Electric Vehicles :: FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) Links

Nekota said:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Rocky-Road-Ahead-The-Problems-with-Plug-in-Cars.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Good find Nekota, the doom&gloom in this article is that batteries will never come down in cost.. and we know they are already coming down. That article does cover all the bases in a thorough way.. just an excessive dose of pessimism and doom&gloom.

Peterson is the FUD master, using poor analogies, fear, and misdirection to confuse and mislead. As a lawyer he is more interested in winning than the truth. This exchange is typical and revealing, a commenter makes good points showing the flaws in Peterson's arguments and Peterson replies with personal attacks and mis-characterization of what was stated.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/291...r-stop-start-idle-elimination#comment-1896585

Herm said:

Nekota said:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Rocky-Road-Ahead-The-Problems-with-Plug-in-Cars.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Good find Nekota, the doom&gloom in this article is that batteries will never come down in cost.. and we know they are already coming down. That article does cover all the bases in a thorough way.. just an excessive dose of pessimism and doom&gloom.

Click to expand...

I always find it interesting when an Oil interest site writes about Electric Cars. The write ups take great pains to exaggerate reasons for you to stay in their (Oil) cage. In fact don't even imagine getting out... it is hopeless to escape... so DON'T even try... best you just get back to the grinding wheel... and paying us.

The NY Times has an article with a negative title and lead in but the information seems accurate for the Volt and LEAF recycling plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/energy-environment/fancy-batteries-in-electric-cars-pose-recycling-challenges.html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I will add these to the OP for a single note with all the links.

A new one from Peterson, drawing the wrong conclusion from a study that shows Lithium not to be a constraining factor:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/293...marginal-utility-in-electric-drive-technology

JRP3 said:

A new one from Peterson, drawing the wrong conclusion from a study that shows Lithium not to be a constraining factor:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/293...marginal-utility-in-electric-drive-technology

Click to expand...

Yeah that was an obvious conclusion, true that if your car can handle more than 40 miles of range then you are not getting full use of the extra battery capacity.. duh!.. yet people will still buy BEVs with 200 miles worth of range, and more power to them if they want to. Everyone assumes lithium is rarer that gold, and must be carefully allocated to every car in the fleet.. thats just stupid sheez!

Even with $4 gas, electric cars face dark days

Click to expand...

The headline above gives you a general idea of the disinformation that follows.

But where this USA Today article really excels, is in it's inability to state the most basic facts about the cars being reported on, accurately.

"...plug-in hybrid vehicles, such as...Nissan Leaf..."

"...Fisker Karma all-electric vehicle..."

Click to expand...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/03/electric-cars-chevrolet-volt-fisker-karma-nissan-leaf/1#.T2ELpph2ndA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edatoakrun said:

"...Fisker Karma all-electric vehicle..."

Click to expand...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/03/electric-cars-chevrolet-volt-fisker-karma-nissan-leaf/1#.T2ELpph2ndA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

I didn't find the article to be all that bad. While not overly positive, it ended on an optimistic tone. It certainly didn't appear to be purposefully spreaing FUD.

The John Petersen saga continues with LUX report on the diminishing returns of going to full battery for the energy source. It's a ratio argument where a limited battery resource is maximized by the hybrid many short charge cycles.

Link to Seeking Alpha article .
http://seekingalpha.com/article/468591-new-research-dissects-lithium-ion-battery-mythology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was an excellent rebuttal on cost by Sudre that John dismissed with a wrong information...

Overall, there are many more 'challenging' comments to Petersen's article this time compared to a year ago.

a lot of misinformation is quite normal with new/unknown technology. a major player introducing the technology with a serious effort to sell it competitively will help a great deal.

word of mouth will sell EVs. it is simply a question of how to get that word out. 10 years ago, the Prius got a huge boost in that regard when the state mandated that fleets be required to use alternative fuel vehicles when one can be found to fit the need. for basic transportation the best candidate was the Prius.

this literally force-fed the technology to state workers who were forced to drive the car as part of their state duties. many complained at first. they were confused by the controls, afraid of electrocution and other ridiculous random thoughts that run in people's heads when dealing with something new.

over time, that faded and resulted in WA State becoming one of the leaders in hybrid adoption. Well, WA State is now doing the same with EVs. and yes, it will probably take a few years like hybrids did.

hopefully, it will be a bit less due to a bigger intro (WA Started hybrids in 2002 when Prius was still in limited production) and more players in the EV game. i dont know how many Volts the state has acquired but do know that they have ordered several Leafs and MiEVs.

another thing to keep in mind. the amount of FUD only validates the technology. if there was nothing to worry about, the talk would fade away quickly. it has not and only because Big Oil knows that EVs are gaining traction daily and they are worried.

it is no longer a question of if, only when and how much

In today's (11March2013) WSJ Bjorn Lomborg has a really poor article, so much distortion it's hard to even read it all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately, it is too early to tell, but I believe that an EV will be able to surpass the longevity of an ICE vehicle depending on the cost of and environmental impact of recycling the batteries. The basic motor and transmission (i.e. gear reduction) should last much longer than an ICE. If this is the case EVs should look better. Also, the "Dirty Little Secret" article does not mention any of the advantages of an EV. When I read articles that are just one-sided then I always suspect an ulterior motive. True journalism would be impartial and give both sides of the story in order to let the reader make up their own mind. Some of these articles that masquerade as journalism would be more properly classified as propaganda.

Nekota said:

In today's (11March2013) WSJ Bjorn Lomborg has a really poor article, so much distortion it's hard to even read it all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Another idiot in the truest sense of the word. And he writes for the WSJ. Wow. To blow up his argument, we count life cycle for lithium, but totally ignore carbon footprint of what it takes to drill for oil, bring the oil to America, secure the oil with our military. We also ignore oil subsidies, and the expense of using the military to secure our oil. My solar panels are not able to make gasoline, but they charge my Leaf just fine. Of course there's the carbon footprint of making panels, but like Mr. Lomborn, I have trouble seeing past my nose.

Oh, and I'm sure "here we go again" Nobody will report that my Leaf can get 180 mpg (cost of electric vs cost of gas) but this WSJ story will be repeated by every conservative talk radio show in the country, and every market has several "Rush" mimics now that they found it makes them money. Zero fact checking, why it's in the WSJ after all!

Two of my children were deployed to the Middle East to fight in wars so you could have lithium in your Leaf. Hang on, I better double check that.... Oil, that's right, they were making sure that the black gold found it's way to America. My Leaf is powered by a little solar and Kentucky Coal Miners. I can live with that.

I didn't know you could attach such a precise dollar amount to the impact of climate change. If that were the case, why not just write a check and all go on about our business?

Nekota said:

August blog from Tom Murphy. Most of the information is accurate if you are charging your car from an oil fired power plant.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/mpg-for-electric-cars/#more-95" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Interesting blog. For example this:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/10/when-science-brings-bad-news/#beyond-science

Tom Murphy Blog said:

And it’s what this ornery uncle has to say about our future that makes me sit up. Uncle Science says:

• Our familiar growth phase is a temporary phenomenon, as any exponential function must be;
• The chief energy source that brought us to this place is finite and will wane over the next century or so;
• Modern agriculture is dependent on finite fossil fuels, requiring roughly ten calories of energy input for every one calorie delivered to the table;
• Population will continue to grow even if birthrate suddenly dropped to replacement levels around the world due to demographic inertia (a young-laden distribution not yet at reproductive age);
• Escaping the bounds of this planet does not constitute a likely escape hatch due to both energy constraints and the hostile environment we find away from the eggshell-thin layer around the earth;
• Our fossil fuel bonanza has created an unauthorized global-scale climate experiment that may wreak havoc on crops and the interconnected web of species on the planet.

Click to expand...

•Escaping the bounds of this planet does not constitute a likely escape hatch due to both energy constraints and the hostile environment we find away from the eggshell-thin layer around the earth;

Click to expand...

Unless we just let the most robust basic building blocks of life escape. Imagine we send spacecraft out to several stars, and the computer onboard the craft analyzes the planets that may support life and travels to them. Send out some microbes on a landing craft, and bam, we start all over. Of course this could be considered pollution, even if it did work. The up side is that we can do this now, both microbes and computers can handle the journey even if it takes thousands of years.

There are many communities where electricity is much greener than the worst case scenario of 100% coal fired. Seattle's electricity is 97% carbon neutral -- hydroelectric and wind and 3% natural gas, (Seattle City Light information-- surrounding communities using other utilities are not as clean). Even where a percentage of power is coal produced, night time surplus power is more likely to be green than peak power.

And finally, the main flaw in the FUD is that the carbon and cost of extracting, transporting and refining gasoline is never factored in. There is no way that an ICE burning fuel extracted in Saudi Arabia is not many time less efficient than an EV.

Plus, besides Carbon, there is the issue of using domestic vs. imported energy. Electricity is 100% North american produced.

Even where a percentage of power is coal produced, night time surplus power is more likely to be green than peak power.

Click to expand...

I didn't even think about that. The utility doesn't shut down a coal plant at night due to lack of need, they just waste some of the energy. That makes my off peak charged Leaf with on peak grid tie solar even greener. Thanks for adding this post!

That's not quite accurate. Coal power plants do indeed reduce output at night, so if you are adding nighttime demand in a coal area then they are burning more coal to meet that demand. We have to be careful not to fight FUD with more FUD.