Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[Mark Abramowitz via EV]

 
I think trying to turn this into a class issue is  not only counterproductive, 
but inaccurate.  Big money is going into EVs, so you can't make the "little 
guy" argument. These folks can just as easily come up with fake studies, too, 
or provide misinformation.(it's also no secret that I think that some on this 
list provide their share or misinformation - wealth not needed!)
I haven't read the study, but like any fake news there's frequently a kernel of 
truth someplace upon which gets built some absurd conclusion.
If you want to go down the rabbit holes, try first looking at GREET study 
numbers for GHG emissions for 100% coal sources. I don't think that that there 
are even states that have 100% coal-fired power, and those with large amounts 
have been working on shifts to nat gas, but that may be where they are getting 
the numbers. BTW, I disagree with the characterization that a 23% reduction in 
GHGs is trivial.
Going down another rabbit hole, look at recent California data on ZEV and PHEV 
use. Though I didn't see anything like what the ADL study has been reported to 
allege for BEVs in the presentation that I saw, some of the PHEV data was of 
concern in terms of electric versus ICE miles.
Though perhaps they got their data from places completely different!

Sent from AltaMail


 From: EVDL Administrator via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> To: Electric Vehicle 
Discussion List <ev@lists.evdl.org> Subject: Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE 
report Date: 12/12/16, 7:04 AM

 
On 11 Dec 2016 at 22:41, Bill Dube via EV wrote: 
 
>  I guess this is how "fake news" originates. 
 
You could say that, but the term "fake news" is just a new name for an  
ancient problem: propaganda.  Wealthy and influential people and  
institutions don't take well to change when it might affect their profits.   
Any time you pursue something contrary to their interests, you'll eventually  
get slammed with propaganda.   
 
Don't forget that a couple of fairly well-known and extraordinarily well- 
heeled billionaires, whose money is partly in oil, have recently begun  
dumping dollars into a campaign explicitly designed to keep people burning  
oil in their ICEVs and NOT buying EVs.  Plenty of "researchers" are happy to  
take some of their money to de-educated the public about EVs. 
 
In the EV world this is nothing new, nor is the wide publicity it's given. 
 
In 1995, Science magazine published a Carnegie Mellon University report  
claiming that (among other things) lead release into the environment was 60  
times as high from a GM Impact prototype (later the EV1) as from a 1970s  
ICEV burning leaded gasoline!   
 
They came to this bizarre conclusion by assuming the most pessimistic values  
for every possible variable -- battery cycle life, range per cycle, energy  
use per mile by the EV, total amount of lead in the battery, amount of  
recycled lead used, and many more. 
 
This study was published despite the fact that had never been peer-reviewed.  
It was also widely quoted in the mainstream media, including the New York  
Times.   
 
The Times should have known better.  So should have Science.  And most  
definiely CMU, which was, and is, a respected university.  But when 13  
million bucks (almost $21 million in today's money) lands in your lap to pay  
for such a study, as it did for CMU, that can be mighty tempting.   
 
I'll bet you can guess where that grant money came from. 
 
Lead is no longer much of a factor in the attack on EVs, but The anti-EV  
forces will always find something to beat us up on.  They're masters at  
finding ways to bend statistics to suit their pre-ordained conclusion. 
 
The folks most susceptible to their propaganda are those who are least  
educated. Well, guess what -- the education quality in the US is in decline.  
Propaganda also spreads with lightning speed today, thanks to uncritical  
sharing on social media.   
 
Still, let's be blunt here: ignorant people by and large never have been and  
probably never will be interested in EVs.  It's the well educated who are  
already open to them.  Luckily, educated people are the ones most likely to  
listen when you rebut propaganda with facts. 
 
Unfortunately the EV movement still has limited resources to counter this  
garbage -- and as usual, the bad guys have a LOT of money behind them.   
 
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA 
EVDL Administrator 
 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  
Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not  
reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my  
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
 
 
___ 
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub 
htt

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[Cor van de Water via EV]

Peri,
The other (sad) element in the explosion of fake news is that people
share something that gives them the desired feeling, without any regards
for facts (that is why the "word of the year" is: post-truth) and even
when people have zero knowledge on the subject they will confidently
share what they see as the solution. Just yesterday I responded to a
woman confidently stating that there is not going to be global warming,
because the Carbon Monoxide level is rising and with it rising, sunlight
gets reflected out of our atmosphere and due to the cooling, land will
get covered in snow and the more snow, the more sun radiation will be
reflected away so it escalates the cooling of the Earth.
I was tempted to confirm that rising CO levels will indeed stop global
warming, but not for the reason she quoted. Instead I suggested that she
probably meant CO2 and then I repeated established science showing the
warming effect of high CO2 levels as well as the disturbing effects that
high CO2 levels has as direct effect on living things, such as loss of
concentration - at increasing CO2 levels we will actually not be able to
function as well as at the CO2 level that we were designed for, so this
goes way beyond the global warming and ever-weirder weather and affects
us directly.

BTW, this was in response on an article about Solar Activity and because
this subject is easily confused, people were discussing that low solar
activity means that the earth will get colder, without realizing that
the activity that is discussed is the amount of sun spots (magnetic
activity on the sun surface, causing ejection of mass from the sun and
Northern Lights) but with very little impact on sun light radiation, so
virtually no impact on the Earth climate...

But you won't believe how misguided some people can be in their
ignorance of science, while at the same time being overly confident
about their opinion.
There is actually a meme about this problem and it goes like this:
Why are stupid people so sure about everything while intelligent people
doubt so much?
I think that rhetoric question captures very well the disaster that
social media has become for a lot of areas where opinion counts more
than facts, but shouldn't. 

Cor van de Water 
Chief Scientist 
Proxim Wireless 
  
office +1 408 383 7626Skype: cor_van_de_water 
XoIP   +31 87 784 1130private: cvandewater.info 

http://www.proxim.com

This email message (including any attachments) contains confidential and
proprietary information of Proxim Wireless Corporation.  If you received
this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender.  Any
unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of any part of
this message is prohibited.


-Original Message-
From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Peri Hartman
via EV
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 7:46 AM
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Subject: Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

Yes, we likely will see more fake news or misinformation about EVs. The 
best, in my opinion, is to educate people. Be conspicuous. Tell people 
the facts when you can. Don't put more attention on pieces of fake news.

And, yes, fake news has been around for a while. I suspect you can go 
back to the origin of humanity. The big difference is social media. It 
allows spreading info amazingly quickly and based on popularity, not 
substance.

Peri

-- Original Message --
From: "tomw via EV" <ev@lists.evdl.org>
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Cc:
Sent: 12-Dec-16 6:38:24 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

>Although "fake news" has recently been noted by some media outlets, it 
>has
>been around for decades. The first organized effort in the U.S. began 
>with
>Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew.  Bernays coined the term 
>"public
>relations" because he said "propaganda" had negative connotations.
>Conservative segments of industry have built up a widespread network of

>PR
>firms such as Hill and Knowles which specialize in misrepresentation to
>spread doubt on science which negatively effects profits, and think 
>tanks
>such as the New Enterprise and Marshal Institutes over the last 30 
>years.
>The concerted effort of these has created an alternative reality for 
>those
>who believe them. They work closely with media outlets to give them 
>reports
>that are publication-ready, so they go right into the media as-received

>from
>the think tank with no critical review, saving the media companies the
>"trouble" and cost of investigative reporting at the cost of the truth.
>
>Bernay's efforts are detailed in this BBC special:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
>
>Don't be put off by the melodrama of the beginning with Sigmund Freud 
>and
>yelling crowds, the film is very informative.
>
>Expect to se

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[Peri Hartman via EV]

Yes, we likely will see more fake news or misinformation about EVs. The 
best, in my opinion, is to educate people. Be conspicuous. Tell people 
the facts when you can. Don't put more attention on pieces of fake news.


And, yes, fake news has been around for a while. I suspect you can go 
back to the origin of humanity. The big difference is social media. It 
allows spreading info amazingly quickly and based on popularity, not 
substance.


Peri

-- Original Message --
From: "tomw via EV" <ev@lists.evdl.org>
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Cc:
Sent: 12-Dec-16 6:38:24 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

Although "fake news" has recently been noted by some media outlets, it 
has
been around for decades. The first organized effort in the U.S. began 
with
Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew.  Bernays coined the term 
"public

relations" because he said "propaganda" had negative connotations.
Conservative segments of industry have built up a widespread network of 
PR

firms such as Hill and Knowles which specialize in misrepresentation to
spread doubt on science which negatively effects profits, and think 
tanks
such as the New Enterprise and Marshal Institutes over the last 30 
years.
The concerted effort of these has created an alternative reality for 
those
who believe them. They work closely with media outlets to give them 
reports
that are publication-ready, so they go right into the media as-received 
from

the think tank with no critical review, saving the media companies the
"trouble" and cost of investigative reporting at the cost of the truth.

Bernay's efforts are detailed in this BBC special:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

Don't be put off by the melodrama of the beginning with Sigmund Freud 
and

yelling crowds, the film is very informative.

Expect to see much more of this on EVs now that the Koch brothers have
started funding an effort against them.

--
View this message in context: 
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/A-D-Little-EV-vs-ICE-report-tp4684797p4684809.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at 
Nabble.com.

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)





___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[EVDL Administrator via EV]

On 11 Dec 2016 at 22:41, Bill Dube via EV wrote:

>  I guess this is how "fake news" originates.

You could say that, but the term "fake news" is just a new name for an 
ancient problem: propaganda.  Wealthy and influential people and 
institutions don't take well to change when it might affect their profits.  
Any time you pursue something contrary to their interests, you'll eventually 
get slammed with propaganda.  

Don't forget that a couple of fairly well-known and extraordinarily well-
heeled billionaires, whose money is partly in oil, have recently begun 
dumping dollars into a campaign explicitly designed to keep people burning 
oil in their ICEVs and NOT buying EVs.  Plenty of "researchers" are happy to 
take some of their money to de-educated the public about EVs.

In the EV world this is nothing new, nor is the wide publicity it's given.

In 1995, Science magazine published a Carnegie Mellon University report 
claiming that (among other things) lead release into the environment was 60 
times as high from a GM Impact prototype (later the EV1) as from a 1970s 
ICEV burning leaded gasoline!  

They came to this bizarre conclusion by assuming the most pessimistic values 
for every possible variable -- battery cycle life, range per cycle, energy 
use per mile by the EV, total amount of lead in the battery, amount of 
recycled lead used, and many more.

This study was published despite the fact that had never been peer-reviewed. 
It was also widely quoted in the mainstream media, including the New York 
Times.  

The Times should have known better.  So should have Science.  And most 
definiely CMU, which was, and is, a respected university.  But when 13 
million bucks (almost $21 million in today's money) lands in your lap to pay 
for such a study, as it did for CMU, that can be mighty tempting.  

I'll bet you can guess where that grant money came from.

Lead is no longer much of a factor in the attack on EVs, but The anti-EV 
forces will always find something to beat us up on.  They're masters at 
finding ways to bend statistics to suit their pre-ordained conclusion.

The folks most susceptible to their propaganda are those who are least 
educated. Well, guess what -- the education quality in the US is in decline. 
Propaganda also spreads with lightning speed today, thanks to uncritical 
sharing on social media.  

Still, let's be blunt here: ignorant people by and large never have been and 
probably never will be interested in EVs.  It's the well educated who are 
already open to them.  Luckily, educated people are the ones most likely to 
listen when you rebut propaganda with facts.

Unfortunately the EV movement still has limited resources to counter this 
garbage -- and as usual, the bad guys have a LOT of money behind them.  

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not 
reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my 
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[tomw via EV]

Although "fake news" has recently been noted by some media outlets, it has
been around for decades. The first organized effort in the U.S. began with
Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew.  Bernays coined the term "public
relations" because he said "propaganda" had negative connotations.
Conservative segments of industry have built up a widespread network of PR
firms such as Hill and Knowles which specialize in misrepresentation to
spread doubt on science which negatively effects profits, and think tanks
such as the New Enterprise and Marshal Institutes over the last 30 years.
The concerted effort of these has created an alternative reality for those
who believe them. They work closely with media outlets to give them reports
that are publication-ready, so they go right into the media as-received from
the think tank with no critical review, saving the media companies the
"trouble" and cost of investigative reporting at the cost of the truth.

Bernay's efforts are detailed in this BBC special:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

Don't be put off by the melodrama of the beginning with Sigmund Freud and
yelling crowds, the film is very informative.

Expect to see much more of this on EVs now that the Koch brothers have
started funding an effort against them.

--
View this message in context: 
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/A-D-Little-EV-vs-ICE-report-tp4684797p4684809.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at 
Nabble.com.
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[Bill Dube via EV]

An prime example of the misinformation presented in this 
_non-peer-reviewed_ report shows up on page 7, where the report states:
"Survey data reveals that BEVs are driven an average of 27% fewer miles 
per year than comparable ICEVs, but BEV owners still travel the same 
total miles as their ICEV counterparts. 6 "


Looking up the sited report in footnote #6, "Plug-in vehicle road 
tax report", it gives zero information about ICEV's or the ICEV annual 
miles driven. It is entirely about PIHEV"s and BEV's with no mention 
_whatsoever_ of ICEV's. The source and nature of their ICE vehicle 
annual miles is conspicuously absent. I wanted to know:  What type of 
ICEV's are included? Over-the-road trucking perhaps?


The authors go on to assume, without supporting data, that the EV 
owner would need "make up" these "lost" EV miles using public 
transportation or a rental car. This conjecture by the authors has no 
basis in reality. I don't drive my EV any less that I used to drive my 
ICE. When my wife and I drive together, or when we have both cars to 
choose from, we preferentially drive the EV, instead of our Prius. Why 
wouldn't we? It is cheaper to drive. The EV clocks more miles than the HEV.


I also guffawed at figure #3, Its shows a number days lost for the 
replacement battery for the BEV, but neglects the 4 or5 lead acid 
starting batteries the ICE will have to replace over its lifespan, that 
will likely cost a day each to replace. Where is the time lost for ICE 
repairs in this graph, like the catalytic converter, exhaust system, oil 
changes, tune-ups, fuel system, etc.?


The report was written by a person that has never driven an 
electric car for any length of time, obviously.


I guess this is how "fake news" originates.

Bill D.


On 12/11/2016 8:12 PM, paul dove via EV wrote:

ADL is an obvious think tank. I don't know for sure if they are biased but I 
have never seen a serious research paper list car and driver magazine as a 
source. I suspect oil company funding.

Sent from my iPhone


On Dec 11, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Joe Fields via EV  wrote:

Recently I saw this report from the management consulting firm A. D. Little
referenced in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.:

http://www.adlittle.us/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_BEVs_vs_ICEVs_FINAL_November_292016.pdf

The report claims that BEVs have only a slight margin over ICEs in terms of
greenhouse gas reduction (23%) and that BEVs are significantly more
polluting overall.  To quote the WSJ article:

"... its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and
graphite—will be three to five times greater."

I don't know anything about ADL's reputation, but this analysis appears to
be strangely biased.  For instance my conversion's LiFePO4 cells don't
contain ANY heavy metals, but the catalytic converter in my gas car
definitely does contain platinum and palladium (which are obtained via
notoriously polluting mining operations...)

So two questions for the list:

Is there a reputable source that would refute this analysis?

Is there something I don't know about ADL's motivations for smearing EVs?
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)


___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)



___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[paul dove via EV]

ADL is an obvious think tank. I don't know for sure if they are biased but I 
have never seen a serious research paper list car and driver magazine as a 
source. I suspect oil company funding.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 11, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Joe Fields via EV  wrote:
> 
> Recently I saw this report from the management consulting firm A. D. Little
> referenced in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.:
> 
> http://www.adlittle.us/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_BEVs_vs_ICEVs_FINAL_November_292016.pdf
> 
> The report claims that BEVs have only a slight margin over ICEs in terms of
> greenhouse gas reduction (23%) and that BEVs are significantly more
> polluting overall.  To quote the WSJ article:
> 
> "... its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and
> graphite—will be three to five times greater."
> 
> I don't know anything about ADL's reputation, but this analysis appears to
> be strangely biased.  For instance my conversion's LiFePO4 cells don't
> contain ANY heavy metals, but the catalytic converter in my gas car
> definitely does contain platinum and palladium (which are obtained via
> notoriously polluting mining operations...)
> 
> So two questions for the list:
> 
> Is there a reputable source that would refute this analysis?
> 
> Is there something I don't know about ADL's motivations for smearing EVs?
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
> Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
> 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[Peter C. Thompson via EV]

Also:
In 2001, ADL wrote a Philip Morris-funded report saying that smoking can 
help Czech economy:Public Finance Balance of Smoking in the Czech 
Republic 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Smoking_in_the_Czech_Republic>.


Cheers

On 12/11/16 6:40 PM, Peri Hartman via EV wrote:

According to this Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_D._Little

A.D.Little was bought by Paris-based Altran Technologies in 2002.

"Under Altran's ownership, Arthur D. Little rebuilt its core practices 
in oil and gas, telecommunications, automotive and manufacturing and 
chemicals and reopened its US offices. Arthur D. Little continues to 
be active and recognized for its expertise in areas combining aspects 
of technology, innovation, and strategy."


In my opinion, that pretty much sums it up.

Peri

-- Original Message --
From: "Joe Fields via EV" <ev@lists.evdl.org>
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Cc:
Sent: 11-Dec-16 3:29:34 PM
Subject: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

Recently I saw this report from the management consulting firm A. D. 
Little
referenced in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Holman W. 
Jenkins, Jr.:


http://www.adlittle.us/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_BEVs_vs_ICEVs_FINAL_November_292016.pdf 



The report claims that BEVs have only a slight margin over ICEs in 
terms of

greenhouse gas reduction (23%) and that BEVs are significantly more
polluting overall.  To quote the WSJ article:

"... its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and
graphite—will be three to five times greater."

I don't know anything about ADL's reputation, but this analysis 
appears to

be strangely biased.  For instance my conversion's LiFePO4 cells don't
contain ANY heavy metals, but the catalytic converter in my gas car
definitely does contain platinum and palladium (which are obtained via
notoriously polluting mining operations...)

So two questions for the list:

Is there a reputable source that would refute this analysis?

Is there something I don't know about ADL's motivations for smearing 
EVs?

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20161211/442de931/attachment.htm>

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)




___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)




___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[Peri Hartman via EV]

According to this Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_D._Little

A.D.Little was bought by Paris-based Altran Technologies in 2002.

"Under Altran's ownership, Arthur D. Little rebuilt its core practices 
in oil and gas, telecommunications, automotive and manufacturing and 
chemicals and reopened its US offices. Arthur D. Little continues to be 
active and recognized for its expertise in areas combining aspects of 
technology, innovation, and strategy."


In my opinion, that pretty much sums it up.

Peri

-- Original Message --
From: "Joe Fields via EV" <ev@lists.evdl.org>
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Cc:
Sent: 11-Dec-16 3:29:34 PM
Subject: [EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

Recently I saw this report from the management consulting firm A. D. 
Little
referenced in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Holman W. Jenkins, 
Jr.:


http://www.adlittle.us/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_BEVs_vs_ICEVs_FINAL_November_292016.pdf

The report claims that BEVs have only a slight margin over ICEs in 
terms of

greenhouse gas reduction (23%) and that BEVs are significantly more
polluting overall.  To quote the WSJ article:

"... its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and
graphite—will be three to five times greater."

I don't know anything about ADL's reputation, but this analysis appears 
to

be strangely biased.  For instance my conversion's LiFePO4 cells don't
contain ANY heavy metals, but the catalytic converter in my gas car
definitely does contain platinum and palladium (which are obtained via
notoriously polluting mining operations...)

So two questions for the list:

Is there a reputable source that would refute this analysis?

Is there something I don't know about ADL's motivations for smearing 
EVs?

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20161211/442de931/attachment.htm>

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)




___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

[EVDL] A. D. Little EV vs ICE report

[Joe Fields via EV]

Recently I saw this report from the management consulting firm A. D. Little
referenced in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.:

http://www.adlittle.us/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_BEVs_vs_ICEVs_FINAL_November_292016.pdf

The report claims that BEVs have only a slight margin over ICEs in terms of
greenhouse gas reduction (23%) and that BEVs are significantly more
polluting overall.  To quote the WSJ article:

"... its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and
graphite—will be three to five times greater."

I don't know anything about ADL's reputation, but this analysis appears to
be strangely biased.  For instance my conversion's LiFePO4 cells don't
contain ANY heavy metals, but the catalytic converter in my gas car
definitely does contain platinum and palladium (which are obtained via
notoriously polluting mining operations...)

So two questions for the list:

Is there a reputable source that would refute this analysis?

Is there something I don't know about ADL's motivations for smearing EVs?
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)