Nonsense from John Petersen

[Dan5]

Another Petersen article out today with LCA stuff.

The LCA that he cited was decent, but then he goes and bastardizes it to meet his needs.

(I don't like the soft science of including economics in with hard science though in the LCA- that shouldn't be in there)

Why does he insist on writing and trying to extrapolate LCAs and doing so incorrectly. I published by response in his article. Some people just do not learn.

The study did the LCA on a weight basis, used a 300 kg battery, if you extrapolate, according to him, you get a much larger impact, BUT the battery would weigh 2400 lbs.

Can't do that. It needs to be the same chemistry to do that, and even if it's different chemistry, you have to account for different impacts related to different types.

 

[Julian Cox]

Petersen has been debunked repeatedly with this kind of drivel.

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA): Why Long-Range BEVs Are An Economic, Energy And Emissions Abomination - Seeking Alpha

One only need look at the companies that make batteries for BEVs to appreciate that this industry is a subset of solar energy creation. One cannot with any honesty put a carbon footprint next to a BEV.

 

[PeterJA]

SA just published a good debunking of Petersen's latest abomination. The comments debunk it further.
Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA): Tesla Cars Are Not An Environmental Abomination - Seeking Alpha

 

[JRP3]

Good article, except for the opening lines:

John Petersen has been a breath of fresh air among Tesla analysts, offering insightful commentary on the machinations of Tesla's management. His article, "Tesla's Non-GAAP Fairy Tale" is a must-read for anyone interested in Tesla.

:scared:

 

[Dan5]

Johnny boy poked his head into the second rebuttal article and tried to defend his work.

Bring a stick to a gun fight.

I like how he tried to say based on the energy usage, the tax payers are on the hook for over $2 per gallon, and that it's only saving 3,000 gallons over 180,000 miles.

Honestly, if you are going to do something like that;

Do you use the mileage/EPA rating of a comparable car OR

Battery energy costs extrapolated/energy in a gallon of gas?

 

[JRP3]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1845172-dissecting-teslas-zev-mythology

As a blogger, the only thing I hate worse than making a mistake is having that mistake caught by another blogger who exaggerates my error to perpetuate a mythology that can't withstand careful and thoughtful analysis.

 

[Dan5]

I called him out again.

His response was that Musk should release an LCA so he doesn't have to make up stuff from other LCAs.

My point is that if you are a professor, and someone gives you a completely wrong answer, and then says, well, if person XYZ had done his work, and I had copied it, i wouldn't have gotten it wrong.

Sometimes you just have to man up, say you messed up, and you don't know what you are talking about with the subject, OR consult experts. If experts tell you what you are doing is wrong, and show you how to fix it, and you still make the mistake, completely neglecting their advice. Well, that just shows a level of ignorance and arrogance that can not be ignored.

So instead of doing a real LCA he would rather have an LCA presented OR have one already made up and try to extrapolated based on it.

 

[neroden]

John Petersen has another article out, making a half-apology for his last pack of lies and then coming up with another pack of lies.

This John Petersen article was particularly gross. He copies a decent life-cycle analysis, which show that the Leaf is cleaner than the Prius, and then wilfully misreads it in order to claim that a Prius is cleaner than a Leaf. Sure, if you throw your car away every year, a Prius is cleaner than a Leaf, but if you keep it for ten years, a Leaf is cleaner than a Prius, and he goes out of his way to not admit that.

 

[JRP3]

Super FUD attack from Petersen, way over the top, even for him: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1856711-understanding-teslas-life-threatening-battery-decisions

In general, fires resulting from a punctured cell are the least violent. Lithium-ion batteries can also ignite spontaneously if debris left over from the manufacturing process pierces a 15- to 25-micron separator and creates an internal short circuit. In those cases, which are referred to as "field failure events," the internal short circuit ignites materials inside the cell and causes internal temperatures to spike to a few hundred degrees centigrade in seconds. At that point, the cell ruptures feeding additional oxygen to the fire. In rare unexplained cases, internal temperatures to spike to a couple thousand degrees centigrade in seconds, which suggests that thermite reactions might be taking place.

The battery pack in a Tesla Model S uses about 7,000 high-energy 18650 cells that are more prone to field-failure events than safer lithium-ion chemistries. Since each cell in the battery pack represents an independent field failure risk, the risk of a catastrophic field failure event at the battery pack level is:

• One in 1,429 if you assume a 1 in 10 million risk at the cell level;
• One in 2,857 if you assume a 1 in 20 million risk at the cell level; and
• One in 5,714 if you assume a 1 in 40 million risk at the cell level.

He's trying to push his spontaneous failure events nonsense when not a single one has ever happened! Grrrrr :cursing:

 

[stopcrazypp]

He also says this:

Nissan, in contrast, uses 192 large format lithium-ion battery cells in the Leaf. That factor alone reduces its catastrophic battery pack failure risk by about 98%.

This is the same thing that hides a base assumption, which is the assumption that large format cells have the same failure risk as 18650s (this is similar to the assumption that the Model S has the same collision risk as other vehicles). That's not necessarily a good assumption to make given the high yield of 18650 and the industry proven reliability.

The other thing is because the cells are large format, they cause more damage and are a bigger fire risk overall if one fails. He also makes the assumption that the failure of one cell means "catastrophic failure" of the whole pack. And as you point out, by his numbers (which he pulled out of nowhere), in his "best case" we should have seen about 3 spontaneous fires by now and about 17 in his "worst case". The fact we have seen zero probably says something about how valid this article is.

 

[Grendal]

I posted this yesterday:

I've recently come across a growing number of outside commenters that think Tesla's batteries are more volatile and so should be banned. My response has been to say that ethanol is less explosive than gasoline so all gas cars should immediately be switched over to ethanol since it is safer.

Tesla has used the chemistry they chose and have created a battery pack to deal with it. Much the same as gas cars have developed their system for dealing with thousands of small explosions in a gas engine.

And JP pulls his nonsense today and uses this very argument.

 

[Dan5]

Except Tesla has that goo that protects if there is a failure in one battery. I likened it more to sickness and the immune system. a healthy person recovers from the flu, but throw in more and more diseases, it makes the immune system overload. Pulverizing batteries is like giving Krusty O's to someone who is deathly sick.
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Simpsons-Frosted-Krusty-O-s-TV-Poster-Posters_i8759284_.htm

Actually thinking about it more, the goo acts more like your blood and platelets does for a cut. You cut yourself shaving, the blood thickens and prevents you from bleeding out.

Now, you get a deep cut, you may need to put pressure on it, but you let it bleed, it will eventually thicken up and stop.

If you get a really deep cut; ie, use a straight razor and drag it across your neck, or slip and pull and Van Gogh, the pooling effects of blood can't redress such a traumatic event.

 

[slavi]

He also says this:

This is the same thing that hides a base assumption, which is the assumption that large format cells have the same failure risk as 18650s (this is similar to the assumption that the Model S has the same collision risk as other vehicles). That's not necessarily a good assumption to make given the high yield of 18650 and the industry proven reliability.

The other thing is because the cells are large format, they cause more damage and are a bigger fire risk overall if one fails. He also makes the assumption that the failure of one cell means "catastrophic failure" of the whole pack. And as you point out, by his numbers (which he pulled out of nowhere), in his "best case" we should have seen about 3 spontaneous fires by now and about 17 in his "worst case". The fact we have seen zero probably says something about how valid this article is.

That's not even the biggest point! The large format cells in the Leaf are also made of hundreds of small cells, i.e. the individual cathode and anode sheets within them. Except in that case, they're permanently welded together and don't have individual fuses like the 18650's do in the Tesla battery packs.

I don't think he's intellectually dishonest, because I can see how he really believes what he writes. He is however, undoubtedly, intellectually lazy. If this was chess, he would only think half a move ahead.

 

[JRP3]

Though using that argument the 18650 is also layers of cathode and anode wound up together, so, not much of an argument. The real point is that assuming a number of smaller cells is inherently less safe than a single larger cell only because of the cell count is false. Put another way, are 4 single gallon containers of gasoline less safe than a single 4 gallon container? Obviously not, in fact they may be safer.

 

[Dan5]

I don't think he's intellectually dishonest, because I can see how he really believes what he writes. He is however, undoubtedly, intellectually lazy. If this was chess, he would only think half a move ahead.

I think it may be a little of both. For instance, I corrected him and showed him how to do a LCA, did he use it, did he even state in his paper that his stuff could be wrong? Nope.

Presenting something as fact, when you extrapolate, and fail to follow the ISO standards is dishonest.

That is intellectually dishonest, when someone corrects you and you refuse to acknowledge the correct way of doing things.

 

[brianman]

I don't think he's intellectually dishonest, because I can see how he really believes what he writes. He is however, undoubtedly, intellectually lazy. If this was chess, he would only think half a move ahead.

It's either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. Those are the only two choices I see based on the evidence (his posts/articles).

 

[Krugerrand]

It's either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. Those are the only two choices I see based on the evidence (his posts/articles).

Pfft! There's a third choice, it just isn't permitted to be said.

 

[brianman]

Pfft! There's a third choice, it just isn't permitted to be said.

I would put that in the dishonest category, not a new category.

 

[Dutchie]

He is here again... One of his more reasonable articles I think...

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA): Understanding Tesla's Giga-Scale Battery Challenges - Seeking Alpha

 

[JRP3]

He is here again... One of his more reasonable articles I think...

Oh no, not even close. So many errors I'm not even sure where to start, my head's about to explode.