More anti-ev gibberish

[Dan5]

Another way JP's analysis is BS, look closely, He scaled up the Leaf 24 kwhr to the Tesla without accounting for the increased capacity compared to Mn spinel vs NCA...

He just did 40/24 * Leaf figure for the 40 kwhr figure

To be even slightly more accurate he should have done (150/170)* 40/24 which gives even about a 11% less value, so instead of 9 years it's 8 years

 

[dsm363]

I heard back from the mods at SeekingAlpha. At least they are aware. Is try not to read his articles anymore but if you do and see him resort to a personal attack, go ahead and report the post.

 

[JRP3]

There is a possible error in this rebuff from Renim because he assumes the EV motor has the same proportion of materials as the stationary ABB motor they are compairing against. However, a large part of that motor is "electrical steel" which he states is used for the stator and rotor. However, as we know, the Tesla motor has a copper rotor, so the copper content of the motor will be proportionately higher. Whether that makes up the difference I don't know.

It's true that the Tesla motor is more copper intensive by percentage but the entire motor weighs less than just the copper content of the industrial motors used in the study.

- - - Updated - - -

Every time he bashes Tesla, he gets a ton of comments. And when he gets all those comments, his rating as a blogger goes up. SA loves it, because of more click-thru on the ads, driving up their revenue. I'm also sure that's why he responds to so many comments - it refuels the fire and drives up the count even further.

Right, John? (I'm sure he reads all the posts here -- just no incentive for him to respond here.)

Yes, so it's best only a select few of us respond (or none, even better) and don't even click on the link as that generates traffic to site.

Perhaps take the text of the articles and post them here, asking people to NOT click on the link, depriving SA and other sites he posts his "wisdom" of even the web traffic, never mind comments as well. Just a thought...

Considering this line of reasoning, I think it's important for us to read and consider counter arguments to his articles, even if we give him extra "clicks" and a bit more traffic. He is unfortunately widely read and quoted, so those of us looking to advocate for EV adoption need to have solid counter arguments available. Know your enemy, and he is the enemy, of EV's, as well as rational, fact backed debate. I'm happy to see all the people that piled on and pointed out all the flaws in his "interpretation" of a poorly constructed study. Makes my ban from commenting more tolerable, and I don't have to smash my keyboard :cursing: :biggrin:

 

[VolkerP]

We each have our own investing style. I've got a long history of 10 to 20 baggers and live in a castle in Switzerland. Do you really want to compare skills?
A123 Clear Sector Leader in Lithium-Ion Battery Space - Seeking Alpha

From another thread:

am suggesting that one of you needs to lead an organized effort instead of posting continuously about this issue. [...] Grab the pitchforks and light the torches. Storm the castle.

blatantly taken out of context by me! :tongue:

 

[Dan5]

I agree.

I'm thinking we have a concerted effort to disprove his blogs and just post a link right after he posts his to disprove his. Personally I would have a google doc that we can all work on and then someone just post a rebuttal highlighting his false premises, errors, etc and an post an article with the correct data and calcs. I know jrp did it and he did a good job, nick butcher also did an amazing job disproving petersen's claims. I say we all contibute to a google doc, derive him of his clicks, and put out a competing, but correct paper.

My expertise is enginnering and environmental impacts of chemicals so I would be more than happy to lend my expertise and review to any competing articles

 

[dsm363]

It's true that the Tesla motor is more copper intensive by percentage but the entire motor weighs less than just the copper content of the industrial motors used in the study.

- - - Updated - - -




Considering this line of reasoning, I think it's important for us to read and consider counter arguments to his articles, even if we give him extra "clicks" and a bit more traffic. He is unfortunately widely read and quoted, so those of us looking to advocate for EV adoption need to have solid counter arguments available. Know your enemy, and he is the enemy, of EV's, as well as rational, fact backed debate. I'm happy to see all the people that piled on and pointed out all the flaws in his "interpretation" of a poorly constructed study. Makes my ban from commenting more tolerable, and I don't have to smash my keyboard :cursing: :biggrin:

We're you banned by JP or the mods there? Did they give you a reason for being banned from the entire site? You should be able to be reinstated. They're starting deleting comments from him where he bashes others.

 

[bonnie]

Considering this line of reasoning, I think it's important for us to read and consider counter arguments to his articles, even if we give him extra "clicks" and a bit more traffic. He is unfortunately widely read and quoted, so those of us looking to advocate for EV adoption need to have solid counter arguments available. Know your enemy, and he is the enemy, of EV's, as well as rational, fact backed debate.

Well I know that my desire to see people just ignore him won't happen (it's too hard NOT to correct people), so I never really had hope that people could ignore him. I just like the idea of him not getting attention and slowly realizing that the EV market has grown to be wildly successful (despite his efforts to make it otherwise) and he has become 'that guy' that never got it right. That will be his legacy. And he'll wonder where everyone went. I can't imagine a better end to this story.

See ya, John! (Because I know you read this forum.)

 

[smorgasbord]

Petersen piling on with another one, this time looking only at CO2...

Isn't one of the core problems with emission and efficiency comparisons that we don't use actual real world experience for the ICE side? That is, for MPG we use EPA (or even worse, CAFE) standards, which are not real world. Similarly for emissions - we're taking standards or at best measurements for a certain cycle of driving that isn't necessarily real world. Do they measure ICE cars with the accelerator floored when entering a freeway, for instance? Do they measure 7 year old cars? Seems like we're always reducing range of an EV based on the real world - and that affects not just efficiency, but pollution, but I haven't seen anything that does the same real world adjustments for ICE cars?

Does anyone know how the ICE baselines are derived?

 

[Dan5]

The cars manufacturers if the ice engines are supposed to follow the same lines of testing as the EVs, but they tweak it so that the cars do overly well in the tests.

Examples include cutting down the performance by having the engine hood popped open when they do the tests, using microhybrid systems which fail in as low as 6 months then the system, I call it front loading the fraud since the cars will not continue to have the as advertised mpg due to the intentional misleading of the public by the auto companies

 

[JRP3]

We're you banned by JP or the mods there? Did they give you a reason for being banned from the entire site? You should be able to be reinstated. They're starting deleting comments from him where he bashes others.

Petersen can't ban anyone nor can he delete comments on his articles, only on his "Insta blogs", which are pieces he writes that SA does not promote as articles. I was only banned from commenting on Petersen articles, not the entire site. The SA editors felt that the volume of my comments on his articles was over some arbitrary ratio which they consider stalking. I pointed out the sheer volume of his articles on a topic that interests me would easily explain my post volume, but I got the impression they were just tired of dealing with Petersen's complaints and the organized efforts of his drones to report every one of my posts, no matter what I said. I still comment on SA, and sometimes when Petersen ventures outside of his own articles I get to take a shot at him once in a while, then he scurries away back to his hole in the castle wall :biggrin:

- - - Updated - - -

I call it front loading the fraud...

I was considering doing a rebuttal to Petersen's recent posts called Front Loading the Hype, but I like your phrase better.

 

[dpeilow]

Electric Car Dreamride To Nowhere - French Style :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website

 

[Robert.Boston]

Electric Car Dreamride To Nowhere - French Style :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website

What's scary is that this author was an EU policymaker and doesn't seem to fully grasp some basics of the electric system.

 

[smorgasbord]

The cars manufacturers if the ice engines are supposed to follow the same lines of testing as the EVs, but they tweak it so that the cars do overly well in the tests.

OK, but my issue is that I believe that ICE cars in the real world pollute a lot more than the MPG ratings would indicate. For instance, flooring a car that's several years old can result in oil being pushed beyond the rings and thus being converted into air pollution (the blue smoke). So, that's worse than just not getting the MPG rating - even worse than scaling the MPG rating down. It's a non-linear, probably non-continuous increase in pollution. Whereas with an EV, flooring simply reduces the efficiency, but the powerplant's pollution will scale linearly.

Does that make sense?

 

[jerry33]

OK, but my issue is that I believe that ICE cars in the real world pollute a lot more than the MPG ratings would indicate. For instance, flooring a car that's several years old can result in oil being pushed beyond the rings and thus being converted into air pollution (the blue smoke). So, that's worse than just not getting the MPG rating - even worse than scaling the MPG rating down. It's a non-linear, probably non-continuous increase in pollution. Whereas with an EV, flooring simply reduces the efficiency, but the powerplant's pollution will scale linearly.

Does that make sense?

It makes plenty of sense but the majority of people seem to believe:

1. Pollution controls cause more pollution than they prevent.

2. Global warming is some kind of scam.

3. If it wasn't for EPA regulations, the economy would be in great shape.

None of those point stand up to even the smallest amount of critical thinking, but education in critical thinking is just what the politicians and CEOs don't want.

 

[v12 to 12v]

OK, but my issue is that I believe that ICE cars in the real world pollute a lot more than the MPG ratings would indicate. For instance, flooring a car that's several years old can result in oil being pushed beyond the rings and thus being converted into air pollution (the blue smoke). So, that's worse than just not getting the MPG rating - even worse than scaling the MPG rating down. It's a non-linear, probably non-continuous increase in pollution. Whereas with an EV, flooring simply reduces the efficiency, but the powerplant's pollution will scale linearly.

Does that make sense?

Non-point source pollution is what it's called and the impacts are significant. Not only is it in the air but there is oil dripping on pavement, grease, lead from radiators or batteries, and deposition from the air and environs and other urban runoff that are going to surface waters. Oil/Water separators need to be installed in parking garages in our area due to surface water impacts but that can be considered a point source due to its containment and treatment. Thank good science and some arm twisting that there is no longer lead in most gas.

Source points are leaking underground storage tanks, tank farms, refinery facilities, transport mishaps, incidental spills at gas stations and more.

 

[JRP3]

I expect the announcement of A123's bankruptcy will fuel more anti-EV and anti-Tesla gibberish: A123 Chapter 11

 

[Discoducky]

I expect the announcement of A123's bankruptcy will fuel more anti-EV and anti-Tesla gibberish: A123 Chapter 11

Hopefully Johnson Controls will pursue new battery contracts and not just sell off the pieces. I would JC to help the overall battery market as they are pretty big.

 

[Doug_G]

I expect the announcement of A123's bankruptcy will fuel more anti-EV and anti-Tesla gibberish: A123 Chapter 11

Actually, I think being bought by Johnson Controls is good news. They've got deep pockets and are a stable, well-run business.

 

[Dave EV]

Actually, I think being bought by Johnson Controls is good news. They've got deep pockets and are a stable, well-run business.

+1. It also means that the promising tech that A123 has been working on has a very good chance of reaching production.

It's also a very good deal for Johnson Controls who is one of the leading manufactures in the market - they get to bolster their portfolio on the cheap.

Ranking Li-ion battery developers on the Lux Innovation Grid | Lux Populi
Japan, S. Korea dominate electric car and hybrid battery market | SmartPlanet

 

[JRP3]

Actually, I think being bought by Johnson Controls is good news. They've got deep pockets and are a stable, well-run business.

So you don't think certain types will put A123 into the same category as Solyndra and use it to further bash Obama and his alternative energy programs?