GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

No - not 'skyrocketing' costs - perhaps a 10-15% increase in the cost of anode qualtity graphite to access the massive supply of petroleum coke produced annually (billions of tons) This supply won't end or be reduced if ICE vehicles aren't on the roads - it's one of those non fuel petroleum products that doesn't have an electric replacement, like asphalt, or lubricating oil.  

All petroleum will be banned by law going forward (assuming the Green Dream is actually implemented), so your petroleum/coke source is problematic.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

How is that different from the market for ICE vehicles?  As of the last major survey I could find from 2017 only something like 1/2 of families can afford to buy a new car anyway, and I am sure that number has gotten worse with sharp rises in the price of automobiles, and general inflation in other areas.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/that-shiny-new-car-is-out-of-reach-for-many-americans.html

When assessing the cost structure of making deliveries, the initial purchase price of the vehicle is not a critical factor in the overall cost of operations.  The #1 cost is the people (drivers and pickers) the #2 cost is repair and maintenance (including fuel), and the #3 cost is the cost of the delivery vehicles themselves. 

A delivery business isn't like owning your own car which gets driven a very few miles every day over a long time period.  Delivery vehicles make LOTS of short trips every day, and can easily run 10 or 20 times the annual mileage of a personal vehicle.  This makes the economics of operating them VERY different.  

Depending on exactly how well an EV delivery vehicle compares to an ICE one on initial purchase price and R&M expenses for various load cases, they could very well be cheaper to operate given their lower 'fuel' costs and the generally lower rate of mechanical failure in EV drivetrain components.  

One out of two families can afford a NEW ICE vehicle, but there is a vast used car marketplace which provides vehicles for the less well off, and those used ICE vehicles often last twenty years. The replacement costs of a battery change for EVs puts them out of contention for a cost-effective delivery fleet. Most businesses I know of do not provide vehicles for their delivery service, getting the drivers to provide their own vehicle.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

All petroleum will be banned by law going forward (assuming the Green Dream is actually implemented), so your petroleum/coke source is problematic.

I don't see that anywhere in any proposed legislation whatsoever.  I think you are battling a hypothetical here.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

One out of two families can afford a NEW ICE vehicle, but there is a vast used car marketplace which provides vehicles for the less well off, and those used ICE vehicles often last twenty years. The replacement costs of a battery change for EVs puts them out of contention for a cost-effective delivery fleet. Most businesses I know of do not provide vehicles for their delivery service, getting the drivers to provide their own vehicle.

There will be a vast used car market for EV's also - just not yet.  They are too new.  Give it 20 years, and there will be a bunch of used EV's available also.  Transitions like this don't take place overnight. People didn't suddenly stop buying, using and trading using horses the moment the first model T rolled off the assembly line. 

Low usage/utility delivery is always driver provided.  The economics flip when you make a LOT of deliveries, because then it usually costs too much to get enough owner operators with vehicles of the right characteristics to work for you.  There will still be some (like Amazon and Fedex use during surges) but most of the vehicles will be fleet cars/trucks.  

Edited December 23, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

I don't see that anywhere in any proposed legislation whatsoever.  I think you are battling a hypothetical here.  

The animosity towards fossil fuels sources of anything is hardly a hypothetical.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, Eric Gagen said:

There will be a vast used car market for EV's also - just not yet.  They are too new.  Give it 20 years, and there will be a bunch of used EV's available also.  Transitions like this don't take place overnight. People didn't suddenly stop buying, using and trading using horses the moment the first model T rolled off the assembly line.  

By the time the expected energy transition takes place, the climate panic and hysteria over CO2 will be a curiosity of history.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

The animosity towards fossil fuels sources of anything is hardly a hypothetical.

No it isn't, but making graphite anodes out of a petroleum byproduct isn't a part of  'fossil fuels'.  If anything it's a method of CO2 reduction and sequestration, because the alternative is that the petroleum coke gets burnt in a modified coal electric power plant.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

By the time the expected energy transition takes place, the climate panic and hysteria over CO2 will be a curiosity of history.

Sure it will.  By definition things that don't happen are forgotten.  Nobody remembers the 'Y2K panic' becacuse there wasn't a disaster.  Nobody remembers the hole in the ozone layer because we caught it early.  However in both cases,  action had to be taken to prevent it from becoming a problem.  CO2 will be the same way.  Nobody will remember it because we will fix it by taking action.  

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

6 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

No it isn't, but making graphite anodes out of a petroleum byproduct isn't a part of  'fossil fuels'.  If anything it's a method of CO2 reduction and sequestration, because the alternative is that the petroleum coke gets burnt in a modified coal electric power plant.  

The point is that you are supposedly not going to have any byproducts, you need a source of something to get byproducts.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

4 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Sure it will.  By definition things that don't happen are forgotten.  Nobody remembers the 'Y2K panic' becacuse there wasn't a disaster.  Nobody remembers the hole in the ozone layer because we caught it early.  However in both cases,  action had to be taken to prevent it from becoming a problem.  CO2 will be the same way.  Nobody will remember it because we will fix it by taking action.  

In reality, CO2 will continue to rise and the climate disaster will not happen...this whole panic will become another discredited climate theory which will soon be forgotten. It only has legs now because the politicians have sought to capitalize on it.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

In reality, CO2 will continue to rise and the climate disaster will not happen...this whole panic will become another discredited climate theory which will soon be forgotten. It only has legs now because the politicians have sought to capitalize on it.

I disagree.  CO2 is a known influencer of global temperatures.  I will say that I don't know exactly how the effects will work themselves out,  but a continued increase in atmospheric concentration will, at some point raise temperatures.  That is beyond any possible scientific dispute.  The only question is how the concentration of CO2 and the temperature are coupled, not if.  It may be that the CO2 level required to get measurable increases in temperature is much higher than the ranges currently under realistic prospect to occur, but to say that it's not connected at all is obvious nonsense. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The point is that you are supposedly not going to have any byproducts, you need a source of something to get byproducts.

That's correct, and you can make/get petroleum coke without using oil as a fuel.  It isn't even that hard.  The crack mix/spread for oil follows the economics.  At present a large fraction of it is made into fuels, but it can go in other directions instead.  Chemical plants which use oil as a feedstock make plastic and polymer base molecules and also produce petroleum coke as a byproduct.  No fuel production involved.  

Or you can mine coal and make needle coke out of that (no coal used as fuel in the process)  

China only has a lock on the world graphite markets because they have plenty of graphite available to mine cheaply.  It's a product with a lot of methods of manufacturing substitutes.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well I would be pointing out that customer and investor demand is moving the market faster than the mandates. But otherwise what exactly is it you disagree with me about? 

Mainly your overly optimistic analysis of how quickly energy and vehicle industries can change without harming the economy and causing inflation in the price and availability of both. Nothing personal. I am a conservative, and try to preserve what is right while changing things that need to be changed in a responsible manner. 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I disagree.  CO2 is a known influencer of global temperatures.  I will say that I don't know exactly how the effects will work themselves out,  but a continued increase in atmospheric concentration will, at some point raise temperatures.  That is beyond any possible scientific dispute.  The only question is how the concentration of CO2 and the temperature are coupled, not if.  It may be that the CO2 level required to get measurable increases in temperature is much higher than the ranges currently under realistic prospect to occur, but to say that it's not connected at all is obvious nonsense. 

No, the  highest CO2 concentrations have not been shown to correlate with highest earth temperatures, the entire theory of CO2 being the principal factor driving earth temperatures is no longer tenable . Other greenhouse gases may have greater impacts than CO2, and the principal driver appears to be solar cycles. The new literature which has been published in the last two or three years has pretty much reconstructed the issue of global warming.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

That's correct, and you can make/get petroleum coke without using oil as a fuel.  It isn't even that hard.  The crack mix/spread for oil follows the economics.  At present a large fraction of it is made into fuels, but it can go in other directions instead.  Chemical plants which use oil as a feedstock make plastic and polymer base molecules and also produce petroleum coke as a byproduct.  No fuel production involved.  

Or you can mine coal and make needle coke out of that (no coal used as fuel in the process)  

China only has a lock on the world graphite markets because they have plenty of graphite available to mine cheaply.  It's a product with a lot of methods of manufacturing substitutes.  

The point I made above is that ANY use of oil or coal, even deriving some non-fuel byproduct from it, will be forbidden by law if the Green Dreamers get their way, it does not matter how benign the usage might be. These folks are on the war path.

[notsonice + 1,255]

31 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the  highest CO2 concentrations have not been shown to correlate with highest earth temperatures, the entire theory of CO2 being the principal factor driving earth temperatures is no longer tenable . Other greenhouse gases may have greater impacts than CO2, and the principal driver appears to be solar cycles. The new literature which has been published in the last two or three years has pretty much reconstructed the issue of global warming.

only an idiot, like yourself would post .......the  highest CO2 concentrations have not been shown to correlate with highest earth temperatures. Do you have problems ready graphs of factual data ? ( not a theory when you have real data)

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by notsonice

[Boat + 1,324]

Music went through several layers of evolution, phones, computers etc. Just about everything is changing and will continue to change. The big change will be voluntary population control that drops consumption 60% or so. Then humanity might have a chance at the idea of sustainability. What if a battery can be small, light and much cheaper with 150 mile or maybe 100 mile range. But if it charges in 5 minutes, most car owners won’t need range. How cheap can some cars be? 
The EV leaders might not be known until tech unveils the winning set of products that go into vehicles for the masses.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

42 minutes ago, Boat said:

Music went through several layers of evolution, phones, computers etc. Just about everything is changing and will continue to change. The big change will be voluntary population control that drops consumption 60% or so. Then humanity might have a chance at the idea of sustainability. What if a battery can be small, light and much cheaper with 150 mile or maybe 100 mile range. But if it charges in 5 minutes, most car owners won’t need range. How cheap can some cars be? 
The EV leaders might not be known until tech unveils the winning set of products that go into vehicles for the masses.

Right now, hybrids make the most sense for many, but the prices may remain too high for real cost/usefulness. Cost is key. Vehicles are way too expensive. I can buy a nice little house for what an average vehicle costs. 

Who makes the rules for what kind of cars can be made available in the USA?

I will pit my Mitsubishi, Mirage against all comers in. the small class, for cost/efficiency. 

In 2008 I bought a Chevrolet Aveo for $8,000. It is still running for my daughter. No major expenses yet. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by ronwagn
add

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

only an idiot, like yourself would post .......the  highest CO2 concentrations have not been shown to correlate with highest earth temperatures. Do you have problems ready graphs of factual data ? ( not a theory when you have real data)

 

Try using a longer data span. There is no correlation.

Here is a longer time span.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

"Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between ΔRF_CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 75.0% are non-discernible and 41.2% of discernible correlations are negative. Spectral analysis, auto- and cross-correlation show that proxies for T, atmospheric CO₂ concentration and ΔRF_CO2 oscillate across the Phanerozoic, and cycles of CO₂ and ΔRF_CO2 are antiphasic."

Edited December 24, 2021 by Ecocharger

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2021/12/23/china-create-rare-earths-behemoth-company-stabilize-supply-chain/

Surely slow Joe is working on the same thing with someone?

[Boat + 1,324]

42 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Right now, hybrids make the most sense for many, but the prices may remain too high for real cost/usefulness. Cost is key. Vehicles are way too expensive. I can buy a nice little house for what an average vehicle costs. 

Who makes the rules for what kind of cars can be made available in the USA?

I will pit my Mitsubishi, Mirage against all comers in. the small class, for cost/efficiency. 

In 2008 I bought a Chevrolet Aveo for $8,000. It is still running for my daughter. No major expenses yet. 

Hybrids are way to expensive for most of the world including the US. So are EV’s for that matter. We tend to have the same discussion every couple of months. It’s hard for the right to not bring up the what is working and the pace of market share. The big takeaway is the lack of energy growth overall. Populations are growing so it’s not that. Incremental gains in efficiency and tech has plateaued consumption around the world. Next will be robots replacing the need for low wage workers. Let the thinning of the population begin. That trouble making Trump bunch could use some educational reeducation. Lol Notice I did not mention thinning the Trump herd. We need maintenance on those pretty churches and casinos. We can’t save billions of humans from the wrath of Mother Nature but that will quicken the thinning process. 
You guys heard the latest? No vaccinations lead to increased hospitalization numbers. Imagine that. Darwinism in full bloom. An iceberg the size of Florida set to break and melt soon. The coasts are moving inland along with the survivors. I bet portable ice machines would rent.

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

4 hours ago, notsonice said:

only an idiot, like yourself would post .......the  highest CO2 concentrations have not been shown to correlate with highest earth temperatures. Do you have problems ready graphs of factual data ? ( not a theory when you have real data)

 

140 years???? 

Are you retarded? 

That's not even a blip on a blip of time. Don't be a gullible idiot. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the  highest CO2 concentrations have not been shown to correlate with highest earth temperatures, the entire theory of CO2 being the principal factor driving earth temperatures is no longer tenable . Other greenhouse gases may have greater impacts than CO2, and the principal driver appears to be solar cycles. The new literature which has been published in the last two or three years has pretty much reconstructed the issue of global warming.

As I previously said:  "a continued increase in atmospheric concentration will, at some point raise temperatures.  That is beyond any possible scientific dispute.  The only question is how the concentration of CO2 and the temperature are coupled, not if.  It may be that the CO2 level required to get measurable increases in temperature is much higher than the ranges currently under realistic prospect to occur"

 

If you take the long range view going back a few hundred million years, there is a clear correlation between mean temperature and CO2.  It's not a perfect correlation, but it's there.  If we keep putting it out in the atmosphere, eventually there will be some sort of an effect.  Solar cycles are the principal driver of effects we can easily see in the short term (few thousand year range) but CO2 is clear in the long term (millions of years) 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The point I made above is that ANY use of oil or coal, even deriving some non-fuel byproduct from it, will be forbidden by law if the Green Dreamers get their way, it does not matter how benign the usage might be. These folks are on the war path.

Sure - there are always a few fringe luddites out there on the edges of civilization.  Don't mistake the few cheerleaders of an extremist position for reality.  

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

As I previously said:  "a continued increase in atmospheric concentration will, at some point raise temperatures.  That is beyond any possible scientific dispute.  The only question is how the concentration of CO2 and the temperature are coupled, not if.  It may be that the CO2 level required to get measurable increases in temperature is much higher than the ranges currently under realistic prospect to occur"

 

If you take the long range view going back a few hundred million years, there is a clear correlation between mean temperature and CO2.  It's not a perfect correlation, but it's there.  If we keep putting it out in the atmosphere, eventually there will be some sort of an effect.  Solar cycles are the principal driver of effects we can easily see in the short term (few thousand year range) but CO2 is clear in the long term (millions of years) 

No, there is clearly no correlation, just read the literature, one of which I linked above. 

"Atmospheric CO₂ concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years. Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO₂ and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative. Marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF_CO2), the change in forcing at the top of the troposphere associated with a unit increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration, was computed using MODTRAN. The correlation between ΔRF_CO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in ΔRF_CO2." 

Note, "Atmospheric CO₂ concentration is correlated weakly but NEGATIVELY with linearly-detrended T proxies", and "only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in ΔRFCO2."  Solar cycles are by far the determinant factor in temperature change, this is not even an argument any more with this recent work.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Ecocharger