GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

The US armed forces is one of the groups trying the hardest to eliminate ICE's where necessary, and it has been going on for a long time.  For at least the last 15 years or so the armed forces have been trying to untether themselves from the need for regular fuel deliveries, or grid electricity for their facilities.  It represents a strategic and tactical vulnerability which can now be at least partially overcome.  For stationary bases and facilities the Iraq war (second one starting in 2001) highlighted how big a risk it is to require regular fuel transport to operating facilities.  Even if/when it is not economic for 'normal' facilities the armed forces has moved HARD into solar, battery storage and wind power so that their security and operational tempo will not be quite so tightly connected to regular fuel deliveries.  

On a broader strategic level, the armed forces is preparing for a situation when/if their general access to liquid fuels is curtailed by enemy action or other means.  This has entailed a search for substitute liquid fuels which can be made by other means (mostly biofuels) possibly in some field conditions allowing units to carry the ability to fuel themselves along with them.  

One of the highest risk (in terms of casualties and damage to equipment) operations on an ongoing basis in the Iraq war, was delivery of fuel to forward operating locations.  By reducing fuel demand as much as possible without regard for the monetary cost, they found that they actually saved money because less equipment was getting destroyed delivering fuel (in addition to saving lives) 

If they are successful in this attempt, the US armed forces will effectively restore a level of strategic and tactical mobility that last existed before the invention of the railroad - it would be able to send forces anywhere and everywhere without having to look at fuel infrastructure issue. The only constant needs would be food and munitions, which are a tiny fraction of the regular tonnage demand that fuel currently is.  

There are no current plans to end the use of ICE's in aircraft or heavy ground equipment (tanks heavy artillery, etc.) but to the extent possible everything else is either getting electrified, or is being reviewed for the potential to get electrified.  

And how do they access the electric grid in the middle of the desert? It seems to me that gasoline/diesel is a much more portable source of fuel than electricity.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

You cannot have it both ways, declaring war on oil and suppressing investment in oil, and at the same time demanding the production of more oil and the expansion of oil production...those two policy directions contradict one another, in case Biden & Co. failed to notice it.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/US-Shale-Slams-Bidens-Oil-Policies.html

"The shale patch is keeping disciplined spending because of their changed priority to return cash to investors first and because of the high uncertainties on the global oil market with oversupply looming early next year and uncertain impact of Omicron (or other) COVID variants on demand. But U.S. oil producers also face heightened uncertainty with this Administration, which pushes for renewable energy and looks to impose more restrictive policies on the fossil fuels industry. 

When the Biden Administration intensified calls on OPEC+ to boost production to alleviate surging gasoline prices in the U.S., the American Exploration and Production Council said at the end of October, “The worst thing an Administration can do to energy prices is restrict supply by implementing policies that make it harder to produce energy.” 

The Administration also called for an investigation into whether oil companies are allegedly colluding to make gasoline prices the highest in seven years. 

In a comment following President Biden’s renewed request for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate rising gas prices, Frank Macchiarola, Senior Vice President for Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute (API), said in mid-November: 

“This is a distraction from the fundamental market shift that is taking place and the ill-advised government decisions that are exacerbating this challenging situation. Demand has returned as the economy comes back and is outpacing supply. Further impacting the imbalance is the continued decision from the administration to restrict access to America’s energy supply and cancel important infrastructure projects.” 

“Rather than launching investigations on markets that are regulated and closely monitored on a daily basis or pleading with OPEC to increase supply, we should be encouraging the safe and responsible development of American-made oil and natural gas,” Macchiarola added.   "

Edited December 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

And how do they access the electric grid in the middle of the desert? It seems to me that gasoline/diesel is a much more portable source of fuel than electricity.

There are generators.  If necessary, you bring fuel for generators.  however if possible, you use solar and wind so that you don't have to transport fuel for the generators on such a regular basis, and run the risk of having the convoys shot up/mined.  

The reference to grid supplies is for large and/or more permanent bases, which DO usually get their power from a local grid, unless that grid is unstable/unworkable, or in enemy hands.  

Edited December 10, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

There are generators.  If necessary, you bring fuel for generators.  however if possible, you use solar and wind so that you don't have to transport fuel for the generators on such a regular basis, and run the risk of having the convoys shot up/mined.  

That makes zero sense in a combat infested war. The size of generators to power up 50 Humvees or 30 troop transports would be very large and need a fuel truck to keep it running while charging said vehicles. All the vehicles would have to line up and plug in and that would make for a serious protection issue. ICE is and will be best in combat vehicles for the foreseeable future.  Several hundred vehicles would need several massive gen-sets of 100,000kw running 24/7 while battle is going. That be alot of fuel and if enemy takes out said gen-sets then your really up a creek.........

[Eric Gagen + 713]

8 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

That makes zero sense in a combat infested war. The size of generators to power up 50 Humvees or 30 troop transports would be very large and need a fuel truck to keep it running while charging said vehicles. All the vehicles would have to line up and plug in and that would make for a serious protection issue. ICE is and will be best in combat vehicles for the foreseeable future.  Several hundred vehicles would need several massive gen-sets of 100,000kw running 24/7 while battle is going. That be alot of fuel and if enemy takes out said gen-sets then your really up a creek.........

the generators and electric supply are for in/at bases.  Not for active combat operations.  
 

Troop transports are not on the list of things which might get electrified at this time.  Humvees are on the borderline though, and could get replaced by a battery electric vehicle sooner rather than later.

Your case is hypothetical though.  The last time the US has hundreds of vehicles in a combat engagement was 1991.  
 

The  US armed forces knows how to do ‘big wars’.  What it’s trying to figure out belatedly is how to do ‘small wars’ of the sort we have actually been fighting for the last 30 years.  

Edited December 11, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

On 12/9/2021 at 3:06 PM, turbguy said:

I just wished to advise you of the significant different operational characteristics between electric motors and internal combustion recips.

High torque at zero RPM can be quite useful, no? 

Particularly when you are starting a heavy load.

Recip steam engines can have similar characteristics (depends on piston position/starting valve timing).

Those, of course, are external combustion recips.

Thanks for the condescension. I've driven plenty of electric golf carts. 😄

Your battery won't run the electric motor without being in the "on" position either. 

Irrelevant, where the torque comes from. It takes more than 0 RPM torque to do work. 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by QuarterCenturyVet

[turbguy + 1,544]

1 hour ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Thanks for the condescension. I've driven plenty of electric golf carts. 😄

Your battery won't run the electric motor without being in the "on" position either. 

Irrelevant, where the torque comes from. It takes more than 0 RPM torque to do work. 

 

Insufficient torque at zero RPM may not get you anywhere.  Until something moves, no work is done.

Without "fuel", no engines make torque.

Edited December 12, 2021 by turbguy

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Insufficient torque at zero RPM may not get you anywhere.  Until something moves, no work is done.

Without "fuel", no engines make torque.

No kidding, they don't. Also, high torque, without traction, doesn't help anything either. The best part about a manual transmission is the ability to clutch rock your way out of sticky situations. 

Can't do that with direct torque electric motors.

Launch control maybe? 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

5 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

No kidding, they don't. Also, high torque, without traction, doesn't help anything either. The best part about a manual transmission is the ability to clutch rock your way out of sticky situations. 

Can't do that with direct torque electric motors.

Launch control maybe? 

For EV’s intended for off road use/capability I can easily see A high tech and a low tech solution

The ‘low tech’ is a speed limit/RPM knob that mimics the effect of a traditional 4wd in low gear with the differential locked.  

The ‘high tech’ is to have independent motors for each wheel, and limit the speed of all the motors to the speed of the slowest one to prevent wheel slippage, while the driver uses the throttle to nudge/rock as needed.   ICE vehicles do this to a degree but not with fully independent motors, so there is an opportunity to do something new.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[turbguy + 1,544]

2 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

No kidding, they don't. Also, high torque, without traction, doesn't help anything either. The best part about a manual transmission is the ability to clutch rock your way out of sticky situations. 

Can't do that with direct torque electric motors.

Launch control maybe? 

An electric drive can emulate anything an ICE can do, with software.

And MUCH more.

(Except for the smell).

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

3 minutes ago, turbguy said:

An electric drive can emulate anything an ICE can do, with software.

And MUCH more.

(Except for the smell).

They can't emulate the amazing feeling of building your own vehicle that does amazing things and goes amazing places. I wonder what happens when you completely submerge an EV? 

A snorkel system allows and ICE vehicle to run under water. 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

For EV’s intended for off road use/capability I can easily see A high tech and a low tech solution

The ‘low tech’ is a speed limit/RPM knob that mimics the effect of a traditional 4wd in low gear with the differential locked.  

The ‘high tech’ is to have independent motors for each wheel, and limit the speed of all the motors to the speed of the slowest one to prevent wheel slippage, while the driver uses the throttle to nudge/rock as needed.   ICE vehicles do this to a degree but not with fully independent motors, so there is an opportunity to do something new.

There's already electric dirt bikes. I'm just never going to get rid of my rock buggy. Ever. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

43 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

They can't emulate the amazing feeling of building your own vehicle that does amazing things and goes amazing places. I wonder what happens when you completely submerge an EV? 

A snorkel system allows and ICE vehicle to run under water. 

Your dumb just knows no ends. An ICE car can run underwater just fine, it doesn't use air so it does not need a snorkel. Just like an electric submarine.

As far as building your own vehicle, you can buy electric crate motors and batteries, just like you can buy an ice crate engine and a fuel tank. Everything else is the same.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

34 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

There's already electric dirt bikes. I'm just never going to get rid of my rock buggy. Ever. 

Until the guy in an electric rock buggy makes you look like an old fashioned loser. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

1 hour ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

They can't emulate the amazing feeling of building your own vehicle that does amazing things and goes amazing places. I wonder what happens when you completely submerge an EV? 

A snorkel system allows and ICE vehicle to run under water. 

Probably not.  That's a personal feeling.

But, they have these things call "submarines", built by a company called Electric Boat in Connecticut.

Without needing a snorkel.

I heard they work really well completely submerged.

REALLY submerged.

But then there's this...

Edited December 12, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Probably not.  That's a personal feeling.

But, they have these things call "submarines", built by a company called Electric Boat in Connecticut.

Without needing a snorkel.

I heard they work really well completely submerged.

REALLY submerged.

But then there's this...

I doubt that I would be interested in driving one in this century. It looks like it might be useful on the Moon or on Mars. A good place for it.

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Until the guy in an electric rock buggy makes you look like an old fashioned loser. 

Lol. What, is he bringing his diesel generator out there to charge it? 

Shut the fuck up.

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

5 hours ago, turbguy said:

Probably not.  That's a personal feeling.

But, they have these things call "submarines", built by a company called Electric Boat in Connecticut.

Without needing a snorkel.

I heard they work really well completely submerged.

REALLY submerged.

But then there's this...

None of your programed glorified golf car shit has any soul. 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Your dumb just knows no ends. An ICE car can run underwater just fine, it doesn't use air so it does not need a snorkel. Just like an electric submarine.

As far as building your own vehicle, you can buy electric crate motors and batteries, just like you can buy an ice crate engine and a fuel tank. Everything else is the same.

 

 

An electric submarine is a slightly different ball of wires, you dumb dink. It was made to be submerged. 

Oh, is the transmission, transfer case, rear and front differential the same? 

Nope. You keep thinking in pavement princess terms. That's what you are. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

4 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

 

Oh, is the transmission, transfer case, rear and front differential the same? 

 

With independent motors, who need those??

Oh, that's where the "soul" resides!

Edited December 12, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

It looks like the climate is turning nasty again and getting colder. Looks like climatology is not exactly an exact science, this is really just a political football game.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Potential-Polar-Vortex-Could-Send-Natural-Gas-Soaring-Again.html

"As the Northern Hemisphere winter is less than two weeks away, new weather models suggest "significantly colder" temperatures could return for parts of the U.S. later this month into early 2022. 

Meteorologists at private weather forecasting firm BAMWX expect a bullish setup for natgas futures. They say the narrative is flipping from warmer weather to the complete opposite as an Arctic polar vortex could plunge parts of the U.S. into a much colder weather pattern in January than today's currently mild, above-trend temperatures.

"Seeing an interesting pattern developing ahead leading up to Christmas and into early January '22, as higher pressure looks to finally re-establish towards Alaska and the North Atlantic, pushing cold from the Arctic down into the US (after a record warm start to the month). If the MJO (Madden-Julian Oscillation) can continue to progress through phase 7 into 8 (and possibly into 1) mid to late December, this can also increase the potential for a Polar Vortex displacement event, sending more consistent cold air deeper into the US…a big risk to watch for the energy markets ahead," Kirk Hinz, the chief meteorologist at BAMWX, noted. 

BAMWX outlines now could be the time to find a long entry into natgas futures, or as they put it, "long UNG," the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP. ETF. Their reasoning behind the play is quite simple: 

Long UNG Equity, Why? Polar Vortex Jan 2022 Northeast - Front-month NG1 40% drawdown in 6 weeks - Things can change on a dime but the setup is very good in our view - When you get a nice - healthy- capitulation puke ahead of this kind of possible shift typically leads to drama reversal - seasonal pattern - GFS (global forecasting system) pointing to an increased probability of Polar Vortex disruptions - decent chance forecasts suddenly get significantly colder to end Dec and open up 2022. Much of the Street got caught very long in Sept, anticipating a brutally cold winter, along with supply risk - then came above ave temps and then the "flush" exit, a now a polar vortex? -BAMWX "

Edited December 12, 2021 by Ecocharger

[ronwagn + 6,290]

China benefits from the Green New Deal Blizzard while burning record amounts of coal and laughing all the way to the bank! Russia does the same, while flaring and price gouging Europe!

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Why-Tariffs-On-Chinese-Solar-Panels-Failed.html

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/11/2021 at 6:19 AM, Eric Gagen said:

the generators and electric supply are for in/at bases.  Not for active combat operations.  
 

Troop transports are not on the list of things which might get electrified at this time.  Humvees are on the borderline though, and could get replaced by a battery electric vehicle sooner rather than later.

Your case is hypothetical though.  The last time the US has hundreds of vehicles in a combat engagement was 1991.  
 

The  US armed forces knows how to do ‘big wars’.  What it’s trying to figure out belatedly is how to do ‘small wars’ of the sort we have actually been fighting for the last 30 years.  

We can't really win small or big wars when we have our hands tied behind our back by military lawyers and political hacks who are pulling the strings and making the rules of engagement decisions. Or leave billions of dollars of high quality equipment like we did in Afghanistan. While we leave our foreign comrades to be tortured and killed by the Taliban. 

 We cannot really "win big wars" like we did in Iraq when we then let our enemies take over the country and get the oil, after we spent many billions to repair the damage we did to win the war. lraq was our biggest potential ally against Iran too. 

The only people who won these wars were our industrialists and our enemies.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

We can't really win small or big wars when we have our hands tied behind our back by military lawyers and political hacks who are pulling the strings and making the rules of engagement decisions. Or leave billions of dollars of high quality equipment like we did in Afghanistan. While we leave our foreign comrades to be tortured and killed by the Taliban. 

 We cannot really "win big wars" like we did in Iraq when we then let our enemies take over the country and get the oil, after we spent many billions to repair the damage we did to win the war. lraq was our biggest potential ally against Iran too. 

The only people who won these wars were our industrialists and our enemies.  

Well sure, but those are political policy questions. Not military ones.  Military planners cannot make those decisions, and except at the highest levels do not even inform the decision makers.  

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

The myth of "peak oil", a fantasy dream concocted by wild-eyed Green Revolutionists, has now been exposed as a political hoax. No one with any intelligence is being taken in by this quack philosophy.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Investors-See-Peak-Demand-Happening-Much-Further-In-The-Future.html

"Currently, just 2 percent of oil investors believe peak oil demand will occur by 2025, and fewer than 40 percent see that peak before 2030. One-third of investors expect oil demand to peak between 2025 and 2030, but another one-third think that peak would be after 2030, at some point between 2030 and 2035.  

Mid-2030s is currently OPEC’s timeline for peak oil demand. Global oil demand is expected to continue to grow into the mid-2030s to 108 million barrels per day (bpd), after which it is set to plateau until 2045, OPEC said in its 2021 World Oil Outlook (WOO) earlier this year. OPEC sees oil demand growing “strongly” in the short- and medium-term before demand plateaus in the long term. 

Despite expected plateauing demand in the long run, oil will continue to be the fuel with the single largest share of the global energy mix by 2045, meeting 28 percent of energy demand then, OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo said last month, stressing the need for investments in oil supply to meet consumption. 

Demand is set to grow, as the world still runs on fossil fuels which account for around 85 percent of total global energy demand. "

Edited December 13, 2021 by Ecocharger