Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 396 62.86%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 165 26.19%
Not sure 37 5.87%
Climate change is a hoax 32 5.08%
Voters: 630. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-02-2019, 05:16 PM   #301
PaperBagger'14
Franchise Player
 
PaperBagger'14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cowtown
Exp:
Default

Also if we are looking at GHG emissions as damaging to the climate, I'd also ask everyone to have a peak at SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride).

Roughly 1kg of SF6 has the same greenhouse affect as 22000kgs of C02. SF6 is primarily used in high voltage electrical (where it is heavily regulated by weight). It is gaining more uses however in the development of electronics, plasma etch purging, leak detection and more.

It isnt anywhere near as common as CO2 in our environment but it should be more regulated in minor industries. We should also lynch anyone who inhales SF6 to make their voice sound deeper. It's often referred to as anti helium.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid View Post
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
https://www.polltab.com/bracket-poll/M40PBhc-NcXRZ
PaperBagger'14 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-02-2019, 05:27 PM   #302
DownInFlames
Craig McTavish' Merkin
 
DownInFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14 View Post
We should also lynch anyone who inhales SF6 to make their voice sound deeper. It's often referred to as anti helium.
I've seen videos of people doing this and it seems cool until you realize how much of a GHG it is.
DownInFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 07:20 PM   #303
snootchiebootchies
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour View Post
https://www.engineering.com/Electron...-Wreck-It.aspx

https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/21/...-international

Electric cars are not an environmental magic pill. At least in their current form. There's a net benefit by most accounts, from a ghg perspective, but I'm not convinced there's a net benefit from an overall environmental perspective.
There is also huge positive net benefit from an air quality perspective because you are displacing emissions of NOx, fine particulates, VOCs, and PAHs, carcinogens, etc. from densely populated urban centers to sparsely populated rural areas where the power plants are located.

Last edited by snootchiebootchies; 05-02-2019 at 07:29 PM.
snootchiebootchies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 10:30 PM   #304
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
You have been misled then.
Au contre my carbon loving friend. It's like you don't even bother to do any research.

Cost of lithium ion batteries have dropped 76% since 2012 and continues to drop rapidly as battery production increases around the globe.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-...tens-coal-gas/
https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...bnef#gs.9f6xz0
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-pack-costs/
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09...packs-in-2020/
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/11...tting-cheaper/
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/si...and-market.pdf



Quote:
Electric cars aren't expensive for any of the reasons you mention. They are expensive because of the batteries.
You mean the cost of components? Isn't that exactly what I just said? Since the number one component in an EV is the battery pack, the cost to drive prices down will be the cost of the battery pack. Those costs are dropping dramatically and will make the cars that much more affordable.

Quote:
Adding more demand for expensive batteries won't reduce the cost, it could increase it as the materials to make them become more rare.
No, but adding more manufacturing capacity will make batteries more readily available and drive the cost of them down... which is exactly what is happening.

Quote:
The rest of the car, other than the motor, is just a car. Nothing complicated. Even the motor shouldn't be all that expensive. Yes, there are efficiencies to be found in battery manufacturing, but it's a fundamental limit that is going to prevent economy electric cars from existing until they find a cheaper battery.
You mean like the $35K Tesla, or the $35K Chevy, or the $30K Nissan, or the number of low cost Chinese cars waiting to get permission to be imported into the North American market. And that doesn't take into consideration the number of models the Europeans are developing and bringing to market.

Quote:
And very smart people have been worknig on it for decades, and this is the best we have, which just won't make the cut for mass adoption.
New developments are happening every single year. Better batteries with better capacity are being developed all the time. Better technology in other components are also making huge improvements. The industry is still in its infancy, but for some reason you think this is the best there will be. It's laughable. It's like suggesting the best aviation had to offer was two years after Kittyhawk.

Quote:
99% of people don't care what powers their car. They don't need to be incentivized becuase it is scary or new or whatever. They just need it affordable.
Yeah, even if it is contributing to the demise of the planet as we know it. What are you going to do when these vehicles do become more affordable? What would happen if these subsidies you were crying about were finally held back from the car manufacturers and the fossil fuel industries? What happens when you have to pay for a gallon of gas what it actually costs to process it? What will happen then? Will those IC engines still be affordable? Christ, I'm hearing people piss and moan about cost with gas at $3.20 a gallon. Double that when the subsidies end and then talk about affordability.

Well, that's a credible source.

Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 05-03-2019 at 07:55 AM.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 05-03-2019, 12:24 AM   #305
PaperBagger'14
Franchise Player
 
PaperBagger'14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cowtown
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Au contre my carbon loving friend. It's like you don't even bother to do any research.

Cost of lithium ion batteries have dropped 76% since 2012 and continues to drop rapidly as battery production increases around the globe.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-...tens-coal-gas/
https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...bnef#gs.9f6xz0
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-pack-costs/
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09...packs-in-2020/
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/11...tting-cheaper/
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/si...and-market.pdf



You mean the cost of components? Isn't that exactly what I just said? Since the number one component in an EV is the battery pack, the cost to drive prices down will be the cost of the battery pack. Those costs are dropping dramatically and will make the cars that much more affordable.



No, but adding more manufacturing capacity will make batteries more readily available and drive the cost of them down... which is exactly what is happening.



You mean like the $35K Tesla, or the $35K Chevy, or the $30K Nissan, or the number of low cost Chinese cars waiting to get permission to be imported into the North American market. And that doesn't take into consideration the number of models the Europeans are developing and bringing to market.



New developments are happening every single year. Better batteries with better capacity are being developed all the time. Better technology in other components are also making huge improvements. The industry is still in its infancy, but for some reason you think this is the best there will be. It's laughable. It's like suggesting the best aviation had to offer was two years after Kittyhawk.



Yeah, even if it is contributing to the demise of the planet as we know it. What are you going to do when these vehicles do become more affordable? What would happen if these subsidies you were crying about were finally held back from the car manufacturers and the fossil fuel industries? What happens when you have to pay for a gallon of gas what it actually costs to process it? What will happen then? Will those IC engines still be affordable? Christ, I'm hearing people piss and moan about cost with gas at $3.20 a gallon. Double that when the subsidies end and then talk about affordability.



Well, that's a credible source.
I really enjoy when someone discusses lithium ion batteries as the way to go in the future. Science and logic will tell you that you are wrong. There hasn't been a mass produced battery advancement in a decade.

Let's play a game. It's called which of these is an open pit lithium mine and which of these is an open pit coal mine.

Spoiler!


Spoiler!


If you cant tell, they're both lithium mines.

You're probably not too pleased right now because your eco sense is tingling, but guess what powers the loaders moving that lithium? Diesel.

The same diesel that powers 400 tonne coal haulers in Sparwood.

Oh fudge me in my cinnamon cannon, they use the same haulers to mine lithium! Rats!

Well at least we will be able to charge our new vehicles with state of the art lithium ion batteries (thank you Exxon circa 1970 ish.) using completely renewable and sustainable energy:

Spoiler!



EVs have value, in Canada they are worthless with our infrastructure for long trips. If you don't leave your latte sipping bubble, go for it.

The general public doesn't understand the construction of a battery, the process of making one or the energy capacity of one, nor do they understand where the energy to charge a battery comes from either.

If you want to more effectively reduce your GHG emissions, dont look at your car. Look at your house and remove your furnace. Put in electric heaters. Your house stays warm 24 hours a day, your car runs for 4 hrs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid View Post
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
https://www.polltab.com/bracket-poll/M40PBhc-NcXRZ

Last edited by PaperBagger'14; 05-03-2019 at 12:27 AM.
PaperBagger'14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 12:46 AM   #306
zamler
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

It's utterly amazing to me that people think those mined materials are used exclusively for electric cars. Or that mining the myriad of materials for ICE vehicles is somehow okay but for making batteries is not.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Old 05-03-2019, 01:20 AM   #307
PaperBagger'14
Franchise Player
 
PaperBagger'14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cowtown
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
It's utterly amazing to me that people think those mined materials are used exclusively for electric cars. Or that mining the myriad of materials for ICE vehicles is somehow okay but for making batteries is not.
So lithium has many uses, but aluminum, copper, and steel do not?

Maybe I should remind you that every compound used in making EVs is also used in making ICE vehicles.

Why is mining lithium better for GHG emissions than mining for other products in vehicles?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid View Post
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
https://www.polltab.com/bracket-poll/M40PBhc-NcXRZ
PaperBagger'14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 01:54 AM   #308
octothorp
Franchise Player
 
octothorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14 View Post

Let's play a game. It's called which of these is an open pit lithium mine and which of these is an open pit coal mine.

Spoiler!


Spoiler!


If you cant tell, they're both lithium mines.
You just lost your own game. The top one is a copper mine. I mean, you're even using the image url from the snopes article debunking the claim that it's a lithium mine!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/li...ine-oil-sands/
octothorp is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Old 05-03-2019, 08:29 AM   #309
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14 View Post
I really enjoy when someone discusses lithium ion batteries as the way to go in the future. Science and logic will tell you that you are wrong. There hasn't been a mass produced battery advancement in a decade.
Really? There are advances in battery technology happening every single week. Whether it be advances in cathodes and anodes, capacitors, substrate, or chemistry, there are breakthroughs that are happening all the time. The problem is getting those breakthroughs to market.

Quote:
Let's play a game. It's called which of these is an open pit lithium mine and which of these is an open pit coal mine.
Let's play a game. It's called you post unrelated pictures and look stupid doing so. Ready, GO!!! You win!

Quote:
You're probably not too pleased right now because your eco sense is tingling, but guess what powers the loaders moving that lithium? Diesel.

The same diesel that powers 400 tonne coal haulers in Sparwood.

Oh fudge me in my cinnamon cannon, they use the same haulers to mine lithium! Rats!
I fail to see your point here. What is your point? That production and processing cause pollution? No one said it didn't. No one said there was not a negative cost associated with certain parts of the product development cycle. The gain is on the back end where you are using the product to eliminate pollutants that would ultimately be released by other products that would be pollution generating endpoints.

Quote:
EVs have value, in Canada they are worthless with our infrastructure for long trips. If you don't leave your latte sipping bubble, go for it.
No doubt that infrastructure needs to improve, but again, ignorance does not work for you. The infrastructure for long trips does exist, and many people already know this.

https://energyhub.org/ev-map-canada/

Quote:
The general public doesn't understand the construction of a battery, the process of making one or the energy capacity of one, nor do they understand where the energy to charge a battery comes from either.
Yes, and some don't even understand the mining process or are capable of identifying a lithium mine!

You're right. Most consumers are idiots. The average consumer is standing in line with you at Walmart. So that should probably alert you to the imminent demise of our species.

But there are plenty of smart ones out there as well. There are people who know quite a bit about this stuff and continue to do their own research and adoption of technologies that make a difference. Change starts with one person and one idea. Adoption happens when enough smart people make the best informed decision and the rest of the herd follows. Remember that the next time you're in Walmart and peering into the shopping cart of the person in front of you seeing what other members of your herd are buying.

Quote:
If you want to more effectively reduce your GHG emissions, dont look at your car. Look at your house and remove your furnace. Put in electric heaters. Your house stays warm 24 hours a day, your car runs for 4 hrs.
I completely agree. Every home in the world should using electricity to heat and power their homes. There are many different ways to get there, including using natural gas as a means to generate electricity. Fuel cell technology can make great use of natural gas and do so in a very clean way that has a very small impact to our environment. The potential is there, people just need to adapt. For that to happen, builders also need to offer these options and provide choice. To make that happen manufacturers need to start stepping up production of these products, but they won't until there is demand, and demand won't come until there is broad understanding. The vicious cycle continues.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 08:47 AM   #310
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
I completely agree. Every home in the world should using electricity to heat and power their homes. There are many different ways to get there, including using natural gas as a means to generate electricity. Fuel cell technology can make great use of natural gas and do so in a very clean way that has a very small impact to our environment. The potential is there, people just need to adapt. For that to happen, builders also need to offer these options and provide choice. To make that happen manufacturers need to start stepping up production of these products, but they won't until there is demand, and demand won't come until there is broad understanding. The vicious cycle continues.
I fail to see how heating water and homes with electricity generated from natural gas makes any sense at all. You have conversion losses. In places where you get electricity mostly from renewable or hydro? Sure, it makes sense, and that's why homes in those situations are built that way. But it doesn't make sense to burn coal and natural gas just to turn it into electricity, then turn it back into heat.



And I disagree that consumer demand is the thing holding companies back. Its the cost and lack of technology deploy-able at large scales. These aren't easy "if you pay, they will make it" types of problems. These are really really hard to solve. If they weren't, someone would be throwing boat loads of money to make oceans of money from. The fact that a company like Tesla is throwing boatloads of money at it, and is still needing subsidies and is bleeding cash should tell you something about how hard the problem is. It's not like they are a poorly run company with a bunch of dummies. It's the smartest people in the biz struggling to make it work.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 09:12 AM   #311
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

I'm not going to break down every point, but these few....

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
You mean like the $35K Tesla, or the $35K Chevy, or the $30K Nissan, or the number of low cost Chinese cars waiting to get permission to be imported into the North American market. And that doesn't take into consideration the number of models the Europeans are developing and bringing to market.

There is no 35k Tesla yet, The Bolt loses money on every sale,


Quote:
An unnamed source cited by Bloomberg News estimates that General Motors is expected to take a loss of between US$8,000 and US$9,000 per Bolt sold. A GM spokesman first declined to comment on the expected profitability.[20] Opel refuted that in December 2016 and states that GM has battery cell costs of $130/kWh, and industry is not yet optimized for mass production.[21] A UBS teardown in 2017 suggested slightly smaller losses per vehicle, of $7418 on a base spec, or $5520 on a higher spec vehicle.[22] They estimate that by 2025 the Bolt will make a profit of about $6000 per vehicle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Bolt


and the Leaf starts at $30,000, which could be compared with the comparable Versa Note is $16 000. The Bolt is a similar class car. So they are almost twice the cost. I'm not even going to get into the Chinese examples. The European ones are going to have similar price discrepancies to the Leaf and Bolt. I'm not trying to push an agenda here, I'm just stating facts. BEV's are much more expensive, and it isn't changing any time soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Yeah, even if it is contributing to the demise of the planet as we know it. What are you going to do when these vehicles do become more affordable? What would happen if these subsidies you were crying about were finally held back from the car manufacturers and the fossil fuel industries? What happens when you have to pay for a gallon of gas what it actually costs to process it? What will happen then? Will those IC engines still be affordable? Christ, I'm hearing people piss and moan about cost with gas at $3.20 a gallon. Double that when the subsidies end and then talk about affordability.
When these vehicles become more affordable I'll probably buy one. I wired my new garage with 2 50A circuits for just that possibility. You are painting an image of me that you have made up in your head. I'm being realistic. My original point was wondering if subsidizing EV"s made sense for CO2 reduction. I then did some research and found that no, they do not. You haven't actually refuted that. Because we have limited funding, I'd rather the subsidy go to other areas where it is more effective at reducing CO2. That's all. But you have imagined that I'm some gas guzzling dinosaur. It's not the case, I'm just looknig at these things form realistic angles and trying to understand the most effective way forward. From my view that isn't subsidizing consumer BEV's.


As snootchiebootchies pointed out, urban pollution is a big issue, but lets start with the worst of the polluters. I think replacing diesel buses with natural gas makes a lot of sense. Maybe battery powered buses as well, though costs are a bit of an uncertainty given the need for pack replacements. I'd actually like to see diesel banned or greatly reduced in cities given the particulate pollution it produces. I've seen lots of natural gas delivery vehicles in Calgary and they could probably replace many diesels. Semi trucks are a big issue as well, but that's a tough one. Given the short lifespan of these types of vehicles I think it makes sense to move to natural gas now, and maybe when batteries or hydrogen or something starts to make sense they will be EOL anyway. But lets get started on these things now, so I'd rather see subsidies help municipalities make these changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Well, that's a credible source.
Well that's nice. Who cares what the source is, go find me one that proves otherwise. I've seen similar numbers elsewhere. The point still stands.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 09:45 AM   #312
Leeman4Gilmour
First Line Centre
 
Leeman4Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies View Post
There is also huge positive net benefit from an air quality perspective because you are displacing emissions of NOx, fine particulates, VOCs, and PAHs, carcinogens, etc. from densely populated urban centers to sparsely populated rural areas where the power plants are located.
That's just a shell game. I'm not anti-electric car or anything. I just think it's a misconception the problems will be solved once we're all driving electric vehicles.
Leeman4Gilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 09:57 AM   #313
AltaGuy
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
 
AltaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour View Post
That's just a shell game. I'm not anti-electric car or anything. I just think it's a misconception the problems will be solved once we're all driving electric vehicles.
Hey Mr. Strawman... who said that?
AltaGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 10:20 AM   #314
Leeman4Gilmour
First Line Centre
 
Leeman4Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy View Post
Hey Mr. Strawman... who said that?
Well, Mr. Literal , no one specifically here but, imo, it's a general societal sentiment.
Leeman4Gilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Leeman4Gilmour For This Useful Post:
Old 05-03-2019, 10:45 AM   #315
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
There is no 35k Tesla yet, The Bolt loses money on every sale,
A barebones baseline Model 3 is $55,000 CDN. Ranges to $90,000 ish?
chemgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 10:55 AM   #316
zamler
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14 View Post
So lithium has many uses, but aluminum, copper, and steel do not?

Maybe I should remind you that every compound used in making EVs is also used in making ICE vehicles.

Why is mining lithium better for GHG emissions than mining for other products in vehicles?
You singled out what you thought was a lithium mine to try and say a BEV is terrible for the environment. Why didn't you bring up a mining of cobalt or nickel both of which make a higher percentage of a Tesla battery. And are of course are used to make all manner of things like alloys and a bunch of other things.

This vid gives a good breakdown of the well to wheel aspect of ICE versus BEV.

zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 11:03 AM   #317
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

I've also got to wonder, if Tesla is selling emissions credits to automakers that can't meet emmisions standards and have to buy these, on balance have emissions been reduced? Or have we just shifted the zero emissions of Teslas to more polluting Chryslers?
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 11:55 AM   #318
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
I fail to see how heating water and homes with electricity generated from natural gas makes any sense at all. You have conversion losses. In places where you get electricity mostly from renewable or hydro? Sure, it makes sense, and that's why homes in those situations are built that way. But it doesn't make sense to burn coal and natural gas just to turn it into electricity, then turn it back into heat.
I said fuel cell application, not in a traditional boiler. Big difference. You take advantage of the infrastructure available to you. If you have access to a new electrical grid, you're best served to use that service. If you are on an old and unstable grid, but have access to natural gas, then gas is a great option to provide some services, or convert to a solution to remove you from that grid and use it only as backup. It all depends on your situation.

I know I don't have to tell you that there are parts of the country that rely on heating oil to heat their homes and water, right? They are in regions where the grid could not handle the entire load of a switch over to purely electrical heating. To convert these homes would require major infrastructure programs to upgrade and replace the existing grid. There are also parts of the country that do not have electricity or other services. They must live off the grid and do so through energy delivery services, like propane delivery. These customers are perfect for a fuel cell system as it would provide power to every service they require.

The point is there is no single solution, so you have to work with what resources are available and have a multi-faceted approach to answering the problem.

Quote:
And I disagree that consumer demand is the thing holding companies back. Its the cost and lack of technology deploy-able at large scales. These aren't easy "if you pay, they will make it" types of problems. These are really really hard to solve. If they weren't, someone would be throwing boat loads of money to make oceans of money from. The fact that a company like Tesla is throwing boatloads of money at it, and is still needing subsidies and is bleeding cash should tell you something about how hard the problem is. It's not like they are a poorly run company with a bunch of dummies. It's the smartest people in the biz struggling to make it work.
Come on, consumer demand drives everything. Without consumer demand you aren't going to see the sustainable revenues that fuel development and growth.

I really wish you would stop crying about subsidies. Subsidies keep many businesses and industries going, especially the petro-chemical and automotive industries. It is disingenuous to cry about a minimal subsidy that one industry is receiving when the subsidy to one company completely dwarfs that industry wide subsidy. Move on already. Yes, people are receiving subsidies for being an early adopter, but every automotive company in North America and oil and gas company in world gets massive subsidies that are scales of magnitude larger. You want to talk about subsidies, cry about the subsidies that farmers get for not growing crops!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
There is no 35k Tesla yet, The Bolt loses money on every sale,
There is in my market. Beautiful car.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/35000-tes...-available-now


That would be GM producing a vehicle because they receive subsidies. That car might sell better if it weren't ugly as sin and a total piece of crap. Make a good product there will be product demand. The year long waiting list for the Model 3 is proof of that.

Quote:
and the Leaf starts at $30,000, which could be compared with the comparable Versa Note is $16 000. The Bolt is a similar class car. So they are almost twice the cost. I'm not even going to get into the Chinese examples. The European ones are going to have similar price discrepancies to the Leaf and Bolt. I'm not trying to push an agenda here, I'm just stating facts. BEV's are much more expensive, and it isn't changing any time soon.
Yet it is. Car manufacturers recognize this and continue to push the cost of those vehicles down to align with ICE product line.

https://autoweek.com/article/green-c...ning-cars-2025

Quote:
When these vehicles become more affordable I'll probably buy one. I wired my new garage with 2 50A circuits for just that possibility. You are painting an image of me that you have made up in your head. I'm being realistic. My original point was wondering if subsidizing EV"s made sense for CO2 reduction. I then did some research and found that no, they do not. You haven't actually refuted that. Because we have limited funding, I'd rather the subsidy go to other areas where it is more effective at reducing CO2. That's all. But you have imagined that I'm some gas guzzling dinosaur. It's not the case, I'm just looknig at these things form realistic angles and trying to understand the most effective way forward. From my view that isn't subsidizing consumer BEV's.
Fair enough. When I see that Tyrannosaurus Rex behind the wheel of that snazzy new Model 3 I will immediately recognize that it is my good friend Fuzz, finally taking the leap into the deep end of EV ownership. Also recognize that I'm not some tree hugging hippie that is out to save the world one tree at a time. I recognize that large scale adoption starts at a very small scale. It takes visionaries with money to bring products to the table and find that niche that adopt and then evangelize the products. I'm definitely the later.

Quote:
As snootchiebootchies pointed out, urban pollution is a big issue, but lets start with the worst of the polluters. I think replacing diesel buses with natural gas makes a lot of sense. Maybe battery powered buses as well, though costs are a bit of an uncertainty given the need for pack replacements. I'd actually like to see diesel banned or greatly reduced in cities given the particulate pollution it produces. I've seen lots of natural gas delivery vehicles in Calgary and they could probably replace many diesels. Semi trucks are a big issue as well, but that's a tough one. Given the short lifespan of these types of vehicles I think it makes sense to move to natural gas now, and maybe when batteries or hydrogen or something starts to make sense they will be EOL anyway. But lets get started on these things now, so I'd rather see subsidies help municipalities make these changes.
I agree with that, but I also want to see small scale adoption and have market forces push from the bottom as well. When you make things that are an affordable alternative to the traditional market, only then will people make the jump.

Quote:
Well that's nice. Who cares what the source is, go find me one that proves otherwise. I've seen similar numbers elsewhere. The point still stands.
Because sources matter. The quality of information matters greatly. In a world where any dip#### can throw up a web site and promote disinformation the quality of information and the primary source is crucial. It is part of being a good consumer and not just one of the herd standing in line waiting to be slaughtered. There is a very good reason why that university professor demanded only primary source information in your papers. Right?
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 12:19 PM   #319
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

Re: 35k Tesla-it was here and gone, probably before anyone got one.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...g-not-any-more

You can't buy it through the website
https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#battery

It was said that they will sell you one through phone or dealer sales, not internet. Which tells me that's just to talk you out of it. But if you really did want to buy one, it is the exact same as the $39500 version, with a software lock. So the car itself can't be made and sold for that price and not be a loss.

The reality is the $35 000 Tesla is actually a $39 500 car.

But don't take it from me, Elon has this to say:
Quote:
One thing Musk was sure of is that the Model 3 will never cost less than $35,000. He had previously suggested it might be possible to lower the price to $25,000 in an August 2018 interview with YouTuber Marques Brownlee.
It’s excruciatingly difficult to make this car for $35,000,” he said Thursday. Future models could cost less than the $35,000 Model 3, Musk added, but those won’t exist for “at least two to three years.”
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/28/1...elon-musk-news

As I've been saying, these aren't easy problems to solve. Pretending they have been solved is not helpful.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 12:30 PM   #320
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
I said fuel cell application, not in a traditional boiler. Big difference. You take advantage of the infrastructure available to you. If you have access to a new electrical grid, you're best served to use that service. If you are on an old and unstable grid, but have access to natural gas, then gas is a great option to provide some services, or convert to a solution to remove you from that grid and use it only as backup. It all depends on your situation.

You said

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
I completely agree. Every home in the world should using electricity to heat and power their homes. There are many different ways to get there, including using natural gas as a means to generate electricity. Fuel cell technology can make great use of natural gas and do so in a very clean way that has a very small impact to our environment.
That makes zero sense in a place that has access to natural gas, unless all electricity is generated cleanly. And it's not like fuel cells are some sort of mature technology, they have a ways to go. Though I do agree they are a promising path forward, and produce fewer emissions than burning natural gas, they still produce some. So at this point, today, if you have natural gas to your house, it makes more sense to use that for heating than it does electricity generated from dirty sources. Which is all I was getting at.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021