How many years would it take to mine enough lithium to make enough batteries to replace all of the internal combustion engines in the world?

[ding]

OK, got it. More trolling.

It was more like constructive criticism.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It was more like constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism actually lets the person know what the error was.

What you did was simple trolling.

 

[ding]

Constructive criticism actually lets the person know what the error was.

What you did was simple trolling.

I did. You need to state your beliefs in the affirmative. Tell us what your vision looks like.

 

[ding]

Technical writing need to state what it is. Not what someone else says isn't.

See? That's me offering constructive criticism.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I did. You need to state your beliefs in the affirmative. Tell us what your vision looks like.

I have already spelled it out for you NUMEROUS times.

Like me telling you I'm not a woman, you have simply chosen to ignore it.

It makes you look like all you are interested in is trolling. I rather expect it from sub-literates like yourself.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

See? That's me offering constructive criticism.

You are free to think whatever it is you want to think, but given your track record of consistently being wrong you will forgive me if I simply see more content-free drivel from you. Just more trolling.

 

[ding]

I have already spelled it out for you NUMEROUS times.

Like me telling you I'm not a woman, you have simply chosen to ignore it.

It makes you look like all you are interested in is trolling. I rather expect it from sub-literates like yourself.

Actually you haven't. You aren't very clear or concise in your posts. You don't write well.

 

[ding]

You are free to think whatever it is you want to think, but given your track record of consistently being wrong you will forgive me if I simply see more content-free drivel from you. Just more trolling.

Actually it was excellent advice on how to make a case for what something is rather than arguing about what something isn't. It's called making an affirmative argument.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually you haven't. You aren't very clear or concise in your posts. You don't write well.

More trolling.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually it was excellent advice on how to make a case for what something is rather than arguing about what something isn't. It's called making an affirmative argument.

Ironically all you ever do is tell us how it CAN'T work. When I tried to point out how it CAN you suddenly tell me I'm the one posting the negative?

Wow.

Trolling game at PEAK!

 

[ding]

More trolling.

No. More constructive criticism.

 

[ding]

Ironically all you ever do is tell us how it CAN'T work. When I tried to point out how it CAN you suddenly tell me I'm the one posting the negative?

Wow.

Trolling game at PEAK!

I didn't tell you it can't work. I calculated the requirements for what it would take to work.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No. More constructive criticism.

Trolling. Time to post your favorite gif.

Or you could, you know, engage with what I've posted. (I know trolling is more fun for you given your limited mental capacity).

 

[ding]

Trolling. Time to post your favorite gif.

Or you could, you know, engage with what I've posted. (I know trolling is more fun for you given your limited mental capacity).

What is there to engage in. You haven't stated anything clearly. Tell you what, state your case in 25 words or less. Go.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I didn't tell you it can't work. I calculated the requirements for what it would take to work.

Shall we rewind the tape?

That's what makes replacing 65 million barrels of gasoline and diesel impossible with batteries. Can't be done at a global scale. So, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. The climate isn't going to change anymore than it usually does. It's all politics.

Simple math exposes the flaw in YOUR premise. So you have no point at all. You have pie in the sky, unicorn milk, fairy dust.

Yup, you sure DID say it can't work. You said it REPEATEDLY.

I know I shouldn't be surprised that you are wrong, you are wrong so often! But it's nice to expose your errors to you.

Maybe you should try to lie to someone who knows how to use the "Multiquote" and "search" functions.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What is there to engage in. You haven't stated anything clearly. Tell you what, state your case in 25 words or less. Go.

And yet you are WRONG AGAIN! LOL.

Here's just two that I found quickly: Both are well over 25 words and go into some degree of technical detail. None of which you responded to substantively in any way. As I recall you immediately (as usual) started talking about my genitalia.

The thing you keep bouncing around is the energy density of the gasoline and the EV battery. But even there you are being short-sighted. EV battery volumetric energy densities have been INCREASING!

FOTW #1234, April 18, 2022: Volumetric Energy Density of Lithium-ion Batteries Increased by More than Eight Times Between 2008 and 2020

Volumetric energy density refers to the amount of energy that can be contained within a given volume.

www.energy.gov

Is gasoline getting to be more energy dense over time? I don't think so. You can only burn it so efficiently.


As I understand it gasoline has about 46MJ/kg which roughly works out to 322MJ/L. A "Liter volume" of Li ion battery has about 0.2MJ/L. No one is really going to argue over the fact that gasoline is a more energy rich source than a similar volume of Li ion battery.

But the difference is:

1. You can only burn that gas once. The Li ion battery is RECHARGABLE. And that recharge can happen through GREEN TECHNOLOGY. I live it every single day. I charge on solar and drive for free. 3 years now.

2. Li ion batteries are getting to be HIGHER volumetric energy storage. Gasoline is NOT. It is at its limit.

This is how technology develops. It doesn't stay static just because you got too old to understand how the world changes.

You haven't run me off despite your non-stop trolling and creepy behavior. I was talking in terms of the world. The world is moving on. You are the past.



It's one thing to be an engineer. It's quite another to move the technology forward. I have little doubt you were fine sitting the rigs. Doesn't mean you have a clue how technology develops.




You really should learn the history of petroleum as an example. Prior to the 1850's petroleum was literally dug out of the ground. Then they developed wells and pumping technology. NOT OVERNIGHT. That's the part you don't seem to understand.

And even then it took a LONG TIME to figure out how to isolate the cut of the raw crude that would be useful in automobiles. And do you think they just went DIRECTLY to catalytic cracking? No that took until 1937.

I won't stress your limited chemistry knowledge but how "economical" do you think cracking petroleum was before catalysis?

For someone who claims all this technical knowledge you seem to have no real ability to apply beyond whatever specific issue you had to deal with on your particular wells.


Like I said, you don't have sufficient view of the technology or even of the history of your own field to make any meaningful comments here.

You are stuck in the past and apparently you always will be.

 

[ding]

Shall we rewind the tape? Yup, you sure DID say it can't work. You said it REPEATEDLY. I know I shouldn't be surprised that you are wrong, you are wrong so often! But it's nice to expose your errors to you. Maybe you should try to lie to someone who knows how to use the "Multiquote" and "search" functions.

When I read this as a stand alone piece it's gibberish. It's not clear, it's not concise. It doesn't tell a story other than you seem upset. Math shouldn't upset you so much.

 

[ding]

And yet you are WRONG AGAIN! LOL. Here's just two that I found quickly: Both are well over 25 words and go into some degree of technical detail. None of which you responded to substantively in any way. As I recall you immediately (as usual) started talking about my genitalia.

That's a major fail. It's still gibberish. In your own words state your beliefs in 25 words or less. Go.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

When I read this as a stand alone piece it's gibberish. It's not clear, it's not concise. It doesn't tell a story other than you seem upset. Math shouldn't upset you so much.

Fun. Your trolling game is far more aggressive today than usual. Have a bad night?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's a major fail. It's still gibberish. In your own words state your beliefs in 25 words or less. Go.

I don't take orders from subliterate trolls. Sorry. It's one of my life rules.