Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    raptorman556

    + friends - friends
    53,803 link karma
    67,208 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] $10 Million LAPD Electric BMWs Appear Unused Or Misused raptorman556 1 points ago in news

    My biggest question is why the hell would you get an i3?

    For less money, you could have purchased a Chevrolet Bolt, which has 383 km of range (compared to 130/180 km for the i3). The Bolt is also larger in size, which makes it more practical.

    I cannot for the life of me figure out why they chose the i3. I did a comparison a while back here, and for the range/money the i3 is pretty much the worst value you can get. Not saying it's a bad car, some people like it, but hardly the right choice for a government agency that needs a practical vehicle.

    Seems to me that someone royally screwed up the implementation of this program, not that the idea itself is a bad one.

    [–] $10 Million LAPD Electric BMWs Appear Unused Or Misused raptorman556 1 points ago in news

    In city driving with traffic an EV would perform better. They do poorly at high speeds.

    [–] BMW Extends Range of Tesla Model 3-Rivaling iNext EV raptorman556 1 points ago in electricvehicles

    I mean the more the better i guess. But it does seem excessive considering the extra cost.

    [–] Liberals aim to 'instill culture of service' with new national youth initiative raptorman556 1 points ago in CanadaPolitics

    That's not really how it is.

    Simply having a capital doesn't get you anything. Just having money just means you have some money.

    What you get a return on is for investing capital. The better your return, the better you invested said capital. So if you really break it down, capitalists get a profit for efficient allocation of resources.

    Anyone can do this (most millionaires are just regular people that worked, saved, invested, repeat), but it does of course help a lot when you have large amounts of capital to begin with.

    [–] I heard you're into fights. I present to you Arron Afflalo! raptorman556 23 points ago in nba

    And Game 1 of the NBA Finals, the Cavaliers will be starting Conor McGregor at the PG, Money Maywether at the 2, Zack Kassian at the 3, Dwayne The Rock Johnson at the 4, and Zdano Chara at center.

    [–] Grassroots Liberals suggest ending criminal penalties for all illegal drugs for debate at policy meeting raptorman556 16 points ago in CanadaPolitics

    Can you cite those numbers? According to here, both last-month and last-year drug usage is lower after decriminalization than before (which are the best indicators that there has been a drop in active drug users).

    Deaths to to drug use fell by about 90%, and HIV infection rates plummeted.

    How expensive was it to put 60% more people into treatment? Some permanently?

    Likely cost a hell of a lot less than to arrest them, tie up law enforcement resources, put them through court, pay for their lawyers, put them in jail, and then release them....only for it to happen all over again.

    [–] Grassroots Liberals suggest ending criminal penalties for all illegal drugs for debate at policy meeting raptorman556 6 points ago in CanadaPolitics

    Well of course. But they will yield results.

    And honestly, criminlaization has never been a particularly effective incentive to not do drugs anyways.

    [–] Grassroots Liberals suggest ending criminal penalties for all illegal drugs for debate at policy meeting raptorman556 20 points ago in CanadaPolitics

    The purpose is more to shift how we treat drug addiction as 'criminal' to illness/rehabilitation. Stop wasting time imprisoning drug users (which, by itself, is a victim-less crime) and instead spend those funds on rehabilitation and education programs. Rehabilitation generally does a better job of convincing people not to do drugs compared to threat of jail time.

    I would still prefer a full legalization approach, but this decriminalization model has been pretty successful where it has been implemented (Portugal mainly) and I fully believe it would be an improvement over our current system.

    [–] BMW Extends Range of Tesla Model 3-Rivaling iNext EV raptorman556 8 points ago in electricvehicles

    Hey, if you can provide some good sources I'll gladly believe you. Just going off what I know.

    In 2009, the i3 concept that first debuted was all-electric (with 50 km range). It wasn't until 3 years later at the 2012 Los Angeles Auto Show that they debuted a concept that included the range extender. If it was designed to include it, I would think they would have included it originally.

    [–] BMW Extends Range of Tesla Model 3-Rivaling iNext EV raptorman556 5 points ago in electricvehicles

    I will sacrifice half of that range if they can get it here by 2019 instead of 2021.

    Seriously BMW, I appreciate the effort to put out a ground-breaking 700 km EV, I do, but the first priority should be to get it here now.

    [–] BMW Extends Range of Tesla Model 3-Rivaling iNext EV raptorman556 14 points ago in electricvehicles

    Not really. The i3 was designed to be an EV, they more or less fitted a range extender into it afterwards.

    I kinda see what you mean, but it's a grey area. Is the Ioniq BEV a 'true EV'? What about the Clarity BEV? Both have PHEV versions as well though.

    I do think it's better to design it as solely a BEV from the start though. Makes better use of space.

    [–] Electric Vehicles Cost Less Than Half As Much To Drive. In the new Michigan study, Sivak and Schoettle found that fuel costs for both type of cars vary dramatically from state to state. raptorman556 1 points ago in energy

    Here is a long run marginal analysis if that's what you want to see. A long run marginal analysis was performed here in Britain. It states exactly what I said in the abstract:

    Quantification of electricity use CO2 impacts via short-run emission factors is common. These short-run factors do not take account of structural change in a power system.

    But everything you need to know was written there if you read it all. A short run marginal analysis is only useful for looking at a very short timeframe. It is not useful for determining the real emissions impacts of an EV.

    When demand increases in the long term, so does generating capacity. That new generating capacity is even cleaner than our current generation.

    [–] Electric Vehicles Cost Less Than Half As Much To Drive. In the new Michigan study, Sivak and Schoettle found that fuel costs for both type of cars vary dramatically from state to state. raptorman556 2 points ago in energy

    No, you are not understanding what they wrote.

    The 'marginal' approach you're talking about is called 'short run'. It is only useful for determining emissions from an hourly timeframe. It is not even close to representative of the long run impact on the grid. In a real world analysis, this kind of model is worthless.

    What they're saying is if one EV comes online, they have to instantaneously respond to that load by using dispatchable sources. So in a one hour timeframe, the electricity has to come from something that is dispatachable. But in the long run, when EV's are always coming online it changes the overall make-up of the grid. When grid operators know that EV charging will occur, they are able to account for that demand and integrate more renewable energy (since renewable energy is integrated as a percent).

    The short run marginal model assumes ALL demand is met only by increased utilization of current dispatchable sources. That's true, when you look at an hour timeframe....but not when you consider the long term real life impacts of EV charging.

    Again, they stated this right after:

    Over time a large number of EVs will create significant demand that will need to be met through either greater energy efficiency, increased utilization of existing sources, new electricity generation, or very likely a combination of all three. A short-term marginal analysis only considers increased utilization of existing generating resources This short-term marginal emissions approach can provide a more precise snapshot of how the grid responds to a new load during a short amount of time

    So when EV charging occurs at an aggregate level consistently (like it does now, in the real world), that demand allows them to meet it partially with renewable (or other clean) sources of energy.

    The problem I have with the paper is that they do every trick in the book to obscure that this is really what's happening.

    It seems to me that you simply read what you want to hear....then forget all the inconvenient stuff that comes after it. Like how a short-run marginal model has no real world implications to how a grid responds to additional load in the long term. You simply assumed they would keep cranking up coal plants forever.

    [–] Electric Vehicles Cost Less Than Half As Much To Drive. In the new Michigan study, Sivak and Schoettle found that fuel costs for both type of cars vary dramatically from state to state. raptorman556 2 points ago in energy

    The problem is theory falls flat on its face in front of the facts.

    1) Because coal is rarely used for peaking, so it would not be used at the margin. Natural gas is and its way cleaner than a gas car anyways...so we're back to the same old conclusion.

    2) Your right, it does't scale proportionally. When more EV's come online in numbers, they build more clean generation. So if we're looking at generation added, then that is wind, solar, and natural gas.

    So in that case, the emissions "at the margin" are actually far cleaner than they assumed.

    You seem to be assuming an EV runs off of full coal without providing absolutely any good reason why at all. I don't know why you want that to be true so bad.

    You say "short term" but thats only true if only one person bought an EV. In reality, as the percent of the population that owns an EV rises, so does electricity demand. And when that rises they build additional generation to cope with it. So only the real question is what generation did they bring online on the whole that otherwise would not have existed?

    And the answer is a whole bunch of clean energy. So by your math, is EV is now likely 80% cleaner.

    [–] Electric Vehicles Cost Less Than Half As Much To Drive. In the new Michigan study, Sivak and Schoettle found that fuel costs for both type of cars vary dramatically from state to state. raptorman556 2 points ago in energy

    Seriously dude, re-read what you're writing. It's nonsense.

    The entire text of page 43 is about this particular conundrum

    I asked you to quote me where on page 43 it says an average mid-sized BEV has emissions equivalent to 29 MPG in a gas car. You failed to do so...because it's not fucking there. You said something that was not true, and now you're writing big paragraphs to try and deflect. You either made an honest mistake and misunderstood the content (possible), or you purposefully lied about it to try and promote your point of view even though it was not supported by facts.

    But then, what they say, is that when you actually charge your EV, the specific load of the car is actually charging from electrons that are coming from either coal or natural gas. The car's load adds CO2 generation that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

    Uh, why? Seriously. What you're saying isn't logical. If your point is that it adds generation that otherwise would not have existed, sure but that hardly helps your case. In fact, you literally just proved yourself wrong. Recent additions to the grid are much cleaner than the current infrastructure. Net additions are wind, solar, natural gas, and nuclear. All relatively clean sources of electricity, and replacing mainly coal and natural gas. You say the "added load" comes from the dirtiest sources....and don't back that assertion up in the slightest (because it, of course, is another lie in what is becoming a very long string of them).

    You want them to weight all areas by population instead of by where the EV's exist...but I'm not sure why? You fail to provide a justification for why that is a better way to measure it.

    Even if it was, then EV's are 30-50% cleaner instead of 60% cleaner. Happy? You're still wrong. They're still way better, and the point still stands.

    [–] Electric Vehicles Cost Less Than Half As Much To Drive. In the new Michigan study, Sivak and Schoettle found that fuel costs for both type of cars vary dramatically from state to state. raptorman556 2 points ago in energy

    Where? I have keyword searched the entire document and I cannot find what you are referring to on Page 43. However, on page 7 it is very clear:

    For example, if one were to charge a typical midsize BEV using electricity generated by coal-fired power plants, that BEV would have an MPGghg of 29. In other words, the global warming emissions from driving it would be equivalent to the emissions from operating, and producing the fuel for, a gasoline vehicle with a 29 MPG fuel economy rating over the same distance (see Table 1).

    [–] Jonathan Isaac invited his Magic teammates to watch him preach. None of them showed up. raptorman556 5 points ago in nba

    Honestly, this just kind of reminded me of all the times my friends invite me to something but I blow it off because I'm not feeling up to it that day. I have to remember that it's not always about me and how I'm feeling, it's about them sometimes too.

    [–] Electric Vehicles Cost Less Than Half As Much To Drive. In the new Michigan study, Sivak and Schoettle found that fuel costs for both type of cars vary dramatically from state to state. raptorman556 2 points ago in energy

    You disagree with the public consensus and agree with the scientists who wrote that paper you linked?

    Umm, and where exactly was this consensus reached that I missed? I'm a mod of /r/electricvehicles, and it certainly wasn't reached in our sub. So perhaps you can point me to where all EV owners agreed this?

    First of all, batteries don't degrade by "years", the study shouldn't have used that as a measurement, but they were simply implying it would last the life of the car. Batteries degrade most closely as a function of cycles, which more closely correlates to kilometers driven than time.

    Some EV owners say their battery lasts for 6-8 years. We have a saying: "They aren't wrong, they're Nissan Leaf owners".

    The Leaf (one of the best selling EV's in the world) is famous for fast battery degradation because it does not have active thermal management like all other major EV's. With that being said, starting in model year 2019, the Leaf will have active thermal management. So this is a temporary issue.

    Aside from the Leaf, battery degradation is much slower. The reason they didn't cite any empirical data is because there is very little to cite. The best data we have is over 500 Tesla Model S owners who voluntarily self-reported their battery degradation. The chart is a lot easier to understand than sorting through the Excel files, so the chart is here. The long and short of it is an average EV will likely reach 250,000 kilometers with battery degradation around 10% (anything above 80% is considered to be still good and not at replacement level). It should also be noted that Tesla uses a battery chemistry that is generally considered to be lower quality (with faster degradation) than most EV's, so if anything most other EV's perform better than this, not worse.

    The average car lifespan is about 247,000 kilometers. So yes, in a normal EV (and this will be especially true once the 2019 Leaf goes on sale), the battery will in fact last the lifetime of the car.

    I'll address your other points too:

    One key number that jumped out to me is that on-average a mid-size EV will produce the emissions of a 29MPG car

    ...if it was charged 100% from electricity only from coal power plants. Did you make a mistake? Or did you purposefully decide to leave that inconvenient little detail out and hope no one actually read the study? (Page 7 for anyone that wants to see themselves)

    So in other words, if you had an EV hooked straight up to a coal power plant, it would be as dirty an average ICE.

    against ICE cars, and NONE of the oil production against EV's

    They did not count emissions from plastic or oil used in the manufacturing process for EITHER ICE or EV vehicles, because as they noted similar amounts of plastic are used in both so it doesn't make a difference. Tires don't magically wear faster just because it has an electric motor.

    Later, [chapter 2], they gloss over EV battery life

    I already discussed it above, but if it makes you feel any better, they also assumed:

    • An ICE engine never had to be replaced or rebuilt, it lasted the lifetime of the car too
    • They did not factor in any of the emissions associated with the considerably more repairs that take place in an ICE vehicle compared to an EV.

    A full-size long-range (265 miles per charge) BEV, with its larger battery, adds about six tons of emissions, which increases manufacturing emissions by 68 percent over the gasoline version

    So? They factored that in to their final result. That was sound methodology. I don't even know what your point is here.

    " the average electricity grid emissions intensity during vehicle operation are based on a sales-weighted average of where EVs are being sold today."

    ....as is the correct methodology, again. The study aimed to determine the average emissions of an EV sold in America, so it's only correct to weight that according to where those EV's actually are. I would have disappointed if they didn't account for that. However, just to ease your concerns even further, they calculated the MPG a gas car would have to reach in order to hit emission parity with an EV in every region in America and not one region had a rating low enough as the average gas car fuel efficiency. The closest they hit was 35 MPG in a couple small regions in the MidWest, and the average fuel efficiency in America is 29 MPG.

    So no matter where you are in the country, an EV is cleaner.

    They weighted their results by assuming that the best case EV scenario should compete against the worst case ICE scenario.

    Uh, what? They weighted the AVERAGE fuel efficiency a gas car has versus the AVERAGE emissions from the electricity an EV actually runs on. It was real life average to real life average. I have no idea how you managed to come up with this 'best to worst' scenario.

    Now, just to put you at ease a little further, I would like to point out a couple assumptions I think were pretty conservative:

    • They assumed the US grid stayed at its current make-up through-out the life of the EV. The US grid's carbon intensity has been falling for 30 years, and falling very rapidly as of the past few years. It will clearly continue to get cleaner as more solar/wind/natural gas is brought online, and more coal retires. They did not account for this.

    • Perhaps their most generous assumption for ICE's, they assumed that ZERO parts of the EV battery would be recycled. We know this will not be true though, the Tesla Gigafactory is built to recycle about 80% of the battery into new batteries. This will also lower emissions by significant amounts.