Відео

Hey, that's a totally fair point! You'd have to compare the energy of: getting oil out of the ground -> refining it to gasoline -> distributing the gasoline to car -> getting energy out of the gasoline -> getting energy to the wheels to: getting oil/coal/natural gas/wind/solar/hydro out of the ground/air/sky/river -> whatever refining is needed -> getting energy out of the fuel-> getting energy to the wheels But again I mention this in the video as well as in the source at the end that does exactly that (Argonne National Labs) and draws the valid conclusion that EVs have roughly half the carbon footprint of ICEs for their lifetime use, though all that depends on how carbon-intensive your local electricity is and what model of cars you're comparing, etc... All that said, it is often repeated (and correctly I might add) that ICEs waste something like 60% of their hypothetical "Platonically" perfect gasoline energy as exhaust heat. The issue is that extracting useful energy from a fossil fuel just happens to be the most wasteful step of the process, whether you do it at the car or at the power plant. The sources I cite above actually put oil, natural gas, and coal at comparable levels of inefficiency for energy extraction as gasoline in an ICE but somehow this most wasteful step of the whole process isn't getting counted for EVs. It's like "I don't pollute, I don't waste energy content; I pay someone else to do it for me!" So your point is completely valid and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the specific numbers involved but a 60% loss has to dwarf the losses incurred at other stages along the way (I'm open to any sources that say otherwise). EVs surely ARE better for the environment than ICEs over their lifetime, but not because of this silly 77% vs 15% comparison that the professionals who actually set policy and do research on this stuff don't think about because it's just broken accounting. Thanks for the comment! EDIT: Apparently refining oil into gasoline loses about 15% of the energy content of the oil (source: www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/oil-electricity-more-efficient-oil-gas/185046/) As for the energy of shipping the gasoline to gas stations vs. shipping oil, natural gas, or coal to power plants, those numbers are bound to be roughly the same, absent any evidence that the distances are especially different or that the shipping process itself is radically more difficult for one over the other.

Disclaimer: My own 18 year old ICE car actually only gets about 14km/l and that's driving very very carefully(i.e. slow AF)

Hey thanks for chiming in! From a cursory google search you magnificent Danes have an electric grid that is the envy of American environmentalists - 81% from renewables and so much wind power! I wish we had that. I have seen a number of sources that do factor in how carbon intensive the electrical power grid is into their calculations about how many miles you have to drive before EVs hit breakeven carbon footprint with ICEs. In America, they say its around 15,000-20,000 mi, but I bet over there it's half that. The cleaner your grid gets, the better EVs do in the carbon comparison. Still, it's not due to the 77% vs. 15% comparison this dubious Facebook fact would give you because even in the forward-thinking Denmark, 19% of your electricity is coming from fossil fuels, creating some kind of carbon footprint. I've also heard some people who manage to charge their EVs entirely from solar panels, which is also great! Obviously, the end goal is people driving EVs powered entirely by electricity that has a near zero carbon footprint. But again, that has to do with the energy source, not how efficiently the vehicle can turn its onboard stored energy into motion. Thanks for sharing your experience!

Hey, great question! I have not, but Argonne has and I report their findings at the end. My main contribution here is the big 77% efficiency fallacy so many people seem to do along the way, as if paying someone else to make your carbon and make your exhaust heat absolves your carbon footprint. At any rate, the losses for generating power out of fossil fuels are around 60% whether you're doing it in your car or you have an EV so a powerplant is doing it for you, which has to dwarf those kinds of considerations, though to be honest not something I have a lot of knowledge in. Gasoline definitely does take energy to refine from crude oil so it’s a reasonable thing to bring up!

Hi, thanks for your comment and willingness to engage on this topic, but I'm wondering if you've watched the video because this exact point is what I'm addressing. There's a popular conflation of "efficiency" with "carbon efficiency" as you are doing here and that seems to be the whole reason people commit this error in the first place. Solar power is near 0 in its carbon footprint per kwh, but that does not mean its *efficiency* is 100%. In fact, it's around 25%, as explained in the video. The fact that a EV has a *consumption* efficiency of 77% in converting usable power to motion is largely unrelated to its carbon footprint or its raw source energy efficiency because the electricity its using has already incurred losses at the point of generation and already released carbon dioxide before it got to you car. Converting fuel into usable energy is the biggest loss in the entire chain and we just happen to leave it off the EV calculations while including it for the ICE! This is like saying that my pizza delivery business consumes less gasoline than yours because I pay someone else to drive the pizza while you pay your own drivers and cover their gas costs. When you operate an EV, you are paying someone else (some remote powerplant) to take energy losses and release carbon for you. All this to say, EVs are still better for the environment when you do a PROPER and COMPREHENSIVE comparison, which I also state in the video, and include a source. But you have to do the comparison correctly! Drivetrain efficiency is not the same thing as carbon footprint.

@@lightshark8562 as I state in the video, for now electricity in the US is still 60% fossil fuels, which is why it’s important to consider those emissions too in your comparison.

@@aoeuuaoaou "If you do the full well to wheel on that FF you’re massively ahead with EVs." I'm wondering if you watched my video to the end or just stopped in the first few minutes because that's exactly what I'm reporting at the end.

@@avon001 thanks for your question. I don’t think I am making any kind of new argument that is pro EV or anti-EV. I just want people to carry out a valid comparison of the total emissions, not just the direct ones.

@loodog555 I agree, I never said you were making any arguments about EVs. Just pointing out that you are stating many of the same points that EV owners and environmentalists are making.

@@avon001 Oh, I think it's obvious enough to everyone that if we all had carbon-free electric grid and electric cars, climate change would be solved overnight. I don't think I'm blowing anyone's mind there! My point is about this weird efficiency myth, where we don't consider the emissions or the waste of generating electricity because the car's emissions and associated losses are made hundreds of miles away. It's like saying "I'm not cruel. I pay henchmen to do my beatings for me!"

I hold out hope! Though reading a number of these comments make me think people haven't actually watched my video.

@@jamesalias595 I’m not sure if you watched the video but the Argonne source i cite specifically includes a cradle-to-grave comparison and the EVs come out on top by a factor of 2.

@loodog555 it remains to be seen if there will be classic ev car collectors. EVs are a niche vehicle and I'm not against them. I am against them as a one size fits all. Modern software oriented vehicles have planned obsolescence built into them. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of plastic in a car and its longevity.

This is a great point. "Efficiency" is not the right framing. Here is my own video - lot's of factors to consider, for example, I'm in Canada, we also worry about the cold impacting range. ua-cam.com/video/_PLLaImpdP4/v-deo.html I'm not anti-ev but I am very pro-green ammonia. Green ammonia allows us to address hard-to-abate sectors for a small cost premium.

@@Greenammonianews hey, thanks for the comment! I know basically nothing about green ammonia and I’m curious to learn more!

@@loodog555 I'll try to give you the quick idea. energy/volume matters, tank size matters a lot for supply chains, trucking, shipping, etc. > Diesel is 36 MJ/L, gasoline is 34 MJ/L, ammonia is 12 MJ/L, liquid hydrogen is 8 MJ/L, pressurized hydrogen is ~2 MJ/L and lithium is 1 MJ/L Green ammonia comes from green power feeding energy into electrolysis, splitting water into hydrogen and water. Then combine the hydrogen with air (the air is 78% nitrogen) to create NH3. NH3, ammonia is like propane, it is a liquid if you put it into a tank under a little pressure. Making ammonia gives off a little energy in the reaction. But this loss is offset when you consider all the energy it takes to compress hydrogen to 5000 psi or to chill it to minus 240. There is a massive existing supply chain for ammonia. We use 100m barrel of oil a day and 5m barrels of ammonia. But the old ammonia supply came from splitting methane, CH4. What's new is getting the hydrogen from green power. Green power is not all equal. A wind turbine in Florida will produce half the energy as the same model in Greenland because of the natural weather. Green ammonia allows windy places to export their cheap green power. You can combust green ammonia in an engine. 50% of the new big ships on order are for ammonia flex-fuel systems where they can run it when it is available as they refuel at port. When you combust NH3 you use 3x the fuel to do the same work as say diesel. If you want a green transport truck you need 1) a bigger tank 2) bigger fuel injectors 3) add sparkplugs (ammonia needs a spark) (but kits are already designed) NH3 combustion can result in some bad emissions. NH3 slip, unburnt fuel, N20, NOx. However, catalytic converter companies have developed new cats that eliminate these emissions. Using the proper cat your exhaust is N2 (air) and H2O. Green ammonia is ~$2 per gallon but you need 3 gallons so it is $6 for a diesel-equivalent gallon. 100% green fuel, tow a boat, plow a field, operate green transport trucks, etc. Go-ahead, drive a hummer guilt-free. I am waiting on pricing for a green-ammonia hellcat - because driving one would be hilarious and awesome.

@@Greenammonianews well, I watched through your video and posted a comment with some of my concerns about energy density, which were immediately answered here by you. I hadn’t even thought about the fact that an electric vehicle battery has 37 barrels of oil worth of carbon in it! do we know if someone has built a power plant to combust ammonia suitable to the needs of a vehicle (I.e. small enough, light enough to be carried on the car.)?

Hey, I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, except for how you're using the word efficiency. Gasoline like any fuel, takes energy to extract. So does coal, oil, or natural gas. So does solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear. I don't know the specifics on how energy intensive it is to refine oil down to gasoline, but I'm sure it costs energy. You say "efficiency would technically would be in +100%", but this is not true by what the definition of efficiency is: energy output/energy input. Once you've built your solar panels, the maintenance is cheap enough that the HUMAN (and most of the carbon) component of energy investment is basically done, but you're still outputting only around 25% of the solar energy that comes in. But again, efficiency is poor metric and I see person after person conflate the idea of "efficiency" with "greenhouse gas/mile", which I suppose is why this myth is so hard to dispel. The fact that EVs convert 77% of their electricity to the motion of the car is largely irrelevant to their greenhouse gas footprint being better. The carbon footprint is better largely because the original sources are less carbon intensive. 60% fossil fuels is a lot better mix than 100%. Thinking that it's because an EV doesn't create *its own* exhaust heat, but instead outsources it to elsewhere, is just clever accounting but ultimately not something nature cares about. Nature cares about total greenhouse gas emissions, not where they are emitted.

Spot on. All I know is the cost of fuel, two years ago I was spending $5,000 a year on gas. Now I am spending $0, zip, nothing. The car gets charged once per week from a 10KW bank of rooftop solar panels. It's one of the best investments I have ever made. I am very happy to bank the five grand as tax free income.

@@jimgraham6722 Cool! If you can completely meet your needs on solar panels, then you're doing it, man. You are doing the thing we should all be doing (if practical for us) to save the earth! Your efficiency relative to input energy isn't especially high but it's a completely irrelevant metric since your carbon footprint is basically nothing per mile and that's what matters for climate change!

@@loodog555 My old ICE was doing about 10ltrs/100km around town. The EV on the same usage pattern uses 16KWhrs per 100km. Therefore 1.6KWhrs ($.30 if purchased off peak from grid) displace about 1ltr ($1.90) gasoline, it's a not insignificant saving.

@@jimgraham6722 Sure, but at the end of the day, I'd argue the cost isn't what matters. I actually spend more per kwh to my home electricity provider to get energy that's been put on the grid by a green provider. The calculation I'd really want to see is how much your annual CO2 output has reduced compared to your old ICE.

Cool, I'll check it out! But I'm not disputing that EVs are likely more efficient than ICEs because of losses on the drivetrain: you have to send your energy down a crank shaft through lubricated surfaces and a viscous clutch in the case of an automatic transmission, but this 77% vs 15-30% comparison is based on specious reasoning: that the part of the process that incurs the biggest losses - extracting energy from fuel - is just blithely ignored for EVs while included for ICEs, just because of where that extraction takes place (onboard the vehicle vs. at some distant powerplant out of sight). A comprehensive comparison, like the one done by Argonne National Labs (www.osti.gov/biblio/2228291) incorporates the losses for electrical generation in its final conclusion that a EV hits breakeven greenhouse gas footprint at around 20,000 mi and after that the EV does better! You still win with an electric car! I'm not anti-EV. EVs are better in greenhouse gases, but not because the energy that's been taken onboard the car is used more efficiently. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Thanks for you comment! I appreciate the chance to engage on this argument, especially since you've included some (unsourced but plausible) numbers to work with! True, all energy comes from the sun and fossil fuels are essentially just stored solar energy, stored at very low efficiency over about 10 million years, but from an energy policy, we can make more solar cells or mine more coal, but we can't really wait around 10 million years to produce more coal/oil/natural gas but also, the fossil fuels are already made so the best economic reasoning is to consider fossil fuels as fuel "sources"* that sit in the ground for us that have a terrible associated externality with their consumption. *Until we some day run out of them. The problem with your calculation is this is *STILL* not including the loss associated with generation for solar while including it for the ICE. This is the very same accounting error the video is directed at: people conflate efficiency with carbon footprint and start doing the calculating as if the electricity is made at no loss. If you wanted to do a (arguably useless) physics comparison for source-kinetic energy efficiency, for solar, you'd have to throw another factor of 0.25 in front of there to account for how much solar radiation becomes electricity. That would make EV 14.11% efficient relative to incoming solar energy on your numbers. But again, it seems irrelevant since the sun shines for us no matter what we do and the waste is irrelevant. Which leads me back to my key point: that the efficiency argument, even when done properly (which this 77% vs. 15% stat does not) isn't the argument we should care about if climate change is the issue. We should focus on how carbon intensive per mile each choice is. EVs have a big up front investment in the form of that giant battery, but they make back the difference after around 20,000 mi, depending on how decarbonized your electric grid is and what model car you're driving. Over the life cycle of an EV, Argonne National Labs figures EVs are about a factor of 2 better on carbon footprint. If we can make our electric grid less than 60% fossil fuels, those numbers get even better. I think the facts on the ground are pro-EV, but this "77% vs. 15%" stat shouldn't have any weight in that comparison for the reasons mentioned above. Thanks again for having a good faith debate on the issue! I don't care so much whether pro-EV or anti-EV camp wins; I'm just annoyed that this fact is convincing anyone.

Very true! Certain renewables like solar are more readily decentralized so you lose less in transmission. Other renewables like hydro or wind, you don’t get to choose where there’s a river or a constant breeze. Of course neither of these considerations hinges on the efficiency that the car itself can consume the energy it gets because what matters is how carbon intensive the energy generation is!

@@aoeuuaoaou Sounds plausible, but again this is not my point. The biggest loss happens wherever you burn your fossil fuels and we count that against the ICE , but not against the EV. The energy lost in transmission is dwarfed by the energy lost in generation, by any means.

True but the point I’m making is that the electricity the EV uses isn’t free to obtain anyway so the efficiency comparison is specious. Even thinking in carbon footprint, the electricity didn’t get to you for free. I get why the “energy content onboard” argument makes sense to people but it’s just not a good comparison if what you care about is climate change because it leaves out the very most wasteful part of the entire process in the comparison while including it for the ICE. As for the issue about gasoline being an energy source, totally right. It's been made over the course of millions of years as baked sunlight, but since it's already made for us, the economics of the decision to use make sense for us to treat it as an energy source with externalities.

This. Gasoline needs to be pumped out of the ground as crude oil, transported to a refinery, refined, then transported again to a storage depot, transported again to the gas station, and finally pumped into your vehicle. This should be compared against electricity generation and delivery (although nat gas is pretty similar). I would imagine that coal is less intensive because it doesn't need to be refined, and of course solar, wind, and hydro are fairy tale BS for commies to get their feels. The real gem is Nuclear. Uranium does need to be dug out and enriched so I would love to see a comparison of nuclear vs gasoline deep dive.

Hey, that's a fun one to think about! (But again if you’re still concerned about efficiency, you’re missing the point 😃) This is a valid point from a kind of grander scheme Laws of Thermodynamics point at a cosmological level, but for the practical purposes (climate change and greenhouse gases), we have to put this in terms of choices we have today. At a deeper level, the sun* is truly the source of all our power. Hydro is just applied solar evaporation, while wind is just applied solar uneven heating of the earth. Even the fuel we use for nuclear plants was fused into the core of some star somewhere, but these processes all take place at such a glacially slow pace, we can't really make policy choices around it. We can elect to make more solar panels and that creates electricity at something like 25% efficiency but we can't (and don't) wait around 60 million years to get more fossil fuels. They're already made and we can't quickly make more, so the energy policy accounting of it is just to treat it as a "source", even though strictly speaking it's not. But again, this is partly why efficiency is besides the point. Even if solar power were 1% efficient, if we had a way to cheaply meet our energy needs with solar alone, we'd jump in it since the carbon per kWh for solar is very low.

​@@N20Joe Apparently refining oil into gasoline loses about 15% of the energy content of the oil (source: www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/oil-electricity-more-efficient-oil-gas/185046/) As for the energy of shipping the gasoline to gas stations vs. shipping oil, natural gas, or coal to power plants, those numbers are bound to be roughly the same, absent any evidence that the distances are especially different or that the shipping process itself is radically more difficult for one over the other.

@@sturmeko I guess I didn’t directly reply to your “fuel is not an energy source, but a form of energy storage” point. We could consider raw wheat to be a source of calories, but it’s not the same thing as the finished bread. The issue is that the storage medium of electricity has already been refined to a more usable form, and in approximately 60% of cases, has been refined from an arguably less refined storage medium like coal oil or natural gas. Converting fossil fuels to usable energy, like electricity is by far the most wasteful part of the process. The fact that the EV is carrying a more usable form of energy than the ICE somehow gets ignored, especially given that the EV is benefiting from waste done elsewhere. Given your framing of fossil fuels as a medium of energy storage, I think you would really need to draw a distinction between the energy of electricity versus the latent chemical energy of a fossil fuel and consider the latter to be halfway between an energy storage medium and a fuel-type ingredient, which is why the 77% versus 15% comparison falls short of saying anything meaningful for environmental purposes.

Can you say more what you mean by this?

@@loodog555 electric vehicles have a useful service life of around 6 years. The primary reason for this is the battery and software to some extent. In other words, how much software is supported after 6 years. No many people can keep a phone past 4 years. Normal vehicles are succumbing to planned obsolescence too. If taking the stereo head unit out of a vehicle disables it, then that vehicle is a DEVAS. Side thought, EVs should have been 4 year lease only with the option of a secondary warranty backed lease for another 4. After that the vehicle is a liability. Just my two pence.

@@iceman9678 I was with you a few years ago but the technology has come a long way. Tesla warranties their batteries for 8 years and LFP batteries in particular can go decades before dropping to 85% capacity. If your car stated with 340 miles of range, and it's down to 289 after 20 years, that is still a perfectly useful vehicle. The software could be an issue if you go with a manufacturer who's unlikely to still be around *-Fisker-* but if you go with one of the big players, you'd be no more at-risk than any of their other products. Now, anyone who buys a Chinese car is... well, bless their soul. We see how (non-)highly the chi-coms value their OWN people's lives, let alone yours.

@@N20Joe Hey, thanks for chiming in! Could you link any sources? The technology end for EVs obviously evolves a lot faster than for ICEs. Fundamentally, they're a good idea even as they evolve.

@@loodog555 Hi I would love to but It would need to be some kind of private message or something since youtube doesn't allow links in the comment section.

Okay, so to be honest, I didn't believe you when I read this. ICE engines are *very* heavy too so I started by looking up the Tesla Model S, a pretty average-sized sedan and was surprised to learn its curb weight was 4600 lbs. The Cybertruck meanwhile is almost 7000 lbs (Ford F150 is around 6000lbs for comparison). Overall, EVs are about 30% heavier than their ICE counterparts says this 2024 source (www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-evs-are-heavier-than-gas-cars-but-are-they-harder-on-roads/) and 10-15% heavier says this 2024 source (thedriven.io/2024/05/03/are-evs-really-much-heavier-than-their-ice-equivalents/). Those batteries are super heavy (1000 lbs) while an ICE engine weighs roughly half that (cermotor.com.pl/en/guides/engine-blocks/#:~:text=How%20much%20does%20an%20engine,about%20100%20to%20300%20kilograms). I read that concerns about extra damage to roads were mostly unwarranted since heavy semi trucks do most of the damage anyway but the extra weight does have concerns for safety (more weight = higher chances of fatality in crash) and I guess this is part of the reason EVs aren't more efficient than they are. More weight = more mass you have to constantly use energy to accelerate and also added wear on the brakes. Anyway, thanks for giving me a new angle to look into on this issue! The only thing I'd correct about your comment is use of the word "exponentially" here, but as a physicist by training I'm stricter than most on what that word means! To be clear, I'm not anti-EV! I just want people to have an accurate comparison. I think my video is overall pro-EV because the facts are pro-EV, just not as much as this misleading efficiency "fact" would lead you to believe.

That's not what "exponentially" means.

Great point. EVs are 'efficient' at doing a lot more work. I heard a notion the other day, I have not verified the math myself... my friend said the most 'efficient' vehicle was a passenger van with every seat filled. GHG per mile per person may be the end true measure of 'efficiency'.

Hi! As you can see I'm a bit crude on estimating the car mechanical efficiency ends of things so I didn't look into whether this "77% efficient" claim for electric cars was even true or what that supposed 77% was owed to.

Best case scenario and under ideal conditions, these losses are 15 to 25% but realistically it's much worse at 30 to 50% losses

@@ttstang89 You're making this number up. I don't know why the UA-cam algorithm thought I might be interested in this. Ignorance is expensive, critical thinking, the ability to assess and use information is very profitable. Why do people insist on ignorance? To do an assessment like this video is attempting begin with better sources. Don't make the video and then say you're 'crude on estimating the car mechanical efficiency". You do your viewers a disservice.

@@WillN2Go1 The car mechanical efficiency isn't the point I'm addressing here. The smart people at Argonne National Labs have already done the whole life cycle comparison, including these discrepancies and come up with figures when when an EV hits breakeven carbon footprint for an ICE, which I explain in the video, but that's based on a proper comprehensive analysis of all emissions, not just the ones that you see coming from the back of the car. Also, I am not @ttstang89. I would also like to have sources for the numbers given. More good sources is always a good thing.

it's not even that good. I have a BEV (not a car, a scooter) which has a 500W motor. But at steep slopes, I can push it faster than it can carry me up the hill. I don't make 500W on the ergometer, more like 150W sustained. The rest of the 500W of electricity just gets converted into heat. That's why you can't touch the motor when it has been under load for a bit, you will burn your fingers. That would not be the case if electric motors would have the 80 to 90% efficiency that is claimed.

The Moka Pot is a fickle mistress. It's challenging to use because there's not much control over the brewing process. I find the pursuit to be half the fun but an AeroPress or a French press is certainly more practical. There are a surprising number of adjustments that can be made, including: 1. Level of the water: ua-cam.com/video/NQrRzTzU_Yk/v-deo.html 2. Amount of the grinds: ua-cam.com/video/bCSn2CXWZOE/v-deo.html 3. Starting temperature of the water: ua-cam.com/video/O14BIH-9KTA/v-deo.html I also have a basics video that covers the most common mistakes that result in the moka pot spitting out bitter coffee: ua-cam.com/video/eH1Jnfkuzig/v-deo.html But the best tip I can offer actually involves using an AeroPress filter: ua-cam.com/video/fy1YKqrPYCw/v-deo.html

It's a 6 cup. The good news is that a standard AeroPress filter works for basically any sized moka pot. I've personally tried all the way down to a 3 cup.

@loodog555 Thank you! I need a 4 or 6 Cup and tried to figure out which one fits the AeroPress filter the best.

@@sirspongadoodle 🤣 there are people who believe this earnestly!

@@stingrae789 good tip! I would think that it would be harder to dig straight down, but whatever works for you works for you!

@@karilh4525 he’s a sweetheart

@@qthemusicdj no problem!

Haha, and I bet you'll never do it again! Glad the video gave you the answers you needed to enjoy your moka pot again!

@@loodog555 lol Yep, never again

Hey, glad to have another person onboard with defying the peremptory authority of Italian grandmothers! If you're interested in the aluminum aspect of the moka pot, here's a video about whether your moka pot will give you aluminum poisoning: ua-cam.com/video/qV3Us0KkIMo/v-deo.html

@@loodog555 I will certainly check out that video, thank you! I am sure you must be aware of Adam Ragusea, who also goes quite a long ways in debunking some of the Orthodox wisdom of Italian grandmas, haha. I am not of Italian heritage at all, but I grew up in an Italian-Canadian neighborhood in Toronto called _Corso Italia._

Agreed! There is a paper that explains how the porosity of the grinds (how effectively water can penetrate through) can be impacts by compacting by as much as a factor of 2! I explain the paper here: ua-cam.com/video/O14BIH-9KTA/v-deo.html

If your coffee is coming out too bitter/burnt and overbrewed, definitely give it a shot!

Yeah, it's amazing how fast research on this topic has gotten out to the GP practice! It's been theorized for a few decades now that the coffee filter is related to the lipid-raising substances in the coffee but a HUGE longitudinal study came out in 2020 showing that there is a substantial decrease in all-cause mortality over a 20-year period for those drinking filtered coffee. The important thing is to use anything with a paper filter, as they have been shown to remove something like 95% of the lipid-raising diterpenes. A moka pot with a paper filter, pourover, or AeroPress will all do the trick! My video explaining the research paper is here: ua-cam.com/video/9ERk020_III/v-deo.html

Hey, thanks for the comment! And it may seem counterintuitive, but here’s why it does make sense: ua-cam.com/video/O14BIH-9KTA/v-deo.html

Hi and thanks for the comment and your excellent questions! People say don't push it in the dishwasher and..... they're right. I've tested it myself. The problem is that the dishwasher works too well and cleans off the protective layer of aluminum oxide that prevents the aluminum from reacting too much with your coffee and leaching into it: ua-cam.com/video/qV3Us0KkIMo/v-deo.html The manufactured says "hand wash with mild detergent" and I'd say this advice is well heeded. Yes, most of the time I just use some hot water and a brush. Also, one thing I'd get a bit overly semantic on is calling it an espresso maker. Some people refer to these machines as "stove-top espresso machines" (including one physics paper: prokofe.ru/files/public/1545073434_16273_FT107421_the_physics_of_a_stove-top_espresso_machine_warren_d_king_king2008.pdf) but strictly speaking, it's not making anything like espresso but something like an espresso-drip coffee hybrid.

@@loodog555 Semantic R Us! When I wrote this last night, I actually had to think what to call it. Some just say 'the Bialetti', which is a little non-inclusive if your [insert name here] is of a different brand. The thing is, we call this beauty 'la cafetera' (Spanish for 'the coffee maker'), which suits 'her' perfectly! Where I live, 'mocca' (double C) refers to a (Starsbucks-style) drink with coffee, milk and chocolate (not my cup of tea!), so 'moka' is out of the books for us. Greetings.

Glad to be of service!

Hi and thanks for the comment! Reduction in parking, I concede I have seen no data on. I know that in my city, when they end up removing parking spaces, they prioritize keeping the handicapped spots. But you do have to pick your poison on this: more parking = more cars on the road = more traffic. I think saving the road capacity for those who need to drive due to disability work their work is a good idea. As for your claim that the data comes from activist groups, I’m afraid that is flat out refuted by the 13 papers described in the video and linked to in the description of the video with in-line citations above those. These are all peer-reviewed papers published in transportation and urban planning journals. But I would welcome any sources you’d like to contribute that I’ve missed. On the question of the lanes being installed without consulting local residents, I can’t speak to this and don’t have sources one way or the other that specify whether on a national level, these lanes were installed with more or fewer community impact meetings than any other infrastructure project but I’d be open to any sources you’d like to provide.

@@loodog555 Reducing traffic by reducing the number of cars on the road, just means people are having a harder time using the roads. And it isn't producing less traffic. Where I live traffic has gone up. Accessibility is more difficult. And it has made things harder for people with disabilities. I can't speak to your sources and studies but locally here, I have been following the discussion about bike lanes in our media. It seems to me that the people doing the studies are often also advocates and the results they keep saying should happen don't. All I know is there wasn't sufficient public discussion, the bike lanes appeared suddenly during shut downs (which wasn't a strain until the shutdowns ended). Not it is much harder not just to drive into the city, but to drive around in general (traffic congestion is terrible everywhere). But also the bike lanes are largely unused because our streets and climate are horrible for bike riding. At the end of the day, this has become the one issue I vote on. And all of the bike advocacy groups I have heard from in my area aren't just advocating for bike lanes for themselves, it is becoming clear they are ant-car. But you really need a car to get around here, especially if you have chronic health issues (which I do). It has made the quality of life worse for a lot of people and there is a lot of anger towards the bike lanes because people feel like they weren't informed about them when they were happening and they feel like people like you are talking down to them like they're plebs

@@loodog555 In terms of sources on the lack of commutation. Try talking to residents. I am from the Boston area. While there are certainly supporters of bike lanes who will repeat every word you just said, if you talk to a broad cross section of society, you will hear the same complain I made about bike lanes appearing suddenly and without much public input. Also this isn;t like adding a cross walk. This was a massive overhaul of the roads. The city I lived in had two lanes on either side to accommodate traffic flow and suddenly they were reduced to one lane. But the same number of people still needed to use those streets with cars so the congestion just got worse. I don't know if there are studies on it. But anyone who drives around can see this with their own eyes. We say the change on a day to day basis and we saw how it impacted things. And try talking to local businesses; you will get a lot of complaints. One of my pet peeves with the bike crowd and the bike lane social engineering crowd is how utterly dismissive they are of regular people raising their concerns. If a candidate came a long and said they were going to tear down the bike lanes, that is all I would need to know about them. Bike lanes may be perfectly great in a place like California. They don't work in Boston

​@@Bedrockbrendan I hear you and your complaints are similar to those of others in the debate, but if anyone is framing this as a "cars vs. bikes" thing or in terms of how much urban design can be used to *force* drivers off the roads, they're just backing themselves into an unhelpful tribalism that's only going to breed defensiveness where it's unnecessary. You write: "Reducing traffic by reducing the number of cars on the road, just means people are having a harder time using the roads" but this ignores *what traffic actually is*. Every bike you see is one more car that's been sucked up off the road to make more space for you. In the fight for road space, these are ants carrying 10 times their weight in getting people moving somewhere. There are many famous cases like in San Francisco after an earthquake destroyed the Embarcadero highway, where a traffic apocalypse was predicted if the highway wasn't rebuilt and yet... sf.streetsblog.org/2024/02/26/who-regrets-tearing-down-the-embarcadero-freeway the congestion never materialized and the traffic just basically evaporated. It's very counterintuitive but it's been reproduced every time highways are removed, meanwhile the notoriously clogged Katy Highway in Houston has 26 lanes and doesn't get any better the wider it gets. Same thing happened with Amsterdam's terrible highway traffic when they converted over to bikes: www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11od7o6/how_the_netherlands_built_a_biking_utopia_in_the/ Highway lanes have this amazing ability to produce traffic where it didn't previously exist! The "empty bike lanes" claim is addressed in the video, but let me try explaining it another way: the way to transport the most people per hour has actually been shown to be a heavy rail (AKA subway) line, with a capacity of about 20,000 people per hour. If you wait and stare as a subway line, it might be 6 or 8 or even 12 minutes before a train comes. This may lead you to believe that the rails aren't being used at all, when in fact they're carrying more than 12 highway lanes' worth of passengers in the same time period (highway lanes are limited to about 1600 people per hour with current occupancy averages). So then why do car lanes look so used and bike lanes and rails look so empty? The emptiness shows you just how effective they are at keeping people moving. Cars are so space-intensive and we're so used to them, that we actually interpret seeing empty pavement as disuse! Meanwhile, the notion of trying to coerce drivers off the road is completely unwarranted, since the data show that right now people are actually forced out of the biking they'd rather be doing! The research shows that when bike infrastructure is built, more bikers turn out, irrespective of the simultaneous changes of driving conditions. This means more people actually *want* to bike, but their fear of death is keeping them from doing it more. I've seen many in your position claim that the terrible traffic conditions are a deliberate plot by the government to make driving miserable, but that would make no sense from a political perspective: who could you hope would vote for you?! As shown in the video, the traffic conditions were getting worse decades ago, long before bike lanes were added and have continued to get worse both in cities that added bike lanes and those that didn't. Installation of bike infrastructure and better transit is actually your only hope for you to be able drive without miserable congestion in the future.

@@loodog555 You aren't listening. You already have your mind made up. There is a very good study that came out I think in 2019, showing bike lanes are more dangerous for cyclists. And we have seen that in Boston. The lanes are dangerous in exactly the way the study predicts. People get too comfortable. There is no protecting a cyclist from people turning across the lanes to enter parking lots and side streets. People keep gettin hit by box trucks. I think the logic you have about empty lanes proving they are used is utterly absurd. I live in this area. I can see how many people use the lanes. We aren't a bike city. As for every bike being a car off the road. That just isn;t true. Think what you want but there are bike people and car people. And the congestion has gotten so much worse here since they restructured everything for the bike lanes. Like I said before, if a candidate is anti-bike lane I am voting for that person. They have done too much damage to the area already

@@ac27934 the number one rule of Brewing Coffee is that if you like what you’re getting, you can keep it. That said, there are unanticipated consequences you underfill the water level: your coffee actually brews faster: m.ua-cam.com/video/NQrRzTzU_Yk/v-deo.html Also, there will always be leftover water in the base because of the design of the Moka pot: ua-cam.com/video/F1ofrthmrV8/v-deo.html There’s no good way to vary the amount of coffee you get out of a moka pot besides buying a different size Moka pot.

😂❤