That was one nasty attack in Vegas. I wonder what his motive was. It seems clear it was prepared, probably for quite some time. This was planned in detail.
The shooter had access to a suite and an adjoining room on a high level floor, the 32:d, to allow him to break windows quite far apart and get different angles and multiple kill-zones.
If I were to guess my best guess would be a (converted to) fully automatic AR15 or similar with double-drum magazines, such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_C-Mag
He must have stayed there before and maybe looked down on another crowd and got the idea. Waited for an event with a massive crowd. Booked well in advance to get the right rooms at a high level floor. Stockpiled guns and ammo.
This was not something he thought up last week.
I would be surprised if he didn't leave a manifest or at least some clue to his motive.
"From the Youtube clips and comments it sounds to me like a full-auto extended magazines:"
I read something about him having a couple of bump stocks, which would have been sufficient for his purpose, given that he was firing into a large, tightly packed crowd. The extended magazines would seem to be a foregone conclusion.
Lee: "I read something about him having a couple of bump stocks, which would have been sufficient for his purpose, given that he was firing into a large, tightly packed crowd. The extended magazines would seem to be a foregone conclusion."
Seems to be so. This is one of few pics released of the guns in the room and it clearly looks fitted with a bump stock to me:
I would be surprised if he didn't leave a manifest or at least some clue to his motive.
So far no one is talking. They all seem to be saying that they can't think of any motive. The only thing that seems rather odd is his father. He was a bank robber who was on the FBI's most wanted list.
He's said to have had a criminal ‘contact’ with the Nevada state court system. Nobody's explained what that means, not that I've seen anyway. (Could be as simple as a parking ticket he didn't pay, or it could be more sinister, but nobody's saying.) I consider this odd.
The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne for their detection of gravitational waves, a development scientists believe could give vital clues to the origins of the universe.
The three American physicists "made decisive contributions" to LIGO, an observatory instrument that enabled scientists to physically detect the waves, which Albert Einstein predicted a century ago in his theory of relativity.
No, he really was a bank robber wanted by the FBI.
Before the younger Paddock perpetrated the largest mass shooting in modern American history, his father’s name would be printed on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list for a series of bank robberies carried out in the Phoenix-area.
An archived newspaper article from the Arizona Republic on Oct. 6, 1960 described Benjamin Hoskins Paddock as a three-time bank robber. The paper detailed how the 34-year-old attempted to run an agent over with his 1960 Pontiac before having a bullet shot through his window.
After the bullet pierced his vehicle, he surrendered to authorities. A loaded revolver, a police-style baton, a box of ammunition and $2,975 in cash were found in the car.
God, this is getting tedious. Chumpy, from previous thread:
"And, of course, you lie. There are indeed analogous, equivalent losses. You lie. One barrel of crude oil (42 gallons of crude) typically produces only 20 gallons of gasoline and an additional 11 gallons of alternate fuels (mostly diesel and similar products). Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation."
Chumpy, you really are a dolt. First of all, in a well-to-wheels comparison, refining of oil would be common to both EVs and ICEs if (and we assume this for the purposes of comparison) the electricity were generated from the same fuel.
Second, please do us all a favour and spare us the results of yer frantic Googlin'. There is one person in this conversation who actually knows what they are talking about, and one person desperately trying -- and failing -- to even understand what their search results are sayin'. Yore figures listed some of the outputs of crude oil refining, not all of them. If you had some actual knowledge of the subject, and not just a search engine, you would have heard of the term "refinery gains".
Those occur because on average the products of distillation have lower carbon numbers and more hydrogen than the inputs, and thus have lower specific gravity. Lower density = higher volume. That, of course, has no bearing on the energy content which is the only thing germane to this "discussion". But it turns out that's higher too -- not by magic, but because they use natural gas condensates as additional inputs, thus converting cheap condensates into valuable transport fuel.
Yore welcome, and how about educatin' yoreself a bit next time before you decide to start trollin' just for the sake of it. Crapping all over the conversation is doin' nobody any favours, especially yerself.
"Second, please do us all a favour and spare us the results of yer frantic Googlin'"
You seem to have a fixation on that fantasy of me ‘frantically googlin’ as you call it. Gotta wonder what the hell that's all about.
I'm aware of the refinery gains. It's the same thing in reverse as the process whereby mixing a gallon of water and a gallon of alcohol nets less than two gallons of fluid, loss would be somewhere around 10%. (I'd have to look it up to remind myself for certain how much less, but that'd require the googling that I ain't been doing as of yet.)
And, also without looking anything up I can tell you that adding additional energy, in the form of natural gas doesn't gain you any energy at all. It actually consumes natural gas. I seem to recall that distilling crude oil used to be only 80% efficient, probably a little higher these days, but not much, meaning there's a substantial net loss of energy from the crude--bumping that back up with additional energy input from natural gas just consumes the natural gas, it doesn't add energy to the crude, nor does it recover that which is lost in the distilling process.
And, I seem to recall that Tesla used to claim that the energy lost during the distillation (called refining by most people) of just one gallon of gasoline would power a Tesla as far as that gallon of gasoline would power the average American street vehicle. They may do even better than that these days.
You're a fool and don't know you're talking about. Adding more fuel in the form of natural gas doesn't add any energy to the crude oil or its distilled products. It simply consumes the natural gas, and adds natural gas product to the eventual output of the still. (It's the same sort of thing as adding ethanol alcohol to the gasoline--that adds energy too, but nobody's stupid enough to think they can get away with the claim that they're somehow gaining energy with that. I don't know how you could have deluded yourself into believing that somehow adding natural gas was different.)
"I seem to recall that distilling crude oil used to be only 80% efficient…"
Oh, yeah, and that was after they claimed that sludge, ash and clinkers were part of the product (an attempt to fight off the greenies who plague them). Sorta like maybe claiming that fly ash was a desirable by-product of burning coal instead of a deadly residue to be disposed of, except the coal companies never actually tried to pull off that claim. The oil companies have tried it though.
"Those occur because on average the products of distillation have lower carbon numbers and more hydrogen than the inputs, and thus have lower specific gravity. Lower density = higher volume."
Actually ‘those occur’ because the resulting products of distillation have been sorted by molecular size (and maybe by shape to a lesser extent). Mixing materials of different sizes reduces the overall volume of the mix as compared to the separate volumes of the components--smaller components slide in between the larger ones reducing the overall space consumed by the two. It works with different sized marbles as well, even if they're all made of the same material with the same density, and the marble analogy is probably easier for Marcus and Lynnette to visualize.
Or, think about pouring water in a container of sand. The water flows in between the grains of sand. The sand will puff up a little bit, but not nearly as much as the volume of water which disappears into the sand. Works the same with small molecules which can flow in between larger molecules.
"A fully charged 75 kWh battery in a high-end EV contains the energy equivalent of only two gallons of gasoline." Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am
That was an intentionally misleading comparison. And Petes knew that when he made the comparison. He was comparing the energy theoretically available from a perfect burn and perfect capture of energy in the two gallons of gasoline to the energy actually available for use from the battery. Cars do not perform anything close to a perfect burn nor a perfect capture of energy from the burn they do produce. The electric vehicle is orders of magnitude more efficient at using the battery's electrical energy than even the best internal combustion engine is in using gasoline. That's why we can't get anywhere near the mileage from two gallons of gasoline that a electric can get from a 75 kWh charge. Petes knows all this. The comparison he was trying to make was fraudulent. He was trying to con you.
NBC Nightly News ran a segment tonight which included an allegation that the authorities are again looking at Paddock's girlfriend, trying to figure out if she knew in advance what he was up to. They didn't explain why the authorities might be interested in her other than that she was his live-in girlfriend.
LOL. Yeah, that's believable. That's why you said it lost 25% of its volume even though the volume actually increases by over 6% on average. Allow me to quote you directly: "Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation". Is that the gain you claim to be aware of? A gain of minus eleven, LMAO? Yore an idiot and a shameless liar to boot. You do not lose 25%, you gain 6%. Square that one, ya troll.
"You seem to have a fixation on that fantasy of me ‘frantically googlin’ as you call it. Gotta wonder what the hell that's all about... And, also without looking anything up I can tell you..."
Uh, that would be because of the link you provided to support your claim that 42 gallons of input produce 31 gallons of output. I quote again: "Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation". You total frickin' tool. Why are you makin' me rub yore face in it? For "yore audience" (seeing as you will certainly continue to argue that black is white) ... follow the Chump's link, click the very first link after the paragraph that Chumpy seized upon, click to enlarge the graphic: it shows that a 42 gallon barrel produces 45 gallons of output and explains the concept of refinery gains. Chumpy couldn't even read his own link. But he will continue to shamefacedly argue that he knows about refinery gains and doesn't have to Google frantically. He is a complete troll.
"It's the same thing in reverse as the process whereby mixing a gallon of water and a gallon of alcohol nets less than two gallons of fluid"
Good grief, you are beyond clueless. It is nothing whatsoever like that process, either forward or in reverse. Alcohol + water reduces in volume because of the rearrangement of hydrogen bonds among two polar solvents. It's a weak chemical reaction which results in the bonds occupying lower energy states (and shorter distances). Don't believe me? Mix them up yourself ... why does the mixture get warm? It's an exothermic chemical reaction. It's nothing to do with "smaller molecules sliding in between bigger ones" (LOL). You don't even have your own chemistry class example right. And I can tell you for free, the inputs and outputs of crude refining are not polar solvents. The process is completely unrelated.
"Actually ‘those [refinery gains] occur’ because the resulting products of distillation have been sorted by molecular size"
The Chumpy comedy show continues. So ya reckon all those pentanes and octanes and nonanes that end up in yore gasoline were all just "sorted" from among the molecules of the crude input? You yourself are incorrigible, but for the benefit of "yore audience" I will explain what actually happens. Crude oil refining is not just a matter of distillation, but of cracking. That means breaking down complex hydrocarbons into simpler ones. The most important ones are alkanes, with the chemical formula CnH(n+2). So for instance pentane is C5H12, octane C8H18, decane C10H22, and so on. These are chains of singly bonded carbon atoms, with two hydrogen atoms hanging off each carbon. The extra two hydrogens in the chemical formula come from needing a terminating bond at each end of the chain. When you crack petroleum you are not just sorting molecules, you are breaking them into shorter chain alkanes which -- having a higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon (which is a dozen times heavier) -- are of lower density. Which brings me to the next item of Chumpy's trollery ... (cont'd below)
"And, also without looking anything up I can tell you that adding additional energy, in the form of natural gas doesn't gain you any energy at all. It actually consumes natural gas... You're a fool and don't know you're talking about. Adding more fuel in the form of natural gas doesn't add any energy to the crude oil or its distilled products."
You lying donkey! I never said such a thing. I said that cheap natural gas condensates are turned into valuable transport fuel. That's where that extra needed hydrogen comes in. Short chain alkanes (which is what gas condensates mostly consist of) or natural gas or even bought-in hydrogen are used as the source of hydrogen for those extra alkane molecules that are created (not just sorted, LOL) in the process. This has nothing to do with the energy consumed in the refining process, which is generally just under 10% of the total energy balance.
And of course, as I've already been at pains to point out, all of this is completely beside the point. Because if we were to use all this oil for generating electricity for EVs instead of burning in ICEs, the refining process WOULD BE THE SAME in both cases and can therefore be ignored. (Unless Chumpy is suggesting we could just burn crude to generate electricity and save some refining overheads ... in which case Chumpy might wanna consider why we don't just burn crude for heating instead of refining all that distillate heating oil? It's the same answer).
"Oh and one final point, back where we started: A fully charged 75 kWh battery in a high-end EV contains the energy equivalent of only two gallons of gasoline."
"That was an intentionally misleading comparison. And Petes knew that when he made the comparison. He was comparing the energy theoretically available from a perfect burn and perfect capture of energy in the two gallons of gasoline to the energy actually available for use from the battery."
And if Chumpy hadn't made it his business to go off trolling about stuff he didn't know anything about, he might've had more time to spend thinking about his very initial piece of idiocy above. (Though come to think of it, when ya don't know anything about anything it dudn't matter which things ya troll about). Chumpy completely 100% misunderstood the meaning of that original comparison, which was to point out that gasoline has an extremely high energy density so that the millons of barrels of it that we consume cannot easily be replaced. Furthermore, as I pointed out to Chumpy as soon as he objected, when you consider the well-to-wheels efficiency of ICEs versus EVs powered by fossil-fuel-powered electricity they are very similar. Chumpy clearly don't know the meaning of a "well-to-wheels" comparison. You are comparing the amount of fuel dug up out of the ground with the amount of the final output you are interested in -- miles driven. It is nothing to do with a "perfect burn" in an ICE. That doesn't even enter into the equation. Inputs vs. outputs is all that matters. In the case of the EV battery, it only takes a second (for most normal people) to realise that the 75 kWh is not the input we are concerned with.
"The electric vehicle is orders of magnitude more efficient at using the battery's electrical energy than even the best internal combustion engine is in using gasoline. That's why we can't get anywhere near the mileage from two gallons of gasoline that a electric can get from a 75 kWh charge. Petes knows all this. The comparison he was trying to make was fraudulent. He was trying to con you."
It most certainly is not "orders of magnitude" more efficient. But hopefully "yore audience" now understands -- even though you do not -- why the 75 kWh you keep wittering on about is irrelevant. The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy.
Typo in my alkane formula -- the general formula is CnH(2n+2). And I meant to point out more explicitly, if you split a single alkane molecule into two shorter chains you need two extra hydrogen atoms because -- obviously -- you've got two extra ends on the additional chain.
"That's why you said it lost 25% of its volume even though the volume actually increases by over 6% on average."
I said nothing about it losing volume. You just made that part up. I said there was a net loss in the distillation process, and there is. It loses energy; the process eats energy, either by burning a portion of the original 41 gallons or by burning additional fuel (or using electricity). Adding volume doesn't change that net loss.
"Alcohol + water reduces in volume because of the rearrangement of hydrogen bonds among two polar solvents."
An oblique way of saying exactly what I said about the molecules packing closer. I can see that I shall have to do a little googling on behalf of the audience you're trying to con here.
"Explanation: When 50 milliliters of water are added to 50 milliliters of alcohol, the volume of the two mixed together is only about 96 or 97 milliliters. When mixed together, the combined molecules fit together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space. Water and ethanol mix to form a solution. The solution formation is exothermic, and a substantial amount of heat is released. The reason is that the sizes of the individual molecules are different enough that the smaller molecules can slip into the spaces between the big molecules. More specifically, the reason that it is less is due to molecular bonding - specifically, the creation of Hydrogen bonds. The OH- component of alcohol interacts with the H+ of the water molecules. These bonds attract each other to the point of making ‘hydrogen bonds’. These bonds result in a tighter molecular formation, thereby reducing the volume of the combined liquids." It Doesn't Add Up (emphasis added)
In non-jargon, simple English, the rearrangement of the hydrogen bonds is possible because the molecules pack in tighter, the smaller water molecules slipping between the larger alcohol molecules. That's what allows the hydrogen bonds to relax and give off some of their stored energy as heat (basically how it happens, where the heat comes from). You know all this, you're just trying to confuse and con Lynnette and Marcus (you must have also thought I didn't know this either, and though maybe you could get away with it).
"I said that cheap natural gas condensates are turned into valuable transport fuel. That's where that extra needed hydrogen comes in."
The hydrogen is not needed; they don't need extra hydrogen. They refined petrol into gasoline for many years before they began dumping natural gas by-products into it during the process. (As opposed to using them for paint or plastics or fertilizer or any of the dozens of other possible uses for unused by-products that they don't want in their pipelines.) They're using the natural gas as an extender--they don't need it to distill gasoline.
"Chumpy clearly don't know the meaning of a ‘well-to-wheels’ comparison."
I just don't believe you; you lie a lot. I don't think you believe that either.
(And, I did look it up--the net energy loss to refine petroleum is generally around 15% these days--that lost energy would power an electric vehicle about the same distance as the gasoline produced in the process, or, so says Elon Musk--the petrol companies and their advocates deny it, of course, but they denied global warming too, for years, until that became simply untenable)
And, in closing, whether or not you actually believe that line you just spouted about a ‘wheels to wheels’ comparison does not change the fact that tried to mislead Marcus and Lynnette (and maybe you though me too) into accepting that totally bogus ‘two gallons to 75 kWh’ comparison.
"You are comparing the amount of fuel dug up out of the ground with the amount of the final output you are interested in -- miles driven."
Actually, no, that's not what I was doing. I just used the Corvette reference to illustrate the absurdity of comparing the theoretical, best-case energy output from two gallons of gas to an actual 75 kWh charge in the battery. I believe it was an effective comparison too. ‘Cause that's when you started trying to spin this in earnest. So, you musta thought you had to discredit the illustration. Too bad you can't just deny it. That would have been a more effective counter than trying to keep up your con game here.
"They're using the natural gas as an extender--they don't need it to distill gasoline."
Also, sometimes they use it as the fuel, so they don't have to burn some of the petroleum to heat up the rest of the petroleum. It still qualifies as a net energy loss on the process. Averages about 15% across the industry these days. (Do your own googling on that one.)
Rumor is circulating that Shorthands is gonna refuse to ‘certify’ that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear weapons deal negotiated by the Obama administration and a consortium of other interested powers (largely European, but including Russia and, I think, China).
That is a necessary first step to pulling out of the agreement. (Well, assuming Shorthands follows the law on the subject, not a foregone conclusion.)
However, he apparently won't push to cancel the agreement, at least not just yet. For now he's just gonna posture for his dedicated Trumpkins--pretend he's ‘tough’ and like that.
The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy.
And this is the crux of the problem. With an electric vehicle you are still looking at needing another energy source to provide power, because you need to charge the battery. So you still need fossil fuels or some kind of alternate to generate the electricity needed. So are EV's really more efficient to run on a mass scale than ICE's? Will they become widely used as Marcus asked? That seems to depend upon how the electricity is generated.
"That seems to depend upon how the electricity is generated."
Yeah, it's kind of a waste of that 15% to refine the petrol into gasoline or even fuel oil and then burn that to generate electricity. But, that's the infrastructure we happen to have today. Tomorrow's infrastructure may be more direct and efficient.
By the way, the kerosene produced during distillation a/k/a "jet fuel" (about 12% of the total) is also a loss to the internal combustion engine--it's simply not suitable for such use. Same goes for the blacker sub-kerosene components. These are lost to the current car fleet. (Doesn't mean they don't take up volume that has to be drained off before the next batch is brewed up.)
"With an electric vehicle you are still looking at needing another energy source to provide power, because you need to charge the battery."
With an internal combustion engine you need to fill the tank. Same basic problem on account of gasoline don't spout out of the ground, so you need ‘another energy source’ to provide the gasoline.
"I said nothing about it losing volume. You just made that part up. I said there was a net loss in the distillation process, and there is. It loses energy; the process eats energy, either by burning a portion of the original 41 gallons or by burning additional fuel (or using electricity). Adding volume doesn't change that net loss."
So when you mentioned 42 gallon turning into 31 gallons, you were talking about an energy loss? LOL. You're not even good at lying. Let's revisit what you actually did say then:
"There are indeed analogous, equivalent losses. You lie. One barrel of crude oil (42 gallons of crude) typically produces only 20 gallons of gasoline and an additional 11 gallons of alternate fuels (mostly diesel and similar products). Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation."
So when you thought it went from 42 to 31 gallon you declared that to be a 25% loss, which would be correct if you were talking about volume (and if you hadn't totally misinterpreted the link, LOL). But now that yore pretending you actually meant an energy loss you've changed your story to it only being a 15% loss.
You can't even keep yore story straight across a handful of posts. Life would be so much easier if ya just would accept a few corrections and learn from them. Yore paranoia about bein' corrected is jes' showin' ya up for bein' a fool and a troll as well as clueless.
"So when you mentioned 42 gallon turning into 31 gallons, you were talking about an energy loss?"
I was talking about the loss of energy available for use in an internal combustion engine (which includes diesels by my definition). Kerosene a/k/a jet fuel is not suitable for use in today's internal combustion engines, but it is suitable for turbines which produce electricity for the batteries. (As are many of the other sub-kerosene distillates). In the olden days Henry Ford's Model T would run on kerosene as well as gasoline, but they don't make engines that'll use both anymore. Electrics can use both--today's internal combustion engines cannot.
"42 to 31 gallon you declared that to be a 25% loss"
No. You have neglected to allow for the ‘refinery gains’. I picked the 25% from memory but I'd was just waking up, and then when I thought about it a little more I corrected it to 20%, took me only 4 minutes (trip to the kitchen and back). Made the correction long before you ever took up the question. (I'm given to understand it's down to an average of 15% nowadays.)
With ‘refinery gains’ the loss would be nearer to a third than to quarter, that is, if I were thinking of it in the terms Petes has imagined up as the target he wants me to hold for him.
"The hydrogen is not needed; they don't need extra hydrogen. They refined petrol into gasoline for many years before they began dumping natural gas by-products into it during the process."
There's a little thing you've probably never heard of called "process improvements". Refining used to just consist of a fractionating column. Things have moved on. They do add hydrogen. If you have a way of splitting a long chain alkane into two short chain ones without adding hydrogen, there's an oil company that wants to pay you a bazillion dollars for the trick. You'd also be the first person since God and/or the Big Bang to create hydrogen out of nothing.
The same oversight makes you wrong at some other stuff too:
"By the way, the kerosene produced during distillation a/k/a "jet fuel" (about 12% of the total) is also a loss to the internal combustion engine--it's simply not suitable for such use."
Leaving aside that a jet engine is an internal combustion engine, refiners can tune their process to produce different mixtures of products. That's because they do that hydrogen adding thing that you are so confused about. (And no, I'm not suggesting they can produce 100% gasoline from crude).
"Doesn't mean they don't take up volume that has to be drained off before the next batch is brewed up."
LOL. They don't do batches. That went out with the Injuns. Refining is a continuous process these days, apart from the occasional refinery maintenance.
"I picked the 25% from memory but I'd was just waking up, and then when I thought about it a little more I corrected it to 20%, took me only 4 minutes ... I'm given to understand it's down to an average of 15% nowadays."
15%, 20%, 25% ... you expect anyone to believe you have a clue what you are talking about? You still haven't explained why, if you were talking about energy, you thought it important to quote that "41 gallons to 31 gallons" article which says nothing about energy. Give it up Chump. Ya just got yore ass handed to ya.
By the way, as long as we're discussing who's ‘a pathetic shamefaced liar’:
I notice you've abandoned the attempt to confuse your audience over the reason alcohol and water mix to produce a loss in volume. You actually went back and tried to bluff your way through that one a second time and got caught and not a word about now. You are, however, pretty much a shameless liar rather than a ‘shamefaced’ one, although I think that's actually the accusation you were trying to hang on me, you just couldn't get it said right.
"You still haven't explained why, if you were talking about energy, you thought it important to quote that ‘41 gallons to 31 gallons’
That was not a quote, and the 41 gallons was a typo and the 31 gallons is the fuel available from a barrel of oil for use in an internal combustion engine, and the 20% loss is additional to that. And I did explain all this earlier. You just don't want to hear it. (Perhaps I should have put that part about the 20% loss in a separate paragraph, or written it more clearly some other how, but I have been known to not be entirely clear before, as I mentioned earlier, especially when I've just woken up.)
They usually happen to have it sitting around, so, why not; it's an extender. Works.
"They don't do batches."
You are getting way too literal and way too far off into the weeds on irrelevancies--down that fabled rabbit hole that you always seem to find and then accuse me of using.
"That's because they do that hydrogen adding thing that you are so confused about."
One, I'm not confused about the hydrogen thing and… Two, they have several other tricks nowadays besides just adding natural gas by-products. And, they have alternate sources of hydrogen that could be cheaper if they weren't almost always sitting on a supply of natural gas to go along with the petroleum.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "Right. Time to put the troll on ‘ignore mode’ for another while."
I wondered how long it'd take you before you folded on this one. I thought you'd go down several more ‘rabbit holes’ before you actually gave it up. Apparently you were troubled by the fact that I wasn't pursuing you down those tangents with what you thought to be sufficient vigor.
[Petes]: "The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy."
[Lynnette]: "And this is the crux of the problem. With an electric vehicle you are still looking at needing another energy source to provide power, because you need to charge the battery. So you still need fossil fuels or some kind of alternate to generate the electricity needed. So are EV's really more efficient to run on a mass scale than ICE's? Will they become widely used as Marcus asked? That seems to depend upon how the electricity is generated."
Exactly right, Lynnette. Thank god someone round here can cut through the waffle ;-)
Yes, if you can find another source for your electricity then an EV is a cleaner, more efficient way of using energy than an ICE. But we use a hell of a lot of energy in ICEs ... more than our current total electricity output. If you end up having to use that fuel just to generate electricity for EVs, then you do not gain much.
If we assume for the sake of simplicity that thing are the exact same in both cases up to where you either put the fuel in an ICE, or burn it to produce electricity, then all we need to do is consider the efficiency from there on.
Taking best case figures, the efficiency of a combined-cycle gas turbine generator is 54%, the efficiency of electricity transmission on the grid is 92% and the efficiency of charging an EV is about 90%. Even in this best case the overall process is 54% x 92% x 90% = 45% efficient.
In the worst case, a coal-fired generator is 33%, grid transmission is 88%, and charging your battery is 70% (from actual real world measurements by EV users). Now you have 33% x 88% x 70% = 20% efficiency.
To go back to my original comparison, a 75 kWh battery has the energy equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline. But at 45% generator-to-battery efficiency, that 2 gallons of gas energy requires more than 4 gallons to provide it. At 20% efficiency it needs 10 gallons!
Now, there is nothing remote "theoretical" about this energy comparison. If you need 10 gallons of fuel to produce the electricity to charge your 75 kWh battery, then the thermodynamics of your ICE do not enter into the equation. The only relevant question is whether my ICE can go further on 10 gallons of gas than your EV can go on a full charge. And it most definitely can.
If you go for the more optimistic estimate, then the difference between your full charge and 4.4 gallons of fuel in my ICE is marginal. Being able to do 0-60 mph in 2.3 seconds in your EV is a nice added bonus.
"A Tesla sport model can go 350[±] miles on ful charge, roughly 75 kWh or (or there'bouts, so they claim) "A 2017 Corvette can go 44 miles on two gallons of gas." Lee C. @ Mon Oct 02, 11:08:00 pm
It is absurd to try and equate those two things, as Petes tried to pull off earlier. He knew it was absurd when he first tried to sell it. And, it wasn't me he was trying to con.
"If you need 10 gallons of fuel to produce the electricity to charge your 75 kWh battery…"
You're still making the wrong comparison. And you know it.
The question is, "How much oil do you need to produce the electricity?. Not how much refined ‘fuel’ you use, but how much oil do you use? You can't use a significant fraction of the barrel of oil in any of today's automobiles, but you can use almost all of it to generate electricity. And then again, of course, we're not limited to just using oil.
"If we assume for the sake of simplicity that thing are the exact same in both cases up to where you either put the fuel in an ICE, or burn it to produce electricity…"
Except, we all know this to not be true. You are not assuming that which you know to be false just for the sake of simplicity. You're using false assumptions to set up a false conclusion. You're still trying to run a con on Lynnette.
By the way, the efficiency of actually charging a battery approaches 97% (or maybe it's even higher). The losses that there are generally come in the conversion technology where the AC current from the grid is converted to DC current to push into the battery. It's the inverter/converter that creates most of the loss from ‘charging’. If you use DC current, say a home set of solar panels, you can avoid a bunch of that. Or, if you bought a more expensive converter than Tesla provides you could avoid a lot of it. These more expensive converters, like most technology, are probably going to come down in price as the technology becomes more established. Of course, if you're doing a fast charge then cooling costs to keep the batteries cool will also arise, but that's only if you're using a fast charge.
(Nope, haven't been on Google lately, just had that passing thought while I was up to other things, but I do think Petes would be well served to learn how to use more Google.)
Petes calculated a 45% efficiency for the generation of electricity. He figured 4.4 gallons of ‘fuel’ to get that 75 kWh battery charged. But, turbine generators are running at 60% efficiency these days, rather than the 54% he allowed, so let's ramp that 4.4 gallons down by 6% = 4.136 gallons. We can use almost all of the barrel of oil to run automobiles instead of only 33 gallons of distillate out of 45 gallons of distillate (‘refinery gain’ remember?), so let's figure a gain of another 26.666%, call it 25% on account of ‘almost all’ ain't all = 3.102 gallons (And this doesn't even account for the fact that stuff Petes was tossing to non-automobile uses happened to be the most energy dense part of the package.) Figure we also don't lose that 15% lost in the distilling process, but there will have to be some cleaning up and standardizing of the petroleum to prep it for the turbines, so we blind guess that loss to be 5% rather than the 15% they're currently losing and so we gain another 10% there = 2.8 gallons ±. (Not to mention that we can also still burn all those natural gas waste/by-products that Petes was so careful to call "hydrogen".)
And there we're most of the way back to that original 2 gallons that was only moving the Corvette 44 miles. Figure it to be 2 ÷ 2.8 = 71% so add back another 28% to the Corvett's 22 mpg, originally 44 miles, and we're equating 350± miles for the Tesla to around 56.32 miles for the Corvette.
I was up late and I haven't had my coffee yet, so ya'll may wanna check my math, but I think I got the math pretty close to correct.
I have coffee! And I rounded the wrong way on the 71%, should have added 30% to the Corvette's 44 miles = 57.2 miles for the Corvette compared to 350± miles for the Tesla.
And it was 31 gallons of gasoline and diesel distilled out, rather than 33 gallons which would cut the Corvette's equivalent distance ratio back down to what I'll round out to be 30% instead of the 25% I used the first time, so another 5.5% setback for the Corvette (including the percentage for ‘refining loss’) = 54 miles rather than just over 57 miles. (That one's thanks to the coffee.)
CBSNews is reporting that Stephen Paddock had equipped twelve (12) of his rifles with bump stocks. I'm guessing this included most of the guns he'd left at home plus the already reported two (2) bump stocks on guns he'd taken with him to the hotel.
This is Wednesday, Shorthands is going to Las Vegas today to insist that we do not even discuss sane control laws until after people forget their sense of outrage over this shooting.
You can bet your ass and the farm and your firstborn and whatever else ya got to throw in the pot that Shorthands would be taking a different tack, gotta do something, now, immediately, had Stephen Paddock been either a Muslim or a Mexican.
Cops in Tennessee pulled a guy over (routine traffic stop) and discovered two full auto rifles (a .233 and a .308) and 900 rounds of ammo. CBSNews Real full auto--not bump stocked. Another white guy, not a Muslim, not a Mexican, not black.
Nothing to do about these sorts of things, ya know? Just gotta accept it says Shorthands.
So I just looked at CNN's website and read that Tillerson actually called Trump a moron in a Pentagon meeting. I was actually starting to kind of like Tillerson. I wonder how long he has until he's toast too?
"I was actually starting to kind of like Tillerson."
Tillerson is presiding over what's basically the gutting of the State Department. Power and functions are being transferred wholesale to the Department of Defense or simply abandoned to nobody. That means future Presidents will find they have few diplomatic tools left and will have to rely almost solely on military force or the threat of same to achieve foreign policy goals.
I have little to no use for Tillerson--his occasional breaks with Shorthands' more egregious examples of bigotry notwithstanding.
And, in truth, the State Department is getting hollowed out so much it really doesn't much matter who's in charge over there anymore. Should Rex Tillerson Resign? Doesn't really matter CarnegieEndowment
The underlying problem is that Shorthands doesn't do diplomacy. Shorthands does ‘deals’, or so he thinks. No long term stuff--the transaction in front of him is all that he looks at. (And how it affects him personally is all he gives a damn about.) Therefore he has no particular use for America's diplomatic corps.
Rather than refute the resident lying moron's figures, I'll just let "the audience" do their own Googling. It's pretty easy stuff to find. Apart from his wittering about the 45 gallons vs. the 31 gallon number ... you won't find anything about that because his point doesn't make a blind bit of sense to begin with. And it would be too tedious to correct the basic arithmetic mistakes he also made. Electricity generation, transmission, and battery charging ... you can find the numbers for yourself very easily.
Oh yeah, you can also decide for yourself whether the fact that an electric motor generates lots of torque at low revs (even if it's attached to a milk float) means you can only compare the fuel efficiency to a Chevy Corvette. That one gave me extra giggles.
(Though not as many giggles as the fact that Chumpy the demented deity is now gonna burn that hydrogen he magicked up ex nihilo in the first place, without losing any energy for those turbines he's gonna run on raw crude, 'cos you know the way a jet engine (which is basically what a generating turbine is) jes' loves to run without a hitch on sticky black goop).
"Rather than refute the resident lying moron's figures…"
And thus he surrenders, but tries to pretend it's his victory. Man has indeed been studying up on Trump.
"…because his point doesn't make a blind bit of sense to begin with."
Let me explain it to them again then. (I expect you to studiously avoid understanding.)
"…the meaning of that original comparison…was to point out that gasoline has an extremely high energy density so that the millons of barrels of it that we consume cannot easily be replaced" Petes @ Tue Oct 03, 10:16:00 pm
The meaning of my comparison was to show that your comparison does not justify reliance on gasoline (i.e. you're pretty much fulla shit here). Those millions of barrels of high energy density could be better used, much better used in fact, by skipping the conversion to gasoline and diesel and using those barrels of energy to instead generate electricity. There's a whole lot of energy in there that's never going to be available as gasoline but that can be made available to a turbine powered generator. My rough estimate (laid out earlier) is that only about 60% of the available energy in a barrel of crude can be forced to become either gasoline or diesel. We can pick up that additional 40% and use it for highway transportation if we go all electric there. And, when you add to that the vastly increased efficiency of the electric vehicle over the internal combustion vehicle--well, the comparison of 350± miles to 54± miles pretty much speaks for itself. Plus, as replacement sources for electrical power become available, we can phase out the use of those millions of barrels.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "…means you can only compare the fuel efficiency to a Chevy Corvette."
Nobody said anything about that being the ‘only’ format to set up the comparison, nobody except you. You seem to be making up stuff again. Giving yourself the giggles listening to yourself I guess. It is, nevertheless, an entirely rational format for the comparison, and is a fair illustration of the true comparison between the two systems.
Oh, I missed another of his misrepresentations. (I.e. another lie from Petes, to wit:)
"…those turbines he's gonna run on raw crude…"
Nope not gonna run ‘em on raw crude; I already allowed for that problem.
"…there will have to be some cleaning up and standardizing of the petroleum to prep it for the turbines, so we blind guess that loss to be 5% rather than the 15% they're currently losing and so we gain another 10% there…" Lee C. @ Wed Oct 04, 08:14:00 am ↑↑
It is not unreasonable to guess that significantly less distilling will consume significantly less energy. 5% seems like a reasonable guess, but admittedly it's only a reasonable guess.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that there was some sort of sane or logical reason to use, for highway transportation, only that portion of the barrel of oil that could be converted to gasoline or diesel, and to actually make the conversion first.
Petes told us that'll mean we need 4.4 gallons of gasoline to fully charge that Tesla S. That same 4.4 gallons of gasoline will move the Corvette 96.8 miles. Versus 350 miles for the Tesla. How hard is that understand?
The EPA mileage for a Tesla Model S 75kWh is 249 miles. (Some drivers in the real world report worse). A decent sized diesel car like the Skoda Fabia Greenline TDI (not a piece of gas-guzzling American junk) does real-world mileage of 63 miles per imperial gallon. (My own larger diesel gets 55 mpg, averaged over many thousands of miles). That equates to 222 miles on 4.4 US gallons.
So the two are comparable using a best case scenario for electricity generation efficiency. And we have used an estimate for a combined cycle gas turbine that an oil-fired generator could not hope to match. In fact, the global average efficiency for generation from oil is 37%, nearly as bad as coal. That immediately raises the gasoline equivalent for your Tesla battery to 6.1 US gallons.
We could pick holes in the transmission and battery charging losses too, especially if you ever want to use a fast charger which even Tesla warn will melt your battery if you do back-to-back charging. But there is no need to nitpick as we are already at the point where using electricity from oil makes an EV less efficient than an ICE. Don't take my word for it -- you will find plenty of corroboration for that on the internet, which makes you wonder why the resident troll felt so compelled get his hackles up about it.
"The EPA mileage for a Tesla Model S 75kWh is 249 miles."
I see that. I got my numbers off a different chart from a different site, but as I look at the Wiki page I conclude I must have inadvertently picked up the kilometers per… numbers rather than the miles per. (There were several numbers from different sources reflecting how hard the Tesla was being used; I picked a medium one, but I do seem to have inadvertantly picked kilometers per….) I now stand corrected.
"Some drivers in the real world report worse."
I am aware of that. Some drivers in the real world report better. Happens. However, we now have official EPA ratings to compare. A direct comparison is possible, one not using extrapolations, neither your extrapolations nor mine. You have done us all a service; you have certainly done me a service. I now have an official comparison to use.
I was using the best case EPA highway numbers for the Vette. Combined city/highway mileage for the 2017 Vette was 18 MPG. According to your Wiki source the EPA ‘gasoline equivalent’, combined city/highway for the 2017 Tesla Model S is 104 mpg.
That's 18 mpg versus 104 mpg. How hard is that to understand?
54 ÷ 350 = .154 18 ÷ 104 = .173
I wasn't too far off. But, that's merely because after mistakenly picking too high a miles available number for the Tesla in the first instance, I made mostly conservative assumptions thereafter. I'm glad I did. I actually wasn't too far off.
"(My own larger diesel gets 55 mpg, averaged over many thousands of miles.)
I'm not familiar with your ‘larger diesel’, but I am fairly confident that when Tesla or Dyson, or any of a number of the coming entries into the electric market, get around to producing an equivalent electrical vehicle the approximately 5 to 1 mileage ratio we've seen between the Tesla S and the Corvette (picked for what would seem to be roughly equivalent performance targets), that same ratio or something near there will almost certainly also apply to more staid rides suitable for a fat Irishman at home.
Oh, and just for the record. This is not a debate. Nor do I intend to continue this discussion until you agree. You will never agree, and I never expected it; I do not expect it now. You lie a lot, and you're just not very agreeable.
We now have official mileage numbers from the same EPA source that are available to support a direct comparison. (I'll probably even hunt up that official 18 mpg for the ‘Vette if you insist long enough.) We'll work from those numbers now, not from your tweaks to those numbers. Not from my tweaks to those numbers.
"…EPA ‘gasoline equivalent’, combined city/highway for the 2017 Tesla Model S is 104 mpg."
And, as a bonus, the Tesla could still use most of that extra 40% of a barrel of oil that's currently denied to gasoline and diesel engines. Meaning we'd get that other 40% out of a barrel of crude, available for highway transportation, if we went all electric. That's a hell of a good bonus. (We really should really be talking miles per barrel of oil, not miles per gallon of gasoline. I've mentioned this before. It's still true.)
"So you still need fossil fuels or some kind of alternate to generate the electricity needed."
Likewise we're now using fossil fuels to produce gasoline or diesel. Petes described this by noting that:
"The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy."
Neither is the gas tank the ultimate source of the energy. The common source to both is the barrel of oil (at least for the purposes of this discussion). We really do need to be comparing miles per barrel of oil, not miles per gallon of gas. And there the electrics win, hands down, ain't even close.
But we use a hell of a lot of energy in ICEs ... more than our current total electricity output.
So to pick up that load, if we were to discontinue ICE's and switch to EV's, we would have to ramp up our electricity output. Are we looking at nuclear power to generate enough electricity to cover the demand? Is that the most likely scenario to allow for making a profit? Because, unless you have some kind of governmental legislation, our system uses profits as a catalyst for economic development of industry. At least, with Trump and Co. in positions of power that is what will drive development here. Profit.
Tillerson is presiding over what's basically the gutting of the State Department.
No, this I do not like at all. I am hopeful, though, that this can be rebuilt if we ever get back someone in government who knows what they are doing. It is that at this point that is critical.
...his occasional breaks with Shorthands' more egregious examples of bigotry notwithstanding.
This is what I do like. It is perhaps the best that we can hope for at this point.
Btw, I suspect that there are those in the Republican Party who share my dismay at what has transpired. Besides McCain, that is. Whether they will play a role in reversing any of the more extreme swings will be the key.
"In the U.S. the typical cost of electricity for different sources are: coal (6-14 cents), gas (5-21) including gas peaker plants, wind (3-6 cents), nuclear (10-14 cents), utility scale solar (5-6 cents), roof top solar (9-19 cents)"
Apparently virtually nobody uses fuel oil over here anymore (seems to still be some limited use in peaker plants). Cost fluctuations are too hard to deal with maybe. But, from what I can see, it's unlikely that nuclear will be the big winner in the United States going up against wind and solar for increased power consumption in the future. We're probably looking at more natural gas usage along with the renewables. This may not apply to Europe.
"It is perhaps the best that we can hope for at this point."
Well, there is that developing argument that it doesn't really matter who's at the head of the State Department these days, foreigners aren't going to pay them any real attention or give them any real credibility anyway, not so long as Trump is what he is. So maybe an occasional break with Trump's more egregious public statements is enough to expect from anybody in that position these days.
"Btw, I suspect that there are those in the Republican Party who share my dismay…"
Likely so. You may have noticed that Mike Pense's Chief of Staff was caught out just here lately conspiring to implement a ‘purge’ of Republicans insufficiently supportive of Trump. Politico.Com The fight is already on for which wing of the party gets to keep the name ‘Republican’ after the coming breakup.
"In fact, the global average efficiency for generation from oil is 37%, nearly as bad as coal."
Again, not a valid comparison, as I'm sure you'd already figured out when you submitted that number. There's no point in including Colonial Era power plants puffing along in Africa or Bangladesh and now tied together with bailing wire when calculating what's possible for modern power plants yet to be built in Europe. But, there's also no point in me having to knock down your continued misrepresentations. We have an apparently valid point of comparison that neither one of us has to build. The Tesla S for 2017 has been judged by the EPA to have ‘gasoline equivalent’ combined city/highway mileage of 104 mpg.
Seems most of our oil-fired power plants were constructed prior to Arab Oil Embargo against the United States (but not including Europe). There was a definite drop off after that in plants being planned for oil consumption. (Plants already deep in the planning stage or actually under construction continued to come on-line for a few years, but that seems to have been a break point for oil-fired electricity in the United States.)
"And we have used an estimate for a combined cycle gas turbine that an oil-fired generator could not hope to match."
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the technology which allows a gas turbine to run as ‘combined cycle’ isn't equally applicable to a liquid fueled turbine.
In fact, diesel has a higher energy content than natural gas, which is why T. Boone Pickens has had so much trouble getting his plan for natural gas fueled truck fleets off the ground. Kerosene has an even higher energy density than diesel. (Hell, even gasoline has more energy than natural gas.) There's absolutely no reason to believe a modern oil fired combined cycle turbine couldn't seriously outperform the natural gas turbines Petes has referred to for his baseline figures. Petes just made up that part about an oil-fired generator having no hope. In fact, lot of his stuff in this thread has been ‘made up stuff’.
Fella writing in TheNewRepublic thinks I'm wrong about the Republican Party being on a path to a schism. He thinks they'll come back, meaner, stronger, and even further out to the extreme right-wing than ever before. And gives his reasons why. You might find it interesting, and its a fairly quick read too.
(I still think I'm right, although I would say that it's lookin’ like the right-wing crazies are winning over the ‘establishment’ wing of the party, and they will probably get to keep the moniker of ‘Republican’ after the schism. However I think they will find themselves relegated to the role of a regional party, unable to win national elections. That'll last for a brief while as the Democrats are then forced to reorganize as well, to deal with moderate Republicans (now derided by the right-wingers as ‘RINOS’ and purged from the Republican ranks) who'll want to find a way to vote Democrat but also will want to pull that party back from its current drift to the left. So, to summarize. I'm now guessing the Republican Party both suffers a schism and finds itself relegated to the role of regional party. Used to I thought it'd be either/or; nowadays I'd be bettin’ on both.)
But can we get enough windmills to generate the amount of electricity needed? It will probably take multiple sources, as we have said in the past, depending upon location. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right when he put the solar panels on the White House.
I presume nuclear is so expensive because of the up front cost of building the plants and running them.
However I think they will find themselves relegated to the role of a regional party, unable to win national elections.
Perhaps that will depend upon how many people have had their fill of Trump. And whether or not we can keep the Russians from meddling in future elections.
It's long been use to pump water or turn gristmills, but people have been sundrying items, specifically foodstuffs and clothing, but other stuff too, even longer, much longer.
The cost of nuclear is largely related to necessary safety equipment and procedures (those would be operating costs, not so much up-front costs), but also to the costs of shielding. I seem to recall that compliance costs just to get permission to build are also fairly staggering.
And natural gas has the widest range, 5¢ to 21¢. I presume this the high end is there because gas is often used for those ‘peaker plants’. Thus my inclination to believe that new power will lean towards renewables (utility scale solar is next cheapest) intermixed with natural gas.
"And whether or not we can keep the Russians from meddling in future elections."
There is that.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The House of Representatives has just passed it's $4.1 Trillion budget outline. It's draconian, as one would expect, but its real purpose is to set up that $4.1 Trillion number. If the Senate can pass a budget outline that hits the same number (or lower) they can try to do the real budget via the recently made famous ‘reconciliation’ process that avoids a Senate filibuster, but still wasn't enough to get that ObamaCare repeal across the finish line for them.
1) The EPA numbers for EV "mpg" are based on battery energy, not well-to-wheels efficiency. Since I have been talking about the latter since the beginning, yore wild ravings about Tesla's 104 mpg are of relevance to nobody but yoreself.
2) Chumpy insists on using a gas-guzzling piece of American junk as the comparison for a Tesla model S, on no other basis than its 0-60 mph performance. He ignores, for instance, that an average diesel car will cruise happily at 75 mph and still give superb fuel efficiency, whereas nominal EV performance will plummet at that speed. Chumpy pretends that EV efficiency will increase when they turn their mind to building cars without sports performance for "fat irishmen". He knows this is a lie -- the EV has inherently high torque at low revs, it's nothing to do with intentionally building a lower efficiency car for better acceleration. That applies to Corvettes, not to EVs. Chumpy knows that. He's lyin' for the sake of savin' face.
3) That shit about an ICE being less efficient because not all crude oil is processed into gasoline ... even in Chumpy's world of kindergarten arithmetic that one dudn't make any sense. And it ain't worth wastin' any words on here.
4) As for me havin' "just made up that part about an oil-fired generator having no hope" vs. an NG CCGT... actually, no. A combined cycle gas turbine uses the exhaust gas from a primary gas turbine in a heat recovery steam generator. That involves extracting the latent heat of evaporation of water in the gas turbine exhaust. The "wetter" the exhaust, the more latent heat. Natural gas has double the ratio of hydrogen to carbon of the higher alkanes, therefore double the ratio of H20 to CO2 in the exhaust and more recoverable heat. The lesson from this is that you oughta make sure you know shit about shit before you start flingin' wild accusations.
"I conclude I must have inadvertently picked up the kilometers per… numbers rather than the miles per... I now stand corrected."
LOL, that ole' kindergarten arithmetic. Wot a Chump.
"You have done us all a service; you have certainly done me a service."
Why, how uncharacteristically gracious. Y'all don't normally say thanks for the free education.
"Oh, and just for the record. This is not a debate."
Well ya certainly got that right. I'd call it more of a whuppin'. But I note yer graciousness didn't last too long.
And just to reiterate: to put 75 kWh of oil-powered electric energy into a battery will take the equivalent of somewhere between four and ten US gallons of gasoline. That's true whether the EV is a $100k Tesla Roadster or a milk float.
"1) The EPA numbers for EV "mpg" are based on battery energy, not well-to-wheels efficiency…"
Complete and utter bullshit. Ain't no comparable performing vehicles that get anywhere near 100 mpg. We've come the full circle now. That was the item I noted that started you on this rant in the first place (Lee C. @ Thu Sep 28, 02:43:00 pm) and you still have no answer for it. There is no mpg parity between the gasoline engine and the Tesla's 104 mpg ‘gasoline equivalent’ comparable gasoline powered cars get 18-19 mpg.
I got better things to do than this, right now. I'll look at the rest of your post in about a half an hour.
"…on no other basis than its 0-60 mph performance…"
Apparently you've never driven a ‘Vette. (Probably haven't driven a Tesla S either.)
"The lesson from this is that you oughta make sure you know shit about shit before you start flingin' wild accusations."
Nah, the lesson is to keep a close watch on you for more efforts at deception. I gave you a second chance at this one, but, like the water/alcohol miscibility explanation we went through earlier, you've decided to double down on deception once again.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Side Note to Lynnette and Marcus:
The bastard's been lying to us again. A steam turbine is a steam turbine because steam drives the turbine blades. That makes it a steam turbine. The steam can be created by burning any number of fuels, or even from electricity. A gas turbine is a gas turbine because exhaust gases from out of a combustion chamber drive the turbine blades; if exhaust gases drive the turbine blades, it's a gas turbine. Doesn't matter if the combustion is fueled by natural gas, diesel, kerosene, or whatnot. A turboprop airplane, turbine engine running on liquid fuel way up in the air is a gas turbine--a turbine running on liquid fuel in a power plant on the ground is a gas turbine. Petes knew this already. He was hoping you guys would never find it out. End Side Note:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "Natural gas has double the ratio of hydrogen to carbon of the higher alkanes…"
The ratio of water vapor in the exhaust to the carbon expelled is only one factor among many; it is not the determining factor for how much heat can be extracted from the fuel or even from the turbine exhaust across the cycle; it also matters how much heat can be made in the first place available, and natural gas scores way low on that scale. (I guess you thought I didn't know this already. You probably ought to quit doin’ that--you keep getting caught.) This is the equivalent of your water/alcohol miscibility bullshit, being now repeated here. You're trying to bullshit your way through with brief jargon spout that tells only part of the story and that's only partially relevant.
"And just to reiterate: to put 75 kWh of oil-powered electric energy into a battery will take the equivalent of somewhere between four and ten US gallons of gasoline."
More bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. We don't even have to use gasoline, much less four to ten gallons of the stuff.
Nor do we have to use an equivalent. We can use kerosene even other products lower down the hierarchy of easy burnability. We can convert the entire barrel to a usable fuel that never approaches gasoline equivalence (plus small amount of some waste no more than we experience distilling gasoline and diesel). And then we can use the whole barrel.
I'm not sure the other stuff you went on about are important enough to waste my time writing about. I'll look at them again later and ponder on whether it's worth my time.
[Petes]: "The EPA numbers for EV "mpg" are based on battery energy, not well-to-wheels efficiency…"
[Chump]: "Complete and utter bullshit. Ain't no comparable performing vehicles that get anywhere near 100 mpg."
Ok, either you are so stupid you think nobody notices you bein' a complete troll, or you are so stupid ya can't figure out what "well-to-wheels" means.
Ok, this is gonna be my last word on it. Y'all are impossible to educate, and not worth wastin' a second more on. Actually, for the last word, let's go over to the EPA themselves:
[EPA]: "For those vehicles that do not use liquid fuels--such as electric vehicles... -- the labels display miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (MPGe). Think of this as being similar to MPG, but instead of presenting miles per gallon of the vehicle’s fuel type, it represents the number of miles the vehicle can go using a quantity of fuel with the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline." (link)
Ok, so the EPA mpg rating for an EV is based on it using a quantity of energy in gallons of gasoline equivalent. But: HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES IT TAKE TO CHARGE THE BATTERY WITH FOSSIL FUEL POWERED ELECTRICITY? Well, that's a very different question, but we can get a gallons of gasoline equivalent for that too, also from the EPA using their greenhouse gas calculator here. (Yes, I know it's a GHG calculator, not an energy calculator, bear with me).
It's very easy to use. Put in 75 for the number, and "kilowatt-hours of electricity" for the unit. Hey presto! It tells you that it is the CO2 equivalent of 6.3 gallons of gasoline consumed. QED. Chumpy loses. Game over.
But ... we could add some fine print. This EPA reference tells us that to compare tailpipe CO2 for an ICE we have to multiply by 1.25 to allow for GHGs in gasoline production. Fair enough. On the other hand, if we read the details of how the GHG numbers for electricity are calculated, the EPA uses the fuel source used in marginal electricity production. That is natural gas in almost all cases (check out the regional data for the US, also on the EPA site). NG produces less CO2 than other fossil fuels, so the 6.3 gallons of gasoline equivalent would be higher if it was actual gasoline being burned. Swings and roundabouts. If we make no allowance for this, and still divide by 1.25, we still get 5 gallons of gasoline equivalent to produce the 75 kWh that went into the battery. And that's the bare minimum, using efficient peaking power plants which are generally gas turbines.
Don't know why I bothered with the small print, mind -- Chumpy ain't gonna understand it. And there's no point even guessin' what asinine pseudo-objections he'll devise. Anyway, he's on total ignore mode now.
Side Note to Lynnette and Marcus: I'm assuming you guys understand the point of a gallon-of-gasoline energy equivalent, unlike Lee. Nobody's suggesting it would make sense to burn all our gasoline to generate electricity. If you can get it from renewables, so much the better. But if you want to compare fossil fuel consumption in ICEs with the energy required to produce electricity from fossil fuels to drive the same miles in an EV, you have to use comparable units. Lee has wasted hundreds of posts rabbiting on about how you could burn kerosene instead of gasoline and other such irrelevant inanities. I trust you get it.
Chumpy's on ignore, but I did have to laugh at one comment, which I presume was supposed to ooze machismo:
"Apparently you've never driven a ‘Vette."
Correct. But I did used to watch them driving down the main street of some of the very affluent towns in Silicon Valley. Generally they were being driven by spoiled-looking teenagers "hanging out", or maybe the sort of bloke who carries a handbag.
"…or you are so stupid ya can't figure out what "well-to-wheels" means."
Rather I happen to know that when the EPA assigns gas mileage ratings they start with the gasoline; they don't go back to the well. The EPA ‘gas equivalence’ measures the miles per full battery charge against the gasoline that'd be necessary to put that charge in the battery. There ain't no gasoline wells; I know that; you know that; the EPA knows that. You're just looking for a diversion, hoping to confuse Lynnette and Marcus.
(Plus you never explain how or why a ‘wells to wheels’ investigation would achieve a different result--on account of there's no reason to believe that it would. It's the diversion that you're after here, not actually getting anywhere with a ‘well to wheels’ argument. You don't want to actually get anywhere near there; you just want to get away from here. Drop it into permanent limbo somewhere between here and there and then proudly tell ‘em you somehow ‘won the argument; see if they'll buy it.)
Excellent. In case I decide there's some other points you need corrected about, I'll not have to worry ‘bout you getting proud if I happen to make a spelling error or a typo. (And I did the first time I wrote this; typo not spelling error.)
"(Yes, I know it's a GHG calculator, not an energy calculator, bear with me).
If they actually followed you through all that they're gonna be a bit pissed at you for thinkin’ they're that stupid.
(I presume that I'm not the only one who notices that when he's comparing greenhouse gas equivalences he's comparing to a natural gas source, but that ‘gasoline equivalence’ for a miles per gallon comparison pretty much by definition compares to gasoline, and natural gas is a very low emitter of greenhouse gases as compared to liquid petroleum based fuels--which is why T. Boone Pickens was once trying to sell America on a natural gas trucking fleet--that and he owned a bunch of natural gas).
I think I'll make a closing statement. Petes has said he's already given us his last word on this subject, and so I don't have to worry about typing errors, and so, ‘Why not?’ We'll just pretend that last post he just popped out was an aberration.
Let's all back up a bit here and recall the opening question. I think that might be a good thing to do given how many rabbit holes Petes has run us down, and the many more rabbit holes he's tried to direct us into.
The opening question was whether or not Europe could move to electric vehicles. Petes claimed that this wasn't going to be possible because of the vast amount of energy required to move those vehicles across Europe's roads. To wit:
"Those stories going around about countries about to ditch petrol and diesel in favour of EVs ... those are hogwash. It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon. Norway is the biggest virtue-signalling greenie of them all ... so why is its gasoline consumption going up? ;-)" Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am (ellipses in original)
And then he carried on about long dark winters without solar power.
So, in spite of all the tangents and rabbit holes he's tried to find for us, is there anybody who still believes that Europe can't make the engineering switch to EVs and ditch petrol? All ya gotta do is use the crude oil that currently goes into petrol (that's gasoline for us here in The States); use that to produce electricity. Anybody been following this that don't know that's more than possible? Just a matter of building the power plants and fueling them with petroleum products from the many barrels of petroleum that would not have to be used to make gasoline or diesel.
"Directly contradicted by the EPA quote and link from just a few posts back. How stoopid can ya get? "The EPA says 75 kwHe = 6.6 gallons of gas equivalent. Suck it up…"
I did a document search. There is no such quote on (or from) either of the pages you put up. I'll let others look on their own to confirm it. But, a quick search will show that the EPA never ‘says 75 kwHe = 6.6 gallons’of anything.
Bluntly put, that's a baldfaced lie.
But, I'll let other do their own search for those words and numbers.
But, given the number of lies you've propagated since we took up this topic, it's probably perfectly fitting and proper that you end your presentation with an obvious and easily checked lie like that last one.
[Lynnette]: "So to pick up that load, if we were to discontinue ICE's and switch to EV's, we would have to ramp up our electricity output."
Correct.
[Lynnette]: "Are we looking at nuclear power to generate enough electricity to cover the demand? Is that the most likely scenario to allow for making a profit? Because, unless you have some kind of governmental legislation, our system uses profits as a catalyst for economic development of industry."
Highly unlikely. The US is a big user of nukes, but it's still only 20% of power production and there were no new nukes built for thirty years. There have been applications in the US to build 24 new nukes in the last decade but only one or two are under construction. In fact, I remember reading a while back that the total number of nukes under construction or even planned across the whole globe is only equivalent to six months worth of Chinese coal-fired plant construction. And a good chunk of the new nukes are planned for China itself. (I don't know if that has changed with the Chinese economic slowdown).
Nuclear power is very unpopular with the public, especially post Fukushima. There is a huge regulatory burden which dramatically increases the cost. Costings also (righty) have to include end-of-life decommissioning these days. As you say, if it comes down to profit nuclear has serious difficulty competing with natural gas. So no, I don't think we're looking at nukes ... not the conventional sort at any rate.
[Lynnette]: "But can we get enough windmills to generate the amount of electricity needed?"
I seriously doubt it. I think if any renewable technology is going to win out, it will eventually be solar. But that has its limitations too. In reality, there is little point speculating about it because all approaches need technological breakthroughs (such as utility-scale storage) which we can't be certain will be achieved. Rooftop solar will definitely make inroads into domestic electricity consumption even without further breakthroughs. But it won't charge your electric car unless you work at night, stay home by day, and/or only do modest commutes to the office. That 75 kWh charge is equal to two and half days of electricity consumption for all others uses for the average US household. And the average US household consumes nearly three times as much as the average European household.
[Lynnette]: "It will probably take multiple sources, as we have said in the past, depending upon location. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right when he put the solar panels on the White House."
Diversification will certainly be a big feature.
[Lynnette]: "I presume nuclear is so expensive because of the up front cost of building the plants and running them."
Plus decommissioning and regulatory costs as I mentioned. Nuclear could be a lot cheaper, and could be done much better ... but I don't think the impetus is there for the time being.
For a total change of topic, I enjoyed the following quote:
"Maybe Robert Mueller's investigation will turn up evidence of collusion beyond liberals' wildest imagination. Or maybe it will be a big nothingburger. My money's on the latter."
"In the meantime, it seems safe to say that much of the attention paid to every morsel of Russia-related news is meant to satiate the appetite of journalistic obsessives and appease the consciences of people who are theoretically preoccupied with the decorous maintenance of our beloved democratic norms but emotionally incapable of reconciling themselves to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a bland uninspiring candidate and that a former reality television personality is the 44th successor to George Washington."
"What else explains the extent to which so many liberals are losing their minds over Russia?"
"...The latest revelation about wiretapping, along with every previous revelation, is not a smoking gun or any kind of gun. It's more like a butter knife with a few stale crumbs smeared on the blade. There is still no reason to believe that Manafort was an agent acting in anyone's interest but his own. The man is a petty swindler, not Kim Philby."
"The posturing from people who believe that a stupid documentary about Hillary Clinton financed by a right-wing nonprofit group was a grave internal threat to our democratic order is tiresome. Our elections have for decades been a grotesque contest of fundraising one-upmanship among the billionaire class. The painfully earnest high-school civics class image of our sacrosanct democratic process is a false one. Lots of countries interfere in foreign elections, including ours. We've been doing it for more than a half a century, and we're still doing it now."
Well, then, if you're gonna flee now, I'll have to fill in the gaps for our friends. I was hoping to drag you into trying to explain it, but apparently that's not gonna work, so I'll have to do it myself.
"The Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator uses the AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) U.S. national weighted average CO2 marginal emission rate to convert reductions of kilowatt-hours into avoided units of carbon dioxide emissions."
In other words, the comparison they're giving you is for how many gallons worth of greenhouse gases have been avoided by not using gasoline (using their average vehicle standard). This has nothing to do with mile per gallon equivalences. Instead it tells us 75 kWh in a battery avoids 6.6 gallons worth of greenhouse gases. (Avoiding greenhouse gases is one of the primary benefits of electric vehicles.) It does not correlate to anything having anything to do with a miles per gallon comparison!
Petes knows this. He's hoping you won't notice. He's trying to bullshit ya.
I invite to you look at it carefully; check it out yourselves; you'll see I'm right--he's trying to hustle you again.
I've been thinking overnight. (I guess I was thinking overnight, I woke up with this thought on my mind. It's one of those ‘let me sleep on it’ revelations.) I was trying to figure out a clearer way to explain the hustle Petes was trying to run on people, something clearer than wandering through the definitions pages and also wandering through Petes' various, strung together misrepresentations in that argument he tried to confuse folks with back at Petes @ Thu Oct 05, 10:55:00 pm ↑↑. And then it hit me. There was a very simple way to point out what that ‘Enter Your Data’ calculator page was showing us.
If ya'll will take the moment to notice:
After making the entries Petes wants us to make, and clicking on ‘Calculate’, it shows the equivalents for ‘miles driven by an average passenger vehicle’ and it shows a little icon of a car (and they figure the little car will travel 137 miles).¹ It also shows the equivalent of ‘pounds of coal burned’ and shows a little icon of a powerplant with chunks of coal on fire.
Then it shows the number Petes wants you to pay attention to; that's the 6.3 for gallons of gasoline consumed, and it shows you a little icon for the gasoline pump at your neighborhood gas station. They are intending to show how much gasoline it would take, pumped out of out of those pumps into a gasoline powered car, to travel that 137 estimated miles. This is not an indication of some equivalent amount of power coming out of a power plant--they have a different icon for a power plant--we saw that one earlier. This is how many gallons of gasoline are NOT being pumped into a competing gas guzzler at some local gas station to get their standard model gasoline powered car across that same 137 mile range. (They're assuming a not too impressive 21.7 mpg in that standard car. 137 ÷ 6.3 = 21.7) ___________________
¹ The Tesla actually gets 249 miles on that charge, not 137, but they're probably using the Chevy Volt or the Fiat 500e or a Nissan Leaf or one of the other, older, less efficient battery type models with less range as their standard model for miles per.
Interesting tidbit on American Politics: Republicans have long fought any public disclosures of who's funding their advertising. They like that black money. However, in the wake of the Russian meddling in our last elections some of them appear ready to breach that wall of privacy for the first time. "Republicans in Congress are weighing joining with Democrats to demand greater transparency for political ads on Facebook and Twitter, as both parties look for ways to prevent a 2018 repeat of Russia’s election meddling last year." Politico.Com
I'm not much of a fan of black money in politics; decidedly not a fan. I think all campaign expenditures should be disclosed along with who is actually paying for them--none of this funny business with supposedly ‘non-profit, educational’ SuperPacs who keep their contributors list a secret. So, I think this is a good thing.
I hope it's only the beginning of getting rid of black money in American politics.
And, I notice that we still had players takin’ a knee during the national anthem in last night's Patriots v Buccaneers game. (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)
Some of the fans booed at the players. The owners shrug it off--both the booing and the kneeling. Free country; free speech.
More notably, the TV networks are no longer showing the kneeling (they weren't before Trump went after the players in that Alabama speech; it was common practice to get in lots of commercials before the game started including using up the time spent on the national anthem--so they always showed commercials there instead, until this became ‘a thing’.) Nor are they wasting time on the booing. The novelty is wearing off and they want to run their commercials.
I still think Shorthands is gonna lose this one. I wonder how long he'll keep it up before he figures out he needs to declare victory and move on before everybody notices that he lost this one.
I used to think The Chump was just paranoid, willing to go to any lengths to avoid being seen to lose an argument. We've seen it in his constant Jesuitical nitpicking and obfuscation. But lately he's taken to arguing that something written in black and white literally says something else. I'm beginning to wonder if I've been doing him a disservice. It's starting to look less like paranoia and more like honest-to-goodness, deeply ingrained, right-to-the-bone stupidity.
I mean, he actually quotes the EPA above:
"The Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator uses the AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) U.S. national weighted average CO2 marginal emission rate to convert reductions of kilowatt-hours into avoided units of carbon dioxide emissions."
And in the very next paragraph he writes:
"In other words, the comparison they're giving you is for how many gallons worth of greenhouse gases have been avoided by not using gasoline."
The EPA quote says REDUCTIONS OF KILOWATT-HOURS, not reduction of gasoline use as Chumpy claims. And for even further avoidance of ambiguity, if Chumpy had bothered to include the EPA's heading over their paragraph, it says ELECTRICITY REDUCTIONS. Not gasoline reductions.
Chumpy blathers on:
"Instead it tells us 75 kWh in a battery avoids 6.6 gallons worth of greenhouse gases. (Avoiding greenhouse gases is one of the primary benefits of electric vehicles.)".
Except that EPA page says nothing about batteries. It says nothing about EVs. If the page was about how much CO2 is avoided by driving an EV, you might expect they'd mention particular EV models and particular batteries, unless Chumpy thinks a lead acid battery in a golf cart is the same as a Li-ion in a Tesla. It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels. And it comes to roughly the equivalent in gasoline that I've been saying all along.
Either Chumpy's gittin' desparate, or my new hypothesis is correct -- he's stupid to the bone.
I have learned over the years that this is Fat Irish Catholic dialect for ‘oops’.
"If the page was about how much CO2 is avoided by driving an EV, you might expect they'd mention particular EV models and particular batteries…"
One might expect that they'd do that, but they don't. They simply use one flat equivalency ratio. No adjustments, no exceptions. (Thats how they manage to come up with the 137 mile range too.)
"…you might expect they'd mention particular EV models and particular batteries…"
Ya know, jumping into this erroneous assumption might be where you got yourself confused in the first place. Now that you know better, maybe you'll wanna go back over your tortured path and try to figure out where you got yourself lost? Think so maybe?
"It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels."
That's completely and utterly wrong. You're gonna need to call me a Jesuit again when this one's over. As in ‘oops’.
1. "If you want to compare total tailpipe plus fuel production GHG emissions for an electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle to those for a gasoline vehicle, you should multiply your gasoline vehicle tailpipe GHG emissions value on the Fuel Economy and Environment Label by 1.25 to reflect the fuel production GHG emissions for gasoline." Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Different Fuels (link supplied by Petes originally)
2. This is a Fuel Economy and Environment Label from a 2017 Tesla Roadster (I can't yet find a graphic on the web for a Tesla S, and I'm not all that interested in googling stuff for ya, so I decided this was close enough.)
3. The tailpipe emissions line reads as follows:
"This vehicle emits 0 grams [CO2] per mile. The best emits 0 grams per mile (tailpipe only)! Does not include emissions from generating electricity; learn more at fueleconomy.gov." (link supplied above)
Back to the Joint/Iranian nuclear deal: WallStreetJournal says that Shorthands decided to ‘de-certify’ Iran's compliance after reading an Op-Ed by John Bolton in, none other than, the WallStreetJournal. It's apparently been a done deal as far as Shorthands is concerned since early July and none of his theoretically, protectively sane generals/advisors could talk him out of it.
Op-Ed in the NewYorkTimes about how racism is an increasing problem in the mid-west, specifically in what used to be near 100% white communities. People who seldom have dealt with people from other races and/or backgrounds tending to freak out when confronted by the first one they have to deal with, and the failure to recognize that truth cost Hillary enough votes to lose the election for her. (She won the popular vote by damn near 3 million votes--pretty much anything that could have turned a half a percent can be tagged as ‘losing the election’ for her.)
This is a little long for a New York Times piece, but interesting.
But, a quick search will show that the EPA never ‘says 75 kwHe = 6.6 gallons’of anything.
It is the EPA's Greenhouse Gas calculator that Petes is referring to. Plugging in 75 KWH's of electricity it comes up with comparisons to other fuels that will emit the same greenhouse gas. In this case 6.3 gallons of gasoline will emit the same amount of CO2.
Nuclear power is very unpopular with the public, especially post Fukushima.
Yes. There have been too many accidents to make people feel comfortable with this type of fuel. Wind and solar seem so much, well, safer.
[Lynnette]: "But can we get enough windmills to generate the amount of electricity needed?"
[Anonymous]: I seriously doubt it.
lol! I do to. There is a wind farm in out state Minnesota that I have driven by. It is huge. I can't imagine what would be needed to generate the amount of electricity needed to run a fleet of EV's.
Yes, storage is critical, especially for wind. You can't generate power if there is no wind.
I still wonder about alternate fuels, such as this. But they are kind of becalmed at the moment because of the lower oil prices.
"It is the EPA's Greenhouse Gas calculator that Petes is referring to."
Yeah, I got that part. I was trying to make him explain it. (Lee C. @ Fri Oct 06, 01:35:00 am ↑↑)
"In this case 6.3 gallons of gasoline will emit the same amount of CO2.)"
Not quite, or perhaps it'd better to ask ‘same amount of CO2 as what’?
What the EPA was trying to tell us was that the 75 kWh spent in that battery charge ‘saved’ the world from having 6.3 gallons of gasoline being poured into a gas guzzler competing to supply those same 137 miles of travel on the road. It's not the ‘same’ amount of CO2--it's a measure how much CO2 the 75 kWh of electricity prevents from being emitted in the first place (on average, using their standard model for the competing gasoline powered vehicle).
Excellent. Gives me time to expand on my answer to your ‘same amount of CO2’ comment.
The EPA is using standard models in that calculator, both for their competing American automobile, and for their assumed electric vehicle. Their standard model EV goes 137 miles on a 75 kWh charge. Their standard model American gasoline automobile (ICE) goes 21.7 miles per gallon. Thus 6.3 gallons of gasoline in the tank = 137 transportation miles = 75 kWh in the battery. I won't bother with where they get their EV standard (maybe we'll get into that later), but the mpg for their standard auto (ICE) is an average of the mpg ratings for the actual sales figures the EPA has for new automobiles sold in America for the preceding year.
Only thing is, the Tesla S actually goes 249 miles on that 75 kWh, not 137 miles; it beats the hell out of their standard model EV. That same distance in a a brand new 2017 standard EPA model American gasoline powered automobile (ICE) would actually require 11½ gallons of gasoline. (That's 249 miles driven @ 21.7 mpg; I'll let you do the math to confirm that to your own satisfaction.)
I still think I'm right, although I would say that it's lookin’ like the right-wing crazies are winning over the ‘establishment’ wing of the party, and they will probably get to keep the moniker of ‘Republican’ after the schism. However I think they will find themselves relegated to the role of a regional party, unable to win national elections.
I would prefer that you are correct, rather than the author of that article. The nationalism of a Steve Bannon or the religious extremism of the far right are not the path I want for my country. It is the antithesis of what this country was dreamed to be.
"Maybe Robert Mueller's investigation will turn up evidence of collusion beyond liberals' wildest imagination. Or maybe it will be a big nothingburger. My money's on the latter."
Just a small aside:
On Oct. 17, 1931, Chicago gangster Al Capone was convicted of income tax evasion and later sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, ending his control of the Chicago underworld.
Funny how some things go down.
No, I don't think Trump will be convicted of tax evasion. It's just the circumstance of Capone's conviction of, in the scheme of his list of crimes, a mundane thing suggests that justice can come in odd ways.
Excellent. Gives me time to expand on my answer to your ‘same amount of CO2’ comment.
Both you and Petes know far more about the nuts and bolts(or shall we say numbers) than I do with regard to this topic, which is why I kept my post on EVs to basics with a little entertainment thrown in.
It's a given that the way that the electricity is generated to power an EV, or the type of fuel in an ICE, will have an impact on our environment with regard to CO2, whether or not Petes intended to bring that into play in the discussion or was just using that calculator to substantiate a point. That we have not come up with a simple answer on how to proceed shows the complexity of the problem. It isn't just about the numbers but about the politics and economics. I certainly get that.
So, will it be EVs, which will still require fuel of some sort for electricity generation or ICEs that have been tweaked to go farther on a gallon of gas or use an alternate fuel?
If it is EVs, how do we generate enough electricity to run them?
If it is ICEs will it be a higher required MPG or alternate fuel? If so what fuel?
Will China win out with a choice made by its government?
Will America and Europe find the solution first with their private sector?
Or will we all just spin our wheels, no pun intended, well, maybe a little one, and flounder around wasting time and resources?
Ah, well, then there's this to add to your homework: Petes said:
"The EPA quote says REDUCTIONS OF KILOWATT-HOURS, not reduction of gasoline use as Chumpy claims. And for even further avoidance of ambiguity, if Chumpy had bothered to include the EPA's heading over their paragraph, it says ELECTRICITY REDUCTIONS. Not gasoline reductions." Petes @ Fri Oct 06, 12:53:00 pm ↑↑
First off: I never claimed that the term ‘Reduction’ as used in ‘REDUCTIONS OF KILOWATT-HOURS’ had anything to do with ‘reduction of gasoline use’. (Avoidance of CO2 emission from gasoline use maybe, but that's another rather technical question.) In fact, I offered no definition at all for the term ‘reduction’ as used in the EPA documents.
However: I do, and did understand how they were using that term; I knew what it meant when I read it the first time:
Wiki say "…a reduction is an algorithm for transforming one problem into another problem." (emphasis in original)
Petes styles himself as something of an authority on algorithms (i.e. he claims to have been a computer programmer in the real world). He knew what they meant. He was hoping I didn't know what they meant (bad gamble there), and he figured that if I didn't know already then you'd never find out. Full on con-man stuff; trying to bluff his way through it.
"If it is EVs, how do we generate enough electricity to run them?"
We use the many thousands of barrels of petroleum that we now devote to the distillation of gasoline. Use that to make electricity instead of gasoline or diesel. It will be enough, more than enough. Switch over to renewables as soon as we can reasonably do so. The infrastructure for EVs (wiring, charging stations, etc.) will be transferable.
Many millions of barrels of oil? I'd have to look it up to know how much Ireland actually uses. I'll let Petes hit Google for that; he seems to have thing for ‘googling furiously’.
Entirely different subject; bump stocks: (I presume that by now nobody needs an explanation of what they are or how they work.)
The NRA seems to be willing to allow bump stocks to be outlawed by one means or another (they would prefer it be a regulation and that Congress not get involved, lest Congressmen get the unfortunate notion that they can actually regulate guns.)
It also matters that the big money in guns, the major gun manufacturers, do not make money on bump stocks. Those are cheap plastic pieces, mostly made and sold by small, after-market producers. Outlawing these bump stocks won't cost the gun lobby any money, won't eat into their profits.
Shorthands is making an effort to try to drum up support for ‘equal time’ for himself and Sean Hannity on the major networks. Trumptweets
Someone on his team will soon try to put the kibosh on such talk. It was the death of the federal ‘equal time’ regulations that allowed Radio-Right-Wing to flourish. Left-Wing firebrands cannot compete with Right-Wing firebrands on the radio. For some reason there's just more people willing to join the neo-nazi groups than there are willing to join the violent antifa groups, way more. The same is true for the less violent crazies. Just ain't enough people out on the political left wing to support a bunch of Left-Wing-Crazies on the AM radio dial. I'm not sure why this is true, but it is true. Back when the federal government enforced ‘equal time’ regulations the stations that run Radio-Right-Wing programs has to reserve half of their air time for Radio-Left-Wing programs even though the audience for left wing craziness wasn't sufficient to support those programs on their own. If it hadn't been for the fact that they were subsidized by Radio-Right-Wing in the name of ‘equal time’ they would have vanished. As it was, both were suppressed; the Right-Wing audience wouldn't support both, and they quit listening to the AM radio entirely rather than pay enough attention to sort out the talkers for their preferred point-of-view and tune in at only the appropriate times.
Radio-Right-Wing took off when the federal rules requiring ‘equal time’ for political programming were dropped. They'll soon enough get that news to Trump and he'll quit this talk. He won't be making these kinds of noises for very long; they'll explain it to him.
Another hurricane is set to make landfall in the US. This time Mississippi and Alabama. This is shaking out to be a very expensive year in lives upended an dollars lost.
An incident has occurred in London outside the National Museum with a man driving a car into a crowd of people. There are injuries and the man has been arrested. No determination on whether or not it was deliberate or an accident.
‘Detained’ against his will is arrested. The double-talk is in case they discover he'd lost control of the vehicle by accident or mechanical failure or some such, then they all pretend he was never arrested (paperwork never gets finished; eventually disappears into cold files instead).
We use the many thousands of barrels of petroleum that we now devote to the distillation of gasoline. Use that to make electricity instead of gasoline or diesel.
Incentive? Will that need a governmental push? Or will demand due to an increase in sales of EVs provide the incentive? Bottom line then being the need to get the general public to prefer EVs to ICEs.
In China, of course, a mandate from on high would do it. Here it is more complicated.
On of CNN's producers on the scene is saying the police presence, with guns, has increased quite a bit. There are also quite a few ambulances on scene. They are still talking possible accident, but there is an intense police presence for that kind of event.
That is a consideration. But, Petes was telling us that it couldn't be done from a technical point of view. Not enough energy available he said.
That's wrong. The energy's already available; it's already being used; it's just being distilled into gasoline and diesel instead of into powerplant fuel for electric autos. (As power for electrics it would be vastly more efficient, ‘well to wheels’, as Petes likes to put it. He would like us to believe otherwise; that's bullshit.)
But we do have that problem of incentive, and incentives are harder to establish whilst we have people selling us bullshit lines about it being technically impossible. It is not impossible; it would not be difficult, and it would be more efficient, but more efficient may not be sufficient incentive to break us out of the current rut we're following.
Also, the original argument was about how much gasoline it would take to put 75 kWh of electricity into a battery pack. Petes said it would take 4.4 gallons. But, he was calculating it wrong.
Out of 45 gallons of distillates, only 20 gallons comes out as gasoline. So, 20 ÷ 45 = 44%; hell, I'll even throw in the 11 gallons of diesel and call all of it ‘gasoline’ (with the scare quotes), just for the purposes of this argument; that's 31 gallons. 15% is lost during the distillation phase. Figure a much simpler distillation process for a single fuel usable in the gas turbines and, just as a blind estimate, we'll claim 10% of that loss back, (that'd be 4½ gallons).
31 gallons of ‘gasoline’ currently; 49 gallons available theoretically, toss the 4½ gallons I claimed back from distillation losses, just to be conservative and call it waste instead. 31 gallons of ‘gasoline’ under the old regimen; 45 gallons of fuel under the new one. So, out of our new 45 gallons of powerplant fuel, only 69% would have been gasoline. That means it only takes 3 gallons of gasoline to fill up our battery; the rest comes from what would never have become ‘gasoline’ in the first place, call that remainder ‘not-gasoline’.
Also, gas turbines are running at 60 efficiency these days, not the 54% Petes gave us. That's enough to claim back another three tens of a gallon as ‘fuel’; burn that instead of burning ‘gasoline’. Round it back to two tenths just to be conservative.
So, 2.8 gallons of ‘gasoline’ to fill the battery. The rest is from ‘not-gasoline’.
Lots of back and forth debate on how much oil or gasoline would be required to drive this or that EV. A debate about engine efficiency really.
My impression is that what we really want from EV:s is to get away from fossil fuels as the energy source, or at least with oil (natural gas might be a bridge for some period of time) and fuel the EV batteries from renewable sources.
One interesting thing about this is that one of the downsides of renewables such as solar and wind is they generate outright electricity and we have no real was toda of storing a surplus. But IF we had a vast car-fleet their combined batteries could serve as just that, a huge battery where electricity can be stored at times when it's not needed.
John Q Commuter goes to the office in Arizona, and while he works his shitty and boring job at his desk the solarpanels installed nearby charges his car. At night when he drives around looking for hookers he's on a full battery, using the energy of the previous days sunlight.
I think the engine efficiency is probably the least debated part of it so far, but yeah, lot's of fuss about the efficiency of the process for fueling an EV.
I think that's called up when Petes alleges that there's not enough fuel available in Europe to make the change. I say ya got enough fuel to fill the tanks now means ya got more than enough fuel to run EVs instead. It's just a matter of doing it.
However, I was thinking it was about time to make the point that none of this settles your original question about whether we got enough lithium for batteries for widespread EV use. That one's still an open question in my mind.
Because when John was at the office his slut of a wife who's watched way too much Desperate Housewifes had some stud come over and give her a good seeing to. And John, suspecting this very thing and being sick of his nagging wife anyway, goes whore hunting at night.
That USED to take a toll on the Earth's stored energy resources, but now thanks to solar power and electric vehicles John's whoremongering comes with a virtually zero carbon dioxide footprint.
If, however, Johns vehicle was electrified by the burning of oil, instead of by solar panels, John hunting whores would still create CO2 and add to Global Warming.
So, you see, the example of John Q Commuter is that debating in length about wether oil-to-combustion-to-movement or oil-to-combustion-to-electricity-to-movement is preferable is rather a sidetrack.
Lee: "However, I was thinking it was about time to make the point that none of this settles your original question about whether we got enough lithium for batteries for widespread EV use. That one's still an open question in my mind."
Yes that's a most important question and I too find it still open. But IF there is a way to actually build a global EV carfleet I think Pete's pessimism about the enerly input is...strange, especially coming from him really.
I mean we haven't even begun speaking about the Nuclear option yet. New Nuclear reactors that are safe (enough) might see a new dawn. And renewables could be ramped up if there's a market for the electricity. Solar, wind, maybe tidal, and of course bio-fuels.
CBS news (online) is suggesting today's auto/pedestrian conflict in London was ‘not terror related’, but may nevertheless have been intentional on the part of the driver. (A head case perhaps?)
I am reminded that there is still an ‘equal time’ rule for candidates running for federal office. I.e. if Sean Hannity has Trump on his FoxNews nightly show, then FoxNews must give other declared candidates for the Presidency equal time on-air in a comparable time slot. This applies because Trump has already formed a campaign committee for 2020 and announced that he's running again. But, nobody else has made a formal declaration, neither Democrat nor Republican, so there's nobody who qualifies to claim the equal time.
Certainly, none of the comedians giving him a hard time on late-night talk shows have declared themselves to be candidates for the Presidency, so the time they spend ragging on him don't count.
[Marcus]: I mean we haven't even begun speaking about the Nuclear option yet.
Actually someone did touch on that possibility earlier when I brought up the nuclear option.
[Anonymous]: Highly unlikely. The US is a big user of nukes, but it's still only 20% of power production and there were no new nukes built for thirty years. There have been applications in the US to build 24 new nukes in the last decade but only one or two are under construction. In fact, I remember reading a while back that the total number of nukes under construction or even planned across the whole globe is only equivalent to six months worth of Chinese coal-fired plant construction. And a good chunk of the new nukes are planned for China itself. (I don't know if that has changed with the Chinese economic slowdown).
Nuclear power is very unpopular with the public, especially post Fukushima. There is a huge regulatory burden which dramatically increases the cost. Costings also (righty) have to include end-of-life decommissioning these days. As you say, if it comes down to profit nuclear has serious difficulty competing with natural gas. So no, I don't think we're looking at nukes ... not the conventional sort at any rate.
I think I tend to agree with this assessment at this time. There have just been too many accidents that have turned the general public off on the use of this type of power.
[Marcus]: And renewables could be ramped up if there's a market for the electricity. Solar, wind, maybe tidal, and of course bio-fuels.
This is probably more likely. Or Lee's suggestion that we use oil.
Here is a nice overview of a battery's components, the sources for them and the challenges of obtaining them. It appears that it is not just lithium that is an issue. When asked Tesla's CTO said he is more concerned with cobalt, most of which comes from the Congo.
Tesla expects to produce 35 GWh worth of batteries in 2018, which is equivalent to the entire world production in 2013. That’s a 100% increase from a single factory.
I would prefer we use greener sources, but the oil is available until those come online in sufficient quantities, and it'd go further if we used it for EVs instead of internal combustion engines. (Be a bit less convenient, but it'd go further and be cheaper.)
Stephen Paddock left a ‘not-suicide’ note in his hotel room. The cryptic note lead some investigators to believe that he had an escape plan and maybe an accomplice (they thought the note was written in code). Turns out the note was just notes, numbers from Paddock's calculations for aiming his shot (height off the ground, distance, angle of attack, etc.). I'm not sure what help aiming might have been with those bump stocks. Going into full auto with a rifle makes it real hard to maintain any pretense of accurate aiming. Add to that difficulty the fact that bump-stocks allow the rifle to bounce, and actually aiming the bouncing gun is damn near impossible. Mostly one can just shoot into the general area of a target. (That's why I've never had much use for the bump-stock; I always thought of them as gimmicks to impress folks who don't know any better. In fact, if you'll look at the demo tapes most of the bump-stock manufacturers put out, they concentrate on showing the rifle as it ‘bumps’; they seldom spend any time showing the target getting hit. However, the idea of shooting, more or less aimlessly, into a dense crowd never crossed my mind.)
They were discussing what happened in Las Vegas with a panel of people on Fareed Zacharia's show this morning. One of those people was Thomas Friedman, who made the point that if the shooter had been a Muslim there would have been all sorts of cries for an investigation of his/her home country and what we can do to prevent this from happening again. But since the shooter was American this type of critical examination is not forthcoming.
Hmmm...they are now talking about Australia's gun control program that was enacted after a mass shooting in that country. The point being that it was a conservative government that pushed this through. This is a country that felt toward guns very much as many gun owning Americans do. It has been 21 years since the Port Arthur massacre and there has not been a mass shooting since. Gun deaths fell 59% and suicides 65% in the year following the gun control measure being enacted.
It appears that the take from Australia is that if after what happened in Vegas we do not get control of our gun problem the world will believe that we are basically in decline as a country.
Last year, Japan, a nation of 127 million, had 1 gun death. No one has a gun. Even the Japanese mob, the Yakuza, doesn't use guns. That country had very strict gun laws.
Lynnette: "Hmmm...they are now talking about Australia's gun control program that was enacted after a mass shooting in that country. The point being that it was a conservative government that pushed this through. This is a country that felt toward guns very much as many gun owning Americans do. It has been 21 years since the Port Arthur massacre and there has not been a mass shooting since. Gun deaths fell 59% and suicides 65% in the year following the gun control measure being enacted."
First of all let me say I think you might wanna get a tad more restrictive with guns over there. Maybe. Might get 'em bump stocks restricted since they serve no real purpose other than for mass shootings, it seems to me.
But: Swizerland has an even larger "guns-culture" and more guns per capita than ya'll have. Mexico on the other hand have some very strict gun laws.
Wanna compare gun violence in Switzerland compared to Mexico?
It's not all just about available legal hardware you know...
Lee: " Turns out the note was just notes, numbers from Paddock's calculations for aiming his shot (height off the ground, distance, angle of attack, etc.)."
Yup. When a white man snaps the resulting damage is usually WAY more severe compared to snappin' brown folks, who are a dime a dozen these days. McVieh, Breivik, Paddock, whities do seem to pack a punch once they decide to go to the dark side.
"One of those people was Thomas Friedman, who made the point that if the shooter had been a Muslim…
I believe that point has been made before, as in…
"You can bet your ass and the farm and your firstborn and whatever else ya got to throw in the pot that Shorthands would be taking a different tack, gotta do something, now, immediately, had Stephen Paddock been either a Muslim or a Mexican." Lee C. @ Wed Oct 04, 10:41:00 am ↑↑
Speaking of Shorthands… As if he's not done enough to piss off Republican Senators who's good will he might need, first McCain, then Murkowski. He's used his twitter feed to call conservative (very conservative in fact) Republican Senator Robert Corker a coward. Politico.Com
Corker's gonna be there through the end of 2018. McCain might not be, but Corker will be.
648 comments:
1 – 200 of 648 Newer› Newest»Hate the music. Agree with the sentiment.
"Hate the music."
You're just bein’ pissy ‘cause he can actually play.
That was one nasty attack in Vegas. I wonder what his motive was. It seems clear it was prepared, probably for quite some time. This was planned in detail.
The shooter had access to a suite and an adjoining room on a high level floor, the 32:d, to allow him to break windows quite far apart and get different angles and multiple kill-zones.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting/84b545c8154de693a17201ef51406ecb83b7aa77/room-diagram-600.jpg
He had stayed there since the 28-th and brought an arsenal into the room by hauling 10 suitcases with guns and ammo to his rooms.
From the Youtube clips and comments it sounds to me like a full-auto extended magazines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpsqirFRdTo
0:06-0:16 ~100 shots fired
0:16-0:53 silence (re-load)
0:53-1:03 ~100 shots fired
1:03-1:20 silence (re-load)
1:20-1:30 ~100 shots fired
If I were to guess my best guess would be a (converted to) fully automatic AR15 or similar with double-drum magazines, such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_C-Mag
He must have stayed there before and maybe looked down on another crowd and got the idea. Waited for an event with a massive crowd. Booked well in advance to get the right rooms at a high level floor. Stockpiled guns and ammo.
This was not something he thought up last week.
I would be surprised if he didn't leave a manifest or at least some clue to his motive.
"From the Youtube clips and comments it sounds
to me like a full-auto extended magazines:"
I read something about him having a couple of bump stocks, which would have been sufficient for his purpose, given that he was firing into a large, tightly packed crowd. The extended magazines would seem to be a foregone conclusion.
Lee: "I read something about him having a couple of bump stocks, which would have been sufficient for his purpose, given that he was firing into a large, tightly packed crowd. The extended magazines would seem to be a foregone conclusion."
Seems to be so. This is one of few pics released of the guns in the room and it clearly looks fitted with a bump stock to me:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLNqpsmXcAE9me7.jpg
From this article:
http://www.fox25boston.com/news/only-on-boston-25-exclusive-photos-of-las-vegas-shooters-guns/618716556
Are bump stocks legal in the US? In Nevada?
And the mag attached to that gun is a more modern version of the drum magazine. Looks like this one:
http://drummagazines.com/Surefire-100-round-magazine-_p_35.html
Which does hold 100 bullets.
"Are bump stocks legal in the US? In Nevada?"
Yes to both.
Here a pic of the shooter after he seems to have shot himself in the mouth with a revolver:
WARNING - VERY graphic! Do not blame me if you look at it and wish you didn't.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLOOEfaV4AA7ACc.jpg:large
Hate the music.
I hate the circumstances that evoke this kind of music.
This was not something he thought up last week.
No, it wasn't.
I would be surprised if he didn't leave a manifest or at least some clue to his motive.
So far no one is talking. They all seem to be saying that they can't think of any motive. The only thing that seems rather odd is his father. He was a bank robber who was on the FBI's most wanted list.
He's said to have had a criminal ‘contact’ with the Nevada state court system. Nobody's explained what that means, not that I've seen anyway. (Could be as simple as a parking ticket he didn't pay, or it could be more sinister, but nobody's saying.) I consider this odd.
They have awarded the Nobel prize for physics to three Americans working on gravitational wave research.
The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne for their detection of gravitational waves, a development scientists believe could give vital clues to the origins of the universe.
The three American physicists "made decisive contributions" to LIGO, an observatory instrument that enabled scientists to physically detect the waves, which Albert Einstein predicted a century ago in his theory of relativity.
No, he really was a bank robber wanted by the FBI.
Before the younger Paddock perpetrated the largest mass shooting in modern American history, his father’s name would be printed on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list for a series of bank robberies carried out in the Phoenix-area.
An archived newspaper article from the Arizona Republic on Oct. 6, 1960 described Benjamin Hoskins Paddock as a three-time bank robber. The paper detailed how the 34-year-old attempted to run an agent over with his 1960 Pontiac before having a bullet shot through his window.
After the bullet pierced his vehicle, he surrendered to authorities. A loaded revolver, a police-style baton, a box of ammunition and $2,975 in cash were found in the car.
Mental illness can be hereditary. It might be as simple as that.
"No, he really was a bank robber wanted by the FBI."
I was referring to Stephen Paddock, not to his father the bank robber.
God, this is getting tedious. Chumpy, from previous thread:
"And, of course, you lie. There are indeed analogous, equivalent losses. You lie. One barrel of crude oil (42 gallons of crude) typically produces only 20 gallons of gasoline and an additional 11 gallons of alternate fuels (mostly diesel and similar products). Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation."
Chumpy, you really are a dolt. First of all, in a well-to-wheels comparison, refining of oil would be common to both EVs and ICEs if (and we assume this for the purposes of comparison) the electricity were generated from the same fuel.
Second, please do us all a favour and spare us the results of yer frantic Googlin'. There is one person in this conversation who actually knows what they are talking about, and one person desperately trying -- and failing -- to even understand what their search results are sayin'. Yore figures listed some of the outputs of crude oil refining, not all of them. If you had some actual knowledge of the subject, and not just a search engine, you would have heard of the term "refinery gains".
Those occur because on average the products of distillation have lower carbon numbers and more hydrogen than the inputs, and thus have lower specific gravity. Lower density = higher volume. That, of course, has no bearing on the energy content which is the only thing germane to this "discussion". But it turns out that's higher too -- not by magic, but because they use natural gas condensates as additional inputs, thus converting cheap condensates into valuable transport fuel.
Yore welcome, and how about educatin' yoreself a bit next time before you decide to start trollin' just for the sake of it. Crapping all over the conversation is doin' nobody any favours, especially yerself.
"Second, please do us all a favour and spare us the
results of yer frantic Googlin'"
You seem to have a fixation on that fantasy of me ‘frantically googlin’ as you call it. Gotta wonder what the hell that's all about.
I'm aware of the refinery gains. It's the same thing in reverse as the process whereby mixing a gallon of water and a gallon of alcohol nets less than two gallons of fluid, loss would be somewhere around 10%. (I'd have to look it up to remind myself for certain how much less, but that'd require the googling that I ain't been doing as of yet.)
And, also without looking anything up I can tell you that adding additional energy, in the form of natural gas doesn't gain you any energy at all. It actually consumes natural gas. I seem to recall that distilling crude oil used to be only 80% efficient, probably a little higher these days, but not much, meaning there's a substantial net loss of energy from the crude--bumping that back up with additional energy input from natural gas just consumes the natural gas, it doesn't add energy to the crude, nor does it recover that which is lost in the distilling process.
And, I seem to recall that Tesla used to claim that the energy lost during the distillation (called refining by most people) of just one gallon of gasoline would power a Tesla as far as that gallon of gasoline would power the average American street vehicle. They may do even better than that these days.
You're a fool and don't know you're talking about. Adding more fuel in the form of natural gas doesn't add any energy to the crude oil or its distilled products. It simply consumes the natural gas, and adds natural gas product to the eventual output of the still. (It's the same sort of thing as adding ethanol alcohol to the gasoline--that adds energy too, but nobody's stupid enough to think they can get away with the claim that they're somehow gaining energy with that. I don't know how you could have deluded yourself into believing that somehow adding natural gas was different.)
Typo there, and it was an important sentence, so I'll just fix it.
"You're a fool and don't know what the hell you're talking about."
There, that's about right now.
"I seem to recall that distilling crude oil used to be
only 80% efficient…"
Oh, yeah, and that was after they claimed that sludge, ash and clinkers were part of the product (an attempt to fight off the greenies who plague them). Sorta like maybe claiming that fly ash was a desirable by-product of burning coal instead of a deadly residue to be disposed of, except the coal companies never actually tried to pull off that claim. The oil companies have tried it though.
Side note to Marcus and Lynnette:
"mixing a gallon of water and a gallon of alcohol nets less than
two gallons of fluid…"
High school chemistry class, which I still remember. ↑↑
"Those occur because on average the products of distillation have
lower carbon numbers and more hydrogen than the inputs, and thus
have lower specific gravity. Lower density = higher volume."
Actually ‘those occur’ because the resulting products of distillation have been sorted by molecular size (and maybe by shape to a lesser extent). Mixing materials of different sizes reduces the overall volume of the mix as compared to the separate volumes of the components--smaller components slide in between the larger ones reducing the overall space consumed by the two. It works with different sized marbles as well, even if they're all made of the same material with the same density, and the marble analogy is probably easier for Marcus and Lynnette to visualize.
Or, think about pouring water in a container of sand. The water flows in between the grains of sand. The sand will puff up a little bit, but not nearly as much as the volume of water which disappears into the sand. Works the same with small molecules which can flow in between larger molecules.
Oh and one final point, back where we started:
"A fully charged 75 kWh battery in a high-end EV contains the
energy equivalent of only two gallons of gasoline."
Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am
That was an intentionally misleading comparison. And Petes knew that when he made the comparison. He was comparing the energy theoretically available from a perfect burn and perfect capture of energy in the two gallons of gasoline to the energy actually available for use from the battery.
Cars do not perform anything close to a perfect burn nor a perfect capture of energy from the burn they do produce. The electric vehicle is orders of magnitude more efficient at using the battery's electrical energy than even the best internal combustion engine is in using gasoline. That's why we can't get anywhere near the mileage from two gallons of gasoline that a electric can get from a 75 kWh charge. Petes knows all this. The comparison he was trying to make was fraudulent. He was trying to con you.
Try not to lose sight of that.
NBC Nightly News ran a segment tonight which included an allegation that the authorities are again looking at Paddock's girlfriend, trying to figure out if she knew in advance what he was up to. They didn't explain why the authorities might be interested in her other than that she was his live-in girlfriend.
Chumpy's dug himself a deep one this time.
"I'm aware of the refinery gains."
LOL. Yeah, that's believable. That's why you said it lost 25% of its volume even though the volume actually increases by over 6% on average. Allow me to quote you directly: "Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation". Is that the gain you claim to be aware of? A gain of minus eleven, LMAO? Yore an idiot and a shameless liar to boot. You do not lose 25%, you gain 6%. Square that one, ya troll.
"You seem to have a fixation on that fantasy of me ‘frantically googlin’ as you call it. Gotta wonder what the hell that's all about... And, also without looking anything up I can tell you..."
Uh, that would be because of the link you provided to support your claim that 42 gallons of input produce 31 gallons of output. I quote again: "Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation". You total frickin' tool. Why are you makin' me rub yore face in it? For "yore audience" (seeing as you will certainly continue to argue that black is white) ... follow the Chump's link, click the very first link after the paragraph that Chumpy seized upon, click to enlarge the graphic: it shows that a 42 gallon barrel produces 45 gallons of output and explains the concept of refinery gains. Chumpy couldn't even read his own link. But he will continue to shamefacedly argue that he knows about refinery gains and doesn't have to Google frantically. He is a complete troll.
"It's the same thing in reverse as the process whereby mixing a gallon of water and a gallon of alcohol nets less than two gallons of fluid"
Good grief, you are beyond clueless. It is nothing whatsoever like that process, either forward or in reverse. Alcohol + water reduces in volume because of the rearrangement of hydrogen bonds among two polar solvents. It's a weak chemical reaction which results in the bonds occupying lower energy states (and shorter distances). Don't believe me? Mix them up yourself ... why does the mixture get warm? It's an exothermic chemical reaction. It's nothing to do with "smaller molecules sliding in between bigger ones" (LOL). You don't even have your own chemistry class example right. And I can tell you for free, the inputs and outputs of crude refining are not polar solvents. The process is completely unrelated.
"Actually ‘those [refinery gains] occur’ because the resulting products of distillation have been sorted by molecular size"
The Chumpy comedy show continues. So ya reckon all those pentanes and octanes and nonanes that end up in yore gasoline were all just "sorted" from among the molecules of the crude input? You yourself are incorrigible, but for the benefit of "yore audience" I will explain what actually happens. Crude oil refining is not just a matter of distillation, but of cracking. That means breaking down complex hydrocarbons into simpler ones. The most important ones are alkanes, with the chemical formula CnH(n+2). So for instance pentane is C5H12, octane C8H18, decane C10H22, and so on. These are chains of singly bonded carbon atoms, with two hydrogen atoms hanging off each carbon. The extra two hydrogens in the chemical formula come from needing a terminating bond at each end of the chain. When you crack petroleum you are not just sorting molecules, you are breaking them into shorter chain alkanes which -- having a higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon (which is a dozen times heavier) -- are of lower density. Which brings me to the next item of Chumpy's trollery ... (cont'd below)
(cont'd)
"And, also without looking anything up I can tell you that adding additional energy, in the form of natural gas doesn't gain you any energy at all. It actually consumes natural gas... You're a fool and don't know you're talking about. Adding more fuel in the form of natural gas doesn't add any energy to the crude oil or its distilled products."
You lying donkey! I never said such a thing. I said that cheap natural gas condensates are turned into valuable transport fuel. That's where that extra needed hydrogen comes in. Short chain alkanes (which is what gas condensates mostly consist of) or natural gas or even bought-in hydrogen are used as the source of hydrogen for those extra alkane molecules that are created (not just sorted, LOL) in the process. This has nothing to do with the energy consumed in the refining process, which is generally just under 10% of the total energy balance.
And of course, as I've already been at pains to point out, all of this is completely beside the point. Because if we were to use all this oil for generating electricity for EVs instead of burning in ICEs, the refining process WOULD BE THE SAME in both cases and can therefore be ignored. (Unless Chumpy is suggesting we could just burn crude to generate electricity and save some refining overheads ... in which case Chumpy might wanna consider why we don't just burn crude for heating instead of refining all that distillate heating oil? It's the same answer).
"Oh and one final point, back where we started: A fully charged 75 kWh battery in a high-end EV contains the energy equivalent of only two gallons of gasoline."
"That was an intentionally misleading comparison. And Petes knew that when he made the comparison. He was comparing the energy theoretically available from a perfect burn and perfect capture of energy in the two gallons of gasoline to the energy actually available for use from the battery."
And if Chumpy hadn't made it his business to go off trolling about stuff he didn't know anything about, he might've had more time to spend thinking about his very initial piece of idiocy above. (Though come to think of it, when ya don't know anything about anything it dudn't matter which things ya troll about). Chumpy completely 100% misunderstood the meaning of that original comparison, which was to point out that gasoline has an extremely high energy density so that the millons of barrels of it that we consume cannot easily be replaced. Furthermore, as I pointed out to Chumpy as soon as he objected, when you consider the well-to-wheels efficiency of ICEs versus EVs powered by fossil-fuel-powered electricity they are very similar. Chumpy clearly don't know the meaning of a "well-to-wheels" comparison. You are comparing the amount of fuel dug up out of the ground with the amount of the final output you are interested in -- miles driven. It is nothing to do with a "perfect burn" in an ICE. That doesn't even enter into the equation. Inputs vs. outputs is all that matters. In the case of the EV battery, it only takes a second (for most normal people) to realise that the 75 kWh is not the input we are concerned with.
"The electric vehicle is orders of magnitude more efficient at using the battery's electrical energy than even the best internal combustion engine is in using gasoline. That's why we can't get anywhere near the mileage from two gallons of gasoline that a electric can get from a 75 kWh charge. Petes knows all this. The comparison he was trying to make was fraudulent. He was trying to con you."
It most certainly is not "orders of magnitude" more efficient. But hopefully "yore audience" now understands -- even though you do not -- why the 75 kWh you keep wittering on about is irrelevant. The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy.
Btw, the only person conned here is whoever paid for yore education, presumably the US taxpayer ;-)
Typo in my alkane formula -- the general formula is CnH(2n+2). And I meant to point out more explicitly, if you split a single alkane molecule into two shorter chains you need two extra hydrogen atoms because -- obviously -- you've got two extra ends on the additional chain.
"That's why you said it lost 25% of its volume even though
the volume actually increases by over 6% on average."
I said nothing about it losing volume. You just made that part up. I said there was a net loss in the distillation process, and there is. It loses energy; the process eats energy, either by burning a portion of the original 41 gallons or by burning additional fuel (or using electricity). Adding volume doesn't change that net loss.
Typo there: That would be ‘original 42 gallons’.
"Uh, that would be because of the link you provided…"
An easy search, hardly indicates frenzy.
"Alcohol + water reduces in volume because of the rearrangement
of hydrogen bonds among two polar solvents."
An oblique way of saying exactly what I said about the molecules packing closer. I can see that I shall have to do a little googling on behalf of the audience you're trying to con here.
"Explanation: When 50 milliliters of water are added to 50 milliliters
of alcohol, the volume of the two mixed together is only about 96 or
97 milliliters. When mixed together, the combined molecules fit
together better than when they are alone, so they take up less space.
Water and ethanol mix to form a solution. The solution formation is
exothermic, and a substantial amount of heat is released. The reason
is that the sizes of the individual molecules are different
enough that the smaller molecules can slip into the spaces
between the big molecules. More specifically, the reason that it is
less is due to molecular bonding - specifically, the creation of
Hydrogen bonds. The OH- component of alcohol interacts with the H+
of the water molecules. These bonds attract each other to the point of
making ‘hydrogen bonds’. These bonds result in a tighter molecular
formation, thereby reducing the volume of the combined liquids."
It Doesn't Add Up (emphasis added)
In non-jargon, simple English, the rearrangement of the hydrogen bonds is possible because the molecules pack in tighter, the smaller water molecules slipping between the larger alcohol molecules. That's what allows the hydrogen bonds to relax and give off some of their stored energy as heat (basically how it happens, where the heat comes from). You know all this, you're just trying to confuse and con Lynnette and Marcus (you must have also thought I didn't know this either, and though maybe you could get away with it).
"I said that cheap natural gas condensates are turned into
valuable transport fuel. That's where that extra needed hydrogen
comes in."
The hydrogen is not needed; they don't need extra hydrogen. They refined petrol into gasoline for many years before they began dumping natural gas by-products into it during the process. (As opposed to using them for paint or plastics or fertilizer or any of the dozens of other possible uses for unused by-products that they don't want in their pipelines.) They're using the natural gas as an extender--they don't need it to distill gasoline.
"It most certainly is not ‘orders of magnitude’ more efficient."
Bad editing on my part. Shouldn't be an s on that. It should be ‘order of magnitude’.
"Chumpy clearly don't know the meaning of a ‘well-to-wheels’ comparison."
I just don't believe you; you lie a lot. I don't think you believe that either.
(And, I did look it up--the net energy loss to refine petroleum is generally around 15% these days--that lost energy would power an electric vehicle about the same distance as the gasoline produced in the process, or, so says Elon Musk--the petrol companies and their advocates deny it, of course, but they denied global warming too, for years, until that became simply untenable)
And, in closing, whether or not you actually believe that line you just spouted about a ‘wheels to wheels’ comparison does not change the fact that tried to mislead Marcus and Lynnette (and maybe you though me too) into accepting that totally bogus ‘two gallons to 75 kWh’ comparison.
Post Script:
"…you must have also thought I didn't know this either…"
That was not a good bet, by the way. I told you I remembered my high school chemistry class.
‘Nother Post Script:
"You are comparing the amount of fuel dug up out of the ground with
the amount of the final output you are interested in -- miles driven."
Actually, no, that's not what I was doing. I just used the Corvette reference to illustrate the absurdity of comparing the theoretical, best-case energy output from two gallons of gas to an actual 75 kWh charge in the battery. I believe it was an effective comparison too. ‘Cause that's when you started trying to spin this in earnest. So, you musta thought you had to discredit the illustration. Too bad you can't just deny it. That would have been a more effective counter than trying to keep up your con game here.
Bad editing there:
‘I believe it was an effective illustration too.’
Last Post Scipt for awhile anyway:
"They're using the natural gas as an extender--they don't
need it to distill gasoline."
Also, sometimes they use it as the fuel, so they don't have to burn some of the petroleum to heat up the rest of the petroleum. It still qualifies as a net energy loss on the process. Averages about 15% across the industry these days. (Do your own googling on that one.)
I was referring to Stephen Paddock, not to his father the bank robber.
Ahh, yes, I totally misread the intent of your original statement. My fault for reading quickly.
Rumor is circulating that Shorthands is gonna refuse to ‘certify’ that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear weapons deal negotiated by the Obama administration and a consortium of other interested powers (largely European, but including Russia and, I think, China).
That is a necessary first step to pulling out of the agreement. (Well, assuming Shorthands follows the law on the subject, not a foregone conclusion.)
However, he apparently won't push to cancel the agreement, at least not just yet. For now he's just gonna posture for his dedicated Trumpkins--pretend he's ‘tough’ and like that.
It's still a bad omen.
"My fault for reading quickly."
I have been known to write quickly and, as a consequence, not be real clear. May have happened there.
The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy.
And this is the crux of the problem. With an electric vehicle you are still looking at needing another energy source to provide power, because you need to charge the battery. So you still need fossil fuels or some kind of alternate to generate the electricity needed. So are EV's really more efficient to run on a mass scale than ICE's? Will they become widely used as Marcus asked? That seems to depend upon how the electricity is generated.
It's still a bad omen.
I have come to expect little good from Trump.
"That seems to depend upon how the electricity is generated."
Yeah, it's kind of a waste of that 15% to refine the petrol into gasoline or even fuel oil and then burn that to generate electricity. But, that's the infrastructure we happen to have today. Tomorrow's infrastructure may be more direct and efficient.
By the way, the kerosene produced during distillation a/k/a "jet fuel" (about 12% of the total) is also a loss to the internal combustion engine--it's simply not suitable for such use. Same goes for the blacker sub-kerosene components. These are lost to the current car fleet. (Doesn't mean they don't take up volume that has to be drained off before the next batch is brewed up.)
"With an electric vehicle you are still looking at needing another
energy source to provide power, because you need to charge the
battery."
With an internal combustion engine you need to fill the tank. Same basic problem on account of gasoline don't spout out of the ground, so you need ‘another energy source’ to provide the gasoline.
Chumpy, you are a pathetic shamefaced liar.
"I said nothing about it losing volume. You just made that part up. I said there was a net loss in the distillation process, and there is. It loses energy; the process eats energy, either by burning a portion of the original 41 gallons or by burning additional fuel (or using electricity). Adding volume doesn't change that net loss."
So when you mentioned 42 gallon turning into 31 gallons, you were talking about an energy loss? LOL. You're not even good at lying. Let's revisit what you actually did say then:
"There are indeed analogous, equivalent losses. You lie. One barrel of crude oil (42 gallons of crude) typically produces only 20 gallons of gasoline and an additional 11 gallons of alternate fuels (mostly diesel and similar products). Ya lose almost 25% just in the distillation process, never mind the additional losses to leakage and evaporation."
So when you thought it went from 42 to 31 gallon you declared that to be a 25% loss, which would be correct if you were talking about volume (and if you hadn't totally misinterpreted the link, LOL). But now that yore pretending you actually meant an energy loss you've changed your story to it only being a 15% loss.
You can't even keep yore story straight across a handful of posts. Life would be so much easier if ya just would accept a few corrections and learn from them. Yore paranoia about bein' corrected is jes' showin' ya up for bein' a fool and a troll as well as clueless.
"So when you mentioned 42 gallon turning into 31 gallons, you
were talking about an energy loss?"
I was talking about the loss of energy available for use in an internal combustion engine (which includes diesels by my definition). Kerosene a/k/a jet fuel is not suitable for use in today's internal combustion engines, but it is suitable for turbines which produce electricity for the batteries. (As are many of the other sub-kerosene distillates).
In the olden days Henry Ford's Model T would run on kerosene as well as gasoline, but they don't make engines that'll use both anymore. Electrics can use both--today's internal combustion engines cannot.
"42 to 31 gallon you declared that to be a 25% loss"
No. You have neglected to allow for the ‘refinery gains’. I picked the 25% from memory but I'd was just waking up, and then when I thought about it a little more I corrected it to 20%, took me only 4 minutes (trip to the kitchen and back). Made the correction long before you ever took up the question. (I'm given to understand it's down to an average of 15% nowadays.)
Post Script:
With ‘refinery gains’ the loss would be nearer to a third than to quarter, that is, if I were thinking of it in the terms Petes has imagined up as the target he wants me to hold for him.
Not even a good try there Petes. You need to do better, or better yet…
"The hydrogen is not needed; they don't need extra hydrogen. They refined petrol into gasoline for many years before they began dumping natural gas by-products into it during the process."
There's a little thing you've probably never heard of called "process improvements". Refining used to just consist of a fractionating column. Things have moved on. They do add hydrogen. If you have a way of splitting a long chain alkane into two short chain ones without adding hydrogen, there's an oil company that wants to pay you a bazillion dollars for the trick. You'd also be the first person since God and/or the Big Bang to create hydrogen out of nothing.
The same oversight makes you wrong at some other stuff too:
"By the way, the kerosene produced during distillation a/k/a "jet fuel" (about 12% of the total) is also a loss to the internal combustion engine--it's simply not suitable for such use."
Leaving aside that a jet engine is an internal combustion engine, refiners can tune their process to produce different mixtures of products. That's because they do that hydrogen adding thing that you are so confused about. (And no, I'm not suggesting they can produce 100% gasoline from crude).
"Doesn't mean they don't take up volume that has to be drained off before the next batch is brewed up."
LOL. They don't do batches. That went out with the Injuns. Refining is a continuous process these days, apart from the occasional refinery maintenance.
"I picked the 25% from memory but I'd was just waking up, and then when I thought about it a little more I corrected it to 20%, took me only 4 minutes ... I'm given to understand it's down to an average of 15% nowadays."
15%, 20%, 25% ... you expect anyone to believe you have a clue what you are talking about? You still haven't explained why, if you were talking about energy, you thought it important to quote that "41 gallons to 31 gallons" article which says nothing about energy. Give it up Chump. Ya just got yore ass handed to ya.
By the way, as long as we're discussing who's ‘a pathetic shamefaced liar’:
I notice you've abandoned the attempt to confuse your audience over the reason alcohol and water mix to produce a loss in volume. You actually went back and tried to bluff your way through that one a second time and got caught and not a word about now. You are, however, pretty much a shameless liar rather than a ‘shamefaced’ one, although I think that's actually the accusation you were trying to hang on me, you just couldn't get it said right.
"I have been known to write quickly and, as a consequence, not be real clear."
Hey, don't do yoreself a disservice. Y'all manage to not be real clear at any speed. In fact, I'd call it one of yore few particular talents.
"You still haven't explained why, if you were talking
about energy, you thought it important to quote that ‘41
gallons to 31 gallons’
That was not a quote, and the 41 gallons was a typo and the 31 gallons is the fuel available from a barrel of oil for use in an internal combustion engine, and the 20% loss is additional to that. And I did explain all this earlier. You just don't want to hear it.
(Perhaps I should have put that part about the 20% loss in a separate paragraph, or written it more clearly some other how, but I have been known to not be entirely clear before, as I mentioned earlier, especially when I've just woken up.)
"They do add hydrogen."
They usually happen to have it sitting around, so, why not; it's an extender. Works.
"They don't do batches."
You are getting way too literal and way too far off into the weeds on irrelevancies--down that fabled rabbit hole that you always seem to find and then accuse me of using.
Right. Time to put the troll on "ignore mode" for another while.
"That's because they do that hydrogen adding thing
that you are so confused about."
One, I'm not confused about the hydrogen thing and… Two, they have several other tricks nowadays besides just adding natural gas by-products. And, they have alternate sources of hydrogen that could be cheaper if they weren't almost always sitting on a supply of natural gas to go along with the petroleum.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Right. Time to put the troll on ‘ignore mode’ for another while."
I wondered how long it'd take you before you folded on this one. I thought you'd go down several more ‘rabbit holes’ before you actually gave it up. Apparently you were troubled by the fact that I wasn't pursuing you down those tangents with what you thought to be sufficient vigor.
[Petes]: "The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy."
[Lynnette]: "And this is the crux of the problem. With an electric vehicle you are still looking at needing another energy source to provide power, because you need to charge the battery. So you still need fossil fuels or some kind of alternate to generate the electricity needed. So are EV's really more efficient to run on a mass scale than ICE's? Will they become widely used as Marcus asked? That seems to depend upon how the electricity is generated."
Exactly right, Lynnette. Thank god someone round here can cut through the waffle ;-)
Yes, if you can find another source for your electricity then an EV is a cleaner, more efficient way of using energy than an ICE. But we use a hell of a lot of energy in ICEs ... more than our current total electricity output. If you end up having to use that fuel just to generate electricity for EVs, then you do not gain much.
If we assume for the sake of simplicity that thing are the exact same in both cases up to where you either put the fuel in an ICE, or burn it to produce electricity, then all we need to do is consider the efficiency from there on.
Taking best case figures, the efficiency of a combined-cycle gas turbine generator is 54%, the efficiency of electricity transmission on the grid is 92% and the efficiency of charging an EV is about 90%. Even in this best case the overall process is 54% x 92% x 90% = 45% efficient.
In the worst case, a coal-fired generator is 33%, grid transmission is 88%, and charging your battery is 70% (from actual real world measurements by EV users). Now you have 33% x 88% x 70% = 20% efficiency.
To go back to my original comparison, a 75 kWh battery has the energy equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline. But at 45% generator-to-battery efficiency, that 2 gallons of gas energy requires more than 4 gallons to provide it. At 20% efficiency it needs 10 gallons!
Now, there is nothing remote "theoretical" about this energy comparison. If you need 10 gallons of fuel to produce the electricity to charge your 75 kWh battery, then the thermodynamics of your ICE do not enter into the equation. The only relevant question is whether my ICE can go further on 10 gallons of gas than your EV can go on a full charge. And it most definitely can.
If you go for the more optimistic estimate, then the difference between your full charge and 4.4 gallons of fuel in my ICE is marginal. Being able to do 0-60 mph in 2.3 seconds in your EV is a nice added bonus.
And, just for a closing, back to where we were.
"A Tesla sport model can go 350[±] miles on ful
charge, roughly 75 kWh or (or there'bouts, so they claim)
"A 2017 Corvette can go 44 miles on two gallons of gas."
Lee C. @ Mon Oct 02, 11:08:00 pm
It is absurd to try and equate those two things, as Petes tried to pull off earlier. He knew it was absurd when he first tried to sell it. And, it wasn't me he was trying to con.
Ah you weren't done after all.
"If you need 10 gallons of fuel to produce the electricity
to charge your 75 kWh battery…"
You're still making the wrong comparison. And you know it.
The question is, "How much oil do you need to produce the electricity?. Not how much refined ‘fuel’ you use, but how much oil do you use? You can't use a significant fraction of the barrel of oil in any of today's automobiles, but you can use almost all of it to generate electricity. And then again, of course, we're not limited to just using oil.
Kerosene, by the way, is more energy dense than is gasoline. Sub-kerosene distillates can be even more energy dense than kerosene.
"If we assume for the sake of simplicity that thing are the exact
same in both cases up to where you either put the fuel in an ICE, or
burn it to produce electricity…"
Except, we all know this to not be true. You are not assuming that which you know to be false just for the sake of simplicity. You're using false assumptions to set up a false conclusion. You're still trying to run a con on Lynnette.
I would have thought you'd given it up by now.
By the way, the efficiency of actually charging a battery approaches 97% (or maybe it's even higher). The losses that there are generally come in the conversion technology where the AC current from the grid is converted to DC current to push into the battery. It's the inverter/converter that creates most of the loss from ‘charging’. If you use DC current, say a home set of solar panels, you can avoid a bunch of that. Or, if you bought a more expensive converter than Tesla provides you could avoid a lot of it. These more expensive converters, like most technology, are probably going to come down in price as the technology becomes more established.
Of course, if you're doing a fast charge then cooling costs to keep the batteries cool will also arise, but that's only if you're using a fast charge.
(Nope, haven't been on Google lately, just had that passing thought while I was up to other things, but I do think Petes would be well served to learn how to use more Google.)
Let's try this another way.
Petes calculated a 45% efficiency for the generation of electricity. He figured 4.4 gallons of ‘fuel’ to get that 75 kWh battery charged.
But, turbine generators are running at 60% efficiency these days, rather than the 54% he allowed, so let's ramp that 4.4 gallons down by 6% = 4.136 gallons.
We can use almost all of the barrel of oil to run automobiles instead of only 33 gallons of distillate out of 45 gallons of distillate (‘refinery gain’ remember?), so let's figure a gain of another 26.666%, call it 25% on account of ‘almost all’ ain't all = 3.102 gallons (And this doesn't even account for the fact that stuff Petes was tossing to non-automobile uses happened to be the most energy dense part of the package.)
Figure we also don't lose that 15% lost in the distilling process, but there will have to be some cleaning up and standardizing of the petroleum to prep it for the turbines, so we blind guess that loss to be 5% rather than the 15% they're currently losing and so we gain another 10% there = 2.8 gallons ±. (Not to mention that we can also still burn all those natural gas waste/by-products that Petes was so careful to call "hydrogen".)
And there we're most of the way back to that original 2 gallons that was only moving the Corvette 44 miles. Figure it to be 2 ÷ 2.8 = 71% so add back another 28% to the Corvett's 22 mpg, originally 44 miles, and we're equating 350± miles for the Tesla to around 56.32 miles for the Corvette.
I was up late and I haven't had my coffee yet, so ya'll may wanna check my math, but I think I got the math pretty close to correct.
I have coffee!
And I rounded the wrong way on the 71%, should have added 30% to the Corvette's 44 miles = 57.2 miles for the Corvette compared to 350± miles for the Tesla.
And it was 31 gallons of gasoline and diesel distilled out, rather than 33 gallons which would cut the Corvette's equivalent distance ratio back down to what I'll round out to be 30% instead of the 25% I used the first time, so another 5.5% setback for the Corvette (including the percentage for ‘refining loss’) = 54 miles rather than just over 57 miles. (That one's thanks to the coffee.)
CBSNews is reporting that Stephen Paddock had equipped twelve (12) of his rifles with bump stocks. I'm guessing this included most of the guns he'd left at home plus the already reported two (2) bump stocks on guns he'd taken with him to the hotel.
This is Wednesday, Shorthands is going to Las Vegas today to insist that we do not even discuss sane control laws until after people forget their sense of outrage over this shooting.
You can bet your ass and the farm and your firstborn and whatever else ya got to throw in the pot that Shorthands would be taking a different tack, gotta do something, now, immediately, had Stephen Paddock been either a Muslim or a Mexican.
Cops in Tennessee pulled a guy over (routine traffic stop) and discovered two full auto rifles (a .233 and a .308) and 900 rounds of ammo. CBSNews Real full auto--not bump stocked.
Another white guy, not a Muslim, not a Mexican, not black.
Nothing to do about these sorts of things, ya know? Just gotta accept it says Shorthands.
.223 not 233
So I just looked at CNN's website and read that Tillerson actually called Trump a moron in a Pentagon meeting. I was actually starting to kind of like Tillerson. I wonder how long he has until he's toast too?
Sad, very sad.
"I was actually starting to kind of like Tillerson."
Tillerson is presiding over what's basically the gutting of the State Department. Power and functions are being transferred wholesale to the Department of Defense or simply abandoned to nobody. That means future Presidents will find they have few diplomatic tools left and will have to rely almost solely on military force or the threat of same to achieve foreign policy goals.
I have little to no use for Tillerson--his occasional breaks with Shorthands' more egregious examples of bigotry notwithstanding.
And, in truth, the State Department is getting hollowed out so much it really doesn't much matter who's in charge over there anymore. Should Rex Tillerson Resign? Doesn't really matter CarnegieEndowment
"…the gutting of the State Department."
The underlying problem is that Shorthands doesn't do diplomacy. Shorthands does ‘deals’, or so he thinks. No long term stuff--the transaction in front of him is all that he looks at. (And how it affects him personally is all he gives a damn about.) Therefore he has no particular use for America's diplomatic corps.
Rather than refute the resident lying moron's figures, I'll just let "the audience" do their own Googling. It's pretty easy stuff to find. Apart from his wittering about the 45 gallons vs. the 31 gallon number ... you won't find anything about that because his point doesn't make a blind bit of sense to begin with. And it would be too tedious to correct the basic arithmetic mistakes he also made. Electricity generation, transmission, and battery charging ... you can find the numbers for yourself very easily.
Oh yeah, you can also decide for yourself whether the fact that an electric motor generates lots of torque at low revs (even if it's attached to a milk float) means you can only compare the fuel efficiency to a Chevy Corvette. That one gave me extra giggles.
(Though not as many giggles as the fact that Chumpy the demented deity is now gonna burn that hydrogen he magicked up ex nihilo in the first place, without losing any energy for those turbines he's gonna run on raw crude, 'cos you know the way a jet engine (which is basically what a generating turbine is) jes' loves to run without a hitch on sticky black goop).
"Rather than refute the resident lying moron's figures…"
And thus he surrenders, but tries to pretend it's his victory. Man has indeed been studying up on Trump.
"…because his point doesn't make a blind bit of sense to begin with."
Let me explain it to them again then. (I expect you to studiously avoid understanding.)
"…the meaning of that original comparison…was to point out that
gasoline has an extremely high energy density so that the millons of
barrels of it that we consume cannot easily be replaced"
Petes @ Tue Oct 03, 10:16:00 pm
The meaning of my comparison was to show that your comparison does not justify reliance on gasoline (i.e. you're pretty much fulla shit here).
Those millions of barrels of high energy density could be better used, much better used in fact, by skipping the conversion to gasoline and diesel and using those barrels of energy to instead generate electricity. There's a whole lot of energy in there that's never going to be available as gasoline but that can be made available to a turbine powered generator. My rough estimate (laid out earlier) is that only about 60% of the available energy in a barrel of crude can be forced to become either gasoline or diesel. We can pick up that additional 40% and use it for highway transportation if we go all electric there. And, when you add to that the vastly increased efficiency of the electric vehicle over the internal combustion vehicle--well, the comparison of 350± miles to 54± miles pretty much speaks for itself.
Plus, as replacement sources for electrical power become available, we can phase out the use of those millions of barrels.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…means you can only compare the fuel efficiency to a Chevy Corvette."
Nobody said anything about that being the ‘only’ format to set up the comparison, nobody except you. You seem to be making up stuff again. Giving yourself the giggles listening to yourself I guess.
It is, nevertheless, an entirely rational format for the comparison, and is a fair illustration of the true comparison between the two systems.
And, with that, ciao for now.
Oh, I missed another of his misrepresentations. (I.e. another lie from Petes, to wit:)
"…those turbines he's gonna run on raw crude…"
Nope not gonna run ‘em on raw crude; I already allowed for that problem.
"…there will have to be some cleaning up and standardizing of the
petroleum to prep it for the turbines, so we blind guess that loss to be
5% rather than the 15% they're currently losing and so we gain
another 10% there…"
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 04, 08:14:00 am ↑↑
It is not unreasonable to guess that significantly less distilling will consume significantly less energy. 5% seems like a reasonable guess, but admittedly it's only a reasonable guess.
And I'll try again, ciao for now (hope to stick this one)
Okay, one other point then…
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that there was some sort of sane or logical reason to use, for highway transportation, only that portion of the barrel of oil that could be converted to gasoline or diesel, and to actually make the conversion first.
Petes told us that'll mean we need 4.4 gallons of gasoline to fully charge that Tesla S.
That same 4.4 gallons of gasoline will move the Corvette 96.8 miles. Versus 350 miles for the Tesla. How hard is that understand?
The EPA mileage for a Tesla Model S 75kWh is 249 miles. (Some drivers in the real world report worse). A decent sized diesel car like the Skoda Fabia Greenline TDI (not a piece of gas-guzzling American junk) does real-world mileage of 63 miles per imperial gallon. (My own larger diesel gets 55 mpg, averaged over many thousands of miles). That equates to 222 miles on 4.4 US gallons.
So the two are comparable using a best case scenario for electricity generation efficiency. And we have used an estimate for a combined cycle gas turbine that an oil-fired generator could not hope to match. In fact, the global average efficiency for generation from oil is 37%, nearly as bad as coal. That immediately raises the gasoline equivalent for your Tesla battery to 6.1 US gallons.
We could pick holes in the transmission and battery charging losses too, especially if you ever want to use a fast charger which even Tesla warn will melt your battery if you do back-to-back charging. But there is no need to nitpick as we are already at the point where using electricity from oil makes an EV less efficient than an ICE. Don't take my word for it -- you will find plenty of corroboration for that on the internet, which makes you wonder why the resident troll felt so compelled get his hackles up about it.
"The EPA mileage for a Tesla Model S 75kWh is 249 miles."
I see that. I got my numbers off a different chart from a different site, but as I look at the Wiki page I conclude I must have inadvertently picked up the kilometers per… numbers rather than the miles per. (There were several numbers from different sources reflecting how hard the Tesla was being used; I picked a medium one, but I do seem to have inadvertantly picked kilometers per….) I now stand corrected.
"Some drivers in the real world report worse."
I am aware of that. Some drivers in the real world report better. Happens.
However, we now have official EPA ratings to compare. A direct comparison is possible, one not using extrapolations, neither your extrapolations nor mine. You have done us all a service; you have certainly done me a service. I now have an official comparison to use.
I was using the best case EPA highway numbers for the Vette. Combined city/highway mileage for the 2017 Vette was 18 MPG.
According to your Wiki source the EPA ‘gasoline equivalent’, combined city/highway for the 2017 Tesla Model S is 104 mpg.
That's 18 mpg versus 104 mpg. How hard is that to understand?
54 ÷ 350 = .154
18 ÷ 104 = .173
I wasn't too far off. But, that's merely because after mistakenly picking too high a miles available number for the Tesla in the first instance, I made mostly conservative assumptions thereafter. I'm glad I did. I actually wasn't too far off.
"(My own larger diesel gets 55 mpg, averaged over many thousands of miles.)
I'm not familiar with your ‘larger diesel’, but I am fairly confident that when Tesla or Dyson, or any of a number of the coming entries into the electric market, get around to producing an equivalent electrical vehicle the approximately 5 to 1 mileage ratio we've seen between the Tesla S and the Corvette (picked for what would seem to be roughly equivalent performance targets), that same ratio or something near there will almost certainly also apply to more staid rides suitable for a fat Irishman at home.
Oh, and just for the record. This is not a debate. Nor do I intend to continue this discussion until you agree. You will never agree, and I never expected it; I do not expect it now. You lie a lot, and you're just not very agreeable.
We now have official mileage numbers from the same EPA source that are available to support a direct comparison. (I'll probably even hunt up that official 18 mpg for the ‘Vette if you insist long enough.) We'll work from those numbers now, not from your tweaks to those numbers. Not from my tweaks to those numbers.
"…EPA ‘gasoline equivalent’, combined city/highway for the
2017 Tesla Model S is 104 mpg."
And, as a bonus, the Tesla could still use most of that extra 40% of a barrel of oil that's currently denied to gasoline and diesel engines. Meaning we'd get that other 40% out of a barrel of crude, available for highway transportation, if we went all electric. That's a hell of a good bonus. (We really should really be talking miles per barrel of oil, not miles per gallon of gasoline. I've mentioned this before. It's still true.)
Side note to Lynnette and Marcus:
Lynnette wrote that:
"So you still need fossil fuels or some kind of alternate
to generate the electricity needed."
Likewise we're now using fossil fuels to produce gasoline or diesel. Petes described this by noting that:
"The battery is not the ultimate source of the energy."
Neither is the gas tank the ultimate source of the energy. The common source to both is the barrel of oil (at least for the purposes of this discussion). We really do need to be comparing miles per barrel of oil, not miles per gallon of gas. And there the electrics win, hands down, ain't even close.
But we use a hell of a lot of energy in ICEs ... more than our current total electricity output.
So to pick up that load, if we were to discontinue ICE's and switch to EV's, we would have to ramp up our electricity output. Are we looking at nuclear power to generate enough electricity to cover the demand? Is that the most likely scenario to allow for making a profit? Because, unless you have some kind of governmental legislation, our system uses profits as a catalyst for economic development of industry. At least, with Trump and Co. in positions of power that is what will drive development here. Profit.
Tillerson is presiding over what's basically the gutting of the State Department.
No, this I do not like at all. I am hopeful, though, that this can be rebuilt if we ever get back someone in government who knows what they are doing. It is that at this point that is critical.
...his occasional breaks with Shorthands' more egregious examples of bigotry notwithstanding.
This is what I do like. It is perhaps the best that we can hope for at this point.
Btw, I suspect that there are those in the Republican Party who share my dismay at what has transpired. Besides McCain, that is. Whether they will play a role in reversing any of the more extreme swings will be the key.
Wiki say:
"In the U.S. the typical cost of electricity for different sources are:
coal (6-14 cents), gas (5-21) including gas peaker plants, wind (3-6
cents), nuclear (10-14 cents), utility scale solar (5-6 cents), roof top
solar (9-19 cents)"
Apparently virtually nobody uses fuel oil over here anymore (seems to still be some limited use in peaker plants). Cost fluctuations are too hard to deal with maybe. But, from what I can see, it's unlikely that nuclear will be the big winner in the United States going up against wind and solar for increased power consumption in the future. We're probably looking at more natural gas usage along with the renewables. This may not apply to Europe.
"It is perhaps the best that we can hope for at this point."
Well, there is that developing argument that it doesn't really matter who's at the head of the State Department these days, foreigners aren't going to pay them any real attention or give them any real credibility anyway, not so long as Trump is what he is.
So maybe an occasional break with Trump's more egregious public statements is enough to expect from anybody in that position these days.
"Btw, I suspect that there are those in the Republican Party who
share my dismay…"
Likely so. You may have noticed that Mike Pense's Chief of Staff was caught out just here lately conspiring to implement a ‘purge’ of Republicans insufficiently supportive of Trump. Politico.Com
The fight is already on for which wing of the party gets to keep the name ‘Republican’ after the coming breakup.
"In fact, the global average efficiency for generation from
oil is 37%, nearly as bad as coal."
Again, not a valid comparison, as I'm sure you'd already figured out when you submitted that number. There's no point in including Colonial Era power plants puffing along in Africa or Bangladesh and now tied together with bailing wire when calculating what's possible for modern power plants yet to be built in Europe.
But, there's also no point in me having to knock down your continued misrepresentations.
We have an apparently valid point of comparison that neither one of us has to build. The Tesla S for 2017 has been judged by the EPA to have ‘gasoline equivalent’ combined city/highway mileage of 104 mpg.
Seems most of our oil-fired power plants were constructed prior to Arab Oil Embargo against the United States (but not including Europe). There was a definite drop off after that in plants being planned for oil consumption. (Plants already deep in the planning stage or actually under construction continued to come on-line for a few years, but that seems to have been a break point for oil-fired electricity in the United States.)
"And we have used an estimate for a combined cycle gas turbine
that an oil-fired generator could not hope to match."
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the technology which allows a gas turbine to run as ‘combined cycle’ isn't equally applicable to a liquid fueled turbine.
In fact, diesel has a higher energy content than natural gas, which is why T. Boone Pickens has had so much trouble getting his plan for natural gas fueled truck fleets off the ground. Kerosene has an even higher energy density than diesel. (Hell, even gasoline has more energy than natural gas.)
There's absolutely no reason to believe a modern oil fired combined cycle turbine couldn't seriously outperform the natural gas turbines Petes has referred to for his baseline figures. Petes just made up that part about an oil-fired generator having no hope. In fact, lot of his stuff in this thread has been ‘made up stuff’.
@ Lynnette,
Fella writing in TheNewRepublic thinks I'm wrong about the Republican Party being on a path to a schism. He thinks they'll come back, meaner, stronger, and even further out to the extreme right-wing than ever before. And gives his reasons why. You might find it interesting, and its a fairly quick read too.
(I still think I'm right, although I would say that it's lookin’ like the right-wing crazies are winning over the ‘establishment’ wing of the party, and they will probably get to keep the moniker of ‘Republican’ after the schism. However I think they will find themselves relegated to the role of a regional party, unable to win national elections. That'll last for a brief while as the Democrats are then forced to reorganize as well, to deal with moderate Republicans (now derided by the right-wingers as ‘RINOS’ and purged from the Republican ranks) who'll want to find a way to vote Democrat but also will want to pull that party back from its current drift to the left. So, to summarize. I'm now guessing the Republican Party both suffers a schism and finds itself relegated to the role of regional party. Used to I thought it'd be either/or; nowadays I'd be bettin’ on both.)
wind (3-6 cents)
That's interesting, wind is the cheapest. And isn't the windmill the oldest technology?
But can we get enough windmills to generate the amount of electricity needed? It will probably take multiple sources, as we have said in the past, depending upon location. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right when he put the solar panels on the White House.
I presume nuclear is so expensive because of the up front cost of building the plants and running them.
However I think they will find themselves relegated to the role of a regional party, unable to win national elections.
Perhaps that will depend upon how many people have had their fill of Trump. And whether or not we can keep the Russians from meddling in future elections.
"And isn't the windmill the oldest technology?"
It's long been use to pump water or turn gristmills, but people have been sundrying items, specifically foodstuffs and clothing, but other stuff too, even longer, much longer.
The cost of nuclear is largely related to necessary safety equipment and procedures (those would be operating costs, not so much up-front costs), but also to the costs of shielding. I seem to recall that compliance costs just to get permission to build are also fairly staggering.
"…wind is the cheapest."
And natural gas has the widest range, 5¢ to 21¢. I presume this the high end is there because gas is often used for those ‘peaker plants’. Thus my inclination to believe that new power will lean towards renewables (utility scale solar is next cheapest) intermixed with natural gas.
"And whether or not we can keep the Russians from meddling in
future elections."
There is that.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The House of Representatives has just passed it's $4.1 Trillion budget outline. It's draconian, as one would expect, but its real purpose is to set up that $4.1 Trillion number. If the Senate can pass a budget outline that hits the same number (or lower) they can try to do the real budget via the recently made famous ‘reconciliation’ process that avoids a Senate filibuster, but still wasn't enough to get that ObamaCare repeal across the finish line for them.
I see Chumpy continues his frantic Googlin'.
To briefly address his idiocy:
1) The EPA numbers for EV "mpg" are based on battery energy, not well-to-wheels efficiency. Since I have been talking about the latter since the beginning, yore wild ravings about Tesla's 104 mpg are of relevance to nobody but yoreself.
2) Chumpy insists on using a gas-guzzling piece of American junk as the comparison for a Tesla model S, on no other basis than its 0-60 mph performance. He ignores, for instance, that an average diesel car will cruise happily at 75 mph and still give superb fuel efficiency, whereas nominal EV performance will plummet at that speed. Chumpy pretends that EV efficiency will increase when they turn their mind to building cars without sports performance for "fat irishmen". He knows this is a lie -- the EV has inherently high torque at low revs, it's nothing to do with intentionally building a lower efficiency car for better acceleration. That applies to Corvettes, not to EVs. Chumpy knows that. He's lyin' for the sake of savin' face.
3) That shit about an ICE being less efficient because not all crude oil is processed into gasoline ... even in Chumpy's world of kindergarten arithmetic that one dudn't make any sense. And it ain't worth wastin' any words on here.
4) As for me havin' "just made up that part about an oil-fired generator having no hope" vs. an NG CCGT... actually, no. A combined cycle gas turbine uses the exhaust gas from a primary gas turbine in a heat recovery steam generator. That involves extracting the latent heat of evaporation of water in the gas turbine exhaust. The "wetter" the exhaust, the more latent heat. Natural gas has double the ratio of hydrogen to carbon of the higher alkanes, therefore double the ratio of H20 to CO2 in the exhaust and more recoverable heat. The lesson from this is that you oughta make sure you know shit about shit before you start flingin' wild accusations.
"I conclude I must have inadvertently picked up the kilometers per… numbers rather than the miles per... I now stand corrected."
LOL, that ole' kindergarten arithmetic. Wot a Chump.
"You have done us all a service; you have certainly done me a service."
Why, how uncharacteristically gracious. Y'all don't normally say thanks for the free education.
"Oh, and just for the record. This is not a debate."
Well ya certainly got that right. I'd call it more of a whuppin'. But I note yer graciousness didn't last too long.
And just to reiterate: to put 75 kWh of oil-powered electric energy into a battery will take the equivalent of somewhere between four and ten US gallons of gasoline. That's true whether the EV is a $100k Tesla Roadster or a milk float.
"1) The EPA numbers for EV "mpg" are based on battery energy,
not well-to-wheels efficiency…"
Complete and utter bullshit. Ain't no comparable performing vehicles that get anywhere near 100 mpg. We've come the full circle now. That was the item I noted that started you on this rant in the first place (Lee C. @ Thu Sep 28, 02:43:00 pm) and you still have no answer for it.
There is no mpg parity between the gasoline engine and the Tesla's 104 mpg ‘gasoline equivalent’ comparable gasoline powered cars get 18-19 mpg.
I got better things to do than this, right now. I'll look at the rest of your post in about a half an hour.
"…on no other basis than its 0-60 mph performance…"
Apparently you've never driven a ‘Vette. (Probably haven't driven a Tesla S either.)
"The lesson from this is that you oughta make sure you know shit
about shit before you start flingin' wild accusations."
Nah, the lesson is to keep a close watch on you for more efforts at deception. I gave you a second chance at this one, but, like the water/alcohol miscibility explanation we went through earlier, you've decided to double down on deception once again.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Side Note to Lynnette and Marcus:
The bastard's been lying to us again.
A steam turbine is a steam turbine because steam drives the turbine blades. That makes it a steam turbine. The steam can be created by burning any number of fuels, or even from electricity.
A gas turbine is a gas turbine because exhaust gases from out of a combustion chamber drive the turbine blades; if exhaust gases drive the turbine blades, it's a gas turbine. Doesn't matter if the combustion is fueled by natural gas, diesel, kerosene, or whatnot. A turboprop airplane, turbine engine running on liquid fuel way up in the air is a gas turbine--a turbine running on liquid fuel in a power plant on the ground is a gas turbine. Petes knew this already. He was hoping you guys would never find it out.
End Side Note:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Natural gas has double the ratio of hydrogen to carbon of the
higher alkanes…"
The ratio of water vapor in the exhaust to the carbon expelled is only one factor among many; it is not the determining factor for how much heat can be extracted from the fuel or even from the turbine exhaust across the cycle; it also matters how much heat can be made in the first place available, and natural gas scores way low on that scale. (I guess you thought I didn't know this already. You probably ought to quit doin’ that--you keep getting caught.) This is the equivalent of your water/alcohol miscibility bullshit, being now repeated here. You're trying to bullshit your way through with brief jargon spout that tells only part of the story and that's only partially relevant.
"And just to reiterate: to put 75 kWh of oil-powered electric energy
into a battery will take the equivalent of somewhere between four and
ten US gallons of gasoline."
More bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. We don't even have to use gasoline, much less four to ten gallons of the stuff.
Nor do we have to use an equivalent. We can use kerosene even other products lower down the hierarchy of easy burnability. We can convert the entire barrel to a usable fuel that never approaches gasoline equivalence (plus small amount of some waste no more than we experience distilling gasoline and diesel). And then we can use the whole barrel.
I'm not sure the other stuff you went on about are important enough to waste my time writing about. I'll look at them again later and ponder on whether it's worth my time.
But, this should do for now.
[Petes]: "The EPA numbers for EV "mpg" are based on battery energy, not well-to-wheels efficiency…"
[Chump]: "Complete and utter bullshit. Ain't no comparable performing vehicles that get anywhere near 100 mpg."
Ok, either you are so stupid you think nobody notices you bein' a complete troll, or you are so stupid ya can't figure out what "well-to-wheels" means.
Ok, this is gonna be my last word on it. Y'all are impossible to educate, and not worth wastin' a second more on. Actually, for the last word, let's go over to the EPA themselves:
[EPA]: "For those vehicles that do not use liquid fuels--such as electric vehicles... -- the labels display miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (MPGe). Think of this as being similar to MPG, but instead of presenting miles per gallon of the vehicle’s fuel type, it represents the number of miles the vehicle can go using a quantity of fuel with the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline." (link)
Ok, so the EPA mpg rating for an EV is based on it using a quantity of energy in gallons of gasoline equivalent. But: HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES IT TAKE TO CHARGE THE BATTERY WITH FOSSIL FUEL POWERED ELECTRICITY? Well, that's a very different question, but we can get a gallons of gasoline equivalent for that too, also from the EPA using their greenhouse gas calculator here. (Yes, I know it's a GHG calculator, not an energy calculator, bear with me).
It's very easy to use. Put in 75 for the number, and "kilowatt-hours of electricity" for the unit. Hey presto! It tells you that it is the CO2 equivalent of 6.3 gallons of gasoline consumed. QED. Chumpy loses. Game over.
But ... we could add some fine print. This EPA reference tells us that to compare tailpipe CO2 for an ICE we have to multiply by 1.25 to allow for GHGs in gasoline production. Fair enough. On the other hand, if we read the details of how the GHG numbers for electricity are calculated, the EPA uses the fuel source used in marginal electricity production. That is natural gas in almost all cases (check out the regional data for the US, also on the EPA site). NG produces less CO2 than other fossil fuels, so the 6.3 gallons of gasoline equivalent would be higher if it was actual gasoline being burned. Swings and roundabouts. If we make no allowance for this, and still divide by 1.25, we still get 5 gallons of gasoline equivalent to produce the 75 kWh that went into the battery. And that's the bare minimum, using efficient peaking power plants which are generally gas turbines.
Don't know why I bothered with the small print, mind -- Chumpy ain't gonna understand it. And there's no point even guessin' what asinine pseudo-objections he'll devise. Anyway, he's on total ignore mode now.
Side Note to Lynnette and Marcus: I'm assuming you guys understand the point of a gallon-of-gasoline energy equivalent, unlike Lee. Nobody's suggesting it would make sense to burn all our gasoline to generate electricity. If you can get it from renewables, so much the better. But if you want to compare fossil fuel consumption in ICEs with the energy required to produce electricity from fossil fuels to drive the same miles in an EV, you have to use comparable units. Lee has wasted hundreds of posts rabbiting on about how you could burn kerosene instead of gasoline and other such irrelevant inanities. I trust you get it.
Chumpy's on ignore, but I did have to laugh at one comment, which I presume was supposed to ooze machismo:
"Apparently you've never driven a ‘Vette."
Correct. But I did used to watch them driving down the main street of some of the very affluent towns in Silicon Valley. Generally they were being driven by spoiled-looking teenagers "hanging out", or maybe the sort of bloke who carries a handbag.
LOL.
"…or you are so stupid ya can't figure out what "well-to-wheels"
means."
Rather I happen to know that when the EPA assigns gas mileage ratings they start with the gasoline; they don't go back to the well. The EPA ‘gas equivalence’ measures the miles per full battery charge against the gasoline that'd be necessary to put that charge in the battery.
There ain't no gasoline wells; I know that; you know that; the EPA knows that. You're just looking for a diversion, hoping to confuse Lynnette and Marcus.
(Plus you never explain how or why a ‘wells to wheels’ investigation would achieve a different result--on account of there's no reason to believe that it would. It's the diversion that you're after here, not actually getting anywhere with a ‘well to wheels’ argument. You don't want to actually get anywhere near there; you just want to get away from here. Drop it into permanent limbo somewhere between here and there and then proudly tell ‘em you somehow ‘won the argument; see if they'll buy it.)
"Ok, this is gonna be my last word on it."
Excellent. In case I decide there's some other points you need corrected about, I'll not have to worry ‘bout you getting proud if I happen to make a spelling error or a typo. (And I did the first time I wrote this; typo not spelling error.)
"(Yes, I know it's a GHG calculator, not an energy calculator,
bear with me).
If they actually followed you through all that they're gonna be a bit pissed at you for thinkin’ they're that stupid.
(I presume that I'm not the only one who notices that when he's comparing greenhouse gas equivalences he's comparing to a natural gas source, but that ‘gasoline equivalence’ for a miles per gallon comparison pretty much by definition compares to gasoline, and natural gas is a very low emitter of greenhouse gases as compared to liquid petroleum based fuels--which is why T. Boone Pickens was once trying to sell America on a natural gas trucking fleet--that and he owned a bunch of natural gas).
I gotta wonder how dumb he thinks you guys are.
"I gotta wonder how dumb he thinks you guys are."
Petes I mean, not T. Boone Pickins.
"…but I did have to laugh at one comment, which I presume was
supposed to ooze machismo:"
Hey Marcus! Did you know that when you were telling us about your experience in a Tesla S that you were ‘oozing machismo’?
Not gonna waste more than a sentence, but some statements are too dumb to let pass.
"The EPA ‘gas equivalence’ measures the miles per full battery charge against the gasoline that'd be necessary to put that charge in the battery."
Directly contradicted by the EPA quote and link from just a few posts back. How stoopid can ya get?
The EPA says 75 kwHe = 6.6 gallons of gas equivalent. Suck it up, Chumpy.
"Hey Marcus!..."
Hey Marcus, you started this whole thing on EVs. It's your turn to handle the troll ;-)
I think I'll make a closing statement. Petes has said he's already given us his last word on this subject, and so I don't have to worry about typing errors, and so, ‘Why not?’ We'll just pretend that last post he just popped out was an aberration.
Let's all back up a bit here and recall the opening question.
I think that might be a good thing to do given how many rabbit holes Petes has run us down, and the many more rabbit holes he's tried to direct us into.
The opening question was whether or not Europe could move to electric vehicles. Petes claimed that this wasn't going to be possible because of the vast amount of energy required to move those vehicles across Europe's roads. To wit:
"Those stories going around about countries about to ditch petrol
and diesel in favour of EVs ... those are hogwash. It will be impossible
to generate enough electricity any time soon. Norway is the biggest
virtue-signalling greenie of them all ... so why is its gasoline
consumption going up? ;-)"
Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am (ellipses in original)
And then he carried on about long dark winters without solar power.
So, in spite of all the tangents and rabbit holes he's tried to find for us, is there anybody who still believes that Europe can't make the engineering switch to EVs and ditch petrol? All ya gotta do is use the crude oil that currently goes into petrol (that's gasoline for us here in The States); use that to produce electricity. Anybody been following this that don't know that's more than possible? Just a matter of building the power plants and fueling them with petroleum products from the many barrels of petroleum that would not have to be used to make gasoline or diesel.
"Directly contradicted by the EPA quote and link from just a few
posts back. How stoopid can ya get?
"The EPA says 75 kwHe = 6.6 gallons of gas equivalent. Suck it up…"
I did a document search. There is no such quote on (or from) either of the pages you put up. I'll let others look on their own to confirm it. But, a quick search will show that the EPA never ‘says 75 kwHe = 6.6 gallons’of anything.
Bluntly put, that's a baldfaced lie.
But, I'll let other do their own search for those words and numbers.
"Bluntly put, that's a baldfaced lie."
But, given the number of lies you've propagated since we took up this topic, it's probably perfectly fitting and proper that you end your presentation with an obvious and easily checked lie like that last one.
"I did a document search. There is no such quote on (or from) either of the pages you put up."
You truly are a Grade A moron. You gotta type in the 75. I WROTE OUT THE FRICKIN' INSTRUCTIONS FOR YA FOR CHRISSAKE.
[Lynnette]: "So to pick up that load, if we were to discontinue ICE's and switch to EV's, we would have to ramp up our electricity output."
Correct.
[Lynnette]: "Are we looking at nuclear power to generate enough electricity to cover the demand? Is that the most likely scenario to allow for making a profit? Because, unless you have some kind of governmental legislation, our system uses profits as a catalyst for economic development of industry."
Highly unlikely. The US is a big user of nukes, but it's still only 20% of power production and there were no new nukes built for thirty years. There have been applications in the US to build 24 new nukes in the last decade but only one or two are under construction. In fact, I remember reading a while back that the total number of nukes under construction or even planned across the whole globe is only equivalent to six months worth of Chinese coal-fired plant construction. And a good chunk of the new nukes are planned for China itself. (I don't know if that has changed with the Chinese economic slowdown).
Nuclear power is very unpopular with the public, especially post Fukushima. There is a huge regulatory burden which dramatically increases the cost. Costings also (righty) have to include end-of-life decommissioning these days. As you say, if it comes down to profit nuclear has serious difficulty competing with natural gas. So no, I don't think we're looking at nukes ... not the conventional sort at any rate.
[Lynnette]: "But can we get enough windmills to generate the amount of electricity needed?"
I seriously doubt it. I think if any renewable technology is going to win out, it will eventually be solar. But that has its limitations too. In reality, there is little point speculating about it because all approaches need technological breakthroughs (such as utility-scale storage) which we can't be certain will be achieved. Rooftop solar will definitely make inroads into domestic electricity consumption even without further breakthroughs. But it won't charge your electric car unless you work at night, stay home by day, and/or only do modest commutes to the office. That 75 kWh charge is equal to two and half days of electricity consumption for all others uses for the average US household. And the average US household consumes nearly three times as much as the average European household.
[Lynnette]: "It will probably take multiple sources, as we have said in the past, depending upon location. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right when he put the solar panels on the White House."
Diversification will certainly be a big feature.
[Lynnette]: "I presume nuclear is so expensive because of the up front cost of building the plants and running them."
Plus decommissioning and regulatory costs as I mentioned. Nuclear could be a lot cheaper, and could be done much better ... but I don't think the impetus is there for the time being.
"I WROTE OUT THE FRICKIN' INSTRUCTIONS FOR YA FOR
CHRISSAKE."
Nobody needs your instructions to look for a ‘quote’ that you said was there, but that isn't.
For a total change of topic, I enjoyed the following quote:
"Maybe Robert Mueller's investigation will turn up evidence of collusion beyond liberals' wildest imagination. Or maybe it will be a big nothingburger. My money's on the latter."
"In the meantime, it seems safe to say that much of the attention paid to every morsel of Russia-related news is meant to satiate the appetite of journalistic obsessives and appease the consciences of people who are theoretically preoccupied with the decorous maintenance of our beloved democratic norms but emotionally incapable of reconciling themselves to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a bland uninspiring candidate and that a former reality television personality is the 44th successor to George Washington."
"What else explains the extent to which so many liberals are losing their minds over Russia?"
"...The latest revelation about wiretapping, along with every previous revelation, is not a smoking gun or any kind of gun. It's more like a butter knife with a few stale crumbs smeared on the blade. There is still no reason to believe that Manafort was an agent acting in anyone's interest but his own. The man is a petty swindler, not Kim Philby."
"The posturing from people who believe that a stupid documentary about Hillary Clinton financed by a right-wing nonprofit group was a grave internal threat to our democratic order is tiresome. Our elections have for decades been a grotesque contest of fundraising one-upmanship among the billionaire class. The painfully earnest high-school civics class image of our sacrosanct democratic process is a false one. Lots of countries interfere in foreign elections, including ours. We've been doing it for more than a half a century, and we're still doing it now."
(link)
"For a total change of topic…"
Well, then, if you're gonna flee now, I'll have to fill in the gaps for our friends. I was hoping to drag you into trying to explain it, but apparently that's not gonna work, so I'll have to do it myself.
It's another hustle folks.
If ya'll will follow the ‘How are equivalencies calculated’ link on the left side of his calculator page link, you will find this language:
"The Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator uses the
AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) U.S. national
weighted average CO2 marginal emission rate to convert reductions
of kilowatt-hours into avoided units of carbon dioxide emissions."
In other words, the comparison they're giving you is for how many gallons worth of greenhouse gases have been avoided by not using gasoline (using their average vehicle standard). This has nothing to do with mile per gallon equivalences. Instead it tells us 75 kWh in a battery avoids 6.6 gallons worth of greenhouse gases. (Avoiding greenhouse gases is one of the primary benefits of electric vehicles.) It does not correlate to anything having anything to do with a miles per gallon comparison!
Petes knows this. He's hoping you won't notice. He's trying to bullshit ya.
I invite to you look at it carefully; check it out yourselves; you'll see I'm right--he's trying to hustle you again.
"Instead it tells us 75 kWh in a battery avoids 6.6
gallons worth of greenhouse gases."
Make that 6.3 gallons worth of greenhouse gases.
It's still a con job. He knows better than the tale he's trying to sell you guys; I know better; if you look at it closely, you'll know better too.
I've been thinking overnight. (I guess I was thinking overnight, I woke up with this thought on my mind. It's one of those ‘let me sleep on it’ revelations.) I was trying to figure out a clearer way to explain the hustle Petes was trying to run on people, something clearer than wandering through the definitions pages and also wandering through Petes' various, strung together misrepresentations in that argument he tried to confuse folks with back at Petes @ Thu Oct 05, 10:55:00 pm ↑↑.
And then it hit me. There was a very simple way to point out what that ‘Enter Your Data’ calculator page was showing us.
If ya'll will take the moment to notice:
After making the entries Petes wants us to make, and clicking on ‘Calculate’, it shows the equivalents for ‘miles driven by an average passenger vehicle’ and it shows a little icon of a car (and they figure the little car will travel 137 miles).¹
It also shows the equivalent of ‘pounds of coal burned’ and shows a little icon of a powerplant with chunks of coal on fire.
Then it shows the number Petes wants you to pay attention to; that's the 6.3 for gallons of gasoline consumed, and it shows you a little icon for the gasoline pump at your neighborhood gas station. They are intending to show how much gasoline it would take, pumped out of out of those pumps into a gasoline powered car, to travel that 137 estimated miles.
This is not an indication of some equivalent amount of power coming out of a power plant--they have a different icon for a power plant--we saw that one earlier. This is how many gallons of gasoline are NOT being pumped into a competing gas guzzler at some local gas station to get their standard model gasoline powered car across that same 137 mile range. (They're assuming a not too impressive 21.7 mpg in that standard car. 137 ÷ 6.3 = 21.7)
___________________
¹ The Tesla actually gets 249 miles on that charge, not 137, but they're probably using the Chevy Volt or the Fiat 500e or a Nissan Leaf or one of the other, older, less efficient battery type models with less range as their standard model for miles per.
Interesting tidbit on American Politics: Republicans have long fought any public disclosures of who's funding their advertising. They like that black money.
However, in the wake of the Russian meddling in our last elections some of them appear ready to breach that wall of privacy for the first time.
"Republicans in Congress are weighing joining with Democrats to
demand greater transparency for political ads on Facebook and
Twitter, as both parties look for ways to prevent a 2018 repeat of
Russia’s election meddling last year."
Politico.Com
I'm not much of a fan of black money in politics; decidedly not a fan. I think all campaign expenditures should be disclosed along with who is actually paying for them--none of this funny business with supposedly ‘non-profit, educational’ SuperPacs who keep their contributors list a secret. So, I think this is a good thing.
I hope it's only the beginning of getting rid of black money in American politics.
And, I notice that we still had players takin’ a knee during the national anthem in last night's Patriots v Buccaneers game. (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)
Some of the fans booed at the players. The owners shrug it off--both the booing and the kneeling. Free country; free speech.
More notably, the TV networks are no longer showing the kneeling (they weren't before Trump went after the players in that Alabama speech; it was common practice to get in lots of commercials before the game started including using up the time spent on the national anthem--so they always showed commercials there instead, until this became ‘a thing’.) Nor are they wasting time on the booing. The novelty is wearing off and they want to run their commercials.
I still think Shorthands is gonna lose this one. I wonder how long he'll keep it up before he figures out he needs to declare victory and move on before everybody notices that he lost this one.
I used to think The Chump was just paranoid, willing to go to any lengths to avoid being seen to lose an argument. We've seen it in his constant Jesuitical nitpicking and obfuscation. But lately he's taken to arguing that something written in black and white literally says something else. I'm beginning to wonder if I've been doing him a disservice. It's starting to look less like paranoia and more like honest-to-goodness, deeply ingrained, right-to-the-bone stupidity.
I mean, he actually quotes the EPA above:
"The Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator uses the AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool (AVERT) U.S. national weighted average CO2 marginal emission rate to convert reductions of kilowatt-hours into avoided units of carbon dioxide emissions."
And in the very next paragraph he writes:
"In other words, the comparison they're giving you is for how many gallons worth of greenhouse gases have been avoided by not using gasoline."
The EPA quote says REDUCTIONS OF KILOWATT-HOURS, not reduction of gasoline use as Chumpy claims. And for even further avoidance of ambiguity, if Chumpy had bothered to include the EPA's heading over their paragraph, it says ELECTRICITY REDUCTIONS. Not gasoline reductions.
Chumpy blathers on:
"Instead it tells us 75 kWh in a battery avoids 6.6 gallons worth of greenhouse gases. (Avoiding greenhouse gases is one of the primary benefits of electric vehicles.)".
Except that EPA page says nothing about batteries. It says nothing about EVs. If the page was about how much CO2 is avoided by driving an EV, you might expect they'd mention particular EV models and particular batteries, unless Chumpy thinks a lead acid battery in a golf cart is the same as a Li-ion in a Tesla. It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels. And it comes to roughly the equivalent in gasoline that I've been saying all along.
Either Chumpy's gittin' desparate, or my new hypothesis is correct -- he's stupid to the bone.
"…Jesuitical nitpicking…"
I have learned over the years that this is Fat Irish Catholic dialect for ‘oops’.
"If the page was about how much CO2 is avoided by driving an EV,
you might expect they'd mention particular EV models and particular
batteries…"
One might expect that they'd do that, but they don't. They simply use one flat equivalency ratio. No adjustments, no exceptions. (Thats how they manage to come up with the 137 mile range too.)
By the way, Petes. What is your problem with the Jesuits? They refuse to accept you into a program or something like that?
Current Pope is a Jesuit. I think that, as Catholics go, I kinda like Jesuits. Current Pope certainly seems comparatively enlightened.
"…you might expect they'd mention particular EV models and particular
batteries…"
Ya know, jumping into this erroneous assumption might be where you got yourself confused in the first place. Now that you know better, maybe you'll wanna go back over your tortured path and try to figure out where you got yourself lost? Think so maybe?
"It's clear to a kindergarten child that the EPA page is about the
amount of CO2 used in the production of 75 kWh of electricity from
fossil fuels."
That's completely and utterly wrong. You're gonna need to call me a Jesuit again when this one's over. As in ‘oops’.
1. "If you want to compare total tailpipe plus fuel production GHG
emissions for an electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle to those for
a gasoline vehicle, you should multiply your gasoline vehicle tailpipe
GHG emissions value on the Fuel Economy and Environment Label
by 1.25 to reflect the fuel production GHG emissions for gasoline."
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Different Fuels
(link supplied by Petes originally)
2. This is a Fuel Economy and Environment Label from a 2017 Tesla Roadster (I can't yet find a graphic on the web for a Tesla S, and I'm not all that interested in googling stuff for ya, so I decided this was close enough.)
3. The tailpipe emissions line reads as follows:
"This vehicle emits 0 grams [CO2] per mile. The best emits
0 grams per mile (tailpipe only)! Does not include emissions from
generating electricity; learn more at fueleconomy.gov."
(link supplied above)
4. 1.25 × 0 + not included = 0
Any of this you don't understand now?
Post Script:
"Does not include emissions from generating electricity."
(emphasis added; I forgot to note ‘emphasis added’ the first time)
Back to the Joint/Iranian nuclear deal:
WallStreetJournal says that Shorthands decided to ‘de-certify’ Iran's compliance after reading an Op-Ed by John Bolton in, none other than, the WallStreetJournal. It's apparently been a done deal as far as Shorthands is concerned since early July and none of his theoretically, protectively sane generals/advisors could talk him out of it.
Op-Ed in the NewYorkTimes about how racism is an increasing problem in the mid-west, specifically in what used to be near 100% white communities. People who seldom have dealt with people from other races and/or backgrounds tending to freak out when confronted by the first one they have to deal with, and the failure to recognize that truth cost Hillary enough votes to lose the election for her. (She won the popular vote by damn near 3 million votes--pretty much anything that could have turned a half a percent can be tagged as ‘losing the election’ for her.)
This is a little long for a New York Times piece, but interesting.
But, a quick search will show that the EPA never ‘says 75 kwHe = 6.6 gallons’of anything.
It is the EPA's Greenhouse Gas calculator that Petes is referring to. Plugging in 75 KWH's of electricity it comes up with comparisons to other fuels that will emit the same greenhouse gas. In this case 6.3 gallons of gasoline will emit the same amount of CO2.
Nuclear power is very unpopular with the public, especially post Fukushima.
Yes. There have been too many accidents to make people feel comfortable with this type of fuel. Wind and solar seem so much, well, safer.
[Lynnette]: "But can we get enough windmills to generate the amount of electricity needed?"
[Anonymous]: I seriously doubt it.
lol! I do to. There is a wind farm in out state Minnesota that I have driven by. It is huge. I can't imagine what would be needed to generate the amount of electricity needed to run a fleet of EV's.
Yes, storage is critical, especially for wind. You can't generate power if there is no wind.
I still wonder about alternate fuels, such as this. But they are kind of becalmed at the moment because of the lower oil prices.
Dang, gotta run...
"It is the EPA's Greenhouse Gas calculator that Petes is referring to."
Yeah, I got that part. I was trying to make him explain it. (Lee C. @ Fri Oct 06, 01:35:00 am ↑↑)
"In this case 6.3 gallons of gasoline will emit the same amount of CO2.)"
Not quite, or perhaps it'd better to ask ‘same amount of CO2 as what’?
What the EPA was trying to tell us was that the 75 kWh spent in that battery charge ‘saved’ the world from having 6.3 gallons of gasoline being poured into a gas guzzler competing to supply those same 137 miles of travel on the road. It's not the ‘same’ amount of CO2--it's a measure how much CO2 the 75 kWh of electricity prevents from being emitted in the first place (on average, using their standard model for the competing gasoline powered vehicle).
"Dang, gotta run..."
Excellent. Gives me time to expand on my answer to your ‘same amount of CO2’ comment.
The EPA is using standard models in that calculator, both for their competing American automobile, and for their assumed electric vehicle. Their standard model EV goes 137 miles on a 75 kWh charge. Their standard model American gasoline automobile (ICE) goes 21.7 miles per gallon. Thus 6.3 gallons of gasoline in the tank = 137 transportation miles = 75 kWh in the battery.
I won't bother with where they get their EV standard (maybe we'll get into that later), but the mpg for their standard auto (ICE) is an average of the mpg ratings for the actual sales figures the EPA has for new automobiles sold in America for the preceding year.
Only thing is, the Tesla S actually goes 249 miles on that 75 kWh, not 137 miles; it beats the hell out of their standard model EV. That same distance in a a brand new 2017 standard EPA model American gasoline powered automobile (ICE) would actually require 11½ gallons of gasoline. (That's 249 miles driven @ 21.7 mpg; I'll let you do the math to confirm that to your own satisfaction.)
Post Script:
That same 249 miles traveled would require 13.8 gallons of gasoline in the ‘Vette (2017 6.2 liter D90).
I still think I'm right, although I would say that it's lookin’ like the right-wing crazies are winning over the ‘establishment’ wing of the party, and they will probably get to keep the moniker of ‘Republican’ after the schism. However I think they will find themselves relegated to the role of a regional party, unable to win national elections.
I would prefer that you are correct, rather than the author of that article. The nationalism of a Steve Bannon or the religious extremism of the far right are not the path I want for my country. It is the antithesis of what this country was dreamed to be.
"Maybe Robert Mueller's investigation will turn up evidence of collusion beyond liberals' wildest imagination. Or maybe it will be a big nothingburger. My money's on the latter."
Just a small aside:
On Oct. 17, 1931, Chicago gangster Al Capone was convicted of income tax evasion and later sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, ending his control of the Chicago underworld.
Funny how some things go down.
No, I don't think Trump will be convicted of tax evasion. It's just the circumstance of Capone's conviction of, in the scheme of his list of crimes, a mundane thing suggests that justice can come in odd ways.
Yeah, I got that part. I was trying to make him explain it.
lol! Yeah, I see that. It's taking me some time to get through all of the comments.
"It's taking me some time to get through all of the comments."
No doubt. You might easy be well into tomorrow night before you worm your way through all that.
"You might easy be well into tomorrow night…"
Or, maybe even Sunday night--there's been lotta stuff tossed out there.
Excellent. Gives me time to expand on my answer to your ‘same amount of CO2’ comment.
Both you and Petes know far more about the nuts and bolts(or shall we say numbers) than I do with regard to this topic, which is why I kept my post on EVs to basics with a little entertainment thrown in.
It's a given that the way that the electricity is generated to power an EV, or the type of fuel in an ICE, will have an impact on our environment with regard to CO2, whether or not Petes intended to bring that into play in the discussion or was just using that calculator to substantiate a point. That we have not come up with a simple answer on how to proceed shows the complexity of the problem. It isn't just about the numbers but about the politics and economics. I certainly get that.
So, will it be EVs, which will still require fuel of some sort for electricity generation or ICEs that have been tweaked to go farther on a gallon of gas or use an alternate fuel?
If it is EVs, how do we generate enough electricity to run them?
If it is ICEs will it be a higher required MPG or alternate fuel? If so what fuel?
Will China win out with a choice made by its government?
Will America and Europe find the solution first with their private sector?
Or will we all just spin our wheels, no pun intended, well, maybe a little one, and flounder around wasting time and resources?
Or, maybe even Sunday night--there's been lotta stuff tossed out there.
Yup, science and math homework. lol!
But, time for bed...
"Yup, science and math homework. lol!"
Ah, well, then there's this to add to your homework:
Petes said:
"The EPA quote says REDUCTIONS OF KILOWATT-HOURS, not
reduction of gasoline use as Chumpy claims. And for even further
avoidance of ambiguity, if Chumpy had bothered to include the EPA's
heading over their paragraph, it says ELECTRICITY REDUCTIONS.
Not gasoline reductions."
Petes @ Fri Oct 06, 12:53:00 pm ↑↑
First off: I never claimed that the term ‘Reduction’ as used in ‘REDUCTIONS OF KILOWATT-HOURS’ had anything to do with ‘reduction of gasoline use’. (Avoidance of CO2 emission from gasoline use maybe, but that's another rather technical question.) In fact, I offered no definition at all for the term ‘reduction’ as used in the EPA documents.
However: I do, and did understand how they were using that term; I knew what it meant when I read it the first time:
Wiki say
"…a reduction is an algorithm for transforming one problem into
another problem."
(emphasis in original)
Petes styles himself as something of an authority on algorithms (i.e. he claims to have been a computer programmer in the real world). He knew what they meant. He was hoping I didn't know what they meant (bad gamble there), and he figured that if I didn't know already then you'd never find out. Full on con-man stuff; trying to bluff his way through it.
"If it is EVs, how do we generate enough electricity to run them?"
We use the many thousands of barrels of petroleum that we now devote to the distillation of gasoline. Use that to make electricity instead of gasoline or diesel. It will be enough, more than enough. Switch over to renewables as soon as we can reasonably do so. The infrastructure for EVs (wiring, charging stations, etc.) will be transferable.
Many millions of barrels of oil? I'd have to look it up to know how much Ireland actually uses. I'll let Petes hit Google for that; he seems to have thing for ‘googling furiously’.
Entirely different subject; bump stocks: (I presume that by now nobody needs an explanation of what they are or how they work.)
The NRA seems to be willing to allow bump stocks to be outlawed by one means or another (they would prefer it be a regulation and that Congress not get involved, lest Congressmen get the unfortunate notion that they can actually regulate guns.)
It also matters that the big money in guns, the major gun manufacturers, do not make money on bump stocks. Those are cheap plastic pieces, mostly made and sold by small, after-market producers. Outlawing these bump stocks won't cost the gun lobby any money, won't eat into their profits.
Shorthands is making an effort to try to drum up support for ‘equal time’ for himself and Sean Hannity on the major networks. Trumptweets
Someone on his team will soon try to put the kibosh on such talk. It was the death of the federal ‘equal time’ regulations that allowed Radio-Right-Wing to flourish. Left-Wing firebrands cannot compete with Right-Wing firebrands on the radio. For some reason there's just more people willing to join the neo-nazi groups than there are willing to join the violent antifa groups, way more. The same is true for the less violent crazies. Just ain't enough people out on the political left wing to support a bunch of Left-Wing-Crazies on the AM radio dial. I'm not sure why this is true, but it is true.
Back when the federal government enforced ‘equal time’ regulations the stations that run Radio-Right-Wing programs has to reserve half of their air time for Radio-Left-Wing programs even though the audience for left wing craziness wasn't sufficient to support those programs on their own. If it hadn't been for the fact that they were subsidized by Radio-Right-Wing in the name of ‘equal time’ they would have vanished. As it was, both were suppressed; the Right-Wing audience wouldn't support both, and they quit listening to the AM radio entirely rather than pay enough attention to sort out the talkers for their preferred point-of-view and tune in at only the appropriate times.
Radio-Right-Wing took off when the federal rules requiring ‘equal time’ for political programming were dropped.
They'll soon enough get that news to Trump and he'll quit this talk. He won't be making these kinds of noises for very long; they'll explain it to him.
Another hurricane is set to make landfall in the US. This time Mississippi and Alabama. This is shaking out to be a very expensive year in lives upended an dollars lost.
An incident has occurred in London outside the National Museum with a man driving a car into a crowd of people. There are injuries and the man has been arrested. No determination on whether or not it was deliberate or an accident.
You're on top of the news this morning.
...the man has been arrested.
I should correct that and say he has been detained.
You're on top of the news this morning.
Multi-tasking. Eating breakfast and watching CNN.
Oh, and checking the bog.
‘Detained’ against his will is arrested. The double-talk is in case they discover he'd lost control of the vehicle by accident or mechanical failure or some such, then they all pretend he was never arrested (paperwork never gets finished; eventually disappears into cold files instead).
This happened on Expedition Road outside the Natural History Museum. I believe I said National Museum earlier.
We use the many thousands of barrels of petroleum that we now devote to the distillation of gasoline. Use that to make electricity instead of gasoline or diesel.
Incentive? Will that need a governmental push? Or will demand due to an increase in sales of EVs provide the incentive? Bottom line then being the need to get the general public to prefer EVs to ICEs.
In China, of course, a mandate from on high would do it. Here it is more complicated.
On of CNN's producers on the scene is saying the police presence, with guns, has increased quite a bit. There are also quite a few ambulances on scene. They are still talking possible accident, but there is an intense police presence for that kind of event.
Off to do errands, and hopefully some yard work, if it ever stops raining!
"Incentive?"
That is a consideration. But, Petes was telling us that it couldn't be done from a technical point of view. Not enough energy available he said.
That's wrong. The energy's already available; it's already being used; it's just being distilled into gasoline and diesel instead of into powerplant fuel for electric autos. (As power for electrics it would be vastly more efficient, ‘well to wheels’, as Petes likes to put it. He would like us to believe otherwise; that's bullshit.)
But we do have that problem of incentive, and incentives are harder to establish whilst we have people selling us bullshit lines about it being technically impossible. It is not impossible; it would not be difficult, and it would be more efficient, but more efficient may not be sufficient incentive to break us out of the current rut we're following.
I'll just post the quote now, before he denies saying it; save us having to go down that road:
"It will be impossible to generate enough electricity any time soon."
Petes @ Thu Sep 28, 02:16:00 am
Also, the original argument was about how much gasoline it would take to put 75 kWh of electricity into a battery pack. Petes said it would take 4.4 gallons. But, he was calculating it wrong.
Out of 45 gallons of distillates, only 20 gallons comes out as gasoline. So, 20 ÷ 45 = 44%; hell, I'll even throw in the 11 gallons of diesel and call all of it ‘gasoline’ (with the scare quotes), just for the purposes of this argument; that's 31 gallons. 15% is lost during the distillation phase. Figure a much simpler distillation process for a single fuel usable in the gas turbines and, just as a blind estimate, we'll claim 10% of that loss back, (that'd be 4½ gallons).
31 gallons of ‘gasoline’ currently; 49 gallons available theoretically, toss the 4½ gallons I claimed back from distillation losses, just to be conservative and call it waste instead.
31 gallons of ‘gasoline’ under the old regimen; 45 gallons of fuel under the new one. So, out of our new 45 gallons of powerplant fuel, only 69% would have been gasoline.
That means it only takes 3 gallons of gasoline to fill up our battery; the rest comes from what would never have become ‘gasoline’ in the first place, call that remainder ‘not-gasoline’.
Also, gas turbines are running at 60 efficiency these days, not the 54% Petes gave us. That's enough to claim back another three tens of a gallon as ‘fuel’; burn that instead of burning ‘gasoline’. Round it back to two tenths just to be conservative.
So, 2.8 gallons of ‘gasoline’ to fill the battery. The rest is from ‘not-gasoline’.
Couple of typos to correct:
"That means it only takes 3 gallons of ‘gasoline’…"
I left off the quote marks the first time.
"Also, gas turbines are running at 60 [%] efficiency…"
And the percentage sign.
Lots of back and forth debate on how much oil or gasoline would be required to drive this or that EV. A debate about engine efficiency really.
My impression is that what we really want from EV:s is to get away from fossil fuels as the energy source, or at least with oil (natural gas might be a bridge for some period of time) and fuel the EV batteries from renewable sources.
One interesting thing about this is that one of the downsides of renewables such as solar and wind is they generate outright electricity and we have no real was toda of storing a surplus. But IF we had a vast car-fleet their combined batteries could serve as just that, a huge battery where electricity can be stored at times when it's not needed.
John Q Commuter goes to the office in Arizona, and while he works his shitty and boring job at his desk the solarpanels installed nearby charges his car. At night when he drives around looking for hookers he's on a full battery, using the energy of the previous days sunlight.
"A debate about engine efficiency really."
I think the engine efficiency is probably the least debated part of it so far, but yeah, lot's of fuss about the efficiency of the process for fueling an EV.
I think that's called up when Petes alleges that there's not enough fuel available in Europe to make the change. I say ya got enough fuel to fill the tanks now means ya got more than enough fuel to run EVs instead. It's just a matter of doing it.
However, I was thinking it was about time to make the point that none of this settles your original question about whether we got enough lithium for batteries for widespread EV use. That one's still an open question in my mind.
Because when John was at the office his slut of a wife who's watched way too much Desperate Housewifes had some stud come over and give her a good seeing to. And John, suspecting this very thing and being sick of his nagging wife anyway, goes whore hunting at night.
That USED to take a toll on the Earth's stored energy resources, but now thanks to solar power and electric vehicles John's whoremongering comes with a virtually zero carbon dioxide footprint.
If, however, Johns vehicle was electrified by the burning of oil, instead of by solar panels, John hunting whores would still create CO2 and add to Global Warming.
So, you see, the example of John Q Commuter is that debating in length about wether oil-to-combustion-to-movement or oil-to-combustion-to-electricity-to-movement is preferable is rather a sidetrack.
Lee: "However, I was thinking it was about time to make the point that none of this settles your original question about whether we got enough lithium for batteries for widespread EV use. That one's still an open question in my mind."
Yes that's a most important question and I too find it still open. But IF there is a way to actually build a global EV carfleet I think Pete's pessimism about the enerly input is...strange, especially coming from him really.
I mean we haven't even begun speaking about the Nuclear option yet. New Nuclear reactors that are safe (enough) might see a new dawn. And renewables could be ramped up if there's a market for the electricity. Solar, wind, maybe tidal, and of course bio-fuels.
CBS news (online) is suggesting today's auto/pedestrian conflict in London was ‘not terror related’, but may nevertheless have been intentional on the part of the driver. (A head case perhaps?)
"…the Nuclear option…Solar, wind, maybe tidal…"
Gonna be hard to convert those for use in Petes' ‘larger diesel’.
I am reminded that there is still an ‘equal time’ rule for candidates running for federal office. I.e. if Sean Hannity has Trump on his FoxNews nightly show, then FoxNews must give other declared candidates for the Presidency equal time on-air in a comparable time slot. This applies because Trump has already formed a campaign committee for 2020 and announced that he's running again. But, nobody else has made a formal declaration, neither Democrat nor Republican, so there's nobody who qualifies to claim the equal time.
Certainly, none of the comedians giving him a hard time on late-night talk shows have declared themselves to be candidates for the Presidency, so the time they spend ragging on him don't count.
[Marcus]: I mean we haven't even begun speaking about the Nuclear option yet.
Actually someone did touch on that possibility earlier when I brought up the nuclear option.
[Anonymous]: Highly unlikely. The US is a big user of nukes, but it's still only 20% of power production and there were no new nukes built for thirty years. There have been applications in the US to build 24 new nukes in the last decade but only one or two are under construction. In fact, I remember reading a while back that the total number of nukes under construction or even planned across the whole globe is only equivalent to six months worth of Chinese coal-fired plant construction. And a good chunk of the new nukes are planned for China itself. (I don't know if that has changed with the Chinese economic slowdown).
Nuclear power is very unpopular with the public, especially post Fukushima. There is a huge regulatory burden which dramatically increases the cost. Costings also (righty) have to include end-of-life decommissioning these days. As you say, if it comes down to profit nuclear has serious difficulty competing with natural gas. So no, I don't think we're looking at nukes ... not the conventional sort at any rate.
I think I tend to agree with this assessment at this time. There have just been too many accidents that have turned the general public off on the use of this type of power.
[Marcus]: And renewables could be ramped up if there's a market for the electricity. Solar, wind, maybe tidal, and of course bio-fuels.
This is probably more likely. Or Lee's suggestion that we use oil.
Here is a nice overview of a battery's components, the sources for them and the challenges of obtaining them. It appears that it is not just lithium that is an issue. When asked Tesla's CTO said he is more concerned with cobalt, most of which comes from the Congo.
Tesla expects to produce 35 GWh worth of batteries in 2018, which is equivalent to the entire world production in 2013. That’s a 100% increase from a single factory.
"Actually someone did touch on that possibility earlier…"
I believe we sorta dismissed nukes from the highly probable list even earlier, on account of its cost. 01:23:00 am ↑↑
"Or Lee's suggestion that we use oil."
I would prefer we use greener sources, but the oil is available until those come online in sufficient quantities, and it'd go further if we used it for EVs instead of internal combustion engines. (Be a bit less convenient, but it'd go further and be cheaper.)
Stephen Paddock left a ‘not-suicide’ note in his hotel room. The cryptic note lead some investigators to believe that he had an escape plan and maybe an accomplice (they thought the note was written in code). Turns out the note was just notes, numbers from Paddock's calculations for aiming his shot (height off the ground, distance, angle of attack, etc.).
I'm not sure what help aiming might have been with those bump stocks. Going into full auto with a rifle makes it real hard to maintain any pretense of accurate aiming. Add to that difficulty the fact that bump-stocks allow the rifle to bounce, and actually aiming the bouncing gun is damn near impossible. Mostly one can just shoot into the general area of a target. (That's why I've never had much use for the bump-stock; I always thought of them as gimmicks to impress folks who don't know any better. In fact, if you'll look at the demo tapes most of the bump-stock manufacturers put out, they concentrate on showing the rifle as it ‘bumps’; they seldom spend any time showing the target getting hit. However, the idea of shooting, more or less aimlessly, into a dense crowd never crossed my mind.)
They were discussing what happened in Las Vegas with a panel of people on Fareed Zacharia's show this morning. One of those people was Thomas Friedman, who made the point that if the shooter had been a Muslim there would have been all sorts of cries for an investigation of his/her home country and what we can do to prevent this from happening again. But since the shooter was American this type of critical examination is not forthcoming.
Hmmm...they are now talking about Australia's gun control program that was enacted after a mass shooting in that country. The point being that it was a conservative government that pushed this through. This is a country that felt toward guns very much as many gun owning Americans do. It has been 21 years since the Port Arthur massacre and there has not been a mass shooting since. Gun deaths fell 59% and suicides 65% in the year following the gun control measure being enacted.
It appears that the take from Australia is that if after what happened in Vegas we do not get control of our gun problem the world will believe that we are basically in decline as a country.
Last year, Japan, a nation of 127 million, had 1 gun death. No one has a gun. Even the Japanese mob, the Yakuza, doesn't use guns. That country had very strict gun laws.
*sigh*
has very strict gun laws
Lynnette: "Hmmm...they are now talking about Australia's gun control program that was enacted after a mass shooting in that country. The point being that it was a conservative government that pushed this through. This is a country that felt toward guns very much as many gun owning Americans do. It has been 21 years since the Port Arthur massacre and there has not been a mass shooting since. Gun deaths fell 59% and suicides 65% in the year following the gun control measure being enacted."
First of all let me say I think you might wanna get a tad more restrictive with guns over there. Maybe. Might get 'em bump stocks restricted since they serve no real purpose other than for mass shootings, it seems to me.
But: Swizerland has an even larger "guns-culture" and more guns per capita than ya'll have. Mexico on the other hand have some very strict gun laws.
Wanna compare gun violence in Switzerland compared to Mexico?
It's not all just about available legal hardware you know...
Lee: " Turns out the note was just notes, numbers from Paddock's calculations for aiming his shot (height off the ground, distance, angle of attack, etc.)."
Yup. When a white man snaps the resulting damage is usually WAY more severe compared to snappin' brown folks, who are a dime a dozen these days. McVieh, Breivik, Paddock, whities do seem to pack a punch once they decide to go to the dark side.
"One of those people was Thomas Friedman, who made the point
that if the shooter had been a Muslim…
I believe that point has been made before, as in…
"You can bet your ass and the farm and your firstborn and whatever
else ya got to throw in the pot that Shorthands would be taking a
different tack, gotta do something, now, immediately, had Stephen
Paddock been either a Muslim or a Mexican."
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 04, 10:41:00 am ↑↑
Speaking of Shorthands… As if he's not done enough to piss off Republican Senators who's good will he might need, first McCain, then Murkowski. He's used his twitter feed to call conservative (very conservative in fact) Republican Senator Robert Corker a coward. Politico.Com
Corker's gonna be there through the end of 2018. McCain might not be, but Corker will be.
Post a Comment