FUD...

[Don Y]

A right-wing friend sent this to me -- in alarm! (and yeah, I\'m
*SURE* it\'s \"true\"; what value to MAKING UP such a load of horseshit?)

----8<----8<----8<----8<----
For those of you that think electric vehicles are the answer -- this
is a true story from a farmer in the Midwest- and I’m reposting it-

A midwest farmer with over 10,000 acres of corn and is spread out over
3 counties. His operation is a “partnership farm” with John Deere. They
use the larger farm operations as demonstration projects for the promotion
and development of new equipment. He recently received a phone call
from his John Deere representative, and they want the farm to go to
electric tractors and combines in 2023. He currently has 5 diesel combines
that cost $900,000 each that are traded in every 3 years. Also, over 10
really BIG tractors.

JD wants him to go all-electric soon.

He said: “Ok, I have some questions. How do I charge these combines when
they are 3 counties away from the shop in the middle of a cornfield, in
the middle of nowhere?”

“How do I run them 24 hours a day for 10 or 12 days straight when the
harvest is ready, and the weather is coming in?”

“How do I get a 50,000+ lb. combine that takes up the width of an entire
road back to the shop 20 miles away when the battery goes dead?”

There was dead silence on the other end of the phone.

When the corn is ready to harvest, it has to have the proper sugar and
moisture content. If it is too wet, it has to be put in giant dryers that
burn natural or propane gas, and lots of it. Harvest time is critical
because if it degrades in sugar content or quality, it can drop the value
of his crop by half a million dollars or more.

It is analyzed at the time of sale.

It is standard procedure to run these machines 10 to 12 days straight,
24 hours a day at peak harvest time.

When they need fuel, a tanker truck delivers it, and the machines keep
going. John Deere’s only answer is “we’re working on it.”

They are being pushed by the lefty Dems in the government to force
these electric machines on the farmer.

These people are out of control.

They are messing with the production of food crops that feed people
and livestock… all in the name of their “green dream.”

Look for the cost of your box of cornflakes to triple in the next 24 months…”

Everything we do has consequences. A trade-off with every action is a
reaction. Oil to gas, roads, plastics to exhaust. We live in an oil-based
economy, there’s no getting around it. Charging batteries requires a source
of energy. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

Conservation is our best resource. Use & recycle and recycle it again. Make
the most of our resources, we have a lot to go around. STOP THE TAXING!
----8<----8<----8<----8<----

(sigh) I was tempted to rewrite it from the perspective of horse-drawn plows
and tractors scoffing at the introduction of those new-fangled dee-sell
tractors (\"Whatcha gonna do when you run out of few-ell in the middle of
the field? Ride into town to fetch another can of it??\")

Or, the modern COMPUTERIZED combines (\"Whatcha gonna do when one of dem dare
com-pewter chips goes fritz? Have another flown in from China?\")

It\'s amazing how little folks originating such content think of the
mental/reasoning capacity of their readers! (or, maybe they\'ve got
them pegged! :> )

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 5:39:29 PM UTC+10, Don Y wrote:

A right-wing friend sent this to me -- in alarm! (and yeah, I\'m
*SURE* it\'s \"true\"; what value to MAKING UP such a load of horseshit?)

----8<----8<----8<----8<----
For those of you that think electric vehicles are the answer -- this
is a true story from a farmer in the Midwest- and I’m reposting it-

A midwest farmer with over 10,000 acres of corn and is spread out over
3 counties. His operation is a “partnership farm” with John Deere. They
use the larger farm operations as demonstration projects for the promotion
and development of new equipment. He recently received a phone call
from his John Deere representative, and they want the farm to go to
electric tractors and combines in 2023. He currently has 5 diesel combines
that cost $900,000 each that are traded in every 3 years. Also, over 10
really BIG tractors.

JD wants him to go all-electric soon.

He said: “Ok, I have some questions. How do I charge these combines when
they are 3 counties away from the shop in the middle of a cornfield, in
the middle of nowhere?”

For that sort of operation, the dead battery would gets swapped with a charged battery, which can be shipped around on the back of a track.

John Dere would be able to think of that even if some brain dead fossil fuel propaganda creep couldn\'t.

<snipped the rest of the fairy tale.>

It\'s amazing how little folks originating such content think of the
mental/reasoning capacity of their readers! (or, maybe they\'ve got
them pegged! :> )

They do seem to have got you pegged.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-09-12 03:28, Don Y wrote:
[...]

I\'ve already stated that I don\'t think *battery* electric vehicles are a
long-term solution; [...]

Ah? What alternative do we have?

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:29:09 AM UTC+10, Don Y wrote:

On 9/11/2022 2:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Writer John Hinderaker claims an EV future is impossible due to a lack of copper among
other things.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/09/the-green-revolution-is-impossible.php
He cite Professor Simon Michaux from Finland.
I copied this from a Duck Duck Go search. Michaux has at least one piece of paper saying he\'s knowledgeable.
\"7 days agoHolding a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Physics and Geology and a PhD in Mining Engineering from the University of Queensland, Simon has extensive experience in mining research and development, circular economic principles, industrial recycling, and mineral intelligence.\"
I don\'t have the faintest idea if the Professor knows what he\'s talking about.

I\'ve seen varying assessments as to the availability of *accessible* natural resources for EVs (wiring, batteries, etc.).

Mostly John Larkin level claims that they will need more of particular elements than we mine at the moment, and there won\'t be other places that we can mine them.
I\'m looking forward to doped bucky-tubes replacing copper sometime soon.

> I\'ve already stated that I don\'t think *battery* electric vehicles are a long-term solution; as we see this first crop of EVs \"exhaust\" their batteries and the cost to consumers for their replacement/refurbishing, there will likely be an \"adjustment\" of expectations.

As if batteries aren\'t going to get better, cheaper and longer-lived as we build more of them.

> And, as tax structures catch up to EVs, in general (no \"gas tax\" yet they still use the roadways; it will be amusing to watch to see how the pols rationalize an \"emissions test\" -- fee! -- for EVs as ICEs are phased out), some of the economics will get murkier.

The likeliest solution is that all roads will become toll roads - we\'ve now got the technology to do that cheaply - and every vehicle will be slugged with a charge to cover the damage it does to the road. My car already has a transponder that is recognised by tolling points as it drives through them - most big cities require them.

What needs to happen is a rethink of how energy is used/misused.

I think covid has shown people that a lot of \"work\" can be done without the cost of a commute. And, product (e.g., grocery) deliveries can eliminate the need for inefficient trips to the store (a business that delivers will likely invest in more efficient delivery means than a private individual who never really *sees* the cost of that trip to the store).

Of course the trip to store does tell you what is on the shelf and how much it costs versus the available alternatives.

> Finally, there may be a move towards more integrated \"settlements\" instead of inner city + suburbs. Keeping people and their needs closer together.

That\'s why suburbs have sub-urban shopping centres.

> Amazing how most college students can live without a vehicle for several years -- because their worlds are more highly integrated. Yet, they still have to eat, go to class (\"work\"), recreate, etc.

Good public transport is remarkably effective. I don\'t use my car very much at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 17:20:48 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 09/05/2022 02:39 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:44:08 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 09/05/2022 09:05 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2022 22:02:54 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 09/04/2022 04:45 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Paul Ehrlich thought that it was useless to help the poor in India;
let\'em die.

Not a popular decision. A parable, or something. I was raised in upstate
New York. Just about every winter the Times Union would run photos of
deer yarded up in the deep snow and starving in the outdoors section.
This would inspire caring people to organize hay drops. The next year
there would be more deer yarded up and starving. Rinse and repeat.

It got to the point that what was then called the Conservation
Department was pleading with people to go out during hunting season and
harvest the deer. I left the state 50 years ago but if anything the
problem has gotten worse.

https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/104911.html

So, what happens when human populations exceed the carrying capacity?

https://abcnews.go.com/International/millions-lives-risk-famine-stalks-horn-africa/story?id=84643535

https://www.populationpyramid.net/kenya/1970/

Kenya\'s population went from 11 million in 1970 to 54 million today. Is
that sustainable? Is the World Food Programme feeding deer in a vicious
cycle?


Prosperous and educated human populations limit their own birth rates.
Deer don\'t do that.


Kenya doesn\'t make the cut for prosperous and educated.

So build their infrastructure and agriculture. Educate them.

Good luck with that.

It\'s happening, and will continue. World literacy rate has doubled
since 1960.

I assume you don\'t include yourself in the \"reproduces freely\"
category.

That would be correct as I have no offspring.

Actually, hardly anybody reproduces freely. Brats are expensive.

 

[rbowman]

On 09/05/2022 09:56 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> Actually, hardly anybody reproduces freely. Brats are expensive.

Who is paying for them? Baby mommas see brats as an income source.

 

[Don Y]

On 9/15/2022 7:34 PM, rbowman wrote:

The farms I grew up near just plowed it under and spread manure on top.
As our school wasn\'t air conditioned, we relied on open windows for
cooling.
You learn to develop a profound dislike for the smell of manure -- esp
in the cafeteria!

What did they use to feed the animals that produced the manure?

No idea. I don\'t even know what *kind* of animals were involved!
Likely horses or dairy cows as I know both were present on local farms.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 04/09/2022 08:39, Don Y wrote:

A right-wing friend sent this to me -- in alarm!  (and yeah, I\'m
*SURE* it\'s \"true\"; what value to MAKING UP such a load of horseshit?)

----8<----8<----8<----8<----
For those of you that think electric vehicles are the answer -- this
is a true story from a farmer in the Midwest- and I’m reposting it-

[snip]
JD wants him to go all-electric soon.

He said: “Ok, I have some questions. How do I charge these combines when
they are 3 counties away from the shop in the middle of a cornfield, in
the middle of nowhere?”

“How do I run them 24 hours a day for 10 or 12 days straight when the
harvest is ready, and the weather is coming in?”
[snip]
It is standard procedure to run these machines 10 to 12 days straight,
24 hours a day at peak harvest time.

When they need fuel, a tanker truck delivers it, and the machines keep
going. John Deere’s only answer is “we’re working on it.”

They are being pushed by the lefty Dems in the government to force
these electric machines on the farmer.

These people are out of control.

They are messing with the production of food crops that feed people
and livestock… all in the name of their “green dream.”

Look for the cost of your box of cornflakes to triple in the next 24
months…”

It has already got a doubling in the pipeline. Making corn flakes is
energy intensive and UK gas prices are 4x what they were.

Everything we do has consequences. A trade-off with every action is a
reaction. Oil to gas, roads, plastics to exhaust. We live in an oil-based
economy, there’s no getting around it. Charging batteries requires a source
of energy. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

Conservation is our best resource. Use & recycle and recycle it again. Make
the most of our resources, we have a lot to go around. STOP THE TAXING!
----8<----8<----8<----8<----

(sigh)  I was tempted to rewrite it from the perspective of horse-drawn
plows
and tractors scoffing at the introduction of those new-fangled dee-sell
tractors (\"Whatcha gonna do when you run out of few-ell in the middle of
the field?  Ride into town to fetch another can of it??\")

Actually in the UK it would be completely disastrous to try and run the
combine harvesters from electricity. Most rural farms near me do not
have sufficient electric grid supply to meet their peak needs at harvest
time to begin with and so have diesel generators on site to cope.

Also to handle unreliability of electricity supply in winter - you can\'t
not milk the cows just because the mains has failed again.

Northern Powergrid charges usurious sums to provide 3 phase supply to
farms so most are on biphase as are most smaller villages. That way they
only run two hot wires to each local transformer on the E-W runs spurred
off full 3-phase running N-S. Towns are typically full 3 phase.

It\'s amazing how little folks originating such content think of the
mental/reasoning capacity of their readers!  (or, maybe they\'ve got
them pegged!  :> )

Actually in this instance I think that they have it right at least in
the UK. All electric combines would result in losing half the crop to
weather or needing at least double or triple the number of working units
so that one or two could be on charge whilst the other was working.

You can refuel a combine PDQ - it takes a long time to charge a battery
(even if the local mains distribution was up to the stress that would
impose).

Moving combine harvesters around on our narrow roads is also something
of a fraught operation. I honestly don\'t see how it could be done!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 6:22:17 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/09/2022 08:39, Don Y wrote:
A right-wing friend sent this to me -- in alarm! (and yeah, I\'m
*SURE* it\'s \"true\"; what value to MAKING UP such a load of horseshit?)

----8<----8<----8<----8<----
For those of you that think electric vehicles are the answer -- this
is a true story from a farmer in the Midwest- and I’m reposting it-

[snip]
JD wants him to go all-electric soon.

He said: “Ok, I have some questions. How do I charge these combines when
they are 3 counties away from the shop in the middle of a cornfield, in
the middle of nowhere?”

“How do I run them 24 hours a day for 10 or 12 days straight when the
harvest is ready, and the weather is coming in?”
[snip]
It is standard procedure to run these machines 10 to 12 days straight,
24 hours a day at peak harvest time.

When they need fuel, a tanker truck delivers it, and the machines keep
going. John Deere’s only answer is “we’re working on it.”

They are being pushed by the lefty Dems in the government to force
these electric machines on the farmer.

These people are out of control.

They are messing with the production of food crops that feed people
and livestock… all in the name of their “green dream.”

Look for the cost of your box of cornflakes to triple in the next 24
months…”

It has already got a doubling in the pipeline. Making corn flakes is
energy intensive and UK gas prices are 4x what they were.

Everything we do has consequences. A trade-off with every action is a
reaction. Oil to gas, roads, plastics to exhaust. We live in an oil-based
economy, there’s no getting around it. Charging batteries requires a source
of energy. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

At the moment. Some people have already noticed that electricity generated by solar cells and wind turbines is cheaper than energy generated by burning fossil carbon, and as this fact becomes move widely known, more people will move over to the cheaper energy sources.

> > Conservation is our best resource.

It\'s not resource. If you conserve it, you can\'t use it.

Use & recycle and recycle it again. Make
the most of our resources, we have a lot to go around. STOP THE TAXING!
----8<----8<----8<----8<----

(sigh) I was tempted to rewrite it from the perspective of horse-drawn
plows
and tractors scoffing at the introduction of those new-fangled dee-sell
tractors (\"Whatcha gonna do when you run out of few-ell in the middle of
the field? Ride into town to fetch another can of it??\")

Actually in the UK it would be completely disastrous to try and run the
combine harvesters from electricity.

Not because it couldn\'t be done, but because the upper-class twit element can\'t do anything right.

Most rural farms near me do not
have sufficient electric grid supply to meet their peak needs at harvest
time to begin with and so have diesel generators on site to cope.

They might try to negotiate a better grid connection, but negotiating with upper class twits takes a lot of effort, and the twits rarely remember what they\'ve agreed to do in enough detail to deliver what they promised.

> Also to handle unreliability of electricity supply in winter - you can\'t not milk the cows just because the mains has failed again.

Again, the upper class twit effect gets between what is commercially necessary and what gets delivered.

Northern Powergrid charges usurious sums to provide 3 phase supply to
farms so most are on biphase as are most smaller villages. That way they
only run two hot wires to each local transformer on the E-W runs spurred
off full 3-phase running N-S. Towns are typically full 3 phase.

It\'s amazing how little folks originating such content think of the
mental/reasoning capacity of their readers! (or, maybe they\'ve got
them pegged! :> )

UK upper class twits think that their social inferiors are also their intellectual inferiors. This is a flattering self-delusion.

Actually in this instance I think that they have it right at least in
the UK. All electric combines would result in losing half the crop to
weather or needing at least double or triple the number of working units
so that one or two could be on charge whilst the other was working.

So swap the batteries so that you can have two charging while one is keeping the machine working. It\'s not rocket science.

You can refuel a combine PDQ - it takes a long time to charge a battery
(even if the local mains distribution was up to the stress that would
impose).

Quick change battery packs aren\'t all that hard to design. You do have to think of the possibility at the design stage, and if you have an upper class twit running the design team this is unlikely to happen,

Moving combine harvesters around on our narrow roads is also something
of a fraught operation. I honestly don\'t see how it could be done!

Making the narrow roads a bit wider is probably an option. Using heavy lift helicopters to move them around would upset the upper class twits less.

The combined harvesters have been moved between farms since the British started using them, so somebody has worked out how to do it, even if the techniques involved aren\'t widely known - as in not published in the Daily Telegraph. Perhaps in the The Guardian.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney - but I lived in Cambridge, UK from 1982 to 1993, Cambridge itself is academic by the surrounding fens got drained by the Dutch a few hundred years ago, and we did see combined harvester\'s in action in the surrounding area from time to time.

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:16:56 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

On 9/11/2022 3:20 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 1:03:43 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

There\'s nothing that says a combine needs to cut a 40 ft swath -- except that
a SINGLE DRIVER can get more done, that way (but, if machines were driving,
the number of such drivers wouldn\'t be limited!).

Or, that all of the processing done in the combine needs to happen in a
single vehicle.

That could take things back to the late 1950s or 60s when farmers used corn pickers.
Farmers had to haul the complete ear to corn cribs. The shelling was done later when the grain
was taken into town. The cobs and some of the shucks ended up in piles that were burned.
There\'s nothing to say you can\'t perform that job on the farm,
just in a different way than \"in the combine\".

I didn\'t do a very good job describing the corn harvesting process of long ago. Corn was picked in the ear then hauled to storage cribs located on the individual farms.
These were a common sight in the country.
<http://preview.alturl.com/cj82z>
<https://www.pinterest.com/pin/554857616572423132/>. My dad would also build temporary storage by using snow fence to make corn piles of unshelled corn.
Farmers would get together to shell the corn then haul the actual grain to the elevators in town. It
took at least three or four guys to do the shelling if I remember right. Neighbors would get together to do the work. The elevators are typically right next to railroad tracks.
Combines saved labor by turning two jobs into one. They leave the the cobs and waste out
in the fields.
We had a crib like in the first picture on our farm. Dad converted it to a machine storage
shed when he finally bought a combine. It\'s still standing.

The goal has been to lower labor costs/body counts. We have
robots building cars; they can\'t learn to shuck corn?

And, if energy is suddenly priced at it\'s actual value, one
might decide that corn isn\'t the most efficient way of \"growing
calories\" for human consumption. (There\'s already some groaning
about meat)
Or, that the energy source needs to be *in* the combine.

Or, that we should be growing that much *corn* (if ICE goes away, 25% of
corn crops do as well); after all, the goal is to grow calories!
Ethanol was seen as another use for the crop. Corn doesn\'t lose feed value after
it\'s processed for ethanol.
https://farm-energy.extension.org/corn-for-biofuel-production/
If you\'re phasing out ICE\'s you can phase out the 25% of your corn production
that had previously been (subsidized!) devoted to that market.

See? The problem gets simpler, the more you look at it (tongue firmly
planted in cheek)

 

[legg]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:22:10 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/09/2022 08:39, Don Y wrote:
A right-wing friend sent this to me -- in alarm!  (and yeah, I\'m
*SURE* it\'s \"true\"; what value to MAKING UP such a load of horseshit?)

----8<----8<----8<----8<----
For those of you that think electric vehicles are the answer -- this
is a true story from a farmer in the Midwest- and I’m reposting it-

[snip]
JD wants him to go all-electric soon.

He said: “Ok, I have some questions. How do I charge these combines when
they are 3 counties away from the shop in the middle of a cornfield, in
the middle of nowhere?”

“How do I run them 24 hours a day for 10 or 12 days straight when the
harvest is ready, and the weather is coming in?”
[snip]
It is standard procedure to run these machines 10 to 12 days straight,
24 hours a day at peak harvest time.

When they need fuel, a tanker truck delivers it, and the machines keep
going. John Deere’s only answer is “we’re working on it.”

They are being pushed by the lefty Dems in the government to force
these electric machines on the farmer.

These people are out of control.

They are messing with the production of food crops that feed people
and livestock… all in the name of their “green dream.”

Look for the cost of your box of cornflakes to triple in the next 24
months…”

It has already got a doubling in the pipeline. Making corn flakes is
energy intensive and UK gas prices are 4x what they were.

Everything we do has consequences. A trade-off with every action is a
reaction. Oil to gas, roads, plastics to exhaust. We live in an oil-based
economy, there’s no getting around it. Charging batteries requires a source
of energy. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

Conservation is our best resource. Use & recycle and recycle it again. Make
the most of our resources, we have a lot to go around. STOP THE TAXING!
----8<----8<----8<----8<----

(sigh)  I was tempted to rewrite it from the perspective of horse-drawn
plows
and tractors scoffing at the introduction of those new-fangled dee-sell
tractors (\"Whatcha gonna do when you run out of few-ell in the middle of
the field?  Ride into town to fetch another can of it??\")

Actually in the UK it would be completely disastrous to try and run the
combine harvesters from electricity. Most rural farms near me do not
have sufficient electric grid supply to meet their peak needs at harvest
time to begin with and so have diesel generators on site to cope.

Also to handle unreliability of electricity supply in winter - you can\'t
not milk the cows just because the mains has failed again.

Northern Powergrid charges usurious sums to provide 3 phase supply to
farms so most are on biphase as are most smaller villages. That way they
only run two hot wires to each local transformer on the E-W runs spurred
off full 3-phase running N-S. Towns are typically full 3 phase.

It\'s amazing how little folks originating such content think of the
mental/reasoning capacity of their readers!  (or, maybe they\'ve got
them pegged!  :> )

Actually in this instance I think that they have it right at least in
the UK. All electric combines would result in losing half the crop to
weather or needing at least double or triple the number of working units
so that one or two could be on charge whilst the other was working.

You can refuel a combine PDQ - it takes a long time to charge a battery
(even if the local mains distribution was up to the stress that would
impose).

Moving combine harvesters around on our narrow roads is also something
of a fraught operation. I honestly don\'t see how it could be done!

Use of electric traction equipment in a rural setting requires
some rethinking, both on energy sourcing and energy use.

Perhaps local sourcing makes the most sense here, given the
relative availability of real estate and costs of imported
grid energy.

Employing standard battery replacement techniques should
cover intense power-on hours, but I think it will also
encourage the use of multiple smaller traction devicss,
possibly in concert, with synchronized robotic elements.

Farm mechanization has always been imported from centers
of engineering (the city) to the rural environment. This
may change as decentralized education and rates-avoiding
manufacturers populate the countryside.

As it is, the actual machinery has a good chance of being
imported from China, or other areas where new technology
and volume manufacturing leads the way in both practical
use and economical availability, for whatever dirty reasons.

RL

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2022 15:03:42 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 09/04/2022 12:23 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2022 11:13:29 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 09/04/2022 01:39 AM, Don Y wrote:
sigh) I was tempted to rewrite it from the perspective of horse-drawn
plows
and tractors scoffing at the introduction of those new-fangled dee-sell
tractors (\"Whatcha gonna do when you run out of few-ell in the middle of
the field? Ride into town to fetch another can of it??\")

https://www.deere.com/en/gator-utility-vehicles/traditional-gators/te-4x2-electric-utility-vehicle/

It uses eight big lead-acid batteries that cost around $400 each.


https://myvehicletalk.com/chevy-volt-battery-replacement-cost/
https://www.slashgear.com/984329/this-chevy-volt-battery-replacement-shows-an-outrageous-repair-cost-after-only-70k-miles/

The $30,000 Volt replacement may or may not be accurate but there is
enough data to suggest EV\'s are a lot like cellphones without user
serviceable batteries. Yes, you CAN have the battery replaced but it is
more than the car is worth so it goes into the scrap pile when the
battery dies.

Hopefully the Gator uses more or less standard golf cart / fork lift
batteries but it\'s still a chunk of change.

Dealer prices for replacement car parts must average 30:1 markup over
their cost. I just got a silly wiring harness for $300.

I assume they want to make money on batteries too, and you won\'t be
able to pick up a set of EV batteries at Bob\'s Auto.

Battery replacement cost will be interesting long-term. You can
rebuild an engine or a tranny but not a lithium battery.

 

[Don Y]

On 9/6/2022 1:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/09/2022 08:39, Don Y wrote:

Everything we do has consequences. A trade-off with every action is a
reaction. Oil to gas, roads, plastics to exhaust. We live in an oil-based
economy, there’s no getting around it. Charging batteries requires a source
of energy. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

Conservation is our best resource. Use & recycle and recycle it again. Make
the most of our resources, we have a lot to go around. STOP THE TAXING!
----8<----8<----8<----8<----

(sigh) I was tempted to rewrite it from the perspective of horse-drawn plows
and tractors scoffing at the introduction of those new-fangled dee-sell
tractors (\"Whatcha gonna do when you run out of few-ell in the middle of
the field? Ride into town to fetch another can of it??\")

Actually in the UK it would be completely disastrous to try and run the combine
harvesters from electricity. Most rural farms near me do not have sufficient
electric grid supply to meet their peak needs at harvest time to begin with and
so have diesel generators on site to cope.

So, they\'ve already figured out how to AUGMENT the power that comes over the
traditional distribution networks (because someone doesn\'t want to invest in
that infrastructure).

What makes you think they can\'t think of OTHER ways of augmenting the existing
distribution system? Why can\'t energy be accumulated -- at a modest rate --
over a period LEADING UP TO the expected harvest time and \"stored\" until needed
for that \"burst of activity\"? (Harvest *may* be a 10-12 day event but it\'s not
a 365 day event!)

Also to handle unreliability of electricity supply in winter - you can\'t not
milk the cows just because the mains has failed again.

Sounds like you\'ve got a more fundamental problem that needs addressing.
Does every \"ill\" person keep their own backup genset to cover the EXPECTED
outages? (Is this a first, second or THIRD world country?)

Northern Powergrid charges usurious sums to provide 3 phase supply to farms so
most are on biphase as are most smaller villages. That way they only run two
hot wires to each local transformer on the E-W runs spurred off full 3-phase
running N-S. Towns are typically full 3 phase.

[Reinsert my previous paragraph here]

It\'s amazing how little folks originating such content think of the
mental/reasoning capacity of their readers! (or, maybe they\'ve got
them pegged! :> )

Actually in this instance I think that they have it right at least in the UK.
All electric combines would result in losing half the crop to weather or
needing at least double or triple the number of working units so that one or
two could be on charge whilst the other was working.

Why does the entire combine have to be sidelined while charging?

I\'ve a client who operates a fleet of large (10 ft forks, 30 ft lift)
electric forklifts, two shifts, 6 days per week. He doesn\'t plan on
having half of them on a charger while the other half are in use.

Instead, he removes the 3000 pound batteries from the trucks and
sets them on chargers while another set reside *in* the trucks.
At the end of the shift, the spent batteries are removed from the
trucks and swapped for the charged batteries retrieved from the chargers.
At the end of the second shift, the spent batteries are placed on the
chargers for overnight charging. So, each battery can get a slow,
16 hour charge instead of trying to quick-charge them (which seriously
degrades useful life)

And, you don\'t have to have a battery large enough to power a 600HP combine!
Comobines got big because the number of operators (drivers) was small and
you wanted to get the most \"work\" done in the least amount of \"driver time\"
(drivers can\'t stay awake nonstop).

But, you could automate the driving function (it\'s largely straight lines
with no real obstacles to dodge) and have 5 times as many *smaller* units
operating concurrently. So, the battery requirements for an individual unit
are reduced.

And, units can swap batteries as their harvest is collected from them
(why expend energy to drag that crop around once it\'s been harvested?)

You can refuel a combine PDQ - it takes a long time to charge a battery (even
if the local mains distribution was up to the stress that would impose).

You\'re assuming electricity has to come from a chemical battery that
must be recharged on-site. Why can\'t a fuel cell deliver the energy to
the load? Or, a precharged battery? Or, a distribution network (\"third
rail\") that criss-crosses the field, powered from a convenient location?

Moving combine harvesters around on our narrow roads is also something of a
fraught operation. I honestly don\'t see how it could be done!

So, combines never leave their assigned farms? They are air-lifted in from
the manufacturer? Serviced in place (regardless of severity of problem)?

All the more reason to downsize to smaller units! :>

[I\'ve not even addressed the possibility of reducing the operations done
in *a* unit and distributing that workload over different units with
differing capabilities. Don\'t be bound by a solution to one set of
design criteria that may not be appropriate for another problem space!]

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:13:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-09-12 03:28, Don Y wrote:
[...]

I\'ve already stated that I don\'t think *battery* electric vehicles are a
long-term solution; [...]

Ah? What alternative do we have?

Jeroen Belleman

If you include fuel cells, none.

 

[Don Y]

On 9/6/2022 7:08 AM, Don Y wrote:

On 9/6/2022 1:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

Actually in this instance I think that they have it right at least in the UK.
All electric combines would result in losing half the crop to weather or
needing at least double or triple the number of working units so that one or
two could be on charge whilst the other was working.

Why does the entire combine have to be sidelined while charging?

I\'ve a client who operates a fleet of large (10 ft forks, 30 ft lift)
electric forklifts, two shifts, 6 days per week. He doesn\'t plan on
having half of them on a charger while the other half are in use.

Instead, he removes the 3000 pound batteries from the trucks and
sets them on chargers while another set reside *in* the trucks.
At the end of the shift, the spent batteries are removed from the
trucks and swapped for the charged batteries retrieved from the chargers.
At the end of the second shift, the spent batteries are placed on the
chargers for overnight charging. So, each battery can get a slow,
16 hour charge instead of trying to quick-charge them (which seriously
degrades useful life)

<https://www.foxtronpowersolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/forklift-battery-charging-area-min-scaled-e1625597343722.jpeg>

[Notice the other row of chargers just off the right edge of the photo!
The vent hoods -- hydrogen gas -- are a dead giveaway.]

Note the absence of any forklifts in the area. You don\'t really think they
pulled the batteries out and then PUSHED the battery-less trucks over to
some other area for storage while their batteries were being charged?

Note that a big, heavy battery is A Good Thing for a forklift as it
serves as a ballast to offset the weight of the load. So, replacing
lead acid batteries with lithium is perilous as it alters the certification
of the truck -- less load and less lift (even though there\'s just as
much power available!)

A battery-powered electric combine would likely prefer a lighter/higher
energy density store.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:23:06 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 4 Sep 2022 15:03:42 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
On 09/04/2022 12:23 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2022 11:13:29 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
On 09/04/2022 01:39 AM, Don Y wrote:

<snip>

Dealer prices for replacement car parts must average 30:1 markup over
their cost. I just got a silly wiring harness for $300.

I assume they want to make money on batteries too, and you won\'t be
able to pick up a set of EV batteries at Bob\'s Auto.

You probably will. Battery packs are conceptually a whole lot simpler than regular car parts. You put current in until the output voltage tells you that the battery is charged, then you take it out again until the battery voltage tells you that it is flat.

It will probably include temperature sensors, but they aren\'t complicated. Bob may have to salvage the plug that interfaces the battey pack to the rest of the car, but that (and any electronics built into it) won\'t wear out in use.

> Battery replacement cost will be interesting long-term. You can rebuild an engine or a tranny but not a lithium battery.

Why not? A lithium battery pack is just a collection of individual cells.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/09/2022 15:08, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/6/2022 1:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

[snip]

What makes you think they can\'t think of OTHER ways of augmenting the
existing
distribution system?  Why can\'t energy be accumulated -- at a modest
rate --
over a period LEADING UP TO the expected harvest time and \"stored\" until
needed
for that \"burst of activity\"?  (Harvest *may* be a 10-12 day event but
it\'s not
a 365 day event!)

If you price the batteries required to do this it becomes prohibitive
very quickly. Even the passive bulk fuel stores are non-trivial costs.

I\'m doing the sums at the moment to have storage batteries for my home
and they work out at about £600 /kWhr on the scale I want.

Also to handle unreliability of electricity supply in winter - you
can\'t not milk the cows just because the mains has failed again.

Sounds like you\'ve got a more fundamental problem that needs addressing.
Does every \"ill\" person keep their own backup genset to cover the EXPECTED
outages?  (Is this a first, second or THIRD world country?)

Anyone needing continuous power medical equipment to stay alive does and
there are mechanisms which I don\'t fully understand to get vulnerable
users supplied by small petrol or diesel units before their UPS runs
out. One failing of the rollout of VOIP and full fibre in our area is
that the POTS based Care on Call systems are dead in the water during a
powercut and it seems the Telcos didn\'t think it would be a problem!

As far as electricity and to some extent internet is concerned we are
pretty close to being a third world country (but without the resilience
that would normally imply). I expect a long cold dark winter since we
have next to no gas storage and rely on gas for 60% of our electricity!

The new as from today PM has said \"energy will not be rationed\".

Actually in this instance I think that they have it right at least in
the UK. All electric combines would result in losing half the crop to
weather or needing at least double or triple the number of working
units so that one or two could be on charge whilst the other was working.

Why does the entire combine have to be sidelined while charging?

I\'ve a client who operates a fleet of large (10 ft forks, 30 ft lift)
electric forklifts, two shifts, 6 days per week.  He doesn\'t plan on
having half of them on a charger while the other half are in use.

You could manhandle the batteries in and out but it is yet another damn
thing to go wrong and more downtime during harvest. Battery sets at that
capacity will be enormously expensive. However you do it you have to
have enough stored energy to do the required large task or be able to
get it and quickly. The time window when the crop is ripe is narrow.

UK infrastructure is pretty screwed and generating capacity is
completely screwed so yes it is going to get interesting this winter.

And, you don\'t have to have a battery large enough to power a 600HP
combine!
Comobines got big because the number of operators (drivers) was small and
you wanted to get the most \"work\" done in the least amount of \"driver time\"
(drivers can\'t stay awake nonstop).

But, you could automate the driving function (it\'s largely straight lines
with no real obstacles to dodge) and have 5 times as many *smaller* units
operating concurrently.  So, the battery requirements for an individual
unit
are reduced.

Modern combines are already fairly automated and on GPS tracking yield
with field coordinates etc. It is possible that smaller units will
become favoured but right now they have the biggest brute they can fit
in. UK fields are much smaller than US ones. Near me which is mixed
farming rather than grain belt fields are about 500m x 500m.

And, units can swap batteries as their harvest is collected from them
(why expend energy to drag that crop around once it\'s been harvested?)

They don\'t. They run a second tractor unit parallel and dump the grain
into that. The combine only uses its internal grain tank when they are
swapping bulk grain handling trailers over. The combine keeps running
pretty much relentlessly whilst the weather holds good. They start about
5am once the nights dew has burned off and stop only when it starts to
condense again sometimes as late as midnight continuing under lights.

You can refuel a combine PDQ - it takes a long time to charge a
battery (even if the local mains distribution was up to the stress
that would impose).

You\'re assuming electricity has to come from a chemical battery that
must be recharged on-site.  Why can\'t a fuel cell deliver the energy to
the load?  Or, a precharged battery?  Or, a distribution network (\"third
rail\") that criss-crosses the field, powered from a convenient location?

The big snag is that everybody and their dog wants the same kit running
flat out at exactly the same time. Breakdowns are a nightmare.

Fuel cells are the joke that just keeps on giving. They are in principle
the best thing since sliced bread but the catalyst gets poisoned so
easily that in practice they invariably under perform.

Don\'t get me wrong here I am generally in favour of sensible approaches
to green energy and was at a major UK event in London\'s Trafalgar Square
with kit on show using fuel cells that could in principle power an
entire major telephone exchange.

However, the only fuel cells actually working were educational toys
powering a solitary LED and the whole exhibition itself was powered by
noisy smelly diesel electric generators! That says a lot!!!

Moving combine harvesters around on our narrow roads is also something
of a fraught operation. I honestly don\'t see how it could be done!

So, combines never leave their assigned farms?  They are air-lifted in from
the manufacturer?  Serviced in place (regardless of severity of problem)?

They do move around but they cause total chaos on even larger roads. The
lead vehicle says combine escort and tows the blade and then the combine
lumbers along behind at a stately speed occupying the full width of our
small rural road. If you meet one you have no alternative but to back up
the previous field gateway.

All the more reason to downsize to smaller units!  :

[I\'ve not even addressed the possibility of reducing the operations done
in *a* unit and distributing that workload over different units with
differing capabilities.  Don\'t be bound by a solution to one set of
design criteria that may not be appropriate for another problem space!]

I can\'t see combine harvesters being replaced any time soon. They are
insanely expensive pieces of kit and get worked into the ground.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 9/12/2022 5:38 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:16:56 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/11/2022 3:20 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 1:03:43 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

There\'s nothing that says a combine needs to cut a 40 ft swath -- except that
a SINGLE DRIVER can get more done, that way (but, if machines were driving,
the number of such drivers wouldn\'t be limited!).

Or, that all of the processing done in the combine needs to happen in a
single vehicle.

That could take things back to the late 1950s or 60s when farmers used corn pickers.
Farmers had to haul the complete ear to corn cribs. The shelling was done later when the grain
was taken into town. The cobs and some of the shucks ended up in piles that were burned.
There\'s nothing to say you can\'t perform that job on the farm,
just in a different way than \"in the combine\".

I didn\'t do a very good job describing the corn harvesting process of long ago. Corn was picked in the ear then hauled to storage cribs located on the individual farms.
These were a common sight in the country.
http://preview.alturl.com/cj82z
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/554857616572423132/>. My dad would also build temporary storage by using snow fence to make corn piles of unshelled corn.
Farmers would get together to shell the corn then haul the actual grain to the elevators in town. It
took at least three or four guys to do the shelling if I remember right. Neighbors would get together to do the work. The elevators are typically right next to railroad tracks.
Combines saved labor by turning two jobs into one. They leave the the cobs and waste out
in the fields.
We had a crib like in the first picture on our farm. Dad converted it to a machine storage
shed when he finally bought a combine. It\'s still standing.

But just because \"that\'s how things WERE done\" doesn\'t mean they would
have to be done the same way in the absence of \"cheap\" energy.

There\'s no reason the mechanisms of the combine that performs those
tasks can\'t be replicated in another device(s) -- one that is mobile
or stationary (and you transport product *to* it)

When the criteria change, so does the solution space. If we had anti-gravity
devices (we don\'t and likely won\'t!), you\'d transport the crops with those
instead of \"over land\". The solutions that would make sense in that
scenario (including transporting ALL of the product to a central processing
facility in east bumphuck, nebraska) only are considered when that
capability manifests.

Tablets used to be made by hand. Then, (single stroke) tablet presses
were created to speed up the process. Then, rotary tablet presses
to speed THAT up by having multiple tablets \"in the works\" concurrently.
Then, producing two tablets simultaneously on opposite \"sides\" of a
rotary tablet press. Then, producing two *layers* of a tablet on those
two sides. Now, you can make osmotic pumps in tablet forms... would
they have been *imagined* if the technology for making tablets had
stalled at \"by hand\"?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic-controlled_release_oral_delivery_system>

 

[rbowman]

On 09/12/2022 09:23 AM, Don Y wrote:

There\'s no reason the mechanisms of the combine that performs those
tasks can\'t be replicated in another device(s) -- one that is mobile
or stationary (and you transport product *to* it)

You\'ll wind up doing a lot more transporting. A combine leaves the waste
on the field to be plowed under. With your system you\'d need to bring
the high volume of the unprocessed matter to a central location, bring
it back to the fields after extracting the grain, and distribute it
uniformly.

 

[Don Y]

On 9/12/2022 9:10 AM, rbowman wrote:

On 09/12/2022 09:23 AM, Don Y wrote:
There\'s no reason the mechanisms of the combine that performs those
tasks can\'t be replicated in another device(s) -- one that is mobile
or stationary (and you transport product *to* it)

You\'ll wind up doing a lot more transporting. A combine leaves the waste on the
field to be plowed under. With your system you\'d need to bring the high volume
of the unprocessed matter to a central location, bring it back to the fields
after extracting the grain, and distribute it uniformly.

If the alternative is NOT to harvest, there will be a means found to do this!

A second device could follow the harvester in much the same way that
a grain car does for some crops.

Or, someone will figure out a use for the \"refuse\".

Or, someone will decide that corn isn\'t an efficient crop to grow/harvest.

Or...

Thinking you can imagine the ultimate solution without numeric constraints
on the problem is an exercise in futility; WHEN the problem appears, a
solution will manifest!