Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

Americans have always had difficulty understanding what unions are for and why they make sense.

American media work hard to make it even more difficult, because America is all about making life easier and more profitable for the well-off, even though even the well off do better when the people working for them are healthy and well-educated.

Most advanced industrial countries have got the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

But the places that put stuff together for you do.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Employees have to invest a year or two in getting good at the job they do for a particular employer. Changing jobs means making that investment again.

Not if they have any sense.

That's US anti-trade union activity for you. In places like Germany where the role of the trade union is better understood, the unions are doing fine.

And politicians are more sensitive to public opinion than captains of industry.

Look at the way the Koch brothers destroyed the Republican Party in the hope of getting it aligned with their half-witted opinions.

It goes back a bit further than railroads.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

"So the increase in yearly electricity demand would be about 29 percent."

You claimed " So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now)" which is clearly different from the Slate's figure.

That's a direct and meaningful contradiction.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

-------------------

** Fraid it is neither.

Your cite is worthless Green logic madness.

Full of "spherical chickens in a vacuum " type thinking. However, the *SAME* cite flatly contradicts your idea it makes sense to go EV in terms of CO2 reduction.

Says it will make SFA difference and only at a huge cost !!!

Exactly like all barking mad, Green f****it fantasies.

BTW:

You better see an optometrist - Bill - you have developed a nasty case of selective, tunnel vision.

.... Phil

"The all-electric pickup and battery production are part of GM?s plan to introduce 20 new, all-electric models by 2023, eventually phasing out gas- and diesel-powered cars altogether"

Hahahahah they're full of shit.

"Hyundai?s auto union chief, Ha Bu-young also didn?t mince words when he told Reuters last year that the company?s shift to electric could cut jobs at the Korean automaker by as much as 70%.

'Electric cars are disasters. They are evil. We are very nervous,' he said at the time."

I think Ford and GM's current management feel the same way. The job cuts are just cuz they're cutting small cars from the lineup to run a tighter ship focusing on ICE SUVs and trucks. EVs make up 2% of the US market share they're not concerned but they make a convenient scapegoat.

They flirted with the electric future but I think they're betting on Republican control of the US for the forseeable future and will sell large gas trucks and SUVs until they die.

Of course it is. We see less and less cars from the previous century on the road and so we need less and less people to maintain the remaining newer cars. At this point that effect is likely stronger than the effect of the small number of electric cars.

ed to produce the energy used.

abor and... energy.

m. You know, "It's turtles all the way down!"

first level of analysis. I would be willing to bet that at the secondary levels below that the labor/materials/facilities/technology is pretty much the same as building any other large equipment/appliance in use today.

higher.

exactly

pped.

waffle

oing a full analysis it can be reasonably expected that much higher cost eq uals more total labour.

over that since it has already been beaten to death here.

without any success

sis is faulty and produces a result that is not even a good first order app roximation. Well, it's probably right to within an order of magnitude...

Pointing to unstated data does not make your point. Perhaps you refer to yo ur table, from which no sense could be made. If you re-present it in its pr oper format it might be possible to at least see what it means.

Obviously. Equally obviously that is not the point.

Yes. Perhaps if you followed what was being said you'd say something to the point.

I did, but it's hopelessly scrambled. Unlike you the rest of us don't know what you meant or were presenting etc. It's not decodable.

Since you've not presented the data usably it's of no use.

."

r 4 times now)" which is clearly different from the Slate's figure.

The logic is spelled out. US gasoline consumption was 133 billion gallons i n 2011. Each gallon delivers 33.41 kWh when burnt.

That's 4443 TWh. About a quarter of that gets to the wheels.

That's 1111 TWh.

US electricity production in 2012 was 3882 kWh. Last year it was 4178 TWh.

Where?

o EV in terms of CO2 reduction.

Only if you generate the extra power by burning fossil carbon. We certainly don't have to, and the Australian utilities are investing heavily in wind and solar power, and spending nothing on installing new fossil-carbon fired generating plant, much to the government's disgust, who want them to pande r to the mining interests that pay the Liberal Party's electoral expenses.

By assuming that electric cars won't get cheaper when produced in higher vo lumes, and that generating system will continue to burn a lot of fossil car bon.

That's a barking mad denialist fantasy.

Meanwhile, you haven't explained where you got your tenfold higher electric ity generation requirement.

The last time I saw anything like that was back in the 1970s in a paper in the Proceeding of the IEEE. It was based on the idea that all the car engin es in the US were capable of generating something like five times as much p ower as the whole US electricity generating plant. Since we now know the ca rs are only used about 5% of the time, this really isn't a helpful observ ation, but the denialist propaganda machine does have a habit of picking up this kind of misleading and antiquated publication.

You probably got your figure from the Lavoisier group, which is to Australi a what the Heartlands Institute is to the US. You may not be aware of where the "data" came from - I once found something particularly silly in the pa ges of the Royal Australian Chemical institute newsletter, and wrote a rude letter to the editor about it. The author turned out to have Lavoisier Gro up links ...

selective, tunnel vision.

Or you have.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Not in a repressed economy. The hold over the employees head the fact that there are hundreds of candidates out there chomping at the bit waiting for good job openings.

You seem to be a believer in the job numbers bullshit.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The railroads were largely unionized.

--------------------

nt."

or 4 times now)" which is clearly different from the Slate's figure.

** Sorry - it is mad logic from a know nothing nobody.

It has no connection with reality.

** Makes too many simplistic assumptions.

Did you not get the BBT joke ?

** The case in most places, inc here.

We certainly don't have to, and the Australian utilities are investing heav ily in wind and solar power, and spending nothing on installing new fossil- carbon fired generating plant, much to the government's disgust, who want t hem to pander to the mining interests that pay the Liberal Party's electora l expenses.

** Green Party madness - par excellence. I now know too many Greens to take one tiny bit of notice - including Queen Bee communist nut case Lee Riahannon. ** The cost is in the new infrastructure needed.

Massive, for SFA CO2 benefit.

Pure insanity.

I suggested a better alternative too.

icity generation requirement.

** No such claim from me.

** Who ???

That is very paranoid thing to claim.

I posted my simple reasonings here, all mine, and you ignored it.

Bye bye....

.... Phil

I own a Prius Prime plugin, and have discussed it in detail here on s.e.d. a half-dozen times. It's now one year old, has gone about 6500 miles, mostly all electric. A hybrid, but has only used 20% of its 2nd tank of gas. My solar roof generates 11MWh per year, some used to power my car. I plug-in at work for the rest. What else would you like to know?

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win

cent."

3 or 4 times now)" which is clearly different from the Slate's figure.

Which particular bit do you disagree with?

"Mad logic from a know nothing nobody" has a fine rhetorical ring, but abso lutely zero content.

None that you can see?

None of which you can specify.

Spherical chickens was a physicists joke long before the Big Bang Theory pr ogram first aired.

At the moment, and the proportion generated by burning fossil carbon is dec reasing - not as fast as it might - but it seems to be mainly driven by eco nomies of scale in manufacturing solar cells, which has cut the price by a factor of four over the past twenty years, and there's probably another fac tor four to come before they take over most of the energy generating busine ss.

avily in wind and solar power, and spending nothing on installing new fossi l-carbon fired generating plant, much to the government's disgust, who want them to pander to the mining interests that pay the Liberal Party's electo ral expenses.

en Bee communist nut case Lee Riahannon.

I don't think much of Greenpeace and the emotional propaganda they churn ou t, but anthropogenic global warming is real, the scientific evidence is abo ut as conclusive as scientific evidence ever gets, and we do need to slow i t down drastically. Even perfectly respectable good causes have their lunat ic fringe.

That's an insane propostion.

Nuclear power isn't remotely practical.

tricity generation requirement.

" So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now)"

My link says 29% more power generation capacity will be needed. You are cl aiming that going over completely to electric cars would require us to gene rate about ten times as much extra power - two to three times what the gene rating system produces now, rather than 30%.

John Larkin posts denialist propaganda here all the time. There's nothing p aranoid about pointing out where silly ideas are likely to have come from.

The fossil fuel extraction industry is spending a lot on lying propaganda. The Murdoch press prints loads of it.

"EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff"

It isn't exactly quantitative, and nobody else would call it "reasoning".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Most street anad highway lighting is like that in Rhode Island, now. High pressure sodium-orange lights are going away.

It's a bit disconcerting when you're driving along in the early evening and every light as far as you can see down the road snaps on in unison almost instantly.

Not every intersection with a camera on it is for red light income generation, some are just for "traffic management"

The ones around here have extra shit on them besides the camera to snap license plates. You can easily see when they trigger at night a xenon flash goes off so they can capture the plate.

the Waze app shows the location of almost all of them so they only got me one time. I was one of the few in traffic court who managed to negotiate the judge down on the fine. They roll the video clip of your "incident" for everyone else in the court to watch too, lol.

Out of about 100 people in court that morning I think maybe 5 including myself got reduced fines and only one was excused entirely.

90% of drivers who got caught by 'em and were contesting on the day I was there were flagrant, blast through the red at 50 mph not even attempting to stop, half of 'em were probably drunk. Not a lot of sympathy from the bench for those the best the judge would hand out as "mercy" for those who came to beg was an extra couple weeks to pay up.