energy storage capacity for 2031, following the 20-fold expansion, is 8.81GWh, compared to the Andrews estimate of approximately 25,000GWh, or the Ruhnau/Qvist figure of approximately 56,000GWh. In other words, the amount of energy storage that Germany is planning for 2031 is between 0.016% and 0.036% of what it actually would need. This does not qualify as a serious effort to produce a system that might work. With the closure of its coal and nuclear plants, Germany has thus made itself totally dependent on natural gas from Russia as the backup for its wind and solar generators

On which of the many topics here (loosely connected by an assumption of climate change denialism) is this guy an expert? My guess, you just got the wrong forum--maybe here? Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

I'm glad you figured out that this is an appropriate place for climate change posts, not the Maxine Waters thread!

Francis Menton, Jr. has a degree in Economics and Mathematics from Yale. That's a pretty good background for this, understanding the cost of backup battery storage. As to the technical aspects, an electrical or mechanical engineering student might spend a semester in a class working with couple of differential equations that a math student was expected to grasp in a week. Apparently Menton has been spending about a third of his time on this in recent years.

Hallefuckinlujah! Better that than more and more species, including eventually ours. Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

That's not going to happen. Manmade carbon emissions won’t drive temperatures back to where they were in the late Paleocene/early Eocene, which is relatively recent in geological terms. They were about 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher then than now. Yeah, that would result in extinction of some species, but not homo sapiens.

Anyplace you’re willing to sacrifice us to continued reliance on fossil fuels is the right place for a climate change post.

And, if you think Menton’s conclusions aren’t already baked into his initial assumptions (of course the solution can’t work if there’s no problem) you’re deluding yourself.

Ya definitely less maintenance, reduced brake wear also since the motor does braking also. You can get model 3 or model y for less than 40k, using the 7k tax credit makes it cheaper. If most of driving is in town or regional range shouldn't be an issue. The Achilles heel of EV is interstate travel, but it can be managed with planning. EV companies really need to get away from this 0-60 selling point and focus on range. Short term Goal for baseline models should be 400+ miles per charge plus some reserve capacity. Long term goal should be 500-600 to make up for extended charge times. 500-600 would get you easily to each stopping point if driving long distance and staying overnight. Originally Posted by royamcr

Do you have one of these vehicles,or are you just been researching them?

On which of the many topics here (loosely connected by an assumption of climate change denialism) is this guy an expert? My guess, you just got the wrong forum--maybe here? Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Well, well, well!

Perhaps the sort of "expert" you prefer to follow is someone like Fatih Birol?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatih_Birol

I mean, he is the director of the International Energy Agency, right? So, wouldn't one think that he has a fine understanding of energy economics and might be able to lead the way toward a clean-energy future?

Well, maybe not. I submit that if you seek an appropriate post for the ECCIE comedy forum, you might do well to try this report:

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/as...ransitions.pdf

Unfortunately, though, it's an abject embarrassment; suffused through and through with a truly comical level of disingenuousness and ridiculousness.

Menton cogently dismantles its assumptions here:

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/...y-from-the-iea

Now, yeahsurewhatev, between Messrs. Birol and Menton, would you care to tell us who you think is the "expert" and who is simply an ignoramus?

Anyplace you’re willing to sacrifice us to continued reliance on fossil fuels is the right place for a climate change post. Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Here's a tip for you, yeahsurewhatev. We are going to be largely reliant on fossil fuels for at least another decade or two. Maybe three or four.

If you prefer to worship at the altar of green new deal idolatry, and prefer that your favorite progressive politicians impoverish working class and middle-class Americans in furtherance of the pursuit of this set of fantasies, fine. Go for it!

I doubt that it will work out well for your political heroes, though.

We will be reliant on fossils fuels far into the future. There are some uses that we haven't even started finding a replacement for, like jet fuel. As far as I know there are no plans for electric flight commercially if it is even possible. It might be, but that is decades away for sure.

What EVs will do is extend out the supply of fossil fuels where they will be needed.

Well, well, well!

Perhaps the sort of "expert" you prefer to follow is someone like Fatih Birol?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatih_Birol

I mean, he is the director of the International Energy Agency, right? So, wouldn't one think that he has a fine understanding of energy economics and might be able to lead the way toward a clean-energy future?

Well, maybe not. I submit that if you seek an appropriate post for the ECCIE comedy forum, you might do well to try this report:

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/as...ransitions.pdf

Unfortunately, though, it's an abject embarrassment; suffused through and through with a truly comical level of disingenuousness and ridiculousness.

Menton cogently dismantles its assumptions here:

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/...y-from-the-iea

Now, yeahsurewhatev, between Messrs. Birol and Menton, would you care to tell us who you think is the "expert" and who is simply an ignoramus?



Here's a tip for you, yeahsurewhatev. We are going to be largely reliant on fossil fuels for at least another decade or two. Maybe three or four.

If you prefer to worship at the altar of green new deal idolatry, and prefer that your favorite progressive politicians impoverish working class and middle-class Americans in furtherance of the pursuit of this set of fantasies, fine. Go for it!

I doubt that it will work out well for your political heroes, though. Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Do you have one of these vehicles,or are you just been researching them? Originally Posted by Levianon17

Na, haven't gone down that path yet but might in the future. I have just followed Tesla's progress for many years. The whole EV charging thing should have been regulated/standardized from the start. Tesla offered their charge port design to other manufacturers early on but they declined. Now we have a bastardized charging situation with I think 3 different plugs. I think there are adapters being made though. Still a pain in the ass.