Automakers make the case for electric pickup trucks

[Tecumsehsbones]

Wait a second. I thought there was supposed to be a growing fresh water shortage. How is destroying 500,000 gallons of water/ton of lithium not going to exacerbate the problem? Assuming it's actually a problem.
Let's do the math by weight shall we. Based on 10lbs per gallon of water, yes that's pretty much what a gallon of water weighs, that's 5 million lbs of water. Converted to tons, lithium production destroys 2500 tons of water for every 1 ton of lithium. Less polluting? I doubt it. And that's just one single element where mining and refining is going to have be ramped up substantially to meet the 2050 target date bullshit.
Here's what the "intelligentsia" of the left has decided. They are simply going to replace one form of environmental problems with an even bigger, different set of environmental problems. There seems to be a complete disconnect between seeing "clean energy" on the end-users end, and the massive environmental, ecological and habitat destruction on the production end that the "Green Devolution" ideology will require.
Then again, as the old saw goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Good, poorly thought out intentions.

I would very much like to see an analysis of the environmental effects of producing and using storage batteries vs. producing and using petroleum products. I'll have to do some research.

NB: A gallon of water weighs eight pounds. Remember "a pint's a pound the world round?" Two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon. Eight pints per gallon.

In metric it's easier (always is): a litre of water weighs a kilogram.

 

[Hoid]

I would very much like to see an analysis of the environmental effects of producing and using storage batteries vs. producing and using petroleum products. I'll have to do some research.

NB: A gallon of water weighs eight pounds. Remember "a pint's a pound the world round?" Two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon. Eight pints per gallon.

In metric it's easier (always is): a litre of water weighs a kilogram.

Jesus Christ.

If this was 20 years ago I would have applauded your due diligence on the battery vs fossil fuel debate..

Unfortunately it's today so all I can do is laugh at your intellectual laziness.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Jesus Christ.

He can't come to the computer just now. Can I take a message?

If this was 20 years ago I would have applauded your due diligence on the battery vs fossil fuel debate.

Unfortunately it's today so all I can do is laugh at your intellectual laziness.

And yet you offer nothing to back up your opinion. Funny how that works, enit?

Actually, comprehensive examinations of all the environmental effects of things are rare, because they're hard to do. Convinced partisans like you and Jin take an emotional point of view, then make arguments based on cherry-picked facts.

Remember when the lefties were railing against disposable diapers? They kinda shut it down when some researchers demonstrated that the environmental costs of laundering and sanitizing cloth diapers were equal to or higher than the environmental costs of disposable diapers in landfills. Or so I hear. Never actually read the studies myself. Don't use diapers.

I know, I know, you have THE TRVTH, and anybody who disagrees with you is a greedy polluting fascist.

And Jin has THE TRVTH, and anybody who disagrees with him is a shrieking commie eco-fascist.

Not buying it from either of you.

 

[Hoid]

Start here Seeker of Truth:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/tes...ntal-credits-help-drive-to-profitability.html

Tesla revenue hit $6.04 billion during the second quarter of 2020, with about 7% of that, or $428 million, coming from sales of regulatory credits.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Start here Seeker of Truth:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/tes...ntal-credits-help-drive-to-profitability.html
Tesla revenue hit $6.04 billion during the second quarter of 2020, with about 7% of that, or $428 million, coming from sales of regulatory credits.

What makes you think Tesla's financial position says anything about the environmental impact of its products?

 

[Hoid]

I think it says a great deal when a company that is emblematic of the electric automobile gets paid hundreds of millions of dollars to give their environmental credits to companies who are emblematic of internal combustion engines.

Of course it would require you to look into what these credits are and why they are being traded.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think it says a great deal when a company that is emblematic of the electric automobile gets paid hundreds of millions of dollars to give their environmental credits to companies who are emblematic of internal combustion engines.
Of course it would require you to look into what these credits are and why they are being traded.

And particularly whether they are "carbon credits," or whether they actually take into account all of the environmental costs of producing a vehicle.

Not that I have any problem with carbon taxes and carbon credits, mind. They're a good way to drive innovation.

 

[Hoid]

You would have thought that they would have looked into the battery vs fossil fuel thing before creating these credits.

You would have thought that Ford and GM would look into it themselves before paying Tesla hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Oh wait.

They did all look into it. Years ago.

You remain one one key player who has not been convinced.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You would have thought that they would have looked into the battery vs fossil fuel thing before creating these credits.

If you're hopelessly naive about politics, that is.

You would have thought that Ford and GM would look into it themselves before paying Tesla hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Oh wait.
They did all look into it. Years ago.
You remain one one key player who has not been convinced.

I remain the one key player who hasn't looked at the direct evidence in depth.

And no, argumentum ad populam ain't gonna make your case.

 

[Hoid]

OK we'll all hold our breath until you come up with the answers you're looking for that everyone on Earth already has.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

OK we'll all hold our breath until you come up with the answers you're looking for that everyone on Earth already has.

“If ‘everybody knows’ such–and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”

-- Robert A. Heinlein

 

[Jinentonix]

I would very much like to see an analysis of the environmental effects of producing and using storage batteries vs. producing and using petroleum products. I'll have to do some research.

NB: A gallon of water weighs eight pounds. Remember "a pint's a pound the world round?" Two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon. Eight pints per gallon.

In metric it's easier (always is): a litre of water weighs a kilogram.

Gallons come in two measurements, US and Imperial. A US gallon is almost a litre less than an imperial gallon. In Canada we used imperial measures before the metric system was introduced.
But let's go with US gallons. 500,000 x 8 = 4,000,000 lbs. So instead of 2500 tons of water to produce 1 ton if lithium, it's only takes 2000 tons of water to make 1 ton of lithium. Water shortage averted by a simple change from imperial to US gallons. Phew. So, based on 215,000 tons of lithium produced per year (as of now) that's 430 million tons of water destroyed each year in the process. I don't see that being sustainable, especially with the size of the increase in lithium that'll be needed to meet the 2050 target. And that's just one element.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Gallons come in two measurements, US and Imperial. A US gallon is almost a litre less than an imperial gallon. In Canada we used imperial measures before the metric system was introduced.
But let's go with US gallons. 500,000 x 8 = 4,000,000 lbs. So instead of 2500 tons of water to produce 1 ton if lithium, it's only takes 2000 tons of water to make 1 ton of lithium. Water shortage averted by a simple change from imperial to US gallons. Phew. So, based on 215,000 tons of lithium produced per year (as of now) that's 430 million tons of water destroyed each year in the process. I don't see that being sustainable, especially with the size of the increase in lithium that'll be needed to meet the 2050 target. And that's just one element.

Yep, I completely forgot about the Imperial measure. The 20-ounce pint and such.

Ya got me good (actually, I got myself. You weren't laying a trap for me). I know about Imperial measures, I just totally brain-blanked on it.

I think I need a 20-ounce pint.

 

[petros]

I've got my eye on the new 7.3L cuz they dont exist.

Ford's new 7.3-litre gas V8 makes some outrageous power numbers
BY MATTHEW GUY
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: AUG 1, 2019

Ford F-Series, America’s best-selling truck for 42 years, is once again raising the bar for capability with its all-new...

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

Google+

Linkedin
When your author initially heard the Blue Oval was in the throes of developing a new truck engine displacing a prodigious 7.3 litres, it was assumed someone had frying pans for fingers and simply mistyped the displacement. “Surely they mean six-point-three litres,” I thought while eating a bowl of breakfast nails and shaving with a rusty razor (that’s the meal of choice for Super Duty owners, right?).

Nope, 7.3 litres it is, or 445 cubic inches. Ford claims this engine produces a best-in-class gas V8 output of 435 horsepower at 5,500 rpm; and 475 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,000 rpm.


In a day and age where most manufacturers are bent on downsizing and turbocharging their gasoline engines (including Ford themselves with its EcoBoost), this 7.3-litre brute is a remarkable departure.

The aim is to provide durability in the harsh environments into which Super Duty trucks are often pressed. Ford says to this end the engine uses overhead valve architecture — yep, this is a pushrod mill. Engine builders know having an in-block cam reduces engine height and width; look at an old Ford 5.0-litre and 4.6-litre side-by-each for that stark illustration.

This engine also features a variable-displacement oil pump that provides more oil when drivers are working the thing like a rented mule, but reduces parasitic loss under light loads. It is hooked to Ford’s ten-speed automatic. Engine start/stop and cylinder deactivation tech goes unmentioned.



Such a design choice is interesting because, for nearly twenty-five years, Ford’s gasoline V8 engines have been small(er) displacement units and of an overhead-cam design. If your author’s memory serves correctly, the last Blue Oval pushrod V8 was a 351 Windsor found in the 1995 Cobra R. I’m certain you’ll tell me I’m wrong in the comments.

 

[Jinentonix]

Yep, I completely forgot about the Imperial measure. The 20-ounce pint and such.

Ya got me good (actually, I got myself. You weren't laying a trap for me). I know about Imperial measures, I just totally brain-blanked on it.

I think I need a 20-ounce pint.

Meh, no worries. Considering the info I gave out was gleaned from a US source, it's most likely they were referring to US gallons anyway.