Only 5% of next car purchasers expect to buy all electric cars-Road and Track.

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
I'm not in the mood to continue interacting with the guy who boasts about his hybrid lasting 5 days instead of merely two in a whiteout or some such nonsense.

He is absolutely obsessed with things that don't matter. The plain, raw fact is that the average EV on the road will last longer in a whiteout providing heat than the average gas car. And that is the end of the story.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I'm not in the mood to continue interacting with the guy who boasts about his hybrid lasting 5 days instead of merely two in a whiteout or some such nonsense.

He is absolutely obsessed with things that don't matter. The plain, raw fact is that the average EV on the road will last longer in a whiteout providing heat than the average gas car. And that is the end of the story.
What I've pointed out repeatedly and you refuse to admit is this whole EV scheme is on borrowed time because there simply isn't enough of the metals needed to make all new cars EV's. Politics is pushing this and we're all going to get burned. Now take your ball junior and run home because you don't like how the game is played.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
What I've pointed out repeatedly and you refuse to admit is this whole EV scheme is on borrowed time because there simply isn't enough of the metals needed to make all new cars EV's. Politics is pushing this and we're all going to get burned. Now take your ball junior and run home because you don't like how the game is played.
So this is the third time you've admitted this particular point on heating, and come back to argue it again. And then change the subject to metals when you're proven wrong.

Is this groundhog day?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
So this is the third time you've admitted this particular point on heating, and come back to argue it again. And then change the subject to metals when you're proven wrong.

Is this groundhog day?
No, I simply pointed out with a hybrid the only worry is how much is in the gas tank. I imagine with soaring temps and rolling blackouts a lot of Prius owners spent time in their cars.

The metals issue is completely separate. I can see why you want to murky the waters but for the umpteenth time there's simply no way we'll go the EV route due to lack of the metals needed. There's no way to conjure them up. But on the bright side when the government and most manufacturers throw in the towel on the issue Tesla will have enough supply to continue as a luxury brand for people who prefer driving one. But billions of cars worldwide? Not going to happen. Probably not with hundreds of millions. Maybe they'll figure out hydrogen cars by then.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
No, I simply pointed out with a hybrid the only worry is how much is in the gas tank. I imagine with soaring temps and rolling blackouts a lot of Prius owners spent time in their cars.

The metals issue is completely separate. I can see why you want to murky the waters but for the umpteenth time there's simply no way we'll go the EV route due to lack of the metals needed. There's no way to conjure them up. But on the bright side when the government and most manufacturers throw in the towel on the issue Tesla will have enough supply to continue as a luxury brand for people who prefer driving one. But billions of cars worldwide? Not going to happen. Probably not with hundreds of millions. Maybe they'll figure out hydrogen cars by then.
Absolutely nobody of any kind is speaking of billions of cars.

Your numerical ignorance is astounding.

I have a book for you. It's on my shelf. I'll happily loan it out.
index.jpg
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Absolutely nobody of any kind is speaking of billions of cars.

Your numerical ignorance is astounding.

I have a book for you. It's on my shelf. I'll happily loan it out.
View attachment 400946
We're talking getting the whole world electrified. Some mining outfit in Canada the other day said there was only about 60% of the metals needed to fill the major automakers plans for building EV's by 2030. That's not billions. Not even hundreds of millions. But stay in denial. These numbers are out there but all you want to talk about is your favorite automaker conquering the world.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
We're talking getting the whole world electrified. Some mining outfit in Canada the other day said there was only about 60% of the metals needed to fill the major automakers plans for building EV's by 2030. That's not billions. Not even hundreds of millions. But stay in denial. These numbers are out there but all you want to talk about is your favorite automaker conquering the world.
Boy, you follow the innumeracy with illiteracy. I simply cannot compete.
 

BadIdeaGuy

Moderator
Staff member
We're talking getting the whole world electrified. Some mining outfit in Canada the other day said there was only about 60% of the metals needed to fill the major automakers plans for building EV's by 2030. That's not billions. Not even hundreds of millions. But stay in denial. These numbers are out there but all you want to talk about is your favorite automaker conquering the world.
I’m not agreeing with Wilber here. And I don’t think Tesla is taking over the auto industry. But I’ll play devils advocate for a minute just because I’m curious what the rooms thoughts are on battery density.

FOTW_1234.png

If that trend continues, maybe the metals we can produce would be enough to go all electric?

Ignoring the power grid, and all the other problems. Just strictly the metals. We’ve almost 10xEd the power we can fit volumetrically in 12 years.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I’m not agreeing with Wilber here. And I don’t think Tesla is taking over the auto industry. But I’ll play devils advocate for a minute just because I’m curious what the rooms thoughts are on battery density.

FOTW_1234.png

If that trend continues, maybe the metals we can produce would be enough to go all electric?

Ignoring the power grid, and all the other problems. Just strictly the metals. We’ve almost 10xEd the power we can fit volumetrically in 12 years.
If they're going to make this work they'll definitely have to innovate their way out of a metal supply shortage.
 

Ou812fu

Polishing toilet bowls since 1966.

Currently, EVs contain lithium-ion batteries that degrade over time and last up to seven or eight years, depending on how much they're used – much like a smartphone battery.
But this new solid-state, lithium-metal battery can increase the lifetime of EVs to a comparable length to petrol and diesel cars – up to 20 years – without the need to ever replace the battery during this time.
The startup aims to scale the battery up to a palm-sized 'pouch cell' – which has components enclosed in an aluminium-coated film – and then toward a full-scale vehicle battery in the next three to five years.

'We have achieved in the lab 5,000 to 10,000 charge cycles in a battery's lifetime, compared with 2,000 to 3,000 charging cycles for even the best in class now, and we don’t see any fundamental limit to scaling up our battery technology,' said Li. 'That could be a game changer.'

Lithium-metal batteries hold substantially more energy in the same volume and charge in a fraction of the time compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries.
They said the same thing about the batteries that are in the vehicles now. That the batteries would outlast the vehicles life..I guess that was all just a misunderstanding..
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
If they're going to make this work they'll definitely have to innovate their way out of a metal supply shortage.
It's almost like I believe in capitalism and you don't.

Because that's what is happening.

I'd explain to the Fake Texan that Moore's Law will have its own EV application, but he can't quite keep up with reading as it is.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
Absolutely nobody of any kind is speaking of billions of cars.

Your numerical ignorance is astounding.

I have a book for you. It's on my shelf. I'll happily loan it out.
View attachment 400946
I'm just curious, have you cracked it open? If you have, please offer your review.

Here's a review I thoroughly enjoyed. @vantexan read the review, you've got nothing better to do. :lol:

Let's say there was a <1% chance that I would buy an unknown book after stumbling randomly upon it on a bargain shelf (something I haven't done in almost a decade after perusing dozens of such shelves in that time), and then a 30% chance that I would then like that book (giving myself some credit for taste while taking into account the vast quantities of extant crap). Those are two dependent scenarios, meaning I'd have to multiply them to get the likelihood that I ever might have liked this book, which comes out to .3%. As Mr. Paulos probably would have warned me (>95% chance), I should have trusted the percentage and skipped the book.

It's a breezy enough introduction to the problem of innumeracy, but ultimately it has less to do with its subtitle -- Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences -- and more to do with Mr. Paulos flaunting his intellectual superiority via a litany of schizoid statistical and probabilistic scenarios. It feels like a precursor to Malcolm Gladwell, what with his "Did you know. . ." and "You may think X, but really Y. . ."

I can't help but lament that Gladwell must have been just a tyke when this was written because he could have offered some much needed focus and social relevancy to the author. Even had Paulos focused more on the last word of that subtitle, the consequences and implications, this might have felt more worthwhile. As is it felt like little more than a talent show.

Paulos actually admits that mathematicians have a deserved reputation for arrogance, and also that he was attracted to math mainly because it gave him a way of feeling superior to others (p. 99). Both traits are obvious here, and in that sense I have to think that he is one of the least effective ambassadors that Math could have wound up with. His arrogance is particularly off-putting when casually insulting educators (a population to which I belong) and also when dismissing dreams; though I accept his point about their predictability, I respect the human mind enough to acknowledge we probably don't understand exactly how they work yet.

He does offer some important reminders and warnings about the misuse of statistics, probability and averages -- really interesting were two of the last points he makes, about the difference between statistical significance and practical significance, and then introducing his unique and highly useful safety logarithm. But each of these topics could have benefited from a much deeper treatment, with both more examples and a more structured argument of how the problem affects us and what we can do to prevent it. Similarly, the first two chapters could have been condensed into an introduction.

Basically, this book was not well organized at all, especially puzzling coming from a "coldly rational" mathematician. To put it in terms Paulos might appreciate, it was about 35% useful and 65% gloating crap.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
I'm just curious, have you cracked it open? If you have, please offer your review.

Here's a review I thoroughly enjoyed. @vantexan read the review, you've got nothing better to do. :lol:

Let's say there was a <1% chance that I would buy an unknown book after stumbling randomly upon it on a bargain shelf (something I haven't done in almost a decade after perusing dozens of such shelves in that time), and then a 30% chance that I would then like that book (giving myself some credit for taste while taking into account the vast quantities of extant crap). Those are two dependent scenarios, meaning I'd have to multiply them to get the likelihood that I ever might have liked this book, which comes out to .3%. As Mr. Paulos probably would have warned me (>95% chance), I should have trusted the percentage and skipped the book.

It's a breezy enough introduction to the problem of innumeracy, but ultimately it has less to do with its subtitle -- Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences -- and more to do with Mr. Paulos flaunting his intellectual superiority via a litany of schizoid statistical and probabilistic scenarios. It feels like a precursor to Malcolm Gladwell, what with his "Did you know. . ." and "You may think X, but really Y. . ."

I can't help but lament that Gladwell must have been just a tyke when this was written because he could have offered some much needed focus and social relevancy to the author. Even had Paulos focused more on the last word of that subtitle, the consequences and implications, this might have felt more worthwhile. As is it felt like little more than a talent show.

Paulos actually admits that mathematicians have a deserved reputation for arrogance, and also that he was attracted to math mainly because it gave him a way of feeling superior to others (p. 99). Both traits are obvious here, and in that sense I have to think that he is one of the least effective ambassadors that Math could have wound up with. His arrogance is particularly off-putting when casually insulting educators (a population to which I belong) and also when dismissing dreams; though I accept his point about their predictability, I respect the human mind enough to acknowledge we probably don't understand exactly how they work yet.

He does offer some important reminders and warnings about the misuse of statistics, probability and averages -- really interesting were two of the last points he makes, about the difference between statistical significance and practical significance, and then introducing his unique and highly useful safety logarithm. But each of these topics could have benefited from a much deeper treatment, with both more examples and a more structured argument of how the problem affects us and what we can do to prevent it. Similarly, the first two chapters could have been condensed into an introduction.

Basically, this book was not well organized at all, especially puzzling coming from a "coldly rational" mathematician. To put it in terms Paulos might appreciate, it was about 35% useful and 65% gloating crap.
Nothing is more pathetic than the beta male who thinks the alpha will read his wall of text.

A wall of text that isn't even original to the Beta on question.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
I see it hasn't been opened.
I pulled a picture from the first page of Google image searches for the book.

I have no idea why I should give you my opinion about a random reviewers thoughts on that book. If his problem is that the mathematician is arrogant, then he is correct.

But I don't think you'll be surprised to find that I don't mind arrogance in an author.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
It's almost like I believe in capitalism and you don't.

Because that's what is happening.

I'd explain to the Fake Texan that Moore's Law will have its own EV application, but he can't quite keep up with reading as it is.
Hope you find that stash of needed metals under the rainbow and we'll all live happily ever after. Another successful fairytale.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
He didn't change his tune. You just misunderstood both of his comments. The world desperately needs gasoline now, and we should maximize production all over the globe. He also lives in the future decades away, and those two tweets are given from two different time frames.

You all are very fortunate that I'm here to explain basic things to you.
 
Top