Politics

[WAB]

This has been mentioned before but I like this chart.
When we are forced into a EV world, how much will all the other oil products cost?

View attachment 552356

And it doesn’t even list asphalt!

The NA refining industry has roughly a 70/30 split between gasoline and diesel. The rest of the world is roughly 30/70. So swings can be made but they take billions of dollars in cap ex and many years to execute.

Taking gasoline completely out of the product slate would be beyond current technological capabilities.

 

[Dragan N.]

This is a huge war crime, plain and simple.

I agree. And in your opinion, are these war crimes too? :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/saudi-war-crimes-yemen/

The Civilian Casualty Files

U.S.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Doug3006]

I agree. And in your opinion, are these war crimes too? :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/saudi-war-crimes-yemen/

The Civilian Casualty Files

U.S.

www.nytimes.com

Absolutely. Saudi has been a problematic ally since the end of WWII. The House of Saud is a brutal, totalitarian regime. Was it not for their oil and their usefulness as a throttle on Iranian ambitions I doubt we’d consider them an ally at all. We’ve been selling them weapons for decades. Their criminal use of them in Yemen doesn’t imply US involvement or approval. However, pulling our support of Saudi over their war in Yemen could mean more Iranian atrocities in the region. So, it’s complicated as they say.

 

[rookhawk]

EV tech works only in lala fantasy land like in the tiny town of Leisureland NM in the movie Downsizing or going to and from the bridge match at Sun City or for about 18 holes on the golf course. For the foreseeable future, pretty much green folly, nothing more. Unless mistaken, I think currently some small diesel vehicles can get 90 mpg. Explain how that would be a larger environmental foot print than that of an average EV. ???

I’ve known countless executives in NY, LA, Chicago, Miami that have travelled 100+ miles a day for work that have owned Teslas for a decade now. As I’ve said previously, the use case for the Series S was just that, white collar workers that were contemplating a BMW 345i or an Audi A8 sedan as their commuter and leisure car. A Tesla Series S is significantly faster off the line, (fastest car you can buy for under $250k…let that sink in) equally or better equipped with luxury sedan features, as a higher resale value, and costs HALF as much. HALF as much even with the removal of the Federal EV subsidy that expired for Tesla about 5 years ago.

These are not leftist people I might add, not one of them bought a Series S because they thought they were saving the planet. These are white collar workers that need a vehicle for city to suburb driving, plus a lot of expressway use, and has the curb appeal and amenities that would be suitable for country club, civic org, opera, charity benefit, and other evening activities.

I’ve never, ever said an EV is the right use case for everyone, but I find there is a subset of this board that cannot wrap their mind around the idea that their vehicle requirements are highly unusual, whereas many other people do just fine with EVs.

Series S - Excellent white collar vehicle
Series 3 - Excellent commuter / suburb / blue collar car

If Tesla made a one-ton diesel pickup, I would buy one as well. They happen to make really good vehicles whereas my Ford gas SUV is a complete turd.

 

[Red Leg]

Russian supersonic bomber destroyed in fireball by Ukrainian kamikaze drone

SHOCKING pictures show one of Putin’s prized Tu-22 supersonic bombers engulfed in flames after a suspected Ukrainian drone attack. New footage shows the devastating aftermath of the daring ka…

www.thesun.ie

The Russians use their TU-22M3 (Backfire) strategic bombers to launch cruise missiles into Ukraine. They are launched from within Russia well beyond range of any air defense systems. Yesterday, in a rather dramatic display of technical and engineering ingenuity, Ukraine flew a drone 650 Km inside Russia and struck at least one in its revetment at Soltsy Airbase (they claim two). The Russian MOD allowed that an aircraft had been damaged. It will take some rather dramatic restoration for at least this one to again be part of the Russian nuclear delivery fleet.

 

[Doug3006]

Russian supersonic bomber destroyed in fireball by Ukrainian kamikaze drone

SHOCKING pictures show one of Putin’s prized Tu-22 supersonic bombers engulfed in flames after a suspected Ukrainian drone attack. New footage shows the devastating aftermath of the daring ka…

www.thesun.ie

The Russians use their TU-22M3 (Backfire) strategic bombers to launch cruise missiles into Ukraine. They are launched from within Russia well beyond range of any air defense systems. Yesterday, in a rather dramatic display of technical and engineering ingenuity, Ukraine flew a drone 650 Km inside Russia and struck at least one in its revetment at Soltsy Airbase (they claim two). The Russian MOD allowed that an aircraft had been damaged. It will take some rather dramatic restoration for at least this one to again be part of the Russian nuclear delivery fleet.

It seems that Ukraine has advanced drone warfare significantly since the start of the war. They are really putting pressure on the Ruskies!

 

[Red Leg]

I’ve known countless executives in NY, LA, Chicago, Miami that have travelled 100+ miles a day for work that have owned Teslas for a decade now. As I’ve said previously, the use case for the Series S was just that, white collar workers that were contemplating a BMW 345i or an Audi A8 sedan as their commuter and leisure car. A Tesla Series S is significantly faster off the line, (fastest car you can buy for under $250k…let that sink in) equally or better equipped with luxury sedan features, as a higher resale value, and costs HALF as much. HALF as much even with the removal of the Federal EV subsidy that expired for Tesla about 5 years ago.

These are not leftist people I might add, not one of them bought a Series S because they thought they were saving the planet. These are white collar workers that need a vehicle for city to suburb driving, plus a lot of expressway use, and has the curb appeal and amenities that would be suitable for country club, civic org, opera, charity benefit, and other evening activities.

I’ve never, ever said an EV is the right use case for everyone, but I find there is a subset of this board that cannot wrap their mind around the idea that their vehicle requirements are highly unusual, whereas many other people do just fine with EVs.

Series S - Excellent white collar vehicle
Series 3 - Excellent commuter / suburb / blue collar car

If Tesla made a one-ton diesel pickup, I would buy one as well. They happen to make really good vehicles whereas my Ford gas SUV is a complete turd.

I don't think anyone is arguing that at current grid demand levels, that an EV might very well make good sense for an urban vehicle in many areas. However, I think most of us here are extremely skeptical of their utility in much of flyover country. I also don't think most of us are persuaded by acceleration that is irrelevant in our daily lives.

This is a summary of Tesla's own charging guidance.

Tesla chargers and charging types are divided into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. Level 1 chargers are 120-volt trickle chargers, which add 2 miles of range per hour and use the NEMA 5-15 adapter.

Level 2 chargers run on 240 volts, and charge times vary based on amperage. At up to 80 amps, a Level 2 Tesla charger will add between 9 and 52 miles of range per hour and take between 6 and 30 hours to charge completely. Most public charging stations are Level 2.

Level 3 chargers are Tesla’s remarkable Supercharger stations. These charge at 480 volts and at 300 amps, making charging a breeze. The fastest superchargers add around 200 miles of range in 15 minutes, and standard superchargers add 170 miles in around 30 minutes.

It is not really practical for many to install a level three charger in their home, and the level 1 charger (regular 120 current) is so slow as to be essentially useless if the car is being driven more than once every week or two without a nearby Tesla charging point.

My problem with 240 volt, which most homes could support, is the charging variance time. I was just a history major, but I am not sure 9-52 miles per hour of charging is a particularly useful planning figure.

A level three charger is nice if my company has a bank of them and not too many employees with EVs. We installed 10 at my Northrop Grumman building employing 250 - as long as they are a novelty, no problem. But the notion of getting into a line while the guy in front of me takes 15 to 30 minutes charging while I await my turn to spend a half hour at the "pump" is something that does not interest me in the slightest.

Finally, a data point that I do not have is regular overnight charging costs of hours long 240 current.

Now my skepticism may indeed be due to my lack of intellectual agility. But I see nothing personally compelling in the above operating parameters.

 

[Alistair]

I don't think anyone is arguing that at current grid demand levels, that an EV might very well make good sense for an urban vehicle in many areas. However, I think most of us here are extremely skeptical of their utility in much of flyover country. I also don't think most of us are persuaded by acceleration that is irrelevant in our daily lives.

This is a summary of Tesla's own charging guidance.

Tesla chargers and charging types are divided into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. Level 1 chargers are 120-volt trickle chargers, which add 2 miles of range per hour and use the NEMA 5-15 adapter.

Level 2 chargers run on 240 volts, and charge times vary based on amperage. At up to 80 amps, a Level 2 Tesla charger will add between 9 and 52 miles of range per hour and take between 6 and 30 hours to charge completely. Most public charging stations are Level 2.

Level 3 chargers are Tesla’s remarkable Supercharger stations. These charge at 480 volts and at 300 amps, making charging a breeze. The fastest superchargers add around 200 miles of range in 15 minutes, and standard superchargers add 170 miles in around 30 minutes.

It is not really practical for many to install a level three charger in their home, and the level 1 charger (regular 120 current) is so slow as to be essentially useless if the car is being driven more than once every week or two without a nearby Tesla charging point.

My problem with 240 volt, which most homes could support, is the charging variance time. I was just a history major, but I am not sure 9-52 miles per hour of charging is a particularly useful planning figure.

A level three charger is nice if my company has a bank of them and not too many employees with EVs. We installed 10 at my Northrop Grumman building employing 250 - as long as they are a novelty, no problem. But the notion of getting into a line while the guy in front of me takes 15 to 30 minutes charging while I await my turn to spend a half hour at the "pump" is something that does not interest me in the slightest.

Finally, a data point that I do not have is regular overnight charging costs of hours long 240 current.

Now my skepticism may indeed be due to my lack of intellectual agility. But I see nothing personally compelling in the above operating parameters.

It depends on application of course, and as you say, flyover country, rural areas are always going to be a struggle. But then roughly 80% of people live in urban areas: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html. The average American is doing less than 50 miles of driving a day: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm.

EVs can potentially be practical for most of these people, assuming they have somewhere to charge overnight, which 63% of Americans do: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicle...cent-all-housing-units-have-garage-or-carport.

In that context an L2 charger installed at home means that you get your daily commuting mileage replenished in 1-4 hours. Overnight at the absolute worst. So no public charging monday to friday for the average person. On weekends, well assuming you don't do more than 300 miles in a given day (so say 90%+ of weekends for most), you'll not need to charge anywhere but home then either.

That leaves us with approx. 11 days a year where the average person might want to travel further than 300 miles in one go and therefore might need to charge somewhere other than home. Honestly, this seems high if anything, considering you might be talking say 2x driving days for a vacation, 2x trips to drop a kid off at college and maybe 2x trips to visit family at Christmas as a reasonable example.

Still, 11 days a year means roughly 9 hours sat at a level 3 charger vs say 52 x 5 min gas stops at 4 hours or so per annum. If you decide to stop for lunch on your 500 mile journey taking 9 hours or so, that might not be any real delay at all. Worst case, it adds 40 mins to a 9 hour journey. Not awful.

As for charging costs, Americans pay 23 cents / KWh on average on electricity: https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/. The average EV gets 3-4 miles per KWh. That'd put the cost of 300 miles of range at $23, vs maybe $36 for gas at $3.60/gal and 30mpg. Not massive savings, but cheaper, certainly.

It's not gonna off-set the roughly $12k increase in purchase cost though ($61k for the average EV: https://www.findmyelectric.com/blog/electric-car-prices/ vs $49k for the average ICE: https://clark.com/cars/average-new-car-price/, but EV prices are coming down slowly and a Model 3 at say $45k is actually hitting price parity with the 'average' ICE cars Americans actually buy in 2023...

I have many issues with EVs in terms of cost and actual environmental impact, not to mention the resource scarcity issues and the current level of charging infrastructure, but honestly, charging time and range are not really a major concern for me, or 60%+, probably 80%+, of Americans if they're actually honest about their use case.

As such, I think EVs could be viable for most if the infrastructure improves, and hypothetically could even be environmentally beneficial (and increasingly affordable) assuming the battery tech improves. Right now, it's questionable on the second point though!

 

[rookhawk]

I don't think anyone is arguing that at current grid demand levels, that an EV might very well make good sense for an urban vehicle in many areas. However, I think most of us here are extremely skeptical of their utility in much of flyover country. I also don't think most of us are persuaded by acceleration that is irrelevant in our daily lives.

This is a summary of Tesla's own charging guidance.

Tesla chargers and charging types are divided into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. Level 1 chargers are 120-volt trickle chargers, which add 2 miles of range per hour and use the NEMA 5-15 adapter.

Level 2 chargers run on 240 volts, and charge times vary based on amperage. At up to 80 amps, a Level 2 Tesla charger will add between 9 and 52 miles of range per hour and take between 6 and 30 hours to charge completely. Most public charging stations are Level 2.

Level 3 chargers are Tesla’s remarkable Supercharger stations. These charge at 480 volts and at 300 amps, making charging a breeze. The fastest superchargers add around 200 miles of range in 15 minutes, and standard superchargers add 170 miles in around 30 minutes.

It is not really practical for many to install a level three charger in their home, and the level 1 charger (regular 120 current) is so slow as to be essentially useless if the car is being driven more than once every week or two without a nearby Tesla charging point.

My problem with 240 volt, which most homes could support, is the charging variance time. I was just a history major, but I am not sure 9-52 miles per hour of charging is a particularly useful planning figure.

A level three charger is nice if my company has a bank of them and not too many employees with EVs. We installed 10 at my Northrop Grumman building employing 250 - as long as they are a novelty, no problem. But the notion of getting into a line while the guy in front of me takes 15 to 30 minutes charging while I await my turn to spend a half hour at the "pump" is something that does not interest me in the slightest.

Finally, a data point that I do not have is regular overnight charging costs of hours long 240 current.

Now my skepticism may indeed be due to my lack of intellectual agility. But I see nothing personally compelling in the above operating parameters.

@Red Leg you're absolutely scrutinizing the right questions.

Level 1 charging is an extension cord. Its use case is literally topping off or trying to get a drop of juice in a moment of crisis. Nobody uses them.

Level 2 charge is what many people use if they are light drivers. The cool kids set it up to use late-night Kwh rates to top off their commuters at home. The average charge time is about 4-5 hours in the home garage to replenish the car if completely drained.

Level 3 does have a tax credit still in place, but if memory serves that sets you back $4500 plus an electrician IF you have the capacity in your garage. (most do not, super affluent suburbanites occasionally do, many rural people with home shops do)

The overnight charging costs are very attractive, way less than gas equivalent miles. The Tesla warranty on the batteries and lubricant changes over the first 5 years is free, your only costs other than power are tires and breaks which people go through very fast because the cars are so zippy.

The charging cost that isn't such a great deal is the cost of using a Supercharger ala carte. If you didn't buy the all-u-can-eat-forever license with a Tesla (its several thousand dollars), then you're "paying at the pump". A full charge at a supercharger one-time is $40-$50.

You're asking and questioning all the right things specific to Tesla (ignoring all other EVs that suck and lack any of the forethought in their offerings). The other calculations people consider are the accelerated tax depreciation or section 179 deductions. Teslas are amazing from a tax planning purpose, diesel trucks to a slightly lesser extend. It allows you to take tax deductions in year one, but you give up your $0.52 per mile rights in subsequent tax years. That's not so great for gas cars, but low maintenance vehicles like EVs and diesels make that a very sweet deal if you need to get rid of excess income in the form of expenses in a banner year.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Fat lot of good EV’s will be during winter storms when we lose power for weeks at a time…… just an observation.

 

[David AK 53]

I don't think anyone is arguing that at current grid demand levels, that an EV might very well make good sense for an urban vehicle in many areas. However, I think most of us here are extremely skeptical of their utility in much of flyover country. I also don't think most of us are persuaded by acceleration that is irrelevant in our daily lives.

This is a summary of Tesla's own charging guidance.

Tesla chargers and charging types are divided into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. Level 1 chargers are 120-volt trickle chargers, which add 2 miles of range per hour and use the NEMA 5-15 adapter.

Level 2 chargers run on 240 volts, and charge times vary based on amperage. At up to 80 amps, a Level 2 Tesla charger will add between 9 and 52 miles of range per hour and take between 6 and 30 hours to charge completely. Most public charging stations are Level 2.

Level 3 chargers are Tesla’s remarkable Supercharger stations. These charge at 480 volts and at 300 amps, making charging a breeze. The fastest superchargers add around 200 miles of range in 15 minutes, and standard superchargers add 170 miles in around 30 minutes.

It is not really practical for many to install a level three charger in their home, and the level 1 charger (regular 120 current) is so slow as to be essentially useless if the car is being driven more than once every week or two without a nearby Tesla charging point.

My problem with 240 volt, which most homes could support, is the charging variance time. I was just a history major, but I am not sure 9-52 miles per hour of charging is a particularly useful planning figure.

A level three charger is nice if my company has a bank of them and not too many employees with EVs. We installed 10 at my Northrop Grumman building employing 250 - as long as they are a novelty, no problem. But the notion of getting into a line while the guy in front of me takes 15 to 30 minutes charging while I await my turn to spend a half hour at the "pump" is something that does not interest me in the slightest.

Finally, a data point that I do not have is regular overnight charging costs of hours long 240 current.

Now my skepticism may indeed be due to my lack of intellectual agility. But I see nothing personally compelling in the above operating parameters.

It seems to me that an in home level 2 charger would easily meet local commuting requirements for most of us. We are charged for electricity based upon kilowatt-hours used and the voltage is not a factor in the rate, at least not on my electric bill. I think the take away is that EVs have utility for many use scenarios but are not a panacea for all transportation. Consumer desire, relevant technology advances and the market will drive (no pun intended) their acceptance and success.

 

[wesheltonj]

My next door neighbor bought a Tesla. Then had to buy a home charger. Then bought solar roof panels. I find it hard to see how the total operating cost is cheaper then gas/diesel.

 

[mdwest]

 

[mdwest]

it looks like Ukraine will be getting some F16's after all.. The Netherlands and Denmark just agreed to send them 19 F16's, and may potentially send them more (they have a total of 42)..

The Netherlands were among the first countries to buy the F16.. all of theirs are among the oldest and earliest F16A and F16 blocks.. But, I would think if they are employed correctly.. they will have a pretty serious negative impact on Russia.. and with a range of 2600+ miles they certainly have the ability to strike deep into the motherland and cause some pain to Russian cities and military installations that prior to now have been difficult to touch..

Netherlands, Denmark commit to delivering F-16s to Ukraine

The Netherlands and Denmark will supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine with first deliveries due around New Year, the prime ministers of the two NATO countries announced on Sunday during visits by Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy.

www.reuters.com

If Sweden follows through like they are talking about and donates Gripen's (also a 4th generation fighter with similar capabilities to the F16).. things might start getting a bit dicey for the Russians in a few months (its going to take a while to get all of these aircraft into Ukraine, figure out how to secure them from just getting shelled and cruise missiled by the Russians prior to ever deploying them, get mechanics and ground crews trained up, etc.. )... I doubt any of these aircraft are fully ready to be deployed before winter sets in this year.. but.. I think early 2024 might be very interesting to watch how things unfold..

 

[rookhawk]

it looks like Ukraine will be getting some F16's after all.. The Netherlands and Denmark just agreed to send them 19 F16's, and may potentially send them more (they have a total of 42)..

The Netherlands were among the first countries to buy the F16.. all of theirs are among the oldest and earliest F16A and F16 blocks.. But, I would think if they are employed correctly.. they will have a pretty serious negative impact on Russia.. and with a range of 2600+ miles they certainly have the ability to strike deep into the motherland and cause some pain to Russian cities and military installations that prior to now have been difficult to touch..

Netherlands, Denmark commit to delivering F-16s to Ukraine

The Netherlands and Denmark will supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine with first deliveries due around New Year, the prime ministers of the two NATO countries announced on Sunday during visits by Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy.

www.reuters.com

If Sweden follows through like they are talking about and donates Gripen's (also a 4th generation fighter with similar capabilities to the F16).. things might start getting a bit dicey for the Russians in a few months (its going to take a while to get all of these aircraft into Ukraine, figure out how to secure them from just getting shelled and cruise missiled by the Russians prior to ever deploying them, get mechanics and ground crews trained up, etc.. )... I doubt any of these aircraft are fully ready to be deployed before winter sets in this year.. but.. I think early 2024 might be very interesting to watch how things unfold..

@Red Leg , what's your military assessment of the F16 as an offensive or defensive weapon for Ukraine against Russia? Are these outdated technology gifted as a grand gesture, or are they providing actual field supremacy against Russian capabilities?

 

[Ray B]

With regard to electric cars- gleaned from the above comments I calculate that a charging station that operates at 240v and 80a = 19,200 w (19.2kwh) which moves the car 52 miles. Using the average of 1,000 miles per month a car would use 369kwh per month.
The average electricity use in the US is 886kwh per household per month.
If the households had one car and it was driven 1,000 miles per month the electricity use would increase from 886 to 1255kwh, a 42% increase in electrical use.
Just considering the increase load on the power grid (not counting all the infrastructure involved) I do not see that a mass changeover to electric cars is even in the realm of possibility.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

@mdwest the range you cited for the F-16 sounds more like the ferry range, not the combat radius. Regardless of the number, I’ve got to believe the aircraft Ukraine uses will be confined to Ukrainian airspace.

 

[VertigoBE]

If the households had one car and it was driven 1,000 miles per month the electricity use would increase from 886 to 1255kwh, a 42% increase in electrical use.
Just considering the increase load on the power grid (not counting all the infrastructure involved) I do not see that a mass changeover to electric cars is even in the realm of possibility.

exactly.

 

[mdwest]

Im not @Red Leg .. but my assessment is... "it depends"...

Russia has a limited number of 5th Generation fighters (SU-57).. which appear to be pretty far behind in terms of quality of our 5th Gen aircraft (F35 and F22).. that said, there is no doubt that the SU-57 is a superior aircraft to older mid 70's tech found in the early Gen 4 F16 models and the Gen 4 Gripen..

But there is much more in play than just the aircraft itself.. maintenance is a HUGE issue with fighter aircraft (not just the quality of maintenance, but also being able to keep up with maintenance requirements at all).. the F16 isnt a maintenance hog.. but.. it is also not an easy aircraft to keep maintained.. the Gripen was specifically built to be low maintenance and also specifically designed to operate in extreme cold environments (the F16 was not).. Im not sure how well SU57's endure exteme cold like the Ukrainian winter that will be upon them soon.. or what the log chains or maintenance issues might be associated with the SU-57 if they were to deploy them to Ukraine..

As I understand it, the primary fighter aircraft that the Russians are deploying in Ukraine is the SU-35, which is SUPPOSEDLY the Russian equivalent of the F16 (multi-role, twin engine, single seat, 4th Gen, etc)...

I am NOT a fighter pilot.. but.. the fighter pilots I do know (I know quite a few.. nature of my industry and all).. tell me that the F16 is the superior aircraft in a dog fight between the two.. but.. that the SU-35 has better stand off fight capability, and that this is how the Russians would likely try to engage the F16's..

So much of it I would think would depend on how the F16 is used (shoot down Russian aircraft? bomb Russian ground targets?) and then once it does engage enemy aircraft or ground targets, what tactics do the Ukrainians use vs the Russians use in those engagements..

 

[rookhawk]

With regard to electric cars- gleaned from the above comments I calculate that a charging station that operates at 240v and 80a = 19,200 w (19.2kwh) which moves the car 52 miles. Using the average of 1,000 miles per month a car would use 369kwh per month.
The average electricity use in the US is 886kwh per household per month.
If the households had one car and it was driven 1,000 miles per month the electricity use would increase from 886 to 1255kwh, a 42% increase in electrical use.
Just considering the increase load on the power grid (not counting all the infrastructure involved) I do not see that a mass changeover to electric cars is even in the realm of possibility.

@Ray B your math is right. What is a variable is they are blending all the Tesla data, including end of life collector vehicles like their Gen 1 Roadster that was made a decade ago.

Nonetheless, your paranoia about the grid is valid. You need to be equally paranoid about the availability of gas and diesel. We cannot predict the next shenanigans of the gubmint. I intend to have a diesel, gas, an electric vehicle in the future so I have a functional automobile when they decide to screw with the market demands unpredictably in the future. Hard to say which of those three will be functional when they next policy or world crisis unfolds.