T
Tacitus
Active member
Please, tell me which one of those statistics are wrong ... Waiting with baited breath.
JD450A
Feral as Fk 🐾
250 tons of material in a shift..... That loader will move that in minutes you maldoon.
If we are conservative and say it uses 1.4L of fuel a minute, we gert realistically to the fact it moves 250t to just under a litre of fuel.If you can't get the statistics right on the fuel consumption of the loader then I'd question the entire article.
Lancs Lad
Well-known member
It's been floating about for a bit tbf . As much as I hate leccy chariots that kind of bullcrap doesn't help...250 tons of material in a shift..... That loader will move that in minutes you maldoon.
If you can't get the statistics right on the fuel consumption of the loader then I'd question the entire article.
S
Smiffy
Well-known member
There is another one I saw which looks slightly more reliable comparing the total lifetime emissions of a Tesla, bmw m4 and Mitsubishi eclipse. Bmw was highest in all respects. Tesla in the middle and Mitsubishi lowest. But there was not a lot in it.
Bri963
Well-known member
I don’t know about an A, but the fuel tank of a 994K holds over 5500 litres, can’t remember the exact figures but you’d be looking at over 200 litres an hour burn, and from Cat’s performance manual, a K can load between 2430 and 3825 tonnes/ hr, obviously dependent on travel distance, material density, bank or shot material,, bucket size. In other words, the bits I’ve got half an idea about are wrong so I wouldn’t be too trusting of the other figures.
T
Tacitus
Active member
Interesting.
Let's see ... fuel consumption ... 1000L of diesel in 12 hs is 83L an hour ... seems plausible to me. How much does it burn? Should be 80? 60? Depends on operator and terrain? Hint: the point of the article is not earthmoving equipment fuel efficiency. Although ... it may be gallons and not litres. Just a guess.
The loader needs to move 250 tons of materials to make one battery ... is that wrong too? Are 300 tons required to make a battery? May be just 200? Love to hear the details about industrial lithium battery manufacturing.
Talking about units, perhaps we should be talking about shovels not tons, and rather small shovels used by kids ... Just saying.
At risk of stating the obvious ... the point of this snippet, written in such way to promote debate, is to expose the "save the planet" narrative from the mafia elite that first invented the CO2 boogeyman, and then invented the antidote to the boogeyman. Very much like religion narrative.
I actually like electric cars. Just think we can't afford them without a cheaper source of power. To promote electric cars that suck up electricity at the expense of heating and powering hospitals and schools seems a tad counterproductive ... but hey ... that's just me.
... now ... what would I do with a Cat 994K ? Probably have a bit of fun for 5 minutes and then sell it to Elon to dig up more batteries? Possible.
And yes, it is definitely an imperial vs metric units error
https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/threads/cat-994-fuel-consumption.94089/
Let's see ... fuel consumption ... 1000L of diesel in 12 hs is 83L an hour ... seems plausible to me. How much does it burn? Should be 80? 60? Depends on operator and terrain? Hint: the point of the article is not earthmoving equipment fuel efficiency. Although ... it may be gallons and not litres. Just a guess.
The loader needs to move 250 tons of materials to make one battery ... is that wrong too? Are 300 tons required to make a battery? May be just 200? Love to hear the details about industrial lithium battery manufacturing.
Talking about units, perhaps we should be talking about shovels not tons, and rather small shovels used by kids ... Just saying.
At risk of stating the obvious ... the point of this snippet, written in such way to promote debate, is to expose the "save the planet" narrative from the mafia elite that first invented the CO2 boogeyman, and then invented the antidote to the boogeyman. Very much like religion narrative.
I actually like electric cars. Just think we can't afford them without a cheaper source of power. To promote electric cars that suck up electricity at the expense of heating and powering hospitals and schools seems a tad counterproductive ... but hey ... that's just me.
... now ... what would I do with a Cat 994K ? Probably have a bit of fun for 5 minutes and then sell it to Elon to dig up more batteries? Possible.And yes, it is definitely an imperial vs metric units error
https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/threads/cat-994-fuel-consumption.94089/
Last edited:
JD450A
Feral as Fk 🐾
Worth remembering most lithium is produced via solution mining in the same way sulfur used to be...... Here's a hint you don't need to move a single cube of overburden to mine it....
Bri963
Well-known member
A 962 with 250 hp burns north of 30 litres an hour, so if you think 83 litres an hour through an engine producing over 1700 hp is plausible, you might want to ask why they fit a 5500 litre fuel tank rather than a 1000 litre tank to get through 12 hrs. No confusion what units the statistics in that post were.
T
Tacitus
Active member
I made my point abundantly clear. The author wants to point out the foolishness of pretending that electric cars will reduce the so called "carbon" footprint, when in fact it is well known they increase it.
It is very likely that mining for lithium or rare earth does not require CAT 994K. That is an exaggeration to make a point. It is now clear from the link in my previous post that the fuel usage of the cat is around 80 gallons/h and not 80 litres. So what? Does it mean that because of that error, mining for lithium is all of a sudden environmentally friendly? Sure the snippet is poorly thought out and worse written. So?
Pointing out the outrageous incongruence of CO2 demonising "for the planet", when it is blatantly obvious that it is done by a criminal minority for their own benefit, should be a national sport and not corrected with absurd fervor, straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.
PS
Perhaps someone wants to dwell into the meaning of that biblical quote, it's incongruence and origin.
Possible translation distortion, cognitive distortion or poetic distortion?
It is very likely that mining for lithium or rare earth does not require CAT 994K. That is an exaggeration to make a point. It is now clear from the link in my previous post that the fuel usage of the cat is around 80 gallons/h and not 80 litres. So what? Does it mean that because of that error, mining for lithium is all of a sudden environmentally friendly? Sure the snippet is poorly thought out and worse written. So?
Pointing out the outrageous incongruence of CO2 demonising "for the planet", when it is blatantly obvious that it is done by a criminal minority for their own benefit, should be a national sport and not corrected with absurd fervor, straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.
PS
Perhaps someone wants to dwell into the meaning of that biblical quote, it's incongruence and origin.
Possible translation distortion, cognitive distortion or poetic distortion?
Last edited:
Gecko
Well-known member
The point is that if all the stats you understand are implausible, then it's reasonable to assume ALL the stats are just random numbers.
Starting a debate based on flawed data makes any conclusions pretty meaningless.
I agree completely. I like the "idea" of an electric car, it just doesn't suit what "I" want to do with it.
As an inner city / suburban commuter, they make a lot of sense, but the zero-emission claim always irks me - you have to take into account the generation.
eg. in the uk, you can't be Pro electric car and Anti Nuke unless you are off grid and generating your own.
T
Tacitus
Active member
That gives me an idea. I have a neat 15KW Kubota generator so I can buy an electric car and power my own charger and be "off grid"
Genius! thank you ...
With the cost of electricity at .40 Australian dollars a KW, it may be touch and go, plus I get to drive a car that is zero emission and look super cool
JD450A
Feral as Fk 🐾
Confusus say, man who walk into fight holding a rubber knife thinking it has the power of a real one is not a fighter but a fool.
TiltyShaun
Well-known member
Electric cars and low emission zones are simply about “moving” the emissions not removing the emissions. Ohhh…..and taxation of the poor city dwellers!!
Bri963
Well-known member
Perhaps backfill the hole you're digging yourself into?
Grahams
Don't complain - suggest what's better
I thought it was about people with chip on their shoulder and big egos asserting control over the rest of us.
JD450A
Feral as Fk 🐾
Too small.
T
Tacitus
Active member
He must have been indeed confused since rubber is a relatively recent invention. Then again the translation from mandarin into western languages may refer to something flexible or even a wooden knife. Confusing indeed ... or is it confucing?
Especially your mention of a fight ...
As for your persistent attempts at cyberbullying, try something else. A bit of yoga, a run around the block, or looking in the mirror may help.
Best of luck!
JD450A
Feral as Fk 🐾
I'd not class the Olmec civilization as recent, but there we go.
As for cyber bullying, I am mearly pointing out when someone is spouting utter s**t.
Other members seem to be doing this too....
Last edited:
Lancs Lad
Well-known member
To be fair has he not finally figured out that Rory is just a Chinese spammer?I'd not class the Olmec civilization as recent, but there we go.
As for cyber bullying, I am mearly pointing out when someone is spouting utter s**t.
Bri963
Well-known member
Is Olmec a Chinese tyre company?I'd not class the Olmec civilization as recent, but there we go.
As for cyber bullying, I am mearly pointing out when someone is spouting utter s**t.
Footer block 1