CAGW failed ‘Predictions’

By Rud Istvan,

My last ruminating climate guest post compared ‘big’ climate science issues to ‘weeds’. This is a follow on big picture post, from a different perspective, albeit partly overlapping the first. (First perspective was basic science claims, this is resulting predictions.) I am tired of whack-a-mole minutia, and think that detailed rebuttals to garbage climate alarm papers no longer matter in our politicized ‘GND’ environment.

This post incorporates by reference (not by links [lazy me], just by key WUWT search words or other occasional generic mentions) many previous WUWT guest posts plus other writings that relative newbies can review for your selves. All the previous referenced posts and other writings have many linked reference footnotes for your personal follow up. Trolls, beware.

Since the Charney and Hanson 1988 climate alarm proceedings, there have been many dire climate prognostications. NONE have come true.  Lets review some of the most salient. (We skip trivial stuff like Dr. Viner’s since disappeared 1990 prediction that ‘UK children will not know snow’—since they soon did.)

  1. Temperatures have recently suddenly risen. This was the essence of MBH’s 1999 hockey stick, and later 2013’s Marcott’s equivalent. Both ‘observations’ have been fully discredited. (I personally proved Marcott’s academic misconduct in essay ‘High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke in late 2014.)  True, temperatures have risen since the last Thames Ice Fair in 1814, as the world warmed out of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Climate changes… How much, we dunno for three reasons:
    • In the US, early data is sparse, and later data is contaminated by multiple surface station siting issues. The latter issue proven here at WUWT by 2009.
    • Outside the US and Europe, land temp data is worse than just sparse, it often does not exist at all, or only recently.
    • Over oceans comprising 71% of the Earth surface, data is worse than just sparse. It is mostly non-existent (SH). Where it does exist (until ARGO) it is contaminated by trade routes and ladings.
  2. Temperatures will increase unsustainably. This is based on the IPCC nominal ECS of about 3, recently goosed up by forthcoming CMIP6. Except, temps have NOT. As just one example of predictive model falsification, the CMIP4/5 models predicted tropical troposphere hotspot simply does NOT exist. There are several reasons why these models have abjectly failed, explained in several previous posts.
  3. Sea level rise accelerates. Except it hasn’t. And the most accurate SLR dGPS corrected tide gauges not only show no acceleration, they show it with ~closure (thermosteric rise plus ice sheet melt). And, the present rise rate is no different from the peak of the previous interglacial, the Eemian. (Details are in previous WUWT posts and in essay PseudoPrecision in eBook Blowing Smoke)
  4. Polar bears will go extinct from lack of summer sea ice. Except as Dr. Crockford has amply explained, this is an alarmist misconception at two levels. First, polar bears do not depend on summer sea ice. They depend on spring ice during the seal welping season, their main feeding cycle. No one suggests that is diminishing. Second, Arctic sea ice is cyclical, and the notion that it is spiraling ever down (Wadham’s alarm) is just factually wrong. (Essay Northwest Passage in ebook Blowing Smoke covers the Arctic Ice cycle issue in historical detail.)
  5. Extreme weather increases. Except per IPCC SRES (2012) it has NOT, anywhere, in any form. (Climate is rigorously defined as the envelope of weather [like temp, rainfall] over at least 30 years.) All the annual recent climate ‘extremes’ in the press are just weather (like this year’s accurately predicted overactive Atlantic hurricane season). As an example, landfalling US hurricane ACE over 30 years has NOT increased as a recent paper claimed—by falsely including hurricanes that touched land but then went back out to sea and re-intensified.

There are also a lot of unworkable ‘Green New Deal solutions’ to this non-problem. The most prominent are ‘renewable electric generation’ and EV’s.

Renewables sort into wind and solar (either PV or concentrated). I delved into the economics of both in detail over at Judith Curry’s blog some years ago. In sum, BOTH have the twin problems that they are intermittent, and provide no grid inertia. Both issues are independently fatal economically, as evidenced most simply by the fact that when renewable subsidies are withdrawn anywhere in the world, renewable investment falls towards zero.

EVs have four basic problems.

  1. They are still very expensive compared to ICE alternatives (UK 2030).
  2. Their charging stresses a grid already stressed by an intermittent grid lacking inertia from renewables (UK).
  3. They cannot power most truck, farm, construction, forestry, or mining equipment, based on fundamental load/capacity considerations.
  4. They use inordinate amounts of at least two scarce materials:
    • Lithium, in the form of brine carbonates (Chile) or the igneous pegmatite minerals lepidolite (pink ‘lithium’ mica) and spodumene (a pyroxene, also a famous gemstone aka pink Kunzite, pale green Hiddenite) mainly in Australia and Canada. ‘Great’ GND economic idea to convert gems to batteries!
    • Cobalt, ordinarily a relatively scarce byproduct of copper mining except in the Congo, where in its southern belt below the copper zone it appears relatively independently and is artisanal mined by child labor.

Whether EV battery recycling can solve these scarce minerals problems, as it has with Lead Acid (almost all battery lead is recycled) remains to be seen.  So far, neither recycling is feasible.

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating
121 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HD Hoese
December 4, 2020 6:42 am

You can add fisheries collapses, not that some don’t occur.

This model “simulation” resulted in the conclusion that “winners and losers” produced considerably more biomass and landings from both “enrichment+hypoxia.” Without hypoxia enrichment was only reduced a small amount, considerably more than without the “excess” nitrogen. Despite Google Earth’s ocean fish skeletons, deMutsert’s models have some data, also supported by fisheries statistics, Louisiana shrimpers knew better decades ago and it was in the literature two decades ago , some even before. I was told once by a fisheries official– “all we get are models” from academia. Some are still wondering why the fisheries haven’t collapsed.

de Mutsert, K., et al.,. 2017. Using ecosystem models to determine hypoxic effects on fish and fisheries. Chapter 14, pp., 377-400, in Justic, D., K. A. Rose, R. D. Hetland, and K. Fennel. (Eds.) Modeling Coastal Hypoxia : Numerical Simulations of Patterns, Controls and Effects of Dissolved Oxygen Dynamics. Springer International

rbabcock
Reply to  HD Hoese
December 4, 2020 6:58 am

Fisheries in shore has more to do with agricultural and untreated waste runoff than anything else, especially if it is an estuary or closed off Bay. On the Chesapeake Bay, there are waters that are basically devoid of O2 every Spring thanks to the Nitrogen runoffs coming from the main rivers that feed into it. The water warms and the algae blooms. These areas form around the same place every year and can be traced back up the rivers. About the only thing weather related (not climate related) is how much rainfall the watershed gets every spring, which can vary considerably.

Ulises
Reply to  rbabcock
December 6, 2020 8:54 am

The runoff in any particular spring is due to weather, ok, but shouldn’t “every spring” refer to climate ?

Reply to  HD Hoese
December 4, 2020 7:15 am

HD
There was record Atlantic mackerel abundance in the North East Atlantic this year.
Peruvian anchovy as strong as ever.
But sushi-eating is still endangering the blue-fin tuna.

Before this sorry saga is finished several species of avian raptor and bat will have been extincted by wind and solar power. It will bring a level of biosphere harm never seen before.

Reply to  HD Hoese
December 4, 2020 8:41 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/24/strengthening-the-climate-change-scenario-framework/#comment-3133827

The global warming extremists have made ~50 very-scary climate predictions, and not one has materialized – their false scares are political, not scientific – scary fictions concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.

The ability to predict is the best objective means of assessing scientific competence, and the global warming alarmists have NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about everything and nobody should believe these fraudsters – about anything!

“MacRae’s Maxim”:
“VIRTUALLY EVERY SCARY PREDICTION BY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS IS FALSE.”

My above statement is correct, based on decades and scores of failed predictions of runaway global warming, wilder weather, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk

THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf

Steve Case
December 4, 2020 6:46 am

Sea level rise accelerates. Except it hasn’t.
Tide gauges over the last 100 years do show a little acceleration, of 66 tide gauges, that have nearly 100 years of data, show a median of 0.01 mm/yr² acceleration. What there isn’t is the 0.097 mm/yr² currently claimed by Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
up from the 0.084 mm/yr² that they claimed in January of 2018.
By the way they made that colossal jump in claimed acceleration a little over a month ago, and as near as I can tell they’ve gotten away with it. Not a peep here or elsewhere.

EVs have four basic problems.
Yes all those problems are true, but you know what? I want one. Oh yeah, have you taken a test drive in one? Totally WOW! Taking one on the great American road trip to Yellowstone in one would be silly, but zipping around town or as a commuting car, they can’t be beat. I can imagine in the future cities will pass regulation that the 2nd car in a household must be electric. I wouldn’t vote for such draconian bullshit, but I can see it happening.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Steve Case
December 4, 2020 7:00 am

EV’s are great for limited distance driving in decent weather. That is until they become the dominant vehicles on the road and aren’t contributing to the infrastructure they use via gas tax. That is the day that the proverbial chickens will come home to roost-on EV’s.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  john harmsworth
December 4, 2020 7:38 am

Yes, they are still in “free rider” mode

Just like the people who put solar panels on their house, and declare themselves independent, but then refuse to cut the utility connection. So even though they produce some of their own power the utility has to maintain the connection, expenses without revenue, and so the fees increase for all to cover it.

I await to see any of these parasites cut the connection to the grid to show us how much they care
Then watch what happens when it drops to -40 and no sun or wind

Peter W
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 4, 2020 9:32 am

My sister told me of such a case in central NH. After 6 straight days of cloudy weather, the family of four did not have enough power to be able to shower.

MarkW
Reply to  Peter W
December 4, 2020 9:50 am

I understand that 6 cloudy days in a row is hardly unusual for a NH winter.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peter W
December 4, 2020 11:50 am

MarkW
In January 1968, when I mustered out of the Army, I was living in Vermont while stationed in NH. It was overcast and below zero (F) night and day for 10 days. The night I left to return to California, it was about -30 and my 4-year old Chevy V8 was not as responsive as usual when I pressed the accelerator, and the interior was not as warm as usual. We were in Rochester (NY) before the engine started running normally and I felt that it would be safe to stop for the night and be able to start the vehicle in the morning.

Steve Case
Reply to  john harmsworth
December 4, 2020 1:26 pm

That’s right, they electric cars need to pay their fair share of road tax. I’m sure the bureaucrats can figure out how to levy a tax so all vehicles pay a an appropriate road tax.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  john harmsworth
December 5, 2020 2:37 am

yeah Sth Aus wanted to bring in TAXES FOR ROAD USE AS THEY PAY NONE
DID THEY SCREAM!
IF GOVT DID THAT…THEN ev WOULDNT BE ECONOMICAL FOR OWNERS
HMM?
FUNNY THAT!
Oops sorry capslock n being lazy
i wasnt shouting really

Meab
Reply to  Steve Case
December 4, 2020 7:54 am

More choice, e.g. EVs, is always better than less. For some people, an EV meets their lifestyle and they can afford one. For others it doesn’t or they can’t afford one. For example, less than half the population owns their own home and fewer still have an open slot in a garage where they can install a charger. If you have to pay to recharge your EV on a public charger a gas hybrid is much cheaper to own and drive – and not trivially; it’s about half the cost. The problem comes in when idiot politicians don’t understand that one solution doesn’t fit all. Just because someone with the means to buy an EV wants one doesn’t mean that the government should penalize someone who doesn’t in order to subsidize that want. There has to be a societal benefit, but with petroleum still being plentiful and with an impending climate crisis being nonexistent there doesn’t appear to be one.

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  Meab
December 4, 2020 9:21 am

In U.K. My novelist daughter has just bought a Nissan Leaf. Lovely engineering. Got a severe negative reaction when I said that it was depreciating at £13.60 a day. Oops

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 5, 2020 2:31 am

One has to inform people, even if they don’t want to know. 😇

mkelly
Reply to  Steve Case
December 4, 2020 12:35 pm

I think the most basic problem is they are not affordable by a large portion of population. However, the same portion gets to help pay for the cars that do get bought by richer folks with the $7500 rebate.

Jolyon Hallows
Reply to  Steve Case
December 4, 2020 2:40 pm

Agreed about EVs. Let’s do some math. Assume that the entire country follows California’s lead and bans the sale of ICE vehicles after 2035. There will still be ICE cars on the road, but their number will diminish, particularly when service stations start closing down. So let’s say that in ten years, by the end of 2045, all vehicles will be electric. That’s 25 years from today. These vehicles will all require charging stations–most people will want to charge their cars overnight. How many charging stations will we need? In 2019, there were 284.5 million registered vehicles in the US. Let’s make the ridiculous assumption that that number doesn’t change. So we have 25 years to install 284.5 million stations. In those 25 years, there are 9,131 days. Which means that there must be 31,158 installations per day, every day. Oh, and we’ll need about 50,000 new electricians.

Reply to  Jolyon Hallows
December 4, 2020 10:15 pm

The average age of cars on the road today is 11 years, so it will take far more than 10 years.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  JimK
December 5, 2020 2:33 am

We have 10 years of cobalt and lithium and over 100 years of oil…..
Musk says grid capacity and generation will have to double for EVS…..
EVS pay no fuel tax…
Anyone else see the problem?

Jolyon Hallows
Reply to  JimK
December 9, 2020 9:14 am

This is speculation of course, but I suspect ICE cars will be gone in less than ten years when service stations start closing because of a declining number of customers.

John Garrett
December 4, 2020 6:53 am

I am sick to death of the idiot media promulgating climate propaganda and misinformation.

The First Amendment apparently protects the right of NPR, PBS, Pravda (a/k/a the NY Times), the WaPo, the LA-LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and the rest from being held to account for the brainwashing that marks the morons who have imbibed the climate Kool-Aid.

There are times that I admit I have been tempted to act in accord with Mencken’s “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  John Garrett
December 4, 2020 7:33 am

I have black flag, there are lots of unused ISIS ones for sale apparently.

I do think that Tommy Wils will be proven correct and that there will be many Mussolini moments at the hands of the common people.

I am hereby increasing my call for Crimes Against Humanity trials (climate change POLICY version) to be held in the poorest African country kept in that state by western green eco-imperialism.
With the local subsistence farmers as judge and jury

nc
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 4, 2020 11:58 am

If Biden gets in isis will make a comeback, already started.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  nc
December 5, 2020 2:35 am

And China will pencil in the invasion of Taiwan for July.

George Daddis
Reply to  John Garrett
December 4, 2020 7:35 am

As long as you are referencing the US Constitution; I have searched long and hard for the Article that allows the Federal Government to fund a broadcast station.

Jus’ sayin’.

MarkW
Reply to  George Daddis
December 4, 2020 8:12 am

It’s in one of those penumbras that can only be seen by the pure of heart. (IE liberals)

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  George Daddis
December 4, 2020 8:22 am

George, nor will you find any reference in the US Constitution to the Federal Government funding missions to outer space or development of vaccines against viruses.

Just saying . . .

George Daddis
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 4, 2020 11:00 am

Your point?
The Enumerated Powers were part of the document for a reason.

Secondly, who said the Federal Government developed the vaccines?

One could ALMOST make a case for the Federal government FUNDING the development of a vaccine for a sudden novel pandemic; but funding a media outlet for decades?
(Especially one that is alleged to have a political bias.)

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  George Daddis
December 4, 2020 5:44 pm

My point . . . vis-a-vis your OP . . . is quite simple: failing to find that the Constitution “allows” for something is nowhere near saying that it is not permitted or is even illegal.

The US Constitution was ratified into law on June 21, 1788. Things such as radio or TV broadcast stations (per your OP) as well as space travel and viruses (my response above) were not even imagined back then. You will also find no Constitutional (including Constitutional Amendments) reference to the Federal Aviation Administration, a very large Federal agency with broad-ranging legal authority.

As to your second question above:
Abstract of paper entitled “The Role of US Government Agencies in Vaccine Research And Development” by Gregory K. Folkers & Anthony S. Fauci:
“Anthony Fauci and Gregory Folkers (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) discusses the role of US government agencies and the NIAID in particular, in the fight against infectious diseases and the part that vaccine research plays in this fight. From long term strategic decisions to specific research projects, Fauci illustrates the federal commitment to vaccine development and how it has and can impact both national and international health.” (Ref: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0598supp-491 )

Please note that I made no reference to “the vaccines”, only to “vaccines” in general.

MarkW
Reply to  John Garrett
December 4, 2020 8:11 am

Facebook has announced that it is abandoning it’s race neutral policy towards hate speech.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/facebook-new-approach-hate-speech

Apparently only posts that insult government approved minorities will require action in the future.
You are free to hate on everyone else as much as you want.

Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2020 5:40 am

“You are free to hate on everyone else as much as you want.”
As long as they are White, Christian, straight and/or male, right?

saveenergy
Reply to  paranoid goy
December 6, 2020 3:33 am

So how much will it cost to hate everyone else … will I have to dip into my pension pot ?

December 4, 2020 7:19 am

Just this spring the alarmist crowd were predicting El Nino (again).
Huge fail.
And now instead we have this: La Mama

comment image

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/

comment image

comment image

commieBob
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 4, 2020 8:18 am

Your first link produces an out-of-date graph. This link gives you a good one but in the box labelled ‘Variable’ you have to select NINO3.4 SST Index from the drop down menu.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 4, 2020 8:38 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/01/italy-experiences-the-coldest-september-in-50-years-with-snowfall/#comment-3095391

Patience, grasshopper! I prefer predictions that look forward in time. Much more difficult. 🙂
Cooling will initially be sporadic, as I have written many times over the years.

According to NOAA and today’s GWPF, La Nina has arrived.
thegwpf.com/la-nina-is-here-what-will-it-do-to-global-temperatures/

Told you in August 2020, earlier as well (Published 2002, updated 2013 and 2019 paper and … ):

wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/23/solar-plasma-temperature-is-plunging-should-we-worry/#comment-3068819
Check out NIno34 temperatures, again down to Minus 0.6C – winter will be cold. [now minus 0.8C]
comment image
comment image

THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/

Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2020 7:46 am

It is easy to spin fantasies of Climate Armageddon or any of the other fave Greenie fantasies when you lie about and cherry pick the past as well as what’s happening now, based on the Biggest Lie in the history of humanity – that “carbon” drives the climate.

RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 7:57 am

“EVs have four basic problems.

They are still very expensive compared to ICE alternatives (UK 2030).
Their charging stresses a grid already stressed by an intermittent grid lacking inertia from renewables (UK).
They cannot power most truck, farm, construction, forestry, or mining equipment, based on fundamental load/capacity considerations.
They use inordinate amounts of at least two scarce materials:
Lithium, in the form of brine carbonates (Chile) or the igneous pegmatite minerals lepidolite (pink ‘lithium’ mica) and spodumene (a pyroxene, also a famous gemstone aka pink Kunzite, pale green Hiddenite) mainly in Australia and Canada. ‘Great’ GND economic idea to convert gems to batteries!
Cobalt, ordinarily a relatively scarce byproduct of copper mining except in the Congo, where in its southern belt below the copper zone it appears relatively independently and is artisanal mined by child labor.

Whether EV battery recycling can solve these scarce minerals problems, as it has with Lead Acid (almost all battery lead is recycled) remains to be seen. So far, neither recycling is feasible.”

IMO, you should have stuck with your discussions of the climate, which I really appreciate!

Before I rebut the four points above, I will first state why I feel EVs *will* replace all (or very nearly all) ICEVs over time:
– EVs are *much* more efficient than ICEVs. Not a little more efficient, but a lot more efficient.
– EVs do not give up performance to achieve energy efficiency. In fact, many high-performance EVs are also very energy-efficient. (Although high-performance models are less resource-efficient than other EVs.)
– EVs are safer than ICEVs. The number of EV fires as a fraction of the number of vehicles is much lower than the number of ICEV fires, perhaps by an order of magnitude.
– EVs can provide efficient, safe, full-home backup power in case of grid failure. This capability is rather expensive today but it will likely become a standard feature as technology improves.
– EVs can and will likely provide support for the grid. Rather than overloading the grid, as you propose, EVs will likely become *the* battery that the grid needs to survive without so much inertial generation.
– Ultimately, EVs, including the batteries, will be much longer-lived than the equivalent ICEVs.

Now, on to claims you have made:
“- They are still very expensive compared to ICE alternatives (UK 2030).”
That is true, but that will not last long. Tesla is currently in the process of cutting their manufacturing cost of batteries by over 50% per kWh while simultaneously increasing the per-kg capacity by about the same percentage. That change will roll out over about a five-year period.
“-Their charging stresses a grid already stressed by an intermittent grid lacking inertia from renewables (UK).”
Let’s not confuse the move to EVs with the move to change the grid into one base on renewables. But, as I stated above, EVs are likely to be *the* salvation for the grid as more-and-more inertial generators are shut down.
“They cannot power most truck, farm, construction, forestry, or mining equipment, based on fundamental load/capacity considerations.”
I doubt that there are any *actual* fundamental limitations which would prevent EVs from penetrating the markets which you have listed. In fact, all of those applications are for machines which already require massive weight to do their jobs. Many farm tractors, for instance have to *add* weight to the vehicles to allow them to do their task effectively.
The one class of application which likely *will* have a fundamental limitation is things which depend on very low weight combined with high specific energy of the fuel. Think commercial aviation. Will there ever be a large EV passenger liner which can fly over 13,000 miles without stopping like the Boeing 777LR did in 2005? I don’t know. Perhaps not.
“-They use inordinate amounts of at least two scarce materials:”
Lithium is not a scarce material. Even the already-known reserves in the US are enough to convert *all* forms of transportation in the US to EVs.
Cobalt absolutely is a problem. The EV industry is working hard to completely eliminate Cobalt from their products. It hasn’t happened, yet, but it will.
If you want to pick on a metal used in EV batteries that is a problem, Nickel is the one. It is quite expensive. Expect to see Iron used in lower-end Li-ion batteries of the future (although Nickel will still likely be the dominant type of metal used for the cathodes of Li-ion batteries).

All that said, IMO the government has NO BUSINESS dictating what type of vehicles we should be building or purchasing. If EVs are going to replace ICEVs, let them do it organically, not by mandate.

MarkW
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 8:21 am

Rebutting an argument with long disproved lies.

“EVs are *much* more efficient than ICEVs. Not a little more efficient, but a lot more efficient.”

No they aren’t. To properly compare ICE to EV you have to start from the source of electricity, the power plant. When you do that, EV’s tie at best, and are often much worse efficiency wise.

“EVs are safer than ICEVs. The number of EV fires as a fraction of the number of vehicles is much lower than the number of ICEV fires, perhaps by an order of magnitude.”

Only a total moron compares absolute numbers of fires, when EV’s are a tiny fraction of the total cars on the road.

“EVs can provide efficient, safe, full-home backup power in case of grid failure. This capability is rather expensive today but it will likely become a standard feature as technology improves.”

So what, a gas powered generator does an even better job at much less cost. Besides, if you use your EV as battery back up for your home, you won’t be able to go to work in the morning because your EV’s battery is dead.

“EVs can and will likely provide support for the grid. Rather than overloading the grid, as you propose, EVs will likely become *the* battery that the grid needs to survive without so much inertial generation.

Same problem as before, your EV can either back up the grid, or it can get you from place to place, it can’t do both.

” Tesla is currently in the process of cutting their manufacturing cost of batteries by over 50% per kWh while simultaneously increasing the per-kg capacity by about the same percentage. That change will roll out over about a five-year period.”

Tesla has been making this claim for years. I’ll believe it when they finally do it.

“I doubt that there are any *actual* fundamental limitations which would prevent EVs from penetrating the markets which you have listed.”

So you are using your religious convictions to refute actual facts. I don’t care what you believe, your claim was that you could refute Rud’s claims. Please do so.

RegGuheert
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 10:05 am

“No they aren’t. To properly compare ICE to EV you have to start from the source of electricity, the power plant. When you do that, EV’s tie at best, and are often much worse efficiency wise.”
Really? What is the efficiency of a nuclear power plant? How about the efficiency of the solar panels on my roof? Or how about the efficiency of a hydroelectric dam?

And you failed to mention the well-to-wheels impact of ICEVs.

“Only a total moron compares absolute numbers of fires, when EV’s are a tiny fraction of the total cars on the road.”

True. And that’s why I didn’t.

“So what, a gas powered generator does an even better job at much less cost. Besides, if you use your EV as battery back up for your home, you won’t be able to go to work in the morning because your EV’s battery is dead.”

Nonsense. If you already have the car, you don’t need the generator. At the point that the car and the interface are cheaper (lifetime costs) than the ICEV and the generator, you have a better solution all around.

And, yes, the car can hold *much* more energy than you need to go to work. If you still need power at the time you would leave for work, do you just leave your generator running and go to work? Me neither.

“Same problem as before, your EV can either back up the grid, or it can get you from place to place, it can’t do both.”

More nonsense. The best case is to be able to connect to the grid both at work and at home. That way the car will be able to charge when the demand is lowest and provide grid support when it is highest. Of course the user will be able to limit the minimum charge level permitted.

“Tesla has been making this claim for years. I’ll believe it when they finally do it.”

They’ve already done it once. They are doing it again. In case anyone is interested in learning about how Li-ion batteries are being reinvented again, you can learn about it here:

MarkW
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 11:03 am

“And you failed to mention the well-to-wheels impact of ICEVs.”

Actually I did, but I’m not surprised that you glossed over it.

“True. And that’s why I didn’t.”

But you did.

“Nonsense. If you already have the car, you don’t need the generator. At the point that the car and the interface are cheaper (lifetime costs) than the ICEV and the generator, you have a better solution all around.”

Nonsense, if you don’t switch your system to unreliable renewable power, there is no need for a generator. The claim that EV’s are going to someday be cheaper is like the claims for fusion, always sometime in the distant future.

“And, yes, the car can hold *much* more energy than you need to go to work.”

The car can? Care to certify that, for everyone? How does it get charged up when it’s providing energy to keep the grid up all night?

“If you still need power at the time you would leave for work, do you just leave your generator running and go to work?”

Why not?

“More nonsense. The best case is to be able to connect to the grid both at work and at home. That way the car will be able to charge when the demand is lowest and provide grid support when it is highest. Of course the user will be able to limit the minimum charge level permitted.”

First off demand is lowest precisely when renewables are the least reliable. At night.
Secondly, if everyone has an EV, night time charging will be when demand is highest, not lowest. Setting a mimum charge dramatically reduces the ability of the car batteries to provide power all night long every night.

“They’ve already done it once. ”

Looks like you will believe anything.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 10:26 am

if you use your EV as battery back up for your home, you won’t be able to go to work in the morning because your EV’s battery is dead.

That’s EASY to deal with – just plug your EV in while you’re using it to power the house, and it will charge itself! Isn’t that OBVIOUS??? 🙂

Bill Powers
Reply to  TonyG
December 4, 2020 11:09 am

That sure is Left Wing Circular logic Tony. You forgot to /SARC your comment.

TonyG
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 4, 2020 11:40 am

Yeah, sad that you have to, isn’t it?
Thought the 🙂 would help.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 8:53 am

How do you envisage EVs powering the grid during power outages? Is this the scenario:
1) Government madates EV ownership.
2) Demand for scarce elements drives up price.
3) Upgrade of infastructure of residential grid drives up price of electricity.
4) Grid fails due to increased demand for charging vast #s of EVs.
5) Since grid fails due to large #s of EVs coming online for charging at the end of the day’s commute home, there are not enough already charged EVs plugged into chargers to maintain the grid unless charging is shutoff.
6) Next morning, all EVs are run down as yesterdays commuters did not get recharged, while previously charged EVs ran down maintaining the grid.
7) No one goes to work until grid power restored and EVs get recharged. This takes days during a winter high pressure weather system causing lack of wind while solar is down for the season and power must 1st supply heating needs.
8) Fossil fuel power plants are brought back online to prevent reoccurance of that disaster.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Steve Reddish
December 4, 2020 10:46 am

9) You are depending on a whole bunch of individuals cooperating without giving them a reason to do so. What’s to stop someone plugging in just long enough to charge their car then unplugging it to ensure the battery doesn’t get drained to feed the rest of the grid? You have to assume that most people will do what they believe is best for themselves and their immediate family. If you think you might need to go somewhere, would you risk being stranded because the grid got overloaded (again)? Do you think everyone else is more public-spirited than you are, or just not as smart?

Of course you can solve that problem by forcing people to buy mobile batteries (EVs) and then forcing them to stay connected unless they have been granted permission to go somewhere. Welcome to Suzukistan.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 5, 2020 4:22 am

” You are depending on a whole bunch of individuals cooperating without giving them a reason to do so.”
Wow, Alan, that is one major assumption there!! And it is false!

Of course no one would provide power to the electricity company without a reason to do so. Notice in my reply below (which was posted in parallel with yours above) in which I discuss a “bourse”.

It seems many people are having difficulty with this concept, so let’s break it down a bit:
1) EVs are not net generators. They are net loads. In other words, they will NEVER be the baseload generators on the grid.
2) EVs store energy. In fact, they store much more energy than is required for a typical commute.
3) The amount of energy used by the grid is steady. Because of this, electricity is more valuable at times when the demand is higher than supply and less valuable when demand is lower than supply.
4) As a result of 1) 2) and 3) above, it should be clear that an EV could be used as a load when electricity is cheap and as a generator when electricity is expensive. In that scenario, everyone gets paid.

Now, imagine a time in the future when solar power covers most of the rooftops. In that scenario, WAY too much electricity will be generated during the daytime than can be consumed by users. If EVs are plugged in during that time, the ISO could start bidding with those EVs to determine if they will take some load to prevent the shutdown of those solar generators.

Later a major spike in consumption occurs when workers arrive home from work. At such a time, ISOs could start bidding with connected EVs to see which ones will provide power to help with the load.

The point is that the system will balance at the prices that make it balance. Rather than programming my EV to charge at certain times of the day, I would program it to charge at electricity rates below a certain value and support the grid only at some higher value, all the while ensuring that it does not drop below some predetermined level for grid support.

If you have trouble imagining that this is workable, then you might be interested to learn why power companies build expensive pumped hydroelectric dams (which are simply grid-connected batteries) to support the grid. Those hydroelectric “batteries” are quite expensive. The answer is that it is cheaper to run the main generators at a more-or-less constant level and use the pumped hydro to level out the load than to build the generators big enough to provide the peak load themselves.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Steve Reddish
December 4, 2020 10:55 am

Cute.

I don’t envisage EVs powering the grid during an outage.

What I said was that EVs can power a house during an outage.

What I also said is that EVs can support the grid during normal operations. But that will take some work.

What I envisage is a type of electricity “bourse” in which an EV owner (or any battery owner, for that matter), can have a contract with the power company that they can access this battery for their purposes with agreed-upon rates and limits for the purpose of providing either load or grid power. Such a system would be able to respond much more quickly to grid conditions than current technologies.

fred250
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 1:03 pm

“What I also said is that EVs can support the grid during normal operations.”

ROFLMAO..

During “normal” operations, the EV will be taking from the grid.

You are living in a little make-believe world on another planet called la-la-land.

So funny ! 😜

Tim Gorman
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 6:33 pm

“Such a system would be able to respond much more quickly to grid conditions than current technologies.”

Really? And just how is that going to happen? You can’t just dump the DC power from a battery onto the AC power grid.

If you use a DC-AC inverter at each house then all of those inverters at all those houses will have to be synchronized somehow, both in frequency and phase. How is that going to happen? How is it going to happen in a timely manner so as to support the grid?

It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 4, 2020 8:09 pm

Just a few posts ago, Reg was claiming that you could power your house from your car battery directly, no additional equipment needed at all.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 5, 2020 3:42 am

“Really? And just how is that going to happen? You can’t just dump the DC power from a battery onto the AC power grid.

If you use a DC-AC inverter at each house then all of those inverters at all those houses will have to be synchronized somehow, both in frequency and phase. How is that going to happen?”
I have 54 inverters on my roof today and they they all synchronize to the grid just fine. There many *millions* of these in use today.

EVs already have chargers in them today. A four-quadrant power converter instead of a charger can allow for bi-directional flow between DC and AC. Those four-quadrant power converters are already in use on stationary batteries in use today (at both low and high power levels), so applying them to vehicles would simply require scaling to the proper power level for an EV application.

“How is it going to happen in a timely manner so as to support the grid?”
It would happen in the same way the power grid is balanced today, only more generators an loads would be involved in the process. Independent System Operators (ISOs) monitor energy flows on the grid and send commands to various operators on the grid to have them add or remove loads as needed to balance the two.

“It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.”
Cellular telephones and the systems that they operate within are currently *ridiculously* complicated. They balance the demands for data and voice by subscribers who move freely throughout the system with supply from sources around the world and they manage it all in real time. If this can be accomplished with cell phones, do you REALLY think that a similar capability could not be put into place for the power grid. Such a system ALREADY exists on the power grid. What would be needed is a (rather significant) scaling of what is done today.

Just because something is not simple does not mean it is not possible or not a good idea.

Power electronics is now the semiconductor growth industry that telecommunications has been during the last twenty years. The power electronics found in the Boeing 787 or the Tesla Semi or solar inverters were not possible 20 years ago. There are many new technologies being developed currently which will be applied in many areas where they had not been used before. Don’t imagine this is not happening because it is as we speak.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 5, 2020 3:48 am

“Just a few posts ago, Reg was claiming that you could power your house from your car battery directly, no additional equipment needed at all.”

Here’s my *exact* quote:

“What I said was that EVs can power a house during an outage.”

Which part of that statement makes you think there is “no additional equipment needed at all.”? That’s right, it doesn’t say that. You imagined it.

In fact, additional equipment *is* needed, but that equipment exists today. Expect it to become more commonplace as technology improves.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 5, 2020 5:46 am

Reg,

“I have 54 inverters on my roof today and they they all synchronize to the grid just fine. There many *millions* of these in use today.”

What do they synchronize to when the AC grid is off-line? If they aren’t useful during a power outage then of what real use are they?

“A four-quadrant power converter instead of a charger can allow for bi-directional flow between DC and AC.”

Really? A four quadrant DC to AC power converter? Can you provide me a link to one of these? The high power DC to AC *inverters* I am aware of are costly due to the heavy inductors and capacitors required and they are *still* noisy unless a large EMI filter(another costly item) is used with them. How many residential users are going to pay the cost for this kind of equipment?

” Independent System Operators (ISOs) monitor energy flows on the grid and send commands to various operators on the grid to have them add or remove loads as needed to balance the two.”

The “ISO’s* you speak of are RESIDENTIAL customers, not grid operators! How are these communications going to be sent to residential customers? WIFI? Over the power grid itself? Are all these residential customers going to have to open a hole in their firewalls for a grid operator to control their supposed four quadrant DC to AC power control unit?

“Cellular telephones and the systems that they operate within are currently *ridiculously* complicated.”

Apples and oranges. Data flow is not power flow.

“do you REALLY think that a similar capability could not be put into place for the power grid.”

Like I said, are you suggesting a hole in everyone’s firewall for the power company? How will you prevent all the hacking through this hole from affecting *everything*?

“Just because something is not simple does not mean it is not possible or not a good idea.”

If it isn’t simple then it is probably costly. Costly ideas hardly ever get implemented in the real world.

“There are many new technologies being developed currently which will be applied in many areas where they had not been used before. Don’t imagine this is not happening because it is as we speak.”

All kinds of stuff gets invented every year. Most of it never reaches the market because it is too complicated or too costly.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 5, 2020 12:34 pm

“What do they synchronize to when the AC grid is off-line?”
My solar inverters don’t generate during outages. There are newer approaches that do, but most (all?) of those require a battery.

“If they aren’t useful during a power outage then of what real use are they? ”
They provide all of my electricity. (Thanks to the “magic” of net metering. Yes, that is a subsidy to me.)

“Really? A four quadrant DC to AC power converter? Can you provide me a link to one of these?”
The best consumer-level product that I know of is the Enphase AC Battery. We used to joke about AC batteries, but I think it is an apt name for a battery with a bidirectional inverter attached! Below is a link to a brief product description. I have never put my hands on a teardown or schematic of the power converter, but Enphase is using similar technology in their latest generation of solar inverters, as well.
https://enphase.com/en-us/what-ac-battery

“The “ISO’s* you speak of are RESIDENTIAL customers, not grid operators! How are these communications going to be sent to residential customers? WIFI? Over the power grid itself? Are all these residential customers going to have to open a hole in their firewalls for a grid operator to control their supposed four quadrant DC to AC power control unit?”
Actually, newer Teslas have LTE data communications included with the car. If they where equipped with such a sell-back capability in their on-board chargers, perhaps that would be the best way to handle that communication.

“Apples and oranges. Data flow is not power flow.”
True, but given that state of modern power electronics, I suspect that what I am talking about is a much easier system to implement. Prices would have to come down with volume, but that volume is there.

“Like I said, are you suggesting a hole in everyone’s firewall for the power company? How will you prevent all the hacking through this hole from affecting *everything*?”
It’s a good question, and since you asked it again, I will tell you what I currently do. My solar inverters communicate over the power lines with a box in my house. This box is also connected to the internet. The vendor (Enphase) tunnels into the box from outside to collect the data and to provide firmware updates to both the box and the rooftop inverters.

Like you, I consider that to be an extremely big security hole. I handle it by putting firewall rules in my router that prevent that box from communicating with *anything* else on my network using any of the common protocols. Perhaps that is overkill, but that is what I do today, and have done for many years now.

“If it isn’t simple then it is probably costly. Costly ideas hardly ever get implemented in the real world.”
Like cell phones? They were costly at first, but even the inventors of the technology underestimated their eventual growth by several orders of magnitude.

“All kinds of stuff gets invented every year. Most of it never reaches the market because it is too complicated or too costly.”
And? Really, that is not an argument against good ideas.

If you want a real argument about why my idea will not work it is this: The power companies DO NOT WANT distributed generation (like solar) or distributed storage (like we are discussing) because that is THEIR business. But the fact remains that technology has disrupted monolithic businesses in the past.

What some power companies are facing in some markets (not where I live) like Hawaii is the possibility that customers will be able to disconnect altogether. In Hawaii electricity prices are very high, there is lots of sunlight, and nights are mild. In places like that, the technology already exists to allow disconnection without excessive difficulty or expense. And prices are continually falling. (OTOH, I expect that trend will tend to be fairly limited to places close to the equator since the nighttime wintertime loads tend to be quite excessive as you move further north or south.)

Mike
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 9:40 am

Reg
If that is your real name, you’ll have to do much better than that small pile of excreta to gain even a semblance of credibility here, a large majority of readers and commenters on WUWT are well experienced STEM graduates, many with advanced degrees and decades of real world application of their knowledge not just the ivory tower echo chamber of academic research.. They are not susceptible to nor are they swayed by religious incantations.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Mike
December 4, 2020 10:46 am

In other words, you have nothing to add to the discussion of EVs.

MarkW
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 2:46 pm

As opposed to you who can just regurgitate tired, long disproven claims regarding EVs?

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 4:56 pm

RegG still hasn’t figured out that you can’t empty a battery and leave it full at the same time.

The cognitive dissonance is quite bizarre

Lrp
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 7:13 pm

Reg,
All you’ve added to the discussion is propaganda, fairytales.

Phil
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 9:43 am

The comment about EVs powering heavy industry (which includes farming) is a perfect example of someone who is innumerate. You can’t reason with them because of their ignorance and you can’t educate them because of their belief system.

Detengineer
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 10:15 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/10/predictions-are-hard-especially-about-the-future/

This post is a full costing of EV’s in a slightly different context. There is an additional comment near the end of the comment section dealing with efficiency.

The short answer is EV’s aren’t going to be a cheaper form of transportation than ICE vehicles any time soon.

RegGuheert
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 10:44 am

Your comment is similar to the statements made by many that says a battery won’t work for a semi truck. But with *today’s” technology we are already to the point where a battery-powered semi-truck can carry an 80,000-lb. load over 500 miles and can recharge in about 60 minutes. Best estimates are that that battery weighs about 8000 lb. and is equivalent to about a 100-gallon tank on a semi-truck. Tesla has recently invented the “tabless” battery cell, which reduces the series resistance by a factor of 5 versus the current technology, so charging time may be able to be reduced even further. That change is a mechanical-only modification and does not depend on any chemistry changes.

So, using *today’s” technology, that 400-gallon tank would be equivalent to a battery that weighs about 32,000 lb. The 9620 you reference currently weighs in at 36,000 lb. to 50,000 lb., so it sounds like you would need additional recharges using today’s battery technology. In addition, there are savings to be gained on a semi-truck (like regeneration) that are not available to a tractor.

Li-ion battery specific energy improves about 8% per year, on average. As a result, you can expect that in ten year’s time a battery with the same capacity might weigh in at only about 16,000 lb.

Again, the point is that Rud said:

“They cannot power most truck, farm, construction, forestry, or mining equipment, based on fundamental load/capacity considerations.”

I see nothing fundamental that would prevent batteries from completely replacing diesel for any of those applications that he listed. But I will agree that they are not “low-hanging fruit”, and the replacement will happen later rather than sooner.

In the case of civil aviation I think a case *can* be made against batteries.

MarkW
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 11:05 am

“But with *today’s” technology we are already to the point where a battery-powered semi-truck can carry an 80,000-lb. load over 500 miles and can recharge in about 60 minutes.”

40,000 pounds of that is the battery.
Have you bothered to calculate how many thousands of amps would be needed to charge that battery that fast?
Have you bothered to calculate how many months each of these fast charges reduce the batteries life by?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 6:04 pm

over-the-road drivers only get 11 hour shifts. If you take an hour out to charge a battery your efficiency goes down by almost 10%.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 8:01 pm

You only get 500 miles per charge, and that’s if the weather is perfect and you don’t have to deal with wind.
Make that 2 one hour charges per shift, 3 on a bad day.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2020 2:47 pm

Have to weigh in here with an overlooked detail. Yes, it is possible to fast charge from about 20% to about 80% of LiIon capacity. Not easily below or above. ‘Fast’ in that range is still slow compared to liquid petroleum product (gas, diesel) refueling. Electronics slow charging down outside that range. Below, internal resistance is too high. Above, charge acceptance is too low.

And what nobody mentions —especially Elon Musk—is the battery life consequence of fast recharging inside that window via the electrochemical Nernst equation. The battery heats up beyond any ability to remove said heat thanks to the thermal inertia within the battery cells themselves. And every 10C above 40C cuts LiIon battery life in half. Repeated rapid charge generating 60C cell internals cuts battery life to 1/4.

Formula 1 hybrid experiment circa 2012? generated up to 80c from braking regeneration. F1 solved the problem by new batteries for every race. They still had a car battery explode from Nernst equation dynamics in that years Singapore race—with the battery under the driver seat. Made for exciting video.

Bill Powers
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 11:29 am

An hour to fill up is unacceptable to the marketplace “Period, end of sentence” as BOb loved to say.

Curious George
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 11:59 am

The problem is the energy density. It is very high for fuels, low for batteries. I consider it fundamental.
What we really need is an efficient way to extract energy from fuels. A combustion has fundamental thermodynamic limits, keeping the efficiency below 45%. How about a fuel cell burning widely available fuels – not hydrogen? Is a fuel cell powered car still an EV?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Curious George
December 5, 2020 3:18 pm

Two pieces of bad news. First, the thermodynamic limit on methanol (not hydrogen) fuels cells is about 40%. And you have to produce the methanol. So net net, about 25% same as an ICE.

Second, they are they expensive and need to stay above 50c to work at all. So the net net is less than an ICE.
If this stuff was easy it would already have been done.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 6:28 pm

A broad estimate of power needed for every shank in a chisel plow pulled at a 1ft depth is about 30hp. So pulling a 20 shank plow takes about 600hp – continuously. It’s a real, live load, not a rolling load like a tractor-trailer rig. It’s going to be a long time before battery operated equipment is going to be able to handle a chisel plow all day long n the field.

sycomputing
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 6:45 pm

Best estimates are that that battery weighs about 8000 lb. and is equivalent to about a 100-gallon tank on a semi-truck.

Well that’s interesting. So about 10% of the current max gross weight of a truckload NOW goes to the battery instead of what could have been transported by the vehicle in a vendor’s product:

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm

Which means producers AND shippers are going to have to make up that loss of regulated weight in $$$ somehow.

How do YOU suppose they’re going to make up that loss?

Do you believe they’re going to simply eat that loss as an expense, or would you rather choose to believe the more reasonable premise that prices per shipment of products get raised by that amount, i.e., 10%?

Now, who suffers when food products get shipped from the producer at 10% higher cost because 10% of the total regulated load weight is now forced out due to your addled presuppositions about climate change?

Why do individuals like yourself punish the poor with your cruel tender mercies on behalf of the climate?

MarkW
Reply to  sycomputing
December 4, 2020 8:06 pm

That 8000 pound battery is only the equivalent of a 100 gallon (yea right) fuel tank when the temperature is perfect. When the temperature is hotter or colder than that, the amount of energy you can get out of the battery goes down, rapidly.

RegGuheert
Reply to  sycomputing
December 5, 2020 1:48 am

Well that’s interesting. So about 10% of the current max gross weight of a truckload “NOW goes to the battery instead of what could have been transported by the vehicle in a vendor’s product:

Which means producers AND shippers are going to have to make up that loss of regulated weight in $$$ somehow.

How do YOU suppose they’re going to make up that loss?”
There are four main problems with your argument:
1) Your math is wrong. 80,000 pounds is the GROSS weight of over-road trucking in the USA. Note that current trucks and trailers do not have zero weight. Instead, an empty truck and trailer typically weigh between 30,000 and 35,000 pounds. As such, the *maximum* load a modern truck can carry is on the order of 45,000 pounds, not 80,000 pounds. But this mistake in your post goes in the favor of *your* argument.
2) The 8000-lb. battery does not *only* replace the 100-lb. fuel tank and its fuel. That is because the electric drivetrain is *much* lighter than the ICE, transmission, and exhaust system it replaces: about 3000 pounds lighter, so the BEV truck is about 5000 pounds heavier, not 8000. That 5000 pounds is using *today’s* batteries. As the technology improves, the batteries will either get lighter, the range will increase, or both, just as has happened with diesel trucks.
3) Many, many loads hauled over the roads are volume limited, not weight limited. In every case where that is true, no compromise in load needs to be made to use BEV trucks.
4) You have ignored the primary benefit of electric trucking: improved energy efficiency. Improved energy efficiency means lower operating costs. So, while a BEV truck may be able to haul fewer pounds, it also costs less to haul any equivalent load.

“Do you believe they’re going to simply eat that loss as an expense, or would you rather choose to believe the more reasonable premise that prices per shipment of products get raised by that amount, i.e., 10%?”
No. What I believe is that the best truck will be used for the job. If a diesel truck is better suited for a particular load, it will be used. If a BEV truck can reduce the cost to ship a load, then it will be used.

“Now, who suffers when food products get shipped from the producer at 10% higher cost because 10% of the total regulated load weight is now forced out due to your addled presuppositions about climate change?”
As you can see from the above reply, no one “suffers”. BEV trucks only get employed when they give the shipper a benefit, so the addition of BEVs to the fleet only reduces costs with benefits everyone.

“Why do individuals like yourself punish the poor with your cruel tender mercies on behalf of the climate?”
How do I punish the poor? Oh, right: I don’t. Only the author of this post and you have conflated BEVs with the climate. I certainly didn’t.

sycomputing
Reply to  sycomputing
December 6, 2020 7:48 am

1) Your math is wrong. 80,000 pounds is the GROSS weight of over-road trucking in the USA.

Yes I just said that with reference: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm

That is because the electric drivetrain is *much* lighter than the ICE, transmission, and exhaust system it replaces: about 3000 pounds lighter…

Where are the specs on that please?

3) Many, many loads hauled over the roads are volume limited, not weight limited.

How many and how do you know?

4) You have ignored the primary benefit of electric trucking: improved energy efficiency. Improved energy efficiency means lower operating costs.

Efficiency *alone* can’t lower operating costs. What are the costs going to be to recharge your electric tractors and how do you know? I don’t think one can simply use kWh charges for power. Somebody’s going to have to build/maintain/repair a great deal of these charging stations across the country and that’s going to be added to the cost of the power.

Do you have these estimates yet?

No. What I believe is that the best truck will be used for the job. If a diesel truck is better suited for a particular load, it will be used. If a BEV truck can reduce the cost to ship a load, then it will be used.

Agreed! I obviously mistakenly assumed you were advocating to replace diesel units. I’m with you on this one. Let the best tractor win.

sycomputing
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 8:35 pm

Upon further reflection, when you said:

Best estimates are that that battery weighs about 8000 lb. and is equivalent to about a 100-gallon tank on a semi-truck.

Assuming that equivalency is true, then a standard side-mounted fuel tank on a semi-truck is around 100 to 120 gallon capacity. With 1 tank per side that means max 240 gallon fuel capacity. If diesel weighs in at around 7lbs/gallon, then assuming your 100lb tank, 2 x 100 gallon tanks = 1400 lbs for 2 full tanks of diesel versus your 16,000 lbs for 2 batteries.

How does that make any sense in your OTR product transportation business? You’ve just LOST 16,000 lbs of your regulated 80,000 lbs max road load weight running electric tractors versus 1,400 lbs. for the same load when running diesel tractors. 16,000 lbs goes to truck weight in batteries instead of 1400 lbs truck weight in diesel. Note also that 1400 lbs ASSUMES full fuel tanks. Your batteries weigh that 16,000 lbs regardless.

What is it I’m missing that makes this option attractive to the transportation industry?

… a battery-powered semi-truck can carry an 80,000-lb. load over 500 miles

If diesel gets about 6.5 mpg, that means in a pinch a long haul diesel tractor with full fuel tanks can run for maximum 1560 miles on diesel (depending on trailer weight), or 3x your battery mileage for 6,600lbs less weight. And THAT’S assuming there’ s only ONE battery @ 8000lbs according to you. 2 x 8000 lb batteries for 1000 total miles doesn’t help your argument does it?

Again, what am I missing here?

Lastly, I’d like you to convince the CEO of any major OTR hauler for which I’ve worked before, e.g., Watkins Motor Lines, FFE transportation, etc., to purchase your fleet of LH battery powered tractors MINUS at the very least a mounted 100 gallon diesel reserve tank in case of power issues. I don’t see how you’ll get any responsible OTR hauler to buy your electric tractor without a diesel backup tank to cover power failure, whatever the cause. In today’s environment, vendor freight is run in a JIT environment, and if you don’t get there Just In Time, then you’re OUT. You’re not going to get long-term freight contracts of any consequence. Without those, you don’t have an OTRLH business.

So there’s ANOTHER 700 lbs of dead tractor weight added to the 16,000 lbs of dead battery weight that’s going to take away from the company’s bottom line. Better that full tank of diesel sit on the back of the tractor than for your batteries to shut down in the middle of a haul leaving a time-sensitive load stranded on the side of the busy freeway.

If that weren’t enough, finally, what’s the cost to recharge the LH electric tractor on the road? Does anyone have that pricing out yet? If not, how do you know you’re going to beat the cost of diesel per gallon? What makes you think, e.g., transportation lobbyists won’t be able to “convince” Congress to finally drop the fuel tax on diesel and save us all some money at the grocery store while at the same time undercutting the cost of your electricity to the point of making it uneconomical, or at least matching, such that running diesel or electric is 6 of 1 or 1/2 dozen of the other?

Why would anyone buy your electric tractors then?

1. https://www.truckloadindexes.com/data-commentary/how-many-gallons-does-it-take-to-fill-up-a-big-rig
2. https://www.rtsinc.com/articles/how-calculate-fuel-cost-mile-your-trucks

Phil
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 8:52 pm

Your comment is similar to the statements made by many that says a battery won’t work for a semi truck. But with *today’s” technology we are already to the point where a battery-powered semi-truck can carry an 80,000-lb. load over 500 miles and can recharge in about 60 minutes. Best estimates are that that battery weighs about 8000 lb. and is equivalent to about a 100-gallon tank on a semi-truck.

Innumerate: The Volvo Class 8 VNR electric supposedly has a range of 175 miles.

The VNR Electric is offered with four or six 66-kWh battery packs. Each weighs 1,146 pounds …. The VNR Electric weighs 24,000 pounds with six battery packs on board; that’s 8,000 pounds more than the diesel truck dry. … 50-kW units and Volvo says they charge the trucks lithium-ion batteries at a rate of 25 miles of range per hour of charging. On a 150-kW charger, the trucks refuel at a rate of 75 miles of range per hour.

That’s 7 hours to recharge for an (unproven) 175 mile range on a 50 kW charger and more than 2 hours using a 150 kW charger. 150,000 watts. At 920 volts, that’s more than 160 amps!

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 9:29 pm

RegG posted: “But with *today’s” technology we are already to the point where a battery-powered semi-truck can carry an 80,000-lb. load over 500 miles and can recharge in about 60 minutes.

Well, let’s do a simple reality check on that statement: a Tesla Model S today with a 100 kWh battery pack has a curb weight of about 4,900 lbs, with about 1375 pounds of that being just in the battery pack. It’s stated range (EPA cycle) with improved drivetrain is 370 miles.

If we scaled that Model S battery linearly for vehicle mass and range, such a battery pack for an 80,000 lb total truck & trailer moving mass (the target point max for the Tesla Semi), the truck battery to provide 500 mile range would weight approximately (80,000/4,900)*(500/370)*1375 = 30,300 pounds. And this assumes the truck’s drivetrain would just as efficient as that of Tesla Model S passenger car, but it’s likely to be less efficient due the much higher drive torques that heavy trucks require. That means, optimistically, that only about 40,000 pounds will be actually available for cargo, based on the truck (tractor) coming in at about 10,000 pounds weight. That’s very inefficient compared to what a similarly-sized diesel-powered tractor-trailer combo can haul as cargo.

Furthermore, the same linear scaling for battery capacity (kWh) yields a battery that must provide about 2,200 kWh output (to the same depth-of-discharge as that for the Tesla S at the end of its 370 mile range.

If we assume the DoD for this modern battery pack is 20% of rated capacity (yielding a necessary 0.8*2200 kWh of charging input), and we use the planned Tesla Semi charging voltage of 1000 Vdc, then the necessary DC input amperage to fully recharge the battery pack in one hour will be about 1760 amps!

And, for reference, at the AWG rating for safe power transmission through pure copper wire, to provide this much current to the battery pack would required SIX conductors, each of 0000 gauge (about 0.46 inch diameter if solid . . . larger diameter if stranded). Heck, just plugging in the recharging connector might require two people, or alternatively require at least three separate charging port connections if to be connected for recharging by a single person.) Practically, a one hour recharge is off the table due to likely overheating and chemical damage to the battery from such high current levels (note that the battery pack’s DISCHARGE time at an assumed constant 60 mph, would be over eight hours) . . . it much more likely that large commercial EV trucks will be designed for recharging times of four or more hours to go from 20% to 100% battery charge level.

Some dreams die hard when running into the realities of the world.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 3:06 am

Thanks, Gordon: Doing the math is the right way to address the questions related to the viability of BEV trucking.

While the battery in the Model S is a good place to start, it is not Tesla’s latest technology. That car was released in 2012. The Model 3 was released three years ago in 2017. Currently the 82-kWh Model 3 battery weighs 1054 pounds or about 12.9 lbs./kWh.

Energy requirement to move a vehicle over road does not scale with weight. Other factors such as cross-sectional area are more important. As a result, your scaling between the Model S and a semi truck do not apply. Instead, we can work with efficiency numbers directly. As you said, the EPA rating for a Model S is 370 miles for a 100-kWh. Assuming 90% of the battery capacity is used to achieve that range, that means the efficiency of the Model S is about 4.1 miles/kWh. The Tesla Semi has a reported efficiency of about 1.8 kWh/mile or about 0.55 miles/kWh. The result is that the fully-loaded semi truck uses about 7.5 times as much energy per mile as a Model S, not the 16.3 times as much as you have estimated (80,000/4900).

So, how heavy is a Tesla semi 500-mile battery based on the Model 3 battery numbers?
500 miles * 1.8 kWh/mile /0.9 = 1000 kWh
Using Tesla Model 3 (2017) technology, that battery would weigh 12,900 pounds.

But the Tesla Model 3 uses 2170 cell technology. The Tesla Semi will use the new 4680 cells. These new cells use tabless technology which reduces the electrical path length of the cells by a factor of five, thus allowing more range and much more rapid charging. These new cells have about 1/3 more capacity per weight at the pack level than the 2170 cells put into the Model 3 three years ago, or about 9.7 lbs./kWh. This is not future technology: Tesla has already manufactured tens of thousands of these new cells in a pilot plant that they are using to significantly reduce their manufacturing costs. See the video I posted above for more details.

So, using *today’s* 4680 cell technology, a 1000-kWh pack will weigh about 9700 lbs. That’s a bit more than my earlier estimate of 8000 lbs. (but a *long* way from the 30,000 pounds that you have estimated.

“And, for reference, at the AWG rating for safe power transmission through pure copper wire, to provide this much current to the battery pack would required SIX conductors, each of 0000 gauge (about 0.46 inch diameter if solid . . . larger diameter if stranded).”
I’ll just cut to the chase here: The Tesla Semi uses four pairs of conductors and is rated at 1.6 MW. How is this possible, given your calculations? First, you are estimating based on a recharge amount that is over twice of what is actually required. The actual recharge amount we are talking about is 900 kWh, not 80% of 2200 kWh. That means that each pair of wires will carry less than 250 amps for a one-hour charge time or less than 500 amps for a 30-minute recharge. Second, the ratings you are giving for copper are either in free air or (more likely) in a conduit. In fact, Tesla charger cables are water cooled. In other words, water is circulated through the cable to allow for a much lower operating temperatures for a given current level. This water-cooled cable technology has been in use at Tesla Superchargers for a couple of years now. And, yes, low-insertion-force connectors rated at 700 amps have been around for decades. For more details on this interface, you can see this article:

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-megacharger-charging-port-close-up-look/

“Some dreams die hard when running into the realities of the world.”
Some engineers look at problems and only see roadblocks. Others see opportunities for innovation. In fact, the problems which you are imagining have already been solved.

The key here is for Tesla to field a truck that meets the needs of SOME segment of the market at lower costs. Because of the weight of the battery, that will likely mean they are used for either lower range full loads or volume-limited loads initially. There is nothing wrong with that. They do NOT need to replace ALL trucks on ALL routes initially to be successful. They ONLY need to provide savings for some applications to break into the market. It seems they have exactly the technology in place today to make that happen.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 5:12 am

Reg,

Complete your analysis. Short range, full loads are typically associated with stop and go usage, either in stop/go traffic or in stop/deliver scenarios. The highest torque requirement for such operation is getting the load moving from rest. High torque means high current and fast discharge rates for a battery thus stressing the battery significantly. Diesel engines and power trains for short haul usage are designed to provide this level of torque while still operating efficiently with long lifetime. A battery and drive train useful for over-the-road hauls of a rolling load are probably not going to work for this scenario, at least not very efficiently and not with a long lifetime. I would also point out that tractors designed for this usage are significantly lighter than OTR tractors, many times with a half-cab for just one person and a smaller fuel load. Because of the high-torque requirements for such operation, a short-haul EV tractor will probably be *heavier* than a short-haul diesel because of the increased battery load required to meet the torque requirements.

The truck traffic in a major distribution center like Walmart, Mars, or Target is significant. Refueling times *have* to be low in order for the number of trucks required for haulage to avoid congestion, either with on-site refueling or at a local vendor. Recharging times of even 30 minutes will result in significant traffic handling inefficiency. And I can’t even envision the size of the substation required for such an installation.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 10:22 am

RegG,
I appreciate your response, but need to point out the following:

1) Yes, the Model 3 appears to have a slightly higher battery specific energy capacity . . . your stated value of 12.9 lb/kWh versus the Model S battery at 1375/100 = 13.8 lb/kWh, that’s a difference of 7%.

2) You based your calculations on assuming a battery depth-of-discharge of 90% whereas I stated a maximum DoD of 80% in my calculations. I am not aware of any ELECTRIC VEHICLE Li-ion battery performance spec that says it is OK to regularly cycle such batteries to 90% depth-of-discharge . . . most recommend a DoD no greater than 80% for maximum battery life.
For example: “Only a full cycle provides the specified energy of a battery. . . the life-prolonging mid-range of 85-25 percent {DoD range — GD} reduces the energy to 60 percent {of rated battery capacity — GD} . . . Industrial devices, such as the EV, typically limit the charge to 85% and discharge to 25%, or 60 percent energy usability, to prolong battery life.”— source: https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries
Maybe the stated capacity of a Tesla battery pack in kWh is based on the battery management system automatically adjusting the “full charge” rating level to 85% of what the pack is actually capable of achieving . . . or maybe not. It will make a big difference on the truck’s range and battery pack longevity that is achievable in actual use.
But maybe Tesla/Panasonic have made a breakthrough in this area?

3) To the extent that energy is required to move a mass upward in elevation, and that energy cannot be fully recovered by regenerative wheel breaking on downgrades, that energy loss certainly scales linearly with vehicle weight (mass).

4) To the extent that energy is required to accelerate a mass from one velocity to a higher velocity, and that energy cannot be fully recovered by regenerative wheel breaking when decelerating, that energy loss certainly scales linearly with vehicle weight (mass).

5) You are correct in that aerodynamic drag scales to first order with frontal cross-sectional area but all this means is that a given tractor-trailer combination will have aero drag losses that are speed-only-dependent, no matter what weight of cargo it is carrying . . . this is, effectively, a MUCH WORSE CONDITION than having the aero drag scale linearly with weight.

6) Not all people view Tesla’s new tabless 4680 Li-battery cell as “today’s technology”. For example: “Whitehead thinks that though Tesla has clearly made a leap forward with the larger battery’s tabless design, the company will still need to overcome some hurdles to make it work. . . .’The tabless design also overcomes a number of other manufacturing disadvantages of tab cells, but they also have there own unique challenges which Tesla is likely still working through.’ “—source: https://thedriven.io/2020/09/24/tesla-battery-day-deep-dive-what-the-tesla-ev-experts-think/

7) Your statement “The Tesla Semi has a reported efficiency of about 1.8 kWh/mile or about 0.55 miles/kWh.” With all due respect, I learned long ago to not trust Tesla statements about product performance specifications made prior to actual production rollout.

Finally, your statement that “In fact, the problems which you are imagining have already been solved” does make me feel better . . . somewhat.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 11:10 am

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for your excellent reply. I think we agree on more than we disagree. I’ll leave it at that.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 11:49 am

Tim,

Very good points. Just a couple of comments:

“Diesel engines and power trains for short haul usage are designed to provide this level of torque while still operating efficiently with long lifetime. A battery and drive train useful for over-the-road hauls of a rolling load are probably not going to work for this scenario, at least not very efficiently and not with a long lifetime. I would also point out that tractors designed for this usage are significantly lighter than OTR tractors, many times with a half-cab for just one person and a smaller fuel load. Because of the high-torque requirements for such operation, a short-haul EV tractor will probably be *heavier* than a short-haul diesel because of the increased battery load required to meet the torque requirements.”

The Tesla Semi has four identical electric motors with different gear ratios driving the two rear axles. Specifically, the fore axle is driven by a 23:1 reduction gear while the aft axle is driven by a 15:1 reduction gear. A similar arrangement has been used on Tesla’s cars with good success. The motors used are similar (identical?) to those found in the Tesla Model 3. These are synchronous machines which are capable of developing full torque at zero speed. The bottom line is that the Tesla Semi can be used for either high torque or high(way) speed applications. Tests indicate that the Tesla Semi accelerates under full load much more quickly than a diesel truck.

As such, I doubt that your concerns in this area are warranted, even for the 300-mile version of the truck.

For more information on the gear ratios, you can have a look at the following link.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/semi-gear-reduction-ratios.103576/

“The truck traffic in a major distribution center like Walmart, Mars, or Target is significant. Refueling times *have* to be low in order for the number of trucks required for haulage to avoid congestion, either with on-site refueling or at a local vendor. Recharging times of even 30 minutes will result in significant traffic handling inefficiency. And I can’t even envision the size of the substation required for such an installation.”

I agree this is a big question mark. If the trucks typically drop a trailer and immediately pick up another one then head out, then I agree there will be little time for refueling at the depot.

IMO, the large depots are places where trucking companies can realize the biggest savings with the Tesla Semi. Why? Because there is a massive amount of rooftop area there to collect electricity from the sun using photovoltaics. Any *daytime* charging that can be accomplished there will equate to big savings for the shipper. (Even nighttime charging is probably a plus, but not quite as big of a benefit.) But I don’t know the realities of how much time these trucks actually spend at these locations. Obviously, the main goal is to have the trucks on the roads as much as possible, not sitting at the depot.

I imagine that any trucking companies who have ordered the Tesla Semi are working on the logistics plans about how to best employ them in their networks.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 1:24 pm

Reg,

“These are synchronous machines which are capable of developing full torque at zero speed.”

The issue isn’t whether the needed torque can be produced. The issue is the effect on the battery of producing that high amperage, low speed torque.

The issue of gearing is also a red herring. Even with stop and go operation it is necessary to provide the needed low speed torque while also providing the needed high speed horsepower. You run into the same problem that pro-stock drag racers run into. If you use a low enough gear ratio to get the needed low speed acceleration then you run out of horsepower on the top end because the motor can’t rev high enough.

“Tests indicate that the Tesla Semi accelerates under full load much more quickly than a diesel truck.

As such, I doubt that your concerns in this area are warranted, even for the 300-mile version of the truck.”

I have never seen a Tesla test for a stop/go operation. Again, OTR is a different animal. Apples and Oranges.

“Any *daytime* charging that can be accomplished there will equate to big savings for the shipper.”

Why would there be any daytime charging? Why aren’t the trucks on the road? Sitting trucks are an expense, both for the interest on the loans used to buy them as well as the depreciation. Have you ever watched such an operation? You can’t deliver at night when the receiver is not operating so most of the trucks load early and head out as quickly as possible in order to get all deliveries done during the day.

“Obviously, the main goal is to have the trucks on the roads as much as possible, not sitting at the depot.”

You are still trying to conflate OTR with short haul. They are apples and oranges. There are far more short haul trucks than there are OTR. If Tesla only looks at the OTR market, they will remain nothing more than a niche provider.

You are also still trying to avoid the details of how even OTR trucks will operate efficiently. If you take 10% off the top of a drivers time for nothing more than recharging it will be a huge inefficiency. Nothing you can do with the battery will ever overcome that.

RegGuheert
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 2:44 pm

Hi Tim,

Sorry to summarize your post with a single sentence (of yours), but here is one of your last comments:

“If Tesla only looks at the OTR market, they will remain nothing more than a niche provider.”

I have quite the opposite view of where the Tesla Semi will initially succeed. I don’t think they can win in many (any?) long-haul applications coming out of the gate. The two versions they will offer will have 300-mile and 500-mile ranges. Those are not long-haul numbers.

Where BEVs shine is in stop-and-go applications: no loss when idling and energy is recovered when slowing. Yes, that means a lot of cycles, but they are low-DoD cycles. And Tesla has worked hard on the durability of their batteries. In addition to greatly reducing the series resistance of their batteries (I suspect a 1000V, 1000kWh battery has a series resistance on the order of around 10 milliohms or less), they have put a *lot* of effort into reducing the long-term loss of capacity of their batteries. They have locked in the world’s top researcher in this area for the past three years (with two more to go) and big improvements have been made to date. For instance, they doubled the life of the battery during the first year of that effort.

Keep in mind that Li-ion batteries do not involve actual oxidation and reduction reactions for their charging and discharging as do most other batteries which we use. Instead, they use what is called “intercalation” in which the Lithium ions shuttle back and forth between the anode and cathode. The trick is to *prevent* chemical reactions from occurring in the battery (which tend to eat up the electrolyte and other parts) and to make both the anode and cathode rugged enough to have lithium ions stuffed into them repeatedly.

There are Li-ion chemistries out there that can easily withstand over 20,000 charge-discharge cycles without much loss of capacity. But those types do not offer the range or low cost that Tesla needs to address this market, so they will need to be very clever indeed to field a product that can meet the needs of this demanding market.

Ultimately, we will all have to wait an see what happens and when. I’m sure many of the trucking companies out there are looking at the Tesla Semi and asking “Can we make more money with this thing? If so, how is the best way to use it?”…especially those who have placed orders for a bunch of them. (I’m sure for some companies who have placed orders it is just “greenwashing” at this point.)

RegGuheert
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 6:30 pm

Just another quick follow-up to Tim, who wrote:
“The truck traffic in a major distribution center like Walmart, Mars, or Target is significant.”

Since you mentioned Walmart, I will say that I just found out that in September of this year Walmart Canada has increased their original 2017 order of 15 Tesla Semis to 130:

https://electrek.co/2020/09/29/tesla-tsla-secures-order-tesla-semi-electric-trucks-walmart/

“Walmart notes that the range of 500 miles on a single charge is one of the main reasons they chose to go with the Tesla Semi:

“The ability to travel 500 miles per charge is in line with Walmart Canada’s general fleet system, which consists mainly of single day round trips – allowing for the ability to convert from diesel at a faster pace.””

That agrees with what you have said: They do not want to charge the trucks during the daytime.

In other news, Elon Musk says that the initial truck should not sacrifice more than one ton of cargo capacity and that future trucks should have a range of over 600 miles with no hit to cargo capacity:

https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 11:29 am

hundred fifty gallons of diesel per day

150 US gallon ~ 525 liter.
1 liter ~ 10kWh
Battery capacity per day ~ 525 * 10 ~ 5,250kWh or 100 Tesla batteries.

DonK31
Reply to  RegGuheert
December 4, 2020 11:34 am

Clyde: I can safely say that no farmer plows to a depth of 3 ft. 1 maybe.

When I was a kid growing up on a farm, Dad would get perturbed at me if I set a plow for a depth of 8 inches. He preferred 6.

The object of plowing was to turn over the top layer so that the remaining plant life would be buried and provide a fertilizer and allow the freshly plowed dirt to be worked so that the young plants wouldn’t have to work as hard, so to speak, to root and reach for water through hard dirt.

commieBob
December 4, 2020 7:57 am

Hiddenite? Sounds like Unobtanium. Is Rud pulling my leg? Nope.

Rbabcock
Reply to  commieBob
December 4, 2020 9:32 am

I’ve been on trips in the Western NC mountains looking for Hiddenite and other minerals many times. These mountains are very old and have all kinds of gemstones and gold nuggets.

MarkW
Reply to  Rbabcock
December 4, 2020 9:53 am

Are hills filled with hiddenite visible to the naked eye?

MarkW
December 4, 2020 8:06 am

To the problems of EV’s you can add charging time.
Fast charge does relieve this to an extent (30 minutes is still a lot longer than 5 minutes) but at the cost of shortening the life of your already too expensive battery.

Gordon A. Dressler
December 4, 2020 8:15 am

My favorite one-two punch:

“In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the ‘greenhouse effect’ would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). ‘The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,’ Hansen claimed. ‘And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…. There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.’ In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.” (Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry )

“Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences and director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center at Penn State, has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, recognizing distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.” (Source: https://news.psu.edu/story/617687/2020/04/28/research/mann-elected-national-academy-sciences )

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 4, 2020 3:38 pm

Gordon, did you ever notice that M. Mann is the the only one among his colleagues who is always referred to as a “distinguished” professor? Protesteth too much, me thinks.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 4, 2020 5:47 pm

Or perhaps Penn State just “polishing its own wicket”, as it were.

But good point, nonetheless!

DaveS
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 5, 2020 9:00 am

Never was the saying ‘you can’t polish a t*rd’ more apt.

Wade
December 4, 2020 9:13 am

I have put together the definitive list of CAGW predictions that actually came true.

START OF LIST
END OF LIST

fred250
Reply to  Wade
December 4, 2020 12:53 pm

👍

tygrus
Reply to  Wade
December 4, 2020 5:07 pm

CAGW predictions
START OF LIST
* The climate will change (same variation as before but causes are labeled according to dogma not fact);
* Spending more to research the potential effects of AGW (neither proving AGW nor it’s effects);
* Spending more to develop & run climate models (which prove assumptions not realities);
* Spending more to publicise AGW theories to scare the children, politicians & general population;
* Spending more to mitigate GHG emissions with schemes (that leave the realization of reductions till later & with uncertainty);
* Spending more to “correct” observational data to fit the models & dogma (ignore realities because group-think & the computer says ‘no’);
* The more science that disproves their AGW ideas the more “emotion”, personal attacks & distortion are used.
END OF LIST

Fred Hubler
December 4, 2020 9:17 am

“Extreme weather increases. Except per IPCC SRES (2012) it has NOT,”

The IPCC Special Report on Extremes (SREX) 2018 is a later report that says the same thing.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

dennisambler
December 4, 2020 9:25 am
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 4, 2020 10:17 am

Over oceans comprising 71% of the Earth surface, data is worse than just sparse. It is mostly non-existent (SH). Where it does exist (until ARGO) it is contaminated by trade routes and ladings.

Rud: I’m not understanding this part here. Did you mean to say “… it is contaminated limited to trade routes and ladings landings” ?

Thanks.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 4, 2020 11:24 am

Perhaps I could have used better words. The sea data is only trade routes. Very biased. And by ladings I was referrng to engine cooling water intake. Notbonly do different ships have differend depths, but that depth varies with the load the ship is carrying—its lading.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 4, 2020 11:47 am

Ladings has to do with how heavily the ship is loaded.
This has to do with taking temperatures from cooling water being pulled into the ships engines.
The place where the water is pulled in is fixed, so the depth of the sampling depends on how heavy the ship is at the time the measurement is taken.

Carl Friis-Hansen
December 4, 2020 10:37 am

Sorry for this breaking off topic to an excellent post:

A forensic scientist managed to investigate a Dominion voting machine in a remote county. By checking the Domion voting machine forensically, he was able to prove that Trump votes were actually switched to Biden votes. There were only 37 votes here, but what matters is: it was done, and this was possible in all districts and in all states in which these machines were used.

GooTranslated from German. H/T “Der Waldgang”

Curious George
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
December 4, 2020 12:01 pm

Not admissible in US courts 🙂

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Curious George
December 4, 2020 12:39 pm

Please explain why why forensic evidence is not permissible in the court?
I thought the presumed election fraud was going to court and actually needed forensic evidence. – I am confused.

MarkW
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
December 4, 2020 2:48 pm

I believe CG was saying that evidence that supports Trump is not admissible in US courts.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2020 4:21 pm

Rud, cobalt is also a byproduct of nickel deposits and used to be the main source. Re DRC, over 90% of cobalt mining is done in large well-designed projects by international companies Like Glencore

https://www.glencore.com/

There is ‘family’ artisanal mining in DRC (Co, Ta, Nb, Au, etc.), as there is in mining districts around the world. Places where good mineral resources amenable to such production occur are a boon to local people and generally they are better off economically and healthier than poorer folk without this source of income. The idea that they are universally indentured children ops is mostly incorrect and comes from the lefty activist anti-development NGOs that are a big part of the Climateering industry we are discussing here!

It does occur Zas advertised in war and terrorist situations to be sure, as in the Hutu massacre of Tutsis in Rawanda, Burundi and the eastern border region in DRC where Tutsi people were illegally mining (and ops taken over by Hutu people).

Of course mining in the best of circumstances can be dangerous work and the best of circumstances doesn’t describe artisanal type. I’ve had a fair amount of experience in this area in Africa and Brazil that were good news stories

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
December 4, 2020 5:56 pm

“By checking the Domion {note: actually “Dominion”–GD} voting machine forensically, he was able to prove that Trump votes were actually switched to Biden votes.”

I seriously doubt the “prove” part.

Finding that misfeasance or malfeasance is POSSIBLE is not the same as providing evidence (let alone proof!) that misfeasance or malfeasance actually OCCURRED.

Law 101.

markl
December 4, 2020 10:48 am

Someone(s) was putting together a list of false and failing AGW predictions but quit about a decade ago because they couldn’t keep up and the links to the bogus claims kept disappearing. I’m with Wade: START OF LIST….END OF LIST. Come on folks, these prognostications have been going on now for decades and not one of them has panned out. Not one. Aren’t people getting the message yet? Even with the constant bombardment by the MSM the people have to be realizing it’s all smoke and mirrors by now.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  markl
December 4, 2020 8:06 pm

“There are none so blind as that that will not see” . . . or something like that.

TimTheToolMan
December 4, 2020 12:54 pm

Rud writes

There are also a lot of unworkable ‘Green New Deal solutions’ to this non-problem. The most prominent are ‘renewable electric generation’ and EV’s.

There are other good reasons to be transitioning to renewable energy. Like it or not, fossil fuels are ultimately a limited resource and it takes a long time to research, develop, manufacture and deploy renewable energy solutions. Time measured in generations.

Best to separate the two ideas that the science behind climate change is poor and conclusions from it are questionable…and renewable energy solutions are bad or counter-productive. Ultimately we needed them. I don’t understand picking on EVs at all. Don’t like them? Don’t buy one. ICE will be around for a long time to come.

Drake
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 4, 2020 2:25 pm

“and renewable solutions are bad or counterproductive. Ultimately we need them.” No, we don’t.

“I don’t understand picking on EVs at all. Don’t like them? Don’t buy one.” But I have been paying taxes to a government that gives rebates to those who do, so I guess I HAVE been helping to buy EVs, so I do have a valid opinion against EVs.

MarkW
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 4, 2020 2:52 pm

We have at least 100 years worth of oil left in the ground and probably 1000 years of coal.

Trying to figure out what we are going to use after fossil fuels would like demanding that people in the 1200’s figure out what they are going to use after horses.

Research all you want, don’t deploy until the “solutions” have been proven to have a chance of working.

Pointing out the many well known weaknesses of EVs is not “picking on them”. As to not buying one, I wish I had that option. Every time someone buys an EV I’m helping to pay for it. In countries like Britain, after 2030 buying anything other than an EV isn’t going to be an option.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2020 12:34 pm

MarkW writes

We have at least 100 years worth of oil left in the ground and probably 1000 years of coal.

We may be using oil for that long overall but we don’t have 100 years worth at our current levels of consumption. Let alone growing consumption. Its getting harder to find and more expensive produce all the time. But that cost underlies everything we do.

How can the renewable energy sources ever be cheaper than fossil fuels when it takes fossil fuel energy to make them…at least initially? Are you thinking we’re going to research magic processes to manufacture solar cells with next to no energy input required?

It simply doesn’t add up that renewable energy can start cheaper than fossil fuel at any time and if we don’t transition while we have plenty of energy available then eventually it’ll be too late to do it relatively painkessly.

MarkW
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
December 4, 2020 5:56 pm

PS: There is no evidence that when the entire life cycle of the renewable platforms, plus the need for hot standby power, is taken into account, that renewable energy decreases fossil fuel usage in the slightest.

RT
December 4, 2020 5:14 pm

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_zKh_IU4AEKsT7?format=jpg&name=900×900
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/07/Travers-Net-Zero-Distribution-Grid-Replacement.pdf
Just to give some idea what this all entails. And since the UK cannot run without the power from the French interconnector on the bad cold days of winter. As the white global warming has been falling lately. And the fun part when they turn you off because the Grid can’t stay ON! And you can’t argue due to smart meters.

Joz Jonlin
December 4, 2020 5:23 pm

Since the Charney and Hanson 1988 climate alarm proceedings, there have been many dire climate prognostications. NONE have come true.

Rud,

This is just part of a much larger milieu of doomcasting from leftists, and it started earlier than 88. We can at least go back to Paul Ehrlich and his doomcasting of mass starvation and death in the 70’s. What about the ozone hole? Acid rain anyone, or running out of oil? Leftists use fear to drive action on whatever they want to do. Most of their platform and policy is shaped by causing fear to their supporters. Think, universal healthcare where they claim people are going to die is huge for leftists. Everything they do is about spreading fear. When you can’t win an argument, create fear.

yarpos
December 4, 2020 11:28 pm

For at least the last half century the Great Barrier Reef off northern Australia has been on the brink of unprecedented , tipping point, catastrophic destruction.

The causes have included agricultural run off, crown of thorns starfish, sea level change, global warming, cyclones and my pesonal favourite ocean “acidification” Oddly science never seems to criticise over tourism which seems to wreak havoc on locations wherever it happens. Never mind though because all the doom talk has been very effective in scaring people away from the joys of the Reef, or even making them beleive it is gone.

Yet, even after all the forgoing, there it sits in all its glory. A beautiful giant living thing , suffering all the vagaries of living in the real world and constantly evolving and regenerating.

Coach Springer
December 5, 2020 4:29 am

Global warming and COVID_19 have made monomaniacal my word of the year.

%d bloggers like this: