@Totally Lost demonstrates that he really is. Again.
Right: You have to add up all the losses. Including the 80+% efficiency of the steam turbines making the electricity and the efficiency of the high voltage transmission lines.
Wrong: The net efficiency of a EV is three times that of the pitifully inefficient gasoline powered engine when you add up all THEIR LOSSES, including the ever increasing energy cost of extracting crude out of the ground, transporting the crude and finished gasoline, THE ENERGY COST OF THE CRACKING PROCESS that converts crude into something useful in a car.
Also Wrong: EV is but one option in achieving a higher nationwide energy efficiency in our vehicle fleet. We have no way of knowing if it will even be a leading contender! Automotive engineers have dozens of engineering tricks up their sleeve, such as start-stop technology that silently turns the motor off when you stop and start it up again when you start again.
The answer may be gasoline direct injection compression ignition engines, or clean diesel. The government is, in consultation with Detroit, setting the standards, not saying which path auto manufactures need to follow to achieve said results.
If the President says that in a certain timeframe we can have cars getting 54.5mpg, he is probably realistically looking at a figure of 75mpg, but with all the complaints and excuses from the automobile companies, probably compromised on that number. Even if cars cost more, it's still ok, and I'll prove it: My Prius (51mpg) costs me $35/month more than my last car that got 18mpg. We drive a minimum of 600 miles/month, and that is a savings of about $81/month. I actually SAVE money by driving a more expensive car. Many people drive more than that each month. Figure out your savings.
SO ... what's the point ... the VW TDI diesel Beetle and Jetta's do the same, without all the batteries and less efficent serial hybrid marketing ploy trying justify a higher sticker price, and expensive to replace and maintain battery systems.
LOL .... ROTFL .... "Ride your Prius all over the backside of the skeptics. Again."
Using an ICE to inefficiently recharge an EV battery, is almost as stupid as using corn as fuel.
Tally up the efficiency losses from the shaft of the ICE to the battery and back to the KE of the Prius in motion, and there is almost a hugely stupider engineering/physics argument for EV efficiency.
A big iron core generator with eddy losses, a PWM rectification and charging system with high switching and copper losses, high current squared resistance losses from the generator to the battery, and back, after subtracting the charge/discharge losses in the battery/wiring, and the high losses into the drive and motor in electric mode.
An ICE and tranmission has horrible losses from fuel BTU's to Kinetic Energy in motion, just making it worse with a high loss serial hybrid electric charging and drive system, is just nearly stupid.
If you are going to do a hybrid ... at least do one that is really efficient.
I happen to support good EV designs ... that doesn't include stupid serial hybrid ICE/EV designs.
So analyst ... do a real analysis of the stupid designs you praise.
I have a Prius that is not even a plug-in and it gets over 50mpg on the highway and in the city. You make the battery a little bigger, and make it a plug-in, and you are at 100mpg. It doesn't take much more engineering to get to 54.5mpg, it just takes desire. One thing I hate more than any other, is having people give me lame excuses as to 'why I can't do that' with NO forethought at all. Engineers aren't supposed to tell you why not, they are supposed to say "Okay, I don't know how to do that yet, but I'll figure it out!" Let's just stop regulating companies, and have them give us crappy products that don't work well, don't protect us, and dump their industrial wastes into our environment. In the meanwhile, we can sit around and feel sorry for those same companies and people, making millions of dollars and screaming about how broke they are "oh, my... my taxes are so high... oh, my... we can't make better cars with better gas milage... because we are lazy and stupid... oh, my... if our cars get better gas milage, it will cost you twice as much... oh, my... CO2 is our friend... Oil is clean! Coal is Clean! wah wah wah, excuse excuse excuse. We are Americans, and we are smarter than that. We need to stop fighting and giving excuses, and spend our time and energy in figuring out HOW, instead of figuring out how to get out of it. Excuses are for kids, and I don't except them from children either.
Without turning a comment into a PhD thesis, I believe I have demonstrated both that we are not at the mercy of the Chinese for the supply of rare earth minerals, and that you withheld an important fact about said supply. There are in fact several other potential mining sites for these minerals.
China gained their "monopoly" on such production by investing in their mines, and therefore LOWERING the price on the world market from what it was previously.
The mine opening up, does not in any way ascertain that the mine will actually produce enough product, at a significantly lower price, with US based finished PM goods in a volume to strip China of the monopoly power.
Since you are the analyst ... and you failed to analyze the problem to a defensible, factual, position .... I'm more inclined to believe the status quo at the moment has long term traction ... and that the US mine, will not be a significant resource, other than for some short term political capital.
I'm not so totally lost ... but the "handle" does bring out quite a few clueless folks to stand up and be the less than innocents in a debate as they fail to think about the big picture.
The Chinese government for once thought ahead, invested untold number of yuan getting the jump on sluggish Western democracies (I pains me to say) and cornered the market for rare Earth minerals production.
BUT, they overplayed their hand when they used the threat to withhold all rare Earths minerals from Japan in a dispute over one of the islands in the China sea.
As a result, and some money from Washington, the largest US mine for rare Earth minerals is opening back up!
By experimenting with the photovoltaic reaction in solar cells, researchers at MIT have made a breakthrough in energy efficiency that significantly pushes the boundaries of current commercial cells on the market.
In a world that's going green, industrial operations have a problem: Their processes involve materials that are potentially toxic, flammable, corrosive, or reactive. If improperly managed, this can precipitate dangerous health and environmental consequences.
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is