RichardSIA said:"Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn’s moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called ‘fossil fuels’) are seemingly plentiful in our solar system.
Hmm, wonder if we can convince Elon to go bring some back for us...
RichardSIA said:Despite lengthy search I did not relocate the old article regarding specific oil wells recharging.
No real surprise as the 'Web generates so many new articles daily that items from a couple of years ago get pushed down hundreds of pages.But I did come across these, interesting as it seems the "Fossil" in Fossil Fuel may be a misnomer.
"Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn’s moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called ‘fossil fuels’) are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation".
https://principia-scientific.com/swedish-scientists-geologists-fossil-fuel-theory-busted/
https://principia-scientific.com/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/
https://rense.com/politics6/replent.htm
https://www.desmog.com/principia-scientific-international/
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organisation based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. [1]
PSI claims it provides its members with a “reliable port of call to ascertain the facts behind the news stories to better judge whether information being presented by third parties is accurate information and reflects a balanced view of all facets of the subject.” [2]
The PSI website says the organisation is “for everyone who supports the traditions [sic] scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded ‘post normal science’.”
That's a tin hat wearing website.
And rense.com! That's hilarious. They have "articles" about ghosts and chemtrails and other amazingly real things.
In current news, Hyundai goes All In on EV bet!
Expect there are now a lot of unemployed ICE engineers looking for work.
"Go to college, take on loads of debt, get a degree, get a job at a big car company, assure your future", maybe not.
The next ten years or less should settle all of this.
Just hope the EV dream collapse does not affect unrelated industry too badly, but I expect it will. May be worse than the "Housing bubble".
As to article sources and apparent 'Net scrubbing.
I need to find out how to escape "The algorithm" for open and unbiased/controlled results.
"Desmog", yah, NO bias there! One of the sites too extreme to allow me to get to the bottom of the page.
More current news, with GM having taken an 11% share!
Nikola Motors, just another EV company?
In reply to RichardSIA :
ICE engineers can do more than one thing. It isn't like they go to school, learn how to do the metallurgy on a piston ring, and that is their career for 40 years. They can transfer to other departments. They probably came from other departments to begin with, really.
Richard, I can't even tell if you're serious anymore. There are so many insane things you're posting about, and I can't be bothered to refute them all. Were you equally upset about seat belts, airbags, radial tires, fuel injection, 12V batteries? Everything you've posted could be applied to any of those as well.
If I were an ICE engine engineer passionate about my work EV would not interest me.
I might sigh and continue in the short term, but would update my resume and begin looking elsewhere.
In reply to RichardSIA :
Then pack your engineering degree and move to India or China where they have no pollution regulations and build anything and everything they can just to get mobility to the masses.
Oh wait, you're not an engineer. So shut the berkeley up, go back to your tree house, and yell at the clouds that might actually care.
You do post awfully fast for someone that hasn't left the Telegraph era.
I am making an effort to not rely on very old articles.
The bias of search results is plain, deny it if you wish.
I got rid of my last computer controlled FI car months ago, nothing I own has 'air-bags' (Sodium Azide propellant).
RevRico said:In reply to RichardSIA :
Then pack your engineering degree and move to India or China where they have no pollution regulations and build anything and everything they can just to get mobility to the masses.
Oh wait, you're not an engineer. So shut the berkeley up, go back to your tree house, and yell at the clouds that might actually care.
You do post awfully fast for someone that hasn't left the Telegraph era.
You information appears to be out of date.
China has another new "Five year plan" where they are suddenly among the climate/emissions zealots going all-in on EV's.
Not a bright future for ICE engineers there.
Some of yall are name calling and just being mean at this point.
Please, let's not go down this path.
I have actually learned some stuff from this discussion, so it's not all bad. It made me go do some research and question some of my "facts".
wvumtnbkr said:I have actually learned some stuff from this discussion, so it's not all bad. It made me go do some research and question some of my "facts".
Now if Richard would start doing that (and stop being a Richard Cranium), maybe we'd stop being mean. But the fact is, he starts out by being insulting and closed minded so I have little desire to be nice about it anymore.
RichardSIA said:If I were an ICE engine engineer passionate about my work EV would not interest me.
I might sigh and continue in the short term, but would update my resume and begin looking elsewhere.
I feel like you're confused about the level of passion involved. If there's anyone out there left that's truly passionate about their jobs, it's the EV engineers. To basically everyone else it's "a job" and if it went away they'd find another one. And there's plenty of them out there. There's still like...the rest of the car that needs to be designed. Not to mention that there's other industries than automotive. The UTV/side by side market is blowing up at the moment, for one.
I feel at risk posting here...
I don't like electric cars. They are extremely expensive, hard to use, and generally boring. Sure, they can be fast, but aren't very "interesting".
With that said, if someone wants an electric or hybrid, go ahead, buy whatever you want. Do whatever you want with it. Just don't tell me I'm terrible because I don't want one.
The various "no sale of new ICE after x date" does worry me. I forsee gas taxes and other fees rapidly increasing to "encourage" people to drive electric. This will leave lower income folks (like most of us here) in a tight spot for transportation.
In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
I'm assuming you haven't spent any time actually driving an electric. "Hard to use" is pretty much exactly wrong. And "expensive" doesn't calculate out either when you look at total cost of ownership. Boring, well , that's just your opinion man :)
Gas fees have been struggling to pay for infrastructure for years, and as cars get more efficient the problem gets worse. So I would plan on increased gas fees regardless of what other options pop up. We have to pay for our roads and bridges somehow, and the cost of asphalt is tied to the cost of oil.
RichardSIA said:RevRico said:In reply to RichardSIA :
Then pack your engineering degree and move to India or China where they have no pollution regulations and build anything and everything they can just to get mobility to the masses.
Oh wait, you're not an engineer. So shut the berkeley up, go back to your tree house, and yell at the clouds that might actually care.
You do post awfully fast for someone that hasn't left the Telegraph era.
You information appears to be out of date.
China has another new "Five year plan" where they are suddenly among the climate/emissions zealots going all-in on EV's.
Not a bright future for ICE engineers there.
The stupid thing is, 20-30 years ago when they were ramping up their infrastructure, everybody with an opinion was advising them to build up with renewable-centric power grid and infrastructure (including EV development) so they would not have to do it twice.
Now, they are doing it twice...
Keith Tanner said:In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
I'm assuming you haven't spent any time actually driving an electric. "Hard to use" is pretty much exactly wrong. And "expensive" doesn't calculate out either when you look at total cost of ownership. Boring, well , that's just your opinion man :)
Gas fees have been struggling to pay for infrastructure for years, and as cars get more efficient the problem gets worse. So I would plan on increased gas fees regardless of what other options pop up. We have to pay for our roads and bridges somehow, and the cost of asphalt is tied to the cost of oil.
In some places there are extra reg fees for electrics to help cover the loss of gas taxes. I would expect this to expand. It makes sense, have to pay for roads somehow.
Yes I have driven an electric car, a Model 3. Found it hard to "feel" what the car was doing sense there is so little feedback from the chassis and power train. Plus everything required you to access the center screen, acroll though menus and totally take you're you're eyes off the road. Granted most new cars are like this, no more simple buttons and switches.
I guess pricing/cost is a reflection of income. I could never afford a $30,000 + car much less a $10,000 repair bill for a new battery.
I'm curious to see what good used batteries will go for out of wrecks.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Have gas fees really had trouble keeping up with infrastructure? We have a pretty murky definition of infrastructure nowadays and I assume here we are talking more about roads. I think average gas tax is about 30 cents a gallon and the US consumes about 150 billion gallons a year. So thats about 40 billion in revenue, and its only one revenue stream meant to pay for infrastructure, what about registrations, inspections, gas guzzler tax, and tolls. Last thing I read said in infrastructure we use 50-60% on capital expenditures and very little on maintenance.
So is it really we have a revenue problem or will we just always spend more than we take in and say "oh we need a new tax because we cant afford infrastructure"
Not trying to start a debate or anything just saying that I wouldnt tie an increase in gas fees to an increase in fuel economy, I would tie an increase in gas fees to thats just they way the government rolls. They are already talking about a use tax based on mileage.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:I feel at risk posting here...
I don't like electric cars. They are extremely expensive, hard to use, and generally boring. Sure, they can be fast, but aren't very "interesting".
What's "expensive" to you? My Bolt was $25k new. That compares favorably to the GTIs and MINI Coopers it competes with in the ICE world. Used EVs can be had for $10-15k for decent ones (though right now the entire used market for cars is crazy, EVs included). It's as fun to drive as any Golf or similarly priced MINI I've driven lately. Punching it out of corners or through traffic is giggle inducing as there is NO delay to the throttle application. Not quite as fun as my MINI JCW Roadster, but that's mostly due to the JCW's better suspension and being a convertible for me. The Bolt is quicker, but would benefit from the Eibach Pro Kit springs and good tires (as I've said many times, the stock low rolling resistance, eco-friendly tires SUCK). And hard to use? Are you serious? The Bolt is definitely easier to use than my MINI. Better infotainment, simpler controls, etc. What exactly do you consider "hard to use?" Charging it for me is a 10 second affair. 5 seconds when I get home to plug it in, and 5 more seconds to unplug in the morning when I leave. Don't even have to really think about it. And if for some odd reason I forget to plug it in, it texts me to remind me.
Yes, it takes longer on the road to charge. But not THAT much longer. Maybe 20 minutes longer on what might be an 8 hour drive. But the fact is, most people don't take road trips more than once a month, if that. In day to day use, you'll find it easier to use than an ICE car, as you don't have to drive somewhere to get refueled.
With that said, if someone wants an electric or hybrid, go ahead, buy whatever you want. Do whatever you want with it. Just don't tell me I'm terrible because I don't want one.
No one is saying you or anyone is terrible for not wanting one. We say people are terrible when they spread misinformation, and non-factual statements to justify why they don't want one, or insult owners for being EVangelists, EV Jihadists, or "fanboys" for responding to misinformation and lies with facts and, most importantly, experience.
There's a wide variety of EVs out there, from the Bolt to the top Teslas. As I always say, get some real world experience with a variety of them before making up your mind about them.
Opti said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
Have gas fees really had trouble keeping up with infrastructure? We have a pretty murky definition of infrastructure nowadays and I assume here we are talking more about roads. I think average gas tax is about 30 cents a gallon and the US consumes about 150 billion gallons a year. So thats about 40 billion in revenue, and its only one revenue stream meant to pay for infrastructure, what about registrations, inspections, gas guzzler tax, and tolls. Last thing I read said in infrastructure we use 50-60% on capital expenditures and very little on maintenance.
So is it really we have a revenue problem or will we just always spend more than we take in and say "oh we need a new tax because we cant afford infrastructure"
Not trying to start a debate or anything just saying that I wouldnt tie an increase in gas fees to an increase in fuel economy, I would tie an increase in gas fees to thats just they way the government rolls. They are already talking about a use tax based on mileage.
Well, the state I'm most familiar with is Colorado and I'm married to someone who works in heavy highway construction so I am kept very aware of funding for transport infrastructure (roads/bridges/tunnels) - but in our state, yes. The gas tax is a flat 22c/gallon and has been the same since 1991. Inflation alone has halved the spending power of that 22 cents, and with the average fuel economy of the fleet improving cars are using less fuel. So yes, in our case it's a real problem. CDOT is hoping we go to a mileage-based used tax as well, but I can see some real challenges in implementation.
Colorado EVs are charged an extra $50/year at registration time to cover the shortfall. That's the equivalent gas tax to a 40 mpg vehicle that covers 9000 miles. A number of other states have similar surcharges.
Some European cities have added daily surchares to encourage people to use public tranport. IIRC they're highest for diesel vehicles and lowest/zero for electric due to the emissions involved. This will encourage - but not require - the use of electric vehicles, but it's also dependent on there being a realistic public transport system. That's a WHOLE other can of worms :)
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Keith Tanner said:In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
I'm assuming you haven't spent any time actually driving an electric. "Hard to use" is pretty much exactly wrong. And "expensive" doesn't calculate out either when you look at total cost of ownership. Boring, well , that's just your opinion man :)
Gas fees have been struggling to pay for infrastructure for years, and as cars get more efficient the problem gets worse. So I would plan on increased gas fees regardless of what other options pop up. We have to pay for our roads and bridges somehow, and the cost of asphalt is tied to the cost of oil.
In some places there are extra reg fees for electrics to help cover the loss of gas taxes. I would expect this to expand. It makes sense, have to pay for roads somehow.
Yes I have driven an electric car, a Model 3. Found it hard to "feel" what the car was doing sense there is so little feedback from the chassis and power train. Plus everything required you to access the center screen, acroll though menus and totally take you're you're eyes off the road. Granted most new cars are like this, no more simple buttons and switches.
I guess pricing/cost is a reflection of income. I could never afford a $30,000 + car much less a $10,000 repair bill for a new battery.
I'm curious to see what good used batteries will go for out of wrecks.
There are complete salvage batteries and there's also the ability to repair batteries that have bad cells. The lifespan of a temperature-controlled battery (ie, not a Leaf) is looking to be at least as long as the functional lifespan of a gasoline engine. Ignore the attention-seeking YouTuber who decided to go for clicks instead of spending $5k to fix his used car, that battery probably could have been fixed. You could write that same thing about a weird Mercedes minivan with a gas engine.
You don't need to spend $30k on an electric. The Bolt is quite a bit less than that in the real world. And again, <b>total cost of ownership</b>. If you're saving money every month on fuel and maintenance - which has been shown to be the case over and over - then you can afford to spend more up front. This is the biggest change in mindset people have to make with electrics. It's like the difference between buying a reliable $10,000 car and an unreliable $5000 car that requires $400 in work every couple of months. After a couple of years, that $10,000 car is less expensive.
The interface is a totally different thing from the mode of propulsion. The Teslas are different, but that's not tied to the fact that they run on batteries. After a few years of experience, I would happily point out how little you actually interact with that screen while driving as there are 10 controls on the steering wheel (similar to my 10 year old Dodge pickup and our 20 year old Grand Cherokee) plus the usual wiper stalks. But don't extend your unfamiliarity with that interface as "electric cars are hard to use". What you're really saying is "this one car is weird and I didn't like it".
I'm not saying you have to get an EV or that all ICE vehicles are obsolete and have to be replaced or outlawed. Just trying to address some misperceptions here.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Out of intellectual curiosity, since you probably have better access to the figures. Per-gallon revenue has effectively decreased. Fuel tax is a per gallon and not per dollar tax, so it doesn't track against oil prices, which are going to affect road construction costs given that we pave our roads with crude oil products.
I guess my question, or ponder, is: Fuel economy goes up, but so does total miles driven as the number of drivers increases. Where is the balance point in that? Do the higher miles overshadow the reduced road wear from smaller cars, or is all of that overshadowed by the need for new or wider roads to accommodate the greater number of drivers?
My gut instinct says that the need for road works outstrips the increases in pure numbers (even before taking inflation into account) but without data, I'm just a guy with a gut feeling.
It's a good question. Basically, how much of that maintenance is time-based versus usage-based? Does doubling the number of cars on the road double the need for infrastructure spending? I suspect it's a little of both - weather does a lot of road damage, and that's going to happen regardless. Heck, snow removal is a big chunk of CDOT's budget. That big mudslide in Glenwood Canyon was going to happen no matter what. So that's time-based.
Then there's new road construction to deal with increased traffic, that's clearly usage-based. Some wear is also usage-based, like the way a pothole gets opened up a little more every time someone hits it. A lot of roadwork in our area is dealing with soils that aren't very stable, and a lot of traffic causes ruts.
I'll see what I can find out, Janel might have some sort of figures on that.
Keith Tanner said:Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Keith Tanner said:In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
I'm assuming you haven't spent any time actually driving an electric. "Hard to use" is pretty much exactly wrong. And "expensive" doesn't calculate out either when you look at total cost of ownership. Boring, well , that's just your opinion man :)
Gas fees have been struggling to pay for infrastructure for years, and as cars get more efficient the problem gets worse. So I would plan on increased gas fees regardless of what other options pop up. We have to pay for our roads and bridges somehow, and the cost of asphalt is tied to the cost of oil.
In some places there are extra reg fees for electrics to help cover the loss of gas taxes. I would expect this to expand. It makes sense, have to pay for roads somehow.
Yes I have driven an electric car, a Model 3. Found it hard to "feel" what the car was doing sense there is so little feedback from the chassis and power train. Plus everything required you to access the center screen, acroll though menus and totally take you're you're eyes off the road. Granted most new cars are like this, no more simple buttons and switches.
I guess pricing/cost is a reflection of income. I could never afford a $30,000 + car much less a $10,000 repair bill for a new battery.
I'm curious to see what good used batteries will go for out of wrecks.
There are complete salvage batteries and there's also the ability to repair batteries that have bad cells. The lifespan of a temperature-controlled battery (ie, not a Leaf) is looking to be at least as long as the functional lifespan of a gasoline engine. Ignore the attention-seeking YouTuber who decided to go for clicks instead of spending $5k to fix his used car, that battery probably could have been fixed. You could write that same thing about a weird Mercedes minivan with a gas engine.
You don't need to spend $30k on an electric. The Bolt is quite a bit less than that in the real world. And again, <b>total cost of ownership</b>. If you're saving money every month on fuel and maintenance - which has been shown to be the case over and over - then you can afford to spend more up front. This is the biggest change in mindset people have to make with electrics. It's like the difference between buying a reliable $10,000 car and an unreliable $5000 car that requires $400 in work every couple of months. After a couple of years, that $10,000 car is less expensive.
The interface is a totally different thing from the mode of propulsion. The Teslas are different, but that's not tied to the fact that they run on batteries. After a few years of experience, I would happily point out how little you actually interact with that screen while driving as there are 10 controls on the steering wheel (similar to my 10 year old Dodge pickup and our 20 year old Grand Cherokee) plus the usual wiper stalks. But don't extend your unfamiliarity with that interface as "electric cars are hard to use". What you're really saying is "this one car is weird and I didn't like it".
I'm not saying you have to get an EV or that all ICE vehicles are obsolete and have to be replaced or outlawed. Just trying to address some misperceptions here.
Yes this. I bought my Bolt from Carvana (not a screaming deal) with something like 5K miles for $26K. My fuel costs are something like $0.02 per mile, and there basically will never be any maintenance costs other than tires.
I don't like Teslas either, so I bought a Bolt. If you don't want that, you can buy a Hyundai or Kia or Nissan or any one of a number of others which are pretty much regular cars in their use, other than you never have to touch the brake pedal and it never shifts.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Keith Tanner said:In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
I'm assuming you haven't spent any time actually driving an electric. "Hard to use" is pretty much exactly wrong. And "expensive" doesn't calculate out either when you look at total cost of ownership. Boring, well , that's just your opinion man :)
Gas fees have been struggling to pay for infrastructure for years, and as cars get more efficient the problem gets worse. So I would plan on increased gas fees regardless of what other options pop up. We have to pay for our roads and bridges somehow, and the cost of asphalt is tied to the cost of oil.
In some places there are extra reg fees for electrics to help cover the loss of gas taxes. I would expect this to expand. It makes sense, have to pay for roads somehow.
Yes I have driven an electric car, a Model 3. Found it hard to "feel" what the car was doing sense there is so little feedback from the chassis and power train. Plus everything required you to access the center screen, acroll though menus and totally take you're you're eyes off the road. Granted most new cars are like this, no more simple buttons and switches.
I guess pricing/cost is a reflection of income. I could never afford a $30,000 + car much less a $10,000 repair bill for a new battery.
I'm curious to see what good used batteries will go for out of wrecks.
The average new car (of which the majority are still ice) purchase price is quickly approaching $50k. So $30k for an ev would be well below average. Most EVs have extra long battery warranties and realistically the odds of one failing are about on par with an ice engine failure which, in a lot of cases, costs a lot more than $10k to replace.
You'll need to log in to post.
