The Inconvenient Truth Of Electric Cars

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

19 minutes ago, conjureup said:

I saw your earlier comment regarding the pipeline, and although I have an argument to make I really do not have the energy to make it again, as I've had to in the past few months, over and over, ad nauseam.

So instead, I will respond to your comment on education level. According to Stats Canada, Alberta has the fourth highest level of education attainment. From the last full census in 2016, 28.2% of Alberta's population holds a post-secondary degree – bit.ly/2KRGrd3 – or see snapshot below.

Of course, I could tell you about the "professionals with real tickets" of whom I am personally acquainted who have had to go to the US to get work, because that is where the projects went. Not a lot of the geologists, nor the chemical or petroleum engineers that I know, can find a lot of work outside of the oil and gas industry.

Alternatively, you could ask the employees of PCL Construction, based out of Edmonton. Like SNC-Lavalin, it also has an international presence, had Canadian revenues over $8 billion, and was founded in Saskatchewan at the turn of the century, in 1906. It was the largest contracting organization in Canada, is 7th largest in the US, and named Top Green Contractor by Engineering News‐Record (ENR). In the US, they are ranked far‐and‐away above SNC (ranked 106th, while PCL is ranked 7th), and was twice named to the Forbes' Top Employer List. Unlike those SNC-Lavalin 'jobs' (which Trudeau bent over backwards for), the work isn't going anywhere. Unfortunately for PCL, those jobs vanished and they had to lay off 90% of their workforce, comprised of... engineers, welders, and electricians. Also unlike SNC-Lavalin, PCL offers company ownership to employees and is, therefore, 100% employee-owned; so they lost more than their jobs. But I'm glad to hear that your friends are doing well.

I agree those professions are more impacted. 

So you think PCL should have got a tax-funded "stimulus" / bailout?  Generally that kind of stuff is Liberal behavior, so perhaps you like liberals but are just mad that the liberals don't give Alberta a bunch of cash.  Well Alberta doesn't vote Liberal do they? Maybe they should.

[D Coyne + 305]

15 hours ago, NickW said:

Great - so even less barriers to owning an EV in the USA. 

I was under the misunderstanding that 120V / 15 amp was the standard. Probably a hang up from my Aramco days where the houses in Dhahran were wired in 120V unless you got an electrician to have a fiddle with the electrics. 

NickW,

You are correct that 120V/15A is the standard US outlet in the home, but for newer homes a 240V/100 A service to the home is pretty standard.  Their are typically a few 240 V/40 A circuits to kitchen range (if electric) and clothes dryer (typically 240 V/30A).

It is usually fairly straightforward to have a 240V/40A outlet installed in a garage or outdoors, in my case it was about $300 US $ in my garage, and outdoor outlet might be $500, someone who knows how to do simple circuits could probably do it themselves for $100 indoors and maybe $150 outdoors (though it depends on the length of the wire run).

[BakoDave + 9]

On 6/25/2019 at 9:56 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Thanks for the update!  Yes, my information is dated.  I had that from the then-mayor, must be about four years back.  They were likely closed then, prior to the steel tariffs now instituted.   Good to hear that there is new life back in Huntington!

Maybe the "Steel" Mills like a US Steel, but Specialty Metals has been in business for decades. They produce Nickel and Cobalt alloys used in Aerospace and the Electronics industries. There are no viable "Imports" to compete with these types of Alloys. As for regular "Steel", the American Steel Mills have not been able to keep up with demand. Thus the need for imported material.     

[David Jones + 84]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:44 PM, Outlaw Jackie said:

I'm an old-school oil and gas man, and I think EV may have its niche for short commutes. The reality of my situation is that pulling a trailer, loaded with 2 horses and 10 bird dogs would NEVER be done by an EV. Even for short commutes, the physics just don't work. 

Doesn't seem likely that your assumption is correct. First, NEVER is a word nobody should be using in a sentence when referring to future tech capabilities but besides this, here's what some basic maths says about the energy content of a 35 gallon tank:

35*33.41kWh = 1169kWh. With a rating of 24MPG for the EcoBoost version, the F-150 is likely about 4x less efficient than a comparative EV. So let's give it some more room and say it's 3.5x less efficient. That means the energy needed is about 1169kWh/3.5= 334kWh. The Rivian pickup truck has a 180kWh battery so this is already more than half way there in terms of equalling the more efficient F-150 with a large tank option. This is with the current 250Wh/kg battery technology. In 20 years time, 500Wh/kg will almost certainly be quite common and electric pickups with 300-400kWh of battery will likely be available. Not only is this not "NEVER",  it's within most people's lives. In fact, capable pickups with shorter ranges are already either in pre production or on the drawing board and will be available next decade.

In some cases, 500Wh/kg is not unheard of even today so it may even take considerably less than 20 years for highly capable electric pickup trucks to make an appearance:

https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/oxis-energy-lithium-sulfur-cells-bye-aerospace/

This is the true beauty of EVs, they are vehicles with generic energy storage rather than specifically being tied to a certain chemistry like ICEVs.

[Don Whalen 0]

Only a small percentage of land mass constitutes the discovered, producing areas of hydrocarbons on our planet. Mother Nature doesn’t change much globally once we scratch her surface, so for anyone who thinks were going to run out anytime soon; think again? More importantly as intelligent thinking beings we know perfectly well hydrocarbons are 100% safe for us to use as we know how to use them in a safe manor! Not only for us but for the environment as well! Unfortunately that’s not the case as we’ve been abusing the use of hydrocarbons on a daily bases ever since we discovered them. Hydrocarbons affect our lives every minute of every day, not just while driving our cars but how it affords us the life style we embrace and not about to give up anytime soon! It’s unfortunate that we abuse them to the plight of ourselves!

Electric Car-Owners Shocked_ New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars _ Zero Hedge.pdf

[David Jones + 84]

15 hours ago, Don Whalen said:

Electric Car-Owners Shocked_ New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars _ Zero Hedge.pdf

No, nobody is shocked that someone managed to come up with such a study by skewing the numbers somewhat with specific assumptions. Regardless, it has no long term significance whatsoever. Since the idea is to transition to a cleaner, less energy intensive system, the emissions the system results in with a large EV at the time of the data is irrelevant to the actual emissions situation over the lifetime of the vehicle which could be as high as a decade or two in the case of Tesla.

The results of the study have been disputed and various other studies have show that EVs are generally less CO2 intensive even if they are on a grid that isn't very green but in terms of Germany specifically, the grid is in the process of lowering emissions per kWh so as I said, in a few years or even today already, the values the study uses would be too high thus EVs would be cleaner. By the time Germany actually has a significant amount of EVs in it's fleet, the grid would be so much less CO2 intensive that the entire conclusion of the study would effectively be  false which in turn follows that they are false.

[Outlaw Jackie + 78]

20 hours ago, David Jones said:

Doesn't seem likely that your assumption is correct. First, NEVER is a word nobody should be using in a sentence when referring to future tech capabilities but besides this, here's what some basic maths says about the energy content of a 35 gallon tank:

35*33.41kWh = 1169kWh. With a rating of 24MPG for the EcoBoost version, the F-150 is likely about 4x less efficient than a comparative EV. So let's give it some more room and say it's 3.5x less efficient. That means the energy needed is about 1169kWh/3.5= 334kWh. The Rivian pickup truck has a 180kWh battery so this is already more than half way there in terms of equalling the more efficient F-150 with a large tank option. This is with the current 250Wh/kg battery technology. In 20 years time, 500Wh/kg will almost certainly be quite common and electric pickups with 300-400kWh of battery will likely be available. Not only is this not "NEVER",  it's within most people's lives. In fact, capable pickups with shorter ranges are already either in pre production or on the drawing board and will be available next decade.

In some cases, 500Wh/kg is not unheard of even today so it may even take considerably less than 20 years for highly capable electric pickup trucks to make an appearance:

https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/oxis-energy-lithium-sulfur-cells-bye-aerospace/

This is the true beauty of EVs, they are vehicles with generic energy storage rather than specifically being tied to a certain chemistry like ICEVs.

I should have known some greenie would think I was wrong, and the truth is you just don't get it....  I'm not talking an F-150 getting 24+ MPG, I'm talking F250 with diesel power travelling from Texas to Northern California. Pulling a huge trailer across real mountains, in the middle of nowhere.  And I would not have the luxury of downtime to charge the batteries. I'm not interested in waiting 20 years for there to be an EV solution, if there ever will.