Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

[Phil Allison]

Winfield Hill bulshitted wildly as usual:

---------------------------------------

Phil Allison wrote...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like
3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire
power grid - at huge public expense.

Poor data.

** Nope - very real data.

I think my case is typical. My car takes
about 6kWh for my 22-mile commute,

** Err - what car is that then, a Prius ?

Using examples only you know about is 100% bullshit.
----------------------------------------------------

my house uses about 28kWh/day.

** So more than 1kW continuously ?

That is very UNUSUAL where I live in Sydney, unless it is the dead of winter, the home fully electric and folk are home all day.

By national statistics my wife and I account
for another 25kWh more, at work, stores, infrastructure,

** A figure, plucked right out of his fat arse.

etc. So my car requires 6/53 = 11% more

** Now for some actual reality:

Assuming overnight charging for 8hrs at 3kW is the norm - a figure oft quoted by EV makers - a householder here would get a bill 3 or 4 times the one they get now.

If charging were continued at peak demand times - the local grid would collapse with triple the usual load.

There is almost no extra capacity available in domestic AC power supply - easily proved by simply monitoring the supply voltage.

It drops to barely acceptable values ( like 210VAC instead of 240 ) at peak demand times on cold mornings and evenings.

The most common impediment to sales of EVs is the customer has no reliable way of charging the damn thing - despite being the ONLY user in the area.

Win - you need a MASSIVE reality check !!!

Cos you are not living on this planet but in some ridiculous Ivory Tower where all is just as Win imagines it to be.

You recent rude and idiot post about mic preamp noise would earn you a *fail* at any electronics exam - for ignoring the context.

I note you did not have the decency to reply to my clear disproof - cos you bloated EGO would not let you.

I am now forced to conclude that you are an even worse pig the John Larkin.

I previously thought you were a better person that that vile shithead.

Seems not.



..... Phil

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ddf8d4d-6806-47b8-958a-01e215d7a737@googlegroups.com:

I think your analysis is very one dimensional. EVs have more
costs in materials, cobalt, nickle and copper cost a lot more than
steel.

You are dippy.

The difference is tens of pounds compared to tons of steel.

There are not tons of any of those incorporated.

I think your analysis is very no dimensional.

Mag flux and copper is where it's at, boy!

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:f5e3e12e-035f-
4fec-b11b-cd96cf51e2eb@googlegroups.com:

> 35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

It happened before. Back in the '80s. Maybe you were asleep or on
medications.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

Yep. We know which end you would get fed to as well.

I say we put folks to work on US infrastructure elements. Bridges
and such.

But mainly make a damned street light that does not still use
friggin 1950's technology day night swtch on top that ALL fuck up
eventually, and use DC and LED lighting for it, and have a battery
back up on it that lasts 12 hrs for power outage handling.

And the traffic controllers are all VERY expensive and use '70s
tech, and yet we still pay so much for them and they still puke in a
power outage and when a bulb fails and when a road sensor gets
saturated 'on'.

And the idiots have now gone araound and placed 4 to 8 cameras on
each light so they can catch red light runners? Or are they now
using edge rec tech to 'see' when someone is at a light to switch it?
Either way adding crap on top of crap but still using the same crap
is wasteful. We could save a lot of gas and drive the price down,
just by making traffic controllers smarter.

And look at all those jobs.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f5e3e12e-035f-4fec-b11b-cd96cf51e2eb@googlegroups.com:

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine
requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds.
Not if you count the control electronics

It is not just that.

The entire drivetrain is different.

Also, no thermal or proximity considerations need to be made for a
bladder of flammable liquid or an extremely hot exhaust and exhaust
line elements passing near it.

The basic car of any type is the carraige and the suspension and
steering and braking parts (and lighting).

Powerplant is a different animal.

And you were wrong there too, as an electric powered vehicle has
control elements for the motors and they have parts too. The
difference is that their hundreds of parts are pre-assembled before
the productoion line, and simply go in as modules.

In fact, entire driveline elements can be pre-assembled. That
makes their assembly line capacity much faster than a normal
automotive build.

I'd say they could build cars of the line to the tune of hundreds a
day. Likely considerably faster than ICE driveline builds.

Aside from the unibody assembly segment, the entire thing could be
automated to the point where human utilization is only where certain
fastener elements are found to be difficult to manage with machine
vision, etc.

As they perfect touch sensitivity in robotics, they may well
overcome that (fastener lead in) issue, and remove humans altogether
from final assembly lines.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:18e1032a-3c9d-4d87-be14-78abcc870137@googlegroups.com:

I figured someone would want to trace the history of every bit of
work that went into making the copper.

Damn, boy! You are worse than Donald J. Trump with your baby
bullshit.

It matters when it does, except when it goes against your declared
"way it is" "facts". How special... NOT!

However the same analysis
can be applied to the hand worked painting.

OK. From the cloth weaving to the frame wood gathering to the
nails to the paint itself... Still less cost.

Imagine that.

So this is a
degenerate

Yes, you are.

> way of looking at the issue...

You could not make a manufacturing cost analysis if your life
depended on it.

likely from a degenerate
thinker. <grin

Is the 'grin' supposed to make it OKie dOKie for your insults?

You are a sad case. Why don't you find a nice Trump rally to
attend?

 

[Rob]

Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

I think the vastly increased lifetime and reduced maintenance of vehicles
now as compared to last century has way more influence on the demand
and workforce than the change to electrical vehicles.

 

[amdx]

On 10/3/2019 9:54 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 9:30:13 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:
"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ddf8d4d-6806-47b8-958a-01e215d7a737@googlegroups.com...
By your analysis a copper sheet would require more labor to produce than a
hand painting. Just because it cost more.


Ackshooally...

I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

That copper touched a LOT of machinery along its way from the mill (whether
from virgin ore or recycled scrap) to your hands.

It probably didn't have labor directly applied to it, no. Not like the old
days when a smith beat it with a hammer a million times. But indirectly,
there may well be more man-hours in it from the operators and managers
running the equipment, mills and supply chain, or the amortized labor of the
engineers and technicians who designed and built the machinery.

I mean, really -- it costs literally nothing to dig ore out of the ground.
Here's a shovel, have fun! Resources are almost free*. It's making use of
it that costs capital (shovels, trucks, separators, smelters..), or labor,
or both. Every process, every product, is value-add!

*A statement itself worthy of argument. Mining sites tend to be low cost
land, and tend not to be widely inhabited... or tend not to cost much to the
local governments to, ahem, relocate said inhabitants. Or in some cases,
can be mined laterally.

Did you know there are hundreds(?) of oil wells in the middle of LA, to this
day? Hidden inside nondescript buildings, they do directional drilling,
slowly extracting the resources under the city. The mineral rights, to
which, probably aren't all that cheap, but I have no idea how long they've
been held; they might well have been a pittance back in the day.

May not work as well in countries with unlimited vertical property rights...

I figured someone would want to trace the history of every bit of work that went into making the copper.

This is where I insert my obligatory link to "I, Pencil"
https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl.html
I apologize that every site needs to give praise and speak of all the
virtues, just page down about 1/3 to the start where it says in large
print,
I, Pencil
By Leonard E. Read

Mikek

However the same analysis can be applied to the hand worked painting.
So this is a degenerate way of looking at the issue... likely from a
degenerate thinker. <grin>
>

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:4b7de1d1-fa3e-4798-b652-20bb6e90c2dc@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:33:05 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 04/10/19 08:33, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy
wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C
wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift
-to-ele
ctric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000
jobs in
the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to
build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine
requires
thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material
issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such
quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green
stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric
vehicles be in
the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have
little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very
difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By
"fleet"
I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be
introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as
well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he
wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by
2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the
conversi
on to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just
kidding you
rself.

In the UK 40% of cars are parked on the street without
access to electricity.

That's not an insuperable problem.

My local power distribution company has a published strategy:
https://www.westernpower.co.uk/downloads-view/29293

There are many problematic areas which might or might not be
practical/economic to solve.

For the foreseeable future, this will be a representative
experience:
"A colleague who lives in London did charge his car from
his terraced house and covered the cable, which ran across
the pavement, with basic safety kit to stop passing pedestrians
from tripping up. He okayed everything with his council
but ultimately his neighbours weren't happy and he decided
to give his electric car up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48881117

Somebody with a better crystal ball would see the council cutting
a slot in the pavement, burying the cable and putting a socket
into the kerb.

Parking meters already have power connections - in Canada you plug
your car into them to power the heater that stops the radiator
from freezing solid.

Folks could wirelessly charge at a medium rate at a parking space,
and at certain intersections one could trickle charge wirelessly.
Thereby making the final charge requisite upon daily retirement less.

All that is needed is to establish a standard for the placement of
the coils.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 04/10/19 12:04, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:33:05 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/10/19 08:33, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By "fleet" I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the conversion to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just kidding yourself.

In the UK 40% of cars are parked on the street without
access to electricity.

That's not an insuperable problem.

My local power distribution company has a published strategy:
https://www.westernpower.co.uk/downloads-view/29293

There are many problematic areas which might or might not be
practical/economic to solve.

For the foreseeable future, this will be a representative
experience:
"A colleague who lives in London did charge his car from
his terraced house and covered the cable, which ran across
the pavement, with basic safety kit to stop passing pedestrians
from tripping up. He okayed everything with his council
but ultimately his neighbours weren't happy and he decided
to give his electric car up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48881117

Somebody with a better crystal ball would see the council cutting a slot in the pavement, burying the cable and putting a socket into the kerb.

Parking meters already have power connections - in Canada you plug your car into them to power the heater that stops the radiator from freezing solid.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 04/10/19 12:04, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:33:05 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/10/19 08:33, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By "fleet" I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the conversion to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just kidding yourself.

In the UK 40% of cars are parked on the street without
access to electricity.

That's not an insuperable problem.

But surprisingly difficult in some cases.

My local power distribution company has a published strategy:
https://www.westernpower.co.uk/downloads-view/29293

There are many problematic areas which might or might not be
practical/economic to solve.

For the foreseeable future, this will be a representative
experience:
"A colleague who lives in London did charge his car from
his terraced house and covered the cable, which ran across
the pavement, with basic safety kit to stop passing pedestrians
from tripping up. He okayed everything with his council
but ultimately his neighbours weren't happy and he decided
to give his electric car up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48881117

Somebody with a better crystal ball would see the council cutting a slot in the pavement, burying the cable and putting a socket into the kerb.

Conservation areas. Who pays the cost - councils definitely
won't since they haven't got the money for potholes

Of course all such problems will disappear after a no-deal
brexit. (Or more likely we'll have much more urgent problems
so that we don't care about such problems/solutions)

Parking meters already have power connections - in Canada you plug your car into them to power the heater that stops the radiator from freezing solid.

We aren't that cold.

There are a few parking meters around, 50m apart at
least, and their power supply is sufficient for the
parking meter, no more.

Ditto lampposts, which have been suggested and assessed.

 

[Randy Day]

In article <4b7de1d1-fa3e-4798-b652-20bb6e90c2dc@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org says...

[snip]

> Somebody with a better crystal ball would see the council cutting a slot in the pavement, burying the cable and putting a socket into the kerb.

There would be some engineering involved to keep
out road grit, or to prevent shorting when that
street puddle forms after a rainstorm, or when
that ice dam floods your sidewalk during the
spring melt.

> Parking meters already have power connections - in Canada you plug your car into them to power the heater that stops the radiator from freezing solid.

Where did you encounter that? As a Canadian, I've
never seen parking meters anywhere in Canada that
allow you to plug in to them. Plus, around here,
they're replacing meters with kiosks you walk to
to pay for your time in your spot.

Most places where parking meters are deployed,
you're not expected to be parked long enough
for your engine to get cold - generally, time
limits are 1/2-2hrs.

Companies with off-street parking provide power
connections for employee vehicles, but not
public/municipal parking facilities.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 9:16:17 PM UTC+10, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

-----------------
:

Moving people over to electric cars is going to be particularly
important for these countries.

** Be much like re-arranging the deck chairs on the proverbial...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire power grid - at huge public expense.

Wrong.


** Nope.

The energy used to drive US cars around is about 3O% of the US
generating capacity.


** Meaningless to any of my points.

It directly contradicts your claim about a three to four fold beefing up of the power generating capacity. You may not like it, but it is directly relevant.

I can't immediately dig out my references, but I will. I'm going to bed now, but should be able to find the relevant links tomorrow.

The grid may need to be beefed up a bit,

** Like 3 to 5 times.

That's your claim, but you really need to find some evidence to support it.
From what I can remember of what I dug out, you'll be hard pressed to find it.

Excluding the nuclear option, cos warmies all hate it, doing this requires 3 or 4 times more coal to be burnt.

Solar power can do it.

** Nonsense.

There's a great deal more sunlight around than we could possibly use. Using it to charge the battery in a car that is parked for 95% of the time wipes out the need for any other kind of storage.

Any rational scheme will put electric car charging points in every place that they get parked,

** Which requires the upgrades that I suggested.

Some changes and beefing up but nothing dramatic - you've grossly exaggerated the extra generating ad distribution capacity required.

If we get close to 100% electric cars,

** A warmies wet dream.

If we don't get there, we are going to get a lot too warm for comfort. Going over to electric cars isn't the only changes we will have to make to keep anthropogenic lobal warming down to merely inconvenient levels.

Spare me the PV + huge batteries nonsense - that cannot possibly work on such a scale in most places at a sane cost.

The electric cars provide the huge battery - if you've got enough of them.

** Pure greenie fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

wasn't any kind of environmentalist fantasy.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Steve Wilson]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:21:18 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Phil Allison wrote...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like
3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire
power grid - at huge public expense.

Poor data. I think my case is typical. My car takes
about 6kWh for my 22-mile commute, my house uses about
28kWh/day. By national statistics my wife and I account
for another 25kWh more, at work, stores, infrastructure,
etc. So my car requires 6/53 = 11% more, not 3 to 4x.
If we'll need 10% more electricity in the distant future,
when most cars are electric, that doesn't sound too hard.

I think most power grids assume an increase of the same order due to population growth. So it might be lost in current planning.

And you are not counting the gas you no longer use, plus the refinement, distribution, and the corn not needed for ethanol. Plus the health benefits of not burning fossil fuels, and the cost of global warming.

Thanks,
- Win

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:igtepet6bl237k70iff1v4vtd7bkd1htgu@4ax.com:

> It will be even fewer after Tesla goes bankrupt.

You make folks feel that it is a goddamned shame that you do not go
bankrupt.

 

On 3 Oct 2019 17:56:57 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Rick C wrote...

The shift to electric vehicles could cost
the UAW 35,000 jobs.

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.

It will be even fewer after Tesla goes bankrupt.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 4 October 2019 07:31:57 UTC+1, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/10/19 01:56, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

The shift to electric vehicles could cost
the UAW 35,000 jobs.

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.

That discounts the /energy/ required to mine and
separate and transport raw materials and
finished goods.

No it doesn't. Every process involved costs, including those required to produce the energy used.

And to supply that energy requires a lot more equipment, facilities labor and... energy.

This sort of analysis just leads you down a rabbit hole with no bottom. You know, "It's turtles all the way down!"

Electric cars are simpler to build, so they require less labor at the first level of analysis. I would be willing to bet that at the secondary levels below that the labor/materials/facilities/technology is pretty much the same as building any other large equipment/appliance in use today.

It is very clear that Winfield's overly simplistic "cost" based analysis is faulty and produces a result that is not even a good first order approximation. Well, it's probably right to within an order of magnitude...

--

Rick C.

+- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:11:28 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f5e3e12e-035f-4fec-b11b-cd96cf51e2eb@googlegroups.com:

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine
requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds.
Not if you count the control electronics

It is not just that.

The entire drivetrain is different.

Also, no thermal or proximity considerations need to be made for a
bladder of flammable liquid or an extremely hot exhaust and exhaust
line elements passing near it.

The basic car of any type is the carraige and the suspension and
steering and braking parts (and lighting).

Powerplant is a different animal.

And you were wrong there too, as an electric powered vehicle has
control elements for the motors and they have parts too. The
difference is that their hundreds of parts are pre-assembled before
the productoion line, and simply go in as modules.

In fact, entire driveline elements can be pre-assembled. That
makes their assembly line capacity much faster than a normal
automotive build.

I'd say they could build cars of the line to the tune of hundreds a
day. Likely considerably faster than ICE driveline builds.

Aside from the unibody assembly segment, the entire thing could be
automated to the point where human utilization is only where certain
fastener elements are found to be difficult to manage with machine
vision, etc.

As they perfect touch sensitivity in robotics, they may well
overcome that (fastener lead in) issue, and remove humans altogether
from final assembly lines.

I won't continue debating this with you as you are just plain wrong.

We are discussing labor and the only discussion of parts is in that context. Electronic assemblies are built by machines with virtually no labor involved, certainly nothing like proportional to the number of parts.

I didn't even read further in your response because there is no value in it.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:21:18 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Phil Allison wrote...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like
3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire
power grid - at huge public expense.

Poor data. I think my case is typical. My car takes
about 6kWh for my 22-mile commute, my house uses about
28kWh/day. By national statistics my wife and I account
for another 25kWh more, at work, stores, infrastructure,
etc. So my car requires 6/53 = 11% more, not 3 to 4x.
If we'll need 10% more electricity in the distant future,
when most cars are electric, that doesn't sound too hard.

A generic calculation...

wh/mi cost
assume 250 $0.12 $0.28
annual miles 15,000
annual kWh 3,750 $450 $1,050
daily kWh 10.27 $1.23 $2.87
hourly 0.43 $0.05 $0.12

mi/gal 30 $2.50 $4.00
miles 15,000
gallons 500 $1,250 $2,000

I used tabs, so maybe the columns will be preserved.

I think an average of 10 kWh per day or less than half a kW continuously will be pretty easy for the grid to handle on top of what each household is currently using. You can get 10 kWh overnight on a 120 volt outlet.

The pricing columns are for 12¢ per kWh at home and 28¢ per kWh at a Tesla Supercharger. As you can see it is a lot cheaper than gas.

So clearly many who know nothing about the facts will babel on about overloading the grid. Needing to scale up the grid or even any part of it by a factor of 3 or 4 is the sort of pure fantasy that only an imbecile would suggest.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:6a8c8fb7-07a6-
449e-b723-d5ea10b0aa7c@googlegroups.com:

> The UK is pretty much doomed.

Rick C is a fucking bloody retard. Pretty much.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 20:18:36 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

Tom

If you live in rural areas, the EV might not be practical due to the
limited range (a few hundred km).

I do live in a rural area and my EV is very practical. While there are areas of the US where the typical 250 mile useful range of an EV will not get you to a useful charger, they are few and far between. North Dakota is one such area, one of the lowest population density areas in the country. So both expected and not a significant issue unless you want to view Mt Rushmore. Opps, no, even that is in South Dakota. The lack of charging in low density areas will change with time.


> However for urban dwellers the EV range becomes sufficient.

Non sequitur.

At least currently, EVs s are parked most of the time and do not need
to be charged at a specific time, so unreliable sources such as wind
and solar can be used to charge these vehicles.

Bingo. People talk about the charging requiring generation and facilities on top of the peak loads we currently have. That simply is not an issue 99% of the time.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209