ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Darkstream: you can't escape the stupid


From the transcript:

There's a comment talking about Steven Pinker. Steven Pinker is pretty much wrong about everything, so if he is asserting that intelligence has not declined, you can pretty much count on the fact that it has. I would not trust Steven Pinker to be able to correctly identify the color of the sky.

So what's important is the average intelligence, right, that's what dictates how well society functions and let me show you something before I get to the article that I mentioned. A couple years ago I wrote a book called Cuckservative: How 'Conservatives' Betrayed America. I wrote it with John Red Eagle, Cerno wrote the foreword, and let me read you a little selection here of what we wrote:

By multiplying the average measured IQs for the four major ethnic groups in the United States with their changing demographic ratios, we can calculate how the demographic changes have affected the national intelligence over time. In 1960, we calculate the national IQ average to have been 100.3. By 2010, the average national IQ had fallen four points, to 96. By 2030, if the current population estimates are correct, it will fall another point, to 95. Lest you think that average national intelligence is irrelevant, note that just that four-point difference is essentially equal to the difference between countries such as Austria, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and countries such as Uruguay and Portugal. There is a strong correlation between societal wealth and average national intelligence as measured in IQ.

So you know, we were saying that since the modification in the US immigration policy the average IQ has dropped over five points.  Now I always strongly suspected that we were being conservative there because there are possibly other factors involved. When you look at the fact that highly-educated women, who tend to be the most intelligent women, are far and away the least likely to have children, and there are other factors that are involved as well... so now keep in mind that was something that we wrote two-and-a-half years ago.

Now that was interesting because there's an article in The Daily Mail today where the headline is "young people really are getting more stupid. IQs have started to fall by seven points per generation in worrying trend." IQs have in risen in every decade since World War II, but have now begun to fall again. I have to say the trends started by those born after 1975 is worrying, and of course, they come up with all kinds of reasons and yet the word immigration is never mentioned, but here's what is kind of shocking. The level, the extent to which they calculate is this fall in IQ equates to about seven points per generation!

Okay this is bordering on the catastrophic. If US IQs have fallen seven points per generation since 1975, we've got nearly two generations there so instead of a five-point decline we are talking about a decline of as much as fourteen points! And you know, this is a catastrophe! This is why you're seeing a decline in the basic functionality of United States society and of a number of the European societies,  because people simply are not fundamentally as able to to function in a modern society. They simply can't do the basic tasks that their fathers and their great-grandfathers did, and so you know, this is what you are going to experience and you can't get away from it. You cannot escape it.

Labels: , ,

166 Comments:

Blogger Peaceful Poster June 13, 2018 8:18 AM  

Our ancestors were not only smarter, but also woker.

They knew what was up regarding race, religion, women etc.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 13, 2018 8:20 AM  

On the bright side, I kinda like dumb people. If you can keep your sense of humor, the future's not so dim.

Anyway, do want to die in ancient age, more stent than man, at the last drip of chemotherapy? Or in a "robbery gone wrong?"

Blogger Stilicho June 13, 2018 8:33 AM  

Corporate America recognizes this trend at some level as evidenced by frantic efforts to replace people exercising judgement with "processes" wherever possible.

It also fits the general corporate goal of avoiding individual responsibility (and avoiding recognition of individual achievement):

1970: you lost the company a million dollars, Stan. You're fired.


2018: you lost the company a billion dollars, Stan. We must review our process.

2038: the company is bankrupt. It just happened, no one knows why.

Blogger TheMaleRei June 13, 2018 8:36 AM  

I choose none of the above.

Peacefully in my bed.

I leave the false choice to you.

Blogger Peter Gent June 13, 2018 8:40 AM  

When I think about two things converging, the rise of large numbers of lower IQ people within Western societies and the coming revolution of robotics that will take over most of the mundane job opportunities for those lower IQ people, what is the end game? What did the PTB envision as the use for that great mass of humanity? That may be a rhetorical question since if they were envisioned as the hammer to break Christian Western Civilization and later be discarded that should be obvious to any thinking person. Is there any other option?

Blogger Brick Hardslab June 13, 2018 8:47 AM  

It was problem enough for my father that he simply retired from plumbing without passing on his business too any of us. It wasn't paying as well and since we did high end homes it wasn't union work.

The Guatemalans and other illegal crews would put in a lower initial bid but couldn't make it all work. We fixed several problem houses for the general then told him, either we get the bid or we don't fix your fuck ups. We're losing money and time fixing crap our eleven year old apprentices can do right.

As always the illegals cannot out work the Americans but they can do it cheaper.

I'm cranky and haven't had my coffee. I haven't thought about the business all our boys and some of our girls did as their first job in years. At least we can all fix our own houses.

Blogger Brick Hardslab June 13, 2018 8:51 AM  

The western Christian man was the pinnacle of hard work and independence. My white ancestors arrived in a hostile wilderness with nothing but a smoke pole and a hatchet and build farms cities and forts.

Most of the people now would simply lay down and die.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 13, 2018 8:52 AM  

And the Blank Slate Theory still hangs about and seen as legitimate.

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 9:01 AM  

As I have discussed before, an analysis of SAT scores since the 1960s, https://www.collegeboard.org/, shows an alarming deterioration in intelligence of the best college bound students. That is true despite the dumbing down of the Math portion, and the "re-norming", i.e. adding 60-100 unearned points, of the test in 1995...I estimate that the rate of decline is about 1 IQ point per decade, but it could be more. That's about 2.5 points per generation, which agrees with some French results. Greg Cochran thinks it's about half that, but I disagree. In any event, it's quite disastrous.

Blogger Abigail June 13, 2018 9:11 AM  

@Peter Gent

What makes you think that a population whose average IQ is steadily decreasing is going to be able to maintain technologically advanced automated systems? The tech will fail because people will be too stupid to avoid mistakes like storing flammable material under important bridges where homeless people smoke.

Blogger Hammerli280 June 13, 2018 9:14 AM  

I think we need to go after the tax and welfare codes. The child tax breaks need to be a percentage of income, not a fixed sum. This will make larger families more appealing to the smarter (and higher income) people...and less encouraging to those of lower IQ.

I'd also make contraception a mandatory precondition for receiving welfare. Purely on the grounds that we cannot afford to breed more welfare recipients.

Blogger Al Du Clur June 13, 2018 9:15 AM  

It all gets worse when you add in the new belief that critical thinking is evil. That belief both is a result of and helps cause lower IQs

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 13, 2018 9:19 AM  

More bad news:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/flynn-effect-in-reverse-in-norway/

Blogger McChuck June 13, 2018 9:23 AM  

@11 Hammerli280 - you've got a decent idea, there.

After the Enlightment came the Endarkenment. Or the Enstupidation, if you prefer. This is a result of pissing in the gene pool, destroying the culture that prized practical education, hard work, and self sufficiency, and the dumbing down of the schools so that even the most retarded black can graduate high school now.

When you teach obvious nonsense for years, the children grow up to not believe in the existence of truth. When the morons graduate beside them and get preferentially hired and admitted to college, what is the point of education and intelligence?

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 9:26 AM  

More potentially dangerous genetic changes...Prey animals lose fear of predators after 13 generations in safe environment.https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/06/12/the-liberal-prey-animal-in-a-threat-free-environment/

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 9:30 AM  

@13 France and Iceland have also lost IQ according to recent results...The Flynn Effect was always bogus, because it was based exclusively on the Raven Matrices test, which is eye straining diagrams with no language. Flynn himself thought the improved results were the result of test familiarity.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums June 13, 2018 9:36 AM  

It's more dim than this I'm afraid. Even the high-IQ people are useless if they're ignorant.

There's this great line from Dune. The villain, the Baron Harkonnen, used to keep around him a broken mentat (mentat being an IQ 300+ supergenius warrior monk jedi). When asked by his nephew why, he responded something like: "When people see what I can do to a mentat they won't dare cross me". Then the nephew pointed out he couldn't have possibly done that to a mentat because he doesn't even come close to one in intelligence. To which the Baron Harkonnen responded: "It's easy to outsmart a smarter person, you just give them the wrong information".

This is what universities have evolved into. They're tailored made to disable the capable. What good to the economy could an entire generation of IQ 130+ kids do if they come out of the university thinking capitalism needs to be destroyed.

Though to be fair capitalism is in part to blame for its own erosion. The high fertility of low-IQ people used to be a self-limiting factor because you can only have so many kids until the food ran out and the next offspring would just starve to death. But in a thriving economy where food is plentiful there's no such thing as an upper limit to how many kids low-IQ people can have.

I think China has gotten population fertility right. I'm not entirely certain but the 1 child policy is not exactly true. You can have how many kids you want in China provided you can afford them. I have heard numbers like 20k$ for a second child and 200k$ for a third child.

Blogger Alphaeus June 13, 2018 9:38 AM  

Smart people used to be respected. Now they are resented and despised. Smart people have to pretend to be stupid just to fit in. Smart people are forbidden from discriminating against the stupid by means of all the anti-discrimination laws that require the incompetent be treated equally with the capable. No wonder we're so fuct.

Blogger VFM #7634 June 13, 2018 9:42 AM  

"I have to say the trends started by those born after 1975 is worrying, and of course, they come up with all kinds of reasons and yet the word immigration is never mentioned, but here's what is kind of shocking. The level, the extent to which they calculate is this fall in IQ equates to about seven points per generation!"

The 1970s was when whites had the worst birth rates relative to nonwhites in recorded history -- of only about one-third the world average (1.5 child/woman vs. 4.5 worldwide). By contrast, right now it's two-thirds (1.6 vs. 2.4), which ratio is about what it was in the 1950s.

I could easily see a seven-point drop occurring in the 1970s due to that fact alone.

Blogger Metric June 13, 2018 9:53 AM  

On the bright side, this brings to mind some alternative labels for "gen x."

Blogger Dire Badger June 13, 2018 9:58 AM  

The thing is, the 'average' IQ is also easy to raise back to standard levels...because we can SEE the stupid, visibly.

If only we could open our eyes.

Blogger Mark Stoval June 13, 2018 10:04 AM  

I was arguing with a left-wing prof on Usenet in the 90s when he said that the planet could not accommodate more than 1 billion people.

I responded that since there were 5 billion at that time: who was going to kill the 4 billion?

He was upset and finally settled upon the idea there would be a great die off. A great famine or plague or war or maybe all of that.

I think the left has been looking to kill most of humanity ever since the 90s (at least) and the dumbing down of the people is part of the plan. Reduce the IQ and make them ignorant and suspicious of truth to boot.

Blogger Johnny June 13, 2018 10:06 AM  

That I can recall, I don't think the guy who wrote The Bell Curve took immigration into consideration. He thought the major reason for the generational shift in IQ came about because women who were one standard deviation below average had the most children.

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 10:08 AM  

"It's easy to outsmart a smarter person, you just give them the wrong information".

A major benefit of high intelligence is the ability to detect wrong information and propaganda...For example, most people have swallowed the lies about electric cars. Yet anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics understands that they are simply highly inefficient consumers of coal or whatever is used to generate electricity.

Blogger Bad Attitude June 13, 2018 10:09 AM  

I’ve seen numerous people mention that society requires a minimum 92 average IQ to maintain modern infrastructure. Can anybody point me to a primary source for this proposition? In my admitted limited searches, I have not found a primary source.

Blogger SidVic June 13, 2018 10:14 AM  

A lot of dsygenic breeding going on... Mandatory implantable birth control for those on assistance.

Blogger Ken Prescott June 13, 2018 10:20 AM  

Part of the drop is, truth be told, that the consequences of foolish behavior are not as severe as in ages past. Idiots are living long enough to reproduce.

Blogger Gritón del Desierto June 13, 2018 10:24 AM  

Idiocrisis

Blogger ar10308 June 13, 2018 10:31 AM  

Another direct consequence of the lowering of IQ.
A beautiful Lutheran Church, established 1847, in Milwaukee, WI was burned down because a worker on the roof allowed his heated tools to catch the roof on fire.

http://fox6now.com/2018/05/23/officials-release-911-calls-tied-to-massive-fire-at-trinity-lutheran-church/

Blogger RB June 13, 2018 10:34 AM  

It is easy to sell the concept that truth is a lie, relativism, false religion, and 'equality' to stupid people. It's all good for the left - until it's not..

Blogger Bob June 13, 2018 10:51 AM  

I recently moved into an apartment building and got a unit on the top floor. The roof leaked. It leaked so bad the sheetrock came down in the living room. To date, the roof has been repaired FIVE times, the ceiling two.

This is a new building, upscale, and in a better part of town. But, it was built by the low bidder who employed unskilled and cheap foreign - probably illegal - labor that does not speak english. As a result, under all the pretty features that make the place attractive, hides all manner of crappy workmanship.

As for the roof, the first four attempts at fixing it the repair crews consisted of unskilled idiots that couldn't even understand basic english or the instructions of the foreman - who spoke their language.

The fifth - and latest attempt - was done by an all white male crew.

So far, no more leaks. But it's summer, it's Texas, and it's dry.

So who knows?

Blogger Fernando Negro June 13, 2018 10:53 AM  

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
--- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (when reading "injections", you can read "vaccines" instead - which contain a mercury-based component, known to destroy children's brains and even cause some of them to become autistic)

Alex Jones: "...Because, very soon, everything degenerates and falls apart, and then you have no brains to pull from in the next generation..."
John Taylor Gatto: "Exactly. And that’s what’s happening..."
Alex Jones: "By the way, my dad is a pretty high-level executive in health care - I would say he’s one of the top thousand brains in health care in the country - and he gets sent to this five/ten thousand dollars seminars... And one day he called me from the Four Seasons, here in Austin, he was hearing... I forget the guy’s name... it was a really famous guy... he said "The New World Order has destroyed everyone’s brains with the Prussian model" - my dad called me, from out in the hall, going "It’s incredible..." - and he said "The guy says that our model has destroyed everyone, so now we don’t have anyone to pull from, except the homeschoolers, but we’ve got to keep it secret for management, because we’ve got to keep this other system in place". But they admitted that they’ve overdone it..."
--- Alex Jones interviewing John Taylor Gatto, author of Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling

Steven Pinker is part of the schooling system, responsible for keeping people inside the mental "herd", and for stupefying them. And, many people in the academia do so consciously and on purpose, for being members of secret societies (ex: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Order-Controls-Education-Antony-Sutton/dp/0949667900) that have that exact objective in mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Thomson_Iserbyt#Publications). So, don't expect people like Pinker, Peterson or even Chomsky to admit to you the real consequences of what they're doing.

As for Portugal (which is my country), I can personally confirm to you that people here are notoriously stupider, when compared to people of Northern Europe.

Blogger jimmy_the_freak June 13, 2018 11:08 AM  

Of all the insufferable assholes in the world, the most insufferable are midwits talking about how intelligent they are.

Blogger The Kurgan June 13, 2018 11:09 AM  

I keep saying it: city states is where it’s got to go.
I’m still thinking tobsecure La Serenissima for myself though I’ve had a few setbacks.

Blogger VFM #7634 June 13, 2018 11:13 AM  

"As for Portugal (which is my country), I can personally confirm to you that people here are notoriously stupider, when compared to people of Northern Europe."

@Fernando Negro
Perhaps because most of the Portuguese gene pool moved to Brazil, leaving the dregs behind in Portugal. (Yeah, the Brazilians wrecked their IQ by mixing with the blacks, but that's a separate problem.) Ireland also appears to have depressed IQ relative to other countries in Western Europe.

Those countries where about half the gene pool moved abroad, such as Norway and Germany, don't appear to have been affected by this, but once you get 80-90% of the nation leaving, then the dreg effect becomes noticeable.

At least that's my hypothesis.

Blogger James Dixon June 13, 2018 11:15 AM  

> Yet anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics understands that they are simply highly inefficient consumers of coal or whatever is used to generate electricity.

Yes, but the internal combustion engine is also relatively inefficient. So that's not as big a drawback as it might be. And the usual argument is that generating plants emit relatively less pollution than individual cars. I've never run the analysis, so I have no idea if that's true or not.

Now, a family sized natural gas, hydrogen, or nuclear generator to charge an electric vehicle would be a clear win.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 13, 2018 11:18 AM  

Bad Attitude wrote:I’ve seen numerous people mention that society requires a minimum 92 average IQ to maintain modern infrastructure. Can anybody point me to a primary source for this proposition? In my admitted limited searches, I have not found a primary source.

I can't directly answer your question, but La Griffe du Lion's smart fraction theory proposes that the fraction of people with IQ of 110 and above determines the maximum complexity of a society. An IQ of 110 makes an adequate tradesman or clerk, but doesn't make an adequate engineer or CPA.

With a mean of 100, the smart fraction (110IQ=+2/3SD) would be about 23%. With a mean of 92, the smart fraction (110IQ=+1.2SD) would be about 12%. I think we would be in big trouble well before we get to mean IQ of 92.

La Griffe's theory doesn't account for trust level in the societies, so he might get better results if he put in a variable for high trust versus low trust society. Han Chinese have decent IQ but poorly functioning society. Their absolute corruption and zero social trust probably accounts for the anomaly.

Blogger rumpole5 June 13, 2018 11:26 AM  

(Re:electric cars):"[A]nyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics understands that they are simply highly inefficient consumers of coal or whatever is used to generate electricity.”

On the contrary, what we have now is cumbersome and inefficient. We are, in effect, lighting tiny fires in our cars that cause noise, dirt, needless repair bills and that require an inefficient, dangerous liquid fuel and lubrication supply and disposal system. A primary electric auto and truck transportation system, fueled by thorium nuclear reactors generating the electricity, would be far more efficient than what we have now.

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 11:29 AM  

Yes, but the internal combustion engine is also relatively inefficient. So that's not as big a drawback as it might be. And the usual argument is that generating plants emit relatively less pollution than individual cars. I've never run the analysis, so I have no idea if that's true or not.

Actually, modern ICEs are highly efficient, about 75% reportedly. But the huge inefficiency of electricity is that it has to be transmitted, with significant losses, and then run around in the grid, with larger losses. Batteries also lose about 10-15% of their energy in every cycle. So it's really no contest on efficiency.

Blogger Kettle June 13, 2018 11:35 AM  

pyrrhus wrote:As I have discussed before, an analysis of SAT scores since the 1960s, https://www.collegeboard.org/, shows an alarming deterioration in intelligence of the best college bound students. That is true despite the dumbing down of the Math portion, and the "re-norming", i.e. adding 60-100 unearned points, of the test in 1995...I estimate that the rate of decline is about 1 IQ point per decade, but it could be more. That's about 2.5 points per generation, which agrees with some French results. Greg Cochran thinks it's about half that, but I disagree. In any event, it's quite disastrous.

Large scale Mousetopia effects.

The gamble per se is that when the current order finally buckles any "intelligent" population bubbles that are willing to be ruthless should be able to significantly out-compete the lower IQ hordes in the area.

Blogger James Dixon June 13, 2018 11:37 AM  

> Actually, modern ICEs are highly efficient, about 75% reportedly.

In comparison to earlier versions? Yes. But 75% isn't really all that efficient.

But yes, the transmission losses are what kill the efficiency of the current model wrt electric vehicles. That's why I said we needed local generators.

Blogger Kettle June 13, 2018 11:40 AM  

Electric cars......

Just like martial arts or weapons, there is no ONE answer. The best answer depends on resources use mode of the resource in question. There are scenarios where electric is an obvious winner and others where ICE is better.
You cant have a rational debate on the matter unless you specify the usage profile in question, long haul trucking, intermittent residential usage, heavy industry, etc and the infrastructure available.

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 11:48 AM  

@38 Generally wrong...There are no thorium nuclear reactors at present, but yes, nuclear is somewhat less polluting, but capital costs are enormous...Electric vehicles have higher, not lower, maintenance costs, and expensive toxic batteries that will need replacing after a few years.

But the biggest elephant in the room is that the aging US electric grid is already overstressed....To build the transmission and distribution lines necessary for a mostly electric fleet would cost many trillions, if it were even possible. That's not going to happen.
Electric cars are impractical toys for the virtue signalers.

Blogger Kettle June 13, 2018 11:55 AM  

@pyrrhus

Its still very hard to beat the energy density and portability of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. At this point they still offer a more overall robust system.

Blogger Looking Glass June 13, 2018 11:59 AM  

@41 James Dixon

It's almost as if some Gas-Electric hybrid would be the most efficient approach to dealing with the trade offs with cars. Too bad GM is still screwing it all up.

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 12:00 PM  

The mountain ski town of Zermatt has only electric vehicles for its tiny transportation needs, which keeps the air qualitywonderful. The power comes in from Italy, and that's where the pollution stays. That's the kind of niche that's appropriate for electric cars.

Blogger Kettle June 13, 2018 12:02 PM  

@45 VW has made a few such concept vehicle but never did anything with them. I believe at least 2 of them were constant rpm single cylinder diesel ICE that powered the electric powertrain as well as the battery/capcitor bank.

Blogger Kettle June 13, 2018 12:06 PM  

One example:

https://www.wired.com/2013/05/volkswagen-xl1-driven/

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 12:07 PM  

@40 Yes, IQ reduction is no doubt part of the larger MouseUtopia that western society has become...Nothing that a couple of centuries of harsh struggle can't fix.

Blogger Alphaeus June 13, 2018 12:13 PM  

"Yes, but the internal combustion engine is also relatively inefficient."

Relative to what, exactly? The reason we still depend on internal combustion of petroleum distillates is precisely because it is relatively a lot more efficient than the available alternatives, if you consider the whole process of building the engines, and drilling for the gas and storing it and delivering it to the point of sale. Some day when cold fusion is up and running then electric vehicles will take over, but probably not until then.

Blogger Alphaeus June 13, 2018 12:18 PM  

"The gamble per se is that when the current order finally buckles any "intelligent" population bubbles that are willing to be ruthless should be able to significantly out-compete the lower IQ hordes in the area. "

You'd think so, but, I have yet to see a probability analysis of a Zombie Apocalypse where the brain dead mindless zombies don't win.

Blogger Pale Male June 13, 2018 12:20 PM  

anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics understands that they are simply highly inefficient consumers of coal or whatever is used to generate electricity.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

A modern combined-cycle gas turbine exceeds 60% efficiency (LHV).  6% losses in transmission and distribution and 20% in charger/battery/drive electronics yields 45% net pipeline-to-wheels.  (Maybe SkyActiv technology can hit that.  The best marine diesels aren't a whole lot better.)  This ALSO gives you fuel independence (you can run on gas, coal, fuel oil, solar, wind, nuclear or hydro interchangeably) and when you ARE burning fuel your emissions are almost always many miles away from population centers.

Crude oil at $73/bbl is about $12.60/mmBTU.  Natural gas in the USA is going for maybe 1/3 of that at the Henry Hub.  We'd be MUCH better off if we were doing most of our on-road driving on electric power—which is not the same as making everything a BEV.  PHEV is 75% of the results for 10% of the cost.

modern ICEs are highly efficient, about 75% reportedly.
Try half that even in the Prius.  Don't believe that reporter ever again.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums June 13, 2018 12:23 PM  

I recommend the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?". It's a long video about what you would expect your typical liberal would say. However in the last segment of the movie they interview some oil magnate and accuse him straight to his face of killing the electric car because it went against his interests. To this the guy sighed, rolled his eyes and said: "Listen. No matter how plentiful a resource is, how cheap, how useful, and how easily available it is people will always want more of it so I'll always be able to make a profit no matter what."

Bottom line is people don't care about the electric car. They didn't care back in the 1800s, they didn't care in the 1900s, and they don't care now in the 2000s as proof of Tesla Motors needing nearly ONE BILLION in subsidies to stay afloat.

I completely disagree that the electric car issue is a resource problem and/or efficiency problem. It's a "let's sell Macs to PC users" problem. I'm not american and you can count mac-users in my country on one hand minus a few fingers. People here just don't care about Macs. I saw an Apple-Store open once. It lasted 2 months before it was converted to a PC-store.

This is the problem with Tesla. It appeals to the wrong crowd. Car-people are used with having a roaring engine and are unwilling to pay a higher price for an inferior product (in their eyes). Non-car-people (like me) love the Tesla but they see driving as a nuisance and would rather get a cab rather than pay a fortune for something they will rarely use.

Blogger Pale Male June 13, 2018 12:33 PM  

the transmission losses are what kill the efficiency of the current model wrt electric vehicles.
Try under 7% losses.

That's why I said we needed local generators.
That's why what you said was completely, totally wrong.

Seriously, you're as bad as the SJWs who take biological equality as an axiom and then go look for the racism that HAS to be holding NAMs down.  No, you're worse; the data to check your assumption takes all of minutes to find, as nobody is spending their entire career trying to keep it out of sight.

To build the transmission and distribution lines necessary for a mostly electric fleet would cost many trillions
More nonsense.  The grid and its plants are seriously under-utilized outside of peak hours.  Do most charging overnight and you could electrify 70% of distance driven, no problem.

Blogger Alphaeus June 13, 2018 12:34 PM  

https://idka.com/james-solbakken/files

I mentioned above that the zombies always win in every zombie apocalypse analysis I've seen, but the zombie advantage is not insurmountable, if enough blitzkrieg is applied immediately upon encountering the conflict with the zombie population.

https://idka.com/james-solbakken/files

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 12:40 PM  

Steven Pinker is a Professor at the leftist insane asylum formerly known as Harvard...So Pinker knows that he can only go so far without igniting a witch hunt by the crazies on the Faculty, with no protection from the commie President Drew Faust...I suspect that Pinker is a lot more "woke" than he lets on.

Blogger Jack Amok June 13, 2018 12:45 PM  

La Griffe's theory doesn't account for trust level in the societies, so he might get better results if he put in a variable for high trust versus low trust society. Han Chinese have decent IQ but poorly functioning society.

La Griffe tried to account for the Chinese accomplishment gap by adulterating his Smart Fraction theory to saying Verbal IQ determined societal success. The Han's IQ advantage is entirely visuospatial and they lag behind Whitey in verbal IQ.

Low trust is a much better explanation.

Now, I could certainly imagine a link between verbal IQ and trust - except the most notorious high verbal IQ (((tribe))) around is also notoriously low trust. He also makes a bloomer about needing to control for the economic system when mapping IQ to success (even smart commies are poor, but then my obvious question is, if they're so smart, why are they commies?).

Blogger Jack Amok June 13, 2018 12:54 PM  

This is the problem with Tesla. It appeals to the wrong crowd. Car-people are used with having a roaring engine and are unwilling to pay a higher price for an inferior product (in their eyes).

You're wrong about that. Musk is a car guy and he wanted to make an exciting, appealing electric car. Tesla's are damn fun to drive, they have great torque and deliver a performance car feel.

Well, they're damn fun to drive if you don't have to drive very far. An old college roommate has a Tesla, and every time the old gang gets together, he spends the entire weekend trying to keep his car charged. That's the problem with electric cars - as Kettle pointed out above, batteries are significantly inferior to gasoline at energy storage

Blogger Alphaeus June 13, 2018 12:55 PM  

"Now, I could certainly imagine a link between verbal IQ and trust - except the most notorious high verbal IQ (((tribe))) around is also notoriously low trust. He also makes a bloomer about needing to control for the economic system when mapping IQ to success (even smart commies are poor, but then my obvious question is, if they're so smart, why are they commies?)."

I don't know who said it, but I think there's something to it, that morality sees farther than intellect. I like the saying because I happen to have more morality than intellect.


Morality, when vigorously alive, sees farther than intellect, and provides unconsciously for intellectual difficulties.
Froude—Short Studies on Great Subjects. Divus Cæsar.

Blogger Looking Glass June 13, 2018 1:01 PM  

@57 Jack Amok

It's the trust, which leads to much less corruption. Corruption in China is an artform, and it ruins their economy. Has for a couple of centuries.

Blogger James Dixon June 13, 2018 1:06 PM  

> It's almost as if some Gas-Electric hybrid would be the most efficient approach to dealing with the trade offs with cars.

You think? :)

> The reason we still depend on internal combustion of petroleum distillates is precisely because it is relatively a lot more efficient than the available alternatives, if you consider the whole process of building the engines, and drilling for the gas and storing it and delivering it to the point of sale.

Exactly correct. When taken as a system from beginning to end, the internal combustion engine wins out. Especially if the 75% efficiency claim is true (apparently I'm not up to date on the technology, the last I heard they were still struggling to hit 50%).

Though transmission line efficiency has also apparently improved dramatically since my high school days. The estimated power line losses for the US grid are supposedly now down to 5% per https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

> No, you're worse; the data to check your assumption takes all of minutes to find

The data has changed since the last time I checked, which was several decades ago. It's also possible the data I was given was simply incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time a high school teacher got the facts wrong.

Blogger James Dixon June 13, 2018 1:13 PM  

> Tesla's are damn fun to drive, they have great torque and deliver a performance car feel.

The top end Tesla comes in as number two on the fastest 0-60 of any production car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration

I couldn't find an equivalent Infogalactic page. :(

> That's the problem with electric cars - as Kettle pointed out above, batteries are significantly inferior to gasoline at energy storage

Yep. Which is why a hybrid wins out in rural areas.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums June 13, 2018 1:18 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:You're wrong about that. Musk is a car guy and he wanted to make an exciting, appealing electric car. Tesla's are damn fun to drive, they have great torque and deliver a performance car feel.

So it appeals to billionaires who usually have more money than sense.

Again, if Tesla is such a great product marketed to a populous that wants to drive a Tesla how come the business is an absolute money black hole? The numbers simply don't reflect the marketing.

Here's a similar example. The Mateba, a fully semi-automatic REVOLVER. Absolutely great gun from my perspective, both in design and functionality. It's not produced anymore because people don't care. Much like the Tesla car, people describe the gun as being "fun" and "has a great feel" but unfortunately that doesn't translate to sales.

I don't care about the technicalities of having to charge your car or bla bla bla. Humans have split the atom, I think we can figure out how to pull a wire from the electric power-plant to some gas station.

Blogger Angantyr June 13, 2018 1:19 PM  

"Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?" - Flight Officer Ellen Ripley, S.S. Nostromo

Apparently the answer to this rhetorical question is "yes"...

Blogger James Dixon June 13, 2018 1:22 PM  

For a source on engine efficiencies, Infogalatic's page on thermal efficiency is informative: https://infogalactic.com/info/Thermal_efficiency

It says "For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% efficiency".

Blogger James Dixon June 13, 2018 1:24 PM  

> Again, if Tesla is such a great product marketed to a populous that wants to drive a Tesla how come the business is an absolute money black hole?

Seriously? Because Musk has no idea how to build or run and assembly line.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 13, 2018 1:27 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:He also makes a bloomer about needing to control for the economic system when mapping IQ to success (even smart commies are poor, but then my obvious question is, if they're so smart, why are they commies?).

Commies are optimizing their power, not their wealth. Smart commies don't starve anyone they don't want to starve. That doesn't mean no one starves.

Blogger Looking Glass June 13, 2018 1:44 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Again, if Tesla is such a great product marketed to a populous that wants to drive a Tesla how come the business is an absolute money black hole?

Seriously? Because Musk has no idea how to build or run and assembly line.


High-volume production in cars is hard. No one has joined the "club" from scratch since about the 1960s. Even most of the Asian companies are post-WW2 heavy industry groups that just started making cars. That's really Tesla's biggest issue.

The other is that they got into the game about a decade before the technology is really at a mass volume ability, which means "scaling up" has been a whole lot harder than in other industries.

Musk is a Crony Capitalist, but he's the type the elites all claimed they wanted. Musk just views it as a means to an end. Tesla is here to stay because certain factions really want it. Musk will give those factions what they want.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums June 13, 2018 1:57 PM  

James Dixon wrote:Because Musk has no idea how to build or run and assembly line.

Quotation needed.

But let's say that's the case. You know what you could do with 1 billion $? Hire someone that can build and run an assembly line.

Statistically none of us here are as smart as Musk so whatever issue or idea we might come up about Tesla Motors chances are he's already thought of it years ago. And. Tesla. is. still. a. failing. business. How come?

When your business model is on point. When your product is on point. When your marketing is on point. When your customer base is on point. Why is the business failing?

There's only 2 ways to look at it.
One, Elon doesn't know what he is doing in some area therefore one of the Elon Musk dependent variables is out of whack.
Two, Elon foresaw all the angles and pitfalls and planned ahead accordingly therefore the only variable not dependent on Elon Musk is out of whack.

If you go with the former you're assuming you're either smarter than Musk or know something none of his team of engineers and mechanics know. If you go with the latter you're assuming Musk fell for the same lie that people want some "[buzzword] sustainable [buzzword] clean [buzzword] renewable [buzzword] anti-global warming [buzzword] inclusive [buzzword] global [buzzword] piece of technology" which was pushed for the last 2 decades plus.

I'm going with the latter.

Blogger Kettle June 13, 2018 2:23 PM  

@69

Statistically none of us here are as smart as Musk so whatever issue or idea we might come up about Tesla Motors chances are he's already thought of it years ago

That is a far fetched statement. Having run manufacturing there is no way 1 man understands the full intricacies of an entire manufacturing process. I dont doubt Musk is highly intelligent but there is too much arcane and tribal knowledge in virtually any type of manufacturing. "Book knowledge" is only part of the picture.
In the real world it can take months to a year + to transfer a manufacturing process from one facility to another by the time the book knowledge and the "tribal" knowledge has been transferred to the new operators.
Short of a wartime or Apollo program type footing, any corporation is going to struggle to build such a complex manufacturing process quickly with no real base of "institutional knowledge" in place.

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 2:30 PM  

Musk's problems with production (he apparently embraced some fads which don't work) have been well documented. But the marketing problem with Tesla is that it is expensive, has limited range, and has had a high rate of defects and problems...Musk's other company, Solar City, has been DOA for some time, and Tesla is bleeding cash at an astounding rate, more than 1 billion per Q....The infatuation of the market with this company is more evidence that we are in another South Seas Bubble.

Blogger pyrrhus June 13, 2018 2:33 PM  

Musk is a smart engineer, but his utterances on things like the Mars mission indicate he is quite weak on basic physics. Whereas his approach to corporate governance, in which he has repeatedly lied to, and sometimes insulted, the shareholders can only be described as a disaster.

Blogger ar10308 June 13, 2018 2:58 PM  

A Tesla P100D may have the fastest 0-60mph production time of any production car, however it can only do it 3 times on a charge before the batteries are depleted and need some cool-down time. Compared to any sports car in the price range which can do hard launches as long as there's gas in the tank. For $135K I'll take a Porsche 911 Turbo GT3.

Additionally, the Tesla can't even complete a single lap of the Nurburgring at 10/10s. Hell, it would struggle to do a more than a handful of laps on any shorter race circuit driven in anger before needing a completely full charge.

The speed at which energy is transferred to a battery medium is just too slow to be practical for most practical usage.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 13, 2018 3:04 PM  

"That's the problem with electric cars - as Kettle pointed out above, batteries are significantly inferior to gasoline at energy storage"

This. Batteries suck hard by comparison. The secondary reasons are things like efficiency issues (that would be solved by ubiquitous nuclear reactors, yes. Reactors that have been legislatively preempted out of even being designed/tested for production. Reactors that absolutely require ~+2SD or greater technicians to operate, I might add.), and that batteries decay nearly as quickly as gasoline, and can't be easily or cheaply replaced in the case of an electric car.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 13, 2018 3:05 PM  

Wuzzums Fuzzums wrote:Two, Elon foresaw all the angles and pitfalls and planned ahead accordingly therefore the only variable not dependent on Elon Musk is out of whack.

They were sure she would win. They bet everything on President Hillary. They are stupid.

Blogger Pierre Truc June 13, 2018 3:26 PM  

Since this has devolved into a debate about electric cars.

Electric cars are a XY problem. Think about what the customer really needs. Move himself? Move a family? Move cargo? How far? Where does he park? Must the vehicle solve all possible problems or only a few? Does it have to make the customer look good and flatter his ego (or help compensate for a small penis)?...

People have been brainwashed to think the car is the only possible solution. Therefore, because they are dumb and unable to think outside the box, they add "electric" in front of it, and thus they want an electric car. Manufacturers love this, because while the electric car is a shitty solutoin, it is also quite profitable. So we get lots of ads for expensive electric cars, and not a lot of other, better solutions.

(And since politicians love control and socialism, likewise they will gravitate towards public transport, which usually is equally shitty).

So, if you have a tiny penis, then yes, you do need a large SUV. And if you want to haul a family or cargo, then you do need a suitable vehicle. However many times you just need to drive to work, to an appointment, go to the store to get something, etc.

A light vehicle like a 2-wheeler, or something like a Twizy which weighs 450 kilos while keeping the driver dry and safe would be an excellent complement to a "real" car. In fact, for a single city dweller it would replace the car. Plus, it is much cheaper and easier to park.

Which brings us to the obvious:

pyrrhus wrote: Actually, modern ICEs are highly efficient, about 75% reportedly.

Wrong. A car engine is at most 45% efficient at optimum load on a test bench. In real conditions, expect anything between 10% and 40%. In city driving, expect low single digit %. Big ICEs have decent efficiency, especially big diesels running at constant speed on large trucks can reach 45% which is very very good for an ICE.

However, ICEs downsize very badly. A small moped engine will have terrible efficiency, which is why a crummy moped gets roughly the same mileage as a small car.

But... Electric motors downsize fabulously well!

This means the electric motor is the enabling technology to create a 100 to 300kg light vehicle which is small, easy to park, ideal for city commuting, and also has an energy consumption which is much lower than a car. If you stick a gasoline engine on a bicycle you will burn about 2 liters of gas per 100km. That's 20 kWh of gasoline. The same, propelled by an electric motor, would use about 1 kWh/100km.

The main problem of the electric car, which is how do we get the electricity, is eliminated by this approach. Simply replace the millions of cars stuck in traffic jams with lightweight electric commuting vehicles which use about one tenth of the energy per kilometer.

Of course this will never happen because idiots don't want to be seen driving someting that doesn't look heavy and expensive...

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums June 13, 2018 3:35 PM  

Kettle wrote:Having run manufacturing there is no way 1 man understands the full intricacies of an entire manufacturing process.

Read my post again. The counter to this is the second sentence + Tesla Motors is 6 years old.

Ominous Cowherd wrote:They were sure she would win. They bet everything on President Hillary. They are stupid.

You can't predict a black swan event especially when you're blinded by hubris.

You might now argue that all of us knew Trump was going to win. That's BS. Literally no one saw Trump coming until it was too late (with the possible exceptions of Ann Coulter and Scott Adams). And by "too late" I mean prior to the Rep. nomination when he started giving people nicknames and started playing the MSM like a fiddle.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 13, 2018 3:35 PM  

Pierre Truc wrote:This means the electric motor is the enabling technology to create a 100 to 300kg light vehicle ...

You probably live in the city, in the South, right? Maybe Quebec or New York or LA?

Blogger Pierre Truc June 13, 2018 3:46 PM  

You probably live in the city, in the South, right? Maybe Quebec or New York or LA?

Europe, near a city.

I know this solution wouldn't apply to less densely populated areas. It's fine. Free market is superior to socialism because it allows the emergence of solutions adapted to each problem, instead of a one-size-fits-all designed by eggheads who have no clue (like transit). Turning the current concept of a car into an electric one is a one-size-fits-all solution and thus most likely a bad compromise.

Blogger Pale Male June 13, 2018 4:12 PM  

The data has changed since the last time I checked, which was several decades ago.
I gave you the data, which almost certainly goes back before you were born.  13% losses in 1950.

It's also possible the data I was given was simply incorrect.
It's likely that someone gave you an imprecise figure, likely including conversion losses, and you never checked it.  This is why you should exercise more care in what you believe and repeat, especially given that you are in a position of authority and your classroom may be the last opportunity for many of your students to get straight facts before voting based on them.

(apparently I'm not up to date on the technology, the last I heard they were still struggling to hit 50%)
Nissan is hoping to hit 56% thermal efficiency (LHV, I bet) with the next version of SkyActiv.  The biggest marine diesel ever built as of a decade ago got 52% at cruise speed/load.  The link I gave for the Prius engine claimed 38%, which is probably also at best speed/load.

Hybrids gain the biggest improvements by eliminating idling and cutting parasitic drag by switching engine-driven accessories to electric power.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 13, 2018 4:37 PM  

Pierre, compared to America, Europe is one big city. Compared to Alaska, Europe is a Southern city. As you say, glorified electric motorcycles can make sense for some. In America, they will be a small niche. In Europe, they might be a large niche.

Blogger SirHamster June 13, 2018 4:38 PM  

Pierre Truc wrote:Of course this will never happen because idiots don't want to be seen driving someting that doesn't look heavy and expensive...

If your superior model has to rely on insulting the users of the existing system as an explanation for why it isn't dominant, it isn't superior.

Chances are good it's a distraction from the flaws of the alternative. If it was actually superior, you'd be drafting plans on how to profit off the transition to it, because those "idiots" will want it, and there's money in giving it to them.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion June 13, 2018 4:50 PM  

More like on the grounds these folks can't take care of themselves, and adding new babies is more than they'll be able to cope with.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 5:18 PM  

In my younger, stupider days I enjoyed Pinker's Blank Slate. I might still, if I were to reread it, because I still abhor the Blank Slate.

However, I couldn't get through a chapter of the Language Instinct without literally throwing it against the wall. And I rarely do that. In that book he is not only wrong but dishonest. Because the very existence of the book contradicts the arguments he makes therein.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 5:24 PM  

@5- People used to ponder such things. The Problem of Overpopulation. Read 1984 or the Wanton Seed. War was always a good way to get rid of people. In the latter novel, there's a freaky sequence where men are sent to a pseudo-front rigged up like WWI with trenches and all. But the enemy doesn't exist.

Present we're a deeply unserious people. I fear whatever elaborate evil schemes were dreamt up have been forgotten, and the Unhappy New Lords are playing tiddly-winks.

Blogger tublecane June 13, 2018 5:29 PM  

@10- The movie Idiocracy had an interesting premise, but as I watched it I couldn't help but imagine there would be more to the story. That more intelligent forces were hidden behind the scenes, secretly running everything. Because the civilization depicted in that movie didn't run well, but it did run. They were facing a famine, but day-to-day they weren't yet living in Mad Max world.

In reality, people that stupid would not even be able to maintain Idiocracy-level civilization.

Blogger Alphaeus June 13, 2018 5:36 PM  

"@10- The movie Idiocracy had an interesting premise, but as I watched it I couldn't help but imagine there would be more to the story. That more intelligent forces were hidden behind the scenes, secretly running everything. Because the civilization depicted in that movie didn't run well, but it did run. They were facing a famine, but day-to-day they weren't yet living in Mad Max world.
In reality, people that stupid would not even be able to maintain Idiocracy-level civilization."

I thought the same thing, that people that stupid couldn't maintain even that level of technology. But then again that's how allegorical fantasy/satire works. You might as well scoff at the idea that Peter Pan and Tinkerbell can fly.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 13, 2018 5:38 PM  

@Pale Male

Hybrids gain the biggest improvements by eliminating idling and cutting parasitic drag by switching engine-driven accessories to electric power.

Huh. I always assumed that regenerative braking made a significant contribution.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 13, 2018 6:35 PM  

"War was always a good way to get rid of people."

In reality it's usually a very poor way.

Certainly far too inefficient -- mainly in terms of upper capacity to kill -- for our would-be overlords. They've admitted this themselves. Hence why you have tens of millions killed in Russia and China early this century, who didn't die in wars...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 13, 2018 6:36 PM  

Sorry, not this century, last century.

Blogger Daniel June 13, 2018 6:41 PM  

I teach in an Argentinian university. CD. Should I give now a late 90s test, no one would pass. The decay is huge.

Blogger Daniel June 13, 2018 6:42 PM  

Read CS instead of CD

Blogger James Dixon June 13, 2018 6:50 PM  

> High-volume production in cars is hard.

Yes. My comment was no knock on Musk, just a statement of fact.

> Quotation needed.

Will you accept Musk himself?

In an interview with CBS Good Morning, Musk said the Model 3 is in "production hell" because Tesla used too many robots.

"It's worse than I thought," Musk said. "We have this crazy complex network of conveyor belts and it was not working so we got rid of that whole thing."

> If you go with the former you're assuming you're either smarter than Musk or know something none of his team of engineers and mechanics know.

Read my quote above. Musk is admitting he didn't know what he was doing. As for his IQ, if you can get me a valid figure, I can tell you whether I'm smarter than him or not.

> It's likely that someone gave you an imprecise figure, likely including conversion losses, and you never checked it

Quite likely. But I was in high school. How was I supposed to check it? How was I supposed to know I needed to check it? There was no Internet. Do you really think it would have been in our high school library?

And while 1950 was before I was born, it's a lot closer than you seem to think.

Blogger Jackie Chun June 13, 2018 8:03 PM  

As far as I know Mexico city has flush toilets and electricity, although the rest of the country is debatable. We are talking about Hispanics becoming the dominant ethnic group in the US, right?

Blogger Bad Attitude June 13, 2018 9:48 PM  

@37 Ominous Cowherd: Thank you for pointing me at the smart fraction theory.

Blogger tz June 13, 2018 10:32 PM  

Not only IQ, but even More quaint traditional cultural practices among Amazon tribes

Perhaps they can go to the UK, because Alfie and Charlie Gard...

Blogger Pale Male June 13, 2018 10:41 PM  

Huh. I always assumed that regenerative braking made a significant contribution.
Significant, yes.  Biggest, no.  Have you noticed that hybrids gain the most in city driving?  This has a lot of stop-and-go, true, but the non-hybrid spends lots of time idling in queues at lights and stop signs... with the engine fighting the drag of the torque converter, if the automatic transmission doesn't switch to neutral (and back really fast when the foot comes off the brake).

The hybrid shuts the engine off in traffic and creeps on battery, then launches with battery assist.  The plug-in hybrid does considerably better, substituting grid power for 20-odd miles after the most recent charge.

Getting rid of the drag of the power steering pump and air-conditioner drive when they've got nothing to do is a gain 100% of that time.  Being able to right-size those systems so they don't have to perform at max when the engine is at idle speed... huge improvement.

These advances have been here for a decade-plus.  It's past time to roll them out universally.

Quite likely. But I was in high school. How was I supposed to check it?
You're living in $CURRENT_YEAR.  Why don't you know you're SUPPOSED to check it?  You're supposedly the authority; question yourself already.

There was no Internet.
When I was first getting on-line, it was the ARPA-Internet and only a select few (envied people) had access.  Dial-up CP/M BBS was the common currency, and the lucky few had Usenet over modem connections.

I have dug into these things and familiarized myself with authoritative sources (to which I have referred you).  You should do the same before repeating erroneous assertions you were given decades ago.

Blogger tz June 13, 2018 11:17 PM  

Speaking of which, Benji goes full stupid

Remember Ben Shapiro's initials. I suppose it helps to make them into a different BS: bum steers.

Blogger 罗臻 June 13, 2018 11:57 PM  

Develop wireless electric highways. No batteries.

Blogger Stephen June 14, 2018 12:27 AM  

A lot of the arguments against electric cars here were true but are becoming out of date. Improvements in battery and solar panel technology have been happening slowly but there has been a steady drop in price per watt over the decades. Tony Seba points out https://youtu.be/ox5LtxqQNHw that at this rate the price of solar power plus battery storage will be cheaper than getting power off the grid within a few years. A Tesla model S should retain 92% of its battery range after 100,000 miles. https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0219/How-much-will-Tesla-Model-S-battery-life-decrease-over-time
An optimistic lifetime for an internal combustion engine is 200,000 miles. When solid state batteries become available they should be immune to dendrite decay, and allow much more energy dense lithium metal cathodes. Batteries will never be as energy dense as petrol but an electric car will turn over 90% of the batteries energy into movement while typically in real world scenario an internal combustion engine is only 15% effiecient turning 85% of the petrol's energy into hot air. A continuous transmission could improve the petrol engines efficiency a lot as does a plug in hybrid, a hybrid could also use a lighter efficient turbine at a fixed rpm. A thermal power station has a lot more efficiencies due to scale and RPM optimisation usually over 60% efficient.

Blogger Stephen June 14, 2018 12:42 AM  

Looks like batteries already have a longer lifetime than internal combustion engines https://jalopnik.com/this-is-what-happens-when-you-put-300-000-miles-on-a-te-1798662230

Blogger Paul M June 14, 2018 3:42 AM  

A game-changer for transport would be some sort of catalyst that uses sunlight to directly convert co2 and water into a fuel, and does it better than chlorophyll.

Something like this:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-accidentally-discovered-a-process-that-turns-co2-directly-into-ethanol

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 14, 2018 6:48 AM  

"Looks like batteries already have a longer lifetime than internal combustion engines"

The Tesla ones have to, because replacing the battery of one of those means replacing the frame of the car.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira June 14, 2018 7:50 AM  

This is how I was nearly killed at work a few months ago: Illegal Venezuelans

Blogger Pierre Truc June 14, 2018 7:53 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Pierre, compared to America, Europe is one big city. Compared to Alaska, Europe is a Southern city. As you say, glorified electric motorcycles can make sense for some. In America, they will be a small niche. In Europe, they might be a large niche.

Yeah, I agree with you actually.

What I'm trying to say is that this whole electric car debate is in a large part about psychology, politics and marketing, not engineering or ecology. People don't see cars just as means of transportation, decades of marketing have made the car almost a part of the ego.

Example: here is SoyBoy Steve, he wants the Govt to subsidize his Prius to "save the planet". However, if SoyBoy Steve wants to reduce fossil fuel use, he should consider all solutions and order them by return on investment (oil saved versus $$$ invested). In a climate like mine, the optimum is likely to be extra insulation on homes or something like that. Heating/AC is a big energy guzzler. But this solution is low-tech, it isn't sexy, it doesn't make people feel good... and this whole electric car dumpster fire is all about feeling good while not changing our habits. It is mostly not about saving oil or polluting less.

In the parts of the US where you'll make mostly long trips at rather constant speed, then a car is the best option, and an internal combustion engine car is a better option than current electric car tech. More range, short "recharge", pollution spread over a very large area (unlike in a city where it is concentrated), etc. In the USA setting you describe, electric cars are like, you know, when a salesman tries to convince you that you have a problem in order to sell you stuff you dont need. They would create more problems (power generation, grid load, lithium, etc) and since the electricity would most likely come from coal, they wouldn't even save CO2 or fossil fuel... many disadvantages, for a higher cost...

However, a more urban (or European) setting allows exploiting advantages that only EVs can offer: no concentrated pollution in the city, much better energy use in slow traffic and at irregular speed, ability to downsize, etc.

Engineering 101: 1 liter of diesel is 10kWh, if the pump delivers 1 liter/s into your tank then it delivers 10kWh per second which is 36 MEGAWATTS of power. An electric car with a 100kWh battery requires 1.2MW power to charge in 5 minutes, ignoring losses. This is not doable. Even a 30 minute charge would be very hard and expensive. Also it poses "interesting problems" for the electrical grid. A more realistic figure would be 10kW for 10 hours.

However, because the Twizy is small, light (and slow and butt ugly) it does with a 6kWh battery. When quick-charge battery chemistries become more widespread and cheap, this will enable 30 minute charging from 12kW power, which is realistic and doable without trouble (and inexpensive). (I'm neglecting tons of stuff but you get the idea). You can quick charge an electric bike or light EV. Not a car. The amounts of energy involved are very different, and they depend very much on vehicle size and weight. This is also why anyone who talks about "wireless/contactless charging" for something larger than a phone is an idiot. Losses matter, and orders of magnitude matter.

My point is: everyone seems to say "we need electric cars!" but... Why do you need them? Will they really help in your use case, or in a hypothetical use case that someone is selling to you? And do they have to be cars or other kinds of vehicles? Or is there a better solution to the problem that they are supposed to solve (whatever it is).

There's no magic bullet.














Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 8:31 AM  

> You're living in $CURRENT_YEAR. Why don't you know you're SUPPOSED to check it?

I don't have time to go back and recheck every "fact" I was taught in elementary school, high school, and college. If you do more power to you. The rest of us have lives to lead and work for a living.

> You're supposedly the authority; question yourself already.

I'm the authority? I was agreeing with someone else who made the same point. Apparently it's a widespread misconception.

> You should do the same before repeating erroneous assertions you were given decades ago.

I've admitted I was mistaken. If you want more than I'm sure you know what you can do.

> My point is: everyone seems to say "we need electric cars!" but... Why do you need them?

As you note, city folks can use electric cars. They don't really need them, but they do solve a particular class of city life problems. Rural folks are better served by a conventional car or a hybrid. I have a hybrid because it gets great gas mileage and at time time I got it gas was $4/gal. and going up.

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 8:56 AM  

> A lot of the arguments against electric cars here were true but are becoming out of date. Improvements in battery and solar panel technology have been happening slowly but there has been a steady drop in price per watt over the decades.

Recharge time is still a major problem; even if the costs, range, and durability have improved significantly. A conventional fill up takes five minutes or so. You can't do that with your electric vehicle, at least not yet.

Blogger Pierre Truc June 14, 2018 9:51 AM  

Stephen wrote:A lot of the arguments against electric cars here were true but are becoming out of date.

Sure! Some amazing stuff is coming... but you'll never get a quick charging car. Needs too much power. I believe most battery issues can be solved and will be, but basic physics get in the way of transferring a few megawatts cheaply into your car to charge it fast. That's an entirely new can of worms. It will never happen. Ignoring this issue is like saying "oh lets make a hydrogen car!!!"

This matters because it influences the cost and weight a lot, by forcing the batteries to be sized for holiday trips and not daily use (ie, commuting).

That's why a hybrid makes a lot more sense for rural folks like James Dixon, and that's why full size electric cars are mostly for people who don't actually need them (ie, city dwellers who rather need an electric 2 wheeler which is easier to park).

Needless to say, Govt subsidies will rain anyway.

Blogger Pale Male June 14, 2018 10:04 AM  

At the risk of getting further OT:

My point is: everyone seems to say "we need electric cars!" but... Why do you need them?
They are a fairly neat solution to some of our current problems and don't force people to change their current values and habits (and maybe jobs, etc.).  Plug-in hybrids are an even neater one, because you still get the 36 MW energy transfer when you need it.

Manufacturers are recognizing this.  Volvo will soon have all powertrains electrified to some degree, and Subaru just announced a bunch of plug-in hybrid models.  It would be nice if the US government would recognize this too, because having the option to shift the majority of motor fuel demand to electric power could quite literally get rid of our net oil imports and vastly improve our national security.

Oil companies would hate it, though.  That's why it's not happening.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 12:53 PM  

Pierre Truc wrote:An electric car with a 100kWh battery requires 1.2MW power to charge in 5 minutes, ignoring losses. This is not doable. Even a 30 minute charge would be very hard and expensive. Also it poses "interesting problems" for the electrical grid.

1.2MW for five minutes, at six or eight charging stations at the same time, car after car for hours on end, at every gas station in the land. You would need a new substation at every current gas station! This is the biggest problem of all: even if we had unlimited, free electric power, the current transmission and distribution network could not even come close to delivering it.

We would have to build a second, much larger electric grid to go all-electric. We would need a number of new, enormous copper mines to build that new grid. We don't have unlimited, near-free electricity to feed that new grid which we can't build because we don't have the new, enormous copper mines. We also don't have batteries which can soak up that 1.2MW in 5 minutes.

Yes, I think we are in agreement. It's unusual to find someone both sane and numerate who talks up electric cars. You are unusual.

Electric cars or electric scooters can fill niches, as long as they are small niches. Anyone who finds an electric car practical certainly should get one, but we simply cannot all get one.

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 1:44 PM  

> 1.2MW for five minutes

Note that in my experience most homes are 240V 200A services or less, giving them a maximum of 480KW throughput.

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 1:45 PM  

Ack, misplaced a decimal. 48KW, not 480KW.

Blogger Alphaeus June 14, 2018 1:56 PM  

"Ack, misplaced a decimal. 48KW, not 480KW"

No big deal, you just blew out every circuit on the Left Coast. Ha ha ha.

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 2:13 PM  

> No big deal, you just blew out every circuit on the Left Coast. Ha ha ha.

The left coast? California? That's OK. They'll be suffering from rolling blackouts any time now anyway.

Blogger Pale Male June 14, 2018 4:58 PM  

1.2MW for five minutes, at six or eight charging stations at the same time, car after car for hours on end, at every gas station in the land.
The Tesla Supercharger only takes 140 kW, and serves a vanishingly small fraction on long-distance drives.  The usual would be ~700 watts for 10 hours overnight, and maybe 1400 watts while plugged in at work to soak up things like peaks in solar generation.

We would have to build a second, much larger electric grid to go all-electric.
You would need to run the existing fleet of mid-load generators for longer hours, and it would be worth replacing some of them with base-load CCGTs at 50% better fuel economy (or nuclear).  Little else would have to change.

Far greater changes ARE being made to add more peaky, unreliable solar and wind.  EVs?  No problem.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 6:40 PM  

Pale Male wrote:The usual would be ~700 watts for 10 hours overnight, and maybe 1400 watts while plugged in at work to soak up things like peaks in solar generation.

That might be accommodated by the existing grid. Using Pierre's numbers, 1 gallon of diesel equals 10kWh, so the overnight charge would be 7kWh equals about three quarts. The at work charge would be 11kWh, or about one gallon. If we generously figure that you get 80% efficienty on charge and discharge, you spend 18 hours charging to get energy equivalent to roughly 1.2 gallons of diesel per day.

To compete with IC, you need to be able to drive hundreds of miles, with a heater blasting hot air, then fuel up in a few minutes and do it again. To get a 300 mile range, you need ten times that amount of energy, or more. You have to be able to dump that energy into your storage in minutes, so we are back to megaWatt draws and we need a new grid.

Pale Male wrote:You would need to run the existing fleet of mid-load generators for longer hours, and it would be worth replacing some of them with base-load CCGTs at 50% better fuel economy (or nuclear).  Little else would have to change.

Our existing grid is generally pretty heavily loaded. Even this little bit might be too much in some areas. Don't forget that the capacity of the grid depends on the topology, and on where the energy sources and sinks are located. Adding generation or load in the wrong place can actually reduce the grid capacity.

Impractical niche vehicles for city folk and subsidized suburban virtue signalers can be accommodated on the existing grid, as long as most folks don't go there.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 7:40 PM  

@38

"On the contrary, what we have now is cumbersome and inefficient. We are, in effect, lighting tiny fires in our cars that cause noise, dirt, needless repair bills and that require an inefficient, dangerous liquid fuel and lubrication supply and disposal system. A primary electric auto and truck transportation system, fueled by thorium nuclear reactors generating the electricity, would be far more efficient than what we have now."

Well, when will the watermelons pushing electric cars allow for more nuclear power plants? Or even extensions to licenses of currently operating power plants, let alone expansions.

Oh, and switching over to electric cars will require HUGE increase in the electricity distribution infrastructure, right down to the wall-sockets in every home where the cars are sucking down triphase AC-220 or even 440.
Do we even have the copper necessary to do that? (Don't even say aluminum wiring....we tried that in the 60's and 70's and the result was a lot of burned down houses).

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 7:46 PM  

@50

"Some day when cold fusion is up and running...."

I quit reading both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics when I realized that both were idiotically fixated on a 50-year old theme that still hadn't come true -- FLYING CARS.

Now, instead of a flying cars fantasyy every other issue, it's flying cars fantasies alternated with cold fusion fantasies.

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 7:47 PM  

> 1.2MW for five minutes

OK, for those trying to follow from home, there are two different terms being discussed here. 1.2MW is power (normally expressed in Watts) and 1.2MW for five minutes is energy, normally expressed in Watt hours. Each can be a limiting factor. 1.2MW for 5 minutes works out to be 100KWH. Expressed in home terms, that's 240V at 50A for a bit over 8 hours. As noted above, a home with a 200A service can provide no more than 48KW (240V x 200A).

> The Tesla Supercharger only takes 140 kW

I assume you actually mean 140KWH, since you don't specify a time frame, and that's actually higher than the above figure.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 7:48 PM  

@51

"You'd think so, but, I have yet to see a probability analysis of a Zombie Apocalypse where the brain dead mindless zombies don't win."

Real people have a tendency to fall, stop, and (if they don't bleed out) retreat after even one bullet-hole not in the head.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 7:52 PM  

>>
modern ICEs are highly efficient, about 75% reportedly.

> Try half that even in the Prius. Don't believe that reporter ever again.

Modern ICE's are approaching 75% of the THEORETICAL efficiency, which is approximated closely enough by

T(exhaust)-T(intake)
---------------------
T(Intake)

There's a more complicated version, but some of the terms are less than 1/100th magnitude of the others, and therefore can be generally ignored.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 8:01 PM  

@54

"Try under 7% losses."

That doesn't even pass the laugh test.

As battery charge approaches full charge, power conversion loss approaches 50%

The first coulomb of electrons into a completely dead battery has essentially 0% loss power loss.
The last couloumb has essentially 50% power loss.
The relationship is linear.

Charging a battery from flat dead to full incurs a 25% loss over all (average loss per coulumb of charge).

These losses are in the form of heat.

And it works the same way in reverse on discharge.

Total power loss (25% charging, 25% discharging).

In real-world usage, we don't wait until the battery is flat-line dead before recharging. That means we spend 0% of the time at the 0% loss of the charge / discharge curve.

Which means that thermodynamic losses of batteries, in the real world case, are OVER 50%.

This takes pure electrics right back down into the 38% range of ICE's once you consider distribution losses, frictional losses, etc.

And no, braking power regeneration really doesn't help... again 50% losses.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 8:04 PM  

@54

"
More nonsense. The grid and its plants are seriously under-utilized outside of peak hours. Do most charging overnight and you could electrify 70% of distance driven, no problem."

During peak hours, most cars are in the parking lot next to wherever the owner works. That requires a LOT OF COPPER.

Oh, and digging up nearly every parking lot, laying in new electrical infrastructure for the chargers (Plus a sub-station just to power it) and only then repaving the entire parking lot.

Blogger Stephen June 14, 2018 9:03 PM  

Fast charging most of the time is unnecessary. The vast majority of a cars use can be covered by slow charging overnight at home during off peak hours when there is low demand for electricity.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 11:00 PM  

"I don't care about the technicalities of having to charge your car or bla bla bla. Humans have split the atom, I think we can figure out how to pull a wire from the electric power-plant to some gas station."

I can dump 300 miles of range into my gasoline-powered car in less than 10 minutes.

300 miles of range in an electric takes 12-16 hours of charging.

"We have fast-charge batteries.... " Yeah? Then why isn't Tesla using them?

Blogger James Dixon June 15, 2018 6:29 AM  

> Fast charging most of the time is unnecessary.

For most people a single vehicle has to meet all of their needs. Most of the time doesn't cut it.

Blogger Pierre Truc June 15, 2018 8:15 AM  

Arguing about technology is very interesting, but sometimes it leads to losing sight of the big picture.

For example, where I live, overly restrictive land use regulations force people to buy homes where it is allowed to build and not where would be convenient for them, which results in lots more driving and fossil fuel use. Ironically, this is pushed by retarded ecologists. Electric cars are not a solution to this problem, they're just a band-aid. A much better solution would be to chop off the heads of the entire Land Use And Planning departments and put them on spikes. Yes, I'm French.

Ominous Cowherd wrote: Yes, I think we are in agreement. It's unusual to find someone both sane and numerate who talks up electric cars. You are unusual.

Its the IQ I guess (about 155 LOL).

Dirk Manly wrote: Well, when will the watermelons pushing electric cars allow for more nuclear power plants?

No need! It's just like with hydrogen cars! We'll get all the hydrogen and electricity we need out of the same place the socialists get their unlimited free money from. I hear it's located in the Land Of The Free Gibs. See? Tada, problem solved.

We can even afford to subsidize solar roadways! he result of this expensive (for the taxpayer) experiment is that they cost 20-30x more than standard solar panels for the same amount of power, while lasting a lot less due to having big trucks roll over them. Go figure, whodathunkit? That makes a nice transition back to the "falling IQ" topic, as anyone with a calculator and about three brain cells could have seen that one coming. And guess what, they got awards at COP21 and now every politician wants one!!!!!

That's a big problem with these socialist idiots who can't grasp that capital is a scarce resource which should only be invested in stuff that might actually work!

Dirk Manly wrote: As battery charge approaches full charge, power conversion loss approaches 50%

The first coulomb of electrons into a completely dead battery has essentially 0% loss power loss.
The last couloumb has essentially 50% power loss.
The relationship is linear.
Charging a battery from flat dead to full incurs a 25% loss over all (average loss per coulumb of charge).


I'm interested in more info about this. The numbers I had in mind were closer to 80% roundtrip efficiency for Lithium (much less for Lead and Nickel).




Blogger James Dixon June 15, 2018 8:27 AM  

> Its the IQ I guess (about 155 LOL).

Somehow I think you'll fit right in here. :)

Blogger James Dixon June 15, 2018 8:46 AM  

> That's why a hybrid makes a lot more sense for rural folks like James Dixon, and that's why full size electric cars are mostly for people who don't actually need them (ie, city dwellers who rather need an electric 2 wheeler which is easier to park).

One point of disagreement. Two wheelers are a lot harder to safely handle than four wheelers for many people. Small three wheeled vehicles are probably a better solution for all around use.

Blogger Alphaeus June 15, 2018 10:18 AM  

"Real people have a tendency to fall, stop, and (if they don't bleed out) retreat after even one bullet-hole not in the head"

That's a good point. Just because someone is brain dead and mindless doesn't mean they want to get shot. The Zombie Analyses always assume that the zombies are totally fearless and never stop attacking, much less do they ever retreat, even to regroup.

Blogger kurt9 June 15, 2018 11:09 PM  

Back to the subject of IQ drop, the studies highlighted here and elsewhere including only white Europeans in them. The 7 point drop per generation (actually its a 5 point drop every 15 years!) is for the white people in the study. Because these studies specifically exclude immigrants, obviously immigration cannot account for these drops.

This is why the implications are actually worse than the usual HBD-drive immigrants are bad scenario. If white IQ is dropping so badly, the effects of what are essentially extra-civilizational immigrants will make the future just that much worse.

This really is bad juju for the medium to long term future.

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 16, 2018 12:40 PM  

This discussion popped up when I was searching for something Supercharger-related. I'm going to try to inject some facts to settle the questions.

"Using Pierre's numbers, 1 gallon of diesel equals 10kWh, so the overnight charge would be 7kWh equals about three quarts."

The EIA says a gallon of diesel is 137452 BTU, or just over 40 kWH(th). Converted to work in your typical light-duty engine you might get 16 kWh out of it. Your usual "convenience cord" is capable of 1440 W (120 VAC @ 12 A) so a 7-hour charge can yield as much as 10 kWh from a standard wall outlet. PHEV batteries have widely varying capacities; the Prius+ has just 4.4 kWh, the Ford Energi models started out at 7.6 kWh and are going up to 9 kWh next year, and the Pacifica plug-in has 16 kWh. These figures correspond to just over a quart, just under half a gallon and a gallon, respectively.

I used to drive a Passat TDI. I drove the automatic like a stick and averaged 38 MPG city or highway. Half a gallon of fuel would take me about 20 miles. I drive a Fusion Energi now and that's about how far the battery power will take me (depending on speed, terrain and weather of course), so that seems like a pretty fair equivalence.

"you spend 18 hours charging to get energy equivalent to roughly 1.2 gallons of diesel per day."

If you had a Chrysler Pacifica charging off a standard wall outlet for 18 hours a day, you'd get up to about 1.6 gallons-equivalent. Vehicles with smaller batteries would reach full charge and have to stop; the Fusion reaches full in about 5 hours from your garden-variety wall outlet and about 90 minutes on a Level 2 charger.

1.6 gallons a day 250 days a year is 400 gallons-equivalent. The EPA-rated fuel consumption for the Pacifica hybrid is 32 MPG, so for 15,000 miles/year the expected fuel consumption is about 470 gallons. Replacing 400 of those gallons with electric power slashes the net fuel requirement by 85%. My experience is consistent. The standard drivetrain in my car is rated at 26 MPG, and I'm averaging just over 130 MPG per the dash display.

"To compete with IC, you need to be able to drive hundreds of miles, with a heater blasting hot air, then fuel up in a few minutes and do it again. To get a 300 mile range, you need ten times that amount of energy, or more."

You don't need to compete with IC to replace most of your fuel. Most trips are short trips, and engines are very inefficient when cold. If you electrify most or all of the short trips and eliminate most of the cold starts, you've eliminated most of the fuel consumption with it. If you delay the engine starts until the vehicle has left the city, you get rid of the pollution generated in the city. The engine also warms up faster if run under load, improving the efficiency and reducing emissions.

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 16, 2018 12:41 PM  

"Our existing grid is generally pretty heavily loaded."

Back in 2004 it would have taken ~180 GW to replace all US gasoline and diesel with electricity. Average electric consumption last year was 458 GW but nameplate generating capacity was 1074 GW. Some of that is unreliable wind and PV and more is loaded-to-max nuclear and limited hydro, but finding 180 GW in that 616 GW difference wouldn't be all that hard. Ironically, it would probably be hardest in California which has lots of vehicles but not much electric demand anymore after chasing out so much industry.

"switching over to electric cars will require HUGE increase in the electricity distribution infrastructure, right down to the wall-sockets in every home where the cars are sucking down triphase AC-220 or even 440."

Most homes don't have 3-phase service. Your run-of-the-mill Level 2 charger is 208 or 240 VAC 32 A, which is overkill for anything short of a Tesla (most PHEVs only take 16 amps max). You can handle your average commute with a hardware-store extension cord to a NEMA 3-prong outlet. I know this because I do it.

"(Don't even say aluminum wiring....we tried that in the 60's and 70's and the result was a lot of burned down houses)."

Aluminum wire has long been the standard for transmission and has been moving down the chain. Seriously, this stuff is a lot closer than you think.

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 16, 2018 12:42 PM  

"I assume you actually mean 140KWH, since you don't specify a time frame"

The latest Tesla Supercharger is rated at 145 kW.  The cars still can't take juice that fast, though.

""Try under 7% losses."

That doesn't even pass the laugh test.
"

That number came with a link to an authoritative source for transmission losses.  It's correct.

"As battery charge approaches full charge, power conversion loss approaches 50%"

This page claims 86% round-trip efficiency for the Tesla roadster. It is probably representative of Li-on batteries.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 16, 2018 7:29 PM  

" The engine also warms up faster if run under load, improving the efficiency and reducing emissions."

It also wears faster, running while the parts are cold and out of spec.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 16, 2018 7:35 PM  

@133

"Aluminum wire has long been the standard for transmission and has been moving down the chain. Seriously, this stuff is a lot closer than you think."

That's because transmission is done at EXTREMELY high voltages with extremely low current (to cut down on resistance losses).

Once you start working with high currents (like the 440 on the telephone pole coming out of the local substation), you HAVE to work in copper. Aluminum oxidizes in seconds, and AC travels on the surface of the wire, not in the core. High current through AlxOy => heat generation, melted wires, etc). Copper oxidizes slowly enough that you can produce a cable and still have pure metal surfaces by the time you coat it with insulation.

Blogger Alphaeus June 16, 2018 8:00 PM  

"Once you start working with high currents (like the 440 on the telephone pole coming out of the local substation), you HAVE to work in copper. Aluminum oxidizes in seconds, and AC travels on the surface of the wire, not in the core. High current through AlxOy => heat generation, melted wires, etc). Copper oxidizes slowly enough that you can produce a cable and still have pure metal surfaces by the time you coat it with insulation."

My expertise is in accounting. I know only a bit about the basics of electricity, and nothing of the finer points. But I respect competence and reality, both scientific and economic. It's kind of funny how the liberal chowderheads get so excited about things like 'lectric cars when they know absolutely nothing about how to engineer them and know even less about how much they will cost. You have to know both, unless you're Elon Musk and have the Insider support to get endless subsidies.

I don't mean funny ha ha, I mean funny creepy and disturbing.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 16, 2018 8:52 PM  

"Most homes don't have 3-phase service. Your run-of-the-mill Level 2 charger is 208 or 240 VAC 32 A, which is overkill for anything short of a Tesla (most PHEVs only take 16 amps max). You can handle your average commute with a hardware-store extension cord to a NEMA 3-prong outlet. I know this because I do it."

Well, if you want PRACTICAL, all-around, ONLY CAR IN THE FAMILY electric-vehicles, as opposed to a glorified golf cart, then you need 440 triphase to deliver the necessary amount of electrons into those batteries every night.

15A at 110AC for 12-16 hours delivering a 1 gallon equivalent just won't cut it. I have many days when I burn more than 1 gallon of fuel (most days, in fact).

Hey, guess what -- when I'm out burning those gallons, the car is NOT at home, available to be charged (if it were an electric).

Electric is GREAT for golf-carts, and grocery-getters. It is absolutely NOT a substitute for a primary, must-be-able-to-travel 300 miles in one day, stay overnight, and come back the next day.

An all-electric vehicle can only handle 20 miles out, stay overnight, and 20 miles back.
Due to the nature of my work, I rarely travel less than 20 miles just getting TO my work location (wherever that happens to be). And no, I'm not doing construction, or anything that would require a truck, and I'm not a salesman.

What if I work a nice, comfortable office job, 5 miles from where I live.. well, that's 10 miles there and back. Now, what if I want to go to a major league sporting event? Not one of those stadiums is anywhere near my house, even though I live in the close-in suburbs. I'll hit my 20-mile in one-day limit before even making it to the stadium, let alone get back home.

And you know what, I'm ALWAYS going to beat you at this analysis, because I'm an engineer, too.

Until you can dump 300+ miles worth of range into a vehicle in less than 15 minutes (which basically means EXTREMELY high currents, such that typical vehicle owners shouldn't even be around the vehicle when it's being charged), you're not going to be able to compete with hydrocarbon fuels.

All of this talk about electric vehicles is silly, because the energy/weight density, and the energy/volume density is the equivalent of
powering your vehicle with a fuel in which 1 gallon of hydrocarbon fuel has been exchanged for something something which literally weighs a ton, takes up 200 gallons of volume, uses caustic chemicals which cause skin-burns on contact, uses flammable Group I metals, AND doesn't even get lighter as energy is spent.

In other words, the worst of all worlds for a vehicle owner.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 16, 2018 8:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 16, 2018 8:59 PM  

By the way, my education is in computer and electrical engineering.

Practical, electric cars would be a BONANZA for me employment wise.

The reason why my total lack of enthusiasm for electric cars is because even getting rid of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics for electric vehicles, and ONLY electric vehicles, they still can never achieve range and performance beyond glorified golf carts.

Hybrids are viable... because they can be refueled just as quickly as straight ICE vehicles.

Oh, and "electricity is so cheap"... wait until the politicians start slapping road taxes on whatever battery charge comes through the recharge socket instead of ICE's alternator terminals.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 16, 2018 9:02 PM  

>> "As battery charge approaches full charge, power conversion loss approaches 50%"

> This page claims 86% round-trip efficiency for the Tesla roadster. It is probably representative of Li-on batteries.

That's what's known among the common folk as a bald-faced lie.

I suggest you take a course in thermodynamics.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 16, 2018 9:10 PM  

Getting back to the subject of the OP...

This discussion of electric vehicles is a PERFECT example of the IQ drop.

We've got a freaking millenial ENGINEER who is only aware of only the "good" sides of electric vehicles, but none of the "well, that certainly doesn't work out so well" sides of the analysis.

You can't just say, "Well, we'll just put all the positive terms into the equation, and keep only the factors that are greater than one, and completely drop all the negative terms and any factors less than 1"

Engineering doesn't work that way.

You either analyze the entire thing, or you're no better than some moron who wasted 4 years getting a degree in Intersectional Afro-Asian Lesbian Moslem Literature. (studying both of the books and the lone poetry-journal submission (unpublished) in the field!)

Blogger James Dixon June 16, 2018 9:23 PM  

> That's because transmission is done at EXTREMELY high voltages with extremely low current (to cut down on resistance losses).

Yes. That's also the reason the quoted transmission losses are so low.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 1:51 PM  

@76

"
A light vehicle like a 2-wheeler, or something like a Twizy which weighs 450 kilos while keeping the driver dry and safe would be an excellent complement to a "real" car. In fact, for a single city dweller it would replace the car. Plus, it is much cheaper and easier to park."

I might drive one of those around the back yard... but on the streets, with large cars, and tractor-trailer trucks? Hell no! That thing's a goddamned death-trap if there ever was one.

There's a reason it's only sold in Europe, and not in the USA -- we have actual crash safety standards here, and I can guarantee you that thing won't pass.

(and for the idiotic -- and dishonestly named -- "SmartCar"... whoever signed off on the crash tests for that thing is either a plant, or took a HUUUUUUGE bribe")

Blogger Alphaeus June 17, 2018 3:06 PM  

" we have actual crash safety standards here"

Maybe our standards are costing too much. Maybe the most important piece of safety equipment is the empty space between our ears. If our safety standards were rational, they wouldn't allow bicycles or motorcyles because even wearing a helmet they are more dangerous than driving a normal car even without a seat belt.

What I mean is that you're safer in a smart car without wearing a seat belt than you are driving around at the same speeds on a motorcycle. That's part of the fun of the motorcycle as far as I'm concerned.

If some people want to drive tanks with composite safety armor and they can afford it let them. The rest of us poor people are willing to take our chances getting around as best we can and it's cheaper for us to use our eyes and ears and brains to stay alive than to pay for very expensive hardware.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about safety. I hate safety, when the word is being spewed by bureaucrats.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 4:48 PM  

@106

"As you note, city folks can use electric cars. They don't really need them, but they do solve a particular class of city life problems"

They also ADD to another particular class of problem -- lack of parking space, because you still have to keep your old ICE car for days when you're going to drive more than 20-30 miles OR you're going to have to pay out the nose for a rental (and there's going to be more precious city-space used by rental-car companies).

NO solution comes without tradeoffs.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 4:56 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 4:58 PM  

@100

" Improvements in battery and solar panel technology have been happening slowly but there has been a steady drop in price per watt over the decades."

1: There has not been even a 1 order-of-magnitude improvement in battery performance since 1820.

2: Assuming 100% conversion of sunlight into electricity, the absolute BEST you're going to get out of solar panels is around 30W/square foot (300W/m^2). That car travelling at cruising speed needing 24 kW to travel at 60 MPH needs roughly 8000 square feet (800 m^2) of straight-down sunlight with 100% conversion -- no reflection, no energy dissipated as heat.
What are you going to do, drive around with 8 families/worth of 1000 square-foot "ranch" style floor plans worth of solar panels behind you? Or, plaster your car with solar panels, and drive 1 hour every 5 days? You can't be serious.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 5:05 PM  

@109

"Oil companies would hate it, though. That's why it's not happening."

"Oil" Companies will sell ANYTHING that's used to generate power. They don't care if it comes out of the grown, or if you cut it down in a forest. If it's not part of their current assembly of subsidiary companies, and it becomes a major commodity, they will buy up the small players (and their expertise) just to get a piece of the action, and then leverage their larger capitalization to gain efficiencies of scale.

They really don't give a shit if it comes through a straw poked into the ground, or carried on the back of a truck from a flaming hole in Pennsylvania....all of the well-known "oil" companies are not so much in the oil business as they are in the ENERGY business. They will buy, markup, and sell ANY physical energy commodity that can be traded for a profit. These people are NOT working there so that they can ignore markets with huge markets.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 5:05 PM  

...huge markets with profits*

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 5:20 PM  

@145

>> we have actual crash safety standards here

> Maybe our standards are costing too much.

Ever met anyone who was injured in a car accident? Even those which don't produce bleeding can often have debilitating effects for years, even decades. Nerve damage is a thing.

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 17, 2018 5:44 PM  

Dirk Manly:

"It also wears faster, running while the parts are cold and out of spec."

Manufacturers and mechanics recommend driving off as soon as the engine has adequate lubrication. I thought this was common knowledge; I've certainly been reading it for decades.

In the Fusion non-plug-in hybrid the engine starts and runs at what sounds like fast idle as soon as the key is turned and stays on until warm, even when the transmission is in park. I'm assuming the engineers at Ford know what's good for their cars (I was one of them for a while). Warranty claims on engines tend to be expensive.

"Once you start working with high currents (like the 440 on the telephone pole coming out of the local substation), you HAVE to work in copper."

You haven't been in Home Depot's electrical department lately.  They sell a lot of aluminum wire for going from the pole to the meter, and meter to distribution panel. If your house was built in the last 20 years, that's probably what it's got. As I said, this stuff is closer (to you) than you think.

Speaking of substations, mine is about 4.5 miles away as the wire meanders. The distribution is at 13.2 kV 3-phase, but only one phase of that gets to my pole. That's 7600 V phase-to-ground. The pole pig converts that to 240 VAC split phase, which is what gets to my meter.

"if you want PRACTICAL, all-around, ONLY CAR IN THE FAMILY electric-vehicles, as opposed to a glorified golf cart, then you need 440 triphase to deliver the necessary amount of electrons into those batteries every night."

Would you say a Ford Fusion is "a glorified golf cart"?

If you're a crazy Californian who has to commute 250 miles a day to be able to afford a mortgage, you still wouldn't need 480 V charging; you'd go with something like an electric stove circuit at 240 V 50 A because the power company isn't going to run a dedicated circuit just for you and you'd still get 100 kWh in about 8 hours. This list of average commute distances puts Atlanta at the longest, at just 12.8 miles. If you assume that's one-way and the vehicle consumes 300 Wh/mile, you'd need just 960 watts over 8 hours to refill the battery. 18 ga lamp cord can handle that but nobody would wire with anything smaller than 14 ga.

"I have many days when I burn more than 1 gallon of fuel (most days, in fact)."

Well, fine.  If the first 20 miles of each leg didn't burn any fuel, how much would you save?  How about 30 miles?

"It is absolutely NOT a substitute for a primary, must-be-able-to-travel 300 miles in one day, stay overnight, and come back the next day."

I've done over 800 miles in a day in the Fusion, and still averaging 80% fuel savings over the conventional drivetrain. Most days I burn no fuel at all. Last summer my lawn equipment used more fuel than my car (and so did my PWC).

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 17, 2018 5:49 PM  

(continued)

"An all-electric vehicle can only handle 20 miles out, stay overnight, and 20 miles back."

The Tesla Model 3 is rated at 220 miles range, and the Chevy Bolt is rated 238 miles.

You realize that an increasing number of hotels have chargers, don't you? They're cropping up all over around me. I even saw one that wasn't free, but it was replaced by a free one. That would let you take your 220-mile EV, drive 150 miles to someplace, stay overnight and drive back the next day.

"And you know what, I'm ALWAYS going to beat you at this analysis, because I'm an engineer, too."

In reality, you get schooled over and over and post not one hyperlink in support of your claims. Facts trump analysis. This stuff is here and it works. 5 years from now you probably won't be able to buy a new vehicle that ISN'T at least partly electric, any more than you can buy leaded mogas at the corner. When your neighbor tells you how great it is to not have to pump gas every few days because he just plugs in the car when he hits the garage, you'll browse plug-ins when you hit the dealership. When you drive one you'll marvel at the quiet and never want anything else.

The only thing you won't be able to do is buy a car that makes the Jetsons car bweep-bweep-bweep noise when creeping on battery power, because Hanna-Barbera isn't going to license it. But you know people are going to make the safety noisemaker systems do that, and the tie fighter noise too, unless it's specifically outlawed. Hackers gonna hack.

"All of this talk about electric vehicles is silly"

Until you start talking about replacing petroleum with stuff that's cheaper, cleaner, more widely available and not subject to foreign embargoes, or can't take your fossil-burner into a city that's trying to clean up its air some more. You probably have to go a half-mile or more to get gasoline. I'll bet that there's electric power running within 20 feet of your home parking spot, and within 100 at work, the store, and most other places. You might not be able to plug into it (yet), but it's there.

"The reason why my total lack of enthusiasm for electric cars is because even getting rid of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics for electric vehicles, and ONLY electric vehicles, they still can never achieve range and performance beyond glorified golf carts."

Tesla P100D 0-60 in 2.28 sec. We really have to catch you up to this century.

"That's what's known among the common folk as a bald-faced lie."

It's what's known as common knowledge. Lithium-ion battery charge/discharge efficiency, 80-90%. Dunno why you don't bother looking things up, it's all right there.

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 17, 2018 5:51 PM  

(continued)

"I suggest you take a course in thermodynamics."

Why don't you? I have put a Kill-A-Watt on my home charger a few times, and get reports from ChargePoint when I'm taking power away from home. I know how much energy is going into my car. I also know approximately how much it takes to move the car. The numbers aren't all that different. On a leg with speed limits mostly 45-55 MPH it comes to about 270 Wh/mile at the socket. Figuring 75% battery and drivetrain efficiency that comes to about 200 Wh/mi at the motor shaft, or ~12 hp to cruise 45. Sound about right to you? Because if it's not, then the car is getting by on a lot less energy than these figures suggest... and ought to have truly ridiculous fuel economy at cruising speed on gas power. It's good but not THAT good.

You think batteries are like heat engines. They're not. As I cited above, 86% is firmly in the ballpark for Li-ion. You'd know this if you bothered to look.

"We've got a freaking millenial ENGINEER who is only aware of only the "good" sides of electric vehicles"

Millenial? HA! You are trying to get EVERYTHING wrong, aren't you? I watched live TV of men walking on the freakin' moon. I know the good stuff about electric vehicles because I've owned a plug-in for 5 years and can contrast my experience with half a million personal miles driving both gassers and diesels. I can also tell you what's bad about it (like lack of trunk space, which is already going away as car bodies are redesigned to accomodate batteries elsewhere).

You, OTOH, don't have this experience. You are repeating what passes for wisdom among your peers and on blogs like this one. It ain't what you don't know; it's what you know that ain't so... and that's nowhere more true than here & now. Supposedly it takes hearing a thing dozens to hundreds of times before it finally breaks through into consciousness. What I've written here counts as maybe 2-3, so your process of awakening will be just a little quicker. You can even take the credit as long as the necessary gets done.

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 17, 2018 5:54 PM  

James Dixon:

"That's because transmission is done at EXTREMELY high voltages with extremely low current (to cut down on resistance losses).

Yes. That's also the reason the quoted transmission losses are so low.
"

Good, you stipulate that they actually are that low. And I know what the distribution voltage is, because when a squirrel took out my power by immolating itself on the pole-pig and blowing the fuse, I asked the guy who came out to fix it.

7600 volts isn't EXTREMELY high; it's about 1/100 of the highest AC transmission voltages. OTOH you can transmit half a megawatt with only 66 amps of current. It's numbers like this that make it obvious why electricity does the heavy lifting in our industrial society, and will be doing it in transportation sooner than you think.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 5:11 AM  

"Manufacturers and mechanics recommend driving off as soon as the engine has adequate lubrication. I thought this was common knowledge; I've certainly been reading it for decades.

In the Fusion non-plug-in hybrid the engine starts and runs at what sounds like fast idle as soon as the key is turned and stays on until warm, even when the transmission is in park. I'm assuming the engineers at Ford know what's good for their cars (I was one of them for a while). Warranty claims on engines tend to be expensive."

Wow. You can't even seen the difference between what is being recommended, and what Ford is having their engine do in a vehicle that has to have the absolute highest reliability possible, to overcome consumer distrust of an unproven platform.

Manufacturer says: Don't warm up your engines before driving.
Ford engine control on hybrid: Warms up the engine in a no-load condition.

Are you SURE you're an engineer? Because you certainly don't seem to have the observation, logic, and critical thinking skills of anyone I've ever known who actually made it through engineering school.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 5:22 AM  

"Would you say a Ford Fusion is "a glorified golf cart"?"

You're moving the goalpoasts. We were talking about plug-in electrics. Now you're trying to count a hybrid with an ICE as an electric.

It's a hybrid. Hybrids have been pulling freight across this country since the 1930's, when the Navy wanted huge diesel engines in their subs, but GM wouldn't build them unless there was a larger market -- so the Navy went out to the railroad lines, and the engine manufacturers, and talked up the idea (Navy had been doing steam-turbine=>generator=>electric motor drive in some cruisers and battleships since the 1920.
The main reason was because steam turbines need to spin at thousands of RPM, while propellers in the water usually run around 50 RPM, +/- a couple dozen. This requires substantial "reduction gears" which reduce RPM (and increase torque)... but are loud, heavy, and contribute substantial effective rotational momentum to the screw shafts.

The idea of a hybrid is not controversial.
A plug-in with no ICE

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 5:23 AM  

"You haven't been in Home Depot's electrical department lately. They sell a lot of aluminum wire for going from the pole to the meter, and meter to distribution panel. If your house was built in the last 20 years, that's probably what it's got. As I said, this stuff is closer (to you) than you think."

That shit still isn't allowed in Michigan.
Too many burned down houses.
Too many dead people for no _good_ reason.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 5:29 AM  

@154

""I suggest you take a course in thermodynamics."

Why don't you? I have put a Kill-A-Watt on my home charger a few times, and get reports from ChargePoint when I'm taking power away from home. I know how much energy is going into my car. I also know approximately how much it takes to move the car. The numbers aren't all that different."

Kill-A-Watt only tells you how much power is going through the plug. It does NOT tell you how much of that power becomes charge in the battery, and how how much of that power is transformed into waste heat.

Clue for the clueless -- it's more substantial than you think, as explained earlier. Batteries have internal resistance. Charging voltage is constant. As you approach full charge, the voltage drop which is attributable to the electrolyte gets closer and closer to 0. Which means that the internal resistance of the battery becomes the dominant factor of the two components (electrolytic voltage, and resistance voltage) across the terminals. Which means you're generating a lot of waste heat.

This is INHERENT TO BATTERY TECHNOLOGY, and there's really no way of getting around it.

The first coulomb of charge put onto a dead battery is close to 0% loss by heat. The last coloumb of charge put battery as V(batt) approaches V(max) is at a cost of P(heat) approaches 100%.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 5:35 AM  

"You think batteries are like heat engines. They're not. As I cited above, 86% is firmly in the ballpark for Li-ion. You'd know this if you bothered to look."

And you seem to think that batteries are correctly modeled as ideal capacitors with no internal resistance and greater charge capacity per unit volume.

They're not. And they never will be.

Worse, EVERY SINGLE BATTERY CHEMISTRY has some serious deviation from the ideal battery model. NiCd's have "memory" issues if you repeatedly put them on a charger at or around the same level of discharge the majority of cycles.

Nickel Metal Hydride batteries suffer from extremely high rates of self-discharge, such that a fully charged NiMH battery will be fully discharged within several days, just sitting on the shelf.

Lead-Acid... suffers from "surface effect" such that they cannot produce high currents for sustained periods. This is why, if your car doesn't start the first or 2nd time in the winter, the best thing to do is go away for 5 minutes before trying again. Or if you foolishly keep trying, you might have to wait 30-60 minutes.

I can go on and on and on.

Batteries suck.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 5:44 AM  

"7600 volts isn't EXTREMELY high; it's about 1/100 of the highest AC transmission voltages. OTOH you can transmit half a megawatt with only 66 amps of current. It's numbers like this that make it obvious why electricity does the heavy lifting in our industrial society, and will be doing it in transportation sooner than you think."

The power company would run at even higher voltage than 7600 V, but doing so would guarantee arcing to ground.

the power companies ALWAYS run with the voltage level as high as they can get away with for the connections, support structur, and local discharge paths in the area, because higher voltages means lower currents, and lower currents mean lower distribution losses.

That being said, 7600 V inside a building is where you see the DANGER! DO NOT SCREW WITH THIS, OR EVEN OPEN THIS PANEL, IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM. I wouldn't open a 7600V panel inside a building without substantial protective equipment, even if you paid me. Money is no good when you're dead.

That being said, I can see using aluminum on the line to the pole outside your house:

1) If it burns up (which aluminum likes to do -- its burning temp is BELOW its melting temp), no big deal -- nobody is going to die.

2) To keep the aluminum wires from self-igniting, the solution is beefing up the wire diameter, giving both lower current density (and thus lower self-heating) and larger surface area to cool. This provides more strength, and lowers the amount of steel core needed to keep the wires from snapping in high winds. (And no, the steel core isn't carrying current).

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 5:49 AM  

"7600 volts isn't EXTREMELY high; it's about 1/100 of the highest AC transmission voltages. OTOH you can transmit half a megawatt with only 66 amps of current. It's numbers like this that make it obvious why electricity does the heavy lifting in our industrial society, and will be doing it in transportation sooner than you think."

The only reasonable use for electricity being the mainstay for propulsion in transportation is electrified railroads and trams.

Anything else is pie-in-the-sky idiocy, that only someone educated beyond their intellectual capability, SJWs, and fantasists can think are reasonable.

Why?

Because physics and thermodynamics don't give a shit about your preferences and desires for the abolition of hydrocarbon fuels, and people in this country cannot live within the ranges offered by battery-powered vehicles with no ICE.

And 230 mile range in never-freezing, never oppressively hot and humid California translates to less than 100 mile range in substantial parts of the country which are
1) rediculously hot and muggy in the summer (AC load is no joke)
and
B) ridiculously cold in the winter (heat comes FOR FREE with an ICE -- it's a range-reducer when all you have is a battery)

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 6:03 AM  

"You, OTOH, don't have this experience. You are repeating what passes for wisdom among your peers and on blogs like this one. It ain't what you don't know; it's what you know that ain't so... and that's nowhere more true than here & now. Supposedly it takes hearing a thing dozens to hundreds of times before it finally breaks through into consciousness. What I've written here counts as maybe 2-3, so your process of awakening will be just a little quicker. You can even take the credit as long as the necessary gets done."

I've been an engineer for 35 years.
I've looked at this thing since the 1990's when I was working at the General Motors Tech Center in Warren Michigan and they were playing with the Volt, and already talking about pure electrics (as if there is absolutely NO memory of the dismal failures that Detroit Electric, and half a dozen other electric carmakers were in the 1920s).

NONE of the technical issues which caused Detroit Electric to fail have been solved. NONE.

Solving the problem would mean a 3 magnitudes or better increase in the capabilities of batteries.

Charging rate
Volume/Charge density
Weight/Charge density

A 20% (k= 1.2) improvement doesn't mean diddly squat when what is needed is a k=1000 improvement.

Since the discovery of the "voltaic pile" in the early 100's, the performance improvement per unit (i.e. kWH/kg, kWH/m^3, recharge rate / discharge rate) has not improved by even 1 order of magnitude.

in 200 years.

Heat engines have gone from about 0.5% efficiency to 35+% in less time.

The fact is, all of the relevant electronegativity spreads between chemicals are in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 volts. There is NO ROOM TO MOVE UP, we are already 05% of the way towards the ceiling.
Getting 2% more of 95% isn't going to change the world, and isn't going to make your glorified golf-carts into the primary vehicle for millions of people who have MORE TO DO THAN JUST GO TO WORK, COME BACK HOME, AND SIT AROUND IN THEIR LIVING ROOM IN FRONT OF THE BOOB TUBE ALL NIGHT BEFORE GOING TO BED.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 18, 2018 6:05 AM  

" we are already 05% of the way BENEATH* the ceiling."

Blogger James Dixon June 18, 2018 9:06 AM  

> NO solution comes without tradeoffs.

Agreed.

> You haven't been in Home Depot's electrical department lately. They sell a lot of aluminum wire for going from the pole to the meter, and meter to distribution panel.

And that's where it stops. Everything past the breaker box is copper. As noted early, we tried aluminum in homes in the 70's and got a lot of burnt down homes.

> Would you say a Ford Fusion is "a glorified golf cart"?

The Fusion is a hybrid, not an electric car. I drive my Prius C over 600 miles a day on trips several times a year. I couldn't do that with a Tesla.

> Well, fine. If the first 20 miles of each leg didn't burn any fuel, how much would you save? How about 30 miles?

The improvement in gas mileage from the Toyota Yaris to the Toyota Prius C is roughly 35mpg to 50mpg. It's good, but it's not overwhelming.

> I've done over 800 miles in a day in the Fusion, and still averaging 80% fuel savings over the conventional drivetrain.

As I note above, for comparable vehicles, it's more like a 60% improvement. And that's in good weather. The mileage drops considerably as the temperature drops. In really cold weather I've seen it drop to under 40mpg.

> Good, you stipulate that they actually are that low.

Not exactly. I acknowledge that the official figures contradict what I was taught as a youngster and that they say they're that low. I approach all government figures with a degree of skepticism.

> Tesla P100D 0-60 in 2.28 sec. We really have to catch you up to this century.

We discussed that above. When will we see a Tesla in the Daytona 500? I think we all know the answer to that question.

> To keep the aluminum wires from self-igniting, the solution is beefing up the wire diameter, giving both lower current density (and thus lower self-heating) and larger surface area to cool.

Thus stranded wire. Which is used in even larger copper sizes.

> I wouldn't open a 7600V panel inside a building without substantial protective equipment

My memory is telling me the arcing voltage for normal relatively dry air is in the range of 10KV/cm. Don't take that as gospel. I'm not going to take time to look it up now. So a 7.6KV panel is "probably" safe to open. Just don't get any part of your body too close to any of the conductive surfaces.

> That shit still isn't allowed in Michigan.

I don't think it's allowed anywhere in the US. I know the NEC specified copper wiring inside the home the last time I checked.

Blogger Engineer-Poet June 18, 2018 4:58 PM  

Dirk Manly:

"Wow. You can't even seen the difference between what is being recommended, and what Ford is having their engine do in a vehicle that has to have the absolute highest reliability possible, to overcome consumer distrust of an unproven platform.

Manufacturer says: Don't warm up your engines before driving.
Ford engine control on hybrid: Warms up the engine in a no-load condition.
"

This is where your understanding fails: it's NOT in a no-load condition.  It has MG1 (motor-generator 1) as a load even if the transmission is in park, and if the traction battery isn't at the top of its charge window it has someplace to save MG1's output. Rather than running without load at 750 RPM idle, it's going faster and lightly loaded for warmup—exactly what the mfgr calls for drivers to do, but under much finer control. (Also important for fuel economy; fast idle is wasteful of fuel, but if the car can squirrel away the power then it isn't being wasted.)

One of the things I do on occasion is take comments and make blog posts out of them. This thread has been quite productive in that respect, so the post is unusually long.  Because this is all OT for this blog, I've truncated the bulk of my reply here.

Dirk, my full reply to you starts here. Please feel free to show up and speak your piece.

James, if you want to skip over my reply to Dirk, my reply to you starts here. You're also welcome there.

And with that, I'm out of this thread. Thanks for giving me a window into what other people are thinking and saying, even if I haven't been able to change it... yet.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts