Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

[Rob]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 9:17:45 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

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.

We are nearly 20 years into this century. Your comparison is not relevant to the conversation.

Of course it is. We see less and less cars from the previous century
on the road and so we need less and less people to maintain the remaining
newer cars. At this point that effect is likely stronger than the effect
of the small number of electric cars.

 

On Saturday, 5 October 2019 02:23:27 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:56:41 PM UTC-4, tabby 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...

I did, but it's hopelessly scrambled. Unlike you the rest of us don't know what you meant or were presenting etc. It's not decodable.

Since you've not presented the data usably it's of no use.

 

[Phil Allison]

Rick Cunthead is a know noting PIG wrote:

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.

It is a shame that you can't actually let a thought through

** There was no thought to consider - Win is making shit up.

His sparse words make it sound like he owns an EV, but for some fuckwit reason fails to identify it. Stupid and infuriating.

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

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

It also depends on where you are and how large your home is.

** The figure was "per person" and average for the whole USA - you fucking moron. Obviously fake data.

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

Kindly shove your irrational garbage up you backside.

Yes, always a gentle soul.

** Even your dog must hate a lying, stupid cunt like you.





...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:49:16 PM UTC+10, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

The logic is spelled out. US gasoline consumption was 133 billion gallons in 2011. Each gallon delivers 33.41 kWh when burnt.

That's 4443 TWh. About a quarter of that gets to the wheels.

That's 1111 TWh.

US electricity production in 2012 was 3882 kWh. Last year it was 4178 TWh.

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

Where?

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

Only if you generate the extra power by burning fossil carbon. We certainly don't have to, and the Australian utilities are investing heavily in wind and solar power, and spending nothing on installing new fossil-carbon fired generating plant, much to the government's disgust, who want them to pander to the mining interests that pay the Liberal Party's electoral expenses.

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

By assuming that electric cars won't get cheaper when produced in higher volumes, and that generating system will continue to burn a lot of fossil carbon.

> Exactly like all barking mad, Green fuckwit fantasies.

That's a barking mad denialist fantasy.

Meanwhile, you haven't explained where you got your tenfold higher electricity generation requirement.

The last time I saw anything like that was back in the 1970s in a paper in the Proceeding of the IEEE. It was based on the idea that all the car engines in the US were capable of generating something like five times as much power as the whole US electricity generating plant. Since we now know the cars are only used about 5% of the time, this really isn't a helpful observation, but the denialist propaganda machine does have a habit of picking up this kind of misleading and antiquated publication.

You probably got your figure from the Lavoisier group, which is to Australia what the Heartlands Institute is to the US. You may not be aware of where the "data" came from - I once found something particularly silly in the pages of the Royal Australian Chemical institute newsletter, and wrote a rude letter to the editor about it. The author turned out to have Lavoisier Group links ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavoisier_Group

BTW:

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

Or you have.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:n1ffpe5ed6q28vjl4ea2r2g4q2bs2jma1l@4ax.com:

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

The railroads were largely unionized.

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:n1ffpe5ed6q28vjl4ea2r2g4q2bs2jma1l@4ax.com:

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

Not in a repressed economy. The hold over the employees head the
fact that there are hundreds of candidates out there chomping at the
bit waiting for good job openings.

You seem to be a believer in the job numbers bullshit.

 

[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.

The logic is spelled out.

** Sorry - it is mad logic from a know nothing nobody.

It has no connection with reality.

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

Where?

** Makes too many simplistic assumptions.

Did you not get the BBT joke ?

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

Only if you generate the extra power by burning fossil carbon.

** The case in most places, inc here.


We certainly don't have to, and the Australian utilities are investing heavily in wind and solar power, and spending nothing on installing new fossil-carbon fired generating plant, much to the government's disgust, who want them to pander to the mining interests that pay the Liberal Party's electoral expenses.


** Green Party madness - par excellence.

I now know too many Greens to take one tiny bit of notice - including Queen Bee communist nut case Lee Riahannon.

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

By assuming that electric cars won't get cheaper

** The cost is in the new infrastructure needed.

Massive, for SFA CO2 benefit.

Pure insanity.

I suggested a better alternative too.

Meanwhile, you haven't explained where you got your tenfold higher electricity generation requirement.

** No such claim from me.



> You probably got your figure from the Lavoisier group,

** Who ???

That is very paranoid thing to claim.

I posted my simple reasonings here, all mine, and you ignored it.

Bye bye....


..... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 9:16:25 PM UTC+10, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

The logic is spelled out.

** Sorry - it is mad logic from a know nothing nobody.

Which particular bit do you disagree with?

"Mad logic from a know nothing nobody" has a fine rhetorical ring, but absolutely zero content.

> It has no connection with reality.

None that you can see?

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

Where?

** Makes too many simplistic assumptions.

None of which you can specify.

> Did you not get the BBT joke?

Spherical chickens was a physicists joke long before the Big Bang Theory program first aired.

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

Only if you generate the extra power by burning fossil carbon.

** The case in most places, inc here.

At the moment, and the proportion generated by burning fossil carbon is decreasing - not as fast as it might - but it seems to be mainly driven by economies of scale in manufacturing solar cells, which has cut the price by a factor of four over the past twenty years, and there's probably another factor four to come before they take over most of the energy generating business.

We certainly don't have to, and the Australian utilities are investing heavily in wind and solar power, and spending nothing on installing new fossil-carbon fired generating plant, much to the government's disgust, who want them to pander to the mining interests that pay the Liberal Party's electoral expenses.

** Green Party madness - par excellence.

I now know too many Greens to take one tiny bit of notice - including Queen Bee communist nut case Lee Riahannon.

I don't think much of Greenpeace and the emotional propaganda they churn out, but anthropogenic global warming is real, the scientific evidence is about as conclusive as scientific evidence ever gets, and we do need to slow it down drastically. Even perfectly respectable good causes have their lunatic fringe.

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

By assuming that electric cars won't get cheaper

** The cost is in the new infrastructure needed.

Massive, for SFA CO2 benefit.

Pure insanity.

That's an insane propostion.

> I suggested a better alternative too.

Nuclear power isn't remotely practical.

Meanwhile, you haven't explained where you got your tenfold higher electricity generation requirement.

** No such claim from me.

" So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now)"

My link says 29% more power generation capacity will be needed. You are claiming that going over completely to electric cars would require us to generate about ten times as much extra power - two to three times what the generating system produces now, rather than 30%.

You probably got your figure from the Lavoisier group,

** Who ???

That is very paranoid thing to claim.

John Larkin posts denialist propaganda here all the time. There's nothing paranoid about pointing out where silly ideas are likely to have come from.

The fossil fuel extraction industry is spending a lot on lying propaganda. The Murdoch press prints loads of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

> I posted my simple reasonings here, all mine, and you ignored it.

"EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff"

It isn't exactly quantitative, and nobody else would call it "reasoning".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Winfield Hill]

Phil Allison wrote...

His sparse words make it sound like he owns an EV,
but for some fuckwit reason fails to identify it.
Stupid and infuriating.

I own a Prius Prime plugin, and have discussed it in
detail here on s.e.d. a half-dozen times. It's now
one year old, has gone about 6500 miles, mostly all
electric. A hybrid, but has only used 20% of its
2nd tank of gas. My solar roof generates 11MWh per
year, some used to power my car. I plug-in at work
for the rest. What else would you like to know?


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[bitrex]

On 10/4/19 8:20 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

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.

Most street anad highway lighting is like that in Rhode Island, now.
High pressure sodium-orange lights are going away.

It's a bit disconcerting when you're driving along in the early evening
and every light as far as you can see down the road snaps on in unison
almost instantly.

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.

 

[Rob]

Randy Day <randy.day@sasktel.netx> wrote:

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.

Where do you still encounter per-spot parking meters?
Over here they have all been replaced by payment spots at one
point in the parking lot or street, you have to walk up there
and keyin your license plate number or the spot number where you
are parked.
When you are not using a smartphone-based payment system, that is.
(just open the APP and keyin the advertised lot location code)

 

[bitrex]

On 10/4/19 8:20 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

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.

Not every intersection with a camera on it is for red light income
generation, some are just for "traffic management"

The ones around here have extra shit on them besides the camera to snap
license plates. You can easily see when they trigger at night a xenon
flash goes off so they can capture the plate.

the Waze app shows the location of almost all of them so they only got
me one time. I was one of the few in traffic court who managed to
negotiate the judge down on the fine. They roll the video clip of your
"incident" for everyone else in the court to watch too, lol.

Out of about 100 people in court that morning I think maybe 5 including
myself got reduced fines and only one was excused entirely.

90% of drivers who got caught by 'em and were contesting on the day I
was there were flagrant, blast through the red at 50 mph not even
attempting to stop, half of 'em were probably drunk. Not a lot of
sympathy from the bench for those the best the judge would hand out as
"mercy" for those who came to beg was an extra couple weeks to pay up.

 

[Rob]

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

The ones around here have extra shit on them besides the camera to snap
license plates. You can easily see when they trigger at night a xenon
flash goes off so they can capture the plate.

Bit old-fashioned, isn't it? Flashing traffic camera's haven't been
seen here for years. They do with the existing lighting and if required
they flash in infrared.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:38:12 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

Ok, so you can't find any references to this? What you seem to misunderstand it that EVs don't need to be fully charged if the battery is not fully depleted. As has been pointed out to you the 24 kWh for this specific charging session would be around 100 to 120 miles. So unless you drive your car 100 miles you don't need 24 kWh.

Is that more clear now? It's really very simple electronics if you can stop fuming and swearing and actually listen to something being explained in simple, clear English. Can you do that for once?

** 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.

LOL! You are just too fucked up to even try to understand that you can't put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag. IF THE CAR BATTERY DOESN'T NEED 100 KWH OF CHARGE YOU CAN'T PUT 100 KWH IN THE CAR BATTERY.

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.

Oh, so this is YOUR ESTIMATE? Before you said it is a figure "oft quoted by EV makers". I didn't realize you had gotten into the business.

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 !!

You don't even know what you are replying to. You are just incapable of suppressing your insane rage much of the time.

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.

Then according to you, every house you've ever lived in can't add a hot tub or anything else with significant current draw. That is one messed up distribution network.

Try to understand this. A car can be charged on 3 kW very effectively for some 98% of the time (yes, I pulled that number from my ass, but it is based on some experience and many, many discussions with EV owners). 3 kW will top off overnight EVs that have been driven up to 120 miles, give or take. 120 miles is a LOT more than what most people drive in a day, ego, the 98% figure. On the rare occasion of needing a faster charge you would need to visit a DC fast charger which are becoming much more plentiful even if not in your neck of the woods.

Maybe EVs are not for Australia any time soon. But it won't be too much longer that you will be able to drive anywhere you want in the Australian doughnut and find chargers within 30 miles.

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.

Ok, I get it. Australia is an electrical third world country. So put in a 5 kW solar panel. When you aren't charging your EV you can sell the excess to your neighbor. lol

Seems like when the UK spread its wings around the globe they forgot to bring electricity with them. Does only the US and Canada have adequate power in the homes?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:24:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:49:16 PM UTC+10, Phil Allison wrote:

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

Only if you generate the extra power by burning fossil carbon. We certainly don't have to, and the Australian utilities are investing heavily in wind and solar power, and spending nothing on installing new fossil-carbon fired generating plant, much to the government's disgust, who want them to pander to the mining interests that pay the Liberal Party's electoral expenses..

This article has numerous flaws. The references are out of date and can not be traced. They talk about charging from "the existing mix of non-base-load sources (as nighttime charging likely would)", but wouldn't night time charging be base load?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 3:00:53 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Rick Cunthead is a know noting PIG wrote:




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.

It is a shame that you can't actually let a thought through



** There was no thought to consider - Win is making shit up.

His sparse words make it sound like he owns an EV, but for some fuckwit reason fails to identify it. Stupid and infuriating.



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

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

It also depends on where you are and how large your home is.


** The figure was "per person" and average for the whole USA - you fucking moron. Obviously fake data.




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

Kindly shove your irrational garbage up you backside.

Yes, always a gentle soul.


** Even your dog must hate a lying, stupid cunt like you.





..... Phil

What a delightfully insightful analysis of the discussion. I bet you have honors from many scientific and intellectual societies.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:20:07 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 9:17:45 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

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.

We are nearly 20 years into this century. Your comparison is not relevant to the conversation.

Of course it is. We see less and less cars from the previous century
on the road and so we need less and less people to maintain the remaining
newer cars. At this point that effect is likely stronger than the effect
of the small number of electric cars.

That effect is not at all relevant to the discussion. My brother is taller than my sister. What does that have to do with my sister beating my cousin at basketball because she is taller?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:08:17 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

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.

I'm referring to the original post. Did you read anything in the link provided?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:02:40 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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."

This article uses a very poor method of estimating the electrical energy needed, by equating kWh per gallon of gas to electrical power saying they "assume" EVs are four times more efficient thermally...

The easy way that doesn't require "assumptions" is to look at the miles driven. Most EVs get 4 to 5 mi/kWh, the rest is trivial. I did this once a while back, but here it is again.

"3.22 trillion miles on the nation's roads last year, up 2.8 percent from 3.1 trillion miles in 2015"

3.22 trillion miles divided by 4 mi/kWh = 805 TWh

"In 2018, about 4,178 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or 4.18 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States."

805 TWh / 4180 TWh = 19%

The only "assumption" is the m/kWh of the EV, I used the number for a Tesla model 3 which is also not a bad number for the Nissan Leaf I believe. This value will improve as batteries and motors and electronics improve.

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.

Even Slate was a pessimist. But then those are US figures??? Maybe in the third world where Phil lives it's a different issue. It has been made clear that in the UK they have trouble putting a kettle on.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:35:19 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

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.

Ford is cutting the less profitable cars from their lineup because they want to allow for lower profits during the transition to EVs. They aren't expecting to be instantly profitable like Tesla has been... opps, I guess they haven't. So Ford is learning from Tesla's mistakes.

Sounds smart to me.

When you say GM is full of it, do you really think people are going to keep buying ICE even when EVs have achieved price parity? Remember, EVs require a LOT less maintenance and fuel costs are significantly lower. At some point people will be buying $15,000 EVs with 150 mile range because that suits them best for their driving and the costs are lower. That may be 10 or 20 years out, but do you really think it is unreachable?

--

Rick C.

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