Why the push to transition to EVs will fail

[brenthutch 384]

https://zeihan.com/why-evs-arent-the-greentech-panacea/
 

I have been saying this for years 

[jakee 1,257]

But did you need to say it not in your own existing EV vs reality thread that was still active as of yesterday?

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

But did you need to say it not in your own existing EV vs reality thread that was still active as of yesterday?

Did you even watch the video?  I’m really starting to think the folks who still believe this green energy nonsense are suffering from a type of mind virus or that it has become a sort of pseudo religion. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by brenthutch

[headoverheels 291]

Were you expecting a Green Tech Panacea?    I'm not.  That doesn't mean that EVs will not become the predominant auto drivetrain.

 

[lippy 773]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Did you even watch the video?  I’m really starting to think the folks who still believe this green energy nonsense are suffering from a type of mind virus or that has become a sort of pseudo religion. 

You're starting to sound like Winsor with that talk.  EV's are the future for a number of practical reasons, before you even factor in the environmental impact.  You seem dead set on charging ahead as if climate science is bunk, and there's an infinite supply of fossil fuels to continue on our merry way.  

Not to 'I know you are but what am I?' your post, but the climate deniers have a lot more in common with religion.  Facts and science be damned, you're holding fast to your beliefs!

You'll be old/gone before we're out of fossil fuels, so no point in trying to make life livable without them eh?

[gowlerk 1,914]

53 minutes ago, lippy said:

 EV's are the future for a number of practical reasons, before you even factor in the environmental impact.

Electric motors go round and round. ICEs have pistons that must reciprocate. They have become pretty darn good in spite of that, but now that batteries are good enough EVs have a large advantage. They aren't even all that much greener, but it doesn't matter because they are just plain better.

[brenthutch 384]

58 minutes ago, lippy said:

You're starting to sound like Winsor with that talk.  EV's are the future for a number of practical reasons,

Would that be they’re more expensive or because of their limited range perhaps it is the way their ponderous weight chews up tires or their limited towing ability or could it be the lengthy recharging time?  What are these practical reasons of which you speak?

[JoeWeber 2,302]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Would that be they’re more expensive or because of their limited range perhaps it is the way their ponderous weight chews up tires or their limited towing ability or could it be the lengthy recharging time?  What are these practical reasons of which you speak?

There are no practical reasons to go in any new direction, only results that prove out the idea. Sort of, you're like a semi blind cave dwelling newt whose buddy tells him: Brent these dents in my head seem to be telling me something about the world around us but I'm not not sure what. And Brent says: why worry about it when we already have all the bugs we'll ever need.

[brenthutch 384]

18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Electric motors go round and round. ICEs have pistons that must reciprocate. They have become pretty darn good in spite of that, but now that batteries are good enough EVs have a large advantage. They aren't even all that much greener, but it doesn't matter because they are just plain better.

If that was the case the government wouldn’t have to pay folks thousands of dollars to buy them.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

You're starting to sound like Winsor with that talk.  EV's are the future for a number of practical reasons, before you even factor in the environmental impact.  You seem dead set on charging ahead as if climate science is bunk, and there's an infinite supply of fossil fuels to continue on our merry way.  

Not to 'I know you are but what am I?' your post, but the climate deniers have a lot more in common with religion.  Facts and science be damned, you're holding fast to your beliefs!

You'll be old/gone before we're out of fossil fuels, so no point in trying to make life livable without them eh?

Hi lippy,

You get the cigar for both of them.

Yuppers,

Jerry Baumchen

 

[normiss 622]

Meanwhile....Toyota has a 700 mile range battery and expected to increase that to 900+ within the next couple of years. It fully charges in 10 minutes.

Solid-state batteries (as opposed to lithium-ion batteries, which use a liquid electrolyte) are regarded as a potential turning point for EVs. They have the power to reduce charging times, increase capacity, and reduce fire risk.

[jakee 1,257]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Did you even watch the video?  I’m really starting to think the folks who still believe this green energy nonsense are suffering from a type of mind virus or that it has become a sort of pseudo religion. 

Did you watch the video? What does it say about green energy except that we need more of it? 

Edited December 7, 2023 by jakee

[brenthutch 384]

9 hours ago, normiss said:

Meanwhile....Toyota has a 700 mile range battery and expected to increase that to 900+ within the next couple of years. It fully charges in 10 minutes.

Solid-state batteries (as opposed to lithium-ion batteries, which use a liquid electrolyte) are regarded as a potential turning point for EVs. They have the power to reduce charging times, increase capacity, and reduce fire risk.

I would agree that sometime in the future EVs may be perfectly feasible, however that time is not now.  We are wasting billions of dollars on nascent technology that is not ready for prime time.  The amount of material that has to be mined and refined is massive compared to what an ICE vehicle requires. Ask the children in Congo about cobalt mining 

[tkhayes 126]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Did you even watch the video?  I’m really starting to think the folks who still believe this green energy nonsense are suffering from a type of mind virus or that it has become a sort of pseudo religion. 

'green energy nonsense'... yeah that's why power gen companies all over the world are investing in solar.... Florida Power & Light, a for-profit utility now gets some 10-11% of their power from solar, and is rapidly expanding it.

Because it is 'green energy nonsense'.

you do know that we can hear you right?

[tkhayes 126]

25 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I would agree that sometime in the future EVs may be perfectly feasible, however that time is not now.  We are wasting billions of dollars on nascent technology that is not ready for prime time.  The amount of material that has to be mined and refined is massive compared to what an ICE vehicle requires. Ask the children in Congo about cobalt mining 

"I would agree that sometime in the future EVs may be perfectly feasible,..."

No you DO NOT agree, you called it 'green energy nonsense'.... and one of the common ways for something to become 'feasible in the future', is the ONGOING development and research and production done today.

You do know that we can hear you right?

But thanks for directly contradicting yourself in your own thread with the 'nonsense' swimming around in your noggin.

[brenthutch 384]

1 minute ago, tkhayes said:

'green energy nonsense'... yeah that's why power gen companies all over the world are investing in solar.... Florida Power & Light, a for-profit utility now gets some 10-11% of their power from solar, and is rapidly expanding it.

Because it is 'green energy nonsense'.

you do know that we can hear you right?

Because of the variable nature of renewables (aka unreliable) they have to be backed up by conventional energy 100%.  At this time renewables just add cost and complexity to the energy grid. Just ask California and Germany.  

[brenthutch 384]

3 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

"I would agree that sometime in the future EVs may be perfectly feasible,..."

No you DO NOT agree, you called it 'green energy nonsense'.... and one of the common ways for something to become 'feasible in the future', is the ONGOING development and research and production done today.

You do know that we can hear you right?

But thanks for directly contradicting yourself in your own thread with the 'nonsense' swimming around in your noggin.

 The future I refer to is many decades down the road, not the next five to ten

[tkhayes 126]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Because of the variable nature of renewables (aka unreliable) they have to be backed up by conventional energy 100%.  At this time renewables just add cost and complexity to the energy grid. Just ask California and Germany.  

I work in the power generation industry.  It is also 'variable'.  Just ask Texas..... or did you forget the complete collapse of their grid?

STRATEGY is a combined mixture of gas, oil, hydro, wind, solar, thermal etc remove that variability.

We poured a lot of billions of dollar into NASA in the 60's and 70's.  You probably would not have that portable battery drill at Home Depot for $29 if we hadn't, so 'just ask NASA' about that.

we poured a lot of money into the interstate system too, and created an economy rivaled by none directly because of it.  'better ask the USA' about that

Those of you that say it cannot be done are just in the way of those that are already doing it.

[tkhayes 126]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 The future I refer to is many decades down the road, not the next five to ten

and those many decades will be well served by the research, development and production now.... which you summarily ignored as a part of anything that happens int he future.

products seldom come out of a 'poof of fucking genius' that happens overnight and strategy is NOT defined like that in any way.

How is the energy supply of the USA secured into the future if the economy rolls 80-95% on fossil fuels?

[brenthutch 384]

1 minute ago, tkhayes said:

How is the energy supply of the USA secured into the future if the economy rolls 80-95% on fossil fuels?

By producing 100% of it domestically, duh.

[tkhayes 126]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 The future I refer to is many decades down the road, not the next five to ten

United States: motor vehicles in use 1900-1988 | Statista

Oh look!  It took DECADES for gasoline automobiles to become popular in the USA and catch on....  But I guess from 1905 to 1945 there wasn't any investment in the development of vehicles, and certainly ZERO investment by the government from say, 1935 to 1945 WWII, in the development of the internal combustion engine.  I mean probably ZERO done by the government.... right?

thanks for making my points and contradicting your own.

[tkhayes 126]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

By producing 100% of it domestically, duh.

And what happens when we run out of our own fuels?  You call that strategy?  You seem to have a problem with capitalism...... and supply chains, or perhaps saving for the future.....

Which is smarter and/or more strategic?  Burning some other countries oil and fuel at a lower price than we can produce it?  Or using up our own supply at a higher cost and then having nothing available to us in say 100 years?

I mean do right wing anti-renewable types ever actually THINK about what strategy means?  

Answer that. 

Did it EVER occur to you that maybe part of the strategy IS IN FACT, lower costs and a future supply?  No of course it didn't ever occur to you.  not even once.

[billvon 2,400]

17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Would that be they’re more expensive or because of their limited range perhaps it is the way their ponderous weight chews up tires or their limited towing ability or could it be the lengthy recharging time?  What are these practical reasons of which you speak?

That would be because they are less expensive to build, they have more range than many cars, their "ponderous weight" carried very low makes them handle better than a gas car, and their fast recharge time combined with an easier charging process.   (i.e. park, plug in, go into the convenience store, come out, get back in car, drive away.)  And of course they are the fastest cars on the planet.

Tesla Model S 405 miles
Tesla Model X 348 miles
Mazda Miata 345 miles
Subaru Impreza 330 miles
Mercedes-Benz GLA 330 miles
Nissan Versa 324 miles
Mazda CX-30 318 miles
Hyundai Elantra N 310 miles

In the long run most cars will become electrified due to simple economics.  Electric motors are cheaper than gas engines, period.  There will still be gas cars the same way there are still propeller planes, horses and manual transmissions - because some people like them, and they are better for specific purposes.  Which is fine.  The goal is to dramatically reduce oil usage and get CO2 emissions under the amount the carbon cycle can handle, not eliminate it completely.

[olofscience 422]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The amount of material that has to be mined and refined is massive compared to what an ICE vehicle requires.

This guy has never seen Alberta's oil sands, or a refinery, for that matter.

And many EVs don't use any cobalt at all.

[jakee 1,257]

18 minutes ago, olofscience said:

This guy has never seen Alberta's oil sands, or a refinery, for that matter.

And many EVs don't use any cobalt at all.

I seem to remember a few years ago an article which tried to argue that a Range Rover was more environmentally sound as a total proposition than a Tesla, primarily because of the amount of nickel used to make the batteries. The author had failed to realise that making the chassis of a Range Rover used more nickel than the whole powertrain of a Tesla.