The disinformation campaign continues

3616 Views 123 Replies 28 Participants Last post by jtkrpm, 3 d ago

Joe90

Discussion Starter · 23 d ago

Biden Is Forcing Electric Vehicles on the American Public While Misrepresenting Their Efficiency

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Biden Is Forcing Electric Vehicles on the American Public While Misrepresenting Their Efficiency

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new emissions standards for vehicles require manufacturers to increase overall fuel efficiency by over 25 percent…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

101 - 120 of 124 Posts

Alfie

· #101 · 13 d ago

inefficiencies, lack of structure, lack of system and lack of funding is pretty apparent with alternate fuel sources. That's why EV took so long to come to consumers and still being developed as we speak. None of these options were even viable 20-30 years ago but look where we are now. EV tech is not a new tech. This tech has been around for decades. It just got pushed by the governments around the world and is being supported due to the crisis we are facing. It is the best solution for now and there's no argument for it. I'm just hoping for different outcome even if it makes no sense right now.

Sodium and silicon batteries are in development as well as other non-metal batteries in research stage. Vanadium, I thought was an excellent source to power our homes and cars as they decrease the size, which now China is doing. We all say our cars are recyclable. Well, so are the ICE cars, all except for the fuel used. That's the reason for my shift to EV to help, if I can, provide better future for my daughters. I am not for EV or for ICE. I just want something nice that handles beautifully with minimum to no pollution to our environment while I enjoy it.

See less See more

Reactions: 2

chicagobob123

· #102 · 13 d ago

francoisp said:
Sodium ion battery is a reality.

Being installed in a car in China does not mean it can be made at scale or that it has durable. Even the power density is unknown until its outside China.

francoisp

· #103 · 13 d ago

chicagobob123 said:
Being installed in a car in China does not mean it can be made at scale or that it has durable. Even the power density is unknown until its outside China.

BYD will start using it in the following months in its line of Ocean EVs starting with the Seagull (link).

chicagobob123

· #104 · 13 d ago

francoisp said:
BYD will start using it in the following months in its line of Ocean EVs starting with the Seagull (link).

When its out of China you can at least get charge speeds and range figures that are not tainted. Durability will take years.

shareef777

· #105 · 13 d ago

francoisp said:
Here's a combustion engine that's pure hydrogen.

This Hydrogen Combustion Engine Is The EV Alternative We’ve Been Waiting for - HotCars - Hydrogen Central

This hydrogen combustion engine is the EV alternative we’ve been waiting for - hotcars. JCB’s newly-developed hydrogen-powered internal

hydrogen-central.com

And one from BMW:

lol, the title of the video LITERALLY says "engineering stunt". I literally CAN NOT buy a hydrogen combustion engine, and AFAIK the extremely limited hydrogen suppliers in CA are all shutting down. Then to add to the list of why Hydrogen isn't a good future, you need look no further than your own garage. Hydrogen generating systems are impractical/dangerous for the home. You nailed it on the head when you mentioned that the fuel of the future (ironically, was the past before ICE) is electricity. It's all about how we generate that electricity. The sun is that solution. It's there and it'll be there for give or take a few billion years.

Reactions: 2

francoisp

· #106 · 13 d ago

shareef777 said:
lol, the title of the video LITERALLY says "engineering stunt". I literally CAN NOT buy a hydrogen combustion engine, and AFAIK the extremely limited hydrogen suppliers in CA are all shutting down. Then to add to the list of why Hydrogen isn't a good future, you need look no further than your own garage. Hydrogen generating systems are impractical/dangerous for the home. You nailed it on the head when you mentioned that the fuel of the future (ironically, was the past before ICE) is electricity. It's all about how we generate that electricity. The sun is that solution. It's there and it'll be there for give or take a few billion years.

Oh, I agree with you but there are hydrogen combustion engines. Maybe there will be use case scenarios where that nake sense.

GreekGuy

· #107 · 10 d ago (Edited)

Fuel-cell "batteries" are a sad and desperate attempt by the companies, unions, investors, and politicians with vested interest in preserving the fuel-distribution supply chains. Delivering EV fuel via electric wires - and don't get started on the dastardly people who will simply generate their own electricity - leaves all of them with a lot to lose.

The above I can say is certain. More tin-foil-hatty: I think you can also, to an extent, lump the claim that we need so much more public-charging infrastructure - into the same justification. They don't want people to install charge hardware at home - which most Americans can do - because there's a better opportunity to create a new industry, which if it gets powerful enough, will lobby to ban home charging under dubious pretenses (public safety, grid strain, nonsensical environmental arguments). Or, at least, people will get fed up with spending 20+ mins charging at the public station, (and getting ripped off on the pricing) and accept a lesser tech like fuel cells so they can transfer the energy faster and/or have competition for the electric refill stations.

See less See more

JasonF

· #108 · 10 d ago

GreekGuy said:
The above I can say is certain. More tin-foil-hatty: I think you can also, to an extent, lump the claim that we need so much more public-charging infrastructure - into the same justification. They don't want people to install charge hardware at home - which most Americans can do - because there's a better opportunity to create a new industry, which if it gets powerful enough, will lobby to ban home charging under dubious pretenses (public safety, grid strain, nonsensical environmental arguments). Or, at least, people will get fed up with spending 20+ mins charging at the public station, (and getting ripped off on the pricing) and accept a lesser tech like fuel cells so they can transfer the energy faster and/or have competition for the electric refill stations.

First of all, remove the tin-foil hat, because the power companies generally can't tell if you're charging at home. There isn't much difference on the metering side between plugging in a car and running your air conditioner/heat pump - unless you have a powerful high-amp charging plug, then maybe they can tell. The workaround would be easy though, limit charging to the same amps that the air conditioner/heat pump draws so they can't tell. The home power grid is really, really dumb.

The other thing to remember is why battery EV's are important, and to a lesser extent, electric fuel cells.

EV's mean that we can centralize the power generation. That means even if every EV charging station runs off of a diesel generator, we're still better off than each of the cars charging there burned fuel. Because it's far easier to switch the energy sources for all of the charging stations than for all the cars. And it gets a magnitude easier when we're talking about power plants. In fact, by the time we get to power plants, we can switch fuel sources week to week depending on what's cheaper and available. Gas cars can't do that.

And even fuel cells, there is a wide variety of ways to produce hydrogen, and it too can change sources week to week depending on what's cheaper and available. The down size to that is the distribution network that would have to be built, whereas electric chargers can be dropped anyplace that has a power feed.

See less See more

GreekGuy

· #109 · 10 d ago

JasonF said:
First of all, remove the tin-foil hat, because the power companies generally can't tell if you're charging at home. There isn't much difference on the metering side between plugging in a car and running your air conditioner/heat pump - unless you have a powerful high-amp charging plug, then maybe they can tell. The workaround would be easy though, limit charging to the same amps that the air conditioner/heat pump draws so they can't tell. The home power grid is really, really dumb.

The other thing to remember is why battery EV's are important, and to a lesser extent, electric fuel cells.

EV's mean that we can centralize the power generation. That means even if every EV charging station runs off of a diesel generator, we're still better off than each of the cars charging there burned fuel. Because it's far easier to switch the energy sources for all of the charging stations than for all the cars. And it gets a magnitude easier when we're talking about power plants. In fact, by the time we get to power plants, we can switch fuel sources week to week depending on what's cheaper and available. Gas cars can't do that.

And even fuel cells, there is a wide variety of ways to produce hydrogen, and it too can change sources week to week depending on what's cheaper and available. The down size to that is the distribution network that would have to be built, whereas electric chargers can be dropped anyplace that has a power feed.

What is right, and best, and most efficient, doesn't matter so much with big government, as does the interests of the established powers. They killed the EV successfully once, after all - Elon Musk going rogue against the establishment powers is the only reason we have them now. And they can very well ban sale and installation of EVSEs. And EVSEs draw 40 amps, a lot more than the 6-12 an air conditioner uses, so yes they very much could catch you using one too. Hydrogen is a joke, besides being dangerous and hard to store and transport, it's just in the end a way of storing electricity. Transmitting it over wires is infinitely more efficient and practical. Even if you found an efficient way to make hydrogen, you'd be better off having the fuel cells located at the power plant and transmit the electricity over wires.

Reactions: 1

JasonF

· #110 · 10 d ago

GreekGuy said:
And they can very well ban sale and installation of EVSEs. And EVSEs draw 40 amps, a lot more than the 6-12 an air conditioner uses, so yes they very much could catch you using one too.

All banning the sale of EVSE's would do is cause people to order them on Amazon from China. And a household whole-house A/C unit uses 20-50 amps, depending on size and efficiency level. A dryer uses 20-30, and a stove uses 20-50. If you have any one of those, you can get around restrictions by just keeping your EVSE under the highest one of those.

theonetruestripes

· #111 · 10 d ago

JasonF said:
First of all, remove the tin-foil hat, because the power companies generally can't tell if you're charging at home. There isn't much difference on the metering side between plugging in a car and running your air conditioner/heat pump - unless you have a powerful high-amp charging plug, then maybe they can tell. The workaround would be easy though, limit charging to the same amps that the air conditioner/heat pump draws so they can't tell. The home power grid is really, really dumb.

There are a few ways to tell the difference between EV charging and an air conditioner running.

First off not many people run air conditioners in the middle of winter, or in many climates the middle of the night.

Additionally air conditioner compressor are pretty electrically noisy. The demand will bounce around a lot. EVs are pretty smooth and constant in demand. So both may pull say 30A across a pair of 120V circuits averaged over a few seconds, but the A/C will spike up and down to a much greater extent then an EV.

However as much as some parts of the energy industry don't enjoy the prospect of people coming off of gas other parts really enjoy the prospect of having a market to sell reliably off peak (and likely demand shiftable off peak) electricity to. So at least some big industry is going to lobby for us continuing to be able to charge at home

shareef777

· #112 · 10 d ago

GreekGuy said:
Fuel-cell "batteries" are a sad and desperate attempt by the companies, unions, investors, and politicians with vested interest in preserving the fuel-distribution supply chains. Delivering EV fuel via electric wires - and don't get started on the dastardly people who will simply generate their own electricity - leaves all of them with a lot to lose.

The above I can say is certain. More tin-foil-hatty: I think you can also, to an extent, lump the claim that we need so much more public-charging infrastructure - into the same justification. They don't want people to install charge hardware at home - which most Americans can do - because there's a better opportunity to create a new industry, which if it gets powerful enough, will lobby to ban home charging under dubious pretenses (public safety, grid strain, nonsensical environmental arguments). Or, at least, people will get fed up with spending 20+ mins charging at the public station, (and getting ripped off on the pricing) and accept a lesser tech like fuel cells so they can transfer the energy faster and/or have competition for the electric refill stations.

I too wear the tin-foil-hat that every one of those you listed will fight tooth and nail to try to monetize any possible avenue in the switch to EVs. However, they fought even harder to stop the move to EVs because they knew deep down, they won't be able to.

I used about 7730kWh this year so far and a net 400 of it came from the grid. The rest came from ~93,000,000mi away that no matter how much they want to huff and puff about it, can't stop me from continuing to do.

shareef777

· #113 · 10 d ago

JasonF said:
All banning the sale of EVSE's would do is cause people to order them on Amazon from China. And a household whole-house A/C unit uses 20-50 amps, depending on size and efficiency level. A dryer uses 20-30, and a stove uses 20-50. If you have any one of those, you can get around restrictions by just keeping your EVSE under the highest one of those.

AC units only pull the high load to start the unit, but are generally only averaging ~15A. We have a double wall electric oven and that thing maxes out at 30A for 15min and then only draws a few amps to maintain the set temp. There really isn't much in a house that can draw anywhere near what an EV does (~12kW for HOURS at a time). But to your point, you can just set it to 20A and argue you like it REALLY cold and have a bunch of AC window units running, yes, even in the winter 😂 . But really, a utility provider doesn't care WHY you're drawing power as long as you're paying the bill.

JasonF

· #114 · 10 d ago

shareef777 said:
But really, a utility provider doesn't care WHY you're drawing power as long as you're paying the bill.

That, and proof is a big word when it comes to the possibility of threatening penalty rates or disconnection for charging an EV against regulations.

Bad Dolphin

· #115 · 4 d ago

chicagobob123 said:
I'm not big on giving up but moving forward. Read about Westinghouse's new mini nuke plant and then there is this information.

What is a Nuclear Microreactor?

Microreactors are not defined by their fuel form or coolant. Instead, they have three main features.

www.energy.gov

Nothing is easy but this could give you power that can be scaled.

Neat. But doesn’t solve the problem that if something goes wrong, the consequences are just as severe and long term.

Reactions: 1

chicagobob123

· #116 · 4 d ago

Bad Dolphin said:
Neat. But doesn’t solve the problem that if something goes wrong, the consequences are just as severe and long term.

IL has multiple nuke plants. It's not like it can't be done well.
Coal for us is gone. Now if EVs can look kill the pollution

Bad Dolphin

· #117 · 4 d ago

chicagobob123 said:
IL has multiple nuke plants. It's not like it can't be done well.
Coal for us is gone. Now if EVs can look kill the pollution

Bob, it’s all a balancing act. Chernobyl was horrible and more modern nuclear plants are much better. But, in a word—Fukushima.

radiation was bad enough locally that 150,000 people needed to be evacuated due to the after effects of several “hydrogen bomb” explosions and radiation entered the ocean and was carried as far away as California.

fossil fuel created electricity has known bad effects that were feeling, but one nuclear failure can be as damaging as many fossil fuel plants.

The ultimate solution, of course, is to push even harder into solar, wind, geothermal, perhaps tidal production. We’ve been doing ru era fir a king time, only to find out that dams also have environmental impact (one less commonly known problem in the American West is the increased salinification (is that a word?😊) of the land due to reduced flow.) Of course, the biggest challenge with these forms of energy generation is that they are not constant, so better batteries—more efficient, less costly, and less environmentally impactful ones—are being developed.

And the big one—use less power until there is more clean production. Hah!

EV’s are a step in the right direction, and it’s good to see that the environmental problems caused by mining rare materials and battery disposal are being dealt with by designing batteries better at reusing and recycling. We have a long way to go but at least we’re moving…

See less See more

JasonF

· #118 · 4 d ago

Bad Dolphin said:
Bob, it’s all a balancing act. Chernobyl was horrible and more modern nuclear plants are much better. But, in a word—Fukushima.

Chernobyl's biggest fault wasn't the plant design, it was the staff being undertrained...and the fact that when things went wrong, they ran away and abandoned the plant. This could theoretically happen again in Zaporizhzhia if Russian military troops take control of it and have no clue how to operate it, but outside of that region, not much chance.

Three Mile Island was also a staff training issue, and to a lesser extent, the fact that the undertrained staff had full control of the plant's system with no safety interlocks. Which means they were able to make a series of horrible decisions and cause an accident.

Fukushima had one fatal flaw. It was designed to be able to hold the line for several days until backup crews and equipment could arrive (such as more diesel generators). What they didn't count on was the area around it being so destroyed and roads so impassible that it would be weeks before anyone could get near it. It was an awful disaster, but fortunately one easier to fix - plan for plants like that to be able to operate as an island for weeks instead of days.

But those are all retrofits to old plants to prevent disasters. Now we also have newer reactors that are capable of shutting themselves down via gravity power, elevated water feed tanks that can keep the reactor cool for long periods of time with no pumps, and even reactors that use liquid sodium for cooling (which can displace a lot more heat than a reactor can put out) and ones that use tiny fuel pellets that will cause the reactor to stop after a short time if they aren't constantly fed in.

In short, we're very close to finally being able to operate nuclear plants 100% safely, it's too early to give up on it now.

See less See more

Bad Dolphin

· #119 · 4 d ago

JasonF said:
Chernobyl's biggest fault wasn't the plant design, it was the staff being undertrained...and the fact that when things went wrong, they ran away and abandoned the plant. This could theoretically happen again in Zaporizhzhia if Russian military troops take control of it and have no clue how to operate it, but outside of that region, not much chance.

Three Mile Island was also a staff training issue, and to a lesser extent, the fact that the undertrained staff had full control of the plant's system with no safety interlocks. Which means they were able to make a series of horrible decisions and cause an accident.

Fukushima had one fatal flaw. It was designed to be able to hold the line for several days until backup crews and equipment could arrive (such as more diesel generators). What they didn't count on was the area around it being so destroyed and roads so impassible that it would be weeks before anyone could get near it. It was an awful disaster, but fortunately one easier to fix - plan for plants like that to be able to operate as an island for weeks instead of days.

But those are all retrofits to old plants to prevent disasters. Now we also have newer reactors that are capable of shutting themselves down via gravity power, elevated water feed tanks that can keep the reactor cool for long periods of time with no pumps, and even reactors that use liquid sodium for cooling (which can displace a lot more heat than a reactor can put out) and ones that use tiny fuel pellets that will cause the reactor to stop after a short time if they aren't constantly fed in.

In short, we're very close to finally being able to operate nuclear plants 100% safely, it's too early to give up on it now.

Appreciate your analysis—conclusion ftom your comments is that it was primarily human error.
the lint is that these failures are much more reaching because of the consequences if working with radioactive material whose half-life is essentially forever as compared to a human lifespan.

the thought that these will now be controlled by AI instead is not particularly comforting! There’s been some very thought provoking dialogue about the scary inevitability of backing up MAD by giving the nuclear codes and final control to AI.

Humans are certainly not as infallible from the standpoint of consistency as compared to AI. But OMGoodness—faulty AI and nuclear power? That sounds like a great combination!

And now, back to Tesla and its faulty AI that we all share at one level or another. It’s supposed to be the cutting edge for right now. But as I watch its mistakes, I am not convinced that it’s safer than an attentive, well trained driver by any means. Quite the opposite.

The future is interesting! And again, I really appreciate your informed information and interpretations.

See less See more

JasonF

· #120 · 3 d ago

Bad Dolphin said:
Humans are certainly not as infallible from the standpoint of consistency as compared to AI. But OMGoodness—faulty AI and nuclear power? That sounds like a great combination!

It depends how it's done. Right now, a simple combo of sensors and small scale processors that enforce safety limits (think like an ignition computer in a gas car) has already proven to be bulletproof reliable. At the very last, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island can be prevented from happening again just with a system like that, which would shut down the reactor ("scram") automatically the moment safety limits are exceeded, leaving the human staff to figure out why after it's safe. And that's a retrofit that doesn't require new reactors!

If AI could be used to deliver warnings or tell the staff when the reactor is approaching an unsafe state, that would be useful for it. But the hard safety limits would work better for keeping the reactors safe.

101 - 120 of 124 Posts