2 2
brenthutch

Reality check

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

anyone who can claim to have not changed their way of thinking, or their opinions on anything, for 19 years is in one hell of a shape.  not a good one, but by all means, wear this a badge of pride.  it is an achievement alright, just not in the way you think it is.  i'll try to say another prayer for you.  i do hate wasting my breath though.

If I was presented with information that was at odds with my world view I would certainly reassess.  However with every passing month without additional warming and with the failure of dozens of predictions of doom, my world view is reinforced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

If I was presented with information that was at odds with my world view I would certainly reassess.  However with every passing month without additional warming and with the failure of dozens of predictions of doom, my world view is reinforced.

 

so?  that means nothing.  or rather, it means you are fully insulated and have not challenged or questioned your views.  that is not only pathetic, it's dangerous.  may God help you because nobody else can with that attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Virtually every item on that list could just as well apply to "why automobiles will never replace horses" if written in the early 1800s.  "You would have to drill hundreds of thousands of oil wells, and build hundreds of refineries, plus we don't even know how to process oil into gasoline, and there's no way to get the gas to where it can be accessed by automobiles, and besides that all the roads are just mud so automobiles just get stuck.  Right now we already have plenty of pastures and hay fields, plus horses don't get stuck in muddy roads, and anyway horses are beautiful and automobiles are noisy, smelly, hard to crank-start, and they are always breaking down.  Only an idiot would think automobiles will ever replace horses."

Hah !  I like that. Well played. However; Is the timeline fairly comparable? ..in so far as nobody at that time was declaring "Net Zero horses by 1830 !" Automobiles and fuels evolved over time at the rate determined by market and took several decades before automobiles surpassed horse & cart. The latter exists even today in a small number of rural communities as they were never outlawed. I have said at least once in this forum that I would be pleased to see green solutions if they were sufficiently economical and reliable. I don't imagine any one of us looks at smoggy skies or oil-soaked marine life or polymer pollution and thinks "Aah, great ! " . On some level I have to believe we all wish for something that is genuinely cleaner. My own concern is rather that proposed legislation is attempting to push the process faster than it can actually run and that there are negative impacts that have not been transparently accounted for.  Also; a hope that we won't see fossil-related pollution replaced by vast swathes of discarded batteries and 'green' hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, metalslug said:

.in so far as nobody at that time was declaring "Net Zero horses by 1830 !"

You either believe that CO2 levels need to come down to avoid bad effects in the future or you do not. Targets are set because we need goals to accomplish anything. My belief is that the current targets are not going to be met, but they will result in progress being made. Some people deny there is a problem, some deny there are solutions, some just ignore the whole thing and let others work on it. And some exaggerate the issue and claim it is an existential issue. 

 

18 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Also; a hope that we won't see fossil-related pollution replaced by vast swathes of discarded batteries and 'green' hardware.

Batteries are chock full of valuable recyclables. The hardware is made of largely recyclable metals as are cars now. There are discarded cars strewn about the landscape now, but the vast majority of the 100s of millions of cars and trucks produced but no longer functional have been shredded and fed into blast furnaces long ago. The same will happen to EVs. Although they will likely take longer to wear out because they don't suffer from the inherent problems of ICE powered vehicles.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Batteries are chock full of valuable recyclables. The hardware is made of largely recyclable metals.... 

You're sure?  I recall a separate thread on this subject mentioning (by bill or olof) that it was barely profitable to recycle them and that a only small percentage of existing batteries get recycled. Then there are solar panels and wind turbine parts, potentially many millions of them in a global future. A fair bit or extra landfill, excluding what ends up in the ocean. Not keen to rehash that same thread here though, may be better to go back to it if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Hah !  I like that. Well played. However; Is the timeline fairly comparable? ..in so far as nobody at that time was declaring "Net Zero horses by 1830 !" Automobiles and fuels evolved over time at the rate determined by market and took several decades before automobiles surpassed horse & cart. The latter exists even today in a small number of rural communities as they were never outlawed. I have said at least once in this forum that I would be pleased to see green solutions if they were sufficiently economical and reliable. I don't imagine any one of us looks at smoggy skies or oil-soaked marine life or polymer pollution and thinks "Aah, great ! " . On some level I have to believe we all wish for something that is genuinely cleaner. My own concern is rather that proposed legislation is attempting to push the process faster than it can actually run and that there are negative impacts that have not been transparently accounted for.  Also; a hope that we won't see fossil-related pollution replaced by vast swathes of discarded batteries and 'green' hardware.

It will be similar - 30 to 40 years.

If we follow the trends now, we will have all EV's in about 4 years here in the US.  However, several things will happen to slow that down:

1) Once, say, 50% of Americans have EV's, gas will become dirt cheap due to an oversupply.  That will slow down the adoption of new EV's.
2) As manufacturing ramps up, manufacturers will run short of the unique materials they need to build an EV.  The current requirements that gas cars have for palladium, platinum, rhodium etc will be replaced by lithium and nickel - and it will take time for those mining companies to switch over.

Quote

 Automobiles and fuels evolved over time at the rate determined by market and took several decades before automobiles surpassed horse & cart. 

Right.  The first car came out in 1886.  By 1898 they were being sold "over the counter" - i.e. anyone could buy one, not just hobbyists.  By 1908, car companies were ramping up fast, and cities were trying to figure out how to deal with them.  By 1922 fire stations were trading in their horse drawn pumps for gas powered engines. 

The EV industry is roughly at the 1908 point now.

Quote

My own concern is rather that proposed legislation is attempting to push the process faster than it can actually run and that there are negative impacts that have not been transparently accounted for.

The only concern I have (and it's a small one) are the laws that require all zero emission vehicles in certain cities by a certain date.  I am not overly worried about those because they won't really happen.  They will be like the ZEV mandate of 1990, that was initially intended to require all car companies to produce EV's by 1995 or so.  This was pushed back and watered down so many times that, by the time it made it to reality, it drove the development of only one short-term EV - the GM Impact.

The same thing will happen with any EV mandated.  San Francisco, for example, is saying that all vehicle trips in the city must be zero emission by 2040.  By the time 2040 gets here, it will look more like "all vehicle trips by 2040 must be zero emission or SULEV, unless you're an ambulance or a delivery truck or a blah blah blah.  And if you have a PHEV, just please run in EV mode in the city."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, metalslug said:

You're sure?  I recall a separate thread on this subject mentioning (by bill or olof) that it was barely profitable to recycle them and that a only small percentage of existing batteries get recycled. 

Yes.  The capability is there, but new batteries are so cheap that it's more cost-effective to get raw materials from mines.  This will change as:

1) those raw materials get more scarce
2) laws are passed requiring recycling and
3) the amount of batteries starts piling up.

I would also point out that you can recycle batteries by cutting them up and extracting the elements - or you can use the entire battery again for something else, since they last decades (albeit with loss of capacity.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, metalslug said:

You're sure?  I recall a separate thread on this subject mentioning (by bill or olof) that it was barely profitable to recycle them and that a only small percentage of existing batteries get recycled

I am surprised to find that this is currently the case. Despite the valuable materials contained in them most batteries are trashed. There is recycling starting up now though and it is hard to imagine that when large numbers of raw materials in the form of used up batteries become available the cost of reclaiming the metals will not go down.

8 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Then there are solar panels and wind turbine parts,

Yes, as far as I know turbine blades are garbage when used up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, metalslug said:

You're sure?  I recall a separate thread on this subject mentioning (by bill or olof) that it was barely profitable to recycle them and that a only small percentage of existing batteries get recycled.

Not from me. Batteries are quite profitable to recycle - wrecked Teslas can sell for almost as much as a new car because the batteries are in such demand. With good battery management they're also good for millions of miles, especially the lithium iron phosphate ones. That's far longer than a car lifetime - so I expect that old batteries will be repurposed as home batteries for solar storage or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

 

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

Hah !  I like that. Well played. However; Is the timeline fairly comparable? ..in so far as nobody at that time was declaring "Net Zero horses by 1830 !" Automobiles and fuels evolved over time at the rate determined by market and took several decades before automobiles surpassed horse & cart.

Curiously though, there were issues that made the replacement of the horse more urgent in some places.  For example, in the 1880s there were over 100,000 horses in New York City, and these horses dumped ~2 1/2 million pounds of poop and 25,000 gallons of urine on the streets every day.  It was impossible to remove that much waste every day, and no place to send it (farmers already had all the manure they needed from their own livestock).  Needless to say the waste and the resulting flies were a big health hazard.  That particular problem was solved by the widespread adoption of automobiles.

At the beginning of the 20th century there were more electric cars than gas powered cars on the road in the US.  Electric cars were more reliable (fewer moving parts), much easier to start (no hand cranking), did not require changing gears, and they were much quieter and less smelly (no exhaust).  However they also couldn't go very fast and their lead-acid batteries required access to electricity (pretty much only available in cities) and took a long time to charge.  Gas cars became dominant thanks to Henry Ford's decision to mass produce gas powered cars, their faster speeds and much longer range, quick refueling as gas became more widely available, and their utility outside of cities.  There is an interesting article about the history of steam vs electric vs gas powered vehicles here.

Edited by GeorgiaDon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Needless to say the waste and the resulting flies were a big health hazard.  That particular problem was solved by the widespread adoption of automobiles.

Indeed.  That was one thing that pushed the development of elevators in NYC in the 1850's - no one wanted to be on the ground floor, where the smell, flies and clatter of metal hooves on cobblestones was overpowering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, billvon said:

Yes.  The capability is there, but new batteries are so cheap that it's more cost-effective to get raw materials from mines.  This will change as:

1) those raw materials get more scarce
2) laws are passed requiring recycling and
3) the amount of batteries starts piling up.

I would also point out that you can recycle batteries by cutting them up and extracting the elements - or you can use the entire battery again for something else, since they last decades (albeit with loss of capacity.)

image.thumb.png.78c573c235f2a5d96a9e6dda4a1ca824.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

image.thumb.png.78c573c235f2a5d96a9e6dda4a1ca824.png

Heres a chart for you. It's one you'll love because you only need to skim to the end for the answer. 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58877529414fb5283ed14a6b/t/5888f8acbebafbea448f7094/1485371564893/Fuel+Table+-+Loaders.pdf

Use this to do the math: https://www.online-calculator.com/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Heres a chart for you. It's one you'll love because you only need to skim to the end for the answer. 

I have heard a rumour that not every meme posted on the interwebs contains accurate information. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

(picture meme deleted)

So: 1800 gallons of fuel in a 12 hour shift, has to move 50,000 pounds of ore for one EV battery.  Sounds like a lot!  HOW DUMB ARE THOSE STUPID GREENIES??!!??!?!?!?!??

Those numbers are wrong, but let's go with it for the sake of argument.  So let's do the math!

That thing can carry 47 cubic yards of ore - about 90,000 pounds - at a time.  So takes about six loads to make one EV battery.

If it has to move it a few hundred yards to the ore carrier, then that's about a 2 minute trip per load.  So in a day, that thing can carry enough to make more than 60 EV batteries.  So that's 30 gallons of fuel to make one battery - and that battery will save 10,000 gallons of fuel over its lifetime.  In the course of a day, that thing has used 1800 gallons - for batteries that will save more than half a million gallons of fuel.

So your meme sounds really bad!  But if you can do the math, it actually makes quite a lot of sense, and saves far, far more fuel than it uses.

BTW the original numbers are wrong because the primary active element (lithium) comes primarily from brines, not ores.  And you move brines with a pipe, not a loader.  And that thing will really take 600 gallons a day, not 1800.

And even that 600 gallons is getting better.  Mining companies are switching to EV equipment because it's cheaper.  For example, Kuhn Schweiz AG now makes an electric ore carrier that can generate energy as it works - because most mines load their ore onto truck, train or freighters below the level of the mine, which is generally in the side of a hill.  So the battery brings the carrier up to the mine, it gets loaded, then the carrier uses regen braking descending to the freighter.  Due to the higher weight, you get more energy from the descent than you use while you are climbing empty.

So not only will you not be using that 600 gallons in the future - the mine will be generating power.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/edumper-121-ton-electric-dump-truck-2019-8#:~:text=Researchers in Switzerland and a,regenerative braking on downhill runs.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billvon said:

So your meme sounds really bad!  But if you can do the math, it actually makes quite a lot of sense, and saves far, far more fuel than it uses.

Elon can do math. He makes batteries and he is filthy rich from doing it. I wonder who has the best math and who is using "alternative fact math"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I have heard a rumour that not every meme posted on the interwebs contains accurate information. 

I heard that solar will never work because of the Shockley–Queisser limit!  It's a very big and science-y sounding term that I found in a meme on the "Libs Drool" group on Facebook.  So take that!  You guys who use science all the time will be totally impressed and intimidated by MY science-y word, and you can't come up with a comeback to science-y!  

Right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Elon can do math. He makes batteries and he is filthy rich from doing it. I wonder who has the best math and who is using "alternative fact math"?

If Elon could set aside his twitta-mania. He should buy FOX and begin reprogramming its viewers like Murdoch did with republicans. Soon its meme loving, science hating, logic intolerant, viewers will all be buying Teslas.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Phil1111 said:

If Elon could set aside his twitta-mania. He should buy FOX and begin reprogramming its viewers like Murdoch did with republicans. Soon its meme loving, science hating, logic intolerant, viewers will all be buying Teslas.

Eh, they'd all just switch to OAN, which they would then claim is centrist, not like that liberal FOX News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

If Elon could set aside his twitta-mania.

He is running a pump and dump. Even in his filing he says if he cannot complete the acquisition he will be forced to sell his shares.

He bought around $28 a share I think? After this "pump and dump" he will make around $700 million. The SEC fee for this will be around $200,000.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
29 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

He is running a pump and dump. Even in his filing he says if he cannot complete the acquisition he will be forced to sell his shares.

He bought around $28 a share I think? After this "pump and dump" he will make around $700 million. The SEC fee for this will be around $200,000.

The last time Elon did that he got his fingers slapped. He settled for a $40 million fine and had to step down from the board of Tesla. The SEC has enormous power outside the courts and has pockets for legal fights even bigger than Elon's.

'Elon Musk’s huge Twitter investment took a new twist Tuesday with the filing of a lawsuit alleging that the colorful billionaire illegally delayed disclosing his stake in the social media company so he could buy more shares at lower prices....

The lawsuit alleges that by March 14, Musk's stake in Twitter had reached a 5% threshold that required him to publicly disclose his holdings under U.S. securities law by March 24. Musk didn't make the required disclosure until April 4."

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The last time Elon did that he got his fingers slapped. He settled for a $40 million fine and had to step down from the board of Tesla. The SEC has enormous power outside the courts and has pockets for legal fights even bigger than Elon's.

He got a $20 million fine. He is worth over $200 billion. Hence why I included a "SEC Fee" in the comment. When something is "illegal" but the "fine" is a pittance, then it really just means you pay a fee. Other terms for this are "rake", "vig", "cut", etc. depending on the scheme you are running.

Him losing the chairmanship of the  board means nothing. In this case it is symbolic stuff and likely has made Tesla worth more, not less, benefitting Musk himself greatly.

46 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The lawsuit alleges that by March 14, Musk's stake in Twitter had reached a 5% threshold that required him to publicly disclose his holdings under U.S. securities law by March 24. Musk didn't make the required disclosure until April 4."

Yup and he will pay a fee for that as well. But the fee will be significantly less than what he will make from this stock manipulation. I would happily pay $100 million in fines for manipulating stocks netting $700 million. Wouldn't you?

He has done a Tesla "pump and dump" a Dogecoin "pump and dump" a bitcoin "pump and dump" and now he will do a twitter "pump and dump".

But certainly keep believing how the all powerful SEC will get him.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2