EV's.......... 😂😂😂😂😂

[sk47]

https://edu.rsc.org/feature/whats-behind-the-co-shortage/4014754.article

Here is something fun........... If you every wonder if they are F-ing with your head, articles like this are evidence.

Here is another fun one. 91 Volcano's under antarctica, but NOOOO they aren't melting the glaciers, a 2 degree rise in ocean temperatures from 'HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING" is making more of an impact. STOP using your gas stoves, and driving ICE motorvehicles!!!!!

You have to be stoooopid to listen to any of their nonsense. https://www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/blog/active-volcanoes-in-antarctica/

Hello; It is become that natural sources of methane, Co2 and water vapor are to be dismissed within the discussion of greenhouse gasses in particular. This approach along with dismissing known flaws within the computer generated climate models is a leg of the global warming scare tactics.

I do not try to dismiss contributions from human activities and figure we add a small layer of Co2 and perhaps even methane. However it is not an all or nothing sort of situation. One popular idea is to get to net zero with carbon. Even more stringent reduction attitudes surround methane. First thing is I do not think natural Co2 and methane sources can so easily be dismissed as inconsequential.

A next thing is that a tipping point of human population was passed some decades ago. Among my takes is that some of the desires for zero emissions will mean that nearly two billion people cannot continue to be fed. Forget just when this estimate came about but the gist was the earth was able to support a human population of around five billion people using older traditional farming methods.
How then can we now have a few billion more people existing today. Among the answers is the process of making artificial fertilizers. a quote from one of your links follows.


" The main industrial source is the manufacture of ammonia-based fertiliser, of which CO2 is a by-product. Ammonia is made using the Haber process, combining nitrogen and hydrogen under pressure to form NH3."

"To give an idea of the importance of this reaction, Mark says that around 80% of the nitrogen in our bodies has come via the Haber process, making this single chemical reaction ‘probably the most important factor in the population explosion of the past 100 years’."


"Of the ingredients needed, N2 is very abundant (it’s 78% of the atmosphere we breathe) but hydrogen gas is not, so must be synthesised. This is most commonly achieved via methane steam reforming, which involves taking natural gas and heating it in the presence of water to about 1000˚C. The end products are hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide."

Hello; our very lives depend on natural gas is some of the point being made. I can expand the need to use fossil fuels further in terms of human existence. Modern industrial farming and transportation of food stuffs depend on fossil fuels. Wish as they will the "green energy" & EV technology are not up to the job.

There are other layers to the corner we humans have painted ourselves into with what i think of as having a population beyond the natural carrying capacity of the environment. We shot past having such a "natural" way to feed ourselves some time back. We now rely on the very life supports (natural gas & fossil fuels) that some want to stop using.

On another front. Are we to stop the production of cement and steel to slow emissions. Even the smelting of conducting metals needed to make EV's and green energy equipment must cause emissions.

Again, i will stop for a while.

Sponsored

 

[Bulldog9]

Hello; It is become that natural sources of methane, Co2 and water vapor are to be dismissed within the discussion of greenhouse gasses in particular. This approach along with dismissing known flaws within the computer generated climate models is a leg of the global warming scare tactics.

I do not try to dismiss contributions from human activities and figure we add a small layer of Co2 and perhaps even methane. However it is not an all or nothing sort of situation. One popular idea is to get to net zero with carbon. Even more stringent reduction attitudes surround methane. First thing is I do not think natural Co2 and methane sources can so easily be dismissed as inconsequential.

A next thing is that a tipping point of human population was passed some decades ago. Among my takes is that some of the desires for zero emissions will mean that nearly two billion people cannot continue to be fed. Forget just when this estimate came about but the gist was the earth was able to support a human population of around five billion people using older traditional farming methods.
How then can we now have a few billion more people existing today. Among the answers is the process of making artificial fertilizers. a quote from one of your links follows.


" The main industrial source is the manufacture of ammonia-based fertiliser, of which CO2 is a by-product. Ammonia is made using the Haber process, combining nitrogen and hydrogen under pressure to form NH3."

"To give an idea of the importance of this reaction, Mark says that around 80% of the nitrogen in our bodies has come via the Haber process, making this single chemical reaction ‘probably the most important factor in the population explosion of the past 100 years’."


"Of the ingredients needed, N2 is very abundant (it’s 78% of the atmosphere we breathe) but hydrogen gas is not, so must be synthesised. This is most commonly achieved via methane steam reforming, which involves taking natural gas and heating it in the presence of water to about 1000˚C. The end products are hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide."

Hello; our very lives depend on natural gas is some of the point being made. I can expand the need to use fossil fuels further in terms of human existence. Modern industrial farming and transportation of food stuffs depend on fossil fuels. Wish as they will the "green energy" & EV technology are not up to the job.

There are other layers to the corner we humans have painted ourselves into with what i think of as having a population beyond the natural carrying capacity of the environment. We shot past having such a "natural" way to feed ourselves some time back. We now rely on the very life supports (natural gas & fossil fuels) that some want to stop using.

On another front. Are we to stop the production of cement and steel to slow emissions. Even the smelting of conducting metals needed to make EV's and green energy equipment must cause emissions.

Again, i will stop for a while.

Well, mother nature tried to right the scales with COVID, but once again, we interfered......... Yes, I am kind of kidding, but let's face it. The UGLY truth is that if we believe in natural evolution, we are sabotaging the human race by protecting and saving the weakest and least capable of surviving and overcoming adversity..........

 

[Balr14]

Well, mother nature tried to right the scales with COVID, but once again, we interfered......... Yes, I am kind of kidding, but let's face it. The UGLY truth is that if we believe in natural evolution, we are sabotaging the human race by protecting and saving the weakest and least capable of surviving and overcoming adversity..........

"Survival of the fittest" is coming to bite us in the ass. I think that's part of the reason why so many people get cancer now. Years ago, they would have died. But modern medicine saved them so they could reproduce, with their bad gene pool.

It seems no matter what we do, or don't do, we make things worse.

 

[sk47]

The UGLY truth is that if we believe in natural evolution, we are sabotaging the human race by protecting and saving the weakest and least capable of surviving and overcoming adversity........

Survival of the fittest" is coming to bite us in the ass. I think that's part of the reason why so many people get cancer now. Years ago, they would have died. But modern medicine saved them so they could reproduce, with their bad gene pool.

Hello; Dark posts, but not without some grains of truth. First a bit of rebuttal. I was never comfortable with the idea of biological evolution as a belief system. More as a natural aspect which either works and has a basis in fact or does not.
Survival of the fittest is often translated to be only the strongest survive. Not the way I understand the concept. Some creatures make a good living by running from and hiding, not by fighting or dominating. Both strategies can and have worked.

 

[Balr14]

Hello; Dark posts, but not without some grains of truth. First a bit of rebuttal. I was never comfortable with the idea of biological evolution as a belief system. More as a natural aspect which either works and has a basis in fact or does not.
Survival of the fittest is often translated to be only the strongest survive. Not the way I understand the concept. Some creatures make a good living by running from and hiding, not by fighting or dominating. Both strategies can and have worked.

"Fittest" doesn't always mean strongest. It often means smartest.

Sorry to get back on topic, but have you read about China's battery swapping stations? I think that really makes EVs a lot more desirable. I think China will take over the EV market. Of course there are a ton of problems associated with this approach, but it's compelling concept. Think about it... never having to worry about your battery going bad.

 

[sk47]

China's battery swapping stations? I think that really makes EVs a lot more desirable. I think China will take over the EV market. Of course there are a ton of problems associated with this approach, but it's compelling concept. Think about it... never having to worry about your battery going bad.

Hello; I see you praise China again. Not a new thing. A ton of problems may be an underestimate. There will be lots of things to standardize before that can happen. But I get the approach. Too many posts pointing out problems and realities with the EV push, so throw out another "someday" such and such will be the cure.

 

[Balr14]

Hello; I see you praise China again. Not a new thing. A ton of problems may be an underestimate. There will be lots of things to standardize before that can happen. But I get the approach. Too many posts pointing out problems and realities with the EV push, so throw out another "someday" such and such will be the cure.

It's not meant as praise. More of a cautionary tale. Remember the 70s.

 

[sk47]

It's not meant as praise. More of a cautionary tale. Remember the 70s.

Hello; I understand the reference. Fuel costs along with better reliability pushed the Japanese brands to top spots. Took a while for the Detroit makers to change their ways. Had to compete with a better made vehicle in terms of value, reliability and fuel economy. I lived thru the change. The cars were smaller with four bangers mostly but we were not replacing lots of parts at 50,000 miles.

I see a difference today. The EV is not a superior car in practice. They do check the box for the fantasy ideas of save the planet hype. Not 100% hype I suppose in that under ideal conditions where windmills or solar panels can charge the batteries, they may emit some less after a number of miles driven. How much they will reduce emissions overall is still in the "to be seen" category. I get some are already counting those chickens before they hatch. I have tried that a few times and had it bite me in tender parts.

Another big factor in the 70's rise of the "rice burners" as they were sometimes called was the much cheaper price. Some of us tried them out because of high fuel prices and because they were a lot cheaper to buy. When they proved to keep on running with little need to replace parts we were hooked. I was use to having to start replacing water pumps, starters, fuel pumps, ball joints, universal joints, wheel bearing and more by the time a car had 50K miles. We were use to looking for a new car around 100K miles if the Detroit iron made it that far.

By now there are plenty of used EV's on the market as well as plenty of new on the lots. I see still by your user information no EV is listed. Personally I think such is a wise move. I just do not quite understand why if you think EV's are the next great thing. Once I determine a thing is better than what i already have, I move on the new and better thing.

Back when CD players in cars became skip free and the CD's wound up with good sound I ditched all my vinyl. Even gave a very nice turntable to a friend. The years of transferring vinyl to cassettes were behind me. I still have a very nice dual drive cassette deck on a shelf.

 

[Balr14]

I do not see EVs as the next great thing. I simply entertain the possibility and envision what the result would be. Realistically, it will never affect me. But, 60 years of software development has made me consider all aspects of an issue, because the one you ignore, that will "never" happen, is the one that bites you in the ass.

 

[Cobra Jet]

I don’t know if this one has been posted yet….

courtesy of CarBuzz:
BMW i3 Owner Confronted With $71,000 Bill To Replace EV Battery https://carbuzz.com/news/bmw-i3-owner-confronted-with-71000-bill-to-replace-ev-battery

LMAO….

 

[sk47]

I don’t know if this one has been posted yet….

courtesy of CarBuzz:
BMW i3 Owner Confronted With $71,000 Bill To Replace EV Battery https://carbuzz.com/news/bmw-i3-owner-confronted-with-71000-bill-to-replace-ev-battery

LMAO….

Hello; An informative read. More than just the one $71 K estimate cited. I get this is a BMW so cannot dismiss the generally costly repair for the brand.
One idea floated is the dealer just did not want to do the job with some guesses as to why. One guess was the dealer hoped to steer the owner into a new car. Sort of floats, but perhaps I can make other wild guesses.
One being the techs in the shop are afraid of the battery packs after perhaps having bad episode before. Maybe the owner of the shop fears a fire. But pushing the owner toward a new car makes sense. I do have a question.
If a BMW dealer pushes away a BMW EV owner for whatever reason regarding such a repair, where will EV owners go?

 

[sk47]

I do not see EVs as the next great thing. I simply entertain the possibility and envision what the result would be. Realistically, it will never affect me. But, 60 years of software development has made me consider all aspects of an issue, because the one you ignore, that will "never" happen, is the one that bites you in the ass.

Hello; The particular topic was battery swapping in place of recharging an individual EV at a charge station. I get the concept. Fast turnaround times when a discharged EV pulls into the swap station. I suppose the imagined scenario is like when I swap in a fresh battery pack into one of my cordless tools.
I see several large issues with the idea, all expensive for someone. Let me skip past the development cost of a practical way to do such a swap and go onto the inventory issue. Let's also pretend there is somehow a standardized size and mounting system for all vehicles, thus eliminating having to have lots of different sizes and shapes of battery packs.

I am thinking of the swap service station inventory. Say the standard battery pack weighs 1,000 pounds. Say as with a current ICE gas station 300 or more vehicles might show up in a business day. Does the swap station owner go for all fast charging over slower charging rates to keep on hand battery pack inventory down. Knowing that repeated fast charging degrades battery packs over time and slower charging extends batter life, a question arises.

Another issue is who winds up stuck with the degraded battery packs in the long run? Will it be a battery pack sort of Russian roulette? Will the EV owner some take ownership of the battery pack swapped into his EV this morning and be stuck with is should the pack be defective. Will the swap shop owner be in a sense only renting or leasing the battery packs out and have to eat the cost when a pack fails?

@K4fxd likely will have an idea of what a swap station's power use could be. Such a station will have to be charging lots of battery packs all the time. Will they need the equivalent of a substation?
Side note. On Hwy 33 south of Tazewell TN one of those bitcoin mining operations was set up a few years ago. I think it is lots of computer banks constantly running complex math operations to generate bitcoin wealth. (I do not claim to understand this) These mines use lots of electric energy. Up to one percent of total electric power produced is what I have read. Big cooling fans run constantly annoying the neighbors. I also see a small substation next to the bitcoin mine instillation.

Back to my point in a different post. In the 1970's we started buying Japanese imports because they ran for a long time without repairs, got better MPG's and cost less to buy. They were a superior product if reliability, fuel economy and cost to buy and own were important. At the same time there was the oil embargo by OPEC. Gas prices more than doubled.
Detroit Iron was much more desirable but my Pontiac Bonneville was a gas hog. My first year as a public-school teacher I made $4,500. I made an error by buying a German made Opel GT Rally Kadet in 1970. It did not hold up so well but did get over twice the fuel mileage of the Pontiac. I compounded my error a few years later by buying a used Porsche 914 with the 1.7 liter VW engine. Great fun to drive but required lots of work to keep on the road. I finally bought a 1985 Honda Civic and saw the light. Second wife took the Honda. I bought a 1991 Nissan Sentra SE-R and am on my second Sentra today. However when I shop for a bucket list car I look for old Detroit Iron with Mustangs and GTO's topping my list.

My main point again. EV's are not a superior vehicle over ICE as the 1970's Japanese cars were over the big three back then. EV's are in fact much inferior to the ICE on many levels. Even the "save the planet" hype is greatly overblown and not realistic. I also again submit your choice to not have an EV is the wise one.

 

[Balr14]

Even if resource usage, lack of charging stations and battery issues were resolved, I wouldn't buy an EV. Too many loose ends for my taste. I try to think of a situation where I would be OK with owning one and I just can't. I sold a perfectly good 2010 Porsche 911 Carrera S cabriolet because there's a 2% chance it could have bore scoring and 8% chance it could have a PDK failure, at some point in the future. I don't like risk or uncertainty... again, the influence of 60 years of software development.

 

[MAGS1]

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/t...RRxMu28H2r_hbgkWN8nAydi3g#lsoueb59dxnke38vxmb

 

[Vlad Soare]

Surely that must be a feature, not a bug, mustn't it? I mean, when you deliberately buy the most disgustingly hideous thing ever created in all of human history, then anything that makes it even uglier can only be a good thing, right? It enhances the very feature that you bought it for.

Sponsored