He says "EV isn't the solution because ICE isn't the problem". They aren't mutually exclusive. Each has its +/-. In the frigid North, solar panels get covered with snow and there are few hours of sunlight to begin with. Batteries are compromised by cold and heating a car with the battery is a bust. Win for ICE.

What is the motivation for EV? The video proves the "green" argument is crap. I've heard of battery recycling but batteries and their chemistry are changing. Solar panels and wind mills aren't recycled.

Li-ion batteries only use Li for internal charge balance. The electrodes are good ol' nickel, copper, cobalt, etc. What's the availability of these metals and how will price change as major economies attempt to go EV?

When, in your entire life, did you ever see someone say "It can't be done," and then that person turned out to be correct? "It can't be done" has been said many times, and it has never, ever been true.

And yet, inexplicably, "It can't be done" remains a popular phrase. I guess people just enjoy dissing things. Like.....infrastructure and government.

EVs.

As usual government intervention probably mucks up their adoption --they are not obviously the answer to climate or environmental issues if and of themselves.
1. Range is an issue --they make sense for many commuters. For longer trips not so much.
Clear need for much greater development of the charging structure.
2. High cost ---much of the market is not able to afford them --- true price may come down but...
3. Availability of raw material for battery production. Longer term what to do with :dead batteries:.
4.Environmental impact of sourcing battery raw material and geo -politics of the source countries. America is resistent to mining - and as things like Venezuela show-seems willing to export the environmental impacts of resource acquisition.

Like everything --there is no free lunch-and no quick and easy fix. The Lack of a comprehensive -sane approach in the US energy policy points to a bigger issue. Dangerously close to Parfing here --sorry

Good thoughts Steve.

The Chinese have an autocracy, we have eminent domain and government regulation. Ultimately the same thing. But you would have to show that Chinese business and population as a whole are against electrification and charging stations. The fact is the Chinese nation as a whole is very forward thinking, much more so than the U.S.

For China’s Auto Market, Electric Isn’t the Future. It’s the Present.

More electric cars will be sold in the country this year than in the rest of the world combined, as its domestic market accelerates ahead of the global competition.


China's electric car market is booming but can it last?


China Is Racing to Electrify Its Future




Sorry, that was meant as sarcasm designed to show people don't change even when life and death is on the line. I'm not a fan of green font.




Here I was trying to compare two constructs and which would be easier to achieve:

1. A nation of charging stations
2. Creating many does bespoke mass transit system

His point of view is it's too hard to create a national charging station infrastructure. My point of view is the alternative, creating efficient mass transit systems across the U.S. is many time more difficult. 100 times? At least.




He doesn't really have a point other than people should change to use less energy which is what I thought was so funny vis-à-vis covid and mask wearing, etc. And this applies to Americans more than any other nationality. He jumps around with false analysis and comparisons and projections to arrive at nothing more than humans will do what they do with no thought to the planet or other people, etc. But that's the whole foundation of the green movement, do what you can to use less.

I have friends in the Shanghai area, the waiting list to license an ICE vehicle is over 1 year and costs a staggering amount of money. However, to license an EV is almost immediate and free.
This may have something to do with it...

I'll ask my friend in Shanghai now and see what he says.

Email sent, looking forward to seeing what he says.

This may be going PARF. Your example of mask wearing as proof of peoples willingness to compromise is not valid - that's a pittance. People have to be dragged out of their cars in order to take mass transit. People drive diesels giving zero fks about the future. The whole foundation of going green to use less - that's the theory - something got lost on the road to reality because the opposite is true.

I drive mine because I find it interesting. I've owned vroom vroom cars for over 50 years. Time for something different.

It's interesting to me that China seems to be pushing so hard for EV while their industry and power plants are supposedly horrible for emissions and mostly coal.

Just a guess but cities are cleaner with electric cars.

My guess is that China's dirty power plants and industry is the vast bulk of their pollution.

True but location is everything. Smog from a hundred thousand cars driving around in a city gets trapped in the city. Depending on the power plant location, that pollution could be somewhere else entirely.

Message back

Eletric car license is free but the car is not free. Gas car license is very expensive and not easy to get.

No matter Gas car or Electric car, we have to pay to buy. Telsa is so popular in China and very cheap since it is produced in Shanghai.

As far as the original posted video, I think the D4A videos are great. They really explain engine design concepts in an easy to understand manner. I don’t really agree with everything he says on this one tho.

I do think EV’s and hybrids will become the standard vehicle power plant especially in cities. Why? Because too much energy is wasted to converting kinetic energy to heat through braking in city stop and go driving vs recovering a good portion of it. Electric drivetrains also move emissions to well regulated power plants or better yet solar and wind power generation which are now the cheapest way to build new power plants.

Coal power plants aren’t being built in the US and most existing ones are over 30 years old and close to retirement. In 10-15 years there will be very few coal plants in operation in the US. They will be replaced with a mix of natural gas, wind, and solar. All three having less emissions than gasoline or diesel burning vehicles and much less than coal plants.

When I worked for Calpine, they had no Coal plants. It was all natural gas except for the geo-thermal at "The Geysers." Right about the time that I left, they bought ~20 plants in the North East. One of those was solar. I think some were coal, but there were plans to convert or kill those.

Yes, his other vids are better. This one does provide a lot of good information, however. The problem is that this information is largely kept from the unsophisticated public, who are led to believe, in its absence, that they have enough information to make informed decisions. They do not. The pro-electric, anti-ICE propaganda is all they get to hear. Guys like this, and his message, will never break into the mainstream. We do need to have an informed discussion. Right now, in spite of efforts from individuals like this, we are not having one.

Speaking of wasted energy, one facet of remotely generated power, transmitted in the form of electricity, is "line loss". It's astonishing how much generated electricity is lost to this. The further it must be transmitted, the greater the line loss. If we are going to burn something to generate energy, the most efficient place to do that remains "locally" - meaning on the vehicle that will be using that energy. So, yes - hybrids. Generate it locally, recover it locally. Best of both worlds.

Solar and wind both have their unique problems that may keep them from ever becoming mainstream. Cost of component production, relatively "short" service life driving need for continued maintenance and new replacement production, sheer acreage required, impact on migratory bird populations (windmills swat birds at what is even today an unsustainable rate), and on and on. Word has it that no windmill has yet produced enough energy to have even manufactured itself. Not sure about solar, but I've heard it's close to that as well. This only appears to work if we have coal fired, gas fired, hydro, or nuclear plants to fuel their manufacture and maintenance.

Wind and solar have 20+ year useful life and easily pay for themselves. If you think wind and solar have high maintenance costs, you’ve never worked in a coal plant (I have).

Acreage required? An area the size of Connecticut could provide enough solar power for the entire United States. That’s only generating power for 8 hours a day to make 24 hours of power.

I have read studies at polar opposite ends of the spectrum on this. Some say wind turbines pay for themselves in six months or less, some say they never actually pay for themselves. The impact upon migratory birds, however, seems to be generally agreed upon. And it's been massive.

Same widely scattered claims for solar "farms". Friends who have had solar panels installed on their homes, even with massive incentives, have been told it's about a 30 year ROI on their electric bills. "But it really helps resale..."

I believe that this is such a politically charged "hot potato" that I'm not sure we can ever hope to get unbiased, accurate information. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the notion that we quit burning things to generate power. I just wish we had good, accurate, unbiased information on which to base our decisions.

Just FYI, if David says something about generating power, I would listen. He's in the position to know.
Per the link below, the solar plant that Calpine bought is 4MW, so tiny by plant standards.
https://www.calpine.com/vineland-solar-energy-center

What's the problem (there doesn't seem to be much solar out there). And how does someplace like that calpine site compare to the one that uses mirrors to focus the sun on molten sodium? What is the best kind of solar?

It looks like most of the places that they bought are no longer coal. Most are natural gas or natural gas and oil.

Clearly many did not watch the video through.

He makes a strong point. to paraphrase - shifting conspicuous consumption to coal-fired EV's is not the solution, because even ICE is not the problem - the conspicuous consumption needs to be considered.

Hey, have you seen the new bad-ass Rivian? How about that Tesla Plaid? That Porsche Tacan is bad-ass ass hell...

Oh, LOOK at ME every body... I'm captain Planet with my Ludicrous Mode!

a yeah...