3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh

[Mr. Scram]

I have looked into that a couple of years ago. All cars labelled 'flexifuel' can run on ethanol but this is just software. All modern gas/petrol engines can run on ethanol with different software or an add-on which increases the amount of fuel injected.
 
I ran some numbers on the data provided by Poet-DSM http://poet-dsm.com/ which makes third generation bio-fuels from agricultural leftovers and it seems that the leftovers from growing food should be enough to run fuel efficient cars. This doesn't take other bio-mass sources like plant trimmings into account. The bottom line is that bio-fuels are viable and doesn't need to take away land for growing food. Actually quite the opposite: the more we use from the plants which are grown the cheaper our food and fuel get. After all from most plants we only eat the seeds and not the plant itself.

BTW in the Netherlands the majority of the renewable energy already comes from bio-mass.

Just like with full blown EVs, there is still a lot of room for improvement and development. It seems biofuel progress is being made with biofuel being generated through algea. It's not the silver bullet, but it could take the edge off the transition to a fully electric fleet and also prevents your current fleet from being obsolete before it is from a technical point of view. Throwing away perfectly good cars is a terrible idea and there are some industries and applications where going electric isn't quite viable just quite yet. It's perfect for reusing your existing infrastructure while eliminating most of the environmental drawbacks. It might also help getting the slowpokes on board as they won't be eager to replace their gas guzzer, but get to be part of the transition for a minimal cost of entry.

[nctnico]

That is assuming EVs are the solution which I strongly doubt. Electricity is going to be a scarse commodity in many parts of the world especially when the fossil fuel power plants are shut down. Bio-mass from agriculture will be available since we all need to eat.
But this is getting wildly off-topic.

[Mr. Scram]

That is assuming EVs are the solution which I strongly doubt. Electricity is going to be a scarse commodity in many parts of the world especially when the fossil fuel power plants are shut down. Bio-mass from agriculture will be available since we all need to eat.
But this is getting wildly off-topic.

Nothing will get shut down for long if it means not having enough power. That's one thing you can be very sure of.

[nctnico]

That is assuming EVs are the solution which I strongly doubt. Electricity is going to be a scarse commodity in many parts of the world especially when the fossil fuel power plants are shut down. Bio-mass from agriculture will be available since we all need to eat.
But this is getting wildly off-topic.

Nothing will get shut down for long if it means not having enough power. That's one thing you can be very sure of.

Fossil fuels will become more expensive due to increased mining expenses and the amount is finite. The alternative is nuclear but I don't see that picking up any time soon.

[Mr. Scram]

Fossil fuels will become more expensive due to increased mining expenses and the amount is finite. The alternative is nuclear but I don't see that picking up any time soon.

Sooner or later renewables will become more economic and there will inevitably be one or more countries that pave their entire lands with solar cells, wind mills or whatever is a good idea at that time to make a buck.

[apis]

There are enormous amounts of coal left. It's not going to run out anytime soon. If we are going to stop using it, it needs to be effectively banned (e.g. CO² tax). Nuclear is great but even if everyone wanted to replace coal with nuclear tomorrow (as they should) it couldn't be done over night. (I've heard someone say you could maybe expand nuclear with 6% in 20 years or so.)

Solar has an incredible potential. 1-3% of Sahara (Australia) covered in solar panels could produce as much energy as the entire world use today.

I love EVs but we are not going to replace ICEs with EVs over night, ICEs will be around for a long time. And while they still are around, bio-fuel is the best option to power them with. With today's battery energy density, electric airplanes are not going to happen, they need biofuels if we are going to keep them flying. etc.

Bio-fuel from oil producing algae is very promising, but it's still in the research stage. Bio-fuel from food waste is good, but can we produce enough that way? Bio-fuel produced from traditional crops like rapeseed, or sugar is pretty bad in every regard but it can be CO² neutral at least. You can also power coal plants with waste from the wood and farm industry, or with fast growing plants. You stil get all the downsides from using ICEs and coal power plants in terms of pollution (and more), but at least it is CO² neutral.

The only way to reduce GHG emissions fast enough is to do everything possible to the largest extent possible. I.e. expand nuclear, solar, wind as fast as possible, and at the same time increase energy efficiency as much as possible. Stop wasting energy by using wireless charging gimmicks for example. (See, I'm still on topic!  )

[Kjelt]

We can already capture 96% of the emitted CO2 at plants, but then?
If we could find a cheap and fast way to transform it back to a solid form like NaCO3 or something like that we also could have a nice alternative.

[apis]

There are existing, working, prototypes of carbon capture and storage plants. They liquefy the CO² and then pump it down to an empty underground reservoir where pressure is high enough to keep it liquid/solid (e.g. an empty oil reservoir).

But since it's much cheaper to just release it into the atmosphere it's not being implemented.

[nctnico]

There are existing, working, prototypes of carbon capture and storage plants. They liquefy the CO² and then pump it down to an empty underground reservoir where pressure is high enough to keep it liquid/solid (e.g. an empty oil reservoir).

Storing CO2 is worse compared to storing nuclear waste. Nuclear waste loses it's radioactivity over time. CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off. Future generations will have to deal with these underground CO2 storages at some point so it is not a good long term solution. You don't want accidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

Also burrying toxic stuff in the ground is never a good idea. Sooner or later it will act up and bite you in the ass.

[Mr. Scram]

Storing CO2 is worse compared to storing nuclear waste. Nuclear waste loses it's radioactivity over time. CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off. Future generations will have to deal with these underground CO2 storages at some point so it is not a good long term solution. You don't want accidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

Oil isn't exactly a benign substance either. Basically the only shot we have is taking enough of it out of the cycle again. Putting it back in the ground makes a lot of sense. What is a sensible way of doing that is up to science and some experimentation.

[glarsson]

CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.

CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.

[nctnico]

CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.

CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.

Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.

[IanMacdonald]

I reckon the lithium cell fire risk (not LiPo incidentally, they use 18650's) is the major issue with BEVs. I certainly don't think they should make two-door four-seaters, it needs to be possible to exit quickly and without fumbling around if the battery goes up.

[Kjelt]

CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.

CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.

Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.

Correct!, they found out on closed environments like submarines. That is why they use CO2 scrubbers on submarines, oxygen is not a problem the CO2 levels are.
https://www.quora.com/At-what-CO2-percentage-would-our-atmosphere-become-toxic-to-humans

[tszaboo]

CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.

CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.

Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.

CO2 is part of nature, and it is crucial, to have a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The issue is not that we create CO2, and that somehow "poisons" the environment. That is a very misguided view, and I cannot believe I hear this from a technical person. The issue is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if we increase it in the atmosphere, it increases the temperature of earth. The other problem with CO2 is that burning stuff made from carbon releases other stuff, like dust, NOx, SOx, which are toxic. We shouldn't increase it's concentration.

I reckon the lithium cell fire risk (not LiPo incidentally, they use 18650's) is the major issue with BEVs. I certainly don't think they should make two-door four-seaters, it needs to be possible to exit quickly and without fumbling around if the battery goes up.

I reckon that gasoline is flammable. For sure there have been more Italian cars on fire than electric cars.

[nctnico]

CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.

CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.

Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.

CO2 is part of nature, and it is crucial, to have a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The issue is not that we create CO2, and that somehow "poisons" the environment. That is a very misguided view, and I cannot believe I hear this from a technical person. The issue is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if we increase it in the atmosphere, it increases the temperature of earth. The other problem with CO2 is that burning stuff made from carbon releases other stuff, like dust, NOx, SOx, which are toxic. We shouldn't increase it's concentration.

A 'certain amount' is currently around 500ppm. Unlike I wrote earlier that is 0.05% (not 0.5%). If you would have read the article about the submarine environments you'd know that concentrations of a few % can cause serious problems and death. This means that when an underground CO2 storage starts to leak (or just blow out) you have a massive toxic gas cloud. To make things worse CO2 is heavier than air so it drives away air and sinks to lower areas creating a suffocating blanket. You really shouldn't underestimate how dangerous CO2 is. Many people have received Darwin awards for underestimating CO2 build up.

[tszaboo]

A 'certain amount' is currently around 500ppm. Unlike I wrote earlier that is 0.05% (not 0.5%). If you would have read the article about the submarine environments you'd know that concentrations of a few % can cause serious problems and death. This means that when an underground CO2 storage starts to leak (or just blow out) you have a massive toxic gas cloud. To make things worse CO2 is heavier than air so it drives away air and sinks to lower areas creating a suffocating blanket. You really shouldn't underestimate how dangerous CO2 is. Many people have received Darwin awards for underestimating CO2 build up.

Yes, in a closed environment, it is dangerous. The atmosphere is not a closed environment. It contains 0.04% if we double it, it is still not toxic, but we would have a crisis because of the global warming. We already have a crisis, but nobody wants to admit it.

[G7PSK]

This guy has an amusing take on the wireless charger.

https://youtu.be/lSb5xas_xp0

[tszaboo]

This guy has an amusing take on the wireless charger.

It is a misguided view. I can invalidate his entire 10 minute rambling with just one sentence:
You charge it during the day.
The 5 series BMW is not something that you just buy for yourself anyway, it is something the employer will lease for you, so they just install the doodad in your reserved company parking spot. And they even save money on the fuel costs with that.

[Mr. Scram]

This guy has an amusing take on the wireless charger.

https://youtu.be/lSb5xas_xp0

The car flavoured rant channel. 

[G7PSK]

Not all EV's are going to be BMW and most will get charged over night, and as to whether he is correct or not it is still an amusing take on the subject, his rant is hilarious.

[apis]

There are existing, working, prototypes of carbon capture and storage plants. They liquefy the CO² and then pump it down to an empty underground reservoir where pressure is high enough to keep it liquid/solid (e.g. an empty oil reservoir).

Storing CO2 is worse compared to storing nuclear waste. Nuclear waste loses it's radioactivity over time. CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off. Future generations will have to deal with these underground CO2 storages at some point so it is not a good long term solution. You don't want accidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

Also burrying toxic stuff in the ground is never a good idea. Sooner or later it will act up and bite you in the ass.

Sounds a little bit like fossilised coal, oil and natural gas.

I agree, CO² capture and storage is not a good idea. The sensible thing is to use less energy and more energy efficient devices, and only get our power from nuclear, solar and wind.

But if people insist on continuing to burn fossil fuels, it is better they pump the CO² down into the earth again than it is to release it into the atmosphere. Of course, that isn't cost efficient so it's not likely to happen anyway.

(Storing nuclear waste is not a problem at all btw, it's just the anti-nuclear people that are obstructing, but that's another subject.)

[apis]

Yes, in a closed environment, it is dangerous. The atmosphere is not a closed environment. It contains 0.04% if we double it, it is still not toxic, but we would have a crisis because of the global warming. We already have a crisis, but nobody wants to admit it.

Actually, most people admit it, the problem is that certain world leaders have their personal fortunes based on coal, oil and natural gas. For example Bush, Putin and King Salman. They don't wan't the world to stop buying fossil fuel.

[G7PSK]

These day making something more "efficient" means putting a whole lot of power hungry management systems on top of what is already there and then selling five times as many as before. Offices were supposed to become paper free and save trees,instead of that all the data is stored in data centres consuming giga watts of power and paper is pumped out in ever increasing reams as well.

[Zucca]

http://www.volterio.com/