Visualizing How Much Oil Is In An Electric Vehicle (Hint: a heckuva lot)

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

The Tylers over on Zero Hedge do a great job laying out how much oil is in EVs.

Visualizing How Much Oil Is In An Electric Vehicle?

... Oil and the EV Future

Oil is most known as a source of fuel, but petrochemicals also have many other useful physical properties.

In fact, petrochemicals will play a critical role in the mass adoption of electric vehicles by reducing their weight and improving their ranges and efficiency. In According to IHS Chemical, the average car will use 775 lbs of plastic by 2020.

Although it seems counterintuitive, petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the major advancements by today’s EVs possible – and the continued use of petrochemicals will mean that both EVS and traditional vehicles will become even lighter, faster, and more efficient.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

9 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Tylers over on Zero Hedge do a great job laying out how much oil is in EVs.

Visualizing How Much Oil Is In An Electric Vehicle?

... Oil and the EV Future

Oil is most known as a source of fuel, but petrochemicals also have many other useful physical properties.

In fact, petrochemicals will play a critical role in the mass adoption of electric vehicles by reducing their weight and improving their ranges and efficiency. In According to IHS Chemical, the average car will use 775 lbs of plastic by 2020.

Although it seems counterintuitive, petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the major advancements by today’s EVs possible – and the continued use of petrochemicals will mean that both EVS and traditional vehicles will become even lighter, faster, and more efficient.

Now if there is a way to ban the use of and ban the supply of fossil fuel based products and services to the hundreds of millions of anti oil haters, foaming at the mouth nut bags, we can save the good fossil fuels and their derivatives for people who understand the facts and respect fossil fuels. It will add many many more years of production and also reduce costs

[Red + 252]

33 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Now if there is a way to ban the use of and ban the supply of fossil fuel based products and services to the hundreds of millions of anti oil haters, foaming at the mouth nut bags, we can save the good fossil fuels and their derivatives for people who understand the facts and respect fossil fuels. It will add many many more years of production and also reduce costs

Coal is fine left in the ground and unburnt.

Petrochemicals which are not burnt are also fine.

The nutbags seem to be the ones who cannot work this out.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

21 minutes ago, Red said:

Coal is fine left in the ground and unburnt.

Petrochemicals which are not burnt are also fine.

The nutbags seem to be the ones who cannot work this out.

Coal doesnt to be left in the ground, CBM can be extracted from coal and converted to liquids as petchem feedstock and or CTL for fuels, coal can be mined and upgraded to a highly enery efficient fuel with very little to zero emissions.

The nutbags are the ones who think that the world can move on and have modern amenities and conveniences , high standards of living and a good quality of life, health, food and sustainability and security  of life without fossil fuels . They can leave these in the ground and still have the quality of life and conveniences afforded from those.

[Red + 252]

16 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Coal doesnt to be left in the ground, CBM can be extracted from coal and converted to liquids as petchem feedstock and or CTL for fuels, coal can be mined and upgraded to a highly enery efficient fuel with very little to zero emissions.

If that were true it would be done.

17 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

The nutbags are the ones who think that the world can move on and have modern amenities and conveniences , high standards of living and a good quality of life, health, food and sustainability and security  of life without fossil fuels . They can leave these in the ground and still have the quality of life and conveniences afforded from those.

Given that in the 1960s I had what you said, we certainly have not progressed much over the past 60 years.

You also seem to have overlooked over half the world's population which never had your wondrous amenities from fossil fuels.  In any case, the smarter economies of the world are embracing renewables for energy, and will power ahead. 

[Auson + 123]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Tylers over on Zero Hedge do a great job laying out how much oil is in EVs.

Visualizing How Much Oil Is In An Electric Vehicle?

... Oil and the EV Future

Oil is most known as a source of fuel, but petrochemicals also have many other useful physical properties.

In fact, petrochemicals will play a critical role in the mass adoption of electric vehicles by reducing their weight and improving their ranges and efficiency. In According to IHS Chemical, the average car will use 775 lbs of plastic by 2020.

Although it seems counterintuitive, petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the major advancements by today’s EVs possible – and the continued use of petrochemicals will mean that both EVS and traditional vehicles will become even lighter, faster, and more efficient.

Thanks for highlighting this Tom. 

I believe that in the attempts to switch to EV technology a lot of Oil and Gas will be needed up front to produce the vehicles and infrastructure needed ( mining, manufacturing, shipping.) With the government helping with paying for it all. I think the reason the car industry is adopting the EV story is they see it as a golden opportunity to sell every one who already has a car a new one as their old one ( sold to them as the latest tech not so long a go ) is now clearly 'a dirty polluting menace' which must be banned !

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

True, oil is utilized in many different ways besides fuel.

But if oil is no longer required as a fuel, it will no longer be profitable to explore for, and produce, oil.

Once this scenario occurs, who will then take the reins from the now defunct oil industry to ensure that there is sufficient crude to feed the petrochemical industry?

The 'outrageous' profits of the oil companies were necessary to allow them to explore and reduce to possession, especially offshore where the spreadcost of operating a floating drilling unit in deepwater can approach half a million dollars a day.

Keep in mind that exploration drilling, required to find new resources, is a gamble with no guarantee of success.

The knock-on effect of the demise of oil as a fuel will have serious repercussions to many industries and global economics.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

20 hours ago, Red said:

Coal is fine left in the ground and unburnt.

Petrochemicals which are not burnt are also fine.

The nutbags seem to be the ones who cannot work this out.

Nah, the nutbags are  those claiming human caused global warming via CO2 and then when the data gets back in the 90's that their calculation for upper atmospheric CO2 increasing was off by 7X and therefore heat was not being distributed to the poles as expected, changed the name to climate change to cover their cowardly sniveling asses.  Because a couple % increase is well below the error bars for measuring effects.  Then add in new cloud model due to cosmic rays/Sunspots and oops... its the sun.  Who woulda thought it is the sun which regulates the earths temp. 

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Nah, the nutbags are  those claiming human caused global warming via CO2 and then when the data gets back in the 90's that their calculation for upper atmospheric CO2 increasing was off by 7X and therefore heat was not being distributed to the poles as expected, changed the name to climate change to cover their cowardly sniveling asses.

If you want to debate the science, then link to the science.  What you posted is plain rubbish.

 

6 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Who woulda thought it is the sun which regulates the earths temp. 

If that were true, why has it got hotter when the sun has has provided less energy to the planet?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Red said:

If you want to debate the science, then link to the science.  What you posted is plain rubbish.

 

If that were true, why has it got hotter when the sun has has provided less energy to the planet?

Perhaps, since it was you who brought up science, you should present your 'science' first. Seems reasonable.

Be sure to address the science which concluded that we we were approaching  a period of glaciation back in the '70's and also what happened to that nefarious hole in the ozone.

Try to avoid the common climate change error of selectively choosing your science, scientists and data. 

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Perhaps, since it was you who brought up science, you should present your 'science' first. Seems reasonable.

Be sure to address the science which concluded that we we were approaching  a period of glaciation back in the '70's and also what happened to that nefarious hole in the ozone.

Try to avoid the common climate change error of selectively choosing your science, scientists and data. 

There are 5 IPCC Reports full of the science.  And those Reports barely scratch the surface.

Your other points are regarded as trivial in science, so maybe offer something of merit or refrain.  I don't mind either way, but it is very clear to me that you are not well versed.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Red
sp.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Possibly, although I have earned an engineering degree and hold an advanced degree in environmental policy & management.

Of course, on a forum like this ANYONE can claim ANYTHING, so that is neither here nor there.

The fact is, you consider any science which doesn't fit your theory or agenda as "trivial science". You could no more participate in a rational debate than a pig could fly. To be able to participate constructively in a debate you must at least be willing to consider your opponents point of view. You would not.

As I said earlier, you, and those like you, consider climate change as your religion. If you study history you will see what religious zealots have accomplished in the past.

[Red + 252]

37 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Possibly, although I have earned an engineering degree and hold an advanced degree in environmental policy & management.

Of course, on a forum like this ANYONE can claim ANYTHING, so that is neither here nor there.

You only needed to show you had some idea about climate science.  It's really not too hard, especially if you have the qualifications you claim.  

39 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The fact is, you consider any science which doesn't fit your theory or agenda as "trivial science".

I don't deal in "opinions" and I do not have an agenda, so what you claim is not a fact.

41 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You could no more participate in a rational debate than a pig could fly.

Except all you do is toss up irrelevances, so you have no intention of debating anything.

42 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

As I said earlier, you, and those like you, consider climate change as your religion.

Baseless opinions seem to be your stock in trade.  You need to do a lot better.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Red said:

I don't deal in "opinions" and I do not have an agenda.

Well then, glad that's settled.  

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

No, I really do not need to do any better. I have no need to waste my time with someone who is convinced that his viewpoint is the correct and everyone else's is irrelevant.

I'm gone...

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

23 hours ago, Red said:

If you want to debate the science, then link to the science.  What you posted is plain rubbish.

 

If that were true, why has it got hotter when the sun has has provided less energy to the planet?

You really do not know?  Classic. 

And naturally never read Hansons paper on HOW CO2 was postulated to create said GREENHOUSE!!! 

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf  

Note: his paper says near zero ocean transport of heat...😂 scroll through to point 4 where expects sea ice to most impacted... You cannot get that unless the heat is transported via atmosphere which means the heat must COME FROM somewhere. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20111021083719/http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_3.pdf

Start reading in column 3 .  Note its all about troposhperic radiative forcing in the equatorial region.  Note the Ozone depletion forcing cooling. 

Why heat FROM somewhere?

1) Energy to planet has increased by about 1W via sun since we have been keeping track even though we have 14W differential values between different satellites.  Which is a MASSIVE problem for a climate modeler.  What value do you use?  By the way, the alarmists all pretend this value is 1) constant(its not) and 2) MUCH lower than all of the satellites show....

But it is not the biggest driver for fluctuations we have seen. 

2) Sunspots .... They are giant magnetic storms right?  If Fewer sunspots, suns magnetic field is weaker and therefore more cosmic rays hit the earth and you get more cloud formation.  *** NOTE *** Earth at the poles 45 degrees north/south and above/below is nothing but a gigantic RADIATOR to space(it is actually about 30 degrees N/S).   It is why the ground temperature is permafrost, 0C or below average at ~60degrees and above, ~15C at ~45 degrees and ~20C at ~30 degrees and equatorial zone is about 25C. 

More sunspots = suns magnetic field is stronger, fewer cosmic rays playing with earths magnetic field @ poles and fewer clouds  and earth cools even though the internal eye of the sunspots are "colder" than the surface of the sun.

*** NOTE *** The sun is only 1 star.  So, lets look at 300 sun like stars in earth's vacinity for changes in irradiation...  These have been monitored for a very very very long time.  Not all of equal lengths, but well over 30 years others for well over 50 years.  Here is one such study among many: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248353247_Variability_of_sunlike_stars

You will note, the sun is in the middle.  Some stars show more variability, some less with larger and smaller amplitudes of DECADAL change.  Here is another: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/138/1/312/pdf

EDIT: check out Keppler mission.  They are charting thousands of stars.  Tens of thousands.  The variability is all over the place.  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L155/pdf

Check out graph on page 2... oh my.  So this brings us to this point: Other stars have far higher variability than our sun and some less, What is their oscillation variance?  10 years?  100 years?  1000? 10,000?  100,000?  a Million? 

Now add that if you ONLY look at arctic temperatures and compare them to TSI at the poles ... it matches almost perfectly and CO2 certainly does not. 

PS: I will never reply to you again RED as you disregard basic science yet claim you "know" yet are UNWILLING to look for yourself and think for yourself outside of PR BS headlines. 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Wastral
FOrgot about Keppler and added comment for

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, Wastral said:

You really do not know?  Classic. 

And naturally never read Hansons paper on HOW CO2 was postulated to create said GREENHOUSE!!! 

1) Energy to planet has increased by about 1W via sun since we have been keeping track even though we have 14W differential values between different satellites. 

2) Sunspots .... They are giant magnetic storms right?  

PS: I will never reply to you again RED as you disregard basic science yet claim you "know" yet are UNWILLING to look for yourself and think for yourself outside of PR BS headlines. 

You make claims which lack scientific merit, and it's untrue that I "disregard basic science."

Your postulated "GREENHOUSE" attributed to Hansen was actually was from Svante Arrhenius over 120 years ago.

Your point about heat transport is back to front because most of the planet's heat energy is retained in the oceans, not the atmosphere.  That's basic physics, so won't be a surprise to most readers.

Your point about irradiance is wrong because irradiance has been in secular decline since the 1970's.  This link also shows your point about sunspots is meaningless in the context of actual climate.

I tried hard to find a claim from you that was close to reality, but there were none.

In the many forums I visit, I have yet to have anyone present climate science from their perspective that explains the reality we all experience.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Red
to reduce the content of the whole post by including only portions of the issues I was responding to.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Hmmmm, maybe we should look at the bigger picture.  Galactic climate change.  Because it's the next logical scientific progression.

As an added bonus, we also have excess tin foil on sale in aisle 3.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I apparently need some tin foil Tom, can you hold back a roll or two for me?😆

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

46 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I apparently need some tin foil Tom, can you hold back a roll or two for me?😆

Sure no problem, we have lots and lots of tin foil to spare : )

I'm bored tonight, waiting for the accupuncturist to come over to our house for the weekly needle session, so I'm bouncing back and forth between this forum and 8chan, with amusing results.

That comment from 8chan seemed just perfect for the way this thread was heading.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Yeah....I'm expecting a call from Kurdistan so just following the commentary for comic relief....

I'll pick up the tin foil later....

[Toranaga + 49]

On 5/27/2019 at 9:03 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

No, I really do not need to do any better. I have no need to waste my time with someone who is convinced that his viewpoint is the correct and everyone else's is irrelevant.

I'm gone...

You can roll the cursor over his name and select "ignore user."  Please stay on the site because we need your contribution.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Dirty Electric Vehicles

 

Electric vehicles will barely help cut CO2 emissions in Germany over the coming years, as the introduction of electric vehicles does not necessarily lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions from road traffic. Natural gas combustion engines are the ideal technology for transitioning to vehicles powered by hydrogen or “green” methane in the long term.

Considering Germany's current energy mix and the amount of energy used in battery production, the CO2 emissions of battery-electric vehicles are, in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher. This has been confirmed by a new study by Christoph Buchal, professor of physics at the University of Cologne; Hans-Dieter Karl, long-standing ifo energy expert; and Hans-Werner Sinn, former ifo president and professor emeritus at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. The researchers carried out their detailed calculations using the concrete examples of a modern electric car and a modern diesel vehicle. In addition to CO2 emissions from battery production, they looked at alternative energy sources for electricity in order to calculate the impact electric vehicles have on CO2 emissions. They show that even with today's technology, total emissions from a combustion engine powered by natural gas are already almost one-third lower than those of a diesel engine. “Over the long term, hydrogen-methane technology offers a further advantage: it allows surplus wind and solar power generated during peaks to be stored, and these surpluses will see a sharp increase as the share of this renewable energy grows,” Professor Buchal explains.

In their study, the authors criticize the fact that EU legislation allows electric vehicles to be included in calculations for fleet emissions with a value of “zero” CO2 emissions, as this suggests that electric vehicles do not generate any such emissions. The reality is that, in addition to the CO2 emissions generated in the production of electric vehicles, almost all EU countries generate significant CO2 emissions from charging the vehicles' batteries using their national energy production mixes. The authors also take a critical view of the discussion about electric cars in Germany, which centers around battery-operated vehicles when other technologies also offer great potential: hydrogen-powered electric vehicles or vehicles with combustion engines powered by green methane, for instance. “Methane technology is ideal for the transition from natural gas vehicles with conventional engines to engines that will one day run on methane from CO2-free energy sources. This being the case, the German federal government should treat all technologies equally and promote hydrogen and methane solutions as well,” emphasizes Professor Sinn.

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, Toranaga said:

You can roll the cursor over his name and select "ignore user."  Please stay on the site because we need your contribution.

Unfortunately that method doesn't work on my iPad. I've tried in Chrome and Safari.  

[Red + 252]

 

4 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Dirty Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles will barely help cut CO2 emissions in Germany over the coming years, as the introduction of electric vehicles does not necessarily lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions from road traffic. Natural gas combustion engines are the ideal technology for transitioning to vehicles powered by hydrogen or “green” methane in the long term.

These studies are regularly debunked, but fossil fuel advocates keep trotting them out.