Nonsense from John Petersen

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

So I'd like to share my problem with JP's articles. I'm not an expert on the battery tech, but I am a Ph.D. in Power Systems Engineering and have spend the bulk of my research studying distribution grids and EV interactions with them. I am also a reviewer for the IEEE and review conference and journal articles to see if they are fit for publication...
...
JP's article went so far as to claim the IEEE was agreeing with him and his conclusions that EVs could not be adopted on the distribution grid. I took his assertions to task in the comments based on my background in full technical reviewer mode, I told him that he had misquoted the article, the article didn't mean the IEEE agreed with him, but rather they allowed it to be printed, his own analysis was woefully ignorant of the current state-of-the-art of distribution grids and research and lacked adequate citations to back up the conclusions.
...

His response was to delete and modify some of the comments that I took him to task on so my comment looked out of context, and then mock me in his reply to mine.

...

Thanks rolo, I think that should help confirm peoples' thoughts about how John "C" Petersen operates.

 

[vfx]

Here is some ammo to use against Petersen and others if they try to claim the aluminum construction of the S makes it a "dirtier" vehicle:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130920-das.html

Though the source makes it less powerful.

 

[JRP3]

ORNL? Or because it was funded by the Aluminum Association?

 

[hcsharp]

Some interesting points:

• Recycling aluminum creates only 5% of the of the carbon emissions required for primary aluminum manufacturing. 90% of automotive aluminum is currently recycled.
• It builds on an earlier study by the EPA
• It's consistent with an earlier independent study by the magnesium industry which also concluded that aluminum has the smallest carbon footprint of competing materials.

More than 90% of automobile energy consumption and carbon emissions occurs during the use phase, with the mining, production and manufacturing phases accounting for just 10% or less.

For an aluminum intensive vehicle, the breakeven point in its use phase for making up the energy consumed during the initial production phase is 9,300 miles (15,000 km)

The study was underwritten by The Aluminum Association so it's possible that might have influenced the researchers. OTOH, they said...

The modeling for this study conforms to internationally recognized standard practices (ISO 14040 and 14044). Comparative data sets used in the study were provided directly to ORNL researchers by the US steel and aluminum industries respectively, both sets of which are current, peer-reviewed and publicly available.

 

[vfx]

...

The study was underwritten by The Aluminum Association so it's possible that might have influenced the researchers. ...

To be fair,I look at studies sponsored by Chevron that tell me that ocean birds enjoy the occasional oil bath with much skepticism.

 

[hcsharp]

To be fair,I look at studies sponsored by Chevron that tell me that ocean birds enjoy the occasional oil bath with much skepticism.

I agree but those studies are always torn apart when peer reviewed. This study was not. Still, there's good reason to be skeptical.

 

[JRP3]

An AXPW article from Petersen, nothing to do with Tesla, but he still manages to work the TSLA ticker symbol into it, I'm sure for the "click" potential.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1745832-axion-power-an-extraordinary-nano-cap-opportunity

I've owned over a million shares of Axion stock for years and have an average acquisition cost that's roughly 10 times the current market price. I've never felt better about my risk-reward profile.

Yeah, with the cratering stock price the risk is almost gone at this point :biggrin:

 

[vgrinshpun]

Am I missing something, or the following two statements seem contradictory?

"The result is immense torque for acceleration and hill climbing..."

"For big climbs, the five-speed automatic transmission simply downshifts to a lower gear like all other heavy-duty tractors"

 

[Chickenlittle]

An AXPW article from Petersen, nothing to do with Tesla, but he still manages to work the TSLA ticker symbol into it, I'm sure for the "click" potential.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1745832-axion-power-an-extraordinary-nano-cap-opportunity



Yeah, with the cratering stock price the risk is almost gone at this point :biggrin:

yes that is why he Is desperate for the click income

 

[Discoducky]

JP's titles to articles continue to make me laugh out loud to the point where my wife says "What are you laughing at?" and I say "Spin" and she knows exactly who and what I'm speaking of.

 

[Mario Kadastik]

There's a new one on SA where he now doesn't attack valuations, but attacks Teslas claims to being CO2 clean. His claim os that EVs are far more polluting in the manufacturing phase due to their pattery packs and that the MS is worst of all for its gigantic disproportionally large battery. Oh well, just to let you know...

 

[JRP3]

Just a sad rehash of his previous article. Weak.

 

[dhrivnak]

I must say on one hand I am impressed with JP's tenacity. It is hard for me to imagine another person being so wrong for so many years and yet keeps on trying. But I will no longer read his rants as I feel I am just feeding his "click" machine. My time is better spent elsewhere.

 

[JRP3]

Basically he used this presentation from VW, which clearly shows EV's charged from renewables as the cleanest solution, but used the electric vehicle production emissions value on page 15 to claim they are dirty. He also ignored subsequent pages which show a path to CO2 neutral mobility.

 

[Dan5]

I'm not too happy with the VW presentation with the well to wheels.
Anyone else try to back calculate the use phase?

Diesel -> 110 grams per km indicates that car would be getting 57+ miles per US gallon; common consensuse, full well to wheel LCA would mean the car would have to get 76 mpg; 1 mile shy of the world record
gasoline car -> 168 grams per km, the car alone needs to have a minimum of 33 miles per US gallon (assume refining is carbon neutral); common consensus, full well to wheel LCA's would mean the car would have to get 43 mpg
hybrid -> 143 grams per km indicates a 38.5 miles per US gallon; common consensus full well to wheel LCA would mean the car would have to get 51 mpg

This are kind of unrealistic and do not exist. Not every hybrid is a Prius and even a Prius is rough to get 51 mpg.

I think the VW presentation flubbed the numbers, muliplied when the should of divided. here's why I say that:
VW golf diesel gets 43 mpg highway, which puts it at 145 grams per km
If they used a full well to wheel, they would have used an adjustment between 0.8 and 0.7 to account for refining, driling, transport, etc, etc.
I back caculated and it appears 0.759 was the adjustment factor they used incorrectly.

145/0.75 = 194 grams per km
BUT had they multiplied incorrectly145* 0.759 = 110 grams per km

Same is true for the regular car:
I think they used the average of a 24-25 mpg car; makes sense
220 grams/km *0.759 = 167 grams per km (incorrect), coincidentally comes very close to matching the VW presentation

should have been
220 grams/km /0.75 = 293 grams per km (correct)

The hybrid numbers are in the ballpark though for just pure tailpipe emissions... so I don't know, maybe they went back and did it correctly for the hybrids, or maybe they used the hybrid average of 38.5 or stumbled into the correct answer.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I'm not too happy with the VW presentation with the well to wheels.
Anyone else try to back calculate the use phase?

Diesel -> 110 grams per km indicates that car would be getting 57+ miles per US gallon; common consensuse, full well to wheel LCA would mean the car would have to get 76 mpg; 1 mile shy of the world record
gasoline car -> 168 grams per km, the car alone needs to have a minimum of 33 miles per US gallon (assume refining is carbon neutral); common consensus, full well to wheel LCA's would mean the car would have to get 43 mpg
hybrid -> 143 grams per km indicates a 38.5 miles per US gallon; common consensus full well to wheel LCA would mean the car would have to get 51 mpg

This are kind of unrealistic and do not exist. Not every hybrid is a Prius and even a Prius is rough to get 51 mpg.

I think the VW presentation flubbed the numbers, muliplied when the should of divided. here's why I say that:
VW golf diesel gets 43 mpg highway, which puts it at 145 grams per km
If they used a full well to wheel, they would have used an adjustment between 0.8 and 0.7 to account for refining, driling, transport, etc, etc.
I back caculated and it appears 0.759 was the adjustment factor they used incorrectly.

145/0.75 = 194 grams per km
BUT had they multiplied incorrectly145* 0.759 = 110 grams per km

Same is true for the regular car:
I think they used the average of a 24-25 mpg car; makes sense
220 grams/km *0.759 = 167 grams per km (incorrect), coincidentally comes very close to matching the VW presentation

should have been
220 grams/km /0.75 = 293 grams per km (correct)

The hybrid numbers are in the ballpark though for just pure tailpipe emissions... so I don't know, maybe they went back and did it correctly for the hybrids, or maybe they used the hybrid average of 38.5 or stumbled into the correct answer.

Have you tried using the New European Fairy Tale ratings?

 

[Dan5]

Have you tried using the New European Fairy Tale ratings?

Yes, using the EU numbers, can get 110 grams per CO2 per km, BUT it is not even remotely close to a well to wheels LCA. It's a gas tank to exhaust which is compeletly different.

 

[Julian Cox]

"http://seekingalpha.com/article/1751982-evs-solar-panels-and-free-lunch-sophistries"

A people (a person) should know when they have been debunked.


A Tesla Model S is a car, minus all of the carbon footprint for the engine casting, fuel and exhaust systems, plus a large battery that comes from one of four sources:

1. Panasonic.

2. Samsung.

3. LG.

4. BYD.

(Please make a point to check the links above).

And if that is not enough.

5. Tesla's sister company.

It will be an extraordinary day for the company and its investors when Tesla can expend enough energy in car manufacturing to catch up with 10% of the carbon offset activity intrinsically linked to its manufacturing activities and the manufacture of its components, particularly considering that all of the above are also in a rapid growth sector of the market.

The uptrend in production of EV batteries is not only from the same source as massive scale PV panel production, the embedded energy requirement is a small subset of existing solar energy production from the same sources and an amount that trails the trend of the upswing in solar energy production. In fact there is ample solar energy production from SCTY alone to overwhelm all of the energy requirements of TSLA including all of the energy to run the entire fleet of cars on the road, whereby SCTY is currently the smallest contributor to PV energy offset on the list. Tesla's key battery supplier (Panasonic) being one of the largest, if not the largest world wide.

It is absolutely disingenuous to ignore the intrinsic link that exists at every level between EV battery production and solar energy.

JC


Permission to copy and paste universally granted.

 

[Dan5]

Also, I was thinking, perhaps rolosrevenege could illuminate us a little better on the grid dynamics

We have baseload electricity production at night, correct?
For the most part this baseload is used for non efficient purposes, such as pumping water up a hill to be used during the day

To me, this is not a very efficient process, you get transmission losses, pumping losses, generation losses, then transmission losses again.

At most, from what I can find is that you are only getting roughly ~70% of the energy you use for this storage back as usable energy.
7% transmission
90% pump
85% impeller
7% transmission to end consumer


Now, here's the where is gets "hairy"

The baseload has to run, so in effect, the EV that uses it is not emitting an more than would be necessary for the grid, BUT it does put a tad more strain on the daytime grid since it is taking away some hydropower and NG, solar and coal does have to pick up the slack.

So, for the average driver, you would need 14 kw in the car, or 17.5 kwhr at point of generation.

17.5 kwhr *0.70 = 12.25 kwhr

If the increased demand was met by all coal, the EV would be emitting 309 grams/mile; 193 grams per km
If the increased demand was met by all NG (the most likely scenario) the EV would be emitting around 142 grams per mile; 89 grams per km.

This is muc lower than most papers propose. I am curious about what percentage of nighttime demand goes to water storage though. That could make or break this arguement.

 

[JRP3]

Water storage is only used in limited locations, so probably only applies to a small number of areas. I'm also not sure I follow your logic, if some power is used to pump water, and then you put additional load on the grid by charging an EV, extra power is going to be needed, with a subsequent increase in emissions.