Antarctica - A wall of ice?

Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.

Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 07:23:27 PM

Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.

Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?

Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are? Metal, in general, creates resistance, meaning energy tends to get lost or converted into other energy (such as thermal). This means the farther energy travels, the more inefficient it becomes, and more you need some kind of relay station to disperse it along to other areas. These might in turn try to recharge the electricity, but some of the original is always lost. Just as you are fond of telling me that the solar doesn't scorch us all to death or pulling sand from the Earth because distance, distance in electronics means wasted energy. I could start a significant fire using a open brick wood stove and about 25 branches and maybe two logs. Not large branches either, like typical holly branches. If I have a charcoal grille, the closed space makes this overkill. Meanwhile, that energy is spread too thin if I were to try to pipe that same energy to help out my sister in a town roughly 90 miles away. They would not be able to heat their house, because all that heat is piped miles away. I would need to collect significantly more fuel, and resistance means some is always lost. In the experiment they ran, superconductors ran the same fuel for years. But this was a fairly small circuit (close to the source, I imagine), and the article concluded that these wires were expensive to make and rather brittle.

This same principle applies to every channel, including horticulture. We have something called sink-source. It means that if you chop random branches of a peach tree, the remaining branches produce a bigger tree. It also means that if branches are overextended, fewer nutrients will supply to the teee without more water, more leaves for sunlight, and more nutrients from the soil.  Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source (NIMBY dictates it usually wil be).

The point being that each time the energy is spread, some is lost. Biden wanted to burn gas at power plants to produce for EVs. This literally tanked the gas prices as it was totally inefficient. EVs take hours to charge, and suddenly we have screwed up system.


When people have harebrained ideas, and force a nation to adopt them, everyone suffers.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 10, 2022, 08:15:02 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 07:23:27 PM

Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.

Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?

Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are? Metal, in general, creates resistance, meaning energy tends to get lost or converted into other energy (such as thermal). This means the farther energy travels, the more inefficient it becomes, and more you need some kind of relay station to disperse it along to other areas. These might in turn try to recharge the electricity, but some of the original is always lost. Just as you are fond of telling me that the solar doesn't scorch us all to death or pulling sand from the Earth because distance, distance in electronics means wasted energy. I could start a significant fire using a open brick wood stove and about 25 branches and maybe two logs. Not large branches either, like typical holly branches. If I have a charcoal grille, the closed space makes this overkill. Meanwhile, that energy is spread too thin if I were to try to pipe that same energy to help out my sister in a town roughly 90 miles away. They would not be able to heat their house, because all that heat is piped miles away. I would need to collect significantly more fuel, and resistance means some is always lost. In the experiment they ran, superconductors ran the same fuel for years. But this was a fairly small circuit (close to the source, I imagine), and the article concluded that these wires were expensive to make and rather brittle.

This same principle applies to every channel, including horticulture. We have something called sink-source. It means that if you chop random branches of a peach tree, the remaining branches produce a bigger tree. It also means that if branches are overextended, fewer nutrients will supply to the teee without more water, more leaves for sunlight, and more nutrients from the soil.  Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source (NIMBY dictates it usually wil be).

The point being that each time the energy is spread, some is lost. Biden wanted to burn gas at power plants to produce for EVs. This literally tanked the gas prices as it was totally inefficient. EVs take hours to charge, and suddenly we have screwed up system.


When people have harebrained ideas, and force a nation to adopt them, everyone suffers.

My EV takes around 18 mins or so on  a rapid charge to go from 10% to 80%. Sure if you hook your EV up to a home socket it will indeed takes hours, but with a standard 7KW unit do it over night and it’s no problem. With a range of over 300 miles for day to day commuting it’s ideal, though for those in cold regions the range is less unless your battery has sone form of heat pump installed. Reading your ramble I fail to see what point you are attempting to make.

Uhhhh, no? You've been listening to paid shills of the electric industry. None of which have actually done themath on just how economically disastrous it would be to implement their plans.

And not just economically disastrous. ENVIRONMENTALLY disastrous.  As in, if you actually cared about the Earth,  rather than use "the planet" as an excuse for woke agenda, you would be able to see just how terrible these ideas are.

1. To make a single electric car involves bulldozing large tracts of land in order to find enough for an engine made from battery parts. This is literally a battery that size of a car engine.
2. Such engines might look clean at the consumer end, but in the disposal end and the priducer end, the effect on the environment is disgusting.
https://fee.org/articles/the-environmental-downside-of-electric-vehicles/
https://axlewise.com/are-electric-car-batteries-recycled/
(Basically, if you don't know what to do with these batteries, you can't just leave them in a junkyard, they leach nasty chemicals into the soil; to say nothing of the working with dangerous chemicals to produce the machine)
By contrast, a gas car is mostly just metal parts creating a combustion reaction.
3. EVs are declared "clean" simply because we don't see any CO2 belching out. But for every hour of extra energy that a power plant produces, this happens.

See this? Now see this.

Okay, so how many hours does it take to charge an EV? 10-21 hours barring a very expensive plug. And unlike the energy produced directly by combusting only a few gallons of fuel, the amount of energy diverted through power grids is very inefficient. It loses juice for each mile it travels. So 10+ hours of power plants. As more and more EVs are on the road, the energy use gets higher and high each hour, until...


Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/08/electric-vehicle-deforestation-global-climate-pledges/

9000 ACRES of forest were mowed down to make room for  mining these materials.

Meanwhile, Gore and Gates tell everyone else to conserve, while they fly around on jets preaching climate.

I knew the paid shill comment was going to be blindly thrown back at me, but I didn’t even mention electric cars or any other proposed solutions to climate change.  I was talking purely about the disinformation campaign of climate science by various lobby groups working for the fossil fuel industry.

You actually linked to one of their  articles.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a lobby group funded by the likes of Exxon and Koch Industries.  Along with other arseholes like Heartland and the GWPF, they actively promote crap to discredit real climate research.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

That 18 years of no global warming image is a classic example of the nonsense they peddle.  As I said they deliberately cherry picked the then exceptionally hot El Niño year of 1998 as the start date to hide the trend.  Look at global temperature charts over a longer period and the rising trend is absolutely obvious.  It was quite clear even at the time, but especially with subsequent increases in temperature.

I note you didn’t try to address a single one of the points I made.

Electric vehicles (EVs) are more efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts. An EV electric drive system is only responsible for a 15% to 20% energy loss compared to 64% to 75% for a gasoline engine. EVs also use regenerative braking to recapture and reuse energy that normally would be lost in braking and waste no energy idling.



https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml

Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are?

So you have no idea what you are talking about and are now trying to use buzzwords to sound smart.
Got it.

Where are the superconductors in a gas powered car?
Where are the superconductors in a power plant?

In order for your argument to work, you need the powerplant itself to be less efficient, and that is what you claimed.
Not that the transmission losses result in the overall system being less efficient.
You claimed that a gas car is more efficient than a powerplant.

If you do want to focus on the distribution, you need to actually know what the transmission losses are.
And for the most part (i.e. the majority of the world) it is more fuel efficient to burn gas in a gas powerplant and transfer that electricity to an electric heater to heat a home, than it is to heat the home with gas directly.

Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source.

Only if you have purely passive components.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 10:34:53 PM

Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are?

So you have no idea what you are talking about and are now trying to use buzzwords to sound smart.
Got it.

Where are the superconductors in a gas powered car?
Where are the superconductors in a power plant?

In order for your argument to work, you need the powerplant itself to be less efficient, and that is what you claimed.
Not that the transmission losses result in the overall system being less efficient.
You claimed that a gas car is more efficient than a powerplant.

If you do want to focus on the distribution, you need to actually know what the transmission losses are.
And for the most part (i.e. the majority of the world) it is more fuel efficient to burn gas in a gas powerplant and transfer that electricity to an electric heater to heat a home, than it is to heat the home with gas directly.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 10:34:53 PM

Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source.

Only if you have purely passive components.

The wiring. The power lines.

Not the plant.

I'm talking about wasted energy.



The roots are also a source. If the roots have to go like a dandelion to get water, it's gonna take real effort for the plant to survive.

Likewise, if you have to plug in a car to juice it up, instead of burning fuel, all of this energy has to travel from the power plant to your car, spending hours upon hours to charge.

You know, if you'd bothered to research EVs, you sould discover why nobody but the most woke actually want them.

• They're not very affordable
• They sometimes literally burst into flames
• They open people up to easy robbery as they either have to sit in place for hours at a station, make it back home (or to a hotel which has enough energy to plug all those cars and not refuse to risk its bottom line (right...)), or be stranded at the side of the road. Btw, some people need to drive across the country on business. But the range of an EV is 200 miles, after which you wait hours for a recharge.
• It turns out that during cold months, they are spending all of their energy trying to conserve battery, and the car can't keep you warm
• Oh yeah, and you're kidding yourself by not being able to see the source of power.

The wiring. The power lines.

Not the plant.

You were talking about the powerplant, not the transmission losses or the system.

And like so many things, you want to just focus on a single effect and ignore all others.
Truly pathetic.

If you want to actually consider which wastes more energy you need to consider both generation and transmission losses, for both systems, and what the source of electric power is.

The wiring. The power lines.

Not the plant.

You were addressing the power plant.

Here's your original claim [emphasis added], the one that  that started this branch of the discussion, near the end of a long post:

Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.

Power plant. That's what you said.

If you want to include electric transmission losses, you also need to consider fuel costs for transportation of the liquid fuel burned by all those IC engines to make a meaningful comparison.

Going back to your claim, you may not realize it, but engine design is always a compromise between often-competing considerations. A very significant consideration for the engines used in individual automobiles is mobility, which drives selection of fuel type, weight, and cost.

Some considerations: natural gas is a cleaner fuel than liquid, oil-based fuels, which reduces emissions for the equivalent amount of output, but is not as convenient as diesel or gasoline for automobiles because the energy density of those liquid fuels is much, much higher at room temperature and atmospheric pressure; storing enough of those liquids in those conditions to provide reasonable range is far easier than an sufficient amount of NG, too. Also, heavier engines can be made more thermodynamically efficient than lighter ones, but weight of an engine is a very important consideration when it has to move itself; this is not a large consideration (if any at all) with a fixed plant. Automobile engines are optimized for mobility and sufficient enough power for the intended purpose. In general, fixed plants are optimized for other factors, like overall efficiency and emissions, and are often scaled to a size where efficiency can be optimized. A large turbine engine in a properly-designed fixed installation is much more mechanically and thermally efficient than a bunch of small, mobile engines of any practical type. Thus, large fixed turbines (and even large conventional fixed engines) can be - and usually are - much more efficient in converting fuel into useful power than mobile engines.

A good summary, with further links, was been published by Forbes back in 2018 ([sarcasm] Forbes is well-known for its liberal slant and fringe-idea wokitude. [/sarcasm]).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-and-shibboleths-about-electric-vehicles-the-long-tailpipe-theory/?sh=1d8f4c757f26

Grid losses do factor into the overall fuel efficiency of electric cars, but, then, not all electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, and the fuel consumed in transporting motor fuel from refineries to individual dispensing points and then pumping it into individual vehicle fuel tanks is not negligible, either.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 10:34:53 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on September 10, 2022, 08:15:02 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 07:23:27 PM

Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant.

Just what makes you think cars were more energy efficient than a power plant?

Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are? Metal, in general, creates resistance, meaning energy tends to get lost or converted into other energy (such as thermal). This means the farther energy travels, the more inefficient it becomes, and more you need some kind of relay station to disperse it along to other areas. These might in turn try to recharge the electricity, but some of the original is always lost. Just as you are fond of telling me that the solar doesn't scorch us all to death or pulling sand from the Earth because distance, distance in electronics means wasted energy. I could start a significant fire using a open brick wood stove and about 25 branches and maybe two logs. Not large branches either, like typical holly branches. If I have a charcoal grille, the closed space makes this overkill. Meanwhile, that energy is spread too thin if I were to try to pipe that same energy to help out my sister in a town roughly 90 miles away. They would not be able to heat their house, because all that heat is piped miles away. I would need to collect significantly more fuel, and resistance means some is always lost. In the experiment they ran, superconductors ran the same fuel for years. But this was a fairly small circuit (close to the source, I imagine), and the article concluded that these wires were expensive to make and rather brittle.

This same principle applies to every channel, including horticulture. We have something called sink-source. It means that if you chop random branches of a peach tree, the remaining branches produce a bigger tree. It also means that if branches are overextended, fewer nutrients will supply to the teee without more water, more leaves for sunlight, and more nutrients from the soil.  Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source (NIMBY dictates it usually wil be).

The point being that each time the energy is spread, some is lost. Biden wanted to burn gas at power plants to produce for EVs. This literally tanked the gas prices as it was totally inefficient. EVs take hours to charge, and suddenly we have screwed up system.


When people have harebrained ideas, and force a nation to adopt them, everyone suffers.

My EV takes around 18 mins or so on  a rapid charge to go from 10% to 80%. Sure if you hook your EV up to a home socket it will indeed takes hours, but with a standard 7KW unit do it over night and it’s no problem. With a range of over 300 miles for day to day commuting it’s ideal, though for those in cold regions the range is less unless your battery has sone form of heat pump installed. Reading your ramble I fail to see what point you are attempting to make.

So you're basically proving that you're spoiled, and have willingly upgraded your electric, a process that takes most of us thousands of dollars, not to mention the cost of the vehicle itself (outside our price range, and my folkd can afford to care for me even though I've stopped working).

The point, since you asked, is that outside your little bubble, actual people have actual problems traveling. Or to be more specific, attempt to quote this number after a job requires you to go more than 500 miles through less developed area. Because in order for this system to work requires urbanization of every area in the country. All of them have to be on a pretty tight electrical grid. This not only isn't feasible, it's undesirable. This would involve bulldozing vast stretched of land to setup the latest electric lines and transformers. And some people like forests and fields, largely tried to escape the city?  Gas power requires a fraction of the infrastructure, and conservation types can have their small towns and quaint roads.

I guarantee you will curse your device if you are forced to make a long trip during the winter.

First, not all charging stations will be as good as yours. Enjoy sitting in a spot for several hours.
Second, as soon as it begins to snow, the cold will cut the battery's efficiency. With a gas car, you can also use the heater, because it is a side-effect of the extra energy. With an electric car, if you turn on the heater, your range gets cut by 40% (and once you're out, the heater is gone). Uhhh yeah, I've driven in 5 below before. I don't recall having to turn off my heater or not get where I needed. In fact, I remember going all the way through a blizzard to another state.

https://climaterealism.com/2021/06/california-dreamin-meets-reality-dont-charge-your-electric-vehicle-during-heat-waves/

Maybe when you get outside that bubble of yours, you'll understand that the average EV is about four times what people are likely to pay even for the best new car (ours was $10k, whereas the price quote for an EV was more like $40k), and then there's the price of travel into less built-up zones, which you of course expect to want to urbanize to meet your demands.

Talk about entitled.

Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.

Yes, that's right. The inefficiency of power traveling from point A (we're saying it's solar) to an entire town (point B), where one guy is hoping to charge his electric car all the day long because he doesn't have a fancy 18 min charger. The town doesn't actually get enough power from solar, so while they ostensibly have that to feel virtuous, point C (backup power source, let's say fossil fuels) also supplies point B.

Now point B is Cali, so they've switched in San Francisco from just one or two cars being electric to... well, all of them. Now everyone shifts their schedule because the amount of time to charge screws with people's busy lives. And now the solar cells are woefully inadequate, and Point C has to work overtime. Only because of distance, and a thing called resistance, point D (another fossil fuel plant, kept out of sight because we want to fool the public into thinking their solar power does a bit of good) is now burning even more fosdil fuel. And then winter comes.


They blamed Texas's power failure on fossil fuels (claiming deregulation of energy was the problem). No ummm, they did solar and gas and a ton of different ideas. But uhhh...

The fundamental reason for Texas’s blackouts is correlated grid risk: The kind of winter storm we currently are experiencing — unusual but hardly unprecedented — drives up demand for electricity while simultaneously driving down the available supply of the stuff. The system can withstand a spike in demand, and it can withstand a dip in supply, but it cannot withstand both at the same time. Hence the blackouts.

In addition to the usual troubles of downed power lines and the like, electricity plants are having a hard time getting fuel or using the fuel they have, including natural gas and coal. So-called renewables such as wind power and solar perform poorly, or do not perform at all, in such conditions, while natural-gas, coal, and nuclear facilities have been shut down or hampered by pipelines, instrumentation, and other equipment that is inadequate to the current conditions. Texas has more than enough natural gas to power itself through a storm such as this one, but it does not have sufficient capacity to get that fuel where it is needed or to use it in the current conditions. If you can’t get the gas where it’s needed, you may as well not have it at all.

Having to ship power through downed lines and blocked roads is one problem. But just as big is the problem of your clean energt not working. Power plants as an energy source is not efficient because rather than right there at the gas station via trucker, the energy comes through a long series of lines, all of which is expected to be intact. Bad storm? Downed lines, or hey maybe the sun is not sunny enough to give solar power, or maybe it's plenty windy but so cold those wind turbines have decided not to move. Your day isn't just perfect,  a line may be broken twelve towns over where there was a storm, and you aren't getting peak charge.

According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.

As far as range:

How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.

I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.

According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.

As far as range:

How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.

I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.

You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage.  Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.

 

The point, since you asked, is that outside your little bubble, actual people have actual problems traveling. Or to be more specific, attempt to quote this number after a job requires you to go more than 500 miles through less developed area. Because in order for this system to work requires urbanization of every area in the country. All of them have to be on a pretty tight electrical grid. This not only isn't feasible, it's undesirable. This would involve bulldozing vast stretched of land to setup the latest electric lines and transformers. And some people like forests and fields, largely tried to escape the city?  Gas power requires a fraction of the infrastructure, and conservation types can have their small towns and quaint roads.

No, it wouldn't.

These towns typically already have a decent connection to the electrical grid.
At best it would require new transformers to be built to allow them to have more power.

This doesn't require urbanisation of every area or bulldozing vast stretches of land.

Quote

Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.

Yes, that's right.

No, that's wrong, as already pointed out.

Gas cars where very inefficient.
A powerplant is much more efficient.

Power plants as an energy source is not efficient because rather than right there at the gas station via trucker, the energy comes through a long series of lines, all of which is expected to be intact.

And yet again, you ignore so much.
There are multiple factors going into efficeincy.
The transport of the electrical power through the grid is just one part.
There is also the efficiency of the powerplant, and powerplants are far more efficient that car engines.

And the other part you keep on ignoring is that you still need to get the fossil fuels somewhere.
That trucker has to burn a lot of fuel to get to the gas station.

So if you want to consider those what ifs, what about when the snow blocks the road or something else takes it out so the truckers can't get there with the gas?
Or if they go on strike and refuse to transport it?

Quote from: JackBlack on September 11, 2022, 03:01:50 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 10:34:53 PM

Uhhhh, maybe because as someone who spends a majority of their time learning random things, I actually bothered to learn in science what superconductors are?

So you have no idea what you are talking about and are now trying to use buzzwords to sound smart.
Got it.

Where are the superconductors in a gas powered car?
Where are the superconductors in a power plant?

In order for your argument to work, you need the powerplant itself to be less efficient, and that is what you claimed.
Not that the transmission losses result in the overall system being less efficient.
You claimed that a gas car is more efficient than a powerplant.

If you do want to focus on the distribution, you need to actually know what the transmission losses are.
And for the most part (i.e. the majority of the world) it is more fuel efficient to burn gas in a gas powerplant and transfer that electricity to an electric heater to heat a home, than it is to heat the home with gas directly.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 10:34:53 PM

Just like a business that pushes itself too far the first year, a factory cannot expect to have the same quality of energy miles from the source.

Only if you have purely passive components.

The wiring. The power lines.

Not the plant.

I'm talking about wasted energy.



The roots are also a source. If the roots have to go like a dandelion to get water, it's gonna take real effort for the plant to survive.

Likewise, if you have to plug in a car to juice it up, instead of burning fuel, all of this energy has to travel from the power plant to your car, spending hours upon hours to charge.

You know, if you'd bothered to research EVs, you sould discover why nobody but the most woke actually want them.

• They're not very affordable
• They sometimes literally burst into flames
• They open people up to easy robbery as they either have to sit in place for hours at a station, make it back home (or to a hotel which has enough energy to plug all those cars and not refuse to risk its bottom line (right...)), or be stranded at the side of the road. Btw, some people need to drive across the country on business. But the range of an EV is 200 miles, after which you wait hours for a recharge.
• It turns out that during cold months, they are spending all of their energy trying to conserve battery, and the car can't keep you warm
• Oh yeah, and you're kidding yourself by not being able to see the source of power.

Wasted energy, you mean all that effort you put into your pointless and meaningless posts?

Quote from: Stash on September 20, 2022, 10:58:40 AM

According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.

As far as range:

How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.

I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.

You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage.  Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.

Pretty much, yeah.

When I was working regularly (now I'm an unemployed crank), I made about $5000 a year. Assuming no major incidents (like the aforementioned getting fired), it would take 8 whole years for me to afford a car. The snobby idea that all of us can naturally set aside our own needs for 8 whole years is a bit too much "let them eat cake." Woefully out of touch with what it means to be working class. Now I'm lucky to have middle class parents, but it isn't exactly my money. I cannot just demand they get me a new car, damn the expenses because "we need to save the planet."

And it gets worse when you understand that while electric aren't guzzling gas, they are energy guzzling. More than an hour charge time is simply too much. So is the size of this batter. So is the range of these vehicles.

What I have discovered of liberals who push virtue is that they like to propose two standards. One for those willing and able to pay the fines (themselves) and another for the little people. Al Gore has a heated pool. He has more energy expenses than our entire town. He slaps a few solar cells (which reduce energy use by maybe 5%?) on the problem and pretends he is green.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 20, 2022, 11:11:31 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 20, 2022, 10:58:40 AM

According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.

As far as range:

How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.

I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.

You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage.  Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.

Pretty much, yeah.

When I was working regularly (now I'm an unemployed crank), I made about $5000 a year. Assuming no major incidents (like the aforementioned getting fired), it would take 8 whole years for me to afford a car.

Seems like it's your own personal problem that you can't afford a car...of any type.

The snobby idea that all of us can naturally set aside our own needs for 8 whole years is a bit too much "let them eat cake." Woefully out of touch with what it means to be working class. Now I'm lucky to have middle class parents, but it isn't exactly my money. I cannot just demand they get me a new car, damn the expenses because "we need to save the planet."

You can't afford any car, whether it's got a combustible engine or not. Again, that's a personal problem, not a societal one.

The Model T initially cost about $825 (around $24,000 today)

You would have had to stuck with your horse and buggy back then, if you could even afford that.

And it gets worse when you understand that while electric aren't guzzling gas, they are energy guzzling.

Evidence?

More than an hour charge time is simply too much.

Fast charge infrastructure is ramping up. Just like how there were no gas stations back when the automobile was ramping up.

So is the size of this battery.

What does that have to do with anything? I guess we should never have developed computers back in the 50's because they were just too damn big...


It could do a whopping 3 additions or subtractions in a second!

So is the range of these vehicles.

EV range: 400-ish miles
Model T range: 20-40 miles

Why are you so against progress?

So lackles and bulmba are both under the impression that ALL drivers "suffer" winter conditios?

There are NO non freeze climates  where people would drive?

Is that the claim?




Is he heating pools with the burning of aborted feti?
Solar heaters aee a thing too.
Who knows his method.
D9 you know?

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 20, 2022, 11:11:31 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 20, 2022, 10:58:40 AM

According to your argument, we should never have transitioned from horse-drawn carriages to combustible engine automobiles. As at the beginning of the transition, there were very few gas stations, let alone transport capabilities for fuel.

As far as range:

How far could a Model T go on a tank of gas?
It had a limited range, lasting about 20-40 miles before requiring a refueling.

I guess all of those few elite, spoiled combustible engine automobile enthusiasts in the early days should of just packed it in and gone back to their horses. So yeah, progress should be stopped.

You spoiled rich person with your fancy electric horse-less carriage.  Just flaunting your rich ways on us peasants.

Pretty much, yeah.

When I was working regularly (now I'm an unemployed crank), I made about $5000 a year. Assuming no major incidents (like the aforementioned getting fired), it would take 8 whole years for me to afford a car. The snobby idea that all of us can naturally set aside our own needs for 8 whole years is a bit too much "let them eat cake." Woefully out of touch with what it means to be working class. Now I'm lucky to have middle class parents, but it isn't exactly my money. I cannot just demand they get me a new car, damn the expenses because "we need to save the planet."

And it gets worse when you understand that while electric aren't guzzling gas, they are energy guzzling. More than an hour charge time is simply too much. So is the size of this batter. So is the range of these vehicles.

What I have discovered of liberals who push virtue is that they like to propose two standards. One for those willing and able to pay the fines (themselves) and another for the little people. Al Gore has a heated pool. He has more energy expenses than our entire town. He slaps a few solar cells (which reduce energy use by maybe 5%?) on the problem and pretends he is green.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

The crap you say, if you are truly like this in real life would be the reason for your job problems.  But I assume this is just yet another lie.  It doesn't matter much anyway, your lack of social skills, mental deficiencies, inability to be truthful, laziness, etc which lead to your possibly sad sack of shit life is unimportant to me anyway.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 14, 2022, 04:02:46 AM

The wiring. The power lines.

Not the plant.

You were talking about the powerplant, not the transmission losses or the system.

And like so many things, you want to just focus on a single effect and ignore all others.
Truly pathetic.

If you want to actually consider which wastes more energy you need to consider both generation and transmission losses, for both systems, and what the source of electric power is.

No what's pathetic is you trying to justify this.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/ElectricMadness.pdf

No what's pathetic is you trying to justify this.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/ElectricMadness.pdf

Why would I need to justify your anti-electricity hate?
That would be you.

And we can see the madness there, pulling numbers from thin air with no justification at all.
Acting like the power needs to come from coal, ignoring renewable sources.
It acts like an electric car is just like a petrol car with an additional battery, ignoring the difference in weight between an electric vs petrol drive chain.
It acts like all electric cars will be charged at "petrol stations", entirely ignoring those that would do fine just charging them at home/work without needing to go to a charging station at all.
It ignores heat pumps, which are much more efficient at heating homes than burning gas, and also ignores the fact that burning gas to heat your home is not 100% efficient due to needing to expel the hot exhaust gas to avoid suffocating people.

And yet again, it ignores the losses associated with transporting the petrol to a petrol station and transporting the car to the petrol station, and pumping all that fuel and so on.

Actually, we typically buy cars around the $5000 to $8000 mark, though one of my cars that I drove for years was practically free (family friend). These tend to be compacts or used, though we get a fair amount of vans too. We just don't by luxury or alot of features, and it tend to be at least two years old. Then Biden fucked with the supply, and there were no new or preowned, just really used and even they were $10k. We had to look around for nearly three months before we found a Corolla.

Now you ask us all to spend nearly four times that because you think you're saving the planet. But you're making things worse, and yes, you are a snob.

And study history. When we find out about cars, we learn two things. First, Model T wasn't the first car. It was the first mass produced  and affordable car. Ford's theory was that his own factory workers ought to be able to buy their own cars. And he managed it, by producing enough to make them cheap. But there were cars before him. They were expensive and unreliable. Ford got his start by repaieing these cars. Ultimately, one of them, he took apart, reverse engineered better, and started building better cars.

Second, you ought to know that electric cars are not a new thing. But guess what? They lost even back then to gas. It's only when electric is more practical (it still isn't) than gas and also more affordable (it definitely isn't) that people buy them. Unless compelled at gunpoint or pressyred by unrealistic gas prices.  But they can't afford it even when pressured (hint: if you want people to buy something you make it and the energy it runs on cheaper, you don't start by making everything more expensive).

This isn't analogous to buying a Model T. This is buying a per-Ford car, which was not only expensive but unreliable. Without Ford, we would have given up on automobiles. Since electricars literally explode (read the ElectricMadness pdf), yeah they aren't bugged out yet.

EV range: 400-ish miles
Model T range: 20-40 miles

Why are you so against progress?

:snorts: "Progress." Btw, our Corolla does 400 miles. It also doesn't take 10 hours to refuel.

I'm not against progress. I'm against "progress." Weaker inventions phasing out better ones is not progress. I'm also against progress that we don't have any choice in. Car buying ought to be about customization. You want touchless ignition? You want automatic transmission? You want hand-crank windows? Fine, our computer puts together these specs and we build it in half an hour. We'll deliver that to you, exactly as specifified within a week or two. This is progress. Further peogress allows it to be made even while you are signing the paperwork.
No, cars aren't going in this direction. In fact, because of computers in cars, it's actually virtually impossible to change parts to what you like. Want touchless ignition? Don't want it? Automatic? Manual? The computer has a rigid setup and will not allow customization. We found this out when we went to the dealership and asked them just to switch my dad's car to an automatic. Turns out the process would likely require more expense than simply buying a new car.  These damned chips mean not only the microchip crisis which slowed down the car industry, but also but also make it impossible to swap out parts without potentially bricking the machine.
I put together a computer once (everything was good except we gor a bad OS, and the machine locked us out). Lemme tell you, if they built computers where you can't change parts, the actual users (not the email/facebook types) would be appalled. I'm not even that good, and even I have swapped a memory card or put in a new drive.

Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key  can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire. Not only that, it becomes unstartable (unless you use a hidden nub that you probably had to read the manual to find out about) should the batteries on the fob ever fair, either at the car end or the fob end. Making it more likely that a thief can start your cae than you is a bad idea. I was really pleased when the Coeolla came with the option of NOT getting it.
What if I told you that many car companies are phasing out all standard ignition? What happened to choice of features? How is that progress? It is moving away from the vision of customizing cars and towards the Model T which is only available in black. That's REGRESS not progress. We should be moving towards more customization, with the standard version sold in stores, but the ability to pick color, ignition, transmission, windows, doors, and so on like ordering at Sheetz (those kiosks are awesome).



Instead we're moving in the direction of the state telling you which cars to buy. That's a communist idea. And the last time communism was done in Cuba, people had to keep their cars running for years because car companies went belly up.
What you are trying to justify is state takeover of auto commerce. You have to buy the cars the government wants because they've called all others obsolete. Demanding that cars have certain features violates customer choices. If don't want an electric car, you shouldn't have to buy one. Forcing people to buy one is not progress. It's fascism. I don't mind if you don't want a gas car. You have the right to be an elitist prick. You don't have the right to force me to choose like you, though.

Second, you ought to know that electric cars are not a new thing. But guess what? They lost even back then to gas. It's only when electric is more practical (it still isn't) than gas and also more affordable (it definitely isn't) that people buy them.

And the technology has improved dramatically.

This isn't analogous to buying a Model T. This is buying a per-Ford car

No, it is quite comparable to a model T. Especially early in their production.
Adjusting for inflation that works out at roughly $25k.

Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key  can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.

No, it can't.
The RFID is encrypted. In some regards, it is more secure than a key. Especially if they have a lockout period.

What happened to choice of features?

Choice of features cost more money. Do you want cheap cars or choice of features?

Instead we're moving in the direction of the state telling you which cars to buy. That's a communist idea.

No it isn't.
Communism is a system of wealth distribution.
It isn't a system of leadership. Communism doesn't mean the government can tell you what to buy.

Demanding that cars have certain features violates customer choices.

I suppose you want cars without seatbelts and headlights as well, which runs on leaded fuel?

Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key  can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.

Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works.  One of my specialties btw.  Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it.  This isn't the movies. 
Go on, tell us.

Holy crap
What a rant


Ford model T in any colour as long as its black
Why do you think he did that?
Becuase customization = time and time = money.
But somehow your economic genius wants fully customized cars while at the same time complaining about costs.

Amaaaazing.



2ndly
Your gas was cheap because you pay taxes which subsidize big oil.
You are paying them to control you.
And now theyre rapung your wallet and laughing in your face while you defend them.
Stockholm much?

Ok, so I have been reluctant to weigh in on the EV side of this so far.  But, if you want to look at environmental and financial affects alone then here is a quick rundown. 
Yes, production of EV vehicles require more energy and in turn release more emissions into the environment than conventional gas vehicles.  Also add in the lithium battery vs the oil and other non-fuel related items needed for operation of gas powered that are not used in EV.  So with that being said, it all comes down to distance traveled.
For the first 25000 miles, the gas powered version wins out on emissions.  Until this point the difference in emissions produced to operate  an EV was operating at a loss, due to the higher production emissions.
At 30000 to 35000 the operation of the EV starts balancing out for the lithium vs consumables only used in gas powered cars.  It's hard to gage the impact of mining the lithium vs drilling of oils and byproducts of both, but that extra emissions savings over 5 to 10k miles pretty much offset it.  Granted the lithium from failed and end of life batteries need to be properly dealt with to be able to acomplish this.

This is just using standard energy production, not anything special. 
Now, the financial costs.
Using the same metric of distance traveled.
Using a 1.5 increase in current gas and energy prices also.
For the purchase of an EV vs a similar Gas powered car you will need to drive for 20000 miles to offset roughly 5000 dollars in price.  So with using this, very crude, method we could assume that, roughly, for every 5000 you spend on an EV over what you would have on a gas powered version you need to drive 20000 miles. 

So are EV vehicles worth it?  Yes and No.  It depends on your usage. 
The number of miles needed to justify both environmental and financial costs decreases dramatically for EV in metropolitan areas.  Sitting in traffic burns gas much faster that it burns electricity.  Short trips and air of stop and go vehicle movement burns more gas than electricity.  So if you drive in a city, you need less city miles to overtake the gas powered cars in terms of costs.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 23, 2022, 04:44:57 AM

Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key  can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.

Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works.  One of my specialties btw.  Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it.  This isn't the movies. 
Go on, tell us.

I don't mean to hand them a lifeline here, but building a device that listens for keyfobs trying to interact with a vehicle, records the signal, and then can repeat it at will is something that's already been widely published with step-by-step guides for anyone with even a very limited technical skillset. So door locks and remote starters are great vectors for attack. I have a feeling that's a separate thing than the RFID that tells the car your have the actual key fob inside the vehicle before you are able to start or drive it though, for cars that have that sort of system in place, although it's not something I've looked into so you undoubtedly would know better than I.

But, I mean, for unlocking a vehicle of a certain age that might also have a remote starter installed which could also be vulnerable, you can use a Raspberry Pi with a battery and just a few add-ons to have some fun. I suspect b's idea comes from some sort of awareness of this kind of attack though.

Then Biden fucked with the supply,

You realize that supply issues due to a little thing called the pandemic was a global thing, not just a US thing, right?
You probably think that the Evergreen stuffing up the Suez was a Biden thing too.

And study history. When we find out about cars, we learn two things. First, Model T wasn't the first car. It was the first mass produced  and affordable car. Ford's theory was that his own factory workers ought to be able to buy their own cars. And he managed it, by producing enough to make them cheap. But there were cars before him. They were expensive and unreliable. Ford got his start by repaieing these cars. Ultimately, one of them, he took apart, reverse engineered better, and started building better cars.

You just outlined exactly how progress works. Technologies emerge but are wildly expensive. People come along, re-engineer, tweak things, even new innovations like battery tech, etc., processes get streamlined, ubiquity becomes the norm and prices are optimized and driven down.

You have to go through all of this to get to reasonable accessibility and cost points. Just like Henry Ford did.

As JB pointed out, in the beginning, a new Model T was $25k. Using your argument, the Model T was snobbish and only for the elites and should have been killed.

unrealistic gas prices. 

What's an unrealistic gas price. Unrealistic based upon what?

Since electricars literally explode (read the ElectricMadness pdf), yeah they aren't bugged out yet.

I live amid a sea of EVs. Never seen one explode.

We found this out when we went to the dealership and asked them just to switch my dad's car to an automatic. Turns out the process would likely require more expense than simply buying a new car. 

Which is what anyone would have told you 25 years ago. Switching a manual to auto is like major surgery. Think liver transplant. 

What if I told you that many car companies are phasing out all standard ignition? What happened to choice of features?

God damnit, why can I only get this 71' Mustang with a v-6?? I want a v-8! What happened to choice of features?!? How is that progress?"

What you are trying to justify is state takeover of auto commerce. You have to buy the cars the government wants because they've called all others obsolete.

I guess you're against any and all emission standards that have been implemented by the gov't over the last 50 years.

Demanding that cars have certain features violates customer choices.

Like seatbelts and airbags and crumple zones?

If don't want an electric car, you shouldn't have to buy one. Forcing people to buy one is not progress. It's fascism. I don't mind if you don't want a gas car. You have the right to be an elitist prick. You don't have the right to force me to choose like you, though.

When did owning a car become a human right? You're probably against the government requiring a license to drive a car too.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 23, 2022, 06:21:42 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 23, 2022, 04:44:57 AM

Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key  can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.

Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works.  One of my specialties btw.  Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it.  This isn't the movies. 
Go on, tell us.

I don't mean to hand them a lifeline here, but building a device that listens for keyfobs trying to interact with a vehicle, records the signal, and then can repeat it at will is something that's already been widely published with step-by-step guides for anyone with even a very limited technical skillset. So door locks and remote starters are great vectors for attack. I have a feeling that's a separate thing than the RFID that tells the car your have the actual key fob inside the vehicle before you are able to start or drive it though, for cars that have that sort of system in place, although it's not something I've looked into so you undoubtedly would know better than I.

But, I mean, for unlocking a vehicle of a certain age that might also have a remote starter installed which could also be vulnerable, you can use a Raspberry Pi with a battery and just a few add-ons to have some fun. I suspect b's idea comes from some sort of awareness of this kind of attack though.

RFID isn't about a frequency.  You are talking about old school key fobs that send a specific radio frequency signal when you hit a button.  Thats not RFID.  That's not what was said, or what was being talked about.  I would expect them to conflate these things on purpose, you I understand as being ignorant of the technology. 

Quote from: boydster on September 23, 2022, 10:32:22 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 23, 2022, 06:21:42 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 23, 2022, 04:44:57 AM

Touchless ignition? Now, you may think this is progress because it looks like progress. But it's a bad feature. The key  can be dummied by an RF frequency allowing people to steal your car ever more quickly than a hot wire.

Oh please, give us your take on how RFID works.  One of my specialties btw.  Go on, tell us how to "dummy" it.  This isn't the movies. 
Go on, tell us.

I don't mean to hand them a lifeline here, but building a device that listens for keyfobs trying to interact with a vehicle, records the signal, and then can repeat it at will is something that's already been widely published with step-by-step guides for anyone with even a very limited technical skillset. So door locks and remote starters are great vectors for attack. I have a feeling that's a separate thing than the RFID that tells the car your have the actual key fob inside the vehicle before you are able to start or drive it though, for cars that have that sort of system in place, although it's not something I've looked into so you undoubtedly would know better than I.

But, I mean, for unlocking a vehicle of a certain age that might also have a remote starter installed which could also be vulnerable, you can use a Raspberry Pi with a battery and just a few add-ons to have some fun. I suspect b's idea comes from some sort of awareness of this kind of attack though.

RFID isn't about a frequency.  You are talking about old school key fobs that send a specific radio frequency signal when you hit a button.  Thats not RFID.  That's not what was said, or what was being talked about.  I would expect them to conflate these things on purpose, you I understand as being ignorant of the technology.

Maybe I missed a post. The one you quoted doesn't say RFID. It talks about using a device to defeat a keyless entry and keyless ignition, and it phrases things poorly (as expected, considering the source...), but the heart of it is what I just said - defeating keyless entry/starting.