Ford Mustang Mach E Leak: Mustang goes Electric

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,231
, bukakke blaster 9000.
Ha!

Things we now know how to engineer around.
Your coal stuff is outdated though. Not really a thing anymore, more a thing for old timers before the protections were put in place. I work in coal country for the smallest of operators up to the big dogs, and we have several former miners working for us.
I've also never heard of asbestos exposure from a coal seam, seeing as how that it's a man-made material.
 
Last edited:

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,366
Ha!

Things we know how to engine we now know how to engineer around.
Your coal stuff is outdated though. Not really a thing anymore, more a thing for old timers before the protections were put in place. I work in coal country for the smallest of operators up to the big dogs, and we have several former miners working for us.
I've also never heard of asbestos exposure from a coal seam, seeing as how that it's a man-made material.

Asbestos is a mineral we mine. Makes great insulation, but not so great for your health as we all well know.

I *think* what he's getting at is many industrial facilities still have asbestos in them....but yet at least in first world nations there's a lot of strict regulations to protect the workers. Same with coal mining and uranium mining. Or any other sort for that matter.

So it's an argument for better PPE and regulations in 3rd world countries? Oh hell I don't know.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,231
Asbestos is a mineral we mine. Makes great insulation, but not so great for your health as we all well know.

I *think* what he's getting at is many industrial facilities still have asbestos in them....but yet at least in first world nations there's a lot of strict regulations to protect the workers. Same with coal mining and uranium mining. Or any other sort for that matter.

So it's an argument for better PPE and regulations in 3rd world countries? Oh hell I don't know.

I did not know asbestos was mined. Of all of the MSHA safety stuff and everything else I've sat through over the years, never once seen that mentioned. Thanks for the education!
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
I've also never heard of asbestos exposure from a coal seam, seeing as how that it's a man-made material.

Asbestos is a man made material......wat. And you say you work with coal mines?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

It's a natural mineral and you run into it while mining... lol. Here's a video of asbestos fibers being pulled off:



Even with the best mine ventilation, you're going to be exposed to it in the air.
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,921
Yeah hydro dams aren't great for the wild life, but neither are wind turbines that kill birds by the hundreds of thousands every year. Fish ladders for dams have had some success though, so that's a start. Not sure how to go about wind turbines though.

And this isn't discrediting the terrible impact coal and oil have had, but at least those are easier to clean up than a nuclear fart, burp or in the case of Chernobyl, bukakke blaster 9000.
I think you are right, death rates alone may be disenginous to compare between coal/nuclear. I get the feeling that once you try to compare cancer/ tumor/ asthma problems you will find coal/oil is even worse. But I dont have a study for that on hand.

So you believe the future is wind and water dams? I dont think that's enough. Maybe solar? What else if not oil/coal/nuclear?
 
Last edited:

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
So you believe the future is wind and water dams? Im dont think that's enough. What else if not oil/coal/nuclear?

Solar towers. Here's a silly video, but it gets the idea across. Not viable for use everywhere, but it is viable and produces way more energy than wind turbines. It's like nuclear, but uses the sun instead of uranium.




Under sea turbines that use tide changes. Again, not perfect, but viable and much less impact ecologically.



Wind turbines would be better if they could make vertical shaft types that are less deadly to birds. They have the advantage that they can be moved by wind from any direction.

 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,921
Solar towers. Here's a silly video, but it gets the idea across. Not viable for use everywhere, but it is viable and produces way more energy than wind turbines. It's like nuclear, but uses the sun instead of uranium.




Under sea turbines that use tide changes. Again, not perfect, but viable and much less impact ecologically.



Wind turbines would be better if they could make vertical shaft types that are less deadly to birds. They have the advantage that they can be moved by wind from any direction.


I think those are all good, but they are all inconsistent, and would require massive battery storage. I'm also not convinced they are cheaper than nuclear. I think we need more solar/wind/hydro, but still in combination with a traditional plant. In my mind, that traditional plant is nuclear powered, not coal or oil.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
I think those are all good, but they are all inconsistent, and would require massive battery storage. I'm also not convinced they are cheaper than nuclear. I think we need more solar/wind/hydro, but still in combination with a traditional plant. In my mind, that traditional plant is nuclear powered, not coal or oil.

The solar towers with molten salt don't require battery storage, the molten salt is the battery, which can get the plant through the night.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,945
Solar towers. Here's a silly video, but it gets the idea across. Not viable for use everywhere, but it is viable and produces way more energy than wind turbines. It's like nuclear, but uses the sun instead of uranium.




Under sea turbines that use tide changes. Again, not perfect, but viable and much less impact ecologically.



Wind turbines would be better if they could make vertical shaft types that are less deadly to birds. They have the advantage that they can be moved by wind from any direction.


The largest single solar tower in the US produces about 500 GWh annually using 1,670 acres of land. The smallest nuclear power plant in the US outputs a net average of around 5 TWh a year on 426 acres of land, or 10x as much using a quarter of the land area as the solar tower.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
The largest single solar tower in the US produces about 500 GWh annually using 1,670 acres of land. The smallest nuclear power plant in the US outputs a net average of around 5 TWh a year on 426 acres of land, or 10x as much using a quarter of the land area as the solar tower.

Good thing the midwest has millions of acres of desert lol. Like I said before, it's not viable everywhere, but it is viable.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,945
Good thing the midwest has millions of acres of desert lol. Like I said before, it's not viable everywhere, but it is viable.
Viable, but not efficient. 0.74 GWh per hectare with solar vs. 29 GWh per hectare with nuclear.
 

GreenLaser

n00b
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
56
A kid i went to school with his house had a power pole with large lines going down the block right outside his bedroom window. He got a rare form of cancer as a teenager and had his leg amputated above the knee. Years later a work buddys parent found their lakeside dream home and moved in. I saw the huge powerlines right outside and told him my concerns to a reply of "its not a problem". about a year later his mom gets a rare form of cancer ...in her EAR! I never even knew such a cancer existed and mom passed away shortly after.

like Cigarettes it took decades before the highly lucrative business was held accountable for the reality they covered up for so long. Seems the E ppl are in the same denial the smokers were. Cmon Man... its clean and quiet and needs less maintainance.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,931
A kid i went to school with his house had a power pole with large lines going down the block right outside his bedroom window. He got a rare form of cancer as a teenager and had his leg amputated above the knee. Years later a work buddys parent found their lakeside dream home and moved in. I saw the huge powerlines right outside and told him my concerns to a reply of "its not a problem". about a year later his mom gets a rare form of cancer ...in her EAR! I never even knew such a cancer existed and mom passed away shortly after.

like Cigarettes it took decades before the highly lucrative business was held accountable for the reality they covered up for so long. Seems the E ppl are in the same denial the smokers were. Cmon Man... its clean and quiet and needs less maintainance.
Yeah your surrounded by EMF, there is literally no way to escape it and if you use a cell phone then your argument is kind of mute. Two people getting cancer near power lines is not proof that it causes cancer.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
You know that happened in 1979, been a few years passed since then.

And? thousands of miles of rivers and land are still contaminated with uranium mill tailings. That stuff doesn't go away in just 40 years. It's why people that still live there have such poor health, being exposed to it and drinking the contaminated ground water. United Nuclear was forced to clean the spill up, but they only recovered a fraction of what was released and eventually gave up.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,530
Yeah your surrounded by EMF, there is literally no way to escape it and if you use a cell phone then your argument is kind of mute. Two people getting cancer near power lines is not proof that it causes cancer.

Yes and I eagerly await having all those high voltage lines above and below me, in every parking lot, building and single family home neighborhood so there is enough power to quick charge all those wonderful electic cars!
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,931
And? thousands of miles of rivers and land are still contaminated with uranium mill tailings. That stuff doesn't go away in just 40 years. It's why people that still live there have such poor health, being exposed to it and drinking the contaminated ground water. United Nuclear was forced to clean the spill up, but they only recovered a fraction of what was released and eventually gave up.

Now your just being sensationalist, it's not thousands of miles of contamination and a huge chunk of that stuff has a very short radioactive life. Most of the radiation you fear comes from refinement and not what you can mine out of the earth. It also why Fukishima was more of problem as the radioactive particles have a much longer life then what happened at Church Rock, levels dropped quite quickly after 1 rain storm. Also Church Rock was mining for weapons use, not to supply nuclear reactors.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
Now your just being sensationalist, it's not thousands of miles of contamination and a huge chunk of that stuff has a very short radioactive life. Most of the radiation you fear comes from refinement and not what you can mine out of the earth. It also why Fukishima was more of problem as the radioactive particles have a much longer life then what happened at Church Rock, levels dropped quite quickly after 1 rain storm. Also Church Rock was mining for weapons use, not to supply nuclear reactors.

The entire Puerco River was contaminated downstream, which drains into the colorado river eventually. From 1950 to 1980, uranium mines had been dumping tailing waste in it that was often untreated. So, yes. Thousands of miles.

And yes, the rain drops the radiation because it migrates the contamination to the water table. Uranium and byproducts of tailings have been poisoning water wells in the area for decades. It's only been in recent years that the tribes got help from the federal government to install monitoring equipment for wells to see how bad the contamination is, and it's not good.

Uranium has a half-life in the billions of years, except U232, which is super spicy at only about 68 years. Yes those super spicy isotopes fizzle out fast, but the uranium decay spits out an endless supply of spicy isotopes, they're never going away.
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,921
like Cigarettes it took decades before the highly lucrative business was held accountable for the reality they covered up for so long. Seems the E ppl are in the same denial the smokers were. Cmon Man... its clean and quiet and needs less maintainance.
Shrug. I'd be more concerned about RF from cell phone towers, radar, microwave, etc. The frequencies power lines run at I just dont think it can do much.

edit: mind you I'm also not too concerned with RF either. So that really puts into perspective how worried I am about power lines.
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,921
The solar towers with molten salt don't require battery storage, the molten salt is the battery, which can get the plant through the night.
Good point. Still not sure its cost effective enough to fully replace something like nuclear.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
Good point. Still not sure its cost effective enough to fully replace something like nuclear.

To match the power output of a single nuclear plant, it'd likely be far cheaper due to not needing to spend a decade or more in legal quagmire and regulatory scrutiny. But it would need a lot of land if they couldn't figure out a way to make the solar tower more efficient.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,931
The entire Puerco River was contaminated downstream, which drains into the colorado river eventually. From 1950 to 1980, uranium mines had been dumping tailing waste in it that was often untreated. So, yes. Thousands of miles.

And yes, the rain drops the radiation because it migrates the contamination to the water table. Uranium and byproducts of tailings have been poisoning water wells in the area for decades. It's only been in recent years that the tribes got help from the federal government to install monitoring equipment for wells to see how bad the contamination is, and it's not good.

Uranium has a half-life in the billions of years, except U232, which is super spicy at only about 68 years. Yes those super spicy isotopes fizzle out fast, but the uranium decay spits out an endless supply of spicy isotopes, they're never going away.
99% of uranium is U238 and it's pretty much harmless and trace amounts of it can be found just about everywhere as it's naturally occurring. Alpha particles are just not that dangerous, they tend to only be a serious threat when inhaled in large enough quantities. Most of that release long ago was diluted so much you couldn't tell the difference between it and normal background amounts. Wells drilled in areas with high levels of uranium show radiation... color me shocked. It's like finding high levels of asbestos when you live right next to a large deposit of it.

I'd much rather mine it here under our tougher watch then having Russia mine it, they literally don't care if people die there.
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,921
To match the power output of a single nuclear plant, it'd likely be far cheaper due to not needing to spend a decade or more in legal quagmire and regulatory scrutiny. But it would need a lot of land if they couldn't figure out a way to make the solar tower more efficient.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
In US seems like solar edges out nuclear according to this model. Although interestingly solar thermal actually does terribly if you go into the calculator. PV at utility scale competes well. Some countries Solar PV does better, others nuclear.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,983
I have no problems with electric Fords or even an electric Mustang, but that thing in the OP doesn't look a thing like a Mustang nor does it seem to even fit in the same category as the Mustang. Next they'll be calling the electric Focus an F-150.
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,115
To match the power output of a single nuclear plant, it'd likely be far cheaper due to not needing to spend a decade or more in legal quagmire and regulatory scrutiny. But it would need a lot of land if they couldn't figure out a way to make the solar tower more efficient.
Nope. Not even close. Do the math. Take whatever power output the solar plant is listed at and divide by 5. That's the actual efficiency (20%). The sun doesn't shine 100% or at 100% all the time. Every power plant has this - it's called the "capacity factor." The numbers are a big scam.

Wait, it gets better!

Now let's calculate the average replacement cost of those solar panels over 100 years. Panels last for 25 years (they also decline over time). So divide that 20% efficiency by 4 and you have 5% efficiency! Congratulations!

Now, do the same power output calculation for nuclear and multiply by 0.95. That's the actual efficiency (95%).

Ok, now calculate the replacement costs. Plants last for 50+ years. We'll say 50. Divide that 95% by 2 and you have 47.5% efficiency. Awesomesauce.

Go take those molten salt solar plants you linked to. Let's pretend that molten salt doesn't corrode or those thousands of moving parts don't cause it to fail prematurely (same problem nuke industry has. Been trying to develop molten salt reactors for 70 years). Get the cost / kWh and divide by the true, final efficiency (i.e. cost / 0.05). Now find some crappy nuclear power plant. Do the math. Tell me - which comes out ahead?

Cost of nuclear would be even lower if NIMBYers actually used science, logic and math to base their decisions, instead of emotions. We've been using the tech for 67 years, powering 20% of the US and had a whopping 13 f'ing fatalities in the US. Meanwhile, we have had over 20,100,000 die from the coal and oil pollution that would replace it worldwide. Show me the studies where nuclear is that bad. Solar and wind would literally bankrupt the country dozens of times over, if we tried to replace conventional technologies - do you want to starve people? That's what you are proposing.

Math from 5 years ago:
1634363870247.png

Maybe we could use all that money we saved by building more nuclear power plants on improving alternate technologies, eh? (Like fusion.)

I am way more concerned about 5G cell phone towers killing us. Numerous studies showing that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer - for what benefit? So people can connect to Fakebook a microsecond faster?
The largest single solar tower in the US produces about 500 GWh annually using 1,670 acres of land. The smallest nuclear power plant in the US outputs a net average of around 5 TWh a year on 426 acres of land, or 10x as much using a quarter of the land area as the solar tower.
^
/end rant
 

Attachments

  • 1634361322143.png
    1634361322143.png
    29.8 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:

Riddlinkidstoner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,223
I am way more concerned about 5G cell phone towers killing us. Numerous studies showing that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer - for what benefit? So people can connect to Fakebook a microsecond faster?

Moskowitz, with education in Psychology and Mathematics, is claiming cell phone radiation causes brain cancer. I'm not convinced. This guy reminds me of Chuck from better call saul with his electrosensitivity.

Does anyone other than Moskowitz believe 5G cell phone towers are killing us? Frankly I'd believe ElectroBOOM over this nutjob.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
Now let's calculate the average replacement cost of those solar panels over 100 years. Panels last for 25 years (they also decline over time). So divide that 20% efficiency by 4 and you have 5% efficiency! Congratulations!

?? Solar towers use mirrors, not solar panels.
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,115
?? Solar towers use mirrors, not solar panels.
...and they only last 25 years, just like the panels. Probably less for molten salt plants. Do the math and look at everything else that was said. Please review the facts and respond to them. Tell me - which comes out ahead?

We are far better off not bankrupting the country, starving the populace and building more of the safest way to make electricity - nuclear power using the additional resources to improve existing technologies until other technologies are more cost effective.
 
Last edited:

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,386
So hows that new fugly ass Estang? Any buyers amongst the energy debaters?
Speaking of which, my only contribution to our leeeengthy sidebar. Which of these options that you all are arguing about, will be the most likely to actually get adopted by our government?
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
So hows that new fugly ass Estang? Any buyers amongst the energy debaters?

I'm a Mopar guy, I despise Ford anything because they all suck to repair. Mom has an F150 Lariat, Dad has a Fusion and I have an E250 that all have had stupid issues since they were new.

My 34 year old Dakota has had less issues than all three of those vehicles combined. Even my 96 Buick Century is more reliable.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,547
So hows that new fugly ass Estang? Any buyers amongst the energy debaters?
Speaking of which, my only contribution to our leeeengthy sidebar. Which of these options that you all are arguing about, will be the most likely to actually get adopted by our government?
I know a few people (not here, but on other forums) who bought it and like it. The main challenge is simply the EV charging network — it's not as robust as Tesla's yet.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,009
So hows that new fugly ass Estang? Any buyers amongst the energy debaters?
I don't think it is ugly at all, but I also wouldn't say it is beautiful either, just OK. I am seriously considering picking one up next week, if the one on a lot ~80ish miles away hasn't been sold by then (there is almost no inventory for these anywhere, something like a dozen within a 500 mile radus of my place).
I'm a Mopar guy, I despise Ford anything because they all suck to repair.
Well there is a heck of a lot less to break on an electric, considering that there is no ICE or transmission and electric engines require little to no maintenance.
 

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,386
I know a few people (not here, but on other forums) who bought it and like it. The main challenge is simply the EV charging network — it's not as robust as Tesla's yet.
Wow. I just assumed that all EVs had standard charging features...that's not ideal to put it lightly. Why the hell would each manufacturer rely on building out their own charging infrastructure rather than try to come together and create something unified? What an incredible waste!
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,672
Wow. I just assumed that all EVs had standard charging features...that's not ideal to put it lightly. Why the hell would each manufacturer rely on building out their own charging infrastructure rather than try to come together and create something unified? What an incredible waste!

Because the technology is new and changing fast. I think you can use standard wall outlets which a lot of parking ramps have, but they are slow and take hours to charge.

You have to pay to use Tesla charging stations. And it isn't like a gas station where it's owned by some other company, it's owned by Tesla. It would be pretty weird for Ford to tell people to go pay Tesla to recharge at the Tesla station.

I don't think charging stations will ever be as popular as gas stations because most people will just charge where they park overnight and the only time you need fast charging is when you're doing a 200+ mile trip.

It's probably only a matter of time until a standard develops and you start seeing non-car companies open up charging stations though.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,009
Because the technology is new and changing fast. I think you can use standard wall outlets which a lot of parking ramps have, but they are slow and take hours to charge.

You have to pay to use Tesla charging stations. And it isn't like a gas station where it's owned by some other company, it's owned by Tesla. It would be pretty weird for Ford to tell people to go pay Tesla to recharge at the Tesla station.

I don't think charging stations will ever be as popular as gas stations because most people will just charge where they park overnight and the only time you need fast charging is when you're doing a 200+ mile trip.

It's probably only a matter of time until a standard develops and you start seeing non-car companies open up charging stations though.
There is already a de-facto standard in North America for everyone but Tesla, and that is the J1772 (CCS1 version is for fast charging). There are a few cars still using CHAdeMO, but that is a fading standard.

You don't need nearly as many public charging stations as gas stations as most people who own a home, will just charge at home. You really only need them for long trips, or if you can't install a charger at you place of residence.

Most 120v (level 1) charging only does 3 miles per hour. When I get an electric car, I likely won't even install a level 2 charger as I only drive like 100 miles per week (I work from home and that won't change after COVID either). I have time of day charging so I get cheap charging (average of 5.1 c/kWh) between 10 PM and 6 AM. That would be 168 miles per week if I charge every day for 8 hours.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,989
Well there is a heck of a lot less to break on an electric, considering that there is no ICE or transmission and electric engines require little to no maintenance.

The problems on all of our fords had nothing to do with the powertrain, almost entirely stupid electrical issues. Sensors going bad, solder joints failing in the instrument cluster, radio and compass, evap solenoid TSB, etc.

If its not emissions crap breaking, it's electrical something.

Electric motors require quite a bit of maintenance, its like the lie of "lifetime transmission fluid" - Yeah, the life of the transmission until the fluid goes bad and grenades the transmission so you have to buy a new one. All electric motors - brushed or not - require some form of maintenance, at minimum bearing replacement every so many thousands of hours. It can be more or less frequent depending on operating environment.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,547
Apparently there's been a surge in electrified car sales in the US even as overall sales have declined. The market dipped 13 percent year-over-year in the summer, but sales of hybrids and EVs surged over 60 percent. They represented over a tenth of total vehicle sales.

That's one of the reasons why I tell people to treat EVs as an inevitability. The market is still young, but the shift is very clearly in favor of electrification — even if regulators give you plenty of time, the market might not. It's to the point where I'd think very carefully about buying an ICE-only car if I intended to keep it for a long time, as the value could tank (moreso than usual) within several years.
 
Top