Author Topic: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ? AND some solarpower in PUERTO RICO.  (Read 30520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12288
  • Country: au
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2017, 05:34:25 am »
You never know until you check out all the ideas .... even the "dumb" ones.

But sometimes people don't know when to stop...  like Solar Freakin' Roadways.
 

Offline Simon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17728
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2017, 07:34:51 am »
Your answer is rubbish and a fair warning there's no point discussing with you. Resources and time are theirs to waste.

Now now do not get your knickers twisted over disagreement of value or feasibility of certain technology.
You do start sounding more and more like some cultist  :palm:

I dare say you are the cultist as you bring no facts to the debate just outlandish assertions designed to stir up and argument. Please post your evidence or go away and stop trolling (in plain English that means consider yourself warned and in the member for banning list).
 

Offline AG6QR

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 857
  • Country: us
    • AG6QR Blog
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #52 on: November 22, 2017, 07:39:06 am »
Tesla notes on its website that the semi-truck will consume “less than 2 kWh / mile”. If we’re to factor in a worst case scenario of 2 kWh of energy used per mile travelled, this would equate to 800 kWh of energy consumed in 400 miles (644 km) of travel. Tesla’s Megacharger would need to have a tremendous power output of 1.6 MW, or thirteen times the power level of a standard Supercharger to be able to replenish 400 miles of battery range in 30 minutes. This, of course, is based on the assumption that the Tesla Semi will consume 2 kWh of energy per mile which in reality will probably be less, as Tesla notes.
That would be a problem challenge.

Just for fun, I did some quick measurements and back-of-the-envelope calculations for comparison.

I refueled my gasoline-powered car today, and it took 11 seconds per gallon to fill the tank (for those of you in countries that use reasonable units, that's roughly 3 seconds per liter).  A gallon of gasoline has about 122 megajoules of energy.  That works out to roughly 11 megajoules per second of energy transfer.  A watt is a joule per second, so that gas pump is transferring energy at a rate of 11 megawatts!  I don't believe my neighborhood gas pump is particularly fast compared to others.  I welcome others to chime in with their own measurements and calculations.

Some may quibble that the energy in gasoline isn't directly comparable to electrical energy, since thermodynamics tells us that it's less efficient to turn gasoline energy into mechanical work than it is to turn electricity into work.  That's true, but it's at least partly countered by the fact that the process of charging and discharging a battery is not particularly efficient, particularly if the charging rate approaches anything near the megawatt range. 

It's also true that really rapid refueling/recharging is rarely essential, particularly if it's practical to charge overnight at home.

But this exercise does help explain why we charge electric cars slowly at home or in parking lots, rather than quickly at service stations.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12288
  • Country: au
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #53 on: November 22, 2017, 07:40:07 am »
Your answer is rubbish and a fair warning there's no point discussing with you. Resources and time are theirs to waste.

Now now do not get your knickers twisted over disagreement of value or feasibility of certain technology.
You do start sounding more and more like some cultist  :palm:

I dare say you are the cultist as you bring no facts to the debate just outlandish assertions designed to stir up and argument. Please post your evidence or go away and stop trolling (in plain English that means consider yourself warned and in the member for banning list).

Beware the Lord High Executioner...!
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2017, 08:06:22 am »
Been doing some thinking about charge rates and times based on people I have directly spoken to and I reckon the main reason people object to electric cars is because they are dumbasses who have trouble planning ahead and don’t want to look like idiots with a dead car on the side of the road. Look at the state of mobile phones. Someone gets home, stuffs the phone on the table and goes to sleep without looking at it. Then they get up in the morning, do a panic charge and fall out of the door with 45% left and wing it, possibly with it dumping early afternoon and then inevitably sending the email “has anyone got a lightning cable I can borrow” which the lender will never see again.  This is of course someone holding an iPhone with a cracked screen that they can’t afford to repair and are waiting for the contract to run out. They can’t get away with the quickly roll into the gas station and fill it up sort of thinking and I think this fills them with primitive rage and disdain for the technology which leads to irrationally looking for ways to discredit it. Discredit comes in any form from attacking the manufacturers to sticking fingers in their ears and filling up that knackered old diesel with a dead DPF (guilty there) and watching the world slowly burn.

My biggest fear is never the technology but the end users. In fact my biggest fear is the fear that end users have of change and planning.

Now I know a guy with a model S, another forum member here actually, and he’s not going to post on these threads because he’s sitting in it smiling.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 08:09:08 am by bd139 »
 

Offline Agent24

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Country: nz
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2017, 08:18:47 am »


Quote from: rx8pilot on Yesterday at 06:20:03 AM
I love the technology development but am also dubious about the ability to supply the massive number of batteries and electronics without creating a problem similar to fossil fuels. For these idea to make an impact that Elon seems to be hoping for - generation and storage of power has to improve dramatically and somehow humanity will have to avoid going to war over the various rare and critical minerals needed.


I have thought the same... is mining precious metals and churning out millions of batteries destined for e-waste really any better ecologically than fossil fuel? I can't see it. To me it's just the same problem in a different form. The root cause is not solved.
 

Offline Simon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17728
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2017, 08:23:26 am »


My biggest fear is never the technology but the end users. In fact my biggest fear is the fear that end users have of change and planning.

Now I know a guy with a model S, another forum member here actually, and he’s not going to post on these threads because he’s sitting in it smiling.

This is what I keep saying to people, stop blaming the technology, have a go instead at those promising you you can misuse it. Or stop expecting electric and petrol to be interchangeable, the electric will bring advantages you never had with petrol but you can't expect the same rules if you want the benefits.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12288
  • Country: au
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2017, 08:27:22 am »
... but you can't expect the same rules if you want the benefits.

If you're in the middle of the field and you pick the ball up and run with it, you're no longer playing soccer.
 

Offline woody

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • Country: nl
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2017, 08:35:58 am »
I have thought the same... is mining precious metals and churning out millions of batteries destined for e-waste really any better ecologically than fossil fuel? I can't see it. To me it's just the same problem in a different form. The root cause is not solved.

Not entirely the same problem. Fossil creates a problem at the tailpipe side of things. Batteries create a problem at the source side. The fossil problem is much harder to manage (gazillion tailpipes in lots of forms) than the battery problem (a limited number of mines, a manageable form when used up). Stating that batteries are designed for e-waste is a bit harsh (assuming you do not run your Model S on AA); batteries can be recycled to high percentages; the reason that this does not happen atm is that mining the materials needed is cheaper than recycling them That will change  :D
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23018
  • Country: gb
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #59 on: November 22, 2017, 09:26:28 am »
Recycling the newer battery tech is pretty easy as well.

I reckon some of the motivation of SpaceX existing is resource based as well. At some point we will be dependent on energy storage as opportunistic scavengers so there will be value in getting it from elsewhere.
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7307
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2017, 09:28:26 am »
The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.
Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.
Analysis of lifecycle impacts from different car types can produce numbers all over the place, its easy to find well produced reports which say a battery electric vehicle is more polluting than conventional vehicles:
http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf
"?Lifecycle impacts of Tesla model S85 and Volkswagen Passat"
A lot depends on the mix of electricity generation assumed, and recycling/recovery/waste costs for the batteries which are yet to be proven in practice and will likely have changed substantially over the life of the vehicle. What the world needs is smaller/slower/short range vehicles for urban environment if they want to make a big change in energy use.
Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china. In a country, like Sweden, driving an electric car is greener than riding a bicycle. And other european countries are going in that direction. and even then I question the validity of those numbers.

We dont need a bunch of hippi cars. They are pathetic. All of them has a name like "smart" and IQ, while they should be named: "I dont have money for a proper car" .  And a "smart" with a 0.6 liter engine uses more fuel than a full sized hybrid.
Clearly you didn't read through the linked paper, the majority of the lifecycle "costs" can be incurred in hypothetical recycling of the product at end of life. These processes of recycling metal in existing cars is well established but inflating the expected lifecycle of battery vehicles.

You're welcome to provide some reference for your claim that an electric car is "greener" than a bicycle but very few people would agree with that:
http://www.eurobike-show.com/eb-wAssets/daten/rahmenprogramm/pdf/LifeCycleAssessment_DelDuce_englisch.pdf
Especially when you can consider an electric bicycle which eliminates the "petrol equivalent" of food conversion factor that seems to dominate people who think bicycles are an inefficient form of transport.
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

Every single study you link, ignores the advances in battery technology. In about 2 years solid-state lithium-ion batteries will take over, making huge improvement for the batteries. And no, this doesnt come from Cheng Hung at the whatever US university lab. This comes from toyota.

Also, you ignore the fact that electricity generation will shift to sustainable sources.
And that electric car manufacturers tend to use renewable for their manufacturing.

How much does the combustion engine left? Maybe some 10% improvement with the mazda compression engine? 30-40% if all cars go hybrid? Oh wait, that doesnt count, hybrids have all those dirty batteries.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 16796
  • Country: lv
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #61 on: November 22, 2017, 09:36:06 am »
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.
What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 09:41:49 am by wraper »
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7307
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2017, 09:41:30 am »
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.
What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car?
What about them. I already said in this thread that USA has to get it's shit together.
 

Offline fubar.gr

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
  • Country: gr
    • Fubar.gr
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2017, 09:42:31 am »
Professional trucker here!

Elon Musk in his presentation omitted one of the most important information about the truck: How much does it weigh?

I've seen some articles wrongly stating that the truck is capable of hauling a 80000lbs (~37 ton) payload. This is wrong. This number is the maximum allowed gross vehicle weight for public roads, ie the combined weigh of the truck, trailer and payload.

In most European countries, the maximum gross vehicle weight is 40 tons. Typically, a diesel truck weighs around 8 to 9 tons and another 8 to 9 tons for the trailer. This is 16-18 tons for the tractor-trailer combination, so this leaves 22 to 24 tons for useful payload.

It is inevitable that the Tesla truck will be heavier due to the weigh of the batteries. The 100KWh Tesla S battery weighs around 500 kilos. If the truck has a 1MWh battery, then the extra weight should be around 5 tons.

Some analysts believe that they won't use the Tesla S cells, but the powerwall storage cells which have better cycling characteristics, but worse energy density. So the battery pack could be well over 5 tons.

Effectively, this truck will have a 20-25% less useful payload compared to a diesel truck.


Also there were some weird and false claims in that presentation. For example it was claimed that even the best diesel tractors fully laden can only do 45mph over a 5% incline, while the Tesla can do 65mph. In Europe semi truck speed is electronically limited to 90Km/h (56mph) and the best tractors (Scania R730 or Volvo FH16 750) have no problem maintaining that speed over a 5% incline.

BTW this is what happens when you accelerate hard a powerful diesel truck (this is probably 60 tons or more)




Another weird claim is that windscreens crack on average once a year. Excluding dump trucks working on mines and quarrys (lots of rocks getting flinged around) I am not aware of trucks used on paved roads having their windshield cracked with that regularity.

Also they claim 1 million miles without breakdowns. Judging from all the problems they had so far with reliability issues, replacing hundreds of defective Drive Units, sometimes twice or thrice on the same car, I can't take that claim seriously.

Offline rrinker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2046
  • Country: us
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #64 on: November 22, 2017, 03:57:08 pm »
 I don't know what they put in those things over there, but on grades here in the US, a fully loaded semi maintaining 45mph is only a dream to most. Plenty of places even in my small part of the country where semis can barely crawl up some of the hills, the worst ones luckily have multiple lanes with trucks forbidden in the left most ones, so there is room for one truck crawling at 43mph to overtake the one crawling at 40mph, and still a lane for all the cars which can easily maintain the 65mph limit to get past all of it.

Battery powered heavy lading transport is certainly nothing new - these were built starting in 1928, hybrid style plus overhead and/or third rail power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_three-power_boxcab


 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #65 on: November 22, 2017, 04:45:19 pm »
Coal fired trucks!
That's not so crazy at all. It's easier to convert a diesel/petrol vehicle to run off coal, than to run off electricity. All that's needed is a gasifier. Forget coal, that's not green, the gasifier will work from wood, grown in sustainable plantations.
 

Offline CM800

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 882
  • Country: 00
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #66 on: November 22, 2017, 05:04:48 pm »
Also they claim 1 million miles without breakdowns. Judging from all the problems they had so far with reliability issues, replacing hundreds of defective Drive Units, sometimes twice or thrice on the same car, I can't take that claim seriously.

Well, he did promise a warrenty of 1 million miles, soo, I'd say they are happy to foot the bill if they fail on that front.
 

Offline Lord of nothing

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1581
  • Country: at
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #67 on: November 22, 2017, 05:34:59 pm »
 :phew: Damn Good someone had and good invention years ago it called Metrical System.
Maybe someone here heard about?  :popcorn:
Why not use them? Just 98% of all Country in the World do it.
So everyone here can use it to.  :clap:  :-+
Made in Japan, destroyed in Sulz im Wienerwald.
 

Offline Simon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17728
  • Country: gb
  • Did that just blow up? No? might work after all !!
    • Simon's Electronics
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #68 on: November 22, 2017, 05:47:07 pm »
Coal fired trucks!
That's not so crazy at all. It's easier to convert a diesel/petrol vehicle to run off coal, than to run off electricity. All that's needed is a gasifier. Forget coal, that's not green, the gasifier will work from wood, grown in sustainable plantations.

While technically feasilble as you say no amount of growing more trees will keep up with fueling our transport.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #69 on: November 22, 2017, 06:31:56 pm »
Coal fired trucks!
That's not so crazy at all. It's easier to convert a diesel/petrol vehicle to run off coal, than to run off electricity. All that's needed is a gasifier. Forget coal, that's not green, the gasifier will work from wood, grown in sustainable plantations.

While technically feasilble as you say no amount of growing more trees will keep up with fueling our transport.
UK no. Canada and the US is more feasible. In any case, it takes around 15 minutes to fire up the gasifier and it can't be shut down instantly either, so is no good for short journeys.
Some videos:
https://youtu.be/AldzOu0TFSE
https://youtu.be/X3KipK49v7g
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7307
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #70 on: November 22, 2017, 08:03:41 pm »
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.
What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.
Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 16796
  • Country: lv
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #71 on: November 22, 2017, 08:11:00 pm »
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.
What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.
Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.
If you look at your post and time I edited it, it was 5 minutes after I first posted and just 19 seconds after you replied. I was not going to edit it back just because I added some things while you replied.
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7307
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #72 on: November 22, 2017, 08:18:18 pm »
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.
What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.
Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.
If you look at your post and time I edited it, it was 5 minutes after I first posted and just 19 seconds after you replied. I was not going to edit it back just because I added some things while you replied.
Well fair enough. I think though that you are wrong about your assumption. I see a lot of Belgians go fat, as soon as they got a car instead of a bike. Because they get used to eating more.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #73 on: November 22, 2017, 10:43:38 pm »
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.
What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.
Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.
If you look at your post and time I edited it, it was 5 minutes after I first posted and just 19 seconds after you replied. I was not going to edit it back just because I added some things while you replied.
Well fair enough. I think though that you are wrong about your assumption. I see a lot of Belgians go fat, as soon as they got a car instead of a bike. Because they get used to eating more.
It may be true that people gain weight, when they cease exercising, but I don't think it's as simple as they're used to eating a lot. I'm reasonably active (I often go cycling, both to and from work and often in my lunch break) and I do notice I eat more, after periods of increased activity and less, when inactive, yet my weight remains fairly constant. I think lack of exercise often predisposes one to lose lean body mass and gain fat, but the latter isn't always the case, probably due to genetics, more than anything else. Scientists haven't figured out why some people get fat and others don't, despite both groups having a sedentary lifestyle and access to high energy food.
 

Online Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4510
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ?
« Reply #74 on: November 22, 2017, 10:45:48 pm »
The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.
Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.
Analysis of lifecycle impacts from different car types can produce numbers all over the place, its easy to find well produced reports which say a battery electric vehicle is more polluting than conventional vehicles:
http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf
"?Lifecycle impacts of Tesla model S85 and Volkswagen Passat"
A lot depends on the mix of electricity generation assumed, and recycling/recovery/waste costs for the batteries which are yet to be proven in practice and will likely have changed substantially over the life of the vehicle. What the world needs is smaller/slower/short range vehicles for urban environment if they want to make a big change in energy use.
Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china. In a country, like Sweden, driving an electric car is greener than riding a bicycle. And other european countries are going in that direction. and even then I question the validity of those numbers.

We dont need a bunch of hippi cars. They are pathetic. All of them has a name like "smart" and IQ, while they should be named: "I dont have money for a proper car" .  And a "smart" with a 0.6 liter engine uses more fuel than a full sized hybrid.
Clearly you didn't read through the linked paper, the majority of the lifecycle "costs" can be incurred in hypothetical recycling of the product at end of life. These processes of recycling metal in existing cars is well established but inflating the expected lifecycle of battery vehicles.

You're welcome to provide some reference for your claim that an electric car is "greener" than a bicycle but very few people would agree with that:
http://www.eurobike-show.com/eb-wAssets/daten/rahmenprogramm/pdf/LifeCycleAssessment_DelDuce_englisch.pdf
Especially when you can consider an electric bicycle which eliminates the "petrol equivalent" of food conversion factor that seems to dominate people who think bicycles are an inefficient form of transport.
You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

Every single study you link, ignores the advances in battery technology. In about 2 years solid-state lithium-ion batteries will take over, making huge improvement for the batteries. And no, this doesnt come from Cheng Hung at the whatever US university lab. This comes from toyota.

Also, you ignore the fact that electricity generation will shift to sustainable sources.
And that electric car manufacturers tend to use renewable for their manufacturing.

How much does the combustion engine left? Maybe some 10% improvement with the mazda compression engine? 30-40% if all cars go hybrid? Oh wait, that doesnt count, hybrids have all those dirty batteries.
Seems you've tried to join multiple points together, I provided an example of an analysis that says a battery car is more polluting/energy intensive over its life because they inflate the battery recycling costs. This might be valid on todays industry which does well at recycling conventional cars, but in the future its likely that battery cars will be easier to recycle. Electric cars are not wildly more green than the alternatives and certainly not greener than cycling once you complete a full lifecycle analysis including infrastructure and disposal/recycling, and its easy to find works which show them in this competitive space depending on the source of the electricity.

https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/
This famous "work" is pure propaganda, we could similarly analyse a car operating on only pure hexane as a fuel (a nice odour free alternative to mixed hydrocarbon petrol) which would be similarly wildly inefficient. Or perhaps consider some realistic numbers:
https://www.withouthotair.com/c13/page_79.shtml
Cycling is more energy efficient than walking, so you need to use wildly unrealistic corner cases for both modes to say that walking or cycling is higher impact than driving. The numbers using realistic or country/region/world averages for electricity and food energy/environmental intensity show that walking and cycling are much more "green" than driving.

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.
What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.
Indeed, the link to that post has comments which rubbish the numbers right off the start. Trouble is once you start tying to add in externalities such as loss of life from exhaust emissions or lack of exercise the uncertainty grows quickly on multiplicative contributions. But even on the simple things such as transport energy efficiency where its easily shown that a bicycle uses around 10x less energy to move the same distance as a car (take an electric bicycle and an electric car and give them the same amount of charge) yet people will fight tooth and nail to try and justify their comfortable status quo.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 10:14:36 am by Someone »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf