Posted on 12/21/2020 4:15:45 PM PST by george76
Toyota makes a lot of cars, so many that it’s the world’s largest or second-largest auto manufacturer every year.
...
So Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda’s comments at the company’s year-end press conference deserve notice and no little amount of respect. He knows more about cars and their economic ecosystem than just about anyone else on the planet.
...
“The more EVs we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets… When politicians are out there saying, ‘Let’s get rid of all cars using gasoline,’ do they understand this?”
...
failure to count the cost of what politicians are proposing. More EVs will demand more electricity.
Toyoda is getting at two things. One, EVs are not powered by magical unicorn emissions, they are powered by the means we use to generate electricity. In the Japan, the United States, and everywhere else
...
Wind is not economically competitive yet, so it’s subsidized by the government. Neither wind nor solar are cheap or reliable enough yet to displace oil and especially natural gas in our grid. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Oil and natural gas always burn.
...
The second issue Toyoda is getting at is that petroleum isn’t just a fuel, it’s the foundation of thousands upon thousands of products we rely on every day. Cars alone have plastic and other petroleum-based parts throughout their systems and interiors. There is as of yet no reliable or economical replacement for the petroleum used to manufacture those parts
...
Perhaps two of the world’s leading car experts should be listened to before Tokyo, Washington, or any other capital follows California’s lead and bans gas cars without considering the ripple effects.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
You see.... snark.
No numbers.
At what point in time is it proper to match snark for snark when someone acts as much of an arrogant elitist pasquinade?
You generate the pretense that you are as high a quality researcher as Arata or Pons or Fleischmann or Schwinger or even the team currently assembled at Google.
No one has ever heard of you, no one cares. Buzz off until you can produce numbers.
#90,#91, #109. All three before, and noticeable enough t0 be commented on for their snark.
You didnot post numbers before you posted snark.
“#90”
Not my post. Your posts here have the same credibility as your cold fusion posts.
You refuse to acknowledge my numbers so off with you.
Then you are not familiar with one of the most eminent people in the field at the time. And yet you put yourself in the position to show disdain for his intellect, or the intellect of Schwinger the Nuke Phyiscs Nobel prize winner, or dozens of other solid researchers.
You got a nobel prize in your back pocket? I didn’t think so.
“You got a nobel prize in your back pocket? I didn’t think so.”
No. But I have 40 years experience operating, testing, constructing nuclear power plants.
More than your cold fusion dude.
A) You don’t deny post #91 was yours and was removed probably for the snark you constantly produce before you get into numbers.
B) Prove #90 was not yours.
Either way, #91 is before #135. #109 is before #135. Your own credibility is in question. Surely you acknowledge that #91 (unchallenged) and 109 (unchallenged) are before #135? Or are you trying to push New Math or Common Core Baloney onto us?
You’re here to spread more heat than light.
My cold fusion dude had 60 years of experience by the time he died.
You have no credibility. You’re only here to generate invective. You may have operated fission plants, tested them, or constructed them but you OBVIOUSLY did not design them.
That was the joke!
The issue isn’t whether you posted numbers before I asked , it is whether you posted snark before you posted numbers.
91 comes before 135. 109 comes before 135. Surely you don’t dispute this.
What does it take to get you to treat freepers and subjects with respect? You seem to be here to stir up negative hurtful feelings, to generate more heat than light.
Electricity diminishes as it travels. The point was that it takes a remarkably small area of land compared to what people presume.
LOL! :-D
Good one!!!
But the costs related to infrastructure do not seem to be negligible: changes required to support the sheer proposed volume of vehicles on the grid; the electricity generation capacity too.
So, while it would seem like your calculations point to similar efficiency characteristics (maybe), yet the infrastructure, the flexibility & better range of the internal combustion engine vehicles and also the safety characteristics (for example, Lithium batteries seem to have a combustion problem using current approaches; more so than gasoline tanks) still seem to be heavily in favor of the status quo.
Side issue: once there’s a maintenance issue with the EV batteries, it’s EXTREMELY expensive to fix. EVs cost more than the ICE.
“So, while it would seem like your calculations point to similar efficiency characteristics (maybe),”
As I said before, I used the his numbers only to show how his logic was wrong. It was not intended to be an analysis.
His ‘analysis’ has other errors.
” also the safety characteristics (for example, Lithium batteries seem to have a combustion problem using current approaches; more so than gasoline tanks) still seem to be heavily in favor of the status quo.”
You are mistaken. Gas cars have a higher rate of self-combustion with worse consequences.
“Washington is 60% non-fossil.”
That may be fine, but we are talking about electrifying the cars. I just tossed in the other for information about how far out the people are getting trying to go all out.
Currently there are over 3 million cars in the state and about 45 thousand are electric. Washington State has a goal of registering 50,000 plug-in electric vehicles by 2020, not an enthusiastic increase.
There are currently 853 charging stations with 2320 total outlets, an average of 2.71 per station.
Then there’s the time and expense involved. Rapid chargers are the fastest way to charge your electric vehicle, providing between 60-200 miles of range in 20-30 minutes. Home charging points typically have a power rating of 3.7kW or 7kW (22kW charge points require three phase power, which is very rare and expensive to install). Most people don’t have 30 minutes to fill a car for 200 miles, when you can fill a gasoline auto in about 5 minutes.
Since they have, and can’t really increase outlets cost effective, it is going to put a lot of pressure on the car owner to have a station at home. In most cases, it can cost anywhere from $10,000-$30,000 to hook up to nearby utilities. Again, the cost will be dependent on your location and proximity to utility connections. It requires a three phase utility pole. There are not many three phase poles in Washington as few use it, basically commercial. Furthermore, it will cost monthly an additional $35+ added to your normal bill.
The state will provide just enough stations to make it look like they are serious when they are going to put the main toll on the car owners. And to make that money for the state, they will be charging prime costs for that 30 minute, or 200 mile, action. Pretty high.
wy69
Most people don’t drive 73,000 miles a year! Most can just hook it up to your 120/240 each night and it stays charged.
“The state will provide just enough stations to make it look like they are serious when they are going to put the main toll on the car owners. And to make that money for the state, they will be charging prime costs for that 30 minute, or 200 mile, action. Pretty high.”
Does the state put in gas stations? NOPE!
“or 200 mile, action”
Using off-peak rates, that 200 miles would cost you $5. The gas car at 25 mpg would cost $20!
“Side issue: once there’s a maintenance issue with the EV batteries, it’s EXTREMELY expensive to fix. EVs cost more than the ICE.”
The motors are virtually maintenance free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.