Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Technical' started by kort677, May 1, 2017.
The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles | Zero Hedge
It's a collection of declaratory statement, lacking supporting references or analytical rigor, that is as hard to read as it is to take seriously.
Hah. That's funny. Every paragraph is wrong. It's as if Donald Trump decided to tweet about electric vehicles.
Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge, Wall Street's Renegade Blog
like any other source of information there is some decent info offered on zero hedge and there is a lot of garbage posted there.
just like when you go to ant other "news" site a discerning/skeptical approach is necessary when reading this
They are not all the same, and many have earned and are entitled to substantial deference and belief. They cite sources. They have a track record. They have analytical rigor.
Others warrant substantially more skepticism and doubt. They are purveyors of a conclusion they favor and base their conclusions on, if anything, carefully cherry-picked facts or none at all.
It is a mistake to regard them all identically.
I regard them all equally, everything you read or see from the media is designed to elicit a certain response. regardless of the source.
almost all of what you do not witness for yourself is filtered to so regard.
stay skeptical my friend
While I agree that every information source should be viewed with a critical eye, I do not regard all information sources "equally". That leads to errors in interpretation. The long established and well respected journal Science has far more credibility than stories about science in the UK Daily Mail or the National Enquirer.
The article linked to in the OP is laughable and displays either an abysmal level of ignorance or is a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader. Maybe both.
Full article at:
Zero Hedge - RationalWiki
Consider the possibility that the The BBC World News has earned a greater presumption of accuracy than Breitbart News.
Consider the possibility that the The Atlantic has earned a greater presumption of accuracy than The National Enquirer.
Consider the possibility that CBS News with Scott Kelly has earned your trust more than FOX News.
If you can't figure out that NPR News is entitled to more deference than Rush LImbach or BuzzFeed, then you need to reconsider.
Well, it's not Scottish.
Are you sure it's accuracy you want, or conformity with your world view.
.... did you have a straight face when you typed that? Even the casual observer can tell pretty quickly that's not true... you have to be FAR more skeptical of some 'news' sources than others... none are perfect but for some perfection isn't even a goal. With some misinformation is a feature not a fault...
As for the article...
'An electric auto will convert 5-10% of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30% of the energy in gasoline into motion. That's 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle.'
We extract natural gas and burn it in power plants... we DO NOT extract gasoline and burn that in cars. We extract OIL. You lose ~20% of the energy in oil when you refine it into gasoline. Even lower for less conventional sources...
'A natural gas electric generating turbine gets 40% efficiency. A high voltage transformer gets 90% efficiency. A household level transformer gets 50% efficiency. A short transmission line gets 20% loss, which is 80% efficiency. The total is 40% x 90% x 50% x 80% = 14.4% of the energy recovered before the electrical system does something similar to the gasoline engine in the vehicle. Some say the electricity performs a little better in the vehicle, but it's not much.'
Um... no... gas turbines are usually >50% efficient unless it's simple cycle which is uncommon and transmission to homes is usually >85% efficient TOTAL. There's no such thing as a 50% efficient transformer... that just sounds made up... So ~40% of the thermal energy in gas is getting to your wall outlet. Adjusting for charging losses you're still getting ~1/3 and EVs are 3x more efficient than ICE so it usually comes out as a wash... IF you're using fools fuel to generate the electricity... which is declining as we speak
Beyond that we are quickly racking up curtailments. EVs have the unique ability to use energy that would have otherwise literally gone to waste if it weren't used. A curtailed wind farm at 2am is no good to anyone. CAISO curtailed 80GWh in March alone. If we had an EV fleet large enough to absorb that surplus that's 4.8M gallons of gasoline even if they replaced fools fuel cars that got ~50mpg. Free energy. As wind and solar grow this problem will grow too unless we get more flexible demand like EVs out there...
Nice graphic. I hadn't seen that before.
That sh*t piece is submitted by this guy: Science Errors, How Deterioration of Science Left Wreckage and Ruin. Gary Novak: Independent Scientist, Mushroom Physiologist (LOL), Evolution Biologist, Liberal Progressive, (and Global Warming science denier apparently...)
My world view is based in observable reality, not tripe, conspiracy theories, intentional ignorance, and uneducated blather. You?
On top of all that, no one is getting old liquid dinosaurs from the sun, wind or waterfalls.
Last time I checked you had to transport that oil to a refinery, and that takes energy of some kind. Plus the transportation of that stuff isn't nearly as neat or clean as it seems. Sometimes the oil pipelines burst, and sometimes the ships leak, and sometimes the trains derail. Plus there are other concerns like contamination.
Anyways, once it finally arrives at the refinery you have to use energy to convert that to burnable gas. Then you have to transport that gas all over the place. So that takes energy to transport it, and adds to traffic congestion.
So finally after all these steps it makes it to your nearby gas station. Where you can go down to put it into your gas tank, and you can finally burn it.
But, is it really over after you burn it? Ha, not for a long shot.
You know you gotta put stuff back. You can't just take things and not put them back. That's just plain rude. Not to mention if you leave all that stuff up there it causes the earth to heat. Something about it acting like glass where the heat is trapped.
Now how to get it back is beyond my knowledge. So good luck with it.
In the mean time I think it's easier for me to drive an electric car, and the best part is I don't have to bother will all that math because most of the electricity in my area is generated by hydroelectric dams.
Further, I have changed electric suppliers so that ALL of the electricity I use at my house is from renewable energy. No dinosaurs, actual or metaphorical.
Few years ago when I got incentive for EV purchase there was one requirement: electricity for that EV must come from clean source.
Have to report annual mileage and pay the difference between dirty and clean juice. 10-20€ per year. For 5 years.
Actually everybody here can voluntarily switch to green juice for the whole living. Difference in price is very small.
So it is also possible in US?
It's hard to find anything correct in that article.
I blame the schools.