Standard concept car fakery stuff, I think. The lights look interesting, I'm not sure about the rest of it. The huge tablet interface fills me with dread - I have problems enough using Sensus on the move. Suicide doors obviously won't be in the final product.

 

Back to the OP/video: I personally don't like the concept of "gluing" tablets onto a center dash area, as it looks tacky; integrating horizontal screens into the dashboard is much more classy. I also don't like the little horizontal "tablet" behind the steering wheel, which not only looks tacky but also must be problematic for the driver to see (as must the big vertical tablet screen) in direct sunlight; recessed driver instrument screens/panels are always to be preferred for this reason, and they also look more classy. The Polestar 2 has a nicely recessed/protected instrument panel but the ugly tablet center screen, while the XC40 BEV has the similar behind-wheel recessed/protected instrument panel and a less-obtrusive and smaller center screen -- both with the new Google OS and maps (which are far superior to Sensus) but which also have the same problem with lack of buttons/knobs as the Sensus Volvos do.

And I don't like the idea of taking buttons away for climate control and audio/radio/etc. -- something that Volvo has unfortunately done in their current-but-waning Sensus era, and something that has had me buy four non-Volvos in the Sensus era instead of Sensus Volvos (and I imagine that many other Volvo sales have been lost as a result, also, due to this; as a continuous Volvo owner since 1985, these were sad decisions to make). Whenever my 2001 V70XC is in for servicing, I'm happy to return my loaner Sensus Volvo back to the service department to get my all-buttons-and-dials wagon back, in which I don't even have to look to change stations and audio controls but can do it by feel/memory. (And don't get me started on how voice controls are so crappy in Volvos, and even if they DID work well, they would still be a pain to use if you don't want to take the time to talk and hope that the car will do what you want to do -- interupting conversation, phone calls, listening to music or radio, etc.; voice controls are not the solution to removing buttons and dials -- putting buttons and dials BACK are the only solution.). And while we're on the subject of buttons/dials again, I'll once again point out how unsafe it is to have to rely on a computer screen for all the things that buttons/dials/knobs can/should do, and how ironic it is for a company that rides on its "safety laurels" to do something so inherently unsafe as urging its drivers to take their eyes off the road for extended periods needlessly and recklessly.

Now, I have test-driven both the XC40 BEV and the Polestar 2 this year, and I am very impressed with both. Take away the above-mentioned issues, these are fabulous vehicles with few other apparent flaws. They are both orders-of-magnitude better than any ICEV and any PHEV that Volvo makes (indeed, readers of my posts here will know how much I dislike Volvo PHEVs because of their dreadfully low all-electric range compared to PHEVs made by other automakers and their poor computer screens). The best future that Volvo can imagine is in BEVs because they have failed miserably in their ICEs and computer-screen technology in cars in the Sensus era. I like the concept that Volvo presents in this video (OP) and think that it's superb -- changing the layout of the car in really good ways to go with the removal of ICE and addition of batteries and electric motors. I like that Volvo/Polestar has kept conventional door handles (so far), unlike many other BEV makers that have recessed door handles that operate electronically (what could possibly go wrong there?!). (Other BEVs that I have test-driven include the Taycan, I-Pace, and Model S, and I've ridden in a Model 3.)

For my first BEV in a few years, the Volvos and Polestars will be high on my list for potential buying (unlike Volvos with ICEs in them, which are permanently off my consideration list now). If you've not driven an XC40 BEV or a Polestar 2, do so; the torque in them makes them really fun to drive. We will keep at least one vehicle with an ICE in it for the next decade for our road trips, but BEVs are far far superior to an ICEV for local driving/commuting. The vast majority of BEV owners don't road-trip with their BEVs; they fly/rent or they have another vehicle with an ICE in it (ICEV/PHEV) for such trips. The vast majority of BEV owners drive only within a hundred miles of home almost all the time with their BEVs, and they charge mostly at home (or at work), so public-charging infrastructure is immaterial. By 2030, I'm sure that the public-charging infrastructure will be much more robust for BEVs, and by 2040 many will wonder why it took so long for people to give up their "horses".

 

No Volvo EV or any EV in my future. I drive too far (OH to SC) and would never consider an EV even if they could go 300+ miles. Charge times are just too long.

 

New EVs are able to charge a couple hundred miles of range in 15-20 minutes. You stop, stretch your legs or get a bite to eat, then you've got enough range for another 2-3 hours of driving. It's healthy to stop and stretch every now and then, anyway.

Tech is getting better, all the time. EVs are the future. NEVER say "never".

 

I don't know how things are in the USA, but here in the UK, the charging infrastructure is confusing and spotty. There are so many providers here that drivers routinely have to look at the charger, see who the provider is, find the app and then charge. Or, more often than not, download another app, create an account, add their payment details and then charge.

 

I'm in the U.S. but have watched enough videos by EV drivers in the UK to understand what PeteUK is saying, and he doesn't mention the frustration of pulling into a chargepoint and finding it full even though the app says there's a charger available. It is the same or worse in the U.S.. Charging infrastructure should be either a public utility or at least regulated by the government to ensure availability and consistency if they ever want EV's to be successful here. We're getting a PHEV because it fits our driving pattern: 52 weeks of short trips and 2 weeks cross-country. I have no quarrel with Russ399, his driving pattern requires an ICE for practicality, as is true for the majority of U.S. drivers.

 

This is a concept like many others, 95% are never even close to these solutions in real life

 

Oh God no the government shouldn't be in charge of regulating it. Besides the fact that there is little the government does well, it would slow down the process immensely. Government involvement in vehicles is why things are so slow to change in the first place. Why do you think you still have side mirrors rather than cameras? Why do you think Europeans get better headlights than us? If you want new exciting weapons of war than ask for government help, otherwise, it's generally best left in the hands of private innovation.

 

Government intervention is an important control. Too many industries become predatory and hurt the population unless they are tightly regulated.

Anyone who thinks that the private sector should be allowed to do whatever they want is either incredibly selfish, naive, or likely both.

 

Why would the charging stations be a money looser if not for government involvement? You could be out in the boonies, have a home charger with a lock, and sell electric at whatever rate you wanted. But it would expand the infrastructure faster than with government checks. And then someone who saw you making money would come in with a 2nd charger and competition would ensue and the price would drop. It is precisely the government intervention that actually allows for predatory environment. Otherwise, it's just supply and demand. And it's not like gas where you could water down the quality. Electric is electric, and you have an onboard gauge for how much percentage you took to keep them honest.

 

Yes, because yokels in the boonies are known for being progressive and eager to encourage EV adoption. ROFL.

Did you read my post, P07? It reads: "Who is going to put money-losing chargepoints in the boonies without some sort of subsidy? Like it or not, if we're going to replace ICE cars with EV's, government will have to make the infrastructure happen." Did you miss the "if" in the phrase, "IF we're going to replace ICE cars..."? Because if we aren't, then sure, we don't need chargers in rural areas because EV's are completely impractical for those areas...that's the flip side of my point. "Adoption" will never happen in the U.S. unless it is mandated as is being done in the U.K. and E.U., and if EV's ARE mandated then the "yokels" as you call them will need access to chargepoints.

 

Yes, because yokels in the boonies are known for being progressive and eager to encourage EV adoption. ROFL.

 

The evils of greed will have them doing all sorts of funny wiring to get the evil rich city dwellers money =-D Charge at your own risk, but again, at least you can charge then.

 

There’s definitely places for government regulations. We need oversight for a standardized plug for one thing, right now there’s a plug for every brand. That’s not conducive to innovation, we need the companies competing over who makes the best range not who has the most plugs to charge with.

 

right now there's a plug for every brand.

That's not true.

For level 1/2 charging, everyone uses J1772 except for Tesla.

For DCFC, everyone uses CCS except for Tesla and older Nissans.

Nissan was using Chademo, but that's going away and they're switching to CCS.

Really, it's only Tesla that still chooses to be incompatible.

 

I have to admit that I'm skeptical about fully electric vehicles, especially in the near term (next 10 to 20 years). It will be interesting to see how things progress from a novelty technology owned by a tiny minority of people to something that most Americans drive; we're talking 287 million vehicles on the road (quick Google search). I am certainly not against the concept of an electric vehicle, and I understand that building an infrastructure capable of supporting nearly 300 million vehicles will take time--maybe a long time. Many people drive more than short daily commutes, especially in the US. It's hard to be excited about the prospect of having to stop for a half hour every 200 miles when most people are used to only needing to stop every 400-500 miles for a 5 minute fill up. And folks will need to be assured that finding an available charging station is a certain prospect (and not only in metro areas and interstates); they will truly need to be ubiquitous for a large-scale "conversion." It's exciting to have alternative energy options in all aspects of life, and I've found that most people support cleaner alternatives. I'm still not entirely sure what the total environmental ramifications of electric will be since the energy still has to be produced by some method (hydro, coal, nuclear, etc.) and stored in fuel cells (recyclable, biodegradable???). Again, we're talking nearly 300 million vehicles in the US alone! It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds for sure... Personally, I'm waiting for the day when I can fill up with the garden hose and a tablespoon of salt!

 

One would think that what are now gas stations would be a logical place to install DC chargers. Diversification is critical for survival when one inhabits a market the decline of which is plainly foreseeable and inevitable. Just ask big tobacco.

 

You might be underestimating big oil. By not installing electric chargers at stations they are promoting their own longevity.

 

Gas stations will never be the future of charging stations. It’s not in their interest to provide them.
The future is going to be a different type of infrastructure, it’s going to be at grocery stores. Walmart will likely become a big player too (especially in rural areas), charge your EV while you shop, use your Sam’s card and get a few cents off per kilowatt/hour.

Another area as demographics move to more experience driver as opposed to consumer driven (and the decline of brick and mortar) we will see charging at parks and stadiums.

The charging grid isn’t going to like the petroleum infrastructure, they will be competitors with each doing something to attract customers.

 

It's interesting to me that suburban living is most conducive to EV because of the single family home and garage. Urban areas my have the biggest environmental gains from EV, but unless we add chargers to the parking meters (and in time I think the cities will be delighted to do so) as well as in any paid parking garages it is a challenge for an urban car owner to have a consistent charge location. Suburban folks will rarely need to charge anywhere but home, making electric a tremendous increase in convenience.

 

Some good discussion here, I'm a fan! So I love our T8, PHEV is a solution that today can work for anyone. Our usage is such that the 18 miles I get I seldom exceed on weekdays, but on weekends, I would not be willing to live with EV only. I live just outside NYC, and spend roughly 50% of my weekends in central Vermont. There is not an EV on the market that can get our family of 5, plus dogs, plus some equipment on the roof, in one charge. And when I leave after work on Friday, I am absolutely not willing to stop for 30min along the way to top up, it's a non-starter. If we get to 500mi range, I personally would be ok with it. That said, if I was replacing my 2nd car today, it would undoubtedly be EV, that car never exceeds EV range in daily use, that's what my XC60 is for.

On the government/charging infrastructure:
1. Imagine if each automaker had proprietary filler caps and managed there own network of gas stations. That's absurd, and we wouldn't stand for it. That's what Tesla is doing, and while I give them all the credit in the world for hastening EV adoption, that network is no longer beneficial. I don't need gov't regulation of EV infrastructure, but a plug standard would be nice, and open access to all vehicles.

2. Getting EV infrastructure out to the boondocks is easier than driving fuel trucks to the middle of nowhere to fill tanks. There's not many places in North America that do not have electric power available. And there's more companies undertaking EV charging infrastructure, I think it will more than keep pace with development.

3. Yes it's true that some of this is coal and oil produced electricity, but the efficiency of scale production still means far less pollution than is generated by ICE.

And on the point about production, recycling, etc., there's lots of good detailed studies out there. One by U or Toronto(IIRC) had a nice breakdown of the whole cycle of production, use, disposal, etc. EVs have a bigger carbon footprint to manufacture, but by around 50k miles, it crosses over in favor of EVs, and the gap just grows.

 

Some good discussion here, I'm a fan! So I love our T8, PHEV is a solution that today can work for anyone. Our usage is such that the 18 miles I get I seldom exceed on weekdays, but on weekends, I would not be willing to live with EV only. I live just outside NYC, and spend roughly 50% of my weekends in central Vermont. There is not an EV on the market that can get our family of 5, plus dogs, plus some equipment on the roof, in one charge. And when I leave after work on Friday, I am absolutely not willing to stop for 30min along the way to top up, it's a non-starter. If we get to 500mi range, I personally would be ok with it. That said, if I was replacing my 2nd car today, it would undoubtedly be EV, that car never exceeds EV range in daily use, that's what my XC60 is for.

On the government/charging infrastructure:
1. Imagine if each automaker had proprietary filler caps and managed there own network of gas stations. That's absurd, and we wouldn't stand for it. That's what Tesla is doing, and while I give them all the credit in the world for hastening EV adoption, that network is no longer beneficial. I don't need gov't regulation of EV infrastructure, but a plug standard would be nice, and open access to all vehicles.

2. Getting EV infrastructure out to the boondocks is easier than driving fuel trucks to the middle of nowhere to fill tanks. There's not many places in North America that do not have electric power available. And there's more companies undertaking EV charging infrastructure, I think it will more than keep pace with development.

3. Yes it's true that some of this is coal and oil produced electricity, but the efficiency of scale production still means far less pollution than is generated by ICE.

And on the point about production, recycling, etc., there's lots of good detailed studies out there. One by U or Toronto(IIRC) had a nice breakdown of the whole cycle of production, use, disposal, etc. EVs have a bigger carbon footprint to manufacture, but by around 50k miles, it crosses over in favor of EVs, and the gap just grows.

Electric engines are far more efficient than ice. The power always has to come from somewhere but ev make that power go farther. Also it's nice to have the option to plop solar panels on the garage or house and be set. Electric plants be it gas or coal are already there and are already operating. You are just a marginal buyer adding very little load to the network relative to that plant being built and shooting out tons of power daily to the grid.
If you get into lifecycle production you can make almost any argument work for or against you. Do you consider recycling of the end product? How long it lasts? How long different items are used? Does it matter to you if the emissions are in China for production vs. your kids school parking lot idling? For example plastic bottles have a lower production footprint and are lighter to transport relative to aluminum cans, which are easier to recycle. But no one cares (plastic = the devil, is the message right now) and since the only decision you make is when you see what's in front of you (you don't control what the companies put in the stores in the short or medium or maybe even long run), the production lifecycle argument is a difficult and nuanced one to have. Even if you have it, making people care about the conclusion is even more difficult.
The government needs to standardize plugs for EVs. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to pay to charge my car at a Tesla charger. I doubt it happens though probably will just have some sort of smart charger adapters that come along and makes it a non issue. EVs drive so smooth, are so fast and fun to drive that if money becomes no option, I don't see how adoption doesn't rise for a long time to come.
Agree w you 100% on the second car comment. There's just too many places that don't have even a 110v plug in a location for it to work for families. I'm hoping the XC100 is a large EV so that could be our second car. It's not even just about charging and range. There aren't a lot of mechanics that can work on these cars which can be problematic if on the road. Cheers

 

Tesla is the only company not using standardized plugs though.. and that's without government involvement. The car makers realized standardized made more sense. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know why the other companies didn't just go with the Tesla format. Maybe it was a little of the Tucker mythology. Tesla is gonna have to radically change or they will go belly up once the other car makers come along with more EV options. I don't think the big companies realized there was a true EV market. Their idiots in suits told them to not go against the breeze. Tesla capitalized on that, but there is nothing special about their cars once other makers enter the ring.That market share will start to dry up as the standard plugs become more common. Range is important, but not nearly as important as the ability to recharge when you get low.

 

"The Electric Vehicle Charging Problem":

 

Thanks for sharing that @AvocadoFarm

Comments in order addressed in film.

I find it interesting that the cost according to the video has to be $36k for consumers, which is less than the avg cost of a vehicle.

For cold weather, they didn't seem to take into account that higher end cars (like Volvo) have heater banks for the battery. Yes that affects range, but it also means you aren't suffering from the slow charge of a cold battery.

Cost of a fast charger is a bit of a silly argument. $40k or $57k for a fast charger is really nothing. The concern that this is repressive is a "little people" perspective. For a company making an investment it's not really a bunch of money. Certainly far less than adding a liquid fuel station. Real world things are very expensive, far more than "little people" realize in their limited perspective world. For example, the wooden entrance Volvo insisted we put on the front of our dealership cost over $50k and that just confuses folks on what door to use.

Using Tesla profits and sales to talk about how long it will take to pay for chargers is comically poor analysis.

Screw government. All that will do is force the market into a less effective solution and limit innovation in better tech. If it were up to government we'd be using USB A and B yet. At the time it was the best, but then you make it a requirement and you can't advance. Government is too slow to be dependent on for moving things forward.

 

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I have to quip about your USB analogy. Have you seen how bad companies left to their own actions gave screwed up USBc?

Government regulations doesn't mean things don't advance, they mean things like USB has to be equal and work safely across the board. So when a consumer buys a USBc cable they know it'll work with their system that says it's USBc.

Companies will still push to innovate and have better features than the next to drive sales. But the government regulations state that those companies need to all agree on things for the consumers benefit.

Never trust companies to do what's best for consumers, their entire existence is to get more from you than they are providing. That's what profit is.

 

I'm a staunch libertarian. There is absolutely nothing I want the government to do beyond what is absolutely necessary. Dictating what sort of plug my car takes is not on that list.

In terms of risk for innovation.. this topic is a perfect case in point. Look at Tesla. Huge risk. Little reward. Still likely chance of failure. Now if we get into the bureaucratic corporate structure protected by government then you start to get into just cost savings as your innovation. Pride is a huge motivator for individuals who are innovative. Government, directly or though corporatism, hinders that.

 

There has never been an example of deregulation helping the consumer.

Companies don't care about you, they care about your money. They will do what it takes to get that money, that is their purpose. Value is merely the measurement of compromise the consumer uses to justify their purchase.

The product will always be worth less than the selling price, that is the fundamental law of staying in business. Companies have an obligation to themself to insure the between the cost of production is lower than the price at sale is as large as possible. They do what ever means to increase that gap. Introducing new features typically is a last ditch effort when the ability to lower the cost hits the point of diminishing returns.

 

A company's purpose it to make money, not to help a consumer. That's their moral roll. Just like a job doesn't exist in order to support your living. It exists because there is profit in hiring the labor to do perform the task. But a company profits off generating a good or service that a free people desire. So the good is a secondary effect. Regulation is only needed to prevent other people's liberties from being taken (which can include environmental liberties, but such is not black and white). Competition acts as a limit to how cheap you can get. While I did hear of some idiot paying $18k for an invisible statue (Invisible Statue), generally you can not take the value to $0 and generate a profit. As an example... I too have an invisible statue for sale, and whoever would like to buy it can start the bidding. But since now there are others on the market, it might not quite go for the same price as the first one.

It's not for you to decide what is helping a consumer. I have been hurt as a consumer many times by regulations, so any example I provide would certainly mean that deregulation can help consumers. Increased regulation is far more common than deregulation. And generally when there is deregulation, it's still based on corporatism, which is just another government scam of picking winners and loser. That's not real deregulation. In fact it's often the opposite. It's set up to benefit the biggest companies and prevent upstart competition. Then again, most regulation does the same. The smaller the government the better. For a company, smaller companies means more competition, but the cost per good or service is higher. We in the US love to regulation production and then buy products made in China with little to no labor concerns or environmental costs associated.

Back to the topic of Volvo, they are a fine example of a corporation doing things that help the bottom line by helping the customer in their perception. They have many examples of doing things for good rather than just for profit. They tend to stay ahead of environmental regulations and lead the way with safety as well. The seatbelt is everyone's favorite example but he EVA project is pretty big too. They have sales programs that help prevent dealers from advertising a low price only to have the real cost be much higher when you go in, and a far less pleasant experience than it should be. Of course they do many of these things as part of their marketing, but they believe in the idea that doing good things can be profitable. I support their efforts as a corporate entity. I am opposed to their efforts to influence regulations.

 

... they do many of these things as part of their marketing, but they believe in the idea that doing good things can be profitable. I support their efforts as a corporate entity. I am opposed to their efforts to influence regulations.

Agree. To continue in business, Volvo must do what they must to be profitable. The thing that I admire about Volvo is that they are doing so while striving to be a good corporate citizen. Other companies would benefit from following their lead.

 

Without those pesky government regulations cars would be a lot less expensive, for sure. No air bags, no seat belts, no anti-lock brakes, no third rear brake light, no crumple zones, no costly crash testing and a whole lot of other things could be eliminated.

I'm old enough to remember when manufacturers bitched and moaned about having to install seat belts. The forerunners of Car and Driver and Road and Track sagely opined that it would good to use them in closed vehicles, but you'd be safer without them in roadsters and convertibles.

 

From Cometguy ... "I don't like the idea of taking buttons away for climate control and audio/radio/etc. -- something that Volvo has unfortunately done in their current-but-waning Sensus era". I don't like this trend, either. As a first time Volvo owner, I have to admit that I wasn't a big fan of Volvo's "tablet" display. Having owned it for the past 13 months, at this point, it really doesn't bother me. Actually, I surprisingly became accustomed to it after only a few days. With this said, I would still much prefer less of a dependence on a tablet to access my car's functions.

 

A never-ending area of controversy.

The times they are a changin'. With the increase in functionality some cars that do buttons start to take on the appearance of the cockpit of a Boeing 747. How is this a good thing for my wife?

The Sensus implementation is far from perfect. But I find it reasonably intuitive and uncluttered. And surprisingly, the voice recognition on things like temperature control, steering wheel heat, seat heat/cool, etc. has worked exceedingly well for me. And the new Android interface should take matters to a better place.

I suspect that, like it or not, as functionality increases an interface that's more along the lines of computer screens and voice is the future, and buttons are the past. I like it.

 

Buttons aren’t coming back so no sense in bothering about it. For key functions like volume they work well. Would be nice to have a button for ac/heat up/down. My only complaint is that they should ditch their maps software for Google Maps. The voice commands aren’t useful to me so I just don’t use them mostly because when my phone is connected I can use better voice commands for phone calls. I’d like to be able to send Google Maps directions to my car before a trip. Other than that no complaints.

 

Buttons aren't coming back so no sense in bothering about it. For key functions like volume they work well. Would be nice to have a button for ac/heat up/down. My only complaint is that they should ditch their maps software for Google Maps. The voice commands aren't useful to me so I just don't use them mostly because when my phone is connected I can use better voice commands for phone calls. I'd like to be able to send Google Maps directions to my car before a trip. Other than that no complaints.

Yes, I find the voice input to be useless for doing navigation things. But I do find voice input to work surprisingly well for the some of the functions that people want to do with buttons.

 

Yes, apart from navigation, voice commands work very well.
For navigation, whenever I want to use the car's system I simply put my destination in via the app on my phone, and then it works perfectly.

 

Totally agree! I prefer to use the car's Nav. I have tried using the voice Nav feature and manually entering the address, with limited success. I now only use the phone app to enter the address, and then send it to my car. When the app update was pushed to my phone, this feature stopped working. I had to switch back to the old app version.

 

Without offering an opinion as to whether ethanol production is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing I would state that your comment about ethanol being “free” is false and ridiculous. Ethanol production extracts energy from an energy source. This extracted energy is LOST to animal feed or any other use. Stick to farming. You obviously know nothing about thermodynamics and the laws of conservation. I do. There is no free lunch.

 

Without offering an opinion as to whether ethanol production is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing I would state that your comment about ethanol being "free" is false and ridiculous. Ethanol production extracts energy from an energy source. This extracted energy is LOST to animal feed or any other use. Stick to farming. You obviously know nothing about thermodynamics and the laws of conservation. I do. There is no free lunch.

Noticed the word free is in quotations. The point was the statement that ethanol robs production of food for human consumption and then completely disregards the incredibly valuable byproducts of the corn used for ethanol paints a picture that is inaccurate. Creating ethanol creates by products that have a significantly higher value when independently considered monetarily in the corn alone. If you do some math there most certainly is a logical reference making the word free not outlandish.
I really take offense for you to tell me to stick to farming and forget the science. It's just another characterization that rule Americans are stupid. Before I return to the family farm on which I grew up I work for Volvo Lexus and a number of other brands in management positions and some of the most prestigious stores in this country. I am well educated and extremely capable of Sharing opinions on a forum online. My John Deere equipment is 10 times more technologically advanced than anything Volvo sells. Seriously…. Your ignorance of ethanol is frustrating but your insinuation that because I'm a farmer I'm stupid is infuriating!!!!! It's just shocking that America can be so disrespectful and critical of the farmers that provide them the cheapest, safest food in the world. I've had three days off in the last 60 days and have completed multiple 100 hour work weeks during harvest. They have someone on a car forum come on here and tell me i'm too stupid they have a valid opinion and don't know anything about my job makes me want to delete my entire account from here and walk away from people like you permanently. You, sir, are a horrible person. I try to educate you on as no one by products but it's clear you're too arrogant to understand so I won't even bother to try

 

No. I didn’t suggest that you are stupid. I suggested that you are ignorant in your lack of understanding of the basic laws of nature regarding energy conservation.

I live in southern Minnesota, probably not too far from you. We have corn and beans and ethanol plants as far as the eye can see, exactly like you. I have great admiration for what Midwest farmers do, to feed the country and the world. I’m old enough to remember when 60 bushel corn was a thing, so I have a clear understanding of the advances in the technology. When I graduated from high school the farm and ranch population in this country was at 9%. It is now probably about 1%. Just think of this, in my lifetime nearly a 90% reduction and at the same time feeding more of the world than ever. So don’t tell me that I don’t appreciate farmers or that I think that they are stupid, because it isn’t true.

The point is, I object to people spouting nonsense that defies the basic laws of physics. Ethanol production in the U.S. consumes an enormous amount of the available energy from corn. Ethanol production is anything but “free”. If the available energy that is removed for ethanol were to be left in the corn we could feed far more head of livestock from the same acreage, or we could feed the same amount on fewer acres. Energy extraction for ethanol is NOT ”free”. Not even close. Stop misleading people.

 

No. I didn't suggest that you are stupid. I suggested that you are ignorant in your lack of understanding of the basic laws of nature regarding energy conservation.

I live in southern Minnesota, probably not too far from you. We have corn and beans and ethanol plants as far as the eye can see, exactly like you. I have great admiration for what Midwest farmers do, to feed the country and the world. I'm old enough to remember when 60 bushel corn was a thing, so I have a clear understanding of the advances in the technology. When I graduated from high school the farm and ranch population in this country was at 9%. It is now probably about 1%. Just think of this, in my lifetime nearly a 90% reduction and at the same time feeding more of the world than ever. So don't tell me that I don't appreciate farmers or that I think that they are stupid, because it isn't true.

The point is, I object to people spouting nonsense that defies the basic laws of physics. Ethanol production in the U.S. consumes an enormous amount of the available energy from corn. Ethanol production is anything but "free". If the available energy that is removed for ethanol were to be left in the corn we could feed far more head of livestock from the same acreage, or we could feed the same amount on fewer acres. Energy extraction for ethanol is NOT "free". Not even close. Stop misleading people.

You have no clue. You are trying to compare energy consumption using apples and organizes. Just a typical city boy trying to tell a country boy he doesn't understand his occupation of decades. Byway, like you I'd Westland farming because you are some self proclaimed energy czar. You totally left out the animal energy utilization and conversion. But you know….I'm just stupid.

Don't even try and say you didn't imply I was a dumb hick. That's exactly what you meant. You wanna reveal that you sent me a private message that was demeaning and nasty?!! Don't you ever message me ever again. People like you ruin entire forums with your egotistical hogwash