Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:47:33 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than they
ever did.

No, a safety issue or pay 'plan' ought to be negotiated, and if the
'management' is organized and professional, so ought their opposite
number be, across the table. The phrase 'wage slavery' isn't just
hyperbole.

If you don't like your job, quit and find a better one. Employers have
to compete for employees.

Unions fight the natural market forces. They untimately kill their own
jobs... under 7% now in the private sector. They still fluorish in
government positions, because government has no competition and makes
no profit.

Incidentally, unions didn't "create the weekend." Railroads did.

 

[bitrex]

On 10/3/19 8:56 PM, 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.

Don't know what you mean that EV (cars) cost more than ICE (cars.) there
are ICE and EV cars at just about every price point. There aren't any
pure BEV commuter cars available for sale in the US under about $30,000
AFAIK. But you can easily buy an ICE car that costs much more than a
Model 3 and people will debate their relative merits. Are we comparing
the out-the-door cost to build some idealized "standard car" with a ICE
vs "standard car" that's a BEV? What is a "standard car"?

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:48:26 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 4 October 2019 18:44:47 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-4, tabby 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!"

no, the resources used are quantifiable & finite.


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.

What counts is how it compares to liquid fuelled cars. The cost is way higher.

Your first assumption that is wrong. EVs have a higher cost floor, but the models sold compare very favorably to similar cars similarly equipped.


> Labour costs for any factory are a large cost factor, so even without doing a full analysis it can be reasonably expected that much higher cost equals more total labour.

There is your second assumption which is wrong. I'm not even going to go over that since it has already been beaten to death here.

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...

No valid basis for that pov has been offered so far.

Other than the original data? LOL

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:51:18 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 4 October 2019 18:56:15 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:10:03 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Taxing petrol and diesel fuel heavily would do that quick smart.

I won't agree that fuel should be taxed based on the issues it creates. The tax money should go into researching ways to prevent releasing more carbon or cleaning up some of what is out there already.

It's as valid to say it should be taxed on the basis of what problems it solves - it's a huge contributor to society.

That can be said of EVERY energy source.

Do you ever think about what you write??

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:56:41 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 4 October 2019 19:38:33 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

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.

it's hopelessly scrambled.

It's pretty good here. Work on it...

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Friday, 4 October 2019 19:38:33 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

snip

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.

Whoosh. The amount of extra grid infrastructure needed here in UK would be massive. The grid just does not have anywhere remotely near the required distribution in place. It's not just a matter of peak power delivery, the power is also not distributed to the places where it would be needed. And there are both legal & practical impediments in the way of providing it, as well as financial.

And our grid is good & capable compared to many countries. Soviet blocks fo flats for example typically have an 8A feed (looks like aluminium bell wire) to each flat. Italy similarly has very low domestic feed ampacity. And so on and on.


NT

 

On Friday, 4 October 2019 19:38:33 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

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.

it's hopelessly scrambled.

 

On Friday, 4 October 2019 18:56:15 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:10:03 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Taxing petrol and diesel fuel heavily would do that quick smart.

I won't agree that fuel should be taxed based on the issues it creates. The tax money should go into researching ways to prevent releasing more carbon or cleaning up some of what is out there already.

It's as valid to say it should be taxed on the basis of what problems it solves - it's a huge contributor to society.


NT

 

On Friday, 4 October 2019 18:44:47 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-4, tabby 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!"

no, the resources used are quantifiable & finite.


> 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.

What counts is how it compares to liquid fuelled cars. The cost is way higher. Labour costs for any factory are a large cost factor, so even without doing a full analysis it can be reasonably expected that much higher cost equals more total labour.


> 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...

No valid basis for that pov has been offered so far.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 3:47:33 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:07:58 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, 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.


Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike to
protect jobs had the desired effect?

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than they
ever did.

Americans have always had difficulty understanding what unions are for and why they make sense.

American media work hard to make it even more difficult, because America is all about making life easier and more profitable for the well-off, even though even the well off do better when the people working for them are healthy and well-educated.

Most advanced industrial countries have got the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:46:06 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:05:27 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:ua1fpeliqsdoto4ij3tig41gchhjg5u28r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:07:58 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, 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.


Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike to
protect jobs had the desired effect?

Sylvia.

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than
they ever did.


John lacks the intelligence to know how the really big companies
operate.

Cincinnati Milacron was non-union throughout its existence.
Other machine tool companies too. Those whom made use of the
machines though (the operators not the owners) were pretty largely
unionized, especially if it was for a bigger player like the auto
guys or say General Electric.

It many times meant a gaurantee of specific skillsets as well.

Still needed in some circles just to keep the riff raff and fakes
culled.

Still needed in others simply to keep bean counters unable to see
the value in maintaining their employees' standards of living in
check.

Hourly employees should be considered more of an asset than they
are, and dangling the HUGE pool of able players over one's head as an
excuse for only giving pay increases that do not even cover the cost
of living is as characterless as the horseshit Donald J. Trump pulls.

We don't have any hourly employees.

But the places that put stuff together for you do.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:49:58 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:47:33 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than they
ever did.

No, a safety issue or pay 'plan' ought to be negotiated, and if the
'management' is organized and professional, so ought their opposite
number be, across the table. The phrase 'wage slavery' isn't just
hyperbole.

If you don't like your job, quit and find a better one. Employers have
to compete for employees.

Employees have to invest a year or two in getting good at the job they do for a particular employer. Changing jobs means making that investment again.

> Unions fight the natural market forces.

Not if they have any sense.

> They ultimately kill their own jobs... under 7% now in the private sector.

That's US anti-trade union activity for you. In places like Germany where the role of the trade union is better understood, the unions are doing fine.

> They still flourish in government positions, because government has no competition and makes no profit.

And politicians are more sensitive to public opinion than captains of industry.

Look at the way the Koch brothers destroyed the Republican Party in the hope of getting it aligned with their half-witted opinions.

> Incidentally, unions didn't "create the weekend." Railroads did.

It goes back a bit further than railroads.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Winfield Hill is a Fuckwit Liar:
--------------------------------

Winfield Hill bulshitted wildly as usual:

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

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

My car's efficiency is pretty typical.

** So is your wild bulshiting.

my house uses about 28kWh/day.

** So more than 1kW continuously ?

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.

We don't have natural gas on our street, and
use electricity for water heating, stoves,
HVAC system, etc. 27kWh/day per person is a
country-wide total usage statistic for the USA.

** That sounds absurd and I do not believe it.

I am home all day, use electric heat and consume about 1/4 of that.

** 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.

24kWh is enough charge to drive 90 miles. Few
people need to do that every day;

** There are a great many that do way more here in Sydney.

Kindly shove your irrational garbage up you backside.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Rick Cunt Moron wrote:
--------------------

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.

Please show me this reference.

** FFS it is in nearly every report published for EVs !!

3kW is available a from a single phase outlet here, 8 hour is what people spend sleeping. Faster charging requires 3-phase power which is NOT available for domestic users.


** I've never seen anything remotely like this from EV makers.

High time you pulled your head out of you stinking arse.


> That would be 24 kWh or approximately 120 miles of range.

** Irrelevant.

Folk will want ( maybe forced) to use to use "off peak" power so put their EVs on charge late at night or the early hours.

Many households use more than one car and they all need regular charging.

The total, worst case scenario is EXATLY what I estimated.

Inability to get 3-phase connected is the biggest impediment to the sale of EVs here.

Where I lives, the streets are chock full of parked cars at night with no way to get AC power to them.

You a
re so full of SHIT !!

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.

That is a poor way to evaluate anything other than the distribution to your home. Is that the case for EVERYONE???

** No, it is much worse for some and typical of every premises I have lived in for 50 years.

Right next to me is a nice home unit with a family of four living there.

It has jut one, 16amp / 240VAC circuit plus an 8amp one for lights.

The owners trip the 16A circuit breaker regularly, despite having gas hot water and gas stove.

I monitor the AC voltage in my unit constantly and it sometimes falls to 205VAC if I run a few loads at peak times - with no loads it rises to 215V.

No-one here could possibly run an EV.


...... Phil

 

[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.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/05/electric-vehicles-how-much-energy-would-we-need-to-fuel-them.html

"So the increase in yearly electricity demand would be about 29 percent."

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

** Meaningless to any of my points.

You claimed " So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now)" which is clearly different from the Slate's figure.

That's a direct and meaningful contradiction.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:
-------------------

** Nope.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/05/electric-vehicles-how-much-energy-would-we-need-to-fuel-them.html

"So the increase in yearly electricity demand would be about 29 percent."

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

** Meaningless to any of my points.

You claimed " So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now)" which is clearly different from the Slate's figure.

That's a direct and meaningful contradiction.

** Fraid it is neither.

Your cite is worthless Green logic madness.

Full of "spherical chickens in a vacuum " type thinking.

However, the *SAME* cite flatly contradicts your idea it makes sense to go EV in terms of CO2 reduction.

Says it will make SFA difference and only at a huge cost !!!

Exactly like all barking mad, Green fuckwit fantasies.

BTW:

You better see an optometrist - Bill - you have developed a nasty case of selective, tunnel vision.



..... Phil

 

[bitrex]

On 10/4/19 6:31 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

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

However for urban dwellers the EV range becomes sufficient.

Electric cars, trucks and busses will in increase the life quality in
city centers due to reduced noise, elimination of sulphur and other
pollutants and reduction in small particles.

Even if the electricity needed by EVs is made in coal fired power
plants, these can be built outside cities and high smoke stacks can be
used to effectively filter out most of the pollutants and spread out
the rest to a large area. The pollution levels in city centers at nose
level will be significantly reduced.

If nuclear power is used to power the EVs, a nuclear power plant can
supply about one million EVs.

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.

"The all-electric pickup and battery production are part of GM’s plan to
introduce 20 new, all-electric models by 2023, eventually phasing out
gas- and diesel-powered cars altogether"

Hahahahah they're full of shit.

 

[bitrex]

On 10/3/19 8:44 PM, 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.

"Hyundai’s auto union chief, Ha Bu-young also didn’t mince words when he
told Reuters last year that the company’s shift to electric could cut
jobs at the Korean automaker by as much as 70%.

'Electric cars are disasters. They are evil. We are very nervous,' he
said at the time."

I think Ford and GM's current management feel the same way. The job cuts
are just cuz they're cutting small cars from the lineup to run a tighter
ship focusing on ICE SUVs and trucks. EVs make up 2% of the US market
share they're not concerned but they make a convenient scapegoat.

They flirted with the electric future but I think they're betting on
Republican control of the US for the forseeable future and will sell
large gas trucks and SUVs until they die.

 

On Saturday, 5 October 2019 02:22:49 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:51:18 PM UTC-4, tabb wrote:
On Friday, 4 October 2019 18:56:15 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:10:03 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Taxing petrol and diesel fuel heavily would do that quick smart.

I won't agree that fuel should be taxed based on the issues it creates. The tax money should go into researching ways to prevent releasing more carbon or cleaning up some of what is out there already.

It's as valid to say it should be taxed on the basis of what problems it solves - it's a huge contributor to society.

That can be said of EVERY energy source.

Obviously. Equally obviously that is not the point.

> Do you ever think about what you write??

Yes. Perhaps if you followed what was being said you'd say something to the point.

 

On Saturday, 5 October 2019 02:21:15 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:48:26 PM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Friday, 4 October 2019 18:44:47 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-4, tabby 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!"

no, the resources used are quantifiable & finite.


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.

What counts is how it compares to liquid fuelled cars. The cost is way higher.

Your first assumption that is wrong. EVs have a higher cost floor,

exactly

> but the models sold compare very favorably to similar cars similarly equipped.

waffle

Labour costs for any factory are a large cost factor, so even without doing a full analysis it can be reasonably expected that much higher cost equals more total labour.

There is your second assumption which is wrong. I'm not even going to go over that since it has already been beaten to death here.

without any success

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...

No valid basis for that pov has been offered so far.

Other than the original data? LOL

Pointing to unstated data does not make your point. Perhaps you refer to your table, from which no sense could be made. If you re-present it in its proper format it might be possible to at least see what it means.