|
Mar 19, 2023 | 10:10
61
The NA manufacturers have stopped making sedans. Poor margin, low demand.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2023 | 10:18
62
 Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5
I don't seem to recall the bag phones having a battery. Perhaps there was a portable model and one meant to be left in the car? All the ones I remember using took power from the vehicle.
And don't use it unless it's an emergency because airtime was very expensive.
Nope ,they’re was a battery model also
“JJ6-5546” registered in Edmonton , remember it well ,lol
Fight for your place at the operator
And then there was the infamous call overheard by many when a fella phoned his wife to inform her that he wasn’t getting days off again
She replied “well there is going to be some ****ing going on here this weekend , if you wanna be in on it , you better be here”
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2023 | 10:51
63
Originally Posted by blackpowder
The NA manufacturers have stopped making sedans. Poor margin, low demand.
There go those pesky consumers voting with their wallets again.
Completely unacceptable. In the next 5-year plan we must build only the type of cars the consumer does not want to buy.
Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Mar 20, 2023 at 07:57.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2023 | 11:12
64
Originally Posted by caseih
Nope ,they’re was a battery model also
“JJ6-5546” registered in Edmonton , remember it well ,lol
Fight for your place at the operator
And then there was the infamous call overheard by many when a fella phoned his wife to inform her that he wasn’t getting days off again
She replied “well there is going to be some ****ing going on here this weekend , if you wanna be in on it , you better be here”
Aw yes, radio telephones as well. Mine was XJ5, can't remember the rest.
Knock knock. Who's there. Dishes. Dishes who? Dishes the Shlay Lake mobel operator, who's calling?
Ya, I'm going to hell.
Last edited by blackpowder; Mar 19, 2023 at 11:21.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2023 | 14:25
65
Who on this site would consider buying a 10 year old EV? Last time I checked, a 10 year old well maintained ICE vehicle still had interested buyers.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2023 | 15:09
66
Originally Posted by Chief
Who on this site would consider buying a 10 year old EV? Last time I checked, a 10 year old well maintained ICE vehicle still had interested buyers.
Probably the same people who would consider buying 10 a year old cordless power tool or cell phone with the original battery.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2023 | 16:35
67
Exactly A5. The depreciation on these vehicles is going to make peoples heads spin until they fall off.
Right now a person who can not afford new can buy an old beater and get from a to b. If they are mechanically inclined it will keep running for many years. A used up battery in an old EV, not so much.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2023 | 16:39
68
Years off lower and middle income people driving them that's for sure.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 07:24
69
Read a very interesting article on Reuters this morning:”Scratched EV battery? Your insurer may have to junk the whole car.”
Where to start? Tesla’s make the battery part of the main structure of the vehicle. $20000 for a new battery on a $43000 car that depreciates quickly. Tesla won’t release diagnostics, no way to test the battery. Write off the car.
EV’s cost more to insure. 27% higher rates in the U.S.
Still working on making the batteries recyclable. In Britain first a written off car must have the battery tested for integrity so there is no risk of fire then are stacked and stored in containers.
On the plus side manufacturers are working on making the batteries easier to test and repair(except Tesla).
Anyway interesting article, not sure EV’s are an improvement in any way. Much more in the article.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 07:41
70
https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-internal-combustion-engines/
Electric Vehicles Are Way, Way More Energy-Efficient Than Internal Combustion Vehicles
Say you drop $5 on a gallon of gas—only about $1 dollar's worth actually gets you moving in a traditional ICE vehicle.
Justin WestbrookWriterFile PhotoIllustratorPovi PullinenPhotographer
Aug 12, 2022
Out of the 8.9 million barrels of gasoline consumed daily in the U.S. on average, only 1.8 million gallons, or approximately 20 percent, actually propel an internal combustion vehicle forward. The other 80 percent is wasted on heat and parasitic auxiliary components that draw away energy. As the world begins its shift to EV proliferation, the good news is electric vehicles are far more energy efficient on the road.
A new set of graphics from Yale Climate Connections makes visualizing the efficiency gains of an EV over an ICE vehicle straightforward. Using data from fueleconomy.gov and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these graphics break down the energy waste in your typical gas-powered car.
The vast majority of energy wasted in an ICE vehicle is through the heat the engine produces, which you can literally feel radiating from under the hood. About 5 percent is lost through parasitic engine components including the cooling system, which draws on the engine's own energy to help cool it down, about 4 percent is lost through the mechanical friction of the drivetrain and transmission components, and another 2 percent could be lost to auxiliary electrics like heated and powered seats, lights, and infotainment systems. In total, approximately 75 to 84 percent of the original gasoline's energy is lost.
Compare that to only 31-35 percent energy loss in the average electric vehicle (average EV battery size is about 63 kWh), before factoring in potential recuperation from energy regeneration. Its losses can be broken down into approximately 10 percent of the source energy from the grid lost in the charging process, 18 percent lost to the drivetrain motor components, up to 4 percent lost to auxiliary components, and another 3 percent lost solely from powertrain cooling and other vehicle systems.
Comparing the two, "the rough math pencils out to the energy equivalent of around 2 million barrels of gasoline per day, which is a substantial savings over the 8.9 million barrels currently used," according to Yale Climate Connections. But what about the power plants used to "refuel" those electric cars? Are they any more efficient than gas-powered cars? Well, yes. Much more efficient, in most cases.
"Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles," according to Yale Climate Connections. Right now, all of that energy is getting lost mostly to heat. What a waste. For more facts and figures, read the full Yale Climate Connections report here.
Last edited by chuckChuck; Mar 20, 2023 at 07:57.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 07:48
71
It turns out that to electrify personal transportation doesn't require as much new electricity as the naysayers claim because EVs are so much more efficient than very inefficient ICE vehicles.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 07:49
72
Originally Posted by chuckChuck
It turns out that to electrify personal transportation doesn't require as much new electricity as the naysayers claim because EVs are so much more efficient than very inefficient ICE vehicles.
This will make it easier to read I hope.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 07:49
73
EV=CO2 Reduction???? Not.
Perhaps in some warm windy climates… which can generate reliable solar /wind energy…. Some day in the future…
For 80 % of the global land mass… hydro and nuclear will be required for reliable electrical grid supply….
Interesting times!
The UN just released a grim reaper climate report… add fuel to the fire… not constructive or practical.
Blessings and Prayers
Cold weather for the next month in North America… way below normal…
Climate change… blame it on global warming!
Cheers
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 07:54
74
To read the image above read the whole article from Yale on line.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/
Electrifying transportation reduces emissions AND saves massive amounts of energy
Electric vehicles are far more energy-efficient than traditional internal combustion vehicles.
Karin Kirk
by Karin Kirk August 7, 2022
EV concept
With high energy prices and increasing urgency to reduce fossil fuel burning, it makes sense to get the most out of every gallon of gasoline or kilowatt-hour of electricity.
A previous post showed that charging an EV costs around the equivalent of $1.41 per gallon in the U.S., offering consumers a major savings over gasoline. Part of why EVs are cheap to operate is that they use energy with impressive efficiency.
Delving deeper, there’s a stark difference between the way internal combustion and electric engines use energy. The bad news is that combustion engines are fundamentally inefficient. But the good news is that electric motors offer vast improvements and save money and energy. Even better: Replacing traditional vehicles with electric ones will require far less energy overall.
Modern gasoline-powered vehicles waste a whopping 80% of the energy in their fuel. For each gallon pumped into the tank, only a bit more than three cups go to moving the vehicle forward. In economic terms, for a $5.00 gallon of gasoline, only $1.00 of it gets you closer to your destination.
Most of this waste is an inescapable consequence of thermodynamics. Internal combustion engines ignite liquid fuel to create a pressurized gas that pushes pistons to turn a crankshaft that ultimately spins the car’s wheels. This multistep process bleeds off energy all along the way. Most of the energy in the fuel ends up as heat, and only a small fraction reaches the wheels. The concept of wasted heat becomes intuitive when one thinks about the hot air wafting off a car’s running engine. The engine itself gets hot; a cooling system is needed to manage excess heat; and heat is dispersed through the radiator and blows out the exhaust. All of that heat comes from gasoline, and none of it helps propel the vehicle.
Further energy uses come from pumps and fans, some of which, ironically, are needed to carry away waste heat. These are called parasitic losses. Mechanical friction within the transmission and drivetrain lops another 3 to 5% off the overall efficiency. The final loss of energy is from auxiliary electrical components like heated seats, lights, the audio system, and windshield wipers. Taken together, these accessories can consume up to 2% of the vehicle’s total energy intake.
The net result is that only around 20% of the energy that’s pumped into the fuel tank ends up at the wheels.
Gas-powered vehicle energy losses
Even the most fuel-efficient gasoline-powered vehicles can’t sidestep these energy losses. Cars with high fuel economy are lighter, smaller, and more aerodynamic, thereby making the best possible use of the energy that ends up in the drivetrain. Diesel engines have somewhat better thermodynamic efficiency, averaging in the high 30s to around 40%. But major thermodynamic losses are a stubborn fact of life for all combustion-based engines.
For a more detailed explanation and sources for the figure above, see FuelEconomy.gov.
The simple efficiency of electric motors
Electric vehicles are propelled by entirely different mechanisms. Energy enters the vehicle as electricity, which directly powers the drivetrain: EVs need not convert one form of energy to another, which is a big factor in their efficiency
Electric motors are simple machines with few moving parts, especially compared with the complexities of an internal combustion engine. In an EV, electricity from the car’s battery flows into a cylinder that generates a rotating magnetic field. Inside that cylinder is a rotor that spins as it gets pulled along by the magnetic attraction. The spinning rotor turns an axle that drives the wheels.
The whole process works in reverse, too: The car’s spinning wheels can turn the rotor and feed electricity back into the battery. This process of regenerative braking can recapture energy that would otherwise be lost as friction and heat.
EVs are not 100% efficient though, and they lose energy in a few ways. Some energy is lost in the process of recharging the battery, and electricity is consumed for the vehicle’s cooling and power steering. Auxiliary electric use is higher in EVs compared with combustion engines, mostly due to the electricity needed to heat the car’s interior in cold weather. In an internal combustion vehicle, waste heat is used to warm the car’s cabin.
In all, the various energy losses in an EV add up to 31% to 35%. Regenerative braking adds 22% back into the system, making the overall efficiency around 87% to 91%. The specific numbers vary based on the type of car and how it’s used, but the overall simplicity and efficiency is a contrast to traditional vehicles that have been the mainstay of the roadways for 130 years.
The numbers are from FuelEconomy.gov, and DigitalTrends has a helpful explainer for how various components of EVs work.
Energy lost by electric vehicles
Transition to EVs will reduce overall amount of energy needed for transportation
The energy efficiency of EVs is a clear boon for consumers, but it offers an even more significant benefit in the transition away from petroleum-burning transportation. In the U.S., about 8.9 million barrels of motor gasoline are used every day, and around 80% of that energy is wasted as heat and friction. Of the total amount of gasoline burned, only 1.8 million of those barrels (20%) propel vehicles along the road. This means that if the gasoline vehicle fleet was replaced with EVs, those EVs would need the energy equivalent of only around 1.8 million barrels of gasoline per day, plus the 11% energy loss within the EV itself. The rough math pencils out to the energy equivalent of around 2 million barrels of gasoline per day, which is a substantial savings over the 8.9 million barrels currently used.
Of course, this begs the question of the efficiency of electric power plants that charge EVs. Thermal power plants – such as coal, gas, or nuclear – face similar thermodynamic challenges as internal combustion engines, but power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles.
Replacing gasoline with different energy sources
But what about batteries? Manufacturing an EV battery consumes the energy equivalent of about 74 gallons of gasoline. Over the 10-year lifespan (or more) of the battery, the energy investment in the battery is far too small to change the outcome – which is good news.
Decarbonizing the world’s energy supply is an enormous and daunting task. But at least in this case, the job gets easier as highway transportation shifts away from oil. The major improvement in driving efficiency offered by EVs means that vehicles can emit less carbon and less pollution, while also lowering overall energy demand. In a world of tough tradeoffs, this one is an easy win.
Editor’s note: An upcoming article at this site will explore the efficiency of different types of power generation, including wind and solar.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 08:36
75
Originally Posted by TOM4CWB
EV=CO2 Reduction???? Not.
Perhaps in some warm windy climates… which can generate reliable solar /wind energy…. Some day in the future…
For 80 % of the global land mass… hydro and nuclear will be required for reliable electrical grid supply….
Interesting times!
The UN just released a grim reaper climate report… add fuel to the fire… not constructive or practical.
Blessings and Prayers
Cold weather for the next month in North America… way below normal…
Climate change… blame it on global warming!
Cheers
Bloomberg says talk at the upcoming G7 many countries will be focused on energy security. Climate Change / Green Economy has been bumped way down the list for obvious reasons.
We saw a preview with Germany and Japan visits.
How will PMJT react? Will he keep parroting his single focus agenda? Will he sulk off to the fringes? Or come home with a new attitude and help our allies with new development of our natural resources?
Climate Change/woke/inclusiveness agenda is not playing well these days.
People value their house, car, and food more than they realized.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 10:24
76
Originally Posted by shtferbrains
Bloomberg says talk at the upcoming G7 many countries will be focused on energy security. Climate Change / Green Economy has been bumped way down the list for obvious reasons.
We saw a preview with Germany and Japan visits.
How will PMJT react? Will he keep parroting his single focus agenda? Will he sulk off to the fringes? Or come home with a new attitude and help our allies with new development of our natural resources?
Climate Change/woke/inclusiveness agenda is not playing well these days.
People value their house, car, and food more than they realized.
We went to a seminar on Friday… and went through the Liberals 30% reduction in nitrous oxide emissions….
Even if they had an inkling of a clue of what is actually happening on Canadian grain farms…. The target reduction would reduce global greenhouse gasses by.007% …. Way less than a rounding error…
The same goes for fossil fuel greenhouse gas production from Canadian emissions… at 3% of global emissions… this whole liberal greenhouse emissions plan is pointless and a wasteful economic exercise in fearmongering politics.
Spending a Trillion dollars to make the Canadian economy very in efficient…. Should make anyone with an ounce of Common Sense… take a very deep breath… and firmly state the WEF/UN national and global greenwash rhetoric… must be categorically rejected. They know they (WEF/UN) are misrepresenting future effects and human intervention models of Climate Change theories that are dubious at best.
Conserving energy is smart. Efficient use of resources is smart. Decarbonization provides neither solution… the present CO2 greenhouse gas projected programs do …neither.
If committing suicide is a solution…. Then the WEF/UN have a plan!
Cheers
|
|
Mar 20, 2023 | 16:43
77
"reduce global greenhouse gasses by.007% …. Way less than a rounding error…"
Everything remotely connected with CLIMATE hysteria, are calculations all within a margin of error. Temps, CO2, ocean levels...total horseshit!
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 07:51
78
Almost every country in the world has committed to reducing greenhouse missions.
Every province in Canada supports climate science and is committed to reducing emissions as well.
Reducing emissions through the 4Rs also will reduce the amount of nutrients ending up in rivers, lakes and the ocean.
If farmers are stewards of the land and environment then you think they should be supportive of improving fertilizer management?
Farmers are receiving benefits from the Renewalable Fuel Standard and Regulations in Canada that help to reduce greenhouse emmissions.
So should we stop subsidizing farmers with these programs because some don't believe greenhouse gases cause climate change?
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 10:48
79
CC….
You nor the federal government has any accurate information on how or what methods we are using to apply fertilizer on our farm.
Maximum of 70lb/ac N, direct application in the seed row , high efficiency absorbing P2O5 in year of application 2x plus available vs 11-51-0… high absorption S, K, Cu…. Direct banded next to the seeds….
27 water monitor locations in Alberta found NO leaching in to water bodies in fields in annual crops….
The Feds in Canada are totally speculating in western Canadian crops… not including pulses in calculating nitrous oxide emissions….in rotation being presently grown… using inaccurate Synthetic nitrogen requirements for production of our annual field crops in western Canadian agriculture….
Eastern Canadian Corn/Soy rotations with very different moisture conditions, frost free soil conditions, tillage used, tile drainage used … the transfer of eastern Canadian cropping production on to the vast majority of western Canadian acres… has very much misrepresented many of the production methods…. We use 100% section Controlers, use variable rate where appropriate… low application rate high efficiency fertilizers…
Your assessment of our fertilizer nitrous oxide emissions is with out accurate knowledge of what is going on. Adoption of high efficiency direct seeding… fertilizers and application methods, low opportunity for denitrifying problems…
Lead your vendetta to continue false assessment and assumptions of green house gas emissions from our farms in western Canadian Agricultural production.
You do a huge disservice to all Canadians… in speculative assessment and assumptions of actual farm level performance and efficiencies.
Praying that you think before you accuse us CC… with inappropriate inaccuracies.
Blessings and Cheers
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 11:32
80
Researchers would disagree with you Tom.
Don Flaten at the U of M has shown that P is moving into rivers and Lakes in Manitoba from crop residues and soils.
Are you soil testing all your fields frequently or at least some fields?
https://fertilizercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/4R-P-fertilizer-mgmt-for-NGP-summary-July-3-2019_VF.pdf
4R Management of Phosphorus Fertilizer in the Northern Great Plains:
A Review of the Scientific Literature
Summary
July 3, 2019
Cynthia Grant and Don Flaten
University of Manitoba
4.0 Environmental and Sustainability Concerns Related to Phosphorus
Fertilizer
Key Messages
Small amounts of P moving into surface water can have a large effect on water quality, so
losses of P that are not agronomically significant can be environmentally damaging,
particularly with respect to algae growth in freshwater (eutrophication).
Most of the P loss on the Northern Great Plains is driven by movement of dissolved P during
the snowmelt period.
Phosphorus runoff is a function of the concentration of P in soil and vegetation at the soil
surface and the amount of runoff that occurs, so management should focus on reducing the
concentration of P at the soil surface during runoff periods.
While very high P concentrations at the soil surface are most frequently caused by excessive
applications of manure P, fertilizer P can also be a contributor, especially if the fertilizer is
broadcast.
Soil fertility may be impaired through nutrient depletion if P removed in the harvested crop is
not replaced.
Accumulation of cadmium (Cd) in the soil from long-term application of Cd-containing P
fertilizer may be a concern for human and soil health.
Banding P fertilizer under the soil surface, near the seed-row during seeding at rates based on
an effective soil test and an accurate prediction of crop requirements will reduce the risk of
excess P in runoff, P depletion and excess Cd accumulation in soils and c
Last edited by chuckChuck; Mar 21, 2023 at 11:43.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 11:41
81
Originally Posted by chuckChuck
Are you soil testing all your fields frequently or at least some fields?
How is it that you are now asking other posters about their practices, having completely ignored my civil questions to you about your farming practices relating to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 11:44
82
I soil test about 1/2 my fields every year. How about you?
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 11:57
83
Originally Posted by chuckChuck
I soil test about 1/2 my fields every year. How about you?
That wasn't one of the questions I asked.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 11:58
84
Every field, every year for over 30 years.
It's a $100 for crying out loud.
I back check yields with past applied.
I adjust individual fields if necessary.
Largest ROI I've got. All it takes is one wreck.
And I'm doing it for my own reasons.
If I didn't understand the why, no government overwatch would help that.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 12:06
85
Good job BP.
Does every farmer do the same?
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 12:30
86
Phosphorus deficiency is my biggest concern going forward. I am concerned that the sources aside from the present American mines are in regions considered shaky. There are more places in Canada and USA which are viable when the need arises. In fact Chuck the mine by Timmins produces rock phosphate with no cadmium levels present. The largest proven phosphate rock source exists in Morocco which is owned by a Canadian company. Phosphate runoff is a concern in high use areas but for the majority of prairie farmers we aren’t hardly applying enough to cover removal let alone cause runoff. What I think happens is that high phosphate use areas coincide with higher population areas by water ways and rivers. Same can be said with nitrates as well. It sucks for a lot us in the hinterlands when the hammer comes down for all these schemes to control things not applicable to us. I soil test 80% of my land every year. If I could acidify my subsoil a bit I think I could access tied up nutrients. Have a couple ideas from a couple things I found out. How do you quantify things when they work but you’re not a science based person and steamrolled by the zeitgeist of the technocrats?
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 12:31
87
Every test ever done since 1975, calls for MORE than we apply/can afford.
Only one year, 1991 called for ZERO added N and it was correct. 60 bu wheat happened.
#1 CWRS worth less than $2
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 12:32
88
I think it's increasing in my area all the time.
Far more to govt encroachment than just this.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 12:35
89
Originally Posted by WiltonRanch
Phosphorus deficiency is my biggest concern going forward. I am concerned that the sources aside from the present American mines are in regions considered shaky. There are more places in Canada and USA which are viable when the need arises. In fact Chuck the mine by Timmins produces rock phosphate with no cadmium levels present. The largest proven phosphate rock source exists in Morocco which is owned by a Canadian company. Phosphate runoff is a concern in high use areas but for the majority of prairie farmers we aren’t hardly applying enough to cover removal let alone cause runoff. What I think happens is that high phosphate use areas coincide with higher population areas by water ways and rivers. Same can be said with nitrates as well. It sucks for a lot us in the hinterlands when the hammer comes down for all these schemes to control things not applicable to us. I soil test 80% of my land every year. If I could acidify my subsoil a bit I think I could access tied up nutrients. Have a couple ideas from a couple things I found out. How do you quantify things when they work but you’re not a science based person and steamrolled by the zeitgeist of the technocrats?
I see a day when we could be liming here. Should be doing some now.
We're increasing P rates a fair amount. Theory is Al toxicity.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2023 | 12:55
90
Originally Posted by blackpowder
I see a day when we could be liming here. Should be doing some now.
We're increasing P rates a fair amount. Theory is Al toxicity.
I have high calcium content 6” and down. Ph 8.2 down there. Top 6” 6.5 to 6.9. Using mesc on virtually every acre at maybe 5-9 lbs of sulphur depending if it a cereal or canola. Barley yields sucked here until I inadvertently did a side by side trial of urea/11-52 and urea/mesc. Same nitrogen and phosphorus levels but 20 bushels better with mesc blend. Tried again in 21’ on another field in the drought but barley was still in the 80’s. Last year didn’t use mesc and barley sucked. My bins are full of urea/mesc. Is it the safer nature of mesc vs 11-52 or is it the sulphur? I run stealth pr double shoot so separation is good and a 20# rate of actual p is really stuff all. So what’s going on? Im a cowboy hill farmer. My remedy is usually seed it to grass and alfalfa but can’t do that on every acre.
|
|
