Airstream Forums

Airstream Forums (https://www.airforums.com/forums/)
-   Tow Vehicles (https://www.airforums.com/forums/f463/)
-   -   Tow Vehicle Total Cost of Ownership (https://www.airforums.com/forums/f463/tow-vehicle-total-cost-of-ownership-219264.html)

BayouBiker 02-14-2021 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcl (Post 2461405)
When expansion projects are cancelled, the energy they would have produced is left in the ground. That is what not doing an expansion project means.

When current production is curtailed, and there are plans to run at a lower production level, some oil is left in the ground. That is what curtailing production means.

Is this a semantic argument that not all oil is being left in the ground, or that the wording of the announcements was different?

Once again your perception is in error. Shell is exiting exploration and the natural consequence is reduced production for them, they will continue to produce and explore in certain segments, they will sell assets to others who will fully exploit the play and others will explore and produce in places Shell exits. There will be no reduction in global production due to Shells shift in corporate direction.

wulfraat 02-14-2021 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayouBiker;
Shell is majority owned by a government committed to alternative energy so it consistent for them to be responsive to their owners.

A quick look at worldwide energy consumption will demonstrate that demand is not yet shifting to electricity production.

I guess they are hedging their bets on what will occur across the next decade / getting ahead of the curve perhaps.

PS: I love camping. tent or airstream, all good!

jcl 02-14-2021 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayouBiker (Post 2461406)
It's very rude of you to edit someone else's words even in jest.

The facts are that you agreed the study was not invalid and was not incorrect, and of course because it was peer review and the data and methods were provided so it can be replicated. This is the only study offered that was peer reviewed and the only one that can be tested and replicated. The other studies you mention used proprietary and undisclosed methods that cannot be tested independently. They also indicated two double dips in their brief introduction.

You are free to bring a testable and repeatable study to center the validated one if you wish. For now that is not the case.

We disagree on your first point. I highlighted it so that it is clear those are edits.

I didn’t claim the study was invalid. I stated that your conclusion was invalid. That is an important distinction.

You arbitrarily discarded those studies which didn’t fit your narrative. You chose older data over more current data, and claimed that not only did the old data better apply today, but that the results would continue to today and the future, something you had no basis to claim. You all ear to have overreached.

Your assumption of infallibility for studies that are classified as peer reviewed should be confirmed based on a review of those peers and those reviews, not simply the phrase peer reviewed. There can be wide variations in the quality and value of peer review.

You have failed to respond to the observation that the study didn’t get significantly cited in related research. A well founded study would be likely to have garnered citations by other researchers.

Your criticism of the other studies, despite their data being used in your preferred (but older) study, is based on you not reviewing their data and methodology. That is on you, not them.

jaybauman 02-14-2021 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulfraat (Post 2461413)
I guess they are hedging their bets on what will occur across the next decade / getting ahead of the curve perhaps.

Or, perhaps, Shell will be creating what occurs across the next decade?

Shell has been speaking of the "Energy Transition" for half a decade now, and they are implementing what was promised back then. If you want to know what any company values, take a look at where they are spending their R&D dollars. I think most casual observers might be surprised where Shell has been investing theirs.

BayouBiker 02-14-2021 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcl (Post 2461418)

I didnít claim the study was invalid. I stated that your conclusion was invalid. That is an important distinction.


You arbitrarily discarded those studies which didnít fit your narrative. You chose older data over more current data, and claimed that not only did the old data better apply today, but that the results would continue to today and the future, something you had no basis to claim. You all ear to have overreached.

Your assumption of infallibility for studies that are classified as peer reviewed should be confirmed based on a review of those peers and those reviews, not simply the phrase peer reviewed. There can be wide variations in the quality and value of peer review. [/quote]

The conclusion follows directly from the study. A study that you offered. I did not choose it. In the philosophy of science, if a study is not invalid and is testable and repeatable and a conclusion follows from the study, then the conclusion cannot be invalid. I carries no weight that the study is contradicted even slightly as it was by a study that cannot be falsified, cannot be repeated or tested. That study has to be set aside no matter how much one party prefers it. Your perspective of how science should work is nonconventional to say the least.

This is not an arbitrary approach in the least, nor does it involve any assumption of infallibility. If a valid study is produced that contradicts this one, then we have to weigh them on their merits. it is the way the world of science and economics operates.

Quote:

You have failed to respond to the observation that the study didnít get significantly cited in related research. A well founded study would be likely to have garnered citations by other researchers.
This is irrelevant to the substance of the paper. I urge you to review the scientific method.

Quote:

Your criticism of the other studies, despite their data being used in your preferred (but older) study, is based on you not reviewing their data and methodology. That is on you, not them.
I do not take issue with their data, my issue is either with the known method (consumer reports failed to include insurance and several made errors in their depreciation methods) or lack of ability to repeat and test the study (Vincentric failed to publish their methods and formulas and there were strong indications they double dipped).

So without any valid contradictory study, diesel stands with the lowest total cost.

jcl 02-14-2021 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayouBiker (Post 2461439)
In the philosophy of science, if a study is not invalid and is testable and repeatable and a conclusion follows from the study, then the conclusion cannot be invalid. ....

This is irrelevant to the substance of the paper. I urge you to review the scientific method.


Yes, I took courses in the philosophy of science as well, although it was decades ago.

No claim has been made that the TRI study was invalid, just that the value of it is in question.

It was your claims made that built upon the study that were challenged.

You are using the existence of peer review as a decision tool on what to include. Peer review is far from perfect. It works best when there is transparency, such as who did the review and what their comments were. This isn't to say that peer review doesn't have value, just that it doesn't correlate well with quality. The peer review process is much more recent than the scientific method, and we shouldn't conflate the two.

A summary article on issues facing the peer review process:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

You dismissed the concept of citations and other indicators being useful in helping determine the relative quality of a research paper, calling this irrelevant. In the interests of staying current, it may be worth reviewing the following:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...58244019829575

Your concerns with the Vincentric report, as I noted, were because you didn't review it. You perhaps didn't review it because you didn't have access to it. That doesn't invalidate it. Private enterprise can produce some very high quality reports. Some would say that is proof of the market at work.

Prettygood 02-15-2021 07:36 AM

All of you left the actual topic behind a while ago, and it is now officially a...

ďLook at me! Iíve got the biggest brain here and you all are wrong if you donít agree with meĒ

The points are simple.
- in some use cases, the total consumer cost of ownership (original topic) is nearly equal between gas and diesel
- in other cases, diesel has an advantage over gas
- which use case best aligns to an individual has more to do with how they plan to behave than other controllable factors
- BEV is not yet sufficiently developed or deployed to have meaningful usage data to make a fair comparison (still Tri-motor Cybertruck for the win!)

The most important point of all is...
- buy a truck/SUV that suits your needs and enjoy camping.

Everything else in this conversation is far less important

jcl 02-15-2021 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prettygood (Post 2461514)
All of you left the actual topic behind a while ago, and it is now officially a...

ďLook at me! Iíve got the biggest brain here and you all are wrong if you donít agree with meĒ

The points are simple.
- in some use cases, the total consumer cost of ownership (original topic) is nearly equal between gas and diesel
- in other cases, diesel has an advantage over gas
- which use case best aligns to an individual has more to do with how they plan to behave than other controllable factors
- BEV is not yet sufficiently developed or deployed to have meaningful usage data to make a fair comparison (still Tri-motor Cybertruck for the win!)

The most important point of all is...
- buy a truck/SUV that suits your needs and enjoy camping.

Everything else in this conversation is far less important

The OP was OK with the thread drift, and so it went.

I agree with all of your bullet points.

DewTheDew 02-15-2021 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayouBiker (Post 2461360)
It may be that is not understood or ignored by those who may be more concerned about toxic pollution from mineral salts or it could be that your perception of the sources and supplies for lithium and cobalt and other rare earth mineral is distorted.

I urge you to look at the ever growing production of these metals and minerals and compare it to the supply provided by recycling. Then I would suggest you do the same for other heavy and rare metals and minerals that were a concern in the past and where the recycling claim was also made. Platinum for catalytic converters and large scale chemical catalysis needs is a good analog. You will see that now after 35-45 years, recycling remains a very small portion of the total supply of this rare metal. Industrial gold is another good example, even copper. No matter where you look, the real world does not comport with your perception. Perhaps the problem is the perception is in error.

The same situation seems to be in play for those with the perception that fossil fuels are too valuable to use as fuel. Are the owners of that petroleum not seeing the obvious? If it has value beyond use as fuel wouldn't they be saving it and instead securing loans against that massive future value to thrive today to a far greater extent than if they simply sold it at todays low price? No, unfortunately the perception is the issue and petroleum has its highest value use to burn it today rather than save it.

Catalytic converters have a few hundred US dollars of Pt in them. The battery in an EV is far more valuable and will be recycled pretty effectively. Cobalt is the real issue (mostly because it comes almost exclusively from the DRC, which is an unstable country) and there is a lot of work going on to reduce that in Li-ion batteries.

Mining of anything is always an environmental issue, as is drilling for oil. But the fact is that there is a finite amount of oil. It will not last forever. So leaving aside global warming, there is a driving force to stay ahead of the curve and move to EVs. That shift is also a geopolitical advantage. If you don't want to go there then don't. I do not have an EV myself at this time. But I can see that the world is heading that direction. And there are good reasons to do so.

BayouBiker 02-15-2021 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DewTheDew (Post 2461743)
Catalytic converters have a few hundred US dollars of Pt in them. The battery in an EV is far more valuable and will be recycled pretty effectively. Cobalt is the real issue (mostly because it comes almost exclusively from the DRC, which is an unstable country) and there is a lot of work going on to reduce that in Li-ion batteries.

I show that a smelter can recover about 92-97% of the platinum or palladium and other platinum series metals from converters at a value of about $275 per dead converter. And yet I remind you demand for newly mined platinum series metals continues to rise.

Only 50% of the original Lithium and Cobalt is obtainable from batteries and that percentage is unlikely to change much in the short term because is is constrained by the realities of chemistry. Let's drop the charade that Lithium is not consumed.

History can inform us if we pay attention. The perception that lithium mining will decrease in time and that lithium is not consumed does not comport with history, chemistry laws, and the real world.

Quote:

Mining of anything is always an environmental issue, as is drilling for oil. But the fact is that there is a finite amount of oil. It will not last forever. So leaving aside global warming, there is a driving force to stay ahead of the curve and move to EVs.
The same is true of lithium and cobalt, correct? It's also correct that nobody knows how much fossil fuel or lithium exists in the world nor which will be depleted first, right? I do know that when Petroleum runs low we can just make it. Lithium? not so much.

Quote:

That shift is also a geopolitical advantage. If you don't want to go there then don't. I do not have an EV myself at this time. But I can see that the world is heading that direction. And there are good reasons to do so.
I'm still waiting for someone to accurately explain the geopolitical advantages and those good reasons. None of those I have heard so far match with what we find by looking at history.

None of this is to say that real improvements in productivity and efficiency don't drive changes in technology, they do. If a new and more effective energy source comes along it will be adopted just like steam overtook sails, and petroleum overtook the horse. Neither of those required fear mongering, mandates and subsidies, so what is really driving it this time?

Edit: for those wondering, this sub thread is about the validity of including pollution and other externalities in the cost equation which consistently shows diesel to be the low total cost leader. I welcome inclusion of anything missing from the equation and any verifiable study that shows a different conclusion.

BayouBiker 02-15-2021 07:59 PM

I meant to mention that a 65KWh battery bank contains about $80-90 of recoverable lithium and cobalt salts so much less valuable than the dead catalytic converter.

Daquenzer 02-15-2021 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m rafferty (Post 2459892)
Simple fact, diesels get much better mileage towing.

I would question that. TFL truck did an analysis of a 9,000lb trailer being pulled by a V8 Ford F150 and a F250 diesel. They ran the same course at the same speed. The difference in fuel mileage was minimal. Yes the diesel got better mileage, but it was less than a 1/2mpg as I recall.

JayOhBee 02-15-2021 09:04 PM

I am getting 14mpg in my Ram 2500 towing a FC30RB through hills. I have not found the diesel to be any more expensive than a gasser to maintain, but I am a sample of one. From what I have experienced and heard I conclude the following (yes, these are my opinions):
1) Gas engines have advanced to a point where the advantage of having a diesel in terms of power and torque is small enough to ignore.
2) A diesel engine provides exhaust braking. Important to me, but not to everyone.
3) The difference in MPG between gas and diesel is real and on the order of 3 to 4 MPG. Depending on where you are in the country this could mean fuel savings. Not so much out here in California.
4) As noted above, my maintenance costs have been about the same as a gas truck. Although I understand that if something goes wrong with the emissions stuff it could mean a big bill.
5) I paid a premium for a 5 year old diesel truck. I was looking at both gas and diesel and the used gassers were several thousand dollars cheaper. I intend to drive mine until the wheels fall off, so resale does not matter too much to me, but its nice to know.


If you roll all that up, for me it means that gas or diesel is a push in terms of TCO and really in terms of capability as well. I like the diesel. Personal preference. I like the 4WD too even though it is heavier. Personal preference. Buy what you like and enjoy.

BayouBiker 02-15-2021 09:05 PM

Here is TFL Truck's Gas mileage summary of all trucks towing typical loads. https://tfltruck.com/2018/06/mpg-cha...-listed-specs/ You will see the diesels do the expected 20-25% better milage wise. And this follows directly from the 25% better thermal efficiency of the diesel themodynamic cycle vs. the Otto cycle.

Daquenzer 02-15-2021 09:22 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T728x3Gkg98
here is the test.

I am personally finding it hard to believe that diesels get 14mpg towing a 30' AS when in this test it didn't even get 9mpg on a basic run with a 9,000lb trailer. I am very very skeptical.

Daquenzer 02-15-2021 09:58 PM

https://www.wardsauto.com/test-drive...t-class-claims

Here is another test conclusion:
The 7.3 Liter gas got 7.4 mpg towing 9,000lbs.
The 6.7 liter diesel got 8.1 mpg towing a bit over 10,000lbs.

Again I ask, "Where is this 14mpg towing for a diesel?"

It didn't do it in this test or the first test.

I'm not saying a diesel doesn't get better gas mileage. I'm just saying 14mpg while towing sounds little bogus to me.

What I have read is that diesels tend to average 15mpg when taking into consideration all driving conditions. Add a 8,000lb trailer to that and it isn't close to 14mpg. Sorry, don't believe it.

BayouBiker 02-15-2021 10:07 PM

In their tests, they are traveling at 70 mph. At 70 I get about 11.8-12 but if I slow down to 62 I am over 14.8 mpg. I also do better on rolling hills where the exhaust runs a bit hotter and burns away the particulates without the extra rich fuel. Perhaps its a difference in speed.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.