Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

Also not to be forgotten: in many of those midwest states (and Texas), oil companies exploring shale plays will pay landowners for access and infrastructure, probably more than wind or solar companies would pay; and in many cases, the landowners will own the subsurface mineral rights, which they can sell or lease to the producers. So a lot of the attitude might be more about $ than philosophy.

 

Here’s the voting record for the final resolution of that draft:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4009707?ln=en



It needs to be spread around. It is NOT “the west” but the world that recognizes that Russia is the aggressor.

 

Green has certainly become politicized over the years, but I don't think it is at all incompatible with conservatism (as an FYI, I identify myself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative).

I think the root of conservative problems with green is that conservatives want a rational, fiscally responsible approach to green and that they don't believe in the "throw money and see what sticks" approach. I also think there is a realization that.. as much as everyone would like one, there is no magic bullet (eg., the mad dash to electric cars when the power infrastructure clearly doesn't exist). We need a long term, multi-tiered approach, which will prove exceedingly difficult when politicians on both sides can't see beyond the next election... and media outlets can't see beyond the next click-bait web article.

I DO think that conservatives have a problem with green when people start blaming everything under the sun (see what I did there?) on climate change, when many of these claims are a political red herring to cover years and years of bad policy (eg., wild fires in CA)

 

Progressive... you hit on a pet peeve.

The word has been hijacked. In the US we (generally) have Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals. When one group tries to own the term progressive, then their corollary is that everyone else is close-minded/status quo types. That their group is "better" than the others.

All three groups have forward-thinking, open-minded people trying to push the country forward. And all three groups have dogmatic, intolerant, opinionated idiots.

 

I used to be in some kind of student organisation. They were against neo-liberalism. Well long story short: both sides of the argument used big words (and -isms) but defining those words; nope.

I actually studied the sources and several reports of one of the institutions involved. After weeks of digging I found some roots to a bigger problem: systems and incentives. From top to bottom certain systems and incentives made it possible to create very unpleasant situations.

After too many hot air media storms I gave up on that group. Social justice warriors, woke-ism, idealism and whatever is next I no longer care. If it does not work, stop talking and go back to zero.

This is the 21st century, we actually have the (relative) luxury to go back to zero and start over. Imagine living in war and/or cricis and/or poverty and there is no plan B. Yeah, good luck...

 

politically incorrect thread because "CoNSpIraCy"

The supply chain constrictions for "lower tech" chips should be over by now no? Most consumer and commodity grade goods are readily available again as far as I can tell. Yet, somehow, cars are still relatively unavailable or only available with massive markups.

Obvious conspiracy would be "dealership model and lobbying bad" and "capitalism bad". I'm sure "dealership bad" is part of it.

But does anyone think that there may be something going on behind the scenes here? Maybe governments using this upcoming EV push to "save the Gretas" and all the other REEEEEEEEs as a cover for more control over what we can and can't do with our vehicles? i.e. force everyone into electric cars by default because "still affordable"....... and EVs that will deliberately be made more easily controllable remotely and can have their power source controlled more easily via smart grid? Maybe even subsidizing these companies to do so (knowing full well they will lose sales and need to be propped up) soon, doubly so with trucks or vehicles that have actual utility / suitability outside of paved and sterilized roads?

Or is there really still a chip shortage, dealerships bad, and/or corporate management at car companies is really just that bad?

 

While everybody's knocking California (well, they were a few posts back, and it never seems to go out of date)...

I read that California is going BIG on solar power generation. They are constructing vast solar farms. Where? In the desert. What's wrong with that, I might have asked, before I read the article. Of course: deserts have complex eco systems too --- and they don't take well to being disturbed by all the construction work, let alone being covered in panels. It's not much fun for the people living there either.

Meanwhile, vast areas of urban roof are... just absorbing the heat.

 

Car Dealers See EVs As A Threat To Their Immense Power And They're Getting Angry (jalopnik.com)

 

As of Q1 2023, Tesla Model Y has now overtaken the Toyota Corolla as the world’s number one selling car. The world wants EV’s and Americans have been sick dealer bullshit for a long time. Next step is to cut down on rare earth metals (availability and environmental concerns) and cobalt (African child labor) usage in batteries, which is already in advanced stages of R&D.

“the cabal wants to control our cars” conspiracy theory is just another paranoid eye-roller IMO.

 

Ford CEO came very close to saying the right thing about heavy EV batteries - The Verge

 

Manufacturers are moving toward greater control of our cars after sale (not exclusively on EVs, but EVs will make it easier to paywall more features), but they're doing it to sell features as subscription services instead of one-time upfront costs and increase their profits.

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/01/08/bmw-subscription-pricing-options/

I don't think governments are pushing more control necessarily, but I could see them piggy-backing on those developments in the future. I do believe that the chip shortage is real, and even as it eases there will still be a lag before more chips means more cars just because of how the supply chain and manufacturing works.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/1...es-to-continue-throughout-2023-industry-says/

 

I recently started another part time term position with my former employer (from where I retired 5 years ago). We order a lot of Cisco networking products. A bit over a year ago at the height of supply chain disruption we were experiencing lead times of over a year for many of our orders, entirely because of lack of chips. Today I'm told it is down to 4-6 months. So better, but still not fixed.

Tesla having only 5 models kind of skews that stat in their favor. Toyota sold over 10 million cars last year compared to 1.3 million Teslas so I don't think the folks in Japan are too worried.

 

Nothing wrong with solar other than that fact that the average American (still) moves too frequently for the solar panels to pay off. Most countries people live in the same place for 15-30 years, consumer grade solar panel life span is about 20-30 years, and last time I checked, installation in most developed nations is about on par with US costs at $15-30k USD (converted into local currency). Pretty easy to benefit from the panels in this case. On the flip side Americans on average move in less than 10 years - hard to have net positive benefit unless you have an electric or hybrid plug in vehicle.

That and we still need the infrastructure to carry the power and serve as a backup on not-sunny days as well... and it needs to survive earthquakes. Hopefully whoever installs it... if the idiots running this place actually allow it... doesn't turn it into a money draining project like most other projects here. And also doesn't cut corners to line their own pockets (cough Texas power outages cough).

 

Can't wait to have direct to consumer sales of vehicles. Replace them with something akin to a Tesla store or the "Porsche Experience Center" in LA if they think it will sell more cars.

Of course the corps in charge of large auto dealer chains (as in 1000+ dealerships) will go on stage and conflate direct sales with all the other problems auto is facing right now and of course enough people will buy into it to complain with these things to impede progress. I can also see state and local govs doing some weird stuff around this given how much of their local sales tax revenue comes from car sales.

Only hesitancy with more direct auto sales would be service - while I don't own a Tesla myself, based on several people around me who do own one - it seems like the average service and warranty experience is worse than going to your local mechanic or even the local dealership ripoff experience. I don't see other mfgs choosing to not go this way as well eventually. Guess it boils back down to the concentration of power issue - except it's in different hands now.

 

Ok, so this might end up a long-winded post, so I'll swoop back and do a TL;DR if it is.

Here's the thing. Most auto manufacturers absolutely don't want to go all in with full BEV. Toyota has explicitly said so. And the reasoning is solid. The resources required to get a BEV to meet or exceed range expectations in similar segments means a BEV is going to be unsustainable at scale. Period. Ford (in the article I linked above) knows this, too. The automotive production market is laughing their asses off at the new Hummer EV not because of the silliness of the brand, but because GM is trying to "give the customers what they want" and in doing so are dooming their BEVs to fail because they'll never be able to produce affordable vehicles that can do the same thing as the Hummer EV. And then GM (and others) have a somewhat valid case to lobby Congress to say, "hey look! we tried!! we gave it a go, dumped a ton of engineering into these products, but you're going to kill our company if the regulatory environment considers full BEV as the only future of the consumer auto market".

ALL of these companies know that BEV isn't the answer to the carbon problem. Musk is just bullshitting to keep from losing market value in the interim until new home construction begins to make the powerwall a common appliance. Tesla is an interim solution, and exists to rack up $$$ and consumer confidence in a suite of technologies; not a long-lasting automotive brand like any of the legacy brands. Also, Tesla is banking on level 4 autonomy to pull them out of this conundrum, but sorry Karen Musk, L4 in a $30k car ain't gonna happen while I can still drive.

Toyota knows even with the expected increases to battery energy density and hypothetical/proposed charging infra that 90% of their markets will never get there. And 90% of Toyota's markets will still need new cars. The light and heavy transport industries know this too. Toyota (and most over-the-road tractor suppliers) know the only way to match the energy density of gas/diesel is to go hydrogen cell. And the existing infra can migrate to hydrogen at a pace that might actually meet the demand placed on it by selling more than a paltry 1M new vehicles per year. Toyota would rather throw baby batteries into every car they sell than throw 3,000lb packs into skateboards of 1-2% of their vehicles.

However, none of what I've blabbered on about starts to consider how some brands are beginning to "train" their consumers to expect a different lifecycle experience with these BEVs. Full BEV is going to necessarily become an appliance, even more so than the old "penalty box" Corolla's of yesteryear. No, the segment where consumer expectations for longevity, durability, class and sophistication are being obliterated is in the upper tier of mass production luxury brands. Just read/watch the last couple years-worth of reviews on the MB EQS, or the S-Klasse, or the Bimmer 7-er. Those vehicles are designed and engineered to barely outlast their lease terms, both from a physical quality perspective, but more importantly from a hardware, battery tech, and software perspective. The hard point engineering platform isn't the value-add for the vehicle; the subscription for service is.

So no, BEVs aren't there to turn you into Greta. There's no conspiracy. And the auto manufacturers are really having a hard time figuring out what the new normal is going to be.

But, be thankful we're now living in the golden age of gas powered cars. the specific output of gas engine cars these days while still being completely reliable is just crazy awesome. Go buy a bimmer with a B58 and bask in the glory of worry free huge HP while still getting wonderful gas milage. Or buy a Hellcat or Demon something-or-other and live life Greta-free, knowing you got the last best thing.

 

ERCOT in Texas is actually a leader in integrating asynchronous renewables into their grid, and lessons learned there will be used by others going forward. Good in depth article on how grids work and the challenges posed by variable generation here;

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73856.pdf

I'm hoping that synthetic fuels will one day allow for ICE cars to remain more than just curiosities. The EU has exempted cars powered by e-fuels from their future electrification requirements.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...s-from-2035-ban-on-new-sales-of-combustion-en

Porsche is leading the way, but hopefully this will scale in time.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a43239225/porsche-chile-e-fuels-synthetic-gasoline/

I've seen reports that say e-fuels could be roughly 50% more expensive than conventional gasoline by 2030. That premium is probably manageable by a significant segment of society. Time will tell.

 

The problem with batteries is that they are large and heavy. The energy you can put into that average (or maybe lower average today) 50 kWh battery equals the energy of 5 liters or 1.1 gallons diesel. And it probably weighs a ton or something?

But that also shows the problem of combustion engine cars: They are horribly inefficient. Those 5 liters take you more than 300 km (185 miles) in an EV (at least if it isn’t a largest SUV you could find) although it is much heavier than it should be.

Fuel cells? That’s just bringing inefficiency back to the EV. Producing hydrogen is inefficient, the fuel cell itself is inefficient, and you still need a battery (though not as large) because a fuel cell can’t provide the power a car needs while accelerating.

And power to liquid (e-fuels) is so massively inefficient that I’d personally call it completely brain dead. You lose lots of energy while producing the fuel, only to put it into a combustion engine that will turn 70-80% of the remaining energy into heat instead of traction? Why?

If all the world was so full of renewable energy that we didn’t know where to put it, then e-fuels might make sense. But even then it would be better to produce hydrogen and use it in fuel cells.

EDIT: It might actually make sense to do this to be able to keep old cars running, as producing a new car, especially one with a battery, takes huge amounts of energy, too.

Of course, a BEV is inconvenient compared to an ICE car. And the battery technology we have today is clumsy at best. But it’s the best we have right now. And maybe it’s not so important to have a car that can go 500 or even 1000 km without stopping.

 

Why? because it can be carbon neutral when using wind and/or solar for the electrolysis and refinement, and that's the whole point. It's not a battle for the cheapest or most efficient energy source from production to storage to distribution to consumption outright (because that's still oil and gas); it's a battle for the cheapest or most efficient carbon neutral energy source from production to storage to distribution to consumption. And the infrastructure for storage and distribution of e-fuel requires so little capital investment as compared to BEV infra that it almost by default allows every single oil and gas company to retrofit for near-zero cost, relatively. Hydrogen is in a similar position in the market. BEV charging infra? Not even close, even with all the big-G capital investment and incentivization. And how soon is all battery tech going to rely solely on plentiful chemistry?

If the world was so full of renewable energy that we didn't know where to put it, it wouldn't matter how we consume/convert it. Remember when crude went below $0?