Up until 100 years ago, electric cars were more popular than internal-combustion engine powered cars and were poised to become the standard method of transportation. Most used NiFe or NiCd batteries.And how did they control the power output smooth enough without losing too much power in the switch while driving (therefore potentially heating it up and burning, next to the loss of energy)? Not to mention charging those batteries.
And how did they control the power output smooth enough without losing too much power in the switch while driving (therefore potentially heating it up and burning, next to the loss of energy)?
This drivetrain was the brainchild of George Westinghouse. The engine powers the generator, which creates a large magnetic force field be-tween the engine and drivewheels. There's no mechanical transmission. The driver moves a rheostat through four quadrants — a lot easier than shifting, and grinding, the straight-cut gears of the day — and the car moves ahead progressively, giving occupants that odd feeling you get when you try to push similar-pole magnets against each other. Both Enrico Caruso and John McCormack drove Owen Magnetics.
Owens were expensive and really sophisticated. They had an advanced, 24-volt electrical system when most cars had only 6 volts. And Owen Magnetics had a black box called "the brain." There's a big warning label right on it that reads, "Do not attempt to fix this or alter it. Only the factory can do this."
... Why would you add a whole bunch of unnecessary, expensive infrastructure instead of just recording odometer readings at registration renewal time? Many jurisdictions already ask for that information for various reasons, including just simply for statistical analysis. It seems more logical to simply do that and then have a tax bill based on that, hopefully with the ability to pay monthly or something instead of one huge lump sum with the sticker shock that would make some people unable to afford to drive. :)
The solution to every problem is not necessarily more electronics and the bureaucracy to support and enforce.
Until gasoline powered cars proved to have more range and where easier to use despite the foul smell and noise.Nope.
Today, as the range is a 95% solved issue, the cost advantage is on a factor 3 on the side of the electric, so it will take 5-10 years for electrics to mainly replace gas.That is a nice dream but it ain't gonna happen that quick and it might not even happen at all.
Today, as the range is a 95% solved issue, the cost advantage is on a factor 3 on the side of the electric, so it will take 5-10 years for electrics to mainly replace gas.That is a nice dream but it ain't gonna happen that quick and it might not even happen at all.
1) For many people a car is a big ticket item so they buy one which fits all their needs. This means that the car they buy also needs to be fit for usage on 0.1% of the trips they make. Range is what kills an electric car here. Local constraints like taxation on ownership and limited parking space drive the need to buy a car which fits all usages.
All in all I don't see myself buying an electric car in the next 20 years (basically 3 to 4 cars from my current car).
Convenience is everything to most people. You simply can't beat topping up a tank with 500km+ range in a couple of minutes at a petrol station every couple of square km.
Imagine what would be needed if say 80% of the population switched to electric cars overnight, you wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere.
And even if they replaced every current petrol pump with an electric charger (ignoring grid infrastructure issues etc), you still wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere because people would need to leave their cars there for much longer than currently available.
I imagine that once people with an electric car have to experience having to wait 15-20 min at a charging station for a "quick top up", they will likely regret buying one.
I buy used cars like I buy used test equipment: preferably with a defect which I can fix and with around 160k km (100k miles) on the odometer. That has proven to be a sweet spot considering value for money. After a thourough overhaul (tyres, shock absorbers, airconditioning, brakes and whatever else needs to be done) we drive them until around 320k km (200k miles) because at that point the expensive repairs + generic overhaul come around and it doesn't really make sense to pour more money into a car. How quick the kilometers add up depends on how much driving we do so some cars we have for 4 years, others for like 8 years. Rust is also something I have to consider because during the winter the roads get a liberal load of salt over here.All in all I don't see myself buying an electric car in the next 20 years (basically 3 to 4 cars from my current car).
:wtf:
Seriously? You're on an engineering site and you go through 4 cars in 20 years?
Apparently passion for electronics doesn't translate into other genres of physics?!
My last two vehicles are the 1984 and the 1998, purchased new... No plans to swap anything out anytime soon... They are working absolutely fine... This April is the truck's 20th birthday since being picked up from the dealership... I should buy it a paint job! :)
Convenience is everything to most people. You simply can't beat topping up a tank with 500km+ range in a couple of minutes at a petrol station every couple of square km.
Imagine what would be needed if say 80% of the population switched to electric cars overnight, you wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere.
I imagine that once people with an electric car have to experience having to wait 15-20 min at a charging station for a "quick top up", they will likely regret buying one.
Many people would be able to charge overnight at home. Shopping malls, businesses, etc. would be able to offer a charging service to attract customers. etc.
Not if charging can be done in parallel with common tasks like shopping/sleeping/working/eating. Remember: Electric cars also offer a lot of ways to avoid driving out of your way to go to a smelly petrol station every 500km.
It won't work for everybody but for many people it will balance out IMHO.
Also: A new battery tech might appear and change the equation overnight.
Convenience is everything to most people. You simply can't beat topping up a tank with 500km+ range in a couple of minutes at a petrol station every couple of square km.
Imagine what would be needed if say 80% of the population switched to electric cars overnight, you wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere.
And even if they replaced every current petrol pump with an electric charger (ignoring grid infrastructure issues etc), you still wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere because people would need to leave their cars there for much longer than currently available.
I imagine that once people with an electric car have to experience having to wait 15-20 min at a charging station for a "quick top up", they will likely regret buying one.
Indeed... There are many issues to be resolved before the electric panacea will be realized.
Many people do not seem to realize that in their head-long advocacy of the electric vehicle solving all problems for all time... :palm:
It is not nearly that simple, unfortunately...
One of the most common arguments I see against electric cars is that they're not suitable for ALL of many people's needs, people really get hung up on the assumption that one car has to do it all.My wife and I have equivalent cars which both need to be able to drive far and I think that is the same for many people.
The charge time is a complete non-issue, they plug in the car when they get home from work and it's fully charged the next morning.That only works if people can charge their cars at home. In densely populated areas that is impossible and people will depend on 'fast' charging stations. I have to park my car in the street. If I want to charge an EV from home I'd need an extention cord which is at least 50 meters long.
Regarding another comment, 4 cars in 20 years does seem like a lot to me. I bought a car with 225,000 miles on it for $500, drove it daily for 17 years and I'd still be driving it if not for getting rear ended by a semi. Got $6,000 for the car from the insurance due to it now being a classic and bought another similar car, hope to get another 17+ years out of it. If you take good care of a car it can last indefinitely until someone runs into it.That greatly depends on how many miles you drive and how you value your own safety. My current car (a Ford) is near the 320k km/ 200k miles mark. What is needed to get another 160k km/ 100k miles out of it are: a new timing belt, new clutch, new shock absorbers (safety), airco overhaul (safety) and some other stuff like brake fluid and new power steering hydraulic lines. That will set me back around 1700 euro which is way more than the car is worth. OTOH the car starts to rust at the wheel arches, the engine is using some oil, the gas mileage isn't that great and there is no guarantee nothing else vital will break down (over here we have annual mandatory vehicle checks which a car must pass to be road legal). All in all it is more sensible for me to stretch usage into 2019 and look for a different car then (which brings me back to my wife having an equivalent car we can use the same way so no hurry). I'm eyeballing a newer model with a 1 litre turbocharged engine but I need more info on reliability and issues. A newer car is likely to have safety improvements like ESP.
Indeed... There are many issues to be resolved before the electric panacea will be realized.What problems remain ?
Many people do not seem to realize that in their head-long advocacy of the electric vehicle solving all problems for all time... :palm:
It is not nearly that simple, unfortunately...
Generally using switched rheostat sections and/or multiple motor windings or voltage stages. Using multiple tapped parts rather than one big rheostat limits wasted power in the rheostat.It means the excess power is converted to heat in the resistor. That way you can only control motors up to a certain size using such a technology before that resistor burns - not to mention the significant loss of the stored energy in the control alone and the influence of overload on the vehicle leading to direct damage in motor or control (basically no motor protection existed back then). Does an internal combustion engine shred if you try to start with overload?
Some of the stuff from that era was actually rather ingenious. You should read up on it more. :)
Sure, but still a HUGE number of people will get caught out.Just for info: there are quite some startups (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/london-street-lamps-electric-car-charging-points-ubitricity-tech-firm-hounslow-council-richmond-a7809126.html) coming up with equipment converting street lamps to charging outlets. So that might change the picture a bit.
And IME huger numbers of people park on the street outside their house so that's not possible.
And FYI, I"m hugely pro electric cars, and want to get one myself, by the practical engineer in me knows it's not going to go mainstream any time soon, it's not even close.It´s sad that the range extender (aka plug-in hybrid) doesn´t find as much traction as it should. It does combine the best of both and can even solve some issues by having the ICE run in practical ideal conditions all the time.
It´s sad that the range extender (aka plug-in hybrid) doesn´t find as much traction as it should. It does combine the best of both and can even solve some issues by having the ICE run in practical ideal conditions all the time.PHEV have the drawbacks of both technologies :
It means the excess power is converted to heat in the resistor. That way you can only control motors up to a certain size using such a technology before that resistor burns - not to mention the significant loss of the stored energy in the control alone and the influence of overload on the vehicle leading to direct damage in motor or control (basically no motor protection existed back then).Yep, there's some waste, but usually it's only during acceleration, the resistors are not used during coast, then you use the multiple taps on the DC motor.
PHEV have the drawbacks of both technologies :Hah, right, of course it depends which/whose specs apply.
- Cost is high, you have to pack both techs.Once it is a competitive environment, yes, but so long cost and price often have not much to do with each other. In other words there are many examples in which the brand name sells.
- Efficiency in long rage is as bad or worse as pure ICEImho thats more or less a question of measurement drive cycle compared to real life. Or comparison between each other. Most people can´t achieve the rated fuel consumption because of their driving habits or simply the amount of traffic around them, a generator decoupled from that and buffered almost guarantees ideal conditions. This application isn´t a single/static operating point.
- Weight is high, you shclepp that ICE engine around every day for no benefitThe weight of a vehicle does not take the full downside in a vehicle that is able to recuperate energy from its kinetic energy. In a conventional ICE it would be converted to heat in the brake discs.
- Not much space left in the carIt´s a question which customer should be served (again, specs), who it is designed for and which use case. The technology itself is scalable.
- Maintenance costs are high, especially on ICE engines that are not regularily usedLess than in a conventional ICE, taking recuperation in account. What the car can´t do, is being clairvoyant. It can´t know if it makes sense to operate the ICE or not to minimise wear and tear without further information like a navigation route or button press.
It's clearly a stop gap measure, or for some niche drive profiles.Imho yes and no, it´s not as if there was only one possibility toward which each and everyone needs to orient to. Diversity does make some sense, i think.
I would even say it's a stop gap measure designed for keeping the actual car makers in buisiness, not for saving costs.
Problems are all solved, adoption is going up and up. the EV park is currently at 0.2% globally, and doubling every year. :)Keep on dreaming and when you wake up look for a term called 'market saturation' https://www.consumerpsychologist.com/cb_Diffusion_of_Innovation.html (https://www.consumerpsychologist.com/cb_Diffusion_of_Innovation.html). The current EVs are like iPhones and due to limitations of range, charging and price EVs will stay that way for quite some time to come.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf (https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf)
That means that in 8 Years at the current rate, half the car park, and 80%+ of new cars will be EVs.
He is right. Solid state lithium battery is just around the corner, and that will reduce the battery cost significantly. First we see a drop around 50%, in about 2-3 years, then some due to the optimization.Problems are all solved, adoption is going up and up. the EV park is currently at 0.2% globally, and doubling every year. :)Keep on dreaming and when you wake up look for a term called 'market saturation' https://www.consumerpsychologist.com/cb_Diffusion_of_Innovation.html (https://www.consumerpsychologist.com/cb_Diffusion_of_Innovation.html). The current EVs are like iPhones and due to limitations of range, charging and price EVs will stay that way for quite some time to come.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf (https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf)
That means that in 8 Years at the current rate, half the car park, and 80%+ of new cars will be EVs.
He is right. Solid state lithium battery is just around the corner, and that will reduce the battery cost significantly. First we see a drop around 50%, in about 2-3 years, then some due to the optimization.
Yes, I am saying, that in 2-3 years, EV will cost less than ICE
Last month was another record month for the country [Norway] with electric cars representing 42% of its new vehicles being registered.
Maybe 4+ years for costs to come down: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/25/electric-cars-will-be-cheaper-than-conventional-vehicles-by-2022 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/25/electric-cars-will-be-cheaper-than-conventional-vehicles-by-2022)This greatly depends on how you calculate TCO and I assume these numbers only look at purchase price and maintenance costs during the first few years and not the entire usefull life of a car. If you calculate TCO over the first 100k km (the typical lease period over here) then the depreciation is a large chunk. If I take my own car as an example. It cost nearly 28k euro when new and when I bought it with around 140k km I paid 5k euro. That means that the previous owners paid over 16 cents per km for just the depreciation. I OTOH pay around 3 cents per km in depreciation. It is unclear how that equation works out for an EV. If a used EV is going to need a new battery pack it may be worth a negative number by the time the first owner is going to buy a new car.
But you can still get a hell of a deal on a used electric before then.
There are many use cases where a hybrid vehicle would make a good fit and overcome the higher initial cost, but even that point is already trying to tie down the discussion. The Prius sizes both the electric and petrol engines too small for either to completely operate the vehicle within "normal" performance that customers demand, so they've not added two duplicate systems but pared both down to minimal cost/weight/size to complement each other.It´s sad that the range extender (aka plug-in hybrid) doesn´t find as much traction as it should. It does combine the best of both and can even solve some issues by having the ICE run in practical ideal conditions all the time.PHEV have the drawbacks of both technologies :
- Cost is high, you have to pack both techs.
- Efficiency in long rage is as bad or worse as pure ICE
- Weight is high, you schlepp that ICE engine around every day for no benefit
- Not much space left in the car
- Maintenance costs are high, especially on ICE engines that are not regularily used
It's clearly a stop gap measure, or for some niche drive profiles.
I would even say it's a stop gap measure designed for keeping the actual car makers in buisiness, not for saving costs.
- Efficiency in long rage is as bad or worse as pure ICEThis is unfounded, even cruising steadily on a highway a hybrid vehicle can out perform the fuel efficiency of a pure ICE as it can:
- Weight is high, you schlepp that ICE engine around every day for no benefitThe benefit is that you need a whole lot less batteries than a pure electric vehicle, or a smaller ICE engine than otherwise. Weight would be higher than a pure ICE vehicle but offset by the ability to recover energy in deceleration (the major efficiency penalty of weight).
- Not much space left in the carBatteries to make up a similar range would be far more voluminous than the addition of a compact ICE and fuel source. Also the interior space of a car is an independent parameter, few vehicles are limited on their exterior sizing!
- Maintenance costs are high, especially on ICE engines that are not regularily usedOnly if you are used to the historical xxx km or yyy years servicing intervals, modern ICE units are now running on longer timed maintenance and dynamically determined usage based periods.
How often are you needing to use both of them at the same time for trips too far to use an electric alternative? And then the follow up of for those few times when it really is needed to have multiple long distance vehicles how much would a rental cost?One of the most common arguments I see against electric cars is that they're not suitable for ALL of many people's needs, people really get hung up on the assumption that one car has to do it all.My wife and I have equivalent cars which both need to be able to drive far and I think that is the same for many people.
He is right. Solid state lithium battery is just around the corner, and that will reduce the battery cost significantly. First we see a drop around 50%, in about 2-3 years, then some due to the optimization.That also means to stay competitive, all other variants will go down in cost, squeezing the last bits out. A manufacturer with a unique selling point will try to make as much money as possible before production is able to deliver targeted amounts and take a premium on that unique selling point.
Yes, I am saying, that in 2-3 years, EV will cost less than ICE, though we will also see a range increase.Just as much one shouldn´t sell all possessions because someone said "the end is near" same applies for "a better future awaits you". It might not be selling all possessions in this case, but spending quite some resources.
One has to be an really desperate to buy a ICE car, when the electric is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and serves 99% of use cases.
The charge time is a complete non-issue, they plug in the car when they get home from work and it's fully charged the next morning.
This is unfounded, even cruising steadily on a highway a hybrid vehicle can out perform the fuel efficiency of a pure ICE as it can:In ICEs there is the trend of downsizing the engines and using a turbocharger to make the engine have a very wide range where it operates very efficiently which does save a considerable amount of fuel in real driving circumstances. When comparing pure ICE to hybrid it is hard to compare apples with apples. Often the 'average car' is used however what the 'average' car consumes depends very much on where you look. In the US the average car consumes way more fuel compared to the average car in Europe.
Run the engine at the most efficient power point and store excess energy before turning off the engine
How often are you needing to use both of them at the same time for trips too far to use an electric alternative? And then the follow up of for those few times when it really is needed to have multiple long distance vehicles how much would a rental cost?One of the most common arguments I see against electric cars is that they're not suitable for ALL of many people's needs, people really get hung up on the assumption that one car has to do it all.My wife and I have equivalent cars which both need to be able to drive far and I think that is the same for many people.
Not just that but charging a large number of cars in a suburban area is going to overload the electricity distribution network big time. These have not been designed for this kind of usage. When EVs become widely used then going to a fast charging station just like going to petrol station is the only option. This in turn means that in order to allow wide adoptation of EVs the batteries need to be charged within a few minutes maximum and thus a better battery technology needs to become mainstream first.The charge time is a complete non-issue, they plug in the car when they get home from work and it's fully charged the next morning.You need to consider that a lot of people in the 1st world countries don't live in the US-style suburbs where everyone lives in a house that has a convenient outlet and a garage for (at least) two large cars, so plugging in their Tesla overnight is no problem.
And two or more cars per family? Again dream on - given the costs of owning a car in Europe, this is rare. Most families have only one car, two are an absolute maximum most people will ever have in one household at a time.That is a bit overly dramatic. On average it may be true but my wife and I aren't the exception in the street for having two cars. Generally speaking people with a job have a car to go to work unless the job happens to be near a train station but usually that is not the case. Worse, in the NL public transport to areas where the companies are located is generally speaking the worse of all. Public transport is also slow. In some cases I can beat the bus on foot and most certainly with my bycicle when it comes to travel time. -End of rant-
Price is always going to be a big determinant of market share, there is little incentive for people to personally change to electric unless they will see direct benefits (congestion charge or registration exemption, etc).The charge time is a complete non-issue, they plug in the car when they get home from work and it's fully charged the next morning.You need to consider that a lot of people in the 1st world countries don't live in the US-style suburbs where everyone lives in a house that has a convenient outlet and a garage for (at least) two large cars, so plugging in their Tesla overnight is no problem.
I do wonder what are you going to do with the apartment dwellers living in the cities? Most of them are lucky to have place to park (outdoors, not a garage). A charge port there? Dream on. Ain't happening in most places, at least not unless you pay for it out of your own pocket.
And two or more cars per family? Again dream on - given the costs of owning a car in Europe, this is rare. Most families have only one car, two are an absolute maximum most people will ever have in one household at a time.
Unfortunately cities with lots of people living in the blocks of flats also happen to be the place where an electric car would make the most sense (pollution reduction, low range isn't a problem, etc.).
So the range and charging time/possibility to charge issues are very much a large part why these cars aren't going to be massively popular any time soon. There is also the issue of price - right now a tiny electric car costs as much as a large gasoline one, with much less useful value. But that will probably change quicker than the other issues.
That only helps so much, typically a 20-30% reduction in fuel which a hybrid can then save another 30% or so again on top of that. Much of the NEDC (and real world driving) is down in the inefficient band of low torque demand which downsizing and adding a turbo doesn't really address. There is a good paper here showing the driving cycles overlaid on the BSFC plots for a hybrid and non-hybrid vehicle:This is unfounded, even cruising steadily on a highway a hybrid vehicle can out perform the fuel efficiency of a pure ICE as it can:In ICEs there is the trend of downsizing the engines and using a turbocharger to make the engine have a very wide range where it operates very efficiently which does save a considerable amount of fuel in real driving circumstances. When comparing pure ICE to hybrid it is hard to compare apples with apples. Often the 'average car' is used however what the 'average' car consumes depends very much on where you look. In the US the average car consumes way more fuel compared to the average car in Europe.
Run the engine at the most efficient power point and store excess energy before turning off the engine
Car reliability is exceptional and there is a well developed industry around providing rapid assistance should they fail, a rental car is probably even more reliable as they have strong monetary incentives to not have the vehicles fail.I has proven to me that having one lesser car means that you rely on the good car to always work. Cars do break down and the difference between getting them fixed the next day or next week is usually a couple of hundred euro. Worse if a car needs replacing. For example: 'my' car is near end of life so we use that for short trips so we can postpone the purchase of a car to 2019. Also smaller cars are not comfortable to drive and seem unsafer to me because they have less body to wreck.How often are you needing to use both of them at the same time for trips too far to use an electric alternative? And then the follow up of for those few times when it really is needed to have multiple long distance vehicles how much would a rental cost?One of the most common arguments I see against electric cars is that they're not suitable for ALL of many people's needs, people really get hung up on the assumption that one car has to do it all.My wife and I have equivalent cars which both need to be able to drive far and I think that is the same for many people.
I live in a household with 2 cars, one for long distance trips, and one for around town. Its never ever been necessary to drive long distances in the around town car and we wouldn't want to as its just too uncomfortable for that.
But you pay for that rapid assistance and you pay for depreciation + interest on invested money when you rent a car so it is going to be more expensive quickly compared to owning a car. If you buy a second hand car you pay way less for depreciation and if you can do without one car for a week then things become even cheaper. TCO is the key word here.I has proven to me that having one lesser car means that you rely on the good car to always work. Cars do break down and the difference between getting them fixed the next day or next week is usually a couple of hundred euro. Worse if a car needs replacing. For example: 'my' car is near end of life so we use that for short trips so we can postpone the purchase of a car to 2019. Also smaller cars are not comfortable to drive and seem unsafer to me because they have less body to wreck.Car reliability is exceptional and there is a well developed industry around providing rapid assistance should they fail, a rental car is probably even more reliable as they have strong monetary incentives to not have the vehicles fail.
Jumping to car safety and size is another pointless discussion, you can have plug in electric vehicles of any size and shape and they don't have different safety ratings to other cars (the increased mass hasn't been fully explained away).Safety ratings are based on predefined laboratory tests which can be cheated. IIRC the Renault Megane was the first car to score 5 stars. However if you crash it with like 5km/h more than the speed used during the test it will kill you. More stuff and distance between you and whatever hits you equals a slower decelleration and more stuff to absorb the impact energy which equals a higher chance of survival.
That you've ignored the simple point that its extremely rare for a multi vehicle household to use all their vehicles simultaneously in a way that is incompatible with one of them being electric says enough, we know its a very unusual event.I'm not ignoring it but an EV or small car wouldn't work for us at all for various reasons. I don't think it is wise to push people into having a certain kind of car depending on what you think is right for them so the point is rather moot. People will choose what works best for them given functionality versus price.
Actually, I've just checked the prices.He is right. Solid state lithium battery is just around the corner, and that will reduce the battery cost significantly. First we see a drop around 50%, in about 2-3 years, then some due to the optimization.
Yes, I am saying, that in 2-3 years, EV will cost less than ICE
Without government subsidies?
I'll take that bet.
Still better post a link because I can't find it and Google only comes up with marketing BS from Musk making promises.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-finally-launches-a-trucksemi/175/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-finally-launches-a-trucksemi/175/)
Well the article that post is linking to is one the articles I found myself. I'm wondering how you come to the conclusion that solid state batteries will be in volume production within 2 or 3 years by reading that article. It is one of the many marketing BS stories Musk has spread to drive stock value up. The same article quotes various specialists from Bloomberg which have serious doubts about Musk's claims combined with the timeframe. Musk's ideas usually need way more time to become reality. In an article I linked to a few posts earlier the inventor of a solid state Lithium battery (Mr. Goodenough) says 15 years is more likely before we see solid state Lithium batteries for mainstream usage.Still better post a link because I can't find it and Google only comes up with marketing BS from Musk making promises.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-finally-launches-a-trucksemi/175/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-finally-launches-a-trucksemi/175/)
Except you jumped in on this thread to explain how it wouldn't work for you when the comments weren't directed at you and then wander off with straw man arguments like trying to link the safety of arbitrary small cars to the safety of electric cars. Seems you're the one looking to find problems and we aren't here trying to convince you but you came trying to tell us how it'll never work (and failing to convince us in the process).Jumping to car safety and size is another pointless discussion, you can have plug in electric vehicles of any size and shape and they don't have different safety ratings to other cars (the increased mass hasn't been fully explained away).Safety ratings are based on predefined laboratory tests which can be cheated. IIRC the Renault Megane was the first car to score 5 stars. However if you crash it with like 5km/h more than the speed used during the test it will kill you. More stuff and distance between you and whatever hits you equals a slower decelleration and more stuff to absorb the impact energy which equals a higher chance of survival.That you've ignored the simple point that its extremely rare for a multi vehicle household to use all their vehicles simultaneously in a way that is incompatible with one of them being electric says enough, we know its a very unusual event.I'm not ignoring it but an EV or small car wouldn't work for us at all for various reasons. I don't think it is wise to push people into having a certain kind of car depending on what you think is right for them so the point is rather moot. People will choose what works best for them given functionality versus price.
Sorry but it is you comming up with statements like its extremely rare for a multi vehicle household to use all their vehicles simultaneously in a way that is incompatible with one of them being electric. Please provide some solid numbers to back that up! I don't care about your opinion.The data is easy to find, daily travel distances per vehicle/person are not pushing the limits of an electric car with a 200km range. We can find well presented data with distributions of the daily travel distance:
This greatly depends on how you calculate TCO and I assume these numbers only look at purchase price and maintenance costs during the first few years and not the entire usefull life of a car. If you calculate TCO over the first 100k km (the typical lease period over here) then the depreciation is a large chunk. If I take my own car as an example. It cost nearly 28k euro when new and when I bought it with around 140k km I paid 5k euro. That means that the previous owners paid over 16 cents per km for just the depreciation. I OTOH pay around 3 cents per km in depreciation. It is unclear how that equation works out for an EV. If a used EV is going to need a new battery pack it may be worth a negative number by the time the first owner is going to buy a new car.
My wife and I have equivalent cars which both need to be able to drive far and I think that is the same for many people.
That only works if people can charge their cars at home. In densely populated areas that is impossible and people will depend on 'fast' charging stations. I have to park my car in the street. If I want to charge an EV from home I'd need an extention cord which is at least 50 meters long.
That greatly depends on how many miles you drive and how you value your own safety. My current car (a Ford) is near the 320k km/ 200k miles mark. What is needed to get another 160k km/ 100k miles out of it are: a new timing belt, new clutch, new shock absorbers (safety), airco overhaul (safety) and some other stuff like brake fluid and new power steering hydraulic lines. That will set me back around 1700 euro which is way more than the car is worth. OTOH the car starts to rust at the wheel arches, the engine is using some oil, the gas mileage isn't that great and there is no guarantee nothing else vital will break down (over here we have annual mandatory vehicle checks which a car must pass to be road legal). All in all it is more sensible for me to stretch usage into 2019 and look for a different car then (which brings me back to my wife having an equivalent car we can use the same way so no hurry). I'm eyeballing a newer model with a 1 litre turbocharged engine but I need more info on reliability and issues. A newer car is likely to have safety improvements like ESP.
High density housing will pretty much soon mean you will be doing some form of public transport, or uber or other such non metered taxi service, where the supplier will have the infrastructure to charge an EV in off peak periods, and thus you will not really need the personal vehicle but will time share. Here where there are long distances, the electric vehicle or hybrid is still a good match, as most people typically do up to 100km in a day maximum, and for longer rare trips you are frankly a lot better off renting a vehicle for that.
If I need to move something big I will just go to the Whynott service station 15km away from me, and rent a "Whynott Rent a Bakkie" for a hourly rate or daily rate. No associated costs with depreciation, servicing, insurance and all you have is the well used Toyota/ Isuzu or Nissan with a full tank of fuel, and when you are finished you drive it back, fill up again at the garage, park it literally 5m away from the pump, go pay with your credit card and away you go. Rent for a month a year and still come out ahead on a rental vehicle.
That is a bit overly dramatic. On average it may be true but my wife and I aren't the exception in the street for having two cars. Generally speaking people with a job have a car to go to work unless the job happens to be near a train station but usually that is not the case. Worse, in the NL public transport to areas where the companies are located is generally speaking the worse of all. Public transport is also slow. In some cases I can beat the bus on foot and most certainly with my bycicle when it comes to travel time. -End of rant-
The low wage workers around these parts have figured out how to avoid needing the cost of owning multiple cars per household, they ride share with other employees to the work site. Each morning you see the planned pickups occurring on their sharp little schedules, stopping no more than a few seconds for the waiting worker before heading off again. Sharing all the costs of fuel, parking, etc makes it much more affordable while still retaining most of the benefits of a direct journey at the required time.High density housing will pretty much soon mean you will be doing some form of public transport, or uber or other such non metered taxi service, where the supplier will have the infrastructure to charge an EV in off peak periods, and thus you will not really need the personal vehicle but will time share. Here where there are long distances, the electric vehicle or hybrid is still a good match, as most people typically do up to 100km in a day maximum, and for longer rare trips you are frankly a lot better off renting a vehicle for that.
If I need to move something big I will just go to the Whynott service station 15km away from me, and rent a "Whynott Rent a Bakkie" for a hourly rate or daily rate. No associated costs with depreciation, servicing, insurance and all you have is the well used Toyota/ Isuzu or Nissan with a full tank of fuel, and when you are finished you drive it back, fill up again at the garage, park it literally 5m away from the pump, go pay with your credit card and away you go. Rent for a month a year and still come out ahead on a rental vehicle.
That's very much a fantasy. Yes, you may not need a car to commute to work everyday if the public transport works because you live in the middle of a large city and have a good paying job (so you can afford renting the car occasionally too). But we are far from public transport being ubiquitous, going everywhere where needed (and not only where there are enough paying clients to make it profitable) and it still doesn't cover long distance travel.
Using "Uber" or renting a car works great in theory - if you are rich enough to be able to afford it. I suggest you visit e.g. one of the Parisian suburbs (which I live some 40minutes from) and tell the people there they should get rid of their old polluting cars and call a taxi/Uber or rent a car. These suburbs or "banlieues" are usually full of blocks of flats, being typically homes of low income families.
Only few of these suburbs are served by train/public transport, so the car is often the only option how to actually get the 10-20km to work. There is also little to no infrastructure there (schools, hospitals, shopping, etc., certainly no car rental or even self-service car sharing - that is only downtown), so again, without a car you are screwed. And most people living in the blocks of flats there are low wage laborers (if they have work at all), so very ill suited to renting a car or taking a taxi to work every day. I guess you haven't checked how much would that actually cost you if you had to take e.g. a 10km commute every day by calling a taxi (or Uber).
So it doesn't work for 20% (1 out of 5). That isn't extremely rare like you told us.Sorry but it is you comming up with statements like its extremely rare for a multi vehicle household to use all their vehicles simultaneously in a way that is incompatible with one of them being electric. Please provide some solid numbers to back that up! I don't care about your opinion.The data is easy to find, daily travel distances per vehicle/person are not pushing the limits of an electric car with a 200km range. We can find well presented data with distributions of the daily travel distance:
https://chartingtransport.com/2011/06/19/travel-variations-across-victoria/ (https://chartingtransport.com/2011/06/19/travel-variations-across-victoria/)
https://evobsession.com/best-electric-car-for-the-average-american/ (https://evobsession.com/best-electric-car-for-the-average-american/)
So the probability that two people in the same household require on the same day separate vehicles each with a range exceeding 200km is tiny. You can even find comprehensive analysis here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X16000371 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X16000371)
One 400km range electric car would satisfy as a substitute for 80% of the households with multiple cars without any adaption or change in their behaviours.
But now you are doing what you are accusing me for doing: because it works for you, it can work for many. All I'm saying is that you have to be carefull because the situation varies a lot by area and country so you can't have a one-size-fits-all solution.My wife and I have equivalent cars which both need to be able to drive far and I think that is the same for many people.Ok so electric probably won't work for you, but as with the solar road thread I've noticed you are prone to assuming that because something doesn't work for you, it can't possibly work for most other people.There are millions and millions of people who can simply plug in at night, even if you can't.
That only works if people can charge their cars at home. In densely populated areas that is impossible and people will depend on 'fast' charging stations. I have to park my car in the street. If I want to charge an EV from home I'd need an extention cord which is at least 50 meters long.
That greatly depends on how many miles you drive and how you value your own safety. My current car (a Ford) is near the 320k km/ 200k miles mark. What is needed to get another 160k km/ 100k miles out of it are: a new timing belt, new clutch, new shock absorbers (safety), airco overhaul (safety) and some other stuff like brake fluid and new power steering hydraulic lines. That will set me back around 1700 euro which is way more than the car is worth. OTOH the car starts to rust at the wheel arches, the engine is using some oil, the gas mileage isn't that great and there is no guarantee nothing else vital will break down (over here we have annual mandatory vehicle checks which a car must pass to be road legal). All in all it is more sensible for me to stretch usage into 2019 and look for a different car then (which brings me back to my wife having an equivalent car we can use the same way so no hurry). I'm eyeballing a newer model with a 1 litre turbocharged engine but I need more info on reliability and issues. A newer car is likely to have safety improvements like ESP.
I value my safety quite a lot, it's the reason I drive a Volvo. My '87 got rear ended by a tanker semi that was going ~50 mph while I was stopped, once everything came to a stop I opened the door, got out and walked away without so much as a scratch. Despite being 30 years old the car performed absolutely flawlessly, the crumple zones and reinforced cage did exactly what they were designed to do. Being old doesn't mean unsafe.Volvo is known for their safety in the pre-Ford years. Still features like ABS and ESP do make a difference. A couple of months ago I nearly ran into someone who ignored a red light at an intersection. Thanks to ABS I could brake hard and still steer the car around the other car.
Thats 20% would need to make some changes to their routine on some days of the year, which brings me back to the point I keep making:So it doesn't work for 20% (1 out of 5). That isn't extremely rare like you told us.Sorry but it is you comming up with statements like its extremely rare for a multi vehicle household to use all their vehicles simultaneously in a way that is incompatible with one of them being electric. Please provide some solid numbers to back that up! I don't care about your opinion.The data is easy to find, daily travel distances per vehicle/person are not pushing the limits of an electric car with a 200km range. We can find well presented data with distributions of the daily travel distance:
https://chartingtransport.com/2011/06/19/travel-variations-across-victoria/ (https://chartingtransport.com/2011/06/19/travel-variations-across-victoria/)
https://evobsession.com/best-electric-car-for-the-average-american/ (https://evobsession.com/best-electric-car-for-the-average-american/)
So the probability that two people in the same household require on the same day separate vehicles each with a range exceeding 200km is tiny. You can even find comprehensive analysis here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X16000371 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X16000371)
One 400km range electric car would satisfy as a substitute for 80% of the households with multiple cars without any adaption or change in their behaviours.
pointing out that with just a little change to the existing transport plans the majority of people could replace one of their multiple cars with an electric vehicle, yes there will be some changes and the occasional rare day/event that can't be covered but rental cars, borrowing vehicles, or changing behaviours are possible solutions.That excellent research I pointed you to noted that 80% of households could replace their 2nd car with an electric vehicle of only 220km range and still have at worst 12 days a year requiring an "adaption". Or with the 300km range electric vehicle 80% of households could operate without any adaption to their vehicle use. Since you don't appear to have read the paper you know what an adaption could include? Charing a vehicle during the day.... as if no one ever fills their petrol car with fuel during the day and the car would never be parked anywhere it could be charged. You could find arbitrary points of XX% of households for particular range vehicles and rates of adaption but the paper only reports up to 80%.
True but it is something to consider when purchasing a used EV. It would make life easier if there is some way to read the state of health of a battery pack. Unfortunately that technology is still under development. I had a similar issue when buying my current car. My previous cars had diesel engines and the last one suffered quite a few engine related issues common for that model. All in all modern diesels have become relatively unreliable beyond the first 150k km and expensive to repair so I didn't want to take the risk and bought a car which runs on gasoline. It is more expensive to run but I don't risk needing to spend several thousands on engine repairs which cannot be predicted. Just like a battery you can't see how far an engine is worn and what is about to fail from the outside. You can only go by looking at problems which happen often and choose to take the chance or not.This greatly depends on how you calculate TCO and I assume these numbers only look at purchase price and maintenance costs during the first few years and not the entire usefull life of a car. If you calculate TCO over the first 100k km (the typical lease period over here) then the depreciation is a large chunk. If I take my own car as an example. It cost nearly 28k euro when new and when I bought it with around 140k km I paid 5k euro. That means that the previous owners paid over 16 cents per km for just the depreciation. I OTOH pay around 3 cents per km in depreciation. It is unclear how that equation works out for an EV. If a used EV is going to need a new battery pack it may be worth a negative number by the time the first owner is going to buy a new car.When the original Prius came out I predicted a catastrophe. I was certain that within 10 years there would be piles of them in junkyards with nothing more than dead batteries which cost $10k at the time. Turns out I was wrong, the batteries in the Prius turned out to be very reliable, I know of multiple 1st gen models still running the original battery and replacement batteries have dropped down to around $2k. The battery replacement cost is a concern for pure electrics but I'm not going to be too quick to predict doom and gloom, the last time I did that I was wrong.
The low wage workers around these parts have figured out how to avoid needing the cost of owning multiple cars per household, they ride share with other employees to the work site. Each morning you see the planned pickups occurring on their sharp little schedules, stopping no more than a few seconds for the waiting worker before heading off again. Sharing all the costs of fuel, parking, etc makes it much more affordable while still retaining most of the benefits of a direct journey at the required time.High density housing will pretty much soon mean you will be doing some form of public transport, or uber or other such non metered taxi service, where the supplier will have the infrastructure to charge an EV in off peak periods, and thus you will not really need the personal vehicle but will time share. Here where there are long distances, the electric vehicle or hybrid is still a good match, as most people typically do up to 100km in a day maximum, and for longer rare trips you are frankly a lot better off renting a vehicle for that.
If I need to move something big I will just go to the Whynott service station 15km away from me, and rent a "Whynott Rent a Bakkie" for a hourly rate or daily rate. No associated costs with depreciation, servicing, insurance and all you have is the well used Toyota/ Isuzu or Nissan with a full tank of fuel, and when you are finished you drive it back, fill up again at the garage, park it literally 5m away from the pump, go pay with your credit card and away you go. Rent for a month a year and still come out ahead on a rental vehicle.
That's very much a fantasy. Yes, you may not need a car to commute to work everyday if the public transport works because you live in the middle of a large city and have a good paying job (so you can afford renting the car occasionally too). But we are far from public transport being ubiquitous, going everywhere where needed (and not only where there are enough paying clients to make it profitable) and it still doesn't cover long distance travel.
Using "Uber" or renting a car works great in theory - if you are rich enough to be able to afford it. I suggest you visit e.g. one of the Parisian suburbs (which I live some 40minutes from) and tell the people there they should get rid of their old polluting cars and call a taxi/Uber or rent a car. These suburbs or "banlieues" are usually full of blocks of flats, being typically homes of low income families.
Only few of these suburbs are served by train/public transport, so the car is often the only option how to actually get the 10-20km to work. There is also little to no infrastructure there (schools, hospitals, shopping, etc., certainly no car rental or even self-service car sharing - that is only downtown), so again, without a car you are screwed. And most people living in the blocks of flats there are low wage laborers (if they have work at all), so very ill suited to renting a car or taking a taxi to work every day. I guess you haven't checked how much would that actually cost you if you had to take e.g. a 10km commute every day by calling a taxi (or Uber).
Through my life I've car pooled, caught public transport, used the company bus, walked, cycled, and combined all of those travel modes in various combinations to get to and from work. Not everyone can access public transport but it sure is convenient (and usually cheap) when you can, thats all part of the decision making which should be going in to deciding where to live and work. I wouldn't want to live in an environment where I'm dependent on having a car but some people are happy to choose that for their own reasons.
mainstream? probably not with today's technology, however as a cheap runabout shopping trolley.That already exists and is called a golf cart. I've seen these being used for just what you describe.
when cheap electric cars get recycled as an aluminium can on wheels.
a $15.000 disposable electric production car. that has
less automation = millennials, need to learn how to drive a car,
no power steering, no power windows ,less doors less glass
a 3 door hatchback, no in car entertainment system. that's an extra.
lower gearing 95kmh max speed. = less powerful motors. 80 km range. its a four seat shopping trolley.
Electrics will be fairly niche for the foreseeable future barring some drastic price drop (don't see that happening bar a new battery innovation), massive government subsidies, or a huge oil shock.I can clearly see that points of view really depends per country/continent. (in general from comments in this topic)
Convenience is everything to most people. You simply can't beat topping up a tank with 500km+ range in a couple of minutes at a petrol station every couple of square km.
Imagine what would be needed if say 80% of the population switched to electric cars overnight, you wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere.
And even if they replaced every current petrol pump with an electric charger (ignoring grid infrastructure issues etc), you still wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere because people would need to leave their cars there for much longer than currently available.
I imagine that once people with an electric car have to experience having to wait 15-20 min at a charging station for a "quick top up", they will likely regret buying one.
After a few hours of driving someone needs to have break for at least 20-30 minutes anyway, which is enough to super charge your car for something like 90% or so.Only if you drive alone. My wife and I take turns driving and changing takes a few minutes max.
I guess personal preference. Most people I know really would like to take a break after a couple of hours.After a few hours of driving someone needs to have break for at least 20-30 minutes anyway, which is enough to super charge your car for something like 90% or so.Only if you drive alone. My wife and I take turns driving and changing takes a few minutes max.
mainstream? probably not with today's technology, however as a cheap runabout shopping trolley.
(...)
tesla designs are too up market. to expensive to be mainstream.
if you can afford a tesla you can also afford a 4x4 suv with towing capacity.
True it is personal preference. Taking a 20 to 30 minute break every 2 hours would make a trip very longwinded for us. With breaks that long you also arrive much later at the hotel (or other destination) which just cuts into dinner time and/or sleep time.I guess personal preference. Most people I know really would like to take a break after a couple of hours.After a few hours of driving someone needs to have break for at least 20-30 minutes anyway, which is enough to super charge your car for something like 90% or so.Only if you drive alone. My wife and I take turns driving and changing takes a few minutes max.
But again, the biggest part of how traffic is being used it not for these few holiday trips, but for commuting to work.
We have to solve the underlying issue first.Than we can close this whole topic straight away.
That already exists and is called a golf cart. I've seen these being used for just what you describe.
Which neatly brings us right back to the point that when you're travelling long distances there is usually more than one person in the car so their "daily" car doesn't need to have those capabilities. Either you're both needing to travel long distances independently at which point charging while taking breaks is a good idea, or you're travelling with another person who isn't using their vehicle and you can pick the most appropriate for the particular journey.True it is personal preference. Taking a 20 to 30 minute break every 2 hours would make a trip very longwinded for us. With breaks that long you also arrive much later at the hotel (or other destination) which just cuts into dinner time and/or sleep time.I guess personal preference. Most people I know really would like to take a break after a couple of hours.After a few hours of driving someone needs to have break for at least 20-30 minutes anyway, which is enough to super charge your car for something like 90% or so.Only if you drive alone. My wife and I take turns driving and changing takes a few minutes max.
But again, the biggest part of how traffic is being used it not for these few holiday trips, but for commuting to work.
As several have written before: most people buy a car based on 1% of their usage scenario because they can't have multiple cars for several reasons (purchase price, taxes, parking space, etc). This makes the 'most trips are commutes' point completely moot because that is not the driving factor when buying a car. For example when people tow a caravan once or twice a year they look for a car which is up to that task and it is number one on their requirement list.
I my situation it doesn't work that way. It can depend on all kind of things like needing a repair (car temporary out of order), the car needs to be washed, there is still has some luggage inside, different kind/state of tyres, not wanting to make too many kilometers with one particular car to postpone purchase, etc, etc which car gets used most.Which neatly brings us right back to the point that when you're travelling long distances there is usually more than one person in the car so their "daily" car doesn't need to have those capabilities. Either you're both needing to travel long distances independently at which point charging while taking breaks is a good idea, or you're travelling with another person who isn't using their vehicle and you can pick the most appropriate for the particular journey.True it is personal preference. Taking a 20 to 30 minute break every 2 hours would make a trip very longwinded for us. With breaks that long you also arrive much later at the hotel (or other destination) which just cuts into dinner time and/or sleep time.I guess personal preference. Most people I know really would like to take a break after a couple of hours.After a few hours of driving someone needs to have break for at least 20-30 minutes anyway, which is enough to super charge your car for something like 90% or so.Only if you drive alone. My wife and I take turns driving and changing takes a few minutes max.
But again, the biggest part of how traffic is being used it not for these few holiday trips, but for commuting to work.
As several have written before: most people buy a car based on 1% of their usage scenario because they can't have multiple cars for several reasons (purchase price, taxes, parking space, etc). This makes the 'most trips are commutes' point completely moot because that is not the driving factor when buying a car. For example when people tow a caravan once or twice a year they look for a car which is up to that task and it is number one on their requirement list.
Except we're at the point now where electric cars are available at many price/model points equivalent to many different fuel powered cars and the primary difference is they have a limited range and slower energy filling/charging, so its not a comparison to a "lesser" car 0.5 as you say but the same car with a different fuel source. You've continually tried to frame electric cars as inferior in some way without direct comparisons to similar vehicles. As the paper pointed to there is no need for most people to adapt, they already use their cars in a way that is compatible with an electric vehicle.I my situation it doesn't work that way. It can depend on all kind of things like needing a repair (car temporary out of order), the car needs to be washed, there is still has some luggage inside, different kind/state of tyres, not wanting to make too many kilometers with one particular car to postpone purchase, etc, etc which car gets used most.Which neatly brings us right back to the point that when you're travelling long distances there is usually more than one person in the car so their "daily" car doesn't need to have those capabilities. Either you're both needing to travel long distances independently at which point charging while taking breaks is a good idea, or you're travelling with another person who isn't using their vehicle and you can pick the most appropriate for the particular journey.True it is personal preference. Taking a 20 to 30 minute break every 2 hours would make a trip very longwinded for us. With breaks that long you also arrive much later at the hotel (or other destination) which just cuts into dinner time and/or sleep time.I guess personal preference. Most people I know really would like to take a break after a couple of hours.After a few hours of driving someone needs to have break for at least 20-30 minutes anyway, which is enough to super charge your car for something like 90% or so.Only if you drive alone. My wife and I take turns driving and changing takes a few minutes max.
But again, the biggest part of how traffic is being used it not for these few holiday trips, but for commuting to work.
As several have written before: most people buy a car based on 1% of their usage scenario because they can't have multiple cars for several reasons (purchase price, taxes, parking space, etc). This makes the 'most trips are commutes' point completely moot because that is not the driving factor when buying a car. For example when people tow a caravan once or twice a year they look for a car which is up to that task and it is number one on their requirement list.
Having 1.5 cars instead of 2 will limit your freedom no matter how you turn it around. The article you linked to earlier states that very clear. And need I remind you people buy cars based on 1% of their usage scenario so how likely is it they are going to adapt? If they would be willing to adapt they would already have bought a smaller (cheaper & more limited) car. Ergo your assumption people want to 'make do' with an electric go-kart is wrong because there is a distinct difference between 'can do' and 'willing to do'.
We can all come up with little personal and individual reasons.What you see nowadays is that electric cars get bought by people to whom an electric car is beneficial. Saying that an electric car works for nearly everyone with the big IF they change the way they use the car is just plain wrong. In such a situation an electric car basically gets degraded to a make-do crutch and is similar to advising people to use a horse & carriage instead of a proper car. If you look on car related fora at why people buy a certain car the 1% usage scenario is at the top of the requirements list so a car which can't do what is important to the buyer isn't going to fit the requirements. It is as simple as that. Nearly good enough isn't good enough.
The way how the market works is look at the bigger numbers.
Like I said before, how are most cars being used and how can you cut the most significant number from that.
90% of all cars are being used by just one person only (yes, using a >1000kg machine to move 70kg person)
I agree with you, but keep in mind that the government also has a big part in this for multiple reasons.We can all come up with little personal and individual reasons.What you see nowadays is that electric cars get bought by people to whom an electric car is beneficial. Saying that an electric car works for nearly everyone with the big IF they change the way they use the car is just plain wrong. In such a situation an electric car basically gets degraded to a make-do crutch and is similar to advising people to use a horse & carriage instead of a proper car. If you look on car related fora at why people buy a certain car the 1% usage scenario is at the top of the requirements list so a car which can't do what is important to the buyer isn't going to fit the requirements. It is as simple as that. Nearly good enough isn't good enough.
The way how the market works is look at the bigger numbers.
Like I said before, how are most cars being used and how can you cut the most significant number from that.
90% of all cars are being used by just one person only (yes, using a >1000kg machine to move 70kg person)
All in all let the market do its job indeed and when better/cheaper/more versatile electric cars become available more people will buy them.
However, in the UK at least, now is probably the best time to drive an electric car because of low second-hand prices and substantial running cost savings compared to a petrol or diesel vehicle. My 2015 Nissan LEAF saves me around £2000 ukp per year compared to my previous diesel car and is far more suited to the daily commute, it's the closest thing to free driving we are ever likely to see.Most European countries developed a model of massive taxation on transportation fuel to fund their transport infrastructure. They are always going to need that money which current electric car users are saving. As the electric car market grows it will be interesting to see how they try to manage the transition from subsidising electric cars as a stimulus, to clawing enough cash from electric car users to fund the roads.
Thats an ageing myth, are you perhaps a time traveller from 1937?However, in the UK at least, now is probably the best time to drive an electric car because of low second-hand prices and substantial running cost savings compared to a petrol or diesel vehicle. My 2015 Nissan LEAF saves me around £2000 ukp per year compared to my previous diesel car and is far more suited to the daily commute, it's the closest thing to free driving we are ever likely to see.Most European countries developed a model of massive taxation on transportation fuel to fund their transport infrastructure. They are always going to need that money which current electric car users are saving. As the electric car market grows it will be interesting to see how they try to manage the transition from subsidising electric cars as a stimulus, to clawing enough cash from electric car users to fund the roads.
Think I've said this before but the major issues are:In the Netherlands the have the same issue with parking.
Not having a dedicated driveway or garage at which to charge the car is a pretty fundamental problem. Many Scottish houses do not, and even the new ones are often built with separate shared parking. The problem there would be that an illegal parker in your space means no use of the car tomorrow.
Not everyone is a commuter. Some people only use their cars for longer distance journeys. Even with a 200 mile range, as soon as you go beyond 100 miles you risk being stranded if there are no charge points. Or if they are all in use.
The cost of a hotel room for an overnight charging stop totally outweighs any fuel cost saving. (and when you consider the extra energy used in an overnight stop, overall energy use is probably more than returning home with an IC engine)
The majority of the car market is for used cars. Buying new is very expensive in terms of depreciation. Used electric cars will be a big gamble due to battery condition questions.
We are constantly being told to turn off lights to save the limited amount of energy provided by renewables. One electric car motor, 2000 lightbulbs or more. No calculator needed for this one. It is simply unsustainable to add transport to the demands placed on renewables.
Think I've said this before but the major issues are:
Not having a dedicated driveway or garage at which to charge the car is a pretty fundamental problem. Many Scottish houses do not, and even the new ones are often built with separate shared parking. The problem there would be that an illegal parker in your space means no use of the car tomorrow.
We are constantly being told to turn off lights to save the limited amount of energy provided by renewables. One electric car motor, 2000 lightbulbs or more. No calculator needed for this one. It is simply unsustainable to add transport to the demands placed on renewables.
Besides, the amount of fuel (oil) is limited and will be gone at some point, so do we have a choice?Bio-fuels based on agricultural waste will fill that void. My prediction is that electric cars will never fully replace cars with a combustion engine. In Brazil for example a significant portion of the fuel used is bio-fuel.
I guess the car market really depends where you're from than, because here most cars are new or just 2nd hand cars that are less than 2 years old.You should brush up your statistics. The average age of a car in the Netherlands is 10.2 years old.
That doensn't scale.All true, but it can be made from non-food sources or food production wastes that otherwise have little use:
In many cases it's not "agricultural waste", but actively planted.
This means it robs surface from food culture!
For example in the cases of rapeseed or Soybean oil, or corn....
Bio-fuel is a similar scam as 'solar freaking roadway'.There are some good ideas which could produce resources from otherwise low value land, aquaculture in arid/desert areas is very interesting and there is active research in production of biofuels in such ways:
Bio-fuels means chopping up big forests for crops that grow fast to make fuel out of it.
The relative price of electricity to fossil fuels, is important. Both can change, and there are other costs and factors too, as we've seen in our various discussions.On current prices an electric vehicle is a cheaper option for many people (hard to quantify exactly how many but the majority of countries have cheaper electricity than liquid fuels) which means that electric cars are now viable and mainstream. All the major brands are getting on board and not just the exclusive to California models they had in the past to meet the local regulations.
Many of the factors are complicated. The big picture is quite complicated.
True but it is something to consider when purchasing a used EV. It would make life easier if there is some way to read the state of health of a battery pack. Unfortunately that technology is still under development. I had a similar issue when buying my current car. My previous cars had diesel engines and the last one suffered quite a few engine related issues common for that model. All in all modern diesels have become relatively unreliable beyond the first 150k km and expensive to repair so I didn't want to take the risk and bought a car which runs on gasoline. It is more expensive to run but I don't risk needing to spend several thousands on engine repairs which cannot be predicted. Just like a battery you can't see how far an engine is worn and what is about to fail from the outside. You can only go by looking at problems which happen often and choose to take the chance or not.
Electricity is quite a lot cheaper than gasoline or diesel in every place I've ever looked. Otherwise people would be generating their own electricity using gasoline or diesel generators but they don't outside of emergencies because it ends up being absurdly expensive per kWh.Conversion efficiency has to be accounted for somewhere, but right now (as in today) in Melbourne energy pricing is:
Electricity is quite a lot cheaper than gasoline or diesel in every place I've ever looked. Otherwise people would be generating their own electricity using gasoline or diesel generators but they don't outside of emergencies because it ends up being absurdly expensive per kWh.Exactly, price and cost are two separate things and usually people forget that on a small scale everyone optimizes individual gain, whereas on a large scale the total cost calculation is important (including each and everything related to it).
This thread contains a ridiculous number of excuses and mental gymnastics over why something can't possibly work, when quite obviously it does work for a great many people and can work for many more. There seems to be a fallacy that we must put all our eggs in one basket so to speak, and settle on one single technology to meet all our needs. Electric cars are simply another available tool for the task of getting around, they're a tool that will work for some people and not others but we are nowhere even close to saturating the market of those for whom it is practically ideal. Once that happens then we can talk about what makes the most sense for those where it is not so clear.The difference between these arguments is in the question. What can work does not automatically make it mainstream.
Conversion efficiency is a very important detail though when you figure electric motors can easily reach 90% efficiency while internal combustion engines used in cars top out at what, around 35% efficiency? Generating electricity in a central plant using one or more very large generators that run continuously at a significant percentage of their maximum capacity is far more efficient than running thousands of smaller engines spending much of their time at very light load, even when you factor in distribution losses.But you skip the battery in wall to wheel efficiency, which for plugin electric cars ends up around 70-75% its easy to cherry pick which parts of the efficiency you do or don't count to make any specific example look good.
But you skip the battery in wall to wheel efficiency, which for plugin electric cars ends up around 70-75% its easy to cherry pick which parts of the efficiency you do or don't count to make any specific example look good.
You can get a very good idea on a nissan leaf with a cheap ODB adapter and the leaf spy app (shows capacity and number of charges, etc.).
Even looking at the expected range and available bars on the UI will tell you a bit about battery condition.
I agree and there are some good bio alternatives.Bio-fuel is a similar scam as 'solar freaking roadway'.There are some good ideas which could produce resources from otherwise low value land, aquaculture in arid/desert areas is very interesting and there is active research in production of biofuels in such ways:
Bio-fuels means chopping up big forests for crops that grow fast to make fuel out of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
If it scales up to industrial efficiencies then this could be another part of the energy supply.
But you skip the battery in wall to wheel efficiency, which for plugin electric cars ends up around 70-75% its easy to cherry pick which parts of the efficiency you do or don't count to make any specific example look good.The battery does have losses during charging and discharging (it is heating up when doing so), i´d account around 80% each as a ballpark number for Li-Ion, so they are far away from perfect. Rectifier and VFD take their cut too.
Bio-fuel is a similar scam as 'solar freaking roadway'.Get your facts straight. I wrote bio-fuel from agricultural waste. That is waste from plants we grow to produce food. From most plants we only eat the seeds or leafs which leaves a huge amount of bio material we don't eat. Using more of a plant may even make food more affordable! See poet-dsm.com
Bio-fuels means chopping up big forests for crops that grow fast to make fuel out of it.
If you wanna destroy nature anyway, than just stick to fossil fuels, Than at least we have some beautiful forests.
My grandfather had a small land, and a winery. He told me that there is no such thing as agricultural waste. What you throw out, is what the land needs to make next year's crops (or wine).Bio-fuel is a similar scam as 'solar freaking roadway'.Get your facts straight. I wrote bio-fuel from agricultural waste. That is waste from plants we grow to produce food. From most plants we only eat the seeds or leafs which leaves a huge amount of bio material we don't eat. Using more of a plant may even make food more affordable! See poet-dsm.com
Bio-fuels means chopping up big forests for crops that grow fast to make fuel out of it.
If you wanna destroy nature anyway, than just stick to fossil fuels, Than at least we have some beautiful forests.
If your grandfather was that smart he could have saved Poet-DSM millions of dollars worth of useless investments :palm:My grandfather had a small land, and a winery. He told me that there is no such thing as agricultural waste. What you throw out, is what the land needs to make next year's crops (or wine).Bio-fuel is a similar scam as 'solar freaking roadway'.Get your facts straight. I wrote bio-fuel from agricultural waste. That is waste from plants we grow to produce food. From most plants we only eat the seeds or leafs which leaves a huge amount of bio material we don't eat. Using more of a plant may even make food more affordable! See poet-dsm.com
Bio-fuels means chopping up big forests for crops that grow fast to make fuel out of it.
If you wanna destroy nature anyway, than just stick to fossil fuels, Than at least we have some beautiful forests.
So biofuel tries to solve the pollution problem in transportation, with agriculture. A different industry, which is actually generating more pollution than transportation.
The point is that there isn't enough waste to produce enough fuel.I agree up to some point because the amount of waste c.q. land available for bio fuel depends greatly on the ratio of cars versus arable land (I wrote something similar a few posts above). The US for example may have enough agricultural waste to supply all the fuel they need if they can somehow manage to use cars with a way better mileage.
So we do need use multiple solutions.
Electricity is quite a lot cheaper than gasoline or diesel in every place I've ever looked. Otherwise people would be generating their own electricity using gasoline or diesel generators but they don't outside of emergencies because it ends up being absurdly expensive per kWh.
This thread contains a ridiculous number of excuses and mental gymnastics over why something can't possibly work, when quite obviously it does work for a great many people and can work for many more.
There seems to be a fallacy that we must put all our eggs in one basket so to speak, and settle on one single technology to meet all our needs. Electric cars are simply another available tool for the task of getting around, they're a tool that will work for some people and not others but we are nowhere even close to saturating the market of those for whom it is practically ideal. Once that happens then we can talk about what makes the most sense for those where it is not so clear.Any car is not going to be ideal, but some compromises are better than others
There are a lot of other things beside the fuel costs that mitigate against this, such as the first cost of a diesel or other IC generator,plus ancillary bits.
A generator that can handle most household uses 24/7 will be a fairly specialised device, hence will be expensive.
Fuel tanks need to meet Govt specifications, so will also be costly.
Add to that pollution laws, & the fact that Local Government Authorities would be very unlikely to permit such an installation, in the first place.
It works the other way, too .
The enthusiasts for electric cars, wave away real concerns, with "you will just have to adapt", or "you can have another long distance car", or "you can hire a car", or "sleep over at your destination" & so on.
People have real financial reasons for not doing these things.
My point was that it wasn't a reasonable comparison.There are a lot of other things beside the fuel costs that mitigate against this, such as the first cost of a diesel or other IC generator,plus ancillary bits.
A generator that can handle most household uses 24/7 will be a fairly specialised device, hence will be expensive.
Fuel tanks need to meet Govt specifications, so will also be costly.
Add to that pollution laws, & the fact that Local Government Authorities would be very unlikely to permit such an installation, in the first place.
I don't buy that for a second. If it were economical to generate power that way then everyone would have one, they would be mass produced in huge quantities and costs would drop. As it is you can get generators really cheap these days, most of my neighbors have them and I hate the cheap ones, power goes out and within 10 minutes I can't hear myself think over the din. The nice quiet inverter generators are much better but even so it's easy to work out the cost per kWh and it's not even close to competitive with what I get from the utility. Just for fun let's run some simple numbers here based on the Honda EU2000i I occasionally borrow from a friend. This is a high end inverter generator about as efficient as they come.
Fuel capacity is 0.95 US gallons of gas (petrol) and that is rated to run 3.4 hours at rated load of 2kW so 6.8 kWh per tank or 7.2 kWh per gallon.
Gasoline prices fluctuate frequently but currently in my area regular is about $2.91/gallon, so that means electricity generated by burning gasoline is about $0.40/kWh, ignoring the additional cost of collecting and transporting the fuel to my home. Electricity from the utility costs me a bit less than $0.09 per kWh so less than 1/4th the cost of generating it myself.
I think it's reasonable to assume that a really efficient diesel generator could perhaps double the fuel economy, resulting in a modest savings even factoring in the higher cost per gallon of diesel but still substantially more expensive than utility power.
There were a lot of technologies that didn't make it into the mainstream, & among those that did make it, some had a pretty rocky road.QuoteIt works the other way, too .
The enthusiasts for electric cars, wave away real concerns, with "you will just have to adapt", or "you can have another long distance car", or "you can hire a car", or "sleep over at your destination" & so on.
People have real financial reasons for not doing these things.
Nobody is saying that everyone is going to have to get an electric car or that it makes financial sense for everyone, or is convenient for everyone and that's fine. If everyone had them then we would have another set of problems but that doesn't mean there are not benefits to having a lot more of them than we do currently. It also doesn't mean that a lot of people could not easily adapt and make very minor lifestyle adjustments. I've lived long enough to see multiple waves of new technologies where each time older people bitched and moaned about how terrible they were and how they wouldn't work and this or that just wasn't possible, only to see people quickly adapt. While it's hard to believe, there are actually still numerous people who cling to incandescent light bulbs and find all manner of excuses why modern replacements are not suitable despite the fact that I've somehow got by without using incandescent lamps for general illumination for more than 20 years. People swear CFL and more recently LED bulbs are not any cheaper to run despite the fact that basic arithmetic plainly shows otherwise. It's simply a resistance to change and an emotional belief that anything new or "green" is some kind of liberal commie conspiracy or something.
Now as much as I love my older cars, it's just a simple fact that humans are going to have to adjust and adapt at some point because the current model of extracting oil from the earth and burning it to drive around in hundreds of millions of individual cars is not sustainable. Sooner or later oil will be scarce enough that we will have to find other options, whether that is alternative energy sources or much greater reliance on mass transit. We're on track to have 10 Billion people soon and more and more of those people are wanting modern conveniences.
My point was that it wasn't a reasonable comparison.
Your little Honda generator, or any other economically priced generator would not work 24/7 to replace the convenience of Mains power.
Something which really did the job is going to inevitably be larger & more of an industrial unit.
Nobody is going to make a special one just for those few nutters who want to supply their own power.
Ironically, someone living in a remote area would probably find such a setup useful to charge their electric car!
I.C. cars already exist in their thousands, & as long as people can find fuel, will continue in use.
How much does the price of electricity impact the cost of an electric car?Or the price of gas could go crazy high. Like 2 times as much as now. Or even higher than that. Or even reach the same level as all the Europeans are paying for gas. Imagine that. Imagine paying 6.5 USD/gallon, like we pay here.
The reason I ask is because the price of electricity may be going up a lot here in the US soon as the LNG export facilities come online.
And still the economy is booming. Gas and energy prices in general don't really matter that much because increasing energy prices just drive inflation.How much does the price of electricity impact the cost of an electric car?Or the price of gas could go crazy high. Like 2 times as much as now. Or even higher than that. Or even reach the same level as all the Europeans are paying for gas. Imagine that. Imagine paying 6.5 USD/gallon, like we pay here.
The reason I ask is because the price of electricity may be going up a lot here in the US soon as the LNG export facilities come online.
Shale gas is what I think is being over-hyped the worst. There is lots of evidence that the real reserves they have are much much smaller and more costly to extract than are being represented. New York Times did a series on this a few years ago but they still keep repeating things that they know are not true.And still the economy is booming. Gas and energy prices in general don't really matter that much because increasing energy prices just drive inflation.How much does the price of electricity impact the cost of an electric car?Or the price of gas could go crazy high. Like 2 times as much as now. Or even higher than that. Or even reach the same level as all the Europeans are paying for gas. Imagine that. Imagine paying 6.5 USD/gallon, like we pay here.
The reason I ask is because the price of electricity may be going up a lot here in the US soon as the LNG export facilities come online.
I'd love to pay $6.5 USD/gallon here.How much does the price of electricity impact the cost of an electric car?Or the price of gas could go crazy high. Like 2 times as much as now. Or even higher than that. Or even reach the same level as all the Europeans are paying for gas. Imagine that. Imagine paying 6.5 USD/gallon, like we pay here.
The reason I ask is because the price of electricity may be going up a lot here in the US soon as the LNG export facilities come online.
How much does the price of electricity impact the cost of an electric car?Or the price of gas could go crazy high. Like 2 times as much as now. Or even higher than that. Or even reach the same level as all the Europeans are paying for gas. Imagine that. Imagine paying 6.5 USD/gallon, like we pay here.
The reason I ask is because the price of electricity may be going up a lot here in the US soon as the LNG export facilities come online.
Which is why it's good to have a variety of different energy sources. With a mix of gas, diesel and electric cars on the road, a drastic price increase in one fuel source has less overall impact. If the price of gasoline goes through the roof I can get a ride from one of my friends with electric cars. If the price of electricity goes up drastically they can get a ride from me.
I'd love to pay $6.5 USD/gallon here.How much does the price of electricity impact the cost of an electric car?Or the price of gas could go crazy high. Like 2 times as much as now. Or even higher than that. Or even reach the same level as all the Europeans are paying for gas. Imagine that. Imagine paying 6.5 USD/gallon, like we pay here.
The reason I ask is because the price of electricity may be going up a lot here in the US soon as the LNG export facilities come online.
Currently petrol is around £1.20 per litre (1.20 x 4.546l/usgal x exchange rate ) = $7.53/gallon
Think the main point with most such developments is that letting market forces decide is almost always better than distorting the market with taxes, subsidies, etc. If the battery car can fulfil a role then it will sell.I agree that law makers are oblivious to the holes in the laws they are making but as long as they patch them fast enough not much is lost. Unfortunately you can't leave everything to the mechanics of the free market. The mechanics of the free market don't care about the environment, how many people get killed or long term adverse effects. This is why it is necessary to put regulations and steering mechanisms in place. This means to subsidise new/improved technologies and put heavier taxes on unwanted technologies.
We've seen how boiler scrappage schemes spawned a massive scam market in the UK, with phones jumping off the hook day in day out with illegal recorded message telesales scams. Whatever the original intent, crooks are very quick to latch on to these schemes and use them to fleece gullible or vulnerable people. Most of the scammers were of course cowboy outfits who would probably have done an unsafe gas installation anyway.
Think the main point with most such developments is that letting market forces decide is almost always better than distorting the market with taxes, subsidies, etc. If the battery car can fulfil a role then it will sell.
We've seen how boiler scrappage schemes spawned a massive scam market in the UK, with phones jumping off the hook day in day out with illegal recorded message telesales scams. Whatever the original intent, crooks are very quick to latch on to these schemes and use them to fleece gullible or vulnerable people. Most of the scammers were of course cowboy outfits who would probably have done an unsafe gas installation anyway. :--
Never forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.
There is also the risk of prematurely promoting a new technology, only to have a better version come along shortly afterwards. That really does no-one any good, least of all the planet as it creates not one but two monster junkpiles of perfectly serviceable goods. :palm:
".vast numbers of people would buy a boiler for $400 that cost them $600 a year in fuel to run rather than spend $800 on a more efficient boiler that consumed half as much fuel."
The reverse is more the case. People are being persuaded to scrap conventional boilers and replace them with condensing types on the grounds that this will save the planet. Or, something. The truth is that the energy saving is small, while the waste produced by all this scrappage is large. Of course, the real motive is that the installers profit from it. Legislation also forbids the scrapped boilers from being redeployed, ensuring a monster scrap heap.
I think we have to beware of the same syndrome arising with battery cars. The scrappage of huge numbers of conventional cars will mainly benefit the auto makers, and we then have to consider whether these firms are directly or indirectly influencing the politics for their own gain. They may for example be funding the Green Party to promote their own interests. (Exactly what they accuse Big Oil of doing, in fact.)
A: What makes people think that the personal automobile in almost any form will remain popular, or even legal, say 100 yrs from now?
B: People shouldn't extrapolate today's economic conditions into the future where they may not even remotely apply.
C: Suppose the next 1859-like ("Carrington class") solar storm occurs causing loss of spent fuel cooling capacity, "loss of the ultimate heatsink" in dozens, perhaps hundreds of nuclear power plants around the globe, all at the same time, and meltdowns a few hours to days later, in some significant proportion of them..
A: What makes people think that the personal automobile in almost any form will remain popular, or even legal, say 100 yrs from now?
B: People shouldn't extrapolate today's economic conditions into the future where they may not even remotely apply.
C: Suppose the next 1859-like ("Carrington class") solar storm occurs causing loss of spent fuel cooling capacity, "loss of the ultimate heatsink" in dozens, perhaps hundreds of nuclear power plants around the globe, all at the same time, and meltdowns a few hours to days later, in some significant proportion of them..
A: Try making any journey by public transport that is not either To or From a city center, and you will see why it has to be. To get 60 miles you may have to travel 100 to the nearest city, passing your destination on the way, and then travel 40 back again in the direction you came. |O
B: Too true, and applies in spades to the mass deployment of wind turbines and the like. Fusion will almost certainly be perfected before '100% renewables' is reached n 2050 or wheneveri. At which point they become scrap. Scrap with a fair proportion of non-recyclable content, too.
C: That is probably an exaggeration, but it IS a valid reason why we should build no more reactors with pressurised water cooling or zirconium fuel cladding.
What they will do is create huge taxes on older cars, or continually require new capabilities in cars allowed on the roads which only the newer cars have.
What they will do is create huge taxes on older cars, or continually require new capabilities in cars allowed on the roads which only the newer cars have.Fortunately the old cars are not scrapped but exported to countries with less strict laws. And sometimes cars don't have to be exported far!
What they will do is create huge taxes on older cars, or continually require new capabilities in cars allowed on the roads which only the newer cars have.
Perhaps, but for now, and hopefully the forseable future, governments are elected and much as they might like to impose their will "for the long term good of the nation" (or for the benefit of their cronies and / or post government revolving door employment), there is always a limit to what the voters will tolerate. Especially if a large part of the electorate is disaffected by a reversing economy.
Taking away (relatively) cheap but dirty motoring from the masses and restricting cleaner, but not pollution free, electric motoring to the wealthier may seem attractive, or at least an acceptable option to descision makers in cities like London well served by public transport, but it may not be so well received out in the sticks and poorer towns and cities. Think Brexit...
Electric cars=hook to restrict freedom to travel to just the better heeled.
Just build a couple of hundreds of Nuclear plants, electricity price will drop and driving electrical will be cheaper than the alternative.With the current type of nuclear power plants in use that isn't the case. The costs for dismantling and storage of contaminated materials is huge. AFAIK electricity from wind and solar is starting to get cheaper than nuclear.
My friend has a Bolt, he bought it used when it was about a year old, I forget how much he paid for it but it was pretty reasonable. I drove it once, that thing is scary fast. At highway speed it's only average but from a stop if you stomp on the "gas" it goes like stink, feels faster than anything else I've driven.
Don't know if anyone else posted this already, but here's a report from UBS about the Chevy Bolt:
http://www.advantagelithium.com/_resources/pdf/UBS-Article.pdf (http://www.advantagelithium.com/_resources/pdf/UBS-Article.pdf)
They bought a Bolt and tore it down to independently figure out how it was put together, costs and profit opportunities. It's long (95 pages!), but I figured it was apropos this thread since it tries to answer questions like cost parity between EVs and ICE cars.
tl;dr: they expect it to reach cost parity with the VW Golf by 2025 in the US (earlier in Europe).
I scanned the thread, I'm sure it's come up, but being a little UK centric here...Its a common challenge around the world, owing to the challenges of trying to tax electricity predictions are that many countries will turn to simple things like annual odometer counts and scaling registration costs to the km travelled.
The public purse has lost most of it's tobacco duty. They currently don't charge duty on home energy use.
When EVs become more and more popular, I think it's like 5% at the moment, the public purse will lose the fuel duty which is about 80-90% of the price of fuel.
Will we all have to accept the Kwh rate rising rapidly as duty is applied to all domestic electricity? Will UK electric vehicles start to be fitted with special plugs with special phase that makes them only compatible with regulated approved and taxed sockets? Surely ebay kits will appear to convert from normal mains. Do we then get into the TV license debacle with inspectors calling to check your car charging station?
A lot of electric charging points are currently FREE. EV owners are unbareable in their smugness. When electric charging points start charging 50p or £1 per KWh how will they feel then?
Worse. If my electric goes from £0.158 per KWh to £0.80 per KWh when I don't even own an EV I will not be happy with EV owners! Nor will the little old ladies who will freeze in winter and die before they will be able to afford that.
Its a common challenge around the world, owing to the challenges of trying to tax electricity predictions are that many countries will turn to simple things like annual odometer counts and scaling registration costs to the km travelled.
I scanned the thread, I'm sure it's come up, but being a little UK centric here...
The public purse has lost most of it's tobacco duty. They currently don't charge duty on home energy use.
When EVs become more and more popular, I think it's like 5% at the moment, the public purse will lose the fuel duty which is about 80-90% of the price of fuel.
Will we all have to accept the Kwh rate rising rapidly as duty is applied to all domestic electricity? Will UK electric vehicles start to be fitted with special plugs with special phase that makes them only compatible with regulated approved and taxed sockets? Surely ebay kits will appear to convert from normal mains. Do we then get into the TV license debacle with inspectors calling to check your car charging station?
A lot of electric charging points are currently FREE. EV owners are unbareable in their smugness. When electric charging points start charging 50p or £1 per KWh how will they feel then?
Worse. If my electric goes from £0.158 per KWh to £0.80 per KWh when I don't even own an EV I will not be happy with EV owners! Nor will the little old ladies who will freeze in winter and die before they will be able to afford that.
AFAIK electricity from wind and solar is starting to get cheaper than nuclear.Yes I heard that too, after some bankruptcies and subsidized start-through, the neo-renewables are getting cheaper than (nuclear+renewable taxes)
Its a common challenge around the world, owing to the challenges of trying to tax electricity predictions are that many countries will turn to simple things like annual odometer counts and scaling registration costs to the km travelled.
That will put another dent in the EV users smug faces. They currently don't pay road tax either!
AFAIK electricity from wind and solar is starting to get cheaper than nuclear.Yes I heard that too, after some bankruptcies and subsidized start-through, the neo-renewables are getting cheaper than (nuclear+renewable taxes)
Cheaper average, of course, especially when momentary electricity prices go to zero or even negative.
I bet that when you add in the cost of disposing of the waste and especially the risk of possible meltdowns if you don't keep it properly supplied with cooling water, nuclear fission power ends up being the most expensive power source of them all.
That could render much of the planet uninhabitable.It´s in the sense of the words already... if things get "out of control" in the future for someone who is responsible, things will be "out of control" by definition. I don´t see where that possibility inhibits anyone today from doing something completely different that is within anyones control.
What would be done then?
Imho such systems are more resilient than centralized systems as they have different weaknesses. It´s like comparing bus drivers (of well maintained busses) going on strike (you are screwed and its their fault) vs. not maintaining your car (you are screwed and its your fault :-) ).Yes. Public transport is highly unreliable as I noticed last week and yesterday. It takes a bit of wind or a person jumping in front of a train to cause utter chaos.
Not everyone's public transport is highly unreliable. That's kind of a national choice. Some people have public transport that fails them less often than major road incidents cause car driver's journeys to fail.Imho such systems are more resilient than centralized systems as they have different weaknesses. It´s like comparing bus drivers (of well maintained busses) going on strike (you are screwed and its their fault) vs. not maintaining your car (you are screwed and its your fault :-) ).Yes. Public transport is highly unreliable as I noticed last week and yesterday. It takes a bit of wind or a person jumping in front of a train to cause utter chaos.
Nothing of that changes when talking electric cars. They have brakes and other wear parts that do need maintenance too.
Nuclear is going to be around for a long time to come, the energy demands of the world just keep rapidly increasing. I'd like to see some of the older more dangerous and less efficient plants replaced with more modern designs
but the anti-nuke lobby has been doing a fine job of keeping the old ones running by blocking the construction of newer and safer plants.
Yep. That and the fact that electricity has been privatized throughout most of the world. Private funding makes power plants hundreds of times more expensive to build.Not really. Private funding does not make them more expensive, it only digs up the massive hidden costs that are insurance, decomissionning, waste treatment, waste storage, as well as accident cleanup costs.
Yep. That and the fact that electricity has been privatized throughout most of the world. Private funding makes power plants hundreds of times more expensive to build.Not really. Private funding does not make them more expensive, it only digs up the massive hidden costs that are insurance, decomissionning, waste treatment, waste storage, as well as accident cleanup costs.
These are usually simply swept under the carpet when run publicly.
Private investing doesn't work like that.
My friend has a Bolt, he bought it used when it was about a year old, I forget how much he paid for it but it was pretty reasonable. I drove it once, that thing is scary fast. At highway speed it's only average but from a stop if you stomp on the "gas" it goes like stink, feels faster than anything else I've driven.
I have a 2017 Bolt and, yes, it's quick. The thing is, the 2014 Chevy Spark EV I had before was even quicker - a LOT quicker. So much quicker that Chevy had to tone things down and the Bolt is the result. The Spark EV has been out of production for a while
The other point that seems to have escaped them, is that the idea of supplying battery cars from renewable energy is a pipedream. After more than 20 years of deploying renewables they cannot even supply our electricity demands, let alone transport energy requirements too. So, the battery cars would simply transfer the point at which the CO2 is released to a power station, and would solve nothing.
The other point that seems to have escaped them, is that the idea of supplying battery cars from renewable energy is a pipedream.
https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/ (https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/)
I haven't read it in a whlie, but I think he got to 6% more efficient. However I believe there are few things unconsidered, such as how much power is lost in electrical transmission for the power plant to the charge station etc. and how much is lost charging the battery itself.
And how many charge cycles will the battery do before it becomes sub-par and needs replacing?Its only quite recently that the pool of fairly old electric cars, needing out of warranty battery work, has become significant. Nissan are now setting up a operation offering refurbished Leaf battery packs for sale. Time will tell if this turns out to be a cost effective way to keep older Leafs viable.
I know Lithium battery specs show a vast spectrum of figures from losing 15% capacity in 100 cycles to 1000 cycles depending on use and DOD/C etc.
In a practical sense and how a lot of people might use an EV, an overnight charge, every night sounds reasonable. So exactly the same way you might use a cell/mobile phone. Running between 50% charge and 100% charge daily. We all know that the battery in a cell phone isn't at it's best after 1 year, noticably lower in capacity after 2 years and fairly useless after 3 years cutting out mid day. I would expect the figures for EVs to be much better given how expensive they are and how much battery management goes into the thing, but even if they double that, you are talking about the battery losing a sizable portion of it's range in 5-10 years and needing replaced. By that time it will be financially far more efficient to dump the car in the scrap yard and buy a new one than to replace the battery, which will probably cost a sizable portion of a whole new car!
And how many charge cycles will the battery do before it becomes sub-par and needs replacing?
Tesla and Volt (with a V) batteries aren't failing in large numbers, these cars have been around for some time now.I know this is anecdotal, but I only know 2 people with a Volt, and both needed their battery refurbished under warranty. They had considerable downtime, as the pack was removed from their car and sent to another part of the country for the rebuild. GM refused to tell them the extent of the rework that was needed.
I see the warranties. I don't see the "Level of capacity loss required" to activate a warranty claim.https://electrek.co/2016/12/07/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-battery-degradation-up-to-40-warranty/ (https://electrek.co/2016/12/07/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-battery-degradation-up-to-40-warranty/)
I know this is anecdotal, but I only know 2 people with a Volt, and both needed their battery refurbished under warranty. They had considerable downtime, as the pack was removed from their car and sent to another part of the country for the rebuild. GM refused to tell them the extent of the rework that was needed.
The problems were massively reduced capacity, not a solid failure. Both owners believe, from dealer comments, that a substantial number of cells were replaced, but as I said before, GM wouldn't give them a proper answer.I know this is anecdotal, but I only know 2 people with a Volt, and both needed their battery refurbished under warranty. They had considerable downtime, as the pack was removed from their car and sent to another part of the country for the rebuild. GM refused to tell them the extent of the rework that was needed.
Was this for reduced capacity reasons, or for failures due to manufacturing defects?
I said it before, it's not a question if electric cars will become mainstream.
They WILL become mainstream.
Noise? As in lack of noise you mean i guess?I said it before, it's not a question if electric cars will become mainstream.
They WILL become mainstream.
I agree. Electric is simply better for everything except noise.
The only thing in the way is the batteries. I'm not sure if higher capacity is really possible, what's really needed is fast charging. If we can get charging down to a couple of minutes then it solves most issues.
(apart from infrastructure needed to get enough electrons to recharging stations)
PS: Engine noise can be synthesized.
The tech that would kill the battery car stone dead, is a fuel cell which runs on something more easily stored than hydrogen or methane. Which may not be all that far away. The Bloom Box came as something of a surprise, and many people thought it was a scam to start with. No, it's actually a great product. :-+There was interest in Ethanol fuel cells, what happened to that?
For me the reasons I will not, yet, consider an electric car are:
Cost.
Range.
... there are the handful of times a year when I make a 300-400 mile round trip in a day.
EDIT: On that later point. I envision "pluggable" batteries. Standardised packs the size of a suitcase that goes where the spare wheel would have. Garages can sell these in a swap an empty for a full one in the same way we do gas cylinders. This would go a long way to easy range anxiety.
PS: Engine noise can be synthesized.Noise? As in lack of noise you mean i guess?
Fast charging is just all about physics. You need a huge energy dump at once.
Which is not only very difficult to do for the grid (you can back that up with batteries to some extend), but also bad for the electronics and batteries, as well as being potentially dangerous.
Some manufacturers are faking it without telling the buyers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/americas-best-selling-cars-and-trucks-are-built-on-lies-the-rise-of-fake-engine-noise/2015/01/21/6db09a10-a0ba-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html?utm_term=.ba1cc3954279). Salesman: "Listen to the engine, that's real power!" :-DD
If you don't like it, you can pull the blanking plug out of one of the 3 12V utility sockets, pull teh carpet back and stuff it in the hole muting it. :)
Alternatively you can go to any carphooler website or even the manufacturer tuning brand (TRD) and buy different plug to change the sound for £35 each.... for a plastic plug. A plastic wine 'cork' will do too.
If you don't like it, you can pull the blanking plug out of one of the 3 12V utility sockets, pull teh carpet back and stuff it in the hole muting it. :)
Alternatively you can go to any carphooler website or even the manufacturer tuning brand (TRD) and buy different plug to change the sound for £35 each.... for a plastic plug. A plastic wine 'cork' will do too.
If I were the manufacturer I'd add a $1 electric valve, a $0.50 switch labelled "sports mode", and sell it as a $250 option.
Fast charging is just all about physics. You need a huge energy dump at once.
Which is not only very difficult to do for the grid (you can back that up with batteries to some extend), but also bad for the electronics and batteries, as well as being potentially dangerous.
Nowadays charging to around 80% in 15min is possible, which I think is already very reasonable.
Increasing voltage or amps, it's still the same amount of ENERGY, which is dangerous.PS: Engine noise can be synthesized.Noise? As in lack of noise you mean i guess?
No, I mean noise. Some people don't believe they're driving a car unless they're annoying the neighbors with an obnoxiously loud exhaust system.
It's already a solved problem - many luxury cars already have enhanced engine sound at the push of a button.
Some manufacturers are even faking it without telling the buyers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/americas-best-selling-cars-and-trucks-are-built-on-lies-the-rise-of-fake-engine-noise/2015/01/21/6db09a10-a0ba-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html?utm_term=.ba1cc3954279). Salesman: "Listen to the engine, that's real power!" :-DDFast charging is just all about physics. You need a huge energy dump at once.
Which is not only very difficult to do for the grid (you can back that up with batteries to some extend), but also bad for the electronics and batteries, as well as being potentially dangerous.
The trick would be to increase the voltage, not the amps.
It's about when your batteries are empty after a long drive, halfway your journey.
Fast charging is just all about physics. You need a huge energy dump at once.
Which is not only very difficult to do for the grid (you can back that up with batteries to some extend), but also bad for the electronics and batteries, as well as being potentially dangerous.
Nowadays charging to around 80% in 15min is possible, which I think is already very reasonable.
I still don't understand why so many people get hung up on fast charging. Most of us already plug in our phones every night, how much of an adjustment is it to plug in our cars every night too? I know several people with electric cars now and that's exactly what they all do. Pull into the driveway or garage, get out, plug the cord into the car then head into the house. All of them love the fact that it's so convenient, it's like having a gas station right in their own driveway.
I still don't understand why so many people get hung up on fast charging. Most of us already plug in our phones every night, how much of an adjustment is it to plug in our cars every night too? I know several people with electric cars now and that's exactly what they all do. Pull into the driveway or garage, get out, plug the cord into the car then head into the house. All of them love the fact that it's so convenient, it's like having a gas station right in their own driveway.Fast charging is all about long journeys, not the daily run around.
I still don't understand why so many people get hung up on fast charging. Most of us already plug in our phones every night, how much of an adjustment is it to plug in our cars every night too? I know several people with electric cars now and that's exactly what they all do. Pull into the driveway or garage, get out, plug the cord into the car then head into the house. All of them love the fact that it's so convenient, it's like having a gas station right in their own driveway.
Increasing voltage or amps, it's still the same amount of ENERGY, which is dangerous.Fast charging is just all about physics. You need a huge energy dump at once.The trick would be to increase the voltage, not the amps.
Which is not only very difficult to do for the grid (you can back that up with batteries to some extend), but also bad for the electronics and batteries, as well as being potentially dangerous.
Street parking could be a problem, but there are plenty of others. Tesla has sold a lot of cars in HK. Most people who can afford one have an assigned parking space within their apartment block. However, the building management people won't usually give permission for power to be laid on at that parking space. Thus, they can only charge at a supercharger, but those are occupied all day long. If you go to the superchargers in the middle of the night you'll find a line of Teslas driven by Filipino maids, getting the car ready for the boss in the morning. With gas powered cars the boss takes 5 minutes a week to refill their own car.I still don't understand why so many people get hung up on fast charging. Most of us already plug in our phones every night, how much of an adjustment is it to plug in our cars every night too? I know several people with electric cars now and that's exactly what they all do. Pull into the driveway or garage, get out, plug the cord into the car then head into the house. All of them love the fact that it's so convenient, it's like having a gas station right in their own driveway.
a) In the world we live in an awful lot of people have to park in the street.
b) Long journeys or overnighting away from home.
By that time it will be financially far more efficient to dump the car in the scrap yard and buy a new one than to replace the battery, which will probably cost a sizable portion of a whole new car!They are actually servicable with exchange of single cells based on wear and all that. There is surprisingly little information about cars which needed new batteries in the wild.
If electric car popularity jumps by an order of magnitude in the next 10 years that will seriously raise the price of a lot of other things.Some mines are about the be reopened because it suddenly became economically viable again to operate them. That might slow down an upward spiral.
Recycling of the batteries is lagging behind too.With increasing price recycling becomes a business too. In general i wouldn´t panic because of such predictions as such systems tend to self moderate over time. Materials that stay in solid form can and will be recycled when it is necessary. I wouldn´t buy into - "it is dead, therefore it is worthless" claims but kind of see these as what they are.
a) In the world we live in an awful lot of people have to park in the street.
b) Long journeys or overnighting away from home.
Those aren't really the target market for electric cars. There are many millions of people who park in their driveway or garage, and the vast majority of their driving is commuting to work. The guys I know with electric cars are in two-car households with one conventional car and use the electric primarily for commuting to work. I hear loads of people in similar multi-car households getting hung up on the same issues that really are hardly relevant to them. Just because it's not a solution for everybody doesn't mean it's not a solution for a large number of people.
Base on this:
https://pod-point.com/landing-pages/how-long-does-it-take-to-charge-an-electric-car
To drive from, say, Belfast to Malaga, approximately 1800 miles, would require...
(... something complicated with teams of drivers that took 4 days)
Why didn't they just rent a gasoline car instead of all that?
and, (b) The more mainstream they become, the more charging stations, etc.
Because a car, with cross Europe support, costs between £100 and £200 a day + mileage surcharges.
EDIT: On that later point. I envision "pluggable" batteries. Standardised packs the size of a suitcase that goes where the spare wheel would have. Garages can sell these in a swap an empty for a full one in the same way we do gas cylinders. This would go a long way to easy range anxiety.Pluggable batteries are technically an easy task, but in opposition to total weight and distribution of mass.
Exactly. If you need to visit a couple of cities across Europe a car quickly becomes more viable than an airplane due to the flexibility (been there, done that). Ofcourse the current EVs are not an option due to limited range and charge time.Because a car, with cross Europe support, costs between £100 and £200 a day + mileage surcharges.If you're driving all the way across Europe instead of flying then I don't think it's because you enjoy driving, you have a very good reason to be doing it. A reason that probably involves earning money, so... :-//
This discussion illustrates again why a plug-in "serial hybrid" (like the Volt or others) makes perfect sense. They give you 30-50 miles of all electric range (which probably covers >90% peoples daily needs) plus the ability to do longer trips using gasoline and not worry about range or recharge time.
This discussion illustrates again why a plug-in "serial hybrid" (like the Volt or others) makes perfect sense. They give you 30-50 miles of all electric range (which probably covers >90% peoples daily needs) plus the ability to do longer trips using gasoline and not worry about range or recharge time.
Ok, but here goes that the car will consume more nuclear because an unused gasoline engine has to be transported,
or will consume more gasoline because the unused batteries have to be transported.
Combined with higher/double manufacturing/recycling gasoline costs
Yes that's because many people are dumb, if they want to spend way more money to buy a car for an edge case that's their problem, it's their money. That's kind of my point though, people get hung up on largely irrelevant details and edge cases when there are perfectly sensible ways of working around them.One car is always cheaper than two. Also take my caravan example again: most people will use it to go on a holiday so demand will be high during very specific periods if people are going to rent a car to tow a caravan. This means that the rental companies will have cars sitting on their lot which they only rent for a few weeks per year. As a consumer you'll pay for that one way or another. Ergo: your reasoning doesn't work on a larger scale.
@phil: now factor in how much electricity is needed to make the battery pack for an EV and how much gas&coalis being burned to make that electricity. In lots of countries they use way more efficient cars compared to the US and electricity production has a very large CO2 footprint. In those cases EVs don't reduce CO2 output but they just move the point of emission.Burning fossil fuel at power station is still around 2-4 times more efficient compared to ICE.
One car is always cheaper than two. Also take my caravan example again: most people will use it to go on a holiday so demand will be high during very specific periods if people are going to rent a car to tow a caravan. This means that the rental companies will have cars sitting on their lot which they only rent for a few weeks per year. As a consumer you'll pay for that one way or another. Ergo: your reasoning doesn't work on a larger scale.
Also take my caravan example again...
EDIT: On that later point. I envision "pluggable" batteries. Standardised packs the size of a suitcase that goes where the spare wheel would have. Garages can sell these in a swap an empty for a full one in the same way we do gas cylinders. This would go a long way to easy range anxiety.Pluggable batteries are technically an easy task, but in opposition to total weight and distribution of mass.
The batteries are placed/distributed now in the most ideal location, making them removable with decent fast trays will surely change that.
No. Not when compared to a fuel efficient ICE. And then there are distribution and conversion losses which make the EV lose big time. I've posted the calculations before.@phil: now factor in how much electricity is needed to make the battery pack for an EV and how much gas&coalis being burned to make that electricity. In lots of countries they use way more efficient cars compared to the US and electricity production has a very large CO2 footprint. In those cases EVs don't reduce CO2 output but they just move the point of emission.Burning fossil fuel at power station is still around 2-4 times more efficient compared to ICE.
Take into account that an ICEs efficiency is directly linked to the traffic or to the pedal. Those efficiency figures are measured under ideal conditions (cruising at steady speed and fixed load), which most often don´t apply. It still needs to work outside this band, which requires additional provisions, makes the whole emission regulation more difficult and the whole thing heavier as well. These numbers multiplied by the amount of cars in operation tells you something.Burning fossil fuel at power station is still around 2-4 times more efficient compared to ICE.No. Not when compared to a fuel efficient ICE. And then there are distribution and conversion losses which make the EV lose big time. I've posted the calculations before.
Wrong. The EPA tests cars under real driving circumstances so you can simply check the numbers yourself. Engines with a turbo have a very large RPM range in which they are efficient and they don't have to be slow either. Look at Ford's 1.0 ecoboost engine for example which can produce 93kW over a very wide RPM range. Cars fitted with this type of engine produce less CO2 than comparable diesels and are on the heels of hybrid vehicles. And there is more to come when the EU starts to use better test methods for cars.Take into account that an ICEs efficiency is directly linked to the traffic or to the pedal. Those efficiency figures are measured under ideal conditions (cruising at steady speed and fixed load), which most often don´t apply. It still needs to work outside this band, which requires additional provisions, makes the whole emission regulation more difficult and the whole thing heavier as well.Burning fossil fuel at power station is still around 2-4 times more efficient compared to ICE.No. Not when compared to a fuel efficient ICE. And then there are distribution and conversion losses which make the EV lose big time. I've posted the calculations before.
No. Not when compared to a fuel efficient ICE. And then there are distribution and conversion losses which make the EV lose big time. I've posted the calculations before.
You are forgetting that (at least) 5% of the fuel is bio-fuel.No. Not when compared to a fuel efficient ICE. And then there are distribution and conversion losses which make the EV lose big time. I've posted the calculations before.
Lets do it again, latest Golf GTI has 125+ g/km CO2 WLTP. Latest leaf does 40/270 kwh/km WLTP, latest coal plants have 46+% efficiency, lets do 10% transmission/conversion losses, 340 grams of CO2 per kwh total energy for coal. So 40/270*340*1/(0.46*0.9) is 121+. Pretty much the same ignoring CO2 expenditure for mining/refining.
You are forgetting that (at least) 5% of the fuel is bio-fuel.You say that like its more ecologically friendly than the rest of the fuel. ;)
Yeah, I mean, involving the 3 largest polluter industry must reduce the pollution in the first largest industry, right? That is how math works. Also, it is good for us, that farmers are producing now stuff, only to make bioethanol, instead of using the waste as it was planned. (BTW good farmers know, there is no such thing as waste in farming, only you just dont know how to use it).You are forgetting that (at least) 5% of the fuel is bio-fuel.You say that like its more ecologically friendly than the rest of the fuel. ;)
Nobody is suggesting that coal powered electric cars are good. You can generate electricity from renewable sources, with almost 0 CO2. You can only generate diesel from dead dinosaurs, and those are not renewable.No. Not when compared to a fuel efficient ICE. And then there are distribution and conversion losses which make the EV lose big time. I've posted the calculations before.
Lets do it again, latest Golf GTI has 125+ g/km CO2 WLTP. Latest leaf does 40/270 kwh/km WLTP, latest coal plants have 46+% efficiency, lets do 10% transmission/conversion losses, 340 grams of CO2 per kwh total energy for coal. So 40/270*340*1/(0.46*0.9) is 121+. Pretty much the same ignoring CO2 expenditure for mining/refining.
Can't find WLTP numbers for a Ford Fiesta Ecoboost, but another index promising realistic tests http://equaindex.com (http://equaindex.com) gives numbers in the same ballpark.
You can only generate diesel from dead dinosaurs, and those are not renewable.I'm not a fan of diesel, but you certainly can generate diesel from renewable stuff. Search for biodiesel.
Try looking for analyses of how many litres of dead dinosaur are used to make each litre of biodiesel.You can only generate diesel from dead dinosaurs, and those are not renewable.I'm not a fan of diesel, but you certainly can generate diesel from renewable stuff. Search for biodiesel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel)
The same goes for solar panels. Then again there is also bio-ethanol which can be used in any (relatively) modern petrol engine.Try looking for analyses of how many litres of dead dinosaur are used to make each litre of biodiesel.You can only generate diesel from dead dinosaurs, and those are not renewable.I'm not a fan of diesel, but you certainly can generate diesel from renewable stuff. Search for biodiesel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel)
Then again there is also bio-ethanol which can be used in any (relatively) modern petrol engine.Which drives the food prices up. You need to grow somewhere the crops required for it's production.
Wrong. New processes (3rd generation bio fuels) use leftovers so bio-fuel drives the food price down because more of the plants is used. Google Poet-DSM . The best thing is that there is a crap load of agricultural leftovers which could supply a significant amount of fuel.Then again there is also bio-ethanol which can be used in any (relatively) modern petrol engine.Which drives the food prices up. You need to grow somewhere the crops required for it's production.
It's just non commercialized research so far.Wrong. New processes (3rd generation bio fuels) use leftovers so bio-fuel drives the food price down because more of the plants is used. Google Poet-DSM . The best thing is that there is a crap load of agricultural leftovers which could supply a significant amount of fuel.Then again there is also bio-ethanol which can be used in any (relatively) modern petrol engine.Which drives the food prices up. You need to grow somewhere the crops required for it's production.
Wrong. The EPA tests cars under real driving circumstances so you can simply check the numbers yourself. Engines with a turbo have a very large RPM range in which they are efficient and they don't have to be slow either. Look at Ford's 1.0 ecoboost engine for example which can produce 93kW over a very wide RPM range. Cars fitted with this type of engine produce less CO2 than comparable diesels and are on the heels of hybrid vehicles. And there is more to come when the EU starts to use better test methods for cars.We are not talking EPA/NEDC/WLTP/RDE, we are talking BSFC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption). Whatever number you want to use, it can not exceed that, except for parking.
If BSFC provided a good number for cars then it would be used for car testing. But it is not so it is not relevant in this discussion. BSFC is about engine efficiency and not CO2 emission of the entire car so the BSFC number is not painting the entire picture. You can put a less efficient engine in a car and still have lower CO2 emissions compared to a similar car with a (on paper) more efficient engine. IOW: you need a test which tests the car as it is in realistic driving circumstances which include the influence of aerodynamics, gearbox ratios, etc, etc.Wrong. The EPA tests cars under real driving circumstances so you can simply check the numbers yourself. Engines with a turbo have a very large RPM range in which they are efficient and they don't have to be slow either. Look at Ford's 1.0 ecoboost engine for example which can produce 93kW over a very wide RPM range. Cars fitted with this type of engine produce less CO2 than comparable diesels and are on the heels of hybrid vehicles. And there is more to come when the EU starts to use better test methods for cars.We are not talking EPA/NEDC/WLTP/RDE, we are talking BSFC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption). Whatever number you want to use, it can not exceed that, except for parking.
Not when comparing against a power station, which was what caused your statement.Also doesn't matter. CO2 emission is what counts. The CO2 emissions are publicly available for both electricity generation and how much is output by an ICE based car so you can very easely calculate how much grams of CO2 takes you from A to B. There really is no reason to make it any more complicated than that. Don't forget that CO2 emissions include all the losses so they offer a really good comparison of various ways of transportation.
CO2 is not everything. In fact, you dont get cancer and die 25 years early because of CO2.Not when comparing against a power station, which was what caused your statement.Also doesn't matter. CO2 emission is what counts. The CO2 emissions are publicly available for both electricity generation and how much is output by an ICE based car so you can very easely calculate how much grams of CO2 takes you from A to B. There really is no reason to make it any more complicated than that. Don't forget that CO2 emissions include all the losses so they offer a really good comparison of various ways of transportation.
@phil: now factor in how much electricity is needed to make the battery pack for an EV and how much gas&coalis being burned to make that electricity. In lots of countries they use way more efficient cars compared to the US and electricity production has a very large CO2 footprint. In those cases EVs don't reduce CO2 output but they just move the point of emission.This is oft repeated but based on old data (NiCad manufacturing energy costs from 1990s and ignored battery recycling). The reality is that even using coal fired electricity, there is a break-even point where the EV even with the battery manufacturing factored in is "greener" than a similar sized ICE. For my power company, it's pretty quick - 32K miles which I have surpassed. Also, that break-even analysis did NOT include the carbon cost of generating the electricity needed to extract, refine and distribute the gasoline the ICE used. So, it's likely that the real break even point for an EV is much sooner. I'm looking for the article that discusses this but am coming up blank. Here's one that addresses the issue but not the one I'm thinking of. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/04/22/the-carbon-footprint-of-tesla-manufacturing/#4a6d1b7a6096) Will keep looking.
Also doesn't matter. CO2 emission is what counts. The CO2 emissions are publicly available for both electricity generation and how much is output by an ICE based car so you can very easely calculate how much grams of CO2 takes you from A to B.
Also, consider this - an ICE vehicle will never be more green than the day it is delivered. An EV will never be less green than the day it's delivered (because improvements in the efficiency generating electricity are on-going and wind turbines are coming on line at an accelerating rate). This assumes both vehicles are properly maintained.Now you are assuming that ICE cars will always run on pure fossil fuel. The reality is that every modern petrol car can run on ethanol (which also burns cleaner compared to fossil fuel). It is hard to predict right now but it is possible that bio-fuels will become common sooner than batteries which give EVs a useful range and short charging times.
Solar is only viable for the happy few with a large enough roof. In the NL that is rare. Also I'd need to buy an EV but then again on my (average) roof I can only generate half of my annual electricity usage.You also need storage, since on weekdays most people can only have their car at home for charging when its dark.
Ofcourse like solar and wind bio-fuels need lots of subsidies as well to develop the technology and create a market.
Solar is only viable for the happy few with a large enough roof. In the NL that is rare. Also I'd need to buy an EV but then again on my (average) roof I can only generate half of my annual electricity usage. All in all solar panels on roofs are a pipe dream which is not going to happen on a large enough scale any time soon.I’ve got solar panels on half the roof and it generates enough to cover my family’s anual electricity usage, installed 12 years ago, investment broke even 4 years ago. We live in Belgium, so we have about the same shitty weather as Holland ;-)
Ofcourse like solar and wind bio-fuels need lots of subsidies as well to develop the technology and create a market.
You also need storage, since on weekdays most people can only have their car at home for charging when its dark.I'm sure I don't represent most people, but I leave home at ~8:30 AM. Since ~March, I have about 1.5-2 hours of sunshine by this time each day. I set up by Bolt EV to charge so that it is ready by 8:30 AM, so it pulls power only in the mornings. I can verify from the solar system monitor that about half the time, my car charges solely from my PV system. It helps that my panels are east-facing (I don't have a south-facing roof). On average, my net usage is negative, even including the EV.
Large-scale solar on roofs is a pipe dream? Southern California (where they produce *too much* power (https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-20/california-s-electrical-grid-can-t-handle-all-solar-energy-state-producing) at some times of the year) would beg to differ.The article title says the grid can't handle it. That is another (universal) problem and also the main reason you will need local storage which ruins the economy of solar panels.
The main problem here is the current grid design. It can't handle power going upstream through sub-stations, so you end up with islands that are trying to produce more than they consume. This is not a fundamental problem, though. It simply reflects the requirements which were in place when then current grid was developed. It can be fixed as the sub-stations are maintained.Large-scale solar on roofs is a pipe dream? Southern California (where they produce *too much* power (https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-20/california-s-electrical-grid-can-t-handle-all-solar-energy-state-producing) at some times of the year) would beg to differ.The article title says the grid can't handle it. That is another (universal) problem and also the main reason you will need local storage which ruins the economy of solar panels.
The main problem here is the current grid design. It can't handle power going upstream through sub-stations,say what ?
It is not just the sub stations but also the wiring in the streets. One way or another (local storage or upgrading) it is going to be expensive and a reason why putting solar panels on roofs on a large scale isn't very economic.The main problem here is the current grid design. It can't handle power going upstream through sub-stations, so you end up with islands that are trying to produce more than they consume. This is not a fundamental problem, though. It simply reflects the requirements which were in place when then current grid was developed. It can be fixed as the sub-stations are maintained.Large-scale solar on roofs is a pipe dream? Southern California (where they produce *too much* power (https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-20/california-s-electrical-grid-can-t-handle-all-solar-energy-state-producing) at some times of the year) would beg to differ.The article title says the grid can't handle it. That is another (universal) problem and also the main reason you will need local storage which ruins the economy of solar panels.
Of course it can flow both ways, but all the control and protection mechanisms are designed on the expectation of a one way flow.QuoteThe main problem here is the current grid design. It can't handle power going upstream through sub-stations,say what ?
that's not the case.
Power can and will flow in both directions.
QuoteThe main problem here is the current grid design. It can't handle power going upstream through sub-stations,say what ?
that's not the case.
Power can and will flow in both directions.
Solar is only viable for the happy few with a large enough roof. In the NL that is rare. Also I'd need to buy an EV but then again on my (average) roof I can only generate half of my annual electricity usage. All in all solar panels on roofs are a pipe dream which is not going to happen on a large enough scale any time soon.
Ofcourse like solar and wind bio-fuels need lots of subsidies as well to develop the technology and create a market.
Wind is on track to become cheaper than fossil fuels. Subsidies should be going away. One article here. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/keep-subsidizing-wind-will-cost-wind-energy-go)
True but recently some contracts got signed to built a large wind farm in the Dutch part of the North sea which doesn't need to be subsidized. Well, allmost. The Dutch government is going to put the power grid in place and did all the research (depth, soil stability, etc) and gave that away so the contractors don't have to do the research for themselves before making a bid.Wind is on track to become cheaper than fossil fuels. Subsidies should be going away. One article here. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/keep-subsidizing-wind-will-cost-wind-energy-go)That's nice, but you need the fossil fuel plants any way ... it has to be cheaper than fuel cost for a fossil fuel plant if it's going to supply a significant percentage of the power without subsidy. Has a way to go before that happens.
If they can master "miserably pissing it down" power it will be best bet.It´s called hydroelectric generator :-)
It is not just the sub stations but also the wiring in the streets. One way or another (local storage or upgrading) it is going to be expensive and a reason why putting solar panels on roofs on a large scale isn't very economic.The wiring in the streets is dimensioned for the power that the home´s distribution box is dimensioned for and i talk about the fuses or breakers. So as long as you are not running extreme loads all concurrently there usually is a lot of unused margin included. To estimate the ballpark check which value the main breaker/fuse the home has.
Wind is on track to become cheaper than fossil fuels. Subsidies should be going away. One article here. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/keep-subsidizing-wind-will-cost-wind-energy-go)
That's nice, but you need the fossil fuel plants any way ... it has to be cheaper than fuel cost for a fossil fuel plant if it's going to supply a significant percentage of the power without subsidy. Has a way to go before that happens.
Fuel cost for a coal plant is currently 2.5 cents US$ (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html) (newer plants probably less). So as I said, ways to go.Fuel cost is just a part of the cost. "Fuel" cost for wind power is 0 but I hope you would agree it ain't free. Life time cost of generation is a far better metric (called LCOE for levelized cost of electricty). Wikipedia has a decent section on generation costs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States) (which are general given in $/MWHr).
I suspect PV will be there quicker. Has to come from further, but I think there is just more room to drive it down.
Fuel cost for a coal plant is currently 2.5 cents US$ (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html) (newer plants probably less). So as I said, ways to go.
There you go again. Take one edge case, state that it doesn't work (including words like 'universal problem' - citation needed, btw), and therefore the general idea is bad/wrong/impractical. Your premise that rooftop solar on a large scale is fictional isn't true - there are plenty of examples of large scale deployments, and I linked to one. Sure, they might make too much power a couple of days a year, but so what? Doesn't mean they don't exist.Large-scale solar on roofs is a pipe dream? Southern California (where they produce *too much* power (https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-20/california-s-electrical-grid-can-t-handle-all-solar-energy-state-producing) at some times of the year) would beg to differ.The article title says the grid can't handle it. That is another (universal) problem and also the main reason you will need local storage which ruins the economy of solar panels.
You will see in the chart that geothermal generation is the cheapest. Onshore wind is the second cheapest. Most expensive? Coal. and it's not close. Also, you should note the steep drop of wind power costs in the historical summary of projections. And finally, it appears that the industry expects combined cycle NG and wind power to be almost exactly the same LCOE cost by 2022.The coal costs include sequestration. LCOE for solar PV would depend on geographical location, since energy production is in the denominator. I'm assuming the DoE numbers were averaged over the entire US. This would mean the south west would have a lower regional LCOE than average. This paper (https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/6879) includes a table of LCOE vs install location, and seems to show lower costs for AZ and NV.
It will be intesting to see if Tesla and Toyota can break the laws of physics.
Also, Cadogan is just full of BS on this one.
well to wheel chain efficiency of fossils in a conventional ICE is close to 11%, very low.
The same well to wheel chain efficiency with an electric powertrain and an oil burning electric station is in the range of 27%. (Of course, using partly renewables, this improves a lot already today, and will go up in the future)
Fuel cost is just a part of the cost.
When will electric cars become mainstream? When the laws do physics and thermodynamics change.
Electric cars are great. But they sure have limitations,
https://phys.org/news/2013-09-molten-air-battery-storage-capacity-highest.html
When will electric cars become mainstream? When the laws do physics and thermodynamics change.
Batteries have a long way to go yet. There are batteries in laboratories with nearly three times the energy density of gasoline:
https://phys.org/news/2013-09-molten-air-battery-storage-capacity-highest.htmlElectric cars are great. But they sure have limitations,
Today's electric cars are great. But today's electric cars sure have limitations.
FTFY.
The world will have another 2 billion people, batteries are just a storage medium, where's the energy going to come for to charge the battereis?
The Tesla engineers are even buying electric hybrid plugin cars instead of the cars they are designing. Why? Lake Tahoe is about 20 miles beyond the range of a Tesla. Only way they can get there is to get a charge along the way, And I’ve seen 14 cars lined up waiting for a charge or use a electric hybrid plugin. One of the last major snow storms in Tahoe knocked out power for 4 days, Everyone who had an electric car was left stranded.
Out of curiosity, how much area do all the rooftops in Europe take up? How much area for the parking lots? I read that in rough numbers, 1 hectare of solar panels can generate 1 MW at peak.The world will have another 2 billion people, batteries are just a storage medium, where's the energy going to come for to charge the battereis?
The US has more than enough deserts for PV to supply it's energy needs. Europe not so much of course. For HVDC the world is a small place ... but the geopolitical implications of dependency are annoying, as they are now with our dependence on Russia.
The Tesla engineers are even buying electric hybrid plugin cars instead of the cars they are designing. Why? Lake Tahoe is about 20 miles beyond the range of a Tesla. Only way they can get there is to get a charge along the way, And I’ve seen 14 cars lined up waiting for a charge or use a electric hybrid plugin. One of the last major snow storms in Tahoe knocked out power for 4 days, Everyone who had an electric car was left stranded.
Way to use anecdotes to prove a point. Yes, Tahoe is farther than the range of any Tesla on a single charge. Note on the supercharger map that there are SCs along the way. In fact, they were put there specifically to make Tahoe easily reachable from the Bay Area. So, these "tesla engineers" aren't using teslas because they might have to charge en route? Yeah, that sounds plausible. And how many times a year does a major storm broadly knock out power for 4 days? And also not cripple everything else?
Out of curiosity, how much area do all the rooftops in Europe take up? How much area for the parking lots?Not enough. Parking lots are also rare. Usually parking garages are underground or at least multi-story buildings with a small footprint. Land is really scarse especially in the west part of Europe where most of the industry is.
I drive a 2014 Chevy Volt. It has the same 103 mile range on a hot day it did when new.How do you get such a high range? It seems to be twice what Chevrolet claim. I only know people with the first generation Volt, and they seem to get the sort of range Chevrolet claim, which is about 30 miles. I understand the second generation is supposed to give about 50 miles.
Wow, that was stupid of me. I laugh when others can't keep the silly Chevy names straight ie: Spark, Volt, Bolt but I did it myself |O. I'll edit the post.I drive a 2014 Chevy Volt. It has the same 103 mile range on a hot day it did when new.How do you get such a high range? It seems to be twice what Chevrolet claim. I only know people with the first generation Volt, and they seem to get the sort of range Chevrolet claim, which is about 30 miles. I understand the second generation is supposed to give about 50 miles.
Wow, that was stupid of me. I laugh when others can't keep the silly Chevy names straight ie: Spark, Volt, Bolt but I did it myself |O. I'll edit the post.I drive a 2014 Chevy Volt. It has the same 103 mile range on a hot day it did when new.How do you get such a high range? It seems to be twice what Chevrolet claim. I only know people with the first generation Volt, and they seem to get the sort of range Chevrolet claim, which is about 30 miles. I understand the second generation is supposed to give about 50 miles.
It gets confusing when you 'merkins keep calling it gas, when we have cars that actually run on gas, like Liquid Petroleum gas (LPG), Hydrogen gas, methane/natural gas etc.
Petroleum or Petrol makes it quite a bit clearer.
On efficient engines. They don't have to be super slow and boring. My car on the "highway" can get 42mpg (British gallon), but on a race track I averaged 5.4 mpg. So that was about one gallon every 3 laps, or 1 gallon ever 5 minutes.
How many cars can a super charger charge at a given time? If fourteen cars are all lined up to be charge how long does the person in the fourteenth car have to wait to get a charge? And super chargers don’t give you a full charge so even when they get a charge their mileage is limited.
I think you are operating on the filling station mentality. Full tank, drive until near empty and then fill 'er up again. This isn't how EV owners do it. Generally, I never charge more than 85% and am fine going with well short of a full charge. Lots of EV owners target even less than that for their daily driving. I only do a full charge when I have a long day of driving ahead. It really is a different way of thinking.That is not a different way of thinking. That is making do with a system which takes more time no matter how you try to sugar coat it for yourself. Short charge or long charge it doesn't matter because you still need to charge for the distance you drive. I already hate going to the filling station because it takes time. You only live once so don't waste your time by waiting.
I already hate going to the filling station because it takes time. You only live once so don't waste your time by waiting.
I think you are operating on the filling station mentality. Full tank, drive until near empty and then fill 'er up again. This isn't how EV owners do it. Generally, I never charge more than 85% and am fine going with well short of a full charge. Lots of EV owners target even less than that for their daily driving. I only do a full charge when I have a long day of driving ahead. It really is a different way of thinking.That is not a different way of thinking. That is making do with a system which takes more time no matter how you try to sugar coat it for yourself. Short charge or long charge it doesn't matter because you still need to charge for the distance you drive. I already hate going to the filling station because it takes time. You only live once so don't waste your time by waiting.
Sorry but charging every day is like having to inflate the tyres every day :palm: What is not to understand about that?Charging is a serious issue for everyone on long journeys, but a daily charge for a daily commute is only a hardship if you lack your own driveway, garage or other space with a charging point. The only reasonable drawback to plugging the car in every night when you get home is the issue of forgetting, and not being able to go to work the next morning.
Also I don't need to go shopping every day and if I need something from a shop I order it online or go by bike. I need a car to go to customers, visit relatives or go on a holiday and I really don't want to have to 'fiddle' with a car for 20 minutes before it works. You probably guessed it: densely populated country so no fixed parking spaces and thus no way to charge at home.
Out of curiosity, how much area do all the rooftops in Europe take up? How much area for the parking lots?
For kicks look at the pricing of Tesla's wall battery. There is no break even point if you add that to the cost of your solar panel setup.
Sorry but charging every day is like having to inflate the tyres every day :palm: What is not to understand about that?
Also I don't need to go shopping every day and if I need something from a shop I order it online or go by bike. I need a car to go to customers, visit relatives or go on a holiday and I really don't want to have to 'fiddle' with a car for 20 minutes before it works. You probably guessed it: densely populated country so no fixed parking spaces and thus no way to charge at home.
How many cars can a super charger charge at a given time? If fourteen cars are all lined up to be charge how long does the person in the fourteenth car have to wait to get a charge? And super chargers don’t give you a full charge so even when they get a charge their mileage is limited.
Clearly some misunderstanding going on.
Here's how SCs work. Each site has a set of chargers. Depending on the model, a charger can range from 90 KW to 132 KW. Each charger has a number and can feed 2 cars (lettered A and B). The second car to hook up get's what ever is left over from the first one. The actual charge rate for a car depends on the state of the battery. A fully discharged battery gets almost 100% of the available rate and it starts to drop from there with the largest drop coming from about half charged to full. Not sure what the terminal rate is but I thinnk it's less than 10KW. The second car gets the left overs. However, in practice, no one has a fully discharged battery and no one actually charges to 100%. Typically people charge to the point where they can get to the next SC or their destination. So, even the second car on a charger seldom gets nothing and it's often pretty high. There is quite frequent turn over at SCs. If the occupancy is less than 50%, everyone gets the max charge rate for their battery state. The only time I've seen more than 50% was on a very busy travel day (the evening before thanksgiving, iirc). I've never had to wait for a spot to open up. And, in the places where people have had to wait (mostly in the Bay Area and Southern CA), Tesla has been very proactive in building out more capacity and new SCs in the general area.
I'm not sure what you mean by "don't give you a full charge". If you want, you can get a full charge but that last 1/8 takes about 20 minutes because off the drop off (this is to protect the battery). I've actually done that in one case 3 years ago where I needed a return charge. Though, it's quite unnecessary for the vast number of cases. In fact, my super charger strategy when traveling is to start with an amount of charge such that when I get to the SC, I have about 10% charge left so it will recharge faster. Typically, I only need about 60% to make it to the next SC or destination though the car will tell you when you have enough.
I think you are operating on the filling station mentality. Full tank, drive until near empty and then fill 'er up again. This isn't how EV owners do it. Generally, I never charge more than 85% and am fine going with well short of a full charge. Lots of EV owners target even less than that for their daily driving. I only do a full charge when I have a long day of driving ahead. It really is a different way of thinking.
Sorry but charging every day is like having to inflate the tyres every day :palm: What is not to understand about that?
Also I don't need to go shopping every day and if I need something from a shop I order it online or go by bike. I need a car to go to customers, visit relatives or go on a holiday and I really don't want to have to 'fiddle' with a car for 20 minutes before it works. You probably guessed it: densely populated country so no fixed parking spaces and thus no way to charge at home.
Most people plug their mobile phone in each night do they not? What is so different about plugging in the car each night too? I know guys who do this, they don't seem to bothered by the extra 5 seconds before they walk into the house. It is actually something every one of them has raved about how convenient it is, they pull into the driveway at night and plug in the car, they never have to go to a gas station. It sounds absolutely great to me, it's only the fact that I absolutely love my classic Volvo that prevents me from getting an electric myself.
What part of "if you're not one of the millions of people who can plug in to charge in their driveway then this doesn't apply to you" do you not understand? I get it, an electric car probably won't work for you, why are you so fixated on this and refusing to see that for millions of people it can and in fact does work very well? It seems almost obsessive that you are insisting it flat out doesn't work and then listing reasons it doesn't work for *you* and acting as though everyone is in your situation when in fact many millions of people are not.
What you (and several others) seem to be missing is that an EV isn't a 'solution' which scales well for charging at home. If many more households have an EV which they let charge overnight the electricity grid would get overloaded. For now with EVs in the single digit percentages it doesn't matter much but at some point it will. Ofcourse there will be exceptions like in countries where the rural areas already have heavier electricity connections for heating (Norway is probably an example). My point is: that an EV is suitable for a few today doesn't mean it can work for everyone out of the box.Sorry but charging every day is like having to inflate the tyres every day :palm: What is not to understand about that?What part of "if you're not one of the millions of people who can plug in to charge in their driveway then this doesn't apply to you" do you not understand?
Also I don't need to go shopping every day and if I need something from a shop I order it online or go by bike. I need a car to go to customers, visit relatives or go on a holiday and I really don't want to have to 'fiddle' with a car for 20 minutes before it works. You probably guessed it: densely populated country so no fixed parking spaces and thus no way to charge at home.
Its interesting that you quote an article which explains why it is not BS. Although the average UK electricity consumption may not massively increase, the wiring in the average street was not built for everyone in the street coming home in the early evening, and plugging in an additional 6kW load at around the same time. Either higher rated cables are needed, or a legally enforced system of controlled charging times, to spread the peak load. Bigger cable would be massively expensive. Controlled charging times are probably OK for the average commuter, but could be a serious problem for someone with unusual hours.QuoteIf many more households have an EV which they let charge overnight the electricity grid would get overloaded.
I read such a quote several times in this thread, and this is BS.
If we switch to EVs this would add between 10% (UK) and 15% (Germany) to the electricity demand.
For 1 million cars it would add ~0,35% and for 45 million cars ~15% in Germany.
In the same time the overall demand is also rising based on growth of population. There is always the need for more electricity, and EVs are just a part of it.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-switch-to-electric-vehicles-would-add-just-10-per-cent-to-uk-power-demand (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-switch-to-electric-vehicles-would-add-just-10-per-cent-to-uk-power-demand)
I read such a quote several times in this thread, and this is BS.
If we switch to EVs this would add between 10% (UK) and 15% (Germany) to the electricity demand.
For 1 million cars it would add ~0,35% and for 45 million cars ~15% in Germany.
In the same time the overall demand is also rising based on growth of population. There is always the need for more electricity, and EVs are just a part of it.
Your number is to high, we charge our car with 3.6kW (4.5 kVA). Usually every third night. Usually for 3-4 hours.
Maybe they could make drive-through charging stations:
Maybe this is a good charging solution for a bus on a circular route, or something like this. You can equip several streets your vehicle fleet uses frequently and you can run them 24/7.
This is a very intersting converstation, it goes to show you how everyones experiance with a plugin electric car is different.
The drive from LA to SF takes an additional 2 hours in a Tesla.
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/fastest-trip-la-sf (https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/fastest-trip-la-sf)
And driving a Tesla to Tahoe once you leave the Sacramento area where are the Super Chargers? And just how many of them are in Tahoe?
Lake Tahoe South Shore gets first Tesla Superchargers as region prepares for more electric vehicles
https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/local/lake-tahoe-south-shore-gets-first-tesla-supercharger-as-region-prepares-for-more-electric-vehicles/ (https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/local/lake-tahoe-south-shore-gets-first-tesla-supercharger-as-region-prepares-for-more-electric-vehicles/)
In the region there are only a handful of public Tesla Superchargers. There is one in Reno with a second in the works, two in Truckee with another on the way, one in Topaz Lake and now one in Stateline. Last year a universal DC Fast Charger was installed in the Heavenly Village Park.
Can you make it from Seattle to Lake Chelan witout having to stop for a charge along the way? Then one in Chelan are there any SC stations? How would you make this trip?
I looked at a Tesla and purcashed a Volt instead. As Teslas are watining in line to get charged. The trip for us to LA is same as for ICE. No 2 hour for usto get a charge.
You don't understand. It is not about consumption but it is about distribution! The distribution network at the street level needs to be able to cope with charging EVs (and the same problem applies to solar panels).QuoteIf many more households have an EV which they let charge overnight the electricity grid would get overloaded.I read such a quote several times in this thread, and this is BS.
If we switch to EVs this would add between 10% (UK) and 15% (Germany) to the electricity demand.
You are reading things that aren't there. I never said EVs are replaced over night. I'm just looking at the current situation and a hypothetical situation in which cars are replaced by EVs and what needs to be done to achieve that. I never attached a time line to it!If I simply multiply the km driven by cars in the NL (118 trillion) and the required kWh per km (250Wh): 118.5G * 0.250=29GWh) then in the NL it will take an additional 25% (29GWh/120GWh=25%) of elecricity generating capacity to switch to EVs. This means that the capacity of the local distribution grids will need to be almost doubled to deliver that additional 25% if people charge their EVs at home.
And again the same assumption: Over night all cars are replaced by EVs and the grid needs to be doubled. :scared:
We are split what the exact numbers are, but whats the point? The grid needs to be developed? Sure! We need more electricity? Sure! We pay the companies for this development? Sure! They will handle this. It's a normal day-to-day process to develop, maintain and upgrade the infrastructure around us.
The amount of EVs will grow over the next decades and also the grid will be delevoped in the same time. The world will continue to turn. Everything will be fine, don't worry!
Well, I certainly see the "overloaded grid" arguments using the loads from full deployment of EVs. The system will get upgraded based on demand - happens all the time. Also, peak consumption, at least in North America, is mid-day so there is capacity to spare in the evenings when most EVs would be charged. In fact, a lot of utilities have lower night rates to encourage consumption at off-peak times. I'm not sure how close to over-capacity the grid really is.
You are reading things that aren't there. I never said EVs are replaced over night. I'm just looking at the current situation and a hypothetical situation in which cars are replaced by EVs and what needs to be done to achieve that. I never attached a time line to it!
Also updating the distribution grid for heavier loads in small or big steps is going to be more expensive no matter how you twist and turn it.
Peak consumption during the day is due to the companies being active. During the day usage from residential areas is low anyway because most people are at work. But don't take my word for it: https://www.epa.gov/energy/electricity-customers (https://www.epa.gov/energy/electricity-customers)Well, I certainly see the "overloaded grid" arguments using the loads from full deployment of EVs. The system will get upgraded based on demand - happens all the time. Also, peak consumption, at least in North America, is mid-day so there is capacity to spare in the evenings when most EVs would be charged. In fact, a lot of utilities have lower night rates to encourage consumption at off-peak times. I'm not sure how close to over-capacity the grid really is.
You are reading things that aren't there. I never said EVs are replaced over night. I'm just looking at the current situation and a hypothetical situation in which cars are replaced by EVs and what needs to be done to achieve that. I never attached a time line to it!
Also updating the distribution grid for heavier loads in small or big steps is going to be more expensive no matter how you twist and turn it.
Peak consumption during the day is due to the companies being active. During the day usage from residential areas is low anyway because most people are at work. But don't take my word for it: https://www.epa.gov/energy/electricity-customers (https://www.epa.gov/energy/electricity-customers)Well, I certainly see the "overloaded grid" arguments using the loads from full deployment of EVs. The system will get upgraded based on demand - happens all the time. Also, peak consumption, at least in North America, is mid-day so there is capacity to spare in the evenings when most EVs would be charged. In fact, a lot of utilities have lower night rates to encourage consumption at off-peak times. I'm not sure how close to over-capacity the grid really is.
You are reading things that aren't there. I never said EVs are replaced over night. I'm just looking at the current situation and a hypothetical situation in which cars are replaced by EVs and what needs to be done to achieve that. I never attached a time line to it!
Also updating the distribution grid for heavier loads in small or big steps is going to be more expensive no matter how you twist and turn it.
I hope it is clear that charging the EVs when people come back home from work is not a good idea because that overlaps with peak demand in residential areas.
Around 3/4 of the cars near me are street parked, it's not an outlier here in the Netherlands.
I think you should look much further than you home town and collect some real numbers to back up your claim (IOW: do the math). Look at New York for example. And then look at Europe. There are 3 to 4 times more people living in Europe compared to the US. I'm very sure your hundreds of millions of people is grossly over estimated.Around 3/4 of the cars near me are street parked, it's not an outlier here in the Netherlands.
Then it doesn't apply to you or 3/4 of the people around you, so what? I'm sure you realize there are hundreds of millions of people for whom that's not the case?
Around 3/4 of the cars near me are street parked, it's not an outlier here in the Netherlands.
Then it doesn't apply to you or 3/4 of the people around you, so what? I'm sure you realize there are hundreds of millions of people for whom that's not the case?
Have a look at my home town for example https://goo.gl/maps/egY6Fw5mqfq (https://goo.gl/maps/egY6Fw5mqfq)
How much street parking do you see? There suburbs like this all over the country. Literally millions of houses with driveways and/or garages. I'm still confused why the fact that you live in an area where this isn't the case somehow means that it can't possibly be true somewhere else.
It is absolutely tiring how people from USA don't want to accept that rest of the world is different.
I think you should look much further than you home town and collect some real numbers to back up your claim (IOW: do the math).
I already wrote that Norway (and Sweden and Finland) benefit from a very low population density, almost free electricity from hydro and a high capacity electricity grid for heating. In those countries many people already have a mains outlet near their car keep it warm during the winter. However those countries (with a total of 20 million people) are nowhere near representative for the rest of Europe (742 million people). And that brings me back to my (bottom line) point: because an EV works for a few today doesn't mean it can work for everyone with today's infrastructure. Exceptions don't make the rule.It is absolutely tiring how people from USA don't want to accept that rest of the world is different.Generalize much? The thread topic is about when EVs will become mainstream. Right now, they are not, but forum users who currently drive EVs decided to share their respective experiences to indicate that the many objections raised (eg: range anxiety) are largely irrelevant. I didn't see anyone other than you turn this into a USA v. the rest of the world argument. If it were, how would you explain Norway's EV ownership statistics?
And that brings me back to my (bottom line) point: because an EV works for a few today doesn't mean it can work for everyone with today's infrastructure. Exceptions don't make the rule.
There are 3 to 4 times more people living in Europe compared to the US. I'm very sure your hundreds of millions of people is grossly over estimated.
And that brings me back to my (bottom line) point: because an EV works for a few today doesn't mean it can work for everyone with today's infrastructure. Exceptions don't make the rule.So, your argument is that we shouldn't have EVs because they can't work for everyone. I'm pretty sure that none of the pro-EV folks ever said or even implied they would work for everyone. Mainstream doesn't mean 100%. I don't think it even means 50%.
It is absolutely tiring how people from USA don't want to accept that rest of the world is different.
Generalize much? The thread topic is about when EVs will become mainstream. Right now, they are not, but forum users who currently drive EVs decided to share their respective experiences to indicate that the many objections raised (eg: range anxiety) are largely irrelevant. I didn't see anyone other than you turn this into a USA v. the rest of the world argument. If it were, how would you explain Norway's EV ownership statistics?
Also, I lived half my life outside the US, in either a house with a garage, or an apartment with reserved parking spots. Is it common? Not to the same extent as in the suburban US, but not everyone parks on the street (when at home) either.
Go check out some user forums for EVs, there are plenty of folks who own EVs despite not having home charging facilities.I think you should look much further than you home town and collect some real numbers to back up your claim (IOW: do the math).
I don't see you backing up any of your claims with data or references. Also:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/units.html (https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/units.html)
Cue next moving of the goal posts in 3... 2... 1...
That is not my argument. People keep raving on about how easy it is to charge yadda yadda yadda but from their own little bubble they seem forget that the electricity needs to come from somewhere and thus needs to be transported. If the majority of the cars are EVs upgrading the grid (at some point) alone will require a massive investment which needs to be paid for one way or another. Also include that people are seeking acknowledgement that they made the right choice by buying an EV as an early adopter.And that brings me back to my (bottom line) point: because an EV works for a few today doesn't mean it can work for everyone with today's infrastructure. Exceptions don't make the rule.So, your argument is that we shouldn't have EVs because they can't work for everyone.
And the big argument against EVs - that they really don't help solve the problem - has been disproven in multiple ways so we seem to be left with the silly argument that "they can't apply to everyone so they should go away".That is not true and easy to proof mathematically. Depending on how electricity is generated an EV can produce more CO2 per distance travelled compared to a fuel economic car. This has been proven over and over again so we are not going to do a recap in every post.
@phil: I found this interesting (but old) report: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/FINAL%20REPORT_Removing%20Barriers%20to%20EV%20Adoption_TO%20POST.pdf (http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/FINAL%20REPORT_Removing%20Barriers%20to%20EV%20Adoption_TO%20POST.pdf)
I wonder how much of it has been implemented.
That is not true and easy to proof mathematically. Depending on how electricity is generated an EV can produce more CO2 per distance travelled compared to a fuel economic car. This has been proven over and over again so we are not going to do a recap in every post.Then you really are ignoring all the points that have been made and the studies link. I don't see how repeating them will help.
You really should put EVs in a context where there is a lot of development when it comes to renewable energy and alternative ways of getting cars moving. Bio-fuels, (hydrogen) fuel cells, etc are also under development and each have their own advantages/disadvantages. Nothing is set in stone yet.
I find the Zinc cycle intriguing. You could imagine a system where zinc would serve as the storage medium in a flow-battery/zinc-recoverer, while in a car it would be fuel for a fuel cell (https://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/09/14/refuelable-zinc-air-battery-returns-as-a-fuel-cell/). The flow battery would be at tank stations and at home. The flow battery doesn't really care that zinc in alkaline solutions doesn't plate nicely, it gets mechanically removed and compacted, and the fuel cell doesn't have to plate at all.Zinc-air batteries were being used in transport applications before lithium ones. They sound great, as energy density is good, zinc is fairly light and plentiful, and you don't need to carry the air. They seemed to have too many degradation issues to reach the big time, though. The article you referenced doesn't seem to offer any major breakthroughs.
It is absolutely tiring how people from USA don't want to accept that rest of the world is different. If we (people not from USA) say something different we are immediately either stupid or don't know better..
We're not. We just live somewhere else where socioeconomic, historic, geographic and all kinds of other facts are simply different.
So we think different and live differently in different environment wanting different things...
Regards,
Sinisa
I have traveled to much of the two Western provinces of Canada, and I've been to the UK and in both places I saw a very similar situation to home, mostly houses with driveways and/or garages. The UK was the most different as a large number of the houses were duplexes and of course much smaller than the houses I'm used to but houses none the less with private parking.
While I'm not as worldly as some, I have traveled to much of the two Western provinces of Canada, and I've been to the UK and in both places I saw a very similar situation to home, mostly houses with driveways and/or garages. The UK was the most different as a large number of the houses were duplexes and of course much smaller than the houses I'm used to but houses none the less with private parking.I don't know which parts of the UK you went to, but off street parking is only available for a small percentage of UK homes.
You don't need a study to take the CO2 emissions from the EPA website for a fuel economic car and look up the CO2 emissions per kWh electricity for a country or region. It is simple primary school calculus.That is not true and easy to proof mathematically. Depending on how electricity is generated an EV can produce more CO2 per distance travelled compared to a fuel economic car. This has been proven over and over again so we are not going to do a recap in every post.Then you really are ignoring all the points that have been made and the studies link. I don't see how repeating them will help.
You really should put EVs in a context where there is a lot of development when it comes to renewable energy and alternative ways of getting cars moving. Bio-fuels, (hydrogen) fuel cells, etc are also under development and each have their own advantages/disadvantages. Nothing is set in stone yet.
If bio-fuels and hydrogen are your answers, you really have not done your homework.Well bio-fuel has been around for decades already. But it is there and growing steadily. The best thing is: it doesn't require changes in infrastructure or equipment people have. The downside is that it isn't new or very different so it is not sexy.
While I'm not as worldly as some, I have traveled to much of the two Western provinces of Canada, and I've been to the UK and in both places I saw a very similar situation to home, mostly houses with driveways and/or garages. The UK was the most different as a large number of the houses were duplexes and of course much smaller than the houses I'm used to but houses none the less with private parking.I don't know which parts of the UK you went to, but off street parking is only available for a small percentage of UK homes.
Zinc-air batteries were being used in transport applications before lithium ones. They sound great, as energy density is good, zinc is fairly light and plentiful, and you don't need to carry the air. They seemed to have too many degradation issues to reach the big time, though. The article you referenced doesn't seem to offer any major breakthroughs.
I don't know where we might find proper figures for this, but I'd guess 10-15% of UK homes have off street parking. I would be surprised if its much more than that. Few people have an assigned street parking spot, but more importantly the sidewalk/pavement between the kerb and the house is public land. The house owner can't just dangle a charging cable across that space, and they have no right to install a charging unit at the kerb. In many older towns, the streets are too narrow to even offer enough space at the kerb for a for a box like that. A mother can barely push a pram along the pavement as it is. It would require a massive change in policy to alter this. Its massive because issues of exclusive use/ownership of what is now public space will arise. Sadly, nobody is even trying to discuss this kind of preparation for an electric car future.I don't know which parts of the UK you went to, but off street parking is only available for a small percentage of UK homes.
The question of course is what percentage? 10%? That would still be a very large number.
The other important point is that as long as you can park directly next to your home (even if it is not "private") - you can still charge an EV.
When I travel with my Volt, I bring a heavy gauge extension cord and often plug in to outlets in parking garages, outside of buildings, etc. There's even an "App for that" - called PlugShare which shows places others have found to charge their EVs.
Where am I not accepting that other parts of the world are different? I started this whole debate with something along the lines of "if you live in a different situation then this doesn't apply to you" so if it doesn't apply to you why are you even debating? Are you seriously saying that suburbs are exclusive to the USA? While I'm not as worldly as some, I have traveled to much of the two Western provinces of Canada, and I've been to the UK and in both places I saw a very similar situation to home, mostly houses with driveways and/or garages. The UK was the most different as a large number of the houses were duplexes and of course much smaller than the houses I'm used to but houses none the less with private parking.
After all this, I'm still seeing the argument "Well it doesn't work for my little corner of the world therefore it won't work for anybody" and when I point out that there are *millions* of people who live in situations where it will work and in fact does work I get fingers in the ears "La La La La La!!!!" and restating some previous tired argument or trying to turn this into some one country vs another country debate. Stop trying to claim that I'm saying EVs will work well for everybody or that every other country is just like the USA, or that the USA is superior to other countries because I've said none of this. These are counter-arguments invented in the heads of the naysayers.
It should be an obvious point that even in a country that has only 10% of the population living in the suburbs or rural areas (and hence have private parking) - those 10% are going to account for far greater than 10% of auto miles/kilometers driven.
Those who live in highly populated cities tend to walk or use public transportation often (a good thing). And those in densly populated cities who do own cars are likely to drive far less than suburb/country dwellers.
The best scenario is walkable cities with good public transportation systems and EVs for those outside the city centers.
And BTW there is no reason why fee based low power charging stations could not eventually be made commonplace on residential streets where private parking is not available. Low power charging stations for overnight charging would not be a hugely expensive or complicated infrastructure change.
True. Problem is that exactly people living rural areas are those that do have range anxiety...They already exist, they are called plugin hybrids.
Best technology would be EV with 150 km range with small backup generator on board for "limp home mode".
It should be an obvious point that even in a country that has only 10% of the population living in the suburbs or rural areas (and hence have private parking) - those 10% are going to account for far greater than 10% of auto miles/kilometers driven.No. In the NL suburbs are also densely populated. The problem is that public transport goes from city centre to city centre and doesn't reach the outskirts where the companies are (typicall) located. In the NL only 15% of the people use public transport to travel to work and 75% uses a car. After all: public transport takes you from a place you are not at to a place where you don't need to go. Public transport is therefore very slow and I only use it to go to places which are hard to reach by a car due to traffic jams. For example: every now and then I have to go to a customer in Amsterdam. If I use the train it takes 50 minutes door-to-door. If I use the car it takes 25 minutes (without traffic jams). For shorter distances a bycicle (or even walking) is faster than public transport.
Those who live in highly populated cities tend to walk or use public transportation often (a good thing). And those in densly populated cities who do own cars are likely to drive far less than suburb/country dwellers.
Not all of them are series hybrid type. Most of them are standard mechanic/electric parallel or power split hybrid.True. Problem is that exactly people living rural areas are those that do have range anxiety...They already exist, they are called plugin hybrids.
Best technology would be EV with 150 km range with small backup generator on board for "limp home mode".
So you can always charge your batteries with a little combustion engine.
It should be an obvious point that even in a country that has only 10% of the population living in the suburbs or rural areas (and hence have private parking) - those 10% are going to account for far greater than 10% of auto miles/kilometers driven.No. In the NL suburbs are also densely populated.
Those who live in highly populated cities tend to walk or use public transportation often (a good thing). And those in densly populated cities who do own cars are likely to drive far less than suburb/country dwellers.
Maybe this will help :-DDOld Fiat 126 had 18KW engine and could go more than 100 km/h. I remember Porsche commercial saying it was so aerodynamic it neded only 32 HP to go 120 km/h.
(https://static.webshopapp.com/shops/074363/files/056410992/telwin-powerbank-drive-9000.jpg)
A small generator won't cut it because of the power needed to move a car. For that the generator would need to have an engine which is the size of a car engine.
There are two categories of people with private parking spaces in the NL:Are you seriously arguing that people who have homes with private parking do not drive any more on average than those who don't?It should be an obvious point that even in a country that has only 10% of the population living in the suburbs or rural areas (and hence have private parking) - those 10% are going to account for far greater than 10% of auto miles/kilometers driven.No. In the NL suburbs are also densely populated.
Those who live in highly populated cities tend to walk or use public transportation often (a good thing). And those in densly populated cities who do own cars are likely to drive far less than suburb/country dwellers.
It should be an obvious point that even in a country that has only 10% of the population living in the suburbs or rural areas (and hence have private parking) - those 10% are going to account for far greater than 10% of auto miles/kilometers driven.
Those who live in highly populated cities tend to walk or use public transportation often (a good thing). And those in densly populated cities who do own cars are likely to drive far less than suburb/country dwellers.
The best scenario is walkable cities with good public transportation systems and EVs for those outside the city centers.
And BTW there is no reason why fee based low power charging stations could not eventually be made commonplace on residential streets where private parking is not available. Low power charging stations for overnight charging would not be a hugely expensive or complicated infrastructure change.
True. Problem is that exactly people living rural areas are those that do have range anxiety...
Best technology would be EV with 150 km range with small backup generator on board for "limp home mode".
And aggressive buildup of public parkings with chargers in cities.... In rural areas people would charge at home, and would be sure that they will always come home.
Regards,
Sinisa
There are two categories of people with private parking spaces in the NL:Are you seriously arguing that people who have homes with private parking do not drive any more on average than those who don't?It should be an obvious point that even in a country that has only 10% of the population living in the suburbs or rural areas (and hence have private parking) - those 10% are going to account for far greater than 10% of auto miles/kilometers driven.No. In the NL suburbs are also densely populated.
Those who live in highly populated cities tend to walk or use public transportation often (a good thing). And those in densly populated cities who do own cars are likely to drive far less than suburb/country dwellers.
1) People with free standing homes are usually rich enough to buy a home close to their company so they don't need to travel far to work.
2) People who have the car parked in the garden of their townhouses (they got suckered into buying a house without a public parking space).
Either way neither have a reason to travel shorter or longer based on what kind of home they have. Keep in mind that the NL is anything unlike the US. A one hour drive gets you (literally) halfway through the country.
There are huge numbers of people living in suburbs with private parking that are not exactly rural. I can look out my window and see the neighbor's EV parked in their driveway plugged in right now, it's literally right outside, they drive it to work every day, it's so strange to have people denying that this situation exists when it's in my reality.Nobody is denying that such a situation can exist somewhere. But it isn't a defacto standard. If I look out of my window I see no EVs at all in the entire street.
The point stands: Those who have private parking available will on average drive much more than those who live in densely populated areas and do not.Without numbers to back it up this is just your opinion. I see no reason why a group of people with their cars parked on their driveway or a group of people with their cars parked in public parking spaces (IOW along the street) should drive a different distances. There is no logic to that.
There are miniature gas turbine generators available, that are suitcase sized and have power in 100 kW range... Way more than enough...
The point stands: Those who have private parking available will on average drive much more than those who live in densely populated areas and do not.Without numbers to back it up this is just your opinion. I see no reason why a group of people with their cars on their driveway or a group of people with their cars parked in public parking spaces (IOW along the street) should drive a different distances. There is no logic to that.
Besides that I'm not projecting the situation in the NL.
Sad truth is that you cannot extrapolate any conclusion from existing EV ownership. Current EV owners are enthusiasts and those that are lucky to be in position to be able to afford and operate EV.The question, in my opinion, is if the reason most EV owners today are enthusiasts (I wouldn't call myself that, but I see your point) is for any real reason, or due to lack of information. Take the two biggest sellers of EVs in the US, Tesla and Chevy. Tesla almost single-handedly raised the level of awareness of EVs, but have a reputation of being very expensive. Chevy on the other hand built two superb cars, but did little to nothing to advertise them.
They are more anomaly than something that can be used to extract plans how to go forward.
As you yourself say topic was "mainstream use of EV". Not so soon, not until infrastructure is built. And that is something that will be really hard somewhere and not so much somewhere else..
A lot of scattershot ideas with basically zero meat (private charger sharing, for example). The only half way reasonable one was DCFC (think ChaDeMo, not death cab for cuties...) on city properties and that hasn't happened. In fact, instead of requiring that apartment construction include EV charging in parking spaces (or at least wiring for it) they have now allowed apartments to be built with no parking at all. And the extent of their support is adding a handful of Level 2 chargers in random on-street places. (It's been shown that L2 chargers get approximately 1 use every two days, FAIL.).
If charging an EV at home would be so easy in the NL then why are only 0.29% of the cars EVs? Numbers talk... A single observation not so much.
While I'm not as worldly as some, I have traveled to much of the two Western provinces of Canada, and I've been to the UK and in both places I saw a very similar situation to home, mostly houses with driveways and/or garages. The UK was the most different as a large number of the houses were duplexes and of course much smaller than the houses I'm used to but houses none the less with private parking.I don't know which parts of the UK you went to, but off street parking is only available for a small percentage of UK homes.
Sure, Manchester has affluent suburbs like Woodford which are very open, with reasonably large front gardens and driveways for most houses. That represents a few percent of the houses in Manchester.While I'm not as worldly as some, I have traveled to much of the two Western provinces of Canada, and I've been to the UK and in both places I saw a very similar situation to home, mostly houses with driveways and/or garages. The UK was the most different as a large number of the houses were duplexes and of course much smaller than the houses I'm used to but houses none the less with private parking.I don't know which parts of the UK you went to, but off street parking is only available for a small percentage of UK homes.
I went to Manchester, there were suburbs there not unlike the suburbs here. Smaller, flatter, a lot fewer trees, the houses were overwhelmingly made of brick rather than wood and people drove on the "wrong" side of the road but otherwise it felt not entirely unfamiliar. I'm sure the numbers are available if one was inclined to look them up, and I'd be shocked it more than 5% of the people for whom an EV would be a good match already have one, which means there's a huge potential market that has not been saturated.
The UK has pledged to ban the sale of new ICE only cars by 2030 (IIRC). Given the mentioned issues of charging a large number of those will be ICE charged hybrids.It won't be the first time a government changes their heading if an idea turns out to be not that good after a while. With diesel-gate fresh in mind politicians are likely to pitch all kind of ideas to make them look good. 2030 is still far away.
Renewables just isn't going to expand fast enough or even be all that practical on a large scale, as large as we need to get off fossil fuels. Not to mention there are still trillions and trillions of dollars of fossil fuels to be extracted and more is found every day. Who honestly believes that big oil will stop and leave that money in the ground?The idea seems to be to catch CO2 at power plants and store it underground. I'm principally against that because putting large amounts of CO2 in the ground creates toxic gas pockets (a few % of CO2 is enough to kill you) which stay dangerous forever (forever as in until the earth falls apart). Compared to that even storing radioactive material is a more sensible bad idea because radioactive material will stop radiating at some point in time.
The UK has pledged to ban the sale of new ICE only cars by 2030 (IIRC). Given the mentioned issues of charging a large number of those will be ICE charged hybrids.It won't be the first time a government changes their heading if an idea turns out to be not that good after a while. With diesel-gate fresh in mind politicians are likely to pitch all kind of ideas to make them look good. 2030 is still far away.The whole 2030 thing in the UK is a knee jerk reaction. The UK heavily promoted the lower CO2 output of diesels, to the extent that many luxury cars were not even offered with a gasoline engine option in the UK. Now they are waking up to the higher NOx levels this has caused in cities, they are suddenly turning against diesels. Taxation rules no longer favour them, and gasoline versions of luxury cars are being launched. Its a typical dumb populist move. The majority of the NOx comes from older diesels, even though most of the Euro 6 ones are obviously cheating to some extent. Instead of tightening up on the diesel emissions, diesels have suddenly become the bad guys, and the higher CO2 from petrol engines is no longer the hot topic of the week.Quote
Had to wait for one of the two spaces, finally was able to get a space. Pulled in, only to find the charging station plug does not work with a Chevy.That is the problem with being an early adopter. You get to deal with all the sh*t and it will get much worse before getting better (I was an early adopter of DSL internet...). In order to make EVs mainstream they'll have to charge faster which will require a totally different plug. AFAIK the reason Tesla is incompatible is not because they want to but because they want to be able to charge at higher speeds which isn't possible with the standard plugs.
As a consumer this is BS. Why isn’t there just one standard plug for electric cars? So I called the phone number on the chargaing station to see where the nearest Chevy charger was. It was over 2 miles away at a hotel. I was told to part there and take a Taxi or maybe a Uber to get to and from the shopping center.
So here you folks are talking about infrastructure, the electric car companies are fighting over what infrastructure to install. I’m a correct that Tesla makes it so only Tesla cars car be charged in Tesla Chargers? And then aren’t there three other types of electric car plugs which are all different?
Had to wait for one of the two spaces, finally was able to get a space. Pulled in, only to find the charging station plug does not work with a Chevy.That is the problem with being an early adopter. You get to deal with all the sh*t and it will get much worse before getting better (I was an early adopter of DSL internet...). In order to make EVs mainstream they'll have to charge faster which will require a totally different plug. AFAIK the reason Tesla is incompatible is not because they want to but because they want to be able to charge at higher speeds which isn't possible with the standard plugs.
As a consumer this is BS. Why isn’t there just one standard plug for electric cars? So I called the phone number on the chargaing station to see where the nearest Chevy charger was. It was over 2 miles away at a hotel. I was told to part there and take a Taxi or maybe a Uber to get to and from the shopping center.
So here you folks are talking about infrastructure, the electric car companies are fighting over what infrastructure to install. I’m a correct that Tesla makes it so only Tesla cars car be charged in Tesla Chargers? And then aren’t there three other types of electric car plugs which are all different?
Another reason EV cars won’t become mainstream is because some the them are assholes too. I recently drove to a supermarket where they had a couple of EV charging spaces. Signs around on on the EV charging stations clearly state, “Free EV car charging only while shopping at “Good Food” supermarket.There appears to be a straightforward long term solution for this. Stores could operate these chargers as paid for chargers, and give drivers a token at the checkout to get their charge for free.
Similar to my EV parking spaces at hotels being parked in by ICE drivers, the EV charging spaces were being used by people working out in a gym across the street and others not shopping at the market wanting a free charge. What’s wrong with these people? If they did this at a gas station it would be called stealing. But for some reason EV drivers feel they can take energy from businesses for free.
I asked an employee about it, and was told it’s turning into a big problem. As people find businesses who have free charging they are taking advantage and “stealing” the power without shopping our supporting the business that’s giving them the “free” electricty.
The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.
In this case it’s EV drivers who are preventing the adoption of EV vehicles and installation of charging stations.
What’s with people. These four spaces were clearly marked and reserved for EV charging. So why do ICE drivers think they can park in EV spaces? What jerks.
But then I was thinking what if there were five guests who had EVs at this hotel which had only four spaces. Would one of the four of us get a call at 3:00 in the morning telling us our car was charged and we would he to move it so another guest could get charged?
What’s the etiquette here?
Another reason EV cars won’t become mainstream is because some the them are assholes too. I recently drove to a supermarket where they had a couple of EV charging spaces. Signs around on on the EV charging stations clearly state, “Free EV car charging only while shopping at “Good Food” supermarket.There appears to be a straightforward long term solution for this. Stores could operate these chargers as paid for chargers, and give drivers a token at the checkout to get their charge for free.
Similar to my EV parking spaces at hotels being parked in by ICE drivers, the EV charging spaces were being used by people working out in a gym across the street and others not shopping at the market wanting a free charge. What’s wrong with these people? If they did this at a gas station it would be called stealing. But for some reason EV drivers feel they can take energy from businesses for free.
I asked an employee about it, and was told it’s turning into a big problem. As people find businesses who have free charging they are taking advantage and “stealing” the power without shopping our supporting the business that’s giving them the “free” electricty.
The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.
In this case it’s EV drivers who are preventing the adoption of EV vehicles and installation of charging stations.
The commercial chargers I have seen can interact with people's phones. They allow for "clubs", which either don't get charged, or have special rates. It seems unlikely they haven't provided for one off free charges through people's phones, even if they have no support for token schemes.Another reason EV cars won’t become mainstream is because some the them are assholes too. I recently drove to a supermarket where they had a couple of EV charging spaces. Signs around on on the EV charging stations clearly state, “Free EV car charging only while shopping at “Good Food” supermarket.There appears to be a straightforward long term solution for this. Stores could operate these chargers as paid for chargers, and give drivers a token at the checkout to get their charge for free.
Similar to my EV parking spaces at hotels being parked in by ICE drivers, the EV charging spaces were being used by people working out in a gym across the street and others not shopping at the market wanting a free charge. What’s wrong with these people? If they did this at a gas station it would be called stealing. But for some reason EV drivers feel they can take energy from businesses for free.
I asked an employee about it, and was told it’s turning into a big problem. As people find businesses who have free charging they are taking advantage and “stealing” the power without shopping our supporting the business that’s giving them the “free” electricty.
The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.
In this case it’s EV drivers who are preventing the adoption of EV vehicles and installation of charging stations.
Yes they could. But it's at an additional expense. Yes it can be done but do you know of any commercial chargers for sale today whcih have that feature? Or any businees who are using tokens right now? I don't. All fthe chargers I have seen do aren't confgured for taking tokens. I suspect it would be very expensive to modify the existing charging stations to take tokens. And then ther'e the cost of the ongoing maintance.
If I were a business ower I think I would really think twice about installing and maintaing a charging station.
This is an example of the chicken and the egg where the chicken destory the egg and wonders why there aren't more chickens around.
What’s with people. These four spaces were clearly marked and reserved for EV charging. So why do ICE drivers think they can park in EV spaces? What jerks.
But then I was thinking what if there were five guests who had EVs at this hotel which had only four spaces. Would one of the four of us get a call at 3:00 in the morning telling us our car was charged and we would he to move it so another guest could get charged?
What’s the etiquette here?
So for one thing, EV drivers are seen as 'smug' (one comment earlier in this thread), 'entitled', 'mooching off free stuff', etc., and people use that notion to justify parking an ICE car in an EV parking spot. Somehow that's seen as 'taking them down a notch'. I've heard my wife's own mother saying we're defrauding our city by charging for free.
As for charging etiquette, there aren't really any 'rules' yet but I did get a card with my home charger that you attach to the charging cord. One side indicates that you are 'opportunity charging', and lists a phone number to call in case you really need the spot. The other side indicates that I really need the charge. So far, nobody has called me to ask for my spot yet.
Commercial charging providers like Chargepoint can partner with multiple businesses so that the cost of operation is split. This neatly solves the common parking lot problem. Even when the charging is free, Chargepoint requires me to swipe an RFID to unlock the charge cable. I suppose they could add a feature where one would need to pay for the charge unless a business 'validates' (similar to parking) the charge session.
All EVs sold in the US have an SAE J1772 socket for level 2 charging. The differences are for level 3, where Tesla has their own proprietary plug. Many Japanese vendors use the CHAdeMO plug, everyone else (including Chevy) use the J1772 combo plug that includes two extra pins for DC charging. I'm guessing Tesla's reason for a proprietary plug is to prevent non-Tesla drivers from charging for free at Supercharger stations. So far, all the DC fast charge stations I've been to have both CHAdeMO and SAE combo plugs.
European EVs use the IEC type-2 connector, which can provide 3-phase power. This uses the same signaling as the single-phase J1772 socket, so a passive adapter can be used. CHAdeMO uses CAN bus for signaling, so one can't devise a passive adapter plug. Not sure what Tesla uses for signaling.
The commercial chargers I have seen can interact with people's phones. They allow for "clubs", which either don't get charged, or have special rates. It seems unlikely they haven't provided for one off free charges through people's phones, even if they have no support for token schemes.Another reason EV cars won’t become mainstream is because some the them are assholes too. I recently drove to a supermarket where they had a couple of EV charging spaces. Signs around on on the EV charging stations clearly state, “Free EV car charging only while shopping at “Good Food” supermarket.There appears to be a straightforward long term solution for this. Stores could operate these chargers as paid for chargers, and give drivers a token at the checkout to get their charge for free.
Similar to my EV parking spaces at hotels being parked in by ICE drivers, the EV charging spaces were being used by people working out in a gym across the street and others not shopping at the market wanting a free charge. What’s wrong with these people? If they did this at a gas station it would be called stealing. But for some reason EV drivers feel they can take energy from businesses for free.
I asked an employee about it, and was told it’s turning into a big problem. As people find businesses who have free charging they are taking advantage and “stealing” the power without shopping our supporting the business that’s giving them the “free” electricty.
The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.
In this case it’s EV drivers who are preventing the adoption of EV vehicles and installation of charging stations.
Yes they could. But it's at an additional expense. Yes it can be done but do you know of any commercial chargers for sale today whcih have that feature? Or any businees who are using tokens right now? I don't. All fthe chargers I have seen do aren't confgured for taking tokens. I suspect it would be very expensive to modify the existing charging stations to take tokens. And then ther'e the cost of the ongoing maintance.
If I were a business ower I think I would really think twice about installing and maintaing a charging station.
This is an example of the chicken and the egg where the chicken destory the egg and wonders why there aren't more chickens around.
Well actually there are two types of nozzles and no fewer than five different kinds of fuel. You can also accidentally fill your car with the wrong one and destroy the engine. :D
Yeah there's a bit hyperbole and pedantry, but as I mentioned in my post, it really isn't such a big deal particularly for L2 charging.
The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!' They shouldn't complain people don't pay for the electricity. That should come out of the marketing budget. Ofcourse like in any advertisement campaign some ads work and some ads don't. For the companies that put the charging points there it is all about market penetration to make sure they are ready when it is time to get the profits by having people to pay for charging.
I think you'll need to provide a much better supporting argument for such an oddball position. The supermarket offers free charging to attract customers. That's a rational marketing expenditure. The customers can't get to use those chargers, because the supermarket has issues with managing their use. In those circumstances removing them and using the marketing budget somewhere else is a rational marketing decision. Using a scheme to tie free charging to purchases is a rational marketing decision. Paying for electricity, charging stations and parking spaces to assist the businesses across the road makes no sense at all. Its bad enough that its impractical in most locations to prevent your car park being filled with the cars of non-patrons. Paying to charge those cars is just adding insult to injury.The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!' They shouldn't complain people don't pay for the electricity. That should come out of the marketing budget. Ofcourse like in any advertisement campaign some ads work and some ads don't. For the companies that put the charging points there it is all about market penetration to make sure they are ready when it is time to get the profits by having people to pay for charging.
Why is my statement oddball? You seem surprised that people are using a free charging point at a shop but don't visit that shop. That doesn't surprise me at all because that is basic human behaviour. As you wrote people park where there is space and that doesn't need to be a parking space alloted to a certain shop.I think you'll need to provide a much better supporting argument for such an oddball position. The supermarket offers free charging to attract customers. That's a rational marketing expenditure. The customers can't get to use those chargers, because the supermarket has issues with managing their use. In those circumstances removing them and using the marketing budget somewhere else is a rational marketing decision. Using a scheme to tie free charging to purchases is a rational marketing decision. Paying for electricity, charging stations and parking spaces to assist the businesses across the road makes no sense at all. Its bad enough that its impractical in most locations to prevent your car park being filled with the cars of non-patrons. Paying to charge those cars is just adding insult to injury.The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!' They shouldn't complain people don't pay for the electricity. That should come out of the marketing budget. Ofcourse like in any advertisement campaign some ads work and some ads don't. For the companies that put the charging points there it is all about market penetration to make sure they are ready when it is time to get the profits by having people to pay for charging.
Oddball or not, you need to back your statements up, else you're not much better than someone on a street corner wearing a sandwich board proclaiming that the end is near.I don't really see what needs to be backed up here. Again: if you put a free charger in a spot where everyone can use it then it will be used. If you only want certain people to use it then it needs some kind of access control mechanism. What is not to understand about that?
The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!'That statement, for example.
Why else would a shop have a charging point??? Are they suddenly a gas station? It is added service like free candy for kids, free coffee, free parking space, free wifi, etc to look attractive.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!'That statement, for example.
The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!' They shouldn't complain people don't pay for the electricity. That should come out of the marketing budget. Ofcourse like in any advertisement campaign some ads work and some ads don't. For the companies that put the charging points there it is all about market penetration to make sure they are ready when it is time to get the profits by having people to pay for charging.
Why else would a shop have a charging point??? Are they suddenly a gas station? It is added service like free candy for kids, free coffee, free parking space, free wifi, etc to look attractive.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!'That statement, for example.
I'm wondering: do you ever use the toilet in a restaurant, cafe, gas station, etc without buying something? Or visit a shop, look at a product but end up buying it somewhere else?The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!' They shouldn't complain people don't pay for the electricity. That should come out of the marketing budget. Ofcourse like in any advertisement campaign some ads work and some ads don't. For the companies that put the charging points there it is all about market penetration to make sure they are ready when it is time to get the profits by having people to pay for charging.
Yes marketing is suppose to attarck customers to shop at theeir store. These people are taking advanatge of the store and stealing electricy to charge their car withoug even entering the store.
How long do you think a store is going to put up with people stealing from them?
I'm wondering: do you ever use the toilet in a restaurant, cafe, gas station, etc without buying something? Or visit a shop, look at a product but end up buying it somewhere else?The guy told me the store will probably remove the EV charging stations as a result. I’m sure this is not the only business this is happening to. As word spreads of EV car drivers stealing electricty from businesses there will be fewer business interesting is installing EV chargers.The shops have the charging points purely for marketing purposes. 'Look how green we are!' They shouldn't complain people don't pay for the electricity. That should come out of the marketing budget. Ofcourse like in any advertisement campaign some ads work and some ads don't. For the companies that put the charging points there it is all about market penetration to make sure they are ready when it is time to get the profits by having people to pay for charging.
Yes marketing is suppose to attarck customers to shop at theeir store. These people are taking advanatge of the store and stealing electricy to charge their car withoug even entering the store.
How long do you think a store is going to put up with people stealing from them?
And yet there is no difference between using the toilet without buying anything and charging an EV without buying anything. Both cost money to the owner so why should they (toilet or EV charger) be treated differently? IMHO it is just a matter of what you are used to to get for free.
From your previous post I got the impression that it is OK for you to use restroom without buying something but it is not OK to charge an EV without buying something. Perhaps that impression is wrong.And yet there is no difference between using the toilet without buying anything and charging an EV without buying anything. Both cost money to the owner so why should they (toilet or EV charger) be treated differently? IMHO it is just a matter of what you are used to to get for free.Really? You don’t see the difference between a homeless person taking two hours in a business’s restroom vs. a customer who needs to use the restroom for a few minutes but can’t because the homeless guy is taking a bath in it.
From your previous post I got the impression that it is OK for you to use restroom without buying something but it is not OK to charge an EV without buying something. Perhaps that impression is wrong.And yet there is no difference between using the toilet without buying anything and charging an EV without buying anything. Both cost money to the owner so why should they (toilet or EV charger) be treated differently? IMHO it is just a matter of what you are used to to get for free.Really? You don’t see the difference between a homeless person taking two hours in a business’s restroom vs. a customer who needs to use the restroom for a few minutes but can’t because the homeless guy is taking a bath in it.
<snipped out ICEing description>In a number of states (WA and CA, maybe others), you will get a fine for parking in EV charging slots. $124 in WA. Enforcement requires reporting them which I do though it seems like it's about 50/50 that a cop will show up. If it's not a public lot, a lot of us complain to the management. In a number of places that has resulted in traffic cones being put in the charging spaces while not in use. Works surprisingly well. A number of EV owners carry pre-printed notes to put on ICEers' cars. We also have several Facebook groups where pictures of the ICEer cars with license plate showing get posted. Doubt it does much other than keep us EVers agitated and vigilant! :-)
What’s the etiquette here?
If you have actually read the article it says that for this to work the EV's charging times would need to be regulated from a central point. Actually the article supports the point made earlier (complete with numbers so no guessing) that electrical distribution grids are not up to the task of charging large amounts of EVs in their current state:QuoteElectricity distribution networks in Europe run at well below their full potential [...]. The findings show that the unused network capacity could be utilised for charging electric vehicles with little or no need for additional capacity. [...] All consumers, not just those with EVs, would benefit from spreading the costs of existing infrastructure over more load and minimising risky new investment. [...] The results suggest that these systems are operating at 50-70% of their potential. To place this in perspective, all current light-duty vehicles could be electrified with little or no need for additional network capacity.
http://energypost.eu/new-research-europes-electricity-networks-are-underused-and-have-ample-capacity-to-cope-with-electrification-of-cars/ (http://energypost.eu/new-research-europes-electricity-networks-are-underused-and-have-ample-capacity-to-cope-with-electrification-of-cars/)
<snipped out ICEing description>In a number of states (WA and CA, maybe others), you will get a fine for parking in EV charging slots. $124 in WA. Enforcement requires reporting them which I do though it seems like it's about 50/50 that a cop will show up. If it's not a public lot, a lot of us complain to the management. In a number of places that has resulted in traffic cones being put in the charging spaces while not in use. Works surprisingly well. A number of EV owners carry pre-printed notes to put on ICEers' cars. We also have several Facebook groups where pictures of the ICEer cars with license plate showing get posted. Doubt it does much other than keep us EVers agitated and vigilant! :-)
What’s the etiquette here?
On the subject of charging standards. There are effectively 4 "standards": Tesla, ChaDeMo, CCS and J1772 (Level 2). There are others but not a lot of backing. There is a Chinese standard as well though I don't know what's going on with it. And of course, most EVs have adapters that allow use of standard electrical outlets.
Telsa, being very early had no agreed upon standard for DC charging so they created their own. The manufacturer standards bodies deliberately ignored Tesla and created two competing ones - CCS and ChaDeMo. Tesla has an adaptor for chademo and J1772. I believe one for CCS is on the way. The problem with CCS in the US is a large percentage are at auto-dealers which is about the last place anyone would want to go to charge their car. This is to a lesser extent also true of chademo. There does seem to be a trend towards dual CCS/chademo chargers, so the issue of finding a compatible charger may go away. What I find hilarious is that chademo and ccs are big clunky industrial looking connectors while tesla is small and sleek clearly designed for the consumer. It kind of looks like a gas/petrol nozzle. I have no idea who or what was the target user of chademo or ccs.
What I also find striking is that only Tesla has a planned out charging network. I believe this is one of the reasons Tesla still outsells other battery only EVs.
Also, you should use the PlugShare ap on your smart phone to find a compatible charger.
What I also find striking is that only Tesla has a planned out charging network. I believe this is one of the reasons Tesla still outsells other battery only EVs.Compared to other manufacturers individually yes but their total market share is not so big and the competition is not far behind:
I have and use PlugShare. I'd give it 2.5 stars. The informaiton is not always correct and lots of key information is missing. And I don't think PugShare has all charging stations so that mean one has to use multiple apps..... Oh and that's another reason EV cars won't be mainstream, you have to have a smartphone. And it can't be just any smartphone either. The smartphone has to be running the OS the app was writen for.
One would think this would be a perfect add on for Google Maps.
If I have a Volt, can I get one of those adapters which would allow me to use a Tesla carging station?
Question to EV users. What is stopping me from unplugging your charging cord if you leave it unattended? Do they lock?Some do. Some don't. Typically you can unplug intermediate adapters. Chademos you can stop. But it's not a problem. You should get notification that your charge stopped on the app.
What I also find striking is that only Tesla has a planned out charging network. I believe this is one of the reasons Tesla still outsells other battery only EVs.Compared to other manufacturers individually yes but their total market share is not so big and the competition is not far behind:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/666130/global-sales-of-electric-vehicles-ytd-by-brand/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/666130/global-sales-of-electric-vehicles-ytd-by-brand/)
http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/ (http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/)
What is interesting about the numbers from these websites is that EVs are booming in China.
As to competitive cars. Again, lots of talk but only feeble responses. I have yet to see a car close to entering manufacturing that looks like a real threat to Tesla. I thought the Bolt had potential but it just hasn't caught on for what ever reason. Right now, Tesla's biggest threat is themselves. They have a huge order list and are struggling to ramp production. If a sexy competitive car got released, they would be in real trouble. Maybe a "Bolt GT" or some such. Still, they are way ahead of everyone else.The Bolt and Nissan Leaf both have looks only their mothers would love (though the 2018 Leaf is kinda nice). GM seems to do very little to actually market the Bolt. Dealerships often have exactly one salesperson who knows anything about them, and even they end up doing things like offering free oil changes. ::) There are rumors that GM is planning a dual motor version with a bigger battery, but no official word.
Only Tesla seems to think a vendor run charging network makes sense. Everyone else realises that charging has to come down to a common infrastructure, like every gas station being compatible with the tank filling port on every make of car. Where I live there are lots of places around the town to charge a car. For example, supermarket and retail park car parks mostly have a few charging points. I can't remember seeing a Tesla charger, though.What I also find striking is that only Tesla has a planned out charging network. I believe this is one of the reasons Tesla still outsells other battery only EVs.Compared to other manufacturers individually yes but their total market share is not so big and the competition is not far behind:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/666130/global-sales-of-electric-vehicles-ytd-by-brand/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/666130/global-sales-of-electric-vehicles-ytd-by-brand/)
http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/ (http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/)
What is interesting about the numbers from these websites is that EVs are booming in China.
Yes, china is booming.
As to network competition - lots of talk but not one competitor has done anything. Frankly, I expected at least one manufacturer to be starting to roll something out in 2018 but looks like they just don't understand the network effect.
As to competitive cars. Again, lots of talk but only feeble responses. I have yet to see a car close to entering manufacturing that looks like a real threat to Tesla. I thought the Bolt had potential but it just hasn't caught on for what ever reason. Right now, Tesla's biggest threat is themselves. They have a huge order list and are struggling to ramp production. If a sexy competitive car got released, they would be in real trouble. Maybe a "Bolt GT" or some such. Still, they are way ahead of everyone else.
Wow, reading this thread you would think there is a war going out there. People stealing electricity, anti EVers vandalizing infrastructure,...
That is not even close to what I see. Both my wife and I drive EVs - I've had mine since 2013 and She got hers late 2016. Between the two of us, we've had maybe 3 incidents and they were minor comments. Contrast that with a huge number of very positive comments and lots of questions. I've never seen or heard of a charger that was vandalized, never had violence threatened. The only issue is ICEing chargers that I pointed out earlier and it's not a huge issue in general. Only at poorly sited chargers.
As to stealing electricity, most, if not all, of the "customer use only" chargers for specific businesses I'm familiar with would be very hard to freeload on. They are usually at hotels or restaurants in a location such that it would be pretty obvious. Plus most lots have signs that say "customer use only, all others towed" or similar. Those businesses see EVers as a very desirable demographic. It's definitely not greenwashing because for the most part they don't advertise it. There are lots of shopping centers in the US that have chargers. Someone could freeload on those but we aren't talking about a lot of money here. My Tesla max charge is 85 KWh. At the average national rate, that's a bit over $9 and 4 hrs to fully charge on the typical free charger. Explain to me why there would be hordes of freeloaders? It would be incredibly inconvenient to drive to the mall, plug in and wait around for hours (not purchasing any goods or services) just to get a couple of dollars worth of free power. That dog don't hunt.
Only Tesla seems to think a vendor run charging network makes sense. Everyone else realises that charging has to come down to a common infrastructure, like every gas station being compatible with the tank filling port on every make of car. Where I live there are lots of places around the town to charge a car. For example, supermarket and retail park car parks mostly have a few charging points. I can't remember seeing a Tesla charger, though.Hmmm, and you discount the possibility of the network being a factor in Tesla outselling other BEVs?
Unless they come up with a way to charge up the battery in 5 minutes - it's not gonna fly. In many countries the predominant form of housing are all sorts of apartament buildings, often without any form of garage (people just keep their cars parked on the street). So no charging overnight. Many companies do not have big parking lots, so people park on the streets too. No charging either. So they'd have to spend some hours every other day (depending on the commute distance) to wait for their car to charge up. No thanks. With battery powered tools, there are rechangeable batteries for that exact reason. To not put you in a position where u need to do something, but you have to wait for the damn thing to charge. Wealthy people will often live in a house or an apartement building with a parking spot, where they can charge their cars - that's true, but if it's supposed to be something that masses can use - no go.
Car's a tool. It's supposed to work.
The world is changing, get used to it.
The Leaf is fairly common in the UK, but Teslas are rare. Tesla lists 47 working superchargers across the entire UK. The nearest is about 20 miles from our home. On the other hand I can charge any electric car with non-Tesla chargers in many convenient places around most urban areas, like supermarkets, retail parks, and park and ride centres. These are the bulk of the locations on the plugshare map you posted. Most of the free to use chargers are not fast chargers, but some of those at bigger locations, like park and ride centres, offer fast charging. These non-Tesla site are really making EVs practical for lots of people. The Tesla network doesn't really add to the attraction of buying a Tesla at all.Only Tesla seems to think a vendor run charging network makes sense. Everyone else realises that charging has to come down to a common infrastructure, like every gas station being compatible with the tank filling port on every make of car. Where I live there are lots of places around the town to charge a car. For example, supermarket and retail park car parks mostly have a few charging points. I can't remember seeing a Tesla charger, though.Hmmm, and you discount the possibility of the network being a factor in Tesla outselling other BEVs?
You don't see the chargers because they aren't terribly obvious. The brown markers are superchargers, the green are Tesla outlets at destinations.
Unless they come up with a way to charge up the battery in 5 minutes - it's not gonna fly. In many countries the predominant form of housing are all sorts of apartament buildings, often without any form of garage (people just keep their cars parked on the street). So no charging overnight. Many companies do not have big parking lots, so people park on the streets too. No charging either. So they'd have to spend some hours every other day (depending on the commute distance) to wait for their car to charge up. No thanks. With battery powered tools, there are rechangeable batteries for that exact reason. To not put you in a position where u need to do something, but you have to wait for the damn thing to charge. Wealthy people will often live in a house or an apartement building with a parking spot, where they can charge their cars - that's true, but if it's supposed to be something that masses can use - no go.
Car's a tool. It's supposed to work.
meh. heard this before. Filling Station mentality. I won't make a change if I have to ANYTHING differently. The world is changing, get used to it.
Those 47 super chargers (you ignored the much larger number of tesla "wall" chargers) are sited to support long distance travel (near motorways) and charging at high speed. How many of those 4300 sites are similarly sited and have high speed charging? The point a lot of people are missing is that the Supercharger network is set up to make long distance EV travel work. I know in the US, long distance travel in any EV other than a Tesla is hard, if not impossible. Would be surprised if the the UK and continental Europe were different.By wall chargers I assume you mean home chargers. Those seem irrelevant to the discussion. Who has an electric car and no home charger? Leaf owners in the UK seem to do OK on long journeys, as long as they plan properly. There are quite a few public chargers that will charge as fast as the car permits.
It's not that, but rather: I'm not gonna make a change if the result is less convenient and functional than the current way the things are done.
Progress is not assured, you have to make realistic plans and carry them forward without hopeful thinking.
If you try to use the state to force the poor into electric cars while the rich just use it as a second car and use fossil when convenient (very often once the novelty of value signalling is gone, plus the many rich who get a kick from signalling opulence). You're going to see a change you will not like.
I imagine that if internet forums existed 100 years ago, the exact same analagous debate, with analgous arguments one each side, would have occured on the topic “When will automobiles become mainstream”.
I imagine that if internet forums existed 100 years ago, the exact same analagous debate, with analgous arguments one each side, would have occured on the topic “When will automobiles become mainstream”.
It only took 2 years for New York city to be 99.999% horse driven to 99.9999% ICE. That was in 1912. People were tired walking though horse poop that could be 3 feet thick on some days. And any idea how much horse urine there was? 60, 000 gallons. If I'm not mistaken in 1920 New York on a daily bases had to deal with 2,500,000 pounds of horse poop. Average life expentancey of a working horse was three years. They would drop dead on the street and left to rot for days. Similar story every other city in the world.
Simiar story in London with the "Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894".
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/ (https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/)
Haven't we already seen some cities ban smelly diesel trucks during certain hours so shoppers would not be exposed to diesel fumes?
Perhaps the bigger question is will people actually own cars in 50 years? Or will we have massive fleets of self driving Uber cars. All EVs, of course.
I imagine that if internet forums existed 100 years ago, the exact same analagous debate, with analgous arguments one each side, would have occured on the topic “When will automobiles become mainstream”.
It only took 2 years for New York city to be 99.999% horse driven to 99.9999% ICE. That was in 1912. People were tired walking though horse poop that could be 3 feet thick on some days. And any idea how much horse urine there was? 60, 000 gallons. If I'm not mistaken in 1920 New York on a daily bases had to deal with 2,500,000 pounds of horse poop. Average life expentancey of a working horse was three years. They would drop dead on the street and left to rot for days. Similar story every other city in the world.
Simiar story in London with the "Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894".
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/ (https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/)
Haven't we already seen some cities ban smelly diesel trucks during certain hours so shoppers would not be exposed to diesel fumes?
Well in 1920, according to your numbers, there weren't very many horses in NYC. But your point about there being a tipping point with a high Q rings true.
But there was a lot of resistance to transitioning from horse to automobile throughout the US. Keeping a horse was labor intensive, it could only go so far before needing a rest, you had to feed it even if you didn't ride it and the manure needed to be dealt with on a regular basis. But even with all the benefits of auto ownership, people resisted. So, I don't find it surprising that people resist EVs.
Perhaps the bigger question is will people actually own cars in 50 years? Or will we have massive fleets of self driving Uber cars. All EVs, of course.
I think you are mixing up the confidence of a modern car with what a pain in the ass it was to own a car over 100 years ago. Remember 100 year ago customers had a choice between electric cars, Internal combustion engines and external combustion engines, steam). I believe the odds on favorite was ECE/steam as that was a trusted and proven technology at the time. Steam powered machines were wide spread use and ICE and electric were the new fangeled unproven technology. As oil was refined gasoline was considered a waste product and barrels of it were poured into streams to get rid of it.I don't think so.
Folks who could afford to purchase cars also had to employee a chauffeur/mechanic to keep the thing running. Cars then were very temperamental and were always in need of adjusting.
And let’s not forget there were no gas stations 100 years ago. If one needed gasoline they purchased it at a there local drug store.
Hmmm, what's your spark's WH per mile? doing the math (50KWh/600) I get 83 wh/mi. Seems kind of low, was expecting something in the 200-250 range.
Its a pity that visible energy metering isn't a standard function in EV chargers. I think you'll find some kind of reasonably accurate power/energy monitoring in most of them, but its buried and only used to manage the load.Hmmm, what's your spark's WH per mile? doing the math (50KWh/600) I get 83 wh/mi. Seems kind of low, was expecting something in the 200-250 range.
Yah, that looks weird. Must be my home efficiency upgrades, my daughter moving out and a more efficient computer to read these blogs |O has skewed the data.
So I have car-charger only data from my kit built, OpenEVSE which records very accurate kWH. It works out to 233Wh/mile or 4.3mile/kWH, which better agrees with the cars onboard display of ~5mile/kWH(driving only, no charging).
thanks
Perhaps the bigger question is will people actually own cars in 50 years? Or will we have massive fleets of self driving Uber cars. All EVs, of course.
Or we'll be back to horses. I put the odds at 50/50 EVs versus Horses. :o
Its a pity that visible energy metering isn't a standard function in EV chargers. I think you'll find some kind of reasonably accurate power/energy monitoring in most of them, but its buried and only used to manage the load.
Self driving horses? :D
Self driving horses? :D
horses have pretty good self driving features and also automatic braking ;D
and they can bring you home from pub even if you are a bag of potatoes 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO7XY8vIN0w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO7XY8vIN0w)
I think you are mixing up the confidence of a modern car with what a pain in the ass it was to own a car over 100 years ago. Remember 100 year ago customers had a choice between electric cars, Internal combustion engines and external combustion engines, steam). I believe the odds on favorite was ECE/steam as that was a trusted and proven technology at the time. Steam powered machines were wide spread use and ICE and electric were the new fangeled unproven technology. As oil was refined gasoline was considered a waste product and barrels of it were poured into streams to get rid of it.I don't think so.
Folks who could afford to purchase cars also had to employee a chauffeur/mechanic to keep the thing running. Cars then were very temperamental and were always in need of adjusting.
And let’s not forget there were no gas stations 100 years ago. If one needed gasoline they purchased it at a there local drug store.
While really early ICE cars were the province of the rich or tinkerers, the Model T was a breakthrough, especially with the introduction of the electric starter in 1919. It was inexpensive, relatively reliable and easy to fix. They "flew off the shelves" - there was huge demand. In 1920 Ford cut the price to $395 and sold 1.4M of them. Cumulative number of Model Ts sold from 1909 through 1920 was 4.6M. The population of the US at that time was a bit more than 100M. There were about 23M families at that point - almost 1 family in 5 had a Ford Model T.
Steam was a problem because you had to fire it up well before you left whereas the ICEs of the day, with an electric starter, took just a few minutes to get ready. While steam autos may have out numbered ICE autos early on, it was on very small numbers. Wikipedia says: In the U.S. in 1902, 485 of 909 new car registrations were steamers. However, by 1910 only a handful of steamer companies were left. One of which was Stanley - Wikipedia says: Production rose to 500 cars in 1917. Ford that same year: 375K. White was probably the leading manufacturer and built a total of about 10K, ending production in 1912.
Electric was a non-starter due to poor battery capacity and weight . Also limited electrification restricted where they could go - in 1921, a little more than half the population of the US had electricity.
horses have pretty good self driving features and also automatic braking ;DI wouldn't bet on that. In general horses know the way pretty well if it is a known route for them. BUT a horse is also 'jumpy' and will run like a chicken without a head if it gets scared.
and they can bring you home from pub even if you are a bag of potatoes 8)
Well, in a perfect confluence of timing. Our new eGolf should be ready for delivery in a couple of weeks, and my openEVSE parts are sitting at a friends place ready to be picked up next week.
Hopefully I'll be reporting real-world info here shortly.
BUT a horse is also 'jumpy' and will run like a chicken without a head if it gets scared.PETA once shared a bunch of stories about horses and "sudden unintended acceleration".
BUT a horse is also 'jumpy' and will run like a chicken without a head if it gets scared.PETA once shared a bunch of stories about horses and "sudden unintended acceleration".
I recently joined an EV company in the bay area (not tesla..).That's typically something that maybe needs to be regulated by the government?
we have chargers at work, quite a lot, and it looks appealing - but I am currently in an apartment, can't get to the point of being able to own a home in the bay area and without home charging, I just don't feel comfortable getting an EV and having that be my only car.
I WORK at an EV company and would love to join in, but until I can control my own charging - I'm not ready to make the jump yet.
I do envy those who own a home and can install garage chargers. if that was me, I'd have had an EV by now for sure.
until then, I watch everyone else enjoying theirs. someday, it will be for 'everyone'. sooner than we all think, too; at least in tech areas of the world.
It's a fact that there were more serious accidents with horses per mile than there are with cars. Also the risktaking antics of cyclists are nothing new, horse carriage drivers used to complain of them weaving between vehicles in a reckless manner. There just seems to be something about being on a very flimsy, wobbly and exposed machine that creates a feeling of godlike indestructibility.. :palm:
Lets please not group motorcyclists and the pedal power lemmings in the same bracket please.
Since bikers are mostly young, healthy men, they provide a steady supply of transplantable organs.
Lets please not group motorcyclists and the pedal power lemmings in the same bracket please.The illusion of control is strong in this one. Cyclists are merely obnoxious, motorcyclists are on the wrong end of statistics.
Lets please not group motorcyclists and the pedal power lemmings in the same bracket please.
Biker in the US is a motorcyclist. Cyclist usually means Bicyclist. I suppose it's the opposite where you are. And, please don't insult lemmings...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc)
Lets please not group motorcyclists and the pedal power lemmings in the same bracket please.
Biker in the US is a motorcyclist. Cyclist usually means Bicyclist. I suppose it's the opposite where you are. And, please don't insult lemmings...
It's a bit more complicated than that. Cyclist is the pedal power variant. Motorcyclists is someone who rides a motorcycle. Biker is typically the power ranger style suicidal warp rider. Harley Davidson son's of anarchy style people are just weirdos, for them it's all about the show and sound and nothing at all do to with the riding or they would ride a bike designed for the purpose of riding around things like corners and capable of actually going quickly rather than making a sound like a 1950s tractor or motorboat.
I don't care how the motorized 2 wheelers behave, they tend to be younger and male and all have a much higher accident rate. (...snip...) Reminds me of the old joking maxim - there are two kinds of riders, those that have had accidents and those that are going to.
Death toll is due to first time motorcycle buyers who have a lot of money, (tech jobs), and “think” they can handle a high-performance bike.
They just became mainstream in our household
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=423805;image)
Nice....
I notice it's on the street. Do you have a long e3ntension cord to plug it to charge it?
I was looking at the VW's a couple of weeks ago and learned VM stopped making EV/Hybrids. THey are now only making 100% electric. Won't work for me as I would need a charge-up to get home on some of my trips.
Nice....
I notice it's on the street. Do you have a long e3ntension cord to plug it to charge it?
I was looking at the VW's a couple of weeks ago and learned VM stopped making EV/Hybrids. THey are now only making 100% electric. Won't work for me as I would need a charge-up to get home on some of my trips.
it sleeps in the garage. Right now it's having to make do with the supplied 1kVA charger, but I have all the bits for an OpenEVSE, and already dropped in a 240/30A circuit in the garage to plug that into. I'm going to film the OpenEVSE assembly, and I'll put it on YouTube.
VW are pretty paranoid right now about overstating things, so while they advertise "201km range" , it said 235km remaining when I left the dealership, and still said 220km when I got home (which was 20km later). I'll update with some real-world running information once we have a better idea of how it's all working out. Given premium gasoline just hit C$1.80/litre here, I'm not going to miss the fillups, given electricity is only 8½ cents/kWh. That means it should cost around C$3 to fill it from completely empty
Thanks for sharing. My wife has a Volt. As much as I dislike American car companies, I have to admit the Volt is a very well designed and built car. I never thought I would ever recommend someone to buy a GM car, but I would recommend getting a volt. Now that I've driven an electric car I can't wait to get rid of my ICE and go electric. I'm convinced hybrid plug-in is the way to go.
Hope you like you car.
You are paying C$1.80/litre? Crud is my math right? at $1.80/L that would be 6.84/gallon? Wow..... And then to covert the to USD (1.2) that would be $5.70 in USD. Is that right? I thought you Canadians had a lot of petroleum.
You have us beat on the electricty prices. We are paying $0.45 kWhr for peak (2-9pm) and $0.12 for off-peak/night time. (11pm - 7 am).
I would be intersted in seeing your video on OpenEVSE. I installed 2 - 220v 50a circuits in my garage. Purcahsed a Clipper Creek charger. (+1)
How's the software on the VW? Volt has it so you can program charging times. It also used GPS cordinates so the Volt knows when you are charging at your home. GM also has pretty good app for iPhone and Andriod to monitor the car, unlock doors, etc.
Thanks for sharing. My wife has a Volt. As much as I dislike American car companies, I have to admit the Volt is a very well designed and built car. I never thought I would ever recommend someone to buy a GM car, but I would recommend getting a volt. Now that I've driven an electric car I can't wait to get rid of my ICE and go electric. I'm convinced hybrid plug-in is the way to go.
Hope you like you car.
You are paying C$1.80/litre? Crud is my math right? at $1.80/L that would be 6.84/gallon? Wow..... And then to covert the to USD (1.2) that would be $5.70 in USD. Is that right? I thought you Canadians had a lot of petroleum.
You have us beat on the electricty prices. We are paying $0.45 kWhr for peak (2-9pm) and $0.12 for off-peak/night time. (11pm - 7 am).
I would be intersted in seeing your video on OpenEVSE. I installed 2 - 220v 50a circuits in my garage. Purcahsed a Clipper Creek charger. (+1)
How's the software on the VW? Volt has it so you can program charging times. It also used GPS cordinates so the Volt knows when you are charging at your home. GM also has pretty good app for iPhone and Andriod to monitor the car, unlock doors, etc.
c$1.80 is for premium, it's about c$1.60 for regular, so about $4.56/USGal. Right now it's about US$3.70/gal across the border in WA state, and when I was in Texas last week (near the large refinery capacity) it was around US$2.79/usGal
Yes, Canada has a lot of petroleum, but sensibly we have highish taxes on it (compared with the US), which encourages people to buy smaller cars. However, both here in BC and in Quebec, there is an abundance of HydroElectric power, and electricity is silly cheap (compared to almost anywhere else in the world). My 8½c/kWh is just over half what you pay off-peak, and less than 1/6th what you pay peak.
Expensive gasoline & cheap electricity makes the e-car a no-brainer here.
Thanks for sharing. My wife has a Volt. As much as I dislike American car companies, I have to admit the Volt is a very well designed and built car. I never thought I would ever recommend someone to buy a GM car, but I would recommend getting a volt. Now that I've driven an electric car I can't wait to get rid of my ICE and go electric. I'm convinced hybrid plug-in is the way to go.
Hope you like you car.
You are paying C$1.80/litre? Crud is my math right? at $1.80/L that would be 6.84/gallon? Wow..... And then to covert the to USD (1.2) that would be $5.70 in USD. Is that right? I thought you Canadians had a lot of petroleum.
You have us beat on the electricty prices. We are paying $0.45 kWhr for peak (2-9pm) and $0.12 for off-peak/night time. (11pm - 7 am).
I would be intersted in seeing your video on OpenEVSE. I installed 2 - 220v 50a circuits in my garage. Purcahsed a Clipper Creek charger. (+1)
How's the software on the VW? Volt has it so you can program charging times. It also used GPS cordinates so the Volt knows when you are charging at your home. GM also has pretty good app for iPhone and Andriod to monitor the car, unlock doors, etc.
c$1.80 is for premium, it's about c$1.60 for regular, so about $4.56/USGal. Right now it's about US$3.70/gal across the border in WA state, and when I was in Texas last week (near the large refinery capacity) it was around US$2.79/usGal
Yes, Canada has a lot of petroleum, but sensibly we have highish taxes on it (compared with the US), which encourages people to buy smaller cars. However, both here in BC and in Quebec, there is an abundance of HydroElectric power, and electricity is silly cheap (compared to almost anywhere else in the world). My 8½c/kWh is just over half what you pay off-peak, and less than 1/6th what you pay peak.
Expensive gasoline & cheap electricity makes the e-car a no-brainer here.
Isn't cold weather a problem with battery range?
VW are pretty paranoid right now about overstating things, so while they advertise "201km range" , it said 235km remaining when I left the dealership, and still said 220km when I got home (which was 20km later). I'll update with some real-world running information once we have a better idea of how it's all working out.IMHO one of the errors with electric cars is that they emphasize on range left instead of charge left. It is simply impossible to calculate the remaining range accurate enough to be meaningful in practical circumstances. Just like ICE cars electric cars should show remaining charge as the primary indicator and range is just some kind of gross guesstimate.
Thanks for sharing. My wife has a Volt. As much as I dislike American car companies, I have to admit the Volt is a very well designed and built car. I never thought I would ever recommend someone to buy a GM car, but I would recommend getting a volt. Now that I've driven an electric car I can't wait to get rid of my ICE and go electric. I'm convinced hybrid plug-in is the way to go.
Hope you like you car.
You are paying C$1.80/litre? Crud is my math right? at $1.80/L that would be 6.84/gallon? Wow..... And then to covert the to USD (1.2) that would be $5.70 in USD. Is that right? I thought you Canadians had a lot of petroleum.
You have us beat on the electricty prices. We are paying $0.45 kWhr for peak (2-9pm) and $0.12 for off-peak/night time. (11pm - 7 am).
I would be intersted in seeing your video on OpenEVSE. I installed 2 - 220v 50a circuits in my garage. Purcahsed a Clipper Creek charger. (+1)
How's the software on the VW? Volt has it so you can program charging times. It also used GPS cordinates so the Volt knows when you are charging at your home. GM also has pretty good app for iPhone and Andriod to monitor the car, unlock doors, etc.
c$1.80 is for premium, it's about c$1.60 for regular, so about $4.56/USGal. Right now it's about US$3.70/gal across the border in WA state, and when I was in Texas last week (near the large refinery capacity) it was around US$2.79/usGal
Yes, Canada has a lot of petroleum, but sensibly we have highish taxes on it (compared with the US), which encourages people to buy smaller cars. However, both here in BC and in Quebec, there is an abundance of HydroElectric power, and electricity is silly cheap (compared to almost anywhere else in the world). My 8½c/kWh is just over half what you pay off-peak, and less than 1/6th what you pay peak.
Expensive gasoline & cheap electricity makes the e-car a no-brainer here.
consumers of vehicles are not usually very technical. you want to have consumers do their OWN calculations to come up with the TARGET metric of 'distance left' ?
that's quite a product design approach. life is too easy on the consumer, lets make it harder.
yeah, that will go over well.
how about this: solve the problem rather than avoid it? if distance is hard to calculate, well, work harder and come up with better ways to get that estimate. its not really rocket science and 'close enough' IS good enough.
consumers of vehicles are not usually very technical. you want to have consumers do their OWN calculations to come up with the TARGET metric of 'distance left' ?
that's quite a product design approach. life is too easy on the consumer, lets make it harder.
yeah, that will go over well.
how about this: solve the problem rather than avoid it? if distance is hard to calculate, well, work harder and come up with better ways to get that estimate. its not really rocket science and 'close enough' IS good enough.
Yes. Even for me (pretty technical, can actually still do calculations in my head), I prefer remaining range. While actual range is dependent on wind, temperature, rain, elevation gain/loss, tire pressure, ... an approximate range is easy to work with. Kind of like a gas gauge. I just know that on a cold, rainy day with a headwind and going uphill I will see lower efficiency and plan for it accordingly. Oddly enough, ICE cars have a similar efficiency drop in that kind of weather and no one whines about "want to see actual gallons/liters left". A very vague gas gauge with maybe 1/8 markings is considered just fine. Plus, most modern ICEs have distance to empty displays.
And, the number of EV owners that have been stranded because they ran their batteries down to zero rounds to, well, zero.
Isn't cold weather a problem with battery range?Surely it would only be a problem if its unpredictable. Its actually fairly predictable, so its just something that needs to be allowed for.
Yeah, I'm SURE that will persuade him.
Tell your red neck friend to drive an EV for a few days. I was anti-EV until my wife forced us to buy one. Out of the 4 cars we own I prefer the EV over any of hte ICE.
Explain it like this to your red neck friend. Driving an EV is a lot like sex. At first your afraid of it. But once you try it, you love it. (Or maybe that's just me.)
Isn't cold weather a problem with battery range?Surely it would only be a problem if its unpredictable. Its actually fairly predictable, so its just something that needs to be allowed for.
consumers of vehicles are not usually very technical. you want to have consumers do their OWN calculations to come up with the TARGET metric of 'distance left' ?Do ICE cars have a range indicator? No, they have a fuel gauge! That has worked well for decades and by your own experience (which automatically adjusts for your driving style and terrain) you know how far you can drive given the fuel guage read out.
Most ICE cars have a remaining range display as well as a fuel quantity gaugeconsumers of vehicles are not usually very technical. you want to have consumers do their OWN calculations to come up with the TARGET metric of 'distance left' ?Do ICE cars have a range indicator? No, they have a fuel gauge! That has worked well for decades and by your own experience (which automatically adjusts for your driving style and terrain) you know how far you can drive given the fuel guage read out.
consumers of vehicles are not usually very technical. you want to have consumers do their OWN calculations to come up with the TARGET metric of 'distance left' ?Do ICE cars have a range indicator? No, they have a fuel gauge! That has worked well for decades and by your own experience (which automatically adjusts for your driving style and terrain) you know how far you can drive given the fuel guage read out.
Do ICE cars have a range indicator? No, they have a fuel gauge!My current car does have a range display. All of them back to the one from model year 1988 had one.
Do ICE cars have a range indicator? No, they have a fuel gauge!My current car does have a range display. All of them back to the one from model year 1988 had one.
Why should a range indicator be easier in an EV car than in an ICE car? Both know the remaining energy in the "tank" and can predict the remaining range based on the current drive style.
In an ICE vehicle the fuel gauge only has a loose correlation to the amount of miles the car can be driven.True, but it is exactly the same in an electric vehicle.
If the car is started and left idling it will travel 0 miles.Left idling for over 40 hours...
Perhaps a more realistic measure, if you're cruising on a flat section of highway you'll get far better fuel economy than if you're going up a steep hill. My mileage varies pretty dramatically based on the driving I do, sometimes I can go 300+ miles on a tank, sometimes I'm running on fumes at 200. Either way, calculating the remaining range is something I do in my head based on the anticipated driving ahead, something the computer doesn't know.But this is also true for an electric vehicle.
But this is also true for an electric vehicle.
The only thing a range gauge can do is present an estimate based on remaining energy (in battery or fuel tank) and the measured consumption for chosen time period (last 10 minutes or whatever).
Reason for a fuel gauge is because the motor is always running consuming fuel. It is quite possible and has happened one can have a full tank of fuel and run out of gas without moving a foot. It's happed in large traffic jams. There is no relationship between quanity of fuel and distance car can be driven with ICE.
EV different story. One can sit in an EV for a month in a traffic jam not moving and the distane which can be driven is the same on day one as it is on day 30. EV only use power when the car is moving, not while it is sitting in traffic.
That is wrong. No, it is utter bullsh*t. An EV will use power even when it is sitting idle. The dashboard and all the other electronics (and probably heating/EC) will have to work even when not moving so there really isn't any difference between the two. If you turn an ICE car off completely you can also sit in a traffic jam for a month. But without heat/AC, no lights and no radio...Reason for a fuel gauge is because the motor is always running consuming fuel. It is quite possible and has happened one can have a full tank of fuel and run out of gas without moving a foot. It's happed in large traffic jams. There is no relationship between quanity of fuel and distance car can be driven with ICE.consumers of vehicles are not usually very technical. you want to have consumers do their OWN calculations to come up with the TARGET metric of 'distance left' ?Do ICE cars have a range indicator? No, they have a fuel gauge! That has worked well for decades and by your own experience (which automatically adjusts for your driving style and terrain) you know how far you can drive given the fuel guage read out.
EV different story. One can sit in an EV for a month in a traffic jam not moving and the distane which can be driven is the same on day one as it is on day 30. EV only use power when the car is moving, not while it is sitting in traffic.
That is wrong. No, it is utter bullsh*t. An EV will use power even when it is sitting idle. The dashboard and all the other electronics (and probably heating/EC) will have to work even when not moving so there really isn't any difference between the two. If you turn an ICE car off completely you can also sit in a traffic jam for a month. But without heat/AC, no lights and no radio...Reason for a fuel gauge is because the motor is always running consuming fuel. It is quite possible and has happened one can have a full tank of fuel and run out of gas without moving a foot. It's happed in large traffic jams. There is no relationship between quanity of fuel and distance car can be driven with ICE.consumers of vehicles are not usually very technical. you want to have consumers do their OWN calculations to come up with the TARGET metric of 'distance left' ?Do ICE cars have a range indicator? No, they have a fuel gauge! That has worked well for decades and by your own experience (which automatically adjusts for your driving style and terrain) you know how far you can drive given the fuel guage read out.
EV different story. One can sit in an EV for a month in a traffic jam not moving and the distane which can be driven is the same on day one as it is on day 30. EV only use power when the car is moving, not while it is sitting in traffic.
The bottom line is: range indicators (hence the word indicator!) cannot be made accurate enough to be useful. Think about it for a couple of hours before posting. It can't be done because it is trying to predict the future with too many unknowns.
That is wrong. No, it is utter bullsh*t. An EV will use power even when it is sitting idle. The dashboard and all the other electronics (and probably heating/EC) will have to work even when not moving so there really isn't any difference between the two. If you turn an ICE car off completely you can also sit in a traffic jam for a month. But without heat/AC, no lights and no radio...
The bottom line is: range indicators (hence the word indicator!) cannot be made accurate enough to be useful. Think about it for a couple of hours before posting. It can't be done because it is trying to predict the future with too many unknowns.
Now throw range anxiety in the mix and the chaos is complete. Just as Boffin noted he used 'less range' than the car expected. But it can also be the other way around. Use 'more range' than expected and then people start to panic. Can I get home??? If you have a charge/fuel gauge then you quickly learn from experience if it is enough to make it home or not. Sometimes old technology just works together with our brains in a really clever way. IF accurate range gauges where possible they would have been fitted in every ICE car for decades and nobody even rememberer the good old fuel gauge.
Sorry but this is not about EV versus ICE so there is no need to adjust any thought process. I'm just pointing out a problem. The fact is that for both EV and ICE the energy consumption can be measured accurately. But as Paulca already noted the range prediction is always based on the past and not the future. IMHO this is a problem for widespread EV adoption because it makes EVs unreliable (IIRC some people even returned their EVs to the dealer and got their money back because of this).That is wrong. No, it is utter bullsh*t. An EV will use power even when it is sitting idle. The dashboard and all the other electronics (and probably heating/EC) will have to work even when not moving so there really isn't any difference between the two. If you turn an ICE car off completely you can also sit in a traffic jam for a month. But without heat/AC, no lights and no radio...
The bottom line is: range indicators (hence the word indicator!) cannot be made accurate enough to be useful. Think about it for a couple of hours before posting. It can't be done because it is trying to predict the future with too many unknowns.
Now throw range anxiety in the mix and the chaos is complete. Just as Boffin noted he used 'less range' than the car expected. But it can also be the other way around. Use 'more range' than expected and then people start to panic. Can I get home??? If you have a charge/fuel gauge then you quickly learn from experience if it is enough to make it home or not. Sometimes old technology just works together with our brains in a really clever way. IF accurate range gauges where possible they would have been fitted in every ICE car for decades and nobody even rememberer the good old fuel gauge.
Have you actually driven an EV for any length of time more than just a test drive? I have my doubts. Drive an EV for a couple of weeks and see how your thought process changes.
Range displays in ICEs are actually pretty much ubiquitous now. But, I don't see any real difference between range and volume (fuel or charge). .... just like a fuel tank gauge is incredibly vague.
Sorry but this is not about EV versus ICE so there is no need to adjust any thought process. I'm just pointing out a problem. The fact is that for both EV and ICE the energy consumption can be measured accurately. But as Paulca already noted the range prediction is always based on the past and not the future. IMHO this is a problem for widespread EV adoption because it makes EVs unreliable (IIRC some people even returned their EVs to the dealer and got their money back because of this).
Put your reading glasses on:Sorry but this is not about EV versus ICE so there is no need to adjust any thought process. I'm just pointing out a problem. The fact is that for both EV and ICE the energy consumption can be measured accurately. But as Paulca already noted the range prediction is always based on the past and not the future. IMHO this is a problem for widespread EV adoption because it makes EVs unreliable (IIRC some people even returned their EVs to the dealer and got their money back because of this).
Not about EVs but it is about EVs??
Sorry but this is not about EV versus ICE so there is no need to adjust any thought process. I'm just pointing out a problem. The fact is that for both EV and ICE the energy consumption can be measured accurately. But as Paulca already noted the range prediction is always based on the past and not the future. IMHO this is a problem for widespread EV adoption because it makes EVs unreliable (IIRC some people even returned their EVs to the dealer and got their money back because of this).While a few ICE cars show the number of litres of fuel in the tank, most just give a vague analogue measure of the fraction of the tank occupied by fuel. What all modern cars, ICE and EV, give as a precise measurement is an estimate of remaining distance to an empty tank or battery, based on historic information, and they show the miles/kilometres to that point. If you believe the future of a car is likely to be different from its past, see a physics teacher. These estimates are not perfect, but they are what people need. If you are driving an unfamiliar car the amount of fuel remaining doesn't mean a lot, but distance to empty tank is meaningful to all. We all know that if we are heavy footed we won't get the distance displayed. Only a very naive person would expect otherwise. Its a good starting point for estimating where you need to find your next gas station, though.
Sorry but this is not about EV versus ICE so there is no need to adjust any thought process. I'm just pointing out a problem. The fact is that for both EV and ICE the energy consumption can be measured accurately. But as Paulca already noted the range prediction is always based on the past and not the future. IMHO this is a problem for widespread EV adoption because it makes EVs unreliable (IIRC some people even returned their EVs to the dealer and got their money back because of this).That is wrong. No, it is utter bullsh*t. An EV will use power even when it is sitting idle. The dashboard and all the other electronics (and probably heating/EC) will have to work even when not moving so there really isn't any difference between the two. If you turn an ICE car off completely you can also sit in a traffic jam for a month. But without heat/AC, no lights and no radio...
The bottom line is: range indicators (hence the word indicator!) cannot be made accurate enough to be useful. Think about it for a couple of hours before posting. It can't be done because it is trying to predict the future with too many unknowns.
Now throw range anxiety in the mix and the chaos is complete. Just as Boffin noted he used 'less range' than the car expected. But it can also be the other way around. Use 'more range' than expected and then people start to panic. Can I get home??? If you have a charge/fuel gauge then you quickly learn from experience if it is enough to make it home or not. Sometimes old technology just works together with our brains in a really clever way. IF accurate range gauges where possible they would have been fitted in every ICE car for decades and nobody even rememberer the good old fuel gauge.
Have you actually driven an EV for any length of time more than just a test drive? I have my doubts. Drive an EV for a couple of weeks and see how your thought process changes.
Range displays in ICEs are actually pretty much ubiquitous now. But, I don't see any real difference between range and volume (fuel or charge). .... just like a fuel tank gauge is incredibly vague.
Thing is with an ICE if it's sitting in traffic it's comsuming fuel producing heat without going anywhere. An EV can sit in traffic and not cosume any energy.Repeating it doesn't make BS smell less foul. Your Volt needs power to supply the electronics. Google tells me that the secondary battery is only powering non-essential systems which leaves the main battery to power essential systems and thus lose charge even when sitting still in a traffic jam. Unless you shut the entire car down but an ICE based car is just the same. You don't have to leave the engine of an ICE car running idle in a long traffic jam.
Thing is with an ICE if it's sitting in traffic it's comsuming fuel producing heat without going anywhere. An EV can sit in traffic and not cosume any energy.Repeating it doesn't make BS smell less foul. Your Volt needs power to supply the electronics. Google tells me that the secondary battery is only powering non-essential systems which leaves the main battery to power essential systems and thus lose charge even when sitting still in a traffic jam. Unless you shut the entire car down but an ICE based car is just the same. You don't have to leave the engine of an ICE car running idle in a long traffic jam.
Try Googling Free Energy. Becase that's what my Volt has when sitting in traffic.For your explanations to be true your Volt has to have some of that magic Free Energy.
I have sat in traffic for hundreds of hours and I have yet seen any ICE driver turn their engine off to save any hydrocarbons.Start-stop systems on ICE cars have been standard for a while now so there you go.
Try Googling Free Energy. Becase that's what my Volt has when sitting in traffic.For your explanations to be true your Volt has to have some of that magic Free Energy.
AC, heating, lights, computers, navigation system, entertainment system, seat heating, battery cooling/heating, phone charging, etc all require energy when stationary. You can't make that fact disappear by saying that those components are supplied from the 12V lead acid battery as that battery has to be charged by energy taken from the big battery. So, unless your Volt has solved the problem of free energy it will drain the big battery when sitting in traffic.
Wait a second, if they're not powered by the drive train batteries then what are they powered by and where does that energy come from? If this is a vehicle with both electric and ICE then those accessories will be powered by one of the other system and either way running them is going to decrease range to some degree, the laws of energy mandate that. If you're sitting in traffic running all that stuff you absolutely are consuming energy that comes from *somewhere*. I do suspect though that the energy consumed by all this stuff is considerably less than the energy consumed by idling a conventional ICE.\
Thing is with an ICE if it's sitting in traffic it's comsuming fuel producing heat without going anywhere. An EV can sit in traffic and not cosume any energy.Repeating it doesn't make BS smell less foul. Your Volt needs power to supply the electronics. Google tells me that the secondary battery is only powering non-essential systems which leaves the main battery to power essential systems and thus lose charge even when sitting still in a traffic jam. Unless you shut the entire car down but an ICE based car is just the same. You don't have to leave the engine of an ICE car running idle in a long traffic jam.
@coppice: I agree with you and driving in a strange car is definitely a reason to make sure it is topped up before leaving and knowing it's range in order not take any chances. However what I see is that when it comes to EVs the remaining range is used much more prominently compared to ICE cars while the inaccuracies and problems are still the same. See the article the NY times journalist wrote about driving a Tesla during the winter. It is all about managing expectations and IMHO it is better to show a vague indication so people take precautions than showing an exact number which has a large error.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html)
Aren't ICE only 20% or less efficient?
How efficient is an electric motor? Not eactly sure but aren't they 75% or more efficent?
I already read the follow up article with the graphs from Tesla themselves showing that actual range was dropping faster than predicted range. There is no argueing around the fact that happened. If Tesla would have told the author of the article to take the range indication with a large grain of salt and add at least 20% extra then he wouldn't not have ran out. Again: managing expectations! If you show people a number which can be perceived as accurate they'll assume it is correct.You should read the follow up articles on that. The author deliberately ran it out. Tesla read the black box data and published it showing that he drove past at least one SC when he was almost out. The car at that point would have been flashing "charge" at him as he drove.Thing is with an ICE if it's sitting in traffic it's comsuming fuel producing heat without going anywhere. An EV can sit in traffic and not cosume any energy.Repeating it doesn't make BS smell less foul. Your Volt needs power to supply the electronics. Google tells me that the secondary battery is only powering non-essential systems which leaves the main battery to power essential systems and thus lose charge even when sitting still in a traffic jam. Unless you shut the entire car down but an ICE based car is just the same. You don't have to leave the engine of an ICE car running idle in a long traffic jam.
@coppice: I agree with you and driving in a strange car is definitely a reason to make sure it is topped up before leaving and knowing it's range in order not take any chances. However what I see is that when it comes to EVs the remaining range is used much more prominently compared to ICE cars while the inaccuracies and problems are still the same. See the article the NY times journalist wrote about driving a Tesla during the winter. It is all about managing expectations and IMHO it is better to show a vague indication so people take precautions than showing an exact number which has a large error.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html)
As has been stated several times EVs or at least the Volt has 2 banks of batteries. One for the power train and another for the creature comforts. In a Volt one can have a fully charged power train battery bank and not be able to power-on the car if the other battery bank is dead. They are completely independent of each other.I think you really need to read about how cars actually work. What you wrote doesn't make any sense and it is also wrong. The Volt can still drive if the secondary (12V) battery is dead which means that the primary electronics and mandatory stuff like lights are powered from the drive train battery. Ergo it will use power when it is sitting idle while being switched on. There is no way around that. Besides that the battery management electronics will slowly but steadily drain the battery as well. It will take long but it will happen.
Does that pass your BS test?
Dude did you not read the two other posts? NO! You are wrong.So we have two options.
Lights, computers, navigation system, entertainment system, seat heating, phone charging are NOT Let me say that again, NOT powered by the drive train batteries.
During operation, the 12 Volt battery's voltage is maintained by the "accessory power module" (APM) whenever the Volt is "ON", and maintained by the main battery charger assembly (On-Board Charging Module) when the Volt is plugged in and charging is ACTIVE (steady green LED). The APM is a DC to DC converter that takes high voltage (380V?) from the Volt's traction battery and converts it to ~13.0-15.5 Volts in order to maintain the low voltage accessory loads (including the Volt's computers and modules). It also charges the 12V system's battery, also know as an "absorbant glass mat" (AGM) battery. The 12V battery's voltage is maintained when the car is running or charging (by the APM or charger, respectively), but not when parked and unplugged.
You are grasping at straws. The car said he should charge and he didn't. In what world would that not be final authority? In a gas car if the low fuel indicator was lit, it wouldn't be the driver's fault he ran out of gas???I already read the follow up article with the graphs from Tesla themselves showing that actual range was dropping faster than predicted range. There is no argueing around the fact that happened. If Tesla would have told the author of the article to take the range indication with a large grain of salt and add at least 20% extra then he wouldn't not have ran out. Again: managing expectations! If you show people a number which can be perceived as accurate they'll assume it is correct.You should read the follow up articles on that. The author deliberately ran it out. Tesla read the black box data and published it showing that he drove past at least one SC when he was almost out. The car at that point would have been flashing "charge" at him as he drove.Thing is with an ICE if it's sitting in traffic it's comsuming fuel producing heat without going anywhere. An EV can sit in traffic and not cosume any energy.Repeating it doesn't make BS smell less foul. Your Volt needs power to supply the electronics. Google tells me that the secondary battery is only powering non-essential systems which leaves the main battery to power essential systems and thus lose charge even when sitting still in a traffic jam. Unless you shut the entire car down but an ICE based car is just the same. You don't have to leave the engine of an ICE car running idle in a long traffic jam.
@coppice: I agree with you and driving in a strange car is definitely a reason to make sure it is topped up before leaving and knowing it's range in order not take any chances. However what I see is that when it comes to EVs the remaining range is used much more prominently compared to ICE cars while the inaccuracies and problems are still the same. See the article the NY times journalist wrote about driving a Tesla during the winter. It is all about managing expectations and IMHO it is better to show a vague indication so people take precautions than showing an exact number which has a large error.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html)
\
As has been stated several times EVs or at least the Volt has 2 banks of batteries. One for the power train and another for the creature comforts. In a Volt one can have a fully charged power train battery bank and not be able to power-on the car if the other battery bank is dead. They are completely independent of each other.
Just how much energy do you think it takes to pwoer an EV when stopped in traffic? All that's being powered during daylight hours are the computers, one display and in my case the sound system. Is that even 100 watts? (I don't know, but it's not a lot.) Now compare that to an ICE. How much heat is being generated by the running enging sitting in traffic? Again IDK for sure, but I'm guessing 2,000 - 5,000 watts? I'm thinking probably more.
I know when I park my ICE car in the garage the entire garage heats up. WHen I park my EV there's no increase in temperature.
Use some critical thinking skills. ICE cars when running generate a tremedous amout of heat. Aren't ICE only 20% or less efficient?
How efficient is an electric motor? Not eactly sure but aren't they 75% or more efficent? And then EVs have regenitive breaking, so KE gets coverneted back to PE when slowing down. To slow an ICE down only way to do it is to generate more heat with the breaking system which decreased range.
Does that pass your BS test?
As has been stated several times EVs or at least the Volt has 2 banks of batteries. One for the power train and another for the creature comforts. In a Volt one can have a fully charged power train battery bank and not be able to power-on the car if the other battery bank is dead. They are completely independent of each other.I think you really need to read about how cars actually work. What you wrote doesn't make any sense and it is also wrong. The Volt can still drive if the secondary (12V) battery is dead which means that the primary electronics and mandatory stuff like lights are powered from the drive train battery. Ergo it will use power when it is sitting idle while being switched on. There is no way around that. Besides that the battery management electronics will slowly but steadily drain the battery as well. It will take long but it will happen.
Does that pass your BS test?
Dude did you not read the two other posts? NO! You are wrong.So we have two options.
Lights, computers, navigation system, entertainment system, seat heating, phone charging are NOT Let me say that again, NOT powered by the drive train batteries.
1) The "creature comfort battery" has a very large capacity and can power AC, heating, vehicle electronics (a couple of hundred watts in modern vehicles) while standing still in a traffic jam for weeks.
2) The "creature comfort battery" is charged from the "drive train battery" and the range is reduced even if standing still in a traffic jam.
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?5409-Auxillary-Battery (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?5409-Auxillary-Battery)QuoteDuring operation, the 12 Volt battery's voltage is maintained by the "accessory power module" (APM) whenever the Volt is "ON", and maintained by the main battery charger assembly (On-Board Charging Module) when the Volt is plugged in and charging is ACTIVE (steady green LED). The APM is a DC to DC converter that takes high voltage (380V?) from the Volt's traction battery and converts it to ~13.0-15.5 Volts in order to maintain the low voltage accessory loads (including the Volt's computers and modules). It also charges the 12V system's battery, also know as an "absorbant glass mat" (AGM) battery. The 12V battery's voltage is maintained when the car is running or charging (by the APM or charger, respectively), but not when parked and unplugged.
Am I still wrong?
\
As has been stated several times EVs or at least the Volt has 2 banks of batteries. One for the power train and another for the creature comforts. In a Volt one can have a fully charged power train battery bank and not be able to power-on the car if the other battery bank is dead. They are completely independent of each other.
Just how much energy do you think it takes to pwoer an EV when stopped in traffic? All that's being powered during daylight hours are the computers, one display and in my case the sound system. Is that even 100 watts? (I don't know, but it's not a lot.) Now compare that to an ICE. How much heat is being generated by the running enging sitting in traffic? Again IDK for sure, but I'm guessing 2,000 - 5,000 watts? I'm thinking probably more.
I know when I park my ICE car in the garage the entire garage heats up. WHen I park my EV there's no increase in temperature.
Use some critical thinking skills. ICE cars when running generate a tremedous amout of heat. Aren't ICE only 20% or less efficient?
How efficient is an electric motor? Not eactly sure but aren't they 75% or more efficent? And then EVs have regenitive breaking, so KE gets coverneted back to PE when slowing down. To slow an ICE down only way to do it is to generate more heat with the breaking system which decreased range.
Does that pass your BS test?
I don't know what's being argued here, I'm one of the pro-EV guys, my only point was that running accessories while sitting stationary will absolutely effect the range of the car. Any car carries with it a finite amount of stored energy, whether that is stored in gasoline/diesel or batteries doesn't matter, running any sort of accessories is going to consume some of this energy. Is it enough to matter? I'd say that depends. Does electric or ICE have the advantage here? Frankly I don't know, but I would bet that in warm weather electric comes out on top but in cold weather ICE may have an advantage since you've got all that waste heat anyway you can have all the cabin heat you want for "free" rather than consuming a considerable amount of battery power operating a heater or heat pump. How much energy is burned up idling an ICE is easy enough to calculate if anyone here has a car that shows real time fuel consumption, we know how many kWh is in a gallon of fuel, although while that would be interesting to know, even if it is (as I suspect) vastly higher than the same situation in an EV, that doesn't change the fact that even with the EV the value is non-zero.
I'm a fan of EV's, that isn't the point. My only argument is you can't have something for nothing, you can't sit there consuming energy without getting that energy from somewhere and whether ICE or electric it's eventually going to come from a common pool that could go toward propulsion instead. Fortunately sitting stationary powering accessories is not a particularly desirable use case.
at the end of the day its batteries that limit electric vehicles. :horse: cold fusion is yet to save the day.
James_s Someone is saying if an ICE and a EV are stuck in traffic the range each would be able to travel before refueling would decrease. I have an EV and if I'm sitting in traffic the only energy I'm consuming is to power the computers and sound system. Yes it takes energy to power those devices but how much? 100 or 200 watts? If the car's not moving the drive train batteries are not being discharged.
Now compare that to an ICE sitting in traffic. How much energy/watts are being consumed to power the engine? 2,000? 5,000 watts?
If I recall correctly an ICE car with a full tank of gas just left ideling will run out of fuel in about 12 hours. An EV could sit in traffic for a month or more and still have the amout of range. The energy in the drive train batteries isn't being consumed so one has full range. Yes if one is listening to the sound system and the on board computers have to get power from somewhere.... But just how much or shoudl I say how little energy is that if compared to the energy to move the car.
James_s Someone is saying if an ICE and a EV are stuck in traffic the range each would be able to travel before refueling would decrease. I have an EV and if I'm sitting in traffic the only energy I'm consuming is to power the computers and sound system. Yes it takes energy to power those devices but how much? 100 or 200 watts? If the car's not moving the drive train batteries are not being discharged.
Now compare that to an ICE sitting in traffic. How much energy/watts are being consumed to power the engine? 2,000? 5,000 watts?
If I recall correctly an ICE car with a full tank of gas just left ideling will run out of fuel in about 12 hours. An EV could sit in traffic for a month or more and still have the amout of range. The energy in the drive train batteries isn't being consumed so one has full range. Yes if one is listening to the sound system and the on board computers have to get power from somewhere.... But just how much or shoudl I say how little energy is that if compared to the energy to move the car.
This is getting pedantic but the energy has to ultimately come from the traction batteries, otherwise what is there? A separate battery pack with enough capacity to run all the lighting, electronics, heating/AC, navigation, computers, etc that is only charged independently by the charger when you plug in the car? That doesn't make any sense, if there is a separate battery there has got to be a DC-DC converter fed off the traction battery to charge it, otherwise I'd have to say it's a very strange design decision. Would it really be logical for it to be possible to completely deplete the battery powering all your accessories, computers and lighting while you've still got a giant traction battery with plenty of charge sitting there uselessly unable to power up the car's electronics?
Regarding how much energy is used, I suspect this is going to depend heavily on whether the HVAC system is used. Whether heating or cooling that's going to use a lot of energy. I've heard figures in the range of 2 tons for the refrigeration capacity of a typical car AC system which means something around 2HP, roughly 2kW and I'm betting all currently sold EVs use the AC as a heat pump to provide heat too. I expect most EVs now have LED headlamps so that's what, 30-50W for the pair? All the other electronics maybe a few hundred Watts, seat heater 100-200W, it could easily be 2-3kW worth of load. Tiny compared to the energy required to move the car, but not zero.
It's probably not very significant in real world situations, but I doubt you could sit in traffic for months either, likely closer to a few days. Still likely to come out ahead compared to ICE but you can't say something doesn't consume any energy in a forum full of engineers and not expect someone to nitpick.
If I recall correctly an ICE car with a full tank of gas just left ideling will run out of fuel in about 12 hours.The engine in my car is rather big but it only takes 1.4 liters per hour idling. However, the fuel tank is not that large, so it seems max idle time without refueling is about 40 hours. 40 hours with free heat in the winter.
Now compare that to an ICE sitting in traffic. How much energy/watts are being consumed to power the engine? 2,000? 5,000 watts?ICE cars have start/stop systems which shut down the engine when the car isn't moving nowadays so your point is not valid.
Some cars have that feature. Most don't. In cars which do have it, many people find the need to disable it as the engine ages, as its gets quirky.Now compare that to an ICE sitting in traffic. How much energy/watts are being consumed to power the engine? 2,000? 5,000 watts?ICE cars have start/stop systems which shut down the engine when the car isn't moving nowadays so your point is not valid.
Now compare that to an ICE sitting in traffic. How much energy/watts are being consumed to power the engine? 2,000? 5,000 watts?ICE cars have start/stop systems which shut down the engine when the car isn't moving nowadays so your point is not valid.
If I recall correctly an ICE car with a full tank of gas just left ideling will run out of fuel in about 12 hours.The engine in my car is rather big but it only takes 1.4 liters per hour idling. However, the fuel tank is not that large, so it seems max idle time without refueling is about 40 hours. 40 hours with free heat in the winter.
Wow, what an extended discussion!
I think electric cars are it, but, I have never bought a new car and paying more than £25k for an electric car is simply impossible. So it is secondhand ones for me. Has anyone bought a secondhand EV? Other than from a main dealer, what was the experience like? What do you get for £3k, about what I can afford. For that in the UK you can buy a 10 year old car, possibly 70k miles, and if looked after will do another 10-15 years.
Other thoughts on EV.
On a hybrid, does anyone get problems with the unleaded fuel turning to glue after a time? It is said to be a problem but I haven't really faced it even with petrol generators not being used for months.
If you leave an EV for extended periods of time, does the battery discharge? Like your mobile phone, even with it off it needs charging every few days, not like my lamented Nokia 3310.
We have recently had a spate of bitterly cold, for the UK, weather. How much has the range dropped simply to run the 4-5kW of heating needed?
I am surprised that no one seems to have had problems with 10kg of copper charge cables disappearing over night. That is £40 of any ones money, and a whizz around the housing estate should turn up several cables. Good little earner.
What is the reality of towing, say, a 1 to 1.5 tonne trailer? A caravan is that weight but the air resistance is far larger than a simple platform trailer.
Whilst EVs have regererative braking, meaning the footbrake isn't used as much. What about the hydraulics simply seizing up? In winter with the salt is it possible for the brakes to simply stop working without being noticed?
Is this guy correct? ICE car manufactures like Ford lrave out/remove life saving safety features in their cars for the European and Australian markets?He doesn't say what they omitted for Europe and Australia, but presumably they complied with the local regulations. Cars are not made in a generic manner. They are customised for each market. This is more that just altering the package of optional features offered, like leather sets and climate control. Often the manufacturer has 2 or more body shell options, and selects the appropriate one for the target market. Safety kit, like cameras and autonomous emergency braking, are very market dependent. All new cars in the US must now have a reversing camera. With the poor rear visibility of most modern cars this seems like a good safety feature for pedestrians in car parks, as well as helping to avoid bumps to surrounding cars. Other countries don't even seem to be considering making a reversing camera compulsory.
Some cars have that feature. Most don't. In cars which do have it, many people find the need to disable it as the engine ages, as its gets quirky.
With a colleague we were looking at second hand Nissan Leaf EV.
We both don’t do many Km but we need a car for children, shopping and our money generating hobbies. Plus, on his side, the tax laws in Holland (both state and local) make owning a low use small family size IC a bit expensive.
Taking into account predicted usage, cold weather and battery wear, the 2014 or newer Leaf was ideal...
We were very suprised to not be able to find a clean one under 10000€...
These thing are holding their price better than what the doomsayers predicted.
In any case, I still need a “big” car as I am renovating a house.
When we are done, we will get a second hand Leaf combined with rooftop solar and a battery.
I imagine that I am not alone in reaching this conclusion.
In the rental cars I've driven with stop/start the engine keeps starting and stopping when you are in a traffic jam, to keep the battery topped up and the AC cool. At night, with the headlights and HVAC services running this endless starting and stopping gets pretty annoying, and doesn't seem like it can be very good for engine wear. Hybrids try to keeps the engine running in long bursts, to minimise this issue, but the non hybrid start/stop systems I've encountered don't.Some cars have that feature. Most don't. In cars which do have it, many people find the need to disable it as the engine ages, as its gets quirky.
I've driven a couple of cars that had that ridiculous start/stop system and hated it. It works ok on a hybrid where you have the electric motor to start off the line but on a conventional ICE car produces an obnoxious lag and lurch that is especially noticeable in the typical stop & go traffic during busy times around here. Some of the earlier systems even shut off the engine while the AC is on and it starts blowing warm sticky air. Everyone I know who has one of those disables the system every time they get in the car, it won't stay turned off, you have to push the button every time. The whole thing is just a scam to exploit a loophole in the way emissions are measured, real world savings are negligible.
I don’t lease or borrow money to get stuff. Leasing is renting that has a slick lawyer friend and is usually more expensive than owning.With a colleague we were looking at second hand Nissan Leaf EV.
We both don’t do many Km but we need a car for children, shopping and our money generating hobbies. Plus, on his side, the tax laws in Holland (both state and local) make owning a low use small family size IC a bit expensive.
Taking into account predicted usage, cold weather and battery wear, the 2014 or newer Leaf was ideal...
We were very suprised to not be able to find a clean one under 10000€...
These thing are holding their price better than what the doomsayers predicted.
In any case, I still need a “big” car as I am renovating a house.
When we are done, we will get a second hand Leaf combined with rooftop solar and a battery.
I imagine that I am not alone in reaching this conclusion.
Interesting how things are different in other countries. In the US the Leaf is not that popular. Out of curiosity I'm looking at prices here for a 2014 and they are around $10,000 to $13,000 USD asking price.
Can you lease? The trend here in California is to lease EVs. The monthly payment is the same or less than financing the purchase of a car. And like smartphones the technology, software and battery life continues to change that it worth it to get a "new" car every 3 - 4 years. In California we receive about $10,000 in tax credits and cash rebates.
Are battery systems worth it? According to Dave battery systems (lead acid) or only 40% efficient. That means for every 10 kWhr the your solar panels produce and store in the batteries you'll only get 6 kWhrs back.
I've asked many people if battery systems make financial sense. Everyone says it does, but then no one has show the math calculations to support their claims.
I don’t lease or borrow money to get stuff. Leasing is renting that has a slick lawyer friend and is usually more expensive than owning.With a colleague we were looking at second hand Nissan Leaf EV.
We both don’t do many Km but we need a car for children, shopping and our money generating hobbies. Plus, on his side, the tax laws in Holland (both state and local) make owning a low use small family size IC a bit expensive.
Taking into account predicted usage, cold weather and battery wear, the 2014 or newer Leaf was ideal...
We were very suprised to not be able to find a clean one under 10000€...
These thing are holding their price better than what the doomsayers predicted.
In any case, I still need a “big” car as I am renovating a house.
When we are done, we will get a second hand Leaf combined with rooftop solar and a battery.
I imagine that I am not alone in reaching this conclusion.
Interesting how things are different in other countries. In the US the Leaf is not that popular. Out of curiosity I'm looking at prices here for a 2014 and they are around $10,000 to $13,000 USD asking price.
Can you lease? The trend here in California is to lease EVs. The monthly payment is the same or less than financing the purchase of a car. And like smartphones the technology, software and battery life continues to change that it worth it to get a "new" car every 3 - 4 years. In California we receive about $10,000 in tax credits and cash rebates.
Are battery systems worth it? According to Dave battery systems (lead acid) or only 40% efficient. That means for every 10 kWhr the your solar panels produce and store in the batteries you'll only get 6 kWhrs back.
I've asked many people if battery systems make financial sense. Everyone says it does, but then no one has show the math calculations to support their claims.
Apart from this, I don’t know how lease contracts are written in the US, but here, finding a deserted crossroad to sell your soul to the Devil is better option.
I intend to wear this car to the ground, like the Iphone4 that I still use today. So any resale is a bonus, not a need. It will carry dirty kids, their dust covered dad and building/furniture material. Very little freeway, rarely will it reach a max of 120km of calm driving a day.
For second hand, there are no incentives, apart from not having certain yearly taxes and not having to lose an hour a week driving to fill up.
The battery is because, for new solar installations here, you basically give your production to the provider for free... So storing after using as much as possible during peak solar hours (either in the car or in the house) is better, if only on an emotional level!
I’ll be going towards a LiO from one of the Local suppliers here. The prices have gone down a lot, and if you can install it yourself, it will make sense in two to three years (did the maths a year ago, it’s in a box, somewhere) at the current energy price trends.
I need 14kWh, and that was stupid expensive last time I moved 4 years ago.
As an aside, I will be changing the roof in two years, and it will be made (by me) with the solar, so no paying twice (roof, then solar). Solar is silly cheap, the installation being the major cost, the alloy supports second, I am equipped to do both.
If I was Joe Twolefthands customer, having to pay somebody to do everything, it would probably be another story.
Interesting how things are different in other countries. In the US the Leaf is not that popular.Relative to what? Currently it is selling in about the same numbers as the Volt - no's 6/7 on the list of monthly EV sales (https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/) Sales of Leafs have slowed but as of the end of 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States) it was, along with the Volt, at the top of cumulative sales - far above the competitors.
According to Dave battery systems (lead acid) or only 40% efficientI've never seen him say that but if so, it's inaccurate. It depends entirely where you are on the charge/discharge curve. It is not linear. For deep cycle LA batteries at 50% SOC it can be as high as 90%. At 90% SOC it will be closer to 50%. At the very top - during the absorb phase of charging it will be down to a few percent. Lots of data on this - just do a web search...
I think you need to re-think technology. Why on Earth would you be using an iPhone 4 Today? You can't run the latest apps, which might be required if you wnat to monitor your PV system and most importantly you can't apply the latest security updates which mean you can be the target of cyber-attackers.
Then there's the issue of the battery. Are you still using the orinigal battery? Probebly not. How much and how many times have you had to replace the battery that was not mean to be replaced?
And isn't your iPhone 4 slow and missing a number of radios such as 802.11A and 80.211 C?
You also don't have the figerprint reader which means there are lot of apps which won't work suchs as Wallet and Apple Pay. Why on Earth in this day of credit card theft would you not want to protect your credit cards and your credit?
And please don't tell me you are going to use cash for everthing. Isn't is Sweden that's eliminating cash in just a few years?
You might be happy with an slow, unsecure iPhone 4 whihc is no longer supported. But please do society a favor and upgarde to a smarphone that's secure by modern standards. It's people like you running aroudn with unsecure, unsupproted devices which is allowing cybercriminals to steaal from good honest people.
And please don't tell me you are going to use cash for everthing. Isn't is Sweden that's eliminating cash in just a few years?Perhaps, but hardly relevant as "gildasd" and his iPhone 4 lives in Belgium.
We are the grey boring mayonnaise lovers, they are the blond sexy lingonberries lovers.And please don't tell me you are going to use cash for everthing. Isn't is Sweden that's eliminating cash in just a few years?Perhaps, but hardly relevant as "gildasd" and his iPhone 4 lives in Belgium.
We are the grey boring mayonnaise lovers, they are the blond sexy lingonberries lovers.After visiting Belgium several years ago I started enjoying french fries with mayonnaise instead of boring ketchup.
I’m French, and after 7 years in Belgium, i’m still amazed of what they will serve with mayo!We are the grey boring mayonnaise lovers, they are the blond sexy lingonberries lovers.After visiting Belgium several years ago I started enjoying french fries with mayonnaise instead of boring ketchup.
Clams, french fries and mayonnaise. :-+
:wtf: Who the hell eats fries with ketchup? Blasphemy!We are the grey boring mayonnaise lovers, they are the blond sexy lingonberries lovers.After visiting Belgium several years ago I started enjoying french fries with mayonnaise instead of boring ketchup.
Clams, french fries and mayonnaise. :-+
I think you need to re-think technology. Why on Earth would you be using an iPhone 4 Today? You can't run the latest apps, which might be required if you wnat to monitor your PV system and most importantly you can't apply the latest security updates which mean you can be the target of cyber-attackers.
Then there's the issue of the battery. Are you still using the orinigal battery? Probebly not. How much and how many times have you had to replace the battery that was not mean to be replaced?
And isn't your iPhone 4 slow and missing a number of radios such as 802.11A and 80.211 C?
You also don't have the figerprint reader which means there are lot of apps which won't work suchs as Wallet and Apple Pay. Why on Earth in this day of credit card theft would you not want to protect your credit cards and your credit?
Interesting how things are different in other countries. In the US the Leaf is not that popular.Relative to what? Currently it is selling in about the same numbers as the Volt - no's 6/7 on the list of monthly EV sales (https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/) Sales of Leafs have slowed but as of the end of 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States) it was, along with the Volt, at the top of cumulative sales - far above the competitors.QuoteAccording to Dave battery systems (lead acid) or only 40% efficientI've never seen him say that but if so, it's inaccurate. It depends entirely where you are on the charge/discharge curve. It is not linear. For deep cycle LA batteries at 50% SOC it can be as high as 90%. At 90% SOC it will be closer to 50%. At the very top - during the absorb phase of charging it will be down to a few percent. Lots of data on this - just do a web search...
This is not an issue if you understand proper battery based solar PV system design - especially now that PV panels are so cheap. With deep cycle FLA batteries, you want a system designed to take your battery bank down near 50% SOC (but not below) in typical worse case - a few days with no sun scenarios. You would also want to have generator (wind or hydro if you're lucky) back up for rare situations where there is no sun for longer. In those cases where there is intermittent sun, you would be charging/discharging at the low end (50-70%) of the SOC curve where things are most efficient.
When sunshine is plentiful - your system should not be discharging your battery bank below 80% SOC or so (overnight). Yes, charge/discharge is inefficient there but you don't care because sun is plentiful. People employ all kind of methods to make use of extra power production during time of plentifull sunshine and a full battery bank (such as "load shifting" or heating water).
The biggest mistake people make is undersizing their PV array (especially dumb given current low PV prices) or undersizing their battery bank so that it cannot provide enough power for a couple of days of no sun and still stay above 50%SOC. The advantage of LiFePO4 banks is they can be drawn down much farther (as well and well as more efficient charge/discharge across the curve).
Now - if you're trying to milk you utilities rate structure and PV rebate system - by feeding back to the grid from your battery bank during peak hours - well you may have different design considerations and how that pencils out financially will of course depend on your system cost and what the incentive from your utility is.
And please don't tell me you are going to use cash for everthing. Isn't is Sweden that's eliminating cash in just a few years?Perhaps, but hardly relevant as "gildasd" and his iPhone 4 lives in Belgium.
What video? He has several videos on battery charging - none on deep cycle LA batteries that I am aware of.
Your claims about LA batteries do not agree with Dave's video on the efficenceny or LA batteries.
Can you provide some factual data to support your claim as Dave did in his video?
I think you need to re-think technology. Why on Earth would you be using an iPhone 4 Today? You can't run the latest apps, which might be required if you wnat to monitor your PV system and most importantly you can't apply the latest security updates which mean you can be the target of cyber-attackers.
Then there's the issue of the battery. Are you still using the orinigal battery? Probebly not. How much and how many times have you had to replace the battery that was not mean to be replaced?
And isn't your iPhone 4 slow and missing a number of radios such as 802.11A and 80.211 C?
You also don't have the figerprint reader which means there are lot of apps which won't work suchs as Wallet and Apple Pay. Why on Earth in this day of credit card theft would you not want to protect your credit cards and your credit?
I was still using an iPhone 4 until just a few months ago when I got tired of not having enough space for photos and got an iPhone SE. Not everyone cares about running the latest apps, I sure don't. I've never really had any issue with security on my phone, but I don't do a lot of web surfing on it and I don't visit sketchy sites. I think most of the FUD is spread by device makers and app developers who depend on everyone replacing everything frequently. Who cares about the WiFi speed? It's a phone, I'm not downloading big files over the WiFi. My current phone has the fingerprint reader but I've never used it, I use cash or a credit card, I have no interest in a proprietary gimmick like Apple Pay. The only time I've ever had a credit card stolen was with an online purchase and it did nothing to my credit, I simply called the bank and contested the charge and it was immediately removed, no big deal. I replaced the battery in mine once, it took 5 minutes and cost less than $10. I've never understood why everyone says iPhones don't have replaceable batteries, at least on that model it was a piece of cake.
While I do like technology, it has always baffled me why so many people seem addicted to having the latest and greatest. I want to buy a smartphone, install all the apps I want, get everything set up just the way I want it and then freeze the configuration for the ~4-6 years that I use it. When there are compelling new capabilities in a new model I will replace it and repeat the same process. I hate updates, every time iOS updates my phone gets slower and slower even though I'm still using it for exactly the same purpose. Finally I got so fed up that I blocked Apple's update server on my network. I'm glad I did too because the latest iOS doesn't support 32 bit apps at all and I still have several I paid for and use that are abandoned and no longer updated.
What video? He has several videos on battery charging - none on deep cycle LA batteries that I am aware of.
Your claims about LA batteries do not agree with Dave's video on the efficenceny or LA batteries.QuoteCan you provide some factual data to support your claim as Dave did in his video?
As I mentioned data easily found if you do a web search (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lead+acid+battery+charge+efficiency) ::)
In addition, I and many others have years of experience monitoring charge and discharge data from our own battery banks. AFAIK, Dave has no experience with deep cycle battery banks.
I'm looking. Out of curiosity how efficient do you think LA battery are?
Here they say can be low as 60% which is what Dave said.In your prior post you said he said 40%. Still waiting for you to let us know where he said that.
Why are you baffeld? It's not that people are addicated to the technology, it's the technology changes. Is there are reason you aren't driving a 50-75 year old car today? Cars then, like today transport you at the same spped today as the did then.
The reason is the technology has changed. Cars today produce less polution, have more functionality and are safer.
Same is true with technoloy, (computers, cell phones etc.) Is there a reason you aren't uing records or casseete tapes to listen to podcasts or music today?
But here's the real reason you should be updating your technology.... Security. Your old technology can be used by cybercriminals to commit cyber crimes and you won't even know about it. There are cases where the onwer of odler technology has been arrested as being a cybercriminal becuase her device was being used in a cybercrime.
For every kWhr you "sell to PG&E within a year at $0.85 kWhr one can get back almost 8 kWhrs when the rates are lower later in the day or year.
How does the power company storing ecess energy compare with batteries?
Why are you baffeld? It's not that people are addicated to the technology, it's the technology changes. Is there are reason you aren't driving a 50-75 year old car today? Cars then, like today transport you at the same spped today as the did then.
The reason is the technology has changed. Cars today produce less polution, have more functionality and are safer.
Same is true with technoloy, (computers, cell phones etc.) Is there a reason you aren't uing records or casseete tapes to listen to podcasts or music today?
But here's the real reason you should be updating your technology.... Security. Your old technology can be used by cybercriminals to commit cyber crimes and you won't even know about it. There are cases where the onwer of odler technology has been arrested as being a cybercriminal becuase her device was being used in a cybercrime.
Because it's ridiculous to replace perfectly good equipment every few months to a year, shelling out money over and over for stuff I already paid for, turning resources into landfill at a rapid pace. Yes there is a reason I'm not driving a 50-75 year old car today, it's that I can't go out and buy one, and I can't just buy all the parts to maintain it. Also there were a few technological developments like fuel injection, disc brakes and crumple zones that really are a substantial improvement but those have been around for decades now. My daily driver is pushing up on 30 years old and I just hope I can find another one if something ever happens to it because it's so much cooler than anything new I've driven. If I could walk into a dealer and buy a brand new 80s-90s car today I absolutely would. You're absolutely right, cars today transport me just like cars did back then, and the fuel economy of my 1990 car is nearly as good as many similar modern cars. Since you mention safety, I'll say that this car is a replacement for a slightly older model that got rear ended by a semi truck at freeway speed and I walked away from that very violent accident without a scratch, you'd have a hard time convincing me that a new car is going to do appreciably safer than that and if I wanted to drive an unsafe car (or motorcycle) then that's my choice anyway. Sure a newer car has more "functionality" if you mean bloated gadgets, gimmicks and stuff to break or get outdated but you can have all that, I want to *drive* the car, I want to shift the gears, I want to feel the road, I don't need or want a bunch of bloat and distracting toys.
I do listen to music on vinyl quite regularly, yes I also have digital music that I can play from my smartphone or stream from various gadgets around the house, I'm not an old fart, I know how to use all that stuff and the convenience is nice but vinyl still sounds great and playing a record is a different experience, not to mention digging through dusty boxes of them in thrift stores looking for something good.
Now security with older devices, blah blah blah, there's a name for what you're saying, it's called FUD. Yes there have been a few notable security issues but find me an incident of older iPhones being taken over by cybercriminals (has it *ever* happened?) and I'll find you 10 times as many cases of modern, fully patched, up to date systems infected because of the one thing you can't patch, the user. I have spent many hours of my life cleaning up malware, crapware, viruses, and other garbage from countless computers and you know how many of those have been due to some exploit in old outdated software? Zero, none, so far it has *always* been a case of users installing sketchy stuff, falling for popups, email scams, bundled crapware, you name it. So save it, I'm not going to replace my devices just because of your unfounded worries about security and cries that the sky is falling. This security FUD is a very recent phenomenon, it started spreading fast right about the time software and hardware plateued and suddenly a 2 year old device wasn't hopelessly obsolete, tech companies started to panic as they scrambled to find new ways to keep selling more products. Having worked in various parts of that industry for years I've seen it from the inside, everyone is pushing towards everything as a service, subscription, perpetual income for the company and "OMG! Security! Hackers!" is one of the leading marketing cries to spin the benefits of software rental and half-assed, ship it now, fix it "later" tinker with it constantly development methodologies.
So yes, as somebody who buys something, takes good care of it and expects to keep it for 5, 10, maybe 20+ years and keep using it until it no longer meets my needs, I remain baffled how so many people think it's necessary to constantly replace everything, throw money away and burn through the world's resources.
QuoteFor every kWhr you "sell to PG&E within a year at $0.85 kWhr one can get back almost 8 kWhrs when the rates are lower later in the day or year.
How does the power company storing ecess energy compare with batteries?
The thing is : The power company does not store energy.
Now, if you invest in cheap storage (Lithium batteries), you have to consider a few "details":
- The Power company does not like you, and will make everything possible to suck off money from your investment
- The Power company likes the daily smoothing and storing capability of your battery. You have to sell it to them (with better leverage if you are a group of people)
- The variable price will be smoothed somewhat on a daily scale once battery systems are economical will scale because a lot of people invest (that point can vary greatly between regions depending on local grid evolution.) Don't count on those price differences with today's rate to make money or recoup your investment!
- The variable price on a longer scale (weeks, months) will not be smoothed out by battery systems. Don't count on those price differences at all to make money!
PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
He is confusing pumped storage with hydro.PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
He is confusing pumped storage with hydro.PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
The page at PG&E referring to 67 power houses is the hydroelectric power page, not a page on pumped storage. Sure, hydroelectric schemes store energy as water, just as oil fired systems store energy as oil in their tanks. However, the topic was battery like storage.He is confusing pumped storage with hydro.PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
PG&E has many energy storage reservoirs in California. Helms is just one of many.
Most have not looked too hard. All did was look on PG&E's web site to see they list over 100 energy storage reservoirs in California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range. And their web site states there are 67 powerhouses and collectively provide clean, green, non-polluting renewable electricity to over 4,000,000 homes.
Any idea why he thinks the power compnaies don't have energy storage? They sure as heck do.
The page at PG&E referring to 67 power houses is the hydroelectric power page, not a page on pumped storage. Sure, hydroelectric schemes store energy as water, just as oil fired systems store energy as oil in their tanks. However, the topic was battery like storage.He is confusing pumped storage with hydro.PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
PG&E has many energy storage reservoirs in California. Helms is just one of many.
Most have not looked too hard. All did was look on PG&E's web site to see they list over 100 energy storage reservoirs in California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range. And their web site states there are 67 powerhouses and collectively provide clean, green, non-polluting renewable electricity to over 4,000,000 homes.
Any idea why he thinks the power compnaies don't have energy storage? They sure as heck do.
[Why isn't a refillable reesivor like a battery. Energy is stored as potential energy just like it is in a battery. As water is let out of the resivor it produces electricity. Just like a battery if the water is pumped back to the inistial resivor it's like charging a battery.Pumped storage systems have an upper and a lower pool, and swap water between them. Hydro power systems have no lower pool, so they have no source of water to refill the upper pool. Also, their generators do not generally have the ability to change modes and operate as pumps. An additional problem is that in rainy times the upper pool is probably full, so it may lack the capacity to take a daily cycling stock of additional water.
What'st the difference. Botth store energy and and are easlily recharged. The burning of oil/gas/coal involved the burning or an oxidative reaction which is not as easily reversed.
Can you explain ?
If I could walk into a dealer and buy a brand new 80s-90s car today I absolutely would. You're absolutely right, cars today transport me just like cars did back then, and the fuel economy of my 1990 car is nearly as good as many similar modern cars.I sometimes drive one of my 80s car and they are still manufactured to this day as they moved factory to Uzbekistan ;D But I don't think you can buy one at "developed country" as they have still same engines and safety features as back then so wont pass today tests
But do they pump water back up stream to store energy or are they just using runoff that fills the reservior?He is confusing pumped storage with hydro.PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
PG&E has many energy storage reservoirs in California. Helms is just one of many.
Most have not looked too hard. All did was look on PG&E's web site to see they list over 100 energy storage reservoirs in California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range. And their web site states there are 67 powerhouses and collectively provide clean, green, non-polluting renewable electricity to over 4,000,000 homes.
Any idea why he thinks the power compnaies don't have energy storage? They sure as heck do.
But do they pump water back up stream to store energy or are they just using runoff that fills the reservior?He is confusing pumped storage with hydro.PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
PG&E has many energy storage reservoirs in California. Helms is just one of many.
Most have not looked too hard. All did was look on PG&E's web site to see they list over 100 energy storage reservoirs in California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range. And their web site states there are 67 powerhouses and collectively provide clean, green, non-polluting renewable electricity to over 4,000,000 homes.
Any idea why he thinks the power compnaies don't have energy storage? They sure as heck do.
That would mean they would need two reservoirs. One up stream and another down stream as a source to pump water from when they are storing energy. Is there that many pairs of reservoirs?But do they pump water back up stream to store energy or are they just using runoff that fills the reservior?He is confusing pumped storage with hydro.PG&E has many lakess and water reseviors for storing water. The water is then released and creates electricty/hydroelectric power. At night when people aren't using the electricty they pump the water back up hill to so it can be used over and over. These resivor levels can vary 3 or 4 feet in one afternoon when electricity demands are high.If I Google "PG&E pumped storage" all the references I get seem to be to a single pumped storage system called Helms. Why don't the others show up? Are they not actually owned by PG&E?
PG&E has many energy storage reservoirs in California. Helms is just one of many.
Most have not looked too hard. All did was look on PG&E's web site to see they list over 100 energy storage reservoirs in California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range. And their web site states there are 67 powerhouses and collectively provide clean, green, non-polluting renewable electricity to over 4,000,000 homes.
Any idea why he thinks the power compnaies don't have energy storage? They sure as heck do.
They have both.
Obviously the rain filled resivors are huge and have a much larger capacity than these smaaler holding resiveors. It might take days or weeks for the water level in large resivors to drop a foot. But the holding resivors in one day the water level might change 3 or 4 feet in one day.
One also need to remember many of these resivors pre-date electricity. They are located in the Sierra foothills of Californa whihc was gold country. These resiviors were initially buil for hydrolic gold mining, ice (blocks of ice were cut and sent to San Francisco for refrigeration, and for drinking water/agriculture. It would be another 60 - 100 years before these resivors would be used for produceing electricity.
Bottom line...... These smaller resivors are used like batteries to store energy which can be easily converted to electrity by opening a value. As the water level in the resivors are drained they can be recharged by pumping water, which was used to produce electrity during the day, back into the resivor.
The amount of electricity stored in these rechargable resivors is very inexpensive and environmentaly friendly compared to the chemial energy stored in batteries. And unlike batteries the resiviors are beatuiful lakes which provide drinking water, fishing, boating, camping etc. All somthing you can't do with a battery.
And these lakes also provide drinking water
If I could walk into a dealer and buy a brand new 80s-90s car today I absolutely would. You're absolutely right, cars today transport me just like cars did back then, and the fuel economy of my 1990 car is nearly as good as many similar modern cars.I sometimes drive one of my 80s car and they are still manufactured to this day as they moved factory to Uzbekistan ;D But I don't think you can buy one at "developed country" as they have still same engines and safety features as back then so wont pass today tests
And 1.5l 8 valve petrol engine with 3 speed automatic will run forever and parts are plentiful even old stock or can be ordered new if you wait few weeks
It is fun to drive
But safety is terrible especially at front corner crash and side impact is always awful without side airbags
And for topic question:
I would like to have and electric car but today is still TOC higher than gasoline car
When it will be cheaper I'll be happy to get one
They have both.That would mean they would need two reservoirs. One up stream and another down stream as a source to pump water from when they are storing energy. Is there that many pairs of reservoirs?
That's interesting do you know of some specific examples?They have both.That would mean they would need two reservoirs. One up stream and another down stream as a source to pump water from when they are storing energy. Is there that many pairs of reservoirs?
Hence "They have both".
I found these plants in californiaThat's interesting do you know of some specific examples?They have both.That would mean they would need two reservoirs. One up stream and another down stream as a source to pump water from when they are storing energy. Is there that many pairs of reservoirs?
Hence "They have both".
And I bet that car pollutes the air like crazy. You one car probably produces more air pollution than 200 modern cars.And that is what politicians want you to believe
So not only are you driving a car that's not safe, it also produces a lots of pollution.
Car might be fun to drive and all of that, but like using an old outdated computer/smartphone which could easily be attacked by cybercrimianls your actions affect all of society.
Why drive a car that pollutes the city you live in? It not only causes heath probalems for you, but all of your friends and neighbors.
That's interesting do you know of some specific examples?They have both.That would mean they would need two reservoirs. One up stream and another down stream as a source to pump water from when they are storing energy. Is there that many pairs of reservoirs?
Hence "They have both".
The search term you're looking for is "Pump-back hydroelectric dam".Globally, hybrid hydroelectric + pumped storage systems are rare. Places where a high and a low pool can be sited are seldom places where the high pool can also intercept and store water from a major river. The list in your second reference is basically a list of pure pumped storage systems, with no rain energy capture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Pump-back_hydroelectric_dams
Examples?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations
That's interesting do you know of some specific examples?They have both.That would mean they would need two reservoirs. One up stream and another down stream as a source to pump water from when they are storing energy. Is there that many pairs of reservoirs?
Hence "They have both".
Globally, hybrid hydroelectric + pumped storage systems are rare. Places where a high and a low pool can be sited are seldom places where the high pool can also intercept and store water from a major river. The list in your second reference is basically a list of pure pumped storage systems, with no rain energy capture.
Of course its important. Lots of people have lots of niche things. What matters for energy supply is what exists in large volume. When all the world's significant pump storage systems can be listed on one page it really niche.Globally, hybrid hydroelectric + pumped storage systems are rare. Places where a high and a low pool can be sited are seldom places where the high pool can also intercept and store water from a major river. The list in your second reference is basically a list of pure pumped storage systems, with no rain energy capture.
OK.
Is this terribly important to the "power compnaies(sic) don't have energy storage" debate? They obviously do have pumped storage, just not many where the high pools are fed by major rivers.
(and presumably there's not much demand for those even if there happens to be a suitable low pool - the high pool is being filled up anyway)
Of course its important. Lots of people have lots of niche things. What matters for energy supply is what exists in large volume. When all the world's significant pump storage systems can be listed on one page it really niche.What I'm wondering about is if you could make a hydro energy storage system in a large lake or sea. The surface area can be huge but the height difference will be a few meters at most. When located in a sea with some tidal level differences the inefficiency could be (partly) cancelled by using the tide (high tide: store, low tide generate).
There is a pumped storage system in Japan where the low pool is the sea, and the high pool is a man made lake on the cliffs overlooking the sea. The lake is supposed to be pretty well sealed, to minimise the amount of salt which bleeds into the surrounding area. Salt water could be really damaging to the surrounding environment if it leaks out little by little over many years. It might be hard to use a natural lake adjacent to the sea for that reason..... assuming there are any high up natural lakes sufficiently close to the sea.Of course its important. Lots of people have lots of niche things. What matters for energy supply is what exists in large volume. When all the world's significant pump storage systems can be listed on one page it really niche.What I'm wondering about is if you could make a hydro energy storage system in a large lake or sea. The surface area can be huge but the height difference will be a few meters at most. When located in a sea with some tidal level differences the inefficiency could be (partly) cancelled by using the tide (high tide: store, low tide generate).
What I mean is: you can make an artificial lake in the sea (and put solar panels and/or wind turbines inside and around it).Do you mean building walls up from the seabed until they are much higher than the surface, and using the enclosed space as a high pool? I've seen this proposed, but I don't think something like it has ever been constructed. I imagine it would need to be in a fairly sheltered spot, or tolerating the worst possible storms could greatly complicate things.
A big lake could be used as well but artificial islands have been built many times in seas and oceans. Not in deep parts but there are lots of shallow areas.What I mean is: you can make an artificial lake in the sea (and put solar panels and/or wind turbines inside and around it).Do you mean building walls up from the seabed until they are much higher than the surface, and using the enclosed space as a high pool? I've seen this proposed, but I don't think something like it has ever been constructed. I imagine it would need to be in a fairly sheltered spot, or tolerating the worst possible storms could greatly complicate things.
MIT has a project to build 25 m diameter spheres 400m below off shore windturbines. Then pump water in and out for energy storage.I saw a proposal for this idea in the 80s, from people who were experimenting with ways to extract energy from waves. It seems MIT built a small model in 2011, but I can't find any references to work proceeding from there. The paper produced after that initial experiment is behind the IEEE pay wall.
http://pergatory.mit.edu/ores/ (http://pergatory.mit.edu/ores/)
What I mean is: you can make an artificial lake in the sea (and put solar panels and/or wind turbines inside and around it).Do you mean building walls up from the seabed until they are much higher than the surface, and using the enclosed space as a high pool?
I've seen this proposed, but I don't think something like it has ever been constructed. I imagine it would need to be in a fairly sheltered spot, or tolerating the worst possible storms could greatly complicate things.Water getting inside isn't really a problem for a power station.
I was thinking more of strength issues. A raging storm can smash some impressively strong looking concrete structures. Any water that gets tossed into the high pool during a storm is a bonus. There have been wave power proposed based on actually exploiting this, but they don't seem very practical.I've seen this proposed, but I don't think something like it has ever been constructed. I imagine it would need to be in a fairly sheltered spot, or tolerating the worst possible storms could greatly complicate things.Water getting inside isn't really a problem for a power station.
(in fact it might be better to fill it up until the storm passes).
http://pergatory.mit.edu/ores/ (http://pergatory.mit.edu/ores/)
Globally, hybrid hydroelectric + pumped storage systems are rare. Places where a high and a low pool can be sited are seldom places where the high pool can also intercept and store water from a major river. The list in your second reference is basically a list of pure pumped storage systems, with no rain energy capture.
OK.
Is this terribly important to the "power compnaies(sic) don't have energy storage" debate? They obviously do have pumped storage, just not many where the high pools are fed by major rivers.
(and presumably there's not much demand for those even if there happens to be a suitable low pool - the high pool is being filled up anyway)
MIT has a project to build 25 m diameter spheres 400m below off shore windturbines. Then pump water in and out for energy storage.I saw a proposal for this idea in the 80s, from people who were experimenting with ways to extract energy from waves. It seems MIT built a small model in 2011, but I can't find any references to work proceeding from there. The paper produced after that initial experiment is behind the IEEE pay wall.
http://pergatory.mit.edu/ores/ (http://pergatory.mit.edu/ores/)
Then UC Berkeley buitl somehting called a Damital 30-40 years ago to harvest energy from ocean waves/current. Just wasn't const effective.
A few places around the world do haverest energy from ocean waves. But like solar and wind it's unperdicatble and the ocean water is highly corrisove.
Then UC Berkeley buitl somehting called a Damital 30-40 years ago to harvest energy from ocean waves/current. Just wasn't const effective.
A few places around the world do haverest energy from ocean waves. But like solar and wind it's unperdicatble and the ocean water is highly corrisove.
Moving things with waves always felt like a bad idea to me. Waves are very inconsistent, it might be calm, it might be storm, Murphy's law says you'll never get it right.
Tidal energy seems much more practical (ie. huge volumes of water being moved around by the moon). On any coastline there's thousands of inlets and coves that fill up with water then empty themselves twice a day. You can generate in both directions so that's four electricity generation cycles/day.
There not eneough energy there to make it worthwile.
Lot of water for only 800 watts for 4 hours.That's OK, the ocean is filled with a lot of water.
The amount of water needed to produce 800 watts of electricity to power an 800 watt light bulb continuously for 24 hours is, (and lets make it 100% efficient so there's no energy loss) with a height difference of 10 feet/3 m is....... ready for this ....... over 600,000 gallons/2271247 liters. That's the amount of water 25-30 backyard swimming pools.But you don't have to store the amount of energy for one year. The hydro storage is only there to serve as a temporary buffer to smooth out the differences between supply and demand. Also 3 meters is a bit low. Creating a lake which is 5 to 10 meters above sea level is certainly doable.
We would latterly have to build a reservoir the size of the ocean and then move all of the water in the ocean up 10 feet to provide enough power for the world for one year.
Have any of you done the calcualtion to figure out how much water and at what height it takes to continually produce 800 watts of electricity for one day? It's a simple math problem.
...
So while in theory all of the ideas for getting power from water might sound good, the math and physics just get in the way. If only there was a way we could break the laws of physics.
Next Gen nuclear is the only viable solution we know of.
The problem with tidal energy is its only practical in a handful of places around the planet. The general global tide is only half a metre, and the energy is too spread out to gather effectively. You need special instances above a continental shelf, like the Severn Estuary in the UK, the Rance River in France, or a couple of spots in Korea, where the tides are consistently large.Then UC Berkeley buitl somehting called a Damital 30-40 years ago to harvest energy from ocean waves/current. Just wasn't const effective.
A few places around the world do haverest energy from ocean waves. But like solar and wind it's unperdicatble and the ocean water is highly corrisove.
Moving things with waves always felt like a bad idea to me. Waves are very inconsistent, it might be calm, it might be storm, Murphy's law says you'll never get it right.
Tidal energy seems much more practical (ie. huge volumes of water being moved around by the moon). On any coastline there's thousands of inlets and coves that fill up with water then empty themselves twice a day. You can generate in both directions so that's four electricity generation cycles/day.
The amount of water needed to produce 800 watts of electricity to power an 800 watt light bulb continuously for 24 hours is, (and lets make it 100% efficient so there's no energy loss) with a height difference of 10 feet/3 m is....... ready for this ....... over 600,000 gallons/2271247 liters. That's the amount of water 25-30 backyard swimming pools.But you don't have to store the amount of energy for one year. The hydro storage is only there to serve as a temporary buffer to smooth out the differences between supply and demand. Also 3 meters is a bit low. Creating a lake which is 5 to 10 meters above sea level is certainly doable.
We would latterly have to build a reservoir the size of the ocean and then move all of the water in the ocean up 10 feet to provide enough power for the world for one year.
QuoteThere not eneough energy there to make it worthwile.
Works and is worthwile since 1966
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usine_mar%C3%A9motrice_de_la_RanceQuoteLot of water for only 800 watts for 4 hours.That's OK, the ocean is filled with a lot of water.
That depends on whether hydro storage is cheaper or more expensive compared to batteries. I'm not talking about production here.It is doable yes, but look at how little elcetricty would be producesd. The public would not invest in a system that won't pary for itself until they are nearly dead.The amount of water needed to produce 800 watts of electricity to power an 800 watt light bulb continuously for 24 hours is, (and lets make it 100% efficient so there's no energy loss) with a height difference of 10 feet/3 m is....... ready for this ....... over 600,000 gallons/2271247 liters. That's the amount of water 25-30 backyard swimming pools.But you don't have to store the amount of energy for one year. The hydro storage is only there to serve as a temporary buffer to smooth out the differences between supply and demand. Also 3 meters is a bit low. Creating a lake which is 5 to 10 meters above sea level is certainly doable.
We would latterly have to build a reservoir the size of the ocean and then move all of the water in the ocean up 10 feet to provide enough power for the world for one year.
A recent news report of a fire in a Tesla which killed two people has highlighted the issue of lithium battery safety. Now, we all know that 18650s have to be treated with some care as shorts can have nasty consequences. However, it occurs to me that the risk of a short in an electric car is hundreds or thousands of times higher than that in a drill, torch or laptop owing to the sheer number of cells used. It only takes one cell to short, and the whole pack can go up.
So, at what number of cells does the shorting risk become unacceptable? :-//
A recent news report of a fire in a Tesla which killed two people has highlighted the issue of lithium battery safety. Now, we all know that 18650s have to be treated with some care as shorts can have nasty consequences. However, it occurs to me that the risk of a short in an electric car is hundreds or thousands of times higher than that in a drill, torch or laptop owing to the sheer number of cells used. It only takes one cell to short, and the whole pack can go up.
So, at what number of cells does the shorting risk become unacceptable? :-//
You know that there's 17 automobile fires per hour in the USA, right? That four people die per week as a result?
https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/By-topic/Property-type-and-vehicles/Vehicles (https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/By-topic/Property-type-and-vehicles/Vehicles)
That depends on whether hydro storage is cheaper or more expensive compared to batteries. I'm not talking about production here.It is doable yes, but look at how little elcetricty would be producesd. The public would not invest in a system that won't pary for itself until they are nearly dead.The amount of water needed to produce 800 watts of electricity to power an 800 watt light bulb continuously for 24 hours is, (and lets make it 100% efficient so there's no energy loss) with a height difference of 10 feet/3 m is....... ready for this ....... over 600,000 gallons/2271247 liters. That's the amount of water 25-30 backyard swimming pools.But you don't have to store the amount of energy for one year. The hydro storage is only there to serve as a temporary buffer to smooth out the differences between supply and demand. Also 3 meters is a bit low. Creating a lake which is 5 to 10 meters above sea level is certainly doable.
We would latterly have to build a reservoir the size of the ocean and then move all of the water in the ocean up 10 feet to provide enough power for the world for one year.
A recent news report of a fire in a Tesla which killed two people has highlighted the issue of lithium battery safety. Now, we all know that 18650s have to be treated with some care as shorts can have nasty consequences. However, it occurs to me that the risk of a short in an electric car is hundreds or thousands of times higher than that in a drill, torch or laptop owing to the sheer number of cells used. It only takes one cell to short, and the whole pack can go up.I wonder how many people are killed by gasoline fires?
So, at what number of cells does the shorting risk become unacceptable? :-//
Alternative energy is always going to have to be a mix
Solar - lots of places don't have a lot of sunshine (probably not the ideal place for Solar here)
Wind - some places are windy, some aren't
Hydro - some places have rivers, some don't (we're blessed here w/ lots of Hydro power)
and so on
However, initiatives like California's new "New Construction requires Solar Panels" makes sense
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/californian-solar-panels-housing-1.4656813 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/californian-solar-panels-housing-1.4656813)
Let's use the sensible technology where it makes sense.
A recent news report of a fire in a Tesla which killed two people has highlighted the issue of lithium battery safety. Now, we all know that 18650s have to be treated with some care as shorts can have nasty consequences. However, it occurs to me that the risk of a short in an electric car is hundreds or thousands of times higher than that in a drill, torch or laptop owing to the sheer number of cells used. It only takes one cell to short, and the whole pack can go up.I wonder how many people are killed by gasoline fires?
So, at what number of cells does the shorting risk become unacceptable? :-//
Do a bit of research, very little energy is produced with hydro. Would hardly call that lots.
Do a bit of research, very little energy is produced with hydro. Would hardly call that lots.
I don't have to do any research; 90% of the electricity produced in this province is via Hydro Electric
So much in fact that the electricity company is called "BC Hydro".
I think what Doug is trying to say is that on a global scale not a lot of electricity is being produced by hydro power plants and that you need to move a large volume of water to generate a substantial amount of energy. Exceptions don't make the rule.Do a bit of research, very little energy is produced with hydro. Would hardly call that lots.
I don't have to do any research; 90% of the electricity produced in this province is via Hydro Electric
So much in fact that the electricity company is called "BC Hydro".
I think what Doug is trying to say is that on a global scale not a lot of electricity is being produced by hydro power plants
Hydro - some places have rivers, some don't (we're blessed here w/ lots of Hydro power)
Hydro - some places have rivers, some don't (we're blessed here w/ lots of Hydro power) We don't have "lots" of hydro power. Do a bit of research, very little energy is produced with hydro. Would hardly call that lots.
The Pacific Northwest is just a very small portion of the world we live in.Even in the Paciific NorthWest hydro is only producing a good chunk of the electrical energy. People keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses. Hydro has a very small part to play in that big picture.
The Pacific Northwest is just a very small portion of the world we live in.Even in the Paciific NorthWest hydro is only producing a good chunk of the electrical energy. People keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses. Hydro has a very small part to play in that big picture.
Even in the Paciific NorthWest hydro is only producing a good chunk of the electrical energy.For the 4 states that make up the PNW, over 50% of electricity production is from hydro as of 2010 it was 58% (https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/6954090/2010-16.pdf) So more than only “a good chunk”.
People keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
Hydro has a very small part to play in that big picture.Worldwide, hydo accounts for about 20% of electricity production currently.
I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every yearYes, under development - as they have been for decades... EVs are here now - and adoption is growing exponentially.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.it will be at future moments as wel... :P
So what's the answer?
Even in the Paciific NorthWest hydro is only producing a good chunk of the electrical energy.For the 4 states that make up the PNW, over 50% of electricity production is from hydro as of 2010 it was 58% (https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/6954090/2010-16.pdf) So more than only “a good chunk”.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.QuoteHydro has a very small part to play in that big picture.Worldwide, hydo accounts for about 20% of electricity production currently.
I would argue that, while it may not be possible to dramatically increase hydro capacity, if there is ever to be a world were fossil fuels while play little or no role in societal energy use, hydro will have to be the dominant source of power. Therefore total worldwide power consumption will need to be much less (as will world population!) This is barring some as of yet discovered energy source of course.
I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
\So what's the answer?
There isn’t one.
It’s a predicament. The world has physical limits. Who’da thunk?
Yes, they are. The dealership where I purchased my electric cars said sales of electric cars have been growing exponentially as well.EVs are here now - and adoption is growing exponentially.
I did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.
I did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient so with more efficient vehicles it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.
There is no need for 10,000 miles to the gallon (don't be silly). Just cars which run in the ballpark of 25km on one liter. You can find the numbers (conversion rate and amount of material per surface area) on poet-dsm.com and according to Google there is over 1 Billion acres of land used for agriculture in the US.I would agree it would be possible if we could get the automobile manufactures to produce cars to get 10,000 miles per gallon.I did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient so with more efficient vehicles it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.
I would like to see your calcuations for agricultural leftovers being able to supply neearly 100% of the US's fuel needs. Please post.
Huh?? I'm not arguing with facts. I have been presenting facts. (and providing references to support them).Even in the Paciific NorthWest hydro is only producing a good chunk of the electrical energy.For the 4 states that make up the PNW, over 50% of electricity production is from hydro as of 2010 it was 58% (https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/6954090/2010-16.pdf) So more than only “a good chunk”.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.QuoteHydro has a very small part to play in that big picture.Worldwide, hydo accounts for about 20% of electricity production currently.
I would argue that, while it may not be possible to dramatically increase hydro capacity, if there is ever to be a world were fossil fuels while play little or no role in societal energy use, hydro will have to be the dominant source of power. Therefore total worldwide power consumption will need to be much less (as will world population!) This is barring some as of yet discovered energy source of course.
You can argue with the facts all you like, but that won't change the facts.
Not sure why you are so fixated with the hydro power in the PNW.I'm not fixated on anything. I was simply presenting facts about PNW hydro that contradicted yours and others unsupported unfactual statements.
There is no need for 10,000 miles to the gallon (don't be silly). Just cars which run in the ballpark of 25km on one liter. You can find the numbers (conversion rate and amount of material per surface area) on poet-dsm.com and according to Google there is over 1 Billion acres of land used for agriculture in the US.
Huh?? I'm not arguing with facts. I have been presenting facts. (and providing references to support them).Even in the Paciific NorthWest hydro is only producing a good chunk of the electrical energy.For the 4 states that make up the PNW, over 50% of electricity production is from hydro as of 2010 it was 58% (https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/6954090/2010-16.pdf) So more than only “a good chunk”.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.QuoteHydro has a very small part to play in that big picture.Worldwide, hydo accounts for about 20% of electricity production currently.
I would argue that, while it may not be possible to dramatically increase hydro capacity, if there is ever to be a world were fossil fuels while play little or no role in societal energy use, hydro will have to be the dominant source of power. Therefore total worldwide power consumption will need to be much less (as will world population!) This is barring some as of yet discovered energy source of course.
You can argue with the facts all you like, but that won't change the facts.QuoteNot sure why you are so fixated with the hydro power in the PNW.I'm not fixated on anything. I was simply presenting facts about PNW hydro that contradicted yours and other unsupported unfactual statements.
Oh, it appeared like you were saying because you get about 50% of your electricity from hydro (and we get some of that too) that's what the rest of the world should do. So help me out here, what's your point?
Or does anyone have a better idea? If so, it's not been presented.
I did the math long ago and remembered the result. I showed you the sources I used so you can verify by yourself.
There is no need for 10,000 miles to the gallon (don't be silly). Just cars which run in the ballpark of 25km on one liter. You can find the numbers (conversion rate and amount of material per surface area) on poet-dsm.com and according to Google there is over 1 Billion acres of land used for agriculture in the US.
Friend you said, "I did the math." But in reality you really didn't do the math calculation you said you did because you are pawing it off to some other web site. If you didn't do the math, how do you know they are correct?
Oh, it appeared like you were saying because you get about 50% of your electricity from hydro (and we get some of that too) that's what the rest of the world should do. So help me out here, what's your point?
No, my point was the opposite. Read my response again. I'll repeat what I added to my post above:
Your style seems to be this: make a whole bunch of broad statements - many unsupported by facts - and see what sticks. When someone presents facts that contradict some of your statements - then either misrepresent their views or move on to another broad set of statements - which may or may not be true - then again see what sticks and see what gets a response from someone.... It's becoming borderline trollish.
I did the math long ago and remembered the result. I showed you the sources I used so you can verify by yourself.
There is no need for 10,000 miles to the gallon (don't be silly). Just cars which run in the ballpark of 25km on one liter. You can find the numbers (conversion rate and amount of material per surface area) on poet-dsm.com and according to Google there is over 1 Billion acres of land used for agriculture in the US.
Friend you said, "I did the math." But in reality you really didn't do the math calculation you said you did because you are pawing it off to some other web site. If you didn't do the math, how do you know they are correct?
So what's the answer? Solar, wind and hydro in 30 years will at best exstimates only provide 30% of the electricty we need.That will probably be around two orders of magnitude more than next gen nuclear.
So what's the answer? Solar, wind and hydro in 30 years will at best exstimates only provide 30% of the electricty we need.That will probably be around two orders of magnitude more than next gen nuclear.
Then there's Next Gen Nuclear - No long lived radioactive waste. It's renewable, green, non-polluting and we have oceans filled with fuel. Seems like the way to go to me.Is there a fusion reactor (besides the sun) that's actually commercially viable for power generation?
Just how much more fuel efficient can the car manufactures make the cars? Have you done the math calculations? Modern cars aren't poluting like in they use to and the onboard computers enerure the fuel is being burned with 99.9999% efficinecy. So where's this extra energy going to come from to move the car?Most car engines are only about 25% efficient, with the best commercial designs topping out at around 40%. The real gains are from making the car itself more aerodynamic, of which if we exclude plug ins, the best one on the US market - Prius Eco - does 58 MPG highway. GM made a few EV1 hybrid prototypes 20 years ago that have outdone that at 80 MPG. They had a winning design, but let their biggest competitor take the market...
That depends on who has been paying the UC Berkely scientists and what the exact question was they where seeking an answer for. On the other hand there is not much reason to doubt the numbers Poet-DSM has put on their website. Poet-DSM has invested several tens of millions of dollars and DSM is a major player in high-tech chemicals (a multi billions dollar annual revenue). All in all I think they know a little bit more about their bio-fuel than some desk jockeys in a dusty office. Also keep in mind that shareholders and the authorities won't like it when the numbers turn out to be way off so there is also a legal reason not to fudge too much with the numbers.Intersting that UC Berkeley scientests calcaulation are off by a magnitude that's over a million orders from your calculations. Any possibility you made a mistake? UC Berkeley scientests calculations have been peer reviewed and found to be accuarate. Have your calcuations been peer reviewed? Or have the calcaulation on the web site you provided been peer reviewed? Or could it just be marketing BS?I did the math long ago and remembered the result. I showed you the sources I used so you can verify by yourself.There is no need for 10,000 miles to the gallon (don't be silly). Just cars which run in the ballpark of 25km on one liter. You can find the numbers (conversion rate and amount of material per surface area) on poet-dsm.com and according to Google there is over 1 Billion acres of land used for agriculture in the US.
Friend you said, "I did the math." But in reality you really didn't do the math calculation you said you did because you are pawing it off to some other web site. If you didn't do the math, how do you know they are correct?
Do you know how much of Europe is expected to be powered by the one Next Gen Nuclear power plant being built in France?I also know what liquid sodium does better and more often than help maintain good uptime in a nuclear plant ...
Then there's Next Gen Nuclear - No long lived radioactive waste. It's renewable, green, non-polluting and we have oceans filled with fuel. Seems like the way to go to me.Is there a fusion reactor (besides the sun) that's actually commercially viable for power generation?Just how much more fuel efficient can the car manufactures make the cars? Have you done the math calculations? Modern cars aren't poluting like in they use to and the onboard computers enerure the fuel is being burned with 99.9999% efficinecy. So where's this extra energy going to come from to move the car?Most car engines are only about 25% efficient, with the best commercial designs topping out at around 40%. The real gains are from making the car itself more aerodynamic, of which if we exclude plug ins, the best one on the US market - Prius Eco - does 58 MPG highway. GM made a few EV1 hybrid prototypes 20 years ago that have outdone that at 80 MPG. They had a winning design, but let their biggest competitor take the market...
Do you know how much of Europe is expected to be powered by the one Next Gen Nuclear power plant being built in France?I also know what liquid sodium does better and more often than help maintain good uptime in a nuclear plant ...
So you take the bio waste and turn it into bio fuel and burn it in a combustion engine. Then it get's turned into carbon. ummmI did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.
That depends on who has been paying the UC Berkely scientists and what the exact question was they where seeking an answer for. On the other hand there is not much reason to doubt the numbers Poet-DSM has put on their website. Poet-DSM has invested several tens of millions of dollars and DSM is a major player in high-tech chemicals (a multi billions dollar annual revenue). All in all I think they know a little bit more about their bio-fuel than some desk jockeys in a dusty office. Also keep in mind that shareholders and the authorities won't like it when the numbers turn out to be way off so there is also a legal reason not to fudge too much with the numbers.Intersting that UC Berkeley scientests calcaulation are off by a magnitude that's over a million orders from your calculations. Any possibility you made a mistake? UC Berkeley scientests calculations have been peer reviewed and found to be accuarate. Have your calcuations been peer reviewed? Or have the calcaulation on the web site you provided been peer reviewed? Or could it just be marketing BS?I did the math long ago and remembered the result. I showed you the sources I used so you can verify by yourself.There is no need for 10,000 miles to the gallon (don't be silly). Just cars which run in the ballpark of 25km on one liter. You can find the numbers (conversion rate and amount of material per surface area) on poet-dsm.com and according to Google there is over 1 Billion acres of land used for agriculture in the US.
Friend you said, "I did the math." But in reality you really didn't do the math calculation you said you did because you are pawing it off to some other web site. If you didn't do the math, how do you know they are correct?
So you take the bio waste and turn it into bio fuel and burn it in a combustion engine. Then it get's turned into carbon. ummmI did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.
So that "waste" does it get plowed under and put back in the ground.
I know it was there. But its tirned into CO2.So you take the bio waste and turn it into bio fuel and burn it in a combustion engine. Then it get's turned into carbon. ummmI did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.
So that "waste" does it get plowed under and put back in the ground.
WAIT a second you are violating the laws of physics and chemistry. Biomass is made up of carbon. You aren't turning it into carbon, what's going on is an oxidative reaction whihc involves carbon. The carbon was alwasy there.
Plants build themselves from CO2 and H2O (water) forming Cellulose which is a hydrogen-carbon chain. When fermented into ethanol you can use it as fuel for an ICE. If you leave the agricultural leftovers to rot on the field then insects and bacteria will convert it into methane and CO2 anyway.So you take the bio waste and turn it into bio fuel and burn it in a combustion engine. Then it get's turned into carbon. ummmI did the math based on Poet-DSM's numbers. It turns out that the agricultural leftovers from the land currently in use for growing crops can be turned into enough bio-fuel to supply half the fuel used by the US. Also the current cars in the US aren't very efficient on average so with more efficient cars it would be very possible to supply nearly 100% of the fuel the US needs from bio-fuel using technology which exists today.Have you done the math on bio-fuels?I don't think so. Bio-fuels are also under heavy development and the production increases every year. And no, bio-fuels don't mean less area for growing food.QuotePeople keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses.I agree, but a big part of doing that would be substituting “clean” electricity for fossil fuel use - the biggest case being vehicles - the topic of this thread.
At this moment it is impossible to predict the future.
Don’t believe me, do the math and see for yourself.
If sodium does better why hasn't Sorensen received any funding?
Cars are already aerodynamic, car companies did that about 15 years ago by lowering the roof line. What do you expect them to do, drop the roofline again to make it more aerodynamic? Many Americans can't fit into most of the current cars or trucks. Take a look at the short list on cars for tall people .com. It's a very short list. Not very practical if one is tall or has a family.As counterintuitive as it may sound, it's possible to make a car more aerodynamic by making it bigger, without reducing the height.
Cars are already aerodynamic, car companies did that about 15 years ago by lowering the roof lineNot really.
Most car engines are only about 25% efficient, with the best commercial designs topping out at around 40%.Nope.
A car engine is 25%(gas) to 40%(diesel) efficient. But only at one specific load point (rpm, torque). That load point is typically when applying full throttle. At any other load points, it's 5-10% only.This may be true for an atmospheric V8 but a modern downsized engine with a turbo has a much wider RPM range where it reaches peak efficiency. The much lower fuel consumption those cars have proven that. All in all your claim is outdated. You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.
An ICE drijven by your average dumb human probably does no go above 20% efficiency.A car engine is 25%(gas) to 40%(diesel) efficient. But only at one specific load point (rpm, torque). That load point is typically when applying full throttle. At any other load points, it's 5-10% only.This may be true for an atmospheric V8 but a modern downsized engine with a turbo has a much wider RPM range where it reaches peak efficiency. The much lower fuel consumption those cars have proven that. All in all your claim is outdated. You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.
You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.Compare modern to modern, with a modern coal plant this simply isn't true.
Numbers? And please no efficiency numbers which came out of a dark hole. Only the CO2 emissions count. Google (results) tells me that electricity made by burning coal produces between 900 to 1200 grams of CO2 per kWh which puts an EV between 225 to 300 gr of CO2 per km.You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.Compare modern to modern, with a modern coal plant this simply isn't true.
In turn I simplify the argument for the other side;Numbers? And please no efficiency numbers which came out of a dark hole. Only the CO2 emissions count. Google (results) tells me that electricity made by burning coal produces between 900 to 1200 grams of CO2 per kWh which puts an EV between 225 to 300 gr of CO2 per km.You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.Compare modern to modern, with a modern coal plant this simply isn't true.
Numbers? And please no efficiency numbers which came out of a dark hole. Only the CO2 emissions count.
Lets do it again, latest Golf GTI has 125+ g/km CO2 WLTP. Latest leaf does 40/270 kwh/km WLTP, latest coal plants have 46+% efficiency, lets do 10% transmission/conversion losses, 340 grams of CO2 per kwh total energy for coal. So 40/270*340*1/(0.46*0.9) is 121+. Pretty much the same ignoring CO2 expenditure for mining/refining.
Can't find WLTP numbers for a Ford Fiesta Ecoboost, but another index promising realistic tests http://equaindex.com (http://equaindex.com) gives numbers in the same ballpark.
To get 1kilo of Fuel to a petrol station, it takes anything from 2kg (North Sea Brent) to over 5kg (tar sands) of fuel to get it there: Extraction, transport, burnt off unrifinables, waste, boil off, refining, warming or cooling for pumping, loading, transport, boil off during sea passage, unloading, pumping, truck transport, pumping to final storage, evaporation in tank (petrol in hot weather) etc. All energy intensive processes. A few criminally dirty.
lets do it again, latest Golf GTI has 125+ g/km CO2That's not true. That is where the auto industry is lying about CO2 with their biased test cycles and legal loopholes permitting all kinds of cheating on "official fuel consumption"
So while everyone is arguing over the next great thing, I'll drive my electric car, powered by a utility that is 90% hydro-electric. Not everyone has that option, but given I do, it seems like a good plan.
Cars are already aerodynamic, car companies did that about 15 years ago by lowering the roof line. What do you expect them to do, drop the roofline again to make it more aerodynamic? Many Americans can't fit into most of the current cars or trucks. Take a look at the short list on cars for tall people .com. It's a very short list. Not very practical if one is tall or has a family.As counterintuitive as it may sound, it's possible to make a car more aerodynamic by making it bigger, without reducing the height.
https://www.wired.com/2008/01/more-details-ab/ (https://www.wired.com/2008/01/more-details-ab/)
QuoteCars are already aerodynamic, car companies did that about 15 years ago by lowering the roof lineNot really.
Cars may be more aerodynamic, but cars grew higher larger and longer over the years. Each generation of a given car grows a few centimeters in each direction, as well as many kilos. That compensates the efficiency gains of engines, so that gas mileage is maily stagnant since 15 years.QuoteMost car engines are only about 25% efficient, with the best commercial designs topping out at around 40%.Nope.
A car engine is 25%(gas) to 40%(diesel) efficient. But only at one specific load point (rpm, torque). That load point is typically when applying full throttle. At any other load points, it's 5-10% only.
In a real wolrd use, on the road, the efficiency of the engine in a car is 13% for gas, 18% for diesel.
The nice thing is there's a lot of saving potential: As a start, take the gas and diesel, burn it in an electrical plant, (Gas turbine engine), charge your BEV with that.
With the same amount of diesel or gas, you will get 2.5 times the mileage, and a much cleaner combustion !!!
Real world numbers. No contest. And that's with 100% fossil electricity, which never happens in practice, so it will be even much better as you add more renewables.
The fossil power plant gets over 45% efficiency(at all times), the BEV+charger + grid is 80%(at all times).
In turn I simplify the argument for the other side;Numbers? And please no efficiency numbers which came out of a dark hole. Only the CO2 emissions count. Google (results) tells me that electricity made by burning coal produces between 900 to 1200 grams of CO2 per kWh which puts an EV between 225 to 300 gr of CO2 per km.You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.Compare modern to modern, with a modern coal plant this simply isn't true.
To get 1kilo of Fuel to a petrol station, it takes anything from 2kg (North Sea Brent) to over 5kg (tar sands) of fuel to get it there: Extraction, transport, burnt off unrifinables, waste, boil off, refining, warming or cooling for pumping, loading, transport, boil off during sea passage, unloading, pumping, truck transport, pumping to final storage, evaporation in tank (petrol in hot weather) etc. All energy intensive processes. A few criminally dirty.
And yeah, good luck on finding accurate figures as these are considered precious insider information, that can give critical bargaining situational awareness.
Comparing apples to apples IC to electric is basically impossible beyond general figures.
That’s why we must focus on the last link, the actual vehicle.In turn I simplify the argument for the other side;Numbers? And please no efficiency numbers which came out of a dark hole. Only the CO2 emissions count. Google (results) tells me that electricity made by burning coal produces between 900 to 1200 grams of CO2 per kWh which puts an EV between 225 to 300 gr of CO2 per km.You can also prove this by looking at CO2 emissions and then you'll see a downsized ICE will have lower CO2 emissions compared to power plant + EV.Compare modern to modern, with a modern coal plant this simply isn't true.
To get 1kilo of Fuel to a petrol station, it takes anything from 2kg (North Sea Brent) to over 5kg (tar sands) of fuel to get it there: Extraction, transport, burnt off unrifinables, waste, boil off, refining, warming or cooling for pumping, loading, transport, boil off during sea passage, unloading, pumping, truck transport, pumping to final storage, evaporation in tank (petrol in hot weather) etc. All energy intensive processes. A few criminally dirty.
And yeah, good luck on finding accurate figures as these are considered precious insider information, that can give critical bargaining situational awareness.
Comparing apples to apples IC to electric is basically impossible beyond general figures.
One can not get accurate numbers as each oil filed produces varying amounts of hydrocarbon chains. Gas is just one the many products for crude. Over 100 years ago gas was a waste products and was dumped into streams to get rid of it.
That’s why we must focus on the last link, the actual vehicle.Agreed otherwise you can have endless discussions on mining materials for batteries as well.
You have no idea if electricity is from offshore wind or a lignite plant, much the same way your petrol could be from light crude or tar sands.
I humbly suggest we focus this discussion from distribution down (HGV tankers for fuel, high tension cables for electric), otherwise this will go nowhere.
lets do it again, latest Golf GTI has 125+ g/km CO2That's not true. That is where the auto industry is lying about CO2 with their biased test cycles and legal loopholes permitting all kinds of cheating on "official fuel consumption"
Can your provide some credible documentation to support your claims. Are you sure that's not for carbonator cars? It's my understanding with modern engines which are computer controlled are always burning the fuel with nearly 100% efficiency.Burning fuel happens with nearly 100% efficiency.
Funny fact : the e-golf consumes 16.01 kWh/100km, practically the same than the leaf, and allows a direct comparison with the gasoline golf !!!The problem is that you can't use that website to compare cars because the circumstances are different. 16kWh/100km is less than the official EPA rating which means people are using these cars as electric shopping carts while other people use their gasoline powered cars to drive 160km/h on the highway.
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/452-Golf.html?fueltype=5&powerunit=2 (https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/452-Golf.html?fueltype=5&powerunit=2)
You are one person.... What about the rest of the almost 8 billion people in the world?
2/3 of the world population do not live in an industrial nation. They are facing other problems. They don't think about cars, they think about food and a better life.
Cars would bring them clean drinking water, food, and the opportunity for a better life.Drinking water is usually carried in pipes.
EPA ratings are very very very biased. The're wrong because of the loopholes build in the tests.The (US based) EPA is not using NEDC tests!
The EPA ratings are based on several real human drivers going through several real life driving scenarios. This is completely different compared to the lab tests the NEDC is usinghttps://greentransportation.info/ev-charging/range-confidence/chap5-ev-range/epa-estimates.html
What’s shown here is the City cycle. The total test time is 1874 seconds (31 minutes), covering a distance of 11 miles at an average speed of 21 miles per hour, and a maximum 56 miles/hr speed. The test is not performed on a road, but in a lab with the car strapped to a dynamometer.Yeah 30 minutes on a dynamometer. No Braking, no heater, A/C, radio, lights, no power steering needed, idealized Cv.....
I was under the impression that the EPA used real drivers. I clearly recall having read that somewhere on their website. Maybe they have used real drivers to validate the test cycle. Have to look that up...The EPA ratings are based on several real human drivers going through several real life driving scenarios. This is completely different compared to the lab tests the NEDC is usinghttps://greentransportation.info/ev-charging/range-confidence/chap5-ev-range/epa-estimates.htmlQuoteWhat’s shown here is the City cycle. The total test time is 1874 seconds (31 minutes), covering a distance of 11 miles at an average speed of 21 miles per hour, and a maximum 56 miles/hr speed. The test is not performed on a road, but in a lab with the car strapped to a dynamometer.Yeah 30 minutes on a dynamometer. No Braking, no heater, A/C, radio, lights, no power steering needed, idealized Cv.....
So much for real driving.
So while everyone is arguing over the next great thing, I'll drive my electric car, powered by a utility that is 90% hydro-electric. Not everyone has that option, but given I do, it seems like a good plan.
You are one person.... What about the rest of the almost 8 billion people in the world?
Around here those new electric scooters are taking over the world. People can get take them on the underground so it doesn't matter if they have a mile of travel at each end, they just scoot. It also helps that in the last two years they've added a cycle lane to most of the roads around town.That is no surprise because electric scooters make sense. But maybe you are referring to foldable electrical bycicles because a scooter is large and heavy (>100kg) which would make it hard to bring into an underground station.
A gallon of gas is considered equal to about 33.7 kWh of battery powerThat matches closely the 9.5 kWh/l thermal energy of burning gas it seems
Around here those new electric scooters are taking over the world. People can get take them on the underground so it doesn't matter if they have a mile of travel at each end, they just scoot. It also helps that in the last two years they've added a cycle lane to most of the roads around town.That is no surprise because electric scooters make sense. But maybe you are referring to foldable electrical bycicles because a scooter is large and heavy (>100kg) which would make it hard to bring into an underground station.
Yep, it's probably more realistic than NEDC or EU cycles, but it's nearly impossible to get reproducible results on a real road.The MPGe is some kind of fantasy unit based on the average US car fuel consumption (which is high). Needless to say it has no meaning at all from a scientific point of view.
Anyway, let's take the comparison LEAF/Golf based on EPA:
According to EPA, the leaf gets 112 MPGe. An electric gallon, what a strage unit this is :)
let's see what that is :
My ICE can get 100 MPG every day of the week. And not only that I can get my ICE car to move without using any gas. It's got to be true because I'm saying so and it's on the Internet, right? And I can make the same modification to your car. Just meet me at the top of a mountain and I will prove to you it's possible.
Preposterous! :palm: :palm: :palm:
Around here those new electric scooters are taking over theWhere is that?
The MPGe is some kind of fantasy unit based on the average US car fuel consumption (which is high). Needless to say it has no meaning at all from a scientific point of view.A gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.41kWh purely based on the energy contained in it.
That is the wrong article. The formula is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Conversion_to_MPGe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Conversion_to_MPGe) which boils down to using the average fuel consumption for all cars which in the US is particulary bad. MPGe has been invented to make EVs look better but it still is a fantasy unit.The MPGe is some kind of fantasy unit based on the average US car fuel consumption (which is high). Needless to say it has no meaning at all from a scientific point of view.A gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.41kWh purely based on the energy contained in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
QuoteCars would bring them clean drinking water, food, and the opportunity for a better life.Drinking water is usually carried in pipes.
Food is carried on trucks.
The opportunity for a better life starts with a bicycle for them usually.
Ain't no cars in that model.
The first use of cars happens usually with shared taxis replacing missing busses in a big part of the world.
So while everyone is arguing over the next great thing, I'll drive my electric car, powered by a utility that is 90% hydro-electric. Not everyone has that option, but given I do, it seems like a good plan.
You are one person.... What about the rest of the almost 8 billion people in the world?
Around here those new electric scooters are taking over the world. People can get take them on the underground so it doesn't matter if they have a mile of travel at each end, they just scoot. It also helps that in the last two years they've added a cycle lane to most of the roads around town.
I'll be getting one soon (hopefully!). I'm just selling some stuff on eBay to pay for one. :-)
Take a look at Bill Gates and family trip to Africa. They lived with the locals.I wouldn't count on Bill gates to tell how people live down the societal ladder....
Take a look at Bill Gates and family trip to Africa. They lived with the locals.I wouldn't count on Bill gates to tell how people live down the societal ladder....
That is the wrong article. The formula is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Conversion_to_MPGe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Conversion_to_MPGe) which boils down to using the average fuel consumption for all cars which in the US is particulary bad. MPGe has been invented to make EVs look better but it still is a fantasy unit.Please explain where the average fuel economy comes to play in the calculation?
I wouldn't count on Bill gates to tell how people live down the societal ladder....
So while everyone is arguing over the next great thing, I'll drive my electric car, powered by a utility that is 90% hydro-electric. Not everyone has that option, but given I do, it seems like a good plan.
You are one person.... What about the rest of the almost 8 billion people in the world? And where does the other 10% come from? Would you be okay with driving your car 90% of the time you need it and walking the rest? Probably not.
My ICE can get 100 MPG every day of the week. And not only that I can get my ICE car to move without using any gas. It's got to be true because I'm saying so and it's on the Internet, right? And I can make the same modification to your car. Just meet me at the top of a mountain and I will prove to you it's possible.
Preposterous! :palm: :palm: :palm:
We can even do it with your car. Just meet me at the top of one of the mountains where I live and I will show you. THe entire way dawn your car will get over 100 mpg.
Chieldish argumentation behavior! How old are you? :palm:
Read the fomula: All miles travelled divided by all fuel used. That is the average fuel economy.That is the wrong article. The formula is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Conversion_to_MPGe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Conversion_to_MPGe) which boils down to using the average fuel consumption for all cars which in the US is particulary bad. MPGe has been invented to make EVs look better but it still is a fantasy unit.Please explain where the average fuel economy comes to play in the calculation?
And why is that?Because he has no clue. It's like asking an Eskimo how to survive in the Sahara. He may have visited the place, but can't integrate the culture.
Around here those new electric scooters are taking over the worldWhere is that?
Read the fomula: All miles travelled divided by all fuel used. That is the average fuel economy.I interpret that as the total energy used to drive that distance. Which makes sense, although a car that has the option of exclusively using one of several energy sources should have a separate rating for each one.
The problem with MPGe is that it is an half arsed attempt to create some kind of number for comparison. The problem however is that electricity isn't fuel so the MPGe number is bogus when it comes to what really counts: CO2 emissions. Perhaps the number is also influenced by politics trying to hide the fact that electricity in the US doesn't have to be clean at all and in reality EVs may even cause more polution compared to efficient ICE base cars.Read the fomula: All miles travelled divided by all fuel used. That is the average fuel economy.I interpret that as the total energy used to drive that distance. Which makes sense, although a car that has the option of exclusively using one of several energy sources should have a separate rating for each one.
And why is that?Because he has no clue. It's like asking an Eskimo how to survive in the Sahara. He may have visited the place, but can't integrate the culture.
Today, the majority of people on the African continent live in huge cities. They don't live like you think any more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_Africa)
They have water in pipes, electrons in wires, cars as everyday shared taxis and as status symbols once they become wealthier, food brought by trucks.
The problems have moved, and are moving very very fast. Infrastructure grows with cities, mostly.
What's lacking is not water, food, or cars. They have plenty of that usually. What's lacking is jobs. Send them some!
Go and look for yourself instead of relying on tales from rich people.
Here's todays doom and gloom report. You're welcome. ;)
Jack Albert, a systems engineer, and his colleagues think (http://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-303-jack-albert-unwinding-human-predicament/) that the best case scenario is that the earth could "sustain" 50 million humans living in a civilization comparable to our current one for several hundred more years. It would need to be centered around 3 population centers, each centered in an area with good hydro electric resources, specifcially, the Pacific NW US, China, Paraguay/Uraguay region. Once the hydro reservoirs silt up, well then....
He gets a bit hypomanic in the podcast interview linked above, but it's well worth listening to IMO. The video below provides a visual demonstration of the crux of his argument.
It's not an idea many are able or willing to entertain...
A Western European uses about 125kWh per day, when you take into account all their energy requirements - electricity, heating, transport, food production, and the manufacture of all the goods they buy and use. An American uses rather more, and some equally developed places, like HK and Singapore, use about half that. Its a lot of energy to obtain from renewable resources, if the 7+ billion people currently alive are going to aspire to a decent way of life.The Pacific Northwest is just a very small portion of the world we live in.Even in the Paciific NorthWest hydro is only producing a good chunk of the electrical energy. People keep focussing on electricity, when the need is to displace fossil fuels from all their uses. Hydro has a very small part to play in that big picture.
So what's the answer? Solar, wind and hydro in 30 years will at best exstimates only provide 30% of the electricty we need. Where's the ohter 70% going to come from? And was we know solar and wind aren't that greate either as England, United States and Germany all had to burn more fossil fuel due to a period of no wind and clouds.
That just leave fossil fuels and nuclear. Wiht Next Gen nuclear being the ultimate solution.
Or does anyone have a better idea? If so, it's not been presented.
if the 7+ billion people currently alive are going to aspire to a decent way of life.
if the 7+ billion people currently alive are going to aspire to a decent way of life.
If by 'decent' you mean leaving every light and TV set in the house permanently on and the air-con set to "arctic" in summer and "Sahara" in winter.
Most people could use a lot less energy if they gave the slightest damn about it.
(and insulated their homes properly).
A Western European uses about 125kWh per day, when you take into account all their energy requirementsTrue but the sun blasts a multiple of the amount of energy we use every day onto the earth's surface. On (global) average about 160W per square meter each day. What is keeping us from using that is political instability. Not technical inability. And yes, nuclear is also an option which should receive way more funding.
A Western European uses about 125kWh per day, when you take into account all their energy requirementsTrue but the sun blasts a multiple of the amount of energy we use every day onto the earth's surface. On (global) average about 160W per square meter each day. What is keeping us from using that is political instability. Not technical inability. And yes, nuclear is also an option which should receive way more funding.
The guy isn't even using any historical researched data.
Take a look at some real world data and projections. Quite a different story.
So here's the real question..... How much of that 160W per square meter can we actullay convert to electricty and still have enough to grow food and for warmth?I did the math on that a long time ago and the amount of energy we need world wide is like 1 millionth or even 10 times less than what the sun provides. Another way to prove this in a less scientific way is that if our energy usage was significant compared to what the sun provides we would be heating up the atmosphere ourselves but that isn't happening.
The guy isn't even using any historical researched data.
Take a look at some real world data and projections. Quite a different story.
Historical trends hold, until they don't, which inevitably happens. Physics are relatively constant by comparison ... so I'd prefer a counter-argument based on the latter.
I'm not opposed to the "technology will solve it" argument, but in that case we could really do with less climate change alarmism. We're already putting all our hopes on future tech any way, just throw something more it will have to fix on the heap.
and there is no doubt there is climate change and that being caused by man
In the US people in Massachusetts people who have had family houses for hundreds of years are having to move because the sea level has risen and now flooding roads and their homes.
Factually wrong ;)Wot ?
That is a nice drawing but not definitive proof. According to data from ice drillings we know that high CO2 (and methane) levels occur in short and sharp peaks. However from those ice drillings we also know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently higher than is has been for the past couple of 100,000 years or so. From the earth's perspective global warming isn't a problem. It is just inconvenient for people because some of the land will be flooded and climate changes may require adaption of lifestyle.Factually wrong ;)Wot ?
Yeah. Right.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Wot ?
and there is no doubt there is climate change and that being caused by man
Factually wrong ;)QuoteIn the US people in Massachusetts people who have had family houses for hundreds of years are having to move because the sea level has risen and now flooding roads and their homes.
They could have seen that coming, sea level rise has as of yet not had much correlation with CO2 emissions. It's rising and it has been rising at a relatively steady pace for over a century regardless of emissions.
Convince me you are correct. Please provide credible peer reviewed studies to support your claim.
How can one see sea rise change when the house was built several 100 years ago?
Convince me you are correct. Please provide credible peer reviewed studies to support your claim.
Boston tidal gauge (http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/235.php).QuoteHow can one see sea rise change when the house was built several 100 years ago?
At some point some grand pa should observe the fact that the beach is getting closer each year, because it's been happening for a long long time.
Guys, you realize that Doug is just trolling you all? Every factual statement that's been said (with backup info) he just chants "Fake News" or "Go Nuclear".Are you trolling with hydro and he with nuclear?
In the meantime I'll drive my electric car, which is charged with (almost entirely) hydroelectric power.
Guys, you realize that Doug is just trolling you all? Every factual statement that's been said (with backup info) he just chants "Fake News" or "Go Nuclear".Are you trolling with hydro and he with nuclear?
In the meantime I'll drive my electric car, which is charged with (almost entirely) hydroelectric power.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Are you trolling with hydro
Are you trolling with hydro
No, stating facts.
(https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lctrct/rprt/2016cndrnwblpwr/mg/fg06-eng.jpg)
ref: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lctrct/rprt/2016cndrnwblpwr/prvnc/bc-eng.html (https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lctrct/rprt/2016cndrnwblpwr/prvnc/bc-eng.html)
And remember, just because you may not like a fact, it doesn't make it 'fake news'.
and there is no doubt there is climate change and that being caused by manFactually wrong ;)Wot ?
Yeah. Right.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
For some people, the cost of insulating a home is far more expensive than the cost of the electricity. That's the case for me here in California.
I would suggest you watch this video to understand energy usage in the world, past, present and future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw)
For some people, the cost of insulating a home is far more expensive than the cost of the electricity. That's the case for me here in California.
But what price Planet Earth? :popcorn:
Just because something is cheap, available and you can do it, doesn't make it OK.
eg. Plastic containers for single-use items.
and there is no doubt there is climate change and that being caused by manFactually wrong ;)Wot ?
Yeah. Right.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
I think he means it's 'wrong' in the most mathematical sense, ie. even if there's only 0.0000000001 of a doubt then that's technically not "no doubt".
At least I hope that's what he means.
Or the bunring of Coal... The burning of coal has released so much mercury into our enviroment and ocens we can't eat the fish. And the burning of colar releases tons of radioactive isotopes into our atmosphere every year.
But there is no doubt about man cuased climate change unless you beleive the propoganda being created by the Koch Brothers. As was previoulsy posted the graph matches shows the climate chnages is releated to man's activities.
The question remains what can we do about it?
Cutting down on direct use of fossil fuels is easy at an individual level.
A pandemic resulting in mass infertility being the best case scenario.That pandemic is already on it's way. As others wrote before the increase in living standards automatically means people have way less children. It is already predicted that there will be a decline in population at some point. In some countries this is already happening.
That is the biggest problem, getting used to more/plenty is easy.
Cutting back and getting used to less/shortage is hard.
It is already predicted that there will be a decline in population at some point. In some countries this is already happening.
No, but it seems there are plans to ban plastic packaging in the EU though. I wonder how that works out because without plastic many types of food cannot be preserved that well.It is already predicted that there will be a decline in population at some point. In some countries this is already happening.That probably won't reduce the number of plastic containers being discarded though.
That pandemic is already on it's way.
Or the bunring of Coal... The burning of coal has released so much mercury into our enviroment and ocens we can't eat the fish. And the burning of colar releases tons of radioactive isotopes into our atmosphere every year.
Yep. This alone should be enough reason to stop using coal.
Unfortunately the climate denial movement has found what to focus on and that never gets mentioned in mainstream thinking.But there is no doubt about man cuased climate change unless you beleive the propoganda being created by the Koch Brothers. As was previoulsy posted the graph matches shows the climate chnages is releated to man's activities.
Also this: https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+denial+funding (https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+denial+funding)
Bottom line: Anybody who uses the "it hasn't been proved!" argument is falling for the exact same system as the "smoking hasn't been proved to cause cancer" system. There's a whole bunch of people out there working to seed that argument, put articles on the Internet, etc.
To any intelligent person they sound like the "evolution is only a theory" crowd, ie. like idiots.
The question remains what can we do about it?
Are you willing to no longer use any form of fossil fuel?
Are you willing to stop using half of your electric equipment?
Are you willing to stop eating more than 25g of meat a day?
The only hope we have is to soon find a clean form of energy that can be used everywhere on the planet.
And you forgot to ask if people would be willing to stop releasing CO2 when they breath.People don't run on oil!
And you forgot to ask if people would be willing to stop releasing CO2 when they breath.People don't run on oil!
[/quote
There are so many ways to interpet your statement.
They my not run on oil, but I think they can walk with it. Don't you consume oil as part of your diet?
CO2 is the end prodcut of combustion and resperation. Don't mater if it's produced as a result of burning fossil fules or respiaration it's still CO2 and both are man made.
The point is that the CO2 came from the air to begin with, so there's no net increase. That also applies to biofuels, which can replace fossil fuels where electric power is not a viable option.
Shame these market forces don't really incentivize the development of long term storage.
A bit of decent investment and some decent sized batteries and you can capture that energy while you are out at work and run off the stored power through the night. Of course that makes no money for "the man" and thus it won't be aggressively marketed and I wouldn't be surprised if we found it becoming more difficult to do, through legislation and taxation.
The situation in Spain is absurd...Do they give reasons for outlawing solar in the desert?
They have a virtual dessert at about 800m altitude in the middle of the country where they could do giant solar and undercut anything in the rest of Europe, but no, they actually out laws in place making this impossible!
I love Spain, but the political/ business alliance at the top (PP, Endesa, Repsol etc) a ruining the future of the country.
Meanwhile Morocco is filling the void and putting infrastructure online... Interconnect cables are being prepared as I type this...
This is also why when you attempt to get a solar system installed at home they push you to grid tie setups. So while it's sunny and you are out at work all day you sell electricity back to the grid for less than 1/10th of what it's worth. Then when you come home in the evening you buy electricity at full rate.
This is also why when you attempt to get a solar system installed at home they push you to grid tie setups. So while it's sunny and you are out at work all day you sell electricity back to the grid for less than 1/10th of what it's worth. Then when you come home in the evening you buy electricity at full rate. Makes perfect business sense although next to useless for the consumer generating the power (even though that's contradiction). They get the side effect of "being green" and can feel all warm and fuzzy while being milked by the energy companies.
A bit of decent investment and some decent sized batteries and you can capture that energy while you are out at work and run off the stored power through the night. Of course that makes no money for "the man" and thus it won't be aggressively marketed and I wouldn't be surprised if we found it becoming more difficult to do, through legislation and taxation.
Not really, apart from stuffing their pockets.The situation in Spain is absurd...Do they give reasons for outlawing solar in the desert?
They have a virtual dessert at about 800m altitude in the middle of the country where they could do giant solar and undercut anything in the rest of Europe, but no, they actually out laws in place making this impossible!
I love Spain, but the political/ business alliance at the top (PP, Endesa, Repsol etc) a ruining the future of the country.
Meanwhile Morocco is filling the void and putting infrastructure online... Interconnect cables are being prepared as I type this...
Do they give reasons for outlawing solar in the desert?
The situation in Spain is absurd...I'm not quite sure if there really is space in Spain for large scale solar. Areas which look like a desert at first glance often have an agricultural purpose or are populated by people. Just zoom in on Spain using Google maps and you'll see that there is farming going on everywhere. You can do the same for north Africa. You have to travel 1000 km or more from the coast before the patches of farm land end.
They have a virtual dessert at about 800m altitude in the middle of the country where they could do giant solar and undercut anything in the rest of Europe, but no, they actually out laws in place making this impossible!
The situation in Spain is absurd...I'm not quite sure if there really is space in Spain for large scale solar. Areas which look like a desert at first glance often have an agricultural purpose or are populated by people. Just zoom in on Spain using Google maps and you'll see that there is farming going on everywhere. You can do the same for north Africa. You have to travel 1000 km or more from the coast before the patches of farm land end.
They have a virtual dessert at about 800m altitude in the middle of the country where they could do giant solar and undercut anything in the rest of Europe, but no, they actually out laws in place making this impossible!
It is the solar companies who are ripping off the public.
When they sell solar systems to residential customers they don’t factor in this buy sell factor or the customer’s usage patterns and wind up selling a system where customers are giving hundreds if not thousands of dollars of electricty to the power company for free every year. (At the end of the year, any excess electricity credit dollars are given to the power company for free.)
The government was actively supporting these companies and helping to fund them.
The overpricing is the main reason I DIY my solar setup and I suggest others do the same. (The other big reasons are to make it economical to start small and to have a setup I can easily take with me when I move.) I had the vision to do it when I was in college (sadly, batteries and LED bulbs were just too expensive back then - the ripoff $40/month service charge would easily buy a minimalist setup nowadays!) and I made it reality last year. I also got the chance to use my setup to spread the word about DIY solar and show my friends how I use technology to make the world a better place.Me too, my DIY solar does all my hot water and a little power for the house, although its grid tied I measure and limit what I export to the minimium to avoid wear and tear on my system as I don't get paid for export (consiquence of DIY). This thread seems to have drifted somewhat from cars :-//
Yup, you are right, let’s push them back in line.The overpricing is the main reason I DIY my solar setup and I suggest others do the same. (The other big reasons are to make it economical to start small and to have a setup I can easily take with me when I move.) I had the vision to do it when I was in college (sadly, batteries and LED bulbs were just too expensive back then - the ripoff $40/month service charge would easily buy a minimalist setup nowadays!) and I made it reality last year. I also got the chance to use my setup to spread the word about DIY solar and show my friends how I use technology to make the world a better place.Me too, my DIY solar does all my hot water and a little power for the house, although its grid tied I measure and limit what I export to the minimium to avoid wear and tear on my system as I don't get paid for export (consiquence of DIY). This thread seems to have drifted somewhat from cars :-//
Yup, you are right, let’s push them back in line.
“Morris Minor”
That should do it.
Yup, you are right, let’s push them back in line.
“Morris Minor”
That should do it.
How?
I’ve talked to former sales solar sales people and Solar City/Tesla is all about hitting sales numbers. People are calling solar sales the new “used car” industry.
On the consumer side solar has been made so complex all people are saying is how much money will I save per month if I install solar? If they here $10 per month on. $200 bill they think it’s a great deal feel they are doing something “good”.
And what Solar City is doing to minorities and people of color is disgusting. They “sell” them on the idea they will be getting all of their electricty for free from solar while sticking them into a PACE HERO high interest government backed loan. I’ve talked to some solar companies who only do these PACE HERO sales because they can make more money and the people are easier to dupe. One of the solar companies has a promo video showing an 85 year old women of color talking about the “free” electricty she is receiving by installing solar. “Free” is not correct. She is paying a premium for her electricity because they arranged for her to get a PACE HERO loan.
It’s discraseful what the solar industry is doing to poor people.
Sad isn't it. Who is going to buy a $40,000 solar system from a "guy" standing in front of a supermarket. I've been told average cost for marketing material is $5,000 per home. Or out of that $40,000 solar system being installed on someone's home, $5,000 of the $40,000 was spent on marketing.
Sad isn't it. Who is going to buy a $40,000 solar system from a "guy" standing in front of a supermarket. I've been told average cost for marketing material is $5,000 per home. Or out of that $40,000 solar system being installed on someone's home, $5,000 of the $40,000 was spent on marketing.
There are always people talking to them, no idea what their conversion rate is though.
Even if you had a $200 a month power bill that went to zero, it would take 17 years to pay them off with no financing charges. I think they are selling an antidote to liberal guilt, not solar. I have gotten door to door solar salesmen too, and my house is surrounded by very large trees. I get like an hour of sun on my roof a day. I'm all for solar, but it is getting ridiculous.
At the same supermarket I see people offering to raise your electric rate to help spur renewable energy in the region. This is in the Pacific NW, which already has one of the highest renewable energy share of the market in the world. See other users discussions earlier in this thread for details.
But... knowing the Tories in Britain they will regulate it into building code in such a way that you have little or no option but to pay their (Tory MPs) friends' corporations loads of money to install and maintain it if you want to GTI the over gen, apply for home insurance or to sell your house.Politics and engineering dont mix! We can all try to backstab whatever party we don't like on here but it serves no usefull purpose :)
But... knowing the Tories in Britain they will regulate it into building code in such a way that you have little or no option but to pay their (Tory MPs) friends' corporations loads of money to install and maintain it if you want to GTI the over gen, apply for home insurance or to sell your house.Politics and engineering dont mix! We can all try to backstab whatever party we don't like on here but it serves no usefull purpose :)
PACE HERO
PACE HERO
Why the fuck is government getting into providing loans with payment being done through property taxes? How does that make any sense at all other than obfuscation of costs and scamming people?
PS. the ONLY way I could ever see this making sense is if you want to do some renovation which can be funded by this, but you're planning to walk away from your mortgage in a couple of years. In literally every other situation it can not possibly make any sense whatsoever. What the hell was Obama thinking supporting this outright evil shit?
Around here those new electric scooters are taking over the world.
Around here those new electric scooters are taking over the world.
Lasts Sunday I drove down a busy business street and there were at least 3 groups ( 5 to 8 ) of teenagers riding the rental scooters.
It was on the news recently that soon Volvo will stop making gas cars.
California dictators want to outlaw gas cars.
Today there was a commercial on a luxury car (forgot name) and they said their electric (hybrid?) was comparably priced with their other models.
So electric cars will become mainstream faster than we think.
Hire green lobbiests and convince the President to have the governement pay 30%.
Hire green lobbiests and convince the President to have the governement pay 30%.
The government isn't paying 30%, the government is helping to hide the trust cost of the loan and is offering its services to scammers to break your legs if you don't pay up. If I just thought it was every day corruption I wouldn't have called it evil.
In the US electric car buyers also get $10,000 in tax credits and cash for buying an electric car.
The tax credit is max $7500 (less if battery is below the minimum size). And no, they do not get any “ cash”.
The tax credit is max $7500 (less if battery is below the minimum size). And no, they do not get any “ cash”.
If you are in a 15% fed tax bracket (lowest), what is the savings in your pocket? I think it is 7500 x .15 = $1,125 Still not enough to help the masses, just enough to help the power brokers. So if I bought one, I would pay $1,125 less in taxes and get audited on why someone in my 15% tax bracket could afford a EC. :-DD
A 7500 tax credit is not $7500 !
This is NOT a reason to hit the "mainstream". The matching of price of gas and electric in cars that the masses can buy will then it become mainstream (not in my lifetime). I will pay attention next time to the luxury car ad that said it matches their gas cars. Now I would like to know the prices.
A Tax credit means if you owe the government 10,000 in taxes and you get a credit for $7500 then you will owe the government $2500.The tax credit is max $7500 (less if battery is below the minimum size). And no, they do not get any “ cash”.
If you are in a 15% fed tax bracket (lowest), what is the savings in your pocket? I think it is 7500 x .15 = $1,125 Still not enough to help the masses, just enough to help the power brokers. So if I bought one, I would pay $1,125 less in taxes and get audited on why someone in my 15% tax bracket could afford a EC. :-DD
A 7500 tax credit is not $7500 !
This is NOT a reason to hit the "mainstream". The matching of price of gas and electric in cars that the masses can buy will then it become mainstream (not in my lifetime). I will pay attention next time to the luxury car ad that said it matches their gas cars. Now I would like to know the prices.
A Tax credit means if you owe the government 10,000 in taxes and you get a credit for $7500 then you will owe the government $2500.The tax credit is max $7500 (less if battery is below the minimum size). And no, they do not get any “ cash”.
If you are in a 15% fed tax bracket (lowest), what is the savings in your pocket? I think it is 7500 x .15 = $1,125 Still not enough to help the masses, just enough to help the power brokers. So if I bought one, I would pay $1,125 less in taxes and get audited on why someone in my 15% tax bracket could afford a EC. :-DD
A 7500 tax credit is not $7500 !
This is NOT a reason to hit the "mainstream". The matching of price of gas and electric in cars that the masses can buy will then it become mainstream (not in my lifetime). I will pay attention next time to the luxury car ad that said it matches their gas cars. Now I would like to know the prices.
If you are in a 15% fed tax bracket (lowest), what is the savings in your pocket? I think it is 7500 x .15 = $1,125 Still not enough to help the masses, just enough to help the power brokers.
If you are in a 15% fed tax bracket (lowest), what is the savings in your pocket? I think it is 7500 x .15 = $1,125 Still not enough to help the masses, just enough to help the power brokers.
That doesn't matter. The point is that electric car makers get to sell some cars and survive to the next generation.
Tesla started by selling overpriced toy cars to very rich people. No ordinary person would ever have owned a roadster.
Here we are a few years later and Tesla is now making $35000 family cars. Still not cheap enough, but we're getting there. Slowly.
Tesla is currently avoiding making a $35k car. Elon Musk pretty much said that making the $35k version would bankrupt them, due to the high loss per vehicle, and their already high rate of bleeding cash. Presumably in the next few months they will have to ship a few basic cars, and sell them for $35k, just for publicity purposes. It looks like it will be quite a while before that version ships in volume.Here we are a few years later and Tesla is now making $35000 family cars. Still not cheap enough, but we're getting there. Slowly.Has Tesla made any $35,000 cars yet? He’s trying, but I don’t think one has beem selicered yet.
Has Tesla made any $35,000 cars yet? He’s trying, but I don’t think one has beem selicered yet.
Tesla is currently avoiding making a $35k car. Elon Musk pretty much said that making the $35k version would bankrupt them, due to the high loss per vehicle, and their already high rate of bleeding cash.
Tesla has a lot of stuff to sort out on the model 3, it brakes worse than a Ford F150 :)
https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/tesla-model-3-review-falls-short-of-consumer-reports-recommendation/ (https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/tesla-model-3-review-falls-short-of-consumer-reports-recommendation/)
For all we know that test was done deliberately using the worst possible combination of parameters just to make a juicy headline.
The car has to choose whether to brake regeneratively using the motors or with the conventional brake pads. There's a few menu settings to control the balance.:palm: Ofcourse they'll use the worst parameters! You need to know the worst case distance until the car stops. Either way I don't get why there should be parameters for braking. If I press the brakes hard I want the car to stop asap.
A serious "test facility" would have mentioned that and tested all different settings. For all we know that test was done deliberately using the worst possible combination of parameters just to make a juicy headline.
For all we know that test was done deliberately using the worst possible combination of parameters just to make a juicy headline.
It SHOULD be tested in the worst possible setting.
The car has to choose whether to brake regeneratively using the motors or with the conventional brake pads. There's a few menu settings to control the balance.This is ludicrous, braking is braking period. If a company allows drivers to tweak those parameters and a single person is injured because the car did not stop in time due to a software setting they are toast. So I can not imagine that the car works that way.
:palm: Ofcourse they'll use the worst parameters! You need to know the worst case distance until the car stops.
If I press the brakes hard I want the car to stop asap.
braking is braking period.
You mean like the woman that was killed lately because the car did not spot her? Great thinking!braking is braking period.
Not if the car can see it's on a flat surface and there's nothing around it for 100m.
You mean like the woman that was killed lately because the car did not spot her? Great thinking!
A serious "test facility" would have mentioned that and tested all different settings. For all we know that test was done deliberately using the worst possible combination of parameters just to make a juicy headline.
I don't get why there should be parameters for braking.
A serious "test facility" would have mentioned that and tested all different settings. For all we know that test was done deliberately using the worst possible combination of parameters just to make a juicy headline.
Seems like they did...
"The test is based on an industry-standard procedure designed by SAE International, a global engineering association. Our testers get a car up to 60 mph, then slam on the brakes until the car comes to a stop. They repeat this multiple times to ensure consistent results"
I'm sure that's just a software update.When gently braking the car has to choose between braking schemes, and the user has some control over how that works. When the pedal is pressed really firmly for an emergency stop the car should be dragging all four wheels to the edge of lockup, by any mechanisms it has available. It should also be ensuring that is doesn't go beyond the point of lockup. There should be no user selection for this. If the software hasn't got this issue sorted out properly, its unfit for use on public roads.
The car has to choose whether to brake regeneratively using the motors or with the conventional brake pads. There's a few menu settings to control the balance.
If the software hasn't got this issue sorted out properly, its unfit for use on public roads.
When the pedal is pressed really firmly for an emergency stop the car should be dragging all four wheels to the edge of lockup, by any mechanisms it has available.
They say that between tests the car was driven for at least a mile, to ensure things have had time to cool. The second test should give a very similar result to the first test.When the pedal is pressed really firmly for an emergency stop the car should be dragging all four wheels to the edge of lockup, by any mechanisms it has available.
And that's exactly what it did in the first test and in Tesla's own tests. It only took longer to stop in their second and subsequent tests. What changed?
The good news is that Elon is all over this and In Elon We Trust, right?
Let's see what happens in the next few days.
Weird that nobody else has noticed.Because in all probablity those parameters are ignored on an emergency stop (hard brake) as they should.
Weird that nobody else has noticed.Because in all probablity those parameters are ignored on an emergency stop (hard brake) as they should.
??? Just got our tax return, 7500 dollar credit. Never even looked into solar, too many trees.
The tax credit is max $7500 (less if battery is below the minimum size). And no, they do not get any “ cash”.
If you are in a 15% fed tax bracket (lowest), what is the savings in your pocket? I think it is 7500 x .15 = $1,125 Still not enough to help the masses, just enough to help the power brokers. So if I bought one, I would pay $1,125 less in taxes and get audited on why someone in my 15% tax bracket could afford a EC. :-DD
A 7500 tax credit is not $7500 !
This is NOT a reason to hit the "mainstream". The matching of price of gas and electric in cars that the masses can buy will then it become mainstream (not in my lifetime). I will pay attention next time to the luxury car ad that said it matches their gas cars. Now I would like to know the prices.
QuoteBraking issueIn Elon We Trust... let's see what happens in the next few days.
QuoteBraking issueIn Elon We Trust... let's see what happens in the next few days.
Guess what? All the Tesla Model 3s now stop 20 feet shorter than before.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-model-3/consumer-reports-recommends-teslas-model-3-after-braking-fix-idUSKCN1IV29D (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-model-3/consumer-reports-recommends-teslas-model-3-after-braking-fix-idUSKCN1IV29D)
"Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing at Consumer Reports, said he had never seen a car that could improve its track performance with an over-the-air update in his 19-year career at the magazine. "
Welcome to the 21st century, Jack.
The Tesla fanboys... uffff
If it stops 20 feet shorter than before its still far from best in class. Why are you impressed?QuoteBraking issueIn Elon We Trust... let's see what happens in the next few days.
Guess what? All the Tesla Model 3s now stop 20 feet shorter than before.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-model-3/consumer-reports-recommends-teslas-model-3-after-braking-fix-idUSKCN1IV29D (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-model-3/consumer-reports-recommends-teslas-model-3-after-braking-fix-idUSKCN1IV29D)
"Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing at Consumer Reports, said he had never seen a car that could improve its track performance with an over-the-air update in his 19-year career at the magazine. "
Welcome to the 21st century, Jack.
If it stops 20 feet shorter than before its still far from best in class. Why are you impressed?
Wonder if the $10,000 in tax credits and rebates have anything to do with it?
I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid)
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.
I wonder how self driving cars do in snow, heavy rains, when the streets need to be plowed or are all slushy with a mixture of partially melted snow/ice, mud and gravel.
I wonder how self driving cars do in snow, heavy rains, when the streets need to be plowed or are all slushy with a mixture of partially melted snow/ice, mud and gravel.
The computers will have a massive advantage because they'll know what to do, unlike most humans who just assume they can drive normally in their magic driving box.
PS: The humans are already dependent on computer help. ABS, traction control, etc.
The computers will have a massive advantage because they'll know what to do“they'll know what to do”, meaning computers? Not quite. I’t humans who program the computers so they “know” what to do in a specific set of circumstances. It is man’s reasoning the computers are following.
Why did you not mention Next Gen Nuclear?
Not only do we have an endless supply of fuel, (water) we will be able to produce as much electricity as the world can consume. And not only that it's clean, green, renewable, cheap, non-polluting, environmentally friendly, no radioactive byproducts or waste, endless supply of fuel with no mining or processing, and should there be a massive nuclear accident in 15-20 years the nuclear fuel will have completely decayed away and the area would be completely safe to inhabit.
Why did you not mention Next Gen Nuclear?
Not only do we have an endless supply of fuel, (water) we will be able to produce as much electricity as the world can consume. And not only that it's clean, green, renewable, cheap, non-polluting, environmentally friendly, no radioactive byproducts or waste, endless supply of fuel with no mining or processing, and should there be a massive nuclear accident in 15-20 years the nuclear fuel will have completely decayed away and the area would be completely safe to inhabit.
This smells of the bullshit put out in the early days of conventional nuclear fission reactors such as "it will be soooo cheap that you won't be able to meter it" and it is infallibly safe etc etc.
Thorium-based nuclear power uses thorium to create an isotope of uranium and through a few steps of radioactive decay yields 233 29 U as the fuel. It has a half-life of more than 160,000 years. That's a long time to wait to go back home after an accident.
It's not environmentally friendly (what is?) Thorium is mining as an ore. It has to be converted to the pure element. Open cast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive activities our species has managed to inflict on this planet.
It won't be of commercial relevance for at least another 20 to 25 years.
I see the industry's PR spin hard at work :) NextGen? It's been around for decades.
Though it may be fair to say that there's no radioactive waste, the reactors themselves will be as radioactive as fission reactors and will have to be dealt with accordingly at the point of decommissioning.
The technological advances are extraordinary and the idea of recreating the conditions of the sun in a building is very cool (or hot) but there's that issue of getting out more energy than you put in.
Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid)
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.
Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid)
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.
So in all these news items about self driving cars I would really like to see a very decent analyses how humans would perform in the same conditions.
I highly doubt if that would be any better.
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.
And that is based on what research?Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid)
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.
So in all these news items about self driving cars I would really like to see a very decent analyses how humans would perform in the same conditions.
I highly doubt if that would be any better.
Humans would be perfored 99.99999% better. And in the accidents where there as a fatality, the human drivers under the same cirucmstances would not have caused a fatality or even an injury.
Humans are good at somethings, machines are better at others.
And that is based on what research?Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid)
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.
So in all these news items about self driving cars I would really like to see a very decent analyses how humans would perform in the same conditions.
I highly doubt if that would be any better.
Humans would be perfored 99.99999% better. And in the accidents where there as a fatality, the human drivers under the same cirucmstances would not have caused a fatality or even an injury.
Humans are good at somethings, machines are better at others.
Like I said before, more than 96% of all accidents is because of human error.
Following that logic I find it VERY unlikely a human being would perform better.
Let alone so much better as you would suggest.
Unless laws of physics and statistics are biased somehow.
You're using a loop argument, and yes there has been billions of similar accidents with humans.And that is based on what research?Well I have seen enough official research, basically >96% of ALL accidents is because of human error.I find it always funny how these messages are getting blown up.
To put things in perspective, also look at similar accidents with human drivers and you will be amazed.
Remember: There's absolutely no limit to how bad human drivers can be.
Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/search?q=bad+drivers&tbm=vid)
At least robots don't get angry/drunk/bored/fall asleep.
So in all these news items about self driving cars I would really like to see a very decent analyses how humans would perform in the same conditions.
I highly doubt if that would be any better.
Humans would be perfored 99.99999% better. And in the accidents where there as a fatality, the human drivers under the same cirucmstances would not have caused a fatality or even an injury.
Humans are good at somethings, machines are better at others.
Like I said before, more than 96% of all accidents is because of human error.
Following that logic I find it VERY unlikely a human being would perform better.
Let alone so much better as you would suggest.
Unless laws of physics and statistics are biased somehow.
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident. The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.
If you look at all of the other deaths involving a self-driving car you will find a human would have avoided them. As for the non-fatal crashes, humans would have avoided over 99.9999% of those accidents too.
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident. The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.In the early days of automating aircraft with software based flight control systems there were some horrendous screwups, which resulted in the total loss of aircraft. These were mostly fighter aircraft, so they incurred one death at a time. By the time large passenger aircraft were being automated the lessons from early mistakes in military aircraft had been learned, and things went pretty smoothly. Until recently the production and testing of the software for cars was also learning from these early mistakes. It feels like people have given up on this now. The recent issue with Tesla 3 braking distance is a good example. The public seems impressed that an OTA update released just a few days after the report of a serious safety issue has significantly improved performance. I'm not sure many people with a history in safety critical systems are so impressed. How well was this update tested for unintended consequences in such a short time?
If you look at all of the other deaths involving a self-driving car you will find a human would have avoided them. As for the non-fatal crashes, humans would have avoided over 99.9999% of those accidents too.
You're using a loop argument, and yes there has been billions of similar accidents with humans.I'm not sure if you are missing the point, or trying to avoid it. Several recent incidents have shown serious holes in the systems in these autonomous cars. They aren't failing to avoid an accident, as a distracted human might. They are so poorly designed they aren't even TRYING to avoid some reasonably common crash scenarios.
The whole idea of the 96% number is that humans DO NOT always avoid accidents.
If you want to compare numbers you need to it fair and take a look at the whole picture.
Not just a few accidents that hit the news and think that's a representative number to prove that self-driving cars are bad or something.
That is at least not how thought me to do proper science and statistics.
Also it's not helping to bring that 96% number down.
So they have to look for alternatives right?
You're using a loop argument, and yes there has been billions of similar accidents with humans.I'm not sure if you are missing the point, or trying to avoid it. Several recent incidents have shown serious holes in the systems in these autonomous cars. They aren't failing to avoid an accident, as a distracted human might. They are so poorly designed they aren't even TRYING to avoid some reasonably common crash scenarios.
The whole idea of the 96% number is that humans DO NOT always avoid accidents.
If you want to compare numbers you need to it fair and take a look at the whole picture.
Not just a few accidents that hit the news and think that's a representative number to prove that self-driving cars are bad or something.
That is at least not how thought me to do proper science and statistics.
Also it's not helping to bring that 96% number down.
So they have to look for alternatives right?
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident.
The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.
I'm sure the software has been updated.Why? Whatever would lead you to that conclusion? People who take no great care with the first pass of a product don't suddenly wake up and become fantastic engineers.
Why? Whatever would lead you to that conclusion? People who take no great care with the first pass of a product don't suddenly wake up and become fantastic engineers.As we have seen with the Toyota embedded software inquiry and investigation, it was a mess!
Have you read any of the accident reports where a self-driving car resulted in a fatality? In every case so far the human would have avidoed the accident.
You seem to be under the illusion that a zero-accident rate should be attained before deploying these.
That's never happened before with any new tech, why should it happen now? SO far they seem to be doing quite well.The best documented accident of where the machine failed and the human driver was much better is the single car accident where the self-driving car ran into a tree killing the driver in California. The driver had documented and reported the problem on a stretch of road where the car set-driving controlled car continually fails to stay on the road.
I'm sure the software has been updated.
The "specific set of circumstances" is driving on a slippery surface. There's not many variants on that and computers already do it better than humans. The computers are so good that we've already passed laws mandating their installation to help humans drive better.
More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
What car are those? Audi 80’s?The "specific set of circumstances" is driving on a slippery surface. There's not many variants on that and computers already do it better than humans. The computers are so good that we've already passed laws mandating their installation to help humans drive better.
Funny you say that, but the manual of the last two cars I have owned have stated the traction control should be disabled in snow and ice as it get's confused and may prevent the vehicle from moving.
More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
:o
Who wrote that? The Stig?
I'm sure a normal human would be worse.
Do you have any data points to support your beliefs?
We have provided many data points which have shown software is making mistakes that humans, even impaired humans would not make.
[It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.
Do you have any data points to support your beliefs?
We have provided many data points which have shown software is making mistakes that humans, even impaired humans would not make.
Yep. In your worldview the world is full of runaway cars that fail to brake and go out of control at the drop of a hat when anybody who's been outside lately knows this isn't so.
We've also shown that there's mistake so stupid (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=vid&q=worst+driver+ever) that a human can't make it.
The point is this: Software con only get better as more self driving cars are put on the roads. It's like aviation, every crash leads to an investigation and usually new procedures/practices.
It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.
In a few years from now cars will be far safer than humans. We just need to get over the initial hurdles.
Yes, some people will be killed by self-driving cars today but the future savings will be worth it. That's where your blind spot appears to be.
[It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.
Well, we all know what forced pushed updates can do. I'm not just talking laptops and phones.
My wife was driving her 3 month old MINI on the highway at 65mph when the engine cut out. She managed to get to the shoulder. She called me to get our AAA info. I said half-jokingly that BMW must have pushed a firmware update. Well, she called the dealership while waiting for the tow truck. Yup, that's exactly what happened. They bricked her car at 65mph.
Did you not read about the Therac 25 or the Dreamliner 787?Can you explain why human drivers still hit trees, parked cars and kill pedestrians at this point of time?
At this statge in development of selfdriving car software can you explain why trees and parked cars are still be mistaken for roads and killing people?
OTA updates means we'll all become beta testers then?
OTA updates means we'll all become beta testers then?
Oh, FFS... :palm:
"YES!"
And that's another + for Tesla in your opinion?
At least we always see the trailers.Really? :palm:
At least we always see the trailers.Really? :palm:
For some reason road accidents contradict the statement of human drivers always seeing the trailers.At least we always see the trailers.Really? :palm:
Really, yes. And we can even drive perfectly on roads with no or blurry lines.
(snip)
Really, yes. And we can even drive perfectly on roads with no or blurry lines.For some reason road accidents contradict the statement of human drivers always seeing the trailers.
[It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.
Well, we all know what forced pushed updates can do. I'm not just talking laptops and phones.
My wife was driving her 3 month old MINI on the highway at 65mph when the engine cut out. She managed to get to the shoulder. She called me to get our AAA info. I said half-jokingly that BMW must have pushed a firmware update. Well, she called the dealership while waiting for the tow truck. Yup, that's exactly what happened. They bricked her car at 65mph.
If that's true then this will have lead to a new procedure/practice at BMW.
nb. I'm not sure that is the reason. It could just as easily be a loose wire or something, car dealers aren't famous for rigor.
Really, yes. And we can even drive perfectly on roads with no or blurry lines.For some reason road accidents contradict the statement of human drivers always seeing the trailers.
The idea that they can drive perfectly on roads with neatly painted/visible lines is also not supported by the evidence.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=449203;image)
No one said humans wee perfect. But do the math.... Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do. And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3. Not even 10 or 100. The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air :palm:.
No one said humans wee perfect. But do the math.... Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do.
No one said humans wee perfect. But do the math.... Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do. And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3. Not even 10 or 100. The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air :palm:.
What published data? For example, Tesla reports reduced crash rate with autopilot. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326258/teslas-crash-rate-dropped-40-percent-after-autopilot-was-installed-feds-say (https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326258/teslas-crash-rate-dropped-40-percent-after-autopilot-was-installed-feds-say)No one said humans wee perfect. But do the math.... Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do. And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3. Not even 10 or 100. The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air :palm:.
Just using the published data from the selfdriving car companies have published. Interesting you call the actual data the self-driving car software companies have collected as BS.
Have you even loooked at the data?
Or do you just call everything you don't agree with as BS?No, only when I see a bold claim based on nothing.
What published data? For example, Tesla reports reduced crash rate with autopilot. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326258/teslas-crash-rate-dropped-40-percent-after-autopilot-was-installed-feds-say (https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326258/teslas-crash-rate-dropped-40-percent-after-autopilot-was-installed-feds-say)No one said humans wee perfect. But do the math.... Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do. And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3. Not even 10 or 100. The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air :palm:.
Just using the published data from the selfdriving car companies have published. Interesting you call the actual data the self-driving car software companies have collected as BS.
Have you even loooked at the data?QuoteOr do you just call everything you don't agree with as BS?No, only when I see a bold claim based on nothing.
Dude you are mixed up. We have been talking about self-driving car software and offer a link to semi-autonomous Autopilot software.Then please provide a link to your true "self driving" statistics with extraordinary number of accidents reported.
Now that's BS.
Dude you are mixed up. We have been talking about self-driving car software and offer a link to semi-autonomous Autopilot software.Then please provide a link to your true "self driving" statistics with extraordinary number of accidents reported.
Now that's BS.
You could start here for Waymo. https://waymo.com/safety/Where is the report on huge number of self driving car accidents, FFS? There is none in that document.
And since you asked for a link why not give me a link to data you used to call the data the selfdriving car softare companies as BS.Because burden of proof is on person who made the claim. And where is the freaking data you are talking about? You made an extraordinary claim about self driving cars being involved in a lot of accidents, being orders of magnitude worse than real people. Therefore it's you who need to back that claim with evidence. Where FFS are all of those accidents? You provided zero evidence so far. I did not even need to provide a link about Tesla autopilot, which is the closest as it gets to see how technology works in real life with regular people using it. And I don't call the data being BS (there is no such data to begin with) as you are implying. I call BS your claim which is not backed by any data.
You could start here for Waymo. https://waymo.com/safety/Where is the report on huge number of self driving car accidents, FFS? There is none in that document.QuoteAnd since you asked for a link why not give me a link to data you used to call the data the selfdriving car softare companies as BS.Because burden of proof is on person who made the claim. And where is the freaking data you are talking about? You made an extraordinary claim about self driving cars being involved in a lot of accidents, being orders of magnitude worse than real people. Therefore it's you who need to back that claim with evidence. Where FFS are all of those accidents? You provided zero evidence so far. I did not even need to provide a link about Tesla autopilot, which is the closest as it gets to see how technology works in real life with regular people using it. And I don't call the data being BS (there is no such data to begin with) as you are implying. I call BS your claim which is not backed by any data.
Dude read my post. I said this is where you can start. THere's data there all you need to do is a couple of simple math calculations.Nice, now you are saying it's up to me to research and prove your BS claim. Well done, it just proves yet again that you have nothing to back your claim.
Dude read my post. I said this is where you can start. THere's data there all you need to do is a couple of simple math calculations.Nice, now you are saying it's up to me to research and prove your BS claim. Well done, it just proves yet again that you have nothing to back your claim.
Nope what I've alway been saying is tell me why you think the data the software comapnes has collected and pubished, some of which I have shared with you is BS.You have shared nothing on autonomous car crash statistics so far. Open that document yourself and show us the place where it is written. Yet again, I have nothing against data, the issue is there was no data provided so far. Is it that difficult to post a quote from the document where such statistics are given? So far you made nothing but tried to twist what I'm saying. Straw man at it's best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
You are one saying the data is BS. Yet you can't provide any data.
Sorry mate, but you need to learn critical thinking skills.No I don't need to. Critical thinking is exactly the reason why I'm asking to provide evidence for your extraordinary claims. It's people who don't have critical thinking accept arguments without asking for any proof.
A start is leasing EV's this is in our country already stimulated by the low 4% tax you have to add to your income instead of 21%.That may be but leasing a Tesla starts at around 1000 euro. For 3 times less you can lease a decent sized car (Ford Focus wagon) with an efficient engine. Also a Tesla Model S costs around 100k euro compared to around 26k euro for the Ford. 4% of 100K euro is 4000 euro and 21% of 30k is 5460. All in all the price difference is not that big. Especially if you take the different tax brackets into account the Ford Focus may even be cheaper for some people than the Tesla.
The weird thing is that this stimulates the lease of the cool but expensive EVs the Tesla's and now Jaguars not really the mainstream EV's
There quite a few Tesla S around here. They seem to be replacing Mercedes S class, BMW 5 series or Porches Panameras... Not Ford Focuses!A start is leasing EV's this is in our country already stimulated by the low 4% tax you have to add to your income instead of 21%.That may be but leasing a Tesla starts at around 1000 euro. For 3 times less you can lease a decent sized car (Ford Focus wagon) with an efficient engine. Also a Tesla Model S costs around 100k euro compared to around 26k euro for the Ford. 4% of 100K euro is 4000 euro and 21% of 30k is 5460. All in all the price difference is not that big. Especially if you take the different tax brackets into account the Ford Focus may even be cheaper for some people than the Tesla.
The weird thing is that this stimulates the lease of the cool but expensive EVs the Tesla's and now Jaguars not really the mainstream EV's
leasing a Tesla starts at around 1000 euro. For 3 times less you can lease a decent sized car (Ford Focus wagon) with an efficient engine.
There quite a few Tesla S around here. They seem to be replacing Mercedes S class, BMW 5 series or Porches Panameras... Not Ford Focuses!
That may be but leasing a Tesla starts at around 1000 euro. For 3 times less you can lease a decent sized car (Ford Focus wagon) with an efficient engine. Also a Tesla Model S costs around 100k euro compared to around 26k euro for the Ford.I'm sure Elon Musk sleeps better now that Ford is killing all its low end sedans and wagons in the US. I imagine they were high of his list of products competing with the Model S. Now he has to hope they kill the Focus in Europe and Asia, and the Model S will be a slam dunk.
The point is that weak tax incentives don't make EVs affordable to the masses.There quite a few Tesla S around here. They seem to be replacing Mercedes S class, BMW 5 series or Porches Panameras... Not Ford Focuses!A start is leasing EV's this is in our country already stimulated by the low 4% tax you have to add to your income instead of 21%.That may be but leasing a Tesla starts at around 1000 euro. For 3 times less you can lease a decent sized car (Ford Focus wagon) with an efficient engine. Also a Tesla Model S costs around 100k euro compared to around 26k euro for the Ford. 4% of 100K euro is 4000 euro and 21% of 30k is 5460. All in all the price difference is not that big. Especially if you take the different tax brackets into account the Ford Focus may even be cheaper for some people than the Tesla.
The weird thing is that this stimulates the lease of the cool but expensive EVs the Tesla's and now Jaguars not really the mainstream EV's
More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
:o
Who wrote that? The Stig?
I'm sure a normal human would be worse.
Sounds like the front wheel sensors are very dead or the pads are worn down to the manufacturers label on the back.More worrying it also points out that the anti-lock brakes may cause poor braking performance on snow and ice, but they cannot be disabled.
:o
Who wrote that? The Stig?
E
I'm sure a normal human would be worse.
Have you ever tried it? I have. The anti-lock brakes in my Clio just prevented any braking at all. No slowing down, just buzz, buzz, buzz.
As to whether I would have done better, I dunno. In the end I had to rub the car wheels down the kerb to get the car slowed.
The Stig?
Have you ever tried it? I have. The anti-lock brakes in my Clio just prevented any braking at all. No slowing down, just buzz, buzz, buzz.
So while it's sunny and you are out at work all day you sell electricity back to the grid for less than 1/10th of what it's worth. Then when you come home in the evening you buy electricity at full rate.
Nope. But falling battery prices, diesel and gas exhaust particles in cities, and ramping up mass production is doing it right now.
So while it's sunny and you are out at work all day you sell electricity back to the grid for less than 1/10th of what it's worth. Then when you come home in the evening you buy electricity at full rate.
In Spain you sell back to the grid at 4 times the price, so when you come home in the evening, for every kWh you've put into the grid you can take 4kWh "for free". That's what the last imbecile socialist president we had did, among many other things that ended all in disasters.
Why does everyone say "Tesla Tesla Tesla". For every Tesla there's a dozen of Nissan Leafs, Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf and BMW i3s on the road here.
Why does everyone say "Tesla Tesla Tesla". For every Tesla there's a dozen of Nissan Leafs, Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf and BMW i3s on the road here.
Why does everyone say "Tesla Tesla Tesla". For every Tesla there's a dozen of Nissan Leafs, Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf and BMW i3s on the road here.
Chevy Bolt is not available in UK - they announced some time ago they were not going to sell it here. Now they have pulled out of Europe the last I heard they were only selling a few there.
Why does everyone say "Tesla Tesla Tesla". For every Tesla there's a dozen of Nissan Leafs, Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf and BMW i3s on the road here.Because only Tesla makes decent EVs which can somewhat replace a car. The rest of the EVs are just glorified golf carts with limited range.
BMW i3 is available as a plug in hybrid. Albeit overpriced as BMWs tend to be.
Chevy Bolt is not available in UK - they announced some time ago they were not going to sell it here. Now they have pulled out of Europe the last I heard they were only selling a few there.In mainland Europe it is sold as Opel Ampera-E , i believe Opel is called Vauxhall in the UK.
Is the Ampera-E still available, now that GM Europe has been sold off? I thought it was dead.Chevy Bolt is not available in UK - they announced some time ago they were not going to sell it here. Now they have pulled out of Europe the last I heard they were only selling a few there.In mainland Europe it is sold as Opel Ampera-E , i believe Opel is called Vauxhall in the UK.
Its range is better than the Tesla btw.
Last I heard, it was technically still available, but GM are restricting the supply so the dealers are trying to cross sell to ICE cars. I recall reading it was over 18 months in some places.Is the Ampera-E still available, now that GM Europe has been sold off? I thought it was dead.Chevy Bolt is not available in UK - they announced some time ago they were not going to sell it here. Now they have pulled out of Europe the last I heard they were only selling a few there.In mainland Europe it is sold as Opel Ampera-E , i believe Opel is called Vauxhall in the UK.
Its range is better than the Tesla btw.
Because only Tesla makes decent EVs which can somewhat replace a car. The rest of the EVs are just glorified golf carts with limited range.
What kind of metric is Price per kWh??????????????????????????????
That table mixes hybrids with EV's, if you talk EV and range you should limit to pure EV cars otherwise there is not much to compare or talk about, everybody knows that hybrids and ICE's have a much longer range.There is a column for EV range to the left of the total range.
Why does everyone say "Tesla Tesla Tesla".Because Tesla is providing the long range system where you can fast charge during long trips, making it as practical as an ICE. Others simply don't.
For every Tesla there's a dozen of Nissan Leafs, Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf and BMW i3s on the road here.Nope.
That table mixes hybrids with EV's
PHEVs are crap that OEMs push out to paint themselves green.
The model 3 is the clear winner today on the price/range category. No contest.
PHEVs are crap that OEMs push out to paint themselves and their old ICE tech green.
PHEVs are EVs. They are serial hybrids which have the ability to run 100% electric.They are per definition not EV's since they stil burn fossil fuel, a very very big difference.
I thimk it’s very appropriate to have a table that includes both since many EV buyers will be considering both types of EV. The table delineates EV versus total range after all...
I’d say that the Chevy Bolt, with it’s significantly lower price, yet respectable 238 mile range, is the winner on that metric for now.:-// depends what you are comparing since GM looses 7,4-9k$ per sold car 1+2.
PHEVs are EVs. They are serial hybrids which have the ability to run 100% electric.They are per definition not EV's since they stil burn fossil fuel, a very very big difference.
I thimk it’s very appropriate to have a table that includes both since many EV buyers will be considering both types of EV. The table delineates EV versus total range after all...
The problem in our country is that almost 90% of the lease drivers with a hybrid never ever charge their battery thus it becomes a 100% fossil fuel powered vehicle, although with better efficiency.
I don't think any EV with a maximum range of 20-30 miles would ever been sold with the exception of those elderly/disabled transportation vehicles.
They are per definition not EV's since they stil burn fossil fuel,
I don’t think you understand how most PHEVs work. I can and have driven my Volt for weeks without any gasoline in the tank. The ICE is there only to produce electricity if needed.Then you indeed use it as an EV.
By your definition almost all battery only EVs would not qualify since almost all of them will be having their batteries charged by fossil fuel derived grid power. IOW they burn fossil fuel now as well.Question of time since the energy is more and more generated from cleaner sources and sources with other (storage) problems (nuclear pp's).
What kind of metric is Price per kWh??????????????????????????????
kWh tells you something about the car, no?
(size of the battery)
Put in the trunk of a Model S a generator and it becomes a Plug-able Hybrid Electric Vehicle.I wonder if Musk would ever cooperate with a third party to make that possible without some fragile hacks.
Of course not because it's a step backwards. Not to say, I doubt there is a market for this.Put in the trunk of a Model S a generator and it becomes a Plug-able Hybrid Electric Vehicle.I wonder if Musk would ever cooperate with a third party to make that possible without some fragile hacks.
Of course not because it's a step backwards.
Why is it a step backwards?True, it's not just a step backwards. it's running in the wrong direction for an hour at least.
PHEVs are crap that OEMs push out to paint themselves and their old ICE tech green.
EVs are the crap Tesla pushes out to paint themselves as greener than green. Who cares, you can't depend on an EV that you know for sure that sooner or later is going to let you stranded somewhere with a flat battery and no plug to recharge in miles around, unlike ICEs.
PHEVs are crap that OEMs push out to paint themselves and their old ICE tech green.
EVs are the crap Tesla pushes out to paint themselves as greener than green. Who cares, you can't depend on an EV that you know for sure that sooner or later is going to let you stranded somewhere with a flat battery and no plug to recharge in miles around, unlike ICEs.
Meh, put it back in your pants. 5 year Model S driver here. Never been stranded, not even close. And, I've never heard of anyone being stranded other than that NYT writer that deliberately bricked a loaner model S by ignoring the car saying "plug me in soon" in multiple ways.
Meh, put it back in your pants. 5 year Model S driver here. Never been stranded, not even close.
And let’s not forget it takes Tesla drivers many hours longer to make the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco because they keep having to stop to get recharged.
And let’s not forget it takes Tesla drivers many hours longer to make the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco because they keep having to stop to get recharged.Hours? One 30 minute stop at supercharger is enough to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Don't say that you won't make any stops with ICE car to fill the gas tank and to dump waste at gas station.
But that takes a few minutes at maximum. Even less when only changing driver.And let’s not forget it takes Tesla drivers many hours longer to make the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco because they keep having to stop to get recharged.Hours? One 30 minute stop at supercharger is enough to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Don't say that you won't make any stops with ICE car to fill the gas tank and to dump waste at gas station.
First of all, not a few minutes. Filling gas and dumping shit will take a bit more. Secondly, good luck driving 600 km with only a few minutes stop. Sure you can do that, the question is if you want to do so. Not to say, you likely will want to eat something as well.But that takes a few minutes at maximum. Even less when only changing driver.And let’s not forget it takes Tesla drivers many hours longer to make the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco because they keep having to stop to get recharged.Hours? One 30 minute stop at supercharger is enough to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Don't say that you won't make any stops with ICE car to fill the gas tank and to dump waste at gas station.
Dear Tesla fanboys, for your info:Please stop polluting this thread with off-topic and off-topic+political videos.
I don't need to shit & eat all day (I'm not a cow). A breakfast and dinner is enough. Travelling 600km takes about 5 to 6 hours so there is more than enough time to do the driving between shitting & eating. Experience has taught me to stay clear from restaurants along the road anyway so we plan dinners around that.First of all, not a few minutes. Filling gas and dumping shit will take a bit more. Secondly, good luck driving 600 km with only a few minutes stop. Sure you can do that, the question is if you want to do so. Not to say, you likely will want to eat something as well.But that takes a few minutes at maximum. Even less when only changing driver.And let’s not forget it takes Tesla drivers many hours longer to make the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco because they keep having to stop to get recharged.Hours? One 30 minute stop at supercharger is enough to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Don't say that you won't make any stops with ICE car to fill the gas tank and to dump waste at gas station.
I don't need to shit & eat all day (I'm not a cow). A breakfast and dinner is enough. Travelling 600km takes about 5 to 6 hours so there is more than enough time to do the driving. Experience has taught me to stay clear from restaurants along the road anyway so we plan dinners around that.Talk for yourself. Average people won't miss their lunch just to arrive to destination 10 minutes earlier. Even if you take food with yourself, you are not supposed to eat while driving but if you do, hello Tesla autopilot. Also as you are living in Netherlands, I have my doubts you have to drive anywhere further than 200-300 km.
a break or breaks totalling at least 45 minutes after no more than 4 hours 30 minutes driving
Dear Tesla fanboys, for your info:Just don't forget that trains and ships have electric motors. Diesel is for generating electricity only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel%E2%80%93electric_transmission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel%E2%80%93electric_transmission)
We drive 600 to 800 km per day regulary on trips across Europe and with two drivers each can have more than enough rest before driving again (I usually take a nap). You can theorize any way you want but in reality waiting / pausing for 40 to 60 minutes along the road just takes time away for doing something useful, dinner and/or sleep. If you want to go from A to B quickly make sure to start with a full stomage, eat a candy bar (like a Snickers) in the afternoon and have dinner at the destination. Been there, done that many times.I don't need to shit & eat all day (I'm not a cow). A breakfast and dinner is enough. Travelling 600km takes about 5 to 6 hours so there is more than enough time to do the driving. Experience has taught me to stay clear from restaurants along the road anyway so we plan dinners around that.Talk for yourself. Average people won't miss their lunch just to arrive to destination 10 minutes earlier. Even if you take food with yourself, you are not supposed to eat while driving but if you do, hello Tesla autopilot. Also as you are living in Netherlands, I have my doubts you have to drive anywhere further than 200-300 km.
BTW check some EU laws https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/eu-rules (https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/eu-rules). Sure this is not applicable to personal car, but says something.
We drive 600 to 800 km per day regulary on trips across Europe and with two drivers each can have more than enough rest before driving again (I usually take a nap).Then please say how typical is having 2 drivers to avoid having a rest in the middle of the trip?
Everyone gets tired and wants to stretch their legs or go to the toilet, I wonder how the drivers change seats when not stopping :)I never wrote that. However going to the toilet or just swapping drivers only takes a very short stop. And how can you get tired from sitting/sleeping in a comfortable car?
facts or speculation. I don't have an ICE to "back me up". Still never been stranded. Quit making up shit. And those "power out events" also affect ICEs since gas stations need electricity for their pumps.Meh, put it back in your pants. 5 year Model S driver here. Never been stranded, not even close.
That's because most EV owners have a good old ICE too and choose wisely before going out on long trips.
Most EV owners don't have a car with the range of a Tesla. They have something like a Leaf. The Leaf does seem popular as a second car for a family, and its range is a good match for that application. I doubt its very common for both cars in a 2 car family to be making a long trip on the same day.facts or speculation. I don't have an ICE to "back me up". Still never been stranded. Quit making up shit. And those "power out events" also affect ICEs since gas stations need electricity for their pumps.Meh, put it back in your pants. 5 year Model S driver here. Never been stranded, not even close.
That's because most EV owners have a good old ICE too and choose wisely before going out on long trips.
With two kids, 400km, then an hour stop then 300km is the absolute max we can do.We drive 600 to 800 km per day regulary on trips across Europe and with two drivers each can have more than enough rest before driving again (I usually take a nap).Then please say how typical is having 2 drivers to avoid having a rest in the middle of the trip?
The claim confronted was particularly about Tesla drivers being stranded and spending multiple hours in charging to drive 600km. As of Nissan Leaf, there are more Tesla cars sold than those. Production of Tesla is also ramping up hugely right now.Most EV owners don't have a car with the range of a Tesla. They have something like a Leaf. The Leaf does seem popular as a second car for a family, and its range is a good match for that application. I doubt its very common for both cars in a 2 car family to be making a long trip on the same day.facts or speculation. I don't have an ICE to "back me up". Still never been stranded. Quit making up shit. And those "power out events" also affect ICEs since gas stations need electricity for their pumps.Meh, put it back in your pants. 5 year Model S driver here. Never been stranded, not even close.
That's because most EV owners have a good old ICE too and choose wisely before going out on long trips.
But that takes a few minutes at maximum. Even less when only changing driver.
And let’s not forget it takes Tesla drivers many hours longer to make the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco because they keep having to stop to get recharged.Hours? One 30 minute stop at supercharger is enough to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Don't say that you won't make any stops with ICE car to fill the gas tank and to dump waste at gas station.
Not according to Tesla owners. They have to make multiple stops for that trips and they can be screwed if there’s an accident or road work with a detour.
I'm curious and couldn't find any useful information online - what's the hit on range for an EV if you take a 3-hour trip in the southern US in the middle of the summer while running the A/C (typically 100% of the time)? Or heating the car in the depths of winter in the mid-West?
I'm curious and couldn't find any useful information online - what's the hit on range for an EV if you take a 3-hour trip in the southern US in the middle of the summer while running the A/C (typically 100% of the time)? Or heating the car in the depths of winter in the mid-West?
In summer I get 305-315 Wh/mile, in winter, 340-350 though winters here are reasonably mild. By the way, ICEs also see winter efficiency loss but people don't seem to carePeople don't have to care because it doesn't affect the range so much and filling up only takes a few minutes anyway. The latter is very nice during the winter. Imagine standing here for 20 minutes or more while waiting for your car to charge when it is freezing with a strong wind:
Cooling is a very small hit on range, maybe a percent or two.
I'm curious and couldn't find any useful information online - what's the hit on range for an EV if you take a 3-hour trip in the southern US in the middle of the summer while running the A/C (typically 100% of the time)? Or heating the car in the depths of winter in the mid-West?
Not according to Tesla owners. They have to make multiple stops for that trips and they can be screwed if there’s an accident or road work with a detour.
Evidence? Doug doesn't need no pesky evidence. :-DD
Well...an average summer high temp of 73F in Seattle and a low of 36F in January is wee bit different to an average summer high of 90F and January low of 30F in central North Carolina. I'm surprised the A/C is even on :)
I'm curious and couldn't find any useful information online - what's the hit on range for an EV if you take a 3-hour trip in the southern US in the middle of the summer while running the A/C (typically 100% of the time)? Or heating the car in the depths of winter in the mid-West?
An A/C eats a few kW times 3h say 9kWh at least which is about 50km of range at hypermiling speeds.
Well...an average summer high temp of 73F in Seattle and a low of 36F in January is wee bit different to an average summer high of 90F and January low of 30F in central North Carolina. I'm surprised the A/C is even on :)
There is still solar gain and cars get plenty hot inside. Today the high was 68F, my car hit 95F inside while parked for an hour in the sun. AC is always on when it's above about 60F outside.
My experience so far (I've only had the eGolf 6 weeks now).
AC and heating appear to eat about 2kw, which means given I have about 220km range normally, or about 2 hrs at highway speeds on a 35kWh battery, It would mean with the heater or AC on, I'd drop to a 31kWh battery, and lose about 12% range. I can live with that.
Having the car automatically set the temperature before you go to work and come home is pretty damn awesome. This time of year theres not much to do in the morning, but in the evening having the AC auto come on before you get to is pretty cool.
AC and heating appear to eat about 2kw, which means given I have about 220km range normally, or about 2 hrs at highway speeds on a 35kWh battery, It would mean with the heater or AC on, I'd drop to a 31kWh battery, and lose about 12% range. I can live with that.
Imagine standing here for 20 minutes or more while waiting for your car to charge when it is freezing with a strong wind:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=457000;image)
Evidence? Doug doesn't need no pesky evidence. :-DDThere is ample evidence, if you would just read it.
I must say that's a hard pill to swallow. I lived half my life in a climate every bit as miserable as the northwestern US (yes, England) and I never once came across a car with AC.
In a hot and humid place like say, Miami, it would be quite a bit more than 2kW, I would say al least 2x that.
Not just insulation. If you are using fresh air and that has to be cooled and it takes more energy for moist air.In a hot and humid place like say, Miami, it would be quite a bit more than 2kW, I would say al least 2x that.
Surely it depends on how well insulated the car is. Have you got any actual measurements?
AC and heating appear to eat about 2kw, which means given I have about 220km range normally, or about 2 hrs at highway speeds on a 35kWh battery, It would mean with the heater or AC on, I'd drop to a 31kWh battery, and lose about 12% range. I can live with that.
In a hot and humid place like say, Miami, it would be quite a bit more than 2kW, I would say al least 2x that.
A window shaker AC that plugs into a regular outlet, that can cool a 10x10' room only uses 1200W, I'm pretty sure a 5x6' car interior will be fine using 2kW
Wikipedia says 3kW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning) with a reference to a scientific report.AC and heating appear to eat about 2kw, which means given I have about 220km range normally, or about 2 hrs at highway speeds on a 35kWh battery, It would mean with the heater or AC on, I'd drop to a 31kWh battery, and lose about 12% range. I can live with that.
In a hot and humid place like say, Miami, it would be quite a bit more than 2kW, I would say al least 2x that.
A window shaker AC that plugs into a regular outlet, that can cool a 10x10' room only uses 1200W, I'm pretty sure a 5x6' car interior will be fine using 2kW
Evidence? Doug doesn't need no pesky evidence. :-DDThere is ample evidence, if you would just read it.
It just can't be linked to for copyright reasons, right?
Wikipedia says 3kW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning) with a reference to a scientific report.
Wikipedia says 3kW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning) with a reference to a scientific report.
Ah come on now. I know you’re an engineer. That link is talking about the power required by an ICE to produce AC. An ICE is what, 20% efficient.?
Here’s the quote: “In a modern automobile, the A/C system will use around 4 horsepower (3 kW) of the engine's power, thus increasing fuel consumption of the vehicle.”
Which just proves the point, AC will reduce an ICEs autos range as well, but in a much less efficient manner.
BTW , both my Volt and my wife’s Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, use less than 2kW to run the AC. I’ll take a screenshot next time I get a chance.
Ah come on now. I know you’re an engineer. That link is talking about the power required by an ICE to produce AC. An ICE is what, 20% efficient.?
[...]
BTW , both my Volt and my wife’s Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, use less than 2kW to run the AC. I’ll take a screenshot next time I get a chance.
You are rambling. The link says an AC on a car needs typically 3kW (mechanical or electrical) to operate based on a scientific report. Why the hell go raving on about efficiencies? That it not the subject at all. And I really don't care about your car and your special case. It is besides the point. However it is logical that due to circumstances and type of AC some ACs in cars will need more power and some will need less. I shouldn't need to have to explain that. The report probably has some numbers on what kind of spread there is in AC power usage.Wikipedia says 3kW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_air_conditioning) with a reference to a scientific report.Ah come on now. I know you’re an engineer. That link is talking about the power required by an ICE to produce AC. An ICE is what, 20% efficient.?
Here’s the quote: “In a modern automobile, the A/C system will use around 4 horsepower (3 kW) of the engine's power, thus increasing fuel consumption of the vehicle.”
Which just proves the point, AC will reduce an ICEs autos range as well, but in a much less efficient manner.
BTW , both my Volt and my wife’s Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, use less than 2kW to run the AC. I’ll take a screenshot next time I get a chance.
So your contention is that the energy efficiency of AC production from gasoline burned in an ICE is the same or better than the efficiency of AC production from a Lithium battery pack? THAT is the issue my ”raving” addressed. Nothing more.That wasn't the topic of the discussion. What people where wondering about is how the AC will reduce the range of an EV. Given the fact that an EV carries much less energy with it the answer is 'a significant amount because an AC typically uses 3kW'. Others already provided examples with numbers. And because an ICE based car carries way more energy and is quicker to fill up people really don't have to care about efficiency.
But I was responding to your Wikipedia sourced figure.So your contention is that the energy efficiency of AC production from gasoline burned in an ICE is the same or better than the efficiency of AC production from a Lithium battery pack? THAT is the issue my ”raving” addressed. Nothing more.That wasn't the topic of the discussion.
because an AC typically uses 3kW'.But we don’t know how much energy a modern EV “typically” uses for AC. You have NOT provided a source documenting that. I and others first hand experience says it is much lower.
And because an ICE based car carries way more energy and is quicker to fill up people really don't have to care about efficiency.
Well yes, of course. They should care about efficiency, but most don’t. No one disputes that, do they? Thermodynamics dictates that there is no free lunch. Nothing available to power a vehicle is going to have the energy density of gasoline. Not even close.Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does. Thus plug in hybrids can still have a place in a 100% fossil fuel free world. (I doubt it will ever get to 100% due to niche uses.)
It wouldn't surprise me that by the time EVs have decent range and are affordable (IOW: 20 to 30 years from now) all ICE cars run on (mostly) bio-fuel and EVs are a solution to a problem which no longer exists. Worse, electricity is likely to become scarse once we turn all the fossil and nuclear power plants off. Bio-fuel OTOH can replace fossil car fuels gradually and it doesn't take any investment from the car owner. A couple of days ago I linked to an article which clearly stated a lot of people will not be able to afford an EV even though governments have set goals that say a large amount of new cars sold should be EVs. At some point reality has to kick in.Well yes, of course. They should care about efficiency, but most don’t. No one disputes that, do they? Thermodynamics dictates that there is no free lunch. Nothing available to power a vehicle is going to have the energy density of gasoline. Not even close.Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does. Thus plug in hybrids can still have a place in a 100% fossil fuel free world. (I doubt it will ever get to 100% due to niche uses.)
Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does.
In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
Currently... but there are more ways of making bio-fuel and it doesn't need to be diesel. Just as with solar and wind bio-fuel also needs kick starting to become profitable.Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
What is needed to change bio-fuels to something more sustainable is some major technical breakthroughs. None of the current approaches are going to get us very far. If some of the current experimental work can be made efficient and scalable we might have direct sunlight to liquid fuel schemes in the future, which would solve the storage issues we see with most renewables today. However, this is mostly speculation right now.Currently... but there are more ways of making bio-fuel and it doesn't need to be diesel. Just as with solar and wind bio-fuel also needs kick starting to become profitable.Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
What is needed to change bio-fuels to something more sustainable is some major technical breakthroughs. None of the current approaches are going to get us very far. If some of the current experimental work can be made efficient and scalable we might have direct sunlight to liquid fuel schemes in the future, which would solve the storage issues we see with most renewables today. However, this is mostly speculation right now.I beg to differ. There is a lot more going on than just lab experiments. I've already pointed towards Poet-DSM a couple of times who are making ethanol from plants (turning cellulose into ethanol) on an industrial scale. In Brazil about 50% of the fuel used is bio-fuel but they can use less efficient methods because they have large amounts of land and not so many people. IMHO Brazil is an interesting example of using bio-fuel because they use a gradual changeover approach which is affordable for the people and still results in a massive reduction of CO2 emissions.
Aircons take energy at a rate determined by the climate and not your driving. So, a high speed motorway journey between cities doesn't use a huge amount of energy for the aircon, as the journey doesn't last long. Get stuck in traffic, and its a different story.I just finished a trip in the western US that was 3700 miles. It was high speed for the most part.
Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
Yes, true. Another difference is that the fossil fuel input to solar panels, batteries and windmill production could be eliminated eventually. Biofuel production in any meaningful quantity on the other hand, requires petrochemical inputs by its very nature.
Experimental biofuels, like improved batteries, thorium reactors, etc., are a dime a dozen and at this time are essentially vaporware on any useful scale.
I'd like to see a source for that bold statement. I really don't see why you would need fossil fuels to create bio-fuels in the future. It simply doesn't make sense. After all fossil fuels are not a component of the end product. All what is needed is energy to run a process which converts plants (or whatever) into ethanol. Solar panels, wind turbines, etc also need energy to be manufactured.Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
Yes, true. Another difference is that the fossil fuel input to solar panels, batteries and windmill production could be eliminated eventually. Biofuel production in any meaningful quantity on the other hand, requires petrochemical inputs by its very nature.
Toyota is building the factory, Tesla semi is supposed to come with that battery technology.Toyota recently said they don't expect to have solid state batteries in the market until 2030.
These are not the new article, when Won Heng at the technical university of new bullshit has combined batteries and supercapacitors with lazers. It is the real deal.
My numbers are in the tesla semi thread. I'm not gonna repeat myself.
I'd like to see a source for that bold statement. I really don't see why you would need fossil fuels to create bio-fuels in the future. It simply doesn't make sense. After all fossil fuels are not a component of the end product.Solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc currently use quite a lot of fossil fuel in their construction. They don't require fossil fuels on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Every litre of biodiesel consumes a lot of fossil fuel in its production. So much that feeding some of the biodiesel back around the production loop, to be used instead of fossil fuels, doesn't currently work out well.In any case biodiesel requires large fossil fuel inputs to produce, so it is unlikely to be a long term solution.You can say the same about solar panels, EV batteries, wind turbines, etc.
Yes, true. Another difference is that the fossil fuel input to solar panels, batteries and windmill production could be eliminated eventually. Biofuel production in any meaningful quantity on the other hand, requires petrochemical inputs by its very nature.
Solar panels, wind turbines, etc also need energy to be manufactured.Yes of course they do and I said so above. The difference is that you could produce those with an entirely fossil fuel and petrochemical free process, IF that infrastructure was built. Initially, building that infrastructure would require large fossil fuel inputs, but once built it could in theory be maintained without fossil fuel or petrochemical input. Unfortunately we have not developed that infrastructure and it’s likely too late now. As I’ve said before on this forum, we’ve waited too long and as much as I’d love to see a day when our current standard of high energy living is maintained for the masses with an all electric, fossil fuel free technology, it ain’t gonna happen IMHO.
andOr you could open a browser and type “Tesla LA to SF”. But then agin maybe you can’t. Give it a try and try something new. You might learn something.It just can't be linked to for copyright reasons, right?Evidence? Doug doesn't need no pesky evidence. :-DDThere is ample evidence, if you would just read it.
Try adding hwy 5 and hwy 101. But don’t try Hg 1 because only way a Tesla could get from LA to SF is with a tow truck.
I didn’t say fossil fuels, I said petrochemicals- noy exactly the same. Chemical fertilzers and pesticides are petrochemicals required to produce the needed biomass yield for large quantities of biofuels. Just one example is the use of nat gas in the Haber-Bosch process used to produce nitrogen fertilizer. There are countless examples of pesticides in use that are derived from petrochemicals. And petrochemicals are used in the actual chemical production of the biofuel itself - for example, biodiesel production involves trans-esterification of vegetable oils and fats through the addition of methanol and a catalyst.Since when can't we use petrochemicals? I also doubt this becomes a problem because all these things are required to grow food (and leftovers to make bio-fuel from). Growing crops just for bio-fuel is heading towards the exit.
You could surely produce some types of biofuels in small amounts without petrochemicals, but never on the scale needed for widespread use.
Since when can't we use petrochemicals? I also doubt this becomes a problem because all these things are required to grow food (and leftovers to make bio-fuel from). Growing crops just for bio-fuel is heading towards the exit.Did you miss the "petro" part of petrochemicals? If we run out of coal and oil our entire process for feeding the 7 to 8 billion people now alive will be severely compromised.
First of all there still is a huge amount of oil and even more coal sitting in the ground so I wouldn't worry about running out especially if we stop burning those. Secondly CO2 emissions don't have to go to zero to stop/reverse climate change. Thirdly I'm very sure someone will find a new process to make fertilizer. That process probably already exists but is not economically viable yet. Many processes which are in place today are the most economical ones given the sources. Change the sources and a different process will become more economical. If more parts of plants are used by turning them into bio-fuel then food prices won't even rise that much.Since when can't we use petrochemicals? I also doubt this becomes a problem because all these things are required to grow food (and leftovers to make bio-fuel from). Growing crops just for bio-fuel is heading towards the exit.Did you miss the "petro" part of petrochemicals? If we run out of coal and oil our entire process for feeding the 7 to 8 billion people now alive will be severely compromised.
Did you miss the "petro" part of petrochemicals? If we run out of coal and oil our entire process for feeding the 7 to 8 billion people now alive will be severely compromised.And that's a good argument to replace fossil fuels with renewables where practical. As well as accelerate the development of sustainable agriculture.
The two modes of transportation which nuclear, solar, wind, and bio can not replace hydrocarbon fules are rocekts and airplanes.Wrong when it comes to airplanes. There have been many test flights already with large airplanes which run on bio fuel (oddly enough each test claims to be the first :palm: ).
California still has an enormous quantity of untapped fossil fuel. While wind, solar and bio might provide some relief, there is so much oil still in the ground which can be extracted inexpensively.Nonsense. Relative to consumption, California's oil reserves are trivial and rapidly declining (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_SCA_a.htm). If it was fully tapped (unlkely), enough for only about 100 days of US consumption and only 20 days of Worldwide consumption.
Now sure if people are aware but in LA/So Cal there are oil derricks downtown which are discussed as building.Sure there's hundreds of ancient wells in So. Cal, some still trickling out wiffs of oil. Those wells were already mostly tapped out 50 years ago when I was a child growing up near them.
The SF Bay Area has a rich supply of untapped oil.More nonsense.
Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does.I didn’t know that. Source?
Gentlemen, we have been the privileged. The fossil fuels era is going to end soon, and it will have been a blip in the history of mankind. Enjoy while it lasts.
Biodiesel actually has slightly more energy per gallon than gasoline does.I didn’t know that. Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
That drawing isn't to scale. The modern homo sapiens has been around for 200000 to 300000 years. It is reasonable to assume the question mark will be filled with nuclear power. Book printing and internet make it possible to work together and share technology as never before.Gentlemen, we have been the privileged. The fossil fuels era is going to end soon, and it will have been a blip in the history of mankind. Enjoy while it lasts.
Yes.
(https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/peak-ff-oil.png)
Bottom line, solar, wind, batteries and bio just don't have the energy density of hydrocarbons and nuclear.
[Well, yes. I think it is meant to be conceptual, not quantitative.
That drawing isn't to scale.
It is reasonable to assume the question mark will be filled with nuclear power.Reasonable to you perhaps but not by most knowledgeable scientists and engineers I've read. For example (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/).
Book printing and internet make it possible to work together and share technology as never before.Yes, possible - If only it were so...
Even if battery tech doesn't improve quickly, renting something a couple of times a year when you plan to drive thousands of miles isn't anywhere near as horrible as you seem to think.Did you actually check the prices? I just did (similar to the car I own) and it would cost me 1400 euro to rent a car for 2 weeks to go on a holiday. For me it is cheaper to own an ICE based car. The annual depreciation on my car is less.
The error in the article is that it assumes nuclear energy is always based on Uranium. That is old technology. New technology is Thorium and later on nuclear fusion. For starters Thorium is as abundant as lead so it doesn't need as much mining effort compared to Uranium.QuoteIt is reasonable to assume the question mark will be filled with nuclear power.Reasonable to you perhaps but not by most knowledgeable scientists and engineers I've read. For example (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/).
All the fanboys sound like a broken record. No need to shove the EVs down our throats just yet.
The error in the article is that it assumes nuclear energy is always based on Uranium. That is old technology. New technology is Thorium and later on nuclear fusion. For starters Thorium is as abundant as lead so it doesn't need as much mining effort compared to Uranium.QuoteIt is reasonable to assume the question mark will be filled with nuclear power.Reasonable to you perhaps but not by most knowledgeable scientists and engineers I've read. For example (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/).
But still in the context of making and using Uranium so thinking old-tech. If you read about Thorium reactors then you'll learn that using Thorium makes more sense than Uranium because the waste doesn't stay radio active very long and the reactors are inherently safer.The error in the article is that it assumes nuclear energy is always based on Uranium. That is old technology. New technology is Thorium and later on nuclear fusion. For starters Thorium is as abundant as lead so it doesn't need as much mining effort compared to Uranium.QuoteIt is reasonable to assume the question mark will be filled with nuclear power.Reasonable to you perhaps but not by most knowledgeable scientists and engineers I've read. For example (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/).
Clearly you did not read the article. He talks about Thorium See under "Fuel Options"
But still in the context of making and using Uranium so thinking old-tech. If you read about Thorium reactors then you'll learn that using Thorium makes more sense than Uranium because the waste doesn't stay radio active very long and the reactors are inherently safer.The error in the article is that it assumes nuclear energy is always based on Uranium. That is old technology. New technology is Thorium and later on nuclear fusion. For starters Thorium is as abundant as lead so it doesn't need as much mining effort compared to Uranium.QuoteIt is reasonable to assume the question mark will be filled with nuclear power.Reasonable to you perhaps but not by most knowledgeable scientists and engineers I've read. For example (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/).
Clearly you did not read the article. He talks about Thorium See under "Fuel Options"
Thorium has been touted as the future of nuclear power since the 1960s. Decades later it is still in the R and D phase. Why is that?No research on thorium reactors has been done since the 1960, when politics caused the research to be cancelled. That's the complete explanation for why nothing has moved forward. The engineers who worked on Thorium reactor research have now all retired, so if the work is restarted there will surely be a lot of repeated work as a new generation of engineers relearn what has been forgotten. There appears to have been no technical reason for the work being cancelled. Like most things about energy from nuclear sources, if it didn't make plutonium for weapons it was hard to get research funding.
In short, Thorium is a molten salt process that has yet never been run on a real scale, only small prototype labexperiments.
To exploit it on a nuclear power station level they need at least 40 years (estimation from nuclear power scientists).
Thorium has been touted as the future of nuclear power since the 1960s. Decades later it is still in the R and D phase. Why is that?No research on thorium reactors has been done since the 1960, when politics caused the research to be cancelled. That's the complete explanation for why nothing has moved forward.
Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.
From the late 60s until the mid 2000s there was basically nothing going on. The wikipedia page shows various "activities" since the mid 2000s, but they are mostly tinkering. Some, like the "Canada could put thorium in a CANDU reactor" effort seem to miss the point - its the liquid fluoride salt design which brings most of the attractions in the 1960s thorium research work. Who has had research reactors up and running, really pushing forward with the idea, since the 60s? Who, even now that a lot of fresh interest has been garnered, is seriously on the way to having a reactor up and running?Thorium has been touted as the future of nuclear power since the 1960s. Decades later it is still in the R and D phase. Why is that?No research on thorium reactors has been done since the 1960, when politics caused the research to be cancelled. That's the complete explanation for why nothing has moved forward.
That's not true at all. Sure there was a period when research was not as extensive as it has been in the last 20 years, but there has always been ongoing efforts. See this for a list of the current multiple ongoing Thorium research projects ongoing in multiple countries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power)
I've been hearing these same kind of "Hopium" arguments about Thorium for years now. I'm surprised to see it here.
40 years ... at current R&D budget levels.You don't know that more money will get quicker or better results just as 9 women can't produce a baby in 1 month.
What we really need is for governments to get involved. I'm sure that the USA could reduce that number a lot if they diverted (eg.) 10% of their military budget into energy research.
Thorium has been touted as the future of nuclear power since the 1960s. Decades later it is still in the R and D phase. Why is that?Like others already noted: Thorium reactors don't produce materials for nuclear weapons so Nixon shut the Thorium projects down.
From the late 60s until the mid 2000s there was basically nothing going on. The wikipedia page shows various "activities" since the mid 2000s, but they are mostly tinkering. Some, like the "Canada could put thorium in a CANDU reactor" effort seem to miss the point - its the liquid fluoride salt design which brings most of the attractions in the 1960s thorium research work. Who has had research reactors up and running, really pushing forward with the idea, since the 60s?
Who, even now that a lot of fresh interest has been garnered, is seriously on the way to having a reactor up and running?Well what do you mean by seriously? The Wikipedia article details multiple projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars. But perhaps it's because widespread use Thorium reactors remains one of those "always in the future" technologies that will save us, like fusion reactors, better battery technology, etc, etc.
Thorium has been touted as the future of nuclear power since the 1960s. Decades later it is still in the R and D phase. Why is that?Like others already noted: Thorium reactors don't produce materials for nuclear weapons so Nixon shut the Thorium projects down.
Accept that fossil fuels are a generally bad idea. Help to change things where you can. Drive the old gas guzzler as long as your conscience permits.
Fossil fuels are the dog's bollocks, the only pity is that, won't last forever.Then visit some city in China like Harbin and realize that very often you don't want to go outside without a gas mask.
Also: Accept that some people are genuinely happy with their electric cars. A lot of them have more than one car and still choose the electric one for the daily commute. By choice! Go figure!!
But that is not due to fossil fuels. That is due to not reducing / filtering NOx and SOx emissions.Fossil fuels are the dog's bollocks, the only pity is that, won't last forever.Then visit some city in China like Harbin and realize that very often you don't want to go outside without a gas mask.
Then visit some city in China like Harbin and realize that very often you don't want to go outside without a gas mask.
As if those come from nowhere :palm:, not to say that smog is not limited to China. Say USA is affected as well. Also you cannot filter all emissions at reasonable expense.But that is not due to fossil fuels. That is due to not reducing / filtering NOx and SOx emissions.Fossil fuels are the dog's bollocks, the only pity is that, won't last forever.Then visit some city in China like Harbin and realize that very often you don't want to go outside without a gas mask.
Human lives have blossomed all over the earth thanks to fossil fuels, or, put it another way, fossil fuels have saved thousands of millions of starvation. Like it or not, that's the facts, put it in your head fanboys.
Try looking at a graph of the world's population over time. It grew slowly but steadily from the earliest time for which they can get a reasonable estimate until 1770. After 1770 the world's population started to explode, starting in the UK, then Europe, and slowly the rest of the world. In 1769 James Watt patented the first efficient steam engine. There is a connexion. The UK population is about 12 times what it was in 1769.Human lives have blossomed all over the earth thanks to fossil fuels, or, put it another way, fossil fuels have saved thousands of millions of starvation. Like it or not, that's the facts, put it in your head fanboys.Historically speaking, most of that was due to horses. How many horses do you keep?
Then visit some city in China like Harbin and realize that very often you don't want to go outside without a gas mask.
No way we would be almost 8 billion now if it were not for the fossil fuels. How about that?
You can. In West Europe we have been doing that for decades and the lower SOx levels compared to the US and China show the result. Over 25 years ago I visited a coal power plant which used filters to get rid of NOx and SOx. A by-product was plaster which got used by the building materials industry.As if those come from nowhere :palm:, not to say that smog is not limited to China. Say USA is affected as well. Also you cannot filter all emissions at reasonable expense.But that is not due to fossil fuels. That is due to not reducing / filtering NOx and SOx emissions.Fossil fuels are the dog's bollocks, the only pity is that, won't last forever.Then visit some city in China like Harbin and realize that very often you don't want to go outside without a gas mask.
You can. In West Europe we have been doing that for decades and the lower SOx levels compared to the US and China show the result. Over 25 years ago I visited a coal power plant which used filters to get rid of NOx and SOx. A by-product was plaster which got used by the building materials industry.But can you filter CO2 without spending so much energy that it's basically pointless? Particularly here, I notice climate change quiet a lot during last decades. Weather, especially during winter is nothing like it was 20-25 years ago. In China population is much denser, therefore effects are more noticeable. Also they are not nearly the worst ecology offenders. If China created as much pollution per person as US, it would be much worse than it is.
Hold your horses! CO2 is not causing smog!!! It is the by products (like NOx and SOx) from burning fossil fuels which cause smog.You can. In West Europe we have been doing that for decades and the lower SOx levels compared to the US and China show the result. Over 25 years ago I visited a coal power plant which used filters to get rid of NOx and SOx. A by-product was plaster which got used by the building materials industry.But can you filter CO2 without spending so much energy that it's basically pointless? Particularly here, I notice climate change quiet a lot during last decades. Weather, especially during winter is nothing like it was 20-25 years ago. In China population is much denser, therefore effects are more noticeable. Also they are not nearly the worst ecology offenders. If China created as much pollution per person as US, it would be much worse than it is.
You can. In West Europe we have been doing that for decades[..]But can you filter CO2[..]
You are confusing two completely separate issues:You can. In West Europe we have been doing that for decades and the lower SOx levels compared to the US and China show the result. Over 25 years ago I visited a coal power plant which used filters to get rid of NOx and SOx. A by-product was plaster which got used by the building materials industry.But can you filter CO2 without spending so much energy that it's basically pointless? Particularly here, I notice climate change quiet a lot during last decades. Weather, especially during winter is nothing like it was 20-25 years ago. In China population is much denser, therefore effects are more noticeable. Also they are not nearly the worst ecology offenders. If China created as much pollution per person as US, it would be much worse than it is.
EV news: Another Tesla catches fire spontaneously "out of the blue" in LA:
"Our initial investigation shows that the cabin of the vehicle was totally unaffected by the fire due to our battery architecture, which is designed to protect the cabin in the very rare event that a battery fire occurs," the company noted in a statement.
Hmm, I now recalled a memory from my childhood. Sometime in late 90s I've seen a car burning nearby a place where I lived. No crash happened, it just started burning while driving.A few decades ago years ago seeing a burned out car, that showed no signs of being in a crash, was not that rare an event. Perhaps designers are getting better at keeping fuel where it belongs.
In car fires fuel doesn't play a major role. The fuel is kept safely below the rear passengers' seat. The most probable cause is a short circuit causing wires, grease and plastic (the interior) to catch fire.Hmm, I now recalled a memory from my childhood. Sometime in late 90s I've seen a car burning nearby a place where I lived. No crash happened, it just started burning while driving.A few decades ago years ago seeing a burned out car, that showed no signs of being in a crash, was not that rare an event. Perhaps designers are getting better and keeping fuel where it belongs.
That's a bit off topic in an EVs' thread, wraper :-)Because you imply as if electric cars are more prone to fires while they are not.
But if you insist, you'd have to keep posting many more vidjeos because for every Tesla there are what, one thousand ICEs? Ten thousand? 1e5? Don't you think?
That's a bit off topic in an EVs' thread, wraper :-)BTW, could you please elaborate how much on topic by your standard is posting videos about diesel engines or progressive utopia? :popcorn:
Our initial investigation shows that the cabin of the vehicle was totally unaffected by the fire due to our battery architecture, which is designed to protect the cabin in the very rare event that a battery fire occurs," the company noted in a statement.What? Look at the video. They designed it so that the fire is blasting under the car doors so that the passengers can not leave the vehicle, insane! :palm:
They designed it so that the fire is blasting under the car doors so that the passengers can not leave the vehicle, insane! :palm:I guess blasting fire in the ass or in your face as with ICE cars would be better. There is not so much fire that you couldn't get out of a car without receiving burns. Also this video was taken some time after there was no people inside.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Top_countries_plug-in_concentration_per_1000_people_2016.png)Note that these numbers are completely wrong for the Netherlands. The actual number of cars with a plug is around 130000 (1.4% of all vehicles) and there are around 22000 electric only vehicles registed according to the government statistics: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/21/number-of-all-electric-cars-increasing-rapidly (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/21/number-of-all-electric-cars-increasing-rapidly)
EV news: Another Tesla catches fire spontaneously "out of the blue" in LA:
based on U.S. automobile miles-per-fire statistics from the National Fire Protection Association, a driver is "5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla."
In car fires fuel doesn't play a major role. The most probable cause is a short circuit causing wires,Nope. Wrong.
If the proportion of EVs/ICEs were -say- 1:1000, obviously, when a car catches fire the probability of it being an ICE is almost 1. (if both were as likely to burn in flames (who knows?))You have some weird understanding of statistics.
2.- Note that "Electrical system failures" is #2 in that list.Electrical failures in ICE cars.
4.- An ICE, when in your garage, is turned off, totally, but an EV very likely isn't, and has its power electronics running and a powerful, potentially dangerous, very big li-ion battery that's being recharged while you sleep.They are not not, and a plenty of fires happened with "turned off" ICE cars. You could see that in a video I already posted.
So what's more likely to catch fire, a 12 volts car that's totally off or a car with a hundreds of volts, kilowatts inverter/power supply pushing charge into a massive li-ion battery?
and has its power electronics running and a powerful, potentially dangerous, very big li-ion battery that's being recharged while you sleep.
The number of ICE fires in the US in 2ppm.The correct number is 667ppm of cars in US caught fire annually.
As a proponent of EVs you surely realize this ratio will change and, therefore, so will the relative incidence of Li-ion battery fires.LOL :-DD
The main fuel tank is kept in a relatively secure position, but pipes and pumps and other plumbing do fail, leaking fuel onto hot components. I know of fires which started this way long ago.In car fires fuel doesn't play a major role. The fuel is kept safely below the rear passengers' seat. The most probable cause is a short circuit causing wires, grease and plastic (the interior) to catch fire.Hmm, I now recalled a memory from my childhood. Sometime in late 90s I've seen a car burning nearby a place where I lived. No crash happened, it just started burning while driving.A few decades ago years ago seeing a burned out car, that showed no signs of being in a crash, was not that rare an event. Perhaps designers are getting better and keeping fuel where it belongs.
The number of ICE fires in the US in 2ppm.The correct number is 667ppm of cars in US caught fire annually.QuoteAs a proponent of EVs you surely realize this ratio will change and, therefore, so will the relative incidence of Li-ion battery fires.LOL :-DD
You took the post of ICE advocate with some sort of BS statistics pulled out from thin air and made even more BS conclusions out of that.
That may be but that is only a problem when driving. When the car is parked the fuel system isn't pressurised. The battery however stays live and powers various electronics.The main fuel tank is kept in a relatively secure position, but pipes and pumps and other plumbing do fail, leaking fuel onto hot components. I know of fires which started this way long ago.In car fires fuel doesn't play a major role. The fuel is kept safely below the rear passengers' seat. The most probable cause is a short circuit causing wires, grease and plastic (the interior) to catch fire.Hmm, I now recalled a memory from my childhood. Sometime in late 90s I've seen a car burning nearby a place where I lived. No crash happened, it just started burning while driving.A few decades ago years ago seeing a burned out car, that showed no signs of being in a crash, was not that rare an event. Perhaps designers are getting better and keeping fuel where it belongs.
Um, hence what I said about stats.Had you read actual stats I posted, it's obvious it's not in favor of ICE cars. Also had you read wiki page you linked to, you'd realize the same thing. And yeah, feelings are so much more important than real numbers :clap:. Conclusion based on pulled out of ass calculations :horse:.
I notice no comment about the energy it takes to make an EV. The pious Prius population don't seem to care about that. They care about shaming others and spout hand-wavy bullshit about how electricity is cleaner. Laugh at yourself, friend.I didn't feel need to comment more about already so flawed post, but OK. https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car (https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car)
Table 8 concludes an EV requires 50 GJ and 3,250 CO2 to manufacture while a normal ICV requires 34 GJ and 2,000 kg of CO2.
You will spend 13.5 GJ per year if you commute using an EV and will produce 2,750 kg of CO2.
You will spend 21.3 GJ per year if you commute using an ICV and will produce 5,300 kg of CO2.
After 10 years (190,000 km):
EV:
50 GJ + (13.5 GJ x 10) = 185 GJ
3.25 + (2.75 x 10) = 30.75 tons of CO2
ICV:
34 GJ + (21.3 GJ x 10) = 247GJ
2 + (5.3 x 10) = 55 tons of CO2
The error in that article is that is assumes the ICE consumes 10l/100km. That is not realistic. If you want to compare apples with apples then you have to compare with a new, efficient ICE which does better than 5l/100km and reaches a 30% efficiency.I don't see your 10l/100km figure anywhere. Also ICE car won't consume this low during city traffic while EVs are the most efficient at that. Not to say Americans usually don't buy small fuel efficient cars.
I didn't feel need to comment more about already so flawed post, but OK. https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car (https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car)
The Energy Density of gasoline is 44.4 MJ per kg, so it is useful to think that the energy in 1,125 liters of fuel (roughly 22 full tanks of gasoline) is what is needed to make a new EV! "
The battery capacity on Tesla’s Model S is 85kWh or 306MJ. You will need to fully charge your Model S 164 times to have spent 50GJ of energy or the equivalent of making another EV"
this will give you approximately 70,000 km (range for the 85 kWh battery is 426 km)
On an ICV, which will take 60 full tanks (50L tank) to compare with its 34 GJ at 25% eff
To this day only 15 Tesla fires are known (2013-2018). Except a few, they happened after very severe crashes. As on Feb 2018 total of 300,000 Tesla cars were produced. That means around 1 in 20 000 of them caught fire.
In 2015 there were 263 million cars in US. With 174k car fires the same year, it's 1 fire per 1500 cars annually. Please note that Tesla number is during all years they were produced, not annually.
So now lets think again about:So what's more likely to catch fire, a 12 volts car that's totally off or a car with a hundreds of volts, kilowatts inverter/power supply pushing charge into a massive li-ion battery?
In any case, I was asking that question as a nerd: what do you as a nerd/engineer think is more likely to catch fire?You may think what you want but real statistics are not in your favor. I don't want to buy anything designed by engineers for whom feels and superstitions matter more than real numbers. Old ICEs? Those Ford Kuga were 2013+. Also do you really think US uses mostly old cars? Even if only 1 in 20 of those 174k cars burned in 2015 were relatively new and we forget about the rest, statistics are still not in favor of them.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-i3-police-car-catches-fire-in-rome-bad-news-for-the-lapd-109367.html# (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-i3-police-car-catches-fire-in-rome-bad-news-for-the-lapd-109367.html#)
but it's worth pointing out at this moment that the i3 was equipped with a range extender, which means it came with a small gasoline engine that would act as a power generator charging the batteries on the go.And then https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/23/bmw-recalling-19000-i3-rex-units-fuel-vapor-fire-danger/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/23/bmw-recalling-19000-i3-rex-units-fuel-vapor-fire-danger/)
BMW will be issuing a recall for over 19,000 i3 REx (range-extended) cars towards the beginning of April due to concerns about fuel vapors potentially starting fires, according to recent reports.Yep, good old ICE :palm:
http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2015/12/bmw-i3-melts-away-in-house-fire.html (http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2015/12/bmw-i3-melts-away-in-house-fire.html)Nice fact checking George :horse: You didn't even read what was written there.
Also, neither the car, nor the home charging equipment, had anything to do with the fire. It was an unfortunate accident resulting from a fireworks event for a New Year's Eve celebration last year. Hours after cleaning up the debris from a neighborhood event, a trash can that had ashes from the fireworks ignited. Neighbors had gotten together for the fireworks display and the clean up. There must have been something placed in the trash that wasn't completely extinguished, and after a few hours of smoldering, it unfortunately caught on fire.
You may think what you want but real statistics are not in your favor. I don't want to buy anything designed by engineers for whom feels and superstitions matter more than real numbers.
But my point still stands: Teslas aren't the only EVs there are. Other EVs also catch fire every now and then. Add them up.All you gathered to show other EV fires was false. With tesla, it was easy to gather number made and number of fires as every fire is all over the news.
Superstitions? What might be the MTBF of something that's turned off?Did you read what I and others said. ICE cars are not fully turned off. Not to say that even if they sort of would, energized wiring still would be there.
Then this:I didn't quote or check his calculations about fuel amount vs count of charge times as this was pretty much irrelevant for the question of how much energy it takes to make EV vs ICV (~1.5 times more). The parts I quoted come here (energy spent on manufacturing/CO2 emissions): https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/vehicle_and_components_manufacturing (https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/vehicle_and_components_manufacturing)QuoteOn an ICV, which will take 60 full tanks (50L tank) to compare with its 34 GJ at 25% eff
WRONG, look, 60[tanks]*50[litre]*34.2[MJ/l] -> 102.6 GJ, but 34GJ*4 is 136 GJ.
I stopped there. You get the idea, don't you?
EV requires 50 GJ and 3,250 CO2 to manufacture while a normal ICV requires 34 GJ and 2,000 kg of CO2.And CO2 emissions during usage: https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php (https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php)
Ok, so the Teslas are the only EVs that catch fire spontaneously or in an accident... right?Maybe, would not check for that. Does not matter if they are still tens of times less prone to that compared to ICV.
And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.LOL what? What this is supposed to imply?
Ok, so the Teslas are the only EVs that catch fire spontaneously or in an accident... right?Maybe, would not check for that. Does not matter if they are still tens of times less prone to that compared to ICV.
If you imply that Tesla is the least safe EV, then be it. Then I could say that the least safe EV is still tens of times safer than average ICV. Widespread EV fires are somewhat unheard of.Ok, so the Teslas are the only EVs that catch fire spontaneously or in an accident... right?Maybe, would not check for that. Does not matter if they are still tens of times less prone to that compared to ICV.
Which is something that you just don't know and keep comparing apples to oranges.
And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.LOL what? What this is supposed to imply?
You mention mpg and kWh, what conclusion I should make out of that oranges vs apples mentioning, not even comparison? That you cannot rate EV with mpg? Or cannot charge ICV? :-//. Or it's a news for you that EV don't generate free energy?And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.LOL what? What this is supposed to imply?
What part, exactly, you don't understand?
You mention mpg and kWh, what conclusion I should make out of that oranges vs apples mentioning, not even comparison? That you cannot rate EV with mpg? Or cannot charge ICV? :-//. Or it's a news for you that EV don't generate free energy?
As of CO2 emissions resulting from using EV, particular number was given, not nearly 0.
If you say an ICE consumes 10 litres/100km in reality is has consumed 10 litres off the gas pump. No tricks here, unlike above.Where is the trick? In your imagination?
All the kWh/km figures the EV users give are wrong, to begin with.Those figures were not from EV users but from a government website.
Elon Musk emailed Tesla staff about 'damaging sabotage' by employee.Besides following from Musk's email it seems no more information is available.
Any one know what the story is?
I was dismayed to learn this weekend about a Tesla employee who had conducted quite extensive and damaging sabotage to our operations. This included making direct code changes to the Tesla Manufacturing Operating System under false usernames and exporting large amounts of highly sensitive Tesla data to unknown third parties.
In October 2008, the news outlet Valleywag published a letter from an employee at Tesla. The company, just five years old then, had called employees into a meeting and revealed some troubling news, the writer said. Tesla had only $9 million in the bank. Meanwhile, the letter writer claimed, the company had taken more than 1,200 preorders for its electric cars—thousands of dollars in deposits—but delivered fewer than 50 to customers.
“I cannot conscientiously be a bystander anymore and allow my company to deceive the public and defraud our dear customers,” the employee wrote. “Our customers and the general public are the reason Tesla is so loved. The fact that they are being lied to is just wrong.”
The employee’s name was not revealed. But Elon Musk found this person anyway.
The way he did it is the stuff of Hardy Boys novels. According to the Ashlee Vance’s 2015 biography of the tech entrepreneur, Musk copied the text of the letter and pasted into a Word document, and checked the size of the file. He pored over the office’s printer activity logs, looking for a document that matched the one he had created. It’s not clear why this employee would print out the letter that appeared on Valleywag, but Musk’s hunch proved correct. He got a hit on the logs, and used that information to track down the person who carried out the printing job. The employee wrote a letter of apology and resigned.
Elon Musk emailed Tesla staff about 'damaging sabotage' by employee.Skapegoat?
Any one know what the story is?
And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.Not true. The EPA numbers are measured from the wall socket so all of the car's inefficiencies are included. From power plant to wheels an EV has an efficiency somewhere around 70% because the chain of 'devices' in between is quite long.
The problem with numbers from users is that they are utterly meaningless. Without nowing the actual usage scenario you can't say something in general. Tests like the EPA is conducting and the new WLTP car test are the only proper numbers to use in a discussion. These tests are designed to compare cars under real driving scenarios so if you want to make a meaningfull comparison you have to go by the EPA and/or WLTP test results. The test results are also divided in city and highway driving so you can make an estimate on what kind of mileage you can expect yourself.I'm glad to see he estimates 19.9 kWh per 100 km. That's not the real thing either (under normal driving habits), but at least isn't the much lower silly figures most EV fanboys try to make us believe.Roundabout 14 kWh/100km with our Ioniq driving at 100-110km/h on a highway.
You can calculate the range of your EV - and compare it to others - with this website: https://ecalc.ch/
And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.Not true. The EPA numbers are measured from the wall socket so all of the car's inefficiencies are included.
The numbers the car (EV) shows on the dashboard include that? I don't think so.Do you measure mpg of ICE car by what fuel level dashboard shows or by actual distance?
The numbers the car (EV) shows on the dashboard include that? I don't think so.Do you measure mpg of ICE car by what fuel level dashboard shows or by actual distance?
The Wikipedia article is obviously wrong. How can the EPA measure between the batteries and the motor? They measure what goes into the car using a kWh meter between the mains socket and the car and then determine how far the car can go. This PDF describes the exact procedure followed during the EPA test: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for%20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for%20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf)And when we say an ICE runs 10 mpg is because we've put 1 gallon into the tank and it's gone 10 miles with it. But you, to begin with, to draw 10kWh off your batt have to take (about) 10/0.85 -> almost 12 kWh off the wall plug, something that very conveniently always forget to mention in the figures you give.Not true. The EPA numbers are measured from the wall socket so all of the car's inefficiencies are included.
The numbers the car (EV) shows on the dashboard include that? I don't think so. WRT the numbers on the stickers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Electric_and_plug-in_hybrid_electric_vehicles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Electric_and_plug-in_hybrid_electric_vehicles)
"The formula employed by the EPA for calculating their rated MPGe does not account for any fuel or energy consumed upstream such as the generation and transmission of electrical power, or well-to-wheel life cycle, as EPA's comparison with internal combustion vehicles is made on a tank-to-wheel versus battery-to wheel basis"
Accent on "battery-to wheel" and "tank-to-wheel".
I have a Toyota Prius, it seems I get much less gas mileage with a bike rack and bikes on. The hosts said to try it with the bikes inside. Was it the weight or the aerodynamics? Never heard the result.aerodynamics ofcourse :palm: The weight of a few bikes is insignificant compared to the weight of the car. Judging from the looks the Prius has been optimised using a wind tunnel while trying to make a car which looks like a car.
When you live in a locale with an abundance of Hydro power, the numbers are quite impressive. These numbers would be even better if they had our province at 90% Hydro, but it's a US site, and the world stops at the 49th
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=460762;image)
So as the years progress hydro will continue to decrease over the years.In percentage, yes.
From a little bit to a little bit more. In absolute numbers solar doesn't contribute much to renewable energy. In many countries bio-mass and wind take care of the largest amount of renewable energy.QuoteSo as the years progress hydro will continue to decrease over the years.In percentage, yes.
But If you don't have hydro, you have solar :)
Big scale solar is on a steep rise...
All the kWh/km figures the EV users give are wrong, to begin with.
I don't think so. The price difference between a cheap electric car and an ICE car is about 15k euro (say Nissan Leaf versus Ford Fiesta). The price difference buys me over 9000 liters of fuel. With the Ford Fiesta doing 20km on one liter that will get me 180000km of driving range. Given the fact that the electricity isn't free the financial break even point will be closer to 200000km.
Also, for trading in for a new electric car, you get $6k from the province no matter what you trade in. As my tradein was probably only worth $4k, that was another $2k of free money.Why not buy some cheap junk which is barely alive, trade in that and sell your car for $4k?
Also, for trading in for a new electric car, you get $6k from the province no matter what you trade in. As my tradein was probably only worth $4k, that was another $2k of free money.Why not buy some cheap junk which is barely alive, trade in that and sell your car for $4k?
When you live in a locale with an abundance of Hydro power, the numbers are quite impressive. These numbers would be even better if they had our province at 90% Hydro, but it's a US site, and the world stops at the 49th
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=460762;image)
Since we are doing energy comparisons..... 1 barrel of gas is the equivalent to the work 10 slave produce in a year.That is just as informative and correct as the MPGe number indeed. The biggest problem with the MPGe number is that is uses average fuel consumption. This makes EV look much better than they are. In my earlier post I already showed that you if you care about fuel consumption the financial break even point between an economic ICE car versus an EV is about half the distance between the earth and the moon. And that economic ICE car doesn't need to be a clunker. Nowadays they get 85kW from a 1 litre engine over a very wide RPM range.
What's wrong with the figures? Here's what I'm getting (2018 eGolf, mostly city driving, live at the top of a hill)
13.9 kWh/100km
ICE has costs for transport of the fuel, electrical power to gas stations ...What's wrong with the figures? Here's what I'm getting (2018 eGolf, mostly city driving, live at the top of a hill)
13.9 kWh/100km
That figure only means that your car on average consumes 13.9 kWh off the battery every 100 km.
But, to take 1 kWh off the battery, you first have had to take about 1/0.85 kWh off the wall plug, so, in reality, your car uses 13.9/0.85 = 16.4 kWh/100km not 13.9.
That's what's wrong with the figures: 1) there are losses in the charging circuit, 2) the round trip efficiency of a battery isn't 100%, and 3) if it's a Tesla even more because charging a cold battery turns on a battery heater, and a hot one a battery cooler (and when charging in a supercharger).
ICEs aren't like that because to get one litre into the tank you take one litre off the gas pump, there are no losses.
What's wrong with the figures? Here's what I'm getting (2018 eGolf, mostly city driving, live at the top of a hill)
13.9 kWh/100km
That figure only means that your car on average consumes 13.9 kWh off the battery every 100 km.
But, to take 1 kWh off the battery, you first have had to take about 1/0.85 kWh off the wall plug, so, in reality, your car uses 13.9/0.85 = 16.4 kWh/100km not 13.9.
That's what's wrong with the figures: 1) there are losses in the charging circuit, 2) the round trip efficiency of a battery isn't 100%, and 3) if it's a Tesla even more because charging a cold battery turns on a battery heater, and a hot one a battery cooler (and when charging in a supercharger).
ICEs aren't like that because to get one litre into the tank you take one litre off the gas pump, there are no losses.
Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.
But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example. Pretty similar to a Golf when it comes to size and comfort but without the VW price tag. The Ford Focus 1.0 costs C$22k according to an online price list. That is C$9K less for a car which actually does 5l/100km. Comparing to your old Mercedes (apparantly 8l/100km) is just nonsense because you are going to buy a new car anyway. You'll save 35% just on fuel so your fuels costs with the Ford Focus would be C$94 a month. C$9k/94=95.7 months=8 years. That is way more than 5 years!Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.[li]A slightly less well equipped Golf (comparing apples to apple), would come in at C$5k/less. I'm saving about C$150/month ($10 electricity vs $160 petrol costs per month) right now vs my old car (2007 MB B200), so the difference should pay for itself in just under 3 years. If I were compare it to a more modern better fuel consumption vehicle, that probably goes up to 5yr, but no more.
- I don't purchase vehicles in US$ in much the same way you don't buy them in UK Pounds or Danish Kroner. If you pay attention to who you're talking to, it will help your argument.
- I could not have bought an equivalent vehicle for C$14k (your claimed US$11k) less. I paid C$31K (after govt rebate - not a tax deduction). According to your math an equivalent car is C$17K, which barely exists for the cheapest of econoboxes.
- I live in a jurisdiction with the highest gasoline prices, and some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America, which makes the purchase particularly effective.
[/li][/list]
But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example.Yeah, those with dying engine.
But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example. Pretty similar to a Golf when it comes to size and comfort but without the VW price tag. The Ford Focus 1.0 costs C$22k according to an online price list. That is C$9K less for a car which actually does 5l/100km. Comparing to your old Mercedes (apparantly 8l/100km) is just nonsense because you are going to buy a new car anyway. You'll save 35% just on fuel so your fuels costs with the Ford Focus would be C$94 a month. C$9k/94=95.7 months=8 years. That is way more than 5 years!Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.A slightly less well equipped Golf (comparing apples to apple), would come in at C$5k/less. I'm saving about C$150/month ($10 electricity vs $160 petrol costs per month) right now vs my old car (2007 MB B200), so the difference should pay for itself in just under 3 years. If I were compare it to a more modern better fuel consumption vehicle, that probably goes up to 5yr, but no more.
- I don't purchase vehicles in US$ in much the same way you don't buy them in UK Pounds or Danish Kroner. If you pay attention to who you're talking to, it will help your argument.
- I could not have bought an equivalent vehicle for C$14k (your claimed US$11k) less. I paid C$31K (after govt rebate - not a tax deduction). According to your math an equivalent car is C$17K, which barely exists for the cheapest of econoboxes.
- I live in a jurisdiction with the highest gasoline prices, and some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America, which makes the purchase particularly effective.
Since we are doing energy comparisons..... 1 barrel of gas is the equivalent to the work 10 slave produce in a year.Speaking of which:
I know from my own experience that the Ford Focus is comparable to a Golf. They live in the same segment and the ICE based versions of the Golf cost about the same compared to the Ford Focus in Canada according to the same website. I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example. Pretty similar to a Golf when it comes to size and comfort but without the VW price tag. The Ford Focus 1.0 costs C$22k according to an online price list. That is C$9K less for a car which actually does 5l/100km. Comparing to your old Mercedes (apparantly 8l/100km) is just nonsense because you are going to buy a new car anyway. You'll save 35% just on fuel so your fuels costs with the Ford Focus would be C$94 a month. C$9k/94=95.7 months=8 years. That is way more than 5 years!Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.A slightly less well equipped Golf (comparing apples to apple), would come in at C$5k/less. I'm saving about C$150/month ($10 electricity vs $160 petrol costs per month) right now vs my old car (2007 MB B200), so the difference should pay for itself in just under 3 years. If I were compare it to a more modern better fuel consumption vehicle, that probably goes up to 5yr, but no more.
- I don't purchase vehicles in US$ in much the same way you don't buy them in UK Pounds or Danish Kroner. If you pay attention to who you're talking to, it will help your argument.
- I could not have bought an equivalent vehicle for C$14k (your claimed US$11k) less. I paid C$31K (after govt rebate - not a tax deduction). According to your math an equivalent car is C$17K, which barely exists for the cheapest of econoboxes.
- I live in a jurisdiction with the highest gasoline prices, and some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America, which makes the purchase particularly effective.
By your logic, everyone should buy the cheapest car available. I bought a Golf, because I wanted something a little nicer/quieter/more comfortable. Doing the comparison of a nice electric car with the cheapest ICE car available is an irrelevant comparison.[/list]
I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.The issue is that you likely will need to replace the engine faster than a battery in EV. Many people got screwed after just a few years.
There is an issue indeed with the very first batch of these models which is related to the cooling system. But there has been a recall (to replace a hose and reservoir) and engines are replaced under warranty.I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.The issue is that you likely will need to replace the engine faster than a battery in EV. Many people got screwed after just a few years.
As of what people write on forums, engines still leak and seize after recall repair. And even the latest ones still do fail, not only early ones which were recalled. And guess what, if engine already failed (seized), they only offer partial discount, not free engine replacement. So you are still out of several $K in the best case if they offered partial discount.There is an issue indeed with the very first batch of these models which is related to the cooling system. But there has been a recall (to replace a hose and reservoir) and engines are replaced under warranty.I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.The issue is that you likely will need to replace the engine faster than a battery in EV. Many people got screwed after just a few years.
nobody wants to have to drive the same car for 20 years in order to amortize it.You don't need to. The falling price means that today it's amortized in a few years.
Quotenobody wants to have to drive the same car for 20 years in order to amortize it.You don't need to. The falling price means that today it's amortized in a few years.
If you buy an electric car now, you will probably never be able to sell it a price that makes economic sense.
Keep on dreaming. With mass produced products the price is mainly driven by the cost of materials and their processing. Ergo the heavier something is, the more it will cost to make and the more it will cost to buy. EVs with their batteries will be heavier compared to ICE cars for at least another 20 years (due to needing more capacity to get reasonable range) so they will also stay more expensive during that time.Quotenobody wants to have to drive the same car for 20 years in order to amortize it.You don't need to. The falling price means that today it's amortized in a few years.
If you buy an electric car now, you will probably never be able to sell it a price that makes economic sense.
That is true for any new car you buy. It is no different for EVs or PHEVs - which is easily confirmed by checking used prices.
It's a ridiculous standard that some seem to want to hold EVs to - that they need to make some sort of "economic sense" that is not true for other new auto purchases, computer purchases, test equipment purchases, etc, etc....
But you did get the bit about the falling prices for new electrical vehicles, did you? That will exacerbate the situation when you try to sell a used EV in a few years. I am not aware of a similar trend for gasoline-powered cars. Buying an electrical car now still makes you an early adopter, with the financial implications that usually has.
Define similar performing...
BTW, a quick search shows that since 1998, in real terms, the overall price trend for all new cars is down. (http://aceee.org/blog/2017/11/fuel-economy-going-vehicle-prices-are)
Yeah, poor performing: every time an EV does the Pikes Peak, receives a sophisticated "pre-cooling treatment":So poor that EV left all ICV eating dirt at Pikes Peak.
It is not like you need an EV for comfort and ride quality. Accelleration may be fun for a while but with my current car I already get comments I pull up to quick and there really is nothing special about the engine. Getting from A to B for lowest cost and least hassle is most important to me.Define similar performing...Acceleration, handling, comfort, ride, etc.
BTW, a quick search shows that since 1998, in real terms, the overall price trend for all new cars is down. (http://aceee.org/blog/2017/11/fuel-economy-going-vehicle-prices-are)
17% down in the course of 27 years. That's a 0.6% reduction per year, on average. I wonder what that number looks like for electric cars? ::)
Hey, and look at the small print in the text that accompanies your chart. (See your link.) Those data on "car" prices exclude "trucks", which are considered a separate category. And it seems that many customers who would have bought bought a high-end car in the 1990's will now buy a high-end truck. So the apparent reduction of car prices is actually down to a change of model mix. Truck prices have gone up, by 7%, in that same timeframe.Nope. Read the accompanying article:
The figure below shows that, in real dollars, the average price for a car “out the door” (what people actually pay, including rebates and fees) is 16% lower today than in the early 1990s.The fact that it excludes trucks is irrelevant. We're talking about cars not trucks. There are not any EV or PHEV trucks to compare to.
BTW, a quick search shows that since 1998, in real terms, the overall price trend for all new cars is down. (http://aceee.org/blog/2017/11/fuel-economy-going-vehicle-prices-are)To anyone outside the US those figures probably look bogus, and I recently found why. US figures for "cars" are basically only for sedans, hatchbacks and estate cars, Since 1998 the market for large "cars" has moved massively to SUVs, and these are counted in a separate category. The average price a US family is paying for its vehicles has not declined. The average price for cars has declined because far more large expensive sedan sales have migrated to the SUV category than small cheap sedans. Sedan sales are in such a poor state in the US that Ford recently decided to kill all sedan product lines in North America.
(http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/chart2.png)
To anyone outside the US those figures probably look bogus, and I recently found why. US figures for "cars" are basically only for sedans, hatchbacks and estate cars, Since 1998 the market for large "cars" has moved massively to SUVs, and these are counted in a separate category. The average price a US family is paying for its vehicles has not declined. The average price for cars has declined because far more large expensive sedan sales have migrated to the SUV category than small cheap sedans. Sedan sales are in such a poor state in the US that Ford recently decided to kill all sedan product lines in North America.
The average price for cars has declined because far more large expensive sedan sales have migrated to the SUV category than small cheap sedans.
For cars alone, prices have been on a downward trajectory since 1998, well before the recession or the increase in fuel economy requirements. The claim by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers that car prices have increased by 60% since the 1990s just doesn’t hold up — unless you ignore inflation and prevalent consumer incentives offered by automakers. The figure below shows that, in real dollars, the average price for a car “out the door” (what people actually pay, including rebates and fees) is 16% lower today than in the early 1990s.
Sedan sales are in such a poor state in the US that Ford recently decided to kill all sedan product lines in North America.That is true for Ford only- whose US sedans are crap. No one wants them. They do make the No 1 selling pickup truck which accounts for almost all of their sales. Americans and our pick up trucks.. ::)
I know from my own experience that the Ford Focus is comparable to a Golf. They live in the same segment and the ICE based versions of the Golf cost about the same compared to the Ford Focus in Canada according to the same website. I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.
And there's still the issue of the batteries, currently being 30% percent of the overall cost or over, and having only a few years lifespan.https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/ (https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/)
The trend line currently suggests that the average battery pack could cycle through over 300,000 km (186,000) before coming close to 90% capacity.
And there's still the issue of the batteries, ...... Not sure their cost will really plummet, unless of course we find a technological breakthrough.Nope.
But leasing a car is whoefully expensive. You'll pay for the new battery one way or another and the leasing company makes money from you while doing it. Buying a low maintenance cost used car is the most cost effective way to drive & own a car (*). Another major disadvantage of leasing a car is that if something happens to your income, the you are also without transport while you may need it the most. I had one company car in my life. When the company when belly up I had to bring the car back. Even though I could really use it to go to job interview.
* For example: my current Ford costs less than 17 euro-cents/km all in (fuel, taxes, maintenance, annual mandatory check) with the purchase price written off fully. And this is one of our more expensive cars.
Those assumptions are wildly optimistic. 6% increase in battery capacity per year is a commonly used rule of thumb. Not 16! Even a small EV needs way over 200Wh/km and 320km of range isn't enough for EVs to become mainstream at all. The charge time improvement and cost of the charging infrastructure are also missing.Why on earth can't they just put some simple and humble Briggs & Stratton in there for the rare occasions you need more range? 6.5 hp B&S costs next to nothing and would propel small car just fine if you start it before battery goes totally flat. You would never have to worry about battery going empty and could charge anywhere in a emergency.
Leasing or financed if something happens to your income you are screwed either way. A Ford is considered an expensive car? Not here in the US. A Ford in the US is just an average car.My cars aren't financed. Ford is not considered an expensive car brand here either. When I need a 'new' car I go look around for models which have low maintenance costs and this time a Ford came out on top. We actually bought two in a short time frame because my wife needed a 'new' car as well. The advantage of buying used is that the model is out for a few years so the issues have revealed themselves.
Must be smarter than Tesla. Yeah, engine, generator, fuel tank come for free, I guess. Also they don't consume any space and don't add any weight. They supposedly don't need any servicing as well. And guess are not useless dead weight most of the time :palm:. Not to say that if you start 6.5 hp engine while battery is still full (which would make no sense), it would give like 50% range increase in the best case. If started when say 30% of the charge is left, no significant range extension would be achieved at all. And then you'll be stuck while it charges the battery in a slow pace. If you want to buy PHEV where battery capacity is compromised with a presence of ICE, you have a choice.Those assumptions are wildly optimistic. 6% increase in battery capacity per year is a commonly used rule of thumb. Not 16! Even a small EV needs way over 200Wh/km and 320km of range isn't enough for EVs to become mainstream at all. The charge time improvement and cost of the charging infrastructure are also missing.Why on earth can't they just put some simple and humble Briggs & Stratton in there for the rare occasions you need more range? 6.5 hp B&S costs next to nothing and would propel small car just fine if you start it before battery goes totally flat. You would never have to worry about battery going empty and could charge anywhere in a emergency.
Car makers just have too much engineers designing utterly complex and expensive solutions for simple problems. Then they wonder their products costs so much people don't buy :-//
6% increase in battery capacity per year is a commonly used rule of thumb. Not 16!Wrong. It's about cost reduction from rising production, not capacity increase.
Say in BMW i3 REx ICE develops 34 hp. And still on electric charge + full gasoline tank it has lower range than any Tesla.Yep.
Those assumptions are wildly optimistic. 6% increase in battery capacity per year is a commonly used rule of thumb. Not 16! Even a small EV needs way over 200Wh/km and 320km of range isn't enough for EVs to become mainstream at all. The charge time improvement and cost of the charging infrastructure are also missing.Why on earth can't they just put some simple and humble Briggs & Stratton in there for the rare occasions you need more range? 6.5 hp B&S costs next to nothing and would propel small car just fine if you start it before battery goes totally flat. You would never have to worry about battery going empty and could charge anywhere in a emergency.
Car makers just have too much engineers designing utterly complex and expensive solutions for simple problems. Then they wonder their products costs so much people don't buy :-//
Not free but like $300 and includes fuel tank. Servicing? Just change the oil sometime. Toss in new one if it blews.
Must be smarter than Tesla. Yeah, engine, generator, fuel tank come for free, I guess. Also they don't consume any space and don't add any weight. They supposedly don't need any servicing as well. And guess are not useless dead weight most of the time :palm:.
Not to say that if you start 6.5 hp engine while battery is still full (which would make no sense), it would give like 50% range increase in the best case. If started when say 30% of the charge is left, no significant range extension would be achieved at all. And then you'll be stuck while it charges the battery in a slow pace.Quite a big difference if battery is empty but charging vs battery is empty have to call the tow vehicle! Just have a pause and you are good to go.
If you want to buy PHEV where battery capacity is compromised with a presence of ICE, you have a choice.Right concept but that is a BMW and I'm not made of money!
Say in BMW i3 REx ICE develops 34 hp. And still on electric charge + full gasoline tank it has lower range than any Tesla.
The quickest an EV can refill is at 2 kWh/minute (*) (a tesla @ a supercharger @ 120kW), but any ICE can do it at ~ 400 kWh/minute (40 litres/minute), that's 200x times faster.
(*) Accounting for losses the real figure is ~ 0.85 times that = 1.7 kWh/minute, or 235x slower than any ICE.
2) Your figure for gasoline energy density is high. 8.7 - 9.7 kWh/l are the numbers I’ve seen.
20% is for the good old gas guzzler. Modern efficient ICEs are doing 35% comfortably over a wide load range.
The figures are for diesel/gasoil: 35.8e6[joules/litre]*40[litre]/3600[seconds]/1e3 = 397.7 kWh
40l/minute is way higher than my average experience which is more like 3 to 4 minutes for 60 litres. Perhaps with the highvolume truck gauges.
Light passenger vehicle pump flow rate ranges up to about 50 litres (13 US gallons) per minute[3] (the United States limits this to 10 US gallons (38 litres) per minute[4]); pumps serving trucks and other large vehicles have a higher flow rate, up to 130 litres (34 US gallons) per minute in the UK
The figures are for diesel/gasoil: 35.8e6[joules/litre]*40[litre]/3600[seconds]/1e3 = 397.7 kWhBut you said *any* ICE. Diesel cars are a tiny percentage of US autos.
But Diesel engines are what moves the world!
From the generator to the wheel of an EV about 30% of the energy is lost as well. People often make that mistake by just looking at the engine/motor but electricity isn't fuel.20% is for the good old gas guzzler. Modern efficient ICEs are doing 35% comfortably over a wide load range.
OK good to know - but of course still much less efficient than an electric motor..
In any case, the underlying comparison is not really valid since electricity can be delivered directly at home and gasoline cannot.Why not? You can have all the fuel delivered to your home if you want. Just order it.
It only becomes relevant for car trips > 200 miles or so, which represent a very tiny fraction of car trips -probably < 0.5% or lower. ( In the US trips > 100 miles are < 1% (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/fig4_5.cfm) )But then you'll need to own multiple cars, pay taxes for both, maintain both and last but not least have space for them. The calculation I made earlier on shows that the financial break even point between an EV and an efficient ICE car (similar sized cars!) is between 150000 and 200000km. The thing is: people buy cars based on that <0.5% of their use cases because those are usually leisure/holiday related besides space and financial constraints. This has been explained in great detail before.
From the generator to the wheel of an EV about 30% of the energy is lost as well.Not sure we’re you get that figure, it even if it’s accurate, it’s far worse for ICE vehicles.
Really? That’s your argument? If so it’s ridiculous because:
You can have all the fuel delivered to your home if you want. Just order it.
But then you'll need to own multiple cars
In Latvia, if you transport more than 40 liters or store more than 80 liters of gasoline/diesel, you must keep purchase documents readily available. Otherwise if police or customs find out and you don't have proof of purchase, you'll be severely punished for smuggling goods subject to excise tax. They may even confiscate your car.QuoteReally? That’s your argument? If so it’s ridiculous because:
You can have all the fuel delivered to your home if you want. Just order it.
1) Most people could never install the required large fuel storage tank and even fewer live somewhere that it would be permitted.
Of course not in a flat, but many/most detached houses have a rather big one for heating (fuel/gasoil).Heating oil is much less problematic than gasoline. Its far harder to get it burning aggressively. Even so, In most places I have seen oil heated houses, the oil tank is well separated from the buidlings.
In our country it is not even allowed to store large quantities of petrol in house due to safety and fire regulations.When I was a kid we had heaters which burned oil (in a city!) and every now and then the oil man came to refill the tanks in the back of the garden.
I am not sure where the boundary is but if you store for instance a 1000 litres petrol in your garage and fire breaks out I am pretty sure you only get a middlefinger from your insurance company.
When I was a kid we had heaters which burned oil (in a city!) and every now and then the oil man came to refill the tanks in the back of the garden.
Most homes are heated with electricity, not gas, or propane..Not true. I'm sure that may be true where you live. In Southern California there are many home heated with gas. And in the country with propane.
Most homes are heated with electricity, not gas, or propane..Not true. I'm sure that may be true where you live. In Southern California there are many home heated with gas. And in the country with propane.
Hey, EV fanboys, look, it occurs to me that the day you can shove Joules in at 30 kWh/minute into your batteries, will be the day the EVs became definitely better than ICEs. That's just 1800 kW, or 1.8 MW (compare that to the ICE's current ~ 24MW). Just Do It (TM) and people will begin to want to buy EVs in flocks.
And, BTW, there was an easy way to achieve that right now, only that manufacturers have refused to implement it...
Have you even drive an EV? Certainly is a lot more fun to drive than an ICE.I think you just realised what many already knew: EVs are toys. :box:
For many people, not everyone an EV would be fine and an excellent replacement for an ICE. For others they will never be able to enjoy the benefits of and EV and are stuck with an ICE.
Can I ask why you are such a fan boy of ICEs? The pollute, are noisy, have stinky exhaust with cause health problems for many people. What’s your objectiion of some people liking EVs? Have you even drive an EV? Certainly is a lot more fun to drive than an ICE.
And above all, I am very aware of the immense benefits that fossil fuels have brought us, something that EV fanboys seem to deny or simply ignore.I am very aware of the immense benefits electron tubes have brought us. So why we don't still use them except small number of fanboys?
Seriously: after looking at the economics and technology required to have EVs driving around on a large scale I'm quite sure EVs will never become mainstream.For the coming decade(s) I agree but "never" is so absolute, perhaps in a few hundred years they have a Futureobtanium battery weighing 50kgs with an energy of 1MWh.
Because they've been obsoleted by something that's better in every sense?Exactly, that's why your previous argument does not have practical meaning. What becomes obsolete gets phased out, regardless of the benefits it brought in the past.
That, and also that fossil fuels won't last forever!Fossil fuels are slowly being replaced by bio-fuels already so I'm not worrying about the fossil fuels running out.
I'm a bit skeptic, and I'm not sure I'd like to see the earth covered in "fuel weeds". Jeez, fossil fuels are such a heavens gift, it's going to be hard to find a proper substitute, one that's as good.That, and also that fossil fuels won't last forever!Fossil fuels are slowly being replaced by bio-fuels already so I'm not worrying about the fossil fuels running out.
Full replacement won't happen because: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/sep/20/demand-for-biofuels-is-increasing-global-food-prices-says-study (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/sep/20/demand-for-biofuels-is-increasing-global-food-prices-says-study)That, and also that fossil fuels won't last forever!Fossil fuels are slowly being replaced by bio-fuels already so I'm not worrying about the fossil fuels running out.
The good thing is that the earth is already covered in fuel weeds today. It is just a matter of converting leftovers into fuel instead of letting them rot away.That, and also that fossil fuels won't last forever!Fossil fuels are slowly being replaced by bio-fuels already so I'm not worrying about the fossil fuels running out.
I'm a bit skeptic, and I'm not sure I'd like to see the earth covered in "fuel weeds". Jeez, fossil fuels are such a heavens gift, it's going to be hard to find a proper substitute, one that's as good.
@wraper: that is old news. Third generation bio-fuels will have the opposite effect. The EU has announced a ban on bio-fuels which use too much farm land.I know about them. But full replacement? IMO they can be nothing more than supplement.
That certainly sounds good!I'm a bit skeptic, and I'm not sure I'd like to see the earth covered in "fuel weeds". Jeez, fossil fuels are such a heavens gift, it's going to be hard to find a proper substitute, one that's as good.The good thing is that the earth is already covered in fuel weeds today. It is just a matter of converting leftovers into fuel instead of letting them rot away.
With less fuel consumption there should be enough leftover plant material to get to a full replacement. The currently available efficient cars are near the mark where fuel efficiency needs to be. The good thing is that the changeover to bio-fuel can happen in a slower pace without throwing existing technology and infrastructure away. From an economic point of view it makes a lot more sense.@wraper: that is old news. Third generation bio-fuels will have the opposite effect. The EU has announced a ban on bio-fuels which use too much farm land.I know about them. But full replacement? IMO they can be nothing more than supplement.
It doesn't matter what the context, whenever I hear someone say algae from the sea is the answer I think, "Tuesday is Soylent Green day".Yup that is another possibility , fat burns well :o
That movie was made nearly 50 years ago.
BUT even so, it will only be possible with a drastically smaller population.That's a taboo, nobody wants to talk about that out loud. Albert Bartlett did, but he's no longer with us. Godwin's law in 3, 2, 1...
The numbers don’t lie, biofuels will never fully replace fossil fuels. (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/the-biofuel-grind/) Not even close.According to the numbers provided by Poet-DSM (who actually make bio-fuels so they don't have to hyperbole numbers) it is very possible to replace fossil fuels for transportation using bio-fuels. Not saying electricity isn't any good but electricity is not a good energy carrier for transportation.
As mentioned earlier, biofuel from saltwater algae would probably be the answer. There's about 3 times as much ocean area as there is land area.Fossil fuels are slowly being replaced by bio-fuels already so I'm not worrying about the fossil fuels running out.Plentiful water for growing the raw materials is going to be the problem.
BUT even so, it will only be possible with a drastically smaller population.That's a taboo, nobody wants to talk about that out loud. Albert Bartlett did, but he's no longer with us. Godwin's law in 3, 2, 1...
The numbers don’t lie, biofuels will never fully replace fossil fuels. (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/the-biofuel-grind/) Not even close.According to the numbers provided by Poet-DSM (who actually make bio-fuels so they don't have to hyperbole numbers) it is very possible to replace fossil fuels for transportation using bio-fuels.
According to the numbers provided by Poet-DSM (who actually make bio-fuels so they don't have to hyperbole numbers)I've read that line a few times, and it makes me chuckle every time. :)
They can't make up numbers at random. In the US there is something called the SECActually Poet-DSM (http://poet-dsm.com/about) has every reason to inflate nunbers and exaggerate the potential of biofuels. POET is a large ethanol producer and Royal DSM is a tech company selling their methods to produce biofuels. Of course they’re going to exaggerate - they want to attract investor capital and research funding. They are not a credible source of numbers.The numbers don’t lie, biofuels will never fully replace fossil fuels. (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/the-biofuel-grind/) Not even close.According to the numbers provided by Poet-DSM (who actually make bio-fuels so they don't have to hyperbole numbers) it is very possible to replace fossil fuels for transportation using bio-fuels.
They can't make up numbers at random. In the US there is something called the SECYou mean the SEC who oversaw Enron? If a group is making or consuming large amounts of energy, the money involved is huge and nobody can be trusted until the bases of their statements are broken down to see what really lies behind them.
They can't make up numbers at random. In the US there is something called the SECActually Poet-DSM (http://poet-dsm.com/about) has every reason to inflate nunbers and exaggerate the potential of biofuels. POET is a large ethanol producer and Royal DSM is a tech company selling their methods to produce biofuels. Of course they’re going to exaggerate - they want to attract investor capital and research funding. They are not a credible source of numbers.The numbers don’t lie, biofuels will never fully replace fossil fuels. (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/the-biofuel-grind/) Not even close.According to the numbers provided by Poet-DSM (who actually make bio-fuels so they don't have to hyperbole numbers) it is very possible to replace fossil fuels for transportation using bio-fuels.
But they can't operate a boiler room either.They can't make up numbers at random. In the US there is something called the SECYou mean the SEC who oversaw Enron? If a group is making or consuming large amounts of energy, the money involved is huge and nobody can be trusted until the bases of their statements are broken down to see what really lies behind them.
That, and also that fossil fuels won't last forever!Fossil fuels are slowly being replaced by bio-fuels already so I'm not worrying about the fossil fuels running out.
And aren’t fossil fuels renewable if one waits long enough?No apart from the million years waiting time we don't have the primeval forests anymore.
Fossil fuels running out anytime soon? Don’t think so. We keep finding more and more deposits. And aren’t fossil fuels renewable if one waits long enough?Can you list some of these amazing recent finds? Everything I have seen shows that people get really excited about a find that might power the world for just a day or two, because those are the only ones being found. They also call into question how realistic the figures for remaining reserves in currently worked fields might be.
Fossil fuels running out anytime soon? Don’t think so. We keep finding more and more deposits. And aren’t fossil fuels renewable if one waits long enough?Can you list some of these amazing recent finds? Everything I have seen shows that people get really excited about a find that might power the world for just a day or two, because those are the only ones being found. They also call into question how realistic the figures for remaining reserves in currently worked fields might be.
Fossil fuels running out anytime soon? Don’t think so. We keep finding more and more deposits. And aren’t fossil fuels renewable if one waits long enough?Can you list some of these amazing recent finds? Everything I have seen shows that people get really excited about a find that might power the world for just a day or two, because those are the only ones being found. They also call into question how realistic the figures for remaining reserves in currently worked fields might be.
Fossil fuels running out anytime soon? Don’t think so. We keep finding more and more deposits. And aren’t fossil fuels renewable if one waits long enough?Can you list some of these amazing recent finds? Everything I have seen shows that people get really excited about a find that might power the world for just a day or two, because those are the only ones being found. They also call into question how realistic the figures for remaining reserves in currently worked fields might be.
There are untapped oil reserves in and around the San Francisco Bay Area. Plenty of oil still left in Southern California and in the mid-East of the United States. There’s a lot left in Canada and doen’t Africa have quite a bit.
Last year reserve estimates grew by about 6 billion bbl. (And the year before reserve estimates decreased by 11 billion bbl!). (https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-115/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-oil-natural-gas-reserves-inch-higher-in-2017.html)And there is enough oil left for another 40 years.
In contrast, the world currently consumes about 35 billion bbl of oil per year.
Last year reserve estimates grew by about 6 billion bbl. (And the year before reserve estimates decreased by 11 billion bbl!). (https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-115/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-oil-natural-gas-reserves-inch-higher-in-2017.html)And there is enough oil left for another 40 years.
In contrast, the world currently consumes about 35 billion bbl of oil per year.
Can we get this topic back on Electric Cars ?On the topic of (the future of) EVs, fossil fuels are very much on topic. Hey, even Musk burns kerosene in his rockets! Irritates the fanboys much? >:D
Hey, even Musk burns kerosene in his rockets! Irritates the fanboys much? >:DElectric motors don't fly in vacuum. Does not have anything to do with cars on the roads.
What happens if/when we are suddenly out of oil and we have not prepared for that transition?I hope it won't be sudden, oil prices may rise steady but slowly, hopefully, and we'll have ~ time to adapt to the new circumstances more or less well. I believe that would be happening already, right now, if it were not for the fracking. And I'd very much like that to happen after I'm gone because I like the way I'm living now: in a few minutes I'm going to go to my favourite cafetería which is a 16 km drive, in my SUV with the A/C on.
Fossil fuels running out anytime soon? Don’t think so. We keep finding more and more deposits. And aren’t fossil fuels renewable if one waits long enough?Can you list some of these amazing recent finds? Everything I have seen shows that people get really excited about a find that might power the world for just a day or two, because those are the only ones being found. They also call into question how realistic the figures for remaining reserves in currently worked fields might be.
There are untapped oil reserves in and around the San Francisco Bay Area. Plenty of oil still left in Southern California and in the mid-East of the United States. There’s a lot left in Canada and doen’t Africa have quite a bit.
Are you just trolling now? I've addressed this claim by you in the past. There is no significant amount of oil left in California. Once again see here (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_SCA_a.htm). You can see California or any other states reserves.
For worldwide figures, see the link in my post above or for the latest and greatest full blown report by BP here (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf). The proven reserves have not increased significantly in recent years despite ever increasing world oil consumption.
Of the proven reserves that do exist - much of them will never be economically or energetically viable to extract.
Please don't just keep repeating the same nonsense unless you have some data to back it up.
No nonsense here. It appears you are preprogrammed to not look at the fact, figures and others evidence other have to offer it they don’t agree with your beliefs. For decades we have been told were are running out of oil reserves. And for decades that’s proven to be false as we continue to find new oils deposits.Did you post the wrong link, because that one doesn't seem to support your claims?
Please explain to me why you believe Southern California is running out of oil and why you think there is no untapped oil in the San Francisco Bay Area?
The reality is the world will never run out of oil. Anyone who says the world is running out of oil is propagating false environmental propaganda with an agenda. If someone like you would visit California you could see this for yourself. There are many oil wells which have been shut down not because they were pumped dry. But because they were not profitabe. There’s still oil there. And when oil prices increase they will once again start pumping.
Do you have any idea how much oil is in Southern California? And how that compares to the other states? Or how much oil lies under the San Francisco Bay Area?
Rest assured we have so much oil a non EV powered hearse will be able to drive your casket to your grave site. As well as you children and great grand children.
https://www.thebalance.com/oil-reserves-definition-categories-world-s-largest-3305873 (https://www.thebalance.com/oil-reserves-definition-categories-world-s-largest-3305873)
No nonsense here. It appears you are preprogrammed to not look at the fact, figures and others evidence other have to offer it they don’t agree with your beliefs. For decades we have been told were are running out of oil reserves. And for decades that’s proven to be false as we continue to find new oils deposits.Did you post the wrong link, because that one doesn't seem to support your claims?
Please explain to me why you believe Southern California is running out of oil and why you think there is no untapped oil in the San Francisco Bay Area?
The reality is the world will never run out of oil. Anyone who says the world is running out of oil is propagating false environmental propaganda with an agenda. If someone like you would visit California you could see this for yourself. There are many oil wells which have been shut down not because they were pumped dry. But because they were not profitabe. There’s still oil there. And when oil prices increase they will once again start pumping.
Do you have any idea how much oil is in Southern California? And how that compares to the other states? Or how much oil lies under the San Francisco Bay Area?
Rest assured we have so much oil a non EV powered hearse will be able to drive your casket to your grave site. As well as you children and great grand children.
https://www.thebalance.com/oil-reserves-definition-categories-world-s-largest-3305873 (https://www.thebalance.com/oil-reserves-definition-categories-world-s-largest-3305873)
Do you think oil is being continuously and rapidly generated within the Earth, because that would seem to be the only way running out is not possible?
Since Watt patented the first efficient steam engine in 1769 we've burned through a substantial percentage of the oil, coal and gas that took millions of years to accumulate. Sure the processes that created them are still in place and working, but that isn't going to have any useful impact on our civilisation.Did you post the wrong link, because that one doesn't seem to support your claims?
Do you think oil is being continuously and rapidly generated within the Earth, because that would seem to be the only way running out is not possible?
Not sure where our communications break down is. I never used the word rapidly. Fossil fuels are and will continually producde until one of the reactants is no longer available..... It’s just chemistry.
Please explain to me why you believe Southern California is running out of oil and why you think there is no untapped oil in the San Francisco Bay Area?I'm confused. Are you unable to read the numbers in the link (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_SCA_a.htm) I've provided to you several times now? It shows quite clearly that California's oil reserves are relatively small and falling fast. No, I never said there was *no* untapped oil in SF - I said there were not amounts justifying your claim that there is "plenty of oil" in California.
If someone like you would visit California you could see this for yourself.As I've stated before, I lived the first 34 years of my life in CA, both my parents were born their and all my family still lives there. I visit there yearly.
There are many oil wells which have been shut down not because they were pumped dry.Yeah, I literally grew up next to them. They produce trivial amounts of oil. Many of them are still pumping though because of sunk costs.
Do you have any idea how much oil is in Southern California? And how that compares to the other states?
Did you post the wrong link, because that one doesn't seem to support your claims?
Since Watt patented the first efficient steam engine in 1769 we've burned through a substantial percentage of the oil, coal and gas that took millions of years to accumulate. Sure the processes that created them are still in place and working, but that isn't going to have any useful impact on our civilisation.Did you post the wrong link, because that one doesn't seem to support your claims?
Do you think oil is being continuously and rapidly generated within the Earth, because that would seem to be the only way running out is not possible?
Not sure where our communications break down is. I never used the word rapidly. Fossil fuels are and will continually producde until one of the reactants is no longer available..... It’s just chemistry.
Best solution we have to supply the world with the electricity we need is nuclear.Nope. But it's the best way to poison the surface of the earth for the next 100 million years at least.
When the Romans invaded Britain they described it as an oak forest with clearings where settlements sprang up. By the time of Britain's early global exploits oak trees were being felled by the thousand to build ships. By Watt's time Britain was an importer of wood. Watt's original goal for his steam engines was to enable deep coal mining, to deal with Britain's lack of fuel for cooking and staying warm in winter. Humans are voracious.Since Watt patented the first efficient steam engine in 1769 we've burned through a substantial percentage of the oil, coal and gas that took millions of years to accumulate. Sure the processes that created them are still in place and working, but that isn't going to have any useful impact on our civilisation.
You also forgot we burned trees and whale oil. We still have trees and whales so this is a resource we consumed but was not depleted.
We still have plenty of coal and oil, but with with the technology we have to say it would be silly to continue burning it.
As we have learned there is no perfect source of energy. Best solution we have to supply the world with the electricity we need is nuclear. We have a 750 year supply of fuel with the tecnogy we have and an endless supply with next generation nuclear. We will probably never find a replacement for gas and ICE’s. The energy density in liquid fossil fuels is just to great.
There is one extremely big flaw in your assumptions: if oil could suddenly run out then oil companies would suddenly be without profit. They are not going to let that happen. So watch carefully in what direction the oil companies are shifting their business.Last year reserve estimates grew by about 6 billion bbl. (And the year before reserve estimates decreased by 11 billion bbl!). (https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-115/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-oil-natural-gas-reserves-inch-higher-in-2017.html)And there is enough oil left for another 40 years.
In contrast, the world currently consumes about 35 billion bbl of oil per year.
That assumes:
1) Oil consumption does not continue to grow. This will only be true if there is viable, growing alternatives OR if their is a global economic depression.
2) All proven reserves are economically and energetically viable for extraction - which is extremely unlikely. Much of current oil extraction is already occurring at a financial loss (made possible only by cheap credit) and for many unconventional oil and deep water extraction operations the energy returned on energy invested equation is close to break even. These problems will only escalate as the easy oil fields continue their rapid depletion.
Even if 1 and 2 occur, what then? What happens if/when we are suddenly out of oil and we have not prepared for that transition?
There is one extremely big flaw in your assumptions: if oil could suddenly run out then oil companies would suddenly be without profit. They are not going to let that happen.Last year reserve estimates grew by about 6 billion bbl. (And the year before reserve estimates decreased by 11 billion bbl!). (https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-115/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-oil-natural-gas-reserves-inch-higher-in-2017.html)And there is enough oil left for another 40 years.
In contrast, the world currently consumes about 35 billion bbl of oil per year.
That assumes:
1) Oil consumption does not continue to grow. This will only be true if there is viable, growing alternatives OR if their is a global economic depression.
2) All proven reserves are economically and energetically viable for extraction - which is extremely unlikely. Much of current oil extraction is already occurring at a financial loss (made possible only by cheap credit) and for many unconventional oil and deep water extraction operations the energy returned on energy invested equation is close to break even. These problems will only escalate as the easy oil fields continue their rapid depletion.
Even if 1 and 2 occur, what then? What happens if/when we are suddenly out of oil and we have not prepared for that transition?
So watch carefully in what direction the oil companies are shifting their business.
I'm not changing the subject. I'm just not accepting we should change into a completely different direction today because of a problem which is decades ahead.I see you've changed the subject but ok. No - that point has nothing to do with my argument - my posit about "suddenly running out of oil" was simply making a point about the flaw in any argument that we should not be focused on renewables or EVs because "we still have plenty of oil".There is one extremely big flaw in your assumptions: if oil could suddenly run out then oil companies would suddenly be without profit. They are not going to let that happen.That assumes:Last year reserve estimates grew by about 6 billion bbl. (And the year before reserve estimates decreased by 11 billion bbl!). (https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-115/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-oil-natural-gas-reserves-inch-higher-in-2017.html)And there is enough oil left for another 40 years.
In contrast, the world currently consumes about 35 billion bbl of oil per year.
1) Oil consumption does not continue to grow. This will only be true if there is viable, growing alternatives OR if their is a global economic depression.
2) All proven reserves are economically and energetically viable for extraction - which is extremely unlikely. Much of current oil extraction is already occurring at a financial loss (made possible only by cheap credit) and for many unconventional oil and deep water extraction operations the energy returned on energy invested equation is close to break even. These problems will only escalate as the easy oil fields continue their rapid depletion.
Even if 1 and 2 occur, what then? What happens if/when we are suddenly out of oil and we have not prepared for that transition?
I'm not changing the subject. I'm just not accepting we should change into a completely different direction today because of a problem which is decades ahead.
Dismissing features like range and fast filling is like saying a square wheel works just as well as a round one if you push harder
Even bio-fuel (ethanol) looks better.As previously explained, biofuel production on any useful scale requires huge fossil fuel inputs. It is no solution. At least with EVs - there is the possibility of the electricity being generated without fossil fuels.
Best solution we have to supply the world with the electricity we need is nuclear.Nope. But it's the best way to poison the surface of the earth for the next 100 million years at least.
That should solve the energy problem due to death of humans.
It has already begun decades ago. The fuel I'm putting in my car today consists of 5% to 10% of bio fuel.I'm not changing the subject. I'm just not accepting we should change into a completely different direction today because of a problem which is decades ahead.
So when would you suggest the transition to non-fossil fuel modes of transportation begin?
Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?QuoteEven bio-fuel (ethanol) looks better.As previously explained, biofuel production on any useful scale requires huge fossil fuel inputs. It is no solution. At least with EVs - there is the possibility of the electricity being generated without fossil fuels.
Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?
You are ignoring the fact that the third generation bio-fuels will piggy back onto food production (and use other plant residu) so those fertilizers will be needed anyway. Besides that it isn't a given that fertilizers (which will be needed for food production) have to be made from fossil fuel. You are grasping straws here ;) Anyway, this has been discussed before.Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?Any crop yields large enough to come anywhere close to replacing gasoline and diesel requires large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizers produced using natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. Large amounts of petrochemical based pesticides are also required. That 5-10% ethanol in your gasoline is largely just a farm subsidy - the fossil fuel inputs required to produce it are enormous.
If you want to see the obstacles, perhaps you could look into why the earlier generations of bio-fuels didn't use plant residue. I mean, it the obvious thing, isn't it? Get fuel from these mountains of waste, rather than starve people in poor countries by driving the price of grain through the roof. Surely that would be the first step? It wasn't, and not without cause.You are ignoring the fact that the third generation bio-fuels will piggy back onto food production (and use other plant residu) so those fertilizers will be needed anyway. Besides that it isn't a given that fertilizers (which will be needed for food production) have to be made from fossil fuel. You are grasping straws here ;) Anyway, this has been discussed before.Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?Any crop yields large enough to come anywhere close to replacing gasoline and diesel requires large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizers produced using natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. Large amounts of petrochemical based pesticides are also required. That 5-10% ethanol in your gasoline is largely just a farm subsidy - the fossil fuel inputs required to produce it are enormous.
The way I see it bio-fuel currently has the least technical obstacles to greatly reduce and eventually replace the use of fossil fuels for cars, trucks and airplanes.
If you want to see the obstacles, perhaps you could look into why the earlier generations of bio-fuels didn't use plant residue. I mean, it the obvious thing, isn't it? Get fuel from these mountains of waste, rather than starve people in poor countries by driving the price of grain through the roof. Surely that would be the first step? It wasn't, and not without cause.You are ignoring the fact that the third generation bio-fuels will piggy back onto food production (and use other plant residu) so those fertilizers will be needed anyway. Besides that it isn't a given that fertilizers (which will be needed for food production) have to be made from fossil fuel. You are grasping straws here ;) Anyway, this has been discussed before.Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?Any crop yields large enough to come anywhere close to replacing gasoline and diesel requires large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizers produced using natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. Large amounts of petrochemical based pesticides are also required. That 5-10% ethanol in your gasoline is largely just a farm subsidy - the fossil fuel inputs required to produce it are enormous.
The way I see it bio-fuel currently has the least technical obstacles to greatly reduce and eventually replace the use of fossil fuels for cars, trucks and airplanes.
Why nor hear from an expert?Expert in what? Speaking narrative on youtube? Not to say he said a lot of false information, at least in second video which I partially watched.
It isn't easy to convert cellulose into ethanol so that is why the earlier methods are based on how beer & whine have been made for centuries. Nowadays over a dozen of companies are working on this and several have the first large scale factories which can convert cellulose into ethanol up & running. Basically the technology for third generation bio-fuels based on plant waste is out of the laboratory stage.If you want to see the obstacles, perhaps you could look into why the earlier generations of bio-fuels didn't use plant residue. I mean, it the obvious thing, isn't it? Get fuel from these mountains of waste, rather than starve people in poor countries by driving the price of grain through the roof. Surely that would be the first step? It wasn't, and not without cause.You are ignoring the fact that the third generation bio-fuels will piggy back onto food production (and use other plant residu) so those fertilizers will be needed anyway. Besides that it isn't a given that fertilizers (which will be needed for food production) have to be made from fossil fuel. You are grasping straws here ;) Anyway, this has been discussed before.Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?Any crop yields large enough to come anywhere close to replacing gasoline and diesel requires large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizers produced using natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. Large amounts of petrochemical based pesticides are also required. That 5-10% ethanol in your gasoline is largely just a farm subsidy - the fossil fuel inputs required to produce it are enormous.
The way I see it bio-fuel currently has the least technical obstacles to greatly reduce and eventually replace the use of fossil fuels for cars, trucks and airplanes.
It isn't easy to convert cellulose into ethanol so that is why the earlier methods are based on how beer & whine have been made for centuries. Nowadays over a dozen of companies are working on this and several have the first large scale factories which can convert cellulose into ethanol up & running. Basically the technology for third generation bio-fuels based on plant waste is out of the laboratory stage.Its actually really easy to convert cellulose to ethanol. That isn't the problem. The problem is the energy calculations. They need to put vast amounts of energy into the conversion. This is not an industry process efficiency issue. Its the basic chemistry, which won't change. So, you now have something that might make sense as a an energy storage mechanism for non-persistent renewable energy, like solar or wind, but you don't have a primary fuel.
There are several methods and I strongly doubt the modern plants will use an energy inefficient one. The DSM part of Poet-DSM has developed a special enzym to break down cellulose.It isn't easy to convert cellulose into ethanol so that is why the earlier methods are based on how beer & whine have been made for centuries. Nowadays over a dozen of companies are working on this and several have the first large scale factories which can convert cellulose into ethanol up & running. Basically the technology for third generation bio-fuels based on plant waste is out of the laboratory stage.Its actually really easy to convert cellulose to ethanol. That isn't the problem. The problem is the energy calculations. They need to put vast amounts of energy into the conversion. This is not an industry process efficiency issue.
You do understand enough chemistry to realise that you only get from ash to fuel by pumping in a lot of energy, don't you?Its actually really easy to convert cellulose to ethanol. That isn't the problem. The problem is the energy calculations. They need to put vast amounts of energy into the conversion. This is not an industry process efficiency issue.There are several methods and I strongly doubt the modern plants will use an energy inefficient one. The DSM part of Poet-DSM has developed a special enzym to break down cellulose.
I think the misunderstanding is at your side. Cellulose is a hydrogen / carbon chain just like Ethanol. You don't need to go from ash to fuel you just need to re-arrange a few atoms in a molecule. The energy present in the cellulose doesn't dissapear.From what I have read, energy spent to produce needed enzymes is so high, whole process becomes energy negative.
But then it wouldn't make sense to build mass production factories. But the factories are there so I guess some have solved that problem.I think the misunderstanding is at your side. Cellulose is a hydrogen / carbon chain just like Ethanol. You don't need to go from ash to fuel you just need to re-arrange a few atoms in a molecule. The energy present in the cellulose doesn't dissapear.From what I have read, energy spent to produce needed enzymes is so high, whole process becomes energy negative.
Why nor hear from an expert?
In second video at 4:45 he said that global renewable energy share is 2.8% which total BS and is order of magnitude off the real number.Why nor hear from an expert?
Expert in what? Making slick youtube videos to attract viewers?
He's certainly not an expert in world oil reserves.
The IEA and BP oil on the other hand ARE and I've repeatedly posted links with their numbers which are in agreement with others which can be found many places on the net. You continue to ignore those links. Are you saying the IEA and BP are wrong?
In second video at 4:45 he said that global renewable energy share is 2.8% which total BS and is order of magnitude off the real number.
You are ignoring the fact that the third generation bio-fuels will piggy back onto food production (and use other plant residu) so those fertilizers will be needed anyway.Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?Any crop yields large enough to come anywhere close to replacing gasoline and diesel requires large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizers produced using natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. Large amounts of petrochemical based pesticides are also required. That 5-10% ethanol in your gasoline is largely just a farm subsidy - the fossil fuel inputs required to produce it are enormous.
Besides that it isn't a given that fertilizers (which will be needed for food production) have to be made from fossil fuel.It's not? Please provide information on another way to produce large amounts of Nitrogen containing fertilizers or some other substitute.
Fertilizer is currently made from mostly natural gas but it can also be made from coal. But those are not the key ingredient. What is needed is Ammonia which can also be gotton from other places besides fossil fuels. First hit from Google:You are ignoring the fact that the third generation bio-fuels will piggy back onto food production (and use other plant residu) so those fertilizers will be needed anyway.Why would you need fossil fuel to generate bio-fuel? Why can't a factory be powered from solar panels, wind turbines, hydro or nuclear?Any crop yields large enough to come anywhere close to replacing gasoline and diesel requires large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizers produced using natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. Large amounts of petrochemical based pesticides are also required. That 5-10% ethanol in your gasoline is largely just a farm subsidy - the fossil fuel inputs required to produce it are enormous.
No I'm not. You asked why fossil fuels would be needed for biofuels and I answered. Of course, fossil fuels are also required to produce the current large food crop yields.QuoteBesides that it isn't a given that fertilizers (which will be needed for food production) have to be made from fossil fuel.It's not? Please provide information on another way to produce large amounts of Nitrogen containing fertilizers or some other substitute.
What is needed is Ammonia which can also be gotton from other places besides fossil fuels.
Renewable energy is around 10% of primary energy consumption and around 20% of final energy consumption. All energy, not just electrical.In second video at 4:45 he said that global renewable energy share is 2.8% which total BS and is order of magnitude off the real number.
I've not watched the video, was he talking about electrical generation mix (which is clearly >>2.8%) or total world energy use? The latter includes transportation (dominated by oil), steelmaking (dominated by coal) and cement manufacture (gas/oil/coal depending on kiln design) amongst others and 2.8% is rather more believable.
But that still doesn't say it cannot be done without use of fossil fuels. Currently using natural gas is the most economic way to make fertilizer. But again: not the only way! The same goes for farming & transportation.What is needed is Ammonia which can also be gotton from other places besides fossil fuels.
Duh. Of course. There are many sources of nitrogen. Of course plant growth does not require fossil fuel inputs. Duh.
The point is that large scale production of nitrogen fertilizer cannot be accomplished without large inputs of natural gas. And large scale mechanized farming and crop transport requires large oil (gasoline/diesel) inputs.
But that still doesn't say it cannot be done without use of fossil fuels. Currently using natural gas is the most economic way to make fertilizer. But again: not the only way! The same goes for farming & transportation.
That is your opinion based on processes which are economic in the current situation. There is a difference between more expensive and impossible. What you are saying is that fertilizer made from something else than natural gas (which is only used to produce the ingredient Ammonia) is more expensive given the current prices of natural gas. Well, that is only logical. Basically you are making my point when I say 3rd generation bio-fuels are the way to go. When fertilizer becomes more expensive more parts of the plant will need to be used which is where 3rd generation bio-fuels will help to keep food prices low. After all 'we' will need to continue to grow food one way or another.But that still doesn't say it cannot be done without use of fossil fuels. Currently using natural gas is the most economic way to make fertilizer. But again: not the only way! The same goes for farming & transportation.Of course. No one said it could not. You seem to be missing the point which is that producing biofuels on a scale large enough to replace gasoline and diesel at anywhere close to current use levels is impossible without large fossil fuel inputs.
That is your opinion based on processes which are economic in the current situation.
fuel consumption also needs to go down.
BTW: one part you have missed in my previous posts is that fuel consumption also needs to go down. The US could easely reduce it's fuel consumption by half by switching to more efficient cars. In Europe probably around 30% of fuel can be saved. This is something people can do today.They should require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG highway. That is already achievable without any exotic technology. Then gradually increase the requirement over time so it doesn't stagnate.
You are still ignoring that 3rd generation bio-fuels don't need any fertilizer because it piggy-bags along with food production (which does need fertilizer). The raw material comes for free along with the food! I'm staggered how deeply embedded the thought is that we need to grow crops specifically for bio-fuels. WE DON'T! That is the whole beauty of 3rd generation bio-fuels.That is your opinion based on processes which are economic in the current situation.No, it is not an opinion. It is a well established fact that current agriculture is highly dependent on fossil fuel inputs. It's not just a matter of economics.
This is easy to verify by a quick internet search but for the lazy, this is a good start (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935130/)
There are simply no methods currently to produce biofuels on a large scale without large fossil fuel inputs. Period. Full stop.
You are still ignoring that 3rd generation bio-fuels don't need any fertilizer because it piggy-bags along with food production (which does need fertilizer).That is non-sensical. If it piggy backs on food production (and what exactly does that mean) - then it DOES require large fossil fuel inputs. The biomass simply would not be available on any meaningful scale without fossil fuel inputs.
Why nor hear from an expert?Expert in what? Speaking narrative on youtube? Not to say he said a lot of false information, at least in second video which I partially watched.
It isn't easy to convert cellulose into ethanol so that is why the earlier methods are based on how beer & whine have been made for centuries. Nowadays over a dozen of companies are working on this and several have the first large scale factories which can convert cellulose into ethanol up & running. Basically the technology for third generation bio-fuels based on plant waste is out of the laboratory stage.Its actually really easy to convert cellulose to ethanol. That isn't the problem. The problem is the energy calculations. They need to put vast amounts of energy into the conversion. This is not an industry process efficiency issue. Its the basic chemistry, which won't change. So, you now have something that might make sense as a an energy storage mechanism for non-persistent renewable energy, like solar or wind, but you don't have a primary fuel.
Say BS number on renewable energy share as I already said.Why nor hear from an expert?Expert in what? Speaking narrative on youtube? Not to say he said a lot of false information, at least in second video which I partially watched.
What information in the second video is false?
Mtdoc, quoting that pile of trash would be an insult to the intelligence of this thread's participants. Yes, humanity is probably screwed long-term if we don't reallocate resources and reduce our usage of cheap energy, but it's not going to happen on the scale that Dennis Meadows thinks. He predicted that world energy consumption would peak around last year, and then somehow dive down to pre-industrial levels, but has no explanation for how that would happen. Is he hoping for a nuclear war?
Mtdoc, quoting that pile of trash would be an insult to the intelligence of this thread's participants. Yes, humanity is probably screwed long-term if we don't reallocate resources and reduce our usage of cheap energy, but it's not going to happen on the scale that Dennis Meadows thinks. He predicted that world energy consumption would peak around last year, and then somehow dive down to pre-industrial levels, but has no explanation for how that would happen. Is he hoping for a nuclear war?
AFAIK, he has never claimed to know the exact timing of anything (and if he did and was wrong, why does that make him “a pile of trash”?). Nevertheless the Meadows et. al. 1972 Limits to Growth (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth) model forecast has been remarkably prescient.
(And BTW I didn’t quote him, I just borrowed some factual pics from a blog post)
Based on your language, you seem to have an overly emotional attachment to the idea that there can be uninterrupted infinite growth on a finite planet. It’s ok, it’s a common ailment.
(https://us.resiliencesystem.org/sites/default/files/u257/Limits%20of%20Growth-graph.jpg)
You keep turning the argument around. Keeping food production up is a problem that needs to be solved (period) but there are still several decades to solve that problem. I can't foresee how food is grown over 30 years from now. But I do know that using more from the plants is key to keep prices down. It is not a 'free energy' argument because I'm not trying to make energy appear out of thin air. I can go to a farm and point my finger at the waste which is available to make bio-fuel from.You are still ignoring that 3rd generation bio-fuels don't need any fertilizer because it piggy-bags along with food production (which does need fertilizer).That is non-sensical. If it piggy backs on food production (and what exactly does that mean) - then it DOES require large fossil fuel inputs. The biomass simply would not be available on any meaningful scale without fossil fuel inputs.
You are essentially trying to make a "free energy" argument. :palm:
It's like mounting a windmill on the roof of my car and claiming the electricity produced does not require any fossil fuels - after all it's just piggy backing on the car... ::)
Once again - large fossil fuel inputs are an absolute requirement for any large scale crop yields - whether for food or fuel.
If you disagree then please provide a documented example of large scale biofuel production done without fossil fuel inputs.
The earth's land surface area is ~ 150e6 km² (**), total world energy consumption is about 140 TWh per year (*), assuming that at any time only 1/3 of 1/3 (***) of that surface is being fully irradiated by the sun, if we put on average 1m² of PV per km², that would be 150e6[km²]*0.1[kW/km²]/3/3 = 1.66 GW => 14.6 TWh/year. It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
(**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
(***) I pulled that figure out of thin air: only half the earth sees the sun, and only a fraction of that half is irradiated ~ perpendicularly.
The graph you presented appears to be based on 40 year old data. Any reason you are not presenting something with more recent data? We certainly have it.I agree. Using data from a dooms-day preacher isn't accurate.
World population will continue to increst to 10 billion and remain steady.More likely to decline. Some countries will see a severely shrinking population in the next few decades. In Europe a lot of children where born after WW2 and this generation is about to die. For example: In the Netherlands the increase in population is already driven by people migrating to the country and not due to birth of children. People with luxury and jobs don't seem to have much interest in making babies.
The graph you presented appears to be based on 40 year old data. Any reason you are not presenting something with more recent data? We certainly have it.I agree. Using data from a dooms-day preacher isn't accurate.QuoteWorld population will continue to increst to 10 billion and remain steady.More likely to decline. Some countries will see a severely shrinking population in the next few decades. In Europe a lot of children where born after WW2 and this generation is about to die. For example: In the Netherlands the increase in population is already driven by people migrating to the country and not due to birth of children. People with luxury and jobs don't seem to have much interest in making babies.
With the rate we are consuming electricty nuclear is the best solution we have.You are probably right about that. Unfortunately politics will be too slow to see that with the end result being a solution which is not as good as it could be. We really need to get into new and safe nuclear power plants at least as a plan-B.
The earth's land surface area is ~ 150e6 km² (**), total world energy consumption is about 140 TWh per year (*), assuming that at any time only 1/3 of 1/3 (***) of that surface is being fully irradiated by the sun, if we put on average 1m² of PV per km², that would be 150e6[km²]*0.1[kW/km²]/3/3 = 1.66 GW => 14.6 TWh/year. It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
ANd to do what you are proposing would take all of the copper, silicon iron, aluminum and concrete that’s ever been mined or poured int he history of the world.
And then you have another problem..... Since you would be captureing so much of the suns energy to produce electrity will three be enough of he sun’s energy available for plants and for the growing of food.
Remember your physics...... Conservation of energy. Or do you want to live in a world with enough electricity and not enough food?
ANd to do what you are proposing would take all of the copper, silicon iron, aluminum and concrete that’s ever been mined or poured int he history of the world.I'd suggest using polymer barrier thin film solar cells. Either just roll them out flat on the ground and steak them, or put a one time inflatable wedge under them which fills with a foaming polymer during installation to get a gradient. Use robots to clean them. Very little concrete, stainless steel or aluminium needed. As for copper, use medium voltage DC inside the PV fields.
And then you have another problem..... Since you would be captureing so much of the suns energy to produce electrity will three be enough of he sun’s energy available for plants and for the growing of food.We've fucked up so much of the earth surface it doesn't really matter, de-desertification happens on geological time scales. In the mean time, we can use the deserts for solar. Just need to bury a few hippies first.
I have no words :palm: EDIT: actually I have some. If you think that we won't have enough sun energy left for plants after covering 10ppm of the land (let's even make it tenfold of that), I have doubts about your sanity.The earth's land surface area is ~ 150e6 km² (**), total world energy consumption is about 140 TWh per year (*), assuming that at any time only 1/3 of 1/3 (***) of that surface is being fully irradiated by the sun, if we put on average 1m² of PV per km², that would be 150e6[km²]*0.1[kW/km²]/3/3 = 1.66 GW => 14.6 TWh/year. It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
(**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
(***) I pulled that figure out of thin air: only half the earth sees the sun, and only a fraction of that half is irradiated ~ perpendicularly.
ANd to do what you are proposing would take all of the copper, silicon iron, aluminum and concrete that’s ever been mined or poured int he history of the world.
And then you have another problem..... Since you would be captureing so much of the suns energy to produce electrity will three be enough of he sun’s energy available for plants and for the growing of food.
Remember your physics...... Conservation of energy. Or do you want to live in a world with enough electricity and not enough food?
I have no words :palm: EDIT: actually I have some. If you think that we won't have enough sun energy left for plants after covering 10ppm of the land (let's even make it tenfold of that), I have doubts about your sanity.Right. The amount of energy in the Atlantic Gulf stream is comparable to the entire energy usage of our current civilisation, and that's just a tiny part of the energy circulating in natural processes on the Earth. There is plenty of energy available to tap from nature. We are just really really bad at being able to tap into it efficiently, in the required places, at the required times.
The graph you presented appears to be based on 40 year old data.
Using World Heath Data from the past 250 years indicates the graphs you have are wrong.It's useless to make such claims without a link. ::)
World population will continue to increst to 10 billion and remain steady. What will continue to grow will be the consumption of energy, specificity electrica energy.
You keep turning the argument around.No, you made the claim that biofuels could be produced without fossil fuel inputs and I showed why that is factually incorrect. Instead of acknowledging that it's you who have changed the argument.
I can go to a farm and point my finger at the waste which is available to make bio-fuel from.Please provide and example of large scale biofuel production solely from farm waste.If you can do that, then please do some basic math and tell us how that will scale enough to replace gasoline and diesel. Unless you can do that, your argument is baseless.
I agree. Using data from a dooms-day preacher isn't accurate.First of all the data isn't from Meadows, he just posted it. The original sources are available. And which data are you referring to anyways? World population? Historical energy use? This data is well known and easily found. If you have a source of data that refutes it, please provide. Ad hominem attacks are the sign of a losing argument and I expected better from you. :--
It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption[/b]. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
It sounds as if you didn't notice notice that his number is much lower than yours. 10m²/km² is 10 ppm or 0.001%. covering 0.5% sounds like insanely high number. Global land area is 1.483e+14 m2It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption[/b]. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
Your assumptions and calculations are wildly incorrect.
It would only take PV panels covering approximately 0.5% of the Earth's land to provide all of society's electricity needs. (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/) Even if electricity demand increased by 10X with wider EV adoption, it would still mean just 5%. No one has ever proposed that all human energy needs should be met with PV.
The black spots on the map below represent how much land would need to be covered with PV to cover current electricity demand. (FWIW - I do not think this will ever happen for many reason's but not because it's not theoretically possible)
...
It sounds as if you didn't notice notice that his number is much lower than yours. 10m²/km² is 10 ppm or 0.001%. covering 0.5% sounds like insanely high number. Global land area is 1.483e+14 m2It follows that we'd need ~ 10x as much PVs (10m²/km²) of land surface to cover total world energy consumption[/b]. Some more PVs could go on the sea.
Your assumptions and calculations are wildly incorrect.
It would only take PV panels covering approximately 0.5% of the Earth's land to provide all of society's electricity needs. (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/) Even if electricity demand increased by 10X with wider EV adoption, it would still mean just 5%. No one has ever proposed that all human energy needs should be met with PV.
The black spots on the map below represent how much land would need to be covered with PV to cover current electricity demand. (FWIW - I do not think this will ever happen for many reason's but not because it's not theoretically possible)
...
Boiling water FTW :-DD
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.You should know that that doesn't work. Our government has been increasing the fuel prices for decades but the number of cars has kept increasing just like the wages. People have to go to their work.
If we make petrol $25/gallon consumption will slow down and we can longer enjoy the reserves, ofcourse industries and ships and planes have to join as well.
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.you forget that it assumes 1000 W/m² for only 2000h annually.
Not to that pricepoint, it worked pretty well with tobacco and that is an extemely addictive substance.No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.You should know that that doesn't work. Our government has been increasing the fuel prices for decades but the number of cars has kept increasing just like the wages. People have to go to their work.
If we make petrol $25/gallon consumption will slow down and we can longer enjoy the reserves, ofcourse industries and ships and planes have to join as well.
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.
A couple of discrepencies are immediately obvious in that graphic compared to Tom Murphy's numbers.
1). That map assumes 20% efficiency which is wildly unrealistic. Just the PV panels alone based on current technology are not that efficient (15-18% in standard test conditions is more realistic and even that is not reflective or real world conditions - heat reduces output significantly). You also have to assume other substantial efficiency losses - wiring, inverter losses, etc.
Tom Murphy assumes 8% efficiency for his map which is much more realistic.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.
I have not looked at the other assumptions of that graphic but based on the above I'm guessing that they are equally overly optimistic.
It really doesn't matter though. The main point is the same. It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.
An alternative would be an around-the-globe grid of solar panels. That would require much more solar panels but reduce the amount of storage. Ofcourse this will never be accomplished for political reasons. Nuclear is the only really viable option because it is decentralised.A couple of discrepencies are immediately obvious in that graphic compared to Tom Murphy's numbers.That assumes you have energy storage.
1). That map assumes 20% efficiency which is wildly unrealistic. Just the PV panels alone based on current technology are not that efficient (15-18% in standard test conditions is more realistic and even that is not reflective or real world conditions - heat reduces output significantly). You also have to assume other substantial efficiency losses - wiring, inverter losses, etc.
Tom Murphy assumes 8% efficiency for his map which is much more realistic.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.
I have not looked at the other assumptions of that graphic but based on the above I'm guessing that they are equally overly optimistic.
It really doesn't matter though. The main point is the same. It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.You should know that that doesn't work. Our government has been increasing the fuel prices for decades but the number of cars has kept increasing just like the wages. People have to go to their work.
If we make petrol $25/gallon consumption will slow down and we can longer enjoy the reserves, ofcourse industries and ships and planes have to join as well.
Not to that pricepoint, it worked pretty well with tobacco and that is an extemely addictive substance.
I can bike to work, no excuse not to move or find a job closeby or work from home. If the oil is gone this has to happen anyway.
Very true. But unfortunately our economy is predicated on endless growth. It is only through continual growth and inflation that debt can be paid.I am currently reading the book "Sapiens" kind of interesting statements that only human beings are real, organisations, countries, the concepts of money and debt are all virtual creations that only exist because we believe in them and act to them.
so why keep following this spiral?
An alternative would be an around-the-globe grid of solar panels. That would require much more solar panels but reduce the amount of storage. Ofcourse this will never be accomplished for political reasons. Nuclear is the only really viable option because it is decentralised.A couple of discrepencies are immediately obvious in that graphic compared to Tom Murphy's numbers.That assumes you have energy storage.
1). That map assumes 20% efficiency which is wildly unrealistic. Just the PV panels alone based on current technology are not that efficient (15-18% in standard test conditions is more realistic and even that is not reflective or real world conditions - heat reduces output significantly). You also have to assume other substantial efficiency losses - wiring, inverter losses, etc.
Tom Murphy assumes 8% efficiency for his map which is much more realistic.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.
I have not looked at the other assumptions of that graphic but based on the above I'm guessing that they are equally overly optimistic.
It really doesn't matter though. The main point is the same. It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.
I guess it is time for you to brush-up then. Large electricity grids spanning a significant portion of the globe already exist (the one in Russia for example):An alternative would be an around-the-globe grid of solar panels. That would require much more solar panels but reduce the amount of storage. Ofcourse this will never be accomplished for political reasons. Nuclear is the only really viable option because it is decentralised.An around the globe grid of solar pannels is silly. Anyone who knows anything about electricty knows this is impractical for reasons of physics.
Very true. But unfortunately our economy is predicated on endless growth. It is only through continual growth and inflation that debt can be paid.I am currently reading the book "Sapiens" kind of interesting statements that only human beings are real, organisations, countries, the concepts of money and debt are all virtual creations that only exist because we believe in them and act to them.
If tomorrow nobody would pay their bills anymore what would happen? Everyones house is sold? To whom?
Your country has such an enormous debt that if the virtual institutions that hold those loans would collect it all tomorrow the usa would be bankrupt or would it?
So no continual growth and profit are mind creations that as is proven over and over can not be sustained for longer periods of time, so why keep following this spiral?
I guess it is time for you to brush-up then. Large electricity grids spanning a significant portion of the globe already exist (the one in Russia for example):An alternative would be an around-the-globe grid of solar panels. That would require much more solar panels but reduce the amount of storage. Ofcourse this will never be accomplished for political reasons. Nuclear is the only really viable option because it is decentralised.An around the globe grid of solar pannels is silly. Anyone who knows anything about electricty knows this is impractical for reasons of physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe)
And there are plans for more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperSmart_Grid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperSmart_Grid)
What you are describing is Bitcoin. What is the value of a Bitcoin or any currency?I don't hope so:
I agree. Money represents an amount of work. It has evolved from bartering goods. It be interesting to read about the Roman currency and economic system.What you are describing is Bitcoin. What is the value of a Bitcoin or any currency?I don't hope so:
for me personally money equals energy. Having money I can buy things so I don't have to make it my self or let other people do something so I don't have to do it my self.
In return I perform work that cost me little energy since I am good at it, although it does cost me a lot of time.
What you are describing is Bitcoin. What is the value of a Bitcoin or any currency?I don't hope so:
for me personally money equals energy. Having money I can buy things so I don't have to make it my self or let other people do something so I don't have to do it my self.
In return I perform work that cost me little energy since I am good at it, although it does cost me a lot of time.
I agree. Money represents an amount of work. It has evolved from bartering goods. It be interesting to read about the Roman currency and economic system.
Mtdoc, "pile of trash" was in regards to the blog post, not the person. I simply cannot take a guy who has been out of practice for 20 years (and who uses Excel graphs) at face value.
And no, I don't think the planet can support an infinite number of people. But I think the planet's carrying capacity, assuming we can make dense enough cities, is closer to 20 billion.
Rosling was a great guy, but his figures are already looking dated. He talked about the social difficulties of driving Sweden's birth rate down from 2 to 1.5, but some developed countries have already fallen below 1.5 and continue to drop. It remains to be seen if that pattern replicates itself across the rest of the world, but it seems likely. As China relaxes its one child policy I know some people there who want a second child, but lots who are happy with just one or none. This suggests a future peak well below 11 billion, but with a truly awful mix of ages. The employment problems faced by today's youth seem likely to go away, even if further automation and AI are very successful.Mtdoc, "pile of trash" was in regards to the blog post, not the person. I simply cannot take a guy who has been out of practice for 20 years (and who uses Excel graphs) at face value.
And no, I don't think the planet can support an infinite number of people. But I think the planet's carrying capacity, assuming we can make dense enough cities, is closer to 20 billion.
World heath physician Hans Rosling is staying population won’t peak over 11 billion.
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI
World heath physician Hans Rosling is staying population won’t peak over 11 billion.
This is what happens when complex societies begin to collapse. Historically this has always happened eventually - with exhaustion of important resources usually a major causative factor.That is an interesting subject but I don't think that history will repeat itself this time around. Book printing and more recently internet have created a critical mass in the availability of information and knowledge level of the people in general. Back in the old days people where kept dumb as a means of control.
A good book on the subject is Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/477.The_Collapse_of_Complex_Societies)
But the internet can be easily turned off by the masters of the universe... imagine that!Remember internet was designed for military use with redundancy and decentralised control in mind. I think I still have a modem somewhere...
Trends hold as long as trends hold.
I have no blind faith in progress. I could easily see mass migration from Africa throwing Europe into an economic slide, while raising European birthrates and steering us into a Malthusian collapse.
But the powers that rule can shut it down at their whim in a sec. Good luck with your modem :)But the internet can be easily turned off by the masters of the universe... imagine that!Remember internet was designed for military use with redundancy and decentralised control in mind. I think I still have a modem somewhere...
This is what happens when complex societies begin to collapse. Historically this has always happened eventually - with exhaustion of important resources usually a major causative factor.That is an interesting subject but I don't think that history will repeat itself this time around.
A good book on the subject is Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/477.The_Collapse_of_Complex_Societies)
Book printing and more recently internet have created a critical mass in the availability of information and knowledge level of the people in general. Back in the old days people where kept dumb as a means of control.
Resources may become a problem but nowadays it is much easier for people to move to where the resources are.That was true in the past: Collapse of civilizations remained somewhat localized (eg Mayan, Anastazi, etc). People then moved on to where resources were more readily available. As civilization and technology advanced, larger, more far reaching and widespread civilzations became possible (eg Roman, etc) - but even after their collapse there were always other, relatively untouched lands with abundant resources.
This is what happens when complex societies begin to collapse. Historically this has always happened eventually - with exhaustion of important resources usually a major causative factor.That is an interesting subject but I don't think that history will repeat itself this time around.
A good book on the subject is Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/477.The_Collapse_of_Complex_Societies)
So "this time it's different" huh?.QuoteBook printing and more recently internet have created a critical mass in the availability of information and knowledge level of the people in general. Back in the old days people where kept dumb as a means of control.
Yes, I agree somewhat but that does not solve the problem of resource scarcity.
And while the internet is helpful to keep people informed, on the otherhand it, along with the mass media makes it easier in many ways to keep people in the dark by distracting them with easily digestable and addictive memes. The majority of people, *think* they understand what's going on but they really are kept blind to the underlying forces at work. Propaganda is now more sophisticated and easier to distribute. Goebbels could only dream of having the reach of today's mass media.QuoteResources may become a problem but nowadays it is much easier for people to move to where the resources are.That was true in the past: Collapse of civilizations remained somewhat localized (eg Mayan, Anastazi, etc). People then moved on to where resources were more readily available. As civilization and technology advanced, larger, more far reaching and widespread civilzations became possible (eg Roman, etc) - but even after their collapse there were always other, relatively untouched lands with abundant resources.
But that is no longer true. There are now new lands to exploit. Resources to feed the global machine are extracted worldwide. Fossil fuels are the prime - keystone - resource that has allowed population to grow this far. There is no place for people to move where those will be more abundant. (And no, traveling to Mars will not help in that regard). Other resources, water, topsoil, etc, are also a factor.
In addition, Tainter's distinguishing point is that as societies become increasingly complex, more and more resources are required just to maintain their complexity. That and increasing specialization among societies inhabitants make them less resilient.
What do you mean there re no more resources to exploit? Emigrants are resource which have been, and continue to be exploited.
Rosling has already shown Malthusian is wrong.Temporarily.
It’s education of women, family planning and improved Heath care which results in lower birth rates, and increased average life expectancy. This has been show over and over to be true over the past 100 or more years.This is what I mean with blind faith in progress. Even when the correlation holds the education of women, family planning and Heath care can of course still regress. Especially in western nations, which are at a very high level.
Resources to feed the global machine are extracted worldwide. Fossil fuels are the prime - keystone - resource that has allowed population to grow this far. There is no place for people to move where those will be more abundant. (And no, traveling to Mars will not help in that regard). Other resources, water, topsoil, etc, are also a factor.In my opinion the most important resource by far is energy. Almost everything is derived from energy one way or another. If push comes to shove then there is always nuclear as a relatively quick way out. All in all I'm not that worried about the future of mankind or any limits on the amount of people. IMHO the most important thing is working together on a global scale.
In addition, Tainter's distinguishing point is that as societies become increasingly complex, more and more resources are required just to maintain their complexity. That and increasing specialization among societies inhabitants make them less resilient.I'm not too worried about that. What you see is that (from West to East) North America, Europe, Russia and China have enough people with brains to keep technology going on their own. A mass extinction event which wipes out any of these big 'clusters' won't affect the ability to keep up and develop new technology. That is a big difference compared to earlier advanced societies.
In my opinion the most important resource by far is energy.Maybe if we get molecular manipulators which can recycle materials indefinitely with enough energy, but as it stands huge amounts of materials become unrecoverable in our waste stream. Peak everything will hit us hard.
It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.You mean all of society's energy needs, right?
It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.You mean all of society's energy needs, right?
All in all I'm not that worried about the future of mankind or any limits on the amount of people.I'm glad I sure won't be here by then, but if the earth ever becomes one big continuous city it will be a shit to live in. And the way things go, all points in that direction.
It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.You mean all of society's energy needs, right?
I meant electricity, but either is true. It would obviously be a bigger percentage if you were trying to meet all energy demands with PV. That would be silly though since wind, hydro, passive solar and biomass (primarily wood) will always have a significant role.
I'm glad I sure won't be here by then, but if the earth ever becomes one big continuous city it will be a shit to live in. And the way things go, all points in that direction.You don't know that. Modern city planners and future planners have real innovative ideas.
Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungleI'm glad I sure won't be here by then, but if the earth ever becomes one big continuous city it will be a shit to live in. And the way things go, all points in that direction.You don't know that. Modern city planners and future planners have real innovative ideas.
No cars, trucks etc in the city. Electric rolling paths for persons, an Underground transportation net for goods. Skyscrapers where the outsides are covered by plants for shade and moisture balance, etc etc.
Perhaps it will become a real pleasure to live in a future modern city, it is as unpredictable as saying in the 19th century that humans will fly in the sky.
I like the good old definition;Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungleI'm glad I sure won't be here by then, but if the earth ever becomes one big continuous city it will be a shit to live in. And the way things go, all points in that direction.You don't know that. Modern city planners and future planners have real innovative ideas.
No cars, trucks etc in the city. Electric rolling paths for persons, an Underground transportation net for goods. Skyscrapers where the outsides are covered by plants for shade and moisture balance, etc etc.
Perhaps it will become a real pleasure to live in a future modern city, it is as unpredictable as saying in the 19th century that humans will fly in the sky.
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar?Have you been long enough to see the weather :-DD
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar? I thought England was big on solar like Germany. As I travel around in the city and country side I only see rooftop solar installed on maybe 1 out of 100,000 homes or even less. And so far I have not seen any solar powered signs.The Brittish are clever and go for nuclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station)
I thought folks posted here saying England was big on solar. Intertingly i’ve Seen several electric charging stations for cars on public streets. Seems to me England could really benefit from electric cars.
A bit surprised they don’t have many more.
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar?Have you been long enough to see the weather :-DD
Solar panels by themselves are not financially viable so it all depends on government grants
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar?Have you been long enough to see the weather :-DD
Yes. Are you saying there is nowhere in England is there enough sun for solar panels to be effective yet in Germany where it snows panels are effective? That don’t make no sense.
Got a better more educated answer?
We are talking about the UK. Even in the NL which is slightly to the south of the UK solar panels are not a good investment without subsidies.Solar panels by themselves are not financially viable so it all depends on government grantsNonsense. PV is so cheap now, in many locations it provides electricity at a less expensive rate than any other available power. Panels are on the order of $0.50 per watt and total installation costs should be no more than a few dollars/watt - though that doesn't keep many commercial home installers from ripping customers off with higher pricing.
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar? I thought England was big on solar like Germany. As I travel around in the city and country side I only see rooftop solar installed on maybe 1 out of 100,000 homes or even less. And so far I have not seen any solar powered signs.
The Brittish are clever and go for nuclearNope.
Why do you keep harping on about fossil fuel input while the world is transitioning to renewables and nuclear?because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.
Solar panels also require massive fossil fuel inputs but nobody seems to careI care and that’s one reason PV will never fully replace FFs. The difference is that the FF inputs to PV production are much smaller and potentially replacable (but we’ve waited too long). And PV is on a rapid growth curve. Nuclear is on the decline - and for good reasons.
because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.Perhaps you should visit some of the old Roman buildings in Italy and the pyramids in Egypt. Perhaps that will change your lack of confidence in human ingenuity. Even without fossil fuel people have managed to build huge structures.
You continue to twist and turn trying to find a way out of the energy trap we’re in. There isn’t . It’s ok, I know what that’s like, I used to be there too.
Why do you keep harping on about fossil fuel input while the world is transitioning to renewables and nuclear?
because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.
You’re right. Slave labor may make a comeback! :oOne problem: the pyramids wheren't built by slaves.
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar?Have you been long enough to see the weather :-DD
[
Do you have some reliable sources for those "facts" because last year the iaea published estimations to the contrary, they are from double the capacity to equal the current capacity in 2050.
Why do so few homes in England have rooftop solar? I thought England was big on solar like Germany. As I travel around in the city and country side I only see rooftop solar installed on maybe 1 out of 100,000 homes or even less. And so far I have not seen any solar powered signs.So you inspected the roofs of at least 100k UK homes, and only found zero or one with solar panels? Must have been quite a search.
[
Do you have some reliable sources for those "facts" because last year the iaea published estimations to the contrary, they are from double the capacity to equal the current capacity in 2050.
Yes, the source (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2018.pdf) is in my post. Did you miss that? The full Statistical Review of World Energy (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf) is a highly respected and anticipated annual report that is used by energy analysts worldwide, including he nuclear industry.
As I posted, it's regional. Nuclear generating capability in the US an Europe is declining and will continue to decline. It is increasing in absolute terms in some developing countries (most notably China) but that increase is much smaller than the current and projected increase in PV. The net result is that while there is some possible projected overall worldwide growth in nuclear power generating capability, all projections show that its overall percent contribution to world energy supplies will continue to markedly decrease, as it has been doing since 2006.
If you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!
(https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/nuclear-electric-production-by-region-to-2017.png)
Nuclear electric power production by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018. FSU is “Former Soviet Union” countries.
Yes, the source (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2018.pdf) is in my post. Did you miss that?Yes I missed some pages.
As I posted, it's regional. Nuclear generating capability in the US an Europe is declining and will continue to decline.On the short term coming 10 years yes, longer term it is unknown.
If you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!Perhaps you should reread that article because I have quoted the high AND low scenario:
The high projections indicate an increase from 2016 levels by 42% in 2030, by 83% in 2040 and by 123% in 2050.So they say by 2050 there will be equal or more nuclear energy used in the world.
The low projections, on the other hand, indicate a decline in capacity by 12% in 2030 and 15% in 2040, before rebounding to present levels by 2050.
When I was young I read in a popular science, or perhaps in an american scientific, I'm not sure, an article about how nuclear power would bring electricity costs close to near nothing. No wonder the powers that rule didn't like that even the slightest and soon after a (very successful) FUD campaign against it began: there's no shortage of useful idiots (*).That idea of nuclear based electricity being super cheap was spread by idiots. With zero generation costs, the cost just to build and support the grid alone would keep electricity costs reasonably high.
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Why do you keep harping on about fossil fuel input while the world is transitioning to renewables and nuclear?because we will not be able to build any more nuclear plants in 40 years. And no, the world is not transitioning to nuclear - nuclear peaked in 2007 and is declining. That is just a fact.QuoteSolar panels also require massive fossil fuel inputs but nobody seems to careI care and that’s one reason PV will never fully replace FFs. The difference is that the FF inputs to PV production are much smaller and potentially replacable (but we’ve waited too long). And PV is on a rapid growth curve. Nuclear is on the decline - and for good reasons.
You continue to twist and turn trying to find a way out of the energy trap we’re in. There isn’t . It’s ok, I know what that’s like, I used to be there too.
All the information you are linking to is about the past.:palm: Like most of what you've posted in this thread. That is demonstrably false.
You can't ignore the fact that a lot of new nuclear power plants are being built.:palm: again! I've not ignored that at all. See above and my prior posts.
It is not like nuclear power is going to be abandoned (far from it).In the near term - no, of course not - and I've never claimed that. Eventually, yes I believe it will be, unless as you propose, the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to build a safe plant is accomplished Roman or Egyptian style - using thousands of humans working by hand to mine and move materials. Of course it took them hundreds of years to accomplish their large scale building projects using these methods - so ....
QuoteIf you look closely at the IAEA report you sited it essentially says the same thing. And note the IAEAs mission is to promote use of atomic energy! Also of note they give TWO possible scenarios. You only sited the high scenario. Their low scenario shows even the absolute amount of nuclear generating capability decreasing over the next 30 years. And that is from the foremost lobbying group for nuclear energy!Perhaps you should reread that article because I have quoted the high AND low scenario:Quote from: iaeaThe high projections indicate an increase from 2016 levels by 42% in 2030, by 83% in 2040 and by 123% in 2050.
The low projections, on the other hand, indicate a decline in capacity by 12% in 2030 and 15% in 2040, before rebounding to present levels by 2050.
So they say by 2050 there will be equal or more nuclear energy used in the world.
The low projection assumes that current trends will continue with few changes in policies affecting nuclear power. It does not assume that all national targets for nuclear power will be achieved. It is a ‘conservative but plausible’ projection.
The high case assumes that current rates of economic and electricity demand growth will continue, with particularly high growth in the Far East. Nuclear power would also be accepted in many countries as a cost-effective climate change mitigation option.
As already stated this depends on so many parameters that it is hard to predict accurately.
In the near term - no, of course not - and I've never claimed that. Eventually, yes I believe it will be, unless as you propose, the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to build a safe plant is accomplished Roman or Egyptian style - using thousands of humans working by hand to mine and move materials. Of course it took them hundreds of years to accomplish their large scale building projects using these methods - so ....The pyramid of Cheops took 20 years to built. Not hundreds of years. The Collosseum in Rome took 8 years to built before opening and another 16 years to complete. I haven't been to the pyramid of Cheops but I did visit the Collosseum and it is freakishly huge even though half of the outer ring has dissapeared in the past few millennia.
In the near term - no, of course not - and I've never claimed that. Eventually, yes I believe it will be, unless as you propose, the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to build a safe plant is accomplished Roman or Egyptian style - using thousands of humans working by hand to mine and move materials. Of course it took them hundreds of years to accomplish their large scale building projects using these methods - so ....The pyramid of Cheops took 20 years to built. Not hundreds of years. The Collosseum in Rome took 8 years to built before opening and another 16 years to complete. I haven't been to the pyramid of Cheops but I did visit the Collosseum and it is freakishly huge even though half of the outer ring has dissapeared in the past few millennia.
And unlike current nuclear technology if we screw up and have a massive Chenobly disaster in just 20 years all of the radioactive isotopes will have completely decayed away.You keep making references to reactors which don't leave long lasting troublesome isotopes behind. What exactly are you referring to?
Please can we return this to the discussion of electric vehiclesSure what do you want to contribute?
Look at Fullychargedshow on Youtube, where Robert Llewellyn has his series on electric cars, electric houses and such. While he may be an actor, he does have a reasonable idea about things, and more importantly, data to back a lot of it up. He does have solar power in his UK house as well, and has the power figures up as well. As well you do get the odd reference to Red Dwarf as well, though he does not wear the costume on the channel much, but you do meet the cast, plus he has done some really good carpool episodes.
Yes I bought the series.........
Please can we return this to the discussion of electric vehiclesSure what do you want to contribute?
On another forum where electric cars have been discussed over 300 pages the consensus is that current generation electric cars are interesting for home-work home-city shopping travel for those lucky enough to have their own driveway with charging pole and completely useless for everything and everybody else ;D
Are they perfect? Far from it. Are they ideal for most people, yes.In other words: Far from perfect cars are ideal for most people, right?
I see plug in hybrids as a good bridge technology to cover the 5% that doesn't work well with current EV technology.No. Too expensive AND no range. Just stay clear from EVs and buy an efficient ICE car. As I calculated earlier the financial break even point between a size wise comparable EV and ICE based car is between 150000 and 200000km based on the high price we have to pay for fuel here in the NL. Furthermore the net effect on CO2 emissions from an EV is debatable due to the energy needed for manufacturing the batteries and various electricity production methods. All in all EVs are nice toys just like sports cars. If you can afford one and have a private parking spot to charge it: fine but don't try to sell it as a sensible choice. It just isn't.
And unlike current nuclear technology if we screw up and have a massive Chenobly disaster in just 20 years all of the radioactive isotopes will have completely decayed away.You keep making references to reactors which don't leave long lasting troublesome isotopes behind. What exactly are you referring to?
Are they perfect? Far from it. Are they ideal for most people, yes.In other words: Far from perfect cars are ideal for most people, right?
This seems about as well researched as your claims about UK roof solar panel.And unlike current nuclear technology if we screw up and have a massive Chenobly disaster in just 20 years all of the radioactive isotopes will have completely decayed away.You keep making references to reactors which don't leave long lasting troublesome isotopes behind. What exactly are you referring to?
The NextGen reactors which are being developed at NIF, ITER and at 75 other companies. Paul Allen of Microsoft wealth and Bill Gates have each backing NextGen nuclear companies. NextGen reactors use low MW/hydrogen atoms as fuel. Half-life for the radioactive residue is 12.3 years with biological half-life being 10 days.
The whole point of a plug in hybrid is to get more range than is practical with an EV. As in they're a great fit for those who commute on the order of 10-20 miles daily, but have to make long trips every once in a while.But you still need a place to charge and they are still more expensive while the manufacturing of batteries and electricity production make the amount of CO2 emission savings debatable at least.
You can guarantee that your electricity is zero carbon by installing your own solar.Do the math on how many square meters you need and you'll see an EV needs a huge amount of solar panels. A simple few kW roof mounted system ain't gonna do it. IF you already have that much roof space.
And good luck charging overnight.You can guarantee that your electricity is zero carbon by installing your own solar.Do the math on how many square meters you need and you'll see an EV needs a huge amount of solar panels. A simple few kW roof mounted system ain't gonna do it. IF you already have that much roof space.
I see plug in hybrids as a good bridge technology to cover the 5% that doesn't work well with current EV technology.
And good luck charging overnight.You can guarantee that your electricity is zero carbon by installing your own solar.Do the math on how many square meters you need and you'll see an EV needs a huge amount of solar panels. A simple few kW roof mounted system ain't gonna do it. IF you already have that much roof space.
::) ::)Hmm, If only there was a way to store the excess electricity you produce during the day??? ::) ::)Do the math on how many square meters you need and you'll see an EV needs a huge amount of solar panels. A simple few kW roof mounted system ain't gonna do it. IF you already have that much roof space.And good luck charging overnight.
::) ::)Hmm, If only there was a way to store the excess electricity you produce during the day??? ::) ::)Do the math on how many square meters you need and you'll see an EV needs a huge amount of solar panels. A simple few kW roof mounted system ain't gonna do it. IF you already have that much roof space.And good luck charging overnight.
One that's good and affordable, that doesn't incur in 15% losses everytime you use it, and also preferably with a lifetime of more than a few years too. Does it exist?
Charge discharge efficiency for many types of battery banks is >90%
Charge/discharge efficiency is a fact of life. Does this keep you from using a cell phone or laptop? ::)
Depending on type and use, deep discharge battery banks have an expected lifespan between 15 and 30 years.
Charge discharge efficiency for many types of battery banks is >90%
Charge/discharge efficiency is a fact of life. Does this keep you from using a cell phone or laptop? ::)
0.85*0.85->0.72 => to fully charge a 40 kWh EV battery, you'd waste 15.5 kWh.[
You said it, depending on use: light use=>longer life, but charging an EV ~ daily isn't "light use" (for, say, a powerwall), is it?
What's your point anyways?That on top of a rather big powerwall, you'd need at least (40[kWh]/0.85/0.85)/6[h]/0.1[kW/m²] ~= 93 m² of PVs on a sunny day. That's down right out of the reach for most people that live in cities, and not exactly cheap.
What's your point anyways?That on top of a rather big powerwall, you'd need at least (40[kWh]/0.85/0.85)/6[h]/0.1[kW/m²] ~= 93 m² of PVs on a sunny day. That's down right out of the reach for most people that live in cities, and not exactly cheap.
Something like a Nissan Leaf uses 30kWh/100 miles, so for someone who commutes 10 miles daily,If you commute 10 miles daily then you should use an (electric) bicycle.
Don't you find it rather troublesome to be soaking wet at work?Something like a Nissan Leaf uses 30kWh/100 miles, so for someone who commutes 10 miles daily,If you commute 10 miles daily then you should use an (electric) bicycle.
Don't you find it rather troublesome to be soaking wet at work?Something like a Nissan Leaf uses 30kWh/100 miles, so for someone who commutes 10 miles daily,If you commute 10 miles daily then you should use an (electric) bicycle.
And that is an entirely different issue than your trollish comments about not being able to use PV to charge at night or battery efficiency nonsense. :palm:If ~ 30% energy loss is ok for you, that's fine. 95% power electronics efficiency + 90% round trip li-ion efficiency times two (once in the powerwall + again in the EV) isn't "nonsense". That's the price to recharge overnight with PVs, and it's only for those that can afford 1)An EV, 2)100m2 of PVs and 3)A rather big powerwall. Which is a tiny minority.
And, BTW, many families have two cars...:palm:
Shower or wash. You wouldn't be the only one. If the weather permits I go to a customer on my bike (but that is 35km one way) and take a shower over there.Don't you find it rather troublesome to be soaking wet at work?Something like a Nissan Leaf uses 30kWh/100 miles, so for someone who commutes 10 miles daily,If you commute 10 miles daily then you should use an (electric) bicycle.
But why did you buy hybrids and not BEVs?Because availalble PHEVs are a better solution right now. I tried to talk my wife into a Tesla model X but she felt it would be too pretentious. ::)
What if you and your wife had to leave home to work from 9 to 5?Huh? Sometimes we do go back and forth to home. We can charge while we're home and in any case can get 2-3 roundtrips from home to work without needing to charge.
What if your daily commutes were more miles/kWh each?
What if you lived in a flat?
Etc.
My phone eats just a few Wh not in the tens of kWh daily.Completely irrelevant to the point.
This seems about as well researched as your claims about UK roof solar panel.And unlike current nuclear technology if we screw up and have a massive Chenobly disaster in just 20 years all of the radioactive isotopes will have completely decayed away.You keep making references to reactors which don't leave long lasting troublesome isotopes behind. What exactly are you referring to?
The NextGen reactors which are being developed at NIF, ITER and at 75 other companies. Paul Allen of Microsoft wealth and Bill Gates have each backing NextGen nuclear companies. NextGen reactors use low MW/hydrogen atoms as fuel. Half-life for the radioactive residue is 12.3 years with biological half-life being 10 days.
NIF and ITER are researching fusion reactions. These use hydrogen, and produce low levels of long half life waste. However, they are just research projects, far from practical application. Both hope to get to the point where they produce significantly more energy than they consume, but they have no expectations of producing so much net energy that anyone would consider them viable for production use. They are certainly important research projects for the longer term, but calling them "Next-Gen" is a heck of a stretch. Its not even clear the techniques they are experimenting with will ever be viable.
Paul Allen, Bill Gates and others are funding work on things which are genuinely next-gen, but they are using the same old fission processes as current reactors. They expect to make their reactors cheaper, more efficient, and practical to construct in a wider range of sizes than anything in use right now. They should also be far safer than anything in use now, as most failure modes are relatively benign. Because the waste from these new reactors is basically the same as the waste produced right now, it will have just as long a half-life as any other uranium fission based solution.
Have you ever noticed that the people nay-saying BEV or even PHEV don't have one?That is a strawman argument. You just wanted a nice toy to show off and are now seeking justification.
My BEV gets about 14kWh/100km, which is about $1.20 worth of electricity, and when I do need to travel more than 200km, I plan accordingly.Indeed and besides the financial part (much higher purchase price) which doesn't make sense the when I do need to travel more than 200km, I plan accordingly seals the NO-deal. Why pay more for something which does less?
My BEV gets about 14kWh/100km, which is about $1.20 worth of electricityYeah, but make that 16.4 kWh/100km... (divide by 0.85) >:D
I see plug in hybrids as a good bridge technology to cover the 5% that doesn't work well with current EV technology.
This is exactly right and why we now own 2 PHEVs. They have most of the advantages of a pure EV and none of the disadvantages.
In the US approximately 78% of drivers drive less than 40 miles per day. (see below). I don't know the data for Europe but based on my time there I'll bet the number is less.
I've owned my Volt for 4 years now and my lifetime average is 208 miles per gallon.
I've yet to meet anyone who has bought an PHEV who regrets the decision.
Ignore any naysayers who have not actually owned a PHEV.
(https://gm-volt.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/omnibus.jpg)
Plug in hybrids are not subject to that limitation. Also, has anyone noticed that if you want a CVT that lasts, pretty much your only affordable option is a Toyota hybrid or plug in hybrid? (And assuming you don't want a manual transmission, the only other option seems to be unreliable DCTs.)QuoteMy BEV gets about 14kWh/100km, which is about $1.20 worth of electricity, and when I do need to travel more than 200km, I plan accordingly.Indeed and besides the financial part (much higher purchase price) which doesn't make sense the when I do need to travel more than 200km, I plan accordingly seals the NO-deal. Why pay more for something which does less?
Also, has anyone noticed that if you want a CVT that lasts, pretty much your only affordable option is a Toyota hybrid or plug in hybrid?What's wrong with Toyota's CVT that are not in hybrid cars? Other people, like Honda, make satisfactory CVTs. It seems to be mostly the JATCO (subsidiary of Nissan) CVTs that have got them a bad name for reliability.
This seems about as well researched as your claims about UK roof solar panel.And unlike current nuclear technology if we screw up and have a massive Chenobly disaster in just 20 years all of the radioactive isotopes will have completely decayed away.You keep making references to reactors which don't leave long lasting troublesome isotopes behind. What exactly are you referring to?
The NextGen reactors which are being developed at NIF, ITER and at 75 other companies. Paul Allen of Microsoft wealth and Bill Gates have each backing NextGen nuclear companies. NextGen reactors use low MW/hydrogen atoms as fuel. Half-life for the radioactive residue is 12.3 years with biological half-life being 10 days.
NIF and ITER are researching fusion reactions. These use hydrogen, and produce low levels of long half life waste. However, they are just research projects, far from practical application. Both hope to get to the point where they produce significantly more energy than they consume, but they have no expectations of producing so much net energy that anyone would consider them viable for production use. They are certainly important research projects for the longer term, but calling them "Next-Gen" is a heck of a stretch. Its not even clear the techniques they are experimenting with will ever be viable.
Paul Allen, Bill Gates and others are funding work on things which are genuinely next-gen, but they are using the same old fission processes as current reactors. They expect to make their reactors cheaper, more efficient, and practical to construct in a wider range of sizes than anything in use right now. They should also be far safer than anything in use now, as most failure modes are relatively benign. Because the waste from these new reactors is basically the same as the waste produced right now, it will have just as long a half-life as any other uranium fission based solution.
My research on roof top solar an just my observations. Interestingly in Northern Ireland where as I understand it the weather is much worse for solar is where I have seen the most roof-top solar. Not sure who thought the weather in the UK was terrible for roof-top solar when there appears to be more where the weather is the worst.
There are currently 75 companies and organizations working on NextGen nuclear. You are mistaken about Bill Gates’s compnay. His company is not ittereation nuclear, and will use the urgent supply of nuclear “wate” material. Paul Allen’s company is working on NextGen or fusion. NIF, ITER are research projects which will hopefully lead to the design of NextGen nuclear. But what about the other 70 companies which are more than just research projects?
The 100 page research paper from what I understiand is not including the work these 70 companies are doing.
This would be why you saw lots of solar panels in Northern Ireland:I thought that scandal was about useless space heating, not solar roof panels. The wikipedia page also seems to indicate that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal)
What's wrong with Toyota's CVT that are not in hybrid cars? Other people, like Honda, make satisfactory CVTs. It seems to be mostly the JATCO (subsidiary of Nissan) CVTs that have got them a bad name for reliability.Toyota hybrids use a clutchless CVT design. It differs significantly from most CVT designs in that it does not use a belt that's a common failure point.
Those figures in the graph would not apply to folks in California.... Not even the retired ones.
Why pay more for something which does less?
Those figures in the graph would not apply to folks in California.... Not even the retired ones.
Actually they do. In fact, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are right in the middle of the large US cities on miles driven per day (http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/daily-miles-traveled). This matches well with my experience, living my first 29 years in the Los Angeles area and 7 years in the SF Bay area.
Most people I know in California do not commute long distances, though the do spend a long time in their car due to traffic. This makes the argument for usung an EV in those places even stonger.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=479495;image)
Why pay more for something which does less?
Lower cost of ownership therefore lower overall cost.
More convenient for everyday use - no time and miles wasted driving to and waiting at a gas/petrol station.
Greater energy efficiency.
In most cases better performance.
If you care about it - lower CO2 and lower pollutant emissions (potentially much lower depending on how your electricity is generated).
There just don’t have the range needed for a trip to Lake Tahoe or a trip to the wine country.
There just don’t have the range needed for a trip to Lake Tahoe or a trip to the wine country.
:palm:
What are you taking about? The wine country is less than 100 miles from the Bay Area.
Lake Tahoe is about 200 miles which would be a stretch for a Chevy Bolt - though chargng while stopping for a meal would solve that issue.
Neither is an issue for Teslas give their range and the availability of their super chargers on these routes.
And of course PHEVs have range issues at all.
Tesla engineers who like skiing and wine buy Volts as they don’t trust there Tesla’s to be able to make the trip reliably.Source??
Tesla engineers who like skiing and wine buy Volts as they don’t trust there Tesla’s to be able to make the trip reliably.Source??
If one is trying to drive to Tahoe and back the same day, then yes, lines at Teslas charging stations would mean a wait. But it’s a non-issue if spending the night (as many do) as long as you stay someplace where you can charge. I know someone who lives in SF with a model S that does just that.
As far as your nonsense claim about the Wine Country - there is zero issues with range getting there and back the same day without a recharge for many BEVs.
There’s no question that range can be an issue for BEVs depending on destination but the SF to wine country trip is not one of them. Tahoe could be if one wants to go there and back in one day. (I’ve done that in an ICE and it sucks spending 5-6 hours in the car just for one day of skiing).
PHEVs have no range issues of course. I think the optimal solution for the typical 2 car American family would be one BEV and one PHEV for long trips.
You're arguing with the same guy that said very little of my energy comes from Hydroelectric (90% of it does here). He's here to talk about nuclear, not Electric Cars. He's also very confused about the availability of charging stations between the HQ of Tesla, and the Battery Provider of Tesla (outside Reno). There are a *lot*
Hell, when I used to live in the Bay area and drive to Tahoe for a ski weekend, it was not uncommon to see long lines at gas stations in Tahoe on Sunday night due to poor planning by ICE drivers.
Hell, when I used to live in the Bay area and drive to Tahoe for a ski weekend, it was not uncommon to see long lines at gas stations in Tahoe on Sunday night due to poor planning by ICE drivers.
But as it only takes minutes not hours to refill an ICE those queues are quick.
Now I know you're trolling. Boffin just posted a map.
As for a trip to the wine country. Can you tell me where all of the charging stations are in Sonoma?
Yes there are some, but have you ever been to the wine country on a weekend?Yes
Where exactly are the Tesla folks going to get a charge to make it home?:palm: Why would they need to charge?. It's less than 100 miles round trip from SF to Napa. It's less than 200 miles round trip between most of the wineries in the wine country and most of the Bay area and less than 250 miles from the southern tip of the SF Bay Area to the northern reach of the Sonoma/Napa wine country.
Now I know you're trolling. Boffin just posted a map.
As for a trip to the wine country. Can you tell me where all of the charging stations are in Sonoma?QuoteYes there are some, but have you ever been to the wine country on a weekend?YesQuoteWhere exactly are the Tesla folks going to get a charge to make it home?:palm: Why would they need to charge?. It's less than 100 miles round trip from SF to Napa. It's less than 200 miles round trip between most of the wineries in the wine country and most of the Bay area and less than 250 miles from the southern tip of the SF Bay Area to the northern reach of the Sonoma/Napa wine country.
I'm beginning to think you've never been there.
But of course if they wanted to charge there are multiple options as the map Boffin posted shows.
Yup, we have two Honda Civic hybrids. One is at 150+K miles, the other is over 170K, no problem with the all-mechanical CVT. Honda does do a bit of periodic service on them, however. Mostly, just fluid changes.Also, has anyone noticed that if you want a CVT that lasts, pretty much your only affordable option is a Toyota hybrid or plug in hybrid?What's wrong with Toyota's CVT that are not in hybrid cars? Other people, like Honda, make satisfactory CVTs. It seems to be mostly the JATCO (subsidiary of Nissan) CVTs that have got them a bad name for reliability.
Now I know you're trolling. Boffin just posted a map.
As for a trip to the wine country. Can you tell me where all of the charging stations are in Sonoma?QuoteYes there are some, but have you ever been to the wine country on a weekend?YesQuoteWhere exactly are the Tesla folks going to get a charge to make it home?:palm: Why would they need to charge?. It's less than 100 miles round trip from SF to Napa. It's less than 200 miles round trip between most of the wineries in the wine country and most of the Bay area and less than 250 miles from the southern tip of the SF Bay Area to the northern reach of the Sonoma/Napa wine country.
I'm beginning to think you've never been there.
But of course if they wanted to charge there are multiple options as the map Boffin posted shows.
I think he must be trolling, especially the unwillingness to discuss EV cars, and not nuclear in this thread.
As for my map, it is a little misleading, it doesn't show all charging stations, only those compatible with my car; so there's actually more.
Not true. I've shown the math. Just to offset the purchase price you have to drive 150000km or more assuming the electricity is free and the batteries last forever. And then there is also the unknown value when you want to trade it in. The next owner is likely to need a new battery at some point.Why pay more for something which does less?Lower cost of ownership therefore lower overall cost.
More convenient for everyday use - no time and miles wasted driving to and waiting at a gas/petrol station.Not true. Waiting 60 minutes at a charging station or 5 minutes at a petrol station (which is along the way anyway) for the same range is not more convenient. I for sure don't go driving around for miles to a gas station. I don't have to.
Greater energy efficiency.That is highly debatable and greatly dependant on how the electricity is generated.
In most cases better performance.But for a much shorter period of time and the batteries don't like the abuse either. In the end you want a functional car to go from A to B and not a fun toy. If you want a fun toy then a Ford Mustang is cheaper at US $27k compared to the average EV.
Not true. I've shown the math.Why pay more for something which does less?Lower cost of ownership therefore lower overall cost.
QuoteMore convenient for everyday use - no time and miles wasted driving to and waiting at a gas/petrol station.Not true. Waiting 60 minutes at a charging station or 5 minutes at a petrol station (which is along the way anyway) for the same range is not more convenient.
QuoteGreater energy efficiency.That is highly debatable and greatly dependant on how the electricity is generated.
More bullshit. What do you mean "don't like abuse" ? ICE don't like abuse either. There is no need to "abuse" and EVs batteries to get better performance than most equivalently priced ICE vehicles.QuoteIn most cases better performance.But for a much shorter period of time and the batteries don't like the abuse either.
In the end you want a functional car to go from A to B and not a fun toy.Right, so why doesn't everyone just drive a 10 year old tin can costing $2k?
If you want a fun toy then a Ford Mustang is cheaper at US $27k compared to the average EV.Of course there are so many more ICE models available that there are some bargain performance cars, but you pay a big price for those in other ways - passenger comfort and gas mileage - for example
Not true. I've shown the math. Just to offset the purchase price you have to drive 150000km or more assuming the electricity is free and the batteries last forever. And then there is also the unknown value when you want to trade it in. The next owner is likely to need a new battery at some point.Why pay more for something which does less?Lower cost of ownership therefore lower overall cost.
Why do you all anyone who has an opinion a troll?
No, you haven't shown the math. Your argument was "Your EV" vs "Extremely inexpensive gasoline vehicle".No, I compared an equivalent gasoline vehicle to compare apples with apples. The Ford Focus is targeted at the same audience as the VW Golf and thus lives in the same price range and has similar abilities. You are just proving my point that you seek justification for your purchase and therefore choose to ignore/warp the numbers. That is a natural reaction (kinda like Fungus pushing the Rigol DS1054Z to everyone).
No, you haven't shown the math. Your argument was "Your EV" vs "Extremely inexpensive gasoline vehicle".No, I compared an equivalent gasoline vehicle to compare apples with apples. The Ford Focus is targeted at the same audience as the VW Golf and thus lives in the same price range and has similar abilities. You are just proving my point that you seek justification for your purchase and therefore choose to ignore/warp the numbers.
Tesla engineers who like skiing and wine buy Volts as they don’t trust there Tesla’s to be able to make the trip reliably.Source??
If one is trying to drive to Tahoe and back the same day, then yes, lines at Teslas charging stations would mean a wait. But it’s a non-issue if spending the night (as many do) as long as you stay someplace where you can charge. I know someone who lives in SF with a model S that does just that.
As far as your nonsense claim about the Wine Country - there is zero issues with range getting there and back the same day without a recharge for many BEVs.
There’s no question that range can be an issue for BEVs depending on destination but the SF to wine country trip is not one of them. Tahoe could be if one wants to go there and back in one day. (I’ve done that in an ICE and it sucks spending 5-6 hours in the car just for one day of skiing).
PHEVs have no range issues of course. I think the optimal solution for the typical 2 car American family would be one BEV and one PHEV for long trips.
You're arguing with the same guy that said very little of my energy comes from Hydroelectric (90% of it does here). He's here to talk about nuclear, not Electric Cars. He's also very confused about the availability of charging stations between the HQ of Tesla, and the Battery Provider of Tesla (outside Reno). There are a *lot*
You have repeatedly in this thread and multiple other threads, stated something as a fact without any reference or source and which are demonstrably false. When called out and shown evidence of the mistruth of your statement, you either ignore the facts and keep repeating the same statement or move onto another subject again stating things as factual (not opinion) that are not accurate and the pattern repeats over and over in multiple threads.
Let me just summarize what you're saying:
"A VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't apples to apples, but a Ford Focus*1 vs VW eGolf is apples to apples".
Let me just summarize what you're saying:
"A VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't apples to apples, but a Ford Focus*1 vs VW eGolf is apples to apples".
No no, he didn't say "A VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't apples to apples", the rest is correct, and true.
[..]some cheap, crappy, poorly performing[..]
Spending $8k more buys 8 years of fuel (note that Boffin is talking Canadian dollars) and you don't know for how long you are spending that amount on fuel each month. A job change may reduce the amount of fuel or alternatively need more range from the EV than it has.Let me just summarize what you're saying:
"A VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't apples to apples, but a Ford Focus*1 vs VW eGolf is apples to apples".
No no, he didn't say "A VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't apples to apples", the rest is correct, and true.
If your argument is that there will always be some cheap, crappy, poorly performing ICE vehicle way cheaper than some particular EV - then you've lost.
And even the cheap tin can cars will probably cost you more in the long run.
Why do any of us buy quality tools? Why don't we all just buy $10 multimeters, $200 DSOs, and cheap crappy hand tools?...
And if the true cost of ownership is the most important factor, in what alternate universe is saving $50-100 (or more!) in fuel costs per month not financially sound?
In what alternate universe is saving $50-100 (or more!) in fuel costs per month not financially sound?
In what alternate universe is saving $50-100 (or more!) in fuel costs per month not financially sound?
That's not so because you've got to pony up front many more $ for the EV... and then (unless it's an hybrid) you also need to have another (ICE) car for long trips. Where's the savings then?
Until you have to change the battery. That is an unknown cost and there is not much data available to predict why and when this will need to happen.In what alternate universe is saving $50-100 (or more!) in fuel costs per month not financially sound?
That's not so because you've got to pony up front many more $ for the EV... and then (unless it's an hybrid) you also need to have another (ICE) car for long trips. Where's the savings then?
:palm: If I pay $5-$10K more for an equivalent EV but save $4K a year in fuel and maintenance then, well you do the math...
BTW, my Volt only cost me $32K ($24.5K) after tax credit - so it actually cost less than a similarly equipped and performing ICE vehicle. (Same is true for my wife's Pacifica PHEV we bought last year).
By the time I pass it to my son when he turns 16 in 4 more years. It will have already saved me the entire cost in fuel savings. It will have virtually been free!! ;D
Even better, my son will have a car with very low cost of ownership!
By the way. According to this website the Volt is more expensive to run compared to the Ford Focus:
https://repairpal.com/cars/chevrolet/volt/2017 (https://repairpal.com/cars/chevrolet/volt/2017)
https://repairpal.com/cars/ford/focus/2016 (https://repairpal.com/cars/ford/focus/2016)
No, you haven't shown the math. Your argument was "Your EV" vs "Extremely inexpensive gasoline vehicle".No, I compared an equivalent gasoline vehicle to compare apples with apples. The Ford Focus is targeted at the same audience as the VW Golf and thus lives in the same price range and has similar abilities. You are just proving my point that you seek justification for your purchase and therefore choose to ignore/warp the numbers.
Let me just summarize what you're saying:
"A VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't apples to apples, but a Ford Focus*1 vs VW eGolf is apples to apples".
Sorry, but you're so wrong here.
*1: with an engine not available in my market
A very good point is that even if an EV meets your present range needs, that could change, leaving you with a vehicle that will probably not achieve at resale anything like the price you paid for it. Need not even be a job change, you could be told to add servicing an item 100 miles away once a week to your schedule. Employer won't understand why you can't do that, after all you agreed to use your car for business. :-//
By the way. According to this website the Volt is more expensive to run compared to the Ford Focus:
https://repairpal.com/cars/chevrolet/volt/2017 (https://repairpal.com/cars/chevrolet/volt/2017)
https://repairpal.com/cars/ford/focus/2016 (https://repairpal.com/cars/ford/focus/2016)
A Ford Focus?? :-DD I wouldn't be caught dead driving such a POS car.
And I call BS on those numbers. They are based on assuming the need to repair several of a Volts ICE components and assume someone is driving in ICE mode the same amount of miles as the Focus. Their website algorithm is obviously not designed for PHEVs and assumes heavy ICE use.
In 4 years I've only put about 3k miles on my Volts ICE and I've paid a total ZERO dollars in maintenance or repair. The only maintenance it has needed to date is one oil change and one tire rotation (both free under warranty). Now due for second oil change and tire rotation - so that will cost like what $100. In that time period, any ICE would have required several oil changes, likely one brake pad replacement, and one tune up.
A Volt's battery is warranteed for 8 years and 100 K miles. So far there has been few battery replacements done. At least one person has put 400k miles on his Volt's battery without noticeable degredation (https://insideevs.com/chevy-volt-400000-miles-odometer-no-noticeable-battery-degradation/). Best estimates right now are that without warranty coverage full battery replacement would cost $4-5K. That price will likely come down once warranties expire and there is a competitive market for replacements. A typical modern car transmission or engine rebuild or replacement would cost a similar amount BTW.
Look at the recommended maintenance schedule on a Volt vs any ICE vehicle. Unless your are driving your VOLT ICE mode only - you only need an oil change every 3 years, you will not need a brake service or ICE tune up for a long time. A pure EV of course would never need a oil change or a tune up.
BTW - see my edit above. I f'd up my first pass. (I've saved $4k in fuel on my volt in 4 years not 1 year. :palm:)
Only that:
1) It's not 13.9 kWh/100km but 13.9/0.85= 16.4 kWh/100km (And I doubt even that figure unless you always drive like a grandma)
2) To recharge 3.22*16.4= 53kWh overnight @ 2..3 kW (usual max power at a normal schuko unless you turn off everything else in your house, i.e. sleep w/o A/C, dish washer off, etc.) it takes... between 18 and 26.5 hours.
3) The cheapest Model S with that range is +63k $ after rebates, tax deductions, etc. A Skoda Superb starts at 22k €.
1) I've been getting 13.9 over the lifetime of the car (admittedly it only has a few thousand km on it now). Charging losses are nowhere near 15%, perhaps 5-6%;
2) I don't know anyone who has a schuko outlet, I live in North America. I have a 240V/30A outlet I charge from (@22-24A)
3) Are you seriously saying that a Model S and Sokda Superb are equivilent vehicles?
1) I've been getting 13.9 over the lifetime of the car (admittedly it only has a few thousand km on it now). Charging losses are nowhere near 15%, perhaps 5-6%;
You need a wall outlet energy meter, it seems to me, or you're never going to get it.
1) I've been getting 13.9 over the lifetime of the car (admittedly it only has a few thousand km on it now). Charging losses are nowhere near 15%, perhaps 5-6%;
You need a wall outlet energy meter, it seems to me, or you're never going to get it.
You need to actually own an EV or you'll never get it. ::)
I have measured my Volt and I see about 92% efficiency (8% loss). This is by direct measurement of watts in (using a kill-a-watt meter with the 120V charger) versus watts out (reported by the Volt). 240 V charging would likely be slightly more efficient.
I was told 120v charger was slightly more efficient than the 220 volt. Reason why, (I was told), is charging at 220 v generates more heat while charging if compared to 120v.
I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters.
I don't know what you are raving on about. You didn't test 120V versus 240V charging so you don't know. I doubt it makes much difference because it makes sense to keep the DC rails after the PFC at around 450VDC.I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters.Doubt all you want but Kill-a-Watt meters are pretty accurate (less so for purely inductive loads). Specs say power accuracy is 0.5% - I've checked mine against in line and clamp meters and it's always pretty close - within 1% - 2% at worst. This is not true for small loads of course (below 5 watts or so) - which it is not designed to measure.
I don't know what you are raving on about. You didn't test 120V versus 240V charging so you don't know. I doubt it makes much difference because it makes sense to keep the DC rails after the PFC at around 450VDC.I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters.Doubt all you want but Kill-a-Watt meters are pretty accurate (less so for purely inductive loads). Specs say power accuracy is 0.5% - I've checked mine against in line and clamp meters and it's always pretty close - within 1% - 2% at worst. This is not true for small loads of course (below 5 watts or so) - which it is not designed to measure.
Stop posting until you are sober again. I never made any claims about the Kill-a-watt meter being inaccurate. You are mixing people up now.I don't know what you are raving on about. You didn't test 120V versus 240V charging so you don't know. I doubt it makes much difference because it makes sense to keep the DC rails after the PFC at around 450VDC.I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters.Doubt all you want but Kill-a-Watt meters are pretty accurate (less so for purely inductive loads). Specs say power accuracy is 0.5% - I've checked mine against in line and clamp meters and it's always pretty close - within 1% - 2% at worst. This is not true for small loads of course (below 5 watts or so) - which it is not designed to measure.
:palm:
Raving? You made a claim about the accuracy of a kill-a -watt meter and I refuted it with facts. It has nothing to do with 120 vs 240V. And nothing to do with PFC. Like all of your other fact-free assertions in this thread, it did not hold up to scrutiny.
Stop posting until you are sober again. I never made any claims about the Kill-a-watt meter being inaccurate. You are mixing people up now.
1) I've been getting 13.9 over the lifetime of the car (admittedly it only has a few thousand km on it now). Charging losses are nowhere near 15%, perhaps 5-6%;
You need a wall outlet energy meter, it seems to me, or you're never going to get it.
I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters. In any consumer power supply they make 300V from either 120V AC (full bridge rectified) or 220V AC (half bridge rectified). The next stage is a PFC ofcourse.
In theory yes but in practical electronic circuits the efficiency depends on many things. First a 120V mains supply is probably wired using thicker wires compared to a 230V/240V mains system given the same power output requirements. So I expect little difference in there.Stop posting until you are sober again. I never made any claims about the Kill-a-watt meter being inaccurate. You are mixing people up now.
OK - calm down. :o I read your post where you said " I highly doubt the mains voltage matters" as " I highly doubt the mains voltage meters" If you read my response it should be clear that is what I was responding to. (I've added a note to bottom of posts with my error)
Now, for the issue of 120 versus 240V charging. I responded to Dougs post stating that 220 V would be less efficient than 120V due to more heat being generated.
I'm not an engineer by trade but even I know that assertion is nonsense. Do you agree with his assertion that increasing the voltage will mean more heat (for a given power)?
PFC or not, increased voltage/decreased amps generally improves power electronics efficiency. Are you disagreeing with that?
I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters. In any consumer power supply they make 300V from either 120V AC (full bridge rectified) or 220V AC (half bridge rectified). The next stage is a PFC ofcourse.
Not so sure I would agree as you are not factoring in the current. There is twice as much current at 220. Would it not make sense more heat would be generated due to higher current and voltage?
I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters. In any consumer power supply they make 300V from either 120V AC (full bridge rectified) or 220V AC (half bridge rectified). The next stage is a PFC ofcourse.Not so sure I would agree as you are not factoring in the current. There is twice as much current at 220. Would it not make sense more heat would be generated due to higher current and voltage?
You need to stop jumping to conclusions, and instead look at the real world numbers that the owners of BEV / PHEV vehicles are posting here
Sorry, I'm lost. P=I*V, what am I missing?
The transition to EVs is occurring whether some like it or not. When they will compromise a majority of cars on the road is anyone’s guess. I’d guess it will happen 15-20 years from now IF society as a whole can continue to hold together (a big if IMO).We'll probably see a transition into electric vehicles which have a predictable usage so their batteries can be sized accordingly. Vehicles like city busses, airport shuttles, small delivery trucks can be made electric because it is easy to predict their daily mileage and size the charging infrastructure accordingly. But for general purpose cars I don't see it happen within 20 years and I wouldn't bet any money on EVs becoming the majority of the cars after that.
I strongly doubt the mains voltages matters. In any consumer power supply they make 300V from either 120V AC (full bridge rectified) or 220V AC (half bridge rectified). The next stage is a PFC ofcourse.Not so sure I would agree as you are not factoring in the current. There is twice as much current at 220. Would it not make sense more heat would be generated due to higher current and voltage?
Sorry, I'm lost. P=I*V, what am I missing?
Just think about how much coal and fossil fuels are being burned just to do useless Bitcoin calculations every second.Off-topic but it is sad but true. However people could choose to boycot crypto-currencies so it is no longer profitable to mine them.
Crypto currencies are turning out to be an ecological nightmare for our planet.
There are a few cryptocurrencies that are quite energy efficient, including some that I'm still mining. My cluster uses about 20W and generates about $45/month at current difficulty. Last year, it peaked at $150/month, at which point the money obtained per energy used was about the same as driving to work in a hybrid car, even with the very unrealistic assumption that the workplace uses no energy. Thus, I hope the ones criticizing my mining cluster for its energy use are the ones who walk or bicycle (or telecommute) to work! (And my cluster is solar powered, so it's carbon neutral.)
Which ones are energy efficient? Can’t be one’s with decentralized DBs.Mostly the obscure ones. One example that used to be that way was earnhoney, but then it became somewhat less obscure and the difficulty went up dramatically. Also Perk, until it crashed.
A bit off topic, but this is the BS marketing companies have come up up with.Some legitimate ways to make it more efficient would be to insulate the container better and use a Peltier heat pump for the first stage of heating.
I was looking in a department store for tea kettle. On the box3s for several of the tea kettles it states save up to 66% in energy. Okay so how is it one tea kettle can save up to 66% when boilining water?
The magic of the 66&% energy saving is..... here’s the very fine print. One saves 66% in energy if one boils one cup of water instead of a liter. Well duh, that would apply to any tea kettle. Go to love the people who come up with this BS.
I was told charging at higher voltage which reduces the charging time generates more heat and is less efficient. When charging at a lower voltage I was is more efficient because less heat is wasted in charging.
I was told charging at higher voltage which reduces the charging time generates more heat and is less efficient. When charging at a lower voltage I was is more efficient because less heat is wasted in charging.
And that's right. Recharging at 1/2C the losses are much less than at say 2C (and also, the battery will last longer), I²R losses are 16 times less, for example.
Tesla desperately needs money.
The last 5 years they never ever made any profit, till now investors have had high hopes it all would go well.
The magic of the 66&% energy saving is..... here’s the very fine print. One saves 66% in energy if one boils one cup of water instead of a liter. Well duh, that would apply to any tea kettle. Go to love the people who come up with this BS.On the other hand, I think people who have single cup boiling water dispensers will on average save some power (ie. press a button, butter some toast and it will fill one mug with boiling water, at least that's about the speed at 3kW). Not that it's significant, but they are very convenient.
True, I am also quite sure that if Tesla did not start the EV hype other conventional carmanufacturers were not in a hurry to develop their own cars. They were quite comfortable selling their poluting diesel cars and had just invested billions in its development. In that sense Tesla is already a succes in bringing EV manufacturing forward 5 to 10 years.Tesla desperately needs money.
The last 5 years they never ever made any profit, till now investors have had high hopes it all would go well.
Tesla’s ability to thrive as a large independent auto maker has always depended on the Model 3. They’re learning that production of autos on a massively large scale is not so easy.
They’ve achieved some remarkable things with the Model S and X - designing, building, marketing and selling a completely new kind of car in the USA - threatening the “big 3” US automakers- something that has never been done here before.
If the Model 3 fails, Tesla will not go away - but Musk will likely loose control as they are either acquired by another company or are forced to file Chapter 11.
They might have delayed the development of new battery chemistries though.Interesting, how so?
By creating a market for the current generation of Li-ion batteries. This made it unnecessary to invest in battery technology which is truly useful for electric vehicles on a large scale AND did cause more investments in Li-ion batteries which need to pay for themselves first.They might have delayed the development of new battery chemistries though.Interesting, how so?
But AFAIK there is no viable alternative to invest in and have a product within two years, or is there?Not long ago there was a burst of press reports about Toyota being very close to mass production with solid state batteries. Toyota quickly corrected this, and said 2030 looks like a reasonable date. It took years to polish lithium batteries to be as safe and consistent as they are today (apart from the odd screw up, like the Samsung Note 7). Solid state batteries haven't even started down that polishing path yet.
All the interesting new Research is in the laboratory phase it can take years even a decade before mass production, or what am I missing?
Most promising what I heard is the solid state battery but still very expensive and not mass producable.
But AFAIK there is no viable alternative to invest in and have a product within two years, or is there?I like electrically+mechanically rechargeable zinc air batteries. They have a couple problems such as low round trip efficiency due to large voltage drop of the air cathode (they're working on it), dendrites with electrical charging (a solved problem, simply use mechanical wipers), etc. I have hope that with sufficient investment those could be solved.
The inventor is less pessimistic but he doesn't have that long:But AFAIK there is no viable alternative to invest in and have a product within two years, or is there?Not long ago there was a burst of press reports about Toyota being very close to mass production with solid state batteries. Toyota quickly corrected this, and said 2030 looks like a reasonable date. It took years to polish lithium batteries to be as safe and consistent as they are today (apart from the odd screw up, like the Samsung Note 7). Solid state batteries haven't even started down that polishing path yet.
All the interesting new Research is in the laboratory phase it can take years even a decade before mass production, or what am I missing?
Most promising what I heard is the solid state battery but still very expensive and not mass producable.
I don't see any conflict between what he says and what Toyota say. He suggests someone could have a good product on the market in 3 to 5 years. Getting modest volumes of a not-especially cheap product out the door, serving markets that value the qualities of a solid state battery fulfill his claim, and get a market kickstarted. That's far from Toyota's need for high volume production plants up and running, and the product being highly cost optimised. It takes several years to find a sight, get planning approval, and actually get a large new production facility up and running, and a developer isn't going to start that process until the product is looking pretty solid.QuoteNot long ago there was a burst of press reports about Toyota being very close to mass production with solid state batteries. Toyota quickly corrected this, and said 2030 looks like a reasonable date. It took years to polish lithium batteries to be as safe and consistent as they are today (apart from the odd screw up, like the Samsung Note 7). Solid state batteries haven't even started down that polishing path yet.The inventor is less pessimistic but he doesn't have that long:
https://about.bnef.com/blog/goodenough-making-progress-solid-state-batteries-qa/ (https://about.bnef.com/blog/goodenough-making-progress-solid-state-batteries-qa/)
Anyone know what they are doing in Germany with a combined heat, hot water and power generator?It can be economical but you have to do this on a larger scale. Over here these systems can be found in large buildings and some cities have a hot water-grid for heating and hot water. The source of the hot water is a power plant.
https://youtu.be/wtDbfV5dsNs?t=6m14s
At this point, this thread is just a dumpster into which DougSpindler throws his baseless claims and ridiculously ignorant beliefs after doing a grand total of zero research on the relevant subjects. I am formally abandoning it. Sorry, Doug!
creidtble evidneceSay what ? :)
creidtble evidneceSay what ? :)
This topic is the same on the other forum, some EV owners are very enthousiastic about their car even when they have to charge every 150 miles or have to walk, had to pay double the price of an ICE that has twice the room and four times the range and I can go on.
Hybrids are a different story.
But pure EV owners: fine for them but they are a minority of carowners trying to convince others to also buy one in a manner that resembles preachers trying to gain souls but forgetting that EVs are ludicrous expensive have very low range, can't pull a caravan or trailer and in Europe at least most countries have a terrible infrastructure where again you have to own local accounts to be able to use the charging poles.
It will change some time yes, but unless there are major breakthroughs in battery tech and this tech is product ready (mostly a 10 year period) for most people an EV is not a viable option for the coming 5 years even a decade.
creidtble evidneceSay what ? :)
This topic is the same on the other forum, some EV owners are very enthousiastic about their car even when they have to charge every 150 miles or have to walk, had to pay double the price of an ICE that has twice the room and four times the range and I can go on.
Hybrids are a different story.
But pure EV owners: fine for them but they are a minority of carowners trying to convince others to also buy one in a manner that resembles preachers trying to gain souls but forgetting that EVs are ludicrous expensive have very low range, can't pull a caravan or trailer and in Europe at least most countries have a terrible infrastructure where again you have to own local accounts to be able to use the charging poles.
It will change some time yes, but unless there are major breakthroughs in battery tech and this tech is product ready (mostly a 10 year period) for most people an EV is not a viable option for the coming 5 years even a decade.
Wow, do you work for Royal Dutch Shell ? Despite my math showing you the numbers to be very effective, you keep up these wild claims that EV is not a viable option.
Let's look at some of your claims
- Comparing a VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't a valid comparison - you should compare an eGolf with the cheapest car on the market (this was my favourite)
- EV cars are double the price of an ICE. Perhaps when you're comparing a Tesla with a Yugo, but comparing like-sized/quality/trim levels, it simply isn't true. There's a small premium, paid off in 40-60,000km - again we demonstrated the math on both a VW and a Ford
- EV cars are somehow space compromised. - My eGolf is the same size inside as any other VW Golf, which I believe is in the top selling cars of all time.
It goes on and on. Between you and DougSpindler, you simply refuse to acknowledge the direction the world is going, and appear to have your own agenda.
On behalf of the people who want to discuss electric cars, I'm going to suggest that you and Doug go and start your own "Why Electric Cars Suck" thread, and leave this thread for serious, fact-based, discussion for the owners, and potential owners of electric cars.
Wow, do you work for Royal Dutch Shell ? Despite my math showing you the numbers to be very effective, you keep up these wild claims that EV is not a viable option.I think you mess me up with someone else but the points for our country seem right.
Let's look at some of your claims
- Comparing a VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't a valid comparison - you should compare an eGolf with the cheapest car on the market (this was my favourite)
- EV cars are double the price of an ICE. Perhaps when you're comparing a Tesla with a Yugo, but comparing like-sized/quality/trim levels, it simply isn't true. There's a small premium, paid off in 40-60,000km - again we demonstrated the math on both a VW and a Ford
- EV cars are somehow space compromised. - My eGolf is the same size inside as any other VW Golf, which I believe is in the top selling cars of all time.
It goes on and on. Between you and DougSpindler, you simply refuse to acknowledge the direction the world is going, and appear to have your own agenda.
On behalf of the people who want to discuss electric cars, I'm going to suggest that you and Doug go and start your own "Why Electric Cars Suck" thread, and leave this thread for serious, fact-based, discussion for the owners, and potential owners of electric cars.
Wow, do you work for Royal Dutch Shell ? Despite my math showing you the numbers to be very effective, you keep up these wild claims that EV is not a viable option.I think you mess me up with someone else but the points for our country seem right.
Let's look at some of your claims
- Comparing a VW Golf vs VW eGolf isn't a valid comparison - you should compare an eGolf with the cheapest car on the market (this was my favourite)
- EV cars are double the price of an ICE. Perhaps when you're comparing a Tesla with a Yugo, but comparing like-sized/quality/trim levels, it simply isn't true. There's a small premium, paid off in 40-60,000km - again we demonstrated the math on both a VW and a Ford
- EV cars are somehow space compromised. - My eGolf is the same size inside as any other VW Golf, which I believe is in the top selling cars of all time.
It goes on and on. Between you and DougSpindler, you simply refuse to acknowledge the direction the world is going, and appear to have your own agenda.
On behalf of the people who want to discuss electric cars, I'm going to suggest that you and Doug go and start your own "Why Electric Cars Suck" thread, and leave this thread for serious, fact-based, discussion for the owners, and potential owners of electric cars.
A Tesla S costs over €100k three times a very decent ice stationwagon like a VW Golf.
I am talking about EVs not hybrids something you seem to mess up all the times.
Tesla never made a $ profit, today they anounced a $5 billion investment in a China factory but they don't have the money so they want to raise capital in China.
Other car manufacturers like VW newest Golf8 coming out next year will have a small perhaps solid state battery to support the start stop system only, thats it no electric plan for this generation that lasts 6-8 years but they do shut down two of the four cylinders while driving, and I can go on.
Perhaps your government in Canada gives you half the money an EV costs to make it at least affordable but here it is only for business owners they can deduct the tax.
In Norway it seems to become a success but ask why, because the government throws huge amounts of money at it and due to their natural water reservoirs in the mountains they have almost free electricity. Good for them and I wish it was viable in other countries but I don't see it.
Here in Holland you goto the city park your car for two hours while charging and you get 20-30% load resulting in a 35 mile radius, two hours! That is if it was an ice the fuelpump would do one litre of fuel per hour. So wake up from your future utopia and get real talk to the middle class families that are the majority of car owners that want to go 1000km drive to go to holiday and drive 75km each day for work and none of them owns an EV or is going to buy an EV that is your reality.
Perhaps in 5-10 years it will be different but lots has to change.
The sign is clear: plug in hybrids would be the stopgap solution with most of the advantages of an EV but without the limited range problem that seems to be a showstopper for some.It seems Hydrogen is not out of the race yet. Mercedes is about to release a new model:
The sign is clear: plug in hybrids would be the stopgap solution with most of the advantages of an EV but without the limited range problem that seems to be a showstopper for some.Not some , most people I talked to even EV owners complain about it.
It seems Hydrogen is not out of the race yet. Mercedes is about to release a new model:Electricity to hydrogen is wildly inefficient.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride)
And in the Netherlands they are going to add 11 more hydrogen fuel stations in the next year.
Zinc air is old technology, but it still has only a small market niche. I wonder why? Could it possibly have some issues beneath the attractive looking headline?It seems Hydrogen is not out of the race yet. Mercedes is about to release a new model:Electricity to hydrogen is wildly inefficient.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride)
And in the Netherlands they are going to add 11 more hydrogen fuel stations in the next year.
For the same efficiency you could just use zinc air batteries with existing technology, but the zinc air batteries can be both electrically and mechanically recharged.
The Wikipedia article claims that efficiencies around 90% can be achieved. Even at 70 or 80 percent it isn't inefficient and probably more economically viable compared to storing electricity in batteries. For starters a Hydrogen tank doesn't wear so much as a battery.It seems Hydrogen is not out of the race yet. Mercedes is about to release a new model:Electricity to hydrogen is wildly inefficient.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride)
And in the Netherlands they are going to add 11 more hydrogen fuel stations in the next year.
Most articles on hydrogen from electricity talk of 70% to 80% efficiency. Which Wikipedia page quotes 90%, and for what technology?The Wikipedia article claims that efficiencies around 90% can be achieved. Even at 70 or 80 percent it isn't inefficient and probably more economically viable compared to storing electricity in batteries. For starters a Hydrogen tank doesn't wear so much as a battery.It seems Hydrogen is not out of the race yet. Mercedes is about to release a new model:Electricity to hydrogen is wildly inefficient.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/mercedes-benz-glc-f-cell-2018-first-ride)
And in the Netherlands they are going to add 11 more hydrogen fuel stations in the next year.
The Wikipedia article claims that efficiencies around 90% can be achieved. Even at 70 or 80 percent it isn't inefficient and probably more economically viable compared to storing electricity in batteries. For starters a Hydrogen tank doesn't wear so much as a battery.I hope this will never be done in households, there are two products that get generated from H2O 1/2-O2 and H2 the combination of both is extremely explosive, remember the Graf Zeppelin ?
@Coppice: In the end the economics matter and not the efficiency. If efficiency mattered then all our computers would have 99.5% efficient power supplies.If you want to duck the issues, and not address them, why not keep your own counsel, rather than offer a meaningless response?
@Kjelt: the Hindenberg didn't catch fire due to H2 but due to the extremely flammable material they used for the outer layer. A similar goof-up like the Grenfell tower and the accident with the Apollo capsule catching fire (the latter due to the pure O2 atmosphere).No that is just a hypothesis, the hydrogen-spark hypothesis is still the most widely official accepted theory.
The theory that hydrogen was ignited by a static spark is the most widely accepted theory as determined by the official crash investigations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Fire's_initial_fuel
Could it possibly have some issues beneath the attractive looking headline?
I don't need to duck anything. The article only looks at efficiency and totally ignores the economics. In the real world the choosen solution will be driven by economics and not efficiency. The biggest challenge for electricity from solar and wind is storage and a significant part of the price per kWh will probably be driven by the storage costs.@Coppice: In the end the economics matter and not the efficiency. If efficiency mattered then all our computers would have 99.5% efficient power supplies.If you want to duck the issues, and not address them, why not keep your own counsel, rather than offer a meaningless response?
If you want a rational discussion why not take a page like https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html and critique it? Its from 2006, so some things may have changed, and it may contain some inaccurate figures. It does, however, look at the whole supply chain, which most articles avoid.
Only a fool would disagree that effective storage is the key to the viability of most kinds of renewable energy, and that economics is always the bottom line when choosing solutions. Doubling the size of the renewable energy systems needed, plus the high maintenance costs of electrolysis systems, and all the other complexities of handling and storing hydrogen, are serious economic barriers for hydrogen to overcome, though. A hydrogen powered car might have a longer range than an electric one, with current technology. However a hydrogen car has the opposite problem. Its really awful for the short daily journeys where something like a Nissan Leaf does a fine job, because of venting loses, unless you keep the tank nearly empty, and refill often. A cost effect way to turn renewably sourced electricity into an easy to store fuel, like ethanol, would be a game changer. Hydrogen just seems to swap one set of problems for another.I don't need to duck anything. The article only looks at efficiency and totally ignores the economics. In the real world the choosen solution will be driven by economics and not efficiency. The biggest challenge for electricity from solar and wind is storage and a significant part of the price per kWh will probably be driven by the storage costs.@Coppice: In the end the economics matter and not the efficiency. If efficiency mattered then all our computers would have 99.5% efficient power supplies.If you want to duck the issues, and not address them, why not keep your own counsel, rather than offer a meaningless response?
If you want a rational discussion why not take a page like https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html and critique it? Its from 2006, so some things may have changed, and it may contain some inaccurate figures. It does, however, look at the whole supply chain, which most articles avoid.
What you are saying today about battery technology toady is exactly what was being said 100 years ago. In 100 years of battery powered vehicles not much has changed. Maybe it's time to look at steam power and ECE. Just over 100 years ago the leading and proven technology was stem power for well over 100 years. Maybe it's time to bring steam power back. How about a solar steam powered ECE using steam?
Seriously at this time our only chicices are human, fossil fuel or nucelar power for vehicles. Yes EVs are nice, but if in 100 years we haven't made major improvements on the batterey technoilgy don't expect somehting soon.
What's intereting is the range of EV cars today is not that much different than those of 100 years ago is not that much different. (Some exceptioons.)
Take a look at Jay Leno's garage. He has a Baker EV car. These are his words, not mine.
You can also read about the Baker EV cars.
OverviewOne ton of batteries which produce 2-3 kW for 2-3 hours. So 4 to 9 kW-hr in 1 ton.
The Baker years of 1900 to 1915 spanned the range when individual electric cars were popular. Because 1,000 lbs of batteries could only deliver 2-3 kw for 2-3 hours, the hp rating of these cars was low (2-4 hp) and their range was limited. Prior to 1900 was the era of commercial electric vehicles: taxis and trucks, many made by Electric Vehicle Company of Hartford Conn, which sold cars under the brand name Columbia. After 1915 there was a short lived period of a few high power, high performance electric drive cars where the battery was replaced by a combustion engine coupled to a dynamo. While this increased the available power by x10 or so, and solved the range problem too, it produced an expensive and heavy car. The most notable of these high power, electric drive cars was the Owen Magnetic, which had a unique
electromagnetic transmission designed by Justus Entz. Walter Baker acquired the patent rights to Entz drive train in 1912 and guided the Owen Magnetic into production in 1915 where it survived until 1922.
http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/wells_auto_museum/baker_electric_technology.htm#Overview (http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/wells_auto_museum/baker_electric_technology.htm#Overview)
Battery kwh comparison to modern electric cars
It's interesting to compare the kwh rating of this Baker battery with a modern electric car battert. The baker kwh rating (ideally) is 7.56 kwh = (21A x 6hr x 60V). The electric car with the largest capacity battery (as I write) is the Tesla model S, which has an 85 kwh battery. A more modest extended ranage electric car like the GM Volt has a 16 kwh battery. So the Baker's 1,000 lb (roughly) lead acid batteries had about 1/10th the kwh rating of the lithium ion battery which fills the floor of the Tesla Model S, or about half the kwh capacity of the more modest Volt battery.
And that is what we have achieved on battery technology in 100 years :(QuoteBattery kwh comparison to modern electric carsInteresting comparison.
It's interesting to compare the kwh rating of this Baker battery with a modern electric car battert. The baker kwh rating (ideally) is 7.56 kwh = (21A x 6hr x 60V). The electric car with the largest capacity battery (as I write) is the Tesla model S, which has an 85 kwh battery. A more modest extended ranage electric car like the GM Volt has a 16 kwh battery. So the Baker's 1,000 lb (roughly) lead acid batteries had about 1/10th the kwh rating of the lithium ion battery which fills the floor of the Tesla Model S, or about half the kwh capacity of the more modest Volt battery.
EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
Long trips are rare, and the fast 25min charging stops add up to much less time than the weekly time at gas stations.Long trips are rare for some people, but a daily event for others. No one electric car is going to suit everyone's needs in an economical manner, just as no one ICE car suits everyone's needs in an economical manner.
I can't see which country your from but in our country we do and will not have the infrastructure to support even every commuter to fast charge between 7-8am and 1700-1800 nor charge them at home, so if the charging frequency increases the adoptability of EVs will decrease. The minimum range necessary will probably be around 350-400km. Looking at a state as California that at least a few years back was unable to sustain normal mains netpower in the summer this will be an equally big challenge.EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.
EVs for the masses don't need 650km range when the daily trip is <60km.
Mass market needs proper fast charger networks, not range.
Long trips are rare, and the fast 25min charging stops add up to much less time than the weekly time at gas stations.
No it is not and it is very easy to understand. Ask yourself why an ICE based car has a fuel tank which takes it around 800km? Why would that be? Is that some kind of arbitrary number? No, it is not. It is what the customers find acceptable. Plain and simple and there is no argueing around it.EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.
No it is not and it is very easy to understand. Ask yourself why an ICE based car has a fuel tank which takes it around 800km? Why would that be? Is that some kind of arbitrary number? No, it is not. It is what the customers find acceptable. Plain and simple and there is no argueing around it.
No it is not and it is very easy to understand. Ask yourself why an ICE based car has a fuel tank which takes it around 800km? Why would that be? Is that some kind of arbitrary number? No, it is not. It is what the customers find acceptable. Plain and simple and there is no argueing around it.EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.
People say you have to stop and eat anyway.There is another problem with that: try and find a decent restaurant next to a road. I know only one in thousands of kilometers of highway across Europe.
I don't disagree that range is an issue for many (but not all) people, but there are several logical errors in directly translating ICE range to EV range:Is that why we had this wireless charging topic , because it was so easy to plug in your car every day? Not too mention those who have to find a charging spot coming home in the parkinglot,
1) If you take 800 km as the range that people demand in an ICE car, it does not necessarily follow that they would demand the same range in an EV.
Going to a petrol station every day would be much more inconvenient than plugging in a car every night, so (for those EV users who are able to charge at home)
their maximum daily range would be a more reasonable number to use.
Additionally many ICEs do not get 800 km to a tank, mine gets around 230 miles / 370 km and many modern small cars are more like 500-550 km real-world miles per tank.My last three cars from 1999 up to today were Opel stationwagons, with engines with the most hp so not the smallest and they did 600km , 760km and my current one does 800-1000km on a 60 litre tank.
2) The marginal cost of increasing the size of an ICE tank is small, manufacturer's therefore have an incentive to make it large enough to appeal to customers who want long rangeAgreed with the first part, not the second. Holiday travel on a black saturday as we call it here in Europe you want to drive the 1000kms and only have to wait in line at the gaspump once.
even if they are a small fraction of total customers. e.g. it may be the case that a majority of ICE customers would be happy with half the tank size,
but the manufacturer makes it bigger at low cost to sell a few % more cars.
3) Huge numbers of people do not fill their petrol tanks to the top, I see these people at petrol stations putting in £5 here and £10 there when they get to nearly-emptyTrue but those people can't afford an EV, not even a second hand EV ;) I might be discriminating here but the last time I did that I was out of a job.
There are people for whom EVs are not currently and may never be a good choice.For some people it is a good choice I don't argue. But that is not the topic now is it?
The combination of short daily trips and occasional long distance driving is more or less exactly what plug in hybrids are designed for.
I don't disagree that range is an issue for many (but not all) people, but there are several logical errors in directly translating ICE range to EV range:Is that why we had this wireless charging topic , because it was so easy to plug in your car every day?
1) If you take 800 km as the range that people demand in an ICE car, it does not necessarily follow that they would demand the same range in an EV.
Going to a petrol station every day would be much more inconvenient than plugging in a car every night, so (for those EV users who are able to charge at home)
their maximum daily range would be a more reasonable number to use.
Not too mention those who have to find a charging spot coming home in the parkinglot,
there is a trend of people moving to live in cities, which means apartment buildings.
When will this happen? It will be a continual process over the next 20-30 years.So we agree , EVs will not become mainstream anytime soon, thank you.
For those interested in actual facts this IEA report has a lot of excellent information (https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf). First 2 figures below are from that report. Of course based on most of the responses in this thread, facts will be ignored.That graph is total stock, which is not much compared to the global ice stock.
far as relative ranges. Here's some facts as of 2016Average 90mph that is even worse than what I said with 250km, still not enough for mainstream usage.
When will this happen? It will be a continual process over the next 20-30 years.So we agree , EVs will not become mainstream anytime soon, thank you.
Average 90mph that is even worse than what I said with 250km, still not enough for mainstream usage.
I consider 20-30 years to be VERY soon. Nothing happens overnight.ah well that definition is subjective/personal then :)
Tesla sales are zero compared to the total number of cars sold world wide so statistically irrelevant.No it is not and it is very easy to understand. Ask yourself why an ICE based car has a fuel tank which takes it around 800km? Why would that be? Is that some kind of arbitrary number? No, it is not. It is what the customers find acceptable. Plain and simple and there is no argueing around it.EV's with 400 mile range which is generally accepted as needed for a breakthrough in consumer acceptance.Nope.
That assumption is wrong.
Mr. Market would like a word with you, if you don't mind. Teslas with 300 mile range are flying off the shelves all around the globe.
Mr. Market would like a word with you, if you don't mind. Teslas with 300 mile range are flying off the shelves all around the globe.You mean the Tesla S with the 100kWH option, that is indeed a nice range for an EV which only is feasible when driving below 100km/h without airco or heating but still very nice car.
But then you can put solar panel on the roof of the car! If there are sunny days and he has short commute, it could even provide most of the power or at least it gives nice boost to battery and saves on gasoline. It would be easy to attach few panels to the roof rails and if you have time there are also these bare solar cell wafers available on Ebay and elsewhere, you could go and laminate whole engine bay door and back door with them for extra power.The combination of short daily trips and occasional long distance driving is more or less exactly what plug in hybrids are designed for.
I agree with that. I just bought my son a used volt. His drive to work is short so it works great for now. He lives at home now and can charge it at night. But he plans to move into an apartment so I'm not sure he will be able to charge the car.
The combination of short daily trips and occasional long distance driving is more or less exactly what plug in hybrids are designed for.
I agree with that. I just bought my son a used volt. His drive to work is short so it works great for now. He lives at home now and can charge it at night. But he plans to move into an apartment so I'm not sure he will be able to charge the car.
But then you can put solar panel on the roof of the car! If there are sunny days and he has short commute, it could even provide most of the power or at least it gives nice boost to battery and saves on gasoline. It would be easy to attach few panels to the roof rails and if you have time there are also these bare solar cell wafers available on Ebay and elsewhere, you could go and laminate whole engine bay door and back door with them for extra power.
Seems like most of the people wo are promoting solar and EVs don’t understand the most basic laws of physics.
The combination of short daily trips and occasional long distance driving is more or less exactly what plug in hybrids are designed for.
I agree with that. I just bought my son a used volt. His drive to work is short so it works great for now. He lives at home now and can charge it at night. But he plans to move into an apartment so I'm not sure he will be able to charge the car.
But then you can put solar panel on the roof of the car! If there are sunny days and he has short commute, it could even provide most of the power or at least it gives nice boost to battery and saves on gasoline. It would be easy to attach few panels to the roof rails and if you have time there are also these bare solar cell wafers available on Ebay and elsewhere, you could go and laminate whole engine bay door and back door with them for extra power.
That won't fly. The sun puts out on a sunny day 1 kW/m^2. If the panel is 15% efficient that's 150 watt/m^2. Let's say you could get 2 m^2 on a car. That's 600 watts. Not all of that will go in the battery. Note the panel angle won't be optimum assuming you can stay out from under a tree our clouds. So if your lucky you could get 7 hours per day. 1.2 kW-hr. You won't go far on that and if the panels are set up for good solar collection they probably won't be very aerodynamic.
On the other hand, a properly designed home solar PV system can, in many cases, provide aYes but you still need a home battery for intermediate storage of substantial size and price,
large chunk (or all) of an EVs power needs.
On the other hand, a properly designed home solar PV system can, in many cases, provide aYes but you still need a home battery for intermediate storage of substantial size and price,
large chunk (or all) of an EVs power needs.
Or leave the car charging during the daytime.
That works great for some people, and badly for others. It depends on your local energy export and import charges.On the other hand, a properly designed home solar PV system can, in many cases, provide aYes but you still need a home battery for intermediate storage of substantial size and price,
large chunk (or all) of an EVs power needs.
Or leave the car charging during the daytime.
Or just do what most people do - use the grid as the “battery”.
They really need large batterry buffers fast, still it is kind of ironic that green energy that is not constant produces so many problems.As long as the production and the load can not be controlled it makes a lot of sense for it to be buffered - given the primary source of energy is free.
Another way around the problem would be to synchronize loads (that allow it, maybe already containing buffers) with production. The prices however might be less predictable, such models therefore frowned upon by both utility and customer.A system focused around turning *on* loads would be more accepted than one that turns off loads, if the load is of the type where more use at a given time reduces use at another time. Two examples that work really well for that are dedicated freezers and water heaters.
Currently in our country you get the raw kWh price back (ex taxes which are 70% or so) when you take back you pay the taxes.
This is going to change to 0 payback because the energy companies can not deal with the abundance of energy on sunny days.
The reason is apparently that they have fixed contracts with other suppliers and it takes a relative long time to reduce the intake rrom those companies so they have huge problems controlling the grid.
They really need large batterry buffers fast, still it is kind of ironic that green energy that is not constant produces so many problems.
Currently in our country you get the raw kWh price back (ex taxes which are 70% or so) when you take back you pay the taxes.
This is going to change to 0 payback because the energy companies can not deal with the abundance of energy on sunny days.
The reason is apparently that they have fixed contracts with other suppliers and it takes a relative long time to reduce the intake rrom those companies so they have huge problems controlling the grid.
They really need large batterry buffers fast, still it is kind of ironic that green energy that is not constant produces so many problems.
Batteries, don’t think so. Have you looked at or done the math? All of the batteries in the world won’t provide more than 15 minutes of electricity.
Try again.
Currently in our country you get the raw kWh price back (ex taxes which are 70% or so) when you take back you pay the taxes.
This is going to change to 0 payback because the energy companies can not deal with the abundance of energy on sunny days.
The reason is apparently that they have fixed contracts with other suppliers and it takes a relative long time to reduce the intake rrom those companies so they have huge problems controlling the grid.
They really need large batterry buffers fast, still it is kind of ironic that green energy that is not constant produces so many problems.
Batteries, don’t think so. Have you looked at or done the math? All of the batteries in the world won’t provide more than 15 minutes of electricity.
Try again.
Yawn. Another fact-free assertion from Fact-Free Doug.
On an engineering oriented forum, it’s best to actually do the math before making such statements. I’m not gonna do your homework for you but the Netherlands electricity usage is easily available online, as is the size of the larger battery banks already installed around the globe.
You have repeatedly in this thread and multiple other threads, stated something as a fact without any reference or source and which are demonstrably false. When called out and shown evidence of the mistruth of your statement, you either ignore the facts and keep repeating the same statement or move onto another subject again stating things as factual (not opinion) that are not accurate and the pattern repeats over and over in multiple threads.
If you are not purposely trolling then please either back up your statements with reputable sources or make it clear that you are just offering a guess or opinion. Once someone shows a source refuting your statement, don't just keep repeating the same statement unless you can offer an alternative reputable source backing up your statement
Batteries, don’t think so. Have you looked at or done the math? All of the batteries in the world won’t provide more than 15 minutes of electricity.That is why it is called a buffer duh. Look at it as the elco bank in your power amplifier, the elco's don't need to power the entire amplifier they have to buffer the peak power and smooth the rimples in the main supply. Now see all the private owned PV installations as rimple and you get the point ;)
Netherlands..... Isn’t that a tiny spec if compared to the rest of the world? Most American’s would not be able to find it on a map. If all the batteries in your country were to supply your country with electricity you would get what 5 minutes of electricity?
Dude be realistic and do the math before you makes such silly claims.
Batteries, don’t think so. Have you looked at or done the math? All of the batteries in the world won’t provide more than 15 minutes of electricity.That is why it is called a buffer duh. Look at it as the elco bank in your power amplifier, the elco's don't need to power the entire amplifier they have to buffer the peak power and smooth the rimples in the main supply. Now see all the private owned PV installations as rimple and you get the point ;)
Netherlands..... Isn’t that a tiny spec if compared to the rest of the world? Most American’s would not be able to find it on a map. If all the batteries in your country were to supply your country with electricity you would get what 5 minutes of electricity?
Dude be realistic and do the math before you makes such silly claims.
Unfortunately that means that the distribution network needs to be much beefier than it is now. That also requires a hefty investment. The way I see it is that solar and wind are nice supplements but they can never become the primary energy source. When you add everything up then nuclear will be cheaper.Batteries, don’t think so. Have you looked at or done the math? All of the batteries in the world won’t provide more than 15 minutes of electricity.That is why it is called a buffer duh. Look at it as the elco bank in your power amplifier, the elco's don't need to power the entire amplifier they have to buffer the peak power and smooth the rimples in the main supply. Now see all the private owned PV installations as rimple and you get the point ;)
Netherlands..... Isn’t that a tiny spec if compared to the rest of the world? Most American’s would not be able to find it on a map. If all the batteries in your country were to supply your country with electricity you would get what 5 minutes of electricity?
Dude be realistic and do the math before you makes such silly claims.
Also, such buffering is only necessary for relatively small geographic areas. Over larger areas/countries, variations in solar insolation or wind power as well as changes in load patterns ensure that these kind of buffering needs are both geographically and temporally localized. But don’t expect FFD to get any of this.
Edit: I just read a news article which says the companies which maintain the Dutch grid need 5 billion Euro to upgrade the grid in the next 12 years (and need to increase consumer prices to pay for it). Extrapolate that number to the size of the US.The US is notorious for not investing in infrastructure.
Yep, FFD is at it again.You have repeatedly in this thread and multiple other threads, stated something as a fact without any reference or source and which are demonstrably false. When called out and shown evidence of the mistruth of your statement, you either ignore the facts and keep repeating the same statement or move onto another subject again stating things as factual (not opinion) that are not accurate and the pattern repeats over and over in multiple threads.
If you are not purposely trolling then please either back up your statements with reputable sources or make it clear that you are just offering a guess or opinion. Once someone shows a source refuting your statement, don't just keep repeating the same statement unless you can offer an alternative reputable source backing up your statement
:palm:Yep, FFD is at it again.You have repeatedly in this thread and multiple other threads, stated something as a fact without any reference or source and which are demonstrably false. When called out and shown evidence of the mistruth of your statement, you either ignore the facts and keep repeating the same statement or move onto another subject again stating things as factual (not opinion) that are not accurate and the pattern repeats over and over in multiple threads.
If you are not purposely trolling then please either back up your statements with reputable sources or make it clear that you are just offering a guess or opinion. Once someone shows a source refuting your statement, don't just keep repeating the same statement unless you can offer an alternative reputable source backing up your statement
I’m trying to understand of the laws of physics do not apply wher you live .......
And the pattern repeats. Analysis: Troll.
:palm:Yep, FFD is at it again.You have repeatedly in this thread and multiple other threads, stated something as a fact without any reference or source and which are demonstrably false. When called out and shown evidence of the mistruth of your statement, you either ignore the facts and keep repeating the same statement or move onto another subject again stating things as factual (not opinion) that are not accurate and the pattern repeats over and over in multiple threads.
If you are not purposely trolling then please either back up your statements with reputable sources or make it clear that you are just offering a guess or opinion. Once someone shows a source refuting your statement, don't just keep repeating the same statement unless you can offer an alternative reputable source backing up your statement
I’m trying to understand of the laws of physics do not apply wher you live .......
And the pattern repeats. Analysis: Troll.
Unfortunately that means that the distribution network needs to be much beefier than it is now. That also requires a hefty investment.Yes, I agree.
The way I see it is that solar and wind are nice supplements but they can never become the primary energy source.It’s true they can never fully replace fossil fuels. Nothing can. But they (along with hydro) are our best bet in easing the transition off of FF.
When you add everything up then nuclear will be cheaper.No, nuclear is more expensive now and will remain so. That is why it is slowly but surely dying out (see references I’ve previously posted in this thread). But we’ve covered this ground before :horse:
The US is notorious for not investing in infrastructure.
The US is notorious for not investing in infrastructure.
Yes, sadly true. Signs of an empire in decline.
The US is notorious for not investing in infrastructure.
Yes, sadly true. Signs of an empire in decline.
The US is notorious for not investing in infrastructure.
Yes, sadly true. Signs of an empire in decline.
True but it doesn't help long term planning. One of the potential problems I foresee in the US is that there is a very large group of people who are poor and remain poor. Their violence and disrespect of the law will grow.The US is notorious for not investing in infrastructure.
Yes, sadly true. Signs of an empire in decline.
That's right. US citizens are known for not paying taxes and protesting when we do. Instead of spending money on infrastructrure we have lots more spending money than you.
You folks could do the same. But then again folks in Europe don't seem to spend money of infrastructre either. Have you seen how many castels they have which are lying in ruin? And many have been waiting to be fixed up are older then are country. What's with that my European friends?Castles are not critical infrastructure. BTW there are also modern castle ruins:
Charging an EV at every home suddenly shows the limitations to the infrastructure. Judging from recent news articles it seems that some people finally start to see how much money will need to be spend on the infrastructure alone to use EVs
IPL found that approximately 76% of the electricity used for charging occurred during
off-peak period
The vast majority of in-home charging participants charged their vehicles overnight during off-peak periods.https://www.smartgrid.gov/files/B3_revised_master-12-17-2014_report.pdf (https://www.smartgrid.gov/files/B3_revised_master-12-17-2014_report.pdf)
Where offered, time-based rates were successful in encouraging greater off-peak charging.
Scheduling electric cars recharging for the period of non-peak demand, a principle called valley filling, can save utilities millions of dollars by reducing their dependence on costly peaking plants, which are left standby and only run when the demand is high.
switch to wind & solar for electricityYep, that's necessary. Very necessary.
In your dreams. Just do the math. Charging EVs is like everyone turning on their washer, dryer and electric cooker at the same time. The grid towards the residential areas has not been designed for this kind of load. It litterally takes changing the wiring to the doorstep of each home. Who is going to pay for that?Charging an EV at every home suddenly shows the limitations to the infrastructure. Judging from recent news articles it seems that some people finally start to see how much money will need to be spend on the infrastructure alone to use EVsNope.
Charging EVs at home happens mostly at night, when the grid load is very low.
In your dreams. Just do the math. Charging EVs is like everyone turning on their washer, dryer and electric cooker at the same time. The grid towards the residential areas has not been designed for this kind of load. It litterally takes changing the wiring to the doorstep of each home. Who is going to pay for that?Charging an EV at every home suddenly shows the limitations to the infrastructure. Judging from recent news articles it seems that some people finally start to see how much money will need to be spend on the infrastructure alone to use EVsNope.
Charging EVs at home happens mostly at night, when the grid load is very low.
Max power draw for a volt is 3,520 watts. Now if there were 1,000 Volts which all began charging at the same moment the wattage draw would be 3.5 GW.Your math is really broken.
Now my car finishing charging around 0200 0300 hrs. Yep. And by shifting or spreading it, so it finishes at 6:00 before you leave the grid companies will be able to manage their grid, and avoid a harsh peak.
Now someone will likely chime in and propose some kind of charging scheduling solution but trust me: everyone wants to have a car fully charged in the morning and use the low electricity rate.
Now someone will likely chime in and propose some kind of charging scheduling solution but trust me: everyone wants to have a car fully charged in the morning and use the low electricity rate.
And what if the people charging cars do it during the day?That's good. Approx 10% of EV charging happens during the day. that represents 2% of the total grid load for 100% BEV adoption.
I know here in Forest Fire teritory/California the power comapany would to upgarde the grid to a smart grid would be a 150% replacement cost.That's marketing BS for saying that a TOU "smart" meter costs more than an old style meter. Doesn't really affect load balancing yet, only the pricing.
How much electricity does a powerplant produce?Depends. small residential PV plants produces typically a few kW. Large steam plants are at multi-GW scales.
QuoteAnd what if the people charging cars do it during the day?That's good. Approx 10% of EV charging happens during the day. that represents 2% of the total grid load for 100% BEV adoption.
Basically it's the "long trip fast charging" issue. Which is not an issue for the grids but a sane growth opportunity which uses the ever more available solar power.QuoteI know here in Forest Fire teritory/California the power comapany would to upgarde the grid to a smart grid would be a 150% replacement cost.That's marketing BS for saying that a TOU "smart" meter costs more than an old style meter. Doesn't really affect load balancing yet, only the pricing.QuoteHow much electricity does a powerplant produce?Depends. small residential PV plants produces typically a few kW. Large steam plants are at multi-GW scales.
You are absolutely correct on this one. I have a Volt and can program charging start/stop times. And I'm sure everyone else who has an plug-in EV will set their charging start time to be the exact same time as mine, when the electricity rates are lowest or at 2300. Max power draw for a volt is 3,520 watts. Now if there were 1,000 Volts which all began charging at the same moment the wattage draw would be 3.5 GW. Now my car finishing charging around 0200 0300 hrs. I would assume all other Volts would finish charging at about the same time. Wonder what that would do to the grid.I think you got your decimal point off by three orders of magnitude. That's 3.5 MW.
QuoteYou are absolutely correct on this one. I have a Volt and can program charging start/stop times. And I'm sure everyone else who has an plug-in EV will set their charging start time to be the exact same time as mine, when the electricity rates are lowest or at 2300. Max power draw for a volt is 3,520 watts. Now if there were 1,000 Volts which all began charging at the same moment the wattage draw would be 3.5 GW. Now my car finishing charging around 0200 0300 hrs. I would assume all other Volts would finish charging at about the same time. Wonder what that would do to the grid.I think you got your decimal point off by three orders of magnitude. That's 3.5 MW.
GM will love that. 1E6 volts in one city.QuoteYou are absolutely correct on this one. I have a Volt and can program charging start/stop times. And I'm sure everyone else who has an plug-in EV will set their charging start time to be the exact same time as mine, when the electricity rates are lowest or at 2300. Max power draw for a volt is 3,520 watts. Now if there were 1,000 Volts which all began charging at the same moment the wattage draw would be 3.5 GW. Now my car finishing charging around 0200 0300 hrs. I would assume all other Volts would finish charging at about the same time. Wonder what that would do to the grid.I think you got your decimal point off by three orders of magnitude. That's 3.5 MW.
Duh...…. Thanks, my bad. I didn't mean 1,000 cars.... I meant 1,000,000 cars. (Is that a nice save?)
Took me years to switch computer hard drives from MB to GB. And RAM from KB to MB to GB. Now I'm thinking in G's all of the time.
GM will love that. 1E6 volts in one city.QuoteYou are absolutely correct on this one. I have a Volt and can program charging start/stop times. And I'm sure everyone else who has an plug-in EV will set their charging start time to be the exact same time as mine, when the electricity rates are lowest or at 2300. Max power draw for a volt is 3,520 watts. Now if there were 1,000 Volts which all began charging at the same moment the wattage draw would be 3.5 GW. Now my car finishing charging around 0200 0300 hrs. I would assume all other Volts would finish charging at about the same time. Wonder what that would do to the grid.I think you got your decimal point off by three orders of magnitude. That's 3.5 MW.
Duh...…. Thanks, my bad. I didn't mean 1,000 cars.... I meant 1,000,000 cars. (Is that a nice save?)
Took me years to switch computer hard drives from MB to GB. And RAM from KB to MB to GB. Now I'm thinking in G's all of the time.
Without having read this entire page nor the 64 previous ones, imho it is the task of (larger) employers to let the employee's charge their ev's at a slow rate during the day time, perhaps aided with some pv on the company's roof (when the sun shines...).This is not a core business for employers, some don't even provide parking spots for their employees, others like those of my partner charge a monthly fee for the possibility to park the car. Times are changing....
Who would use a ev for something other than driving to work? :)
Volts just as Teslas are sold with huge losses.
I don't think GM likes 1e06 Volts sold, it would bankrupt them.
Nope, and Nope.Yes and Yes.
1) Tesla makes an average of 24% on each and every vehicle sold. The losses come from investing more than that profit into growth.There is a reason they are now only selling the most expensive Model3's first and have not shipped any of the start models. Even experts question at the moment they can make a profit on the starter models of the Model 3. We'll see.
2) GM/Opel make huge losses on the Bolt/Opel Ampera-e because they produce it in homeopathic quantities. If the volume would go up to 1e6/YYes there will be quantity related discounts but some things just don't add up.
- Better sourcing agreements, especially for batteries -> much cheaper batteryThis is and will remain the biggest problem to face, see the picture of the best guestimates made last year by Bloomberg.
- every year, the cost of batteries drom 25-30% anyway.
This will all happen next year as EVs are now seriously taking off due to financial, market pressure, and regulations on emissions.Serious ? We'll see, I don't think it will exponentially grow next year.
Volts just as Teslas are sold with huge losses.
I don't think GM likes 1e06 Volts sold, it would bankrupt them.
Volts just as Teslas are sold with huge losses.
I don't think GM likes 1e06 Volts sold, it would bankrupt them.
Nope, and Nope.
1) Tesla makes an average of 24% on each and every vehicle sold. The losses come from investing more than that profit into growth.
2) GM/Opel make huge losses on the Bolt/Opel Ampera-e because they produce it in homeopathic quantities. If the volume would go up to 1e6/Y, many things would happen to reduce the costs, and make that a profitable business:
- High dilution of fixed costs
- Better sourcing agreements, especially for batteries -> much cheaper battery
- redesign of the car to produce it at a lesser cost
- every year, the cost of batteries drom 25-30% anyway.
etcetcetc...
This will all happen next year as EVs are now seriously taking off due to financial, market pressure, and regulations on emissions.
Volts just as Teslas are sold with huge losses.
I don't think GM likes 1e06 Volts sold, it would bankrupt them.
Volts just as Teslas are sold with huge losses.
I don't think GM likes 1e06 Volts sold, it would bankrupt them.
Oh please! ::) The initial FUD about Volts being sold at a loss, spread by the anti-EV crowd in 2012 after the Volts introduction, was based on the erroneous idea that if you divide the initial development costs of a new product with new technology by the first few years sales you are “selling them at a loss”.
Of course this ignores the fact that if the priduct is a success - as the Volt clearly has been- then after a few years those development costs will have been recouped. And of course that new technology will now also be available to employ in other products.
How many electronics products could be said to be “sold at a loss” using the same simple minded logic.?
On an engineering forum of all places the reality of development costs versus lifetime sales and profits should be understood. It’s shocking that some here might not get it.
GM sells over 20k Volts a year. I can assure you they are not being sold at a loss.
Your assurance is worth nil nada zilch because yes they are loosing money on each and every ev car, most recent articles still say so.Volts just as Teslas are sold with huge losses.
I don't think GM likes 1e06 Volts sold, it would bankrupt them.
Oh please! ::) The initial FUD about Volts being sold at a loss, spread by the anti-EV crowd in 2012 after the Volts introduction, was based on the erroneous idea that if you divide the initial development costs of a new product with new technology by the first few years sales you are “selling them at a loss”.
Of course this ignores the fact that if the priduct is a success - as the Volt clearly has been- then after a few years those development costs will have been recouped. And of course that new technology will now also be available to employ in other products.
How many electronics products could be said to be “sold at a loss” using the same simple minded logic.?
On an engineering forum of all places the reality of development costs versus lifetime sales and profits should be understood. It’s shocking that some here might not get it.
GM sells over 20k Volts a year. I can assure you they are not being sold at a loss.
Your assurance is worth nil nada zilch because yes they are loosing money on each and every ev car, most recent articles still say so.Volts just as Teslas are sold with huge losses.
I don't think GM likes 1e06 Volts sold, it would bankrupt them.
Oh please! ::) The initial FUD about Volts being sold at a loss, spread by the anti-EV crowd in 2012 after the Volts introduction, was based on the erroneous idea that if you divide the initial development costs of a new product with new technology by the first few years sales you are “selling them at a loss”.
Of course this ignores the fact that if the priduct is a success - as the Volt clearly has been- then after a few years those development costs will have been recouped. And of course that new technology will now also be available to employ in other products.
How many electronics products could be said to be “sold at a loss” using the same simple minded logic.?
On an engineering forum of all places the reality of development costs versus lifetime sales and profits should be understood. It’s shocking that some here might not get it.
GM sells over 20k Volts a year. I can assure you they are not being sold at a loss.
I heard about this LAST year when the PSA group bought the Opel/Vauxhall from GM which sells the Volt as the Opel Ampera at a loss of €10k per €45k car which is huge!
PSA stopped sales immediately.
Better Google and you see that GM hopes to make a profit on EVs in 2021 when battery prices keep on going down. i get it that an initial investment takes time to make a profit but we are talking about ten years. Some companies do not last ten years.
https://insideevs.com/gm-reportedly-suffered-12000-loss-per-ampera-e-bolt-sold-opel/ (https://insideevs.com/gm-reportedly-suffered-12000-loss-per-ampera-e-bolt-sold-opel/)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-electric-insight/gm-races-to-build-a-formula-for-profitable-electric-cars-idUSKBN1EY0GG (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-electric-insight/gm-races-to-build-a-formula-for-profitable-electric-cars-idUSKBN1EY0GG)
https://insideevs.com/moodys-says-automakers-lose-7000-to-10000-per-electric-car-sold/ (https://insideevs.com/moodys-says-automakers-lose-7000-to-10000-per-electric-car-sold/)
BTW, what idiot at GM decided to have 2 cars whose name only differs by one letter? :palm:Perhaps when they named the Bolt they knew how badly they intended to screw up its marketing.
Ah ok my mistake then, no I am only talking 100% EVs here, in Europe there are reserved parking spots for EVs to charge and hybrids are not allowed even (€250 fine)The Volt is a PHEV. In the UK PHEVs plug in and charge up at reserved parking spots. I see lots of Mitsubishi Outlander PHEVs at those charging stations.
Hybrids I already see as ntegrated and accepted, it is the full EV solution that is still problematic IMO and will take quite some time, i provements and cost reductionsto be as usable as ices and hybrids.
Ah ok my mistake then, no I am only talking 100% EVs here, in Europe there are reserved parking spots for EVs to charge and hybrids are not allowed even (€250 fine)
Hybrids I already see as ntegrated and accepted, it is the full EV solution that is still problematic IMO and will take quite some time, i provements and cost reductionsto be as usable as ices and hybrids.
It is not as much a public charging station as a parking spot which are reserved for EVs to charge.Most public charging bays are in places like shopping mall car parks. People are typically only there for the sort of time it takes a PHEV to charge for the trip home. Without that, the PHEV will probably need to use some gas on the way home. These points seem far more valuable for PHEVs than for EVs, which can usually do the round trip to the shops with ease.
An EV sometimes need hours of charging to get 20-40% while a hybrid often is charged within an hour and even with a flat battery it will run on its ice engine.
EV race cars are adding a new dimension to automobile racing.
I would never get an electric car until the total cost of ownership, per mile, for the life of the car, is less than a gas powered model. And is just as convenient to refuel. I don't care about the environment any more than Al Gore does. Which is zero! I need to get from point A to point B as inexpensively as possible.
Then you should get one now since there are several available for which lifetime cost of ownership is less than equivalent ICE and even more convenient to refuel. But I suspect you are really more just out to make a political statement.
Then you should get one now since there are several available for which lifetime cost of ownership is less than equivalent ICE and even more convenient to refuel. But I suspect you are really more just out to make a political statement.
So everyone must be uninformed? BS!
If electric cars were more economical and more convenient, everyone would be driving them already.
People aren't stupid. Most go for least expensive option.
If you don't believe me, stand outside where there's a Target next to Walmart and you will see.
I doubt Formula 1 cars are only 30% efficient. They use very new ICE principles and have a limited amount of fuel. Besides that formula 1 cars have hybrid (electric + ICE) drive systems.
So what is the efficiency of a Foumula One car?
The reality is that NOTHING will ever be able to fully replace the ICE. The era of “Happy Motoring” where anyone and everyone could afford a vehicle powered by liquid fossillized sunshine and travel everywhere anytime is coming to a lose. Most people are either unaware or just unable or unwilling to accept it.
The reality is that NOTHING will ever be able to fully replace the ICE. The era of “Happy Motoring” where anyone and everyone could afford a vehicle powered by liquid fossillized sunshine and travel everywhere anytime is coming to a lose. Most people are either unaware or just unable or unwilling to accept it.For the short term yes, the long term I don't know.
And we even didn't get to the costs part. The price difference of the EV compared to ICE gets you about 150k to 200k km further before break even at very high fuel prices using an efficient car. Factor in electricity at 20 cents per kWh then that distance will cost you at least around $6750 for the electricity (no, electricity from solar panels isn't free either). That buys you enough fuel for another 84000km. So the actual financial break even point is way beyond 250k km. By that time the battery of the EV is likely to have issues.
EV race cars are adding a new dimension to automobile racing.
But F1 cars are much faster, about 100 mph more than any FE, more powerful, weight much less and generate tons of downforce, and FE EVs run out of juice pretty fast, so there's no way an FE can do, say, 67 laps at Hockenheim, or a 1 1/2 hour race. In other words, there's no comparison.
The price difference between a comparable EV and efficient ICE car is around $9000. Say fuel costs $1.00 per liter then that difference buys you 9000 liters of fuel. At 20 km/liter (which a modern fuel efficient ICE can do easely) that amount of fuel will get you 180 000km. Ofcourse this equation will be different based on local fuel prices.And we even didn't get to the costs part. The price difference of the EV compared to ICE gets you about 150k to 200k km further before break even at very high fuel prices using an efficient car. Factor in electricity at 20 cents per kWh then that distance will cost you at least around $6750 for the electricity (no, electricity from solar panels isn't free either). That buys you enough fuel for another 84000km. So the actual financial break even point is way beyond 250k km. By that time the battery of the EV is likely to have issues.Show your work. Qualitative math is not useful here.
Going the same distance (180k km) in an electric car would cost you 32% as much, about $2900, if 75 kWh gets you 340 miles of range and electricity is 12.5¢/kWh. Many EV owners pay even less, 4-10¢/kWh. I don't see why you think it would take so long to break even.But you forget the EV costs much more to begin with and for that amount of money you can drive a very long way whether it is 100k km or 200k km (and that is assuming the electricity is for free for the EV). In the NL 1kWh costs around 0.21 euro cents. Driving 180k km would cost around 8505 euro for the electricity. For that you can buy enough fuel to drive over 100k km with an efficient ICE car. All in all driving the EV is cheaper but around 44% and not 70%.
Also, 20km/l is not "easy" for most ICE cars that aren't Priuses. That converts to about 47 mpg. Average mileage in the US is still less than 25 mpg, or about 11 km/l. There are very few people who would be worse off on the five-ten year timespan by buying an EV.
Gas in the EU is also much more expensive than $1/l... in Amsterdam it has been over $1.6/l for the past four months! That means your 180,000 km in a 47 mpg Prius will actually cost $15000, almost 5x as much as the electric car.
For that you can buy enough fuel to drive over 100k km with an efficient ICE car. All in all driving the EV is cheaper but around 44% and not 70%.
Is excise tax added to electric cars?
So what is the efficiency of a Foumula One car?
30% was the efficiency peak for old normally-aspirated V8 engines, current f1 cars have turbos and are hybrid, so must be more than that, closer to 50%.The reality is that NOTHING will ever be able to fully replace the ICE. The era of “Happy Motoring” where anyone and everyone could afford a vehicle powered by liquid fossillized sunshine and travel everywhere anytime is coming to a lose. Most people are either unaware or just unable or unwilling to accept it.
That, sadly, may be true.
It has used a version of its F1 engine in its new Project ONE road car, which has a thermal efficiency of 40%.
Now you are assuming electricity will be available in large quantities. I'm quite sure it won't so instead of relying on oil prices you'll be relying on other factors.For that you can buy enough fuel to drive over 100k km with an efficient ICE car. All in all driving the EV is cheaper but around 44% and not 70%.Yes, and this is why we do not exaggerate by saying cars easily get 20 km/l and gas is $1/l. Electric cars have lower operating costs, lower sensitivity to global oil prices, and a multitude of other benefits at the expense of 10-20% higher initial costs.
Only in some US states, where it averages $23 (I think per year). https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116289_17-states-have-passed-extra-fees-on-evs-is-that-fair (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116289_17-states-have-passed-extra-fees-on-evs-is-that-fair)
Only in some US states, where it averages $23 (I think per year). https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116289_17-states-have-passed-extra-fees-on-evs-is-that-fair (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116289_17-states-have-passed-extra-fees-on-evs-is-that-fair)
Well that doesn't seem like much compared to approximately fifty cents per gallon tax on gasoline. That would have to go up considerably.
Also, 20km/l is not "easy" for most ICE cars that aren't Priuses. That converts to about 47 mpg. Average mileage in the US is still less than 25 mpg, or about 11 km/l.Most new cars do better than 25 MPG highway. The 2018 non hybrid Camry does 41 MPG highway and the hybrid version 53 MPG. It's obvious EVs are pushing for regular cars to increase MPG to try to stay competitive. And thereby I argue that EVs are of benefit even to those who don't drive one. (Something like how Linux pushed Microsoft to make a consumer version of Windows that's actually reliable.)
You bring up an excellent point about taxes. EV vehicles are getting a free ride so to speak when it comes to taxes. As of July 1, 2019 Californians will be paying $.767 per gallon of gas in taxes. What do these taxes pay for? The maintenance of our roads and highways. If one owns an EV and does not buy any gas where's the money going to come form. If I recall correctly there is a tax on tires, (not much) which pays for road maintenance.
Is this the same in other countries?
At the moment, EV drivers aren't paying their fair share to maintain the roads they depend on.
I'd rather they threw some money at Phinergy to get aluminium air batteries for racing, assuming the Phinergy car wasn't a complete scam they already have the technology for useful power density and much higher energy density than lithium ion. Not a good battery tech for general purpose use, but ideal for racing.
Lithium Ion is a dead end.
Now you are assuming electricity will be available in large quantities.
I'm also not sure about lower operating costs. This year I visited some schools where teenagers learn to be a car mechanic. None of them where teaching about electric cars. Only one had a Prius but they didn't use it because of safety reasons. This means you'll need to rely on a specialist for servicing your EV for the upcoming decade while you can take your ICE car to the garage around the corner. I posted it earlier in this thread: the maintenance costs for an EV are higher than that of an ICE based car.
I don't get where people get the idea that an EV has lower maintenance costs. It also has a gearbox, drive shaft, brakes, motor drive electronics and (usually) a cooling/heating system for the battery. It is not like an EV is less complex if you look at the entire car.
Only in some US states, where it averages $23 (I think per year). https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116289_17-states-have-passed-extra-fees-on-evs-is-that-fair (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116289_17-states-have-passed-extra-fees-on-evs-is-that-fair)
Well that doesn't seem like much compared to approximately fifty cents per gallon tax on gasoline. That would have to go up considerably.
The reality is the cost of owning a vehicle will probably not go down. The more efficient they make things the cost seems to increase regardless. I remember when the price of real estate doubled during the 80's because more women were going to work. Now everyone has to work 100 hours a week to own a home. Nothing was really gained by having two incomes.
Please read more about how an EV is actually constructed. Starting by the thousands of welds in the battery. Overall an EV just trades in one problem for another.I don't get where people get the idea that an EV has lower maintenance costs. It also has a gearbox, drive shaft, brakes, motor drive electronics and (usually) a cooling/heating system for the battery. It is not like an EV is less complex if you look at the entire car.It's because EVs are less complex in terms of moving parts. Is an iPhone more complicated than a rotary phone? Yes, but its input electronics will probably last longer with no maintenance.
There's simply less that can be damaged.
I'm very familiar with those welds and EV manufacture in general and I have no idea what you're implying here. Do you think spot welds are particularly vulnerable to some kind of thermal failure? They're the last thing that fails in a battery pack IME - there is literally no structural load on them. I'd take spot welds over a fuel pump any day of the week.One of my customers produces batteries for small electric vehicles so I know quite well where battery packs go wrong. One of their key selling points is their welding system and the quality control around it. Spot welds may seem so easy but there is quite a bit of science to it to get it really reliable. If a weld isn't up to the standards they scrap the entire pack. And if a weld fails in a pack they can recall the data for that weld and see if they need to tighten the tolerances. The reason they are succesful is because the Chinese manufacturers don't do this and hence deliver less reliable battery packs. After all a battery pack in a vehicle is subjected to a lot of vibrations and the cells are no exception. So yes, the spot welds do see quite a bit of abuse and have to be perfect.
If you merely don't want to discuss the topic anymore, disable notifications.
You know something no one has mentioned is what's in crude oil and refining. In every barrel of crude oil is gasoline, as well as jet fuel, white gas, diesel, and long hydrocarbon chains/grease.Gasoline engines will not disappear overnight so it would be a gradual change that will be adapted to. Such as by the price of gasoline decreasing to slow further adoption of EVs. But it's clear that for the foreseeable future, plug in hybrids would be the solution to the range problem.
It is very costly to break or elongate the hydrocarbon chains. In the past before there was a use for gasoline the gasoline was a waste product and dumped into rivers to get rid of it. So let's just say all ICE gas powered cars were eliminated. Our society still needs diesel and jet fuel to function. Bring up the questions.... what do we do with the gasoline? Pour it into rivers again?
Interesting crude oil can be easily and very economically turned into alcohol for human consumption. In the US we have a law which states all alcohol for human consumption must be radioactive. Why? If it is radioactive it means the alcohol was made for something which was recently living. If it were made from crude oil the radioactivity would have all decayed away by now. US Customs regularly finds non-radioactive alcohol being shipped to the US which is not radioactive. And of course they seize it. Last shipment I know of that was seized was not to long ago from Italy. It was wine - It was not radioactive, so it was made from crude oil.Wouldn't that make it easy to cheat by adding a trace of radioactive waste?
Interesting crude oil can be easily and very economically turned into alcohol for human consumption. In the US we have a law which states all alcohol for human consumption must be radioactive. Why? If it is radioactive it means the alcohol was made for something which was recently living. If it were made from crude oil the radioactivity would have all decayed away by now. US Customs regularly finds non-radioactive alcohol being shipped to the US which is not radioactive. And of course they seize it. Last shipment I know of that was seized was not to long ago from Italy. It was wine - It was not radioactive, so it was made from crude oil.
QuoteInteresting crude oil can be easily and very economically turned into alcohol for human consumption. In the US we have a law which states all alcohol for human consumption must be radioactive. Why? If it is radioactive it means the alcohol was made for something which was recently living. If it were made from crude oil the radioactivity would have all decayed away by now. US Customs regularly finds non-radioactive alcohol being shipped to the US which is not radioactive. And of course they seize it. Last shipment I know of that was seized was not to long ago from Italy. It was wine - It was not radioactive, so it was made from crude oil.Wouldn't that make it easy to cheat by adding a trace of radioactive waste?
Interesting crude oil can be easily and very economically turned into alcohol for human consumption. In the US we have a law which states all alcohol for human consumption must be radioactive. Why? If it is radioactive it means the alcohol was made for something which was recently living. If it were made from crude oil the radioactivity would have all decayed away by now. US Customs regularly finds non-radioactive alcohol being shipped to the US which is not radioactive. And of course they seize it. Last shipment I know of that was seized was not to long ago from Italy. It was wine - It was not radioactive, so it was made from crude oil.
For every fact there is a counter-fact
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alcohol-radioactive/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alcohol-radioactive/)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alcohol-radioactive/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alcohol-radioactive/)Reading the article you have to conclude that alcoholic beverages should be radio-active unless the label says it contains synthetic alcohol. But it is only an indirect requirement from the law because at this moment the radio-activity is the only way to determine whether the alcohol is synthetic or not. This definitely is a grey area.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alcohol-radioactive/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alcohol-radioactive/)Reading the article you have to conclude that alcoholic beverages should be radio-active unless the label says it contains synthetic alcohol. But it is only an indirect requirement from the law because at this moment the radio-activity is the only way to determine whether the alcohol is synthetic or not. This definitely is a grey area.
If it is commercially viable to synthesize ethanol, I wonder how much of the ethanol used for fuel is actually made from oil and not from plants as they want us to believe.
Looks like Elon and Tesla has a competitor...… Anyone know anything about the Karma Revero?Each year there are new "Tesla killers" named by news outlets. Yet nobody is able to sell even remotely close numbers of electric cars except BYD in China. After all if you don't have the batteries needed, you cannot make a lot of electric cars with decent battery capacity. Not to say getting any profit.
This review isn't very objective. The author just doesn't like the looks just like Dave doesn't like the look of GW Instek scopes.Looks like Elon and Tesla has a competitor...… Anyone know anything about the Karma Revero?Each year there are new "Tesla killers" named by news outlets. Yet nobody is able to sell even remotely close numbers of electric cars except BYD in China. After all if you don't have the batteries needed, you cannot make a lot of electric cars with decent battery capacity. Not to say getting any profit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-04/karma-revero-review-this-is-a-very-bad-car-and-here-is-why (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-04/karma-revero-review-this-is-a-very-bad-car-and-here-is-why)
Did you actually read it? It's not only looks but also performance. Small battery, high weight, slower compared even with any base model Tesla, no space on back seats, much higher price than Tesla. There is basically no reason to buy it.This review isn't very objective. The author just doesn't like the looks just like Dave doesn't like the look of GW Instek scopes.Looks like Elon and Tesla has a competitor...… Anyone know anything about the Karma Revero?Each year there are new "Tesla killers" named by news outlets. Yet nobody is able to sell even remotely close numbers of electric cars except BYD in China. After all if you don't have the batteries needed, you cannot make a lot of electric cars with decent battery capacity. Not to say getting any profit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-04/karma-revero-review-this-is-a-very-bad-car-and-here-is-why (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-04/karma-revero-review-this-is-a-very-bad-car-and-here-is-why)
Today I've seen they are actually building this near Frankfurt to power electric trucks:Over head power for buses has a long history, but its hard to find really solid information about why these systems are eventually ripped out of most cities. The "trolley bus" system in London was still functioning when I was a kid, and seemed to work pretty well. They ripped it out in the 1960s. Right now some cities in China, like Hangzhou, have extensive overhead power for buses that seems to work pretty well. Now they are going for battery powered buses in a number of Chinese cities. I get the feeling many of these decisions have more to do with fashion than engineering.
(https://www.autozeitung.de/assets/styles/article_image/public/field/image/elektro-lkw-3.jpg)
It seems this 10km long test track is planned to be operational at the end of 2018. If they extend the system to the other lanes then cars can also use it. It would solve issues / lower costs when it comes to charging infrastructure, range and batteries.
The people at which this car is targeted at don't care. They simply want to have something different then anyone else.If only some nutjobs will buy it for looks, no way it will be competitor for Tesla.
Former European Parliament President Pat Cox estimated that Toyota would initially lose between €50,000 to €100,000 (US$60,000 to US$133,000 at 2014 exchange rates) on each Mirai sold in 2015.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#cite_note-71 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#cite_note-71)
Hydrogen makes a lot of sense if you look at storage costs and storage efficiency for electricity in a battery. And I don't mean in a car but as part of the grid.No it does not at all. Producing, storing hydrogen from electricity and reverting it back results in about 80% energy loss. Fuel cells are very expensive, fuel production is highly inefficient, why the hell would you use hydrogen? Not to say range is not better than Tesla has, so without building a broad network of fuel stations they are pretty much useless for trips. You cannot even charge them at your home like EV. Unless you live nearby to one of a few fuel stations, hydrogen car becomes completely useless piece of paperweight.
Hydrogen from electricity can be done at efficiencies better than 80% so I don't know where you get the 80% loss from. Storing electricity in a battery gives you a 10% to 15% loss as well so all things considered the losses are in the same ball park.Hydrogen makes a lot of sense if you look at storage costs and storage efficiency for electricity in a battery. And I don't mean in a car but as part of the grid.No it does not at all. Producing and storing hydrogen from electricity results in about 80% energy loss. Fuel cells are very expensive, fuel production is highly inefficient, why the hell would you use hydrogen? Not to say range is not better than Tesla has, so without building a broad network of fuel stations they are pretty much useless for trips. You cannot even charge them at your home like EV. Unless you live nearby to one of a few fuel stations, hydrogen car becomes completely useless piece of paperweight.
Hydrogen from electricity can be done at efficiencies better than 80% so I don't know where you get the 80% loss from.I already edited a comment to make it more clear. I meant full cycle.
The same is true for any way of transportation. Potato PotaatoHydrogen from electricity can be done at efficiencies better than 80% so I don't know where you get the 80% loss from.I already edited a comment to make it more clear. I meant full cycle.
The same is true for any way of transportation. Potato PotaatoWhat true? You called it efficient way of energy storage but it's not. Why would you bother to use inefficient and expensive proxy for delivering electricity for electric powertrain when you can use electricity directly with much higher efficiency? And the worst part is you don't even save on fuel compared to ICE and apparently fuel cells have lower longevity than Tesla battery.
Besides that it is rather foolish to try and write off all the R&D costs onto the first couple of products sold. For example: Ford spend $150 million or so on developing their Ecoboost engines. Is the first car they produced sold at a $149960000 dollar loss? :palm::palm: That is without recovering R&D. They are simply twice more expensive to make that they are sold for.
Over head power for buses has a long history, but its hard to find really solid information about why these systems are eventually ripped out of most cities. The "trolley bus" system in London was still functioning when I was a kid, and seemed to work pretty well. They ripped it out in the 1960s. Right now some cities in China, like Hangzhou, have extensive overhead power for buses that seems to work pretty well. Now they are going for battery powered buses in a number of Chinese cities. I get the feeling many of these decisions have more to do with fashion than engineering.
Over head power for buses has a long history, but its hard to find really solid information about why these systems are eventually ripped out of most cities. The "trolley bus" system in London was still functioning when I was a kid, and seemed to work pretty well. They ripped it out in the 1960s. Right now some cities in China, like Hangzhou, have extensive overhead power for buses that seems to work pretty well. Now they are going for battery powered buses in a number of Chinese cities. I get the feeling many of these decisions have more to do with fashion than engineering.
Looks like Elon and Tesla has a competitor...… Anyone know anything about the Karma Revero?Each year there are new "Tesla killers" named by news outlets. Yet nobody is able to sell even remotely close numbers of electric cars except BYD in China. After all if you don't have the batteries needed, you cannot make a lot of electric cars with decent battery capacity. Not to say getting any profit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-04/karma-revero-review-this-is-a-very-bad-car-and-here-is-why (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-04/karma-revero-review-this-is-a-very-bad-car-and-here-is-why)
We have plenty of trolley buses here in Riga. New units are still bought. Their number is about 75% of usual buses.Over head power for buses has a long history, but its hard to find really solid information about why these systems are eventually ripped out of most cities. The "trolley bus" system in London was still functioning when I was a kid, and seemed to work pretty well. They ripped it out in the 1960s. Right now some cities in China, like Hangzhou, have extensive overhead power for buses that seems to work pretty well. Now they are going for battery powered buses in a number of Chinese cities. I get the feeling many of these decisions have more to do with fashion than engineering.
They still exist here in Vancouver Canada, and there's quite an extensive system
As a Yank, if I remember my British history.... Wasn't it around 1960s that Brittan was almost on its feet after the war. Didn't you still have rationing years after the war ended. By the 1960s gas rationing was over, the economy was doing well and that’s when you entered a period of consumer spending on luxury items such as cars. Ridership would have plummeted as people were now driving cars. Similar story in the US.I think you mean "as someone who never bothers to look anything up".
I remember reading about hydrogen power in vehicles. What seemed to be the biggest problem was actually storing the stuff. The molecule size is so small, and storage pressure so high, than no metal to metal seal would hold it, and any elastomer seal simply leaked. If used on a daily basis then the leak rate wasn't a problem, just don't expect your car to work after being in the airport carpark for 3 weeks.The situation seems to be the same today. I am unclear what happens if you put one of these constantly venting cars in a garage, and leave it. There would appear to be a serious risk of explosion if you confine the vehicle for any length of time. I find it interesting how easy it is to hold air in simple containers like car tyres, yet the somewhat smaller molecules of hydrogen completely change the picture.
This was many years ago, is this still true, has it been sorted?
Aren't car batteries leaking Hydrogen as well? If leaking hydrogen was such a big problem then cars wouldn't be allowed to be parked inside at all. In reality Hydrogen is a very light gas and it will float up quickly. Besides that there are ways to bind Hydrogen into a solid form and turn it back into gas quickly.I remember reading about hydrogen power in vehicles. What seemed to be the biggest problem was actually storing the stuff. The molecule size is so small, and storage pressure so high, than no metal to metal seal would hold it, and any elastomer seal simply leaked. If used on a daily basis then the leak rate wasn't a problem, just don't expect your car to work after being in the airport carpark for 3 weeks.The situation seems to be the same today. I am unclear what happens if you put one of these constantly venting cars in a garage, and leave it. There would appear to be a serious risk of explosion if you confine the vehicle for any length of time. I find it interesting how easy it is to hold air in simple containers like car tyres, yet the somewhat smaller molecules of hydrogen completely change the picture.
This was many years ago, is this still true, has it been sorted?
1Troy ounce of platinum and Rhodium per vehicle does add up rather fast, and it is a cost.Still way cheaper compared to a battery.
Most lead acid batteries in cars are sealed these days, but even unsealed ones aren't venting much hydrogen when the car is in storage, and the battery is being drained by little more than the clock and burglar alarm.[The situation seems to be the same today. I am unclear what happens if you put one of these constantly venting cars in a garage, and leave it. There would appear to be a serious risk of explosion if you confine the vehicle for any length of time. I find it interesting how easy it is to hold air in simple containers like car tyres, yet the somewhat smaller molecules of hydrogen completely change the picture.Aren't car batteries leaking Hydrogen as well? If leaking hydrogen was such a big problem then cars wouldn't be allowed to be parked inside at all. In reality Hydrogen is a very light gas and it will float up quickly. Besides that there are ways to bind Hydrogen into a solid form and turn it back into gas quickly.
I remember reading about hydrogen power in vehicles. What seemed to be the biggest problem was actually storing the stuff. The molecule size is so small, and storage pressure so high, than no metal to metal seal would hold it, and any elastomer seal simply leaked. If used on a daily basis then the leak rate wasn't a problem, just don't expect your car to work after being in the airport carpark for 3 weeks.We used to use instruments that ran off hydrogen. We even used it in aircraft. So, we got a tank that stored Hydrogen on Titanium powder in a lower-pressure cylinder. I think this is what is being used in smaller vehicle Hydrogen storage tanks.
This was many years ago, is this still true, has it been sorted?
I remember reading about hydrogen power in vehicles. What seemed to be the biggest problem was actually storing the stuff. The molecule size is so small, and storage pressure so high, than no metal to metal seal would hold it, and any elastomer seal simply leaked. If used on a daily basis then the leak rate wasn't a problem, just don't expect your car to work after being in the airport carpark for 3 weeks.
This was many years ago, is this still true, has it been sorted?
Hydrogen is less energy dense by volume, but more energy dense by mass. The snag right now with hydrogen's density is the substantial mass of the storage system, so the system level mass is rather high, even though they are using a storage system specifically designed to keep the mass down - e.g. they don't use the kind of enormously thick and heavy tank which could hold the hydrogen if it fully warmed to the environmental temperature. There is ongoing work which might substantially change that picture, but there is no certainty. Most entrapment schemes either cost a fortune, are heavy, need unreasonable temperatures to release the hydrogen, or combine all three problems.I remember reading about hydrogen power in vehicles. What seemed to be the biggest problem was actually storing the stuff. The molecule size is so small, and storage pressure so high, than no metal to metal seal would hold it, and any elastomer seal simply leaked. If used on a daily basis then the leak rate wasn't a problem, just don't expect your car to work after being in the airport carpark for 3 weeks.
This was many years ago, is this still true, has it been sorted?
Problem with Hydrogen is it is 4 times less energy dense than gasoline. One would need a hydrogen tank 4 times the size of a gas tank to travel the same amount of miles.
When it comes to energy density one just can't beat gasoline except with nuclear.
Any one hearing of deaths from PHEV exhaust? This almost happened to us. Wife came home parked the PHEV in the garage. She was monetarily distracted by our kids and the dog. She exited the car, and plugged in the cable to charge the car.
I walked by the garage and what I thought was the fan for the charger, but it sounded funny. I then noticed the car was still in "running" mode and the fan sound was actually the engine running. I thought if the charger cable were plugged PHEVs would detect the connection and power off the car. But they don't.
According to my wife there have been half a dozzen or so deaths from CO posioning for PHEV cars accidently left running in peopls garages.
The difference is it's a crappy design. No PHEV should run ICE while charging.Any one hearing of deaths from PHEV exhaust? This almost happened to us. Wife came home parked the PHEV in the garage. She was monetarily distracted by our kids and the dog. She exited the car, and plugged in the cable to charge the car.
I walked by the garage and what I thought was the fan for the charger, but it sounded funny. I then noticed the car was still in "running" mode and the fan sound was actually the engine running. I thought if the charger cable were plugged PHEVs would detect the connection and power off the car. But they don't.
According to my wife there have been half a dozzen or so deaths from CO posioning for PHEV cars accidently left running in peopls garages.
How is this any different from a careless person walking away from any other kind of car without putting it in a safe state - i.e. in park (or handbrake on for a manual car) and with the engine shut off?
Aren't car batteries leaking Hydrogen as well? If leaking hydrogen was such a big problem then cars wouldn't be allowed to be parked inside at all. In reality Hydrogen is a very light gas and it will float up quickly. Besides that there are ways to bind Hydrogen into a solid form and turn it back into gas quickly.
Hehe wow you know while reading your topic I remembered an article about self-driving cars, unusual :-+ Look, so many benefits described (https://tranio.com/articles/self-driving-mobile-homes-how-driverless-cars-will-change-the-property-market_5354/ (https://tranio.com/articles/self-driving-mobile-homes-how-driverless-cars-will-change-the-property-market_5354/)), but I've never met a person who owns it really and what's more, finds useful :-// Interesting to see this all in practice...Written in July 2017, that article says Singapore has driverless taxis. The reality is they were, and are still, in the phase of having experimental autonomous vehicles operating in Singapore, with a driver to intervene if needed. They hope to start charging for rides in these vehicles later this year, still with a driver to intervene if needed. Its not clear if this represents them being pretty happy with the system, or being desperate for some revenue. This article is far from being alone in making grandiose claims for systems still in an experimental state. This seems to be what passes for journalism these day.
Hehe wow you know while reading your topic I remembered an article about self-driving cars, unusual :-+ Look, so many benefits described (https://tranio.com/articles/self-driving-mobile-homes-how-driverless-cars-will-change-the-property-market_5354/ (https://tranio.com/articles/self-driving-mobile-homes-how-driverless-cars-will-change-the-property-market_5354/)), but I've never met a person who owns it really and what's more, finds useful :-// Interesting to see this all in practice...I think you are in the wrong thread here. Anyway I'm pretty sure I'll own a self driving car before an electric one.
Hehe wow you know while reading your topic I remembered an article about self-driving cars, unusual :-+ Look, so many benefits described (https://tranio.com/articles/self-driving-mobile-homes-how-driverless-cars-will-change-the-property-market_5354/ (https://tranio.com/articles/self-driving-mobile-homes-how-driverless-cars-will-change-the-property-market_5354/)), but I've never met a person who owns it really and what's more, finds useful :-// Interesting to see this all in practice...I think you are in the wrong thread here. Anyway I'm pretty sure I'll own a self driving car before an electric one.
The other reason that self-driving cars are involved in accidents is because the other cars are not self-driving and unpredictable in their behavior.If we didn't skirt around the road laws every minor traffic works would cause congestion. I'm interested in how these autonomous cars manage to consistently complete journeys through cities where minor blockages are occurring all the time.
The only thing more unpredictable than a human driver is a drunk human driver ;)
Proof: humans do not always obey the road laws, can you imagine that ? There are laws and they don't obey them, tsssss how can you write an algorithm to handle that except never start the car in the first place.
The other reason that self-driving cars are involved in accidents is because the other cars are not self-driving and unpredictable in their behavior.
The only thing more unpredictable than a human driver is a drunk human driver ;)
Proof: humans do not always obey the road laws, can you imagine that ? There are laws and they don't obey them, tsssss how can you write an algorithm to handle that except never start the car in the first place.
Oh I am not saying that they are there yet.I don't think many well informed smart people would deny that eventually it is highly likely that autonomous systems will do anything better than a human. What is relevant right now is what the crude automated driving systems being built today, for deployment in the near term, might achieve.
They have a long way to go and AFAIK there are no autonomous driving cars yet, the human driver should still be alert and have control.
So when you say drive into a tree, where was the human driver ? Darwin award ?
In the long run I am convinced that autonomous cars will be much safer than human driven cars and able to respond much faster to sudden events as kids crossing the street.
IMO one of the worst possible conditions to test autonomous cars is with a lot of human drivers around, I really don't understand that they allowed this , esp. when you read the other topic how for instance Tesla develops its software, ouch.
Europe has sold over 1 million EVs now and sales growth rate continues to accelerate. 37% of light vehicle sales in Norway. (http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-euefta-plug-in-vehicle-volumes-2/)They seem to be mainstream in just 2 countries - Norway and Iceland, neither of which are very big markets. In every other European country sales are still a very small percentage.
Impressive.
Looks like they have already reached “mainstream” status in several countries.
What is relevant right now is what the crude automated driving systems being built today, for deployment in the near term, might achieve.Not too much, the Google car would fail a driversexam on more than four critical points.
Impressive.No I don't agree since these salesfigures are artificially reached by billions of Norwegian crowns subsidized government money.
Looks like they have already reached “mainstream” status in several countries.
Europe has sold over 1 million EVs now and sales growth rate continues to accelerate. 37% of light vehicle sales in Norway. (http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-euefta-plug-in-vehicle-volumes-2/)It is not. That is less than 0.5%. And as Kjelt noted there are only two countries with only a few people in them (not even half the number of people in the Netherlands!) where government subsidies artificially increase EV sales.
Impressive.
The car he was comparing it with only gets 21 MPG means he was driving a gas guzzler.
Now electricity prices are to continue to rise in California whereas gas prices have pretty much remained the same for many years.
The car he was comparing it with only gets 21 MPG means he was driving a gas guzzler.
Any car with equivalent performance to his Tesla would be lucky to get 21 MPGQuoteNow electricity prices are to continue to rise in California whereas gas prices have pretty much remained the same for many years.
Here's the actual data:
California historical electricity prices: Source (http://oneenergywind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/california-electricity-rate-historical-analysis-1990-2014.pdf)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=520805;image)
California historical gasoline prices: Source (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0R_PTE_SCA_DPG&f=W)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=520811;image)
Bot sure where you are getting your California electricity prices, they are way off.
Bot sure where you are getting your California electricity prices, they are way off. I wish we had rates as low as you claim. Those rates need to be increased by 50% or more to be accurate for California.
Bot sure where you are getting your California electricity prices, they are way off.
::) I clearly linked my source in the post.
Digging further - that link gets it's data from the EIA which is THE source for reliable statistics on all things energy related.
This EIA web page (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/) has links to all types of detailed state data. There you will find this Excel file (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/avgprice_annual.xlsx) which will give you all the gory details of historical electricity prices by state.
You may pay higher prices but what you pay may not be representative of other parts of California. I know for a fact that electricity prices vary greatly across the state. So do gasoline prices.
IMHO one of the errors with electric cars is that they emphasize on range left instead of charge left. It is simply impossible to calculate the remaining range accurate enough to be meaningful in practical circumstances. Just like ICE cars electric cars should show remaining charge as the primary indicator and range is just some kind of gross guesstimate.HO ? really.
IMHO one of the errors with electric cars is that they emphasize on range left instead of charge left. It is simply impossible to calculate the remaining range accurate enough to be meaningful in practical circumstances. Just like ICE cars electric cars should show remaining charge as the primary indicator and range is just some kind of gross guesstimate.HO ? really.
My 2014 Chevy Spark is spot on on range estimating. Being a nurd, I always reset the trip odometer after a charge and while driving compare the current range estimate plus odometer with the original estimate. As long as I drive in a consistent manner they are equal. If I encounter some ICE vehicles that need a lesson in acceleration the range estimator immediately punishes my transgressions.
Wonder where he lives. Electricity and gas prices are really low. Where I in California we are on TOU billing for electricity. So, we could be paying as little as double as what he's paying for electricity to almost 10 times as much. As for gasoline we are paying about $1.00 more per gallon.
Wonder where he lives. Electricity and gas prices are really low. Where I in California we are on TOU billing for electricity. So, we could be paying as little as double as what he's paying for electricity to almost 10 times as much. As for gasoline we are paying about $1.00 more per gallon.
Lucky you - I filled up my car at £1.32 / liter. Which (if I remember the conversion correctly) is about $5 per US gallon.
Shell V-Power is at 1.35 €/litre here.
No oil changes, radiator fluids, conventional brake pads, high performance stuff like on Maserati and stuff but lasting 100 - to 200k because the regeneration does most of the braking.
and in Europe most cars are manual and most of the braking we do with the engine (like your Tesla)In Europe most small cars are manual, but anything as big as a Tesla is usually automatic.
and in Europe most cars are manual and most of the braking we do with the engine (like your Tesla)In Europe most small cars are manual, but anything as big as a Tesla is usually automatic.
Most European automatics still have torque converters. Dual clutch gearboxes certainly don't dominate. Cars with torque converters give engine braking. That's why you have the ability to force an automatic into a lower gear with the gearstick - its how you control the car well on steep downhill runs. Of course, most automatics also have the ability to force the car into a lower gear with kickdown, to improve overtaking performance. That braking effect is one of the things which makes a torque converter different from a fluid flywheel.and in Europe most cars are manual and most of the braking we do with the engine (like your Tesla)In Europe most small cars are manual, but anything as big as a Tesla is usually automatic.
But most european automatic gearboxes can and do engine brake when lifting the accelerator unlike the most common american ones with fluid coupled torque converters.
AFAIK, since the 70s, most (like, ~ all) of the american cars mount turbo-hydramatic (and derivative) transmissions with fluid coupled torque converters which do not engine brake when you lift off the accelerator while in D.I've driven quite a few rental cars in the US, both American and Asian cars. I've never had one what didn't engine brake when I lifted the gas pedal. Turbo-Hydramatic is a GM commercial name for their gearboxes with a torque converter and a planetary geartrain. If it uses a torque converter it engine brakes. The only thing being in D affects is it allows all gears to be used automatically, while the other settings limit the range of gears. If you want heavy engine braking on a steep slope you need to prevent the automatic selection of the highest one or two gears.
OTOH, in Europe only a tiny % of the cars are automatics, and currently only a tiny % of that tiny % are hydramatics => most (as in ~all) european cars (automatic or not) can and do engine brake when you lift off the accelerator.
The California gas taxes are going up. One of these days EV's will have to start paying gas taxes to pay for the roads and all the boondoggles.
If it uses a torque converter it engine brakes.
Which ones? Even the vans I have driven where all manual.AFAIK, since the 70s, most (like, ~ all) of the american cars mount turbo-hydramatic (and derivative) transmissions with fluid coupled torque converters which do not engine brake when you lift off the accelerator while in D.You seem to greatly underestimate the number of automatic cars in Europe. Sure, most small cars are manual, but larger cars are mostly automatics. Quite a few big cars are not even offered with a manual gearbox.
OTOH, in Europe only a tiny % of the cars are automatics, and currently only a tiny % of that tiny % are hydramatics => most (as in ~all) european cars (automatic or not) can and do engine brake when you lift off the accelerator.
Automatic vans seem pretty rare all over the world, although many buses are automatic. I said large cars. Look at the bigger cars from Volvo, BMW, Audi, etc. The sportier ones are generally available as a manual. The more sedate versions tend to be automatic only, or manual is a factory order only that you have a considerable wait for.Which ones? Even the vans I have driven where all manual.AFAIK, since the 70s, most (like, ~ all) of the american cars mount turbo-hydramatic (and derivative) transmissions with fluid coupled torque converters which do not engine brake when you lift off the accelerator while in D.You seem to greatly underestimate the number of automatic cars in Europe. Sure, most small cars are manual, but larger cars are mostly automatics. Quite a few big cars are not even offered with a manual gearbox.
OTOH, in Europe only a tiny % of the cars are automatics, and currently only a tiny % of that tiny % are hydramatics => most (as in ~all) european cars (automatic or not) can and do engine brake when you lift off the accelerator.
The push start issue is because you need the engine running to wind up the torque converter. That is completely different from the situation where the engine is running, but running slower than the wheels. Have you ever driven an automatic car down a steep hill? They engine brake.If it uses a torque converter it engine brakes.
Nope, not in D, or perhaps ever so slightly but... there's a reason why you can't push-start a turbo hydramatic: the pump is driven by the engine not by the output shaft, when you lift rpms go down and the coupling decouples.
The push start issue is because you need the engine running to wind up the torque converter. That is completely different from the situation where the engine is running, but running slower than the wheels. Have you ever driven an automatic car down a steep hill? They engine brake.If it uses a torque converter it engine brakes.
Nope, not in D, or perhaps ever so slightly but... there's a reason why you can't push-start a turbo hydramatic: the pump is driven by the engine not by the output shaft, when you lift rpms go down and the coupling decouples.
Have you ever driven an automatic car down a steep hill? They engine brake.
Some cars with automatic transmissions can be push started. I had a Ford with a dead battery and was able to push start.
Today, as the range is a 95% solved issue, the cost advantage is on a factor 3 on the side of the electric, so it will take 5-10 years for electrics to mainly replace gas.That is a nice dream but it ain't gonna happen that quick and it might not even happen at all.
1) For many people a car is a big ticket item so they buy one which fits all their needs. This means that the car they buy also needs to be fit for usage on 0.1% of the trips they make. Range is what kills an electric car here. Local constraints like taxation on ownership and limited parking space drive the need to buy a car which fits all usages.
Electrics will be fairly niche for the foreseeable future barring some drastic price drop (don't see that happening bar a new battery innovation), massive government subsidies, or a huge oil shock.
Convenience is everything to most people. You simply can't beat topping up a tank with 500km+ range in a couple of minutes at a petrol station every couple of square km.
Imagine what would be needed if say 80% of the population switched to electric cars overnight, you wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere.
And even if they replaced every current petrol pump with an electric charger (ignoring grid infrastructure issues etc), you still wouldn't be able to find a spare charging port anywhere because people would need to leave their cars there for much longer than currently available.
I imagine that once people with an electric car have to experience having to wait 15-20 min at a charging station for a "quick top up", they will likely regret buying one.
Takes them less than 5 minutes to pull the old battery and shove a new one in and I'm pretty much good for the rest of the day.it'S a nice idea, and useful for some markets like motorcycles.
This is already done for small electric motorbikes you can rent in a city. They keep track of the charge remotely and when motorcycle's battery is almost empty they exhange it for a full battery.QuoteTakes them less than 5 minutes to pull the old battery and shove a new one in and I'm pretty much good for the rest of the day.it'S a nice idea, and useful for some markets like motorcycles.
Try watching "now you know" on youtube.
(12[A]*107[V]*1[h])/2[miles] => 642 Wh/mile = 39.8 kWh/100 km
Shell V-Power is at 1.35 €/litre here.
(12[A]*107[V]*1[h])/2[miles] => 642 Wh/mile = 39.8 kWh/100 kmShell V-Power is at 1.35 €/litre here.
39.8[kWh]*0.2[€/kWh] = 7.96€, that buys me 7.96[€]/1.35[€/litre]= 5.9 litres (*) of gasoil with which I can drive the same 100 km in any modern diesel.
You've got nothing to say my dear fanboys?
(*) Shell V-Power is the most expensive fuel there is.
(12[A]*107[V]*1[h])/2[miles] => 642 Wh/mile = 39.8 kWh/100 kmShell V-Power is at 1.35 €/litre here.
39.8[kWh]*0.2[€/kWh] = 7.96€, that buys me 7.96[€]/1.35[€/litre]= 5.9 litres (*) of gasoil with which I can drive the same 100 km in any modern diesel.
You've got nothing to say my dear fanboys?
(*) Shell V-Power is the most expensive fuel there is.
If you watch the video, he clearly states that "it takes a while for that number to come up", plus it's to the resolution of 1. I would expect, and I'm sure the Model 3 owners here will tell you, it's probably closer to 4 miles/hr on a 1300W charge rate. Certainly the math would imply
50kWh battery
220 Mile (352km) Range
14.2 kWh/100km
call it 17 kWh after charging loss
So let's sum up:
1. You're not really that truthful with regards to your electricity pricing, as the average price of electricity even in your country isn't 0.20, it's closer to €0.15 according to everything I can find, plus it's likely closer to 0.05 overnight as most of Europe has overnight tariffs.
2. The actual consumption of a model 3 is less than 1/2 of your 'calculated' rate (see numbers above)
So even using European (daytime) prices for electricity, it's still less than 1/2 the cost of operating a diesel
Here in Western Canada the observed cost of operating an EV is 1/10th of that of operating the ICE equivalent vehicle, which I have shown over and over and over.
With $0.45 per kWh
Still I'm not sure the numbers quoted for the Tesla are right. AFAIK the Tesla needs about 250Wh per km from the 'socket on the wall'. With $0.45 per kWh that brings the cost to $0,11 per km. With $3.95 per gallon and an mileage of (let's stay conservative) 35MPG = 56kmPG you get a cost of $0.07 per km. With an efficient ICE car in the 45MPG range the fuel costs go down to little over $0.05 per km.
But do these prices include transportation / distribution costs and taxes? 7ct per kWh seems awfully low for an all inclusive price. Over here I pay around 7 eurocents per kWh but that excludes distribution costs and taxes. With the distribution costs and taxes added I pay around 22 eurocents per kWh.With $0.45 per kWh
This is a cherry picked number. Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
Based on the most recently published EIA data, in the USA - the most expensive state Hawaii is almost half that. Most states average electricity prices are less than $0.10 per kWh. (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/) As of the end of 2016, the USA average was $0.10/kWh. Where I live (WA state) with electricity prices in the $0.07-0.08/kWh.
(Edit- Here's a website with June 2018 data. (https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/) Prices have gone up some - USA ave is now $0.13/lkWh. The point remains the same.)
With $0.45 per kWh
This is a cherry picked number. Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
Based on the most recently published EIA data, in the USA - the most expensive state Hawaii is almost half that. Most states average electricity prices are less than $0.10 per kWh. (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/) As of the end of 2016, the USA average was $0.10/kWh. Where I live (WA state) with electricity prices in the $0.07-0.08/kWh.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=525200;image)
But do these prices include transportation / distribution costs and taxes? 7ct per kWh seems awfully low for an all inclusive price. Over here I pay around 7 eurocents per kWh but that excludes distribution costs and taxes.With $0.45 per kWh
This is a cherry picked number. Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
Based on the most recently published EIA data, in the USA - the most expensive state Hawaii is almost half that. Most states average electricity prices are less than $0.10 per kWh. (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/) As of the end of 2016, the USA average was $0.10/kWh. Where I live (WA state) with electricity prices in the $0.07-0.08/kWh.
(Edit- Here's a website with June 2018 data. (https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/) Prices have gone up some - USA ave is now $0.13/lkWh. The point remains the same.)
But do these prices include transportation / distribution costs and taxes? 7ct per kWh seems awfully low for an all inclusive price. Over here I pay around 7 eurocents per kWh but that excludes distribution costs and taxes.
But do these prices include transportation / distribution costs and taxes? 7ct per kWh seems awfully low for an all inclusive price. Over here I pay around 7 eurocents per kWh but that excludes distribution costs and taxes.
Of course there will be some taxes - but they are trivially low compared to the kWh price in all cases I'm aware of. For my current utility - they are $0.0058/kWh.
There will always be a usage independent basic service charge as well. (for me it's $29/month) - but of course that charge is irrelevant since it will be there even if I use no electricity.
So for example in California there are power companies charging $0.05 and $0.85 per kHr. If we take the average that would be $.68 kWhr. While the calculation is accurate, the calculated number is meaningless.Nonsense. Your are just providing more fact free FUD. Please tell me where in California electricity is $0.85/kWh. And which city do you live in that charges $0.45/KWh.?
So for example in California there are power companies charging $0.05 and $0.85 per kHr. If we take the average that would be $.68 kWhr. While the calculation is accurate, the calculated number is meaningless.Nonsense. Your are just providing more fact free FUD. Please tell me where in California electricity is $0.85/kWh. And which city do you live in that charges $0.45/KWh.?
The eletricity rates in the large population areas of California (Los Angles and San Francisco) are much much lower than that.
Do you pay a PG&E bill in San Francisco? I don't think so. Just look at PG&E's electrial rates.
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml (https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml) Specialy take a look a the TOU EV-A and EV-B rates and tell me how I'm not paying $0.45 kWhr? Holly shit you are right, I was wrong. PG&E raised rates. It's not longer $0.85 kWhr it's on $0.862 kWhr.
(Edit- Here's a website with June 2018 data. (https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/) Prices have gone up some - USA ave is now $0.13/lkWh. The point remains the same.)
(Edit- Here's a website with June 2018 data. (https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/) Prices have gone up some - USA ave is now $0.13/lkWh. The point remains the same.)
FYI
In San Diego Calif during Mar 2018 (stayed under baseline - used 332 KW) the electricity rate was $0.15406 which is near the chart BUT I paid $0.24446 KW after a half dozen add on charges.
But last month when I used the AC for 10 hours and went over baseline my total charge was $045 KW
So my rate is .24 to .45
Do you pay a PG&E bill in San Francisco? I don't think so. Just look at PG&E's electrial rates.
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml (https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml) Specialy take a look a the TOU EV-A and EV-B rates and tell me how I'm not paying $0.45 kWhr? Holly shit you are right, I was wrong. PG&E raised rates. It's not longer $0.85 kWhr it's on $0.862 kWhr.
What the hell are you smoking? Picture below is directly from the spreadsheet in your link and shows the most current average rates to be either $0.13 or $0.23 per kWh.
And according to this database (https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/san-francisco/) the average residential electricity price in San Francisco is $0.15/kWh.
And that same website shows that in the largest population center of California, Los Angeles, the average rate is only $0.13/kWh.
And BTW -any price sensitive EV owner would be charging their EV primarily during the lowest (off peak) rate hours.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=525248;image)
\We arn't talking about the small number of custoemrs who receive special rates, we have been disucssing the vast majority of cutomers who don't receive any discounts and pay the full rates.
(Edit- Here's a website with June 2018 data. (https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/) Prices have gone up some - USA ave is now $0.13/lkWh. The point remains the same.)
FYI
In San Diego Calif during Mar 2018 (stayed under baseline - used 332 KW) the electricity rate was $0.15406 which is near the chart BUT I paid $0.24446 KW after a half dozen add on charges.
But last month when I used the AC for 10 hours and went over baseline my total charge was $045 KW
So my rate is .24 to .45
Thanks for the data point. Were the add on charges use dependent?
Base service charges are not relevant since they will be there regardless of whether you have an EV or not.
TOU charges of course are designed to charge more at times of heavy use - typically AC use hours. As I stated, any EV owner will avoid charging during those hours unless they don't care about price.
I know a couple of California EV owners who purposely set up their charging to only occur during the lowest rate hours.
I posted the spreadsheet you provided. It clearly shows the average rates for PGE which is nothing close to what you have claimed. That is not only showing special rates.
Nowhere does it show anything close the the rates you claimed.
Are you purposely being deceitful?
I posted the spreadsheet you provided. It clearly shows the average rates for PGE which is nothing close to what you have claimed. That is not only showing special rates.
Nowhere does it show anything close the the rates you claimed.
Are you purposely being deceitful?
No, you are. Look at cells A4 and B4. Any dummy can see these are the special rate plans that someone who is dying is on. Yes the rest of us are dying to get on those rate plans but we aren't dying so we can't get on them.
Can we focus our discussin on the rate plans the vast majority of us pay, and not the special medial rate plans for customers who are dying?
[...] it's probably closer to 4 miles/hr on a 1300W charge rate. Certainly the math would imply [...] 14.2 kWh/100km, call it 17 kWh after charging loss [...]
I wouldn't call it irrelevant because it does add to the price per kWh number. No creative book keeping >:D . I'm still interested in what people actually pay per kWh. Electricity prices without taking all the costs (fixed and variable) into account are not usefull to make a good comparison between the actual costs. For my personal situation EV versus ICE is equal when it comes to costs per km if I had to choose between buying an EV or and efficient ICE car.But do these prices include transportation / distribution costs and taxes? 7ct per kWh seems awfully low for an all inclusive price. Over here I pay around 7 eurocents per kWh but that excludes distribution costs and taxes.Of course there will be some taxes - but they are trivially low compared to the kWh price in all cases I'm aware of. For my current utility - they are $0.0058/kWh.
There will always be a usage independent basic service charge as well. (for me it's $29/month) - but of course that charge is irrelevant since it will be there even if I use no electricity.
Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
It's not a made up number, I know what I pay. And to present a worst case comparison I would have chosen the carrefour gazole not the V-Power.
I wouldn't call it irrelevant because it does add to the price per kWh number. No creative book keeping >:D . I'm still interested in what people actually pay per kWh. Electricity prices without taking all the costs (fixed and variable) into account are not usefull to make a good comparison between the actual costs. For my personal situation EV versus ICE is equal when it comes to costs per km if I had to choose between buying an EV or and efficient ICE car.But do these prices include transportation / distribution costs and taxes? 7ct per kWh seems awfully low for an all inclusive price. Over here I pay around 7 eurocents per kWh but that excludes distribution costs and taxes.Of course there will be some taxes - but they are trivially low compared to the kWh price in all cases I'm aware of. For my current utility - they are $0.0058/kWh.
There will always be a usage independent basic service charge as well. (for me it's $29/month) - but of course that charge is irrelevant since it will be there even if I use no electricity.
I posted the spreadsheet you provided. It clearly shows the average rates for PGE which is nothing close to what you have claimed. That is not only showing special rates.
Nowhere does it show anything close the the rates you claimed.
Are you purposely being deceitful?
No, you are. Look at cells A4 and B4. Any dummy can see these are the special rate plans that someone who is dying is on. Yes the rest of us are dying to get on those rate plans but we aren't dying so we can't get on them.
Can we focus our discussin on the rate plans the vast majority of us pay, and not the special medial rate plans for customers who are dying?
Alright Doug. Now I can not conclude anything other than your are a straight up dishonest troll.
That spreadsheet clearly shows that the average normal rate (row A) is $0.23/kWh not the $0.45 or $0.86/kWh you claimed. Anyone can look for themselves.
You claimed you pay $0.45/kWh
You claimed somewhere in CA the rate is $0.86/hr
Both claims could be true but we simply don't know since you have provided no evidence of that.
It would not surprise me if some utility somewhere charges that much for high demand TOU hours. It really is irrelevant though since anyone living in such an area would be silly to charge their EV during those hours.
What you have done is provide a link to the PGE website with their current average rates of either $0.13 (CARE qualifying customers) or $0.23 per kWh (normal customers).
(BTW - the CARE program is not for people "who are dying" - it is for general low income households)
This is the same old pattern with you across multiple threads since you joined this forum. Make claims without any evidence to support them, then change the subject when presented with actual facts.
I've got to go clean my roof gutters now. Feel free to post some actual verifiable data to support your claims. I'll have a look later.
OK - then cherry picked. As pointed out by Boffin, average electricity rates in Poland are closer to 0.15 Euro/kWh, not 0.20. (for example see here (https://www.statista.com/statistics/418110/electricity-prices-for-households-in-poland/)) and overnight rates, when EVs would mostly be charged, are likely much less.
That is the definition of creative book keeping. Some people would even argue electricity from their solar panels is free. :palm:I wouldn't call it irrelevant because it does add to the price per kWh number. No creative book keeping >:D . I'm still interested in what people actually pay per kWh. Electricity prices without taking all the costs (fixed and variable) into account are not usefull to make a good comparison between the actual costs. For my personal situation EV versus ICE is equal when it comes to costs per km if I had to choose between buying an EV or and efficient ICE car.But do these prices include transportation / distribution costs and taxes? 7ct per kWh seems awfully low for an all inclusive price. Over here I pay around 7 eurocents per kWh but that excludes distribution costs and taxes.Of course there will be some taxes - but they are trivially low compared to the kWh price in all cases I'm aware of. For my current utility - they are $0.0058/kWh.
There will always be a usage independent basic service charge as well. (for me it's $29/month) - but of course that charge is irrelevant since it will be there even if I use no electricity.
Please explain how a fixed electricity connection cost is relevant to evaluating the price to fuel an EV. That charge would be there regardless of whether one owns an EV or not.
Please explain how a fixed electricity connection cost is relevant to evaluating the price to fuel an EV. That charge would be there regardless of whether one owns an EV or not.
Still I'm not sure the numbers quoted for the Tesla are right. AFAIK the Tesla needs about 250Wh per km from the 'socket on the wall'. With $0.45 per kWh that brings the cost to $0,11 per km. With $3.95 per gallon and an mileage of (let's stay conservative) 35MPG = 56kmPG you get a cost of $0.07 per km. With an efficient ICE car in the 45MPG range the fuel costs go down to little over $0.05 per km.
There sure is a large variation in the cost electricity and gas around the world. Even if the guy’s math is +/- 10% or even 20% he’s showing the energy cost for an EV and ICE are comparable. And if electricity coasts continue to rise faster than gas, electric cars will be more expensive to power. Now to be fair he’s not factoring on oil changes. But then again for the past 20 years I change the oil in my cars about once every 2 years or every 20,000 miles. So, for my figures add in another $20 per year on the ICE for oil changes.
...This is a cherry picked number. Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
I never said you did. You're being dishonest again. You've yet to tell us which city you live in to check your rates and you did post a link to PGEs website that directly contradicts what you claimed it said.
Never said $0.45 is the average.
So what do you do if you need say drive to school to pick-up the kids but need to charge the battery when rates are at $0.45? Leave the kids at school?Be smart and charge overnight when rates are low. Most EVs and most peoples driving habits will mean that is what usually would happen. There will always be edge cases but it is disingenuous to cite those in this context. Just as it would be disingenuous to use the biggest gas guzzling SUVs as a point of comparison.
Be realBe honest.
[...] Just as it would be disingenuous to use the biggest gas guzzling SUVs as a point of comparison. [...] The exact same ICE only minivan gets EPA estimated 19 MPG for city driving. [...]
[...] Just as it would be disingenuous to use the biggest gas guzzling SUVs as a point of comparison. [...] The exact same ICE only minivan gets EPA estimated 19 MPG for city driving. [...]
19 MPG isn't a gas guzzler? GOD BLESS THE USA LOL
...This is a cherry picked number. Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
They love cherry-picking numbers.
They'll try and compare a Tesla Model 3 with a Fiat Panda, and claim they're equivalent. I've had one of them in this thread say that comparing a VW Electric Golf to a VW Gasoline Golf isn't a reasonable comparison.
I'm seeing some great imagination here. I don't recall anyone comparing a Tesla model 3 with a Fiat Panda :palm: .Yes. It's remarkable that they think others can't see their transparent bullshit.
...This is a cherry picked number. Just as George has cherry picked (or made up) a number. This seems to be a common theme with the anti-EV ers. Cherry pick (or make up) a number to present a worse case comparison, meanwhile ignoring factual and more widely applicable data presented by others.
They love cherry-picking numbers.
They'll try and compare a Tesla Model 3 with a Fiat Panda, and claim they're equivalent. I've had one of them in this thread say that comparing a VW Electric Golf to a VW Gasoline Golf isn't a reasonable comparison.
4.7 mpkWh is 213 Wh per mile, scaled for input power is 265 Wh per mile.
That gives me £0.039 per mile. We can argue endlessly as to whether we should include the battery lease as a per mile charge (as Renault bill it) or add it to the purchase price, but if we do add it in then we get to £0.119 per mile.
The car it replaced was a 2010 Chevrolet Spark. Real-world we got around 320 miles to a tank with perhaps 5 L left in the 35 L tank, I pretty much always put 30 L in anyway. My local petrol stations are currently around £1.35 /L for unleaded so those 30 L would cost £40.50, so £0.127 per mile. The Zoe just about breaks even if you include the battery lease.
But the big factor that gets barely mentioned is that EVs are heavily subsidised - not only because of government subsidy for the purchase price but also the lack of duty on the fuel. In the UK 61% of the retail price of petrol and diesel is tax compared to 5% for electricity. That can't remain the case when EVs get more popular (as the government can't afford the loss of so much revenue) so road pricing or similar will have to introduced at some point to ensure EV owners pay their fair share of maintaining the road network, emergency services etc.In the NL they have tried to raise the prices for owning and using cars for decades in order to get more people to use the public transport. It hasn't worked at all and the only thing it achieved is increase the cost of labour. After all people have to go to work and if the car costs more then the people need to earn more (inflation). You also make a very good point about taxes on fuel. If the majority of the cars are electric then the income from those taxes need to be obtained somehow.
That may change the balance somewhat but it could (very likely) be offset by higher charges on ICE vehicles to encourage switching to EVs. I'm not convinced they can go very on this route as doing so may be politically difficult because many people, especially the poorer, won't have the choice to switch to an EV for various reasons including lack of home recharging facilities.
I hate not having a spare tire. guess luxury car owners want to have AAA or a butler do it. Could throw one in the Frunk.
I hate not having a spare tire. guess luxury car owners want to have AAA or a butler do it. Could throw one in the Frunk.I've been stranded by a couple of car issues, but I have never used a spare tyre. I wonder what percentage of all "car won't go" incidents are actually helped by the presence of a spare tyre?
I might have underestimated how fast this goes.The e-car for the enormous masses of the bloated plutocrats.
Audi released their new E-SUV the e-tron today, costing a stunning startprice of €84000 in our country and $75000 in the US.
Still there are already 10000 pre-orders in Belgium :o
Can't believe this but if true it will go much faster than I anticipated.
They call it the e-car for the masses but at €84000 I know no-one that can afford it :)
Still I'm not sure the numbers quoted for the Tesla are right. AFAIK the Tesla needs about 250Wh per km from the 'socket on the wall'. With $0.45 per kWh that brings the cost to $0,11 per km. With $3.95 per gallon and an mileage of (let's stay conservative) 35MPG = 56kmPG you get a cost of $0.07 per km. With an efficient ICE car in the 45MPG range the fuel costs go down to little over $0.05 per km.
There sure is a large variation in the cost electricity and gas around the world. Even if the guy’s math is +/- 10% or even 20% he’s showing the energy cost for an EV and ICE are comparable. And if electricity coasts continue to rise faster than gas, electric cars will be more expensive to power. Now to be fair he’s not factoring on oil changes. But then again for the past 20 years I change the oil in my cars about once every 2 years or every 20,000 miles. So, for my figures add in another $20 per year on the ICE for oil changes.
Yet more cherry-picked numbers? You find me a car with a 20,000 mile oil change interval (most are 10,000 mile, maybe 15,000), and I'll show you a car which takes full synthentic oil. $20 wouldn't even buy the oil for an oil-change, which typically runs around $30+/5 qt.
I might have underestimated how fast this goes.All for business. So no VAT, deductable from tax and environmental subsidies on top. A couple of years ago this would knock off about 75% of the retail price. I don't know the exact numbers right now but as a business you can still get an EV with hefty discounts.
Audi released their new E-SUV the e-tron today, costing a stunning startprice of €84000 in our country and $75000 in the US.
Still there are already 10000 pre-orders in Belgium :o
Can't believe this but if true it will go much faster than I anticipated.
They call it the e-car for the masses but at €84000 I know no-one that can afford it :)
Well, the ones that have to do with a leaky tyre. Having a real spare tyre has helped me to keep going several times already. But then again we used to do a lot of long (cross Europe) trips with the car.I hate not having a spare tire. guess luxury car owners want to have AAA or a butler do it. Could throw one in the Frunk.I've been stranded by a couple of car issues, but I have never used a spare tyre. I wonder what percentage of all "car won't go" incidents are actually helped by the presence of a spare tyre?
All for business. So no VAT, deductable from tax and environmental subsidies on top. A couple of years ago this would knock off about 75% of the retail price. I don't know the exact numbers right now but as a business you can still get an EV with hefty discounts.Ends as of end of this year at least what I heard. Then the unsold EV's will stay in the showroom
I think the mass adoption of EVs will take a lot longer than may expect or wish for - unless there is more radical changes in the battery technology and/or cost than currently predicted.
I think the mass adoption of EVs will take a lot longer than may expect or wish for - unless there is more radical changes in the battery technology and/or cost than currently predicted.
I think that depends a lot of your jurisdiction. Here in Western Canada, the combination of cheap electricity (about £0.06/kWh) from hydro electric, and relatively (for north america) expensive gasoline (£0.88/l), it means that my EV energy consumption costs are about 1/8th of the same car with an internal combustion engine. FWIW I drive a VW eGolf. In jurisdictions with more expensive electricity, and cheaper gasoline, perhaps the numbers aren't quite so beneficial, but you'd be hard pressed to find any jurisdiction where they don't hold out.
I see about 17kWh/100km (consumption from the socket) on my VW eGolf @ C$0.093/kWh*1 (my EVSE measures, so I know the real numbers)
The same car (VW Golf) in ICE consumes about 8.5l / 100k*2 with typical gasoline prices @ C$1.49
Vancouver Canada
EV: C$1.58
ICE: C$12.67
In reality about 20-30% of my charging is done at free charging stations around town, so my direct costs are a little lower than that; but's lets assume worse case where I pay for every electron. The additional purchase price (about C$6k more vs the ICE version) will be paid off long before I get rid of the car, and the lower maintenance costs are just an added bonus that I haven't factored in.
If you ran the numbers in Southern California at 0.48/kWh and 3.95/gal (1.04/l) for fuel, the numbers are still better for an EV, although that advantage is marginal if you only charge using peak electricity rates. Luckily PG&E have specific tiered rate plans for EV owners to help them minimize costs.
Southern California
EV: $8.16 (day charging @ 0.48*3)
EV: $2.21 (overnight charging @ 0.13/kWh*3)
ICE: $8.84
Even in Europe, the numbers are such that an EV is well worth it, and assuming a smaller displacement VW Golf (@ 5.2l/100km or 54 ImpMPG) in the Netherlands @ 1.35/l , and electricity @ 0.22/kWh and fuel @ 1.35/l *4
Netherlands
EV: €3.74 (overnight rates would drop this slightly)
ICE: €7.02
references:
*1 https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html (https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html)
*2 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/oee/pdf/transportation/tools/fuelratings/2018%20Fuel%20Consumption%20Guide.pdf (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/oee/pdf/transportation/tools/fuelratings/2018%20Fuel%20Consumption%20Guide.pdf)
*3 https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_EV%20(Sch).pdf (https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_EV%20(Sch).pdf)
*4 numbers as provided by nctnico in eevblog forum
Get ready to be called a troll by mtdoc. I posted the same rates for electricity in the San Francisco Bay Area by mtdoc and he called me a liar and a troll. I even provided the links the PG&E rates web page and mtdoc still called me a troll.
Get ready to be called a troll by mtdoc. I posted the same rates for electricity in the San Francisco Bay Area by mtdoc and he called me a liar and a troll. I even provided the links the PG&E rates web page and mtdoc still called me a troll.
What are you 13 years old? :palm:
You did nothing of the sort. You claimed that your electricity cost you 0.48 per kWh (and costs 0.86/kWh other places) and provided absolutely no proof of that. In fact what you did provide refuted that. Despite repeated requests to provide your location or document your rate you have not. The PGE website clearly refuted your claims.
As Boffin posted - even someplace where high TOU rates may be in force (as I said earlier do exist)- low rates are available for EV charging at other times and EV costs are lower then ICE.
You have over and over again since you joined this forum, made claims of facts which when asked, failed to provide any documentation or proof and when examined have proven to be false. You come in and out of these threads with nothing but bullshit and trolling nonsense.
Boffin has done what you and the anti EVers here have never done: Provided direct comparisons with references. What they clearly show is that EV fueling costs are lower than ICE across multiple locations. :clap:
I porived a link to the power compnay's web site where I purchase my power from. I stated they have rates as high as $0.862 per kWhr for some rates plans. My firend I just clicked on the link I provided to you previously. Here's a screenshot which proves PG&E does in fact charge between 2 and 6 pm as mush as $0.862 per hWhr. Dude click on the link and see for yourself PG&E charges upto $0.862 per kWhr.
The question has never been are there some places, somewhere, that at some heavy use times, charge ridiculously high electricity rates. Of course, we all know that is true. The issue is what will the cost of ownership be for a typical EV driver versus a typical ICE driver. Obviously, cost of fueling is the largest cost of ownership.
Anyone who picks $0.45/kWh as the point of comparison is being dishonest. Even in one of he most expensive electricity markets in the world (California) that price is rare and only applicable during high TOU hours which as any EV owner will tell you, is not what they will be paying.
Suggesting that $0.45/kWh is the price someone with an EV will commonly pay for electricity is just as dishonest as it would be claiming that typical ICE refuelling costs would be $8/gallon because there are places that charge that much.I porived a link to the power compnay's web site where I purchase my power from. I stated they have rates as high as $0.862 per kWhr for some rates plans. My firend I just clicked on the link I provided to you previously. Here's a screenshot which proves PG&E does in fact charge between 2 and 6 pm as mush as $0.862 per hWhr. Dude click on the link and see for yourself PG&E charges upto $0.862 per kWhr.
This is the link you provided (https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml). That page (as all can see) is a list of links to numerous spreadsheets with rates. Nowhere on that page can I find what you posted or a link to that graph (and the pic and your post give no info about where it comes from) Of course PGE has a large website with no doubt multple sublinks, etc - so it could be there somewhere. As I said it would not surprise me that someone at some location - in some exremely hight TOU scenario would pay that much. That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What is relevant is what most people pay most of the time and what an EV owner would pay when charging at low TOU hours.
What the link you provided does show directly contradicts your claims (and it is dishonest of you to imply otherwise). In multiple spreadsheets - it shows that in one of the most expensive electricity markets in the USA, electricity rates are no where near what you have claimed. Again here is a screen shot from the most recent, TOP, FRONT AND CENTER spreadsheet linked on that page. Other spreadsheets on that page that I've looked at show similar or lower rates (there are hundreds and I did not look at all of them).
[(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=525248;image)
If you want to engage in constructive debate on this topic, back up all statements of fact with a linked reference and don't lie about what the links show (as any review of this thread will confirm you've repeatedly done).
The price at the superchargers is $0.26 per kWh. Plus taxes? IDK.
There seems to be a lot of that globally, because the places are primarily commercial car parks. The chargers is supposed to enhance the value of the parking. The parking is not intended to devalue the charging.The price at the superchargers is $0.26 per kWh. Plus taxes? IDK.
And at non-superchargers? In California there some charging stations also make you pay for parking while you charge. So not only do you pay for the electricity to charge your car, one also has to pay for the space to park the car in so it can be charged.
Tesla”s web page pretty much agrees with what the guy in the video posted about energy costs between his Tesla EV and his ICE. Cost to power either is pretty much the same.
ICE - (21mpg, $2.85/gallon) = $204
Tesla charged via supercharger ($0.26/kWh) = $106
Tesla charged via supercharger ($0.26/kWh) = $106
Even in Europe, the numbers are such that an EV is well worth it, and assuming a smaller displacement VW Golf (@ 5.2l/100km or 54 ImpMPG) in the Netherlands @ 1.35/l , and electricity @ 0.22/kWh *4If I buy a year old car to knock a bit off the price (or in the case of ICE a lot) and because there was not much improvement from 2017 e-golf to 2018 it would take me around 10 years to pay off the difference compared to ICE.
That ^^^ would be 106/0.26= 407.7 kWh / 1500 miles => 272 Wh/mile = 16.9 kWh/100 km, which is simply not true, neither for a Model 3, nor much less for a Model S.
Even the unbelievably good hyper optimistic figures of Mr. Boffin for a much smaller e-golf, are more than that.
Small cars can manage that. I get around 213 Wh/mile in a Zoe (measured from the battery), at 80% charging efficiency that would be 266 Wh/mile from the wall. Daily commute over mixed roads and weekly motorway trips. A model 3 is 26% heavier but that makes little difference to the power used, at speed it's all about the aerodynamic effects. It is 12% wider but 8% lower, with slightly more frontal cross-section I might expect it to use more power though the shape looks a bit more aerodynamic. Overall I could believe such numbers for a model 3 depending how it is driven.
I'm sorry Mr. USA, but in Europe 21 MPG is a gas guzzler.I was responding to Doug saying that Tesla’s fueling price comparison was ”pretty much the same”. 21mpg was Teslas comparison number which is reasonable for a car with similar performance. Any car which can match a Tesla’s acceleration specs will be close to that {or worse).
This Skoda compares much better to a Model 3:ICE - (21mpg, $2.85/gallon) = $204
Tesla charged via supercharger ($0.26/kWh) = $106
Skoda Octavia TDI RS ICE (53 MPG, $2.85/gallon) = $80.6
That ^^^ would be 106/0.26= 407.7 kWh / 1500 miles => 272 Wh/mile = 16.9 kWh/100 km, which is simply not true, neither for a Model 3, nor much less for a Model S.
[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]
The car manufacturers already figured that out: target audience and size which equals segment / price bracket.[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?
[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]
Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?
If you start talking about torque and cars you should ask your money back from your physics teacher. Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars. Do the math... hint: a transmission works like an impedance matching transformer... Which is also why EVs have relatively low top speeds compared to ICE based cars.OK I guess you’re not a car person. See Performance car (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_car). It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?
What is the source of you Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm (https://www.zigwheels.com/newcars/Skoda/Octavia/specifications) - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m). It appears as
If you start talking about torque and cars you should ask your money back from your physics teacher. Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars. Do the math... hint: a transmission works like an impedance matching transformer... Which is also why EVs have relatively low top speeds compared to ICE based cars.OK I guess you’re not a car person. See Performance car (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_car). It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?
What is the source of you Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm (https://www.zigwheels.com/newcars/Skoda/Octavia/specifications) - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m). It appears as
Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars.
Which is also why EVs have relatively low top speeds compared to ICE based cars:palm: You're wrong (https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-140-mph-top-speed-salt-flats/). And that's the Model 3. The Model S has an ever higher top speed. (https://electrek.co/2016/03/23/tesla-model-s-p90d-ludicrous-top-speed-acceleration/) Both Teslas I believe have their top speed limited by software (140mph for the Model 3, 155 mph for the Model S) because you know, no one should be driving faster than that on public roads...
Uh, clearly you know nothing about the performance car world. Torque curves are everything. It is directly proportional to horsepower and directly proprotional to acceleration.
There is no machine that measures a cars horsepower. Instead torque is measured on a Dyno. Horsepower = (Torque x RPMs) / 5252
Transferring engine torque to torque at the wheels depends on the drivetrain which in an ICE involves a traditional transmission.
OK I guess you’re not a car person. See Performance car (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_car). It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.
What is the source of your Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm (https://www.zigwheels.com/newcars/Skoda/Octavia/specifications) - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m). It appears as if even within your already dishonest comparison, you are cherry picking.
If it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!! (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-model-3-hits-the-dyno-has-all-the-torque-123826.html)
And what about price of fuel? What does diesel (or gasoline) cost in Europe, where the Skoda is sold?
Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars.Uh, clearly you know nothing about the performance car world.
Where? Is see the pic. There is no URL. Why not post it here?OK I guess you’re not a car person. See Performance car (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_car). It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.
If torque were the only thing that maters a 900 Nm Ford Pinto would be even better. And Teslas leave much to be desired in other chapters compared to European cars. E.g. the cheap, awful interior and poor build quality and horrible fit and finish.QuoteWhat is the source of your Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm (https://www.zigwheels.com/newcars/Skoda/Octavia/specifications) - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m). It appears as if even within your already dishonest comparison, you are cherry picking.
It's in a previous message, with a picture and url.
QuoteIf it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!! (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-model-3-hits-the-dyno-has-all-the-torque-123826.html)
Now you're lying, that's not the torque of the base Model 3
it was only a matter of time until the entry-level model landed on the dyno.Perhaps you don't understand the difference between manufacturer listed Torque specs and real world, at the wheels max torque numbers. I was very specific in my post.
Well, the dyno videos are now in and, as expected, the EV makes loads of torque. So far, we've come across two rolling road adventures, one delivered by Drag Times and the other by the Tesla Repair Channel.
You'll find both YouTube videos at the bottom of the page, along with the two results - the two stunts delivered quite different hp numbers, with the first YT label showing 281/336 hp and the second 393 ponies.
As for the twist, around 550 lb-ft is a safe answer - keep in mind that all the numbers discussed here are at the wheels.
QuoteAnd what about price of fuel? What does diesel (or gasoline) cost in Europe, where the Skoda is sold?
But our ICE cars aren't gas guzzlers, and that's why the cost per km is pretty similar / much closer here whether you like it or not.
Why not post it here?
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between manufacturer listed Torque specs and real world, at the wheels max torque numbers. I was very specific in my post.
If it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!!
Both Teslas I believe have their top speed limited by software (140mph for the Model 3, 155 mph for the Model S) because you know, no one should be driving faster than that on public roads...
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between manufacturer listed Torque specs and real world, at the wheels max torque numbers. I was very specific in my post.
Were you? Show me where, please:
Quote from: mtdocIf it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!!
140 mph is not a safe speed for a Model 3 because it can't brake properly (have you not seen the news?), anyway, it's less than the top speed of a Skoda that's about half the price... lol.:palm: Yeah, sure. So you're basing performance on top speed now? :-DD
The title of this thread is "When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?"
So far the Anti-EVers have tried to argue based on cost of fuel and maintenance. Despite cherry picked comparisons, they have soundly lost that debate (yet they continue to ignore the posted, referenced facts).
But - the real question is when will EVs become mainstream and it should be obvious to anyone that cost of ownership is not the primary factor people use in choosing a vehicle. Though EVswin on that front, they will not become mainstream only because of that. There are lots of psychological, subjective factors that go into a car purchase decision.
For example, here in the USA the top selling vehicle for many years running has been the Ford F-series pickup - not an inexpensive or fuel efficient car. Far from it.
European consumers may, in general be more efficiency conscious but even there, the top selling cars are not the least expensive or most fuel efficient cars.
IMO, EVs will become mainstream over the next 10-20 years (or perhaps sooner if current exponential growth rates continue) because of several factors:
1.) Ongoing improvements in EV vehicles pricing and more widespread availability and model options.
2.) Social stigma associated with driving ICE vehicles as the effects of global warming become increasingly apparent
3.) Increasingly cheaper cost of ownership due to the continuing long term trends in energy prices.
That said, IMO, it's a race to the bottom, since eventually energy scarcity and affordability will make driving any car more and more of a luxury for the lucky few. In 30 years, there may be more EVs on the road than ICE vehicles, but overall the total number of cars will be fewer.
But yeah, EVs are the future.Yes.
it's a future that's worse than the present.Nope.
Again: look in any book on physics and accelleration. None of the formulas will show torque! Torque is a number introduced to hide the fact that ICE engines only reach there specified power output at a specific RPM (or some have maximum power at a specific RPM range). Having a flat torque line makes a car feel fast but that is more to satisfy consumers. Research into how people experience cars has proven that the fastest accelleration doesn't feel like the fastest accelleration (*). If you look at the physics formulas you'll see that the only thing that makes a car go faster is to put energy into it. For that you need power and not torque. An engine with has 100 torques and 1000 power will accellerate faster than en engine with 1000 torques and 100 power. Math just doesn't lie and you cannot change the laws of physics.Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars.Uh, clearly you know nothing about the performance car world. Torque curves are everything. It is directly proportional to horsepower and directly proprotional to acceleration.
Quoteit's a future that's worse than the present.Nope.
Quoteit's a future that's worse than the present.Nope.
Yes, because the batteries we have are a very poor substitute for hydrocarbon fuels.
Quoteit's a future that's worse than the present.Nope.
Yes, because the batteries we have are a very poor substitute for hydrocarbon fuels.
A statement like that, without anything to back it up
In my (real world, I own one) case:
The Upsides
- 1/8th the Fuel Cost
- Lower Scheduled Maintenance Costs
- Lower emmissions
- Quietest car I've ever owned
The downsides
- higher acquisition cost (will be paid in 50-60,000km)
- lower range (approx 220km)
- 1hr to recharge (on a fast charger)
I would argue that for city dwellers, the upsides far outweigh the downsides. If you have long-haul distances involved, it's probably not for you. As long as you're driving less than 200km/day 95% of the time (which is almost everyone), EV is the way to go.
As for the "When will they become mainstream", the answer is approx 3 more years.
3 yrs: probably 20% market share, and 20% certainly counts as 'mainstream'
6 yrs: 50% market share
I think the next big leap in EV adoption is going to be delivery vans. I already see UPS trucks that are CNG, and I expect pretty much every new city-based UPS/FedEx/Postal truck will be electric within 5 years. All of those Mercedes Sprinter/Nissan NV/Ford Econoline/Ford Transit Connect you see in the city, they're all next.
As for the "When will they become mainstream", the answer is approx 3 more years.Maybe for some areas but I doubt that will be true for large countries / areas. An EV will be more expensive to buy for the foreseable future. Especially in Europe few people have a way to charge an EV on their own drive ways at home so most need to rely on public charging stations which aren't cheap. Then there will be the cost to upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure. I see mtdoc throwing numbers around like using 900kWh per month. In the EU 350kWh per month for a 4 person household is already a lot because a lot of homes are heated using gas. I used over 450kWh last month and I got a letter from the power company! I hope this makes clear that EVs will add a substantial extra load on the distribution grid in residantial areas. And then there is still the problem that a typical EV can't pull a caravan and the charge times are long. Public charging infrastructure is still in the infancy stage. Try to find a hotel where you can fully recharge an EV over night. For example: On Booking.com you can find 1560 hotels in Paris. Charging an EV is possible at 59 of them. It isn't much better in other cities. Due to lack of parking space and ownership taxes people in Europe typically don't have a whole fleet of cars. Instead a car is bought based on 0.01% of the trips so the argument that an EV is good for 95% of the trips isn't going to cut it. It must be good for 100% of the trips or the majority of the people aren't going to buy an EV. Last but not least there is the resale value driven by the cost of replacing the battery which may increases the TCO a lot. Also let's not forget how the electricity prices are likely going to increase when fossil fuel power plants are being shut down. Besides that Hydrogen and bio-fuels are still in the race so the EV may even die a slow dead (again). All in all I don't see EVs becoming mainstream for consumers in the Europe for at least another 20 years IF it even happens.
3 yrs: probably 20% market share, and 20% certainly counts as 'mainstream'
6 yrs: 50% market share
ICE trolls are very active here.
You are offering subjective data when the guy in the Tesal video offered objective data. To do a fair compaision of energy costs to power both vehicals for about a year or 10,000 miles let's use the formulas the guy in the Tesla video provided.
What is the cost for electricy where you live?
How much is regular gas where you live?
We aren't factoring in the cost of the car, maitannce or anything else. What ware are trying to compare is the cost for the energy to provide power to the vehicle for 10,000 miles.
...
Maybe for some areas but I doubt that will be true for large countries / areas. An EV will be more expensive to buy for the foreseable future. Especially in Europe few people have a way to charge an EV on their own drive ways at home so most need to rely on public charging stations which aren't cheap. Then there will be the cost to upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure.
...
[...]
California (3.49/USgal = 0.92/l, 0.48/kWh day, 0.13/kWh night)
Tesla: $7.73 (day)
Tesla: $2.09 (night)
Tesla: $4.19 (Tesla Supercharger 0.26/kWh)
Skoda: $4.05
[...]
Given the Tesla 3 competes against the BMW 3 series, Mercedes C, comparing it to the smaller Skoda is silly
[...]
Are you claiming that most Europeans don't have access to a normal outlet?
[...]
California (3.49/USgal = 0.92/l, 0.48/kWh day, 0.13/kWh night)
Tesla: $7.73 (day)
Tesla: $2.09 (night)
Tesla: $4.19 (Tesla Supercharger 0.26/kWh)
Skoda: $4.05
[...]
Given the Tesla 3 competes against the BMW 3 series, Mercedes C, comparing it to the smaller Skoda is silly
[...]
Sorry, watt?
Tesla Model 3 4.69 m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3)
BMW 3 series 4.63 m
https://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/3-series/saloon-2012/specs/ (https://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/3-series/saloon-2012/specs/)
Mercedes-Benz C-Class 4.68 m
https://www.parkers.co.uk/mercedes-benz/c-class/saloon-2014/specs/ (https://www.parkers.co.uk/mercedes-benz/c-class/saloon-2014/specs/)
Skoda Octavia 4.68 m
https://www.parkers.co.uk/skoda/octavia/vrs-2013/specs/ (https://www.parkers.co.uk/skoda/octavia/vrs-2013/specs/)
LOL, I don't get it, @mtdoc ?
LOL, I don't get it, @mtdoc ?Smaller != shorter.
LOL, I don't get it, @mtdoc ?Smaller != shorter.
Since when?
As there seems to be continuous argument over consumption numbers, here is a link to the Canadian official EV mileage numbers: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363)
that obnoxious Aussie dude's videos. :palm:
...
Maybe for some areas but I doubt that will be true for large countries / areas. An EV will be more expensive to buy for the foreseable future. Especially in Europe few people have a way to charge an EV on their own drive ways at home so most need to rely on public charging stations which aren't cheap. Then there will be the cost to upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure.
...
Firstly, you realize that next to Russia, I live the largest (physical) country in the world, right ?
Secondly, I've already shown that in my jurisdiction, an EV while more expensive, will easily pay for itself
Lastly, You are kidding, right?
From a European Shuko socket, you can obtain 230 @ 16A, or nearly 3kW (assuming continuous 80% load). That will easily change an EV overnight. Are you claiming that most Europeans don't have access to a normal outlet?
I know a number of North Americans who drive electric cars, charge them solely at home, using just 1kW chargers plugged into a NEMA 5-15. The charge available in 14-16 hrs that a vehicle is typically parked overnight is much greater than the average commute of a European. This website *1 implies the average Dutch person commutes on 22.6km each way. Assuming a 20kWh/100km vehicle, that's less than 10kWh, or just a few hrs to charge on a normal household 230V outlet.
*1 https://www.iamexpat.nl/career/employment-news/more-half-employees-netherlands-commute-work (https://www.iamexpat.nl/career/employment-news/more-half-employees-netherlands-commute-work)
You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV. And even if people have their own driveway it will only fit 1 car so how about charging the second car at the same time? All in all charging at home is a big no-go in Europe. The Dutch Automobile Association (RAI) has estimated that the NL needs 3 million public charging spots for EVs to be viable. That is more than 1 charging spot per 3 cars....
Maybe for some areas but I doubt that will be true for large countries / areas. An EV will be more expensive to buy for the foreseable future. Especially in Europe few people have a way to charge an EV on their own drive ways at home so most need to rely on public charging stations which aren't cheap. Then there will be the cost to upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure.
...
Firstly, you realize that next to Russia, I live the largest (physical) country in the world, right ?
Secondly, I've already shown that in my jurisdiction, an EV while more expensive, will easily pay for itself
Lastly, You are kidding, right?
From a European Shuko socket, you can obtain 230 @ 16A, or nearly 3kW (assuming continuous 80% load). That will easily change an EV overnight. Are you claiming that most Europeans don't have access to a normal outlet?
I have family in France, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and England.You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV. And even if people have their own driveway it will only fit 1 car so how about charging the second car at the same time? All in all charging at home is a big no-go in Europe. The Dutch Automobile Association (RAI) has estimated that the NL needs 3 million public charging spots for EVs to be viable. That is more than 1 charging spot per 3 cars....Firstly, you realize that next to Russia, I live the largest (physical) country in the world, right ?
Maybe for some areas but I doubt that will be true for large countries / areas. An EV will be more expensive to buy for the foreseable future. Especially in Europe few people have a way to charge an EV on their own drive ways at home so most need to rely on public charging stations which aren't cheap. Then there will be the cost to upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure.
...
Secondly, I've already shown that in my jurisdiction, an EV while more expensive, will easily pay for itself
Lastly, You are kidding, right?
From a European Shuko socket, you can obtain 230 @ 16A, or nearly 3kW (assuming continuous 80% load). That will easily change an EV overnight. Are you claiming that most Europeans don't have access to a normal outlet?
ICE trolls are very active here.
Indeed. They all 3 continue to ignore all the objective, referenced data presented. And I see Fact Free Doug is back to his old ways relying on that obnoxious Aussie dude's videos. :palm:
You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV.
You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV.
We've covered this ground before. There are densely populated cities in the US and Canada as well. It's also a fact that cities here and in Europe are surrounded by suburbs and countryside. That is where the use of automobiles is highest. Those living in densely populated city centers without a parking spot either do not own automobiles or if they do, they drive them infrequently (for obvious reasons!). For many that is a good thing and is one reason why they choose to live in a city center.
But this is just a single data point. I travel a lot all across Europe and the common feature of most homes is that they are on a small piece of land. And I'm not talking about city centres but the suburbs. In general land is expensive in Europe so people are not going to waste that on parking space if they can park for free on the street. But even if charging at home isn't a problem there are still plenty of other reasons an EV isn't suitable. EVs just aren't drop-in replacements for ICE cars. It is simple as that.I have family in France, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and England.You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV. And even if people have their own driveway it will only fit 1 car so how about charging the second car at the same time? All in all charging at home is a big no-go in Europe. The Dutch Automobile Association (RAI) has estimated that the NL needs 3 million public charging spots for EVs to be viable. That is more than 1 charging spot per 3 cars....Firstly, you realize that next to Russia, I live the largest (physical) country in the world, right ?
Maybe for some areas but I doubt that will be true for large countries / areas. An EV will be more expensive to buy for the foreseable future. Especially in Europe few people have a way to charge an EV on their own drive ways at home so most need to rely on public charging stations which aren't cheap. Then there will be the cost to upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure.
...
Secondly, I've already shown that in my jurisdiction, an EV while more expensive, will easily pay for itself
Lastly, You are kidding, right?
From a European Shuko socket, you can obtain 230 @ 16A, or nearly 3kW (assuming continuous 80% load). That will easily change an EV overnight. Are you claiming that most Europeans don't have access to a normal outlet?
Only my mother who has a flat on the edge of the Old Nice would struggle to home charge.
These are people living in the countryside, suburbia and inner cities.
Of all the places I have lived (28 moves in 40 years),
EVs just aren't drop-in replacements for ICE cars. It is simple as that.
Comparing ICE cars to horses :palm: But if you want to go that route I'd say an EV is more like a horse. It can only run for short periods and then needs a long rest.EVs just aren't drop-in replacements for ICE cars. It is simple as that.
100 years ago I'm sure you were saying that ICE cars aren't a drop-in replacement for horses as well.
But this is just a single data point. I travel a lot all across Europe and the common feature of most homes is that they are on a small piece of land. And I'm not talking about city centres but the suburbs. In general land is expensive in Europe so people are not going to waste that on parking space if they can park for free on the street.You keep repeating this nonsense about people in Europe not having a place to charge an EV but it is still not true. I've travelled extensively in Europe for as long as 8 months at a time and there are very large suburbs surrounding every large city center and there are many suburban type areas scattered across the countryside. It may be true that the average lot size of a European suburban home is smaller than those in the US but this nonsense you keep repeating about people in Europe not being able charge an EV is just not true no matter how many times you say it. Suburban and countryside homes in Europe have driveways and often garages just like the homes in North America do. If anything, the lack of wide open uninhabited spaces and close proximity of most people to a town or city center means that EV are even more sensible in Europe than they are in many parts of North America. Anyone can pull up Google maps and confirm this for themselves.
EVs just aren't drop-in replacements for ICE cars. It is simple as that.Straw Man. No one is saying that.
Yeah, duh, nobody with half a working brain cell is saying that EV are a drop in for all ICE.But this is just a single data point. I travel a lot all across Europe and the common feature of most homes is that they are on a small piece of land. And I'm not talking about city centres but the suburbs. In general land is expensive in Europe so people are not going to waste that on parking space if they can park for free on the street. But even if charging at home isn't a problem there are still plenty of other reasons an EV isn't suitable. EVs just aren't drop-in replacements for ICE cars. It is simple as that.I have family in France, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and England.You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV. And even if people have their own driveway it will only fit 1 car so how about charging the second car at the same time? All in all charging at home is a big no-go in Europe. The Dutch Automobile Association (RAI) has estimated that the NL needs 3 million public charging spots for EVs to be viable. That is more than 1 charging spot per 3 cars....Firstly, you realize that next to Russia, I live the largest (physical) country in the world, right ?
Maybe for some areas but I doubt that will be true for large countries / areas. An EV will be more expensive to buy for the foreseable future. Especially in Europe few people have a way to charge an EV on their own drive ways at home so most need to rely on public charging stations which aren't cheap. Then there will be the cost to upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure.
...
Secondly, I've already shown that in my jurisdiction, an EV while more expensive, will easily pay for itself
Lastly, You are kidding, right?
From a European Shuko socket, you can obtain 230 @ 16A, or nearly 3kW (assuming continuous 80% load). That will easily change an EV overnight. Are you claiming that most Europeans don't have access to a normal outlet?
Only my mother who has a flat on the edge of the Old Nice would struggle to home charge.
These are people living in the countryside, suburbia and inner cities.
Of all the places I have lived (28 moves in 40 years),
It is a fact that European cities are mostly surrounded by suburbs where most people do not have a driveway, do have a lot of cars, and park them in the street. There are endless miles of bumper to bumper cars parked around Europe's suburban streets at night, when most people are at home. Charging many of them is fixable, but requires regulation changes to allow a little kerb space to be used for a charging station outside each house. Without that, people can only get power to within a metre or two of the car which needs it. Telecoms has the last mile problem. Car charging has the last metre problem.You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV.
We've covered this ground before. There are densely populated cities in the US and Canada as well. It's also a fact that cities here and in Europe are surrounded by suburbs and countryside. That is where the use of automobiles is highest. Those living in densely populated city centers without a parking spot either do not own automobiles or if they do, they drive them infrequently (for obvious reasons!). For many that is a good thing and is one reason why they choose to live in a city center.
One of my co-workers is in that predicament.It is a fact that European cities are mostly surrounded by suburbs where most people do not have a driveway, do have a lot of cars, and park them in the street. There are endless miles of bumper to bumper cars parked around Europe's suburban streets at night, when most people are at home. Charging many of them is fixable, but requires regulation changes to allow a little kerb space to be used for a charging station outside each house. Without that, people can only get power to within a metre or two of the car which needs it. Telecoms has the last mile problem. Car charging has the last metre problem.You have to understand that cities in Europe are densily populated so most people don't have their own drive way. It is nothing like the US and Canada. Without your own driveway you can't charge an EV.
We've covered this ground before. There are densely populated cities in the US and Canada as well. It's also a fact that cities here and in Europe are surrounded by suburbs and countryside. That is where the use of automobiles is highest. Those living in densely populated city centers without a parking spot either do not own automobiles or if they do, they drive them infrequently (for obvious reasons!). For many that is a good thing and is one reason why they choose to live in a city center.
Cars in the streets:When I lived in Paris, owning car was not possible.
http://google.com/search?q=cars+parked+in+the+street+in+europe&tbm=isch (http://google.com/search?q=cars+parked+in+the+street+in+europe&tbm=isch)
European cities:
http://www.google.com/search?q=european+city&tbm=isch (http://www.google.com/search?q=european+city&tbm=isch)
When I lived in Paris, owning car was not possible.
At most I got driven by a friend in a car or rented the Club's van for a day or two.
And then it was a last option because getting fuel, parking and general waste of time.
Even a folding cargo bike would not fit in most lifts...
Paris is great city, but some of the details are a real pain.
There’s no doubt that EV ownership for current ICE owners (anywhere in the world] who struggle without easy parking would be difficult. I’ve lived in places like that myself and would never own an EV if I lived there unless public charging or charging at work was an option. But to extrapolate those minority of car owners challenges to imply that EVs will never become mainstream is fallacious and not borne out by the facts.You don't seem to grasp that these are not the minority of cases over much of Europe. Having your own driveway is by far the minority case. Street parking dominates.
every family has at least one
There aren't many suburban homes in Western European countries which don't have a car. Central city locations often have very low car ownership, but most people are in the suburbs.every family has at least one
I don’t think so. Last year I spent 3 weeks in Italy and spent spent time in several locations where almost no one had a car. And for single people who live in large city centers in both the US and Europe, I’ll bet many don’t own a car.
There’s no doubt that EV ownership for current ICE owners (anywhere in the world] who struggle without easy parking would be difficult. I’ve lived in places like that myself and would never own an EV if I lived there unless public charging or charging at work was an option. But to extrapolate those minority of car owners challenges to imply that EVs will never become mainstream is fallacious and not borne out by the facts.You don't seem to grasp that these are not the minority of cases over much of Europe. Having your own driveway is by far the minority case. Street parking dominates.
every family has at least one
I don’t think so. Last year I spent 3 weeks in Italy and spent spent time in several locations where almost no one had a car. And for single people who live in large city centers in both the US and Europe, I’ll bet many don’t own a car.
There aren't many suburban homes in Western European countries which don't have a car. Central city locations often have very low car ownership, but most people are in the suburbs.every family has at least one
I don’t think so. Last year I spent 3 weeks in Italy and spent spent time in several locations where almost no one had a car. And for single people who live in large city centers in both the US and Europe, I’ll bet many don’t own a car.
every family has at least one
I don’t think so. Last year I spent 3 weeks in Italy and spent spent time in several locations where almost no one had a car. And for single people who live in large city centers in both the US and Europe, I’ll bet many don’t own a car.
I am so confident you are wrong I will take your bet. If as you say almost no one had a car why are most of the major cities in Europe having traffic congesting problems? Why in Germarny and other countries installing parking racks and car elevators to park cars in no one has a car?
There’s no doubt that EV ownership for current ICE owners (anywhere in the world] who struggle without easy parking would be difficult. I’ve lived in places like that myself and would never own an EV if I lived there unless public charging or charging at work was an option. But to extrapolate those minority of car owners challenges to imply that EVs will never become mainstream is fallacious and not borne out by the facts.You don't seem to grasp that these are not the minority of cases over much of Europe. Having your own driveway is by far the minority case. Street parking dominates.
It’s a matter of degree isn’t it? What does “minority of cases mean”? in all the major European cities i’ve been in (which is most of them) the farther you get out from the city center the more prevelant private parking is. And in the smaller cities is not even that far. I lived for 3 month in England in 1989 near Bath and IIRC this was true in most af that area - even around Bristol.
My point is that there are many, many places in Europe where private parking is common, just as there are many places in the US where private parking is not. And in the US it is not only city centers. Where I grew up in California private parking anywhere near the beach is also rare in several beach city neighborhoods with high density housing. Those are not places where the “2 cars per household” norm is prevelent. IOW rates of car ownership are directly proportional to ease of parking.
There’s no doubt that EV ownership for current ICE owners (anywhere in the world] who struggle without easy parking would be difficult. I’ve lived in places like that myself and would never own an EV if I lived there unless public charging or charging at work was an option. But to extrapolate those minority of car owners challenges to imply that EVs will never become mainstream is fallacious and not borne out by the facts.You don't seem to grasp that these are not the minority of cases over much of Europe. Having your own driveway is by far the minority case. Street parking dominates.
It’s a matter of degree isn’t it? What does “minority of cases mean”? in all the major European cities i’ve been in (which is most of them) the farther you get out from the city center the more prevelant private parking is. And in the smaller cities is not even that far. I lived for 3 month in England in 1989 near Bath and IIRC this was true in most af that area - even around Bristol.
My point is that there are many, many places in Europe where private parking is common, just as there are many places in the US where private parking is not. And in the US it is not only city centers. Where I grew up in California private parking anywhere near the beach is also rare in several beach city neighborhoods with high density housing. Those are not places where the “2 cars per household” norm is prevelent. IOW rates of car ownership are directly proportional to ease of parking.
Dude you are taking almost 30 years or almost 2 generations ago.
In 1989 the world population was just over 5 billion, right now we have almost 8 billion.:palm: How many of those 3 billion where added to the already built out suburbs around European cities? Answer - very few. (BTW Englands population has increased by only by about 10 Million in the last 30 years).
There’s no doubt that EV ownership for current ICE owners (anywhere in the world] who struggle without easy parking would be difficult. I’ve lived in places like that myself and would never own an EV if I lived there unless public charging or charging at work was an option. But to extrapolate those minority of car owners challenges to imply that EVs will never become mainstream is fallacious and not borne out by the facts.You don't seem to grasp that these are not the minority of cases over much of Europe. Having your own driveway is by far the minority case. Street parking dominates.
It’s a matter of degree isn’t it? What does “minority of cases mean”? in all the major European cities i’ve been in (which is most of them) the farther you get out from the city center the more prevelant private parking is. And in the smaller cities is not even that far. I lived for 3 month in England in 1989 near Bath and IIRC this was true in most af that area - even around Bristol.
My point is that there are many, many places in Europe where private parking is common, just as there are many places in the US where private parking is not. And in the US it is not only city centers. Where I grew up in California private parking anywhere near the beach is also rare in several beach city neighborhoods with high density housing. Those are not places where the “2 cars per household” norm is prevelent. IOW rates of car ownership are directly proportional to ease of parking.
Dude you are taking almost 30 years or almost 2 generations ago.
Yet easily confirmed to still be true with a quick perusal of Google maps. Pic below is from Bishopston, just 2.6 miles from Bristol city center. This is not an anomoly - there are many square kilometers of similar neighborhoods surrounding Bristol (and most other European cities). Are there other neiborhoods without off street parking? yes of course - especially closer to city centers - I've never disputed that.QuoteIn 1989 the world population was just over 5 billion, right now we have almost 8 billion.:palm: How many of those 3 billion where added to the already built out suburbs around European cities? Answer - very few. (BTW Englands population has increased by only by about 10 Million in the last 30 years).
The large increases in world population over the past 30 years have almost exclusively occurred in the developing world. You either already know that or are again just trolling.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/?action=dlattach;attach=529928;image)
Dude why are so quick to call me a toll again?I believe in calling out trolls. If you don't want to be called one, don't be trollish. It took me seeing your same behavior repeated over and over in this thread and others before I used that word. I use it sparingly. In my 5+ years on this forum I have only called 2-3 people trolls. You are one of them.
If you have a counter argument please present it without insusts like everyone else is doing in the forum.The difference is that others - even though I may strongly disagree with them - are not acting trollish. Even George and nctnico who I have strong disagreements with in this thread, make their arguments in a relevant fashion and provide room for rational discussion. You, not so much. Also, they both offer lots of positive contributions to this forum in other areas where their knowledge vastly exceeds mine. You, not so much.
Dude why are so quick to call me a toll again?I believe in calling out trolls. If you don't want to be called one, don't be trollish. It took me seeing your same behavior repeated over and over in this thread and others before I used that word. I use it sparingly. In my 5+ years on this forum I have only called 2-3 people trolls. You are one of them.QuoteIf you have a counter argument please present it without insusts like everyone else is doing in the forum.The difference is that others - even though I may strongly disagree with them - are not acting trollish. Even George and nctnico who I have strong disagreements with in this thread, make their arguments in a relevant fashion and provide room for rational discussion. You, not so much. Also, they both offer lots of positive contributions to this forum in other areas where their knowledge vastly exceeds mine. You, not so much.
This conversation is more appropriate for PMs if that is something you wish to pursue.
I'll do my best to ignore your trolling, but I will not refrain from continuing to point out factual errors (or fact free assertions).
If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true.
If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true.
How many times are you going to spout this lie?
I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.
If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true.
How many times are you going to spout this lie?
I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.
Why do you call it a lie witout providing any calculations to prove I am incorrect. Using the Tesla 10,000 miles vidoe data I clearly demonstrated if one were living in California and am paying PG&E electricity prices and CostCo, Safeway, Shell gasoline pricies the cost of energy per mile is about the same for EV or ICE. Next year when PG&E increases electircy costs EV's will cost more per mile in electricity costs than the cost for gasoline to move an ICE a mile.
Let's do the same calcuation where you are. What are you actually paying per gallon of gasoline? And what are you actually paying per kWhr for electricty?
Let's see if what you are saying is true or not.
If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true.
How many times are you going to spout this lie?
I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.
Why do you call it a lie witout providing any calculations to prove I am incorrect. Using the Tesla 10,000 miles vidoe data I clearly demonstrated if one were living in California and am paying PG&E electricity prices and CostCo, Safeway, Shell gasoline pricies the cost of energy per mile is about the same for EV or ICE. Next year when PG&E increases electircy costs EV's will cost more per mile in electricity costs than the cost for gasoline to move an ICE a mile.
Let's do the same calcuation where you are. What are you actually paying per gallon of gasoline? And what are you actually paying per kWhr for electricty?
Let's see if what you are saying is true or not.
I have, multiple times.
Perhaps you should go re-read post #1834. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1833074/#msg1833074 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1833074/#msg1833074)
where I lay out all of the math, along with sources of the data.
The definitive proof that you're a troll, and not here to add any useful information to this thread, is that the very next message, quoting mine, #1835 was written by you.
:palm:
This is the last time I pay any attention to any of your posts, or quote your dribble. I'm hoping the other users here follow my lead, and simply stop responding to you.
I really should NOT jump in at the end of this discussion ...
First, I am a retireed automotive engineer. The only big changes in EV that have happened (or are still happening) in the past 2-30 years are cheaper/more energy dense batteries and cheaper electronics for 3 phase or BLDC motors. Still this is not enough. At least in the US, I can not foresee a time in my life, when EV will make up much more than 30% of the total light vehicle market.
1) They do not have the range most US residents want/need
2) We do not have adequate infrastructure (power generation and distribution) to charge the huge number of these vehicles
What is likely in the next 10-20 years is that maybe the top 10 cities of the world with the worst air pollution will either ban single user ICE or ICE entirely or tax the heck out of the vehicle/fuel. At most 2 or 3 of those cities might be in the US.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-late-party-german-carmakers-tesla.html\
All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.
All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".
I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.
I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.
About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).
And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).
Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.
Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).
For my interests (steel ships), it very hard to make coke from lignite, and to have affordable steel, coke is a necessity.I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.
About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).
And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).
Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.
Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).
Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?
Thanks
For my interests (steel ships), it very hard to make coke from lignite, and to have affordable steel, coke is a necessity.I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.
About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).
And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).
Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.
Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).
Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?
Thanks
For more info, use Google: https://www.gktoday.in/gk/difference-between-peat-lignite-bituminous-and-anthracite/ (https://www.gktoday.in/gk/difference-between-peat-lignite-bituminous-and-anthracite/)
Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?Black coal is mined underground and brown coal leaves giant "sahara" lookalike disasters that can even be seen from the space station :--
... people were having berating problems.
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.
The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...
But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/) for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...
As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work. The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane. So maybe........ But highly unlikely this would work. Watch the following vidoe.The error in this video is that efficiency doesn't matter to the consumer. Costs and comfort are what make or break a solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY)
Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.
I'm going to sit on my ass and wait & see what turns out to be the next thing to propel a car. Batteries, synthetic fuel, bio-fuel or Hydrogen. :popcorn:Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.Just goes to show how difficult it is to get all of the fact's correct. This is a complex topic.
The new fields solve that by going further north, further out, covering a wider area in more locations and using higher turbines.If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.
The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...
But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/) for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...
That mythical day where there was no sun for solar and no wind to spin wind-turbines was 2 weeks. Both Great Brittan and Germany were affected. Both burned more coal and purchased nuclear produced electricity from France. If you look you will see a spike in Germany's burning of coal last year as a result of the renewables not producing.
As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work. The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane. So maybe........ But highly unlikely this would work. Watch the following vidoe.
The new fields solve that by going further north, further out, covering a wider area in more locations and using higher turbines.If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.
The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...
But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/) for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...
That mythical day where there was no sun for solar and no wind to spin wind-turbines was 2 weeks. Both Great Brittan and Germany were affected. Both burned more coal and purchased nuclear produced electricity from France. If you look you will see a spike in Germany's burning of coal last year as a result of the renewables not producing.
As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work. The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane. So maybe........ But highly unlikely this would work. Watch the following vidoe.
Right now, the present capacity can be caught out, but that will be more and more unlikely.
Flat days happen, we had one going round the Cape Fisterra two days back, and that is extremely rare!
(But it was sunny and I had an after work tea just below the bridge with only the vastness of a flat Atlantic, lovely).
As a side note, from a tech perspective, I am far more a fan boy of PV in vast open spaces (Central Spain, Morroco, Algerian Sahara) and modern nuclear than offshore wind on the long term.
(PS, sorry, cannot watch Youtube, satellite internet... Doh!)
I'm going to sit on my ass and wait & see what turns out to be the next thing to propel a car. Batteries, synthetic fuel, bio-fuel or Hydrogen. :popcorn:Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.Just goes to show how difficult it is to get all of the fact's correct. This is a complex topic.
BTW I read an interesting article about synthetic blue diesel made from leftovers from the food industry. I doubt they keep that name for long because it also seems to be some kind of Marihuana.
Dude, get with the program - he's been fined for $20 million (4 20) and has to find a new chairman for Tesla's board, but he's staying on as CEO.AFAIK Musk has turned the deal down and is now being sued by the SEC. Ofcourse it will take years before there will be a trial and the whole point will be moot by then.
Dude, get with the program - he's been fined for $20 million (4 20) and has to find a new chairman for Tesla's board, but he's staying on as CEO.AFAIK Musk has turned the deal down and is now being sued by the SEC. Ofcourse it will take years before there will be a trial and the whole point will be moot by then.
Musk seems a lot more rational when he talks as the head of SpaceX, than when he talks as the head of Tesla. Perhaps there are people at SpaceX who keep him reigned in.SpaceX is not a public company, so they can work in their own pace without disturbance from quarterly reports, SEC and short sellers.
Appears Elon will pay a few hundred million in fines to the SEC for his tweet.
That was in Octal. 40M=230455000 in octal.Appears Elon will pay a few hundred million in fines to the SEC for his tweet.
What alternate universe did you get "a few hundred million" from?
The settlement was $20M from Musk and $20M from Tesla.
I fail to see how that adds up to "a few hundred million." :)
I'm going to sit on my ass and wait & see what turns out to be the next thing to propel a car. Batteries, synthetic fuel, bio-fuel or Hydrogen. :popcorn:Another error in this video is that it says that the round-trip efficiency of a li-ion battery is 99%, which it isn't.Just goes to show how difficult it is to get all of the fact's correct. This is a complex topic.
BTW I read an interesting article about synthetic blue diesel made from leftovers from the food industry. I doubt they keep that name for long because it also seems to be some kind of Marihuana.
What about nuclear?
Musk seems a lot more rational when he talks as the head of SpaceX, than when he talks as the head of Tesla. Perhaps there are people at SpaceX who keep him reigned in.
Musk seems a lot more rational when he talks as the head of SpaceX, than when he talks as the head of Tesla. Perhaps there are people at SpaceX who keep him reigned in.
People in the US should be aware the price of electricity may jump up by several hundred percent in the next few years and keep going up as we export our natural gas - (that will go up too) "until its gone".Solar adoption will increase by a very large amount as it's already profitable to install.
People in the US should be aware the price of electricity may jump up by several hundred percent in the next few years and keep going up as we export our natural gas - (that will go up too) "until its gone".
That may change the economics of things energy (and heating) related.
Energy use at today's levels may become too expensive for many people.
They want to burn more coal but that may present a mercury hazard. Mercury uses up glutathione which will cause all sorts of problems- for example, disrupting "a novel regulatory pathway of oxidant-mediated Fyn/c-Cbl activation as a shared mechanism of action of chemically diverse toxicants at environmentally relevant levels, and as a means by which increased oxidative status may disrupt mitogenic signaling. These results provide one of a small number of general mechanistic principles in toxicology, and the only such principle integrating toxicology, precursor cell biology, redox biology, and signaling pathway analysis in a predictive framework of broad potential relevance to the understanding of pro-oxidant–mediated disruption of normal development". Source: Chemically Diverse Toxicants Converge on Fyn and c-Cbl to Disrupt Precursor Cell Function
We should not allow MNCs to use up the natural gas we may need in the future, and shift production to coal.
Putting lots of mercury into the environment will also cause increases in conditions like autism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790953/pdf/pbio.0050035.pdf (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790953/pdf/pbio.0050035.pdf)
and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790949/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790949/)
I wouldn't worry about mercury or radioactive isotopes. SO2 from burning coal will kill you much sooner. If you look at the SO2 output in the west part of the US you'll see it is shockingly bad. Especially for a 'developed' country.
Yep, even better, the model 3 was in september the 13. model most sold in the US.With their huge backlog, Tesla's current sales per month don't represent demand. They represent how many cars Tesla can actually assemble and ship. We will need to wait until supply catches up with demand to see how monthly shipments settle for the longer term.
Should be in the top 10 soon !
The model 3 now is to be compared to generic ICE cars from now on.
Other EVs are so far behind in comparison.
(https://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/a.png)
With their huge backlog, Tesla's current sales per month don't represent demand. They represent how many cars Tesla can actually assemble and ship. We will need to wait until supply catches up with demand to see how monthly shipments settle for the longer term.
I read that, but it just says Tesla sales appear to be at the expense of other car makers, rather than an expansion of the market. We could have guessed that. It indicates the possibility that cars at a surprising wide range of prices are loosing out to Tesla, which is somewhat surprising. However, they fail to point out that those makers who have seen drops in sales of sedans potentially competing with the Tesla Model 3 have seem healthy rises in their sales of SUVs, so a shift in consumer preference might be what they are seeing, rather than a shift to Tesla purchases.With their huge backlog, Tesla's current sales per month don't represent demand. They represent how many cars Tesla can actually assemble and ship. We will need to wait until supply catches up with demand to see how monthly shipments settle for the longer term.
If your read the Citron report I linked in my prior post, you'll see that they account for that.
I read that, but it just says Tesla sales appear to be at the expense of other car makers, rather than an expansion of the market. We could have guessed that. It indicates the possibility that cars at a surprising wide range of prices are loosing out to Tesla, which is somewhat surprising. However, they fail to point out that those makers who have seen drops in sales of sedans potentially competing with the Tesla Model 3 have seem healthy rises in their sales of SUVs, so a shift in consumer preference might be what they are seeing, rather than a shift to Tesla purchases.With their huge backlog, Tesla's current sales per month don't represent demand. They represent how many cars Tesla can actually assemble and ship. We will need to wait until supply catches up with demand to see how monthly shipments settle for the longer term.
If your read the Citron report I linked in my prior post, you'll see that they account for that.
It doesn't seem to say anything about the point at which supply is no longer constrained.
Anyone know how popular Tesla’s are in Germany? To my surprise at one of the fueling stops on the autobahn I noticed four (empty) Tesla fast charging stations near Frankfurt. Would Germans’s even buy a an American Tesla when they could by a German made BMW or Mercedes?On my travels in Germany I have seen maybe one or two Teslas. In the Netherlands they are common but in surrounding countries I don't see them at all. The distances are probably to big for an EV to be practical.
The distances are probably to big for an EV to be practical.Just did SFO to san diego and back. not a problem at all. Drive three hours, plug in a supercharger while going pipi and starbucks and off we go gain... topped of for the cost of a cup of coffee ( supercharingg is free )
Germany loves cars, and teslas are quite popular, compared to rest of Europe.Why do I never see a Tesla in Germany then? In the Netherlands I can easely count two Tesla's when driving 20 minutes. I can drive from the middle to the south of Germany for hours without seeing one Tesla. Explain to me how Teslas are popular in Germany? According to the numbers they aren't popular in Germany http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/tesla/ (http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/tesla/). Including 2017 more Teslas have been sold in the Netherlands than Germany. Plot that against 8 million cars in the Netherlands versus 46 million cars in Germany and you see where the reality is at.
On the Autobahn, at high speeds, batteries drain fast, and the extremely good aerodynamics are a huge advantage, makin a Tesla the only long distance EV available.
And Germans travel a lot.
Why do I never see a Tesla in Germany then? In the Netherlands I can easely count two Tesla's when driving 20 minutes. I can drive from the middle to the south of Germany for hours without seeing one Tesla. Explain to me how Teslas are popular in Germany? According to the numbers they aren't popular in Germany http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/tesla/ (http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/tesla/). Including 2017 more Teslas have been sold in the Netherlands than Germany. Plot that against 8 million cars in the Netherlands versus 46 million cars in Germany and you see where the reality is at.In the Netherlands the likelihood of spotting a Tesla seems to depend a lot on your exact location. Its a couple of years since I was last in Amsterdam, but while there were huge numbers of Tesla S taxis around Schiphol Airport, just a few km away it was rare to see one.
edit: BTW it seems Germany is gearing towards Hydrogen. I've noticed quite a few Hydrogen filling stations along the highways.Is that new, or a left over from a few years ago? There was a period when BMW had a quantity of experimental hydrogen powered cars on German roads, but I think they have mostly gone.
No I'm not counting Tesla taxis...Why do I never see a Tesla in Germany then? In the Netherlands I can easely count two Tesla's when driving 20 minutes. I can drive from the middle to the south of Germany for hours without seeing one Tesla. Explain to me how Teslas are popular in Germany? According to the numbers they aren't popular in Germany http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/tesla/ (http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/tesla/). Including 2017 more Teslas have been sold in the Netherlands than Germany. Plot that against 8 million cars in the Netherlands versus 46 million cars in Germany and you see where the reality is at.In the Netherlands the likelihood of spotting a Tesla seems to depend a lot on your exact location. Its a couple of years since I was last in Amsterdam, but while there were huge numbers of Tesla S taxis around Schiphol Airport, just a few km away it was rare to see one.
These are new and they are installing many more in 2019. In the Netherlands they are also installing more (new) Hydrogen filling stations.edit: BTW it seems Germany is gearing towards Hydrogen. I've noticed quite a few Hydrogen filling stations along the highways.Is that new, or a left over from a few years ago? There was a period when BMW had a quantity of experimental hydrogen powered cars on German roads, but I think they have mostly gone.
Who makes the cars? If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle they say only 3 hydrogen powered cars were being made in 2016, and things have not been updated since then. Those 3 cars are not serious volume production cars, and they are very expensive. They are part experimental and part compliance cars.These are new and they are installing many more in 2019. In the Netherlands they are also installing more (new) Hydrogen filling stations.edit: BTW it seems Germany is gearing towards Hydrogen. I've noticed quite a few Hydrogen filling stations along the highways.Is that new, or a left over from a few years ago? There was a period when BMW had a quantity of experimental hydrogen powered cars on German roads, but I think they have mostly gone.
At least Audio, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes and Toyota have cars on Hydrogen and several of these cars are for currently for sale. Sure they are expensive but the price is on par with a mass produced high-end EV. However the Hydrogen filling stations aren't installed to cater a hand full of cars and I expect the prices of the cars will gradually become lower when the production volumes increase. Having the Hydrogen filling stations offer the infrastructure to use Hydrogen cars and solve the chicken & egg problem.Who makes the cars? If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle they say only 3 hydrogen powered cars were being made in 2016, and things have not been updated since then. Those 3 cars are not serious volume production cars, and they are very expensive. They are part experimental and part compliance cars.These are new and they are installing many more in 2019. In the Netherlands they are also installing more (new) Hydrogen filling stations.edit: BTW it seems Germany is gearing towards Hydrogen. I've noticed quite a few Hydrogen filling stations along the highways.Is that new, or a left over from a few years ago? There was a period when BMW had a quantity of experimental hydrogen powered cars on German roads, but I think they have mostly gone.
In the US I think ir’s Toyota that is selling a H2 powered. Car and offering 3 yers of free fuel.I think the Toyota Mirai, Honda Clarity and Hyundai ix35 are all available in the US. However, they are only available in a few places, like California, and only in small numbers. because they are loss makers which exist only as compliance cars. Mercedes have demoed the GLC F-Cell and Audi have demoed the H-Tron Quattro. I've never seen a clear indication whether either of these will ever come to market. Although BMW had demo cars quite a long time ago, which ran an ICE engine from hydrogen, I haven't seen any recent activity from them.
In the US I think ir’s Toyota that is selling a H2 powered. Car and offering 3 yers of free fuel. With the technology we have we know Hydrogen powered cars can’t compete with ICE or EVs. And that’s before we start talking about re-fueling infrastructure. I posted a link to a well researched YouTube video on Hydrogen cars. Look back in previous posts. As I recall the bottom line with Hydrogen cars is they require way too much energy to produce, compress, store and transport the fuel then is availed to power the car. The other issue is fuel tank size. If an ICE car can get 350 miles from a petro fuel tank, a Hydrogen powered car would need a tank 4-5 times the size to travel same miles.You mean that video riddled with errors? I'm pretty sure the reality is different. A Hydrogen filling station costs around 1.5 million euro's each to build. In Germany alone they are going to install 1000 of these stations. The UK and France are following the same path. That means the total investment for Hydrogen stations is going to be several billions of euros spread over only three countries alone. These kind of investments are not put into a technology which has no future at all. For my usage a Hydrogen car would make much more sense compared to an EV (which I can't charge at home and which takes too long to charge at a charging station).
Until we find a way to break the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics Hydrogen cars will never be viable solution.
You mean that video riddled with errors? I'm pretty sure the reality is different. A Hydrogen filling station costs around 1.5 million euro's each to build. In Germany alone they are going to install 1000 of these stations. The UK and France are following the same path.There are a few hydrogen filling points in the UK. You can find videos on YouTube about some of them, mostly showing them to be out of commission. There are some maps on the web showing plans to add a few points, but not enough to make it viable for most people to operate a hydrogen car. It looks like a number of early stations have now been abandoned. I'm not clear of they were ever intended to be more than experiments. Most people are 100km or more from the nearest filling point. This might be a chicken and egg problem - no filling stations means no cars. no cars means no filling stations - but efficiency and cost seem to be big hurdles. Electric cars have a comparatively easy time achieving significant penetration, because home charging is possible.
Electric cars have a comparatively easy time achieving significant penetration, because home charging is possible.But that will stagnate once the market with people who can charge at home AND are willing to pay extra for an EV is saturated.
You mean that video riddled with errors? I'm pretty sure the reality is different.
you mean each-way or each day ?
@free_electron: that would add one hour each day to a typical trip we make :palm: With a car which costs 20 times more :palm: :palm: I rather spend that time in bed or looking at something interesting instead of a gas station.
If one is a PG&E customer one would be a fool to have batteries. PG&E customers can sell excess electricity to PG&E for $0.50 kWhr and then buy that KWhr back for $0.12 later that same day.
Great in theory, until you put it into practice. In California 99.99% of the people who install solar do so without battery packs. According to Dave battery packs between loses 40% of there energy to heat. So for every 100 kWhr that are used to charge the batteries, you only get 60 back plus a fair amount of heat.The people in Puerto Rico , florida and other hurricane ravaged places beg to differ ... the packs is what keeps them running .... Even the Aussies have a 100 megawatt (128MWh, 100Mw inverter) battery . Kauai , and Samoa run off a gigantic battery pack at night. They have shut down all their diesel generators and the whole island is a solar / wind / battery system.
As for the 40% heatloss. Check your numbers ...
i don't have any hard numbers , i've never looked into it but :As for the 40% heatloss. Check your numbers ...
What's a better, closer to reality losses % figure, in your opinion?
Each day on a typical trip.you mean each-way or each day ?
@free_electron: that would add one hour each day to a typical trip we make :palm: With a car which costs 20 times more :palm: :palm: I rather spend that time in bed or looking at something interesting instead of a gas station.
According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.Those numbers seem reasonable, if they include the thermal losses in the electronics, as well as the batteries themselves.
I strongly doubt these numbers. Maybe worst case at maximum charge & discharge currents with the batteries in a very hot environment. A battery pack isn't worth it anyway (*) and with 40% loss it just doesn't make sense.According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.Those numbers seem reasonable, if they include the thermal losses in the electronics, as well as the batteries themselves.
In Germany alone they are going to install 1000 of these stations.Ja nee klar. Was für n'en schmarrn!
And the Dutch people also bought a similar amount of Teslas. Again: Teslas are over 6 times less popular in Germany compared to the Netherlands. These are the numbers. And you may laugh about the Hydrogen filling stations but they seem to pop-up everywhere in Germany since recently so there is some serious money and push behind Hyrdogen. Sure it will take some time to get a dense network but due to better range and faster filling of Hydrogen cars nowhere near the number of electric charging stations are needed to get good coverage.In Germany alone they are going to install 1000 of these stations.Ja nee klar. Was für n'en schmarrn!
As soon as France has finished installing 1000 km of solarized croadways, germany will have installed 1000 H2 filling stations.
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
On another note, in 2017, german people bought 3332 Tesla vehicles.
That sould only double in 2019 because the model 3 arrives late.
And you may laugh about the Hydrogen filling stations but they seem to pop-up everywhere in Germany since recently so there is some serious money and push behind Hyrdrogen.Who is paying for these stations? Is it a government scheme, or private industry?
AFAIK private industry (Shell, Total and Mercedes are names I see popping up) with a minimal amount of government funding (2 million euros per project in the Netherlands).And you may laugh about the Hydrogen filling stations but they seem to pop-up everywhere in Germany since recently so there is some serious money and push behind Hyrdrogen.Who is paying for these stations? Is it a government scheme, or private industry?
Who is paying for these stations? Is it a government scheme, or private industry?In Germany, the state subsidizes those station with 60-70%.
Maybe but it shows that the people doing the actual math aren't sure at all about EVs being a good alternative for ICE based cars. The Netherlands for example has the most dense EV charging infrastructure in Europe (and maybe the world) but the adoption rate of EVs is still next to nothing.Who is paying for these stations? Is it a government scheme, or private industry?In Germany, the state subsidizes those station with 70%.
So everyone pays, and only a few journalists and specialized firms get to use it.
the adoption rate of EVs is still next to nothing.Don't worry. The Model 3 arrives soon. It will double fast, then double again, then double again, then double again, then double again, then double again, then double again soon.
Not really.In Germany, the state subsidizes those station with 70%.Maybe but it shows that the people doing the actual math aren't sure at all about EVs being a good alternative for ICE based cars.
According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.Those numbers seem reasonable, if they include the thermal losses in the electronics, as well as the batteries themselves.
According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.
mtdoc the 80-95% charge/discharge efficiency is the reality you are claiming is what's bullshit. Try holding a phone while it's being changed and tell me if you can feel it getting warm. That ain't no 10% heat loss. Then talking on the phone for 30 mionutes and tell if your phone isn't getting hot. That ain't no 10% either.
If you are going to challenge Dave's 20% loss due to charging and 20% loss due to discharging tell him he's full of shit and propvide you own imperical evidence. I trust Dave's testing methodology and numbers than you just saying they are bullshit. And it appears at least one person thinks Dave's numbers sound about right.
mtdoc, instead of calling my posts fact-free and Dave's numbers bullshit, why not post the resuts of your tests. Or is it you are the troll?
I see (real world)18kWh from the socket sounds like pretty solid information. 15-16kWh consumption reported by the car is more vague. Is that 15-16kWh at the wheels? Somewhere in the electronics? Out of the battery?
15-16 kWh consumption (as reported by car)
18 kWh from the socket on the wall (as reported by my charger)
for 20% worse case charging loss.
According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.
I can't find that video, which one is it, please?
According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.
I can't find that video, which one is it, please?
I see (real world)
15-16 kWh consumption (as reported by car)
18 kWh from the socket on the wall (as reported by my charger)
for 20% worse case charging loss.
The Chevrolet Volt OBCM was benchmark tested for AC to DC efficiency. Charging with Level 2 EVSE at 208 VAC input (60 Hz), the Volt onboard charger was calculated to be 91.7% efficient, operating near 3.3 kW with a power factor of 0.997. Charging with Level 1 EVSE at 120 VAC input (60 Hz) the Volt onboard charger was calculated to be90.6% efficient, operating near 1.3 AC kW. Given that most Level 2 EVSE are greater than 99% efficient when operating above 3.0 kW (208 to 240 VAC) and Level 1 EVSE are 98% efficient when operating above 1.25 AC kW (120 VAC), the overall AC to DC charging efficiency for the Chevrolet Volt is 90.8% for Level 2 and 88.8% for Level 1.
Not sure how Dave organizes his videos. But it was around the eara where he was talking about the solar panels he had installed on his house. It was not the solar pannel video, but a related one about batteries and the efficiency of batteries. Can’t say for sure but he may have used the video to justify why he did not install banks of batteries. Takeaway message when dealing with batteries expect to loose 20% when charging batteries and another 20% when discharging. Total loss to heat when working with recharagable batteries Can be 40%.
The Chevrolet Volt OBCM was benchmark tested for AC to DC efficiency.
These facts have been presented on this forum before ::)
And the FFD pattern repeats. :palm:
If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.
Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....
And the FFD pattern repeats. :palm:
If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.
Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....
It’s in the video,
And the FFD pattern repeats. :palm:
If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.
Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....
It’s in the video,
Which video? Dave has hundreds. Please post the link.
And the FFD pattern repeats. :palm:
If you don't understand the relationship between a charger's efficiency and battery charging efficiency perhaps you're on the wrong forum. Or at least stick to the beginner's section.
Still waiting for you to provide proof that Dave said charging has 40% losses....
It’s in the video,
Which video? Dave has hundreds. Please post the link.
You”ll have to keep waiting as I never posted in any of my posts Dave said that.
According to Dave battery packs between loses 40% of there energy to heat. So for evert 100 kWhr that are used to charge the batteries, you only get 60 back plus a fair amount of heat.
According to A video blog post Dave made, there is a 20% loss to heat while charging, and 20% loss while discharging.
I see (real world)18kWh from the socket sounds like pretty solid information. 15-16kWh consumption reported by the car is more vague. Is that 15-16kWh at the wheels? Somewhere in the electronics? Out of the battery?
15-16 kWh consumption (as reported by car)
18 kWh from the socket on the wall (as reported by my charger)
for 20% worse case charging loss.
All you care about is consumption, and mine is around 18kWh/100km, or in this part of the world, about C$1.68/100km or just over the price of 1l of gasoline.
Just the charging of a Li-ion type battery can't be 95% efficient. The typical charging efficiency of Li-ion batteries is about 90% on average (for good batteries in decent shape, that is, and can be as low as 80%) and if you add the charger's efficiency itself, which will probably be in the order of 90% at best, you're already down to 81%. Those figures sound like reasonable estimates.Charging efficiency of the batteries will greatly depend on how fast they are charged. A 3kW home EV charger charges with 0.05C at most so it should reach very high charging efficiencies. Also the electronics which drive the motor should be able to reach over 95% efficiency. The biggest question is how efficient the wall charger is. This can be anything between 75% to over 90%.
As for discharge, I'm sure it depends a lot on the battery itself and use conditions, but an average of 90% looks like a reasonsable (if even optimistic) estimate.
All combined, you're already down to 73%.
Then you will have losses in the power electronics circuitry and electric motor(s).
It wouldn't seem like an unreasonable estimate to end up at 50% to 60%, at the very best, of overall efficiency for an electric car, taken from charging power to the power delivered at the wheels.
Just the charging of a Li-ion type battery can't be 95% efficient. The typical charging efficiency of Li-ion batteries is about 90% on average (for good batteries in decent shape, that is, and can be as low as 80%) and if you add the charger's efficiency itself, which will probably be in the order of 90% at best, you're already down to 81%. Those figures sound like reasonable estimates.
As for discharge, I'm sure it depends a lot on the battery itself and use conditions, but an average of 90% looks like a reasonsable (if even optimistic) estimate.
All combined, you're already down to 73%.
Then you will have losses in the power electronics circuitry and electric motor(s).
It wouldn't seem like an unreasonable estimate to end up at 50% to 60%, at the very best, of overall efficiency for an electric car, taken from charging power to the power delivered at the wheels.
The thing with battery efficiency has more to do its the old companies tempting to ell you battery storage units and not cr car/EV batteries.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now). In the end what counts is the TCO including cost & profit of the required infrastructure changes. From that perspective bio-fuels are a step ahead because these need no changes to existing infrastructure. What I see happening in the Netherlands is that reality starts to sink in: EVs won't be cheaper for the next decades and about 1 charger per every 2 cars is needed for EVs to actually work as a replacement for ICE based cars. Suddenly EVs don't look that hot anymore.
Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water. WRONG! Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.
Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water. WRONG! Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.The low volumes of hydrogen fuel being created for the handful of hydrogen cars around today is being generated from methane, just as most hydrogen for industrial use has been generated for decades. For high volumes of hydrogen cars it doesn't work from the cost point of view, the energy efficiency point of view, the carbon emissions point of view, or the use of a finite resource point of view. However, nobody ever claims this is a practical long term solution. Clearly a more sustainable scheme would be needed, and they do exist. The snag nobody has overcome so far is they are all energy inefficient. However, there are multiple schemes which avoid carbon emissions and allow fully renewable energy to be used. With sufficiently low renewable energy costs the inefficiency might not be a killer.
Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).The question is what is the efficiency difference for both?
Well such energy efficiency differences are not going to happen. In the current situation the difference isn't that big already when comparing efficient ICE cars to EV / Hydrogen. And the ICE cars will be getting some serious improvements in milage given the fact that the EU laws will become more strict on how much CO2 an ICE car may emit per km. Hydrogen powered cars are in fact EVs but they use a different carrier for the energy. Basically just forget about efficiencies in these kind of discussions. In the end it is going to come down to costs for the user and ease of operation. A well known example is how the inferior VHS system won from technically better video recording systems. The cheapest & easiest to use solution likely isn't going to be the most efficient one.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).The question is what is the efficiency difference for both?
If a fossil fuel powered electricity plant generated energy driven car is still 5 times more efficient than an ICE it still is beneficial. I would like to see those calculations.
The thing with battery efficiency has more to do its the old companies tempting to ell you battery storage units and not cr car/EV batteries.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now). In the end what counts is the TCO including cost & profit of the required infrastructure changes. From that perspective bio-fuels are a step ahead because these need no changes to existing infrastructure. What I see happening in the Netherlands is that reality starts to sink in: EVs won't be cheaper for the next decades and about 1 charger per every 2 cars is needed for EVs to actually work as a replacement for ICE based cars. Suddenly EVs don't look that hot anymore.
Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water. WRONG! Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.
No. Just managing expectations. You are just projecting your very special situation (where electricity is so cheap an EV is extremely cheap to run) to the rest of the world. It just doesn't work that way. For starters most people are not going to buy an expensive car hoping they will break even at some point. Changing energy prices and taxating make that a gamble.The thing with battery efficiency has more to do its the old companies tempting to ell you battery storage units and not cr car/EV batteries.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now). In the end what counts is the TCO including cost & profit of the required infrastructure changes. From that perspective bio-fuels are a step ahead because these need no changes to existing infrastructure. What I see happening in the Netherlands is that reality starts to sink in: EVs won't be cheaper for the next decades and about 1 charger per every 2 cars is needed for EVs to actually work as a replacement for ICE based cars. Suddenly EVs don't look that hot anymore.
Interesting how everyone thinks Hydrogen powered cars will get their fuel from water. WRONG! Hydrogen used to power cars comes from fossil fuel, not water.
Wow, you're such a nay-sayer.
1) There is probably 1 public charger per 100 EVs here in a very dense EV population. The weird thing that makes that possible? Most people have electricity at home.
2) Electricity (>90%) comes from hydro electric here
3) EV cars already pay for themselves after 50,000k in this jurisdiction (see previous calculations)
Well that one is easy calculation.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).The question is what is the efficiency difference for both?
If a fossil fuel powered electricity plant generated energy driven car is still 5 times more efficient than an ICE it still is beneficial. I would like to see those calculations.
Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).
Nobody cares. Ask some people in your local mall how much CO2 per kWh gets emitted for their electricity. Don't be surprised if less than 1 out of 1000 actually knows it. If you are lucky some know that an EV doesn't have a tail pipe and someone on TV or internet said it is better. That is also the public which goes for the cheapest and easiest solution for transportation. Technicallities are completely uninteresting. A few may find it fascinating to plugging their cars in every day when they come home from work but mark my words: most people really don't want to deal with that kind of crap. The can charge their mobile phones in the car if they forgot to plug it in but that isn't that simple for an EV. Forgetting to plug an EV in means being to late at work next day. That can have serious financial consequences.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).Not an accurate statement - a half truth at best. Only a portion of it does - and worldwide that portion is shrinking. In Europe, Central and South America less than half comes from fossil fuels and in some locales (eg PNW USA) it is very little (or none).
Nobody cares. Ask some people in your local mall how much CO2 per kWh gets emitted for their electricity. Don't be surprised if less than 1 out of 1000 actually knows it. If you are lucky some know that an EV doesn't have a tail pipe and someone on TV or internet said it is better. That is also the public which goes for the cheapest and easiest solution for transportation. Technicallities are completely uninteresting. A few may find it fascinating to plugging their cars in every day when they come home from work but mark my words: most people really don't want to deal with that kind of crap. The can charge their mobile phones in the car if they forgot to plug it in but that isn't that simple for an EV. Forgetting to plug an EV in means being to late at work next day. That can have serious financial consequences.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).Not an accurate statement - a half truth at best. Only a portion of it does - and worldwide that portion is shrinking. In Europe, Central and South America less than half comes from fossil fuels and in some locales (eg PNW USA) it is very little (or none).
That is my point: nobody cares!What does any of that have to do with what portion of electricity production comes from fossil fuels? :-// -Nobody cares. Ask some people in your local mall how much CO2 per kWh gets emitted for their electricity. Don't be surprised if less than 1 out of 1000 actually knows it. If you are lucky some know that an EV doesn't have a tail pipe and someone on TV or internet said it is better. That is also the public which goes for the cheapest and easiest solution for transportation. Technicallities are completely uninteresting. A few may find it fascinating to plugging their cars in every day when they come home from work but mark my words: most people really don't want to deal with that kind of crap. The can charge their mobile phones in the car if they forgot to plug it in but that isn't that simple for an EV. Forgetting to plug an EV in means being to late at work next day. That can have serious financial consequences.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).Not an accurate statement - a half truth at best. Only a portion of it does - and worldwide that portion is shrinking. In Europe, Central and South America less than half comes from fossil fuels and in some locales (eg PNW USA) it is very little (or none).
That is my point: nobody cares!What does any of that have to do with what portion of electricity production comes from fossil fuels? :-// -Nobody cares. Ask some people in your local mall how much CO2 per kWh gets emitted for their electricity. Don't be surprised if less than 1 out of 1000 actually knows it. If you are lucky some know that an EV doesn't have a tail pipe and someone on TV or internet said it is better. That is also the public which goes for the cheapest and easiest solution for transportation. Technicallities are completely uninteresting. A few may find it fascinating to plugging their cars in every day when they come home from work but mark my words: most people really don't want to deal with that kind of crap. The can charge their mobile phones in the car if they forgot to plug it in but that isn't that simple for an EV. Forgetting to plug an EV in means being to late at work next day. That can have serious financial consequences.Well... nobody seems to care that the electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels as well (for now).Not an accurate statement - a half truth at best. Only a portion of it does - and worldwide that portion is shrinking. In Europe, Central and South America less than half comes from fossil fuels and in some locales (eg PNW USA) it is very little (or none).
One big difference is that individuals can easily increase their % of electricity from renewable sources by installing their own wind and solar, up to 100% if they want to.That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.
That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
Looks like you two have a culture clash:That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
In future cities probably people have to share personal transportation devices or "rent" them on demand.In future cities peons might have to decide to start building guillotines then. Because fuck that.
That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
I've seen a lot of kerbside charging points in Amsterdam. I understand most people charge with these, rather than a charger they own.That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
Apparently a lot of the Dutch do have the space to install some sort of electric charging infrastructure, as the percentage of PHEV vehicles sold in the NL (vs the total market) is one of the highest in the world.
That is only due to a tax loop hole which has been closed. Many of the PHEV cars which where sold where the Mitsubishi Outlander (a big SUV) which has an electric range of around 25km (less than an electric motor cycle!). These tax reductions for PHEVs have been terminated since 2016 so sales have plummeted by 90%. People wheren't buying these cars to drive electric but just to get a cheap company car. In the Netherlands there is a system where part of a company car's price is added to your income before taxes. The amount is a percentage of the purchase price of the car and the percentage depends on how environmentally friendly the car is. Once the government figured out nobody is charging their PHEVs they put the PHEVs in the normal bracket. Currently there are 2 brackets. One with 4% for zero emission cars (like pure EV and Hydrogen) and 22% for the rest. The 22% basically means you pay 10% of the new price of the car each year from your own pocket.Apparently a lot of the Dutch do have the space to install some sort of electric charging infrastructure, as the percentage of PHEV vehicles sold in the NL (vs the total market) is one of the highest in the world.That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
And not just that. Putting solar panels on your roof means you are left with a dark attic. Putting windows in the roof (especially facing south) turns a dark attic in an extra room with lots of light. That is a very good investment or a cheap way to get extra space in your home!Looks like you two have a culture clash:That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
The rural states in the US people have probably all the space.
And not just that. Putting solar panels on your roof means you are left with a dark attic. Putting windows in the roof (especially facing south) turns a dark attic in an extra room with lots of light. That is a very good investment or a cheap way to get extra space in your home!Looks like you two have a culture clash:That is a totally false assumption. You need space to install solar panels or a wind turbine.You'll be surprised how many do have the space.
The rural states in the US people have probably all the space.
And not just that. Putting solar panels on your roof means you are left with a dark attic. Putting windows in the roof (especially facing south) turns a dark attic in an extra room with lots of light. That is a very good investment or a cheap way to get extra space in your home!Not sure where you are but attics tend to get hot enough without windows. With windows, you'll basically be building a greenhouse that would be too hot to be of much use for a good part of a year.
And not just that. Putting solar panels on your roof means you are left with a dark attic. Putting windows in the roof (especially facing south) turns a dark attic in an extra room with lots of light. That is a very good investment or a cheap way to get extra space in your home!Not sure where you are but attics tend to get hot enough without windows. With windows, you'll basically be building a greenhouse that would be too hot to be of much use for a good part of a year.
And not just that. Putting solar panels on your roof means you are left with a dark attic. Putting windows in the roof (especially facing south) turns a dark attic in an extra room with lots of light. That is a very good investment or a cheap way to get extra space in your home!Not sure where you are but attics tend to get hot enough without windows. With windows, you'll basically be building a greenhouse that would be too hot to be of much use for a good part of a year.
Insulation and aircondition do wonders. Besides that you can open the windows and let the wind do the job of cooling the attic down. You can try and argue otherwise but my office is an excellent example of turning an attic (from a typical home you see a lot in the Netherlands) into a big extra room. Putting solar panels on the roof would take that away again. Besides the extra space the extra room easely adds 20k euro to the value of the home.And not just that. Putting solar panels on your roof means you are left with a dark attic. Putting windows in the roof (especially facing south) turns a dark attic in an extra room with lots of light. That is a very good investment or a cheap way to get extra space in your home!Not sure where you are but attics tend to get hot enough without windows. With windows, you'll basically be building a greenhouse that would be too hot to be of much use for a good part of a year.
Sunlight is up to 1kW per square meter or so and I'd imagine an attic space worth using would have several square meters of roof area. The idea of letting in several kW of heat and light into a relatively small space is ridiculous, so realistically you would use only part of the area for a window and the rest can be used for solar panels. The solar panels would help cool the attic by shielding the roof from the sun.So your home doesn't have windows at all then? The same goes for any room with windows. On a sunny day you put a sun screen on the outside. Is that so hard to come up with? :palm:
And not just that. Putting solar panels on your roof means you are left with a dark attic. Putting windows in the roof (especially facing south) turns a dark attic in an extra room with lots of light. That is a very good investment or a cheap way to get extra space in your home!
You are selfishingly thinking local, and not global. Turning an attic space in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, California and many other states into an living space would cost a fortune in electricty to keep cool enough for a human during the summer. Temperatures can get in the 130-150 degree (55-60j in the summer. Probably use all of the electricity the solar panels produce in a year to keep the thing cool in the summer.
And the what about folks who have houses in the northern states where their freezers are far warmer than their attica are in the winter. Look not saying you have a bad idea, it’s just what works where you are may not work for others.
The drawback of installing solar panels at schools. Many schools in California have installed solar panels in the parking lots of schools. Sounds great doesn’t. Millions were spent to install the panels.
First thing I noticed is how hot it gets when one is standing under the panels. I suspect the panels trap the radiant heat and prevent convection currents from carrying the heat energy away. It’s surprising how hot it is under the panels.
The the other thing is the kids have done to the panels. After six month after being installed there the kids have thrown all kids of stuff onto them. Tennis shoes, books, lunches, shoes, books and more shoes. It’s almost like it has turned into a game to see how far towards the center of the panels the kids can throw books and shoes.
Zsad how we as tax payers spend millions to install solar panels at our schools and the kids decrease the output by throwing stuff on them.
Anyway a roof with windows is less ideal to put solar panels on. The size of the panels will have to match with the available space like large tiles. I already went through all these scenarios and it becomes a complicated jig-saw puzzle quickly.Compared to solar panels on the road surface the roof mounted solar panels are a match made in heaven.
Fixed the quotes for you. But no, the financials may not work out so well after all. Blindly putting solar panels on your roof without thinking about a future utilisation of the space under the roof may be a mistake. It seems some never even considered this. I like to watch home improvement programmes to get new ideas for my own home improvement projects. In one from the US they re-did various attics to create more living space but they never seemed to have the idea of putting windows in the roofs and thus making the room much more useful beyond a dark man-cave.Quote from: nctnicoAnyway a roof with windows is less ideal to put solar panels on. The size of the panels will have to match with the available space like large tiles. I already went through all these scenarios and it becomes a complicated jig-saw puzzle quickly.Compared to solar panels on the road surface the roof mounted solar panels are a match made in heaven.
Fixed the quotes for you. But no, the financials may not work out so well after all. Blindly putting solar panels on your roof without thinking about a future utilisation of the space under the roof may be a mistake. It seems some never even considered this. I like to watch home improvement programmes to get new ideas for my own home improvement projects. In one from the US they re-did various attics to create more living space but they never seemed to have the idea of putting windows in the roofs and thus making the room much more useful beyond a dark man-cave.Quote from: nctnicoAnyway a roof with windows is less ideal to put solar panels on. The size of the panels will have to match with the available space like large tiles. I already went through all these scenarios and it becomes a complicated jig-saw puzzle quickly.Compared to solar panels on the road surface the roof mounted solar panels are a match made in heaven.
Another thought: if you have a large roof you are likely to have a large piece of land as well. It might be more benificial to install the solar panels on the ground so they can be setup at the perfect angle to maximise efficiency. Or create a shaded area to sit under (but that might require building permits).
Another thought: if you have a large roof you are likely to have a large piece of land as well.Not here. Too close to the city. For us it's the roof or nothing.
With most of our worlds population living in cities people just don’t have the land for ground mounted systems. Not sure how it is in other parts of the world, but here in California seems like everyone is selling solar in order to get rich quick.Not even close.
With most of our worlds population living in cities people just don’t have the land for ground mounted systems. Not sure how it is in other parts of the world, but here in California seems like everyone is selling solar in order to get rich quick.Not even close.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Fullneed.jpg/340px-Fullneed.jpg)
"The red squares represent the area that would be enough for solar power plants to produce a quantity of electricity consumed (as or 2005) by the world, the European Union (EU-25) and Germany (De). (Data provided by the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), 2005). To replace all energy consumption (not just electricity), areas about 5 times as large would suffice."
"The red squares represent the area that would be enough for solar power plants to produce a quantity of electricity consumed (as or 2005) by the world, the European Union (EU-25) and Germany (De). (Data provided by the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), 2005). To replace all energy consumption (not just electricity), areas about 5 times as large would suffice."
Exactly. The political implications alone would be very problematic. See what happens with the regions where they produce most of the oil. And then there are also the challenges of building the installation, protecting and maintaining it. A desert isn't very hospitable and the Sahara isn't a flat piece of sand. There are also people living there which may not like having to give up 'their' land. And I didn't mention the batteries yet to power the world when it is dark and the wiring needed to distribute the electricity. It might be an option if you want to pay like $5 per kWh."The red squares represent the area that would be enough for solar power plants to produce a quantity of electricity consumed (as or 2005) by the world, the European Union (EU-25) and Germany (De). (Data provided by the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), 2005). To replace all energy consumption (not just electricity), areas about 5 times as large would suffice."
Maybe if we had made Morocco part of the EU from the start that would have been somewhat of an option (with gas plants as backup, maybe with some coal gasification plants as a partial backup for the backup). As it stands though Africa is not something Europe can reasonably depend upon.
Since at least one person here seems unable to grasp the concept that utilizing only a small portion of the solar insolation falling in the Earth’s surface could produce all the worlds electricity needs (even assuming only 8% efficient PV!) here’s a physicist doing a good job explaining the math in a way that even the technically challenged should be able to understand (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/).
The map below gives another graphic presentation. The black dots represent the surface area needed. An no, FFD, it does not mean darkness or cold temperatures at those locales :palm:
(https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Solar_land_area.png)
Get real. You do understand of all o the energy from those areas would be used to power the world those areas would be in total darkness, nothing could live there and temperature would have to be at absolute zero. Is that someplace you would want to live?Sure, because solar panels suck out the light from the air, just like in Ghostbusters. Where did you get your physics education?
Get real. You do understand of all o the energy from those areas would be used to power the world those areas would be in total darkness, nothing could live there and temperature would have to be at absolute zero. Is that someplace you would want to live?Sure, because solar panels suck out the light from the air, just like in Ghostbusters. Where did you get your physics education?
Imagine your country spending money on solar installations, instead of the millitary, to invade for oil.
With the yearly budget of US millitary (590Billion USD) you could install about 590GW capacity, enough to power for about a 100 million people. In 4 years you would have went to renewable energy.
Remember the future when self-driving cars would be common?Volkswagen aims at starting the sell self-driving cars in 2022 according to an article I read last week.
Remember the future when self-driving cars would be common?Volkswagen aims at starting the sell self-driving cars in 2022 according to an article I read last week.
Isn’t that how solar panels work? Have you take a basic high school physics class? Where do you think the energy to produce electricity from the solar panels is comming from. What about suggesting putting wind turbines on every car to produce electricity. When the car drives down the road the wind turbine will spin to provide power to the car. Or even better would be gravitty powered cars. Build every car on top of a hill so the power of gravity will power the car. All are good suggestions, until put into practice.OK, discussion closed, welcome to my ignore list.
While playing large regions with solar cells does not reduce them to frigid temperatures, taking roughly ten percent of the thermal energy arriving in one zone and transporting it elsewhere could very well have undesirable consequences. Just about everything else we have done when scaled up to industrial level has proved to have unpredicted gothchas. Is probably better than petroleum but it is naive to believe that it is perfect.I don't think it matters. The amount of energy the sun blasts onto the earth and the energy that is radiated into space is huge compared to the amount of energy being used. The image with the red rectangle does make that very clear.
While playing large regions with solar cells does not reduce them to frigid temperatures, taking roughly ten percent of the thermal energy arriving in one zone and transporting it elsewhere could very well have undesirable consequences. Just about everything else we have done when scaled up to industrial level has proved to have unpredicted gothchas. Is probably better than petroleum but it is naive to believe that it is perfect.I don't think it matters. The amount of energy the sun blasts onto the earth and the energy that is radiated into space is huge compared to the amount of energy being used. The image with the red rectangle does make that very clear.
So, you're OK with tornadoes? I wonder what other violent weather you'd get taking 10% of all the incident energy on a fairly large area, causing huge temperature differentials around its borders?While playing large regions with solar cells does not reduce them to frigid temperatures, taking roughly ten percent of the thermal energy arriving in one zone and transporting it elsewhere could very well have undesirable consequences. Just about everything else we have done when scaled up to industrial level has proved to have unpredicted gothchas. Is probably better than petroleum but it is naive to believe that it is perfect.I don't think it matters. The amount of energy the sun blasts onto the earth and the energy that is radiated into space is huge compared to the amount of energy being used. The image with the red rectangle does make that very clear.
The amount of land in the biggest red rectangle in Nandblog's image is about 50,000 quare kilometers. The desert the square is in is 9,200,000 sq km so compared to the desert alone the size of the biggest red square is less than 0.5%. And you don't have to concentrate the entire installation in one place.So, you're OK with tornadoes? I wonder what other violent weather you'd get taking 10% of all the incident energy on a fairly large area, causing huge temperature differentials around its borders?While playing large regions with solar cells does not reduce them to frigid temperatures, taking roughly ten percent of the thermal energy arriving in one zone and transporting it elsewhere could very well have undesirable consequences. Just about everything else we have done when scaled up to industrial level has proved to have unpredicted gothchas. Is probably better than petroleum but it is naive to believe that it is perfect.I don't think it matters. The amount of energy the sun blasts onto the earth and the energy that is radiated into space is huge compared to the amount of energy being used. The image with the red rectangle does make that very clear.
1) I'm shocked that some here actually think the graphic posted my Nandblog or the one I posted are actually meant to suggest that such single (or multiple in the graphic I posted) very large PV arrays would need to be built. They are graphic representations meant to demonstrate the very small amount of surface area needed to generate enough electricity with PV to satisfy society's need.Why are you shocked? Concentrating a massive amount of generation in a relatively small area of the Sahara Desert has been proposed multiple times since the solar panel industry first got into gear. Some people have been very serious about it. Others have been highly sceptical about the politics, the transmission losses, and the potential changes to the local environment.
The density of power removal can be made low as you point out. The density at the receiving end is also low. But the fact remains, you are moving hundreds of gigawatts from one continent to another. We have always discovered the impact of large scale engineering efforts after the fact because they are not obvious. Who knew that trading horse for something else could be hard on the earth, or that killing the pests in our houses with DDT would kill birds that didn't even eat bugs.Well doing nothing is usually worse. In the end humanity is always chasing its own tail (cause and effect) but if the end result is better than it was it is a win. DDT for example did improve the quality of life for many.
Since at least one person here seems unable to grasp the concept that utilizing only a small portion of the solar insolation falling in the Earth’s surface could produce all the worlds electricity needs (even assuming only 8% efficient PV!) here’s a physicist doing a good job explaining the math in a way that even the technically challenged should be able to understand (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/).
The map below gives another graphic presentation. The black dots represent the surface area needed. An no, FFD, it does not mean darkness or cold temperatures at those locales :palm:
(https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Solar_land_area.png)
The problem is getting it to where it's needed and when it's needed. There is a big battery problem.
The problem is getting it to where it's needed and when it's needed. There is a big battery problem.If you can deal with the getting it where you want it issue, the battery problem mostly evaporates. Generation plant spread around the world's deserts would certainly defeat the darkness issue, and it seems like it ought to be possible to beat bad weather issues, too. Then you are left with issues of redundancy. They might be tough to deal with. :)
So you plan to run power lines across oceans and power North America?The problem is getting it to where it's needed and when it's needed. There is a big battery problem.If you can deal with the getting it where you want it issue, the battery problem mostly evaporates. Generation plant spread around the world's deserts would certainly defeat the darkness issue, and it seems like it ought to be possible to beat bad weather issues, too. Then you are left with issues of redundancy. They might be tough to deal with. :)
I just plan to sit back and pontificate. ;)So you plan to run power lines across oceans and power North America?The problem is getting it to where it's needed and when it's needed. There is a big battery problem.If you can deal with the getting it where you want it issue, the battery problem mostly evaporates. Generation plant spread around the world's deserts would certainly defeat the darkness issue, and it seems like it ought to be possible to beat bad weather issues, too. Then you are left with issues of redundancy. They might be tough to deal with. :)
The density of power removal can be made low as you point out. The density at the receiving end is also low. But the fact remains, you are moving hundreds of gigawatts from one continent to another. We have always discovered the impact of large scale engineering efforts after the fact because they are not obvious. Who knew that trading horse for something else could be hard on the earth, or that killing the pests in our houses with DDT would kill birds that didn't even eat bugs.Well doing nothing is usually worse. In the end humanity is always chasing its own tail (cause and effect) but if the end result is better than it was it is a win. DDT for example did improve the quality of life for many.
I think you are seriously under estimating the costs and losses of such an electricity grid. Current electricity grid are mostly designed for load sharing between nearby power plants. A good hint to you should be the fact that most power plants are spread across countries and near the largest portion of the load.The problem is getting it to where it's needed and when it's needed. There is a big battery problem.If you can deal with the getting it where you want it issue, the battery problem mostly evaporates. Generation plant spread around the world's deserts would certainly defeat the darkness issue, and it seems like it ought to be possible to beat bad weather issues, too. Then you are left with issues of redundancy. They might be tough to deal with. :)
More on topic of EVs. The accident from this thread https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-an-emc-problem-can-kill-people-and-a-company/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-an-emc-problem-can-kill-people-and-a-company/) with an electric motor cycle -ish vehicle got me thinking about a serious failure mode of EVs which (AFAIK) is not being addressed by current regulations. The problem is that there is no way to disconnect the motor from the wheels in an EV. So when you get into a engine runaway situation (as might have happened in the accident I described in the thread I linked to) there is no way to stop the car. Engine runaway situations can happen to ICE cars (google diesel runaway for example) but in an ICE based car you can simply disengage the engine by pressing the clutch or by putting the gearbox in neutral. Sure the ICE engine will be toast after such an event but you are not driving down the road at insane speeds while being unable to stop the car.Disengage a contactor?
Which one and according to which regulations will this be installed and tested for functioning properly / safely? High voltage DC contactors are expensive and bulky so car manufacturers are not going to install these if they don't have to.More on topic of EVs. The accident from this thread https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-an-emc-problem-can-kill-people-and-a-company/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-an-emc-problem-can-kill-people-and-a-company/) with an electric motor cycle -ish vehicle got me thinking about a serious failure mode of EVs which (AFAIK) is not being addressed by current regulations. The problem is that there is no way to disconnect the motor from the wheels in an EV. So when you get into a engine runaway situation (as might have happened in the accident I described in the thread I linked to) there is no way to stop the car. Engine runaway situations can happen to ICE cars (google diesel runaway for example) but in an ICE based car you can simply disengage the engine by pressing the clutch or by putting the gearbox in neutral. Sure the ICE engine will be toast after such an event but you are not driving down the road at insane speeds while being unable to stop the car.Disengage a contactor?
More on topic of EVs. The accident from this thread https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-an-emc-problem-can-kill-people-and-a-company/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-an-emc-problem-can-kill-people-and-a-company/) with an electric motor cycle -ish vehicle got me thinking about a serious failure mode of EVs which (AFAIK) is not being addressed by current regulations. The problem is that there is no way to disconnect the motor from the wheels in an EV. So when you get into a engine runaway situation (as might have happened in the accident I described in the thread I linked to) there is no way to stop the car. Engine runaway situations can happen to ICE cars (google diesel runaway for example) but in an ICE based car you can simply disengage the engine by pressing the clutch or by putting the gearbox in neutral. Sure the ICE engine will be toast after such an event but you are not driving down the road at insane speeds while being unable to stop the car.Disengage a contactor?
Accidents are far more common than runaway engines, and EV makers aren't taking accident related power disconnect issues very seriously. Teslas seem to have a couple of "hack through the cables here" points for firemen to disconnect the power in an emergency, but they don't seem to have taken them very seriously. The labelling isn't good, and there is weak information on the car about what the emergency services need to do with those disconnect points. The Prius has been around a long time, and I think is the most mature family of cars with high voltage high current systems on board. How well do they handle high voltage isolation in an emergency.QuoteDisengage a contactor?Which one and according to which regulations will this be installed and tested for functioning properly / safely? High voltage DC contactors are expensive and bulky so car manufacturors are not going to install these if they don't have to.
The thing is that any ICE based vehicle has some way to disengage/shut down the engine even though there is no regulation to have it installed. It is inherent to the design. With EVs this seems not to be the case due to absence of any regulations on this matter.
It seems odd to me the transmission could not be put into neutral but then again it may depend on how it is implemented. It would be interesting to know what Toyota fixed to avoid the situation where such an event leads the vehicle to become totally uncontrollable.Shoot the battery. :)
BTW an incident like this would be an excellent moment for an American to pull out the good old gun and shoot the engine. With some luck you puncture the oil pan or coolant system and get the engine to seize up due to lack of cooling. Bonus points for hitting the timing belt.
It seems odd to me the transmission could not be put into neutral but then again it may depend on how it is implemented. It would be interesting to know what Toyota fixed to avoid the situation where such an event leads the vehicle to become totally uncontrollable.
BTW an incident like this would be an excellent moment for an American to pull out the good old gun and shoot the engine. With some luck you puncture the oil pan or coolant system and get the engine to seize up due to lack of cooling. Bonus points for hitting the timing belt.
It seems odd to me the transmission could not be put into neutral but then again it may depend on how it is implemented.
What you could do, and what you will do in a panic situation are very different things. And even the same person can react very differently in different exposures. It is very hard to tell what might have been a real mechanical failure and what was some driver interaction.
As a young man, driving the old beater car that a young man can afford, I had the accelerator pedal come off while in freeway traffic. I calmly reached down and put it together by feel while steering with the other hand and peering over the dashboard as well as I could. Much later in life a toy got stuck under the accelerator and I couldn't force myself to take the risk of reaching down there with the attendant loss of awareness and control.
People do silly things under panic. My wife rescued a woman in a parking lot who became trapped in her car when the batteries on the remote on her keyring failed just after locking the doors on herself. She was so panicky she didn't even think of the electric switches on the inside of the door or the mechanical switches in the same location. She wasn't really that stupid, but the brain does funny things when it heads down a wrong initial logic path.
Which one and according to which regulations will this be installed and tested for functioning properly / safely? High voltage DC contactors are expensive and bulky so car manufacturers are not going to install these if they don't have to.You really need to look at some teardown video's and talk to people designing such cars ... instead of spouting FUD ...
Some appearantly are so I'm wondering which safety regulations apply to disengaging the motor in an EV.Which one and according to which regulations will this be installed and tested for functioning properly / safely? High voltage DC contactors are expensive and bulky so car manufacturers are not going to install these if they don't have to.This is a hard-wired , not software controlled gating on the power mosfets. Even in case of a cut control wire the system ios designed to fail-safe. ( meaning motor switched to coast ).
I have the impression that you think that these newfangled electric cars are designed by a bunch of muppets ...
This probably could have been said without the attack mode. But I think it sounds correct to me.Which one and according to which regulations will this be installed and tested for functioning properly / safely? High voltage DC contactors are expensive and bulky so car manufacturers are not going to install these if they don't have to.You really need to look at some teardown video's and talk to people designing such cars ... instead of spouting FUD ...
There IS a HV contactor in the batteyr pack. It will be shot open under certain conditions. It is an explosive charge to guarantee the thing opening and potential arcs/sticky contacts being extinguished and remediated. It has its own redundant backup , even if the local 12 volt system fails and there is a catastrophic short on the high voltage bus and the pack is somehow damaged : the contactors chemical charge WILL still fire fromt he embedded supercap in the contactor.
Just like you have a mechanical clutch in a mechanical engine you have an 'enable' pin to the inverter driving the propulsion motor. set the enable to low ( by clicking the stalk on the steering wheel in neutral ) and the motor goes in coast. This is a hard-wired , not software controlled gating on the power mosfets. Even in case of a cut control wire the system ios designed to fail-safe. ( meaning motor switched to coast ).
I have the impression that you think that these newfangled electric cars are designed by a bunch of muppets ...
And how many time had people mixed up the accelerator pedal with the brake? Or an older driver is backing out of a parking space and mows down a bunch of people after mistaking D for the letter R.
Teslas seem to have a couple of "hack through the cables here" points for firemen to disconnect the power in an emergency, but they don't seem to have taken them very seriously. The labelling isn't good, and there is weak information on the car about what the emergency services need to do with those disconnect points. The Prius has been around a long time, and I think is the most mature family of cars with high voltage high current systems on board. How well do they handle high voltage isolation in an emergency.Ever seen the firemen training video and documentation ? afaik Tesla is the only company to have such video and docs...
The existence of those videos shows there is a problem. As electric cars progress in the market do you really expect every emergency services worker in the world to have studied and remembered every car maker's video about how to make their cars safe, and be conversant with the procedure when the time comes, even for a model they rarely encounter?Teslas seem to have a couple of "hack through the cables here" points for firemen to disconnect the power in an emergency, but they don't seem to have taken them very seriously. The labelling isn't good, and there is weak information on the car about what the emergency services need to do with those disconnect points. The Prius has been around a long time, and I think is the most mature family of cars with high voltage high current systems on board. How well do they handle high voltage isolation in an emergency.Ever seen the firemen training video and documentation ? afaik Tesla is the only company to have such video and docs...
Loops are clearly labeled with bright orange labels. Pop a piece of plastic , snip-snip and you are safe. The contactors are open.
And how many time had people mixed up the accelerator pedal with the brake? Or an older driver is backing out of a parking space and mows down a bunch of people after mistaking D for the letter R.
...which is why you should always reverse into a parking bay, and move out of it forwards.
Chevy Volt ...no comment. i don't know how those things are built . they may use different or similar. i don't know.
Toyota ...
...which is why you should always reverse into a parking bay, and move out of it forwards.
Sorry, but that is one of my pet hates!
It wastes time, irritates everybody else who is trying to use the carpark, & is likely to cause "young drivers" to do antisocial things.
Us "older drivers" just sit there & grind our teeth! ;D
...which is why you should always reverse into a parking bay, and move out of it forwards.
Sorry, but that is one of my pet hates!
It wastes time, irritates everybody else who is trying to use the carpark, & is likely to cause "young drivers" to do antisocial things.
Us "older drivers" just sit there & grind our teeth! ;D
You have to either back into a parking stall or you have to back out.
Please explain how other drivers backing into a stall is more problematic for you than them backing out... :-//
And that is where the problem is: are these systems mandatory or not? How about regulations where the driver has to be able to shut the engine down?Chevy Volt ...no comment. i don't know how those things are built . they may use different or similar. i don't know.
Toyota ...
Run away car syndrome applies to both ICEs and EVs
The accident you are describing is a repeat of the one that happened with Toyota. Can’t remember if it was the driver or passenger but one was a California Highway patrol officer. He was on the phone with Highway Patrol dispatch saying the car he was in was out of control. The accelerator was stuck and there was nothing they could do. They could not turn the car off as it was a push button car. They gear shift leaver was locked in drive and could not be disengaged. The brakes could not slow the car down. The Highway patrol officer was telling the dispatcher everting they were tying to do to stop the car as the car just kept in accelerating. I think the car finally got up to around 120 mph when they lost control of the car and the Highway patrol officer and the companion in the car drove off the road and were killed.
This incident lead to the Toyota recall about 10 year ago. Remember Toyota said it was loose the floor mat that caused the accelerator pedal to get stuck. But in reality wasn’t it faulty software?
Please correct any inaccuracies in my story.
Car parks are inevitably a mix of people driving cars and people walking to & from them. It is much more dangerous to hit a pedestrian than to hit another car. The problem with the backing out is that the first move a car makes is in reverse, and rear visibility is worse than forward. Not only is there a risk of the driver not seeing the pedestrian, the pedestrian is less likely to see the driver and realise the car is about to move....which is why you should always reverse into a parking bay, and move out of it forwards.
Sorry, but that is one of my pet hates!
It wastes time, irritates everybody else who is trying to use the carpark, & is likely to cause "young drivers" to do antisocial things.
Us "older drivers" just sit there & grind our teeth! ;D
You have to either back into a parking stall or you have to back out.
Please explain how other drivers backing into a stall is more problematic for you than them backing out... :-//
Simple, several cars are driving around in a parking area looking for a stall.
Normally, the front one sees a spot, & drives into it, whilst the others drive on to the next spot, where the process is repeated.
Now the other scenario, several cars are driving around in a parking area looking for a stall.
The first driver sees a spot, then drives past, & reverses into it.
The drivers following cannot see the stall, so assume the car will continue.
Suddenly, they are confronted by (almost always) a ginormous SUV or "people mover" reversing at them.
The driver usually stuffs it up on the first attempt, & takes several "goes" at it, before getting into the stall.
Reversing out?
The driver checks before reversing, & doesn't back up when there are cars approaching.(often, if there is one, it will stop & allow the reversing car out, in the hope of taking the stall just vacated.
The main lane around the car park is wider than a car space, so the manoeuvre is easier than backing into a narrow stall.
I don't think the clutch in a ICE is regulated as a safety feature.. what with automatic cars ? Most shifters these days are electric. ( paddle flaps)And that is where the problem is: are these systems mandatory or not? How about regulations where the driver has to be able to shut the engine down?Chevy Volt ...no comment. i don't know how those things are built . they may use different or similar. i don't know.
Toyota ...
...which is why you should always reverse into a parking bay, and move out of it forwards.
Please explain how other drivers backing into a stall is more problematic for you than them backing out... :-//
In the mountains of southern California they like people to back in. That's because if there is a wild fire and a bunch of people leave at the same time it's easier to pull forward then to back into a stream of cars....which is why you should always reverse into a parking bay, and move out of it forwards.
in ,many places that is illegal ! you need to park nose-in.
two reasons :
- scanning of license plates. Only the REAR license plate is the true plate holding the expiration sticker and / or certificate tag. The front one doesn't. Many places don't require a front one.
- emergency towing. Handbrakes work only on rear wheels. if a car needs to be moved : lift its rear wheels of the ground and roll it out. If a car is parked in reverse this becomes a problem.
Could somebody please elaborate on the matter of backing into a parking space vs. pulling in straight ahead? Eight consecutive posts about this existential question are really only scratching the surface... Any anecdotes, case studies, personal experience please?Sounds like someone backed out of the bed the wrong way this morning.
:palm:
Could somebody please elaborate on the matter of backing into a parking space vs. pulling in straight ahead? Eight consecutive posts about this existential question are really only scratching the surface... Any anecdotes, case studies, personal experience please?Why do some people drive on the left side of the road and others drive on the right. Isn't in the politicians who decide?
:palm:
Sounds like someone backed out of the bed the wrong way this morning.
Sounds like someone backed out of the bed the wrong way this morning.
Which, I'm told, is illegal in California and several other jurisdictions. :P
Sounds like someone backed out of the bed the wrong way this morning.
Which, I'm told, is illegal in California and several other jurisdictions. :P
No! It's known to cause cancer. ;D
I'd like a thread about Tesla cars, good and bad, I have a Tesla S with questions like putting in a ham radio at 1500 watts, and servicing the shocks, brakes, preventing rust etc. I use to prevent rust on my Honda Element
It will park itself backwards, much quickly than a bluehair.
Could somebody please elaborate on the matter of backing into a parking space vs. pulling in straight ahead? Eight consecutive posts about this existential question are really only scratching the surface... Any anecdotes, case studies, personal experience please?I've worked with a couple volunteer fireman. They always back in and also out of habit put it in park, shutoff the ignition, unbuckle, tilt the wheel up and open the door all at the same time faster than I can even reach for the seatbelt buckle. Its part of their training, if they get paged they need to go fast and pulling out is faster than backing out.
:palm:
Problem with backing in is the exhaust, carbon monoxide fumes are right at someone’s door or windows. It’s like driving on the left or right, it’s more of a custom or law than engineering thing.I would agree except if you have a back up camera. Then it's much easier. I love my backup camera. (It's an electric camera so it's relevant to this thread. :) )
I will say I think pilling head in and backing out is far safer than backing in and pulling out. If you were to back in you have less visibility and more of a chance to hitting someone or something. When you back out you have the other drivers facing forward with a clear view that can either avoid you or see what it is you are about to run over. I feel very uncomfortable when I have to back into a space. You just cah’t see very well especially on the passenger side of the car. Always worried I might hit a little kid or the car next to me when backing in.
I drove emergenccey vechicles too. And yes we always backed in, but or partner had to get out of the vehicles and make sure we weren’t about to hit something.
Hope this helps.
True, but a back-up camera only offers limited visibility. Not the same as someone actually being there.You get to turn your head also. Works fine for me.
ITrue, but a back-up camera only offers limited visibility. Not the same as someone actually being there.You get to turn your head also. Works fine for me.
ITrue, but a back-up camera only offers limited visibility. Not the same as someone actually being there.You get to turn your head also. Works fine for me.
Head turning might work if your a driving a car.... Buy not when you are driving a big honking emergency vehicle.
ITrue, but a back-up camera only offers limited visibility. Not the same as someone actually being there.You get to turn your head also. Works fine for me.
Head turning might work if your a driving a car.... Buy not when you are driving a big honking emergency vehicle.
Which just emphasizes the point that there isn't one correct answer for this. Those who need to make a quick exit (bank robbers, first responders, people in danger from fire, tidal waves and so on) will definitely want to back in. In spite of the hazard that many cars have more overhang in back and any curb or bumpstop may not prevent damage, and in spite of presenting fumes to those behind and in spite of the extra hazard of backing in. People with other priority requirements will make the other choice. Both will be right for their situation.
Those driving a big unwieldy vehicle will back differently than those driving a motorcycle (who'd of thunk it?).
https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/ (https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/)For as long as the price doesn't actually drop your prediction is just a prediction. Note that VWs current EV the e-Golf has a very small battery pack. Since the biggest cost of an EV is the battery pack it is only logical that it is cheaper. But a small battery pack also seriously limits the range. Especially when driving on the highway.
"VW understands that, and aims to take the wind out of Tesla’s sails (and sales) by offering its entry-level EV for less than €20,000 ($23,000)"
"The company has already broken ground on an electric-car factory in China and secured a battery source for 50 million cars, Diess told Automotive News in an interview published Nov. 12. “I think we have the best setup strategy for the electric vehicles to come,” Diess said."
20K EUR is the price of a golf, about half the price of an e-golf. So expect price to drop significantly. As I predicted.
https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/ (https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/)
"VW understands that, and aims to take the wind out of Tesla’s sails (and sales) by offering its entry-level EV for less than €20,000 ($23,000)"
"The company has already broken ground on an electric-car factory in China and secured a battery source for 50 million cars, Diess told Automotive News in an interview published Nov. 12. “I think we have the best setup strategy for the electric vehicles to come,” Diess said."
20K EUR is the price of a golf, about half the price of an e-golf. So expect price to drop significantly. As I predicted.
Actually, the cars are going to be assembled in Germany, and the battery plant is in Hungary.https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/ (https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/)For as long as the price doesn't actually drop your prediction is just a prediction. Note that VWs current EV the e-Golf has a very small battery pack. Since the biggest cost of an EV is the battery pack it is only logical that it is cheaper. But a small battery pack also seriously limits the range. Especially when driving on the highway.
"VW understands that, and aims to take the wind out of Tesla’s sails (and sales) by offering its entry-level EV for less than €20,000 ($23,000)"
"The company has already broken ground on an electric-car factory in China and secured a battery source for 50 million cars, Diess told Automotive News in an interview published Nov. 12. “I think we have the best setup strategy for the electric vehicles to come,” Diess said."
20K EUR is the price of a golf, about half the price of an e-golf. So expect price to drop significantly. As I predicted.
All VW is doing is window dressing because of Dieselgate. Ask yourself: Why is that factory in China and not in Europe? I think I know the answer: China is banking heavily on electric cars even though a large portion of the electricity comes from fossil fuels(*). The Chinese seems to be wanting to master electric car technology for export. Then ask yourself why is VW willing to give that technology to the Chinese? Everyone knows that the Chinese will undercut western companies as soon as the can (see Rigol and Keysight as an example). Perhaps VW sees a different future in which electric cars aren't important for the world market at all but at the moment some money can be made and their image can be repaired. VW spends less money on the factories in China than Dieselgate has cost them so far.
* With an average CO2 emission of over 600grams per kWh (in China) even an efficient short range EV like the e-Golf produces over 100 grams of CO2 per km.
So after watching this why would one not want to buy a Tesla?
//So after watching this why would one not want to buy a Tesla?
Because the guy is not entirely impartial, but tries to make money from the referral link right below the video?
(If you view the video via his Youtube page.)
And just how much money, if any, do you think this guy is making from his referral link?
And just how much money, if any, do you think this guy is making from his referral link?
Apparently he hopes that it will be enough to justify being viewed as an "influencer", rather than an impartial producer of videos.
Obviously I don't know how many referrals he actually gets; and Tesla apparently has changed the rules of the referral program occasionally. Until a few weeks ago, five referrals apparently got you a $5900 PowerWall. Or you can opt for $250 cash for each referral.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/06/massive-expansion-of-tesla-referral-program-offers-100-supercharging-to-all-tesla-buyers-innovative-prizes/
Look at the post date, few days ago, and the date he has to get five people to signup. (Less than a month.). So the guy MAYBE gets $250 what’s your problem with that?
https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/ (https://qz.com/1460673/volkswagen-will-make-50-million-electric-cars/)
"VW understands that, and aims to take the wind out of Tesla’s sails (and sales) by offering its entry-level EV for less than €20,000 ($23,000)"
Yes, I do know they do an electric Golf, I also know that when I went in the dealership to ask about it no one there knew much about it and the only statement I got was that there was about an 18 month waitOrdered Jan 2018, Delivered May 2018. it really wasn't that long a wait, but it's a popular car (36kWh pack) at a fair price.
Yes, I do know they do an electric Golf, I also know that when I went in the dealership to ask about it no one there knew much about it and the only statement I got was that there was about an 18 month waitOrdered Jan 2018, Delivered May 2018. it really wasn't that long a wait, but it's a popular car (36kWh pack) at a fair price.
I've read a review on the e-Golf from someone who has driven it for about 20000km (in Dutch https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/ (https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/) ). In the winter the range drops to around 120km with the heating on and driving on the highway at 120 to 130km/h. In the summer the range increases to 270km when driving mostly 60 to 80km/h. Making longer trips requires planning to make it to charging points. Also the range indicator is way off. The author of the review wanted to go to Italy but decided to borrow someone else's car due to lack of charging stations. The author also had problems with occupied and out-of-service charging stations which nearly made him miss a boat (across the sea to the UK) and caused him to drive around with only 3% charge left when he got off the boat again.Yes, I do know they do an electric Golf, I also know that when I went in the dealership to ask about it no one there knew much about it and the only statement I got was that there was about an 18 month waitOrdered Jan 2018, Delivered May 2018. it really wasn't that long a wait, but it's a popular car (36kWh pack) at a fair price.
I'll certainly consider an E-Golf when I eventually need a new car if the price gets better and hopefully they have a little more power. I do like my Golf's but it would be tough to give up the power and sound I currently have. Maybe I'll see your car at a swap one of these days.
At the moment, an EV battery pack costs a lot of money. None are at the $100 / kWh that is predicted to be required to make cars cheap. Tesla are thought to be at that level for the cells, but not the whole assembled pack. I have seen guesstamates that put other manufacturers at nearer $170 to $200 / kWh on the assembled pack.
If VW are going to produce a reasonable range electric car it will need a reasonable sized pack - lets guess 65 kWh (similar to the Nero, Kona, Tesla Model 3 and new Leaf).
I've read a review on the e-Golf from someone who has driven it for about 20000km (in Dutch https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/ (https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/) ). In the winter the range drops to around 120km with the heating on and driving on the highway at 120 to 130km/h. In the summer the range increases to 270km when driving mostly 60 to 80km/h. Making longer trips requires planning to make it to charging points. Also the range indicator is way off. The author of the review wanted to go to Italy but decided to borrow someone else's car due to lack of charging stations. The author also had problems with occupied and out-of-service charging stations which nearly made him miss a boat (across the sea to the UK) and caused him to drive around with only 3% charge left when he got off the boat again.Yes, I do know they do an electric Golf, I also know that when I went in the dealership to ask about it no one there knew much about it and the only statement I got was that there was about an 18 month waitOrdered Jan 2018, Delivered May 2018. it really wasn't that long a wait, but it's a popular car (36kWh pack) at a fair price.
I'll certainly consider an E-Golf when I eventually need a new car if the price gets better and hopefully they have a little more power. I do like my Golf's but it would be tough to give up the power and sound I currently have. Maybe I'll see your car at a swap one of these days.
Yes, I do know they do an electric Golf, I also know that when I went in the dealership to ask about it no one there knew much about it and the only statement I got was that there was about an 18 month waitOrdered Jan 2018, Delivered May 2018. it really wasn't that long a wait, but it's a popular car (36kWh pack) at a fair price.
I'll certainly consider an E-Golf when I eventually need a new car if the price gets better and hopefully they have a little more power. I do like my Golf's but it would be tough to give up the power and sound I currently have. Maybe I'll see your car at a swap one of these days.
On a petrol/diesel car the range doesn't get halved by driving against the wind AND having the heater or airconditioning on. I'm just stating that the e-Golf has a very small battery pack so having some range anxiety is a good mindset especially if you want to make long trips with it in the winter.I like the way you selectively grabbed information to claim the 120km range. The author states that @ 130kmh into a headwind the range drops to 120km; and of course it does. The air resistance at 160kmph (130 + 30) air speed is 4x what it is at 80, and about double what it is at 115. I think you'd find your petrol/diesel consumption would go up similar amounts at high speeds into a significant headwind too.I've read a review on the e-Golf from someone who has driven it for about 20000km (in Dutch https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/ (https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/) ). In the winter the range drops to around 120km with the heating on and driving on the highway at 120 to 130km/h. In the summer the range increases to 270km when driving mostly 60 to 80km/h. Making longer trips requires planning to make it to charging points. Also the range indicator is way off. The author of the review wanted to go to Italy but decided to borrow someone else's car due to lack of charging stations. The author also had problems with occupied and out-of-service charging stations which nearly made him miss a boat (across the sea to the UK) and caused him to drive around with only 3% charge left when he got off the boat again.Yes, I do know they do an electric Golf, I also know that when I went in the dealership to ask about it no one there knew much about it and the only statement I got was that there was about an 18 month waitOrdered Jan 2018, Delivered May 2018. it really wasn't that long a wait, but it's a popular car (36kWh pack) at a fair price.
I'll certainly consider an E-Golf when I eventually need a new car if the price gets better and hopefully they have a little more power. I do like my Golf's but it would be tough to give up the power and sound I currently have. Maybe I'll see your car at a swap one of these days.
On a petrol/diesel car the range doesn't get halved by driving against the wind AND having the heater or airconditioning on. I'm just stating that the e-Golf has a very small battery pack so having some range anxiety is a good mindset especially if you want to make long trips with it in the winter.
OMG :palm: No because an airconditioning sits at the output of the engine in a regular car just like the wheels. The heat is free. The problem is in the small size of the battery in the e-Golf which makes that the airconditioning or heating eat a significant amount of the energy and leaving less for the motor. This has nothing to do with efficiency. It is all about the amount of energy which the car can bring along.On a petrol/diesel car the range doesn't get halved by driving against the wind AND having the heater or airconditioning on. I'm just stating that the e-Golf has a very small battery pack so having some range anxiety is a good mindset especially if you want to make long trips with it in the winter.Which is just another way of saying that the petrol engine is far less efficient than an electrical engine, right? ;)
The absolute power required for air conditioning and for compensating headwinds is the same on both cars. But its relative impact on an electric car's range is larger, since the engine consumes relatively less.
OMG :palm: No because an airconditioning sits at the output of the engine in a regular car just like the wheels. The heat is free. The problem is in the small size of the battery in the e-Golf which makes that the airconditioning or heating eat a significant amount of the energy and leaving less for the motor. This has nothing to do with efficiency. It is all about the amount of energy which the car can bring along.
Show some numbers. Just saying it is wrong gets you another :palm:OMG :palm: No because an airconditioning sits at the output of the engine in a regular car just like the wheels. The heat is free. The problem is in the small size of the battery in the e-Golf which makes that the airconditioning or heating eat a significant amount of the energy and leaving less for the motor. This has nothing to do with efficiency. It is all about the amount of energy which the car can bring along.Air conditioning is when you cool, not heat the air, and it does take extra energy in a petrol engine.
In general, please rethink your "small battery, nothing to do with efficiency" statement. It's wrong.
And please don't face-palm users you are responding to; it's offensive.
Show some numbers. Just saying it is wrong gets you another :palm:
To run an airconditioning for X time you need Y energy. If you have a car with a capacity of 10 energy units and one with 100 energy units then the car with 10 energy units will stop before the car with 100 energy units does. Where does efficiency come into play here?
The efficiency doesn't matter in this discussion. It is all about convenience of use. A small range on an e-Golf (or any other EV with a small battery) means stopping more often and needing to do more planning to find charging points. With a petrol or diesel powered car I just fill it up in the morning which takes less than 5 minutes and drive all day without needing to worry about range, speed or having the airco on or not. Again: efficiency isn't the issue here because it doesn't get the EV any further and doesn't fix any problem.Show some numbers. Just saying it is wrong gets you another :palm:Sheesh, man.
To run an airconditioning for X time you need Y energy. If you have a car with a capacity of 10 energy units and one with 100 energy units then the car with 10 energy units will stop before the car with 100 energy units does. Where does efficiency come into play here?
Made-up numbers below, but maybe you can get the concept:Alternatively, feel free to look up the efficiencies of typical petrol vs. electrical engines. 40% vs. 90% or such.
- If you drive a petrol car and turn on the air conditioning, the range drops by 10%. So the air conditioning consumes 10% of the power of the engine, right?
- If you drive an electric car and turn on the air conditioning, the range drops by 30%. So the air conditioning consumes 30% of the power the electric engine needs.
- Both cars have similar air conditioning systems, which hence consume about the same power in absolute numbers.
- So tell me, which engine consumes more power?
The efficiency doesn't matter in this discussion.
It is all about convenience of use.
:palm: Until you want to travel far.... Read the review I linked to.It is all about convenience of use.Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations.
Filling up my gasoline car is a 5 minute activity once a week or two, when I go to the local supermarket, which is next to the local gas station. Plugging an EV in each night may be little bother for day to day commuting, shopping, etc., but the "burden" for filling a gas or diesel car is also close to zero.It is all about convenience of use.Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations. The proof is in the pudding. Once you go EV - you don't go back. ICE auto sales are declining. Meanwhile the exponential growth of EV adoption continues....
:palm: Until you want to travel far.... Read the review I linked to.It is all about convenience of use.Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations.
Filling up my gasoline car is a 5 minute activity once a week or two, when I go to the local supermarket, which is next to the local gas station. Plugging an EV in each night may be little bother for day to day commuting, shopping, etc., but the "burden" for filling a gas or diesel car is also close to zero.
It is all about convenience of use.
Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations. The proof is in the pudding. Once you go EV - you don't go back. ICE auto sales are declining. Meanwhile the exponential growth of EV adoption continues....
That old crap again :palm: People don't want a car which can do 98% because that would make it a waste of money. Real example: a while ago my wife and I travelled about 2800km along various destinations in Europe in a couple of days. With our car that took 26 hours of driving in total. If we would use an e-Golf with a range of 200km while driving 130km/h (real 130km/h) then we would have needed to charge 14 times which takes at least 30 minutes each time. That would have added at least 7 hours extra to the travelling time, make the trip take one day longer and make the time needed to travel over 25% longer. If you still insist that an EV is better then you are completely mad.Studies have consistently shown that > 98% of car trips are well within the range of most EVs (50 miles or less) and >99% within the range of the newest high range:palm: Until you want to travel far.... Read the review I linked to.It is all about convenience of use.Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations.
That old crap againStudies have consistently shown that > 98% of car trips are well within the range of most EVs (50 miles or less) and >99% within the range of the newest high range:palm: Until you want to travel far.... Read the review I linked to.It is all about convenience of use.Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations.
Not quite. In the Pacific Northwest they have storms which knock out the power for a week. No electricity can't drive the car.Ask residents of hurricane prone areas how well they fared with gas stations running out of gas. :) A plug in hybrid would be the best solution for that sort of emergency - being able to use either gas or electricity gives a lot of flexibility.
Or what about in California where we are having wildfires. Drive home and hope to charge the batteries at night but a wild fire knocks out the power to a neighborhood. Car's not getting charged. Then the police tell everyone to evacuate and you jump in you car to find the batteries haven't been charged. Now you are toast.
That old crap again :palm: People don't want a car which can do 98% because that would make it a waste of money. Real example: a while ago my wife and I travelled about 2800km along various destinations in Europe in a couple of days. With our car that took 26 hours of driving in total. If we would use an e-Golf with a range of 200km while driving 130km/h (real 130km/h) then we would have needed to charge 14 times which takes at least 30 minutes each time. That would have added at least 7 hours extra to the travelling time, make the trip take one day longer and make the time needed to travel over 25% longer. If you still insist that an EV is better then you are completely mad.I really hope you use a RV for the daily commute, because "Once a year we go to France" and you prefer sleeping in an uncomfortable bed instead of a Hotel.
That old crap again :palm: People don't want a car which can do 98% because that would make it a waste of money. Real example: a while ago my wife and I travelled about 2800km along various destinations in Europe in a couple of days. With our car that took 26 hours of driving in total. If we would use an e-Golf with a range of 200km while driving 130km/h (real 130km/h) then we would have needed to charge 14 times which takes at least 30 minutes each time. That would have added at least 7 hours extra to the travelling time, make the trip take one day longer and make the time needed to travel over 25% longer. If you still insist that an EV is better then you are completely mad.
That old crap again :palm: People don't want a car which can do 98% because that would make it a waste of money. Real example: a while ago my wife and I travelled about 2800km along various destinations in Europe in a couple of days. With our car that took 26 hours of driving in total. If we would use an e-Golf with a range of 200km while driving 130km/h (real 130km/h) then we would have needed to charge 14 times which takes at least 30 minutes each time. That would have added at least 7 hours extra to the travelling time, make the trip take one day longer and make the time needed to travel over 25% longer. If you still insist that an EV is better then you are completely mad.Studies have consistently shown that > 98% of car trips are well within the range of most EVs (50 miles or less) and >99% within the range of the newest high range:palm: Until you want to travel far.... Read the review I linked to.It is all about convenience of use.Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations.
Try to follow the news. During the summer holidays the highways of mainland Europe are constipated due to the millions of people using their car to go to their holiday destination abroad. Tell all of them to use an EV and watch their reaction.That old crap again :palm: People don't want a car which can do 98% because that would make it a waste of money. Real example: a while ago my wife and I travelled about 2800km along various destinations in Europe in a couple of days. With our car that took 26 hours of driving in total. If we would use an e-Golf with a range of 200km while driving 130km/h (real 130km/h) then we would have needed to charge 14 times which takes at least 30 minutes each time. That would have added at least 7 hours extra to the travelling time, make the trip take one day longer and make the time needed to travel over 25% longer. If you still insist that an EV is better then you are completely mad.If that is the kind of journeys you do by car then don't buy an EV, but don't assume that your usage is representative off all other drivers. For example at age 31 the longest single-day journey I have driven or been a car passenger in is 532 miles (Fort William to Southampton, in current traffic about 9 hours 40 minutes),
Try to follow the news. During the summer holidays the highways of mainland Europe are constipated due to the millions of people using their car to go to their holiday destination abroad. Tell all of them to use an EV and watch their reaction.
On a petrol/diesel car the range doesn't get halved by driving against the wind AND having the heater or airconditioning on. I'm just stating that the e-Golf has a very small battery pack so having some range anxiety is a good mindset especially if you want to make long trips with it in the winter.I like the way you selectively grabbed information to claim the 120km range. The author states that @ 130kmh into a headwind the range drops to 120km; and of course it does. The air resistance at 160kmph (130 + 30) air speed is 4x what it is at 80, and about double what it is at 115. I think you'd find your petrol/diesel consumption would go up similar amounts at high speeds into a significant headwind too.I've read a review on the e-Golf from someone who has driven it for about 20000km (in Dutch https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/ (https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/) ). In the winter the range drops to around 120km with the heating on and driving on the highway at 120 to 130km/h. In the summer the range increases to 270km when driving mostly 60 to 80km/h. Making longer trips requires planning to make it to charging points. Also the range indicator is way off. The author of the review wanted to go to Italy but decided to borrow someone else's car due to lack of charging stations. The author also had problems with occupied and out-of-service charging stations which nearly made him miss a boat (across the sea to the UK) and caused him to drive around with only 3% charge left when he got off the boat again.Yes, I do know they do an electric Golf, I also know that when I went in the dealership to ask about it no one there knew much about it and the only statement I got was that there was about an 18 month waitOrdered Jan 2018, Delivered May 2018. it really wasn't that long a wait, but it's a popular car (36kWh pack) at a fair price.
I'll certainly consider an E-Golf when I eventually need a new car if the price gets better and hopefully they have a little more power. I do like my Golf's but it would be tough to give up the power and sound I currently have. Maybe I'll see your car at a swap one of these days.
Owning an automobile which fulfils the vast majority of my needs is much cheaper than trying to purchase and own something that fulfils every possible need every time. By your logic, everyone would own oversized minivans that seat 12 and carry 2 tonnes, because occasionally they may need to haul move house, or carry 12 people.
Not quite. In the Pacific Northwest they have storms which knock out the power for a week. No electricity can't drive the car.Ask residents of hurricane prone areas how well they fared with gas stations running out of gas. :) A plug in hybrid would be the best solution for that sort of emergency - being able to use either gas or electricity gives a lot of flexibility.
Or what about in California where we are having wildfires. Drive home and hope to charge the batteries at night but a wild fire knocks out the power to a neighborhood. Car's not getting charged. Then the police tell everyone to evacuate and you jump in you car to find the batteries haven't been charged. Now you are toast.
Owning an automobile which fulfils the vast majority of my needs is much cheaper than trying to purchase and own something that fulfils every possible need every time. By your logic, everyone would own oversized minivans that seat 12 and carry 2 tonnes, because occasionally they may need to haul move house, or carry 12 people.
Exactly. It's like the people who buy large SUVs because twice a year they go to the mountains go skiing....
Those who make this argument against EVs remind me of people 20 years ago saying that DSOs would never be mainstream because an analog scope will always be better for <insert niche application here> ::)
By your reasoning you'd be perfectly happy with a roof over your home which leaks when it is raining very hard. After all it only rains very hard a few times per year. Or a phone which drops 2 out of 100 calls. Or a tyre you need to inflate every week due to a small leak. Need I go on or do you finally get it?Studies have consistently shown that > 98% of car trips are well within the range of most EVs (50 miles or less) and >99% within the range of the newest high range:palm: Until you want to travel far.... Read the review I linked to.It is all about convenience of use.Yes, yes it is. EVs are much more convenient as anyone who actually owns one will tell you (and have told you but you like to pretend otherwise). Fill it up every night at home. No more need to waste time at gas stations.
By your reasoning you'd be perfectly happy with a roof over your home which leaks when it is raining very hard. After all it only rains very hard a few times per year. Or a phone which drops 2 out of 100 calls. Or a tyre you need to inflate every week due to a small leak. Need I go on or do you finally get it?
Globally car sales are down.... way down.
Globally car sales are down.... way down. Ford plans on discontinuing sales of all cars with the exception of F-150 trucks and Mustangs.In the US car sales are way down, because in the US so many consumer vehicles (e,g, SUVs) are classified as light trucks instead of cars. To Ford, the F150 is not considered a car, and neither are all the SUVs they make for the US market. The migration from sedans to SUVs has hurt US car figures and boosted the light truck figures. In most of the world SUVs are considered cars, and the car sales numbers look pretty good. As far as I know Ford is only discontinuing "car" sales in the US. There seems no sign of them ending the sale of sedans, wagons and hatchbacks elsewhere. Although car sales in most countries are migrating to SUVs, it is not happening so fast that killing all sedans, wagons and hatchbacks makes sense for a large car maker.
Globally car sales are down.... way down.
Really?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/)
Or do you mean Ford's car sales?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/380104/global-vehicle-sales-of-ford/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/380104/global-vehicle-sales-of-ford/)
Globally car sales are down.... way down. Ford plans on discontinuing sales of all cars with the exception of F-150 trucks and Mustangs.In the US car sales are way down, because in the US so many consumer vehicles (e,g, SUVs) are classified as light trucks instead of cars. To Ford, the F150 is not considered a car, and neither are all the SUVs they make for the US market. The migration from sedans to SUVs has hurt US car figures and boosted the light truck figures. In most of the world SUVs are considered cars, and the car sales numbers look pretty good. As far as I know Ford is only discontinuing "car" sales in the US. There seems no sign of them ending the sale of sedans, wagons and hatchbacks elsewhere. Although car sales in most countries are migrating to SUVs, it is not happening so fast that killing all sedans, wagons and hatchbacks makes sense for a large car maker.
This is worth saying agin.... Hard to beleive Ford one of the top three automobile/sedan/truck manfactures market cap is less than Tesla. Just means Tesla is perceived value is much greater than that of a one of the largest companies in the world.Not the current value. The market cap reflects the markets belief of future profits and value.
This is worth saying agin.... Hard to beleive Ford one of the top three automobile/sedan/truck manfactures market cap is less than Tesla. Just means Tesla is perceived value is much greater than that of a one of the largest companies in the world.Not the current value. The market cap reflects the markets belief of future profits and value.
It is not about the size of the vehicle but the useability of a similar sized vehicle. The leaking roof analogy is therefore very accurate. Choose between a house with an automatic door + leaky roof or a house with a manual door which has a good roof.By your reasoning you'd be perfectly happy with a roof over your home which leaks when it is raining very hard. After all it only rains very hard a few times per year. Or a phone which drops 2 out of 100 calls. Or a tyre you need to inflate every week due to a small leak. Need I go on or do you finally get it?Your analogies are slightly besides the point, and you are probably aware of it. In contrast to a home confronted with a sudden heavy rainfall, or a phone call with random connection drops, I can plan ahead for a long car trip and rent a suitable vehicle for longer distances or larger transports.
Believe it or not, people are actually doing that routinely: They choose not to drive a truck for everyday use, but a small city car.
It is not about the size of the vehicle but the useability of a similar sized vehicle. The leaking roof analogy is therefore very accurate.
Most don't even mention the nuisance of needing to plug it in every time they get back at home.I don't know about you, but I would much prefer plugging in at home every day than having to stop by the gas station every other week or so. And as mentioned many times before, plug in hybrids give the best of both worlds.
It is not about the size of the vehicle but the useability of a similar sized vehicle. The leaking roof analogy is therefore very accurate.
Argghh... No, the EV debate (and your prior arguments) are, of course, not about the size. They are about the range. And the distance of the trip to be made, as well as the limited range of an EV, are rather predictable parameters. So they are very different from "leaks", or unexpected heavy rainfall. If you want to take a long-distance trip, you may want to rent a long-distance vehicle.
I am not sure whether you are playing dumb in order to troll, or are just too emotionally invested in this topic (why would you?) to read and write with a clear mind. In either case, I'm out of here; this is too frustrating.
Most don't even mention the nuisance of needing to plug it in every time they get back at home.I don't know about you, but I would much prefer plugging in at home every day than having to stop by the gas station every other week or so. And as mentioned many times before, plug in hybrids give the best of both worlds.
Now I wonder how come there's not more investment in EVs that convert to plug in hybrids by adding a generator trailer?
May I ask you where you learned physics? You have some interesting concepts that all break the law of physics. Just wondering who is teaching this stuff?Please explain why the idea of adding a generator trailer breaks the law of physics. It has actually been done by DIYers. What's missing is commercial investment into that technology.
May I ask you where you learned physics? You have some interesting concepts that all break the law of physics. Just wondering who is teaching this stuff?Please explain why the idea of adding a generator trailer breaks the law of physics. It has actually been done by DIYers. What's missing is commercial investment into that technology.
Help me understand what it is you are trying to do by adding a generator trailor? Are you thinking as the car travels down the road the generator will produce electricity to power the car as in a perpetual motion machine? Yup, that violate the laws of physics.The whole point of the generator trailer is to turn the EV into a hybrid. It can even still be running on renewable energy if biofuels are used. The advantage over a hybrid to begin with is no extra weight for daily driving.
Don't be silly!May I ask you where you learned physics? You have some interesting concepts that all break the law of physics. Just wondering who is teaching this stuff?Please explain why the idea of adding a generator trailer breaks the law of physics. It has actually been done by DIYers. What's missing is commercial investment into that technology.
Help me understand what it is you are trying to do by adding a generator trailor? Are you thinking as the car travels down the road the generator will produce electricity to power the car as in a perpetual motion machine? Yup, that violate the laws of physics.
Don't be silly!May I ask you where you learned physics? You have some interesting concepts that all break the law of physics. Just wondering who is teaching this stuff?Please explain why the idea of adding a generator trailer breaks the law of physics. It has actually been done by DIYers. What's missing is commercial investment into that technology.
Help me understand what it is you are trying to do by adding a generator trailor? Are you thinking as the car travels down the road the generator will produce electricity to power the car as in a perpetual motion machine? Yup, that violate the laws of physics.
There is no such thing as a "generator trailer" which gets its power from the wheel's rotation.
Generator trailer means a generator driven by a ICE .
This would provide electric power to either supply the actual motor requirements, or to recharge the EV batteries, or both.
There would be an obvious increase in the amount of mechanical power needed to move the thing along the road, just like any trailer, but any reduction in range from that would be a small downside compared to the convenience of increasing the vehicle range.
Year over year ICE auto sales turned down in September (https://ycharts.com/indicators/auto_sales) (usually the strongest month). Historically, this has been a harbinger of coming recession. Meanwhile EV sales have continued to grow at a rapid rate.
Overall, 1st world ICE auto sales have been relatively flat for the past 20 years (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA). However when you add in the developing world (esp China) there has been modest growth.
In all cases - over the past few years, EV sales growth has far,far surpassed ICE sales growth (if any).
My prediction is that ICE auto sales will continue to stagnate while EV sales growth continues its exponential growth pattern. Eventually, in 20 years or so we'll be in a place where the large majority of auto sales will be EVs though overall total auto sales will never again reach current levels. Globally, the economy is peaking.
- long trips require planning to find charging points,No it doesn't require planning. The car plans it all by itself. There are so many chargers that almost at any given point one is in reach. Many shopping centers have em now.
- long breaks (great if you like to eat bad food at restaurants along a highway) but they all like to pull away faster from the traffic light.
- Most don't even mention the nuisance of needing to plug it in every time they get back at home.
Read what you are writing: plug-in here, plug-in there, plug-in here, plug-in there, plug-in here, plug-in there. Always baby sitting the car! That just utterly sucks. Also there may be chargers where you are going but read this review: https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/ (https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/) This guy had to borrow a car to go to Italy because there aren't enough chargers there. The UK and Belgium started to get challenging already for him and in eastern Europe it is even worse. Sure this isn't a problem in California but what if you'd want to go to Mexico for example? And how about making sure the hotel you are staying at has a charger which works?- long trips require planning to find charging points,No it doesn't require planning. The car plans it all by itself. There are so many chargers that almost at any given point one is in reach. Many shopping centers have em now.
- long breaks (great if you like to eat bad food at restaurants along a highway) but they all like to pull away faster from the traffic light.
- Most don't even mention the nuisance of needing to plug it in every time they get back at home.
Not long breaks. Drive 3 hours , go for pipi and a cup of coffee and move on. 20 to 30 minutes tops you off. You may want ot drive for more than 3 hours non stop but i like to stretch my legs. it actually makes road trips enjoyable.
What nuisance ? put it in the garage and plug it in. What is the problem ? and it's not like you have to. I plug them in maybe one every two to 3 weeks at home. Otherwise i plug at shopping centers. Whenever we go for groceries , or we go for dinner somewhere :plug em there. When you come back the batteries are full.
Agree mostly with the too high maintenance point. Not only is this a hassle, but it creates a dependency that may end up putting you at risk.That is true as well. If you can't charge at home from your own outlet and thus need to use a public charger in front of your house then you are basically screwed because you have to pay whatever the company which exploits it charges. I estimate a public charger costs around 10000 euro to install including all the overhead. Assuming it will be there for 10 years (*) you end up paying 1000 euros per year. To put that in perspective: in the Netherlands that almost buys you a year of health insurance. With a car on fuel (including Hydrogen) you can at least shop around and have some healthy competition between fuel providers.
Don't be silly!May I ask you where you learned physics? You have some interesting concepts that all break the law of physics. Just wondering who is teaching this stuff?Please explain why the idea of adding a generator trailer breaks the law of physics. It has actually been done by DIYers. What's missing is commercial investment into that technology.
Help me understand what it is you are trying to do by adding a generator trailor? Are you thinking as the car travels down the road the generator will produce electricity to power the car as in a perpetual motion machine? Yup, that violate the laws of physics.
There is no such thing as a "generator trailer" which gets its power from the wheel's rotation.
Generator trailer means a generator driven by a ICE .
This would provide electric power to either supply the actual motor requirements, or to recharge the EV batteries, or both.
There would be an obvious increase in the amount of mechanical power needed to move the thing along the road, just like any trailer, but any reduction in range from that would be a small downside compared to the convenience of increasing the vehicle range.
Ummm up until the mid 1950s all cars had generators. Must not have been then sillily.
Clearly the only fix is to install wireless charging coils underneath of solar roadways.AFAIK that is not the reason. Electric motors allow better control over traction. Because the wheels on a train have much less friction towards the rails compared to tyres on a car pulling a train away is a much more delicate procedure. Also the amount of power involved would probably make a clutch or torque converter bulky and unreliable.
Large trains use an ICE to drive a generator which then drives the electric motors. The idea here is the ICE can stay within its most efficient operating range.
Read what you are writing: plug-in here, plug-in there, plug-in here, plug-in there, plug-in here, plug-in there. Always baby sitting the car! That just utterly sucks. Also there may be chargers where you are going but read this review: https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/ (https://www.autoweek.nl/reviews/artikel/volkswagen-e-golf-2018-4/) This guy had to borrow a car to go to Italy because there aren't enough chargers there. The UK and Belgium started to get challenging already for him and in eastern Europe it is even worse. Sure this isn't a problem in California but what if you'd want to go to Mexico for example? And how about making sure the hotel you are staying at has a charger which works?- long trips require planning to find charging points,No it doesn't require planning. The car plans it all by itself. There are so many chargers that almost at any given point one is in reach. Many shopping centers have em now.
- long breaks (great if you like to eat bad food at restaurants along a highway) but they all like to pull away faster from the traffic light.
- Most don't even mention the nuisance of needing to plug it in every time they get back at home.
Not long breaks. Drive 3 hours , go for pipi and a cup of coffee and move on. 20 to 30 minutes tops you off. You may want ot drive for more than 3 hours non stop but i like to stretch my legs. it actually makes road trips enjoyable.
What nuisance ? put it in the garage and plug it in. What is the problem ? and it's not like you have to. I plug them in maybe one every two to 3 weeks at home. Otherwise i plug at shopping centers. Whenever we go for groceries , or we go for dinner somewhere :plug em there. When you come back the batteries are full.
It is all way too much hassle. Why the hell would I put up with that if I can buy a car on petrol which needs a fill in the morning and goes the entire day? My wife can drive too so our road trips usually look like this: I drive 2 hours, she drives 2 hours (nap time for me), I drive 1,5 hours and she drives 1,5 hours and we are where we want to be. Just pee and go again when changing drivers. Even including the pee breaks we often arrive ahead of the travel time the navigation system estimated. Sometimes we drive in the evening as well and if there is one thing you shouldn't do it is hanging around at a gas station when it is dark and quiet.
Visited the Tesla showroom last night. Trying to decide between a Tesla and Volt. (Not sure what else to consider). The Bavarian Money Wasters is out, as the BMW once the battery is depleted only runs on a gas engine at 40 MPH and has a couple gallons of fuel. (How stupid is that.)At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
Anyway Tesla had a big screen to show you how much the electricty would cost to charge the car. (Very nice). Bleeping A. Using California/PG&E’s EV rate during peak hours it costs nearly $50 dollars to charge the car. I just filled my truck/ICE and it was $50.
Now I realize that’s during peak hours, so during partial peak it’s $25 and off-peak it’s $12. Imagine if a tank of gas cost $12 or $50 depending on when you purchase it.
So for Tesla and other EV owners when you take a long trip and have to charge how much are you charged? (I have a Volt, so long trips just use gas.). But if i were to get an EV only car I’m wondering what the EV rates are. I’ve never seen them posted at ChargePoint or other places. I’m wondering if they Charging Stations charge as much or more than the equilivnet for gasoline?
here's a challenge. The trip I make is from Columbus OH to Terra Alta WV. Can I find chargers there?The Tesla Ap says there is one 16.3km away at Haley Farm Inn and Retreat Center. The trip is 4:13 and one charging stop of 10 minutes at Triadelphia, WV. Not too bad.
Read what you are writing: plug-in here, plug-in there, plug-in here, plug-in there, plug-in here, plug-in there. Always baby sitting the car!So what ? the car is parked anyway while i am shopping / restaurant . IT just sits there in the parking lot. All i have to do is plug in a cable when i get out. done.Not har dot do nor remember. And charging is free.( at least with my cars).
And how about making sure the hotel you are staying at has a charger which works?Many hotels have chargers. and again, if you have a tesla , even a 110 volt socket will do. You don't need special chargers, the car comes with a universal mobile charger. You can tap into anything. 110 volt 15 amp , 110 volt 20 amp , 240 volt 30 ,40 and 50 amp. or a J1772 plug. It eats anything and everything.
For most people living in urban areas, having their own individual charging spot is out of the question, and it's only going to get worse as urban areas get denser, which is the current trend that I don't see reversing in any foreseeable future.Most homes have a garage. most condominium / apartment complexes have assigned parking places. In your garage you have a power outlet.
We just don't have the ability to generate that much electricity
Current battery technologies also make use of materials that are not renewableLithium cobalt cells are for almost 95% recyclable into new cells. There is very little filler in the packs.
Apartment complexes can install chargers.I'll have my son tell the land lord he has to install a charger. Great idea. I'm sure it will work.
Friend some people care about thei planet (air, food supply) and further generations. Sure you might be incovineced on one of your trips if you have an electric car and need a charge, but in exchange you willl have clean air to breath, food to eat. Maybe those things are not important to you, but for many people they are.Nobody cares. Really. The current numbers show that oil consumption will increase until 2040 and so will CO2 emissions.
So for Tesla and other EV owners when you take a long trip and have to charge how much are you charged? (I have a Volt, so long trips just use gas.). But if i were to get an EV only car I’m wondering what the EV rates are. I’ve never seen them posted at ChargePoint or other places. I’m wondering if they Charging Stations charge as much or more than the equilivnet for gasoline?At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
here's a challenge. The trip I make is from Columbus OH to Terra Alta WV. Can I find chargers there?The Tesla Ap says there is one 16.3km away at Haley Farm Inn and Retreat Center. The trip is 4:13 and one charging stop of 10 minutes at Triadelphia, WV. Not too bad.
Absolutely. Many states have legislation that forbids HOA's from blocking that. If it is an assigned space (common but exclusive use) they can tie it in to your meter. Problem solved. In other instances they make it a metered system where you pay directly at the charger . There is no cost to HOA then. But they can't block it.Apartment complexes can install chargers.I'll have my son tell the land lord he has to install a charger. Great idea. I'm sure it will work.
Friend some people care about thei planet (air, food supply) and further generations. Sure you might be incovineced on one of your trips if you have an electric car and need a charge, but in exchange you willl have clean air to breath, food to eat. Maybe those things are not important to you, but for many people they are.
Friend some people care about thei planet (air, food supply) and further generations. Sure you might be incovineced on one of your trips if you have an electric car and need a charge, but in exchange you willl have clean air to breath, food to eat. Maybe those things are not important to you, but for many people they are.
Vehicular pollution is a largely solved problem. The modern IC engine is vastly cleaner than that of half a century ago. The reason to keep the campaign going regardless is obvious, it keeps the funds flowing in to certain NGOs.
Nevertheless, if there is a perceived need to reduce exhaust emissions below their already low levels, then the sensible approach would be a change of fuel to hydrogen, methane or maybe alcohols, all of which burn more cleanly than heavier hydrocarbons. The reason for the massive push toward battery cars with their impractically short range and problematic refuelling has more to do with vested interests within the 'green' NGOs promoting this policy to governments. The vested interests likely include financial backing, however they also serve to promote the pipedream that one day, all energy will be supplied by wind turbines. Along with car owners being coerced providing a free Grid backup system by way of draining their batteries when the wind doesn't blow. Which, you can't do to hydrogen car owners.
THAT is why the battery vehicles, and no other, more practical, type. The wind turbine pipedream MUST be made reality. :horse:
At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
If you can't charge at home for example. :palm: The world is bigger than your front lawn.At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
Nice scare tactic; here are the real prices. But the question really is, why charge at work, when you can do so at home for 0.12/kWh off-peak.
At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
Nice scare tactic; here are the real prices. But the question really is, why charge at work, when you can do so at home for 0.12/kWh off-peak.
San Diego State University - Parking Lot M
Blink Members: $.49/KwHr - Guests: $.59/KwHr
San Diego State University - P7
$0.49/kWh Blink Member, $0.59/kWh Guest.
San Diego State University - P2A
DCFC: $0.59/kWh Blink Member, $0.69/kWh Guest.
Level 2: $0.49/kWh Blink Member, $0.59/kWh Guest.
San Diego State University - P3
ChargePoint station is Free. Blink is $0.49/kWh for members, and $0.59/kWh for guests.
San Diego State University - Children's Center
$0.49/kWh Blink Member, $0.59/kWh Guest.
If you can't charge at home for example. :palm: The world is bigger than your front lawn.At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
Nice scare tactic; here are the real prices. But the question really is, why charge at work, when you can do so at home for 0.12/kWh off-peak.
So if your an owner you can install a charger. Doesn't help my son who is a renter.Apartment complexes can install chargers.I'll have my son tell the land lord he has to install a charger. Great idea. I'm sure it will work.
Absolutely. Many states have legislation that forbids HOA's from blocking that. If it is an assigned space (common but exclusive use) they can tie it in to your meter. Problem solved. In other instances they make it a metered system where you pay directly at the charger . There is no cost to HOA then. But they can't block it.
I happen to be a board member of an HOA. Submit architectural request, get city permit and licensed electrician and move on. took me 2 weeks. They installed a dedicated breaker and NEMA 14-40 outlet wired to my subpanel so it runs off my meter (i have exclusive use of my garage) . Done.
California:
" (a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a common interest development, and any provision of a governing document, as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 1351, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station in an owner’s designated parking space, including, but not limited to, a deeded parking space, a parking space in an owner’s exclusive use common area, or a parking space that is specifically designated for use by a particular owner, or is in conflict with the provisions of this section is void and unenforceable. "
so because you can't charge at home , EV are inconvenient .. :palm: The world is bigger than your home ...If you can't charge at home for example. :palm: The world is bigger than your front lawn.At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
Nice scare tactic; here are the real prices. But the question really is, why charge at work, when you can do so at home for 0.12/kWh off-peak.
So if your an owner you can install a charger. Doesn't help my son who is a renter.
What does a bigger world have to do with an impractical situation? Maybe in 10 years that will change and charging in apartments may be better that's good. But some people don't have time to sit in a parking lot and charge a car. Work school life.so because you can't charge at home , EV are inconvenient .. :palm: The world is bigger than your home ...If you can't charge at home for example. :palm: The world is bigger than your front lawn.At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
Nice scare tactic; here are the real prices. But the question really is, why charge at work, when you can do so at home for 0.12/kWh off-peak.
If you can't charge at home for example. :palm: The world is bigger than your front lawn.At San Diego State University they charge the students .70$/kW-hr. Here the on peak rate is .45.
Nice scare tactic; here are the real prices. But the question really is, why charge at work, when you can do so at home for 0.12/kWh off-peak.
:palm: exactly, the world is bigger than just the SD State Univ parking garages. There are plenty of other lower-cost alternatives in San Diego, OR you could charge at home. I would guess that everyone living in the United States has access to some parking, somewhere near a regular wall outlet, which will allow you to put 60-80km (less than most people drive/day) into your car overnight.
I have friends that own EVs and only use their 120V @ 10A regular outlet to charge it; I'm a little luckier as it was relatively easy to add a 240V / 30A in my garage.
BTW it seems the production of Cobalt needs to be increased a lot otherwise production of batteries can't be expanded (even if new batteries are invented which need much less Cobalt). The effects may show as early as 2020 and could bring the EV adoption (if there is even going to be one) to a grinding halt.
No, Cobalt shortage is a real thing. The price went up by several hundred percent over the past couple of years. Currently over 60% of the world's production comes from Congo. Google it. Sure most car manufacturers will say they secured a supply but if some Congelese war lord is deciding to sell to the highest bidder then they are screwed. And good luck trying to sue a Congelese war lord.BTW it seems the production of Cobalt needs to be increased a lot otherwise production of batteries can't be expanded (even if new batteries are invented which need much less Cobalt). The effects may show as early as 2020 and could bring the EV adoption (if there is even going to be one) to a grinding halt.Or might not and greatly increase the adoption of EV cars.
Not all EV batteries use cobalt - in fact regular lithium cobalt is not a very good choice for an EV due to its flammability. (Tesla somehow tweaked the chemistry to be less flammable.) For example, the Nissan Leaf uses lithium manganese.It seems the truth is in the middle. Lithium manganese seem the have 33% less capacity compared to Cobalt based batteries. According to this article most Li-ion batteries use Cobalt in combination with Nickel and Manganese to get optimal performance:
Sure most car manufacturers will say they secured a supply but if some Congelese war lord is deciding to sell to the highest bidder then they are screwed. And good luck trying to sue a Congelese war lord.
Well then explain what a contract is worth to a Congolese war lord. If a supplier has no supply then they can't deliver. Even with hefty fines for breach of contract the car manufacturer may still be left with no batteries.Sure most car manufacturers will say they secured a supply but if some Congelese war lord is deciding to sell to the highest bidder then they are screwed. And good luck trying to sue a Congelese war lord.That depends what you mean with secure. Western companies secure with contracts, China secures with a private military force.
Well if you're really pragmatic you can do it old school ... fly in some mercenaries and install a new government every time the old one gets out of line. It doesn't take a whole lot of disciplined well trained troops to topple an African government.As if that strategy worked in the middle east :palm:
Year over year ICE auto sales turned down in September (https://ycharts.com/indicators/auto_sales) (usually the strongest month). Historically, this has been a harbinger of coming recession. Meanwhile EV sales have continued to grow at a rapid rate.
Overall, 1st world ICE auto sales have been relatively flat for the past 20 years (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA). However when you add in the developing world (esp China) there has been modest growth.
In all cases - over the past few years, EV sales growth has far,far surpassed ICE sales growth (if any).
My prediction is that ICE auto sales will continue to stagnate while EV sales growth continues its exponential growth pattern. Eventually, in 20 years or so we'll be in a place where the large majority of auto sales will be EVs though overall total auto sales will never again reach current levels. Globally, the economy is peaking.
It's easier to go from selling, say, 10 thousand cars a year to 40 thousand cars a year, wow, 400% growth! But that's just 30 thousand more cars. OTOH "stagnated" at 3.1% year to year growth when you're selling 79 million cars a year, that's 2.5 million more on top of that 79 millions:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/)
PEVs are (5.4e6) still less than 0.4% of the total (1.3e9), and most of that 0.4% are hybrids, thus ICEs anyway, not BEVs.
Hybrids are the only way they're managing to push EVs down our throats, other than forbidding ICEs which seems to be on the agenda of the dummies that rule us, or so it seems.
There s no doubt that once you drive an EV , you never want to go back to the 19th century bag of boots that is an ICE car.
This is the way it is now, a taxi in Barcelona searching for a free spot to recharge his EV:
There s no doubt that once you drive an EV , you never want to go back to the 19th century bag of boots that is an ICE car.
YMMV, I have a BEV too but most often choose to drive my diesel ICE.
This is the way it is now, a taxi in Barcelona searching for a free spot to recharge his EV:
I could see this being like flying in IMC You'd need to allow maybe double the range you actually want to travel, because you may not be able to 'land' when you get there! |O
The really stupid argument here is that an electric car stops in exactly the same way when it runs out of charge, that an ICE car does when it runs out of fuel. Just that right now there are a few more public places to get fuel.
That is not a stupid argument. With an ICE car you'd also be wise to not drive around with a nearly empty fuel tank. Even in Germany there can be over 100km between gas stations and there may be a traffic jam, the gas station may be closed, a detour, etc. Still with an ICE car you are back on the road again with a full tank in 5 minutes ready to drive another 700km.The really stupid argument here is that an electric car stops in exactly the same way when it runs out of charge, that an ICE car does when it runs out of fuel. Just that right now there are a few more public places to get fuel.This is the way it is now, a taxi in Barcelona searching for a free spot to recharge his EV:I could see this being like flying in IMC You'd need to allow maybe double the range you actually want to travel, because you may not be able to 'land' when you get there! |O
That is not a stupid argument. With an ICE car you'd also be wise to not drive around with a nearly empty fuel tank. Even in Germany there can be over 100km between gas stations and there may be a traffic jam, the gas station may be closed, a detour, etc. Still with an ICE car you are back on the road again with a full tank in 5 minutes ready to drive another 700km.The really stupid argument here is that an electric car stops in exactly the same way when it runs out of charge, that an ICE car does when it runs out of fuel. Just that right now there are a few more public places to get fuel.This is the way it is now, a taxi in Barcelona searching for a free spot to recharge his EV:I could see this being like flying in IMC You'd need to allow maybe double the range you actually want to travel, because you may not be able to 'land' when you get there! |O
And you can ask a colleague to bring you 5l of fuel in a can... or you can have a spare 20l canister in your car. At the minute you can't do this with batteries, not even having a full boot of 2AAs :)That depends rather on the car and how empty you ran it. Many diesels and modern (i.e. newer than about 1990) petrol cars need air bleeding from the fuel system before they'll restart if they were run to stopping. That's not an especially easy roadside task, and not one I'd expect the average driver to perform. Cranking it until the battery is dead then phoning the AA seems to be the more common response. :P
The median commute distance in Canada is 7.7km ea way, or let's call that 16km/day. An EV typically will get better than 20kWh/100km, or perhaps 3.2kWh of energy.what happens when someone in your apartment complex unplugs your car so they can charge their iphone and then you wake up the next morning to a low battery?
As most cars are parked overnight in a garage/carport/alongside house/apartment, I'd like to introduce my complete solution for at least 50% of the population when it comes to charging, to provide
a minimum of 1kW of charge, or the median commute in just 3.2 hours. Just imagine with a typical overnight parking of 12-16 hours you too could have FOUR times what you need in terms of EV charging, without lining up at public facilities.
I call it "The Regular Wall Outlet" (may vary by jurisdiction - EU and AU versions are even faster than NA versions)
Violence?The median commute distance in Canada is 7.7km ea way, or let's call that 16km/day. An EV typically will get better than 20kWh/100km, or perhaps 3.2kWh of energy.what happens when someone in your apartment complex unplugs your car so they can charge their iphone and then you wake up the next morning to a low battery?
As most cars are parked overnight in a garage/carport/alongside house/apartment, I'd like to introduce my complete solution for at least 50% of the population when it comes to charging, to provide
a minimum of 1kW of charge, or the median commute in just 3.2 hours. Just imagine with a typical overnight parking of 12-16 hours you too could have FOUR times what you need in terms of EV charging, without lining up at public facilities.
I call it "The Regular Wall Outlet" (may vary by jurisdiction - EU and AU versions are even faster than NA versions)
The median commute distance in Canada is 7.7km ea way, or let's call that 16km/day. An EV typically will get better than 20kWh/100km, or perhaps 3.2kWh of energy.what happens when someone in your apartment complex unplugs your car so they can charge their iphone and then you wake up the next morning to a low battery?
As most cars are parked overnight in a garage/carport/alongside house/apartment, I'd like to introduce my complete solution for at least 50% of the population when it comes to charging, to provide
a minimum of 1kW of charge, or the median commute in just 3.2 hours. Just imagine with a typical overnight parking of 12-16 hours you too could have FOUR times what you need in terms of EV charging, without lining up at public facilities.
I call it "The Regular Wall Outlet" (may vary by jurisdiction - EU and AU versions are even faster than NA versions)
The median commute distance in Canada is 7.7km ea way, or let's call that 16km/day. An EV typically will get better than 20kWh/100km, or perhaps 3.2kWh of energy.what happens when someone in your apartment complex unplugs your car so they can charge their iphone and then you wake up the next morning to a low battery?
As most cars are parked overnight in a garage/carport/alongside house/apartment, I'd like to introduce my complete solution for at least 50% of the population when it comes to charging, to provide
a minimum of 1kW of charge, or the median commute in just 3.2 hours. Just imagine with a typical overnight parking of 12-16 hours you too could have FOUR times what you need in terms of EV charging, without lining up at public facilities.
I call it "The Regular Wall Outlet" (may vary by jurisdiction - EU and AU versions are even faster than NA versions)
The median commute distance in Canada is 7.7km ea way, or let's call that 16km/day. An EV typically will get better than 20kWh/100km, or perhaps 3.2kWh of energy.what happens when someone in your apartment complex unplugs your car so they can charge their iphone and then you wake up the next morning to a low battery?
As most cars are parked overnight in a garage/carport/alongside house/apartment, I'd like to introduce my complete solution for at least 50% of the population when it comes to charging, to provide
a minimum of 1kW of charge, or the median commute in just 3.2 hours. Just imagine with a typical overnight parking of 12-16 hours you too could have FOUR times what you need in terms of EV charging, without lining up at public facilities.
I call it "The Regular Wall Outlet" (may vary by jurisdiction - EU and AU versions are even faster than NA versions)
it's Canada . eh ? who would sit outside charging their phone in the snow ?
Civilized snowy countries like Canada and Finland and Norway have block-heater outlets in every parking stall of every parking lot. Simply plug in there.
a 220volt 10 amp circuit gives you 2.2kw per hour. plug in from 8 in the evening till 8 in the morning. that gives you 24 kw.
The median commute distance in Canada is 7.7km ea way, or let's call that 16km/day. An EV typically will get better than 20kWh/100km, or perhaps 3.2kWh of energy.what happens when someone in your apartment complex unplugs your car so they can charge their iphone and then you wake up the next morning to a low battery?
As most cars are parked overnight in a garage/carport/alongside house/apartment, I'd like to introduce my complete solution for at least 50% of the population when it comes to charging, to provide
a minimum of 1kW of charge, or the median commute in just 3.2 hours. Just imagine with a typical overnight parking of 12-16 hours you too could have FOUR times what you need in terms of EV charging, without lining up at public facilities.
I call it "The Regular Wall Outlet" (may vary by jurisdiction - EU and AU versions are even faster than NA versions)
Increased reliance on electricity for heating and cooking would be a predictable outcome if the end user price of natural gas doubles or more.
That could cause a shift to electricity which would require more electric power generation capacity in the winters, especially, than current power systems may be able to deliver. However, if (EV charging) fits within the power budget already allocated for block heaters as detailed in the previous post, (if such a budget already exists) the problem is already solved. If not people should figure in the extra power needs, which could be substantial.
In places where block heaters are not in common use, there may be a rise in electric power demand in the winter- which by default would be most in demand in the evenings, after people get home from work or play and turn up the heat and lighting for dinner, etc. (right after plugging their EVs into the wall outlet or gas using or hybrid cars into the block heater.)
If people are relying more on electricity for heat (because of pricing increases of LNG) at the same times as they are depending on charging EVs for transport, we may need to install timers that default to staggering EV charging later into the evenings after people have gone to sleep- when they need less electricity for other uses like heating and cooking and video streaming, etc.
That is probably a good idea regardless. Those timers should have an override available, as well as some kind of quick charge mode, too.
Increased reliance on electricity for heating and cooking would be a predictable outcome if the end user price of natural gas doubles or more.
That could cause a shift to electricity which would require more electric power generation capacity in the winters, especially, than current power systems may be able to deliver. However, if (EV charging) fits within the power budget already allocated for block heaters as detailed in the previous post, (if such a budget already exists) the problem is already solved. If not people should figure in the extra power needs, which could be substantial.
In places where block heaters are not in common use, there may be a rise in electric power demand in the winter- which by default would be most in demand in the evenings, after people get home from work or play and turn up the heat and lighting for dinner, etc. (right after plugging their EVs into the wall outlet or gas using or hybrid cars into the block heater.)
If people are relying more on electricity for heat (because of pricing increases of LNG) at the same times as they are depending on charging EVs for transport, we may need to install timers that default to staggering EV charging later into the evenings after people have gone to sleep- when they need less electricity for other uses like heating and cooking and video streaming, etc.
That is probably a good idea regardless. Those timers should have an override available, as well as some kind of quick charge mode, too.
Well that is the reaction you get when you try to sell lemons like they are strawberries. You seem to be relentlessly looking for justification for your purchase and are completely blind for the fact you bought a lemon. But don't worry, after being fed up with your e-Golf you can trade it in for an ICE based car and never have to bother with finding chargers and plugging it in everywhere you go. And no more fights over chargers with other people who think they got there first, have more urgent matters or you have been charging long enough already. The financial loss will hopefully be worth not having the hassle any more.
One of the first hits on Google about 'charge rage' which is about people unplugging other people's EV to have theirs charged first:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10592660/Charge-Rage-electric-car-owners-get-angry-after-having-vehicles-unplugged.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10592660/Charge-Rage-electric-car-owners-get-angry-after-having-vehicles-unplugged.html)
https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/increasing-number-of-electric-car-drivers-falling-victim-to-charge-rage (https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/increasing-number-of-electric-car-drivers-falling-victim-to-charge-rage)
Practical gasoline cars were available before the turn of the twentieth century, but they didn't dominate transportation everywhere for a couple of decades, and even today you find places and people who use horses.
funny... the first cars were electric... and then some clever guy found black stuff bubbling from the earth that happened to be flammable and thought : i can make money off that...
Anyone know about the FIRST Tesla electric car, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow Nikola converted to be all eclectic. And the best part.... It don't have any batteries so no need for charging stations. Acording to Tesla if ran on the energy from the universe. That same energy he claimed could power the world.Reference?
If only Elon had Tesla's orgininal car we would all be driving aound in electrica cars powered by the universe.
Anyone know about the FIRST Tesla electric car, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow Nikola converted to be all eclectic. And the best part.... It don't have any batteries so no need for charging stations. Acording to Tesla if ran on the energy from the universe. That same energy he claimed could power the world.
If only Elon had Tesla's orgininal car we would all be driving aound in electrica cars powered by the universe.
Anyone know about the FIRST Tesla electric car, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow Nikola converted to be all eclectic. And the best part.... It don't have any batteries so no need for charging stations. Acording to Tesla if ran on the energy from the universe. That same energy he claimed could power the world.Reference?
If only Elon had Tesla's orgininal car we would all be driving aound in electrica cars powered by the universe.
Anyone know about the FIRST Tesla electric car, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow Nikola converted to be all eclectic. And the best part.... It don't have any batteries so no need for charging stations. Acording to Tesla if ran on the energy from the universe. That same energy he claimed could power the world.
If only Elon had Tesla's orgininal car we would all be driving aound in electrica cars powered by the universe.
Nikola Tesla was pretty much "round the bend" by that time, claiming all sorts of nonsense.
Shame, as it detracts from his real achievements in the perfecting & application of polyphase AC.
(He didn't invent it, neither did he make a radio system which was useable in any practical sense)
What I would like to learn more about is the Edison/Ford partnership for building an electric car. What happened?
Anyone know about the FIRST Tesla electric car, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow Nikola converted to be all eclectic. And the best part.... It don't have any batteries so no need for charging stations. Acording to Tesla if ran on the energy from the universe. That same energy he claimed could power the world.Reference?
If only Elon had Tesla's orgininal car we would all be driving aound in electrica cars powered by the universe.
In 1931, so the story goes, Tesla took his nephew to a garage in Buffalo, New York, and showed him a modified Pierce-Arrow automobile. The car’s ‘cosmic energy power receiver’ – a black box with 12 vacuum tubes – was connected to a long antenna.
The car was said to have been driven for about 80 km at speeds of up to 140 km/h during an eight-day road test. Tesla allegedly said the device would power the car forever, and also supply the needs of a household “with power to spare”.
It is a fact that in 1898 Tesla filed a patent for a “method of and apparatus for controlling mechanism of moving vessels or vehicles”.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/did-nikola-tesla-build-a-revolutionary-electric-car
Anyone know about the FIRST Tesla electric car, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow Nikola converted to be all eclectic. And the best part.... It don't have any batteries so no need for charging stations. Acording to Tesla if ran on the energy from the universe. That same energy he claimed could power the world.Reference?
If only Elon had Tesla's orgininal car we would all be driving aound in electrica cars powered by the universe.
In 1931, so the story goes, Tesla took his nephew to a garage in Buffalo, New York, and showed him a modified Pierce-Arrow automobile. The car’s ‘cosmic energy power receiver’ – a black box with 12 vacuum tubes – was connected to a long antenna.
The car was said to have been driven for about 80 km at speeds of up to 140 km/h during an eight-day road test. Tesla allegedly said the device would power the car forever, and also supply the needs of a household “with power to spare”.
It is a fact that in 1898 Tesla filed a patent for a “method of and apparatus for controlling mechanism of moving vessels or vehicles”.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/did-nikola-tesla-build-a-revolutionary-electric-car
Your reference concludes it didn't happen. That patent was for remote control not magic power.
In a nutshell, what happened is that gasoline cars were better. And still are, today. Jay Leno has a vidjeo of an electric car of that time in youtube.It's worth noting that EVs have been pushing gasoline engines to be more efficient in order to stay relevant. In particular, the use of the Atkinson cycle has increased dramatically.
The Atkinson cycle has only become popular with partial electrification - i.e. hybrids. Its things like SkyactiveX which have moved the efficiency of general purpose combustion engines forwards.In a nutshell, what happened is that gasoline cars were better. And still are, today. Jay Leno has a vidjeo of an electric car of that time in youtube.It's worth noting that EVs have been pushing gasoline engines to be more efficient in order to stay relevant. In particular, the use of the Atkinson cycle has increased dramatically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle#Vehicles_using_Atkinson-cycle_engines
The Atkinson cycle has only become popular with partial electrification - i.e. hybrids. Its things like SkyactiveX which have moved the efficiency of general purpose combustion engines forwards.In a nutshell, what happened is that gasoline cars were better. And still are, today. Jay Leno has a vidjeo of an electric car of that time in youtube.It's worth noting that EVs have been pushing gasoline engines to be more efficient in order to stay relevant. In particular, the use of the Atkinson cycle has increased dramatically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle#Vehicles_using_Atkinson-cycle_engines
I think you are missin the bigger picture..... Goal is to eliminate combustion engines which produce CO2 and green house gasses caused by man which is causing climate change. Greater efficiency is nice, but what we need to do is try and eliminate it.No, not at all. Better efficiency combined with third generation bio-fuels are the way forward. If we really want to move forward right now then there should be a ban on ICE cars which emit more than 100 grams of CO2 per km. That will be way more effective compared toying around with EVs and hope these will work somewhere within the next 20 years. Also the changeover to 100% bio-fuels will be much easier with more efficient ICE cars. The solution to getting to zero CO2 emissions from cars is that simple.
I think you are missin the bigger picture..... Goal is to eliminate combustion engines which produce CO2 and green house gasses caused by man which is causing climate change. Greater efficiency is nice, but what we need to do is try and eliminate it.No, not at all. Better efficiency combined with third generation bio-fuels are the way forward. If we really want to move forward right now then there should be a ban on ICE cars which emit more than 100 grams of CO2 per km. That will be way more effective compared toying around with EVs and hope these will work somewhere within the next 20 years. Also the changeover to 100% bio-fuels will be much easier with more efficient ICE cars. The solution to getting to zero CO2 emissions from cars is that simple.
I think you are missing the bigger picture. We aren't going to be able to eliminate ICE cars very quickly. Forms of ICE which are a lot more efficient are an important way to minimise the effects of ICE cars during the transition.The Atkinson cycle has only become popular with partial electrification - i.e. hybrids. Its things like SkyactiveX which have moved the efficiency of general purpose combustion engines forwards.In a nutshell, what happened is that gasoline cars were better. And still are, today. Jay Leno has a vidjeo of an electric car of that time in youtube.It's worth noting that EVs have been pushing gasoline engines to be more efficient in order to stay relevant. In particular, the use of the Atkinson cycle has increased dramatically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle#Vehicles_using_Atkinson-cycle_engines
I think you are missin the bigger picture..... Goal is to eliminate combustion engines which produce CO2 and green house gasses caused by man which is causing climate change. Greater efficiency is nice, but what we need to do is try and eliminate it.
DSM is moving ahead and no mentioning of any cut backs in financing:I think you are missin the bigger picture..... Goal is to eliminate combustion engines which produce CO2 and green house gasses caused by man which is causing climate change. Greater efficiency is nice, but what we need to do is try and eliminate it.No, not at all. Better efficiency combined with third generation bio-fuels are the way forward. If we really want to move forward right now then there should be a ban on ICE cars which emit more than 100 grams of CO2 per km. That will be way more effective compared toying around with EVs and hope these will work somewhere within the next 20 years. Also the changeover to 100% bio-fuels will be much easier with more efficient ICE cars. The solution to getting to zero CO2 emissions from cars is that simple.
Latest news on hird gen bio fuels is we have run into a severe technological stumbling block we don’t know how to solve. Maybe one day we might be able to figure it out, but right now it doens’t look promising. As a result I thought research money looking into third gen bio fuels was scaled way back making it less likely we will find a solution any time soon.
I think you are missing the bigger picture. We aren't going to be able to eliminate ICE cars very quickly. Forms of ICE which are a lot more efficient are an important way to minimise the effects of ICE cars during the transition.The Atkinson cycle has only become popular with partial electrification - i.e. hybrids. Its things like SkyactiveX which have moved the efficiency of general purpose combustion engines forwards.In a nutshell, what happened is that gasoline cars were better. And still are, today. Jay Leno has a vidjeo of an electric car of that time in youtube.It's worth noting that EVs have been pushing gasoline engines to be more efficient in order to stay relevant. In particular, the use of the Atkinson cycle has increased dramatically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle#Vehicles_using_Atkinson-cycle_engines
I think you are missin the bigger picture..... Goal is to eliminate combustion engines which produce CO2 and green house gasses caused by man which is causing climate change. Greater efficiency is nice, but what we need to do is try and eliminate it.
DSM is moving ahead and no mentioning of any cut backs in financing:I think you are missin the bigger picture..... Goal is to eliminate combustion engines which produce CO2 and green house gasses caused by man which is causing climate change. Greater efficiency is nice, but what we need to do is try and eliminate it.No, not at all. Better efficiency combined with third generation bio-fuels are the way forward. If we really want to move forward right now then there should be a ban on ICE cars which emit more than 100 grams of CO2 per km. That will be way more effective compared toying around with EVs and hope these will work somewhere within the next 20 years. Also the changeover to 100% bio-fuels will be much easier with more efficient ICE cars. The solution to getting to zero CO2 emissions from cars is that simple.
Latest news on hird gen bio fuels is we have run into a severe technological stumbling block we don’t know how to solve. Maybe one day we might be able to figure it out, but right now it doens’t look promising. As a result I thought research money looking into third gen bio fuels was scaled way back making it less likely we will find a solution any time soon.
https://annualreport.dsm.com/ar2017/en_US/7-3-innovation-center.html#H4794108691
So if one fails then all should fail? :palm:That’s just one data point.DSM is moving ahead and no mentioning of any cut backs in financing:I think you are missin the bigger picture..... Goal is to eliminate combustion engines which produce CO2 and green house gasses caused by man which is causing climate change. Greater efficiency is nice, but what we need to do is try and eliminate it.No, not at all. Better efficiency combined with third generation bio-fuels are the way forward. If we really want to move forward right now then there should be a ban on ICE cars which emit more than 100 grams of CO2 per km. That will be way more effective compared toying around with EVs and hope these will work somewhere within the next 20 years. Also the changeover to 100% bio-fuels will be much easier with more efficient ICE cars. The solution to getting to zero CO2 emissions from cars is that simple.
Latest news on hird gen bio fuels is we have run into a severe technological stumbling block we don’t know how to solve. Maybe one day we might be able to figure it out, but right now it doens’t look promising. As a result I thought research money looking into third gen bio fuels was scaled way back making it less likely we will find a solution any time soon.
https://annualreport.dsm.com/ar2017/en_US/7-3-innovation-center.html#H4794108691
Not seeing any specutacular growth in that area with this company either.But they are definitely not pulling the plug like you suggested. Quite the opposite: they have invested more. And sure DSM is involved in more industries. It is a multi-billion euro company. Not the kind of guys that hold out their hands for some money and go of chasing after a pipe dream.
This is just one of their many business. What about Shell, BP, Cheveron and the others. are they investing? Or defunding?Shell has started a factory in 2017 to turn waste into fuel so it seems they are also investing:
And the EV beat goes on (https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/01/what-changed-in-the-ev-industry-in-november/).Does that include or exclude plug-in hybrids? Those don't count as an EV.
I was surprised to see that EV sales reached 10% of all auto sales in California in August. And that was before the Tesla Model 3 ramp up!
And Holden motors in Australia is going change the world by supporting a university class to teach studnets how to write software for self driving cars.Australians still buy a steadily falling number of Holden cars, but none are made in Australia these days. The self driving car course seems to be a marketing stunt.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/ (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/)
Do Australians even buy Holden cars?
And Holden motors in Australia is going change the world by supporting a university class to teach studnets how to write software for self driving cars.Australians still buy a steadily falling number of Holden cars, but none are made in Australia these days. The self driving car course seems to be a marketing stunt.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/ (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/)
Do Australians even buy Holden cars?
They seem to be a bunch of GM cars made in various parts of Asia, badged up as Holdens.And Holden motors in Australia is going change the world by supporting a university class to teach studnets how to write software for self driving cars.Australians still buy a steadily falling number of Holden cars, but none are made in Australia these days. The self driving car course seems to be a marketing stunt.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/ (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/)
Do Australians even buy Holden cars?
Where are they made now?
You may opt may not like Elon or Tesla, but give credit where credit is due. Elon is changing, no HAS CHANGED our world. Talk about disruption....They can't. That is an average speed of 109km/h in a country where there is no speed limit. :palm: FFS! My wife & I cruise at 150km/h through Germany and at 130km/h through other countries. My wife and I would need less than 18 hours to cover the same distance @ 150km/h through Germany.
With Ford in talks with merging with Volks Wagon and GM closing manufacturing facilities and cutting jobs
Model 3 - World Record: 1643 miles in 24 hours (including recharge)
Yet we're led to believe electric cars can't cover long distances in a short amount of time -
They seem to be a bunch of GM cars made in various parts of Asia, badged up as Holdens.And Holden motors in Australia is going change the world by supporting a university class to teach studnets how to write software for self driving cars.Australians still buy a steadily falling number of Holden cars, but none are made in Australia these days. The self driving car course seems to be a marketing stunt.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/ (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/holden-supports-self-driving-car-university-course/)
Do Australians even buy Holden cars?
Where are they made now?
You may opt may not like Elon or Tesla, but give credit where credit is due. Elon is changing, no HAS CHANGED our world. Talk about disruption....They can't. That is an average speed of 109km/h in a country where there is no speed limit. :palm: FFS! My wife & I cruise at 150km/h through Germany and at 130km/h through other countries. My wife and I would need less than 18 hours to cover the same distance @ 150km/h through Germany.
With Ford in talks with merging with Volks Wagon and GM closing manufacturing facilities and cutting jobs
Model 3 - World Record: 1643 miles in 24 hours (including recharge)
Yet we're led to believe electric cars can't cover long distances in a short amount of time -
Sounds like what the Chinese do. They sell a product with the name of a well known defunct or bankrupt American company when really it’s a Chinese product. Polaroid, Westinghouse, Kodak are just a few that come to mind.Its not just the Chinese. Defunct names have been bought up in bulk by various growing economies, and often used in odd ways. For example Grundig never made kitchen appliances, but Grundig is now a name on fridges and washing machines made in Turkey. You also see names which are still being used for their original purpose by the original company, but licenced out for adjunct products. e.g. Kenwood is still a food mixer maker, now owned by DeLonghi, but they have licenced out the name Kenwood for the UK retailer Currys to put on the front of some Asian fridges.
Emphasis added. Either way your post about the 'world record' clearly underlines why EVs don't work well for long distances because the time needed for charging makes the effective speed go down a lot. There is also a world record for the fastest snail: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/70393-fastest-snail-racing (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/70393-fastest-snail-racing) An equally useful record.Guess I’m not understanding you. They claim to have done it, yet you say they can’t? Can you explain?You may opt may not like Elon or Tesla, but give credit where credit is due. Elon is changing, no HAS CHANGED our world. Talk about disruption....They can't. That is an average speed of 109km/h in a country where there is no speed limit. :palm: FFS! My wife & I cruise at 150km/h through Germany and at 130km/h through other countries. My wife and I would need less than 18 hours to cover the same distance @ 150km/h through Germany.
With Ford in talks with merging with Volks Wagon and GM closing manufacturing facilities and cutting jobs
Model 3 - World Record: 1643 miles in 24 hours (including recharge)
Yet we're led to believe electric cars can't cover long distances in a short amount of time -
In a real world scenario nobody is going to drive that much in a 24 hour period though. If you need to go that far it makes much more sense to take an airplane. Of course that's not very green, but perhaps once electric cars are mainstream the next step is to look into electric planes. The biggest challenge is always going to be electricity storage so it's something we need to figure out.A lot of people drive 7 to 10 hours a day for 2 or even 3 days when going on a holiday. Using an EV would add several hours to the travel time. The problem with an airplane is that you can't bring so much stuff like a tent, bicycles, clothes, etc.
Emphasis added. Either way your post about the 'world record' clearly underlines why EVs don't work well for long distances because the time needed for charging makes the effective speed go down a lot. There is also a world record for the fastest snail: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/70393-fastest-snail-racing (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/70393-fastest-snail-racing) An equally useful record.Guess I’m not understanding you. They claim to have done it, yet you say they can’t? Can you explain?You may opt may not like Elon or Tesla, but give credit where credit is due. Elon is changing, no HAS CHANGED our world. Talk about disruption....They can't. That is an average speed of 109km/h in a country where there is no speed limit. :palm: FFS! My wife & I cruise at 150km/h through Germany and at 130km/h through other countries. My wife and I would need less than 18 hours to cover the same distance @ 150km/h through Germany.
With Ford in talks with merging with Volks Wagon and GM closing manufacturing facilities and cutting jobs
Model 3 - World Record: 1643 miles in 24 hours (including recharge)
Yet we're led to believe electric cars can't cover long distances in a short amount of time -
Making up history again. EVs have already died off once and the way things are (not) going with suitable batteries EVs will likely die off again. And again due to the batteries. Maybe in another 50 years after really good batteries have been invented EVs stand a chance.
But the point is that the record you are referring to is a record for doing something in a really obfustigated way.
The last few posts make the the joke about statisticians being the expert you bring in when the figures can't lie for themselves quite clear. Folks on both sides of the argument have presented correct facts and math, with neither side telling the whole story or believing that the other side has a point.
Another example of how figures can be used in opposite directions comes from my own case. While I don't have exact statistics, I am confident that I well over 95% of my trips are of lengths that a wide variety of electric vehicles will support. On the other hand, since the few trips that don't fit that profile are literally 100s of times longer than the short trips a significant majority of my travel miles are on trips that an EV is challenged to support. How that plays into the overall decision depends on other specific use factors. For example the distance to the closest rental agency and parking fees in or around that rental agency.
Clearly electric vehicles can go long distances. Equally clearly, ICE vehicles can go further in the same time period for time periods over a few hours. Which one is adequate and which one is better depends on specifics of use cases and preferences.
In a real world scenario nobody is going to drive that much in a 24 hour period though. If you need to go that far it makes much more sense to take an airplane. Of course that's not very green, but perhaps once electric cars are mainstream the next step is to look into electric planes. The biggest challenge is always going to be electricity storage so it's something we need to figure out.A lot of people drive 7 to 10 hours a day for 2 or even 3 days when going on a holiday. Using an EV would add several hours to the travel time. The problem with an airplane is that you can't bring so much stuff like a tent, bicycles, clothes, etc.
Making up history again. EVs have already died off once and the way things are (not) going with suitable batteries EVs will likely die off again. And again due to the batteries. Maybe in another 50 years after really good batteries have been invented EVs stand a chance.
At some point that number will flatten off due to market saturation. In the end it comes down to the willingness of people to buy electric cars. A study made by the Dutch government (https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-stimuleren-van-elektrisch-rijden-1924.pdf (https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-stimuleren-van-elektrisch-rijden-1924.pdf) ) from 2016 shows that people a more willing to buy Hydrogen powered cars than EVs due to the long time it takes to charge an EV. Buying an ICE car is still the most likely scenario.
Don’t know of one car manufacture that’s producing hydrogen powered cars in any quantity.As far as I understand the hydrogen powered cars produced to date have been sold at a lot, and only made to meet compliance conditions. Until there are more cost effective nobody is going to make them in greater volumes than they need to. A few people, like Mercdes, say they have greatly reduced the use of expensive materials in prototype fuel cells. We will have to see how that works out in production. They still have things like the heavy and expensive fuel tank, and its associated plumbing, to work on.
Don’t know of one car manufacture that’s producing hydrogen powered cars in any quantity.As far as I understand the hydrogen powered cars produced to date have been sold at a lot, and only made to meet compliance conditions. Until there are more cost effective nobody is going to make them in greater volumes than they need to. A few people, like Mercdes, say they have greatly reduced the use of expensive materials in prototype fuel cells. We will have to see how that works out in production. They still have things like the heavy and expensive fuel tank, and its associated plumbing, to work on.
I would not say a lot of hydrogen fuel cell cars have been sold. But Japan is saying they will be Hydrogen powered by 2022. That's only 3 years..... We will see. Where I live there is only one fuleing station that's 20 miles away. But as we know with the technology we have hydrogen powered cars require more enegy to produces, compress, transoprt and store the fuel than would be used to power the car.Japan being Hydrogen powered by 2022 is just marketing BS. They just aim to have 10s of thousands of hydrogen powered cars, and a rather limited numbers of fueling stations. I haven't seen anything about them planning to use low carbon footprint approaches to producing the hydrogen, so it will probably be quite a high pollution scheme.
People don't care about that. Fuel for ICE cars and making batteries for an EV takes a lot of energy too. What counts is not going back to a horse you need to give water at every stop and let it rest for a long time after doing longer stretches.I would not say a lot of hydrogen fuel cell cars have been sold. But Japan is saying they will be Hydrogen powered by 2022. That's only 3 years..... We will see. Where I live there is only one fuleing station that's 20 miels away. But as we know with the technology we have hydrogen powered cars require more enegy to produces, compress, transoprt and store the fuel than would be used to power the car.Don’t know of one car manufacture that’s producing hydrogen powered cars in any quantity.As far as I understand the hydrogen powered cars produced to date have been sold at a lot, and only made to meet compliance conditions. Until there are more cost effective nobody is going to make them in greater volumes than they need to. A few people, like Mercdes, say they have greatly reduced the use of expensive materials in prototype fuel cells. We will have to see how that works out in production. They still have things like the heavy and expensive fuel tank, and its associated plumbing, to work on.
EVs are the future of personal and commercial ground transportation. Period. Full stop.
All of the large, legacy auto manufacturers are now admitting this and all have EVs for sale and/or in development.
No, they will not be an easy plug and play replacement for ICE vehicles with their large supportive infrastructure developed over the past 100 years with $trillions$ of government subsidies. But they will replace them nevertheless.
The process is already well underway evidenced by the sales numbers and development plans for new EVs and discontinuation of ICE vehicles by the large automakers. The only ones who don't seem to accept this are the uninformed or those whose political biases or cognitive dissoance prevent them from acknowledging it.
Their will never be anything to fully replace the amazing combination of energy density and easy transportability of oil derived liquid fuels. Hydrogen was an idea explored as a possibility but the last few decades have proven that the expense and difficulty of transporting and transferring it safely and efficiently along with other short comings mean that it will never become a primary means of fueling vehicles. The few legacy token research and prototype vehicles are all that remains of that pipe dream.
Biofuels are also a dead end for mass adoption which is clear to anyone who understands their energetics and fossil fuel dependence for mass production.
EVs are the best we can do and all we can hope for is that the political will materializes to allow a fast enough transition away from fossil fuel dependent electricity production so that future generations will have some availability of mechanized transportation as the oil age comes to a close.
I think there's are reason Volvo and Tesala are in the EV camp..... It is our future. If you dsagree start making cars and see if anyone will buy them.Volvo is Chinese nowadays so no surprise there. The only reason it makes sense to make EVs is because it is a niche market with growth. The ICE car market is extremely competitive so if you can't play along with the big boys you try to find a niche.
Hello to the EV troll community :popcorn:
The november figures are there, and as usual, they look excellent :-+
https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/ (https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/)
I'm talking year over year comparison for November (i.e. monthly) sales.I'm not sure monthly sales are a good comparison if you look at how the sales of some key models bounce around. For example, why did sales of the Volt double from October to November? Year over year probably averages too much in this rapidly rising market, but month by month looks really noisy.
November 2017: 17,178
November 2018: 39,274
Are you reading the same charts?Mind you that a significant amount (30% or more) of those sales figures include plug-in hybrids which usually have a tiny battery and thus no pure electric range to speak off. These shouldn't count as electric cars at all because in reality they aren't used that way.
2016 Sales (US) 158,614
2017 Sales (US) 199,818
2018 Sales (US) 308,003
I guess if you round up to the nearest integer it counts as doubling of sales between 2017 and 2018. Barely. The totals are impressive and a good trend, but let's be honest. Even if December sales are off the chart it will be less than double. A believer sees the world in their own way, just as non-believers do.
The trend is clear and unless something changes (major recession, a kink in the supply chain, sudden drop in oil prices) it is clear that sales will be into a double digit percentage of total sales in the next few years. Which would be one metric for the title of the thread- electric becoming mainstream.
One thing I found interesting was the percentage of worldwide sales in the US. That is the climate change denying, car bedazzled, some of the lowest gas prices in the world, relatively long driving distances US. Electrics are sold at about the same percentage of total sales here as in the rest of the world, even though many of the factors involved in their selection seem to work against US sales. What is going on in the rest of the world?
I'm talking year over year comparison for November (i.e. monthly) sales.
November 2017: 17,178
November 2018: 39,274
Mind you that a significant amount (30% or more) of those sales figures include plug-in hybrids which usually have a tiny battery and thus no pure electric range to speak off. These shouldn't count as electric cars at all because in reality they aren't used that way.The people I know with a PHEV got them because they do a lot of short journeys. They get a lot of their mileage from their mains charges.
That is only people you know. In the Netherlands all tax incentives on PHEVs got cancelled because the cars where running on fuel and not electricity.Mind you that a significant amount (30% or more) of those sales figures include plug-in hybrids which usually have a tiny battery and thus no pure electric range to speak off. These shouldn't count as electric cars at all because in reality they aren't used that way.The people I know with a PHEV got them because they do a lot of short journeys. They get a lot of their mileage from their mains charges.
Yeah, monthly data is too noisy. I mean gee, electric sales dropped by a quarter from October to November. Electric cars must be going the way of Bitcoin. :palm:
Mind you that a significant amount (30% or more) of those sales figures include plug-in hybrids which usually have a tiny battery and thus no pure electric range to speak off. These shouldn't count as electric cars at all because in reality they aren't used that way.
Well then explain why the Dutch government doesn't consider PHEVs as EVs? It seems to me a bunch of people capable of running a country disagree with you.Mind you that a significant amount (30% or more) of those sales figures include plug-in hybrids which usually have a tiny battery and thus no pure electric range to speak off. These shouldn't count as electric cars at all because in reality they aren't used that way.
Absolute bullshit. On several levels.
PHEVs are EVs. Most have ranges which allow >90% of driving to be all electric.
In the Netherlands all tax incentives on PHEVs got cancelled because the cars where running on fuel and not electricity.
Summary of this thread:
Question: Are EVs on track to become mainstream?
One side:
Factual data on rapid EV sales growth and adoption rates.
Factual data on expansion of EV models being sold by multiple manufacturers.
Factual data regarding automaker plans to continue to expand EV offerings.
Factual data regarding automaker investment in developing new EVs.
Factual data regarding driving habits and feasibility of widespread adoption.
Reality of necessary phase out of fossil fuel vehicles.
First hand reports from several EV owners.
The other side:
Opinions, speculation and misinformation.
::)
Of course first hand reports from EV owners is good data. First hand reports of ICE owners is opinion.
And the need to phase out fossil fuel vehicles is not a commandment to electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are one solution.Sure, but when it comes to personal transportation - all other alternatives explored to date (e.g. hydrogen, biofuels ) have fallen far short of the success of EVs. The market has spoken.
An arguably better solution is to go to high density housing and electric mass transit.Good options and viable adjunct modes of transportation. It's not either/or. Are you arguing that a complete loss of personal transporation is a solution? I have long held that in the end there will by necessity be far fewer personal vehicles on the road but not none. High density housing, walkable and bike-able communities along with electric mass transport all make good sense.
There are facts and data available. Why not apply them and stop sellingI'm not selling anything. Throughout this thread, I and others have presented referenced facts as well as personal experiences on EV use. The data speaks for itself. EV sales, the number of EV models available, and the number of upcoming releases from all the major auto manufacturers are all exploding upward. Those are just the facts. Presenting them and pointing out the obvious conclusion, that EVs are very quickly becoming mainstream is not selling anything - it's acknowledging reality.
Using the sales data from the recent post you can provide one answer to the question. The data fit an exponential growth pattern reasonably well. You can extrapolate that into the future and get an answer, depending on your definition of mainstream. In my mind the lowest penetration that would qualify is 10% while 50% penetration would be pretty undeniable. With exponential growth the difference between the answers is not really significant. 10% comes in 2027 and 50% comes in 2029.
The argument now becomes whether that growth rate can be maintained. The chart does make clear the scale of the change that will have to occur to make it true.
Of course first hand reports from EV owners is good data. First hand reports of ICE owners is opinion.
Nonsense. ICE vehicle owners reporting info about ICE vehicle ownership is data. ICE only owners speculating about EV ownership experience is speculation not data. And BTW I don't think there are any EV owners here (and very few anywhere) who have not also owned an ICE vehicle.
The revised graph is attached. Crossover points move to 2021 for 10% and 2023 for 50%
EV's are going to continue to gain popularity for quite some time, ICE vehicles are not going to vanish any time soon but larger and larger percentages of cars on the road are going to be EVs, the fact that they work for a great many people is just that, a fact.The study I linked to earlier clearly showed the majority of the people doesn't want to have an EV due to limitations in their current state of technology. That is a fact which shows EVs won't become mainstream in the next 5 to 20 years.
clearly showed the majority of the people doesn't want to have an EV due to limitations in their current state of technology.Well, your study is clearly BS, because it has been proven wrong since.
Tell that to the people running the Netherlands. Use Google translate because the study is well worth the read. Before doing any wild extrapolations you have to research where the market saturation point for EVs is at. The market saturation will be determined whether people are willing to buy EVs or not. For example: In 2017 Ford sold 896764 F series pick-up trucks in the US alone and by the looks of it they are going to sell a similar number of these vehicles in 2018. It would be interesting to find out how why the buyers of these cars didn't buy an EV.Quoteclearly showed the majority of the people doesn't want to have an EV due to limitations in their current state of technology.Well, your study is clearly BS, because it has been proven wrong since.
I would like to point out that every new ICE car sold very often means two ICE car sales, one new and one second hand. In the (new) car sales graphs we only see one of them.That is another good point. How many EVs get sold which don't replace an ICE car? In the USA the number of registered passenger cars grew by 5 million between 2015 and 2016.
There was a very interesting article I read that compared the take up of EVs to the take up of other hi tech devices (phones, home electricity, TVs, PCs smart phones and the like). It concluded that at some point there would be a dip in ICE car sales as people decide not to buy a new ICE car and wait for an EV. Then EV car sales pick up until they hit a tipping point at which point the EV sales really go. Full article is at https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond). It then goes on to extrapolate what would happen to the oil market at that point.
There was a very interesting article I read that compared the take up of EVs to the take up of other hi tech devices (phones, home electricity, TVs, PCs smart phones and the like). It concluded that at some point there would be a dip in ICE car sales as people decide not to buy a new ICE car and wait for an EV. Then EV car sales pick up until they hit a tipping point at which point the EV sales really go. Full article is at https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond). It then goes on to extrapolate what would happen to the oil market at that point.
There was a very interesting article I read that compared the take up of EVs to the take up of other hi tech devices (phones, home electricity, TVs, PCs smart phones and the like). It concluded that at some point there would be a dip in ICE car sales as people decide not to buy a new ICE car and wait for an EV. Then EV car sales pick up until they hit a tipping point at which point the EV sales really go. Full article is at https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond). It then goes on to extrapolate what would happen to the oil market at that point.That article is filled with 'I find', 'I expect', 'If', 'When' but no references to scientific fact based sources from which he got all these ideas. At the end it says 'I am not an analyst, these are my opinions'. So there you have. It is just pipe-dreaming wank and no factual information.
There was a very interesting article I read that compared the take up of EVs to the take up of other hi tech devices (phones, home electricity, TVs, PCs smart phones and the like). It concluded that at some point there would be a dip in ICE car sales as people decide not to buy a new ICE car and wait for an EV. Then EV car sales pick up until they hit a tipping point at which point the EV sales really go. Full article is at https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond). It then goes on to extrapolate what would happen to the oil market at that point.That article is filled with 'I find', 'I expect', 'If', 'When' but no references to scientific fact based sources from which he got all these ideas.
The difference is that a mobile phone was better than a POT, and everybody wants something that's better. The same with the iPhone/smarphones: everybody wanted that. But EVs aren't better, they're worse in every sense except the Nm/torque figure, and notably more expensive than the equivalent ICE: hardly an attractive proposition. If it weren't so, people would already be buying them in flocks.
The difference is that a mobile phone was better than a POT, and everybody wants something that's better. The same with the iPhone/smarphones: everybody wanted that. But EVs aren't better, they're worse in every sense except the Nm/torque figure, and notably more expensive than the equivalent ICE: hardly an attractive proposition. If it weren't so, people would already be buying them in flocks.
The difference is that a mobile phone was better than a POT, and everybody wants something that's better. The same with the iPhone/smarphones: everybody wanted that. But EVs aren't better, they're worse in every sense except the Nm/torque figure, and notably more expensive than the equivalent ICE: hardly an attractive proposition. If it weren't so, people would already be buying them in flocks.
Mobile phone sales plateau'd. it's just that people moved from old dumb phones to smart phones. Now that they have them, growth has slowed, but it doesn't remove the fact that 80-90% of all new phones are smartphones.
Let's visit your claim that EVs are worse in every sense (except torque)
The only advantages of an ICE are
- range
- speed of refuelling
As for EV advantages you've missed
- cheaper to operate (1/8th the price for fuel in my jurisdiction)
- lower emissions
- quieter - a much improved environment inside
- lower scheduled maintenance costs
- resulting in a lower total cost of ownership over a 100,000km period
Interesting you find fuel costs are 1/8th the cost. Where I am gas is $3.75/gallon. Electricity is $0.12 to $0.48 per kWhr. Time of Use raftes. Cost for a fill up of electrity here is either one quarter the cost or if at peak rate is the same as gasoline.
At present there are no gas taxes (i.e. for roads) on electricity. At some point that will have to change if the number of EVs increase. Your rates are close to mine except if you use a bunch of electricty it goes to 55cents/kW-hr. Also There are comercial charging stations here that chrage 70cents/kW-hr.
Interesting you find fuel costs are 1/8th the cost. Where I am gas is $3.75/gallon. Electricity is $0.12 to $0.48 per kWhr. Time of Use raftes. Cost for a fill up of electrity here is either one quarter the cost or if at peak rate is the same as gasoline.
At present there are no gas taxes (i.e. for roads) on electricity. At some point that will have to change if the number of EVs increase. Your rates are close to mine except if you use a bunch of electricty it goes to 55cents/kW-hr. Also There are comercial charging stations here that chrage 70cents/kW-hr.
Interesting you find fuel costs are 1/8th the cost. Where I am gas is $3.75/gallon. Electricity is $0.12 to $0.48 per kWhr. Time of Use raftes. Cost for a fill up of electrity here is either one quarter the cost or if at peak rate is the same as gasoline.
So charge at night.
Wonder how they would impose the road tax.
Wonder how they would impose the road tax.
That could make for an interesting future incentive! Deferred or no road tax.
In many European countries there is already some form of road tax. Whether you drive or not. The tariff depends on the weight and type of fuel.Wonder how they would impose the road tax.That could make for an interesting future incentive! Deferred or no road tax.
It’s incredible how inexpensive your electricity prices are. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens to our power company and our prices as our power company is responsible for that gas pipeline that exploded killing a dozen people not to long ago. And they are responsible for starting several of the wild fires in our state including the most deadly wildfire that’s still burning.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Hook-on-PGE-Tower-Eyed-as-Cause-of-Deadly-Camp-Fire-502035081.html (https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Hook-on-PGE-Tower-Eyed-as-Cause-of-Deadly-Camp-Fire-502035081.html)
All data can be misleading. I live in Oregon and my cost of electricity over the last two years has varied from 11.2 cents per kwH to 11.7 cents per kwH, not the 7-9 cents
I suspect that the state average shown on mtdoc's chart includes some large industrial customers who get a sweat heart rate, dragging the overall average down.
Not only that but it seems to me those rates don't include transport costs, taxes and subscription costs.
If you don't count the wear of the battery. If the battery costs US $8k to replace and lasts for 300k km then you'd have to add $ 2.7 cents per km (=$2.7 per 100km).
Those are the incomplete facts and thus useless. You should add more 'It's true. Really' to your statements.
BTW if the battery costs US $8k to replace and lasts for 300k km then you'd have to add $ 2.7 cents per km (=$2.7 per 100km) to the running costs.
Why do anti-EVers think that ICE engines somehow last forever, but batteries and electric motors don't.
As I said earlier, it's a religious debate, you can't win. You'd have as much luck walking into a church and trying to use facts and data to convince people there that your god is better than theirs, it won't work, their belief is not based on facts to begin with so it cannot be swayed with facts, no matter how compelling they are.
So we're back to the fact that it's a religious debate, people who *believe* EVs won't work are going to remain oblivious to the fact that they already do work and have been working for some time now. They will invent reasons an EV won't work for them and project those problems onto everyone else, pretending that the whole world has the same limitations they themselves have or pretend to have. Everything is an insurmountable problem to them, despite the fact that somehow other people have managed to come up with solutions.
You're right of course (and very well stated post overall). I for one have no illusion of changing the mind of the couple of ICE only zealots here but seeing as this forum, of all places, should be a place were factual data is presented
Those are the incomplete facts and thus useless. You should add more 'It's true. Really' to your statements.
BTW if the battery costs US $8k to replace and lasts for 300k km then you'd have to add $ 2.7 cents per km (=$2.7 per 100km) to the running costs.
Let me re-write your sentence, to show you how out of touch your statement is:
BTW if thebatteryICE and transmission costs US $8k to replace and lasts for 300k km then you'd have to add $ 2.7 cents per km (=$2.7 per 100km) to the running costs.
Why do anti-EVers think that ICE engines somehow last forever, but batteries and electric motors don't.
I agree, it is a religious argument. On both sides. And both sides are putting thumbs on the scale. Presenting data which doesn't reflect the warts. Pointing out that many, many people have purchased EVs and are quite happy with them is somewhat like pointing out that their are literally millions of people in this country that don't own a car, and are happy with the choice. It works for them. But it doesn't mean it is a solution for everyone.
Borrow a friends pickup. Yeah, you just need a friend on the other side of the argument so that he has one to borrow. Not a problem at the moment, but it will become one. Use the wife's car for range. Again, works for the moment, but what happens when she doesn't want to stop at gas stations any more and buys her own EV.
EVs are perfectly practical for most uses now. And they will grow dramatically in the market. Though the projection I posted earlier is unlikely to happen, there are a number of factors that are likely to add a couple of years (or maybe more) to the equation. And solutions for the edge cases will come along, but the ones suggested are temporary and local. The other thing that will happen is that as EV's take over the infrastructure the infrastructure to support ICE will wither away, making them impractical. Which will mean that folks will just have to give up those activities that don't work for EV's. It won't be the end of the world, but some things will be lost. That process is probably a decade or slightly more behind the EV takeover.
I agree, it is a religious argument. On both sides. And both sides are putting thumbs on the scale. Presenting data which doesn't reflect the warts.
Pointing out that many, many people have purchased EVs and are quite happy with them is somewhat like pointing out that their are literally millions of people in this country that don't own a car, and are happy with the choice. It works for them. But it doesn't mean it is a solution for everyone.Of course. I've seen no one here dispute that EVs are not the best solution for everyone. No one!. That's not the question.
Actually, electric motors do last nearly forever, batteries are another question altogether.Do you have information supporting that claim? Electric motors can have an extremely long life, but motors like that are quite big. Motors with a high power density often have quite poor lifetimes, due to bearing wear, thermal stress and other factors. The motors in electric cars are very compact for their power output. Its not obvious that they will have terrific lifetimes. I'm quite interested in what current designs are actually achieving.
In my experience, on ships with hundreds of electric motors of all types and sizes, the most unreliable are the 0,5 to 3KW brushed AC with no electronic “soft start”. They are considered disposable.Actually, electric motors do last nearly forever, batteries are another question altogether.Do you have information supporting that claim? Electric motors can have an extremely long life, but motors like that are quite big. Motors with a high power density often have quite poor lifetimes, due to bearing wear, thermal stress and other factors. The motors in electric cars are very compact for their power output. Its not obvious that they will have terrific lifetimes. I'm quite interested in what current designs are actually achieving.
You did a nice job in your recent post acknowledging the area where ICE vehicles have an advantage (range/speed of refueling). I have yet to see any of the anti-EV ers here acknowledge any of the several advantages EVs have.
Progress is slowly made :)However the car industry as a whole says that at most 25% of the new cars sold will be EVs in 2030 (*). Perhaps Volkswagen wants to move away from a competitive market OR they have to sell more EVs to compensate CO2 emissions from the high performance cars under their higher end brands like Porsche, Bugatti and Audi. In 2021 the average car sold by a manufacturer must emit less than 95grams of CO2 per km according to EU regulations. That is going to be a tough challenge because people are liking the bigger cars better nowadays.
VW, the biggest car maker worldwide, acknowledged the death of the ICE, and even predicts a timeline.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-04/vw-says-the-next-generation-of-combustion-cars-will-be-its-last (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-04/vw-says-the-next-generation-of-combustion-cars-will-be-its-last)
Now that's a hell of a shift.
A few months ago, Audi was still touting the natural gas ICE as THE future. Now it's gone.
Well the Leaf has sold large numbers and has been on the market for 8 years, I couldn't find any data regarding significant motor failures so at this point in time I'd say it's a non issue. I think it's reasonable to assume that like most ICE powered cars, the motor will last the life of the car. Induction and BLDC motors have essentially one moving part, the rotor and a pair of bearings. So long as the windings are sufficiently insulated I would expect them to far outlast the rest of the car in most cases.Don't forget the drive electronics in an EV. Sure an AC induction motor (with proper cooling) can run on 3 phase power until the bearings wear out but there is much more to an EV than just an AC induction motor. Also car parts are engineered for a certain lifetime so expect the manufacturers to design the motors to have a limit on their useful life as well to keep costs low and stay competitive. All in all comparing a motor from a commercial EV to an industrial motor is not a good indication of expected lifetime.
I would concur on the motor life issue. The main motors on container cranes which I worked on would usually outlast the crane. These motors would still be going strong while the crane would have rusted away and become structurally unsound. This would be with 20 or 30 years of regular use in a harsh environment. These were heavily engineered with power outputs about 500kW for hoist and gantry.
On the ships I have worked on, the electric motors are not in the crane.I would concur on the motor life issue. The main motors on container cranes which I worked on would usually outlast the crane. These motors would still be going strong while the crane would have rusted away and become structurally unsound. This would be with 20 or 30 years of regular use in a harsh environment. These were heavily engineered with power outputs about 500kW for hoist and gantry.
That's an area I know rather little about. What sort of motors do big cranes use and how are they controlled? I always liked big machinery like that.
On the ships I have worked on, the electric motors are not in the crane.I would concur on the motor life issue. The main motors on container cranes which I worked on would usually outlast the crane. These motors would still be going strong while the crane would have rusted away and become structurally unsound. This would be with 20 or 30 years of regular use in a harsh environment. These were heavily engineered with power outputs about 500kW for hoist and gantry.
That's an area I know rather little about. What sort of motors do big cranes use and how are they controlled? I always liked big machinery like that.
Under the crane pedestal, under deck, on the tank top, electric motors drive hydraulic accumulators that provide the motive force for the crane.
Well, I have not heard of many breakdown in this area, especially in hybrids like the Prius and Honda Civic hybrid, like we have in our family. There were some issues with the battery controls on the Honda, and they had a LOT of trouble with the 2011 and earlier batteries (NiMH). But, I have not heard of any failures of the motor drive electronics on either of those cars. (I researched this a lot before buying.)
Don't forget the drive electronics in an EV.
After Word War II America took "stole" two German cranes used in shipping. One was used in Long Beach, not sure about the other one.
Google "Herman the German" crane.
Well, I have not heard of many breakdown in this area, especially in hybrids like the Prius and Honda Civic hybrid, like we have in our family. There were some issues with the battery controls on the Honda, and they had a LOT of trouble with the 2011 and earlier batteries (NiMH). But, I have not heard of any failures of the motor drive electronics on either of those cars. (I researched this a lot before buying.)
You can check online for trouble reports for these various cars.
Jon
No it isn't. The current crop of EVs is not designed to be made for the lowest cost. Wait until the manufacturers start to cut corners because manufacturing volume will make it worth while to save a few cents. There are many cars out there with problems in the electronics due to poor design choices. Think about mounting a circuit board with through-hole components directly on a diesel engine. You'd say it is stupid but Opel/GM did it.Well, I have not heard of many breakdown in this area, especially in hybrids like the Prius and Honda Civic hybrid, like we have in our family. There were some issues with the battery controls on the Honda, and they had a LOT of trouble with the 2011 and earlier batteries (NiMH). But, I have not heard of any failures of the motor drive electronics on either of those cars. (I researched this a lot before buying.)Reliability of the electronics another made up non-issue.
You can check online for trouble reports for these various cars.
Jon
After Word War II America took "stole" two German cranes used in shipping. One was used in Long Beach, not sure about the other one.
Google "Herman the German" crane.
Amazingly it's still around, however Herman the German, is actually Finnish.
And Liebherr (the big crane people) are Swiss aren't they ?
After Word War II America took "stole" two German cranes used in shipping. One was used in Long Beach, not sure about the other one.
Google "Herman the German" crane.
Amazingly it's still around, however Herman the German, is actually Finnish.
And Liebherr (the big crane people) are Swiss aren't they ?
Are you sure about it being Finish? Found a source here saying it was built by a German company whih sill appears to be making carnes today.
http://www.tideworks.com/2017/11/15/herman-the-german/ (http://www.tideworks.com/2017/11/15/herman-the-german/)
Not so sure the Nazi’s would have ordered something of this size and cost from a non-German company at the time.
Think about mounting a circuit board with through-hole components directly on a diesel engine. You'd say it is stupid but Opel/GM did it.
No, I'm saying that cost cutting leads to premature failures due to design errors.Think about mounting a circuit board with through-hole components directly on a diesel engine. You'd say it is stupid but Opel/GM did it.So what you're saying is that an ICE car won't even last 300,000km ?
The bottom line is the EVs should be intrinsically more reliable. At least pure EV. Far fewer moving parts, less vibration, less waste heat.As I wrote before that is not true. For starters there are thousands of welds in the battery pack and most EVs have a more complicated cooling/heating system for the batteries & electronics compared to an ICE. There are just as many places where things can go wrong. You have to look at the entire system that makes a car move forward.
Have ever taken apart an ICE motor? There are thousands of places the slightest casting or machining defect could damage an engine after it ran trouble free for 100 000km.The bottom line is the EVs should be intrinsically more reliable. At least pure EV. Far fewer moving parts, less vibration, less waste heat.As I wrote before that is not true. For starters there are thousands of welds in the battery pack and most EVs have a more complicated cooling/heating system for the batteries & electronics compared to an ICE. There are just as many places where things can go wrong. You have to look at the entire system that makes a car move forward.
The bottom line is the EVs should be intrinsically more reliable. At least pure EV. Far fewer moving parts, less vibration, less waste heat.
As we have all experienced, enough cost cutting drive can make anything unreliable. How this plays out in the EV world is not predictable at the moment.
QuoteAs we have all experienced, enough cost cutting drive can make anything unreliable. How this plays out in the EV world is not predictable at the moment.
Yes. As EVs become more widely adopted, more models, including economy models built at the lowest possible cost will surely have their own unique reliability issues. The future is always uncertain but the track record of EV reliability to date is extremely good and there is no question that the routine maintenance costs are much lower than an ICE vehicle. As you say, from a purely engineering perspective, there is no reason not to think that EVs will in general be more reliable and require less maintenance than ICE vehicles.
The CFL story is a testimony to what can happen. CFLs were predicted to have excellent life. Many had good experiences with early CFLs. But as the costs were forced down and they flooded the market there were many that ended up with worse life than the incandescents they replaced. Some of that was from unexpected (at least by those predicting long life) gotchas. Who knew that people put light bulbs top down in unvented enclosures? Or that a retractable shop light gets dropped regularly and put in close proximity to exhaust manifolds and other hot objects.
I would be cautious about saying from a "purely engineering perspective" since that implies that cost is not an engineering function. It also implies that reliability is a purely quantitative and well understood function. Many, many engineers from those involved in CFL manufacturing on up those who did the space shuttle reliability predictions have found that the latter is not true. The only really solid reliability information comes from lots of real world experience with fleets of comparable products. The first generation of EVs are not representative and future results will both benefit from the learning experiences on the early ones, and suffer from the need to build in high volumes and low cost.
One obvious thing that will happen with EVs is that people will run out of charge. No reason to think people driving EVs will be smarter or more diligent than those driving ICEVs. Currently there is no simple fix like the tow service with a gas can. The most obvious solution, a tow vehicle with a high capacity generator may not work out economically (assuming half hour to hour charge time plus transit time it can only get used a few times a day.) Towing back to a charge point works from the tow companies economic standpoint, but will not fly well with the public, which wishes fixes for its stupidity to be painless, or nearly so. And there is no way to implement the poor mans solution, hoofing it with a gas can. It may be possible to call a friend and get some kind of a charge from his EV, though that requires something not built into current EVs AFAIK. And of course they may get lucky and roll to a halt within an extension cord of an outlet.
The CFL story is a testimony to what can happen. CFLs were predicted to have excellent life. Many had good experiences with early CFLs. But as the costs were forced down and they flooded the market there were many that ended up with worse life than the incandescents they replaced. Some of that was from unexpected (at least by those predicting long life) gotchas. Who knew that people put light bulbs top down in unvented enclosures? Or that a retractable shop light gets dropped regularly and put in close proximity to exhaust manifolds and other hot objects.
I would be cautious about saying from a "purely engineering perspective" since that implies that cost is not an engineering function. It also implies that reliability is a purely quantitative and well understood function. Many, many engineers from those involved in CFL manufacturing on up those who did the space shuttle reliability predictions have found that the latter is not true. The only really solid reliability information comes from lots of real world experience with fleets of comparable products. The first generation of EVs are not representative and future results will both benefit from the learning experiences on the early ones, and suffer from the need to build in high volumes and low cost.
One obvious thing that will happen with EVs is that people will run out of charge. No reason to think people driving EVs will be smarter or more diligent than those driving ICEVs. Currently there is no simple fix like the tow service with a gas can. The most obvious solution, a tow vehicle with a high capacity generator may not work out economically (assuming half hour to hour charge time plus transit time it can only get used a few times a day.) Towing back to a charge point works from the tow companies economic standpoint, but will not fly well with the public, which wishes fixes for its stupidity to be painless, or nearly so. And there is no way to implement the poor mans solution, hoofing it with a gas can. It may be possible to call a friend and get some kind of a charge from his EV, though that requires something not built into current EVs AFAIK. And of course they may get lucky and roll to a halt within an extension cord of an outlet.
The race to the bottom is a problem with ALL goods, not just CFLs or cars. People tend to be short sighted and/or uninformed and shop almost purely by price and cosmetic style, so the best selling goods are usually the absolute cheapest. For various reasons that seems to be less true with cars, after 100+ years of development and orders of magnitude greater complexity, modern cars are more reliable and longer lived than ever.
Yes, running out of charge is going to happen to some people just as they now run out of gas, and the can of gas solution won't work here, but simply towing the whole car is not really that big of a deal. Cars break down all the time and have to be towed, that infrastructure is already in place and widely used, and given the cost savings vs gasoline and the time savings vs having to stop and fill up every couple weeks or so even if one is a forgetful clod and runs out of juice now and then the total hassle and cost spread out over time is likely to be less. Have the car towed either home or to the nearest charging station and get an Uber/Lyft/whatever ride to your destination just as you'd do if you have a breakdown that can't be easily fixed on the side of the road.
It's not that hard to avoid running out of power though, none of the EV owners I know have ever run out. You just have to get past the gasoline mentality of running the car until empty and then filling up. You plug in each night and the car is full every morning, it's fantastic, it's the one thing every EV owner I've met raves about the most. Planning around range is easy because you start out full every day and people who buy EVs are people who commute well within the range of the vehicle they buy.
Yes, running out of charge is going to happen to some people just as they now run out of gas, and the can of gas solution won't work here, but simply towing the whole car is not really that big of a deal.Until you get the bill. A few liters / gallon of gas costs you a few dollars / euros. Towing a car can get 10 times more expensive and take way more time. Although with some EVs you get a free tow service in case you run out of charge.
Yes, running out of charge is going to happen to some people just as they now run out of gas, and the can of gas solution won't work here, but simply towing the whole car is not really that big of a deal.Until you get the bill. A few liters / gallon of gas costs you a few dollars / euros. Towing a car can get 10 times more expensive and take way more time. Although with some EVs you get a free tow service in case you run out of charge.
I doubt that EV owners rave about the plugging in process. About not going to the gas station, sure. About being full everyday, sure. That plugging in is a minor inconvenience, sure. But, saying WOW, maybe I'll go out and run around the block just so I can plug in again seems really unlikely to me.
Until you get the bill. A few liters / gallon of gas costs you a few dollars / euros. Towing a car can get 10 times more expensive and take way more time. Although with some EVs you get a free tow service in case you run out of charge.
Have ever taken apart an ICE motor? There are thousands of places the slightest casting or machining defect could damage an engine after it ran trouble free for 100 000km.
...like we plug in our mobile phones each night...
None of the EV owners I've known have ever run out of juice, they start out every day with a full charge, their commute is well within the range of the car, why would they ever run out?You are (falsely) assuming that all people can actually plug an EV in at home for charging. So your whole argument goes straight out of the window. Also being able to plug in at home doesn't solve the long waiting time at a charge station when you want to make a long trip. You can't ignore the fact that there might not even be a (working) charging station where you are going but it is more likely you'll find a gas station. Most EV owners in this thread seem to shrink their world to places where there are chargers. What happened to cars bringing freedom to go wherever - whenever you want? When my wife and I go on a trip we fill the car up in the morning (takes 5 minutes and there is always a gas station along the road) and we drive all day without any care about range / running out of fuel.
I doubt that EV owners rave about the plugging in process. About not going to the gas station, sure. About being full everyday, sure. That plugging in is a minor inconvenience, sure. But, saying WOW, maybe I'll go out and run around the block just so I can plug in again seems really unlikely to me.
You are missing the point. They rave about being able to just plug in each night and have a "full tank" every morning and thus never having to go to a gas station. Nobody drives around just so they can plug in, that's ridiculous, the process of plugging in the car isn't exciting in itself, it's just awesome being able to plug in the car like we plug in our mobile phones each night vs the alternative of watching the gas gauge and driving to a filling station. You don't have to take my word for it though, I can put you in touch with several EV owners if you'd like to ask them what they like best, most of the guys I know are car enthusiasts and more than willing to chat about their vehicles.
I pay about $20 a year extra on my auto insurance for free roadside assistance and towing. I've never needed to use it to be towed. I have used when I've run out of gas...
It might help if you read what I said. Three of the five sentences there were to emphasize what your point was. But it wasn't what you said. You said they rave about being able to plug in every night. This is in a comment about separating fact from opinion.
But they do rave about being able to plug it in at night, because it's a convenient alternative to going to a gas station and stopping to fill up as they had to do previously. Do I really need to explicitly explain that it is not the actual act of plugging it in that they enjoy doing but the fact that they effortlessly have a fully fueled car each day?Exactly. I did not buy an EV for that reason. In fact, It never occurred to me before owning one. But it turns out that is my favorite part of EV ownership. Someone dismissing that feature who does not drive an EV daily is talking out of their arse.
..........If I could easily convert my car so I could just plug it in after pulling into my garage and let it charge (or fill the gas tank) while I sleep I would jump on that in a heartbeat, it would be a fantastic convenience, I hate having to drive out of my way to go to a gas station when I'd rather just get home
That won't work for everybody, so what? Nobody here has ever claimed that it will. The people it won't work with should stick with ICE powered cars, liquid fuel is a superior option for people who can't plug in and charge at home, but why do people pretend there aren't tens of millions of people who can? I'm not sure what causes the "it won't work for me therefor it won't work for anyone" attitude, mental illness? It's quite frankly bizarre.. Yep. Is it fear of change? Missing out? Tribalism? It reminds me of the “DSOs are crap” crowd years ago. Personally, I love ICEs . If only oil was a limitless, low pollution resourse.....
I see EV's driving around every day, I know people who had had them for years now, several of my neighbors have them charging in their garages and driveways right now. To the point of this thread, they *already are* mainstream, hundreds of thousands of them are on the road, it's a bit silly to argue otherwise.Yes they are. That question has been answered in the year since this thread began. Now there’s just a few vocal ICE only holdouts who want to make it about EVs not being a perfect drop in ICE replacement for everyone - with no disadvantages, ever. The problem is, no one here has ever claimed that.
I'd say keeping a car plugged in always is a nuisance because it is something I'd typically forget. So I either find myself with an empty car or driving away with it still plugged in (been there, done that) OR if the car has a warning system I'd have to get out again and unplug it. With an ICE I fill it up once in a while and be done with it. The car is ready to go when I want to leave and I can dump it wherever there is a spot when I get back. The car is there for me and not vice versa. I'm not sure I always lock it but that is something it seems to do by itself after a while.It might help if you read what I said. Three of the five sentences there were to emphasize what your point was. But it wasn't what you said. You said they rave about being able to plug in every night. This is in a comment about separating fact from opinion.But they do rave about being able to plug it in at night, because it's a convenient alternative to going to a gas station and stopping to fill up as they had to do previously. Do I really need to explicitly explain that it is not the actual act of plugging it in that they enjoy doing but the fact that they effortlessly have a fully fueled car each day?
Maybe I have to make really simple. Always leaving the house with a full tank is what people are raving about.But why is that necessary at all...? IMHO lack of range! If you do the math it is likely that an EV owner spends more time plugging/unplugging and searching for a parking spot with a charger than it would take to fill up an ICE based car every once in a while. A typical ICE has enough fuel left to travel 80km in any condition when the 'now I need a drink' light goes on. In cold winter conditions the range of some EVs drops to less than 150km (unless the driver likes to freeze to death). Range anxiety still is a real thing. OTOH I'm not going to fill up my car to the brim if there is enough fuel in the tank to cover the distance. And if there isn't enough I'll just stop somewhere for a quick refill. The whole 'plugging in everywhere is better than filling up once in a while' idea is utterly moronic if you really think about it.
Maybe I have to make really simple. Always leaving the house with a full tank is what people are raving about.But why is that necessary at all...? IMHO lack of range! If you do the math it is likely that an EV owner spends more time plugging/unplugging and searching for a parking spot with a charger than it would take to fill up an ICE based car every once in a while. A typical ICE has enough fuel left to travel 80km in any condition when the 'now I need a drink' light goes on. In cold winter conditions the range of some EVs drops to less than 150km (unless the driver likes to freeze to death). Range anxiety still is a real thing. OTOH I'm not going to fill up my car to the brim if there is enough fuel in the tank to cover the distance. And if there isn't enough I'll just stop somewhere for a quick refill. The whole 'plugging in everywhere is better than filling up once in a while' idea is utterly moronic if you really think about it.
Maybe I have to make really simple. Always leaving the house with a full tank is what people are raving about.But why is that necessary at all...? IMHO lack of range! If you do the math it is likely that an EV owner spends more time plugging/unplugging and searching for a parking spot with a charger than it would take to fill up an ICE based car every once in a while. A typical ICE has enough fuel left to travel 80km in any condition when the 'now I need a drink' light goes on. In cold winter conditions the range of some EVs drops to less than 150km (unless the driver likes to freeze to death). Range anxiety still is a real thing. OTOH I'm not going to fill up my car to the brim if there is enough fuel in the tank to cover the distance. And if there isn't enough I'll just stop somewhere for a quick refill. The whole 'plugging in everywhere is better than filling up once in a while' idea is utterly moronic if you really think about it.
Which BEVs are you talking about? AFAIK none of the commercially available -let alone affordable- EVs have >700km range. And things get much worse when taking battery wear and cold/hot wheather into account.Most BEVs now have range close or equal to ICE vehicles - so "filling up" daily is not necessary.Maybe I have to make really simple. Always leaving the house with a full tank is what people are raving about.But why is that necessary at all...? IMHO lack of range! If you do the math it is likely that an EV owner spends more time plugging/unplugging and searching for a parking spot with a charger than it would take to fill up an ICE based car every once in a while. A typical ICE has enough fuel left to travel 80km in any condition when the 'now I need a drink' light goes on. In cold winter conditions the range of some EVs drops to less than 150km (unless the driver likes to freeze to death). Range anxiety still is a real thing. OTOH I'm not going to fill up my car to the brim if there is enough fuel in the tank to cover the distance. And if there isn't enough I'll just stop somewhere for a quick refill. The whole 'plugging in everywhere is better than filling up once in a while' idea is utterly moronic if you really think about it.
For the smell they have free gloves over here. But let's run some numbers here. Say you have a 60km (back & forth) daily commute and you plug in at work as well. Say that plugging / unplugging takes 15 seconds each time so 60 seconds (=1 minute) a day. A reasonably ICE has a range ot about 700km. That means you can drive 11 days straight with one fuel stop. Over here (in Europe I mean) they have many gas station with pumps where you can pay directly so no need to wait before paying. Refuelling at such a gas station takes 5 minutes at most. So in those 11 days you'll spend 11 minutes on the EV versus 5 minutes with the ICE. If fueling time is so important then who is the crazy person here?
Many of us, in the early days, approached DSOs with great enthusiasm, only to be disappointed by their lack of utility in many (then) mainstream activities.
Again - your constant nonsense is just like all the ranting a few years ago about all the short comings of DSOs by people who had never actually used one. In the end it turns out there are only a few niche areas where analog scopes have an advantage over DSOs.
EVs are now mainstream. As time goes on the edge cases where an ICE vehicle is the better solution will become a smaller and small subset of all vehicle use.
Maybe I have to make really simple. Always leaving the house with a full tank is what people are raving about. Not having to make an extra stop away from home is what the benefit is. Having to plug it in at night isn't what makes it great, it is the small price you pay for those other desirable things.
This is the kind of crap that happens when people are so invested in winning that they are no longer really paying attention to the other half. I'll own up to my half of this, I shouldn't be writing this post. Do you see yours?
Most BEVs now have range close or equal to ICE vehicles - so "filling up" daily is not necessary. But why not fill up daily when it is cheap and painless?. Why do I plug my phone in every night even though in reality a charge can last several days?My 2009 Honda Civic hybrid has a 500 mile range, even with its small gas tank.
Most BEVs now have range close or equal to ICE vehicles - so "filling up" daily is not necessary. But why not fill up daily when it is cheap and painless?. Why do I plug my phone in every night even though in reality a charge can last several days?My 2009 Honda Civic hybrid has a 500 mile range, even with its small gas tank.
Jon
Well, at least when I bought it, it was the MOST efficient hybrid available. I have always been an efficient driver, and got significantly more mileage than other people.My 2009 Honda Civic hybrid has a 500 mile range, even with its small gas tank.How is it you get so much more than the other hybrid cars?
I'm surprised no one yet has rigged up a raspberry Pi with openCV and some servos to see your EV pull in the garage and plug it in automatically.
It’s been proposed but no need for a Pi and circuitry it’t Tesla’s wireless charging. Same technology that sort of works for your phone and cordless tooth brush, has been proposed for cars.
But why? Takes more time to find the key for my house in my pocket and unlock my front door than it takes to plug-in the cable to charge my car. And it sure beats haveing to find a gas station an waste tine wining for the car to be filled with gas. I will say that is a huge plus with an EV,
It’s been proposed but no need for a Pi and circuitry it’t Tesla’s wireless charging. Same technology that sort of works for your phone and cordless tooth brush, has been proposed for cars.
But why? Takes more time to find the key for my house in my pocket and unlock my front door than it takes to plug-in the cable to charge my car. And it sure beats haveing to find a gas station an waste tine wining for the car to be filled with gas. I will say that is a huge plus with an EV,
Because people forget or have their hands full of groceries or use that as an excuse as to why EV's won't work.
And, BTW I don't brush my cordless tooth, I use a cordless toothbrush, spaces matter in compound words :)
It’s been proposed but no need for a Pi and circuitry it’t Tesla’s wireless charging. Same technology that sort of works for your phone and cordless tooth brush, has been proposed for cars.
But why? Takes more time to find the key for my house in my pocket and unlock my front door than it takes to plug-in the cable to charge my car. And it sure beats haveing to find a gas station an waste tine wining for the car to be filled with gas. I will say that is a huge plus with an EV,
Because people forget or have their hands full of groceries or use that as an excuse as to why EV's won't work.
And, BTW I don't brush my cordless tooth, I use a cordless toothbrush, spaces matter in compound words :)
Safari doesn't know from compound words. ;D
It’s been proposed but no need for a Pi and circuitry it’t Tesla’s wireless charging. Same technology that sort of works for your phone and cordless tooth brush, has been proposed for cars.
But why? Takes more time to find the key for my house in my pocket and unlock my front door than it takes to plug-in the cable to charge my car. And it sure beats haveing to find a gas station an waste tine wining for the car to be filled with gas. I will say that is a huge plus with an EV,
Because people forget or have their hands full of groceries or use that as an excuse as to why EV's won't work.
And, BTW I don't brush my cordless tooth, I use a cordless toothbrush, spaces matter in compound words :)
Safari doesn't know from compound words. ;D
Exactly I’vre Also found Safari autocorrects prosecution to prostitution somtoimes. But then again maybe the folks at Apple think the two words have the same meaning.
I haven't really found laptops to be all that fragile. I've never actually had one break, I've only replaced them because of technological obsolescence. My partner is still using the Lenovo I bought in 2011.
I have an old iPad somebody gave me and the only thing I've ever really found it useful for is viewing PDF manuals. Typing on a touchscreen is hopeless.
I think my partner's Prius will go at least 400 miles, 500 may be possible. To be honest I've never tried to see how far it will go, we typically top up the tank when it is convenient to do so rather than waiting until it's almost dry and needing to fill up. This habit may be why in nearly 25 years of driving I've never run a car out of gas.Some years ago, the hypermiling nut-jobs were going for a 1000 mile tank on a Prius. I remember they got REAL close, at least 970 miles. There's a guy who
I think my partner's Prius will go at least 400 miles, 500 may be possible. To be honest I've never tried to see how far it will go, we typically top up the tank when it is convenient to do so rather than waiting until it's almost dry and needing to fill up. This habit may be why in nearly 25 years of driving I've never run a car out of gas.Some years ago, the hypermiling nut-jobs were going for a 1000 mile tank on a Prius. I remember they got REAL close, at least 970 miles. There's a guy who
flew in for a competition and did 180 MPG in somebody else's random Prius. From what people described, doing this day in and day out would be likely to get you arrested (or killed).
A while ago, somebody was selling their original Honda Insight hybrid, and they showed the dashboard display, where they'd gotten a lifetime of 87 MPG over something like 85 -95K miles running total. I was REALLY impressed.
Jon
You are looking at just a couple of data points. There are web sites where people compete to get the most MPGs they can. In my ICE I can get well over 100 MPG when the force is with me. Gravity threat is. And just because someone flew around the world in a ballon and in a solar powered airplane doen’t mean it’s for everyone.
Well, if you drive up Pike's Peak and then reset your mileage meter, you can get infinity MPG pretty easily on the way down. Your average up AND down won't be that good!You are looking at just a couple of data points. There are web sites where people compete to get the most MPGs they can. In my ICE I can get well over 100 MPG when the force is with me. Gravity threat is. And just because someone flew around the world in a ballon and in a solar powered airplane doen’t mean it’s for everyone.
What are you driving that you're getting 100MPG? I think I got 56 once in the Prius driving very carefully, but not so crazy as to hold up traffic.
In my own car I'm doing well to get 25MPG but I don't care, I love the car and I don't drive that much anyway. I work from home 3 days a week and when I do commute to the office I take the bus.
If we all drove EV’s tomorrow, can the grid provide? Here’s the answer we all want to know.
If we all drove EV’s tomorrow, can the grid provide? Here’s the answer we all want to know.
Why do we all want to know that? We're not all going to be driving EV's tomorrow, or next year, or 20 years from now. This is not an all or nothing thing, not everybody will be well served by EVs so they will exist in conjunction with vehicles powered by other fuel sources. Silly people seem to think it has to be 100% one thing or another. If 100% of cars were electric we'd be in the same mess as having 100% of cars ICE powered, all our eggs in one basket, too much dependance a single limited resource.
Either way the grid updates will be needed and paid for by someone if there are more EVs than the grid can handle. That moment will occur long before EV penetration is 100%.If we all drove EV’s tomorrow, can the grid provide? Here’s the answer we all want to know.Why do we all want to know that? We're not all going to be driving EV's tomorrow, or next year, or 20 years from now. This is not an all or nothing thing, not everybody will be well served by EVs so they will exist in conjunction with vehicles powered by other fuel sources.
Silly people seem to think it has to be 100% one thing or another. If 100% of cars were electric we'd be in the same mess as having 100% of cars ICE powered, all our eggs in one basket, too much dependance a single limited resource.Well that is what the governments in Europe try to sell to the public. We should all drive EVs! That would magically make the whole CO2 problem go away. I wonder how because over here cars account for 12% of the CO2 emissions.
Either way the grid updates will be needed and paid for by someone if there are more EVs than the grid can handle. That moment will occur long before EV penetration is 100%.If we all drove EV’s tomorrow, can the grid provide? Here’s the answer we all want to know.Why do we all want to know that? We're not all going to be driving EV's tomorrow, or next year, or 20 years from now. This is not an all or nothing thing, not everybody will be well served by EVs so they will exist in conjunction with vehicles powered by other fuel sources.
Basically the whole 'at home charging' idea is flawed from the start. The grid hasn't been designed to deal with that many large loads.
Recently Porsche & BMW have demonstrated a 450kW fast charger station which is a much better solution IMHO. The more people you can share a piece of infrastructure with, the cheaper it gets. https://newatlas.com/porsche-450-kw-fastcharge-prototype/57659/ (https://newatlas.com/porsche-450-kw-fastcharge-prototype/57659/) The charge time is still too long though. Putting 400km of range in a typical EV (250Wh/km) still takes 15 minutes. Things will get interesting when chargers get a power output of around 1.5MW . In that case battery capacity will be much less of an issue.QuoteSilly people seem to think it has to be 100% one thing or another. If 100% of cars were electric we'd be in the same mess as having 100% of cars ICE powered, all our eggs in one basket, too much dependance a single limited resource.Well that is what the governments in Europe try to sell to the public. We should all drive EVs! That would magically make the whole CO2 problem go away. I wonder how because over here cars account for 12% of the CO2 emissions.
But don't expect to be allowed to charge a hybrid anywhere else than at home in the near future: https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/105449/ban-plug-in-hybrids-from-ev-charging-bays-say-experts (https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/105449/ban-plug-in-hybrids-from-ev-charging-bays-say-experts)Well, that seems reasonable. Easy to implement, also: just refuse to charge at slower rates. What's the point of a fast charge station, if you are charging slowly?
In the Netherlands PHEVs sales are dead anyway. Nobody buys them. In the end a hybrid is the worst of both worlds due to the extra weight and extra complexity.In some aspects, yes, but you could still get to drive in 0 emissions mode in the city and have a long range on the same car, and neither an ICE vehicle nor a pure EV will allow that right now. But of course, they're more expensive, so that doesn't help. At some point the government must be involved, with tax reductions, or some incentives like that, as it's clearly desirable to have 0 emission vehicles on the cities.
But the problem with that is that you can't make new technology cheaper for the masses. Incentives can only help to bring technology to pre-mass production. Otherwise the people with less money are paying taxes to allow the happy few to buy more expensive products. If EVs need to catch on then they need to be intrinsically cheaper to buy, own & run compared to ICE vehicles. Increasing taxes on fuel or ICE cars isn't the solution to make that happen because increasing those taxes will just increase inflation and have no effect (*). The Dutch government has been trying increasing taxes for several decades and it doesn't work to get people out of their cars. That is only logical because for many a car is the best (fastest) form of transportation despite traffic jams. Oddly enough public transport often doesn't get to places where many people work.In the Netherlands PHEVs sales are dead anyway. Nobody buys them. In the end a hybrid is the worst of both worlds due to the extra weight and extra complexity.In some aspects, yes, but you could still get to drive in 0 emissions mode in the city and have a long range on the same car, and neither an ICE vehicle nor a pure EV will allow that right now. But of course, they're more expensive, so that doesn't help. At some point the government must be involved, with tax reductions, or some incentives like that, as it's clearly desirable to have 0 emission vehicles on the cities.
Putting motors in the wheels is a really bad idea. The wheels and the parts attached to them should be as light as possible for optimal performance of the suspension system.
Seems like if Europeans, especially the Germans, would drink less beer, and eat less bread it would greatly cut down on CO2 levels. I suspect just having Germans stop drinking beer would reduce CO2 levels more so then having everyone drive EVs. I think I need funding for a research project. I'd like to know how much CO2 is released in Munich durning Octoberfest.
Seems like if Europeans, especially the Germans, would drink less beer, and eat less bread it would greatly cut down on CO2 levels. I suspect just having Germans stop drinking beer would reduce CO2 levels more so then having everyone drive EVs. I think I need funding for a research project. I'd like to know how much CO2 is released in Munich durning Octoberfest.
It's been proven that the bulk of the greengas comes from cows. They fart and burp too much methane.
Solution : eat more cows !
We need electric cows.
Seems like if Europeans, especially the Germans, would drink less beer, and eat less bread it would greatly cut down on CO2 levels. I suspect just having Germans stop drinking beer would reduce CO2 levels more so then having everyone drive EVs. I think I need funding for a research project. I'd like to know how much CO2 is released in Munich durning Octoberfest.
It's been proven that the bulk of the greengas comes from cows. They fart and burp too much methane.
Solution : eat more cows !
In the 1980s there was guy in my neighborhood who converted a station wagon into an EV. I remember under the hood where the should have been were lead acid batteries. About all I remember. I'm sure he's past and the car has been crushed. I wonder what he would have used for a motor back then.
Retrofit is not the way to try out an EV, there's no way you could retrofit a car for any less than you can buy a ready to roll used EV for and retrofitting a car is a BIG job. It's not like you could do that with your daily driver, even for an experienced engineer or mechanic it would probably take several months and a lot of work to do the conversion during which time the car would be off the road. I've done several engine and transmission swaps and other major repairs and it always takes longer than it seems like it will and there's almost always some part you find you have to order after you've got it apart. It made sense to retrofit when you had the means and couldn't just buy a factory EV, or if you like car projects and want something unique but it's not gonna be a poor man's EV.
My dad and another friend of mine both bought Nissan Leafs that had come off lease, both were less than $10k and were practically like new. I bet a kit to do a decent conversion would cost at least that much, and you'd end up with something that doesn't work as well.
Range? Charge time? Who is doing the maintenance? Safety? Judging from TV shows on car modification, in the US safety seems to be one of the last concerns... Nice toy projects but not suitable as a real car.Retrofit is not the way to try out an EV, there's no way you could retrofit a car for any less than you can buy a ready to roll used EV for and retrofitting a car is a BIG job. It's not like you could do that with your daily driver, even for an experienced engineer or mechanic it would probably take several months and a lot of work to do the conversion during which time the car would be off the road. I've done several engine and transmission swaps and other major repairs and it always takes longer than it seems like it will and there's almost always some part you find you have to order after you've got it apart. It made sense to retrofit when you had the means and couldn't just buy a factory EV, or if you like car projects and want something unique but it's not gonna be a poor man's EV.Did you watch any of the video on conversion? For the wheel EV conversions they are saying it can be done in an afternoon. And for endive replacement for 100% EV cost is under $10,000 and you wind up with the car you want instead of something like a Leaf. Look at the cars they have converted. Original VW Bugs, VW Things, Porche, Camero, Karmin Ghea, as well as old classic American cars from the 1950s.
My dad and another friend of mine both bought Nissan Leafs that had come off lease, both were less than $10k and were practically like new. I bet a kit to do a decent conversion would cost at least that much, and you'd end up with something that doesn't work as well.
Range? Charge time? Who is doing the maintenance? Safety? Judging from TV shows on car modification, in the US safety seems to be one of the last concerns... Nice toy projects but not suitable as a real car.Retrofit is not the way to try out an EV, there's no way you could retrofit a car for any less than you can buy a ready to roll used EV for and retrofitting a car is a BIG job. It's not like you could do that with your daily driver, even for an experienced engineer or mechanic it would probably take several months and a lot of work to do the conversion during which time the car would be off the road. I've done several engine and transmission swaps and other major repairs and it always takes longer than it seems like it will and there's almost always some part you find you have to order after you've got it apart. It made sense to retrofit when you had the means and couldn't just buy a factory EV, or if you like car projects and want something unique but it's not gonna be a poor man's EV.Did you watch any of the video on conversion? For the wheel EV conversions they are saying it can be done in an afternoon. And for endive replacement for 100% EV cost is under $10,000 and you wind up with the car you want instead of something like a Leaf. Look at the cars they have converted. Original VW Bugs, VW Things, Porche, Camero, Karmin Ghea, as well as old classic American cars from the 1950s.
My dad and another friend of mine both bought Nissan Leafs that had come off lease, both were less than $10k and were practically like new. I bet a kit to do a decent conversion would cost at least that much, and you'd end up with something that doesn't work as well.
I have to ask would you not buy one? Lease or finance the thing and you pay what something like $125 per moth for a new car? With technology in EV cars changing faster than cell phones or computers who would want to keep a car longer than the life of EV batteries.
You are missing the point. These kits have a very limited market. You won't be able to take it to a regular garage or dealer for maintenance. Also in many countries changing the engine / power means having the car re-certified (for good reasons!). Even in the US the insurance rate may go up significantly if you modify your car: https://www.dmv.org/insurance/modified-car-insurance-coverage.php (https://www.dmv.org/insurance/modified-car-insurance-coverage.php)Range? Charge time? Who is doing the maintenance? Safety? Judging from TV shows on car modification, in the US safety seems to be one of the last concerns... Nice toy projects but not suitable as a real car.Did you watch the videos? Range is determined by the customer and space for battery packs. As for safety it depends on the make model of the car and safety features. Yes these are projects but the point is people are doing it. Ten years ago these conversions did not exist. Imagine driving around in a 1965 Ford Mustang or a 1991 Porche that’s an EV.
These conversion kits and conversion to EV companies are just another indication EVs are becoming mainstream. They are showing any car can be an EV, no matter how old or classic.
I did watch the video. The wheel conversion kit looks like a neat performance enhancement, and possibly a useful way to convert to all electric.
But the guy in the video is a salesman, and stretched the truth in several places, as have some of those touting these conversions.
In the video, the cost of a 2 wheel conversion is given as just under $10,000. And estimated that a rebuilt Prius battery would cost $2000-$3000. So even without costs for the little odds and ends of nuts and bolts required to tie cables down and bolt pieces to the structure this isn't an under $10,000 dollar conversion. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but once you have stretched the truth once, everything else you say is suspect.
Installing in an hour seems like a miracle to me. That sounds like plenty for removing the old wheels and hubs and installing the new hubs, but getting the holes cut for wiring, bolting in the control boxes, connecting to the CAN bus and bolting in the battery just sounds like more than what is left of the hour, even for someone who has done several of these installations. Someone doing it on their own for the first time will be much longer. On the other hand, finishing in a weekend seems very feasible and makes this a really practical, just oversold conversion.
Other issues. This particular conversion doesn't seem compatible with driven wheels and so converting wheels that don't already have a stationary hub will be a bigger deal. But maybe I am missing something obvious. Also requires a newer vehicle that already has CAN bus along with compatible traffic on that bus. And indirect reference that there will be customization fees for vehicles with wheel sizes different than the Honda shown. And the larger diameter brake rotor that makes room for the electric motor seems to require the low profile tires shown. Good for going around corners. Not so good if you regularly encounter pot holes and other road irregularities or value a smooth ride.
Finally. That particular conversion has absolutely horrible gear noise. It dominated the tire noise, wind noise and the noise from the ICE. The salesman tried to convert the wart into a feature by touting the "wonderful turbine-like sound", but most will tire of this rapidly. Also such noise can be associated with gear wear so life may be an issue. The noise problem should be susceptible to more engineering, but the available product isn't there yet.
All in all an intriguing product, but not a magic solution for everyone.
Because I already have a paid off vehicle so it costs me $0 per month. Thats what will slow adoption. Somewhere I saw a metric that shows people are keeping vehicles longer than they used to so it will take a long time for everyone to adopt ev's
No disagreements with anything you said. But the one guy claims to have a 2-3 year waiting list for the conversions. It would be intersting to see what custoerms have to say about each of the conversions. Not sure if this is his main business or a side business for both of them.
I wonder how many companies are doing this. There are entire trade shows devoted to EV conversions so there must be more than the 3 companies I know of in California.
Jaguar are supposed to be releasing a conversion kit to turn 1960s E-Type Jaguars into EVs, in a reversable manner. Presumably this is commercialising the conversion which was done for the wedding.No disagreements with anything you said. But the one guy claims to have a 2-3 year waiting list for the conversions. It would be intersting to see what custoerms have to say about each of the conversions. Not sure if this is his main business or a side business for both of them."Full Charged" on YouTube (Robert Llewellyn, Johnnie Smith) reviewed a UK company that had done a Land Rover, and they also covered the (factory done) E-type that was used in the recent royal wedding (I so want that E-type); so it's a popular thing in the UK. Even Wheeler Dealers did a Masarati Bi-Turbo (although that could have been better)
I wonder how many companies are doing this. There are entire trade shows devoted to EV conversions so there must be more than the 3 companies I know of in California.
I have to think the result of a conversion is going to be far less than optimal, especially if it's done on the cheap. Personally I'd rather leave classic cars in original condition, I mean how many people are commuting to work in a 1960s Jaguar? There are some cars that would make far better conversions than others, but overall it's still going to be a niche no matter what. Very few people are interested in dumping ~$10k into a random old car, I've had people give me older cars just because they needed a few hundred bucks worth of work that was trivial to do myself. Converting a car is like upgrading a very old PC, it can be done and once in a while it might even be cost effective, but for the vast majority of people it makes more sense to replace the whole thing.If find it odd that they are making conversion kits, rather than whole new E-Type cars.
You can probably blame government regulations for that. Overzealous safety regulations make it impossible to reproduce older car models. Personally I think it should be possible to newly manufacture cars of an older design so long as they are sold as such and not implied to meet current regulations. Or just have an exempt class, which is currently done by making something with 3 wheels and classifying it as a motorcycle. 4 wheels would be safer all else being equal, but wouldn't allow exploiting that loophole. If there was an exempt class that didn't depend on the number of wheels then it would make things much simpler. Sort of like aircraft, there are "experimental" classed airplanes that do not have to meet all the requirements of certified craft.
You can probably blame government regulations for that. Overzealous safety regulations make it impossible to reproduce older car models. Personally I think it should be possible to newly manufacture cars of an older design so long as they are sold as such and not implied to meet current regulations. Or just have an exempt class, which is currently done by making something with 3 wheels and classifying it as a motorcycle. 4 wheels would be safer all else being equal, but wouldn't allow exploiting that loophole. If there was an exempt class that didn't depend on the number of wheels then it would make things much simpler. Sort of like aircraft, there are "experimental" classed airplanes that do not have to meet all the requirements of certified craft.You are probably right. A lot of incremental changes to lighting and other requirements over the decades would need to be worked into the old design, which might be aesthetically difficult. A 1960s car, even an up market one like a Jaguar, would get a 0 star NCAP rating if tested today. That might be a bit of an issue when trying to market the car, and would probably need some serious structural changes to address.
You can probably blame government regulations for that. Overzealous safety regulations make it impossible to reproduce older car models. Personally I think it should be possible to newly manufacture cars of an older design so long as they are sold as such and not implied to meet current regulations. Or just have an exempt class, which is currently done by making something with 3 wheels and classifying it as a motorcycle. 4 wheels would be safer all else being equal, but wouldn't allow exploiting that loophole. If there was an exempt class that didn't depend on the number of wheels then it would make things much simpler. Sort of like aircraft, there are "experimental" classed airplanes that do not have to meet all the requirements of certified craft.
You can probably blame government regulations for that. Overzealous safety regulations make it impossible to reproduce older car models. Personally I think it should be possible to newly manufacture cars of an older design so long as they are sold as such and not implied to meet current regulations. Or just have an exempt class, which is currently done by making something with 3 wheels and classifying it as a motorcycle. 4 wheels would be safer all else being equal, but wouldn't allow exploiting that loophole. If there was an exempt class that didn't depend on the number of wheels then it would make things much simpler. Sort of like aircraft, there are "experimental" classed airplanes that do not have to meet all the requirements of certified craft.
'Overzealous' regulations have dropped the death rate (per billion vehicle miles) from 49.2 in 1961 when the E-type was 1st released, down to 11.6 (2017) today.
Perhaps they weren't 'overzealous' after all, but instead very effective.
'Overzealous' regulations have dropped the death rate (per billion vehicle miles) from 49.2 in 1961 when the E-type was 1st released, down to 11.6 (2017) today.
Perhaps they weren't 'overzealous' after all, but instead very effective.
Have to say as a kid growing up in America I remember seeing and hearing about deaths from highway accidents. But as the years have passed accident rates have gone up, and if you look at some of the mangled cars one has to wonder why the people in the car were not killed. And shockingly these people get extricated from cars or climb out without a scratch. I think the only think we can all say is Thank You Government regulators for REQUIRING cars to be made safer for all of us.
'Overzealous' regulations have dropped the death rate (per billion vehicle miles) from 49.2 in 1961 when the E-type was 1st released, down to 11.6 (2017) today.
Perhaps they weren't 'overzealous' after all, but instead very effective.
But shouldn't I be able to make that choice myself? I can buy a motorcycle, they're more dangerous than pretty much any car made in the last 50 years. People know they're dangerous, they buy them anyway. Why can't I buy an exempt class 4 wheeled car knowing it is likely more dangerous than a fully regulated modern car? I can still drive my existing nearly 30 year old car, why can't I buy a new one just like it? I call it overzealous because it takes that choice away from me, I don't need government regulations to protect me from myself.
Have to say as a kid growing up in America I remember seeing and hearing about deaths from highway accidents. But as the years have passed accident rates have gone up, and if you look at some of the mangled cars one has to wonder why the people in the car were not killed. And shockingly these people get extricated from cars or climb out without a scratch. I think the only think we can all say is Thank You Government regulators for REQUIRING cars to be made safer for all of us.
I walked away from a serious highway accident in a 30 year old Volvo, got creamed by a semi tanker truck and got out without a scratch. Volvo took safety seriously, it didn't have to be required. I chose the car largely because of its reputation as a safe car, not because it was forced on me by regulations. I immediately went out and found a very similar car just a couple years newer to replace it, I would buy a brand new one today if I could. I'm not going to thank the government for being a nanny, screw the government, I'm a huge fan of personal choice, and if a person chooses to buy a car that is clearly not in compliance with the latest safety regulations that is their choice. I chose to buy a used car knowing full well that it would not meet modern safety regulations, why can't I buy a new old car with that same knowledge?
Get into a serious accident in a car and one is liable to walk away. Serious accident on a motorcycle Avon’s you far likely to be six feet under.That's Dymaxion, by Buckminster Fuller.
As for 3 wheeled vehicles take a look at the Dymixa. It was an amazing 3 wheeled car. On the Highway the driver was killed in an accident. That was the the end of 3 wheeled vehicles. It latter came out the accident was caused by someone who gawking at the Damixa and hit it killing the driver. But the “truth” came out after the damage in ther public eye was already irreserable. Well worth Googling Damixa.
But shouldn't I be able to make that choice myself?No, you shouldn't.
I wish someone would sell something than just a car though.
I should have kept my old s10 and done a conversion like https://www.qsl.net/k5lxp/ev/evtruck/evtruck.html (https://www.qsl.net/k5lxp/ev/evtruck/evtruck.html)
... And let’s not forget the Delorean car/submarine that’s was James Bond used. ....
I thought everyone knew that a Lotus dives and a DeLorean flies.... And let’s not forget the Delorean car/submarine that’s was James Bond used. ....
it was a Lotus, not a Delorean.
I thought everyone knew that a Lotus dives and a DeLorean flies.... And let’s not forget the Delorean car/submarine that’s was James Bond used. ....
it was a Lotus, not a Delorean.
I thought Lotus (flowers) float and DeLorean’s go to jail and become electric.By your standard, lotus is for eating and making tea.
We definitely need a yadda yadda yadda yadda emoticon on EEVblog. This guy talks a lot but says nothing. Check his website. He claims he has a degree in mechanical engineering and yet he is a car salesman. :palm: Didn't it occur to you that everything he says is driven by how he can make the most money from car sales?He makes good points, but in the context of an Oz living in the burbs of a major metro.
We definitely need a yadda yadda yadda yadda emoticon on EEVblog. This guy talks a lot but says nothing. Check his website. He claims he has a degree in mechanical engineering and yet he is a car salesman. :palm: Didn't it occur to you that everything he says is driven by how he can make the most money from car sales?
Expensive car doesn't equal highest profit margin. Or he may not even be able to dip in that pond at all. Did you think about that?We definitely need a yadda yadda yadda yadda emoticon on EEVblog. This guy talks a lot but says nothing. Check his website. He claims he has a degree in mechanical engineering and yet he is a car salesman. :palm: Didn't it occur to you that everything he says is driven by how he can make the most money from car sales?For a guy who “makes his money from car sales” he sure bashes the products he sells. And he must be really stupid as the more expensive car brands are the ones he bashes the most.
Expensive car doesn't equal highest profit margin. Or he may not even be able to dip in that pond at all. Did you think about that?We definitely need a yadda yadda yadda yadda emoticon on EEVblog. This guy talks a lot but says nothing. Check his website. He claims he has a degree in mechanical engineering and yet he is a car salesman. :palm: Didn't it occur to you that everything he says is driven by how he can make the most money from car sales?For a guy who “makes his money from car sales” he sure bashes the products he sells. And he must be really stupid as the more expensive car brands are the ones he bashes the most.
FYI: the Toyota Prius has been on the market for 10 to 15 years already and it has regenerative braking + batteries right from the start. It is the whole idea behind the car: put an efficient (Atkinson cycle) ICE engine in it and use an electric motor to fill in the gaps where the ICE doesn't have a lot of power. Nowadays you can buy pure ICE cars with better mileage compared to the original Prius though.
Well, i watched the video until he mentioned that you need clean energy sources for the EVs to really make sense, and i agree with that. With polluting energy generation, you only get to move the pollution from the cars exhausts to the electric plants. That would move the contaminants out of the cities, but it's pretty lame without green energy.The nice part about EVs is that you can install your own solar to go green.
Well, i watched the video until he mentioned that you need clean energy sources for the EVs to really make sense, and i agree with that. With polluting energy generation, you only get to move the pollution from the cars exhausts to the electric plants. That would move the contaminants out of the cities, but it's pretty lame without green energy.The nice part about EVs is that you can install your own solar to go green.
Well, i watched the video until he mentioned that you need clean energy sources for the EVs to really make sense, and i agree with that. With polluting energy generation, you only get to move the pollution from the cars exhausts to the electric plants. That would move the contaminants out of the cities, but it's pretty lame without green energy.
EVs have regen. That's a very interesting technology, and saves energy. I heared that F1 use flywheels and/or electric systems, but didn't heared of any ICE car on the market that uses that. Maybe too expensive. Still, it seems logical to think that an electric motor attached to an ICE and a supercap bank, and power electronic systems, would allow to get regen and start/stop. The electric motor could replace the alternator and the starter.
Supercaps are still expensive, however, and i have no idea how many of them would be needed to get a reasonable amount of regeneration, probably a lot of them. I hope that in the future the cost goes down, and high % regen be available.
That would move the contaminants out of the cities, but it's pretty lame without green energy.No it's not.
It has been proven over and over again that that number isn't true when comparing against efficient ICE cars. Not to mention the huge amount of extra energy needed to make the EV's battery. The latter is a big problem when it comes to EVs. Cars are responsible for about 12% to 15% of CO2 emissions. Industry sits at around 40%. Producing EVs shifts part of the CO2 and other emissions to industry.QuoteThat would move the contaminants out of the cities, but it's pretty lame without green energy.No it's not.
From the energy point of view, the gain is huge: you'll need approx 2.5x less CO2.
Yes you need 2.5x less oil to run EVs from 100% fossil plants !
So even that non optimal setup makes muuuch sense.
From other contaminants, it's even better, the gain for SO2 and particulates is over 100x, because most plants use electrostatic and/or wet scrubbers.
QuoteThat would move the contaminants out of the cities, but it's pretty lame without green energy.No it's not.
From the energy point of view, the gain is huge: you'll need approx 2.5x less CO2.
Yes you need 2.5x less oil to run EVs from 100% fossil plants !
So even that non optimal setup makes muuuch sense.
From other contaminants, it's even better, the gain for SO2 and particulates is over 100x, because most plants use electrostatic and/or wet scrubbers.
Not just that but emission limits depend on the age of the power plant. I never dug really deep into the emission limits of the power plants but it wouldn't surprise me when these are less strict compared to the latest euro6 limits for cars. One thing is for sure: a power plant lasts whole lot longer than a car so new emission limits for power plants take a lot longer to have any effect.
Scrubbers have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. They remove particulates and also NOX and SOX.Not just that but emission limits depend on the age of the power plant. I never dug really deep into the emission limits of the power plants but it wouldn't surprise me when these are less strict compared to the latest euro6 limits for cars. One thing is for sure: a power plant lasts whole lot longer than a car so new emission limits for power plants take a lot longer to have any effect.
The TVA in the US is notoruois for running their power plants with the scrubbers turned off or prolonged delays in install scrubbers. Correct me if I am wrong but the scrubbers do not remove heavy elements such as mercury, lead and the radioactive elements. When coal and natural gas is burned every year millions ot tons of radioactive isotopes are released into the atomosphere for us to breath in. Then there's the mercury which is now in our oceans. Man has burned so much fossil fuel the we are limited to how much fish we can eat.
Scrubbers have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. They remove particulates and also NOX and SOX.Not just that but emission limits depend on the age of the power plant. I never dug really deep into the emission limits of the power plants but it wouldn't surprise me when these are less strict compared to the latest euro6 limits for cars. One thing is for sure: a power plant lasts whole lot longer than a car so new emission limits for power plants take a lot longer to have any effect.
The TVA in the US is notoruois for running their power plants with the scrubbers turned off or prolonged delays in install scrubbers. Correct me if I am wrong but the scrubbers do not remove heavy elements such as mercury, lead and the radioactive elements. When coal and natural gas is burned every year millions ot tons of radioactive isotopes are released into the atomosphere for us to breath in. Then there's the mercury which is now in our oceans. Man has burned so much fossil fuel the we are limited to how much fish we can eat.
Got me.Scrubbers have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. They remove particulates and also NOX and SOX.Not just that but emission limits depend on the age of the power plant. I never dug really deep into the emission limits of the power plants but it wouldn't surprise me when these are less strict compared to the latest euro6 limits for cars. One thing is for sure: a power plant lasts whole lot longer than a car so new emission limits for power plants take a lot longer to have any effect.
The TVA in the US is notoruois for running their power plants with the scrubbers turned off or prolonged delays in install scrubbers. Correct me if I am wrong but the scrubbers do not remove heavy elements such as mercury, lead and the radioactive elements. When coal and natural gas is burned every year millions ot tons of radioactive isotopes are released into the atomosphere for us to breath in. Then there's the mercury which is now in our oceans. Man has burned so much fossil fuel the we are limited to how much fish we can eat.
And what about mercury and radioactive isotopes?
It has been proven over and over again that that number isn't true when comparing against efficient ICE cars.Nope. That's bullshit.
It has been proven over and over again that that number isn't true when comparing against efficient ICE cars.Nope. That's simply bullshit.
And you think a pro-EV website is going to provide accurate numbers? :palm:Nope. Wrong again. :-DD
Japan Automobile Research Institute (JARI) is a general incorporated foundation dedicated to automotive testing and research activities.Petrolheads. They say the same exact thing.
(http://f4eru.free.fr/well2wheel.png)
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
That explains everything...
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
Is he an engineer or does he just play one on the internet?Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
That explains everything...
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
I never claimed that! Please show the quote! You most probably misread or misunderstood.Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
That explains everything...
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
No, but as Doug already showed some critical thinking alone shows the errors in the graph. Hint: electricity isn't a primary energy source. I used to work at a research institute for a short while and one of the topics of discussion was to how ethical it was to try and proof things with questions steering towards a certain conclusing asked by the customer. If you read a scientific report you always need to figure out who is paying for it. For example a report paid for by the tabacco industry isn't going to claim smoking will kill you for sure. You can't trust scientific reports at face value.Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
If you read a scientific report you always need to figure out who is paying for it. For example a report paid for by the tabacco industry isn't going to claim smoking will kill you for sure. You can't trust scientific reports at face value.Yeah, reminds me of all the studies a few years ago saying it was healthy to eat more fat and protein, and that saturated fat wasn't bad at all... turns out all the research was paid for by the meat and dairy industry. ::)
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
:bullshit:
Who? When? Where?
Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
:bullshit:
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452)
Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
:bullshit:
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452)
BTW I was just repeating what your fellow e-Golf owner has stated in his write up of his experiences with the car. He is the one pitching concerns about head wind. Did anyone ever consider the impact of head wind on the range of a normal car? Then why all the sudden does it matter for an EV?
It has been proven over and over again that that number isn't true when comparing against efficient ICE cars.Nope. That's simply bullshit.
Just google "well to wheel EV"
in the first results :
https://insideevs.com/evs-are-61-cleaner-than-gas-in-minnesota-well-to-wheels-analysis/ (https://insideevs.com/evs-are-61-cleaner-than-gas-in-minnesota-well-to-wheels-analysis/)
https://insideevs.com/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/ (https://insideevs.com/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/)
If you need it in a real study look at slide 37:
http://www.jari.or.jp/portals/0/jhfc/e/data/seminar/fy2005/pdf/06_h17seminar_e.pdf (http://www.jari.or.jp/portals/0/jhfc/e/data/seminar/fy2005/pdf/06_h17seminar_e.pdf)
(http://f4eru.free.fr/well2wheel.png)
BEV just bearts everything. Simply. Today.
Can't change the laws of thermodynamic, eh :)
But of course, that's getting much better than this 2.5x, which is calculated for 100% fossil electricity.
This is not the case any more, except in some very few countries.
For CO2 in today's world, as the PV and other renewables slowly ramp up, the CO2 emissions /km of EVs is getting much better every single day....
Ofcourse not. Stop reading what isn't there! It is very simple: on an ICE car the impact on the range is much less because an ICE car brings way more energy along. Your 2kW AC motor (hp is not an SI unit) draws 5% of charge from a 40kWh battery in one hour while on an ICE (with a 50 litre tank) it draws around 1% in one hour.Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
:bullshit:
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452)
BTW I was just repeating what your fellow e-Golf owner has stated in his write up of his experiences with the car. He is the one pitching concerns about head wind. Did anyone ever consider the impact of head wind on the range of a normal car? Then why all the sudden does it matter for an EV?
Again, are you claiming the energy required to drive the AC on an ICE car takes no energy?
Taking 2hp off the motor, vs having a 2hp [electric] compressor draws 2 horsepower, no matter what fuel it's powered by.
Ofcourse not. Stop reading what isn't there! It is very simple: on an ICE car the impact on the range is much less because an ICE car brings way more energy along. Your 2kW AC motor (hp is not an SI unit) draws 5% of charge from a 40kWh battery in one hour while on an ICE (with a 50 litre tank) it draws around 1% in one hour.Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
:bullshit:
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452)
BTW I was just repeating what your fellow e-Golf owner has stated in his write up of his experiences with the car. He is the one pitching concerns about head wind. Did anyone ever consider the impact of head wind on the range of a normal car? Then why all the sudden does it matter for an EV?
Again, are you claiming the energy required to drive the AC on an ICE car takes no energy?
Taking 2hp off the motor, vs having a 2hp [electric] compressor draws 2 horsepower, no matter what fuel it's powered by.
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.In fact, at the typical efficiency (or lack of it) of an ICE, it's more accurate to say that it's a heating device than an engine :D
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.Not true. You can use the waste heat from the battery's liquid cooling radiator to warm the interior in the exact same way you use the waste heat from an ICE's liquid cooling radiator.
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.ICE cars sold in northern climates also have kerosene or gasoline burners on the options list. Its not for normal operation. Its for times when a breakdown or accident leaves you stranded without the engine able to stop you freezing to death.
\It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.ICE cars sold in northern climates also have kerosene or gasoline burners on the options list. Its not for normal operation. Its for times when a breakdown or accident leaves you stranded without the engine able to stop you freezing to death.
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.Not true. You can use the waste heat from the battery's liquid cooling radiator to warm the interior in the exact same way you use the waste heat from an ICE's liquid cooling radiator.
One of the few disadvantages of EVs is that they don’t create the excess heat associated with ICE vehicles. Energy from the battery must be used to produce heat when the cold weather sets in. The Tesla Model S and Model X use resistance heating (think of a space heater) to heat the cabin. Other Tesla heating features include, heated seats, defrosters, heated wipers, and heated mirrors provide protection against the cold.
tesla-heating-2
KmanAuto Uses An App Called Remote S To Measure Power Consumption
This is all part of the reason that EVs lose range in the winter, or in generally colder climates. How much power do heating features consume?
The YouTube video by Model S owner, Kman Auto, spells it all out.
Chris shows us Tesla’s SubZero Weather Package and its power impact. His breakdown is below, and thanks to Teslarati, we also have estimated range reduction by the amount of miles per hour.
Baseline (vehicle at rest but powered up): 247 Wh = .74 mph
Defroster (rear window & side mirror heaters): 285 Wh = .86 mph
Steering Wheel Heater: 95 Wh = .29 mph
Heated Wipers & Nozzles: 95Wh = .29 mph
1 Seat Heater: 57 Wh = .17 mph
2 Seat Heaters: 1cabin reached 108 F quickly33 Wh = .40 mph
3 Seat Heaters: 171 Wh = .51 mph
4 Seat Heaters: 209 Wh = .63 mph
5 Seat Heaters: 247 Wh = .74 mph
HVAC at ‘HI’ or 82F (28C): 6.4 kWh = ~18..20 mph
HVAC at 74F (23C): 342 Wh = 1.03 mph
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Electricity_Production_in_Japan.svg/640px-Electricity_Production_in_Japan.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan)
In the text that had been cropped it says they base the calculations on how Japan generated electricity (sometime before 2005) which implies a lot of nuclear and a little renewable energy in the mix.
\
So BEV cars do emit CO2 at times.
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.Not true. You can use the waste heat from the battery's liquid cooling radiator to warm the interior in the exact same way you use the waste heat from an ICE's liquid cooling radiator.
They could, but they don't: https://insideevs.com/energy-consumption-of-various-tesla-heating-features/QuoteOne of the few disadvantages of EVs is that they don’t create the excess heat associated with ICE vehicles. Energy from the battery must be used to produce heat when the cold weather sets in. The Tesla Model S and Model X use resistance heating (think of a space heater) to heat the cabin. Other Tesla heating features include, heated seats, defrosters, heated wipers, and heated mirrors provide protection against the cold.
tesla-heating-2
KmanAuto Uses An App Called Remote S To Measure Power Consumption
This is all part of the reason that EVs lose range in the winter, or in generally colder climates. How much power do heating features consume?
The YouTube video by Model S owner, Kman Auto, spells it all out.
Chris shows us Tesla’s SubZero Weather Package and its power impact. His breakdown is below, and thanks to Teslarati, we also have estimated range reduction by the amount of miles per hour.
Baseline (vehicle at rest but powered up): 247 Wh = .74 mph
Defroster (rear window & side mirror heaters): 285 Wh = .86 mph
Steering Wheel Heater: 95 Wh = .29 mph
Heated Wipers & Nozzles: 95Wh = .29 mph
1 Seat Heater: 57 Wh = .17 mph
2 Seat Heaters: 1cabin reached 108 F quickly33 Wh = .40 mph
3 Seat Heaters: 171 Wh = .51 mph
4 Seat Heaters: 209 Wh = .63 mph
5 Seat Heaters: 247 Wh = .74 mph
HVAC at ‘HI’ or 82F (28C): 6.4 kWh = ~18..20 mph
HVAC at 74F (23C): 342 Wh = 1.03 mph
Why? Because I2R losses in the battery aren't anywhere near 6 kW, I think. If they were the efficiency of EVs would be a disaster: between 25 and 33% I2R losses (?).
A lot of fossil fuels, a little nuclear, and a tiny bit of renewables I would say. ¿No?At 2000 it looks like about 60% fossil fuels, about 30% nuclear, 9% hydro and 1% other renewable.
Couldn't a heater be integrated into the glass by adding a conductive layer similar to what's used for LCDs? That combined with making the glass double pane should be able to greatly cut down on the power needed to prevent the glass from fogging up.That already exists. It works well but the wires are somewhat visible. AFAIK this has been abandoned already by car manufacturers because it makes it very expensive to replace the glass. Also remember that the front window often is an integral part of the structural strength of the body of the car.
Couldn't a heater be integrated into the glass by adding a conductive layer similar to what's used for LCDs? That combined with making the glass double pane should be able to greatly cut down on the power needed to prevent the glass from fogging up.
Again, an EV is only as efficient as it's electricity source. It makes no sense to compare EV efficiency because electricity isn't a primary energy source. Electricity is just a way to transport energy.
Baseline (vehicle at rest but powered up): 247 Wh = .74 mph
Defroster (rear window & side mirror heaters): 285 Wh = .86 mph
Steering Wheel Heater: 95 Wh = .29 mph
Heated Wipers & Nozzles: 95Wh = .29 mph
1 Seat Heater: 57 Wh = .17 mph
2 Seat Heaters: 1cabin reached 108 F quickly33 Wh = .40 mph
3 Seat Heaters: 171 Wh = .51 mph
4 Seat Heaters: 209 Wh = .63 mph
5 Seat Heaters: 247 Wh = .74 mph
HVAC at ‘HI’ or 82F (28C): 6.4 kWh = ~18..20 mph
HVAC at 74F (23C): 342 Wh = 1.03 mph
As for total 'idle' power consumption, my car with the heater on medium, on a cool (2C) day, the front and rear defroster, headlights etc, I've never seen more than about 1.5kW (or that's what is being reported); although my heater is a heat pump, not just a coil of wire.
It is right by definition because only 30% of the input power ends up going into your car (and then subtract battery and drive train losses to get to the wheels). Oh and also take into account that every kWh from your solar panels releases several tens of grams of CO2 into the atmosphere due to the manufacturing process.Again, an EV is only as efficient as it's electricity source. It makes no sense to compare EV efficiency because electricity isn't a primary energy source. Electricity is just a way to transport energy.So if i charge my car from solar panels, which have about 30% efficiency converting light into charge, my car is only 30% efficient ?
I can't put my finger on it but, that can't be right ...
So if i charge my car from solar panels, which have about 30% efficiency converting light into charge, my car is only 30% efficient ?What matter isn't efficiency but pollution since that causes harm to humans and the environment, GhG emissions since it causes climate change, and also the cost of course. These factors are often correlated with efficiency, so better efficiency translates to better overall, but it might not be the most important parameter to look at.
I can't put my finger on it but, that can't be right ...
Oh and also take into account that every kWh from your solar panels releases several tens of grams of CO2 into the atmosphere due to the manufacturing process.It depends on how the PV cells are produced, if you used only renewable energy when producing them you could get that number down closer to zero. (And it's a lot better than the kg of CO2 per kWh you get from coal.)
But you need to manufacture the panels only once. And solar panels aren't the only kind of solar plant. And there are other kind of clean power plants.It is right by definition because only 30% of the input power ends up going into your car (and then subtract battery and drive train losses to get to the wheels). Oh and also take into account that every kWh from your solar panels releases several tens of grams of CO2 into the atmosphere due to the manufacturing process.Again, an EV is only as efficient as it's electricity source. It makes no sense to compare EV efficiency because electricity isn't a primary energy source. Electricity is just a way to transport energy.So if i charge my car from solar panels, which have about 30% efficiency converting light into charge, my car is only 30% efficient ?
I can't put my finger on it but, that can't be right ...
Again, an EV is only as efficient as it's electricity source. It makes no sense to compare EV efficiency because electricity isn't a primary energy source. Electricity is just a way to transport energy.
So if i charge my car from solar panels, which have about 30% efficiency converting light into charge, my car is only 30% efficient ?
I can't put my finger on it but, that can't be right ...
I am not sure how to interpret range reduction with units of speed (mph=miles per hour).
HVAC at ‘HI’ or 82F (28C): 6.4 kWh = ~18..20 mph
As for total 'idle' power consumption, my car with the heater on medium, on a cool (2C) day, the front and rear defroster, headlights etc, I've never seen more than about 1.5kW (or that's what is being reported); although my heater is a heat pump, not just a coil of wire.
Couldn't a heater be integrated into the glass by adding a conductive layer similar to what's used for LCDs? That combined with making the glass double pane should be able to greatly cut down on the power needed to prevent the glass from fogging up.
Yes, electrically heated windshields are standard equipment on my EV (and a lot of other higher-end EV and ICE vehciles), and it works very very quickly. I'd guess that the additional cost of the small wires embedded, adds a small amount to the total cost of the windshield, but it's a smallish number when compared to the labour and shipping costs of a windshield replacement.
Looking at the numbers that someone else posted, the ones in Green are EV only, the ones in red would equally apply to an EV or ICE vehicle as an ICE would have to generate the electricity. This is the kind of annoying argument that pro-ICE people throw out, and never stop to think about; Electricity & Air Con are not free on an ICE vehicle, they cost hydrocarbons to generate/operate. In fact I'd argue that the AC is likely more efficient on an EV because it's operating in a cooler environment and not surrounded by a very very hot engine mass.
Baseline (vehicle at rest but powered up): 247 Wh = .74 mph
Defroster (rear window & side mirror heaters): 285 Wh = .86 mph
Steering Wheel Heater: 95 Wh = .29 mph
Heated Wipers & Nozzles: 95Wh = .29 mph
1 Seat Heater: 57 Wh = .17 mph
2 Seat Heaters: 1cabin reached 108 F quickly33 Wh = .40 mph
3 Seat Heaters: 171 Wh = .51 mph
4 Seat Heaters: 209 Wh = .63 mph
5 Seat Heaters: 247 Wh = .74 mph
HVAC at ‘HI’ or 82F (28C): 6.4 kWh = ~18..20 mph
HVAC at 74F (23C): 342 Wh = 1.03 mph
As for total 'idle' power consumption, my car with the heater on medium, on a cool (2C) day, the front and rear defroster, headlights etc, I've never seen more than about 1.5kW (or that's what is being reported); although my heater is a heat pump, not just a coil of wire.
HVAC at ‘HI’ or 82F (28C): 6.4 kWh = ~18..20 mph
As for total 'idle' power consumption, my car with the heater on medium, on a cool (2C) day, the front and rear defroster, headlights etc, I've never seen more than about 1.5kW (or that's what is being reported); although my heater is a heat pump, not just a coil of wire.
Yes Boffin, your figures to me always seem too good to be true :-) e.g. in this case, the tesla owner reports 6.4 kW and you only 1.5 kW. Hahaha.
Add those numbers up and you're under 1kW, so how is my 1.5kW "too good to be true" ?
Thanks for the clarification on the meaning of mph. Lovely language we have where words have different meanings and now abbreviations/acronyms do also.
It is not surprising that running the air conditioner on a 72 degree F day has little effect on range. In most cases I don't even turn it on under those conditions. EVs will do fine in San Franscisco, Hawaii and other mild climates. I'm sure that the numbers would be frightening in Phoenix or Aussie lands where temperatures of 105F (40C) are common for almost half the year.
Also, the increase in energy consumption running the AC is identical EV or ICE, so in the context of the EV vs ICE argument, AC is a non-issue at all.
Also, the increase in energy consumption running the AC is identical EV or ICE, so in the context of the EV vs ICE argument, AC is a non-issue at all.
6.4 kW is ~ 1/3 of the power needed to move the car, I wouldn't call it a non-issue, EVs (unlike ICEs) have an already poor range and this makes it even worse.
See attached info-graphic about the impact of cold weather (from 2014-01-16).
Source is this pro-EV site https://www.fleetcarma.com/cold-weather-fuel-efficiency/ (https://www.fleetcarma.com/cold-weather-fuel-efficiency/)
I've also read that some BEVs keep the heater on in the battery compartment even when the car is parked (in cold weather), which means it will slowly drains the battery if you leave it unplugged. I think EVs are great in general but they do have a range problem and that gets worse in cold weather.
How the hell do they get to a 19% reduction of range on an ICE car? Back when I was still measuring fuel consumption on my diesel cars I never noticed any measurable changes in fuel consumption between summer and winter. Perhaps the authors of the website let the ICE engine idle for 10 minutes and then drove 5km or so. There is no sensible way to explain it otherwise.
How the hell do they get to a 19% reduction of range on an ICE car? Back when I was still measuring fuel consumption on my diesel cars I never noticed any measurable changes in fuel consumption between summer and winter. Perhaps the authors of the website let the ICE engine idle for 10 minutes and then drove 5km or so. There is no sensible way to explain it otherwise.One factor is that cold air is denser so the air resistance increases, you might have worse road conditions (especially with snow) and lower tire pressure, and electric powered heaters like seat heaters and such also affect an ICE. They also mention some factors at the bottom of the graphic that indicate major factors are cold start and excessive idling/warmup. I'm not sure but got the impression they have data-loggers installed in several cars that they then use to make statistics from. They appear to be very pro-EV though, would be nice with a better source but this was all I could find that had more than anecdotes.
How the hell do they get to a 19% reduction of range on an ICE car? Back when I was still measuring fuel consumption on my diesel cars I never noticed any measurable changes in fuel consumption between summer and winter. Perhaps the authors of the website let the ICE engine idle for 10 minutes and then drove 5km or so. There is no sensible way to explain it otherwise.Some years ago I used to measure my gas consumption every time I filled the tank, and never noticed any variation between summer and winter. I used to find this odd, actually. I didn't do many short journeys, but I still expected some hit from the longer warming up periods in winter. They were actually too small to show up in the measurements.
There is the red herring! It seems the testers let the cars run idle for a long time and then drove a very short distance. Stupid pro-EV websites :palm: Do they really think we're all idiots?How the hell do they get to a 19% reduction of range on an ICE car? Back when I was still measuring fuel consumption on my diesel cars I never noticed any measurable changes in fuel consumption between summer and winter. Perhaps the authors of the website let the ICE engine idle for 10 minutes and then drove 5km or so. There is no sensible way to explain it otherwise.One factor is that cold air is denser so the air resistance increases, you might have worse road conditions (especially with snow) and lower tire pressure, and electric powered heaters like seat heaters and such also affect an ICE. They also mention some factors at the bottom of the graphic that indicate major factors are cold start and excessive idling/warmup.
I don't think they have testers but rather install data loggers in a lot of cars which if done properly could give them decent 'in situ' data. If "real people" do not use engine heaters and let their cars idle to stay warm then it makes sense to include that in the statistics.There is the red herring! It seems the testers let the cars run idle for a long time and then drove a very short distance. Stupid pro-EV websites :palm: Do they really think we're all idiots?How the hell do they get to a 19% reduction of range on an ICE car? Back when I was still measuring fuel consumption on my diesel cars I never noticed any measurable changes in fuel consumption between summer and winter. Perhaps the authors of the website let the ICE engine idle for 10 minutes and then drove 5km or so. There is no sensible way to explain it otherwise.One factor is that cold air is denser so the air resistance increases, you might have worse road conditions (especially with snow) and lower tire pressure, and electric powered heaters like seat heaters and such also affect an ICE. They also mention some factors at the bottom of the graphic that indicate major factors are cold start and excessive idling/warmup.
When I commuted a lot with my cars I never found a large variation. The variation was around 2% when driving the same route and filling up at the same gas station for thousands of kilometers. What did impact fuel consumption measurably where switching to a higher quality fuel and having eco-tuning on the engine.
There is the red herring! It seems the testers let the cars run idle for a long time and then drove a very short distance. Stupid pro-EV websites :palm: Do they really think we're all idiots?How the hell do they get to a 19% reduction of range on an ICE car? Back when I was still measuring fuel consumption on my diesel cars I never noticed any measurable changes in fuel consumption between summer and winter. Perhaps the authors of the website let the ICE engine idle for 10 minutes and then drove 5km or so. There is no sensible way to explain it otherwise.One factor is that cold air is denser so the air resistance increases, you might have worse road conditions (especially with snow) and lower tire pressure, and electric powered heaters like seat heaters and such also affect an ICE. They also mention some factors at the bottom of the graphic that indicate major factors are cold start and excessive idling/warmup.
When I commuted a lot with my cars I never found a large variation due to season changes. The variation was around 2% when driving the same route and filling up at the same gas station for thousands of kilometers. What did impact fuel consumption measurably where switching to a higher quality fuel and having eco-tuning on the engine.
As I keep pointing out, you are using absolutely worst case scenario numbers (again), and not real world number; nor are you considering the equivalent performance of an ICE car.Also, the increase in energy consumption running the AC is identical EV or ICE, so in the context of the EV vs ICE argument, AC is a non-issue at all.6.4 kW is ~ 1/3 of the power needed to move the car, I wouldn't call it a non-issue, EVs (unlike ICEs) have an already poor range and this makes it even worse.
Let's do the math. If the efficiency of an ICE were ~ 45%, and to move a car on average you need say 18 kWh/100km, it means an ICE dumps as heat 0.55*18/0.45 = 22 kWh/100km, even 1/3 of that is plenty enough to heat the cabin.That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
Let's do the math. If the efficiency of an ICE were ~ 45%, and to move a car on average you need say 18 kWh/100km, it means an ICE dumps as heat 0.55*18/0.45 = 22 kWh/100km, even 1/3 of that is plenty enough to heat the cabinThat's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
Take a look at this. Quite an analysis they have done on the entire vehicle: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml)
Let's do the math. If the efficiency of an ICE were ~ 45%, and to move a car on average you need say 18 kWh/100km, it means an ICE dumps as heat 0.55*18/0.45 = 22 kWh/100km, even 1/3 of that is plenty enough to heat the cabinThat's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
Take a look at this. Quite an analysis they have done on the entire vehicle: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml)
I think the point is that the very inefficiency of the ICE engine means that the wasted energy is available
free, & using it to heat the car interior means that energy doesn't have to be found from the engine's mechanical output.
Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships and other applications where overall engine weight is relatively unimportant) can have a thermal efficiency that exceeds 50%
But produce many more toxic side product and more finedust which kills people.That is mainly due to the poor quality fuel being used and lack of emissions regulations.
Diesel iafaik per definition a lower quality fuel from the destillation processThat is nonsense. Diesel fuel is a different product from distillation because it has a different boiling point. But besides that ships don't run on diesel oil but much heavier oils. AFAIK these types of oil need to be heated before they can be used in a diesel engine. Remember you can make a diesel engine run on almost any kind of oil. So diesel engine doesn't equal diesel fuel.
So what causes the extra pollutants if diesel is equally clean as petrol?The biggest problem is that a diesel by definition has excess air in the cylinder which causes NOx to form more easely (combustion temperature also plays a role). A petrol engine has a controlled amount of air in the cylinder. By adjusting the amount of fuel based on the O2 sensor in the exhaust the burning of the fuel can be controlled better. Both diesel and petrol engines use exhaust gas recirculation to reduce the combustion temperature.
Combustion temperature?
So what causes the extra pollutants if diesel is equally clean as petrol?Higher combination temperature increases efficiency and production of NOx. You had to choose efficiency (lower CO2) or lower NOX until Volkswagen found the final solution.
Combustion temperature?
That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).That's still much too optimistic.
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).That's still much too optimistic.
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.
And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).That's still much too optimistic.
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.
For example, more of the combustion is close enough to the cylinder wall to lose energy as heat, and as the piston goes down during the power stroke, the difference just lets bigger until it’s not even fun anymore.
FYI, a 667kW per cylinder engine gets about 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, in its sweet spot and with good fuel (we adjust injection to density and other factors).
That’s my point, getting a 6MW generator to 40% is allready pushing thermodynamics (and combustion chemistry, the only methods to higher efficiency on these engines entail more NOX than legal) so forget about it on a small ICE engine with variable rpm and constantly varying loads...And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).That's still much too optimistic.
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.
For example, more of the combustion is close enough to the cylinder wall to lose energy as heat, and as the piston goes down during the power stroke, the difference just lets bigger until it’s not even fun anymore.
FYI, a 667kW per cylinder engine gets about 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, in its sweet spot and with good fuel (we adjust injection to density and other factors).
True, but when do ideal conditions exists when driving a motor vehicle. NEVER.
As I keep pointing out, you are using absolutely worst case scenario numbers (again), and not real world number; nor are you considering the equivalent performance of an ICE car.Also, the increase in energy consumption running the AC is identical EV or ICE, so in the context of the EV vs ICE argument, AC is a non-issue at all.6.4 kW is ~ 1/3 of the power needed to move the car, I wouldn't call it a non-issue, EVs (unlike ICEs) have an already poor range and this makes it even worse.
Boffin, you know very well that the heat for the cabin heater of an ICE comes from the water of the radiator, it's heat that's dumped into the cabin that would otherwise be dumped outside, and therefore means exactly zero additional kilowatts, so why you keep trying to prove otherwise is beyond me. Please stop behaving like the typical EV fanboy, you can do better I'm sure.
That’s my point, getting a 6MW generator to 40% is allready pushing thermodynamics (and combustion chemistry, the only methods to higher efficiency on these engines entail more NOX than legal) so forget about it on a small ICE engine with variable rpm and constantly varying loads...That also depends on what kind of ignition / injection / turbo charging / internal friction reduction technologies are used in the engine. Read about Ford's Ecoboost engines for example. They used some very clever engineering in there to push the boundaries of a commercial ICE engine further. AFAIK Ford invested somewhere around US$150 million into the development. Engines for generators don't see that kind of technological push forward because the market for these is much smaller.
That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).That's still much too optimistic.
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.
Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency.NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!
This thread has an amazing amount of mixing non-comparable numbers - on both sides of the aisle.
14% efficiency number for ICE is IMHO, the efficiency through the drive train, and includes parasitic loads like power steering and alternator in addition to friction losses in the transmission, drag from the brakes and also friction losses in the tires.
[...]
Curious way of seeing it, as the efficiency is the energy employed for useful work vs the losses. That energy was already been stolen from the mechanical output because of the inefficiency to begin with.Let's do the math. If the efficiency of an ICE were ~ 45%, and to move a car on average you need say 18 kWh/100km, it means an ICE dumps as heat 0.55*18/0.45 = 22 kWh/100km, even 1/3 of that is plenty enough to heat the cabinThat's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
Take a look at this. Quite an analysis they have done on the entire vehicle: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml)
I think the point is that the very inefficiency of the ICE engine means that the wasted energy is available
free, & using it to heat the car interior means that energy doesn't have to be found from the engine's mechanical output.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
But electricity has to be generated from something. Either wind/solar/coal/natural gas/geothermal.....The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
Not sure I understand what your point is.
A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as heat energy or to be used for work. Electric energy can be used to do work.
EVs can use regenerative braking, so the weight matters less.Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency.NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!
If you look closely at the energy usage of the various Tesla's you'll see that the lighter models with less batteries have a lower energy consumption. The e-Golf has a relatively low energy consumption for an EV but at the cost of relatively small (and thus light) batteries.
But electricity has to be generated from something. Either wind/solar/coal/natural gas/geothermal.....The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
Not sure I understand what your point is.
A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as heat energy or to be used for work. Electric energy can be used to do work.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency.NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!
If you look closely at the energy usage of the various Tesla's you'll see that the lighter models with less batteries have a lower energy consumption. The e-Golf has a relatively low energy consumption for an EV but at the cost of relatively small (and thus light) batteries.
Because that comparison is impossible to make. For example: You'd also have to factor in the CO2 emissions created during the building of the dam required to generate the electricity for your EV. However for mass produced items the price without taxes is a good indication. For mass production the energy (and thus CO2 emissions) it takes to make something (from ore to end product) will dominate the price.Nor do your numbers include the energy of extraction/refining/distribution of hydrocarbons; but then you have never been about comparing like for like.The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
I read somewhere on the interwebs that if tomorrow all the cars in the world were BEVs, global CO2 emissions would only drop by ~ 4%, so not a very big impact on GhG emissions.That is true. In the Netherlands -for example- transport causes only 12% of the CO2 emissions. The article Kjelt posted earlier shows where the problem is with the current approach to CO2 emissions. Governments try to avoid having to chase industry and jobs away so 100% of the burden of reducing of CO2 emissions falls down on the people where only a small amount of CO2 reduction can be achieved.
The reasoning goes like this: cars (just normal cars, not including big trucks, buses, agricultural machines nor trains nor airplanes nor ships) consume only about 8% of total fossil fuels production (carbon+gas+oil), and the electricity production mix generates 50% as much CO2 per kWh as a car. 50% of 8% is 4%, so there you have it.
I say this because if you think we're going to save the planet with the Teslas, forget it.
As others have said, they don't include the extraction, refining and distribution of gasoline, either. The energy source for gasoline is pure petroleum, which isn't easily accesible, nor cannot be used directly to power a car.The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
An electric vehicle with clean energy sources will have very low lifecycle CO2 emissions. An ICE car can't do that.Wrong again. ICE cars can run fine on bio-fuel. FYI: in many western countries there is 5% (or more) bio fuel added to the fuel which is used. Bio-fuel is way ahead of EVs when it comes to CO2 reduction for transportation. And 3rd generation bio-fuel uses that parts of the plants we don't eat so don't go saying bio-fuel takes away food.
An electric vehicle with clean energy sources will have very low lifecycle CO2 emissions. An ICE car can't do that.Wrong again. ICE cars can run fine on bio-fuel. FYI: in many western countries there is 5% (or more) bio fuel added to the fuel which is used. Bio-fuel is way ahead of EVs when it comes to CO2 reduction for transportation. And 3rd generation bio-fuel uses that parts of the plants we don't eat so don't go saying bio-fuel takes away food.
Brazil (where 50% of the fuel used is bio-fuel) is a good example why bio-fuel makes more sense than EVs. EVs are an expensive solution only few are willing to pay for -if they can-. Bio-fuel OTOH allows a gradual changeover and it doesn't cost extra. Any modern petrol engine can run on pure ethanol. Some of the flexi-fuel models can do this from the factory others will need a software update (or a device which alters the fuel injection timing).
And you are wrong about EVs not make a lot of sense.Just curious how many nuclear plants are the US now building so everyone can drive an EV in two decades?
...........
All of the land in California, Oregon, Washington, Airizona, and Nevada would be needed just to grow the bio-mass needed to power the cars in California.
Your questions are valid and here is the answer: Brazil has enough land to grow sugar cane without affecting the food supply for the people. In more densily populated areas more clever techniques are required and that is where the third generation bio-fuels come into play. 3rd generation bio-fuels are made from the parts of the plants which aren't food but just waste. The big advantage of 3rd generation bio-fuels is that they make food cheaper and don't need land specifically for creating bio-fuel. Based on the data at Poet-DSM's website I ran some numbers and you can get to near 100% fuel replacement when using efficient cars (say 100grams/CO2 per km) and just the agricultural leftovers.
And you are wrong about EVs not make a lot of sense.Just curious how many nuclear plants are the US now building so everyone can drive an EV in two decades?
...........
All of the land in California, Oregon, Washington, Airizona, and Nevada would be needed just to grow the bio-mass needed to power the cars in California.
Last I heard your country already has a lack of electricity in the summer when everyone uses their AC?
How can you advocate EVs when there is nothing done to support it ?
The other problem with biofuels is farmers will clear-cut forest land to grow biomass for biofuels. Using land once used for forest land and growing biofuel on actually causes more pollution. So in the end your are actually doing more harm using bio-fuel than good.:palm: :palm: :palm: Is reading so hard? Really?? Read carefully what I wrote about 3rd generation bio-fuels! Again: no extra farm land is needed to make bio-fuel!
The other problem with biofuels is farmers will clear-cut forest land to grow biomass for biofuels. Using land once used for forest land and growing biofuel on actually causes more pollution. So in the end your are actually doing more harm using bio-fuel than good.:palm: :palm: :palm: Is reading so hard? Really?? Read carefully what I wrote about 3rd generation bio-fuels! Again: no extra farm land is needed to make bio-fuel!
Well, biofuels are way easy to adopt than BEVs as they're basically the same gasoline cars with a modified engine, and also can use the same network of filling stations. If 3rd+ generation biofuels were adopted worldwide, that looks like good news, but i don't see anyone rushing to it.
Still, from a pollution and energy use standpoint, BEVs look like the perfect city vehicle to me. But not really for long distances, at least without a distributed network of charging stations.
And to me, Green energy production is a must, either with BEVs or without them.
About nuclear energy, fission has some serious issues. The Sun uses fusion, however. That would do it, but sadly, is only in research, and seems to be a long way from commercial use.
This next year I plan on installing solar panels. Not to charge my car during the day, that would be stupid. Instead I can sell that electricity to the power company at $0.50 during the day, and then buy it back when the rates are low, $0.11 to charge my car.Smart as long as it lasts. We had the same here but the end of payback is in sight. The problem is that the energy distributors can not handle the oscillations on their net, if the sun shines full they have an overload and have to switch off or power down the generators, but if their are clouds ten minutes later they have to switch on.
While I see the value of solar panels as a short term fix, in the US the solar panel design and installation industry is for the most part a compete scam. They are grossly over selling the number of panels needed and this includes Elon Musk and Tesla.Agree fully.
What we really need is to get next gen nuclear figured out.
Well, biofuels are way easy to adopt than BEVs as they're basically the same gasoline cars with a modified engine, and also can use the same network of filling stations. If 3rd+ generation biofuels were adopted worldwide, that looks like good news, but i don't see anyone rushing to it.Bio-fuels just aren't sexy like an EV but the world's largest and leading chemical companies have large investments in 3rd generation bio-fuels. Actually 3rd generation bio-fuels aren't new and the first experiments date back to WW2. Getting the process to work efficiently on a large scale and getting the logistics in place to collect the material from the farmers are the main challenges. The first factories are already running. The EU is also starting to ban bio-fuels which need too much land to grow specific plants (like palm oil). Anyway, bio-fuel use is increasing every year without most people even knowing about it.
The plants for 3rd generation bio-fuels are up & running. No more problems to be solved. Just fine tuning and getting the cash to build more plants. Again: no extra land needed to make 3rd generation bio-fuels. Erase the thought of bio-fuels needing extra land out of your head. That is history.But we.’ve run into issues we haven’t been able to solve with 3rd gen bio fuels. While at one time they looked promising they aren’t at this time. You have not addressed the issue of the amount of land needed for biofuels. Where are we to grow food and live if all of the land is used to propduce bio-fuels?The other problem with biofuels is farmers will clear-cut forest land to grow biomass for biofuels. Using land once used for forest land and growing biofuel on actually causes more pollution. So in the end your are actually doing more harm using bio-fuel than good.:palm: :palm: :palm: Is reading so hard? Really?? Read carefully what I wrote about 3rd generation bio-fuels! Again: no extra farm land is needed to make bio-fuel!
This next year I plan on installing solar panels. Not to charge my car during the day, that would be stupid. Instead I can sell that electricity to the power company at $0.50 during the day, and then buy it back when the rates are low, $0.11 to charge my car.Smart as long as it lasts. We had the same here but the end of payback is in sight. The problem is that the energy distributors can not handle the oscillations on their net, if the sun shines full they have an overload and have to switch off or power down the generators, but if their are clouds ten minutes later they have to switch on.
What they need is large batteryfarms to buffer this which is incredible expensive.
Then here in the winter the return of solar is only about ten % of the summer time, California is probably way better :)QuoteWhile I see the value of solar panels as a short term fix, in the US the solar panel design and installation industry is for the most part a compete scam. They are grossly over selling the number of panels needed and this includes Elon Musk and Tesla.Agree fully.
What we really need is to get next gen nuclear figured out.
The plants for 3rd generation bio-fuels are up & running. No more problems to be solved. Just fine tuning and getting the cash to build more plants. Again: no extra land needed to make 3rd generation bio-fuels. Erase the thought of bio-fuels needing extra land out of your head. That is history.But we.’ve run into issues we haven’t been able to solve with 3rd gen bio fuels. While at one time they looked promising they aren’t at this time. You have not addressed the issue of the amount of land needed for biofuels. Where are we to grow food and live if all of the land is used to propduce bio-fuels?The other problem with biofuels is farmers will clear-cut forest land to grow biomass for biofuels. Using land once used for forest land and growing biofuel on actually causes more pollution. So in the end your are actually doing more harm using bio-fuel than good.:palm: :palm: :palm: Is reading so hard? Really?? Read carefully what I wrote about 3rd generation bio-fuels! Again: no extra farm land is needed to make bio-fuel!
snip...
And unlike Tesla’s 1931 Pierce Arrow which he claimed ran on energy from the universe (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levitation_and_Infinite_Gain_from_a_Motor_Transformer.ogv). One of these EV conversations companies is demonstrating it is possible to power cars from Energy from the universe.
snip...
Not sure what you are referring to when you say 3rd gen bio fuels, but from what I know there are very serious downsides to some types of bio fuels (palm oil based for example), while others are better (like ethanol). Bio fuels have their place if the world is going to stop using fossil fuels, but there is a limit to how much of that we can produce as well.The plants for 3rd generation bio-fuels are up & running. No more problems to be solved. Just fine tuning and getting the cash to build more plants. Again: no extra land needed to make 3rd generation bio-fuels. Erase the thought of bio-fuels needing extra land out of your head. That is history.But we.’ve run into issues we haven’t been able to solve with 3rd gen bio fuels. While at one time they looked promising they aren’t at this time. You have not addressed the issue of the amount of land needed for biofuels. Where are we to grow food and live if all of the land is used to propduce bio-fuels?The other problem with biofuels is farmers will clear-cut forest land to grow biomass for biofuels. Using land once used for forest land and growing biofuel on actually causes more pollution. So in the end your are actually doing more harm using bio-fuel than good.:palm: :palm: :palm: Is reading so hard? Really?? Read carefully what I wrote about 3rd generation bio-fuels! Again: no extra farm land is needed to make bio-fuel!
3rd generation bio-fuels uses leftover plant material we would otherwise let rot on the field. The earlier generation bio-fuels (like ethanol from sugar cane and palm oil) need extra land to grow. The EU is about to ban palm-oil for use as a bio-fuel. This will give companies incentives to produce more 3rd generation bio-fuels. The big advantage of 3rd generation bio-fuels is that we end up using more of the plants we grow for food (and leftovers from plants in general. Think about how many plants we grow from which we only eat the seeds or fruits. This is a major opportunity for farmers to stabilise their income. Also there is a crapload of excess plant material available wherever people grow food.Not sure what you are referring to when you say 3rd gen bio fuels, but from what I know there are very serious downsides to some types of bio fuels (palm oil based for example), while others are better (like ethanol). Bio fuels have their place if the world is going to stop using fossil fuels, but there is a limit to how much of that we can produce as well.The plants for 3rd generation bio-fuels are up & running. No more problems to be solved. Just fine tuning and getting the cash to build more plants. Again: no extra land needed to make 3rd generation bio-fuels. Erase the thought of bio-fuels needing extra land out of your head. That is history.But we.’ve run into issues we haven’t been able to solve with 3rd gen bio fuels. While at one time they looked promising they aren’t at this time. You have not addressed the issue of the amount of land needed for biofuels. Where are we to grow food and live if all of the land is used to propduce bio-fuels?The other problem with biofuels is farmers will clear-cut forest land to grow biomass for biofuels. Using land once used for forest land and growing biofuel on actually causes more pollution. So in the end your are actually doing more harm using bio-fuel than good.:palm: :palm: :palm: Is reading so hard? Really?? Read carefully what I wrote about 3rd generation bio-fuels! Again: no extra farm land is needed to make bio-fuel!
3rd generation bio-fuels use plant material we would otherwise let rot on the field. The earlier generation bio-fuels (like ethanol from sugar cane and palm oil) need extra land to grow. The EU is about to ban palm-oil for use as a bio-fuel. This will give companies incentives to produce more 3rd generation bio-fuels. The big advantage of 3rd generation bio-fuels is that we end up using more of the plants we grow for food. Think about how many plants we grow from which we only eat the seeds or fruits. I have explained this many times before and it amazes me how indoctrinated people are with 'bio-fuels = need more land = bad'.So, you use more of the plant, and it isn't available to fertilise the land to contribute to next year's crop. Now you need to use more industrialised fertiliser. Where does that come from? Oil!
How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
.How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
... At first you were talking about usain sugar cane and now you are talking about the bio-mass leftovers. You do realize there is an enormous energy difference between the two. Then by using the bio-mass leftovers you are not creating new soil and disrupting the ecological balance of the microorganisms in the soil. Something that’s really bad.
...
As Calrl Segan once said, extrodanary claims need require extrodanary evidense. I’m not saying I don’t beleive you, it’s just you have not provided the extrodanary evidence.
How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?Duck Duck, Brasil and bio fuel , or sugar.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
... At first you were talking about using sugar cane and now you are talking about the bio-mass leftovers. You do realize there is an enormous energy difference between the two. Then by using the bio-mass leftovers you are not creating new soil and disrupting the ecological balance of the microorganisms in the soil. Something that’s really bad.
...
As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims need require extraordinary evidence. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, it’s just you have not provided the extraordinary evidence.
Ahh yes, the Dutch sugar cane fields, I remember it well. Where is it that they stand in global sugar cane production? Just behind Brazil ?
Duck Duck, Brasil and bio fuel , or sugar.That's the traditional way of doing it I believe: sugar and yeast. Nctnico was talking about some new way of converting plant waste (i.e. mostly cellulose) into alcohol. There have been several proposed processes for how to do that, but there wasn't any successful operational factories that I knew of. The question is how efficient that poet-dsm process is, if it can produce enough fuel to replace gas and at what price.
Duck Duck, Brasil and bio fuel , or sugar.That's the traditional way of doing it I believe: sugar and yeast. Nctnico was talking about some new way of converting plant waste (i.e. mostly cellulose) into alcohol. There have been several proposed processes for how to do that, but there wasn't any successful operational factories that I knew of. The question is how efficient that poet-dsm process is, if it can produce enough fuel to replace gas and at what price.
From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
No, you didn't look into it. Or it didn't sink in. Your comment is allover the place. It is like I told you to go straight ahead and you went left-right-left-left-right-right..How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
Friend we have loooked and yes they are doing it, but they are not saying how successful our profitable it is from them. Yes other companies are doing the same thing, but they are struggling with it and having issues.
You also appear to be mixing-up what the Dutch are doing and somehow implying it’s the same thing as what they are doing in Brazil. At first you were talking about usain sugar cane and now you are talking about the bio-mass leftovers. You do realize there is an enormous energy difference between the two. Then by using the bio-mass leftovers you are not creating new soil and disrupting the ecological balance of the microorganisms in the soil. Something that’s really bad.
Their entire site is marketing fluff, mostly marketing how wonderful they will be for the local economy. They don't even give optimistic results, just a few vague statements about having "solved" various issues since the plant started in 2014. They are specific about the amount of plant waste feedstock they will consume, and the number of litres of fuel it will produce, but what is important is what else (e.g. energy) goes into the process. They say nothing about this..How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
Friend we have loooked and yes they are doing it, but they are not saying how successful our profitable it is from them. Yes other companies are doing the same thing, but they are struggling with it and having issues.
You also appear to be mixing-up what the Dutch are doing and somehow implying it’s the same thing as what they are doing in Brazil. At first you were talking about usain sugar cane and now you are talking about the bio-mass leftovers. You do realize there is an enormous energy difference between the two. Then by using the bio-mass leftovers you are not creating new soil and disrupting the ecological balance of the microorganisms in the soil. Something that’s really bad.
Sorry just not seeing the same optimistic results you or any of the companies you are talking about are seeing. You say you have done the calculations, let’s see your calculations. I have seen the calculcations others have made and they are no where near as optimistic as yours are.
As Calrl Segan once said, extrodanary claims need require extrodanary evidense. I’m not saying I don’t beleive you, it’s just you have not provided the extrodanary evidence.
That doesn't answer the question.From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
They provide very little hard information, but they do clearly say that 20 to 25 million gallons per year is NOT what they are producing now. 20 million appears to be the design goal, and 25 million is a figure they hope to stretch this to.From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
No, you didn't look into it. Or it didn't sink in. Your comment is allover the place. It is like I told you to go straight ahead and you went left-right-left-left-right-right..How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
Friend we have loooked and yes they are doing it, but they are not saying how successful our profitable it is from them. Yes other companies are doing the same thing, but they are struggling with it and having issues.
You also appear to be mixing-up what the Dutch are doing and somehow implying it’s the same thing as what they are doing in Brazil. At first you were talking about usain sugar cane and now you are talking about the bio-mass leftovers. You do realize there is an enormous energy difference between the two. Then by using the bio-mass leftovers you are not creating new soil and disrupting the ecological balance of the microorganisms in the soil. Something that’s really bad.
All the information and data is right here on these websites.
poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com)
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
Read first (that is your homework) and then comment in a sensible way.
Oh, I didn't see you wanted to know per surface area. This images says it all:That doesn't answer the question.From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
nctnico in the United States we had a “salesmen” who came up with he following line for customers looking at his product... “There’s a sucker born every minute.”That may be but POET's and DSM's shareholders will be utterly dissapointed if they don't pull it off after investing 200 million dollars. The losses should have been cut sooner. All in all it looks to me like the process is working. We'll just have to wait until there is some news about how much they managed to produce in 2018 and where they are going in 2019.
You are reading this marketing crud and not realizing The document is filled with marketing words, and not engineering/scientific terms. When a document uses phrases such as, “can provide” or “may produce” they all sound positive. But at the same time the words “might not” could be substituted.
nctnico in the United States we had a “salesmen” who came up with he following line for customers looking at his product... “There’s a sucker born every minute.”That may be but POET's and DSM's shareholders will be utterly dissapointed if they don't pull it off after investing 200 million dollars. The losses should have been cut sooner. All in all it looks to me like the process is working. We'll just have to wait until there is some news about how much they managed to produce in 2018 and where they are going in 2019.
You are reading this marketing crud and not realizing The document is filled with marketing words, and not engineering/scientific terms. When a document uses phrases such as, “can provide” or “may produce” they all sound positive. But at the same time the words “might not” could be substituted.
My Google-fu is excellent. Just Google DSM and biofuels.
https://www.dsm.com/corporate/about/business-entities/dsm-biobased-productsandservices.html (https://www.dsm.com/corporate/about/business-entities/dsm-biobased-productsandservices.html)
We'll just have to wait until there is some news about how much they managed to produce in 2018 and where they are going in 2019.The same could be said about several storage solutions, there is a lot of hype about flow batteries for example.
Now you make it sound as if they are not producing anything. The factory is running but no news yet on how much they produced exactly in 2018. 2019 is just one day old so give them some time to put a press release together.We'll just have to wait until there is some news about how much they managed to produce in 2018 and where they are going in 2019.The same could be said about several storage solutions, there is a lot of hype about flow batteries for example.
There are also commercially available flow batteries being tried now, we'll just have to wait until there is some news about their performance.POET-DSM seems to be near the target performance almost two years ago:
Anyone else reading nctnico’s documents and realize the Dutch company is NOT the one converting cane sugar or corn into ethanol? All they are doing is working on an EZ bale system for sorting and collecting collecting corn stover.This paragraph seems to indicate that they use distillation to produce ethanol from corn stover, but english isn't my main language either:
In the document nctnico provided it’s clearly stated what the Dutch company is doing to maximizing bio-refinery production with EZ Bales.
Does anyone see anything that says the Dutch compouny is even in the business for converting bio-mass into bio-fuel? If so, I can’t find it.
Once the collected corn stover arrives at Project LIBERTY, it is weighed, documented, and stored in the stack yard or brought directly to the Biomass Building for immediate processing. The corn stover begins processing by undergoing a series of physical and passive pretreatment processes that start to break down its rigid cell walls so that the basic sugar components can be extracted and fermented. The resulting product is then distilled into 200-proof ethanol, denatured, and shipped to refiners for blending with gasoline. The portion of the corn stover (primarily lignin) that cannot be converted to biofuel is used to generate the thermal power needed by Project LIBERTY—and much of that power required by the adjacent corn ethanol plant.https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
Project LIBERTY was strategically situated right next to POET’s existing first-generation corn ethanol plant in Emmetsburg to share energy, land, rail spurs/roadways, storage, feedstock supply network, and personnel. Once this novel production technology is fine-tuned, POET intends to adopt it in at the other 27 corn ethanol plants it operates in North America. The integrated technology package is also being licensed for use around the globe.
There are also commercially available flow batteries being tried now, we'll just have to wait until there is some news about their performance.POET-DSM seems to be near the target performance almost two years ago:
https://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2017/02/2017-02-16-poet-dsm-plans-on-site-enzyme-manufacturing-facility-at-project-liberty.html (https://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2017/02/2017-02-16-poet-dsm-plans-on-site-enzyme-manufacturing-facility-at-project-liberty.html)
Anyone else reading nctnico’s documents and realize the Dutch company is NOT the one converting cane sugar or corn into ethanol? All they are doing is working on an EZ bale system for sorting and collecting collecting corn stover.This paragraph seems to indicate that they use distillation to produce ethanol from corn stover, but english isn't my main language either:
In the document nctnico provided it’s clearly stated what the Dutch company is doing to maximizing bio-refinery production with EZ Bales.
Does anyone see anything that says the Dutch compouny is even in the business for converting bio-mass into bio-fuel? If so, I can’t find it.QuoteOnce the collected corn stover arrives at Project LIBERTY, it is weighed, documented, and stored in the stack yard or brought directly to the Biomass Building for immediate processing. The corn stover begins processing by undergoing a series of physical and passive pretreatment processes that start to break down its rigid cell walls so that the basic sugar components can be extracted and fermented. The resulting product is then distilled into 200-proof ethanol, denatured, and shipped to refiners for blending with gasoline. The portion of the corn stover (primarily lignin) that cannot be converted to biofuel is used to generate the thermal power needed by Project LIBERTY—and much of that power required by the adjacent corn ethanol plant.https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
Project LIBERTY was strategically situated right next to POET’s existing first-generation corn ethanol plant in Emmetsburg to share energy, land, rail spurs/roadways, storage, feedstock supply network, and personnel. Once this novel production technology is fine-tuned, POET intends to adopt it in at the other 27 corn ethanol plants it operates in North America. The integrated technology package is also being licensed for use around the globe.
No. DSM is a world leading chemical company with a bio-chemistry department which has a department specialising in yeasts and enzymes. The latter are critical ingredients for making 3rd generation bio-fuel work. The EZ Bale is part of the logistics to get enough feedstock through the factory. In order to reach production volumes a lot of feedstock needs to be processed. Because the EZ Bale is likely a key component of keeping the manufacturing process up to speed it (ofcourse) has been patented so other manufacturers will need to pay royalties or at least the competition will need to come up with something different.Yes but all they did was create something they call EZ Bale to increase production. The are NOT the ones converting corn stover into bio-fuels. You are citing production values of the American companies who are using the Dutch EZ Bale.There are also commercially available flow batteries being tried now, we'll just have to wait until there is some news about their performance.POET-DSM seems to be near the target performance almost two years ago:
https://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2017/02/2017-02-16-poet-dsm-plans-on-site-enzyme-manufacturing-facility-at-project-liberty.html (https://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2017/02/2017-02-16-poet-dsm-plans-on-site-enzyme-manufacturing-facility-at-project-liberty.html)
No. DSM is a world leading chemical company with a bio-chemistry department which has a department specialising in yeasts and enzymes. The latter are critical ingredients for making 3rd generation bio-fuel work. The EZ Bale is part of the logistics to get enough feedstock through the factory. In order to reach production volumes a lot of feedstock needs to be processed. Because the EZ Bale is likely a key component of keeping the manufacturing process up to speed it (ofcourse) has been patented so other manufacturers will need to pay royalties or at least the competition will need to come up with something different.Yes but all they did was create something they call EZ Bale to increase production. The are NOT the ones converting corn stover into bio-fuels. You are citing production values of the American companies who are using the Dutch EZ Bale.There are also commercially available flow batteries being tried now, we'll just have to wait until there is some news about their performance.POET-DSM seems to be near the target performance almost two years ago:
https://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2017/02/2017-02-16-poet-dsm-plans-on-site-enzyme-manufacturing-facility-at-project-liberty.html (https://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2017/02/2017-02-16-poet-dsm-plans-on-site-enzyme-manufacturing-facility-at-project-liberty.html)
Oh and also take into account that every kWh from your solar panels releases several tens of grams of CO2 into the atmosphere due to the manufacturing process.
lets also add the cost of drilling for oil ,refining it , the energy used for that. and the cost to nature in form of oil spills.Because that comparison is impossible to make. For example: You'd also have to factor in the CO2 emissions created during the building of the dam required to generate the electricity for your EV. However for mass produced items the price without taxes is a good indication. For mass production the energy (and thus CO2 emissions) it takes to make something (from ore to end product) will dominate the price.Nor do your numbers include the energy of extraction/refining/distribution of hydrocarbons; but then you have never been about comparing like for like.The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
lets also add the cost of drilling for oil ,refining it , the energy used for that. and the cost to nature in form of oil spills.Because that comparison is impossible to make. For example: You'd also have to factor in the CO2 emissions created during the building of the dam required to generate the electricity for your EV. However for mass produced items the price without taxes is a good indication. For mass production the energy (and thus CO2 emissions) it takes to make something (from ore to end product) will dominate the price.Nor do your numbers include the energy of extraction/refining/distribution of hydrocarbons; but then you have never been about comparing like for like.The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
in other words : how many barrels of oil are needed to refine one barrel of oil ?
Very good. ThanksOh, I didn't see you wanted to know per surface area. This images says it all:That doesn't answer the question.From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
(http://poet-dsm.com/resources/images/infographic-acre.jpg)
Using corn residu is just the start. Look at how much land is used for agriculture in the US in total. Besides that the fuel consumption of cars in the US is quite high on average. A 50% reduction in fuel consumption is easely achievable if necessary. With reduction of fuel consumption and being able to use all agricultural leftovers you can get pretty close to covering all fuel requirements using bio-fuel. But even 50% would be a big win.
nctnicoI agree and I never stated 1st and 2nd generation bio-fuels from palm oil are good! Actually the EU is about to ban palm-oil as a bio fuel which is a good thing. It will kick 3rd generation bio-fuels into gear.
Biofuels are made from palm oil. Here’s what farmers are doing to produce the palm oil.
If anything I would think you would want to STOP the production of bio-fuels from palm oil.
The palm oil ban is just symbolism, they'll just use some other crop.
X-generation biofuel seem to me mostly propaganda, spend a couple million to do some research and 10x more on lobbyists to shovel that fact ... all just to pretend biofuels can some day be not a complete clusterfuck so the billions of subsidies keep rolling in.
It plays to the neoliberal fallacy that only the market can do this. If we want X-generation biofuel, just spend public money on the research. No subsidies.
Bio-fuel is a very hard problem regardless of what you grow ... because compared to soil and fresh water, any other medium to grow anything on is orders of magnitude worse.
Bioreactors have massive material requirements. Open pools in the desert need to get lots of fresh water for it from somewhere (can't use salt water, because eventually you'd have a 100% saturated brine and even the hardiest organisms won't grow in that). Open pools on land where there is plenty of fresh water, might as well skip the pool and use the land. Ocean have lousy nutrient density and no way to contain any fertilizer.
If you have a 250 micrometer flexible solar cell which costs next to nothing you can throw it in the desert and have some robot occasionally brush the sand off it ... with biofuel it doesn't work that way.
PS. crop waste is nice and all, but it would provide only a tiny contribution ... let the market figure out if it can make that profitable, not worth spending public money on.
Here in Europe we just use sunflower oil, the bio-diesel is obviously not competitive with fossil fuel.Sunflower oil is expensive, but the cheapest vegetable cooking oil costs less than diesel in most European countries. When oil prices peaked some time ago cooking oil cost less than heating oil, which usually carries less taxation than diesel. Cooking oil will burn just fine to heat homes. It will power most diesel cars without modification, although the engine needs some tweaking to optimise its performance with cooking oil.
You really don't understand what you read :palm: The above is all wrong!Bio-fuel is a very hard problem regardless of what you grow ... because compared to soil and fresh water, any other medium to grow anything on is orders of magnitude worse.
Bioreactors have massive material requirements. Open pools in the desert need to get lots of fresh water for it from somewhere (can't use salt water, because eventually you'd have a 100% saturated brine and even the hardiest organisms won't grow in that). Open pools on land where there is plenty of fresh water, might as well skip the pool and use the land. Ocean have lousy nutrient density and no way to contain any fertilizer.
If you have a 250 micrometer flexible solar cell which costs next to nothing you can throw it in the desert and have some robot occasionally brush the sand off it ... with biofuel it doesn't work that way.
PS. crop waste is nice and all, but it would provide only a tiny contribution ... let the market figure out if it can make that profitable, not worth spending public money on.
Original poster was saying bio-fuels is working well in Brazil, which it is. Then he went on to say a Dutch company is working on it as well. Didn't sound like it would because sugar cane which is what's being used in Brazil would not grow in most of Europe. Original poster kept insisting it's working. Then when we looked at what the Dutch company is doing has to do with corn and not in Europe but in the United States. Then the Dutch company isn't even doing bio-fuels. what they are doing is something called EZ Bail which sorts the corn stover to get higher yields as the American companies create bio-fuels from the stover. The original poster stated he did the calculations and stated it could be used to fuel our cars. But he never provided the calcualtions. A responeder did offer the calcuations and bio-fuels might be able to supply Europe and the United States with just under 1% per year. Then the original poster though we all conservered we would reduce usage by 50%. To that the only responce would be fat chanace.
You really don't understand what you read :palm: The above is all wrong!Bio-fuel is a very hard problem regardless of what you grow ... because compared to soil and fresh water, any other medium to grow anything on is orders of magnitude worse.
Bioreactors have massive material requirements. Open pools in the desert need to get lots of fresh water for it from somewhere (can't use salt water, because eventually you'd have a 100% saturated brine and even the hardiest organisms won't grow in that). Open pools on land where there is plenty of fresh water, might as well skip the pool and use the land. Ocean have lousy nutrient density and no way to contain any fertilizer.
If you have a 250 micrometer flexible solar cell which costs next to nothing you can throw it in the desert and have some robot occasionally brush the sand off it ... with biofuel it doesn't work that way.
PS. crop waste is nice and all, but it would provide only a tiny contribution ... let the market figure out if it can make that profitable, not worth spending public money on.
Original poster was saying bio-fuels is working well in Brazil, which it is. Then he went on to say a Dutch company is working on it as well. Didn't sound like it would because sugar cane which is what's being used in Brazil would not grow in most of Europe. Original poster kept insisting it's working. Then when we looked at what the Dutch company is doing has to do with corn and not in Europe but in the United States. Then the Dutch company isn't even doing bio-fuels. what they are doing is something called EZ Bail which sorts the corn stover to get higher yields as the American companies create bio-fuels from the stover. The original poster stated he did the calculations and stated it could be used to fuel our cars. But he never provided the calcualtions. A responeder did offer the calcuations and bio-fuels might be able to supply Europe and the United States with just under 1% per year. Then the original poster though we all conservered we would reduce usage by 50%. To that the only responce would be fat chanace.
Here is your open invitation to provide credible documentation to change our minds.I'm sorry but there is no way to have a decent discussion with you. I tried to explain a few things (with references) several times and every time you get it wrong and/or make it look like I wrote things I never wrote. Enough is enough.
Here is your open invitation to provide credible documentation to change our minds.I'm sorry but there is no way to have a decent discussion with you. I tried to explain a few things (with references) several times and every time you get it wrong and/or make it look like I wrote things I never wrote. Enough is enough.
Please stop making a fool out of yourself for your own sake. :popcorn: I never wrote anything remotely resembling your ramblings! :palm:Here is your open invitation to provide credible documentation to change our minds.I'm sorry but there is no way to have a decent discussion with you. I tried to explain a few things (with references) several times and every time you get it wrong and/or make it look like I wrote things I never wrote. Enough is enough.
Why do you say I'me getting it wrong. I'm just reading what what was in the links you posted and repeating what I read. We've provided links for you and asked you questiosns which you have refused to answer. In the links for the documents you've posted you appear to adding additional information that's not in the documents. All we are doing is using Critial Thinking skills, you should do the same.
I invite you to re-read the documents you provided links to and you will see all the Dutch comapny is offering is a licence for EX Bale. There is NOTHING in the documentation saying they are the ones converting bio-mass to bio-fuel. That is somehting the American companies are doing and have been doing.
You seem to think cane sugar can grow in Europe as it does in Brazil. If what you are saying is true there would have been no sugar/slave trade hundreds of years ago.
Please stop making a fool out of yourself for your own sake. :popcorn: I never wrote anything remotely resembling your ramblings! :palm:Here is your open invitation to provide credible documentation to change our minds.I'm sorry but there is no way to have a decent discussion with you. I tried to explain a few things (with references) several times and every time you get it wrong and/or make it look like I wrote things I never wrote. Enough is enough.
Why do you say I'me getting it wrong. I'm just reading what what was in the links you posted and repeating what I read. We've provided links for you and asked you questiosns which you have refused to answer. In the links for the documents you've posted you appear to adding additional information that's not in the documents. All we are doing is using Critial Thinking skills, you should do the same.
I invite you to re-read the documents you provided links to and you will see all the Dutch comapny is offering is a licence for EX Bale. There is NOTHING in the documentation saying they are the ones converting bio-mass to bio-fuel. That is somehting the American companies are doing and have been doing.
You seem to think cane sugar can grow in Europe as it does in Brazil. If what you are saying is true there would have been no sugar/slave trade hundreds of years ago.
sugar cane is a pest. talk to the people in Maui .... they are all too happy they finally stopped farming that stuff..
I suggest both of you just stop.Please stop making a fool out of yourself for your own sake. :popcorn: I never wrote anything remotely resembling your ramblings! :palm:Here is your open invitation to provide credible documentation to change our minds.I'm sorry but there is no way to have a decent discussion with you. I tried to explain a few things (with references) several times and every time you get it wrong and/or make it look like I wrote things I never wrote. Enough is enough.
Why do you say I'me getting it wrong. I'm just reading what what was in the links you posted and repeating what I read. We've provided links for you and asked you questiosns which you have refused to answer. In the links for the documents you've posted you appear to adding additional information that's not in the documents. All we are doing is using Critial Thinking skills, you should do the same.
I invite you to re-read the documents you provided links to and you will see all the Dutch comapny is offering is a licence for EX Bale. There is NOTHING in the documentation saying they are the ones converting bio-mass to bio-fuel. That is somehting the American companies are doing and have been doing.
You seem to think cane sugar can grow in Europe as it does in Brazil. If what you are saying is true there would have been no sugar/slave trade hundreds of years ago.
So follow the scientific method and present your scientific evidence. Marketing materials like religious propaganda don’t count. The opportunity is yours.
So, for a BEV as a citycar, it's basically a matter of:
- Cost: but products usually get cheaper when manufactured in large amounts. Would the prices of BEVs get lower with larger production?
- Green electricity generation: it's more like a general issue than an EV issue. We should be lowering our carbon footprint anyways. Still, big engines have better efficiency than small engines.
- Grid capacity: for the demand of BEVs charging over-night in every house, plus daytime charging at the stations. This would need to be upgraded as more BEVs are sold, because of the increasing electricity demand.
For long-range travel, you need to add the issue of the charging stations, and the charging time. But in 30 minutes you can get substantial charge into a BEV, as the slow part of the charge is when the battery is over around 80%.
Look at this, interesting for an hybrid with a turbine engine. Less weight and the same efficiency than the best ICEs: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-cars/deltas-micro-turbine-range-extender-will-make-production-2019-model (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-cars/deltas-micro-turbine-range-extender-will-make-production-2019-model)
Why Tesla receives such criticism in the videos?
Why Tesla receives such criticism in the videos?
[...]
35kWh battery, approx 225km range.
100kW (134hp) electric motor and 214 ft-lbs of torque
14 kWh / 100km power consumption.
That’s at C$0.085/kWh or $1.19 for 100km; or about 0.8 litre / 100km with local gas prices
[...]
Why Tesla receives such criticism in the videos?
Because Telsa concentrate on only one part of the business. Their after-sale and parts available (and used Tesla purchase programs) are utter and complete crap. You can find dozens and dozens of people waiting months for simple parts, or in this case, the purchase of a used certified pre-owned Tesla that has taken 2+ months and counting (and this to a guy who has a big Tesla following)
The lack of dealing with the rest of the business will be Tesla's downfall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ro6kpKlw0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ro6kpKlw0)
Yes, i have seen the video, but remember that at some point in the past, only the rich could buy a car with air conditioning, or if you go back enough, even a car.So, for a BEV as a citycar, it's basically a matter of:
- Cost: but products usually get cheaper when manufactured in large amounts. Would the prices of BEVs get lower with larger production?
- Green electricity generation: it's more like a general issue than an EV issue. We should be lowering our carbon footprint anyways. Still, big engines have better efficiency than small engines.
- Grid capacity: for the demand of BEVs charging over-night in every house, plus daytime charging at the stations. This would need to be upgraded as more BEVs are sold, because of the increasing electricity demand.
For long-range travel, you need to add the issue of the charging stations, and the charging time. But in 30 minutes you can get substantial charge into a BEV, as the slow part of the charge is when the battery is over around 80%.
Look at this, interesting for an hybrid with a turbine engine. Less weight and the same efficiency than the best ICEs: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-cars/deltas-micro-turbine-range-extender-will-make-production-2019-model (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-cars/deltas-micro-turbine-range-extender-will-make-production-2019-model)
Why Tesla receives such criticism in the videos?
Reason Tesla receives such criticism is because it's an experiment in progress. The other is the crazy claims Elon makes. A BEV semi-truck which can travel 800 miles between charges. He is correct, but the truck couldn't haul anything as all of the cargo space would be filled with batteries.
But when it comes to his cars, people are sure buying them. And the market cap of his company is 10 times that of Ford. Analysists keep insisting he's going bankrupt, yet every time Elon has proved them wrong. Got to give credit where credit is due.
As for EVs did you see the video comparing Hybrids, BEVs and PHEVs? While BEVs may sound ideal, economically they are a terrible deal for the consumer. I think the breakeven between and ICE and BEV is 200,000 km. What’s interesting is the proven reliability and safety of the battery technology used in EVs.
https://youtu.be/5RDQj276EhI (https://youtu.be/5RDQj276EhI)
Hey Boffin, in snafu.ca you have some typos:Quote[...]
35kWh battery, approx 225km range.
100kW (134hp) electric motor and 214 ft-lbs of torque
14 kWh / 100km power consumption.
That’s at C$0.085/kWh or $1.19 for 100km; or about 0.8 litre / 100km with local gas prices
[...]
1) 35[kWh]/225[km] is 15.5 kWh/100km not 14.
2) kWh is a unit of energy not power.
In this page:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103654_volkswagen-e-golf-real-world-range-vs-epa-estimates-over-six-month-test/page-2 (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103654_volkswagen-e-golf-real-world-range-vs-epa-estimates-over-six-month-test/page-2)
they say the trip computer shows (after six months) an average of 3.7 miles per kWh, that's 100/(3.7*1.60934)= 16.8 kWh/100km (20% more than your figures), that corrected for out-of-the-wall-plug-energy is around 16.8/0.85= 19.7 kWh/100km (41% more than your figures)
It also says "At the approximately 14 cents per kilowatt hour that we pay in Portland, Oregon", but your figure for that is another unbelievably good C$0.085 = US$0.06 or less than half as much (does electricity in the USA really cost 233% more than yours?)
Here: https://www.gasbuddy.com/CAN (https://www.gasbuddy.com/CAN)
It says the price per litre of gasoline in Canada goes from C$0.91 to C$1.24, the average of which is 1.08 so $1.19/1.08= 1.1 litres (which is 37% more than what you say).
If we put in all the other sites' numbers and do the math again:
19.7[kWh/100km]*0.14[US$/kWh]= 2.75 [US$/100km] = 3.67 [C$/100km]
3.67/1.08= 3.4 litres of gasoline/100 km
The picture is a completely different one, isn't it?
Your numbers always seem too good to be true.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.
Tesla is an experiment unfolding. DISRUPTON is what this generation is all about. Elon did that with the banking industry and PayPal. Let’s go I’ve credit where credit is due. But look at how he has sucessfully disrupted the car industry. Like the guy or his car company one thing is for sure he disrupted the car industry. Give the guy credit for doiing so.Making money is what it's all about. Tesla has done well on producing an amazing powertrain, and getting vast amounts of hype; which has propelled the company along. Now that they have to survive more on making cars and less on hype, let's see how it goes.
Will Tesla cars succeed? Who knows. But for the last 10 years or expert analysts have been saying Tesla Motors will fail and go bankrupt. So far all of those “experts” have been wrong.I think they will partly succeed. I would expect them to exit the car business and stick to the powertrain business. I'd expect "Powered by Tesla" in the same way that Chrysler use Cummins powertrains in some of their trucks.
Just look at the guy in the video. He want’s a Tesla so bad he’s willing to put money down on a used Tesla without even seeing pictures of the car or even knowing when he can take delivery of the car.He needs a Tesla X (he already owns a bunch of others, that he's rebuilt, watch his videos), so he can test-fit aftermarket parts that he wants to make, because Tesla is so pitiful at the parts market.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.and circling back to your original question, the answer is essentially NO. Tesla can't just be in the business of selling new, they also need to be in the business of building, selling used (trade ins) and selling parts/service; or they'll get crushed by the rest of the companies that provide full service.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.and circling back to your original question, the answer is essentially NO. Tesla can't just be in the business of selling new, they also need to be in the business of building, selling used (trade ins) and selling parts/service; or they'll get crushed by the rest of the companies that provide full service.
Tell me which car manufacturers are in the business of selling used cars? AFAIK none. Sure some dealerships sell used vehicles and they (usually) are happy to service any car from the brand they represent but dealers are independant companies.Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.and circling back to your original question, the answer is essentially NO. Tesla can't just be in the business of selling new, they also need to be in the business of building, selling used (trade ins) and selling parts/service; or they'll get crushed by the rest of the companies that provide full service.
Tell me which car manufacturers are in the business of selling used cars? AFAIK none. Sure some dealerships sell used vehicles and they (usually) are happy to service any car from the brand they represent but dealers are independant companies.Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.and circling back to your original question, the answer is essentially NO. Tesla can't just be in the business of selling new, they also need to be in the business of building, selling used (trade ins) and selling parts/service; or they'll get crushed by the rest of the companies that provide full service.
[...]
Yes, electricity is that cheap here.
C$0.085/kWh. This part of the country has a lot of (cheap/green) hydro electric power, and results in those rates. https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html (https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html)
[...]
If you include sales tax,which I didn't in my original calculation, and wall consumption as opposed to vehicle reported consumption, which brings the numbers to 9.1c/kWh and 18kWh/100km, you end up with
18 * 0.091 = $1.638/100km, or about 1.2l/100km.
But these are all programs executed by the dealers. Not the manufacturers! After all they are not shipping cars back to the manufacturer to have a car checked and/or refurbished. The reasons Tesla doesn't do this because (AFAIK) Tesla mostly does direct sales without a dealer network.Tell me which car manufacturers are in the business of selling used cars? AFAIK none. Sure some dealerships sell used vehicles and they (usually) are happy to service any car from the brand they represent but dealers are independant companies.Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.and circling back to your original question, the answer is essentially NO. Tesla can't just be in the business of selling new, they also need to be in the business of building, selling used (trade ins) and selling parts/service; or they'll get crushed by the rest of the companies that provide full service.
All of them have 'Certified Pre-Owned' programs of some sort. Here's your 'none' (aka what you'd like to believe) versus reality
https://usedvehicles.vwmodels.ca/search/ (https://usedvehicles.vwmodels.ca/search/)
https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/cpo (https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/cpo)
https://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/certified-used (https://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/certified-used)
https://www.hondacertified.com/ (https://www.hondacertified.com/)
https://www.ford.ca/certified-used/ (https://www.ford.ca/certified-used/)
https://www.usedcars.peugeot.co.uk/ (https://www.usedcars.peugeot.co.uk/)
http://www.certifiedpreowned.chrysler.com/ (http://www.certifiedpreowned.chrysler.com/)
even Tesla (except they're really really bad at it -- see linked video)
[...]
Yes, electricity is that cheap here.
C$0.085/kWh. This part of the country has a lot of (cheap/green) hydro electric power, and results in those rates. https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html (https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html)
[...]
If you include sales tax,which I didn't in my original calculation, and wall consumption as opposed to vehicle reported consumption, which brings the numbers to 9.1c/kWh and 18kWh/100km, you end up with
18 * 0.091 = $1.638/100km, or about 1.2l/100km.
Boffin, in that link the absolute minimum price for the so called "step 1" is C$0.0884 per kWh + 5% + taxes which even before taxes is already more than your shiny new recalculated rate of C$0.091/kWh, look: 0.0884*1.05= C$0.09282 before taxes.
Are these https://www.thoughtco.com/canadian-sales-tax-rates-510599 (https://www.thoughtco.com/canadian-sales-tax-rates-510599) the taxes?
If so, then for BC C$0.09282+5%(GST/VAT)+7%(PST) is C$0.09282*1.12= C$0.104 and there you go, your numbers are way off again by 14.2%.
And the step 2 prices are $0.1326+5% before taxes...
But these are all programs executed by the dealers. Not the manufacturers! After all they are not shipping cars back to the manufacturer to have a car checked and/or refurbished. The reasons Tesla doesn't do this because (AFAIK) Tesla mostly does direct sales without a dealer network.Tell me which car manufacturers are in the business of selling used cars? AFAIK none. Sure some dealerships sell used vehicles and they (usually) are happy to service any car from the brand they represent but dealers are independant companies.Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.and circling back to your original question, the answer is essentially NO. Tesla can't just be in the business of selling new, they also need to be in the business of building, selling used (trade ins) and selling parts/service; or they'll get crushed by the rest of the companies that provide full service.
All of them have 'Certified Pre-Owned' programs of some sort. Here's your 'none' (aka what you'd like to believe) versus reality
https://usedvehicles.vwmodels.ca/search/ (https://usedvehicles.vwmodels.ca/search/)
https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/cpo (https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/cpo)
https://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/certified-used (https://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/certified-used)
https://www.hondacertified.com/ (https://www.hondacertified.com/)
https://www.ford.ca/certified-used/ (https://www.ford.ca/certified-used/)
https://www.usedcars.peugeot.co.uk/ (https://www.usedcars.peugeot.co.uk/)
http://www.certifiedpreowned.chrysler.com/ (http://www.certifiedpreowned.chrysler.com/)
even Tesla (except they're really really bad at it -- see linked video)
But these are all programs executed by the dealers. Not the manufacturers! After all they are not shipping cars back to the manufacturer to have a car checked and/or refurbished. The reasons Tesla doesn't do this because (AFAIK) Tesla mostly does direct sales without a dealer network.Tell me which car manufacturers are in the business of selling used cars? AFAIK none. Sure some dealerships sell used vehicles and they (usually) are happy to service any car from the brand they represent but dealers are independant companies.Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Tesla in the business of selling new cars? From what I understand they are doing well. Consumers are buying the cars and are very pleased.and circling back to your original question, the answer is essentially NO. Tesla can't just be in the business of selling new, they also need to be in the business of building, selling used (trade ins) and selling parts/service; or they'll get crushed by the rest of the companies that provide full service.
All of them have 'Certified Pre-Owned' programs of some sort. Here's your 'none' (aka what you'd like to believe) versus reality
https://usedvehicles.vwmodels.ca/search/ (https://usedvehicles.vwmodels.ca/search/)
https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/cpo (https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/cpo)
https://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/certified-used (https://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/certified-used)
https://www.hondacertified.com/ (https://www.hondacertified.com/)
https://www.ford.ca/certified-used/ (https://www.ford.ca/certified-used/)
https://www.usedcars.peugeot.co.uk/ (https://www.usedcars.peugeot.co.uk/)
http://www.certifiedpreowned.chrysler.com/ (http://www.certifiedpreowned.chrysler.com/)
even Tesla (except they're really really bad at it -- see linked video)
These are all MANUFACTURER warranty programs, along with manufacturer based advertising, it's not the dealers doing this independently.
I suspect this is something the manufacturer does to get people to buy née cars/. I highly doubt the car manufacturer pays for the repairs, they only coordinate the program for the dealers. Repairs are probably handled through some third party repair insurance company.To sell new cars manufacturers have to ensure a good market for the cars traded in. This means most car makers work to keep up the residual value of vehicles coming off lease and other finance schemes. They have schemes to ensure good warranty and finance arrangements are available for those traded in cars. Remember that a huge percentage of new cars and cars after their first trade in are financed by arms or associates of the manufacturer. This finance is often the most profitable part of the manufacturer's business. This is why many dealers aren't that keen on talking to cash customers.
Don’t you think a new car company would want to sell new cars where they make the most money? I high;y doubt they would wan to mess around with used cars and all f the problems that go along with them.
I suspect this is something the manufacturer does to get people to buy née cars/. I highly doubt the car manufacturer pays for the repairs, they only coordinate the program for the dealers. Repairs are probably handled through some third party repair insurance company.To sell new cars manufacturers have to ensure a good market for the cars traded in. This means most car makers work to keep up the residual value of vehicles coming off lease and other finance schemes. They have schemes to ensure good warranty and finance arrangements are available for those traded in cars. Remember that a huge percentage of new cars and cars after their first trade in are financed by arms or associates of the manufacturer. This finance is often the most profitable part of the manufacturer's business. This is why many dealers aren't that keen on talking to cash customers.
Don’t you think a new car company would want to sell new cars where they make the most money? I high;y doubt they would wan to mess around with used cars and all f the problems that go along with them.
I susspect this is something the manufacturer does to get people to buy née cars/. I highly doubt the car manufacturer pays for the repairs, they only coordinate the program for the dealers. Repairs are probably handled through some third party repair insurance company.
Don’t y9u think a new car company would want to sell new cars where they make the most money? I high;y doubt they would wan to mess around with used cars and all f the problems that go along with them.
In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.
In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.
Yup. We could have a Chernobyl accident every year and it would cause less harm to human health than air pollution does, and we haven't even considered climate change yet!
People are very irrational when it comes to risk. People like what is familiar to them, like a cosy wood (or coal) fire, but in reality that is far more dangerous than nuclear power.
I can only think of two nuclear power accidents in the past 60 years. Now compare that to oil/fossil fuel related spills/accidents I can think of over two dozen which have occurred in the same time frame.While the number of nuclear accidents is low, if you can only think of two you aren't really trying.
There have only been two major accidents at civilian nuclear power stations that have caused harm to people or the environment. Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are a few other military related accidents though, not to mention all the nukes they blew up in the atmosphere. :(Dounreay was probably as bad as Chernobyl, but the coverups mean we'll never really know. Three Mile Island let stuff out, but it remains unclear just how much. As I said, not many accidents, but its not as low as 2. You also have places like Sellafield with a long history of poor control, yet only one event that came close to a real disaster.
I can only think of two nuclear power accidents in the past 60 years. Now compare that to oil/fossil fuel related spills/accidents I can think of over two dozen which have occurred in the same time frame.While the number of nuclear accidents is low, if you can only think of two you aren't really trying.
There have only been two major accidents at civilian nuclear power stations that have caused harm to people or the environment. Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are a few other military related accidents though, not to mention all the nukes they blew up in the atmosphere. :(Dounreay was probably as bad as Chernobyl, but the coverups mean we'll never really know. Three Mile Island let stuff out, but it remains unclear just how much. As I said, not many accidents, but its not as low as 2. You also have places like Sellafield with a long history of poor control, yet only one event that came close to a real disaster.
There is no way to cover up a large accident. There is nothing that is so easy to measure as radioactive decay. Geiger counters can detect the decay from individual atoms. Many elements that are emitted from a nuclear accident are not naturally occurring so we can tell where they came from if they are found (like caesium-137)There have only been two major accidents at civilian nuclear power stations that have caused harm to people or the environment. Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are a few other military related accidents though, not to mention all the nukes they blew up in the atmosphere. :(Dounreay was probably as bad as Chernobyl, but the coverups mean we'll never really know. Three Mile Island let stuff out, but it remains unclear just how much. As I said, not many accidents, but its not as low as 2. You also have places like Sellafield with a long history of poor control, yet only one event that came close to a real disaster.
Meanwhile I've found an interesting article from June 2018 which sums up the status on 3rd generation bio-fuels:
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-to-10-million-in-5-years (http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-to-10-million-in-5-years)
Appearantly it is commercially viable to make 3d generation bio-fuels:
Yancey predicts corn fiber-to-ethanol will be the first cellulosic fuel to top 1 billion gallons, with multiple starch plants adopting one of the new technologies well before there will be multiple standalone, dedicated biomass plants. “It could be adopted as fast as corn oil was, because it is so profitable,” he says. The projected return on investment for D3Max is at one year with a 40 percent equity investment.
And the leftovers may even serve as food for animals:
The distillers grains left after the fiber is converted to ethanol tests at 50 percent crude protein on a dry weight basis. Feed trials will be conducted this fall to establish its performance in poultry, swine and dairy.
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).Its the concentration that seriously matters, not what happens when the stuff is thinly spread far from the event. If that mattered we'd have to shut down all the coal power stations, as they put out an enormous amount of radioactive waste.
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).Its the concentration that seriously matters, not what happens when the stuff is thinly spread far from the event. If that mattered we'd have to shut down all the coal power stations, as they put out an enormous amount of radioactive waste.
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).The Chernobyl accident has been studied in detail for over 30 years now, and we have a lot of scientific data on what actually happened. Worst case estimates say that about a total of 30'000 might die prematurely in Europe because of radioactive particles from Chernobyl (many others like the IAEA and the WHO says it's 4'000). Thankfully such accidents happens very seldom; since the first nuclear reactors were built in the 1940s it has only happened twice (and Fukushima is believed to have less of an health impact than Chernobyl).
Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?Very good. ThanksOh, I didn't see you wanted to know per surface area. This images says it all:That doesn't answer the question.From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
(http://poet-dsm.com/resources/images/infographic-acre.jpg)
Assume 80 gal/acre
I drive 12,000 mi/year
Assume 25 mi/gallon
So that's 480 gal/year
So I need 6 acres of corn land.
I checked US Energy Information Admin for fuel consumption in the US
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10 (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10)
Quote from the web site
"How much gasoline does the United States consume?
In 2017, about 142.98 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 391.71 million gallons (or about 9.33 million barrels per day)."
So that is 1.8E9 acres of corn to produce this fuel based on 80 gal/acre.
Now Wikepedia tells me that there are 9.6E7 acres of corn in production in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States)
So the 96 million acres could produce 0.7% of the fuel for the us.
That does not include aircraft or ships.
People visits chernobyl, but in organized tours. You cannot wander in any place you want, because radiation isn't absorbed the same in different materials. The roads don't have much radiation, and that explains how they can reach the place, but the forest is contaminated, and so are the animals living there. You can read about mutations in them in several websites, such as newspapers, and the like.You can't go into the reactor that exploded of course, but you can go mostly everywhere else. There are people that are living permanently in the exclusion zone, some never left. The wildlife in the exclusion zone is thriving anyone who says otherwise is dishonest at best. Those pictures of mutations are just scaremongering. Mutations occurs naturally everywhere, it is not any more common around Chernobyl than elsewhere today (there might have been a small increase shortly after the accident). Directly after the accident there was a part of a pine forest close to the reactor that were damaged (the needles turned red) but it has long since recovered. They kept operating the other three reactors at the Chernobyl power plant for over a decade after the accident. People went to work there every day (and still do). And yes it is now officially a tourist attraction in the Ukraine I believe.
but just what are we going to do with the nuclear waste? Just how much of this thing are we going to stockpile?We will store it in deep geological deposits, they are building one in Finland now.
This junk is so bad, that if some terrorist group get this hands on this, they could easily make a dirty bomb. With enough resources and the correct nuclear waste, even a nuclear bomb.People deal with poisonous and dangerous substances at factories all the time.
Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?Very good. ThanksOh, I didn't see you wanted to know per surface area. This images says it all:That doesn't answer the question.From this link: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) 20 to 25 million gallons. And I assume this is the goal for 2018 so we'll probably know how much they produced soon.How many liters/m^2 of bio fuel do they produce in a year?How do you convert waste plant material to bio fuel?
I know there are many ideas out there, but is there any factories doing this commercially? (please provide links if so).
Otherwise I don't see how that is any different than solar storage solutions (better batteries, etc).
See poet-dsm.com (http://poet-dsm.com) (the DSM part is Dutch) but there are other companies as well who have a working process.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
(http://poet-dsm.com/resources/images/infographic-acre.jpg)
Assume 80 gal/acre
I drive 12,000 mi/year
Assume 25 mi/gallon
So that's 480 gal/year
So I need 6 acres of corn land.
I checked US Energy Information Admin for fuel consumption in the US
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10 (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10)
Quote from the web site
"How much gasoline does the United States consume?
In 2017, about 142.98 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 391.71 million gallons (or about 9.33 million barrels per day)."
So that is 1.8E9 acres of corn to produce this fuel based on 80 gal/acre.
Now Wikepedia tells me that there are 9.6E7 acres of corn in production in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States)
So the 96 million acres could produce 0.7% of the fuel for the us.
That does not include aircraft or ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials)
The problem with fission reactors, is that the accidents can have terrible effects in any part of the world. An explosion causes heavily contaminated material to be released at high altitude, where the winds can transport them pretty much anywhere. The melt rods eat tru any material and reach and contaminate subterranean waters. That's why everyone was so scared about Chernobyl, and Fukushima (not so long ago).The Chernobyl accident has been studied in detail for over 30 years now, and we have a lot of scientific data on what actually happened. Worst case estimates say that about a total of 30'000 might die prematurely in Europe because of radioactive particles from Chernobyl (many others like the IAEA and the WHO says it's 4'000). Thankfully such accidents happens very seldom; since the first nuclear reactors were built in the 1940s it has only happened twice (and Fukushima is believed to have less of an health impact than Chernobyl).
That still sounds really bad! But what many forget is that the alternatives are not without risk either.
For example, the worst hydro electric dam accident killed ~171000 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)
That did only affect the country that built the dam though, so you could say it was more local.
But what about wood stoves? You posted a link before:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/overview/ (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/overview/)
It says that: "In 2016, household and outdoor air pollution led to some 7 million deaths worldwide." (!)
That air pollution comes from burning and it's killing millions every year. If you replaced that burning with electric power from nuclear we will literally save millions of lives every year all around the world.
Wood stoves also spread their air-pollution around the world. So does any form of burning, it causes air-pollution which is spread with the wind around the world in the same way the Chernobyl accident spread radioactive particles with the wind.
That UN page doesn't say how many of the 7 million deaths are cause by wood stoves, but I know a Swedish report that estimate that 900 died prematurely in Sweden because of wood burning. (We have a population of about 10 million). That means that only in Sweden wood burning causes more deaths in 4 - 35 years than the biggest nuclear disaster did worldwide over all time. The same report says that a total of 7600 die every year from air pollution here, and that 3600 of them are caused by air pollution that comes from outside of Sweden (e.g. coal power plants).
http://naturvardsverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1242584/FULLTEXT01.pdf (http://naturvardsverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1242584/FULLTEXT01.pdf)
And then we haven't even considered all the other toxins from coal power plants, like mercury and other heavy metals. Or the problem with ocean acidification (caused by SO2 as well as CO2 from coal power plants). Those effects are also global; it's the reason why ocean tuna contains so much mercury for example, or why the great barrier reef is dying. And then there is climate change, which also affects the entire planet...
So yes, a nuclear accident can cause pollution in other countries but it is nothing compared to what air pollution from burning does.
People visits chernobyl, but in organized tours. You cannot wander in any place you want, because radiation isn't absorbed the same in different materials. The roads don't have much radiation, and that explains how they can reach the place, but the forest is contaminated, and so are the animals living there. You can read about mutations in them in several websites, such as newspapers, and the like.You can't go into the reactor that exploded of course, but you can go mostly everywhere else. There are people that are living permanently in the exclusion zone, some never left. The wildlife in the exclusion zone is thriving anyone who says otherwise is dishonest at best. Those pictures of mutations are just scaremongering. Mutations occurs naturally everywhere, it is not any more common around Chernobyl than elsewhere. Directly after the accident there was a part of a pine forest close to the reactor that were damaged (the needles turned red) but it has long since recovered. They kept operating the other three reactors at the Chernobyl power plant for over a decade after the accident. People went to work there every day (and still do). And yes it is now officially a tourist attraction in the Ukraine I believe.but just what are we going to do with the nuclear waste? Just how much of this thing are we going to stockpile?We will store it in deep geological deposits, they are building one in Finland now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
There is so little nuclear waste produced that all of the nuclear waste that's been produced in the Netherlands can be stored in a single building:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Covra_het_gebouw.JPGThis junk is so bad, that if some terrorist group get this hands on this, they could easily make a dirty bomb. With enough resources and the correct nuclear waste, even a nuclear bomb.People deal with poisonous and dangerous substances at factories all the time.
Terrorists have much better options than dirty bombs, like flying an airliner into a building.
Dirty bombs are just more scaremongering. It would be a pain in the *** for the terrorists to get hold of and to deal with it without killing themselves before they even built the bomb. And if they manage to detonate a dirty bomb do you know what would happen? There would be a poof from the explosives, a dust cloud, then nothing. The small area where the dust lands would be evacuated and a people in radiation suits would come and vacuum up most of the dust. No one would die from the small dose you get from the spred out, low concentration dust, (except the terrorist who has been driving around with a truckload of it). Maybe the risk of cancer for a handfull of people increase the next 30 years, but that isn't the kind of damage terrorists want, they want massive instant damage. Like a building full of people collapsing.
And no, they can't make a bomb. Ask Iran how they are doing with their nuclear weapons program.
There is so much bullshit when it comes to nuclear power it's ridiculous.
Nuclear is safer and cleaner than coal power, than wood stoves and water power. We can't replace everything with renewable, we need power also when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. We need either coal or nuclear, and nuclear is way better than coal in every aspect.
Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials)
24 ethanol vs 35.8 MJ/litre for diesel/gasoil, so a tank after a fill up would have 33% less range, which is still much more range than any EV and it's easy peasy to make a tank a smidge bigger.Ethanol is much less prone to self detonation (knocking) which means you can get much more power from the same engine. Or alternatively run the engine at a better efficiency (and do further down sizing). All in all the difference is much smaller then you'd expect.
Interestingly any idea who is exposed to their most ionizing radiation? It’s not the people living in or around Chernobyl or Fukushima, not riadation workers or astronauts.... It’s smokers. People who smoke cigarettes are exposed to more ionizing radiation every year than anyone else.That's a nice video by veritasium but I'm afraid many won't even listen to what he says and think "uh uh that abandoned store/basement and particle filter looks really nasty, and the dosimeter beeped a lot, it must be super dangerous".
Interesting. Do you have a reference?In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.
Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that. :-[Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials)
At no time during the period between 1943 and 1946 were facilities allotted, or time provided, for the Medical Section of the Manhattan Engineer District to prepare a comprehensive history of its activities. Regulations forbade notetaking. Official records were scanty. There were few charts and photographs.
[...]
-Very large numbers of person were crushed in their homes and in the buildings in which they were working. Their skeletons could be seen in the debris and ashes for almost 1,500 meters from the center of the blast, particularly in the downwind directions.
-Large numbers of the population walked for considerable distances after the detonation before they collapsed and died.
-Large numbers developed vomiting and bloody and watery diarrhea (vomitus and bloody fecees were found on the floor in many of the aid stations), associated with extreme weakness. They died in the first and second weeks after the bombs were dropped.
-During this same period deaths from internal injuries and from burns were common. Either the ehat from the fires or infrared radiation from the detonations caused many burns, particularly on bare skin or under dark clothing.
-After a lull without peak mortality from any special causes, deaths began to occur from purpura, which was often associated with epilation, anemia, and a yellowish coloration of the skin. The so-called bone marrow syndrome, manifested by a low white blood cell count and almost complete absence of the platelets necessary to prevent bleeding,w as probably at its maximum beTween the fourth and sixth weeks after the bombs were dropped.
Yes!Interesting. Do you have a reference?In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.
Interesting. Do you have a reference?In 60 years of using nuclear power total number of deaths is less than 100. Last major nuclear power disaster there were no deaths.That's not true, most estimates range from 3'000-30'000 premature deaths after Chernobyl from the radiation. Although it was less than 100 that died in direct relation to the accident. Still peanuts compared to air pollution and many other things.
Corn is just the start. Other plants like Wheat and Soy are next. The reason corn was choosen probably has to do with POET already using corn to produce Ethanol from so they already had a relationship with corn-farmers. That makes it easier to get the feedstock needed. With a running plant and a demonstrateable business model it will be easier to persuade other farmers to also harvest different parts of their crops for bio-fuel production.Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that. :-[Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials)
Etanol: 24 MJ/L
Gasoline 34 MJ/L
So when comparing volume it's 70% less for ethanol. (30/46 is per mass)
Using this corn-waste-bio-fuel method you could replace about 0.5% of fuel used in cars today?
[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."
Ouch
Corn is just the start. Other plants like Wheat and Soy are next. The reason corn was choosen probably has to do with POET already using corn to produce Ethanol from so they already had a relationship with corn-farmers. That makes it easier to get the feedstock needed. With a running plant and a demonstrateable business model it will be easier to persuade other farmers to also harvest different parts of their crops for bio-fuel production.Yes, you are right, I must have been too tired when I wrote that. :-[Did you remember to compensate for the fact that one gallon of etanol only contains about 45% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline?You probably looked at Methanol not Ethanol. Ethanol has an energy content of 30MJ versus 44MJ for gasoline. HOWEVER, Ethanol burns cleaner and it also allows for higher compression ratios. The latter make an engine run more efficient so all in all the difference isn't that big.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials)
Etanol: 24 MJ/L
Gasoline 34 MJ/L
So when comparing volume it's 70% less for ethanol. (30/46 is per mass)
Using this corn-waste-bio-fuel method you could replace about 0.5% of fuel used in cars today?
There are 922 million acres of land used for agriculture in the US. Using a number of 80 gallons per acre that amounts to a potential of 73 billion gallons of bio-fuel per year. This can easely cover the US fuel consumption for cars if the government bans vehicles with a very poor MPG rating. The current average fuel economy of the cars in the US is appallingly bad and can easely be cut by half.
Bio-fuels are likely to put a nail in the EV's coffin.
The 3rd generation bio-fuels have been kind of a holy grail for a long time but it seems the last hurdles have been overcome by at least two seperate companies. I like the elegance of the process. Take leftovers from the field which aren't useful for anything else (not even feeding cattle) and use a process very similar to brewing beer to make fuel.
The United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear.
Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review
Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."
Ouch
I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.
Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
About nuclear waste:QuoteThe United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear.
Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review
(https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688135.jpg)
That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."
Ouch
I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.
We can do something about the amount of fossil fuels now, and preserve them for other uses instead of burning them. That requires political commitment, however.
But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?
(*) I don't believe it.
But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?
(*) I don't believe it.
I suspect about the same number if we stopped using synthetic/artificial fertilizers and GMOs. Thank you Fritz Haber and the Haber-Bosch process and creator of gas warefare in World War I.
About nuclear waste:I don't think anyone should use nuclear for anything military (but good luck convincing the US, Russia or China of that.)QuoteThe United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total
{...}
That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.
When coal is burned it leaves behind a grey powder-like substance known as coal ash. Although the exact chemical composition depends on the type of coal burned, all coal ash contains concentrated amounts of toxic elements, including arsenic, lead, and mercury.https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-water-pollution#bf-toc-1 (https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-water-pollution#bf-toc-1)
More than 100 million tons of coal ash and other waste products are produced by coal-fired power plants in the United States every year (see a map here). About a third of that waste is reused in some way (often in concrete); the rest is stored in landfills, abandoned mines, and hazardous, highly toxic ponds.
Recent estimates state that the amount of municipal waste disposed of in US landfills is about 265 million tonnes (261,000,000 long tons; 292,000,000 short tons) as of 2013.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfills_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfills_in_the_United_States)
A fine example of "fact resistance" or "denial of knowledge". It's a big problem these days.But at the same time that same fuel is killing us prematurely.
Ok, 4.2 million (*) out of 7500, but, how many would starve to death if we stopped using fossil fuels?
(*) I don't believe it.
https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ (https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/)
- 4.2 million deaths every year as a result of exposure to ambient (outdoor) air pollution
- 3.8 million deaths every year as a result of household exposure to smoke from dirty cookstoves and fuels
Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
Great... but, many many many more people can live THANKS to the fossil fuels, so what? It's not perfect, but almost. Are you against vaccines too because a small % die when vaccinated?
Get your priorities right, because fossil fuels do much more good than bad.
I'm not a MD and I can't explain it, but I trust the scientific process. The WHO isn't the only ones producing similar figures. Everyone has a political agenda. The WHO is a international organisation, part of UN and thus owned by all the words nations together. If they were spreading blatant lies then all of the worlds governments would have to be in on it. Not very likely in my opinion.If you want to fully believe that, good for you. I don't.
We should be moving towards replacing fossil fuel with something that is cleaner and still serves the purpose of providing energy. Ironicly we may need to use fossil fuel in that process (ex: heavy equipment to build solar farms), but eventually the new technology should be self sustainable.
Premature deaths. But how do you tell apart a normal death from a premature death? I have friends at the WHO and they have told me not to believe everything the WHO says, they have political agendas: bird flu and Tamiflu being a fine example of what I mean. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bird+flu+vaccine+rumsfeld
We should be moving towards replacing fossil fuel with something that is cleaner and still serves the purpose of providing energy. Ironicly we may need to use fossil fuel in that process (ex: heavy equipment to build solar farms), but eventually the new technology should be self sustainable.
We should, yes, best is better than good. But don't demonize fossil fuel because 1) it's been and still is a very good thing and 2) we've got nothing better yet.
Premature deaths. But how do you tell apart a normal death from a premature death? I have friends at the WHO and they have told me not to believe everything the WHO says, they have political agendas: bird flu and Tamiflu being a fine example of what I mean. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bird+flu+vaccine+rumsfeld
It’s statistics and a bit of detective work. In the 1950s -1970s lung cancer, throat and stomach rates all of a sudden increased dramatically. Doctors were puzzled. Was it something in the food, air, exposure during Word War II? They didn’t have a clue. Some very smart doctors started comparing notes on patients to see if they could find anything in common. They did. All of their patients either smoked ciragetttes or lived in a home with a ciragette smoker. Thanks to thieir work, we now know how deadly ciragettes are. Statistically they compared the life expentency of non-smokers with smokers and found smokers on average died years sooner than non-smokers. And people who smoked and then stopped smoking would live a bit longer than if they continued to smoke but not as long as a non-smoker.
From 1945 though the 1970s we did experiment after experiment to find out the effects on ionizing radiation. We have a very good understanding statistically of the dose, exposure and life expectancy. This is not pseudoscience as the anti-nukes like everyone to beleive. If it were we would not be able to sucessfully treat cancer patients with nuclear medicine.
There are paradoxes with ionizing radiation. One can be exposed to a dose of ionizing radiation of say 20 which would cause cancer in a patient. But at a dose of 25 it kills the cancer and the patient doesn’t get cancer.
On YouTube Vertasium/Derek has a two one hour episodes on the discovery and history of ionizing radiation. Uranium: Twisting the Dragon’s Tale. This was a PBS show int he US. 5 Stars.
There are four things that can happen when a quanta of ionizing radiation passes through a cell. In decreasing order of likelihood they are: Nothing, cell death, a non-harmful mutation, and a harmful mutation (cancer).There is also a fifth: a beneficial mutation, without mutations there wouldn't be any evolution and life would not exist.
In one family members case it resulted in more than two decades of extra life before succumbing to another cancer that may have been related to the radiation treatment. Or maybe not. No one really knows the statistics on these things.Sadly, one out of three people get cancer in their life time, for various reasons. I've already tried it once and it wasn't pleasant. At least medical science is improving and the chance of being cured is getting better.
Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.
Great... but, many many many more people can live THANKS to the fossil fuels, so what? It's not perfect, but almost. Are you against vaccines too because a small % die when vaccinated?
Get your priorities right, because fossil fuels do much more good than bad.
Well, the map was only there, because it was on the article, but the important stuff was in the article itself. I forgot to put the link to the source, it's from the U.S. Government Accountability Office https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary (https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary) . It says that the graphic shows "Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review". If it's uncomplete, i cannot do much about it. The important part was that "U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated [...] nearly 80,000 metric tons [of nuclear waste]". Just to get an idea of the amount.About nuclear waste:QuoteThe United States has over 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program has generated spent nuclear fuel as well as high-level radioactive waste and accounts for most of the rest of the total at about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades. However, there is still no disposal site in the United States. After spending decades and billions of dollars to research potential sites for a permanent disposal site, including at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has a license application pending to authorize construction of a nuclear waste repository, the future prospects for permanent disposal remain unclear.
Current Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel and Repository with License under Review
[image removed. too big]
That's quite a large amount of nuclear crap to me.Look at the source. If you don't trust the UN for some reason, look at the data in another place, if available.[...]
In 2016, an estimated 4.2 million people died as a result of high levels of ambient air pollution."
Ouch
I doubt that figure very much, but even if it were true, Do you realize how many billion humans aren't starving to death thanks to fossil fuels? Don't you realize that without fossil fuels it's impossible to feed 7 billion people? Can't you imagine what a shitty quality of life we'd have without fossil fuels? You better pray to the gods you do not get to see the end of the fossil fuels because it's not going to be anything nice.
We can do something about the amount of fossil fuels now, and preserve them for other uses instead of burning them. That requires political commitment, however.
The map you showed is a compilation. We’ve been talking about nuclear power. The map you are showing isn’t that showing nuclear material not only from nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, medical nuclear waste, and industrial nuclear waste.
The map is an accurate. It does not show San Francisco, (Hunters Point) or the Farallon Islands.
So not exactly sure what the map is and is not indicating.
In the US we could reprocess the spent nuclear fuel rods, but politically we don’t want to do it. Same with storage. We could store it safely, but again the politics gets in the way.
But let’s be fair about this, we have the same issue with the residue from burned fossil fuels. Coal slug heaps are radioactive, contain many cancerous compounds and the particulate which gets blown by the wind causing respiratory diseases especially in kids.
Yes coal and fossil fuels provide has provided us with machines to grow, harvest and transport food. It keeps us warm. Allows to to cook food without building a fire and many other conviences including transportation. I would gladly fly to Europe on a plane in half a day than spend 3 months on a ship powered by the wind.
HLW accounts for just 3% of the volume, but 95% of the total radioactivity of produced waste.http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx)
[...]
The IAEA estimates that the disposal volume of the current solid HLW inventory is approximately 22,000m3.1 For context, this is a volume roughly equivalent to a three metre tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch.
[...]
In addition to producing very significant emissions of carbon, hydrocarbon industries also create significant amounts of radioactive waste. The radioactive material produced as a waste product from the oil and gas industry is referred to as 'technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials' (Tenorm). In oil and gas production, radium-226, radium-228, and lead-210 are deposited as scale in pipes and equipment in many parts of the world. Published data show radionuclide concentrations in scales up to 300,000 Bq/kg for Pb-210, 250,000 Bq/kg for Ra-226, and 100,000 Bq/kg for Ra-228. This level is 1000 times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry, where anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling.8The largest Tenorm waste stream is coal ash, with around 280 million tonnes arising globally each year, carrying uranium-238 and all its non-gaseous decay products, as well as thorium-232 and its progeny. This ash is usually just buried, or may be used as a constituent in building materials. As such, the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, may be sent to deep disposal if from the nuclear industry, or released for use in building materials if in the form of fly ash from the coal industry.9
80000 tonne isn't much if you consider that is all the waste that has been generated since the 1950s in the US. Compare that to "more than 100 million tons of coal ash and other waste products are produced by coal-fired power plants in the United States every year" Nuclear waste is neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial waste.
Most of that waste is not as dangerous, only 3% is so called high level waste (HLW). There is only about 22 000 m3 HLW in the world:QuoteHLW accounts for just 3% of the volume, but 95% of the total radioactivity of produced waste.http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx)
[...]
The IAEA estimates that the disposal volume of the current solid HLW inventory is approximately 22,000m3.1 For context, this is a volume roughly equivalent to a three metre tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch.
[...]
In addition to producing very significant emissions of carbon, hydrocarbon industries also create significant amounts of radioactive waste. The radioactive material produced as a waste product from the oil and gas industry is referred to as 'technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials' (Tenorm). In oil and gas production, radium-226, radium-228, and lead-210 are deposited as scale in pipes and equipment in many parts of the world. Published data show radionuclide concentrations in scales up to 300,000 Bq/kg for Pb-210, 250,000 Bq/kg for Ra-226, and 100,000 Bq/kg for Ra-228. This level is 1000 times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry, where anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling.8The largest Tenorm waste stream is coal ash, with around 280 million tonnes arising globally each year, carrying uranium-238 and all its non-gaseous decay products, as well as thorium-232 and its progeny. This ash is usually just buried, or may be used as a constituent in building materials. As such, the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, may be sent to deep disposal if from the nuclear industry, or released for use in building materials if in the form of fly ash from the coal industry.9
Yes, coal is serious crap. I don't get why is the US still using such a daunting amount of it.They are using a lot of energy per person but the percentage of coal used in the US is better than the average in the world. The only reason for using coal is that it is cheap, since coal power don't have to carry all their own costs.
Why compare against coal, instead of other kinds of power plants?I compare against coal since that is the biggest source of electricity. It makes no sense to shut down nuclear power plants as long as there are still coal plants in operation.
There are 1,130,000 m3 of tritium contaminated water on tanks around the plant. Tritium contamination cannot be removed, and there's still no plans of what to do with it, and this number continues to raise at about 150 m3 per day.
You could do electrolysis of the water and release the hydrogen into the atmosphere, it will quickly rise to the top of the atmosphere and then leave earth. Probably a waste of energy though.
Well, it seems to be considered a problem to deal with, so i assume there are other issues.There are 1,130,000 m3 of tritium contaminated water on tanks around the plant. Tritium contamination cannot be removed, and there's still no plans of what to do with it, and this number continues to raise at about 150 m3 per day.
Tritium is easy to deal with, all we have to do is nothing and wait. In two more years half of it will be gone. And in another 12 years half of that will be gone. Shortly after that there won’t be enougj left to worry about as it will have decayrd away.
You could do electrolysis of the water and release the hydrogen into the atmosphere, it will quickly rise to the top of the atmosphere and then leave earth. Probably a waste of energy though.
Only problem with that is the H3 would probably react with molecules in the atmosphere. Instead of acid rain we could have tritium ran. But you know than might not be a bad idea and could save electricty by glowing during the night.
Wasn’t it the Soviet Union who used Trittium and Phospherous based paint in tunnels, pill boxes and gun implacments to provide a source of light at all times without the need for electricity?
You could do electrolysis of the water and release the hydrogen into the atmosphere, it will quickly rise to the top of the atmosphere and then leave earth. Probably a waste of energy though.
Only problem with that is the H3 would probably react with molecules in the atmosphere. Instead of acid rain we could have tritium ran. But you know than might not be a bad idea and could save electricty by glowing during the night.
Wasn’t it the Soviet Union who used Trittium and Phospherous based paint in tunnels, pill boxes and gun implacments to provide a source of light at all times without the need for electricity?
That sounds like it would be bad, although, I wounder how much of the H32 would react before it reached beyond the troposphere. Probably not enough that it would matter.
They still make radioluminescent paint and gadgets with tritium. Apparently tritium costs $30000 per kg (https://interestingengineering.com/the-10-most-expensive-materials-on-earth).
The lesson seems to be that natural disasters and nuclear reactors don't mix well. At least we got lucky, and no more tsunamis had hit the zone.Absolutely. The tsunami directly killed more than 15000 people and cost over $360 billions in damages. That tsunami was 40 meter high at some places. They have tsunami walls in Japan that protect cities, and they had that at Fukushima as well, but they were too low in this case. It is the same with hydro electric dams. If such a dam fails because of an earthquake or a meteorite several thousands living downstream will die.
The lesson seems to be that natural disasters and nuclear reactors don't mix well. At least we got lucky, and no more tsunamis had hit the zone.Absolutely. The tsunami directly killed more than 15000 people and cost over $360 billions in damages. That tsunami was 40 meter high at some places. They have tsunami walls in Japan that protect cities, and they had that at Fukushima as well, but they were too low in this case. It is the same with hydro electric dams. If such a dam fails because of an earthquake or a meteorite several thousands living downstream will die.
This height is deemed the record in Japan historically, as of reporting date, that exceeds 38.2 metres (125 ft) from the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake.[166] It was also estimated that the tsunami reached heights of up to 40.5 metres (133 ft) in Miyako in Tōhoku's Iwate Prefecture. The inundated areas closely matched those of the 869 Sanriku tsunami.[167]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
Are you sure the tsunami was 40 meter high? Seems much too high for a tsunami wave.Tsunamis have a thing called "run up". As the modest tsunami wave approaches shore, where the water depth decreases, the size of the wave increases. This can be seen at any seashore, where the modest waves at a distance become big surfing waves near shore. I'm not sure about the 40m, but they certainly got close to 30 m at the plant.
Thought the power plant survived the tsunami with no problem. Wasn’t the real cause of the meltdown no electricity to power the pumps? The fuel tanks for the pumps were flooded and the fuel floated away. If they only would have built the fuel tanks on the hill behind the power plant there would have been any disaster. This was not a fault with the design or operation of the reactor, but the back-up systems.
Why Tesla receives such criticism in the videos?
Because Telsa concentrate on only one part of the business. Their after-sale and parts available (and used Tesla purchase programs) are utter and complete crap. You can find dozens and dozens of people waiting months for simple parts, or in this case, the purchase of a used certified pre-owned Tesla that has taken 2+ months and counting (and this to a guy who has a big Tesla following)
The lack of dealing with the rest of the business will be Tesla's downfall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ro6kpKlw0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ro6kpKlw0)
Elon is a loudmouth and youtube is also full of vidjeos of tesla owners that have been pissed off in one way or another by Tesla.
The Fukashima incident is a very telling illustrator of the irrational fear of nuclear. Fifteen thousand people are killed and no one goes around saying you can never build or live near a coastline again. But a few people may die a few years earlier because of the radiation from the nuclear element of the disaster and there are people all over saying nuclear power should be eliminated.Indeed, the 2004 tsunami in the indian ocean: 227,898 dead. Clearly insanity to stay more than 1 km from the ocean. And how can anyone choose to live in places where hurricanes strike every other year?
Soon-ish self driving taxis (robotaxis) will begin taking over and in a not too distant future most people won't own their own car but just use an app on their phone to call for a cab which then will take them anywhere. That means it will be the fleet operators that decide which type of fuel they will use and for the most part it makes more economic sense for them to have electric vehicles. Range is less of a problem then, you might have to switch car once or twice if you are making a long journey, but that is not so bad.
The Luddites in Arizona are doing all they can to turn soonish to never sh by throwing rocks and bottles at the test cars. And slashing tires when they can. They found when they do this they don’t get yelled at or shot by the autonomous driver.Are they Luddites? They say they do these things because they get so pissed off by the erratic behaviour the automated cars frequently display.
I would sure like to hear how these self driving cars do with real driving conditions and just not clear days in Arizona. How do they do in the snow when the rods are covered in slush, mud, snow or one of those Arizona sandstorms?Current automated cars are heavily geofenced. They won't go where their extremely detailed maps can't currently take them, and they are only being operated in places which never experience snow. They have issues with rain, fog, and presumably sandstorms. I assume a migration from LIDAR to (LWIR)DAR would help with the fog and rain, but I doubt it would fix sandstorm or snow issues.
With driverless being in our soon-ish future for the last 50 years I am sure you are correct. But what are we going to put in our garages if we have two and three car garage homes?Really, I never heard anyone talk seriously about driverless until after Stanley won the DARPA grand challenge in 2006 (driving on dirt roads in the desert btw).
Ahh, the flying cars which for the past 70 years everybody be flying soon to avoid all of the traffic on the roads.
The Luddites in Arizona are doing all they can to turn soonish to never sh by throwing rocks and bottles at the test cars. And slashing tires when they can. They found when they do this they don’t get yelled at or shot by the autonomous driver.They might get yelled at by the passengers, and ehm, since it's in the US they might even get shot I suppose.
I would sure like to hear how these self driving cars do with real driving conditions and just not clear days in Arizona. How do they do in the snow when the rods are covered in slush, mud, snow or one of those Arizona sandstorms?I don't think they can do snow yet but rain is not a problem anymore. It's not that it is impossible to drive without super detailed maps, it's just that it's safer and possible so that's what they do. Of course they are introduced where it's easiest first.
The gas turbine and juice dispenser was a bit silly but didn't I spot a gps navigator, two way radio and on-demand tv? :)
Their auto pilot seemed to be more like Tesla cruise control though, more primitive than that since it required a separate specialised road. Same with the second video, it relied on special markings in the road, so more like line following robots. If there were special roads and special rules for self driving cars it would be much easier to implement.
I suppose people have been dreaming about self driving cars for a long time, but there haven't really been anyone investing a lot of money into building something that's commercially available.
I have never understood why driving in snow is a requirement for a self driving car. It is clear that a huge percentage of human drivers can't. And a huge percentage of those don't realize their incompetence, and go ahead and drive anyway.You clearly have not visited places like Finland in the winter.
I have never understood why driving in snow is a requirement for a self driving car. It is clear that a huge percentage of human drivers can't. And a huge percentage of those don't realize their incompetence, and go ahead and drive anyway.You clearly have not visited places like Finland in the winter.
What’s the indifference between and above average driver, average driver, below average driver and a way below average driver?
What’s the indifference between and above average driver, average driver, below average driver and a way below average driver?
Insurance rates might be the best metric. Driving tests are another. You don't have to get a perfect score to get a driver's licence, at least here in the US. Nor do you have to demonstrate that you can still pass after a few years have gone by.
In any case we allow those below average drivers on the road. Why shouldn't we allow an autopilot with the same below average skills?
I have never understood why driving in snow is a requirement for a self driving car. It is clear that a huge percentage of human drivers can't. And a huge percentage of those don't realize their incompetence, and go ahead and drive anyway.
That is more likely due to lack of training. Teach people how to drive properly and you'll have less accidents. Driving on a slippery course is mandatory to pass the driver's exam in Finland. I've been in a taxi in Helsinki a couple of times during the winter. 9 out of 10 taxi drivers skid sideways through a turn with 2 or more lanes of traffic on a road covered with a layer of ice. Talking about vehicle control!I was born in snow country and have driven in snow a lot. My point wasn't that it is never necessary to drive in snow, only to question why self driving cars have to be better than human drivers. Here in the US every time it snows the news channels are filled with pictures of people driving into ditches, spinning around corners, driving into the backs of strings of stopped traffic and the like.I have never understood why driving in snow is a requirement for a self driving car. It is clear that a huge percentage of human drivers can't. And a huge percentage of those don't realize their incompetence, and go ahead and drive anyway.You clearly have not visited places like Finland in the winter.
I DO NOT believe it! That was somebody swinging the dashcam around. The car did not swerve.
There was a video posted the other day of a Tesla in autopilot that hit a patch of ice. It controlled and recoved the subsiquent skid apparently all by itself.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anLpxYuchB8&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anLpxYuchB8&feature=youtu.be)
Agreed. Given the maximum angle the car would have to spun around. Also look at the wipers. These are not in the same position during filming so there is the proof the camera was moved and not the car. FAKE!I DO NOT believe it! That was somebody swinging the dashcam around. The car did not swerve.
There was a video posted the other day of a Tesla in autopilot that hit a patch of ice. It controlled and recoved the subsiquent skid apparently all by itself.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anLpxYuchB8&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anLpxYuchB8&feature=youtu.be)
I don't see why they can not make that work eventually, it's just that the cars were developed in California and not in Sweden/Finland, we will have to wait a bit longer over here.Google cars only drive where their high resolution maps exist, and can be correlated with the world around the car in real time. When it snows, and the world around changes, they can't function. This is a problem they will probably deal with eventually, but right now its something that haven't even tried to address. They are trying to address the low hanging fruit first, which makes an enormous amount of sense.
There exist much better videos showing the car doing trick driving, but for some reason this was the best I could find now:Are you really going to use stunts performed on a highly controlled circuit as an example of their prowess in automated driving? Its really not that hard to do. 99% of the automated driving problem is achieving safe free range driving.
https://youtu.be/bp9KBrH8H04?t=142
And that was eight years ago.
Yes, I know how they work. They can obviously handle a fairly large amount of change or else they wouldn't be able to drive anywhere. The environment changes constantly. They have driven autonomously on public roads for over 10 million miles (https://waymo.com/ontheroad/) now. Since they developed the cars in California they just haven't had to deal with snow during r&d before. Since it never snows in large parts of the world they don't have to wait and fix that before they can launch either. But I don't see why snow should be too hard for them, and certainly not a showstopper. (At least under conditions that human drivers can also handle safely).I don't see why they can not make that work eventually, it's just that the cars were developed in California and not in Sweden/Finland, we will have to wait a bit longer over here.Google cars only drive where their high resolution maps exist, and can be correlated with the world around the car in real time. When it snows, and the world around changes, they can't function. This is a problem they will probably deal with eventually, but right now its something that haven't even tried to address. They are trying to address the low hanging fruit first, which makes an enormous amount of sense.
Are you really going to use stunts performed on a highly controlled circuit as an example of their prowess in automated driving? Its really not that hard to do. 99% of the automated driving problem is achieving safe free range driving.That was the point I was trying to make if it wasn't clear: the software has better control over the car than >99% of human drivers. They have the potential to handle an ice patch (for example) much better than a human driver. Tesla's auto-pilot is nice but they don't have the same capability for free range driving as you put it. But they no doubt have very good control of the cars.
If autonomous, on call cars do take over our two and three car garages will be used as the already often are - to store the stuff that SWMBO doesn't want in the house.I welcome our self driving overlords if it means a CNC lathe in the
On a more optimistic note they will also be the place to setup and use our more important toys like mills, thermal chambers, water jet tables and the like.
If autonomous, on call cars do take over our two and three car garages will be used as the already often are - to store the stuff that SWMBO doesn't want in the house.
On a more optimistic note they will also be the place to setup and use our more important toys like mills, thermal chambers, water jet tables and the like.
If autonomous, on call cars do take over our two and three car garages will be used as the already often are - to store the stuff that SWMBO doesn't want in the house.
On a more optimistic note they will also be the place to setup and use our more important toys like mills, thermal chambers, water jet tables and the like.
You must be single. In my household I would lose that battle and it would be turned into a spa.
If autonomous, on call cars do take over our two and three car garages will be used as the already often are - to store the stuff that SWMBO doesn't want in the house.
On a more optimistic note they will also be the place to setup and use our more important toys like mills, thermal chambers, water jet tables and the like.
You must be single. In my household I would loose that battle and it would be turned into a spa.
You just haven't learned the negotiating process. "I would love to turn it into a spa, but there is no way to get those nasty oil smells from years of ICE vehicles into the space. Besides you can be pampered so much better with the membership I got you at XXXX"
It is going to cost you, but you can have your toys.
Question I have is how/why do nuclear power plants release CO2?So much steel and concrete needed in construction and things like that.
I wonder how much concrete per kW for a wind turbine or solar or a nuclear. I guess maybe per kW-hr over the life of the plants might be better. I have read that concrete production produces a lot of CO2.Question I have is how/why do nuclear power plants release CO2?So much steel and concrete needed in construction and things like that.
I wonder how much concrete per kW for a wind turbine or solar or a nuclear. I guess maybe per kW-hr over the life of the plants might be better. I have read that concrete production produces a lot of CO2.Question I have is how/why do nuclear power plants release CO2?So much steel and concrete needed in construction and things like that.
the curing of concrete releases a lot of CO2.Google says it is the other way around. Concrete can be used to trap CO2 and the curing can be improved by using CO2.
the curing of concrete releases a lot of CO2.Google says it is the other way around. Concrete can be used to trap CO2 and the curing can be improved by using CO2.
Cement manufacturing releases CO2 in the atmosphere both directly when calcium carbonate is heated, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[52] [53] and also indirectly through the use of energy if its production involves the emission of CO2. The cement industry produces about 10% of global man-made CO2 emissions, of which 60% is from the chemical process, and 40% from burning fuel.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement#CO2_emissions
This articly only talks about production and says there are ways to drastically reduce CO2 emissions during production.the curing of concrete releases a lot of CO2.Google says it is the other way around. Concrete can be used to trap CO2 and the curing can be improved by using CO2.
Not sure what to beleive and that's my point.
Concrete production produces eight percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Folks in Oregon are using more treees instead of concrete.
https://archpaper.com/2019/01/concrete-production-eight-percent-co2-emissions/
the curing of concrete releases a lot of CO2.Google says it is the other way around. Concrete can be used to trap CO2 and the curing can be improved by using CO2.
Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change
The cement industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.[1] The carbon dioxide CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (~180 kg/tonne @ density of 2.3 g/cm3) (reduced to 290 kg/m3 with 30% fly ash replacement of cement).[3] The CO2 emission from the concrete production is directly proportional to the cement content used in the concrete mix; 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement, accounting for 88% of the emissions associated with the average concrete mix.[4][5] Cement manufacture contributes greenhouse gases both directly through the production of carbon dioxide when calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[6] and also through the use of energy, particularly from the combustion of fossil fuels.
I already read that. I doesn't say anything about emitting CO2 while concrete is curing. This is all about the production process of Portland cement. This is a particular type of process which can be replaced with processes emitting less CO2. If you look up the chemical reactions involved when cement is curing you'll see there is no CO2 emitted.the curing of concrete releases a lot of CO2.Google says it is the other way around. Concrete can be used to trap CO2 and the curing can be improved by using CO2.
This from Wikipedia:QuoteCarbon dioxide emissions and climate change
The cement industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.[1] The carbon dioxide CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (~180 kg/tonne @ density of 2.3 g/cm3) (reduced to 290 kg/m3 with 30% fly ash replacement of cement).[3] The CO2 emission from the concrete production is directly proportional to the cement content used in the concrete mix; 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement, accounting for 88% of the emissions associated with the average concrete mix.[4][5] Cement manufacture contributes greenhouse gases both directly through the production of carbon dioxide when calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[6] and also through the use of energy, particularly from the combustion of fossil fuels.
I didn't say it was emitted in curing.I already read that. I doesn't say anything about emitting CO2 while concrete is curing. This is all about the production process of Portland cement. This is a particular type of process which can be replaced with processes emitting less CO2. If you look up the chemical reactions involved when cement is curing you'll see there is no CO2 emitted.the curing of concrete releases a lot of CO2.Google says it is the other way around. Concrete can be used to trap CO2 and the curing can be improved by using CO2.
This from Wikipedia:QuoteCarbon dioxide emissions and climate change
The cement industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.[1] The carbon dioxide CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (~180 kg/tonne @ density of 2.3 g/cm3) (reduced to 290 kg/m3 with 30% fly ash replacement of cement).[3] The CO2 emission from the concrete production is directly proportional to the cement content used in the concrete mix; 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement, accounting for 88% of the emissions associated with the average concrete mix.[4][5] Cement manufacture contributes greenhouse gases both directly through the production of carbon dioxide when calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[6] and also through the use of energy, particularly from the combustion of fossil fuels.
But Doug did. You quoted that too.
I highly depends on the type of concrete. The concrete dome over the Pantheon in Rome has been there for about 2000 years.They say that after all that time the dome is still absorbing CO2, as the curing process is not complete.
I highly depends on the type of concrete. The concrete dome over the Pantheon in Rome has been there for about 2000 years.They say that after all that time the dome is still absorbing CO2, as the curing process is not complete.
From what I understand just about all of the car companies are discontinuing PHEV. VW discontinued a few years ago, and the Volt is EOL I think next year. The BMW i3 is a joke as a PHEV. The gas tank is less than 2 gallons/7.2L.
Not sure why, but GM/Chevy and several of the other car manufactures are all going with no-plugin hybrids. Why? If it's got a battery when not allow it to be charged by electricity inseads of just gasoline.
From what I understand just about all of the car companies are discontinuing PHEV. VW discontinued a few years ago, and the Volt is EOL I think next year. The BMW i3 is a joke as a PHEV. The gas tank is less than 2 gallons/7.2L.
Not sure why, but GM/Chevy and several of the other car manufactures are all going with no-plugin hybrids. Why? If it's got a battery when not allow it to be charged by electricity inseads of just gasoline.
I think I'm going to buy a Outlander 2019 PHEV. It will go places you can't get to because of charging infrastructure. Plus I don't want to be standing around on a trip waiting for a charge when I can be driving.
From what I understand just about all of the car companies are discontinuing PHEV. VW discontinued a few years ago, and the Volt is EOL I think next year. The BMW i3 is a joke as a PHEV. The gas tank is less than 2 gallons/7.2L.The battery in a Prius like hybrid and the one in a PHEV are very different in both size and operating characteristics. If you put a charging socket on a Prius it would only take you a kilometre or so. Its about energy recovery from braking, and operating the gasoline engine in the more effective parts of its envelope. Its not about electric drive. Its really the electrification of the mechanical braking energy recovery systems that Volvo and others put in many commuter buses well before the Prius was launched.
Not sure why, but GM/Chevy and several of the other car manufactures are all going with no-plugin hybrids. Why? If it's got a battery when not allow it to be charged by electricity inseads of just gasoline.
From what I understand just about all of the car companies are discontinuing PHEV. VW discontinued a few years ago, and the Volt is EOL I think next year. The BMW i3 is a joke as a PHEV. The gas tank is less than 2 gallons/7.2L.Probably because the tax incentives ended. AFAIK most of the Mitsubishi Outlanders got sold in the Netherlands. When the tax incentives stopped the sales also dropped to zero.
Not sure why, but GM/Chevy and several of the other car manufactures are all going with no-plugin hybrids. Why? If it's got a battery when not allow it to be charged by electricity inseads of just gasoline.
A lot of PHEV Outlanders have been sold in the UK, due to favourable company car tax arrangements. However, fitting tax conditions is usually key to the commercial success of any car. That's why you'll never see a 2 litre car engine that's actually 2 litres. Its always 1995cc or 1998cc, to ensure it will not hit the many global tax penalties that start at 2 litres.From what I understand just about all of the car companies are discontinuing PHEV. VW discontinued a few years ago, and the Volt is EOL I think next year. The BMW i3 is a joke as a PHEV. The gas tank is less than 2 gallons/7.2L.Probably because the tax incentives ended. AFAIK most of the Mitsubishi Outlanders got sold in the Netherlands. When the tax incentives stopped the sales also dropped to zero.
Not sure why, but GM/Chevy and several of the other car manufactures are all going with no-plugin hybrids. Why? If it's got a battery when not allow it to be charged by electricity inseads of just gasoline.
Question I have is how/why do nuclear power plants release CO2?So much steel and concrete needed in construction and things like that.
Its not a one off thing. These plants only last 30 years or so, so the thing gets repeated every 30 years. You need to factor this into any analysis, as some concepts have such massive once every 30 years things that they dominate over day to day things.Question I have is how/why do nuclear power plants release CO2?So much steel and concrete needed in construction and things like that.
This goes for ANY construction project though and it's a 1 time thing for that particular plant.
Pro oil people use the same argument against electric cars and renewable projects "but they're not green since there's a carbon footprint to manufacture them!". So do gas cars and oil projects...
Hopefully eventually we can eliminate even the manufacturing carbon footprint of things, but baby steps. Let's concentrate on making things that don't pollute during their main usable life time first.
From what I understand just about all of the car companies are discontinuing PHEV. VW discontinued a few years ago, and the Volt is EOL I think next year. The BMW i3 is a joke as a PHEV. The gas tank is less than 2 gallons/7.2L.The battery in a Prius like hybrid and the one in a PHEV are very different in both size and operating characteristics. If you put a charging socket on a Prius it would only take you a kilometre or so. Its about energy recovery from braking, and operating the gasoline engine in the more effective parts of its envelope. Its not about electric drive. Its really the electrification of the mechanical braking energy recovery systems that Volvo and others put in many commuter buses well before the Prius was launched.
Not sure why, but GM/Chevy and several of the other car manufactures are all going with no-plugin hybrids. Why? If it's got a battery when not allow it to be charged by electricity inseads of just gasoline.
The BMW i3 is a good example of the problem with trying to make a PHEV effective. They tried to make that car light, for efficiency, using carbon fibre and novel construction. A big engine and tank would have wrecked that strategy. So, they used a small lightweight engine and a small tank, and produced a result few people liked. If they had made it more like other PHEVs it would have weighed so much that people would not have liked the poor efficiency. You can't win. The Prius approach focuses on keeping all the additional hardware compact and light weight.
Has any PHEV hit a sweet spot where it has sold a lot of units? I believe the Mitsubishi Outlander bas been the best selling PHEV in Europe, but it's quite a rare car on the roads. Most PHEVs have only sold in very small numbers that can't sustain the business, and not the focus is now shifting to pure electric, as many new models are being prepared for market.
It's a one off thing for each plant built and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cement depends on how it's being manufactured (same as with PV panels) so it will likely improve with time. As can be seen here solar produce more GHG emissions than nuclear (page 3, fig 2):Its not a one off thing. These plants only last 30 years or so, so the thing gets repeated every 30 years. You need to factor this into any analysis, as some concepts have such massive once every 30 years things that they dominate over day to day things.Question I have is how/why do nuclear power plants release CO2?So much steel and concrete needed in construction and things like that.
This goes for ANY construction project though and it's a 1 time thing for that particular plant.
Pro oil people use the same argument against electric cars and renewable projects "but they're not green since there's a carbon footprint to manufacture them!". So do gas cars and oil projects...
Hopefully eventually we can eliminate even the manufacturing carbon footprint of things, but baby steps. Let's concentrate on making things that don't pollute during their main usable life time first.
It's a one off thing for each plant built and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cement depends on how it's being manufactured (same as with PV panels) so it will likely improve with time. As can be seen here solar produce more GHG emissions than nuclear (page 3, fig 2):Its not a one off thing. These plants only last 30 years or so, so the thing gets repeated every 30 years. You need to factor this into any analysis, as some concepts have such massive once every 30 years things that they dominate over day to day things.Question I have is how/why do nuclear power plants release CO2?So much steel and concrete needed in construction and things like that.
This goes for ANY construction project though and it's a 1 time thing for that particular plant.
Pro oil people use the same argument against electric cars and renewable projects "but they're not green since there's a carbon footprint to manufacture them!". So do gas cars and oil projects...
Hopefully eventually we can eliminate even the manufacturing carbon footprint of things, but baby steps. Let's concentrate on making things that don't pollute during their main usable life time first.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf (https://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf)
But if we compared to coal, gas and oil it's obviously silly to fuss about the tiny GHG emission levels that you get from solar and nuclear.
Something I don’t get is why when folks talk about CO2 emissions from the burning of coal they don’t mention the burning of coal/fossil fuels also releases millions of tons every year of nuclear radioactive isotopes into our atmosphere. And the waste, the slag heaps from the burning of coal are also radio-active and the radio-active waste is leaches out into the ground water.And the coal/gas/oil industry doesn't even have to take care of their own (radioactive) waste (like nuclear does). Often it's just dumped in a landfill somewhere.
QuoteSomething I don’t get is why when folks talk about CO2 emissions from the burning of coal they don’t mention the burning of coal/fossil fuels also releases millions of tons every year of nuclear radioactive isotopes into our atmosphere. And the waste, the slag heaps from the burning of coal are also radio-active and the radio-active waste is leaches out into the ground water.And the coal/gas/oil industry doesn't even have to take care of their own (radioactive) waste (like nuclear does). Often it's just dumped in a landfill somewhere.
People are irrational and afraid of things they don't understand. Burning of wood and coal at home in the cottage is cosy. Big power plants with educated (probably ateist) types in lab coats are scary and evil. (And since coal and gas is such a big industry they have much better lobbyists).
Maybe it would not make a difference as Germany's Chancellor is one and yet Germans are shunning nuclear power and burning more coal.It is strange Merkel did that, and at the same time making Germany more dependent on Russian LNG. :-//
Maybe it would not make a difference as Germany's Chancellor is one and yet Germans are shunning nuclear power and burning more coal.It is strange Merkel did that, and at the same time making Germany more dependent on Russian LNG. :-//
Germany has a strong political movement (the green party) that were founded on anti-nuclear rhetoric. I suppose Germany also have lots of domestic coal and a powerful coal industry. The European union has its roots in the European Coal and Steel Community which gives a hint of how important the coal industry have been.
Here's what Finland is doing to store nuclear waste.Actually, I think that video is just more scaremongering. All that talk about warning messages and thorny fields and what not. :scared:
...
The "risk" that some hypothetical future post apocalyptic civilisation will have forgotten all about ionising radiation, while still managing to dig a km down through solid bedrock and get in contact with nuclear waste, seems sort of ridiculously unlikely.After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell hard, and retreated into insular pockets of activity. When things started to improve again, those wealthy enough to travel and see the world were frequently shocked at finding massive structures from Greek and Roman times. They had no clue who had built them, as all connection with history had been lost. There is a reason why the Dark Ages have that tag name.
A lot of stuff has been re-invented during the past 5000 years. But then again non of the old empires got to book printing. IMHO book printing has been the turning point because it allows sharing information on a global scale. And internet is taking sharing knowledge to the next level. All in all information is much more widely spread and less likely to be lost.The "risk" that some hypothetical future post apocalyptic civilisation will have forgotten all about ionising radiation, while still managing to dig a km down through solid bedrock and get in contact with nuclear waste, seems sort of ridiculously unlikely.After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell hard, and retreated into insular pockets of activity. When things started to improve again, those wealthy enough to travel and see the world were frequently shocked at finding massive structures from Greek and Roman times. They had no clue who had built them, as all connection with history had been lost. There is a reason why the Dark Ages have that tag name.
Books improve the durability of knowledge, assuming they aren't made of the kind of paperback material that crumbles in a few decades. Anything electronic degrades it. So many things have to be just right to be able to extract the contents of any electronics repository that people unlikely to figure out how to do it. Also, we have no really persistent storage mechanisms, so the data is unlikely to even be available for retrieval.A lot of stuff has been re-invented during the past 5000 years. But then again non of the old empires got to book printing. IMHO book printing has been the turning point because it allows sharing information on a global scale. And internet is taking sharing knowledge to the next level. All in all information is much more widely spread and less likely to be lost.The "risk" that some hypothetical future post apocalyptic civilisation will have forgotten all about ionising radiation, while still managing to dig a km down through solid bedrock and get in contact with nuclear waste, seems sort of ridiculously unlikely.After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell hard, and retreated into insular pockets of activity. When things started to improve again, those wealthy enough to travel and see the world were frequently shocked at finding massive structures from Greek and Roman times. They had no clue who had built them, as all connection with history had been lost. There is a reason why the Dark Ages have that tag name.
A lot of stuff has been re-invented during the past 5000 years. But then again non of the old empires got to book printing. IMHO book printing has been the turning point because it allows sharing information on a global scale. And internet is taking sharing knowledge to the next level. All in all information is much more widely spread and less likely to be lost.The "risk" that some hypothetical future post apocalyptic civilisation will have forgotten all about ionising radiation, while still managing to dig a km down through solid bedrock and get in contact with nuclear waste, seems sort of ridiculously unlikely.After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell hard, and retreated into insular pockets of activity. When things started to improve again, those wealthy enough to travel and see the world were frequently shocked at finding massive structures from Greek and Roman times. They had no clue who had built them, as all connection with history had been lost. There is a reason why the Dark Ages have that tag name.
Let's not forget the first nuclear fission reactor was all natural. It ran for a few hundred thousand years and we were able to find it and I don't think anyone was killed or became ill due to radiation sickness.Yes, 1.7 billion years ago. At that time, the Earth was a very different place. Even oxygen in the atmosphere was a relatively new thing.
Let's not forget the first nuclear fission reactor was all natural. It ran for a few hundred thousand years and we were able to find it and I don't think anyone was killed or became ill due to radiation sickness.Yes, 1.7 billion years ago. At that time, the Earth was a very different place. Even oxygen in the atmosphere was a relatively new thing.
First vertebrate land animals are from 380 million years ago.
Let's not forget the first nuclear fission reactor was all natural. It ran for a few hundred thousand years and we were able to find it and I don't think anyone was killed or became ill due to radiation sickness.Yes, 1.7 billion years ago. At that time, the Earth was a very different place. Even oxygen in the atmosphere was a relatively new thing.
First vertebrate land animals are from 380 million years ago.
True and dispite that radioactive decay that's still going on to this very day land animals. vertebrates and man was able to evolve.
Nuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.That's perfectly true.
Nuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.Actually nuclear power is by far the safest way to generate electricity. It is even safer than wind and rooftop solar!
I have nothing against solar, but there are (at least) two problems:QuoteNuclear power is not and never will be perfectly safe but what people fail to realise is that neither is any of the alternatives.That's perfectly true.
The best, cheapest, and safest way to use nuclear power is to use the big fusion power installed over our heads and to install massive quantities of PV panels, and storage devices.
Ummm, the waste is not depleted. If it was depleted we would know about it.Maybe depleted is not the word to describe it. It had lower U235 content than normal. The article mentions it:
In May 1972 at the Pierrelatte uranium enrichment facility in France, routine mass spectrometry comparing UF6 samples from the Oklo Mine, located in Gabon, showed a discrepancy in the amount of the 235 U isotope. Normally the concentration is 0.72% while these samples had only 0.60%, a significant difference.[5] This discrepancy required explanation, as all civilian uranium handling facilities must meticulously account for all fissionable isotopes to ensure that none are diverted for weapons purposes.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit. I think PV makes the most sense for a power strategy, with storage technology improvements especially.Sure, someday in the future when there exist some new amazing storage technology, until then we need alternatives for when the sun doesn't shine.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit. I think PV makes the most sense for a power strategy, with storage technology improvements especially.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.I'm going by US standards. Even then, there's a lot of cars that already do at least 30 MPG highway. There's no excuse to not do at least that well.
It is a great way to store energy. The problem is there are a limited number of locations where this is feasible.The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.
I understand your concern in theory, although the real risk of ever using them (again) is pretty low for the time being IMO. I admit the storage of those weapons itself is a concern though. Even if we never use them purposefully, they are still there, requiring a constant surveillance.PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator. In another project of this kind, water is not directly used, but huge concrete blocks instead, underseas. Although this energy storage approach is still not very efficient, it doesn't matter much at this point since it's all about storing energy that would be lost if not stored anyway. In terms of cost, environmental friendliness and safety, it seems to compare favorably to battery-based systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator.We have a system here in Missouri (US) that pumps water up an 800 foot hill at night, and then it runs down hill at the peak time of the day. They recently had an accident and the wall of the upper reservoir collapsed, sending 1.5 billion gallons of water crashing into a state park. They rebuilt the reservoir with better technology, so the electric utility must think it really helps.
Storing energy in this "mechanical" way is actually used worldwide, and there are a few recent ongoing projects to make them more efficient. One of them I've seen is about exactly that: pumping water to a large reservoir on a hilltop and storing it there. When it's needed, the water is released and flows down due to gravity alone, which can then power a generator.We have a system here in Missouri (US) that pumps water up an 800 foot hill at night, and then it runs down hill at the peak time of the day. They recently had an accident and the wall of the upper reservoir collapsed, sending 1.5 billion gallons of water crashing into a state park. They rebuilt the reservoir with better technology, so the electric utility must think it really helps.
Jon
The reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.That's not true at all.
(http://The reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.)
That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense.
Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, it's more of a legend.
An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/power_generation_by_source_1990-2015_gross2.png?itok=8dmQDF7S)
Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone.
. Unfortunately, coal has also increased to about 30%You seem to be unable to read a graph.
Solar is provides 3% of Germany’s power ams wind 12%.Trolling with old numbers from 20 Years ago.
As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UK
Just out of curiosity what percentage of Germany’s electricity over the past two months was from solar?
Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UKIs that because a kg is no longer a kg anymore with the new IPK?
I know. 8) I calculated with US Gallons.As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UK
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
Exactly that hindered their reduction in coal. Every kW of renewables that could have been used to replace coal/gas was instead used to replace* nuclear.QuoteThe reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense any more today.
Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, nuke replaced by coal is more of a legend.
An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.
<snip>
Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone, which is scheduled in 2 Years.
Exactly that hindered their reduction in coal. Every kW of renewables that could have been used to replace coal/gas was instead used to replace* nuclear.QuoteThe reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense any more today.
Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, nuke replaced by coal is more of a legend.
An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.
<snip>
Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone, which is scheduled in 2 Years.
They choose coal over nuclear. It shows a blatant disregard for human health/life and the environment, only caring about the economical aspect. Apparently to the anti-nuclear crowd human life and the environment isn't worth much.
Why are Russia building a new LNG pipeline to Germany do you think? Would they do that if they didn't expect to sell a lot more LNG to Germany in the future? It is pure madness to shut down nuclear power plants right now, as long as the alternatives are coal, gas or other forms of burning.
*As we already know: without a new storage solution, solar and wind can never completely replace coal, gas and nuclear.
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/ (http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/)
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw (https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw)
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/ (http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/)
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw (https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw)
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
The bitter reality for German coal country is supplies will come from Russia and the U.S. for decades to come.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government sealed Germany’s exit from coal production in 2007. The plan contrasts with Trump’s efforts to revive the fuel, and the U.S. indeed stands to benefit, exporting 9.1 million tons of coal to Germany last year, second only to Russia’s 19.7 million tons.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/germany-closes-last-coal-mine-despite-decades-of-supplies-needed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/germany-closes-last-coal-mine-despite-decades-of-supplies-needed)
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old IndustryThis seems to be a half truth, Germany still produce lignite, aka brown coal (the dirtiest form of coal). Or have they shut down these mines as well?
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.
I understand your concern in theory, although the real risk of ever using them (again) is pretty low for the time being IMO. I admit the storage of those weapons itself is a concern though. Even if we never use them purposefully, they are still there, requiring a constant surveillance.
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/ (http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/)
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw (https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw)
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
You had better believe they would if they could make a profit.
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/ (http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/)
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw (https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw)
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
You had better believe they would if they could make a profit.
I can't really see how they could,.
The Germans aren't stupid, they would buy direct from Oz.
FYI nuclear power plants often produce other kinds of uranium that can be used in nuclear weapons.
Do you agree Germany and the EU is supporting next gen nuclear?Nope.
For now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe. There simply isn't a cost effective alternative to meet the CO2 reduction requirements. Some politicians in the NL have already noticed that large scale renewables are just a costly pipe dream and are already advocating building new nuclear power plants. Perhaps the first few get build close to the border of Germany so there are technically no new nuclear power plants in Germany but that is just window dressing ofcourse.QuoteDo you agree Germany and the EU is supporting next gen nuclear?Nope.
Germany is in the legacy nuclear, with a roadmap to close every remaining plant in 2021, and never get into this risky buisness again.
(hint: it's not going well for now, as in every country trying hard to get a working long term storage. All those "long term" leak after less than 20 Years.)That's obviously not true, there doesn't even exist any long term storage anywhere in the world yet. The first one is being built in Finland, you can read about it here:
For now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe.Not credible any more. Too expensive considering clean alternatives.
Germany built the world's first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.It would be nice if you could provide some references to back up those claims. It sounds like you don't want it to work?
France built the world first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
US built their "world first" one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. And then they abandoned it without even comissionning it, giving it no chance to leak. Pretty clever marketing here !
...
Your country's next on the long list of failures, it seems.
What clean alternatives? Do you mean brown coal? Where should electricity come from when the sun doesn't shine? Should we just shut down the food production, medicine production and hospitals, etc, whenever there is not enough sunlight and wind? Why do you not like nuclear when it has been shown to be one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy there is. Maybe not the cheapest (because coal doesn't pay for it's own externalises like nuclear does, nor is it subsidised like solar and wind), but it is certainly clean and safe, some say even cleaner and safer than solar (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#bf4716c709b7).QuoteFor now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe.Not credible any more. Too expensive considering clean alternatives.
You're simply living in the past.
Germany built the world's first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.Interesting. Do you have references?
France built the world first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
US built their "world first" one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. And then they abandoned it without even comissionning it, giving it no chance to leak. Pretty clever marketing here !
...
Your country's next on the long list of failures, it seems.
It's not economical vs producing it from natural gas, when using power from the grid at the standard price, but if you're looking for something to do with surplus solar or wind generation, that's a special case. Of course, unless the issue of mass production of hydrogen from clean sources is solved, i don't see how the hydrogen car can have any future.PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
You need to do a bit of research. Hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars comes from fossil fuels. It's too expensive to produce with electricity. While the resevior system works, just look at how little electricity it actually produces for Germany. I think I saw less than 3%.
This is from eight years ago, "In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity. That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity."
Want to guess how many for these "planned to be built" are actually being considered? In California the answer is 0. There are issues with fish, water for farmers and people. I think California has close to 200, and we stopped building them for environmental reasons. One of the last ones they were building is about 2 hours from me. It's one of the ones the environmentalists never allowed to be completed.
While it might sound like it good idea, in practice it doesn't work out that way.
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/ (http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/)
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw (https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw)
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
You had better believe they would if they could make a profit.
I can't really see how they could,.
The Germans aren't stupid, they would buy direct from Oz.
Don’t you think they would buy from China if it were cheaper?
It's not economical vs producing it from natural gas, when using power from the grid at the standard price, but if you're looking for something to do with surplus solar or wind generation, that's a special case. Of course, unless the issue of mass production of hydrogen from clean sources is solved, i don't see how the hydrogen car can have any future.PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
You need to do a bit of research. Hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars comes from fossil fuels. It's too expensive to produce with electricity. While the resevior system works, just look at how little electricity it actually produces for Germany. I think I saw less than 3%.
This is from eight years ago, "In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity. That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity."
Want to guess how many for these "planned to be built" are actually being considered? In California the answer is 0. There are issues with fish, water for farmers and people. I think California has close to 200, and we stopped building them for environmental reasons. One of the last ones they were building is about 2 hours from me. It's one of the ones the environmentalists never allowed to be completed.
While it might sound like it good idea, in practice it doesn't work out that way.
Pumping water up the dam works here in the conditions it's done. YMMV.
This is the wikipedia article for this kind of hydroelectric dams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity)
This one is also interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage)
Also very interesting. A map with different energy storage plants and projects: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects.html (http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects.html)
Name the alternatives complete with a TCO analysis. Many people are talking about renewables but their numbers never add up to a solution which is financially and technically viable. :bullshit:QuoteFor now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe.Not credible any more. Too expensive considering clean alternatives.
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage) . Some interesting technologies there.It's not economical vs producing it from natural gas, when using power from the grid at the standard price, but if you're looking for something to do with surplus solar or wind generation, that's a special case. Of course, unless the issue of mass production of hydrogen from clean sources is solved, i don't see how the hydrogen car can have any future.PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
You need to do a bit of research. Hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars comes from fossil fuels. It's too expensive to produce with electricity. While the resevior system works, just look at how little electricity it actually produces for Germany. I think I saw less than 3%.
This is from eight years ago, "In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity. That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity."
Want to guess how many for these "planned to be built" are actually being considered? In California the answer is 0. There are issues with fish, water for farmers and people. I think California has close to 200, and we stopped building them for environmental reasons. One of the last ones they were building is about 2 hours from me. It's one of the ones the environmentalists never allowed to be completed.
While it might sound like it good idea, in practice it doesn't work out that way.
Pumping water up the dam works here in the conditions it's done. YMMV.
This is the wikipedia article for this kind of hydroelectric dams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity)
This one is also interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage)
Also very interesting. A map with different energy storage plants and projects: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects.html (http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects.html)
No one is saying it doesn't work. It's a 100+ year old technology which has been proven. I live in California and we have around 200. We've built all we can. The terrain is such there are any other locations suitable for building any more. Then we have water shortages and environmentalist who don't want to see them get built.
The mass production of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels.
While what you are saying is all good, the problem is we have built all we can, and there aren't any other sites suitable for building any more.
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage) . Some interesting technologies there.Note that most of the things listed on the page are just ideas that may or may not play out and have a bright future. The only thing with a proven track record seems to be pumped storage,
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage) . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
Yes, it seems like there aren't a lot of solar and wind turbines out there, isn't it? Only China has a 24000 MWh/day wind farm. The graph is a little bit outdated, as it lists Fukushima, and it didn't go very well back in 2011.Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage) . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
The picture in the link you provided are very interesting. Did you look at it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Energy-Units-01.png
A sense of units and scale for electrical energy production and consumption.
Take a look at how little solar and wind produces compared to just one nuclear power plant.
I have been to Hover dam. Hard to belevive something that huge produces so little electrictiy. With that said, I wonder just how large Itaipu dam is.
This might not be as great as a solution as it sounds. Over the past 20 years the water level in Hover dam had dropped 200 feet. What happens when we run out of water?
Yes, it seems like there aren't a lot of solar and wind turbines out there, isn't it? Only China has a 24000 MWh/day wind farm. The graph is a little bit outdated, as it lists Fukushima, and it didn't go very well back in 2011.Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage) . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
The picture in the link you provided are very interesting. Did you look at it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Energy-Units-01.png
A sense of units and scale for electrical energy production and consumption.
Take a look at how little solar and wind produces compared to just one nuclear power plant.
I have been to Hover dam. Hard to belevive something that huge produces so little electrictiy. With that said, I wonder just how large Itaipu dam is.
This might not be as great as a solution as it sounds. Over the past 20 years the water level in Hover dam had dropped 200 feet. What happens when we run out of water?
The graph doesn't really tells you much about the pros and cons of running different power plants, it's just a snapshot in time of the energy production, from at least 8 years ago, i presume.
Wind and solar are relatively new, evolving technologies. The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface. That's not too shabby. I'm fairly sure that as time goes on, we are going to see more and more of them.
Do you have any source that support that information? It looks a little bit excessive.Yes, it seems like there aren't a lot of solar and wind turbines out there, isn't it? Only China has a 24000 MWh/day wind farm. The graph is a little bit outdated, as it lists Fukushima, and it didn't go very well back in 2011.Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage) . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
The picture in the link you provided are very interesting. Did you look at it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Energy-Units-01.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Energy-Units-01.png)
A sense of units and scale for electrical energy production and consumption.
Take a look at how little solar and wind produces compared to just one nuclear power plant.
I have been to Hover dam. Hard to belevive something that huge produces so little electrictiy. With that said, I wonder just how large Itaipu dam is.
This might not be as great as a solution as it sounds. Over the past 20 years the water level in Hover dam had dropped 200 feet. What happens when we run out of water?
The graph doesn't really tells you much about the pros and cons of running different power plants, it's just a snapshot in time of the energy production, from at least 8 years ago, i presume.
Wind and solar are relatively new, evolving technologies. The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface. That's not too shabby. I'm fairly sure that as time goes on, we are going to see more and more of them.
Doesn’t matter that it’s from 8 years ago, the relative numbers have not changed.
You make a very good point about the sun’s energy hitting the Earth. Just think if we could convert all of that 1000 to electricity we would be incomplete darkness and nothing would grow. We would have to use the electricity we produce for lighting and to grow crops. Better to let the sun do it.
Do you have any idea how much aluminum, steel and concrete is would be needed to provide one quarter of the world with electricity from solar with the current technology? It would take all of the aluminum and steal that’s ever been mined and all of the concrete that’s ever been poured.
While what you are saying sounds good in theory, it’s the practicality that gets in the way. Much like people who invent perpetual motion machines. There’s that one issues that can’t seem to figure out....It takes energy to power the machine.
Do you have any idea how much aluminum, steel and concrete is would be needed to provide one quarter of the world with electricity from solar with the current technology? It would take all of the aluminum and steal that’s ever been mined and all of the concrete that’s ever been poured.Solar panels are made of mostly silicon, and there is an abundance of silicon on earth (sand is mainly silicon dioxide for example). As fsr said you only need to cover a few percent of a suitable desert to cover the entire worlds electricity demand. But we also need energy for heating and solar isn't well suited to that. In theory you could use electric heating I suppose, but we would need much more electricity then (~7x). Coincidentally nuclear produce a lot of heat that is often wasted because people have made it illegal to use it for district heating due to the irrational fear of all things nuclear.
IMAGE: MAP SHOWING SOLAR RADIATION ACROSS AUSTRALIA. THE SMALL RED DOT IN THE CENTRE SHOWS THE AREA OF AUSTRALIA THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ALL OF AUSTRALIA’S ELECTRICITY USING SOLAR ENERGY. THE LARGE GREEN DOT SHOWS THE AREA REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE ENTIRE WORLD’S ELECTRICITYhttps://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/big-solar-%E2%80%93-australian-sunlight-could-power-the-planet/7451890 (https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/big-solar-%E2%80%93-australian-sunlight-could-power-the-planet/7451890)
Solar areas defined by the dark disks could provide more than the world's total primary energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8%). That is, all energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels, etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#/media/File:Solar_land_area.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#/media/File:Solar_land_area.png)
The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface.Not quite. A clear day you can get about 1kW/m2 on a surface perpendicular to the direction towards the sun, but not the surface of the earth (which often isn't perpendicular to the sun).
The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface.Not quite. A clear day you can get about 1kW/m2 on a surface perpendicular to the direction towards the sun, but not the surface of the earth (which often isn't perpendicular to the sun).
What percentage of a solar panel is silicon vs aluminum? Every solar panel I have seen has an aluminum frame. When it comes to a large ground mounted then use steel and concreate. The amount of steel aluminum and concrete is far greater than the amount of silicon. It is the solar and wind turbine industry association and which is saying we would have to use all of the steel and aluminum ever mined and all of the concrete ever poured.
There’s a fault in the logic of these maps. We don’t have the technology to covert all of the sun’s energy into electricity. What the maps are showing is what is theoretically possible the only problem is we don’t have the technology to do it.
What percentage of a solar panel is silicon vs aluminum? Every solar panel I have seen has an aluminum frame. When it comes to a large ground mounted then use steel and concreate. The amount of steel aluminum and concrete is far greater than the amount of silicon. It is the solar and wind turbine industry association and which is saying we would have to use all of the steel and aluminum ever mined and all of the concrete ever poured.
There’s a fault in the logic of these maps. We don’t have the technology to covert all of the sun’s energy into electricity. What the maps are showing is what is theoretically possible the only problem is we don’t have the technology to do it.
They don't expect that.
They quote 8% conversion efficiency.
What is the real killer is getting the Electricity from where it is made, to where it is used.
There are some things which ameliorate this problem, but which are (obviously) not the "magic bullet" to cure all ills.
What is done in Western Australia is that many remote (& we have some really remote ones), small towns produce their own power, either from solar, (with diesel for when the Sun isn't shining), or wind, or a combination of all three.
Even "Roadhouses" in "the middle of nowhere" have their own small "Solar farms".(They sell fuel, so they want to be able to keep the lion's share of their diesel fuel to sell, not burn it for no profit).
This saves the tonnes of steel & concrete which would otherwise be used to build thousands of kilometres of electricity transmission towers to bring power from the larger population centres.
This way of doing things would work well in many African countries, & maybe already does.
OK, it isn't powering the World, but it is an effective way to supply power in very large, sparsely populated countries.
In cities, rooftop solar generation on individual homes is common.
Solar hot water systems are ubiquitous in Australia, & have been for years.
Both save a considerable amount of otherwise needed fossil fuel, over time.
OK, they aren't as effective in Northern Europe, or the Northern States of the USA, but many people live in countries with good levels of sunlight year round.
That said, the "powers that be" seem to have managed to stuff up electricity supply royally in the Eastern States of this country.
[quote author=fsr link=topic=101254.msg2145658#
Why do you say that solar isn't good for heating? There are some solar water heaters, and they say that they reduce a lot of the gas needed to heat the water:
(http://solarproargentina.com/wp-content/uploads/P1010779-energia-solar-pro-cordoba-300x225.jpg)
When i traveled to some provinces in the north of my country, you see them everywhere. And i've seen some of them even here in Buenos Aires.
The 1 kW/m2 is often cited. Is it incorrect, or it's reasonable in certain conditions, like when panels are installed at an angle, so that they're perpendicular to the rays of the Sun?The number is correct it's just used in the wrong way here. 1 kW/m2 is the maximum possible insolation under ideal conditions (if you have a clear day and the solar panel is directed perpendicular to the sun). So at the equator you could get 1 TW sunlight from a km2 on a clear day, but only for a short time during noon when the sun is at zenit. During the morning and evening as the sun rises and sets the output drops and during night it will be zero of course. The solar panels only have an efficiency of about 20% at best so a 1 km2 PV panel installation at the equator could have a peak output of about 200 MW, but the yearly average output would be at most about 55 MW (assuming 275 W/m2).
As you said, there are deserts out there that are ideal for solar power, but to make the best use of them to power all latitudes would require an international grid, which would have it's technical challenges, and sadly, still bigger political challenges. In fact, if the grid is large enough, then storage would be less of an issue, because the sun is always shining somewhere, and there is always peak demand somewhere and valley demand elsewhere. But yeah, not the easiest thing to do.Yes, absolutely. It also helps if you have a wind power farms at different locations, since it's less likely there are no wind everywhere. So that helps balance things a bit as well.
But, if you have hydro and solar/wind, you don't need to use as much water when solar/wind is supplying the demand, at least partially. That could be considered some kind of energy storage, specially if the hydro can supply the demand when solar/wind is low, thanks to the fact that now you don't use as much water when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing.Sweden and Norway has a lot of hydro and it is being used that way. Denmark uses a lot of wind power and is basically relying on our hydro to act as storage for them. But hydro still has a limited capacity and the amount of of water that is available in the dams is weather dependent. I suppose they could add reverse pumps to the power dams as well, I don't think they have that at the moment, but I do not believe it would be near enough to work as storage for all of Europe. Sweden use nuclear power despite all the hydro and wind power, and we also have coal/gas for backup heating during winters.
Why do you say that solar isn't good for heating? There are some solar water heaters, and they say that they reduce a lot of the gas needed to heat the water:That is great, but I was thinking of heating buildings here in Scandinavia during winter for example, and solar heaters wouldn't be enough (especially since there is very little sunlight in the winter). Old houses are often poorly insulated, so they need a lot of energy to heat up, and it is very hard to add insulation today since it causes moisture and mould problems. Newer houses could be built with better insulation but even so called passive houses have backup wood stoves for heating here.
(http://solarproargentina.com/wp-content/uploads/P1010779-energia-solar-pro-cordoba-300x225.jpg)
What percentage of a solar panel is silicon vs aluminum? Every solar panel I have seen has an aluminum frame. When it comes to a large ground mounted then use steel and concreate. The amount of steel aluminum and concrete is far greater than the amount of silicon. It is the solar and wind turbine industry association and which is saying we would have to use all of the steel and aluminum ever mined and all of the concrete ever poured.
There’s a fault in the logic of these maps. We don’t have the technology to covert all of the sun’s energy into electricity. What the maps are showing is what is theoretically possible the only problem is we don’t have the technology to do it.
They don't expect that.
They quote 8% conversion efficiency.
What is the real killer is getting the Electricity from where it is made, to where it is used.
There are some things which ameliorate this problem, but which are (obviously) not the "magic bullet" to cure all ills.
What is done in Western Australia is that many remote (& we have some really remote ones), small towns produce their own power, either from solar, (with diesel for when the Sun isn't shining), or wind, or a combination of all three.
Even "Roadhouses" in "the middle of nowhere" have their own small "Solar farms".(They sell fuel, so they want to be able to keep the lion's share of their diesel fuel to sell, not burn it for no profit).
This saves the tonnes of steel & concrete which would otherwise be used to build thousands of kilometres of electricity transmission towers to bring power from the larger population centres.
This way of doing things would work well in many African countries, & maybe already does.
OK, it isn't powering the World, but it is an effective way to supply power in very large, sparsely populated countries.
In cities, rooftop solar generation on individual homes is common.
Solar hot water systems are ubiquitous in Australia, & have been for years.
Both save a considerable amount of otherwise needed fossil fuel, over time.
OK, they aren't as effective in Northern Europe, or the Northern States of the USA, but many people live in countries with good levels of sunlight year round.
That said, the "powers that be" seem to have managed to stuff up electricity supply royally in the Eastern States of this country.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I know Russia's solution to providing power at remote locations was nuclear. They powered (and maybe still do) power light houses, aircraft navigational aids with nuclear. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels would be way too expensive. And solar and wind would not be practical. They found nuclear to be "best" solution.
In the United States it is very rare to see any houses or buildings with solar hot water heaters except for pools. I recently priced one for my house and it was crazy expensive. Fuel costs, natural gas prices are so low here it I would be paying an ernormous premium to use the sun to make hot water. I don't live where it freezes. But if I didn't the cost goes up even more. A lot more.
Solar will never work in large cities with tall buidling for obvious reasons. While they might work for remote road houses where you are, we aren't as sparsely populated. I suspect where thouse road houses are hydroelectric is out of the question.
Oil | 37.7% |
Coal | 31.5% |
Gas | 24.7% |
Renewables | 6.2% |
It almost sounds like Australia uses lots of solar so I took a look at what Australia use to generate electricity:
(https://www.energycouncil.com.au/media/6433/2016-11-17-fig-1-senate.jpg)
ouch.
If you look at total energy use it gets worse:page 7: https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian_energy_update_2018.pdf (https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian_energy_update_2018.pdf)
Oil 37.7% Coal 31.5% Gas 24.7% Renewables 6.2%
Something very strange is going on there, considering Australia are about as ideal for solar power as it gets.
Those liquid metal batteries do sound crazy, but it seems like they have very interesting characteristics.Ambri is at least a year away from doing field testing: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ambri-is-still-alive-and-chasing-its-liquid-metal-battery-dreams#gs.9mvoD7XQ (https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ambri-is-still-alive-and-chasing-its-liquid-metal-battery-dreams#gs.9mvoD7XQ) The main advantage I see is the life expectancy. If they can get reliable performance for say 20000 cycles or more then the initial costs don't matter that much. It will win from any lithium based battery solution for stationary storage for having a lower TCO in the long term. Still the efficiency is quite low at 70%. Converting electricity to hydrogen may make more sense.
The technology isn't new, it seems. They improved them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery)
I wonder if they can be expected to be used in cars. I suppose that molten metal batteries wouldn't like to be shaken, and just how much heat do the batteries radiate? I suppose that they need to be very well thermally isolated, or you would be losing energy like crazy. Also, i don't want to be anywhere near a molten sodium battery, if the case gets broken.
For stationary storage, they look very good, however.
Those liquid metal batteries do sound crazy, but it seems like they have very interesting characteristics.
The technology isn't new, it seems. They improved them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery
I wonder if they can be expected to be used in cars. I suppose that molten metal batteries wouldn't like to be shaken, and just how much heat do the batteries radiate? I suppose that they need to be very well thermally isolated, or you would be losing energy like crazy. Also, i don't want to be anywhere near a molten sodium battery, if the case gets broken.
For stationary storage, they look very good, however.
He's not using sodium, that would be explosivly crazy. He said the TSA will allow his batteries to be taken on a plane.If you would have listened more carefully: when the battery is fully cooled down and the metals inside solid. I don't know what this would mean for the state of charge.
He's not using sodium, that would be explosivly crazy. He said the TSA will allow his batteries to be taken on a plane.If you would have listened more carefully: when the battery is fully cooled down and the metals inside solid. I don't know what this would mean for the state of charge.
Come to think of it: the thermal management of these batteries will be a real nightmare. It seems the charge / discharge efficiency is around 70%. Say this is equally divided between charging & discharging. If you are storing 1MW of electricity in the battery you'll end up with 150kW of heat that will need to be taken away from the battery and dumped into the air. However when the battery is stationary this heat production stops and heat needs to be added to keep the battery at the operational temperature. Something tells me that this will require an intricate heating/cooling system. Just using thermal insulation for the cells won't be enough because this will greatly reduce that charge & discharge rates. All in all this technology is years away from being ready for actual deployment.
Why do I even bother. You are not reading anything I write -again- :palm:He talked about the heat in the video. As I recall he said it was warm, but not HOT! Once cool it is a solid and there is no danger. There was some joke about what if it get's shot and he said it will leak out and become a solid.He's not using sodium, that would be explosivly crazy. He said the TSA will allow his batteries to be taken on a plane.If you would have listened more carefully: when the battery is fully cooled down and the metals inside solid. I don't know what this would mean for the state of charge.
Come to think of it: the thermal management of these batteries will be a real nightmare. It seems the charge / discharge efficiency is around 70%. Say this is equally divided between charging & discharging. If you are storing 1MW of electricity in the battery you'll end up with 150kW of heat that will need to be taken away from the battery and dumped into the air. However when the battery is stationary this heat production stops and heat needs to be added to keep the battery at the operational temperature. Something tells me that this will require an intricate heating/cooling system. Just using thermal insulation for the cells won't be enough because this will greatly reduce that charge & discharge rates. All in all this technology is years away from being ready for actual deployment.
Someone a few posts back said this was bullshit. And something about all our cars having platinum and our phones having gold. Guess he missed the part at (5:01) where he show the abundance of atoms on our planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust#/media/File:Elemental_abundances.svgAnd still that doesn't prevent platinum to be used for something else then jewelry so the statement of the 'professor' is completely false. I'd call it a lie. And you are not even reading the graph you linked to. It shows platinum and gold are about as equally abundant. If less platinum was mined until now it means there is more left to mine.
All the gold tha's ever been mined is a 62 foot or 18 m cube or two olympic size pools. When it comes to platinum is about 5 times less or about the size of a living room.
Why do I even bother. You are not reading anything I write -again- :palm:He talked about the heat in the video. As I recall he said it was warm, but not HOT! Once cool it is a solid and there is no danger. There was some joke about what if it get's shot and he said it will leak out and become a solid.He's not using sodium, that would be explosivly crazy. He said the TSA will allow his batteries to be taken on a plane.If you would have listened more carefully: when the battery is fully cooled down and the metals inside solid. I don't know what this would mean for the state of charge.
Come to think of it: the thermal management of these batteries will be a real nightmare. It seems the charge / discharge efficiency is around 70%. Say this is equally divided between charging & discharging. If you are storing 1MW of electricity in the battery you'll end up with 150kW of heat that will need to be taken away from the battery and dumped into the air. However when the battery is stationary this heat production stops and heat needs to be added to keep the battery at the operational temperature. Something tells me that this will require an intricate heating/cooling system. Just using thermal insulation for the cells won't be enough because this will greatly reduce that charge & discharge rates. All in all this technology is years away from being ready for actual deployment.QuoteSomeone a few posts back said this was bullshit. And something about all our cars having platinum and our phones having gold. Guess he missed the part at (5:01) where he show the abundance of atoms on our planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust#/media/File:Elemental_abundances.svgAnd still that doesn't prevent platinum to be used for something else then jewelry so the statement of the 'professor' is completely false. I'd call it a lie. And you are not even reading the graph you linked to. It shows platinum and gold are about as equally abundant. If less platinum was mined until now it means there is more left to mine.
All the gold that's ever been mined is a 62 foot or 18 m cube or two Olympic size pools. When it comes to platinum is about 5 times less or about the size of a living room.
Just understand this: the guy in the video is trying to sell his idea and he isn't afraid of telling lies.
Read the article I linked to about how his company is about to go under.
You are right I do not understand you. Why would converting electricity to hydrogen may make more sense?Costs and time needed to implement. A hydrogen tank is something you can order off-the-shelve. The molten salt batteries are years away from being deployable. I see several potential issues that need to be solved AFTER they have a working cell. Read my text about the thermal management.
You are right I do not understand you. Why would converting electricity to hydrogen may make more sense?Costs and time needed to implement. A hydrogen tank is something you can order off-the-shelve. The batteries are years away from being deployable. I see several potential issues that need to be solved AFTER they have a working cell. Read my text about the thermal management.
Hydrogen ofcourse. Made from (excess) electricity.You are right I do not understand you. Why would converting electricity to hydrogen may make more sense?Costs and time needed to implement. A hydrogen tank is something you can order off-the-shelve. The batteries are years away from being deployable. I see several potential issues that need to be solved AFTER they have a working cell. Read my text about the thermal management.
I continue not to understand you. Yes one can buy a hydrogen tank, but what are you going to put in it?
What do you mean molten salt batteries are years away, your information is abut 80 years out of date. They were originally developed for V-1 and V-2 rockets Germany was sending over to the England and in nuclear weapons.For starters Gates didn't see internet coming until it was too late. Don't confuse people which had one bright idea (in case of Bill Gates: buy software, mash it together and turn it into a profitable product while cornering the market) with people who really changed the world. People like Maxwell, Einstein, etc.
I read your text about thermal management. Did you listen and understand what the professor said about the thermal characteristics of his design?
We don't know if what the professor is proposing is going to be a commercial success or not. But you do have to admit it looks feasible and promising. This guy is an MIT professor so can we agree he's not stupid? Bill Gates is no dummy either. Gates like this guy are trying to solve some of the worlds issues before they are no longer with us.
For hydrogen storage you need a lot more than just the tank, you need to generate hydrogen somehow, you need to compress it and cool it (might be possible to use this heat), you then need to convert it back to electricity when you need it. When you calculate TCO you need to take into consideration the cost and lifetime of all those components as well. The tank is going to be the cheapest part.A battery will also need auxilary equipment (heating/cooling, conversion, etc).
Yes, inverters and maybe some heaters/fans*, but that isn't difficult or particularly expensive compared to the complex mechanical systems you'd need for hydrogen. It's really unfair to only make a comparison between batteries and a hydrogen tank. The expensive parts will be converting electricity into hydrogen and vice versa and the compressors, not the tank.Still the costs of the materials for the batteries alone will be huge. Look at the weight of the NAS batteries from the NGK website. I see numbers like 32 tonnes, 82 tonnes.. The materials may be cheap but if you need a lot of it, it still becomes expensive. Not just the materials but also the processing to turn them into batteries. Batteries just don't scale.
*Looking at a picture of a NGK NAS battery installation from before it looks like thermal regulation is integrated in the battery assemblies.
Yes, inverters and maybe some heaters/fans*, but that isn't difficult or particularly expensive compared to the complex mechanical systems you'd need for hydrogen. It's really unfair to only make a comparison between batteries and a hydrogen tank. The expensive parts will be converting electricity into hydrogen and vice versa and the compressors, not the tank.Still the costs of the materials for the batteries alone will be huge. Look at the weight of the NAS batteries from the NGK website. I see numbers like 32 tonnes, 82 tonnes.. The materials may be cheap but if you need a lot of it, it still becomes expensive. Not just the materials but also the processing to turn them into batteries. Batteries just don't scale.
*Looking at a picture of a NGK NAS battery installation from before it looks like thermal regulation is integrated in the battery assemblies.
But for kicks say we put the price for the entire electric to liquid hydrogen gas system with a 5kg tank at $10000 (mass produced) for a 15 year life span. The storage cost per kWh is 2 cents. Still 4 times cheaper than the battery solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eFM9JJMH_0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eFM9JJMH_0)
I have already factored in the efficiency of hydrogen in my calculations. What kills batteries (in an economic sense) is the massive amount of materials needed and their short lifespan.Yes, inverters and maybe some heaters/fans*, but that isn't difficult or particularly expensive compared to the complex mechanical systems you'd need for hydrogen. It's really unfair to only make a comparison between batteries and a hydrogen tank. The expensive parts will be converting electricity into hydrogen and vice versa and the compressors, not the tank.Still the costs of the materials for the batteries alone will be huge. Look at the weight of the NAS batteries from the NGK website. I see numbers like 32 tonnes, 82 tonnes.. The materials may be cheap but if you need a lot of it, it still becomes expensive. Not just the materials but also the processing to turn them into batteries. Batteries just don't scale.
*Looking at a picture of a NGK NAS battery installation from before it looks like thermal regulation is integrated in the battery assemblies.
But for kicks say we put the price for the entire electric to liquid hydrogen gas system with a 5kg tank at $10000 (mass produced) for a 15 year life span. The storage cost per kWh is 2 cents. Still 4 times cheaper than the battery solution.
You are correct but when you factor in the inefficiency of hydrogen its far more than the four times you are saving. No consumer would ever go for it.
I have already factored in the efficiency of hydrogen in my calculations. What kills batteries (in an economic sense) is the massive amount of materials needed and their short lifespan.Yes, inverters and maybe some heaters/fans*, but that isn't difficult or particularly expensive compared to the complex mechanical systems you'd need for hydrogen. It's really unfair to only make a comparison between batteries and a hydrogen tank. The expensive parts will be converting electricity into hydrogen and vice versa and the compressors, not the tank.Still the costs of the materials for the batteries alone will be huge. Look at the weight of the NAS batteries from the NGK website. I see numbers like 32 tonnes, 82 tonnes.. The materials may be cheap but if you need a lot of it, it still becomes expensive. Not just the materials but also the processing to turn them into batteries. Batteries just don't scale.
*Looking at a picture of a NGK NAS battery installation from before it looks like thermal regulation is integrated in the battery assemblies.
But for kicks say we put the price for the entire electric to liquid hydrogen gas system with a 5kg tank at $10000 (mass produced) for a 15 year life span. The storage cost per kWh is 2 cents. Still 4 times cheaper than the battery solution.
You are correct but when you factor in the inefficiency of hydrogen its far more than the four times you are saving. No consumer would ever go for it.
Care to tell us why your calculations do not agree with the ones in the video?The video is completely wrong because it only looks at efficiency and not at TCO. My calculations determine the total cost of the solution which in the end determines whether a solution is good or not. Efficiency is just a small part of the calculation. Again: what kills battery storage is the cost of making the batteries (even with cheap materials) and their relative short live span.
But for kicks say we put the price for the entire electric to liquid hydrogen gas system with a 5kg tank at $10000 (mass produced) for a 15 year life span. The storage cost per kWh is 2 cents. Still 4 times cheaper than the battery solution.It would be more interesting if we could se something fact based imho.
old DC motors had field coils not PM magnets. They controlled the current in the field coils which was much less then the main armature current.Up until 100 years ago, electric cars were more popular than internal-combustion engine powered cars and were poised to become the standard method of transportation. Most used NiFe or NiCd batteries.And how did they control the power output smooth enough without losing too much power in the switch while driving (therefore potentially heating it up and burning, next to the loss of energy)? Not to mention charging those batteries.
The switches needed for that got available with the semiconductors used and available as they are today, the whole system relying on an electrical grid that simply did not exist back then. Those are very technical reasons. The first gas suppliers were indeed pharmacies, as they sold the benzine in bottles and had the necessary logistics infrastructure. That gave the whole idea of a gasoline car the necessary initial push - in Germany back in the days. Where is that chummy-chum?
I mean, there have been quite counter-intuitive decisions, like removing trolley busses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus) from cities and now selling them as solution again or lamenting about the pollution caused by exhaust gasses inside cities. Yet personal transport and public transport is a different thing.
According to the video i posted, the electricity cost per km for a tesla model 3 is 2 to 2.4 cents, while they hydrogen cost per km for the toyota mirai is 17.7 cents. The tesla model 3 long-range comes with a battery warranty of 8 years or 120000 miles (193000 km), so, for that many miles, the electricity cost is $4632 (at 2.4 cents/km), while the hydrogen cost would be $34161. A difference of $29529.You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure. Sure the Mirai is more expensive right now. It isn't a production car like the Tesla. The same goes for hydrogen. The development of hydrogen is behind compared to pure EVs so right now everything is more expensive. Currently it is very hard to make an accurate estimation on what will be cheaper in a few years taking all costs into account. I've read an old report from 2014 which claims that the infrastructure for hydrogen will be 4 times cheaper than the infrastructure needed to charge EVs. But it is hard to tell how valid that number is in today's situation.
So, about cost, that doesn't looks good for the mirai. But the mirai has the convenience of a fast fillup. If there where enough stations for the trip, of course.
You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure.Are you factoring in the cost of the wear of hydrogen fuel cells and the large scale hydrogen production and charging infrastructure?
That is a rather old article from 2015. Things are changing fast and many of the issues listed in the article are no longer true. Given the current rapid expansion of hydrogen infrastructure it seems many of the obstacles have been overcome. Sure the fuel cells don't have an infinite life span and the hydrogen tanks will need inspections at certain intervals (for the Mirai once every 15 years).You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure.Are you factoring in the cost of the wear of hydrogen fuel cells and the large scale hydrogen production and charging infrastructure?
It's not like hydrogen is free from problems (https://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1).
How much maintenance does a fuel cell vehicle require? I see various things vaguely claiming its now, but I remember fuel cells from the past having serious wear and tear issues.You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure.Are you factoring in the cost of the wear of hydrogen fuel cells and the large scale hydrogen production and charging infrastructure?
It's not like hydrogen is free from problems (https://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1).
The Toyota Mirai has an 8 year or 160k km warranty on the fuel cell.How much maintenance does a fuel cell vehicle require? I see various things vaguely claiming its now, but I remember fuel cells from the past having serious wear and tear issues.You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure.Are you factoring in the cost of the wear of hydrogen fuel cells and the large scale hydrogen production and charging infrastructure?
It's not like hydrogen is free from problems (https://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1).
That tells me nothing about the maintenance requirements.The Toyota Mirai has an 8 year or 160k km warranty on the fuel cell.How much maintenance does a fuel cell vehicle require? I see various things vaguely claiming its now, but I remember fuel cells from the past having serious wear and tear issues.You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure.Are you factoring in the cost of the wear of hydrogen fuel cells and the large scale hydrogen production and charging infrastructure?
It's not like hydrogen is free from problems (https://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1).
The 8 year warranty implies it should be maintenance free. And if it is not during that period then Toyota pays the bill. But knowing Toyota's quality level the fuel cell will last for much longer. When they introduced the Prius everyone said the batteries would fail within 3 years. Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't make sense to release a crappy car for a brand like Toyota. Besides that the Mirai isn't a new car. It was introduced in December 2014 in Japan.The Toyota Mirai has an 8 year or 160k km warranty on the fuel cell.That tells me nothing about the maintenance requirements.
Since when has any warranty on a car implied no maintenance? Most warranty claims are only accepted if the car can be shown to have been maintained according to the maker's schedule.The 8 year warranty implies it should be maintenance free. And if it is not during that period then Toyota pays the bill. But knowing Toyota's quality level the fuel cell will last for much longer. When they introduced the Prius everyone said the batteries would fail within 3 years. Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't make sense to release a crappy car for a brand like Toyota.The Toyota Mirai has an 8 year or 160k km warranty on the fuel cell.That tells me nothing about the maintenance requirements.
Since when has any warranty on a car implied no maintenance? Most warranty claims are only accepted if the car can be shown to have been maintained according to the maker's schedule.You could have found the maintenance manual yourself:
If the fuel cell system is expected to last for a little more than 8 years/160 km then the 15 year life of the gas tank shouldn't matter.Having a warranty of 8 years is not the same as having a predicted life of 8 years. Warranties are normally much shorter than the expected lifetime.
If the fuel cell system is expected to last for a little more than 8 years/160 km then the 15 year life of the gas tank shouldn't matter.The warranty is 8 years / 160k km. So it is guaranteed to last at least that long. Given Toyota's proven track record when it comes to reliability (and dealing with manufacturing defects after the warranty period) I'd be way more worried about swapping the tank.
This report suggest that the latest generation fuel cell cars have an average lifetime of 2442 operating hours (about 118000 km or 73000 mi), so about half of the life expectancy of a gasoline car.How much better will their system be? If you drive about 15000 km per year you will have driven 120000 km after 8 years, so apparently they seem confident they can do better, or they have factored in the cost of replacing the fuel cells into the price of the car.
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review17/tv001_kurtz_2017_o.pdf (https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review17/tv001_kurtz_2017_o.pdf)
Currently most EVs are powered from fossil fuel as well so that doesn't make any difference. It should be possible to fuel the Mirai in a couple of minutes though but this seems to depend on the kind of hydrogen fueling station. Definitely something to take into account when considering a hydrogen car. Toyota says that refueling the Mirai takes 5 minutes but this depends on the kind of fueling station and ambient temperature if you read the fine print: https://www.longotoyota.com/mirai.htm (https://www.longotoyota.com/mirai.htm) .
Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.
(https://h2stationmaps.com/sites/default/files/AC-Transit-Emeryville-hyrogen-station.jpg)Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.
I have done just as you say and can NOT find one fueling station using electrolysis to generate hydrogen. Since you seem to know of one why didn't you post it?
You know you would have a lot more credibility with people if you make a claim, you support it with factual evidence instead of telling someone to find it on the web.
Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.If you use electricity to generate hydrogen it's always going to be much less efficient than a BEV by orders of magnitude. So if you use the same electricity to charge batteries and generate hydrogen BEVs are going to be a much cleaner option.
Efficiency is just a small part of the equation so don't get too focussed on that alone because you'll lose sight on the big picture. In the end it is all about cost and convenience.Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.If you use electricity to generate hydrogen it's always going to be much less efficient than a BEV by orders of magnitude. So if you use the same electricity to charge batteries and generate hydrogen BEVs are going to be a much cleaner option.
If the goal is to reduce GHG emissions and other pollution then the car that uses less electricity (assuming it is generated in the same way) is going to the best option.Efficiency is just a small part of the equation so don't get too focussed on that alone because you'll lose sight on the big picture. In the end it is all about cost and convenience.Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.If you use electricity to generate hydrogen it's always going to be much less efficient than a BEV by orders of magnitude. So if you use the same electricity to charge batteries and generate hydrogen BEVs are going to be a much cleaner option.
Not if the costs are too high. It is clear that hydrogen will need a much less fine grained 'energy distribition infrastructure' compared to EVs.If the goal is to reduce GHG emissions and other pollution then the car that uses less electricity (assuming it is generated in the same way) is going to the best option.Efficiency is just a small part of the equation so don't get too focussed on that alone because you'll lose sight on the big picture. In the end it is all about cost and convenience.Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.If you use electricity to generate hydrogen it's always going to be much less efficient than a BEV by orders of magnitude. So if you use the same electricity to charge batteries and generate hydrogen BEVs are going to be a much cleaner option.
(https://h2stationmaps.com/sites/default/files/AC-Transit-Emeryville-hyrogen-station.jpg)Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.
I have done just as you say and can NOT find one fueling station using electrolysis to generate hydrogen. Since you seem to know of one why didn't you post it?
You know you would have a lot more credibility with people if you make a claim, you support it with factual evidence instead of telling someone to find it on the web.
There are only a couple of functioning hydrogen filling points in the UK, but those do claim to produce the hydrogen on site by electrolysis. They seem to produce it ahead of time, and have it stored ready when a car draws up. They couldn't cope with rapid flow of cars - not that they would need to in the near future. The mainland filling points I have found information on all appear to produce the hydrogen off site, and store it at the filling station. So, they could be producing it by any means.Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.
I have done just as you say and can NOT find one fueling station using electrolysis to generate hydrogen. Since you seem to know of one why didn't you post it?
You know you would have a lot more credibility with people if you make a claim, you support it with factual evidence instead of telling someone to find it on the web.
JEEZE MAN DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE POSTING SO YOU CAN BE TRUSTED. You are like that dude posting a bunch of marketing hype BS on biofuels.No, do your own homework! And I'm the one who is very optimistic about bio-fuels as well so have your memory checked or make notes.
Yes my friend the web site clearly states the hydrogen used to fuel hydrogen vehicles is coming from FOSSIL FUELS and specifically NATURAL GAS.Actually, h2stationmaps.com does talk about solar panels and electrolysers being used to supplement the delivered hydrogen from fossil fuels. However, it seems to just be window dressing - they have an obstacle right in front of their solar panels.
JEEZE MAN DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE POSTING SO YOU CAN BE TRUSTED. You are like that dude posting a bunch of marketing hype BS on biofuels.No, do your own homework! And I'm the one who is very optimistic about bio-fuels as well so have your memory checked or make notes.
Nice model. Look at the depth of focus.(https://h2stationmaps.com/sites/default/files/AC-Transit-Emeryville-hyrogen-station.jpg)Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.
I have done just as you say and can NOT find one fueling station using electrolysis to generate hydrogen. Since you seem to know of one why didn't you post it?
You know you would have a lot more credibility with people if you make a claim, you support it with factual evidence instead of telling someone to find it on the web.
Sorry Doug but your memory is so bad that it makes it impossible to have a normal discussion with you. You keep misreading and misunderstanding.
At 8 years of battery warranty, and 10 years of expected use until you really need to change them, i assume that most people will change cars by that time. Either battery, or hydrogen based.According to the video i posted, the electricity cost per km for a tesla model 3 is 2 to 2.4 cents, while they hydrogen cost per km for the toyota mirai is 17.7 cents. The tesla model 3 long-range comes with a battery warranty of 8 years or 120000 miles (193000 km), so, for that many miles, the electricity cost is $4632 (at 2.4 cents/km), while the hydrogen cost would be $34161. A difference of $29529.You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure. Sure the Mirai is more expensive right now. It isn't a production car like the Tesla. The same goes for hydrogen. The development of hydrogen is behind compared to pure EVs so right now everything is more expensive. Currently it is very hard to make an accurate estimation on what will be cheaper in a few years taking all costs into account. I've read an old report from 2014 which claims that the infrastructure for hydrogen will be 4 times cheaper than the infrastructure needed to charge EVs. But it is hard to tell how valid that number is in today's situation.
So, about cost, that doesn't looks good for the mirai. But the mirai has the convenience of a fast fillup. If there where enough stations for the trip, of course.
Nice model. Look at the depth of focus.(https://h2stationmaps.com/sites/default/files/AC-Transit-Emeryville-hyrogen-station.jpg)Perhaps you should google a bit better. Some hydrogen fueling stations use electricity to generate hydrogen. So they use the same electricity as an EV. And even with hydrogen made from fossil fuels the CO2 footprint is lower due to higher efficiency. The latter may ofcourse change when more bio-fuel is used.
I have done just as you say and can NOT find one fueling station using electrolysis to generate hydrogen. Since you seem to know of one why didn't you post it?
You know you would have a lot more credibility with people if you make a claim, you support it with factual evidence instead of telling someone to find it on the web.
At 8 years of battery warranty, and 10 years of expected use until you really need to change them, i assume that most people will change cars by that time. Either battery, or hydrogen based.According to the video i posted, the electricity cost per km for a tesla model 3 is 2 to 2.4 cents, while they hydrogen cost per km for the toyota mirai is 17.7 cents. The tesla model 3 long-range comes with a battery warranty of 8 years or 120000 miles (193000 km), so, for that many miles, the electricity cost is $4632 (at 2.4 cents/km), while the hydrogen cost would be $34161. A difference of $29529.You are not factoring in the costs of the wear on the battery and a large scale charging infrastructure. Sure the Mirai is more expensive right now. It isn't a production car like the Tesla. The same goes for hydrogen. The development of hydrogen is behind compared to pure EVs so right now everything is more expensive. Currently it is very hard to make an accurate estimation on what will be cheaper in a few years taking all costs into account. I've read an old report from 2014 which claims that the infrastructure for hydrogen will be 4 times cheaper than the infrastructure needed to charge EVs. But it is hard to tell how valid that number is in today's situation.
So, about cost, that doesn't looks good for the mirai. But the mirai has the convenience of a fast fillup. If there where enough stations for the trip, of course.
I don't see how the hydrogen infrastructure could be cheaper, considering that you need additional steps over the process to charge an BEV, and the steps have lower efficiency, so they need to use more energy to give you a determined amount of kWh:
Battery vehicle: mains voltage -> rectifier/charger -> car
Hydrogen vehicle: mains voltage -> rectifier/electrolyzer -> compressor -> car
And that's with a station that does the electrolysis on-site, so that there is no hydrogen transport involved. I don't know how many of them are out there, but at least the YT video seems to have used one of those to do the maths.
If you want to use EVs on a mass scale without batteries which can be fully charged with 500km of range within 5 minutes you'll need lots of charging points. In the Netherlands it is estimated that there has to be 1 charging point for every 2.5 cars for EVs to be useful. That means that the entire electricity distribution system will need to be replaced (upgraded) BESIDES paying for all the chargers. With hydrogen the current distribution grid of gas stations will suffice and many more people can share the infrastructure so the cost per person will be lower.But hydrogen stations need more electricity per kWh-equivalent on the cars, so the grid will need to be upgraded anyways. I suppose that you could use huge tanks on the stations and constantly produce hydrogen, for it to act as a buffer, so that during peak demand you don't need a ridiculous amount of energy. On average, the power needed will be higher, however.
At some point there is an optimum for cost and efficiency. That point won't be at the maximum efficiency so don't look primarily at the efficiency.
The way I see it hydrogen makes most sense when it is made at a source like wind or solar (think wind turbines far off-shore and solar in countries with a lot of sun). Converting the electricity to hydrogen will be cheaper because you can use ships to transport the hydrogen. Compare it with oil. A lot of oil is transported using ships because pipelines are too expensive to cover the distance. I'm still sure all this will be cheaper compared to implementing a large electricity grid and storage in batteries (let alone the distribution grid to all the chargers and the chargers themselves). Think about Australia for example. They have a massive amount of space for solar but no way to transport large quantities of electricity outside the country. When converted to hydrogen they can export the energy world wide. The same goes for many countries in the middle east.If you want to use EVs on a mass scale without batteries which can be fully charged with 500km of range within 5 minutes you'll need lots of charging points. In the Netherlands it is estimated that there has to be 1 charging point for every 2.5 cars for EVs to be useful. That means that the entire electricity distribution system will need to be replaced (upgraded) BESIDES paying for all the chargers. With hydrogen the current distribution grid of gas stations will suffice and many more people can share the infrastructure so the cost per person will be lower.But hydrogen stations need more electricity per kWh-equivalent on the cars, so the grid will need to be upgraded anyways. I suppose that you could use huge tanks on the stations and constantly produce hydrogen, for it to act as a buffer, so that during peak demand you don't need a ridiculous amount of energy. On average, the power needed will be higher, however.
At some point there is an optimum for cost and efficiency. That point won't be at the maximum efficiency so don't look primarily at the efficiency.
That is, when hydrogen stations are made that use 100% electrolysis-produced hydrogen. Otherwise, they're not zero-emissions.
Both the hydrogen and battery cars do require green energy production to be zero-emissions, but the hydrogen also needs to be 100% made from electrolysis.
The way I see it hydrogen makes most sense when it is made at a source like wind or solar (think wind turbines far off-shore and solar in countries with a lot of sun). Converting the electricity to hydrogen will be cheaper because you can use ships to transport the hydrogen. Compare it with oil. A lot of oil is transported using ships because pipelines are too expensive to cover the distance. I'm still sure all this will be cheaper compared to implementing a large electricity grid and storage in batteries (let alone the distribution grid to all the chargers and the chargers themselves). Think about Australia for example. They have a massive amount of space for solar but no way to transport large quantities of electricity outside the country. When converted to hydrogen they can export the energy world wide. The same goes for many countries in the middle east.If you want to use EVs on a mass scale without batteries which can be fully charged with 500km of range within 5 minutes you'll need lots of charging points. In the Netherlands it is estimated that there has to be 1 charging point for every 2.5 cars for EVs to be useful. That means that the entire electricity distribution system will need to be replaced (upgraded) BESIDES paying for all the chargers. With hydrogen the current distribution grid of gas stations will suffice and many more people can share the infrastructure so the cost per person will be lower.But hydrogen stations need more electricity per kWh-equivalent on the cars, so the grid will need to be upgraded anyways. I suppose that you could use huge tanks on the stations and constantly produce hydrogen, for it to act as a buffer, so that during peak demand you don't need a ridiculous amount of energy. On average, the power needed will be higher, however.
At some point there is an optimum for cost and efficiency. That point won't be at the maximum efficiency so don't look primarily at the efficiency.
That is, when hydrogen stations are made that use 100% electrolysis-produced hydrogen. Otherwise, they're not zero-emissions.
Both the hydrogen and battery cars do require green energy production to be zero-emissions, but the hydrogen also needs to be 100% made from electrolysis.
Until then some kind of transition needs to be made because the renewable sources are not going to be installed over night. Ultimately some business model needs to emerge for a company to invest in a large scale solar or wind power hydrogen generation plant. That will only happen if there is a large enough demand. Right now hydrogen might be less efficient than using electricity to power an EV directly but to me the economic advantages of hydrogen in the long run are clearly there. EVs and grid storage batteries are a dead end IMHO. It just doesn't scale.
And even then it is not a given hydrogen will ever be used to power cars on a large scale. In my opinion bio-fuels hold the best cards at the moment because the process in itself is very low-tech. Even for the third generation bio-fuels (which comes down to brewing beer from plant leftovers and distilling it). Bio-fuels also don't require the consumers to invest in new technology (=buy a new car) so the threshold for adoption is extremely low. Currently the Duth government is pushing gas stations to make blends with higher amounts of ethanol available at every gas station. Once implemented it will push the CO2 emissions down immediately. No tax incentive for EVs or hydrogen will be as effective to reduce CO2 emissions quickly.
"Looking forward, supportive policies and cost reductions are likely to lead to continued significant growth in the EV market. In the IEA’s New Policies Scenario, which takes into account current and planned policies, the number of electric cars is projected to reach 125 million units by 2030. Should policy ambitions rise even further to meet climate goals and other sustainability targets, as in the EV30@30 Scenario, the number of electric cars on the road could be as high as 220 million in 2030."That seems too little too late to me. The CO2 reduction required by the Paris agreement calls for a much bigger reduction in CO2 emissions. Replacing 10% of the cars isn't going to make much of a difference.
Here's a twist on autonomous self-driving cars no one has discussed so far. I was at a cybersecurity conference today in San Francisco toady. One of the presenters was speaking on data privacy and personal data privacy. One of the questions he asked the audience what is the "push" to get autonomous self-driving cars to market. (Never saw this one coming.) The reason Google, Waymo, Apple and the venture capitalists want to see autonomous self-driving cars on the road is to collect personal data on the passengers and be able to market to them while in the car. Just think of the gold mine of data the companies can collect on the passengers.This was said from the very beginning of autonomous car development. Something like "why waste hours driving, when you could spend that time using the internet and looking at our sites".
Just think of the profits companies like Google and Facebook selling your personal data and your meta data. It only takes a few hundred of your "Like" clicks to have a Big Data profile on you. Advertisers are willing to pay a premium for that information.
Waymo automous cars have driven over 1 million miles and Tesla over 1 billion miles and it still looks like they drive like my 15 year old kid, but let’s not let that get in the way of making money by collecting big data on the peole who would ride in automous vehicles. Being able to market products to passengers in automous vehicles is where the big money is at.In the video I posted there seems to be a broken car which the human drivers were negotiating quite reasonably, while the WayMo car just seems to keep moving forwards until it reaches the broken car, where the safety driver has to take action. I was amused when the journalist said that they never saw a WayMo car automatically take the left turn that leads to the WayMo depot.
This video bring up an interesting question about autonomous cars. What happens when they come upon an accident scene where a police officer is directing traffic with hand signals? Can the AI in the cars detect hand signals and follow them? What if the direction is to drive out of the lane of traffic and onto the shoulder of the road?
Talk given at MIT in 2019 about the state of autonomous cars.I watched the first 5 minutes of that video, but its more like a sales pitch than a serious university talk.
https://youtu.be/sRxaMDDMWQQ
Waymo automous cars have driven over 1 million miles and Tesla over 1 billion miles and it still looks like they drive like my 15 year old kid, but let’s not let that get in the way of making money by collecting big data on the peole who would ride in automous vehicles. Being able to market products to passengers in automous vehicles is where the big money is at.In the video I posted there seems to be a broken car which the human drivers were negotiating quite reasonably, while the WayMo car just seems to keep moving forwards until it reaches the broken car, where the safety driver has to take action. I was amused when the journalist said that they never saw a WayMo car automatically take the left turn that leads to the WayMo depot.
This video bring up an interesting question about autonomous cars. What happens when they come upon an accident scene where a police officer is directing traffic with hand signals? Can the AI in the cars detect hand signals and follow them? What if the direction is to drive out of the lane of traffic and onto the shoulder of the road?Talk given at MIT in 2019 about the state of autonomous cars.I watched the first 5 minutes of that video, but its more like a sales pitch than a serious university talk.
https://youtu.be/sRxaMDDMWQQ
Well, the MIT will someday need more salesmen than professors to be able to keep running. So this is not surprising.
Waymo automous cars have driven over 1 million miles and Tesla over 1 billion miles and it still looks like they drive like my 15 year old kid, but let’s not let that get in the way of making money by collecting big data on the peole who would ride in automous vehicles. Being able to market products to passengers in automous vehicles is where the big money is at.Ads cost about $0.6/hour while driving cost about $20/hour. Ads cant pay for a ride, i.e. they are not doing it for the ads.
Waymo automous cars have driven over 1 million miles and Tesla over 1 billion miles and it still looks like they drive like my 15 year old kid, but let’s not let that get in the way of making money by collecting big data on the peole who would ride in automous vehicles. Being able to market products to passengers in automous vehicles is where the big money is at.Ads cost about $0.6/hour while driving cost about $20/hour. Ads cant pay for a ride, i.e. they are not doing it for the ads.
My felling too, but continue watching. At first I thought this might be a presentation at a symposium MIT was sponsoring. But then the guy keep saying there will be guest speakers in the class which makes me think this is an MIT university semester long class. But then why is he wearing a suit? None of my professors ever wore suits. But maybe professors wearing suits are an East Coast or MIT thing.I continued through that video and a couple of his other ones. Once he gets past the sales pitch he gets very realistic. This seems to be an annual course, where some lectures are from MIT staff, and some from senior people in the leading autonomous car companies. So far you can see some lectures from this year, and some from last year.
No we don't have Megabus, and from what I can tell it doesn't cost $1 for most passengers:Ads cost about $0.6/hour while driving cost about $20/hour. Ads cant pay for a ride, i.e. they are not doing it for the ads.Why do you think ads can't pay for a ride? Don't you have Megabus? I know they are in the United States and in the England and probably in other countries. I can travel from San Francisco to Los Angles for $1. How? Ads. It is ads that allow me to travel for just $1.00.
Megabus follows the yield management model, typically used by airlines, where the lowest fares are offered to those who book early (normally, only one or two seats are sold for 1.00 per schedule), so the less popular schedules tend to be less expensive.source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabus_(North_America)
Expect it to be worse with self driving cars.Maybe they will have advertising in the cars, but that's not why they are doing it. Transportation is a much bigger business than advertising.
The venture capitalists are the driving force behind self driving cars.I wouldn't say that. Google is the driving force behind self driving cars. I think I know the reason and it has less to do with profit than one might think. But it will be very profitable for them, no doubt, and others have realised that and have jumped on the bandwagon hoping they can compete with Google (which they can't because Google has a very long head start, have hired all the best experts in the field and have a huge amount of capital they can invest if/when needed).
I was just at a seminar in San Francisco on privacy last week. The venture capitalists and advertising companies are fighting California's pending privacy laws. Similar to GDRP in Europe. With GDRP I would expect Europe to be one of the last places to get self driving cars.Collecting and selling data about people is a problem, but it has little to do with robocars.
I agree. Besides that lots of people pay extra to get rid of ads nowadays. It is why Netflix and other online streaming platforms are doing so well and continue to grow . Any business relying on income from advertisements is going to fade away. It is old style thinking.Expect it to be worse with self driving cars.Maybe they will have advertising in the cars, but that's not why they are doing it. Transportation is a much bigger business than advertising.
Any business relying on income from advertisements is going to fade away. It is old style thinking.
The use of ad-blockers shows a steady growth:
(...)
The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.
In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years.
What prevents them from lobbying until ad-blockers become illegal? Looking at how things are going with copyright issues that seems to be the more likely scenario.
"The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others."
Today it's:
"In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years."
The 1998 Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever end is earlier. Copyright protection for works published before January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date.Source: Wikipedia 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Major_amendments_to_federal_copyright_law) 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)
Sure, but I don't see what it has to do specifically with self driving cars. Your travel data is already being registered if you hadn't realised. Whenever you buy a ticket for an air plane, a boat, a train, a bus or pay for a taxi they register your data if they can (they want you to use special registered cards, or apps, credit cards, etc). If that was made illegal Google would still continue pushing their robocars because having a monopoly on transportation will be more than profitable enough without selling peoples travel data. Big data and privacy is a separate problem.
This is not about ads in the cars. People would hate that. It's all about collecting the meta data about you. Do you not understand how valuable that information is? Using YOUR meta data advertisers can have you travel down street businesses you are most likely to go spend money at.In that case the car would always be driving me home. I rarely go to shops. Except for food I buy 99% online and for food I always go to the same store. Also: wouldn't people get pissed off if their car takes a detour? Taxi drivers sometimes do that. Happened to me in Copenhagen (Denmark): this is the red-light district sir. In a completely unimpressed tone I told the driver I'm from Amsterdam after which the drive said sorry and turned the meter off for the rest of the trip.
This is not about ads in the cars. People would hate that. It's all about collecting the meta data about you. Do you not understand how valuable that information is? Using YOUR meta data advertisers can have you travel down street businesses you are most likely to go spend money at.In that case the car would always be driving me home. I rarely go to shops. Except for food I buy 99% online and for food I always go to the same store. Also: wouldn't people get pissed off if their car takes a detour? Taxi drivers sometimes do that. Happened to me in Copenhagen (Denmark): this is the red-light district sir. In a completely unimpressed tone I told the driver I'm from Amsterdam after which the drive said sorry and turned the meter off for the rest of the trip.
I still don't think robocars will make much of a difference when it comes to collecting data about people. Either way, it's not specific to self driving cars so why single them out?. Here in Sweden they made it legal for the US military to collect raw internet traffic data a few years ago. That worries me a whole lot more than directed advertising. It means the US military have access to much more data already than what a robotaxi operator could dream about collecting from their passengers. So robotaxis won't make much of a difference, and the way to fix that problem is by making spying illegal, not hold back self driving car technology.
They call the US copyright act the Disney act for a reason. It extended Disney's copyright on early movies just enough to keep them in copyright, without being so long that it would bring things like Tchaikovsky's ballet scores into copyright.What prevents them from lobbying until ad-blockers become illegal? Looking at how things are going with copyright issues that seems to be the more likely scenario.
"The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others."
Today it's:
"In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years."
You are mistaken about copyright laws in the United States. Take a look at "It's a Wonderful Life". Can't remember but I think it's the death of the creator plus 100 years. You'll need to verify.
They call the US copyright act the Disney act for a reason. It extended Disney's copyright on early movies just enough to keep them in copyright, without being so long that it would bring things like Tchaikovsky's ballet scores into copyright.What prevents them from lobbying until ad-blockers become illegal? Looking at how things are going with copyright issues that seems to be the more likely scenario.
"The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others."
Today it's:
"In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years."
You are mistaken about copyright laws in the United States. Take a look at "It's a Wonderful Life". Can't remember but I think it's the death of the creator plus 100 years. You'll need to verify.
A detour is a detour. I wouldn't buy a self driving car if I can't influence the route it will take.Who said anything about a detour, I never did. The AI engine along with meta data and advertisers dollars would determine the 'best" route for you. And it's not like you going to be able to grab the wheel or yell at the driver to take a different way.This is not about ads in the cars. People would hate that. It's all about collecting the meta data about you. Do you not understand how valuable that information is? Using YOUR meta data advertisers can have you travel down street businesses you are most likely to go spend money at.In that case the car would always be driving me home. I rarely go to shops. Except for food I buy 99% online and for food I always go to the same store. Also: wouldn't people get pissed off if their car takes a detour? Taxi drivers sometimes do that. Happened to me in Copenhagen (Denmark): this is the red-light district sir. In a completely unimpressed tone I told the driver I'm from Amsterdam after which the drive said sorry and turned the meter off for the rest of the trip.
You are the perfect target for advertisers. Just look at what you revealed to everyone in your post. Food stores would pay to have your car drive past their stores and entice you to come in. And since most of what you buy is online, what if you could get the same item from a store that's right outside your door for the same price? Would you have the car stop and buy it?No because it is not the designated food store which has everything I need in one go. Visiting multiple stores is a waste of money. I needed some time to teach my wife that visiting 4 different stores to safe 50 cents on 'bargains' costed way more in gas, parking fees and -most importantly- my wasted time.
Here in Sweden the copyright lobby have managed to get their own private tax on storage media, so whenever you buy a hard drive, an USB flash drive, a smart phone or any other kind storage media, a percentage goes to a private organisation owned by the music industry that then distribute that money to their members in some way out of government control. Completely insane.They call the US copyright act the Disney act for a reason. It extended Disney's copyright on early movies just enough to keep them in copyright, without being so long that it would bring things like Tchaikovsky's ballet scores into copyright.What prevents them from lobbying until ad-blockers become illegal? Looking at how things are going with copyright issues that seems to be the more likely scenario.
"The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others."
Today it's:
"In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years."
You are mistaken about copyright laws in the United States. Take a look at "It's a Wonderful Life". Can't remember but I think it's the death of the creator plus 100 years. You'll need to verify.
Here in Sweden the copyright lobby have managed to get their own private tax on storage media, so whenever you buy a hard drive, an USB flash drive, a smart phone or any other kind storage media, a percentage goes to a private organisation owned by the music industry that then distribute that money to their members in some way out of government control. Completely insane.Same in the Netherlands but it is indeed strange because it would ligitimize illegal copying media since you already paid for it :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Sweden
Unless you live in a one street country I'm sure there are multiple paths to take you from your location to your destination. What's the difference between a route and a detour? I use Google maps when traveling from one destination to another and am typically given multiple routes based on time, mileage or traffic conditions. Each of these routes takes me past different stores and businesses. Why do you call that a detour? It's just one of many routes.Cities in Europe are layed out different compared the US in general. In the US you often have a grid of roads so there are many different routes possible to a destination. In Europe you often see that cities have circular road systems (often the result from old fortifications) which have one or two optimal routes. Everything else is a long detour.
Unless you live in a one street country I'm sure there are multiple paths to take you from your location to your destination. What's the difference between a route and a detour? I use Google maps when traveling from one destination to another and am typically given multiple routes based on time, mileage or traffic conditions. Each of these routes takes me past different stores and businesses. Why do you call that a detour? It's just one of many routes.Cities in Europe are layed out different compared the US in general. In the US you often have a grid of roads so there are many different routes possible to a destination. In Europe you often see that cities have circular road systems (often the result from old fortifications) which have one or two optimal routes. Everything else is a long detour.
In the UK Google maps will usually offer 2 or 3 routes which are pretty similar in length and predicted journey time, and another route or 2 which might be 20% to 50% longer in distance or predicted time. The latter may be good choices if the primary choices are unexpectedly congested. Having only one sensible route is a rarity.Unless you live in a one street country I'm sure there are multiple paths to take you from your location to your destination. What's the difference between a route and a detour? I use Google maps when traveling from one destination to another and am typically given multiple routes based on time, mileage or traffic conditions. Each of these routes takes me past different stores and businesses. Why do you call that a detour? It's just one of many routes.Cities in Europe are layed out different compared the US in general. In the US you often have a grid of roads so there are many different routes possible to a destination. In Europe you often see that cities have circular road systems (often the result from old fortifications) which have one or two optimal routes. Everything else is a long detour.
But out of those 3 options 1 usually makes no sense at all and the other is less efficient. So that leaves one or two direct routes. It seems to me Google maps is programmed to show at least 2 or 3 options where one will take the inner city roads and the other one the highway. Some people don't like the inner city roads and some people don't like highways so providing these options makes sense.
In most parts of Europe any other route than the most optimal one will be a detour so don't keep insisting self driving cars will show this kind of idiotic behaviour. They won't do that because people will bring them back to the dealership to have the navigation system fixed.But out of those 3 options 1 usually makes no sense at all and the other is less efficient. So that leaves one or two direct routes. It seems to me Google maps is programmed to show at least 2 or 3 options where one will take the inner city roads and the other one the highway. Some people don't like the inner city roads and some people don't like highways so providing these options makes sense.
Exactly - In a self driving car you won't be given any options and the businesses who pay the advertisers fees will have you driving right by their business a little more slowly.
In most parts of Europe any other route then the most optimal one will be a detour so don't keep insisting self driving cars will show this kind of idiotic behaviour. They won't do that because people will bring them back to the dealership to have the navigation system fixed.But out of those 3 options 1 usually makes no sense at all and the other is less efficient. So that leaves one or two direct routes. It seems to me Google maps is programmed to show at least 2 or 3 options where one will take the inner city roads and the other one the highway. Some people don't like the inner city roads and some people don't like highways so providing these options makes sense.
Exactly - In a self driving car you won't be given any options and the businesses who pay the advertisers fees will have you driving right by their business a little more slowly.
I just checked some random routes and every time Google maps shows the alternatives like I wrote above.
Yeah sure. I'll give Google a call tomorrow that their maps.google.com website is broken.
The others probably never really cared to analyse the options Google maps provides.
:--Yes, they introduced it to compensate for losses due to people making private copies and sharing them with their family and friends. That is not ok anymore apparently, but at the same time they insist on their private tax on digital storage. >:(Here in Sweden the copyright lobby have managed to get their own private tax on storage media, so whenever you buy a hard drive, an USB flash drive, a smart phone or any other kind storage media, a percentage goes to a private organisation owned by the music industry that then distribute that money to their members in some way out of government control. Completely insane.Same in the Netherlands but it is indeed strange because it would ligitimize illegal copying media since you already paid for it :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Sweden
Rational Logic and Law are incompatible.
On EVs, thing is, a car is a car and why should anyone be subsidized or given tax breaks to buy a car?It will reduce the pollution in the city center - better for everyones health.
I was amazed when some Greens started supporting nuclear power after decades of campaigning against it. At least there is some justification there, in that the Greens (rightly or wrongly) think that CO2 from fossil fuels will destroy the planet.
In the case of EVs though, Greens promoting car sales would seem to go against all of their basic principles. Whatever happened to their protests about cars clogging-up cities and being a danger to pedestrians and cyclists? Self-evidently an EV is no different from a gas guzzler in any of those respects.
-So, why? :-// I can only assume money is changing hands under the table, so to speak.
Maybe. Or maybe not. IDK. Water plus some PVs make a H2 generator. Sounds expensive?
Generally using switched rheostat sections and/or multiple motor windings or voltage stages. Using multiple tapped parts rather than one big rheostat limits wasted power in the rheostat.It means the excess power is converted to heat in the resistor. That way you can only control motors up to a certain size using such a technology before that resistor burns - not to mention the significant loss of the stored energy in the control alone and the influence of overload on the vehicle leading to direct damage in motor or control (basically no motor protection existed back then). Does an internal combustion engine shred if you try to start with overload?
Some of the stuff from that era was actually rather ingenious. You should read up on it more. :)
I mean Ferdinand Porsche came up with a internal cumbustion engine -> generator -> electrical motor as a way to propell tanks (VK 45.01 P) to circumvent such issues. Submarines and trains used to be driven that way too, until it was more practical to directly control power (SMPS style) or frequency (VFD style). In parallel there used to be diesel-hydraulic of course, all that just to be able to control the huge amount of output power as efficient as possible and keep the overall efficiency of the system high. Nuclear reactors in personal transportation left aside, which used to be the hype of the 60´s science fiction.
A system consisting of a internal combustion engine, mechanical transmission and clutch in that time was IMHO better scalable and provided more torque to replace horse carriages.
Without being a historian or trying to start a discussion about it, i guess WWII-logistics and availability to store and deliver energy played a huge role in what was the preferred type of propulsion later on, i guess that shaped the most part of what came to be. A technology adopted by a military also means that there is suddenly
a) an infrastructure
b) a huge amount of people trained to be e.g. a mechanic, i.e. experienced with it, able to repair and maintain that technology.
c) a form of propulsion that does not require a working electrical grid (at least for europe there was a lot bombed away and needed to be rebuilt)
So such decisions always have ripple effects which enable things to work that wouldn´t if thing had come different.
Not to mention that internal combustion engines can run on a wide variety of fuels, e.g. gasoline, diesel, alcohol (ethanol), wood gas, coal gas, natural gas, liquid pressurized gas (propane/butane), heavy oil, just to name a few. Don´t understand me wrong, the environmental impact of these varies, an ICE simply doesn´t run the majority of operating time in an ideal operation point, so even "clean" fuels might generate issues when burned under less than ideal conditions (the problem here lies in the system´s control of output power and the user as well), that´s where an electrical propulsion system has huge advantages.Sure, but still a HUGE number of people will get caught out.Just for info: there are quite some startups (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/london-street-lamps-electric-car-charging-points-ubitricity-tech-firm-hounslow-council-richmond-a7809126.html) coming up with equipment converting street lamps to charging outlets. So that might change the picture a bit.
And IME huger numbers of people park on the street outside their house so that's not possible.QuoteAnd FYI, I"m hugely pro electric cars, and want to get one myself, by the practical engineer in me knows it's not going to go mainstream any time soon, it's not even close.It´s sad that the range extender (aka plug-in hybrid) doesn´t find as much traction as it should. It does combine the best of both and can even solve some issues by having the ICE run in practical ideal conditions all the time.
Synthetic fuels are the future. Bio, chemi, or whatever. So we can keep the cars we already have, and the Jumbos that can't fly with batteries.
Your information is way out of date. Nowadays they can make ethanol from agricultural waste so no extra land is necessary. The so called 3rd generation bio-fuels. There are several factories in the US doing that on an industrial scale. And yes, there is enough agricultural wast to make a significant amount of bio-fuel. The beauty of it is that by using plant leftovers food gets cheaper because more parts of the plants are used. One of the companies is POET-DSM: poet-dsm.com A few pages back I posted a link to an article from around half 2018 with the industry wide status of these 3rd generation bio-fuels. I expect a larger scale roll-out of these factories in the next few years because it turns out to be a very profitable business with a quick return on investment. POET-DSM alone invested around 300 million dollars.Synthetic fuels are the future. Bio, chemi, or whatever. So we can keep the cars we already have, and the Jumbos that can't fly with batteries.
The biofuels idea is a complete and utter fallacy and that is fact that was worked out 20 years or so ago. There have been ZERO developments in that time to change that. I would put money if I could there never will be either.
There is also Ethanol made from corn but again, the amount of ethanol you get if you planted all the ariable land for fuel alone does not meet demand and that means there is nothing left for food. Small problem there. ::)
Your information is way out of date.
There is always enough of this or that to power the world.... Wind, Solar etc.... Right up to the time to implement it and then it's a very different story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K43XC9J82Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K43XC9J82Q)
Why Tesla batteries SUCK!!
No, 3rd generation bio-fuels are for real. This is the 3rd party article I mentioned:
Your information is way out of date.
It's not as out of date as that website. Last entry in their news page was 2017.
Nothing I can see where they are actually PRODUCING anything either. Untill they are, I'll take it as just and other R&D Fundraiser to get Hopeful but gullible investors in... Like a million of these other breakthrough potentially world changing ideas that come along every year... and fall flat or their arses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K43XC9J82Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K43XC9J82Q)
Why Tesla batteries SUCK!!
That Vid was so spot on!
Anything Said about The Tesla cult brings out the screaming fan bois that will make any excuse to defend the Religion of Musk.
I have several times put it to the Tesla cult members, Give me FINANCIAL reasons why Tesla will be around in 5 years Time"
I got all sorts of BS like they are innovators and invented the electric car and other non financial crap and the only remotely financially based excuse I have got so far was " they were a new company ( 10 years+ is new??) and all new Companies HAD to loose money for Financial reasons. "
YA! The people that defend the company clearly do not have the first basic clue of how a business runs and is structured but make out like they have been trading on the stock market for 20 years.
But, That is irrelevant. Tesla is perfect, can do no wrong and there is always a defensible excuse for every wrong doing that makes it right according to the fan Bois.
Tesla is by definition an actual Cult in every way.
The Hydrogen thing is interesting.
Company's like Honda are going down this road but I have yet to find how they can make it economically Viable and green at the same time.
I have tens of KW of electrical power to spare every day in summer and was looking for something to do with it. I built a fairly large scale Hydrogen generator. Despite being a Home made Job, the outputs I got were in line with the calculations for an industrial scale energy input/ gas output. They were basicaly, piss poor. Add to that the energy input required to compress the gas, the strength and cost of The Cylinders to store it and everything else and it's hard to understand how they can make this add up not only from electrolysis but other ways that use FF as the base input.
Having it as a by product is all well and good, scaling things up to meet global consumption or even a significant part of that is something VERY different.
The guys Comment in the Vid was spot on about flammability.
I'm not scared of gas like a lot of people are. Played with it a lot. The Hydrogen scared the shit out of me though.
I had a well Bled floating storage tank I was putting the gas I produced into. I was going to light some off straight out the tank and I thought no, better be careful and got a small Lunch bag And Filled that. Took it away, set a light to it and the resulting explosion from about 150Ml of the stuff had my ears ringing for hours and neighbors coming out to see what blew up. Literally.
In a Stroke of genius I THEN came in and looked up the flammability ratio and kicked myself for being Complacent.
the slightest bit of oxygen makes the stuff go bang and it is extremely energetic.
The only thing I have seen like it is Acetylene and oxygen in perfect mix. Put that in a sandwich bag and be a good distance away if you want to keep your head on your shoulders!
I bled off the hydrogen, put that exercise down as a learning experience and converted the setup to Methane and used the extra solar power to heat the slurry and produce loads more gas than I had done with the Hydrogen.
The beauty of the methane is it has a very narrow range of flammability in air and a MUCH lower risk of Deflagration.
For mine, the margin in methane burning and going bang is way too narrow. You want something to go bang easily in an IC engine but the production and storage factors are not a straightforward issue with methane.
With all the lay-offs and restructuring it seems likely that Tesla is being made ready to be sold. That is more likely to happen with a company which looks good on paper.
No. Some Chinese company. European and Japanese car manufacturers are banking on bio-fuels and/or hydrogen.With all the lay-offs and restructuring it seems likely that Tesla is being made ready to be sold. That is more likely to happen with a company which looks good on paper.Volkswagen!
No. Some Chinese company. European and Japanese car manufacturers are banking on bio-fuels and/or hydrogen.With all the lay-offs and restructuring it seems likely that Tesla is being made ready to be sold. That is more likely to happen with a company which looks good on paper.Volkswagen!
Give me FINANCIAL reasons why Tesla will be around in 5 years Time"Easy.
One has to ask what is Elon Good at? Disruption. He did it to the banking/credit card industry with PayPal. He's disrupted the power industry with solar. He's tried to a John F. Kennedy with the space program or a President Busch with his trip to Mars. And he's disrupted the car industry with electric vehicles. How many car companies will be producing EV cars? And some have gone so far to say they won't be producing any ICE cars anymore.
There are several Chinese companies who are potential buyers. The comments about European and Japanese car makers make no sense at all., though. Bio-fuels don't require special cars, and hydrogen cars are still more of a compliance project than a serious market development project.No. Some Chinese company. European and Japanese car manufacturers are banking on bio-fuels and/or hydrogen.With all the lay-offs and restructuring it seems likely that Tesla is being made ready to be sold. That is more likely to happen with a company which looks good on paper.Volkswagen!
Really? Please provide the names of the Chinese. European and Japanese car manufacturers are who are specifically making cars which run on bio-fuels?
BYD comes to mind. The Chinese EV market is huge: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldunne/2018/03/30/chinas-electric-vehicle-leaders-who-are-they/#70652e2730b6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldunne/2018/03/30/chinas-electric-vehicle-leaders-who-are-they/#70652e2730b6)Really? Please provide the names of the Chinese. European and Japanese car manufacturers are who are specifically making cars which run on bio-fuels?No. Some Chinese company. European and Japanese car manufacturers are banking on bio-fuels and/or hydrogen.With all the lay-offs and restructuring it seems likely that Tesla is being made ready to be sold. That is more likely to happen with a company which looks good on paper.Volkswagen!
BYD comes to mind.There are several Chinese car makers who might reasonably buy Tesla, and probably would if the finances and regulatory conditions are right, but why BYD? Its such a poor fit.
One has to ask what is Elon Good at? Disruption. He did it to the banking/credit card industry with PayPal. He's disrupted the power industry with solar. He's tried to a John F. Kennedy with the space program or a President Busch with his trip to Mars. And he's disrupted the car industry with electric vehicles. How many car companies will be producing EV cars? And some have gone so far to say they won't be producing any ICE cars anymore.
1) For umpteenth time, PAYPAL is NOT Elon's child: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#History and TESLA is NOT Elon's child: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#History
2) In what way has he disrupted the power industry with solar? Because Solarcity is totally irrelevant in its market.
3) Electric cars are a pain in the ass and expensive. Nobody wants them except rich weirdos as a second car, if at all...
Lack of range, charge times, variable range depending on wheater and name an electric car which has a tow-bar so you can haul a trailer or caravan.The Tesla X is rated for towing 2250 kg, which is not surprising when you consider the torque electric motors offer. The Tesla S seems to be rated a bit lower, but I'm not sure which version of the model S the figures I have seen apply to.
The Tesla X is a rare exception (and you have to run it in 'trailer mode'). And 2250kg is with the small rim. With large 22" rims you may pull much less weight.Lack of range, charge times, variable range depending on wheater and name an electric car which has a tow-bar so you can haul a trailer or caravan.The Tesla X is rated for towing 2250 kg, which is not surprising when you consider the torque electric motors offer. The Tesla S seems to be rated a bit lower, but I'm not sure which version of the model S the figures I have seen apply to.
Why do you say electric cars are a pain in the ass and expensive.
All cars have conditions attached to their towing capacity. The Tesla X is no different. The Tesla models 3, S, and X all have tow ratings. The model 3 is only rated to tow 418kg, so its more for small trailers than for caravans. The model S and X are rated to tow serious caravans. Considering their enormous torque and high power output I wonder why their tow ratings are so low? The Nissan Leaf is smaller and less powerful, but its rated to tow 1500kg. The Audi E-Tron is rated to tow 1800kg. The Korean electric cars and the Jaguar i-Pace don't have tow ratings. Most of the other electric cars, like the Zoe, are pretty small, and you probably wouldn't want to try towing with them,.The Tesla X is a rare exception (and you have to run it in 'trailer mode'). And 2250kg is with the small rim. With large 22" rims you may pull much less weight.Lack of range, charge times, variable range depending on wheater and name an electric car which has a tow-bar so you can haul a trailer or caravan.The Tesla X is rated for towing 2250 kg, which is not surprising when you consider the torque electric motors offer. The Tesla S seems to be rated a bit lower, but I'm not sure which version of the model S the figures I have seen apply to.
QuoteGive me FINANCIAL reasons why Tesla will be around in 5 years Time"Easy.
- Near Monopoly in the BEVs markets where the model 3 is sold, in a booming market.
- 20-30% profitabilitySupposedly on the Model 3 but over all operating costs apart from the last 2 quarters have put them well in the red. The last quarter was a scrape though, the quarter before that was a lot of Book Cooking, let see how they go over the next 12 Months. If they can be posting profits I might change my mind But I trust NOTHING Tesla or Elon say without evidence of it being sustainable and not a one off.
- Over half a million customers waiting in the line.
- production figures of approx half a million units/Year
European and Japanese car manufacturers who's cars can run on bio-fuel?: Simple: all of them. They have been making them that way for decades already. It is so common that it doesn't even get mentioned.
Fifteen years ago were any of the big auto manufactures talking about EV? The apparent success of Tesla has disrupted the automobile and automobile racing industry.
Perhaps this is different then where you are but over here you can buy conversion kits to convert & run about any car on 85% ethanol blends. These kits connect between the ECU and the injectors to alter the injection timing.European and Japanese car manufacturers who's cars can run on bio-fuel?: Simple: all of them. They have been making them that way for decades already. It is so common that it doesn't even get mentioned.Errr, NO!
Completely false and untrue.
Very Few Diesels will Run on Biodiesel and nearly all have labels on the fuel filler saying no more than 5-10% Blends.
Bio plays havoc with the DPF Regeneration (Diesel version of Cat Converter) and VOIDS warranty if used.
Likewise very few Petrol vehicles will run on straight ethanol or even e 85 mixes but to issues with the computers being programmed to allow for it and other concerns with the fuel system itself being rated to supply the increased fuel flow and having components that are Alcohol resistant. Again, warnings right on the fuel filler cap NOT to use more than 10% blends.
I know of some flex Fuel ( ethanol) tolerant Vehicles but I know of No Biodiesel fuel compatible although I suspect VW or merc may have some.
There is no way anyone could say all euro and jap cars will run on bio and to say they have been making them that way for decades is just blatantly wrong. The reason it does not get mentioned is because it is simply not true and the statement couldn't even be defensibly spin doctored under scrutiny.
Perhaps this is different then where you are but over here you can buy conversion kits to convert & run about any car on 85% ethanol blends. These kits connect between the ECU and the injectors to alter the injection timing.
Diesel will likely be killed anyway in the near future. There just isn't a way to reduce NOx emissions without making the engine extremely expensive. I used to drive diesels but last time I needed a car I bought one on gas. Diesel engines have become way too fragile and expensive to repair.
Perhaps this is different then where you are but over here you can buy conversion kits to convert & run about any car on 85% ethanol blends. These kits connect between the ECU and the injectors to alter the injection timing.
So in fact the cars can't be run on biofuels without MODIFICATION Which is not how the manufacturers made them at all.
These kits costs around 120 euro and are installed in 5 minutes. That is hardly a modification. But lets not get into a semantic discussion.Perhaps this is different then where you are but over here you can buy conversion kits to convert & run about any car on 85% ethanol blends. These kits connect between the ECU and the injectors to alter the injection timing.So in fact the cars can't be run on biofuels without MODIFICATION Which is not how the manufacturers made them at all.
So, you're just conveniently ignoring things like those 60+ million Flex-Fuel vehicles that have come from the factory equipped for E85, etc?
All common cars running on gas/petrol can can run on ethanol (except for some more obscure / high performance models but you can find that online). The only thing is that you won't have full power and that is where a conversion kit (or a software update) comes in to change (extend) the injection timing. Also the oil change intervals are shorter when you run on blends with large amounts of ethanol. This is why cars are marked as 'flexifuel' so they can have a different manual printed with different maintenance intervals.
So, you're just conveniently ignoring things like those 60+ million Flex-Fuel vehicles that have come from the factory equipped for E85, etc?
No, I'm addressing the claim made that ALL the vehicles made for decades could run biofuels.
What is the total amount of cars on the road that can run biofuels? It's nothing like what was made out and while 60M may sound impressive, we both know reality is nothing like that at all.
All common cars running on gas/petrol can can run on ethanol (except for some more obscure / high performance models but you can find that online). The only thing is that you won't have full power and that is where a conversion kit (or a software update) comes in to change (extend) the injection timing. Also the oil change intervals are shorter when you run on blends with large amounts of ethanol. This is why cars are marked as 'flexifuel' so they can have a different manual printed with different maintenance intervals.
So, you're just conveniently ignoring things like those 60+ million Flex-Fuel vehicles that have come from the factory equipped for E85, etc?
No, I'm addressing the claim made that ALL the vehicles made for decades could run biofuels.
What is the total amount of cars on the road that can run biofuels? It's nothing like what was made out and while 60M may sound impressive, we both know reality is nothing like that at all.
All common cars running on gas/petrol can can run on ethanol (except for some more obscure / high performance models but you can find that online). The only thing is that you won't have full power and that is where a conversion kit (or a software update) comes in to change (extend) the injection timing. Also the oil change intervals are shorter when you run on blends with large amounts of ethanol. This is why cars are marked as 'flexifuel' so they can have a different manual printed with different maintenance intervals.
So, you're just conveniently ignoring things like those 60+ million Flex-Fuel vehicles that have come from the factory equipped for E85, etc?
No, I'm addressing the claim made that ALL the vehicles made for decades could run biofuels.
What is the total amount of cars on the road that can run biofuels? It's nothing like what was made out and while 60M may sound impressive, we both know reality is nothing like that at all.
Meanwhile individuals are heavily subsidized to put solar panels on there roofs with the income inflation proofed for 25 years and now just to add insult to injury we are all to receive smart meters that will do nothing for the consumer except further inflate there bills and you guessed it they are subsidized from the electricity cost! Of course they will further increase the utilities profits as they will not have to read meters anymore.
All common cars running on gas/petrol can can run on ethanol (except for some more obscure / high performance models but you can find that online). The only thing is that you won't have full power and that is where a conversion kit (or a software update) comes in to change (extend) the injection timing. Also the oil change intervals are shorter when you run on blends with large amounts of ethanol. This is why cars are marked as 'flexifuel' so they can have a different manual printed with different maintenance intervals.
So, you're just conveniently ignoring things like those 60+ million Flex-Fuel vehicles that have come from the factory equipped for E85, etc?
No, I'm addressing the claim made that ALL the vehicles made for decades could run biofuels.
What is the total amount of cars on the road that can run biofuels? It's nothing like what was made out and while 60M may sound impressive, we both know reality is nothing like that at all.
This stuff is a menace, in my own direct experience it has caused me to have to replace fuel lines and carburetor diaphragms in all my garden tools and that is just using the small percentage presently allowed in normal UK petrol. I run a 14 year old car, not that uncommon and it concerns me greatly. Even for newer vehicles it shortens range as more is used producing more combustion products, and where does it come from ? FARMLAND that should be growing food. Another case of a load of cranks bending the ear of ignorant politicians.
This stuff is a menace, in my own direct experience it has caused me to have to replace fuel lines and carburetor diaphragms in all my garden tools and that is just using the small percentage presently allowed in normal UK petrol. I run a 14 year old car, not that uncommon and it concerns me greatly.Your car is fine. In France E10 has been available for decades so cars need to be able to deal with ethanol in the fuel. There are several websites where you can check compatibility. Actually ethanol helps to keep the inside of your engine clean. I've got over 100.000 km of running on E10 and never noticed any degradation on any car. Again: E10 has been on the market for decades in some countries.
This stuff is a menace, in my own direct experience it has caused me to have to replace fuel lines and carburetor diaphragms in all my garden tools and that is just using the small percentage presently allowed in normal UK petrol. I run a 14 year old car, not that uncommon and it concerns me greatly.Your car is fine. In France E10 has been available for decades so cars need to be able to deal with ethanol in the fuel. There are several websites where you can check compatibility. Actually ethanol helps to keep the inside of your engine clean. I've got over 100.000 km of running on E10 and never noticed any degradation on any car. Again: E10 has been on the market for decades in some countries.
For garden tools (and generators) you need to buy an additive which keeps the fuel from aging. This is pretty common knowledge.
For a 30% lower price?This stuff is a menace, in my own direct experience it has caused me to have to replace fuel lines and carburetor diaphragms in all my garden tools and that is just using the small percentage presently allowed in normal UK petrol. I run a 14 year old car, not that uncommon and it concerns me greatly.Your car is fine. In France E10 has been available for decades so cars need to be able to deal with ethanol in the fuel. There are several websites where you can check compatibility. Actually ethanol helps to keep the inside of your engine clean. I've got over 100.000 km of running on E10 and never noticed any degradation on any car. Again: E10 has been on the market for decades in some countries.
For garden tools (and generators) you need to buy an additive which keeps the fuel from aging. This is pretty common knowledge.
Why would you buy a fuel that gives you a 25% reduction in mileage?
For a 30% lower price?This stuff is a menace, in my own direct experience it has caused me to have to replace fuel lines and carburetor diaphragms in all my garden tools and that is just using the small percentage presently allowed in normal UK petrol. I run a 14 year old car, not that uncommon and it concerns me greatly.Your car is fine. In France E10 has been available for decades so cars need to be able to deal with ethanol in the fuel. There are several websites where you can check compatibility. Actually ethanol helps to keep the inside of your engine clean. I've got over 100.000 km of running on E10 and never noticed any degradation on any car. Again: E10 has been on the market for decades in some countries.
For garden tools (and generators) you need to buy an additive which keeps the fuel from aging. This is pretty common knowledge.
Why would you buy a fuel that gives you a 25% reduction in mileage?
There is more FUD about E10 and ethanol on internet than on any other subject. For many people a car is their most expensive and holy possession. In Dutch a car is often referred to as a 'holy cow'. Seperation fact from fiction is hard when it comes to spiritual stuff. :popcorn:
Why do you equate a comment with a viewpoint? Have you no grasp of how discussion works? You asked why a low performing fuel would be attractive, and I responded with the obvious point that its overall cost effectiveness that counts for most purposes.For a 30% lower price?This stuff is a menace, in my own direct experience it has caused me to have to replace fuel lines and carburetor diaphragms in all my garden tools and that is just using the small percentage presently allowed in normal UK petrol. I run a 14 year old car, not that uncommon and it concerns me greatly.Your car is fine. In France E10 has been available for decades so cars need to be able to deal with ethanol in the fuel. There are several websites where you can check compatibility. Actually ethanol helps to keep the inside of your engine clean. I've got over 100.000 km of running on E10 and never noticed any degradation on any car. Again: E10 has been on the market for decades in some countries.
For garden tools (and generators) you need to buy an additive which keeps the fuel from aging. This is pretty common knowledge.
Why would you buy a fuel that gives you a 25% reduction in mileage?
So for you it's all about money and not the environment. Fair enough.
But auto experts who have independently tested E10 have all found E10 fuel isn't cheaper or greener. (Except for the ones who have been paid to say otherwise.)
Why do you equate a comment with a viewpoint? Have you no grasp of how discussion works? You asked why a low performing fuel would be attractive, and I responded with the obvious point that its overall cost effectiveness that counts for most purposes.For a 30% lower price?This stuff is a menace, in my own direct experience it has caused me to have to replace fuel lines and carburetor diaphragms in all my garden tools and that is just using the small percentage presently allowed in normal UK petrol. I run a 14 year old car, not that uncommon and it concerns me greatly.Your car is fine. In France E10 has been available for decades so cars need to be able to deal with ethanol in the fuel. There are several websites where you can check compatibility. Actually ethanol helps to keep the inside of your engine clean. I've got over 100.000 km of running on E10 and never noticed any degradation on any car. Again: E10 has been on the market for decades in some countries.
For garden tools (and generators) you need to buy an additive which keeps the fuel from aging. This is pretty common knowledge.
Why would you buy a fuel that gives you a 25% reduction in mileage?
So for you it's all about money and not the environment. Fair enough.
But auto experts who have independently tested E10 have all found E10 fuel isn't cheaper or greener. (Except for the ones who have been paid to say otherwise.)
E10 is currently a feel good fuel. Its important that a more realistic view prevails, but its hard to see how that can be achieved.
It feels good to a poorly informed public. Its branded as a green product, and that's all you need to make lots of people feel good about using it.E10 is currently a feel good fuel. Its important that a more realistic view prevails, but its hard to see how that can be achieved.How is E10 a "feel good" fuel? It's bad for the environment, good for politicians and results in a 25% reduction in mileage. Means you are waiting time and gas looking for a fueling station a lot more often. You might as well buy an EV car.
It feels good to a poorly informed public. Its branded as a green product, and that's all you need to make lots of people feel good about using it.E10 is currently a feel good fuel. Its important that a more realistic view prevails, but its hard to see how that can be achieved.How is E10 a "feel good" fuel? It's bad for the environment, good for politicians and results in a 25% reduction in mileage. Means you are waiting time and gas looking for a fueling station a lot more often. You might as well buy an EV car.
Your car is fine. In France E10 has been available for decades so cars need to be able to deal with ethanol in the fuel.
Actually ethanol helps to keep the inside of your engine clean.
I've got over 100.000 km of running on E10 and never noticed any degradation on any car.
Again: E10 has been on the market for decades in some countries.
For garden tools (and generators) you need to buy an additive which keeps the fuel from aging. This is pretty common knowledge.
@Doug: no, you won't get a 25% reduction in milage. More like 10% to 15%.
The nice thing about ethanol is that it is a high octane fuel so your engine will run more efficient.
This higher efficiency counteracts the lower energy content of ethanol.
By your reasoning you must be 14. Check your facts because a lot of what you write is pretty much outdated. If E10 was that bad it would have been banned. You are just judging by a few data points which probably hint towards poor fuel quality from no-brand gas stations. Yes, that is crap which I don't put in my car with or without ethanol. I always fill up with A-brand fuel (which usually can be found for the same price as the no-name brands).
I know I asked before but exactly how old are you?
My reason for asking is that I have wasted time arguing with 15 yo's before that thought they knew everything when the complete an opposite was true and spouted endless garbage that just wasn't correct in any way. Not wishing to go down that road again but anyway....
Meanwhile individuals are heavily subsidized to put solar panels on there roofs with the income inflation proofed for 25 years and now just to add insult to injury we are all to receive smart meters that will do nothing for the consumer except further inflate there bills and you guessed it they are subsidized from the electricity cost! Of course they will further increase the utilities profits as they will not have to read meters anymore.
In the United States/California we had smart meters installed 10 years ago. And aside from the folks wearing tin foil hats saying the radiation from the smart meters were going to kill all of and control our minds and give us cancer, (which hasn't happened so far), smart meters have turned out to be great for consumers.
First off a non-smartmeter consumers 3 watts of electricity. Do the math on that one and figure out how much electricity collectively we are saving with mullions of customers.
Second - Smartmeters allow us to monitor or electricity usage in 15 increments. We have time of use billing and electricity costs for the rate plan I am on rages from $0.12 to $0.49 kWhr. That smartmeter along with Time of Use Billing has allowed me to save between $50 and $75 per month on my electricity bill. Thank you power companies installing smartmeters.
Third - Smartmeter apps - There are a number of Smartmeter apps which allow me to monitor and control my electricity usage. This month these apps are allowing me to save another $12-$20 per month and we are still in the winter months.
Fourth - Smartmeters and solar are a good thing here. With out smartmeters we could only trade kWhrs with the power company. Meaning when solar/wind/biofuels produced 1 extra kWhr we would loan it to the power company. When we needed a kWhr the power company would give us that kWhr back. BUT NOT ANY MORE. - Thank you smartsmart meters. Now when I have one extra kWhr I can get to sell it to the power company at fair market value which can be as high as $0.87 kWhr for some rate plans. (The one I am on I can only sell at $0.48.) Now here's the great part..... When I need that kWhr back I have to "BUY" it back at fair market rate. Meaning I can buy that KwHr back from the power company at $0.12. That's a 400% return. YIPPIEEE! I get to screw the power company.
Fifth - Smartmeters allow me install less solar panels on my home. Let's say I use 10,000 kWhr per year. Without a smart meter I would need a solar system which would produce 10,000 kWhrs to offset 100% of my electricity usage. Let's say 40 panels would produce that 10,000 kWhrs per year. With a smartmeter, Time of Use Billing I can get 100% of my electricity from solar with only 20 panels or possibly with only 15 panels. Remember with a smartmeter I can get to "sell" power to the power company at $0.48 and buy it back later in the day/month/year at $0.12. So for every kWhr I sell to the power company for $0.48 I can buy 4 back at $0.12. Can you name any other investment where I can get a 400% return on my investment every day of the year?
Only possible with smartmeters.
Politics in your country with electricity may vary. But all I have to say is thank you politicians for allowing this to happen here in California.
It feels good to a poorly informed public. Its branded as a green product, and that's all you need to make lots of people feel good about using it.
By your reasoning you must be 14.
Check your facts because a lot of what you write is pretty much outdated.
If E10 was that bad it would have been banned.
You are just judging by a few data points which probably hint towards poor fuel quality from no-brand gas stations.
Yes, that is crap which I don't put in my car with or without ethanol. I always fill up with A-brand fuel (which usually can be found for the same price as the no-name brands).
Not true, 99% of nctnico's posts are spot on. He believes in (some sort of "recycled biomass") biofuels, so what?
Like recycling paper to save trees. Forget the trees are plantation grownIf it takes less resources to recycle paper than to make new paper, that's a win.
Like the people that buy hybrids that use more resources and energy in their production and have higher emissions from the materials that go into them than a regular vehicle and thin think they are doing something better than the guy who drives a regular IC vehicleThat has been disproven, as in the extra energy used at manufacture breaks even fairly early on. That said, there are conventional technology cars that can do 35MPG highway or better.
Another popular one right now is home storage batteries. I put one on the house and am a hero saving the world. forget the fact they have materials that are highly toxic in their mining and refinement, forget they are completely un economical and forget most of they can't be recycled.Not everyone lives where the grid is cheap and reliable. For some, it's prohibitively expensive. That said, I do want to see more thermal storage as a cheaper and longer lasting alternative to batteries for HVAC and hot water. I would also like to see home power batteries implemented as 250Wh or so modules that can be taken out to power portable electronics and tools.
You are clearly stuck in your own imagination. Let's look at what I posted earlier on:Not true, 99% of nctnico's posts are spot on. He believes in (some sort of "recycled biomass") biofuels, so what?Are there 2 posters here with the same name?
Are you reading what the guy I have been addressing has been saying? You believe and agree with it?
The posts I am reading are clearly from someone whom has no clue about what they are saying but saying it anyway to push the cult religion they are indoctrinated to. And they say flawed and untrue things repeatedly.
The so what is why try to convince people of a load of bullchit? Recycled biomass is NOT a viable solution to energy problems. Trying to convince people of a lie is both pointless and counter productive. Unless the man has some vested financial interest like trying to peddle some product or service, telling people the world is going to be saved by biofuel makes no rational or logical sense.
Nowadays they can make ethanol from agricultural waste so no extra land is necessary. The so called 3rd generation bio-fuels. There are several factories in the US doing that on an industrial scale. And yes, there is enough agricultural wast to make a significant amount of bio-fuel. The beauty of it is that by using plant leftovers food gets cheaper because more parts of the plants are used. One of the companies is POET-DSM: poet-dsm.com A few pages back I posted a link to an article from around half 2018 with the industry wide status of these 3rd generation bio-fuels. I expect a larger scale roll-out of these factories in the next few years because it turns out to be a very profitable business with a quick return on investment. POET-DSM alone invested around 300 million dollars.And here is another interesting page from the US government about the start of POET-DSM's Liberty project: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty (https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) But there are other similar projects as well. The reason I primarily follow POET-DSM is because the DSM part is a multi-billion euro chemical company from the Netherlands which in the past dealt with exploitation of the coal mines. They have a heritage in supplying energy as well and they are not some kind of garden shed operation.
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-to-10-million-in-5-years (http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-to-10-million-in-5-years)
The so called 3rd generation bio-fuels. There are several factories in the US doing that on an industrial scale. And yes, there is enough agricultural wast to make a significant amount of bio-fuel. The beauty of it is that by using plant leftovers food gets cheaper because more parts of the plants are used.
Not true, 99% of nctnico's posts are spot on. He believes in (some sort of "recycled biomass") biofuels, so what?
Not true, 99% of nctnico's posts are spot on. He believes in (some sort of "recycled biomass") biofuels, so what?
Spot on what?
When he's presented with the science (physics and chemistry) demonstrating what he believes is incorrect he says the science and experts are all wrong and what he believes is correct.
The so called 3rd generation bio-fuels. There are several factories in the US doing that on an industrial scale. And yes, there is enough agricultural wast to make a significant amount of bio-fuel. The beauty of it is that by using plant leftovers food gets cheaper because more parts of the plants are used.
Simple question that requires only a simple ( numeric) answer.
For every litre of Ethanol produced and delivered to end user, How many liters of petro fuels are needed from beginning to end including all oil by products such as fertiliser etc ?
This is the same guy that tried to convince us that the additional energy required to push an ICE car into a headwind was different than the energy to push an EV into headwind.
And then on YouTune there’’s an award winning high school physic teaching who has a video on “free energy”. He’s teaching studnets there is such s thing as “free energy” if it comes from the sun.
pointless as trying to convince people all the transport energy needs can be solved with biofuels.
3) How much energy (input) per gallon? <- this data is vital.
Do you know for sure that transformation of agricultural leftovers into fuel can't ever work? Why?
The answer is in this article:
The so called 3rd generation bio-fuels. There are several factories in the US doing that on an industrial scale. And yes, there is enough agricultural wast to make a significant amount of bio-fuel. The beauty of it is that by using plant leftovers food gets cheaper because more parts of the plants are used.
Simple question that requires only a simple ( numeric) answer.
For every litre of Ethanol produced and delivered to end user, How many liters of petro fuels are needed from beginning to end including all oil by products such as fertiliser etc ?
Fertiliser is also a good point to bring up. At some point we'll also need to switch to non-fossil fuel fertiliser which are likely more expensive so this will make food more expensive. If we can use more of a plant (to make fuel) then the costs of the more expensive fertiliser are spread between food production and fuel production.What about use treated sewage if it's only for fuel?
A lot of the treated sewage from areas with low levels of heavy metals is already used to treat the land. The treated sewage with a high heavy metals content is really hard to decontaminate, so that is typically incinerated, often to provide power for the treatment works.Fertiliser is also a good point to bring up. At some point we'll also need to switch to non-fossil fuel fertiliser which are likely more expensive so this will make food more expensive. If we can use more of a plant (to make fuel) then the costs of the more expensive fertiliser are spread between food production and fuel production.What about use treated sewage if it's only for fuel?
And then on YouTune there’’s an award winning high school physic teaching who has a video on “free energy”. He’s teaching studnets there is such s thing as “free energy” if it comes from the sun.
Fortunately for you, in my book, you also have one of the greatest teachers and most admirable men I have ever heard of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcSL2yN39JM&t=10s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcSL2yN39JM&t=10s)
This guy ought to be a role model and his achievements made known to every teacher in the world far as I'm concerned. If just 2% of teachers had the passion this guy has, not only would schools be a better place, but truly the world would be.
Don't know if this guy should be a teacher or a world leader.
Guess he's both already.
In the history of the United States we tried something similar which resulted in the killing of over 100 million Native Americans as we stole their land.
In the history of the United States we tried something similar which resulted in the killing of over 100 million Native Americans as we stole their land.
Oh dear, oh dear... :palm:
Would you rather be a communist? I think that is what is our country protected your country from becoming.
Would you rather be a communist? I think that is what is our country protected your country from becoming.
LOL :palm: Obviously you do not know anything about Poland either, right? And this is waay off topic BTW. Better let's stop.
Well I know Poland is NOT in Western Europe.Really? Try looking at a map. It was referred to as Eastern Europe in the Iron Curtain days, but it isn't really to the east of Europe.
Well I know Poland is NOT in Western Europe.Really? Try looking at a map. It was referred to as Eastern Europe in the Iron Curtain days, but it isn't really to the east of Europe.
You just agreed with me. Its right in the middle of Europe. It only appeared to be in the East when the Iron Curtain set a false threshold far to the west.Well I know Poland is NOT in Western Europe.Really? Try looking at a map. It was referred to as Eastern Europe in the Iron Curtain days, but it isn't really to the east of Europe.
Has Poland moved? There are your beliefs, and then there is what everyone else agrees.
Poland, officially the Republic of Poland, is a country located in Central Europe. It is divided into 16 administrative subdivisions, covering an area of 312,696 square kilometres, and has a largely temperate seasonal climate
Actually if you are in Japan, China is west. America is east. It's all relative. :-//
It’s so easy to feed people when other people are forced to give you free money (taxes), free land and free/volunteer labor isn’t it?
There is no mention at all of the people this guy is making homeless by taking their land. Or the “honest” hard working farmers who make a living by selling the food they grow. With this guy giving food away just think of all of the farmers he’s impacting.
In the United States we call what this guy is doing Communism.
I'm not a farmer but I think farming as a business is all about return on investment. It may not make sense to use a lesser fertiliser if that results in a lower yield. Harvesting the crops will cost the same whether there is a lot or just a little on the field. Besides that I think land shouldn't be wasted on growing feedstock for fuel only.Fertiliser is also a good point to bring up. At some point we'll also need to switch to non-fossil fuel fertiliser which are likely more expensive so this will make food more expensive. If we can use more of a plant (to make fuel) then the costs of the more expensive fertiliser are spread between food production and fuel production.What about use treated sewage if it's only for fuel?
I'm not a farmer but I think farming as a business is all about return on investment.
Besides that I think land shouldn't be wasted on growing feedstock for fuel only.
Without any numbers to back that up that is just your opinion. So please enlighten us with some calculations to back your claim.Besides that I think land shouldn't be wasted on growing feedstock for fuel only.Which makes the whole biofuels thing really Hard. To the point of impossible from an efficiency POV.
Without any numbers to back that up that is just your opinion. So please enlighten us with some calculations to back your claim.
It’s so easy to feed people when other people are forced to give you free money (taxes), free land and free/volunteer labor isn’t it?
There is no mention at all of the people this guy is making homeless by taking their land. Or the “honest” hard working farmers who make a living by selling the food they grow. With this guy giving food away just think of all of the farmers he’s impacting.
In the United States we call what this guy is doing Communism.
WTF??
Are you taking the piss or are you actually serious? Did you watch and understand what the guy is doing?
Hes educating kids from the poorest backgrounds, giving them an interest that gets them to uni and well paid jobs, gives whole communities hope and feeds a bunch of people. Feeding poor People in the us Is Communism?? What is your way< Let them go hungry?
He's not taking anyone's land or displacing people, he's using deserted land in a lot of shithole areas of cities that no one is using and the only people he's probably displacing are Drug dealers and crack heads.
As for the farmers whom he is supposedly impacting, do you not get that these people are not and never will be their customers in the first place and in fact what he is doing is more likely to help their sales by getting them used to fresh produce than what they were before?
Don't know how you can relate this guy to be anything like using slave labour or Killing natives but if what he is doing is Communism, Sign me up!
I would be damn proud to achieve what this guy has and all the good he has done.
You OTOH have brought up nothing factual to contradict anything.
If there is anyone which seems to have an agenda it is you. Either you are trolling or are being paid to make bio-fuel look bad. Your lack of factual information is pretty transparent though.
I like the young man comment though. It has been a long time since someone called me that.
Long way off topic here but I'll say I think talking about making homeless people homeless and having an issue with disused land being used to produce food is a real long stretch.
You OTOH have brought up nothing factual to contradict anything.
If there is anyone which seems to have an agenda it is you. Either you are trolling or are being paid to make bio-fuel look bad. Your lack of factual information is pretty transparent though.
I like the young man comment though. It has been a long time since someone called me that.
Mate, unfortunately you completely lack any credibility or respect I would require for you biased Viewpoint to argue with you any further.
You clearly haven't clue what you are talking about, certainly haven't got a clue what the difference between fact and promotional material is so carry on as you wish.
No one is taking you the least bit seriously anymore other than the fact you are becoming a pest.
Calling people names doesn't help you get your point over.It feels good to a poorly informed public. Its branded as a green product, and that's all you need to make lots of people feel good about using it.
Like most things that appeal to the greenwashed.
Like recycling paper to save trees. Forget the trees are plantation grown
Like the people that buy hybrids that use more resources and energy in their production and have higher emissions from the materials that go into them than a regular vehicle and thin think they are doing something better than the guy who drives a regular IC vehicle
Another popular one right now is home storage batteries. I put one on the house and am a hero saving the world. forget the fact they have materials that are highly toxic in their mining and refinement, forget they are completely un economical and forget most of they can't be recycled.
It's the flavour of the month at trendy cocktail parties and save the world protest so that's all that matters.
And then on YouTune there’’s an award winning high school physic teaching who has a video on “free energy”. He’s teaching studnets there is such s thing as “free energy” if it comes from the sun.
Fortunately for you, in my book, you also have one of the greatest teachers and most admirable men I have ever heard of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcSL2yN39JM&t=10s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcSL2yN39JM&t=10s)
This guy ought to be a role model and his achievements made known to every teacher in the world far as I'm concerned. If just 2% of teachers had the passion this guy has, not only would schools be a better place, but truly the world would be.
Don't know if this guy should be a teacher or a world leader.
Guess he's both already.
@george80 Isn’t this guy a modern day Eva Peron or Robin Hood? It’s so easy to feed people when other people are forced to give you free money (taxes), free land and free/volunteer labor isn’t it?
What kind of role model is that? In the history of the United States we tried something similar which resulted in the killing of over 100 million Native Americans as we stole their land. Then we “tricked” them into working for free for “us” for food other we just inslaved.
There is no mention at all of the people this guy is making homeless by taking their land. Or the “honest” hard working farmers who make a living by selling the food they grow. With this guy giving food away just think of all of the farmers he’s impacting.
Again, despite the hype, it's pretty small stuff in the scheme of things, & like anything else, there is a critical mass beyond which it is worth doing.
I notice this guy or any company isn’t converting any of the bio-waste he’s creating into biofuels. With all of the free money and resources this guy is getting one would think if turning bio-waste into biofuels was worth it he would be doing it. But he’s not.
In the United States we call what this guy is doing Communism. This is something Americas faught against for decadess. If you think communism is so great why aren’t you living in a communist country?
And then on YouTune there’’s an award winning high school physic teaching who has a video on “free energy”. He’s teaching studnets there is such s thing as “free energy” if it comes from the sun.
Fortunately for you, in my book, you also have one of the greatest teachers and most admirable men I have ever heard of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcSL2yN39JM&t=10s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcSL2yN39JM&t=10s)
This guy ought to be a role model and his achievements made known to every teacher in the world far as I'm concerned. If just 2% of teachers had the passion this guy has, not only would schools be a better place, but truly the world would be.
Don't know if this guy should be a teacher or a world leader.
Guess he's both already.
@george80 Isn’t this guy a modern day Eva Peron or Robin Hood? It’s so easy to feed people when other people are forced to give you free money (taxes), free land and free/volunteer labor isn’t it?
What kind of role model is that? In the history of the United States we tried something similar which resulted in the killing of over 100 million Native Americans as we stole their land. Then we “tricked” them into working for free for “us” for food other we just inslaved.
There is no mention at all of the people this guy is making homeless by taking their land. Or the “honest” hard working farmers who make a living by selling the food they grow. With this guy giving food away just think of all of the farmers he’s impacting.
Well, if you are talking about the homeless people who "sleep rough" on these bits of vacant land, they don't really own the land, & could be turfed out on their ear by developers at any time.
But that would be all right,----- because of market forces, etc.
The gardens are pretty small stuff in the scheme 'of things, & wouldn't have a major impact upon farmer's incomes.
Hell!, they've got something similar in my home town, but they don't have a "show pony " running it!QuoteAgain, despite the hype, it's pretty small stuff in the scheme of things, & like anything else, there is a critical mass beyond which it is worth doing.
I notice this guy or any company isn’t converting any of the bio-waste he’s creating into biofuels. With all of the free money and resources this guy is getting one would think if turning bio-waste into biofuels was worth it he would be doing it. But he’s not.QuoteIn the United States we call what this guy is doing Communism. This is something Americas faught against for decadess. If you think communism is so great why aren’t you living in a communist country?
That's Communism?
I don't remember dear old Nikita Kruschev, or Leonid Brezhnev giving anybody anything free!
That old Commie Jesus Christ gave away "loaves & fishes", though, so we mustn't follow his example!
He drank, too--remember when he turned water into wine!
Just having a look at some news articles on EV's here. Seems the PC greenwashed media has taken to guilt tripping everyone for not rushing out to buy a new EV.
'What about the plug?' Australia's electric car infrastructure stalled by policy paralysis
Report urges Government to support electric vehicles
Electric car policy ‘weak and shallow'
Yep, seems once again the little guy is supposed to help big business line their pockets and so is the gubermint and we'll all be guilt tripped until we do.
I did see a gubbermint report done last year that makes 2 out of 17 reccomendations in preparing for EV's that the power authourity take into consideration the additional loads EV's will cause and plan for it. Pretty laughable. They can't even provide enough power for people to run their AC on a hot day now. Wait till a few more power stations close down and a few thousand EV's hit the grid.
Did a bit of research into my mobile charge truck for people whom run out of power along the road idea today. Can set that up cheaper than I planned.
Was looking at a 50 Kw genny but on further thought I reckon a 25 will do. The bigger the genny the bigger the vehicle I'll need to carry them and that may restrict access into various places. If I can keep it to a 1 ton ute, that would be better than having a 2 ton truck that wouldn't fit in car parks. Then again, there may be a need for faster, fuller charge so a 50 Kw thumper on the back of a 2 tonner might be a premium service.
The way to go I think would be charge a call out fee with 10Kwh of charge included and then an additional charge per 10Kw unit after that. The longer it takes to charge you up and the more fuel I burn the more they pay.
One thing I was wondering about is if it would be possible to charge in the rain in the open? may have to put up some sort of shelter and dry around the vehicle before connecting.
Probably only need 2-3 cables if that. Have to look into it a bit more, I think Tesla has one to themselves and the majority of the rest will all get by with another type. Might just need to have a fairly long cable to get the juice into vehicles that may not be in the easiest place's to access.
I also saw on the gubbermint Recommendations that all new homes be made EV charger ready. Obviously put in a heavy duty Circuit but I wonder if homes will be required to have a charge point? Would be interesting. You go visit grandpa in the country for a family get together and all the atendees want to charge their vehicle for the trip home. Grandpa's charge is going flat out all day and into the evening and grandpa's electric bill just went up $50.
Will the etiquette be there to slip grandpa some cash or will people just take it as their right and leave grandpa to pay their fuel bill.
Pretty sure there is at least 1 in every family that would do that so it will be another social consequence of the EV age.
Would like to hear people’s comments on this video. Not sure who the guy is or who funds the organization he works for. He sure gives compelling facts as to why EVs pollute more than ICEs. And why there will never be enough solar and wind power to charge EVs. (His numbers by the way agree with the solar and wind power association predictions.)Its from Prager University, which is about as much like a university as Trump University was. The comments under that video list multiple well thought out rebuttals.
This video and the video in the last post sure make EVs out to be worse for the global environment while they might be good for the local environment.
https://youtu.be/17xh_VRrnMU
It's pretty clear to everyone that once the battery pack in an EV dies or looses significant capacity in the estimated 7-10 years, the things will be worthless.
Unlike the cost of maintence for an IC which can easily go 20 Year without major over haul, a new/ refurb EV pack will be more than the car is worth.
Look at that, electric cars are cheaper to buy/operate... including the Netherlands...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study)
Agreed and the comparison is likely not taking the massive costs of infrastructure upgrades into account and assumes people can charge at home.Look at that, electric cars are cheaper to buy/operate... including the Netherlands...Over four years...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study)
One could easily do a write up with the opposite conclusion and look at the costs on day one, aka purchase price.
Somewhat pointless in both cases.
As for your suggested calculation, who buys a car and then instantly resells it (which is the only scenario that would apply).Look at that, electric cars are cheaper to buy/operate... including the Netherlands...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study)
Over four years...avoiding the whole battery replacement costs.
One could easily do a write up with the opposite conclusion and look at the costs on day one, aka purchase price.
Somewhat pointless in both cases.
As for your suggested calculation, who buys a car and then instantly resells it (which is the only scenario that would apply).
This just comes down to "haters gonna hate" , doesn't it?
Would like to hear people’s comments on this video. Not sure who the guy is or who funds the organization he works for. He sure gives compelling facts as to why EVs pollute more than ICEs. And why there will never be enough solar and wind power to charge EVs. (His numbers by the way agree with the solar and wind power association predictions.)Its from Prager University, which is about as much like a university as Trump University was. The comments under that video list multiple well thought out rebuttals.
This video and the video in the last post sure make EVs out to be worse for the global environment while they might be good for the local environment.
https://youtu.be/17xh_VRrnMU
Even that video seems to only compare the first 9yrs between ICE & EV. Personally I have kept the last 3-4 cars till they got in the 150-200k mark. Last one just got taken off the road by the inspection nazis, 2002 Chevy S10 with 167k miles. Ran great yet, but was rusting so much it was BER.
Just looking at some quick figures, its seems the DOT has the average lifespan of a US car at 11yrs these days. Seems realistic, I certainly take them to the grave and normally get more than that.
How long is the lifespan on a EV battery? 100K miles? 150k? 200k?
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/electric-cars-battery-life-materials-cost (https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/electric-cars-battery-life-materials-cost)
https://www.autotrader.com/car-tips/long-term-electric-vehicle-ownership-pros-and-cons-220975 (https://www.autotrader.com/car-tips/long-term-electric-vehicle-ownership-pros-and-cons-220975)
So what is the resale value of a 10yr old EV? Guessing most of these end up at the scrapper since its probably not worth the battery replacement cost at that point. If ICE can get another few years of useful life, that alot of additional manufacturing impact as well. 150-200K miles isn't a problem for a maintained ICE of the last few decades.
Here in europe the trend with new ICE cars to have small turbo engines like 1.0 l putting out 100+ hp. Now tell me these engines will last long (10+years) without major overhaul...I don't see why not. The 1.0l Ecoboost from Ford seems to be pretty reliable. I don't see any horror stories on the local Ford forum. Besides that many people drive too slow which causes the engine to built up dirt inside. A small engine which has to work every now and then doesn't have that problem.
Here in europe the trend with new ICE cars to have small turbo engines like 1.0 l putting out 100+ hp. Now tell me these engines will last long (10+years) without major overhaul...I don't see why not. The 1.0l Ecoboost from Ford seems to be pretty reliable. Many people drive too slow which causes the engine to built up dirt inside. A small engine which has to work every now and then doesn't have that problem.
I think you mean many people drive largely around town, and never get up to speed. This causes problems for the DPF in diesels, and car makers tell people clears that the car needs frequent highway runs to clear the filter. Ford just sold the Ecoboost engines as general purpose engines. Its turning into a financial disaster for Ford, with all the compensation for fires and the recalls. You have an interesting concept of reliable.Here in europe the trend with new ICE cars to have small turbo engines like 1.0 l putting out 100+ hp. Now tell me these engines will last long (10+years) without major overhaul...I don't see why not. The 1.0l Ecoboost from Ford seems to be pretty reliable. I don't see any horror stories on the local Ford forum. Besides that many people drive too slow which causes the engine to built up dirt inside. A small engine which has to work every now and then doesn't have that problem.
Current generation EVs are getting close to being 10 years old so we will have some data points soon.
As for the value of a used EV that's 6-8 years old they appear to be on par with ICE. (Granted this is a small sample size and in the US/California.)
The real data is going to come in over the next two years. Should be interesting.
Remember that the Leaf has limited range. A lot of buyers are probably people who mostly make short journeys, and are way below the national average for annual mileage.Current generation EVs are getting close to being 10 years old so we will have some data points soon.
As for the value of a used EV that's 6-8 years old they appear to be on par with ICE. (Granted this is a small sample size and in the US/California.)
The real data is going to come in over the next two years. Should be interesting.
Just a quick check on kelly blue book for 2011 Nisson leaf and it appeared your correct. Seem to go for $7-10K in the listings at the bottom of the page.
https://www.kbb.com/cars-for-sale/cars/used-cars/nissan/leaf/?vehicleid=352716&year=2011-2013&distance=150 (https://www.kbb.com/cars-for-sale/cars/used-cars/nissan/leaf/?vehicleid=352716&year=2011-2013&distance=150)
Looking a bit closer...these things have like 20-40K miles. Highest millage was just over 50K. Seven year old cars and most <40K miles?!? That's 1/3 the national average of 15K/year. That's just the 11 cars within 150mi of me.
Too early to tell, but that 5 min look into KBB smells a bit off if that's the resale numbers being used. These things have been parked for most their life.
I'm unaware of fires. There has been a recall for fixing the cooling system of the Ecoboost engines. AFAIK the resulting damages have been repaired for free. Every new car model has teething issues so nothing out of the ordinary there. Just be sure not to buy a new car model and you'll be fine. One of the advantages of buying used cars is that you can research common problems.I think you mean many people drive largely around town, and never get up to speed. This causes problems for the DPF in diesels, and car makers tell people clears that the car needs frequent highway runs to clear the filter. Ford just sold the Ecoboost engines as general purpose engines. Its turning into a financial disaster for Ford, with all the compensation for fires and the recalls. You have an interesting concept of reliable.Here in europe the trend with new ICE cars to have small turbo engines like 1.0 l putting out 100+ hp. Now tell me these engines will last long (10+years) without major overhaul...I don't see why not. The 1.0l Ecoboost from Ford seems to be pretty reliable. I don't see any horror stories on the local Ford forum. Besides that many people drive too slow which causes the engine to built up dirt inside. A small engine which has to work every now and then doesn't have that problem.
Depends where you live...Current generation EVs are getting close to being 10 years old so we will have some data points soon.
As for the value of a used EV that's 6-8 years old they appear to be on par with ICE. (Granted this is a small sample size and in the US/California.)
The real data is going to come in over the next two years. Should be interesting.
Just a quick check on kelly blue book for 2011 Nisson leaf and it appeared your correct. Seem to go for $7-10K in the listings at the bottom of the page.
https://www.kbb.com/cars-for-sale/cars/used-cars/nissan/leaf/?vehicleid=352716&year=2011-2013&distance=150 (https://www.kbb.com/cars-for-sale/cars/used-cars/nissan/leaf/?vehicleid=352716&year=2011-2013&distance=150)
Looking a bit closer...these things have like 20-40K miles. Highest millage was just over 50K. Seven year old cars and most <40K miles?!? That's 1/3 the national average of 15K/year. That's just the 11 cars within 150mi of me.
Too early to tell, but that 5 min look into KBB smells a bit off if that's the resale numbers being used. These things have been parked for most their life.
BTW driving short distances is also not good for petrol cars. For example: the piston seals can seize up causing high oil consumption.
Look at that, electric cars are cheaper to buy/operate... including the Netherlands...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study)
I think the gubbermints as you say want to try to force us to trash all our ICEs asap and buy again new cars everybody. That's lots in taxes and fees and macro economy figures which is good for them and bad for us and our pockets.
Was thinking along the same lines after hearing these nuts talk about powering buildings with EVs
That aside. I own said battery pack and its got a limited number of cycles and the most expensive component to replace. What incentive is there for me to sign up for this nonsense and wear the piss out of my battery?
Here in europe the trend with new ICE cars to have small turbo engines like 1.0 l putting out 100+ hp. Now tell me these engines will last long (10+years) without major overhaul...
BTW driving short distances is also not good for petrol cars. For example: the piston seals can seize up causing high oil consumption.
So you go home on a limited charge and have to charge up to get back to work.
Remember that the Leaf has limited range. A lot of buyers are probably people who mostly make short journeys, and are way below the national average for annual mileage.
And then piss your charge back into the building. In a nutshell your exporting your energy to the building and wearing the shit out of your battery in the process. I get pay for the power that my employer is using?!?
Yes. Seized piston seals seems to be a problem sometimes found on certain Ford models driving around in the NL. At least so I have been told by a mechanic who specialises in Ford cars. Remember the Netherlands is mostly flat so car engines don't have to do much work. This gives specific problems with engines building up dirt inside you don't see very often in countries where cars have to drive up a steep hill every now and then.
BTW driving short distances is also not good for petrol cars. For example: the piston seals can seize up causing high oil consumption.
The piston Seals??? :-DD
Really?
Yes. Seized piston seals
At least so I have been told by a mechanic who specialises in Ford cars.
Remember the Netherlands is mostly flat so car engines don't have to do much work. This gives specific problems with engines building up dirt inside you don't see very often in countries where cars have to drive up a steep hill every now and then.
And actually I know quite a bit about cars. The last two I bought had problems even the dealer couldn't fix. I got them both running right again.
Aside from that, everyone that knows about cars clearly knew that in the day it was not the rings that stuck or got carbon deposits it was always the conrod valves due to the old type oils having a high ash content which never fully burned off due to the engine not reaching proper temp due to the short drives.no one with any mechanical knowledge could miss it.
You got me. English is not my native language... but if the right term is 'piston rings' then I learned something. Still piston seals put you on the right track so my message did come across.
Yes. Seized piston seals
Well you got me and i learned something.
I thought maybe piston seals were a nomenclature used for rings in other parts of the world. you prompted my to google the term to see if I could find if anyone called Rings , " Piston seal"s?
The sort of build up that was spoken of does exist, I was offered a side-gig by a local used car dealer to fix that sort of thing on older VW Golfs and Opels. But the methods used (minimal disassembly, splitting the case, disconnecting the belts, lifting the whole upper to access the pistons and crank - on the car lot - seemed a bit cowboy to me) and the general lack of safe tools made me run away (I am not squeezing piston rings in by hand from bellow while someone is jiggling the block to make it go down).
to fix that sort of thing on older VW Golfs and Opels.
Golf 3 and 4ish.
This was obviously after having changed the rings with the upper half of the crankcase and the cylinders off, then they put it back together (sorry if that did not seem clear).The sort of build up that was spoken of does exist, I was offered a side-gig by a local used car dealer to fix that sort of thing on older VW Golfs and Opels. But the methods used (minimal disassembly, splitting the case, disconnecting the belts, lifting the whole upper to access the pistons and crank - on the car lot - seemed a bit cowboy to me) and the general lack of safe tools made me run away (I am not squeezing piston rings in by hand from bellow while someone is jiggling the block to make it go down).
This thread is full of horse manure but this one takes the biscuit :-DD
I challenge anyone on this earth to reach up inside an engine via the crankcase with the head in place and replace a piston ring (on a car engine)!
This thread has actually made me dismiss this site as full of immature, idiotic armchair protagonists with mostly no idea of what they are talking about so little point in having or expecting to find any serious meaningful discussion here.
Some other sites are a little better but I don't want to name them to avoid the children turning up there too |O
Can't change the piston rings without removing the head, it's impossible. Even if you could remove the piston from below, you would not be able to put them back in place from below because the ring compressor needs a flat surface to work.Yeah I know, how the F they managed beats me.
Can't change the piston rings without removing the head, it's impossible. Even if you could remove the piston from below, you would not be able to put them back in place from below because the ring compressor needs a flat surface to work.Whilst that is the usual practice, don't some racing engines have a single piece head and body? They must have a method for getting the pistons in from below.
The sort of build up that was spoken of does exist, I was offered a side-gig by a local used car dealer to fix that sort of thing on older VW Golfs and Opels. But the methods used (minimal disassembly, splitting the case, disconnecting the belts, lifting the whole upper to access the pistons and crank - on the car lot - seemed a bit cowboy to me) and the general lack of safe tools made me run away (I am not squeezing piston rings in by hand from bellow while someone is jiggling the block to make it go down).
This thread is full of horse manure but this one takes the biscuit :-DD
I challenge anyone on this earth to reach up inside an engine via the crankcase with the head in place and replace a piston ring (on a car engine)!
This thread has actually made me dismiss this site as full of immature, idiotic armchair protagonists with mostly no idea of what they are talking about so little point in having or expecting to find any serious meaningful discussion here.
Some other sites are a little better but I don't want to name them to avoid the children turning up there too |O
Man caused climate change which is resulting in the melting of the polar ice caps will be good business for the oil companies.
So is the consensus EV cars will continue to become popular with consumers while being no so good for the environment.EVs (both BEV and PHEV) are much better for the environment and climate than ICEs. Of course, how the electricity is produced matters, if you live in a place with 100% coal (or thereabout), then PHEV might be better, but in most places BEVs are better.
So is the consensus EV cars will continue to become popular with consumers while being no so good for the environment.
Biofuels and hydrogen powered cars are economical and thermodynamicly never going to happen.
Man caused climate change which is resulting in the melting of the polar ice caps will be good business for the oil companies. With the ice sheet gone it will expose vast new oil reserves and price of fossil fuels will drop.
There are a lot of greenies who beleive anything is possible and feel the laws of physiscs, thermodynamics and chemistry does not apply to them. They will continue to beleive cars can be powered with the electrolysis of water and CO2 and water in the atmosphere can be converted into automobile fuel economicly.
Electricty from solar and wind in 50 years will might be able to provide less than 20% of the world’s electricty needs. We just do’t have the raw resources to produce more.
Nuclear power while not without issues is far better than all of the other methods we know about and certainly causes far less heath problems for people compared to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are responsible for causing the premature death and heath issues for one billion people or about one eighth of the worlds population.
Edit on my Golf engine claims in the previous page:
I am wrong.
What I assumed I saw is not possible on that Golf engine. I assumed I saw something and I am mistaken.
The space between the cylinders on that engine (and most engines) is smaller that the width of the plain bearing below it (and I know that).
So I probably witnessed a cock up of two idiots lifting the crankcase too high after fitting the cylinders and snapping a ring open below the cylinder and sweating big ones realising that they F'd up.
I was wrong, I should research stuff more and not trust my eyes as much and, being a mechanic, know better.
Sorry about that, I feel like a right fool.
Back to our usual programming.
So is the consensus EV cars will continue to become popular with consumers while being no so good for the environment.Sure
Biofuels and hydrogen powered cars are economical and thermodynamicly never going to happen.
Man caused climate change which is resulting in the melting of the polar ice caps will be good business for the oil companies. With the ice sheet gone it will expose vast new oil reserves and price of fossil fuels will drop.
There are a lot of greenies who beleive anything is possible and feel the laws of physiscs, thermodynamics and chemistry does not apply to them. They will continue to beleive cars can be powered with the electrolysis of water and CO2 and water in the atmosphere can be converted into automobile fuel economicly.
Electricty from solar and wind in 50 years will might be able to provide less than 20% of the world’s electricty needs. We just do’t have the raw resources to produce more.
Nuclear power while not without issues is far better than all of the other methods we know about and certainly causes far less heath problems for people compared to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are responsible for causing the premature death and heath issues for one billion people or about one eighth of the worlds population.
What the hell is a conrod valve?
BTW driving short distances is also not good for petrol cars. For example: the piston seals can seize up causing high oil consumption.
The piston Seals??? :-DD
Really?
Where, where, WHERE do you get this idiotic garbage from? |O
Do you make it up or are you just so clueless you don't even know what piston rings are? Please stop talking about things you have less than no idea about. it's embarrassing to read as well as frustrating. have you no self pride, no dignity? Do you enjoy people laughing at you and making such a fool of yourself.
Please stop. Just STOP. you bring down the credibility of this forum as well as having demolished and form of respect anyone could have for anything you dribble out.
In any case, again that's pure and utter garbage but please provide factual evidence that what you say is Correct like you demand off everyone else.
Unless you were driving your car round the block and never gave it an oil change, you would Never cause the rings to stick on any car made and running on any fuel produced in the last 20 years at least. Aside from that, everyone that knows about cars clearly knew that in the day it was not the rings that stuck or got carbon deposits it was always the conrod valves due to the old type oils having a high ash content which never fully burned off due to the engine not reaching proper temp due to the short drives.
Oh my God!
At least do your homework and have SOME idea what you are talking about.
That's the thing with these discussions, if you get over trying to push a point and always be right, you can be inspired to look things up and learn things.And better! :palm::palm: :palm:
Try it some time, I guarantee it will help you with your 5th grade studies a lot.
Do you have ANY clue how the internal combustion engine works
and what the engine computer monitors and the controls it has over the engine?
Why am I even asking. you wouldn't know how the engine in a lawn mower works much less have the ability to fix it but you still come up with all this moronic garbage as if it's a real thing.
Please go away and stop embarrassing us all or YOU provide the "scientific" reports you want others to provide to back up your garbage assertions.
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
You guys should start your own thread.as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!
Yup, to quote the poet; “get a room”.You guys should start your own thread.as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!
Yup, to quote the poet; “get a room”.You guys should start your own thread.as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!
Yup, to quote the poet; “get a room”.You guys should start your own thread.as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!
I do not agree, george8 has done a good job showing up some of the stupid idiotic posters in this thread who simply spread disinformation about things they know nothing about, valves on conrods and replace in situ piston rings being but two examples. I think the mods have done a particularly poor job in regulating this thread and allowing it to degenerate into a farce, they seem to have an attitude whereby renewables is an allowable home for cranks as long as they don't stray into other forums, this being a pity as the renewables forum has now become unusable for it's true purpose whilst this thread remains. Personally I think it should be deleted as a very bad example of what to post in forums.
Is this why farming releases so much CO2.
This is defiantly contributing to man caused climate change.
But now I can clearly see that two opposing engineering sides will result in armageddon, I rather have a lot of unscientific people doing that job.
@georgr80:
My basic understanding of firework (and explosives in general) tells me that it is highly unlikely fireworks release CO2.
Also growing crops needs fertilizer (made from fossil fuels nowadays) and animals tend to release methane. Add to that that most part of the crops aren't used and left to rot (and thus releasing CO2 and methane) the net result of farming is that it may release more greenhouse gasses than get absorbed. And lets not forget everything being grown gets eaten at some point.
Farming HAS to release more Co2 than it takes but again so what?It is not a requirement that farming releases an excess of CO2, but it always has. That Middle Eastern fertile crescent we read so much about in school history books isn't there now. The deep loess plateau in China in dramatically lower than when farming began. We got through massive supplies of guwano in a few years. Now we rely on oil to fertilize the land, and sustain the green revolution that lets 8 billion people be fed. From its very earliest days farming has always operated in an unsustainable manner, because the population has always risen to consume whatever output agriculture could achieve. We seem to be rapidly approaching crunch time right now.
Is this why farming releases so much CO2.
So Much?? What would you propose, we stop agriculture? That will certainty reduce C02 emissions when most of the world population staves to death.QuoteThis is defiantly contributing to man caused climate change.
So are you in everything you do every day of your life. So what? We could eliminate all the co2 production and the world would be all happy but unfortunately no one would be left. Kind of a moot point isn't it ?
I'll guarantee one office block power consumption generates more co2 every single day than a farmer creates in a year. You car probably generates more CO2in a year than a farmer using a flame weeder as well and remember, those crops absorb Co2 when the are growing so are carbon neutral.
Not much point eliminating co2 or shutting down farming if we are all going to starve to death and they will be no one left on the planet.
I'd suggest there are a whole lot more sensible things to target and raise awareness of than complain about c02 emissions from an absolutely essential industry that keeps us all alive.
Wonder how much Co2 is generated by something Unnessacary like for instance, 4th of july Fireworks. Around the US there must be hundreds of tons of fireworks releasing massive amounts of Co2. Maybe questioning that and trying to have fireworks banned as the unnecessary and wasteful Co2 they generate would be a better place to start asking questions. Then you can move on to other things that are a lot less essential than food production.
Criticizing co2 from agriculture sounds like a poorly thought out complaint straight out of the Green rabble rousing play book to push the agenda without thinking the Idea through logically and practically.
[...] smoke a couple of marijuana joints and mellow out before making you next post. Keep you mind open so you can lean something nd think about it [...]
[...] smoke a couple of marijuana joints and mellow out before making you next post. Keep you mind open so you can lean something nd think about it [...]
Now I know why you say the things you say. >:D
Also growing crops needs fertilizer (made from fossil fuels nowadays) and animals tend to release methane. Add to that that most part of the crops aren't used and left to rot (and thus releasing CO2 and methane) the net result of farming is that it may release more greenhouse gasses than get absorbed. And lets not forget everything being grown gets eaten at some point.A big part of sustainable farming is reducing use of animals. (Keep in mind it's not necessarily going 100% vegan - the keyword to search by is "plant based diet".) Other than that, there needs to be more investment in making biofuels and other products from food crop waste. As well as more effort put into minimizing food waste in general.
A big part of sustainable farming is reducing use of animals.I think you are confusing sustainability with the ability to feed more people. They are very different issues, although the urge to feed more and more usually makes sustainability harder to achieve.
Well we can't catch all the farts (methane). Making fertiliser can be reduced to needing an X amount of energy to produce a Y amount of fertiliser for a Z amount of money. If the CO2 footprint of X decreases then growing crops will produce less CO2. Letting the machines run on renewable energy sources (bio fuel is the easiest switch to make) and another reduction is achieved.
The EPA expects to ramp up 3rd generation ethanol to 16 billion gallons a year in the next couple of years. That is more than double the amount of ethanol the entire USA has produced in 2017. Basically the US bio-fuel production is currently at it's maximum production capability and 3rd generation bio-fuels are the only way to achieve a significant growth. Unfortunately this takes longer than expected. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712)Well we can't catch all the farts (methane). Making fertiliser can be reduced to needing an X amount of energy to produce a Y amount of fertiliser for a Z amount of money. If the CO2 footprint of X decreases then growing crops will produce less CO2. Letting the machines run on renewable energy sources (bio fuel is the easiest switch to make) and another reduction is achieved.Exactly p, which is why biofuels will ever work?
The page you referenced says "Cellulosic biofuels were intended to grow to 16 billion gallons by 2022, but the technology has not matured fast enough to meet the volume standards.", which conflicts with the figure you quoted. They show cellulosic (3rd generation) fuels struggling to achieve any significant volume at all.The EPA expects to ramp up 3rd generation ethanol to 16 billion gallons a year in the next couple of years. That is more than double the amount of ethanol the entire USA has produced in 2017. Basically the US bio-fuel production is currently at it's maximum production capability and 3rd generation bio-fuels are the only way to achieve a significant growth. Unfortunately this takes longer than expected. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712)Well we can't catch all the farts (methane). Making fertiliser can be reduced to needing an X amount of energy to produce a Y amount of fertiliser for a Z amount of money. If the CO2 footprint of X decreases then growing crops will produce less CO2. Letting the machines run on renewable energy sources (bio fuel is the easiest switch to make) and another reduction is achieved.Exactly p, which is why biofuels will ever work?
True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years. The graph shows a significant growth expected for 2019 when it comes to cellulosic biofuels. They wouldn't have printed it if the factories aren't running. And these are just the demonstrator plants.The page you referenced says "Cellulosic biofuels were intended to grow to 16 billion gallons by 2022, but the technology has not matured fast enough to meet the volume standards.", which conflicts with the figure you quoted. They show cellulosic (3rd generation) fuels struggling to achieve any significant volume at all.The EPA expects to ramp up 3rd generation ethanol to 16 billion gallons a year in the next couple of years. That is more than double the amount of ethanol the entire USA has produced in 2017. Basically the US bio-fuel production is currently at it's maximum production capability and 3rd generation bio-fuels are the only way to achieve a significant growth. Unfortunately this takes longer than expected. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712)Well we can't catch all the farts (methane). Making fertiliser can be reduced to needing an X amount of energy to produce a Y amount of fertiliser for a Z amount of money. If the CO2 footprint of X decreases then growing crops will produce less CO2. Letting the machines run on renewable energy sources (bio fuel is the easiest switch to make) and another reduction is achieved.Exactly p, which is why biofuels will ever work?
True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years.The latest news ALWAYS says the problems have been solved.
Just keep an eye on it (see my latest edit). BTW I'm not just basing this on what the manufacturers say but also from what has been extracted from actual production numbers for 2017 and 2018.True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years.The latest news ALWAYS says the problems have been solved.
True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years. The graph shows a significant growth expected for 2019 when it comes to cellulosic biofuels. They wouldn't have printed it if the factories aren't running. And these are just the demonstrator plants.Which graph are you referring to?
The one on the right. The right most bar is for 2019.True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years. The graph shows a significant growth expected for 2019 when it comes to cellulosic biofuels. They wouldn't have printed it if the factories aren't running. And these are just the demonstrator plants.Which graph are you referring to?
That graphs shows a little production in 2016 and 2017, a lot less in 2018, and an estimate that's a bit higher than 2016 and 2017 for 2019. Its doesn't show any substantial production.The one on the right. The right most bar is for 2019.True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years. The graph shows a significant growth expected for 2019 when it comes to cellulosic biofuels. They wouldn't have printed it if the factories aren't running. And these are just the demonstrator plants.Which graph are you referring to?
The EPA expects to ramp up 3rd generation ethanol to 16 billion gallons a year in the next couple of years. That is more than double the amount of ethanol the entire USA has produced in 2017. Basically the US bio-fuel production is currently at it's maximum production capability and 3rd generation bio-fuels are the only way to achieve a significant growth. Unfortunately this takes longer than expected. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37712)Well we can't catch all the farts (methane). Making fertiliser can be reduced to needing an X amount of energy to produce a Y amount of fertiliser for a Z amount of money. If the CO2 footprint of X decreases then growing crops will produce less CO2. Letting the machines run on renewable energy sources (bio fuel is the easiest switch to make) and another reduction is achieved.Exactly p, which is why biofuels will ever work?
Just keep an eye on it (see my latest edit). BTW I'm not just basing this on what the manufacturers say but also from what has been extracted from actual production numbers for 2017 and 2018.True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years.The latest news ALWAYS says the problems have been solved.
Dude take a chill pill and do some research before forming th thr month. Why all of the hostility? This forum is about learning and helping each other. It appears all you want to do mouth offf your beliefs and provide no facts or science to support your opinion.
Why are you even posting to this forum?
Do you not simple chemistry? The products of a fireworks shell are as follows K2S (potassium sulfide) + N2 (nitrogen gas) + 3CO2 (carbon dioxide).
My friend turn down the hostility and fire up the willingness to want to learn. I have yet to meet someone who knows it except for the crazy religious nuts in my town who scream bible versus on street cornors.
Try eating a Hubble pie or two. Then smoke a couple of marijuana joints and mellow out before making you next post. Keep you mind open so you can lean something nd think about it unless that’s illegal in the copuntry where you live.
nctnico is so high on promoting biofuels with bullshit web sites it's silly trying to have a sane discussion with him. I think the stock material for the biofuels he's talking about is what he can't smoke. Look at the his previous posts on biofuels which go back a couple of years. Which is what nctnico is basing his facts on. The think is and nctnico know this those couple of years have past and biofuels are worse off than the were with his posts from a few years ago. What's he's failing to accept is that biofuels have been proven not to be a viable solution from nctnico own posts.
nctnico like that guy Bernard Madoff. The FBI is in his office about to arrest him for ripping good honest people off with investment fraud like biofuel companies. And Madoff is on the phone telling customers what a great investment biofuel companies will be in just a few years. nctnico is doing the same thing. He's telling people how wonderful biofuel companies are and will be while all of the evidence says otherwise.
Dude take a chill pill and do some research before forming th thr month. Why all of the hostility? This forum is about learning and helping each other. It appears all you want to do mouth offf your beliefs and provide no facts or science to support your opinion.
Why are you even posting to this forum?
Do you not simple chemistry? The products of a fireworks shell are as follows K2S (potassium sulfide) + N2 (nitrogen gas) + 3CO2 (carbon dioxide).
My friend turn down the hostility and fire up the willingness to want to learn. I have yet to meet someone who knows it except for the crazy religious nuts in my town who scream bible versus on street cornors.
Try eating a Hubble pie or two. Then smoke a couple of marijuana joints and mellow out before making you next post. Keep you mind open so you can lean something nd think about it unless that’s illegal in the copuntry where you live.
Given the hypocrisy of the hostility in this post and the incomprehensible sentences, I will continue to avoid taking recreational drugs of any form thanks. NEVER taken/ smoked ANYTHING in my life nor even been drunk and I intend to finish my days as I have in this regard so far. I deal with problems head on not try to run and escape from them with some sort of artificial remedy that just makes things worse.
Stoners and I don't mix well and they ALWAYS come off very second best with me. Never met one yet that wasn't a deadbeat, looking to rip you off at any opportunity, was a moron and a pain in the arse to boot. NEVER have 2 cents to their name, never achieved anything in life and typically live off welfare and complain about everyone else that has worked and achieved something for themselves. I know of one looser that has Weed symbol stickers all over his moving Violation of a vehicle and personal items like wallet and phone, has been pulled over by the cops and searched about 50 times and they find shit on him most times. Complains endlessly about why they are always pulling him over and how unfair it is he has to keep going to court and paying fines.
Yeah, real Einstein like the rest of them.
I don't know what is to learn from reading the endless harping and whining about Co2 that some want to manufacture opportunities to go on about it every time they possibly can.
I don't give a damn about Co2. I think the whole fearmongering of it is a crock of ship just like the whole Globull boring scam.
Co2 makes plants grow. That has to be good god for the planet. Warmer temps make plants grow faster and I hate the cold so I hope the planet does warm up a degree or 2. Carrying on about it is going to make NO difference because Gubbermints and their Big biz puppet masters will continue to do exactly what they want to do and that's it. They don't give a damn about Co2 or the environment so may as well just alienating people with the endless carry on and brow beating.
I have also found the ones that whinge the most about these things are also very frequently the biggest hypocrites and do the least of anyone to do anything about their contribution to co2 and other emissions and energy consumption.
Now those statements have upset some people, they have my blessing to continue on to be outraged. Just stop bleating about Co2 and Globull boring all the time when it has NOTHING to do with the topic as it has nothing to do with this one despite the agendas people want to push.
Keep it to the Globull warming threads where you can preach and get the collective approval of the rest of the like minded.
Interestingly you never provide any scientifically sound sources (IOW reports with factual numbers) which support your opinion. Some guy ranting on Youtube doesn't count.Just keep an eye on it (see my latest edit). BTW I'm not just basing this on what the manufacturers say but also from what has been extracted from actual production numbers for 2017 and 2018.True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years.The latest news ALWAYS says the problems have been solved.
nctnico is so high on promoting biofuels with bullshit web sites it's silly trying to have a sane discussion with him. I think the stock material for the biofuels he's talking about is what he can't smoke. Look at the his previous posts on biofuels which go back a couple of years. Which is what nctnico is basing his facts on. The think is and nctnico know this those couple of years have past and biofuels are worse off than the were with his posts from a few years ago. What's he's failing to accept is that biofuels have been proven not to be a viable solution from nctnico own posts.
nctnico like that guy Bernard Madoff. The FBI is in his office about to arrest him for ripping good honest people off with investment fraud like biofuel companies. And Madoff is on the phone telling customers what a great investment biofuel companies will be in just a few years. nctnico is doing the same thing. He's telling people how wonderful biofuel companies are and will be while all of the evidence says otherwise.
Interestingly you never provide any scientifically sound sources (IOW reports with factual numbers) which support your opinion. Some guy ranting on Youtube doesn't count.Just keep an eye on it (see my latest edit). BTW I'm not just basing this on what the manufacturers say but also from what has been extracted from actual production numbers for 2017 and 2018.True but the most recent news seems to indicate that the biggest problems have been overcome. Just shift the expectations of the EPA forward by a few years.The latest news ALWAYS says the problems have been solved.
nctnico is so high on promoting biofuels with bullshit web sites it's silly trying to have a sane discussion with him. I think the stock material for the biofuels he's talking about is what he can't smoke. Look at the his previous posts on biofuels which go back a couple of years. Which is what nctnico is basing his facts on. The think is and nctnico know this those couple of years have past and biofuels are worse off than the were with his posts from a few years ago. What's he's failing to accept is that biofuels have been proven not to be a viable solution from nctnico own posts.
nctnico like that guy Bernard Madoff. The FBI is in his office about to arrest him for ripping good honest people off with investment fraud like biofuel companies. And Madoff is on the phone telling customers what a great investment biofuel companies will be in just a few years. nctnico is doing the same thing. He's telling people how wonderful biofuel companies are and will be while all of the evidence says otherwise.
And perhaps Trump is taking the EPA apart but bio-fuels mean jobs for the USA. The jobs Trump promised.
You might want to try some dope or LSD it might mellow you out and clear your mind of all of the hostility you have.
Interestingly you never provide any scientifically sound sources (IOW reports with factual numbers) which support your opinion. Some guy ranting on Youtube doesn't count.
And perhaps Trump is taking the EPA apart but bio-fuels mean jobs for the USA. The jobs Trump promised.
You might want to try some dope or LSD it might mellow you out and clear your mind of all of the hostility you have.
No thanks.
I don't need anymore problems in my life and I prefer to keep what wits I have intact at all times.
Interestingly you never provide any scientifically sound sources (IOW reports with factual numbers) which support your opinion. Some guy ranting on Youtube doesn't count.
Mate, look in the mirror, neither do YOU.
Marketing/ investment hype of projections and forecasts don't count either. You call on others to back everything up with scientific proof but never do that yourself insisting that something on a website from a self vested interest is indisputable. It's not.
And perhaps Trump is taking the EPA apart but bio-fuels mean jobs for the USA. The jobs Trump promised.
You mean the Australian car sales guy? Like he has the qualifications to proof several independant projects, in which at least a billion dollars of private money has been invested, wrong... You have to come up with a much better argument than that. And please quit about critical thinking. That is just blowing dust in the wind to create a smoke screen.Dude the videos are just not “some guys”. These are well educated experts with scientifc backgrounds who are well respected. They use critical thinking skills and science to support their positions. There’s not marketing hype or belelifs, just the language we all understand science.Interestingly you never provide any scientifically sound sources (IOW reports with factual numbers) which support your opinion. Some guy ranting on Youtube doesn't count.
You mean the Australian car sales guy? Like he has the qualifications to proof several independant projects, in which at least a billion dollars of private money has been invested, wrong... You have to come up with a much better argument than that. And please quit about critical thinking. That is just blowing dust in the wind to create a smoke screen.Dude the videos are just not “some guys”. These are well educated experts with scientifc backgrounds who are well respected. They use critical thinking skills and science to support their positions. There’s not marketing hype or belelifs, just the language we all understand science.Interestingly you never provide any scientifically sound sources (IOW reports with factual numbers) which support your opinion. Some guy ranting on Youtube doesn't count.
You have to come up with a much better argument than that. And please quit about critical thinking. That is just blowing dust in the wind to create a smoke screen.
You might want to try some dope or LSD it might mellow you out and clear your mind of all of the hostility you have.
This stuff helps a lot of people think more clearly. Looking at your posts, just thought it might help.
You have to come up with a much better argument than that. And please quit about critical thinking. That is just blowing dust in the wind to create a smoke screen.
No. Critical thinking is what exposes scams and bullshit from the very star and avoids a lot of people getting suckered into things that are garbage.
They are anything BUT a smoke screen, they are a smoke screen destroyer. Asking questions to see if hype lives up to fact is something people with something to hide hate and something that people whom have come up with something good love because it proves their legitimacy.
There are a lot of sheeple that just go with whatever they are told and never question or examine it. These are the people scammers and Polititians as well as big business love because they can sell them shit sandwiches without the bread and they just buy them and never complain because they are too damn stupid to think for themselves.
You are very pro Bio fuels but I'd like to know exactly to what extent you use them yourself. Do you run your Vehicle on E-85 or pure ethanol? How long have you been doing it? Does your Mrs also run her car on Bio Fuels ( if you have one) and what sort of cars do you have?
I have been running my vehicles and others in the family on and off on veg oil for 16 years. I run generators and burners on it for heating water, metal casting and other things. I have helped people around the world build veg burners for Drying grain, heating greenhouses to replace LPG and run farming and industrial equipment on it.
If anyone knows about Biofuels including alchol in a practical sense, blowing my own trumpt or not, You are going to have to go a ways to find someone that has had more free time on their hads to look into it and more importantly, get their hands dirty doing all kinds of testing and practical use than me.
All that said, and with all the benefits Bio fuel has given me over the years, my belief it will contribute anything remotely significant to the worlds energy consumption is zero. has been for the last 16 years and in all that time, when they have been talking about breakthrough just around the corner the whole time, My opinion has only changed from highly unlikely to no way in hell.
Maybe in time some token percentage of fuel we use might be from bio sources, 3-5% but I think that's overly optimistic anyway. In real terms though it will be nothing because Bio fuels CANNOT exist without oil energy input AND, the yield from bio fuels has never been greater than a breakeven for the liquid and electrical energy input.
Again I ask you to put your money where your beliefs are. Give us some numbers that we can use to see if Biofuels will be a hit or a miss in a certain number of years. How long will it be do you think with all these marvelous technology's will it take before Bio fuels are 1% of the worlds total liquid fuel supply? give us some other numbers to go by as to what the contribution of bio fuels is going to be over a certain time line.
Not looking for or remotely interested in any scientific fact, Just what YOU believe the Bio fuels contribution will be within a certain time frame based on your reading and opinion.
Interested to hear how you use biofuels and for how long you have done so. Do you have any investments in bio fuel interests?
The car guy John Cadogan, do you know much about him? I've watched many of his YouTube videos and have found his scientific explanations about cars and fuels to be spot on. I'm wondering how he's received where you are. His video on biofuels was very good.
I just follow where the money goes. If it where just one company pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into an idea I'd might give your objections a thought but when multiple independant companies are investing at least one billion dollars (combined) into an idea and built industrial scale factories they must be on to something big. It also means that multiple independent companies have come to the conclusion that the idea of cellulosic bio-fuels is feasible. What are you bringing to the table to prove a whole bunch of companies which probably employ THE top notch scientists in the world when it comes to cellulosic bio-fuels are wrong? Please stop puffing smoke and come up with a recent report (from 2017 or later) that says cellulosic bio-fuels are a fallacy.You mean the Australian car sales guy? Like he has the qualifications to proof several independant projects, in which at least a billion dollars of private money has been invested, wrong... You have to come up with a much better argument than that. And please quit about critical thinking. That is just blowing dust in the wind to create a smoke screen.Dude the videos are just not “some guys”. These are well educated experts with scientifc backgrounds who are well respected. They use critical thinking skills and science to support their positions. There’s not marketing hype or belelifs, just the language we all understand science.Interestingly you never provide any scientifically sound sources (IOW reports with factual numbers) which support your opinion. Some guy ranting on Youtube doesn't count.
There you go again making shit up. John Cadogan is just one of the many people I have referenced. They are sure as shit better than that one marketing web page from several years ago about biofuels. Well several years have past and biofuels have failed miserably to meet the numbers in the documents you keep referring to.
Are you saying you are not a critical thinker? If so explains why many of your posts are so silly. Stop inhaling the biofuel fumes and get a whiff of science. If it were not for critical thinking skills and science were would we be?
Excellent reply. I suspect you will not receive a reply or a bunch of nonsense from him. I would be surprised if he answers your questions.
Because there is no use answering your questions. What the hell does my use of bio-fuels have to do with what is being developed in that area? But to answer your questions anyway: if E10 is available I fuel my car with that. I have looked at using E85 but that is unavailable where I live. Otherwise I probably would have fitted an E85 conversion kit on my car. The conversion kits are pretty cheap and easy enough to install.You were spot on and 100% Correct.
Excellent reply. I suspect you will not receive a reply or a bunch of nonsense from him. I would be surprised if he answers your questions.
Replied to you and has posted 3 other reply's at this time but skipped the questions I asked.
What the hell does my use of bio-fuels have to do with what is being developed in that area?
I have looked at using E85 but that is unavailable where I live. Otherwise I probably would have fitted an E85 conversion kit on my car. The conversion kits are pretty cheap and easy enough to install.
Now please add something to the discussion which has some scientific grounds.You first! We have been asking you to do that for weeks but the best you can do is propaganda websites from vested interests and Wiki. Meanwhile you bleat and sook about everyone else having to provide scientific proof of anything you dispute.
Perhaps you care to provide some numbers and results from your experiments with bio-fuels.
BTW if you think bio-fuels don't count then check this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_energy_supply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_energy_supply). In 2012 bio-fuel and waste already provided 10% of the world's energy.
Because there is no use answering your questions. What the hell does my use of bio-fuels have to do with what is being developed in that area? But to answer your questions anyway: if E10 is available I fuel my car with that. I have looked at using E85 but that is unavailable where I live. Otherwise I probably would have fitted an E85 conversion kit on my car. The conversion kits are pretty cheap and easy enough to install.You were spot on and 100% Correct.
Excellent reply. I suspect you will not receive a reply or a bunch of nonsense from him. I would be surprised if he answers your questions.
Replied to you and has posted 3 other reply's at this time but skipped the questions I asked.
Now please add something to the discussion which has some scientific grounds. Perhaps you care to provide some numbers and results from your experiments with bio-fuels.
BTW if you think bio-fuels don't count then check this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_energy_supply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_energy_supply). In 2012 bio-fuel and waste already provided 10% of the world's energy.
The car guy John Cadogan, do you know much about him? I've watched many of his YouTube videos and have found his scientific explanations about cars and fuels to be spot on. I'm wondering how he's received where you are. His video on biofuels was very good.
I'm surprised you like Cadogan. I would have thought he was too direct and "Uptight" for you.
Cadogan is not well liked in the industry here. He makes predictions that seem far fetched and ridiculous at the time but have a nasty and unfortunate habit of proving to be spot on. HE also calls things as he seems them and does not pander to the industry interests.
He has made several predictions about our car industry that the media went to pains to ridicule and quoted him with the hosts of several programs openly laughing at him and basicly calling him stupid and a nutter.
They weren't laughing when he said something would happen within 10 years and it happened exactly as he said within 8. He gets to put them ridiculing him on his channel now and laugh at them for being such indignant and wrong buttwipes.
He's not too PC but he has a habit of being very spot on with what he says no matter how many vested interests don't like it. There is another major prediction he made about 9-10 years ago about a local manufacturer about to come true any time now. He was laughed at when he said that too.
Looks very much like he will have the last laugh yet again.
My favorite vid of his is the Tesla Cult Vid. If anything proved how right that was it's the load of comments on the vid proving EXACTLY what he said. Man must be laughing at the number of hits and comments that one has got from the sooking fanbois.
Not that the point of that vid wasn't painfully obvious to all that have a brain to think for themselves and don't need some TV type preacher to think for them.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on...50k versus 1.6 million cars sold in total. That is a drop in the ocean. Talking about creating misleading graphs :palm:
EV sales continue to grow. (https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/) Especially impressive in light of the fact that total auto sales have been flat or down for several months now.
(https://d2t6ms4cjod3h9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/11.png)
EV sales continue to grow.
Especially impressive in light of the fact that total auto sales have been flat or down for several months now.
Light truck sales have recently made up about 2/3 of total US auto sales. (Yes Americans like their big SUVs and trucks).
So comparing apples to apples, 50K of EV sales in December is approximately 10% of the US car (not light truck) market.
Regardless - what's important is the growth rate.
Considering that 10 years ago there were essentially no EVs - the continued its exponential growth rate in the setting of a flat US auto market is a sign that EVs continue their march to eventually becoming the majority of new car sales.
Yes, that is still several years away but it is coming. The data makes that clear.
EV sales have continued their rapid growth rate despite overall auto sales growth being flat.You still need to include light trucks in your comparison because people are buying them instead of EVs. BTW SUVs aren't light trucks and there are EV SUVs on the market.
1.6 million auto sales in the US for December 2018 is accurate but includes light trucks (trucks, SUVs, vans). Considering that at this time there are essentially no EV models available in those categories that is a poor comparison. (Though a large number of EV s in the light truck category are being released in the next 2 years).
SUVs aren't light trucks
there are EV SUVs on the market.No, not really - or just barely. The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV just recently was released to the US market in very limited numbers. The Tesla model X is kind of marketed as an SUV but that’s kind of a joke to anyone but the upper class “soccer mom” SUV crowd. Audi is just now releasing one.
Funny how some get all worked up by facts that disagree with their narrative.
When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Impressive growth.Meanwhile, the beat goes on...50k versus 1.6 million cars sold in total. That is a drop in the ocean. Talking about creating misleading graphs :palm:
EV sales continue to grow. (https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/) Especially impressive in light of the fact that total auto sales have been flat or down for several months now.
(https://d2t6ms4cjod3h9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/11.png)
When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Impressive growth.Meanwhile, the beat goes on...50k versus 1.6 million cars sold in total. That is a drop in the ocean. Talking about creating misleading graphs :palm:
EV sales continue to grow. (https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/) Especially impressive in light of the fact that total auto sales have been flat or down for several months now.
(https://d2t6ms4cjod3h9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/11.png)
Meanwhile, the beat goes on...Are those January 2019 sales for the whole of January? If so, is that the normal seasonal variation between December and January sales for other types of car?
EV sales continue to grow. (https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/) Especially impressive in light of the fact that total auto sales have been flat or down for several months now.
(https://d2t6ms4cjod3h9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/11.png)
EV sales have continued their rapid growth rate despite overall auto sales growth being flat.
1.6 million auto sales in the US for December 2018 is accurate but includes light trucks (trucks, SUVs, vans). Considering that at this time there are essentially no EV models available in those categories that is a poor comparison. (Though a large number of EV s in the light truck category are being released in the next 2 years).
Light truck sales have recently made up about 2/3 of total US auto sales. (Yes Americans like their big SUVs and trucks).
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
Seen so many claims of this when it does not add up. A favourite is to quote the cost of Filling an ICE and an EV and claiming one is cheaper than the other but not taking into account the ICE goes 4-6x further than the EV.
Tesla had a page on it's site here showing it's car was cheaper to run over 1500KM. Typically with their endless bullshit and lies, the calculation took into account the 400KWH of free supercharging that came with every new Vehicle. The first 1500Km may have been cheaper but the next and every subsequent 1500km was far from cheap at all.
I don't trust any claims made by the greenwashed because they have proven to exaggerate and lie either by omission or otherwise on so many things in their desperation to push their cult and turn everyone to converts.
In any case, I see any EV price advantage to be short lived.
As more EV's put more pressure on grids around the world that will need to be upgraded and have billions spent on infrastructure the price of power WILL go up as it continues to do here at an economic crippling rate.
At the same time as fuel sales go down, the cartels will start leveling the playing field and reducing the now artificially inflated cost of fuel.
Anyone that thinks the oil industry is just going to sit on it's arse and seen their profits go down the gurgler without fighting it is a moron.
The scenarios are always painted as nice and straight forward but reality is anything but.
Its all too easy to manipulate that sort of comparison in either direction, though a few years old now this post has the world comparison:
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
Its all too easy to manipulate that sort of comparison in either direction, though a few years old now this post has the world comparison:
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/problems-if-we-all-had-tesla-cars/msg705793/#msg705793 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/problems-if-we-all-had-tesla-cars/msg705793/#msg705793)
Picking less efficient vehicles to compare against the Tesla would just change the slope of the line showing parity. Equally picking a more efficient electric car could push it further.
Now if one has solar panels and can sell electricity to the power company this changes everything as you can sell kHrs to the power company at $0.87kWhr and then buy back those kWhrs for only $0.12. But then one has to factor in the $35,000 Tesla/Solar City charges for the solar panels.Why buy (overpriced) Tesla solar panels for a Tesla car when cheaper alternatives exist? That's even less valid than saying that you have to buy overpriced Apple headphones for an iPhone.
nctnico wanted to get back to you on biofuels. You made it clear you do no believe in applying critical thinking skills or peer review. Ever hear of a women by the name of Elizabeth Holmes? She was the youngest female billionaire. After taking two classes at Stanford University she dropped out and developed a machine which could perform over 250 blood tests with less than a drop of blood. She refused to allow anyone to see the machine or show anyone how the machine worked but she hyped the heck out of her company to get investors.Nice try but no sigar. You are way off as usual. There are several independent companies working on 3rd generation bio-fuels. These are multi-billion dollar companies which have invested hundreds of millions of their own money into various factories which are up & running today. There is no hype, they don't need investors for money and there are no secrets. Production volumes for US based operations are reported to the EPA.
Now if one has solar panels and can sell electricity to the power company this changes everything as you can sell kHrs to the power company at $0.87kWhr and then buy back those kWhrs for only $0.12. But then one has to factor in the $35,000 Tesla/Solar City charges for the solar panels.Why buy (overpriced) Tesla solar panels for a Tesla car when cheaper alternatives exist? That's even less valid than saying that you have to buy overpriced Apple headphones for an iPhone.
nctnico wanted to get back to you on biofuels. You made it clear you do no believe in applying critical thinking skills or peer review. Ever hear of a women by the name of Elizabeth Holmes? She was the youngest female billionaire. After taking two classes at Stanford University she dropped out and developed a machine which could perform over 250 blood tests with less than a drop of blood. She refused to allow anyone to see the machine or show anyone how the machine worked but she hyped the heck out of her company to get investors.Nice try but no sigar. You are way off as usual. There are several independent companies working on 3rd generation bio-fuels. These are multi-billion dollar companies which have invested hundreds of millions of their own money into various factories which are up & running today. There is no hype, they don't need investors for money and there are no secrets. Production volumes for US based operations are reported to the EPA.
Perhaps do your homework first before posting nonsense which is easely proven wrong (see the articles and US government websites I've linked to before).
When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Depending on the rate plan a kWhr ranges from $0.12 to $0.87. Will people have to "fill-up" when the power company is charging $0.87 kWhr?
Now if one has solar panels and can sell electricity to the power company this changes everything as you can sell kHrs to the power company at $0.87kWhr and then buy back those kWhrs for only $0.12. But then one has to factor in the $35,000 Tesla/Solar City charges for the solar panels.
As someone who owns an electric car in California the annual cost difference between "fueling" an EV and an ICE is a difference of a few hundred dollars. And as electricity rates increase it's going to be even less.
The big advantage with EVs other than BSing people into thinking they are doing something "good" for the planet is they cause the pollution in someone else's backyard. There is no cost "real" cost savings.
Nice try but no sigar. You are way off as usual. There are several independent companies working on 3rd generation bio-fuels. These are multi-billion dollar companies which have invested hundreds of millions of their own money into various factories which are up & running today. There is no hype, they don't need investors for money and there are no secrets. Production volumes for US based operations are reported to the EPA.
Perhaps do your homework first before posting nonsense which is easely proven wrong (see the articles and US government websites I've linked to before).
Why do you say they are over priced? Going price for solar systems from companies like Tesla, SunRun, SunPower, Vivint is $3.75 to $4.00 /watt. The reason for buying overpriced Apple headphones is they are better quality. I know. I have six different headphones for my iPhone and the overpriced Apple ones are by far the best in terms of construction, sound quality and noise reduction. I'm frugal with my money, and feel the over priced Apple headphones are worth it. Your hearing my vary.The going rate for a few panels is about $1/W, with half that not unusual for bulk orders. DIY really brings the price down.
Ha. When I was 16 I would have LOVED to have a car that I could refill for 'free" by just plugging it in at my parents house. My main limitation driving at that age was not having money to buy gasoline.
It is not that black and white. There will be a market for electric cars, there will be a market for hydrogen cars and bio-fuel (ethanol) allows to keep using existing cars and infrastructure so there is a market for that as well. Depending on where you are you'll see a different mix of these in the future. This means that it is worthwile to invest in these technologies because nowadays companies aren't stuck to selling in a particular part of the world. For example: most of the ethanol the US produces is being exported.Nice try but no sigar. You are way off as usual. There are several independent companies working on 3rd generation bio-fuels. These are multi-billion dollar companies which have invested hundreds of millions of their own money into various factories which are up & running today. There is no hype, they don't need investors for money and there are no secrets. Production volumes for US based operations are reported to the EPA.Multi billion dollar companies are investing hundreds of Millions in Hydrogen and electric as well.
Perhaps do your homework first before posting nonsense which is easely proven wrong (see the articles and US government websites I've linked to before).
Does that mean it's also going to be the fuel of the future? Can't have electric, Bio AND hydrogen all taking over although I bet each one would tell you the horse THEY are backing will definitely be the winner.
I'm quite sure you'll put a lock on the outlet if your kid starts to run the electricity bill up to hundreds of dollars extra per month. Electricity isn't exactly free. Perhaps that is a valuable lessing you should learn your kids.Ha. When I was 16 I would have LOVED to have a car that I could refill for 'free" by just plugging it in at my parents house. My main limitation driving at that age was not having money to buy gasoline.When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Why do you say they are over priced? Going price for solar systems from companies like Tesla, SunRun, SunPower, Vivint is $3.75 to $4.00 /watt. The reason for buying overpriced Apple headphones is they are better quality. I know. I have six different headphones for my iPhone and the overpriced Apple ones are by far the best in terms of construction, sound quality and noise reduction. I'm frugal with my money, and feel the over priced Apple headphones are worth it. Your hearing my vary.The going rate for a few panels is about $1/W, with half that not unusual for bulk orders. DIY really brings the price down.
And real audiophiles agree that Apple is especially overpriced for headphones.
I'm quite sure you'll put a lock on the outlet if your kid starts to run the electricity bill up to hundreds of dollars extra per month. Electricity isn't exactly free. Perhaps that is a valuable lessing you should learn your kids.Ha. When I was 16 I would have LOVED to have a car that I could refill for 'free" by just plugging it in at my parents house. My main limitation driving at that age was not having money to buy gasoline.When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
It is not that black and white. There will be a market for electric cars, there will be a market for hydrogen cars and bio-fuel (ethanol) allows to keep using existing cars and infrastructure so there is a market for that as well. Depending on where you are you'll see a different mix of these in the future. This means that it is worthwile to invest in these technologies because nowadays companies aren't stuck to selling in a particular part of the world. For example: most of the ethanol the US produces is being exported.Nice try but no sigar. You are way off as usual. There are several independent companies working on 3rd generation bio-fuels. These are multi-billion dollar companies which have invested hundreds of millions of their own money into various factories which are up & running today. There is no hype, they don't need investors for money and there are no secrets. Production volumes for US based operations are reported to the EPA.Multi billion dollar companies are investing hundreds of Millions in Hydrogen and electric as well.
Perhaps do your homework first before posting nonsense which is easely proven wrong (see the articles and US government websites I've linked to before).
Does that mean it's also going to be the fuel of the future? Can't have electric, Bio AND hydrogen all taking over although I bet each one would tell you the horse THEY are backing will definitely be the winner.
And look at mobile phones. You can't call Apple mainstream but they do manage to offer a premium product and make a good profit. The same goes for Tesla. They are a well-known premium brand but not the market leader (when looking at global EV sales).
I'm quite sure you'll put a lock on the outlet if your kid starts to run the electricity bill up to hundreds of dollars extra per month.Ha. When I was 16 I would have LOVED to have a car that I could refill for 'free" by just plugging it in at my parents house. My main limitation driving at that age was not having money to buy gasoline.When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Well, you don't seem to have a clue that your electricity is extremely (unlikely) cheap. I'm paying $0.30 per kWh against the current dollar/euro exchange rate if I could charge at home and that price is similar across Europe on average. When charging at a public charging points prices easely rise up to $0.70 per kWh over here. At these prices an EV makes no sense compared to an efficient ICE car.Not a chance. At $0.075/kWh and at most 12 kWh to fill up a completely empty Volt battery overnight, it will not be an issue. You continue to show that you really don’t have a clue about the cost of driving an EV.I'm quite sure you'll put a lock on the outlet if your kid starts to run the electricity bill up to hundreds of dollars extra per month.Ha. When I was 16 I would have LOVED to have a car that I could refill for 'free" by just plugging it in at my parents house. My main limitation driving at that age was not having money to buy gasoline.When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
I've had an idea: do the water electrolysis deep down in the Mariana Trench and get the H2 compressed for free. How about that? And you get chlorine too, for free.I worked on a project 40 years ago that was going to use a solar-heated high pressure cell for electrolysis. The idea was that by doing the electrolysis at near the dissociation point for water, it took VERY little energy to separate the H from the O. Then, you got the H already at high pressure, for easy storage in a cylinder. Or, you got it already hot, for conversion into Ammonia. The original design had been done for NASA by ThermoElectron, and it was all inch-thick quartz windows, sapphire insulators and platinum electrodes, but the PE was quire sure that all that expensive stuff could be replaced with more affordable materials.
Not a chance. At $0.075/kWh and at most 12 kWh to fill up a completely empty Volt battery overnight, it will not be an issue. You continue to show that you really don’t have a clue about the cost of driving an EV.Well, you don't seem to have a clue that your electricity is extremely (unlikely) cheap. I'm paying $0.30 per kWh against the current dollar/euro exchange rate if I could charge at home and that price is similar across Europe on average. When charging at a public charging points prices easely rise up to $0.70 per kWh over here. At these prices an EV makes no sense compared to an efficient ICE car.
The general claim for using Hydrogen is that you can fill it just as fast as an ICE car. For some reason not all hydrogen fueling stations can supply hydrogen fast so fueling takes longer (still the time is much shorter than charging an EV for the same range). I don't know how and why some hydrogen fueling stations are slow and others are fast and how to recognise them. As more hydrogen fueling stations will be built this should become more clear over time.
Whether hydrogen is more expensive or not depends on the fuel prices. In the Netherlands the price of hydrogen is on par with normal fuel prices. My current car is more expensive to run on fuel compared to hydrogen. A more efficient car will be cheaper to run.
And sure hydrogen comes from fossil fuels just like electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels. Hydrogen and batteries are energy carriers. It is as green as the source of the energy. But that is not a good reason to disqualify either. You have to start somewhere and EVs and hydrogen will probably emit lots of CO2 until nuclear power takes over from coal & gas.
BTW next year Electriq~Fuel will start a pilot project in the Netherlands. Again a website with lots of marketing to emphasize on safety: https://www.electriq.com/technology/ (https://www.electriq.com/technology/) I don't quite trust the '60% water' claim but I have read about other systems which bind hydrogen to form a chemical compound. The hydrogen is released when needed. The advantage is that this system doesn't need high pressure vessels to store the hydrogen. I've come across similar systems so the idea isn't novel. It is like fueling a car with liquid (charged) electrolyte. Once the hydrogen is released the remaining chemical compound is to be recycled. Don't ask me about efficiency numbers. I have none and it seems to me this technology is too new to dig into deeply.
https://www.electriq.com/technology/ (https://www.electriq.com/technology/) I don't quite trust the '60% water' claim but I have read about other systems which bind hydrogen to form a chemical compound.
I explicitely wrote that I have no opinion on whether this is feasable or not. I don't have the information. I just know that they are not the only ones doing research in this direction and the idea isn't new. You on the other hand seem to dismiss it based on no facts and poor understanding of the concept (as usual). Please share you back-of-the-envelope calculations. However as expected you judged without fully understanding the concept. There isn't a combustion engine in the 'liquid hydrogen carrier' concept:The general claim for using Hydrogen is that you can fill it just as fast as an ICE car. For some reason not all hydrogen fueling stations can supply hydrogen fast so fueling takes longer (still the time is much shorter than charging an EV for the same range). I don't know how and why some hydrogen fueling stations are slow and others are fast and how to recognise them. As more hydrogen fueling stations will be built this should become more clear over time.
Whether hydrogen is more expensive or not depends on the fuel prices. In the Netherlands the price of hydrogen is on par with normal fuel prices. My current car is more expensive to run on fuel compared to hydrogen. A more efficient car will be cheaper to run.
And sure hydrogen comes from fossil fuels just like electricity for EVs comes from fossil fuels. Hydrogen and batteries are energy carriers. It is as green as the source of the energy. But that is not a good reason to disqualify either. You have to start somewhere and EVs and hydrogen will probably emit lots of CO2 until nuclear power takes over from coal & gas.
BTW next year Electriq~Fuel will start a pilot project in the Netherlands. Again a website with lots of marketing to emphasize on safety: https://www.electriq.com/technology/ (https://www.electriq.com/technology/) I don't quite trust the '60% water' claim but I have read about other systems which bind hydrogen to form a chemical compound. The hydrogen is released when needed. The advantage is that this system doesn't need high pressure vessels to store the hydrogen. I've come across similar systems so the idea isn't novel. It is like fueling a car with liquid (charged) electrolyte. Once the hydrogen is released the remaining chemical compound is to be recycled. Don't ask me about efficiency numbers. I have none and it seems to me this technology is too new to dig into deeply.
Another Theranos? Sure sounds like it. This is laughable. You do realize that an internal combustion engine extracts hydrogen from the fuel to power the vehicle and create electricity for the car. The CEO says no studies are needed because we say we have actual performance showing it works. In other words "Trust Us".
nctninco I know you say you don't drink, smoke dope, use drugs are believe in applying critical thinking skills. So how can your mind be so distorted to believe in the claims this company is making without providing any proof except for their web site and press releases.
The hydrogen generation isn't the big problem, it's recycling the sodium metaborate without wasting a metric fuckton of energy.That is my understanding too from what I have read so far. I'm just wondering if people from Electriq~Fuel have found a different method but I'm not a chemist and have no idea what is possible or not. But lets not forget the financial side of things. Storing 1kWh in a battery of a battery-EV costs several tens of cents due to the cost of manufacturing the battery. That financial inefficiency leaves a lot of room for a less energy efficient system to have a lower operating cost after all.
To take a car 100km you'll need 1kg of hydrogen. That translates to 25 liters of liquid per 100km. 500km of range would translate to 125 liters. Say that is 150kg to round it up. An EV would need 125kWh to cover 500km which translates to a battery with a mass of over 400kg.
I recently bought my son a used one and it works great.When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Volt is a discontinued car.
The reason we have TOD billing is solar. The low rates happen during the day and after 9 pm at night. The high rates are from 6 to 9 pm.
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
Seen so many claims of this when it does not add up. A favourite is to quote the cost of Filling an ICE and an EV and claiming one is cheaper than the other but not taking into account the ICE goes 4-6x further than the EV.
Tesla had a page on it's site here showing it's car was cheaper to run over 1500KM. Typically with their endless bullshit and lies, the calculation took into account the 400KWH of free supercharging that came with every new Vehicle. The first 1500Km may have been cheaper but the next and every subsequent 1500km was far from cheap at all.
I don't trust any claims made by the greenwashed because they have proven to exaggerate and lie either by omission or otherwise on so many things in their desperation to push their cult and turn everyone to converts.
In any case, I see any EV price advantage to be short lived.
As more EV's put more pressure on grids around the world that will need to be upgraded and have billions spent on infrastructure the price of power WILL go up as it continues to do here at an economic crippling rate.
At the same time as fuel sales go down, the cartels will start leveling the playing field and reducing the now artificially inflated cost of fuel.
Anyone that thinks the oil industry is just going to sit on it's arse and seen their profits go down the gurgler without fighting it is a moron.
The scenarios are always painted as nice and straight forward but reality is anything but.
george80 you are absolutely correct. I live in California and our power company by the end of this year will have everyone on a Time of Use Billing which will greatly complicate EV. Depending on the rate plan a kWhr ranges from $0.12 to $0.87. Will people have to "fill-up" when the power company is charging $0.87 kWhr? They sure would if they don't want to walk home. For a Tesla this would be over twice if not close to three times what it would cost to fuel and ICE car with gasoline.
Now if one has solar panels and can sell electricity to the power company this changes everything as you can sell kHrs to the power company at $0.87kWhr and then buy back those kWhrs for only $0.12. But then one has to factor in the $35,000 Tesla/Solar City charges for the solar panels.
As someone who owns an electric car in California the annual cost difference between "fueling" an EV and an ICE is a difference of a few hundred dollars. And as electricity rates increase it's going to be even less.
The big advantage with EVs other than BSing people into thinking they are doing something "good" for the planet is they cause the pollution in someone else's backyard. There is no cost "real" cost savings.
I think you made an error with the decimal place. It's 0.75 $/kWh.I'm quite sure you'll put a lock on the outlet if your kid starts to run the electricity bill up to hundreds of dollars extra per month.Ha. When I was 16 I would have LOVED to have a car that I could refill for 'free" by just plugging it in at my parents house. My main limitation driving at that age was not having money to buy gasoline.When my oldest turns 16 in a little over 3 years, I plan to give him my Volt and get an EV pick up. Then I can sell my Toyota Tundra, the last pure ICE vehicle I’ll likely ever own.Just be prepared that your kid's usage scenarios and willingness to put up the limitations of an EV may not match yours... You might end up selling the Volt and keeping the Tundra.
Not a chance. At $0.075/kWh and at most 12 kWh to fill up a completely empty Volt battery overnight, it will not be an issue. You continue to show that you really don’t have a clue about the cost of driving an EV.
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
The reason we have TOD billing is solar. The low rates happen during the day and after 9 pm at night. The high rates are from 6 to 9 pm.
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
Seen so many claims of this when it does not add up. A favourite is to quote the cost of Filling an ICE and an EV and claiming one is cheaper than the other but not taking into account the ICE goes 4-6x further than the EV.
Tesla had a page on it's site here showing it's car was cheaper to run over 1500KM. Typically with their endless bullshit and lies, the calculation took into account the 400KWH of free supercharging that came with every new Vehicle. The first 1500Km may have been cheaper but the next and every subsequent 1500km was far from cheap at all.
I don't trust any claims made by the greenwashed because they have proven to exaggerate and lie either by omission or otherwise on so many things in their desperation to push their cult and turn everyone to converts.
In any case, I see any EV price advantage to be short lived.
As more EV's put more pressure on grids around the world that will need to be upgraded and have billions spent on infrastructure the price of power WILL go up as it continues to do here at an economic crippling rate.
At the same time as fuel sales go down, the cartels will start leveling the playing field and reducing the now artificially inflated cost of fuel.
Anyone that thinks the oil industry is just going to sit on it's arse and seen their profits go down the gurgler without fighting it is a moron.
The scenarios are always painted as nice and straight forward but reality is anything but.
george80 you are absolutely correct. I live in California and our power company by the end of this year will have everyone on a Time of Use Billing which will greatly complicate EV. Depending on the rate plan a kWhr ranges from $0.12 to $0.87. Will people have to "fill-up" when the power company is charging $0.87 kWhr? They sure would if they don't want to walk home. For a Tesla this would be over twice if not close to three times what it would cost to fuel and ICE car with gasoline.
Now if one has solar panels and can sell electricity to the power company this changes everything as you can sell kHrs to the power company at $0.87kWhr and then buy back those kWhrs for only $0.12. But then one has to factor in the $35,000 Tesla/Solar City charges for the solar panels.
As someone who owns an electric car in California the annual cost difference between "fueling" an EV and an ICE is a difference of a few hundred dollars. And as electricity rates increase it's going to be even less.
The big advantage with EVs other than BSing people into thinking they are doing something "good" for the planet is they cause the pollution in someone else's backyard. There is no cost "real" cost savings.
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
One would be a fool to buy batteries.
One would be a fool to buy batteries.
THAT is the correct/ logical/ realistic/ truthful answer.
And the only one.
We don't have such a beneficial power pricing scheme in Oz but no matter where you are in the world from what I have seen, there is NO where in the world batteries make any sense right now nor will do for the forseeable future.
The price would have to be about 1/3rd of what they are now to get in the ball park no matter what you pay for power.
Some places have batterys than others but where the batterys are cheaper the power is too canceling out any ROI advantage.
I have seen all sorts of convoluted, complicated and green washed calculations to try and prove otherwise but the equations is very simple.
At 100% utilization 100% of the time, they simply cannot save enough power for it's value to repay it's cost in a valid time frame being the lifetime of the battery. The exception maybe a DIY system using forklift packs or the like but certainly no Powerbore or similar plug and play type battery has any valid Financial benefit.
Oh yeah, we can spin doctor the argument as well and say I bought one for blackout power which,
1. is still not saving power and is a totaly different scenario, and,
2, You are a fool for paying far too much for an overpriced solution when there are far better and cheaper alternatives.
If you buy a battery to "save the environment", Well I won't nominate fitting and applicable names but lets just say you are either a product or sucker of the PC greenwashed.
I bought 3 Diesel engines this week and 2 Generator heads. All working or brand new. $300 all up. One needs a new belt, the other would need the head and the engine mounted and hooked up. Lets play devils advocate and call it $200 to make a nice Figure of $500. Where a battery lasts hours, I can run everything and lot more than a battery can till the cows come home..... in 6 months time. And I still have a spare engine.
No, the idea behind keeping hydrogen in a liquid is that you can keep it in a regular thin walled fuel tank. OTOH Toyota already has figured out how to build a safe high pressure hydrogen tank for their Mirai (IMHO they went a little bit overboard by making it -litterally- bullet proof) so either way storing the hydrogen is solved. It all comes down to operational costs.To take a car 100km you'll need 1kg of hydrogen. That translates to 25 liters of liquid per 100km. 500km of range would translate to 125 liters. Say that is 150kg to round it up. An EV would need 125kWh to cover 500km which translates to a battery with a mass of over 400kg.
Ahhh, except you neglected to factor in the containment vessel required to actually hold said hydrogen in the vehicle...
This is where it becomes increasingly impractical.
Zinc air is being designed for grid storage, the energy density for a portable optimized design wouldn't really be comparable. Theoretical energy density leaves plenty of room for improvement.For grid storage it would be interesting but the batteries will need to be really really cheap and be able to endure 50k cycles or more to become cost effective. Something Lithium battery technology is unlikely to achieve.
[...] Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. [...]
Same here. AFAIK someone already debunked Doug's numbers earlier on in this thread.[...] Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. [...]
For the third time Doug, please, where is that video? Have you got the url?
Store solar energy in the day and then when you need it on peak demand use the batteries. People do this all the time.
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
The soloution to what exactly?
Please make the answer a realistic one and not some green washed flawed rubbish theory.
I think george80 was looking for a more general solution than one that only works in one of the small number of places where a high level of insolation is guaranteed every day of the entire year.Store solar energy in the day and then when you need it on peak demand use the batteries. People do this all the time.
The solution is to have batteries with you solar system.
The soloution to what exactly?
Please make the answer a realistic one and not some green washed flawed rubbish theory.
Why are you insulting me?
This stuff is commercially available.
https://solartechonline.com/home-energy-storage/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA-8PjBRCWARIsADc18TI1WHTceCCSdr0U6Jt1fFtotZRiXxGmFRnT2b39E3_6pyret-VBwHMaAgvtEALw_wcB
Same here. AFAIK someone already debunked Doug's numbers earlier on in this thread.[...] Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. [...]
For the third time Doug, please, where is that video? Have you got the url?
No, the idea behind keeping hydrogen in a liquid is that you can keep it in a regular thin walled fuel tank. OTOH Toyota already has figured out how to build a safe high pressure hydrogen tank for their Mirai (IMHO they went a little bit overboard by making it -litterally- bullet proof) so either way storing the hydrogen is solved. It all comes down to operational costs.To take a car 100km you'll need 1kg of hydrogen. That translates to 25 liters of liquid per 100km. 500km of range would translate to 125 liters. Say that is 150kg to round it up. An EV would need 125kWh to cover 500km which translates to a battery with a mass of over 400kg.
Ahhh, except you neglected to factor in the containment vessel required to actually hold said hydrogen in the vehicle...
This is where it becomes increasingly impractical.
One would be a fool to buy batteries.
THAT is the correct/ logical/ realistic/ truthful answer.
And the only one.
We don't have such a beneficial power pricing scheme in Oz but no matter where you are in the world from what I have seen, there is NO where in the world batteries make any sense right now nor will do for the forseeable future.
The price would have to be about 1/3rd of what they are now to get in the ball park no matter what you pay for power.
Some places have batterys than others but where the batterys are cheaper the power is too canceling out any ROI advantage.
I have seen all sorts of convoluted, complicated and green washed calculations to try and prove otherwise but the equations is very simple.
At 100% utilization 100% of the time, they simply cannot save enough power for it's value to repay it's cost in a valid time frame being the lifetime of the battery. The exception maybe a DIY system using forklift packs or the like but certainly no Powerbore or similar plug and play type battery has any valid Financial benefit.
Oh yeah, we can spin doctor the argument as well and say I bought one for blackout power which,
1. is still not saving power and is a totaly different scenario, and,
2, You are a fool for paying far too much for an overpriced solution when there are far better and cheaper alternatives.
If you buy a battery to "save the environment", Well I won't nominate fitting and applicable names but lets just say you are either a product or sucker of the PC greenwashed.
I bought 3 Diesel engines this week and 2 Generator heads. All working or brand new. $300 all up. One needs a new belt, the other would need the head and the engine mounted and hooked up. Lets play devils advocate and call it $200 to make a nice Figure of $500. Where a battery lasts hours, I can run everything and lot more than a battery can till the cows come home..... in 6 months time. And I still have a spare engine.
Another reason not to use batteries is the heat loss. Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. That's like going to the bank and opening a savings account. For every dollar you put in the bank, the bank gives you $0.60 back. (The other $0.40 is used to heat the bank.)
No, the idea behind keeping hydrogen in a liquid is that you can keep it in a regular thin walled fuel tank. OTOH Toyota already has figured out how to build a safe high pressure hydrogen tank for their Mirai (IMHO they went a little bit overboard by making it -litterally- bullet proof) so either way storing the hydrogen is solved. It all comes down to operational costs.Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and others have all figured out how to make a hydrogen tank for a car, but I don't think any of them consider it a solved problem. The costs are horrendous, and the performance of valves, and other fittings, with the small size of hydrogen molecules, is problematic. The size and weight of the current tanks are also an issue.
The wholesale rate for electricity credits in San Diego, CA is .04162 $/kW-hr in Feb of 2019. Last summer it was .034. The peak demand rate in the summer is .6 $/kW-hr. That's between 6 and 9 pm.
I don't know how the economics works on this but it is not net metering.
[...] Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. [...]
For the third time Doug, please, where is that video? Have you got the url?
The wholesale rate for electricity credits in San Diego, CA is .04162 $/kW-hr in Feb of 2019. Last summer it was .034. The peak demand rate in the summer is .6 $/kW-hr. That's between 6 and 9 pm.
I don't know how the economics works on this but it is not net metering.
San Diego has net metering and your rates from what I understand is close to PG&E. You are able to sell electricity to the power company when rates are high and buy the electricty back the same day when rates are lower. Get on the “right” rate plan and there is a 400% spread between what you sell and buy electricity at.
Lithium batteries are better than 20%. But they are not 100% efficient.
But only if you use them at sub-optimal charging / discharging conditions. Say you have a 150V lead acid bank with 200Ah capacity. At C/20 you can draw 10A (1500W) from it without degrading the rated capacity.[...] Dave a few years ago made a video on the heat loss with lead acid batteries. During charging 20% of the electricity used to charge the battery is lost as heat. When discharging there's a 20% loss to heat. So between charging and discharging one loses 40% to heat. [...]
For the third time Doug, please, where is that video? Have you got the url?
Turns out it is even worse than what Dave state’s in his videos. Lead Acid batteries can loose up to 50% in heat loss due to Peukert”s law.
https://www.powertechsystems.eu/home/tech-corner/lead-acid-battery-downsides/ (https://www.powertechsystems.eu/home/tech-corner/lead-acid-battery-downsides/)
Here in BC the fuel costs of a BEV are 1/7th that of the compatible ICE (given today's electricity/gasoline price), so the incentive is pretty high.
I'd like to see real world verifyable figures to support that.
I've posted it here on a couple of occasions, but here we go again; VW eGolf vs VW Golf (Canadian spec).
eGolf: 17.4kWh/100km (this matches up pretty well with my real-world from the socket numbers https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363))
Golf: 8.5l/100km (automatic combined city/highway per NRC CAN reports https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002))
Price of electricity: $0.0884/kWh + 5% rate rider + 5%GST = $0.0975/kWh (https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html (https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html))
Price of gasoline: $1.379/l (https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/British%20Columbia/New%20Westminster (https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/British%20Columbia/New%20Westminster))
100km on electricity: 17.4 * 0.0975 = $1.70
100km on gasoline: 8.5 * 1.379 = $11.72
6.9x times more expensive on gasoline
100km on electricity: 17.4 * 0.0975 = $1.70
100km on gasoline: 8.5 * 1.379 = $11.72
6.9x times more expensive on gasoline
So, I'll stick to my 1/7th number (as gasoline has ranged from 1.269 to 1.559 in the last 6 months)
I've posted it here on a couple of occasions, but here we go again; VW eGolf vs VW Golf (Canadian spec).
eGolf: 17.4kWh/100km (this matches up pretty well with my real-world from the socket numbers https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363))
Golf: 8.5l/100km (automatic combined city/highway per NRC CAN reports https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002))
Price of electricity: $0.0884/kWh + 5% rate rider + 5%GST = $0.0975/kWh (https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html (https://app.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html))
Price of gasoline: $1.379/l (https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/British%20Columbia/New%20Westminster (https://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPrices/British%20Columbia/New%20Westminster))
100km on electricity: 17.4 * 0.0975 = $1.70
100km on gasoline: 8.5 * 1.379 = $11.72
6.9x times more expensive on gasoline
What are the numbers once you just look at the energy cost and remove all the road taxes that are currently only applied to gasoline vehicles and are not yet charged on electric vehicles?
Wow, $1.379 in B.C. right now. Oof... It's $0.879 here in Calgary.
100km on electricity: 17.4 * 0.0975 = $1.70
100km on gasoline: 8.5 * 1.379 = $11.72
6.9x times more expensive on gasoline
So, I'll stick to my 1/7th number (as gasoline has ranged from 1.269 to 1.559 in the last 6 months)
I can provide a comparison from germany. I drive my EV now since more than a year, my daily commute is 140km (87miles). The sum over the year is 30.000km (18.600 miles).
Hyundai Ioniq: 14kWh/100 * 0,25€ * 30.000km = 1050€
Mercedes C-Class (diesel): 7L/100 * 1,35€ * 30.000km = 2835€
Diesel fuel is 2,7x times more expensive.
Other costs also count: No tax for the electric car (240€ a year). Maintenance and service costs is 600€ less for the EV.
Over the year the EV is 2625€ cheaper (2977 USD or 3910 CAD).
That is a difference of 218€ a month (247 USD or 325 CAD) :-+
I suspect the Ioniq number is a bit low (if that's what the car reports, there's probably another 2kWh/100km lost in charging), but still it shows that it can work in a large European country.
Note that you are comparing a very inefficient diesel car here. Also you are not factoring in the higher purchase price of the EV (and if you borrowed money the extra interest). So it isn't a real apples to apples comparison. I'm not quite sure you are actually saving money compared to buying an efficient ICE car if you look at the full picture.100km on electricity: 17.4 * 0.0975 = $1.70I can provide a comparison from germany. I drive my EV now since more than a year, my daily commute is 140km (87miles). The sum over the year is 30.000km (18.600 miles).
100km on gasoline: 8.5 * 1.379 = $11.72
6.9x times more expensive on gasoline
So, I'll stick to my 1/7th number (as gasoline has ranged from 1.269 to 1.559 in the last 6 months)
Hyundai Ioniq: 14kWh/100 * 0,25€ * 30.000km = 1050€
Mercedes C-Class (diesel): 7L/100 * 1,35€ * 30.000km = 2835€
Diesel fuel is 2,7x times more expensive.
Other costs also count: No tax for the electric car (240€ a year). Maintenance and service costs is 600€ less for the EV.
Over the year the EV is 2625€ cheaper (2977 USD or 3910 CAD).
That is a difference of 218€ a month (247 USD or 325 CAD) :-+
I'm not quite sure you are actually saving money compared to buying an efficient ICE car if you look at the full picture.
The wholesale rate for electricity credits in San Diego, CA is .04162 $/kW-hr in Feb of 2019. Last summer it was .034. The peak demand rate in the summer is .6 $/kW-hr. That's between 6 and 9 pm.
I don't know how the economics works on this but it is not net metering.
San Diego has net metering and your rates from what I understand is close to PG&E. You are able to sell electricity to the power company when rates are high and buy the electricty back the same day when rates are lower. Get on the “right” rate plan and there is a 400% spread between what you sell and buy electricity at.
That's not true. For some reason the links I posted did not show up? This link is from SDGE with a list of the credit you get for excess energy production. This varies with time so this is historical but includes this month.
https://www.sdge.com/residential/savings-center/solar-power-renewable-energy/net-energy-metering/billing-information/excess-generation (https://www.sdge.com/residential/savings-center/solar-power-renewable-energy/net-energy-metering/billing-information/excess-generation)
Andy
Store solar energy in the day and then when you need it on peak demand use the batteries. People do this all the time.
Why are you insulting me?
This stuff is commercially available.
Turns out it is even worse than what Dave state’s in his videos. Lead Acid batteries can loose up to 50% in heat loss due to Peukert”s law.
I've posted it here on a couple of occasions, but here we go again; VW eGolf vs VW Golf (Canadian spec).
eGolf: 17.4kWh/100km (this matches up pretty well with my real-world from the socket numbers https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363))
Golf: 8.5l/100km (automatic combined city/highway per NRC CAN reports https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002))
5) You picked a gas guzziling version of the car. -- I picked the equivalent. Diesel versions are not available in North America
6) You're not comparing apples to apples -- Don't know how much closer you can get comparing a gasoline vs the electric version of basically the same car.
The quiet and smoothness were just added benefits I hadn't considered when I bought it,
I've posted it here on a couple of occasions, but here we go again; VW eGolf vs VW Golf (Canadian spec).
eGolf: 17.4kWh/100km (this matches up pretty well with my real-world from the socket numbers https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363))
Golf: 8.5l/100km (automatic combined city/highway per NRC CAN reports https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21002))
5) You picked a gas guzziling version of the car. -- I picked the equivalent. Diesel versions are not available in North America
6) You're not comparing apples to apples -- Don't know how much closer you can get comparing a gasoline vs the electric version of basically the same car.
Yeah well sorry but while this may be a one off instance, I would say it's not applicable to a lot of people around the world for a number of reasons.
1. You picked a car which is unusually economical on power and rather thirsty for it's size in the petrol Version.
If I look at the list of cars on the ling you provided, 25-30 Kwh / 100 Km would be far more indicative of the great majority of vehicles on that list.
Secondly, the petrol version is thirsty. We have full size 6 Cyl family cars that get better mileage than that. Look at the jap offerings like camrys that are sold the world over and are a much bigger car and they leave that consumption behind.
3. What does an e golf and a gas golf cost where you are? From what I can see, the petrol golf is $21 K and the E golf is 31K.eGolf is about C$36k, Petrol version similarly equipped about $25k
based on your numbers, that means the first 7400L of fuel are relatively free in the petrol version over the savings over the electric. Multiply that by the said 8.5L 100 and that translates to 63,000 KM paid for.
Of course then you have to take into account interest paid or lost on the $10K difference and what I would guarantee will be a Huge hit on resale value of the electric once all these newer, cheaper electrics come out over the next 4-5 Years when one might be looking to replace the EV. Come the 7-10 Yr mark and you will have to as battery capacity on the EV will be round the block if there is not some " Protection" built into the thing that will let it run at all. 10 years out of a modern Ice car is nothing.
See, I predicted this, you just don't believe published facts, do you.
Get IN a modern IC and you can't feel OR hear the engine. Yes the EV -may- be quieter on the outside but there is no difference on the inside. The EV evangelists would have you believe IC's are like driving down the road in a tracked Dozer. Modern IC engines are smooth, balanced and have had tens of Millions spent on them to reduce NVH to levels only machines can measure.I have to agree with this. Over a decade ago I drove a Renault Megane diesel a few times and I couldn't hear the engine at all. I had to look at the RPM gauge to see if the engine was running. If you want a quiet car you can also spend the extra money on a more luxureous and thus quieter one.
The FAR greatest NVH now does not come from the engine at all, it comes from the ROAD. And electrics are no more smoother than any other car when driving on the same road and anyone that says different is full of ship!
If you want a quiet car you can also spend the extra money on a more luxureous and thus quieter one.
Electric cars are already cheaper to own and run than petrol or diesel alternatives in five European countries analysed in new research.But the article doesn't show the actual numbers and 4 years is a very short period to own a car. This graph is based on cherry picked numbers. The fact that a diesel car is shown as most expensive is a dead giveaway. Diesel cars are generally bought by people who drive long distances and get a lower TCO due to cheaper fuel. A car with a diesel engine usually costs more to buy and the owner must pay more for road taxes. If you only drive short distances then a diesel car will be more expensive to own versus gas/petrol.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study)
Electric cars are already cheaper to own and run than petrol or diesel alternatives in five European countries analysed in new research.
Electric cars are already cheaper to own and run than petrol or diesel alternatives in five European countries analysed in new research.Their numbers say that the most expensive option to own in all five countries is the diesel version of the car. I'd really like to see how they derive numbers that put diesel costs above petrol. I assume they are using a usage model that consists entirely of short journeys, with a low total annual mileage. The reality is that the relative costs of cars with different drive trains varies considerably with usage patterns, so showing just one set of costs is not analysis. Its pushing an agenda.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study)
BTW has anyone noticed Toyota has been awfully quiet about electric cars? After some Googling it seems Toyota wants better batteries before they are going to produce any serious amount of electrics cars and China will be their primary market for electric cars. Toyota seems to be fully focussed on hybrid and hydrogen for the rest of the world.You need to follow the news more. In the last year or so there were big, but inaccurate, news reports about solid state batteries coming from Toyota real soon now. There were less reported corrections that Toyota is talking about 10 years to have these batteries in volume production, and their announcement was only about interesting research results. There were announcements about Toyota taking EVs with current generation batteries much more seriously for near term EV releases, especially since the China market is demanding EVs. The other Japanese car makers are also getting serious about EVs for the same China market requirements. Toyota also made some announcements backing off from hydrogen powered cars being viable as a mass market product.
If you want a quiet car you can also spend the extra money on a more luxureous and thus quieter one.
Exactly.
Other car I occasionally Pilot when I have to is a '17 Mercedes GLA 250.
Would challenge anyone to get in that and the EV of their choice blindfolded, go for a drive down the same roads and then tell me which one they were in.
I'd also like to see the readouts of a NVH meter in both cars recording the same journey and compare results. I'll bet my backside the merc would give a better, quieter and more comfortable ride, especially over poorer roads , than any EV of the same value which will all be entry level things like leafs and the like.
Interesting videos on the Tesloop video channel.Those guys seem to have gone through a large number of replacement motors, due to bearing failure.
They run Teslas's from California to Las Vegas non stop, up to 17 000 miles a month.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hGVljyQQJY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hGVljyQQJY)
It is short, but it shows that a bit of battery management goes a long way, that there are some rare dud batteries, etc.
Tesloop has 8 of the 10 highest mileage Teslas, supercharge up to 4 times a day and run them as fast as possible... So they can be considered the unofficial accelerated ageing testing program of Tesla.
VW Golfs are known for their stiff ride (I've driven a few models) so I can't imagine how the ride can be better compared to a Mercedes (unless you had a sporty or very cheap Mercedes with a stiff suspension).
Wasn't that a recall item on early model S's?Interesting videos on the Tesloop video channel.Those guys seem to have gone through a large number of replacement motors, due to bearing failure.
They run Teslas's from California to Las Vegas non stop, up to 17 000 miles a month.
It is short, but it shows that a bit of battery management goes a long way, that there are some rare dud batteries, etc.
Tesloop has 8 of the 10 highest mileage Teslas, supercharge up to 4 times a day and run them as fast as possible... So they can be considered the unofficial accelerated ageing testing program of Tesla.
Sorry but you can't make such brush statements. It depends entirely on the ICE vehicle. The more luxureous ones have extra dampening between the drive train mounts / axles mounts and a double wall between the engine compartment and the interiour of the car. The problem I see is that most people who seem to think an EV is quieter compared to an ICE car have never driven a luxureous ICE car.VW Golfs are known for their stiff ride (I've driven a few models) so I can't imagine how the ride can be better compared to a Mercedes (unless you had a sporty or very cheap Mercedes with a stiff suspension).Noise from the engine at highway speeds is quite high in the cabin of IC vehicles. Also, wind turbulence below the hood adds additional noise on the other side of the firewall. No grille for cooling air on most EVs.
There was a recall on early model S cars, where the motors failed at 40k miles or so, due to eddy currents in the bearings. If you look through the videos from Tesloop it seems they continue to get failures with the revised motors.Wasn't that a recall item on early model S's?Interesting videos on the Tesloop video channel.Those guys seem to have gone through a large number of replacement motors, due to bearing failure.
They run Teslas's from California to Las Vegas non stop, up to 17 000 miles a month.
It is short, but it shows that a bit of battery management goes a long way, that there are some rare dud batteries, etc.
Tesloop has 8 of the 10 highest mileage Teslas, supercharge up to 4 times a day and run them as fast as possible... So they can be considered the unofficial accelerated ageing testing program of Tesla.
Thanks, will do. I want to see their failure mode.There was a recall on early model S cars, where the motors failed at 40k miles or so, due to eddy currents in the bearings. If you look through the videos from Tesloop it seems they continue to get failures with the revised motors.Wasn't that a recall item on early model S's?Interesting videos on the Tesloop video channel.Those guys seem to have gone through a large number of replacement motors, due to bearing failure.
They run Teslas's from California to Las Vegas non stop, up to 17 000 miles a month.
It is short, but it shows that a bit of battery management goes a long way, that there are some rare dud batteries, etc.
Tesloop has 8 of the 10 highest mileage Teslas, supercharge up to 4 times a day and run them as fast as possible... So they can be considered the unofficial accelerated ageing testing program of Tesla.
Funny you should say that. I traded in my Merc for my eGolf. No contest on how much smoother the eGolf is.
Noise from the engine at highway speeds is quite high in the cabin of IC vehicles.
Also, wind turbulence below the hood adds additional noise on the other side of the firewall.That may be true but I can't hear what is 6 ft in front of me in any relatively modern car through the sound deadening. Where my father lives, if the wind is blowing right you can hear the cars on the distant highway. You never hear engines or wind noise, it's always the sound of the tyres on the road. If it's raining, you can always hear the sound of the tyres on the wet road much louder.
No grille for cooling air on most EVs.
Manufacturers of electric cars know that tire noise is the loudest contributor to NVH in their vehicles. Therefore tires are carefully selected and certain compromises are made in performance, durability and price to meet noise targets that OEMs are setting for EVs. For example, the Tesla's were shipping with Goodyear Eagle Touring, 245/45R19, all-season Grand Touring category, with sound reduction foam.
Electric cars are already cheaper to own and run than petrol or diesel alternatives in five European countries analysed in new research.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study)
Did you notice the mention of subsidies for electric cars?
I wonder if the subsidies were eliminated and the comparison was made just an operating the vehicles if the outcome would be the same?
This allows us to buy electricity at a cheaper rate not only for our car but our entire house. If we did not have an EV car our electric bill would be $35 to $75 more per month.
This allows us to buy electricity at a cheaper rate not only for our car but our entire house. If we did not have an EV car our electric bill would be $35 to $75 more per month.
Far out!
California really is greenwashed fairy LA LA land. I can see why my mate is desperate to get out the place!
Not only do people have to subsidize someone elses car, they have to subsidize their living expenses as well!
What sort of fked up thinking is that??
Just goes to show the inconsistency of the green mentality that dosen't know what they want. I was just reading a discussion where the local green zealots were whining that people with solar panels should pay more for the power they do use or a monthly additional charge because it's not fair to the people that don't have them to have to pay more for the upkeep of the poles and wires.
Imagine if they had to pay more towards other people power bills when they were already paying towards the cars they Drove.
There would be a riot and for once, Rightfully so.
I thought our Pollies and policy makers had some stupid ideas but that takes the cake!
Most noise from ICEs these days are from the tires icw the road quality.
How I know? I live in the south of the Netherlands and I occasionally travel to the south into Belgium.
The roads there date from WW2, concrete platters with a tiny amount of asphalt on it.
If I drive 130km/h (80 mph) in the Netherlands I can listen to the radio at volume setting 12 without issue.
When I cross the border I have to slow down to 120km/h (75mph) I have to put the radio to setting 22 and still have issues listening.
Now I did not compare both settings with a dB meter but my guess is that it is easy twice the volume.
It would be interesting to see how much your mileage drops when you are on the Belgium roads due to louder tire noise.Probably evens out due to the speed drop.
It is more complicated than that. First you need to figure out what causes more losses: friction or noise and whether a low friction tyre makes more or less noise.
Sorry but your underbelly doesn't do critical thinking very well. My brain however works perfectly fine when it comes to critical thinking and knows that you can't make such bold statements without looking up the numbers first. For example compare the Michelin Energy saver 175/65 R15 84 H and 175/65 R15 88 H. Same size, same noise level but a different fuel consumption.It is more complicated than that. First you need to figure out what causes more losses: friction or noise and whether a low friction tyre makes more or less noise.What you are saying makes no sense. The friction is what is causing the the road noise. Use some critical thinking skills. If there weren’t any friction there would be no road noise but then again the car would not move either. Road noise like the heat an ICE engine or EV motor generates is wasted energy. If the road noise from the tires and road is louder it means more energy is being wasted to make the noise.
Vehicle efficiency has almost nothing to do with noise. People get confused by the hundred of watts coming out of a hi-fi amp, ignoring that speakers are extremely inefficient,. A 100W audio amp probably only results in a watt or two of acoustic output from the speaker. It only takes a few watts of acoustic output from a car to make it quite loud, but those few watts are a drop in the ocean of the car's energy consumption. Tyres come with both acoustic and efficiency ratings these days, and the ones I've looked at do not have a close correlation between quietness and efficiency.It is more complicated than that. First you need to figure out what causes more losses: friction or noise and whether a low friction tyre makes more or less noise.
What you are saying makes no sense. The friction is what is causing the the road noise. Use some critical thinking skills. If there weren’t any friction there would be no road noise but then again the car would not move either. Road noise like the heat an ICE engine or EV motor generates is wasted energy. If the road noise from the tires and road is louder it means more energy is being wasted to make the noise.
Softer tyres make less noise and have more rolling resistance than harder and noisier ones.It is more complicated than that. First you need to figure out what causes more losses: friction or noise and whether a low friction tyre makes more or less noise.
What you are saying makes no sense. The friction is what is causing the the road noise. Use some critical thinking skills. If there weren’t any friction there would be no road noise but then again the car would not move either. Road noise like the heat an ICE engine or EV motor generates is wasted energy. If the road noise from the tires and road is louder it means more energy is being wasted to make the noise.
Softer tyres make less noise and have more rolling resistance than harder and noisier ones.
What you are saying makes no sense. The friction is what is causing the the road noise. Use some critical thinking skills. If there weren’t any friction there would be no road noise but then again the car would not move either. Road noise like the heat an ICE engine or EV motor generates is wasted energy. If the road noise from the tires and road is louder it means more energy is being wasted to make the noise.
Softer tyres make less noise and have more rolling resistance than harder and noisier ones.
This is the first Jaguar to win the award in the Coty's 55 years and a visibly delighted Ian Callum, Jaguar's director of design, received the award from jury president Frank Janssen.
"Wow, was that close or what," said Callum, "thank you very much. I don't understand why people make such a fuss over battery electric cars winning this award though; this is the future. It's a whole new Jaguar on a whole new platform and it's the most exciting car I've ever worked on."
Yep. Mainstream.
Actually all of the energy you put in a car is converted to heat (assuming your start and end point are at the same height).
To you (and -hopefully- most people who paid attention in physics class) but Doug seems to imply the energy goes somewhere else as well.Actually all of the energy you put in a car is converted to heat (assuming your start and end point are at the same height).A Microsoft answer. 100% correct, and totally useless.
Actually all of the energy you put in a car is converted to heat (assuming your start and end point are at the same height).Yes, that's nearly 100% true.
That depends entirely on where the electricity is coming from and I already showed the math many times that it is unlikely an EV being powered of the grid needs less energy compared to an efficient ICE. 8x is stupidly wrong in any case BTW. I can't see why you keep telling these kind of fairy tales. Also nobody cares about efficiency anyway. TCO is what counts and that is where EVs completely suck in the long term (when free charging goes away and the costs of upgrading the infrastructure become clear).QuoteActually all of the energy you put in a car is converted to heat (assuming your start and end point are at the same height).Yes, that's nearly 100% true.
But a gas car needs to convert 8x more energy to heat to be able to travel the same distance as a BEV.
But a gas car needs to convert 8x more energy to heat to be able to travel the same distance as a BEV.
I can't see why you keep telling these kind of fairy tales.
TCO is what counts and that is where EVs completely suck in the long term (when free charging goes away and the costs of upgrading the infrastructure become clear).
To you (and -hopefully- most people who paid attention in physics class) but Doug seems to imply the energy goes somewhere else as well.Actually all of the energy you put in a car is converted to heat (assuming your start and end point are at the same height).A Microsoft answer. 100% correct, and totally useless.
Something else I read the other day was Tesla is no longer providing home chargers with the vehicles.And not just that... there is a whole flurry of electric cars about to hit the market. Who guarantees me that (if I buy one) I can still charge it from a public charging spot 10 years from now? And how about 20 years from now? Will there even be a public charging infrastructure in 10 years or are the EVs which are still around only usefull to those who have a charging space at home and like to have a short distance roundabout? Yes, there is a lot of public charging infrastructure right now but it will need maintenance. If there is no money to be made, it is easy to foresee what will happen when maintenance is required. I already spotted some 'out of order' signs in public parking garages which seem to have been hanging there for a while.
The cost of a charger in the US and having it wired in on a HD circuit is said to be 2 grand. I would imagine in the US thats a significant part of the fuel cost for an average vehicle for a year straight off.
And not just that... there is a whole flurry of electric cars about to hit the market. Who guarantees me that (if I buy one) I can still charge it from a public charging spot 10 years from now? And how about 20 years from now?
Will there even be a public charging infrastructure in 10 years or are the EVs which are still around only usefull to those who have a charging space at home and like to have a short distance roundabout? It will all depend on demand and popularity.
My prediction is like most technology's, there will certainly be an early bun rush particularly due to the over hyping and green washing. Wether they live up to peoples expectations and they take to them after there are enough out there that everyone knows someone that has one, will remain to be seen. There ill be a myriad of problems with the things due to nothing more than human nature and resistance to change to be fair but then the real dislikes and limitations will show up and it will depend on how people take those.
It'd be pretty certain though that if the things do not turn out to be cheaper to run, they will not be looked on favorably.
There is also the thing of cultural preferences. I predict EV's will do far better in some places than others. Power pricing, range and load carrying will be big factors. F-150s if they have these things which will probably have to be the equal if the IC's at least in carrying and towing should be OK if all rural US is now electrified.QuoteAny car you'll buy needs a supporting infrastructure if you want to use it for long distances.
And this is a big sticking point I see as a problem. Charging up hundreds/ thousands of cars at holiday time is going to be a big hurdle.
As our main holidays are in summer time when power is already short, loads of cars all wanting to charge up at once is going to require massive additional power. We are expecting blackouts due to power shortages over the next few summers at least and the worry is there is no planning for an increase in infrastructure to address this. These things take a Minimum of 5 years from planing to first siod being turned so maybe 10 years before anything is in place.
I have been putting in generators and more solar panels but I think I'll start stockpiling them while the things can be had at a reasonable price.
Could be a real good investment for the future to have them in reserve and sell them off as well.
To sum up.
Looking at the article I linked to above, the true fallacy of EV's being cheaper to run comes out:
From this week, the pioneering electric car-maker from California will increase the average price of charging at any of its Australian and New Zealand supercharger stations from $0.35 per kWh to $0.42 per kWh, or 20 per cent.
In reality, the price hikes mean it will cost an additional $5.25 to fully replenish a Tesla Model S with a 75kWh battery (claimed 490km range), or $31.50.
....blahblahblah
If my car was electric and I charged at home on the nightly rate it would cost £0.03/m, I am currently paying £0.15/m in petrol, fact and end of!Using my rates (20p/Kwh) the charge would be £0.10/m vs my diesel at £0.12/m however the capital amortization makes an electric unthinkable for me in addition to the range restriction making it impracticable as an only car.....fact and end of :)
electric apparently uses around 250Wh per mile, the drive train is around 90% efficient. Internal combustion engines as the name suggests make more heat and are more wasteful at 30-40% efficiency. After that you can argue about your tyres or whatever but the differences between an electric drive train and ICE es massive.
electric apparently uses around 250Wh per mile, the drive train is around 90% efficient. Internal combustion engines as the name suggests make more heat and are more wasteful at 30-40% efficiency. After that you can argue about your tyres or whatever but the differences between an electric drive train and ICE es massive.If you'd read the rest of the thread you'd know efficiency isn't important at all. Costs are. But if you insist on comparing efficiencies you must factor in the source of the electricity. And then things turn really ugly.
Overnight we can pay 8-9p/KWh. yes the cost of the fuel is important.But that is likely without taxes and distribution costs. These usually are hidden in the fine print. All in all the difference is too small to make an EV cheaper to run compared to an efficient ICE based car.
Overnight we can pay 8-9p/KWh. yes the cost of the fuel is important.But that is likely without taxes and distribution costs. These usually are hidden in the fine print. All in all the difference is minimal.
electric apparently uses around 250Wh per mile, the drive train is around 90% efficient. Internal combustion engines as the name suggests make more heat and are more wasteful at 30-40% efficiency. After that you can argue about your tyres or whatever but the differences between an electric drive train and ICE es massive.If you'd read the rest of the thread you'd know efficiency isn't important at all. Costs are. But if you insist on comparing efficiencies you must factor in the source of the electricity. And then things turn really ugly.
Also your electicity price seems way to low. I think you forgot to add taxes and distribution costs. According to this graph electricity is even more expensive in the UK compared to the Netherlands:
(http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/35-domestic-electricity-2.png)
From: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ (http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/)
If you do the math with these prices you'll see an EV is on par with the average ICE car when it comes to cost per km IF you charge at home. An efficient ICE will be cheaper to run! If you have to rely on public charging infrastructure then the price per km for the EV will at least double.
In the end it is all about costs.
Just check your bill. I'm paying around 23 eurocents (17p) per kWh (which is about average for the NL) and all lists I can find show electricity is more expensive in the UK. Something isn't right.
So you are not paying 8p per kWh then and get electricity for free out of thin air? Who is peddaling BS here?Just check your bill. I'm paying around 23 eurocents (17p) per kWh (which is about average for the NL) and all lists I can find show electricity is more expensive in the UK. Something isn't right.
I pay 18p/KWh because I use a more expensive supplier (my choice), i know what i pay. You are just peddaling BS to make a non argument. Infact i pay way less than that because I generate my own anyway and once the cost went over 12p/KWh the battery systems become viable. Daily connection charges which you will pay anyway because your house needs power anyway are under 20p/day.
According to this graph electricity is even more expensive in the UK compared to the Netherlands:That website looks like a pro-oil blog, or at least not particularly reliable, so I wouldn't trust that graph.
<snip>
From: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ (http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/)
It is a random pick from Google which at least had some recent data. There are probably other (even more recent) graphs out there but I doubt they will show something different.According to this graph electricity is even more expensive in the UK compared to the Netherlands:That website looks like a pro-oil blog, or at least not particularly reliable, so I wouldn't trust that graph.
<snip>
From: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ (http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/)
So you are not paying 8p per kWh then and get electricity for free out of thin air? Who is peddaling BS here?Just check your bill. I'm paying around 23 eurocents (17p) per kWh (which is about average for the NL) and all lists I can find show electricity is more expensive in the UK. Something isn't right.
I pay 18p/KWh because I use a more expensive supplier (my choice), i know what i pay. You are just peddaling BS to make a non argument. Infact i pay way less than that because I generate my own anyway and once the cost went over 12p/KWh the battery systems become viable. Daily connection charges which you will pay anyway because your house needs power anyway are under 20p/day.
Show use how your battery system can be cost effective at that price point. I ran some numbers on Tesla's powerwall and came to the conclusion that it costs around 30 eurocents to store 1kWh in it.
It is a random pick from Google which at least had some recent data. There are probably other (even more recent) graphs out there but I doubt they will show something different.According to this graph electricity is even more expensive in the UK compared to the Netherlands:That website looks like a pro-oil blog, or at least not particularly reliable, so I wouldn't trust that graph.
<snip>
From: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ (http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/)
You are telling me that I am lying about the price of electricity in the UK. I told you that you can use the internet properly and go and look at the prices of a UK energy supplier! but ypou are too lazy and "what you found on the internet" conveniently suits your narrative. Same old tactics used by certain politicians!Putting up a smoke screen by name calling isn't a very good tactic to make a good argument for your case. Not saying you are lying. I'm just saying that I'm missing the numbers which back your claim.
I don't know where you are buying your electricity from Simon, I am also in the UK (Norfolk) and use Ebico one of the cheapest available and its 20p/Kwh FACT! If I chose a dual tariff for cheaper overnight charging my daytime costs rise in proportion so I save nothing. Alternatively I could go for a standing charge free tariff that gives me a lower cost per Kwh but then I would have to use an awful lot of Kwh to get back to square one.Just check your bill. I'm paying around 23 eurocents (17p) per kWh (which is about average for the NL) and all lists I can find show electricity is more expensive in the UK. Something isn't right.I pay 18p/KWh because I use a more expensive supplier (my choice), i know what i pay. You are just peddaling BS to make a non argument. Infact i pay way less than that because I generate my own anyway and once the cost went over 12p/KWh the battery systems become viable. Daily connection charges which you will pay anyway because your house needs power anyway are under 20p/day.
I don't know where you are buying your electricity from Simon, I am also in the UK (Norfolk) and use Ebico one of the cheapest available and its 20p/Kwh FACT! If I chose a dual tariff for cheaper overnight charging my daytime costs rise in proportion so I save nothing. Alternatively I could go for a standing charge free tariff that gives me a lower cost per Kwh but then I would have to use an awful lot of Kwh to get back to square one.Just check your bill. I'm paying around 23 eurocents (17p) per kWh (which is about average for the NL) and all lists I can find show electricity is more expensive in the UK. Something isn't right.I pay 18p/KWh because I use a more expensive supplier (my choice), i know what i pay. You are just peddaling BS to make a non argument. Infact i pay way less than that because I generate my own anyway and once the cost went over 12p/KWh the battery systems become viable. Daily connection charges which you will pay anyway because your house needs power anyway are under 20p/day.
There is no point in quoting unrealistically low electricity prices the same as there is no point in quoting manufacturers consumption/efficiency figures as most of us have long learnt to ignore them!
You are telling me that I am lying about the price of electricity in the UK. I told you that you can use the internet properly and go and look at the prices of a UK energy supplier! but ypou are too lazy and "what you found on the internet" conveniently suits your narrative. Same old tactics used by certain politicians!Perhaps you could post your evidence including taxes to get a step further instead of rejecting the other parties quotes ?
You are telling me that I am lying about the price of electricity in the UK. I told you that you can use the internet properly and go and look at the prices of a UK energy supplier! but ypou are too lazy and "what you found on the internet" conveniently suits your narrative. Same old tactics used by certain politicians!Perhaps you could post your evidence including taxes to get a step further instead of rejecting the other parties quotes ?
BTW, I find your use of language in the last couple of posts not suiting your status of a moderator Simon, I will R2M to Dave because this is really setting the wrong tone IMO.
How do I read this then ? For electricity it says 44kWh 17 pounds that would be 38p / kWh. ?His statement shows you the price per kWh - 17.42 pence + 5% VAT. His final bill looks high because he uses very little electricity, so his daily 27.75p + 5% VAT standing charge really biases the final bill up. For people who use a more typical amount of electricity, the daily standing charge wouldn't distort things so much
It says 17p per kWh and a standing charge of 27p
Aren't you looking at the gas price instead of electricity?
No, I am calling a liar a liar! nctnico is a liar! fact. He has repeatedly stated that what he says is correct despite me explaining that his prices are wrong ond i know they are because I pay for electricity in the UK! He has refused to say he is wrong and took a long time to drop the matter after many challenges and his excuse is that he found this data on the internet. We know what misinformation breeds and it will not be tolerated here!
Part of my bill, and as I said I am using an expensive supplier.Sorry but I'm still waiting to see the 8p/kWh number... and while you are at it: how & where that applies. Perhaps only for people (like Boffin) living near a hydro plant so transportation costs and CO2 taxes are near zero.
Part of my bill, and as I said I am using an expensive supplier.Sorry but I'm still waiting to see the 8p/kWh number... and while you are at it: how & where that applies. Perhaps only for people (like Boffin) living near a hydro plant so transportation costs and CO2 taxes are near zero.
Standing charges are irrilevant here. We are talking about the price of electricity to charge a car. You already have your house connected to the grid and have to pay the standing charge before you worry about an electric car.Sorry I disagree, the standing charge is part of the cost of energy and if you are paying it separately should be accounted for by adding it to the cost per Kwh. If you choose a tariff like me without standing charge then it is not true to say it was present before I started charging a car. The choice of tariff style (with/without standing charge) comes down to how much energy you use, my style is energy saving hence it is cheaper for me to do without the standing charge.
Rarely is it that a tariff has no charge.
If your standard is a random pick from the internet you can find a graph that proves anything you want. Even if something is technically correct it can still be just as misleading as a lie. (It might be the truth, noting but the truth, but not quite the whole truth).It is a random pick from Google which at least had some recent data. There are probably other (even more recent) graphs out there but I doubt they will show something different.According to this graph electricity is even more expensive in the UK compared to the Netherlands:That website looks like a pro-oil blog, or at least not particularly reliable, so I wouldn't trust that graph.
<snip>
From: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ (http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/)
Ofcourse I check if there is a valid source, the data is consistent with other sources and the data is recent. The graph I linked to earlier met all those criteria. That should go without saying. There is no use to show & link to numbers which cannot be backed up with solid statistics. Again, feel free to contest the validity of the data with another source. I'm very confident it will say the same because the graph is consistent with other data (in this case electricity prices across Europe) I have seen elsewhere. It is a random pick in a sense that it depends on what Google decides to put in the first 100 results when looking for a graph.If your standard is a random pick from the internet you can find a graph that proves anything you want. Even if something is technically correct it can still be just as misleading as a lie. (It might be the truth, noting but the truth, but not quite the whole truth).It is a random pick from Google which at least had some recent data. There are probably other (even more recent) graphs out there but I doubt they will show something different.According to this graph electricity is even more expensive in the UK compared to the Netherlands:That website looks like a pro-oil blog, or at least not particularly reliable, so I wouldn't trust that graph.
<snip>
From: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ (http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/)
Loving the insanity here. For those that think Simon is lying, here's a UK power quote for not far from where I previously lived.Thanks for clarifying without drama. But where is that? Can everyone in the UK get this tarif? What are the conditions?
just under 18p day rate and just over 8p night rate.
Loving the insanity here. For those that think Simon is lying, here's a UK power quote for not far from where I previously lived.Thanks for clarifying without drama. But where is that? Can everyone in the UK get this tarif? What are the conditions?
just under 18p day rate and just over 8p night rate.
Edit: It seems SSE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Hydro_Electric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Hydro_Electric)) has a lot of genering capacity from hydro power. So my assumption that this rate is for hydro power which makes the electricity cheap turns out to be correct.
Why would off peak be current limited?
One thing I noticed when researching plans here ( Effing " Plans", who came up with that BS??) is that nearly every billing scam with a solar feed in is single rate. IE, NO Off peak. You are screwed over for the same rate anytime you use power.
They giveth with one hand and tear back with the other. The ones that do have off peak, if you dig hard enough to find them, have a much lower feed in rate for solar. They make effort to Fk you over either way.
A hidden cost of EV charging. By being able to charge at a lower rate at night, your solar generated power going back to the grid when the car is at work or out with you during the day would loose money over what it would with a single rate when you could heat the hot water and run the pool pump during the day using your own power.
It's a hidden cost that won't show up on any bill ( how convenient for the power cos) but you will be paying none the less.
The story is never as simple and straight forward as it appears.
No, I looked at an address in London. It would have been easy for Simon to just show the numbers like you did. Yet I don't quite get why I can't get the low rates you write about in London. As I wrote before: there is no use to cherry pick the highest numbers in a discussion and neither is cherry picking the lowest numbers.
No, I looked at an address in London. It would have been easy for Simon to just show the numbers like you did. Yet I don't quite get why I can't get the low rates you write about in London. As I wrote before: there is no use to cherry pick the highest numbers in a discussion and neither is cherry picking the lowest numbers.
Not so in the US.
No, I am calling a liar a liar! nctnico is a liar! fact. He has repeatedly stated that what he says is correct despite me explaining that his prices are wrong ond i know they are because I pay for electricity in the UK! He has refused to say he is wrong and took a long time to drop the matter after many challenges and his excuse is that he found this data on the internet. We know what misinformation breeds and it will not be tolerated here!Sounds rantish to me.
That's not correct in San Diego. They will buy it back at wholesale rates.
One thing I noticed when researching plans here ( Effing " Plans", who came up with that BS??) is that nearly every billing scam with a solar feed in is single rate. IE, NO Off peak. You are screwed over for the same rate anytime you use power.
They giveth with one hand and tear back with the other. The ones that do have off peak, if you dig hard enough to find them, have a much lower feed in rate for solar. They make effort to Fk you over either way.
A hidden cost of EV charging. By being able to charge at a lower rate at night, your solar generated power going back to the grid when the car is at work or out with you during the day would loose money over what it would with a single rate when you could heat the hot water and run the pool pump during the day using your own power.
It's a hidden cost that won't show up on any bill ( how convenient for the power cos) but you will be paying none the less.
The story is never as simple and straight forward as it appears.
Not so in the US. We get to "sell" power to the power at peak times and buy the electricity back the same day for 400% less. But there is a catch.... If at the end of the year we have any energy credit dollars, we have to give those kWhrs/energy credit dollars to the power company for free.
That's not correct in San Diego. They will buy it back at wholesale rates.
One thing I noticed when researching plans here ( Effing " Plans", who came up with that BS??) is that nearly every billing scam with a solar feed in is single rate. IE, NO Off peak. You are screwed over for the same rate anytime you use power.
They giveth with one hand and tear back with the other. The ones that do have off peak, if you dig hard enough to find them, have a much lower feed in rate for solar. They make effort to Fk you over either way.
A hidden cost of EV charging. By being able to charge at a lower rate at night, your solar generated power going back to the grid when the car is at work or out with you during the day would loose money over what it would with a single rate when you could heat the hot water and run the pool pump during the day using your own power.
It's a hidden cost that won't show up on any bill ( how convenient for the power cos) but you will be paying none the less.
The story is never as simple and straight forward as it appears.
Not so in the US. We get to "sell" power to the power at peak times and buy the electricity back the same day for 400% less. But there is a catch.... If at the end of the year we have any energy credit dollars, we have to give those kWhrs/energy credit dollars to the power company for free.
That's not available in San Diego. There are some people with Solar that are grandfathered in for that for 5 years. A friend of mine has that.That's not correct in San Diego. They will buy it back at wholesale rates.
One thing I noticed when researching plans here ( Effing " Plans", who came up with that BS??) is that nearly every billing scam with a solar feed in is single rate. IE, NO Off peak. You are screwed over for the same rate anytime you use power.
They giveth with one hand and tear back with the other. The ones that do have off peak, if you dig hard enough to find them, have a much lower feed in rate for solar. They make effort to Fk you over either way.
A hidden cost of EV charging. By being able to charge at a lower rate at night, your solar generated power going back to the grid when the car is at work or out with you during the day would loose money over what it would with a single rate when you could heat the hot water and run the pool pump during the day using your own power.
It's a hidden cost that won't show up on any bill ( how convenient for the power cos) but you will be paying none the less.
The story is never as simple and straight forward as it appears.
Not so in the US. We get to "sell" power to the power at peak times and buy the electricity back the same day for 400% less. But there is a catch.... If at the end of the year we have any energy credit dollars, we have to give those kWhrs/energy credit dollars to the power company for free.
So can you even trade kWhrs? If you have an extra one can you "loan" it to the San Diego power company until you need it say at night? Some of PG&E rate plans are like that. (PG&E has 9 different residential rate plans.) The newest rate plans have PG&E buying extra electricity from residential customers at the current (meaning time of day) retail rate. Meaning during mid-day if I have one extra kWhr I can sell it to PG&E for $0.50. Later the same day I can buy that kWhr back for just $0.12. The $0.38 difference is goes into my energy credit "bank" so I can buy kWhrs at a later time when I need them. But I have to pay current price. Not sure about San Diego, but here in PG&E territory our rate changes 5 times every weekday and 3 times on weekends. In the summer prices for peak times increase by 40% or $0.12 per kWhr.
I'll give it another try later. I've learned not to take what people say for granted without being able to verify for myself.No, I looked at an address in London. It would have been easy for Simon to just show the numbers like you did. Yet I don't quite get why I can't get the low rates you write about in London. As I wrote before: there is no use to cherry pick the highest numbers in a discussion and neither is cherry picking the lowest numbers.
Go to http://uswitch.com/gas-electricity/ (http://uswitch.com/gas-electricity/)and you always end up with approx (+/-20%) 0.20/day, 0.10/night; just like Simon told you, over and over.
- Postal Code: E17 7TA (North London), or SW11 6BZ (Clapham, SW London), or basically anywhere in London or outside of London (B10 9BT for a random B'ham postal code)
- Electricity only - no gas
- Pick any supplier
- Economy 7 meter (this is the day night meter) - YES
- Pick the standard plan (there will be cheaper ones too)
I'll give it another try later. I've learned not to take what people say for granted without being able to verify for myself.No, I looked at an address in London. It would have been easy for Simon to just show the numbers like you did. Yet I don't quite get why I can't get the low rates you write about in London. As I wrote before: there is no use to cherry pick the highest numbers in a discussion and neither is cherry picking the lowest numbers.
Go to http://uswitch.com/gas-electricity/ (http://uswitch.com/gas-electricity/)and you always end up with approx (+/-20%) 0.20/day, 0.10/night; just like Simon told you, over and over.
- Postal Code: E17 7TA (North London), or SW11 6BZ (Clapham, SW London), or basically anywhere in London or outside of London (B10 9BT for a random B'ham postal code)
- Electricity only - no gas
- Pick any supplier
- Economy 7 meter (this is the day night meter) - YES
- Pick the standard plan (there will be cheaper ones too)
So can you even trade kWhrs? If you have an extra one can you "loan" it to the San Diego power company until you need it say at night? Some of PG&E rate plans are like that. (PG&E has 9 different residential rate plans.) The newest rate plans have PG&E buying extra electricity from residential customers at the current (meaning time of day) retail rate. Meaning during mid-day if I have one extra kWhr I can sell it to PG&E for $0.50. Later the same day I can buy that kWhr back for just $0.12. The $0.38 difference is goes into my energy credit "bank" so I can buy kWhrs at a later time when I need them. But I have to pay current price. Not sure about San Diego, but here in PG&E territory our rate changes 5 times every weekday and 3 times on weekends. In the summer prices for peak times increase by 40% or $0.12 per kWhr.
/quote]
Your power deals sound so good it makes me wonder how the power cos stay in business!
Then again, solar setups you pay $25K for we pay a fifth of that.
You can get 6.6Kw worth of panels with a 5 Kw inverter for $4-6K here all day long.
Maybe you should concentrate on explaining to us how ICE is more efficient than electric, I'm sure you have some dodgy website you can use as proof!
Sorry to be another one to doubt you but I would be amazed if in fact a battery can save and not cost you especially given your power prices.
Maybe in the UK batteries are subsidized to half the cost of what the rest of the world pays but if you are talking a commercial battery pack not a DIY one, they would have to be exceptionaly cheap to have any worthwhile payback time if at all.
What sort of EV do you have?
Maybe you should concentrate on explaining to us how ICE is more efficient than electric
Maybe you should concentrate on explaining to us how ICE is more efficient than electric
Easy: Power plants are a smidge more efficient than ICEs, say 50% efficiency, but power grid transmission and distribution losses are about 9% (91% efficiency), and the EVs charge/discharge losses are at least 15% (85% efficiency). That's 0.5*0.91*0.85= 38% efficiency, which is ~= most ICEs nowadays.
I don't have an EV but typically you can lease the battery for around £70 a month.
I don't know what you mean by given my power prices.
i have already explained (call me a liar if you like) that over night charging can be done for £0.09/KWh. If the average claim of 250Wh/mile is true that makes the mileage energy cost around 2-3p/m.
MY CAR costs me 15p/mile in petrol and it's a small car.
So clearly if you drive enough the battery price soon does not matter.
An EV does not have a combustion engine full of moving parts rubbing and banging into each other as part of their normal operation and the maintenance on an electric motor will be far lower than a combustion engine.
No clutch, no cam belt - I am due a cam belt change, that will cost £500 and i get nothing from that other than i can keep driving. with an EV £500 buys me 7 months of battery lease.
Maybe you should concentrate on explaining to us how ICE is more efficient than electric
Easy: Power plants are a smidge more efficient than ICEs, say 50% efficiency, but power grid transmission and distribution losses are about 9% (91% efficiency), and the EVs charge/discharge losses are at least 15% (85% efficiency). That's 0.5*0.91*0.85= 38% efficiency, which is ~= most ICEs nowadays.
False, power plants are not that inneficient.
My house boiler is 96% efficient and you are telling me that a larger energy conversion system run as a money making process on an industrial scale is halve the efficiency of my little house boiler ?
words fail me.So do your incorrect beliefs and understandings of a number of things which give you an unrealistic position on different issues.
If that is the basis of your argument you are greatly mistaken.
Look if you like you gas guzzling poluter you have my personal permission to keep driving it if that makes you happy in your personal version of the world.
If you want more information about energy sources in the uk (WARNING FACTS ARE ABOUT TO BE PRESENTED PREPARE YOURSELF) go to gridwatch.co.uk. As you can see a lot of our energy is not made with fossil fuels anymore anyway. I have seen up to 35% solar + wind output.
Most times our coal plants do not get used. that site is simply taking the data being pumped out by the UK grid and graphing it for easy reading plus adds some info about the sources.
What difference does having a house battery make? that is for the house not a car, if i was generating enough to also fill a car fine but as i said previously for me if i was doing it economy 7 alongside my solar system would be perfect. By day I use my solar and battery, by night I charge the car off the grid at 8-9p/KWh
Does the EV need a cam belt change every 60'000 miles? no so 500/60'000 = 0.8p/mile spend it how you will but it is about 1/3 the cost of electric for a mile.
People doing 10'000+ miles will see the benefits.
Maybe you should concentrate on explaining to us how ICE is more efficient than electric
Easy: Power plants are a smidge more efficient than ICEs, say 50% efficiency, but power grid transmission and distribution losses are about 9% (91% efficiency), and the EVs charge/discharge losses are at least 15% (85% efficiency). That's 0.5*0.91*0.85= 38% efficiency, which is ~= most ICEs nowadays.
False, power plants are not that inneficient. They convert power 24 hours a day and a 0.1% increase in efficiency will mean thousands more money earnt every hour. My house boiler is 96% efficient and you are telling me that a larger energy conversion system run as a money making process on an industrial scale is halve the efficiency of my little house boiler ? words fail me. If that is the basis of your argument you are greatly mistaken.
so obviously petrol does not have any "transmission" costs, it magically arrives in your petrol tank. No extraction process, no shipping or piping it ashore, no refinery processes, not transportation across the world, give me a break!
a sweeping statement from wikepedia to cover many different ways of generating power. Most of our power is CCGT which granted is 60% and over only so you are mostly correct.
So as we have now switched to efficiency talk how efficient is EV versus ICE ? ICE does not do regenerative breaking for a start!
When it comes to efficiency you can do a very simple comparison: just compare the CO2 emissions per distance driven. That is a very simple sum to do.
Efficiency is input versus output. CO2 is a direct measure of the amount of energy you have to put in. Distance driven is the output. It cannot get more basic than that and there is no debate possible on what numbers are cherry picked or not.When it comes to efficiency you can do a very simple comparison: just compare the CO2 emissions per distance driven. That is a very simple sum to do.
That is you definition of efficiency? I take it you don't call yourself an engineer? :palm:
Maybe you should concentrate on explaining to us how ICE is more efficient than electric
Easy: Power plants are a smidge more efficient than ICEs, say 50% efficiency, but power grid transmission and distribution losses are about 9% (91% efficiency), and the EVs charge/discharge losses are at least 15% (85% efficiency). That's 0.5*0.91*0.85= 38% efficiency, which is ~= most ICEs nowadays.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=power+grid+distribution+losses
We use pumped storage in the UK for peaks. At night I expect the load is pretty stable and that is when you would charge an EV.Actually, the pumped storage in the UK was built to ride over a sudden failure of a major generating site. That's why it was built with the added cost and complexity to have a very fast turn around from pumping to generating. Storage in other parts of the world has been built primarily for peak mitigation. For example, CLP, one of the power utilities in Hong Kong, has insufficient generating capacity, on purpose. They use their nuclear capacity (actually located in southern China) to pump up a reservoir every night (also located in southern China), and generate from that reservoir during the peak demand each day.
and you 50% efficiency claim on fossil fuel conversion? that was your claim. I said i have seen up to 35% renewable generation that is peak. Yes 27.9% on average for a year sounds right.
If the average claim of 250Wh/mile is true
An EV does not have a combustion engine full of moving parts rubbing and banging into each other as part of their normal operation and the maitenance on an electric motor will be far lower than a combustion engine. No clutch, no cam belt - I am due a cam belt change, that will cost £500 and i get nothing from that other than i can keep driving. with an EV £500 buys me 7 months of battery lease.
ICE does not do regenerative breaking for a start!
Most of our power is CCGT which granted is 60% and over only so you are mostly correct.
Oh look, 1L of petrol has 13.3KWh, my car does 10m/L that is 1.3KW per mile, 1300/250 = 5.3 oh dear oh dear.........
We use pumped storage in the UK for peaks. At night I expect the load is pretty stable and that is when you would charge an EV.Actually, the pumped storage in the UK was built to ride over a sudden failure of a major generating site. That's why it was built with the added cost and complexity to have a very fast turn around from pumping to generating. Storage in other parts of the world has been built primarily for peak mitigation. For example, CLP, one of the power utilities in Hong Kong, has insufficient generating capacity, on purpose. They use their nuclear capacity (actually located in southern China) to pump up a reservoir every night (also located in southern China), and generate from that reservoir during the peak demand each day.
In any case, NO EV will ever be cheaper to run than my big old diesel 2.5 ton 4WD that on a real good run gets 10 L/ 100 km. 14-18 /100 when I'm punting the thing around like a sports car.
Efficiency is irrelevant, it's still going to be cheaper to run than any EV out there ever will be anywhere in the world.
That is only true as long as you can charge at home at a very low electricity rate.In any case, NO EV will ever be cheaper to run than my big old diesel 2.5 ton 4WD that on a real good run gets 10 L/ 100 km. 14-18 /100 when I'm punting the thing around like a sports car.
Efficiency is irrelevant, it's still going to be cheaper to run than any EV out there ever will be anywhere in the world.
When you compare a new care (ICE) with a similar new car (EV), the EV is cheaper to run.
So you think they are the same and EV's are terrible because they are not way better? assume we use your figures.
So you think they are the same and EV's are terrible because they are not way better? assume we use your figures.
No.
I think all the EV fanbois always ignore vital things, I suspect on purpose, but perhaps it's due to some sort of reality distortion field.
What will you do when we run out of fossil fuel?
What will you do when we run out of fossil fuel?
It's going to be a huge disaster IMO, as in billions of deaths and hunger because we've got no substitute. Look at the chart here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption and tell me how on earth can we replace all that energy (oil+gas+coal) with... what the hell? Lucky me, I won't be here anymore by then. Fossil fuels are the dog's bollocks. Pure concentrated sun juice.
Look at the chart here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption and tell me how on earth can we replace all that energy (oil+gas+coal) with... what the hell?
In any case, NO EV will ever be cheaper to run than my big old diesel 2.5 ton 4WD that on a real good run gets 10 L/ 100 km. 14-18 /100 when I'm punting the thing around like a sports car.
Efficiency is irrelevant, it's still going to be cheaper to run than any EV out there ever will be anywhere in the world.
That's like saying my 20 yr old JetA powered 747 is still cheaper to run than an EV; but only because there's isn't such a thing as a 20 yr old electric 747 equivalent.
When you compare a 10yr old small hatchback (ICE) with a 10yr old small hatchback (EV), the EV is cheaper to run.
When you compare a new care (ICE) with a similar new car (EV), the EV is cheaper to run.
Apples to Apples comparisons. (something you and nico seem to avoid at all costs).
No.
I think all the EV fanbois always ignore vital things, I suspect on purpose, but perhaps it's due to some sort of reality distortion field.
Or an unusually hot day and everyone turning on an air conditioner.Or not since hotter days have more sunlight, thereby increasing solar production.
It's going to be a huge disaster IMO, as in billions of deaths and hunger because we've got no substitute. Look at the chart here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption and tell me how on earth can we replace all that energy (oil+gas+coal) with... what the hell? Lucky me, I won't be here anymore by then. Fossil fuels are the dog's bollocks. Pure concentrated sun juice.That's a great argument to reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels where practical, to conserve them for use where alternatives are not yet practical. For example, they should have required every new car to get at least 30 MPG highway like a decade ago.
No.
I think all the EV fanbois always ignore vital things, I suspect on purpose, but perhaps it's due to some sort of reality distortion field.
When ever you get into a discussion/ argument with the green washed, the one thing you can GAURANTEE is they will Lie, blow things out of proportion, Ignore relevant facts not condusive to supporting their cult Beliefs and twise and distort every fact to make it look like their religion is the holy one.
Every single time without fail.
Their desperation to push their cult as perfect and beyond reproach is unfailing and the hypocrisy of accusing others of doing what they do better than anyone else would be laughable were it not so pathetic. Argue with them long enough and you'll be able to use their own figures to illustrate the hypocrisy and flaws in their arguments because rarely can they get their own story straight.
The inherent need some have to believe in a miracle and have something to place hope in when there is little to be found anywhere else in their lives is a psychological driving factor and along with fear mongering is what the whole green scam is based on. Pretty much the weak minded who are followers not people whom question and verify thing and think for themselves.
No matter how many time you show with proof their arguments are flawed and false, they will never accept it and make every excuse to justify their position no matter how ridiculous that is in the face of the fact and evidence presented.
Thankfully the green washing is starting to turn down and loosing intensity. I'm sure it will be kept going as long as possible given the money made from it but sloooowly people are starting to wake up. The costs are being realized, the benefits are being seen for how questionable and far fetched they are and the rhetoric of the green cult is being questions and coming up short. Way short.
People are realising that the green goals are completely unobtainable in a fashion that does not negatively impede the way of life for most people in the 1st world and are in fact a giant step backwards in living standards and our economies.
I predict there will be a rush to EV's over the coming few years but once the limitations, real costs and drawbacks become known in the real world, they will taper off in sales severly and run with ICE's and not come near taking over as they are constantly Hyped.
The green cult do not realise they are their own worst enemies atm. When people buy EV's and are dissapointed because they were over sold and people realise they are not at all what they were hyped up to be, then the negative accounts will start working against them.
And they will be working Hard, real hard.
Change is difficult enough for most people, being disappointed and costing money in the process sets opponents and vocal ones for life who will be only too keen to stop others falling for the same con job and that will go on for 30 years as that's the time it takes for rumor mills to change.
Was this intended as I response to what I said? Its seems completely off topic.We use pumped storage in the UK for peaks. At night I expect the load is pretty stable and that is when you would charge an EV.Actually, the pumped storage in the UK was built to ride over a sudden failure of a major generating site. That's why it was built with the added cost and complexity to have a very fast turn around from pumping to generating. Storage in other parts of the world has been built primarily for peak mitigation. For example, CLP, one of the power utilities in Hong Kong, has insufficient generating capacity, on purpose. They use their nuclear capacity (actually located in southern China) to pump up a reservoir every night (also located in southern China), and generate from that reservoir during the peak demand each day.
NO! This is NOT the same thing. Peaker vs. peak rimes are completely different. Stored hydro is a way of conserving water and supplying electricity when demands are typically high which is typically during the day and on work days. It takes time to open the values to let more water flow through the gernerators and get that electricty on the grid. Likewise if demand unexpectedly decreases during the day it takes time for the valves controlling the amount of water flowing through the generators to be closed.
This can take hours.
Peaker powerplants are completely different. They are typically natural gas and use jet engines. If unexpectedly the demand for electricity is greater at a given moment peaker engines are fired up to cover that unexpected demand. Takes far less time to fire up a jet engine than open a valve at a dam or generate more steam burning coal.
As the demand for electricty decreases the peaker engines are shut off.
If it were not for peaker power generation capabilities power companies would have to always be running there generators at full capacity to cover those unexpected demand.
And to make this more complicated I live in California which is connected to a power grid that covers many states. There are several hundred power companies which all get there electricty from the same power generating facilities. Orders for how much much each power company is going to buy at every minute of every day is placed a day in advance so all of the power generating plant know how much to produce.
Solar and wind are unreliable it makes it hard to know just how much power each power plant and there are hundreds of those as well needs to produce to meet the needs of each power company and the millions of customers.
All it takes to have a large power outage is a large cloud over a large PV solar farm. Or no wind on a day wind was predicted. Or an unusually hot day and everyone turning on an air conditioner.
Batteries would be the solution, but as has been pointed out their cost is prohibitive and there capacity is very small. The figure is something like all of the batteries in the world would supply the world with enough electricity for 10 minutes.
This is why we use fossil fuels. They are abundant, produce a lot of energy for their size and are inexpensive. Only energy form that’s more energy rich for its size is nuclear.
The problem is people come home from work near the time the solar production is droping off and turn on the air conditioners and stove etc.Or an unusually hot day and everyone turning on an air conditioner.Or not since hotter days have more sunlight, thereby increasing solar production.It's going to be a huge disaster IMO, as in billions of deaths and hunger because we've got no substitute. Look at the chart here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption) and tell me how on earth can we replace all that energy (oil+gas+coal) with... what the hell? Lucky me, I won't be here anymore by then. Fossil fuels are the dog's bollocks. Pure concentrated sun juice.That's a great argument to reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels where practical, to conserve them for use where alternatives are not yet practical. For example, they should have required every new car to get at least 30 MPG highway like a decade ago.
The problem is people come home from work near the time the solar production is droping off and turn on the air conditioners and stove etc.Dirt cheap thermal storage solves that problem once there's enough solar to cover all demand. All we need is incentive to invest in it.
The problem is people come home from work near the time the solar production is droping off and turn on the air conditioners and stove etc.Dirt cheap thermal storage solves that problem once there's enough solar to cover all demand. All we need is incentive to invest in it.
geroge80 I have a lot of respect for you and think you have made many excellent points in your posts. I'm going to disagree with you on people being disappointed by EVs. Have you or do you own one? I was against EVs as you are until we got one. As much as I wanted to dislike it, I have to admit it's nice. EVs are nice to drive as well. I don't think I will ever buy an ICE car ever again. Am I buying an EV because it's good for the environment? Heck no. I think an EV is no better or worse for the environment than an ICE or diesel. It's not a mater of economics either. In fuel/energy the EV might save me maybe $750 per year, but I think it's more like $500. But I do get a $30-$50 saving on my electricity dues to the lower EV rate. But that's NOT why I would by an EV. Reason for liking an EV is because I like that it's quite and most important it's convenient.
No more having to look for and waste time at gas stations. With an ICE that's a once a week waste of time. With an EV I pull into the garage and plug in. In the morning my car is fully charged and ready to go.
As for maintenance I guess I'm saving a little. For my ICE car I only change the only once every other year and that's it. Oil change is $50, so with an EV I save $25 per year.
In the states where I live EVs very common. And the city where I have seems like every fourth of fifth car is an EV. EVs aren't for everyone, but ask someone who has an EV if they like it. You'll find 9 out of 10 people who own EVs say they will NEVER buy another ICE.
This isn't a green thing or save the Earth thing either. It's a personal choice like deciding to buy a car with automatic transmission or manual. ICE or EV it's just a personal preference.
The other thing no one seems to mention is that cars today are disposable like cell phones and computers. I think the folks who are driving around in 20+ year old cars are idiots. Modern cars have many new safety and comfort features one has to ask why someone would something so unsafe. My second car is a 13 year old car and it has a CD player. My reason for getting a new car is to get updated technology. Every time I get in the car I use Google Maps to see what the traffic is like. Waze to let me know where the police are. And for entertainment I listen to podcasts. Cars are all a commodity now and what sets them apart is the technology and the apps. It's all about the apps. Apps and convince is why my next car will be an EV. And like a cell phone or computer in 10 years or so when the batteries aren't doing so just dump the car and get a new one with a "fresh" set of batteries.
So stop with the greens and save the Earthers are the only ones buying cars. They are not. Many people buying EVs are doing it because of they are convenient and the technology in them is better.
In the San Francisco Bay Area there are a lot of Used EVs on the market. A fist generation Volt can be purchased for around $10,000. I know of some early EV car buyers who are their third EV.
So stop with the greens and save the Earthers are the only ones buying cars. They are not.
I'm going to disagree with you on people being disappointed by EVs.
Have you or do you own one? I was against EVs as you are until we got one.
It's not a mater of economics either. In fuel/energy the EV might save me maybe $750 per year, but I think it's more like $500. But I do get a $30-$50 saving on my electricity dues to the lower EV rate. But that's NOT why I would by an EV. Reason for liking an EV is because I like that it's quite and most important it's convenient.
No more having to look for and waste time at gas stations. With an ICE that's a once a week waste of time. With an EV I pull into the garage and plug in. In the morning my car is fully charged and ready to go.
The other thing no one seems to mention is that cars today are disposable like cell phones and computers.
I'm not going to read yet another rant full of exaggeration and lies. Fact is we do need to reduce our emmissions and EV's done right will be more efficient.Replace efficient with effective and you are demonstratebly wrong in many parts of the world because the electricity generation produces a lot of CO2. Just compare carbon emissions and you'll have your answer. EVs don't save as much CO2 as they would like us to believe. In China for example the net effect of an EV is negative compared to about any ICE. In Europe an efficient hybrid ICE (Toyota Prius for example which does better than 20km/l in real driving conditions) can beat an EV in most countries. In many countries an EV can be beaten by a reasonably efficient ICE.
Oh so the world will be saved by bio fuels? are you the one who gets to decide who lives and who we shoot because we need the land that makes their food for bio fuels?Read about 3rd generation bio-fuels first before making outdated comments. These are close to going full production. Instead of growing crops specific for fuel production the 3rd generation bio-fuels are made from the parts of the plants that are not edible. This means that fuel and food production go hand in hand. The EU is also looking at this; there are bans in the making on bio-fuels made from palm oil. These bans will come in effect in the next 2 years IIRC.
The bans are palm oil specific, they'll just switch to some other oil crop.That is not true. Our 'own' DSM is one of the companies involved in getting the 3rd generation bio-fuels going and have industrial scale factories up&running. They are at or very near building more factories. Read this article to get up-to-date with the actual state of next generation bio-fuels: http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-to-10-million-in-5-years (http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-to-10-million-in-5-years). The huge technological advance you write about has been made.
Nothing scalable we have now or in the near future will approach arable land yields or economic efficiency for biofuel, not by an order of magnitude.
Yes, farm waste can supply a tiny percentage of what is now supplied by palm oil relatively cheaply, but for the rest we have no alternative but growing crops on arable lands in competition with food crops and forests.You are misunderstanding. I'm not talking about cow & pig sh*t. From many crops we grow (for example: weat, soy, corn, rice, potatoes, etc) we only eat a small part. This isn't very efficient because you have to grow a relatively large plant of which you only use a small part. Making fuel from the part that doesn't get eaten is just a bonus. Everyone has got to eat so food needs to be grown one way or another. And the potential is huge. I did some crude back-of-the-envelope calculations on POET-DSM's conversion rate numbers and you can almost replace fossil fuels entirely with 3rd generation bio-fuels without needing extra land to grow crops. The EPA estimates the US ethanol production can be doubled just because of the 3rd generation bio-fuels (this is billions of US gallons) without needing extra land. An added bonus is that farmers will have more income from growing the same amount of plants. This is good because agriculture will need to switch to (likely) more expensive fertilizer which isn't made from fossil fuels. Please read more about it because these 3rd generation bio-fuels hold the key to solving multiple problems in one go. In my opinion it is a very elegant and ultimately low-tech solution (brew beer from plants and distill it).
Should we invest before knowing if it will even work?Why wouldn't it work? It's extremely simple technology with little to go wrong.
Yes, that should go without saying. But when I check where the graph comes from to see if I can trust it all I see is that it is from some blog. You might know it is correct (and it very well might be), but others likely do not know that, and have to rely on the authority of the source to judge the correctness.Ofcourse I check if there is a valid source, the data is consistent with other sources and the data is recent. The graph I linked to earlier met all those criteria. That should go without saying. There is no use to show & link to numbers which cannot be backed up with solid statistics. Again, feel free to contest the validity of the data with another source. I'm very confident it will say the same because the graph is consistent with other data (in this case electricity prices across Europe) I have seen elsewhere. It is a random pick in a sense that it depends on what Google decides to put in the first 100 results when looking for a graph.If your standard is a random pick from the internet you can find a graph that proves anything you want. Even if something is technically correct it can still be just as misleading as a lie. (It might be the truth, noting but the truth, but not quite the whole truth).It is a random pick from Google which at least had some recent data. There are probably other (even more recent) graphs out there but I doubt they will show something different.According to this graph electricity is even more expensive in the UK compared to the Netherlands:That website looks like a pro-oil blog, or at least not particularly reliable, so I wouldn't trust that graph.
<snip>
From: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ (http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/)
I did some crude back-of-the-envelope calculations on POET-DSM's conversion rate numbers and you can almost replace fossil fuels entirely with 3rd generation bio-fuels without needing extra land to grow crops.
Anyway, couldn't help to notice that (as they note in the blog post):
"High nuclear countries France, Sweden and Finland have among the lowest industrial and domestic electricity prices."
So much for nuclear power being too expensive...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE_PZQ13YTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE_PZQ13YTY)
All the mAh/g and Wh/kg figures in the video are wrong...
I'm not going to read yet another rant full of exaggeration and lies.
The increased price of the Hinkley plant is due to pure stupidity of the civil servants in the UK dealing with EDF. Half of the price is interest at an insane rate. And renewables like sun & wind aren't very cheap if you include storage. Electricity from a wind turbine costs around 4 eurocents to generate. Storing the electricity in a battery increases the price per kWh at least 5 to 20 times.The new plant they are building here is promised a higher wholesale price than what is paid now. The project is late, will be late and the price is constantly increasing. Apparently renewables would be half the price so money left for storage, that was before they anounced the price was going up.
Anyway, couldn't help to notice that (as they note in the blog post):
"High nuclear countries France, Sweden and Finland have among the lowest industrial and domestic electricity prices."
So much for nuclear power being too expensive...
Electricity from a wind turbine costs around 4 eurocents to generate. Storing the electricity in a battery increases the price per kWh at least 5 to 20 times.
I saw the numbers you quoted earlier but I'm finding your 5000 cycle lifetime very optimistic especially given the price. I'm wondering what cells your battery is using and what kind of BMS. BTW one of my customers is a high-end Li-ion battery pack manufacturer so I'm not oblivious to what is available and what is not. The Tesla powerwall sits at 30 eurocent per kWh when calculating for 2000 cycles.
Electricity from a wind turbine costs around 4 eurocents to generate. Storing the electricity in a battery increases the price per kWh at least 5 to 20 times.
i already gave you my battery costs and told you that at 14p/KWh my battery breaks even. 14/4 = 3.5, no 20 times, you are a proven liar, and i am talking about a home installed system, not an industrial scale system. How much was the one tesla installed in Australia?
I saw the numbers you quoted earlier but I'm finding your 5000 cycle lifetime very optimistic especially given the price. I'm wondering what cells your battery is using and what kind of BMS. BTW one of my customers is a high-end Li-ion battery pack manufacturer so I'm not oblivious to what is available and what is not. The Tesla powerwall sits at 30 eurocent per kWh when calculating for 2000 cycles.
Electricity from a wind turbine costs around 4 eurocents to generate. Storing the electricity in a battery increases the price per kWh at least 5 to 20 times.
Bullshit!
i already gave you my battery costs and told you that at 14p/KWh my battery breaks even. 14/4 = 3.5, no 20 times, you are a proven liar, and i am talking about a home installed system, not an industrial scale system. How much was the one tesla installed in Australia?
But perhaps you should refrain from the name calling. It must be a real joy working with you at work... :palm:
In principle nuclear looks good, the problem i have with nuclear is people. People in power are usually ignorant of scientific and engineering matters and they always want to make more money. That is a recipe for disaster. The disposal of the waste is also a problem as the government has to get involved with planning permissions and no government wants to upset voters so the can is kicked down the road.
Actually I've posted all the calculations and sources a few pages back already.
Actually I've posted all the calculations and sources a few pages back already.
The report I linked to earlier has a clear overview of electricity storage costs of what is actually installed in the US:Actually I've posted all the calculations and sources a few pages back already.
they state 10 year warranty, if it is only 2000 cycles (nothing on their website) it will hardly last 10 years, I know they are often optimistic but they are no fools, 10 years is more like 5000. at 5000 cycles and 13.5KW (not 13!) and a price of £10'000 that is unher 20p/KWh, 20/4 = 5. Where do you get battery storage on an industrial scale costing 4x20 = 80p/KWh? i am still waiting for you to back that up.
i already gave you my battery costs and told you that at 14p/KWh my battery breaks even.
This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.
i already gave you my battery costs and told you that at 14p/KWh my battery breaks even.
And I showed with Figures you could and did not even attempt to challenge with your exaggeration and lies that your battery COST you money but you stick your fingers in your ears and start yelling Na na na like a spoilt kid and try to convince us of more fantasy and make believe.
You want to piss money up the wall deluding yourself you are saving money or the environment, Go right ahead. Probably the reason you can't afford to buy a decent second hand EV you defend with your Cult like zealotness.
Do what you want but don't try and convince me of YOUR bullshit, Lies and exaggeration because I have done more homework and research on this than would allow you to ever get away with such Rubbish and Pipe dreams.
I calculated your battery would have to store 26KWH a day to break even and said there is no way you have a battery that big even before you admitted it was only 10 Kwh nameplate with 8 useable. Even by your own fantasy, your 5000 Cycles is over 13 years payback time AT Full capacity which will never happen. You'd need 15 years bare minimum and by that time the degradation in your pack will mean the actualy useable capacity is down to 6 Kwh or less meaning just the PAYBACK, not the profit time is probably blowing out closer to 18 years or worse. Same as every other battery out there and yours is not different except in some deluded imagination.
I could do the maths again but you would only deny the numbers because they would show you are the one bullshiting yourself.
Carry on saving all this money that exists only in your head but dont try and convince others not high on the green Koolaide you are doing anything but undermining the financial position of yourself and that of your family.
This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.
nctnico would you stop with the lies and incorrect information about 3rd generation bio-fuels. How many times and how many posters have to point out all of the flaws in your posts. All of your posts are marketing materials and are projected goals. Then when we show you those goals were not meet you still post the same marketing material as fact.
Why do you keep reposting the same lies over? Are you thinking if you keep saying the same lie over and over it will change the science?
The fact you keep ignoring is that there are several factories up & running which are producing 3rd generation bio-fuels right now. The article I've linked to shows the production volumes as reported to the EPA. 3rd generation bio-fuels have left the laboratory a long time ago. It is just a matter of time. There is no IF but only WHEN. Again 3rd generation bio-fuels are a highly lucrative business to be in so companies (combined) have invested billions of dollars into getting the factories going. And the companies involved aren't garage start-ups but huge conglomerates. These people don't mess around with unicorn doo-doo.This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.nctnico would you stop with the lies and incorrect information about 3rd generation bio-fuels. How many times and how many posters have to point out all of the flaws in your posts. All of your posts are marketing materials and are projected goals.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.
I know that and I have acknowldged that. But the fact you keep ignoring is that there are several factories up & running which are producing 3rd generation bio-fuels right now. 3rd generation bio-fuels have left the laboratory a long time ago. It is just a matter of time. There is no IF but only WHEN. Again 3rd generation bio-fuels are a highly lucrative business to be in so companies (combined) have invested billions of dollars into getting the factories going. And the companies involved aren't garage start-ups but huge conglomerates. These people don't mess around with unicorn doo-doo.This paper (from 2003) claims a percentage of 32%. With the efficient ICE hybrids available nowadays this number can be much higher. It has to come from both sides: reducing fuel consumption on one hand and switching to renewables on the other.nctnico would you stop with the lies and incorrect information about 3rd generation bio-fuels. How many times and how many posters have to point out all of the flaws in your posts. All of your posts are marketing materials and are projected goals.
For stationary electricity generation nuclear is a much better option.
I never said that. If you read a few pages back then you'll see I also see a good chance for hydrogen. For starters storing hydrogen is likely cheaper compared to batteries, the range of the car is better, the refueling time shorter (depending on the type of filling station) and (according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.
Hydrogen, you like hydrogen? i can't possibly think why you like hydrogen, oh let me guess it's because you can still run a ICE car on it. Frow what i read and according to wikipedia hydrogen production is 50% efficient just like our electricity generation that is already there as an infrastructure. where will you get the hydrogen from? surely not from a 25% efficient process to then burn in a 30% ICE?No, hydrogen goes into a fuel cell which converts it into electricity. Look at the Toyota Mirai. Look at a hydrogen car as being an EV but you can fill the battery within 5 minutes and drive 400km.
OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water now they reckon 70-80%, still not great. You still need to distribute it. So a new pumped gas infrastructure and if you use tankers you need to compress it.In the Netherlands they are investigating to use the existing gas distribution infrastructure to distrubute hydrogen.
OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water now they reckon 70-80%, still not great. You still need to distribute it. So a new pumped gas infrastructure and if you use tankers you need to compress it.In the Netherlands they are investigating to use the existing gas distribution infrastructure to distrubute hydrogen.
You loose a lot of energy in hydrogen production and loose a lot of it again when converting it into electricity within fuel cells. Not to say fuel cells are very expensive, a lot due to containing precious metals. And they wear out way faster than lithium batteries.Hydrogen, you like hydrogen? i can't possibly think why you like hydrogen, oh let me guess it's because you can still run a ICE car on it. Frow what i read and according to wikipedia hydrogen production is 50% efficient just like our electricity generation that is already there as an infrastructure. where will you get the hydrogen from? surely not from a 25% efficient process to then burn in a 30% ICE?No, hydrogen goes into a fuel cell which converts it into electricity. Look at the Toyota Mirai. Look at a hydrogen car as being an EV but you can fill the battery within 5 minutes and drive 400km.
And even if hydrogen production is 50% effective (and as you noticed this can be greatly improved), storing it requires a (compared to a battery) simple tank which doesn't deteriorate like batteries. All in all this leads to a lower cost.
BTW the reason I looked into hydrogen is because last summer I noticed that a lot of hydrogen pump had appeared along the highways in Germany. I don't think hydrogen will become a big thing quickly but it sure has good cards when looking at the cost and ease of use.
To clarify: the Dutch government has decided that we are not going to use natural gas in the future so the gas pipes will become defunct. Just like the natural gas I assume the hydrogen won't be under high pressure when entering the home.If you mix it all you can do is burn it. methane is a bit useless in a fuel cell. It will need an independent network.OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water now they reckon 70-80%, still not great. You still need to distribute it. So a new pumped gas infrastructure and if you use tankers you need to compress it.In the Netherlands they are investigating to use the existing gas distribution infrastructure to distrubute hydrogen.
well if they really con switch nationally to hydrogen then fine, you may as well fuel up at home but you will need a home compressor to get it into your tank.
but i still do not see it as a serious competitor to electricity if we are switching to renewables. It could be a good way of storing power from renewables for heating when we have excess generation.
The Dutch company that's working on 3rd generation bio-fuels isn't really working on biofuels as nctnico claims. What they are offering is more efficient bailing system which farmers have to pay a licensing fee to use.This just proves you can't read or don't understand what you read. Why would a chemical company (DSM) which specialises in enzymes and yeast invent a new baler? It doesn't make any sense so you should be able to figure out that your claim must be wrong. And while I'm at it: you never ever came up with any sources which have a grounding in actual science and/or statistics.
I'm happy to hear any argument, in the end we need the facts but I'm sure the subject will change right at the point we get to numbers.
See, you can't read. It says POET-DSM invented the easy baler. Not DSM! POET-DSM is a joint venture where DSM brings in the expertise on yeast & enzymes (being a chemical company) and POET has expertise in producing ethanol and dealing with farmers to get the feedstock.
Hydrogen has too many disadvantages. They are now in our country looking at formic acid, it has many advantages. A few buses are currently running on it.Interesting. It seems like one of many ways to bind hydrogen into a liquid which is then easy to store and transport. However, it still is hydrogen ;)
And the cost of electricity continues to rise,
i am sure that when the first cars came out every household immediately dashed out and bought one? no?, but they do now? I wonder how it is that i can afford a car at all. Maybe because I am not an early adopter and generations before me paid for the development.
Don't forget he has to change the subject too, that is why we go round in circles.
I am happy to be corrected.
I'm happy to hear any argument, in the end we need the facts but I'm sure the subject will change right at the point we get to numbers.
Another reason I am afaid ice's will remain is that petrol is only a small byproduct for the usage of crude oil. In the begin years of oil they even threw it away because they had no use for it. So not only do we as humankind need to abandon petrol and diesel cars, no also all the other products which are too many to just find an alternative.
Almost all organic compounds are derived from crude oil, at least half of our medicins are currently made from a product of crude oil.
So no more lubrication products, no more air planes, no more plastick, no more asphalt for roads no more makeup, no more fuel for ships and you can continue.
So the real question we have to solve is, how can we as mankind continue without crude oil ?
Hydrogen has too many disadvantages. They are now in our country looking at formic acid, it has many advantages. A few buses are currently running on it.I'm surprised they've only just tried methanoic/formic acid fuel cells for transport. Small fuel cells of this type have existed for quite a while. Are there technical problems with scaling them?
While I'm inclined to agree with that in theory, so far there has actually only been one civilian accident where people were hurt that was caused by ignorance/incompetence (Chernobyl). You could argue Tepco should have planed for the possibility of an enormous tsunami at Fukushima but hindsight is 20/20. Even so, if you divide all the damage by the amount of electricity produced by nuclear, nuclear actually comes out on top. It's one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy there is, on the same level as solar and wind power. Not in theory, in practice, if you look at all the accumulated data from the over 70 years that the world has been using nuclear power (including Fukushima and Chernobyl). It used to be cheap, but new plants get more and more expensive, since politicians keep demanding more and more safety features, regulation, and advance payment for waste handling, etc, etc. That would be great as long as they apply the same logic to other forms of electricity production (especially fossil fuels) but they generally do not. I'm fine with going primarily for solar (or wind, although big wind farms are ugly), but solar can't replace nuclear and coal/gas completely, since solar only produce electricity when then sun shine. Large scale grid storage might become a reality in a few years (or it might not) but until it's available it's not an option. So when governments have to choose between coal/gas or nuclear right now they should definitely go for nuclear. Even people who doesn't believe in global warming should agree since coal produce air-pollution which is literally killing millions every year. If one look at the health and environmental damages from coal plants it makes accidents like Chernobyl look trivial, then add to that climate change. The anti-nuclear crowd are in reality lobbying for coal and gas whether they realise it or not, and any rational person should realise that is by far the worst option today.Anyway, couldn't help to notice that (as they note in the blog post):The new plant they are building here is promised a higher wholesale price than what is paid now. The project is late, will be late and the price is constantly increasing. Apparently renewables would be half the price so money left for storage, that was before they anounced the price was going up.
"High nuclear countries France, Sweden and Finland have among the lowest industrial and domestic electricity prices."
So much for nuclear power being too expensive...
In principle nuclear looks good, the problem i have with nuclear is people. People in power are usually ignorant of scientific and engineering matters and they always want to make more money. That is a recipe for disaster. The disposal of the waste is also a problem as the government has to get involved with planning permissions and no government wants to upset voters so the can is kicked down the road.
You could argue Tepco should have planed for the possibility of an enormous tsunami at Fukushima but hindsight is 20/20.The thing that causes me the most concern about nuclear safety is having worked with people who's main activity was conducting FMEA (failure mode and effect analysis) studies for the nuclear industry. The were really happy to gloss over all sorts of potential problems in the studies they did for us, and I had to flesh out the list of identified failure modes when they had finished. I have no doubt they were just as cavalier in their nuclear work. Every time there has been a nuclear accident (there have been a lot more than just the Chernobyl, Fukushima and Dounreay incidents, which were perhaps the only ones to result in a serious toxic release to the environment), any information that reaches the public shows the problem resulted from the most elementary dumb mistakes in the design or operating practices for the system. Fukushima is far from alone in having vital pumping equipment at a low point in the system where water damage is an accident just waiting to happen.
(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous. You need to not only produce the hydrogen, cool it and compress it, you also need to ship it around the world using trucks and boats. In the future there might be pipelines that can handle hydrogen but they don't exist today because hydrogen is such a technically difficult gas to deal with. You get efficiency losses during production and it takes energy to cool, compress and transport, and then finally you need to convert it back into electricity by the end user (further losses). Well-to-wheels efficiency will be abysmal. No matter how expensive you think the electric grid is, it's still just cables that once built requires little maintenance. A hydrogen infrastructure would require thousands of people doing nothing but maintaining it just to keep the hydrogen flowing (workers at production/compression facilities, specially educated drivers and technicians at refueling stations, etc). An electric cable will always be less expensive in the long run than taking a detour via hydrogen and shipping it around with trucks (or pipelines).
Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.
With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.Each car would be at the filling station for a lot longer than they currently are, as fueling with hydrogen is fairly slow. The equipment to store and process hydrogen requires a lot more space than storing gasoline, so existing gas station space would be able to support far fewer filling points. So, the existing gas station sites would need to be supplemented by a considerable amount of additional filling station space to service a similar sized fleet of cars.
That does not match with what I've seen in Germany. The hydrogen filling stations are the same size as a normal fuel pump. I'm also surprised that filling hydrogen is slow according to some people while others are claiming filling with hydrogen can be done in 5 minutes. I suspect it depends on what kind of filling station is used. Maybe the early ones are slow. If space is an issue it would be foolish to install a slow filling station.With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.Each car would be at the filling station for a lot longer than they currently are, as fueling with hydrogen is fairly slow. The equipment to store and process hydrogen requires a lot more space than storing gasoline, so existing gas station space would be able to support far fewer filling points. So, the existing gas station sites would need to be supplemented by a considerable amount of additional filling station space to service a similar sized fleet of cars.
Is it possible for you to cut the trolling for just one reply, and try to impress us?That does not match with what I've seen in Germany. The hydrogen filling stations are the same size as a normal fuel pump. I'm also surprised that filling hydrogen is slow according to some people while others are claiming filling with hydrogen can be done in 5 minutes. I suspect it depends on what kind of filling station is used. Maybe the early ones are slow. If space is an issue it would be foolish to install a slow filling station.With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.Each car would be at the filling station for a lot longer than they currently are, as fueling with hydrogen is fairly slow. The equipment to store and process hydrogen requires a lot more space than storing gasoline, so existing gas station space would be able to support far fewer filling points. So, the existing gas station sites would need to be supplemented by a considerable amount of additional filling station space to service a similar sized fleet of cars.
Edit: it seems there are different kinds of hydrogen filling stations. The 'standard fill' seem to be the slow ones.
Right, so additionally all the hydrogen cars need to take a detour to a special refueling station taking time for the driver and spending even more fuel on non-productive maintenance. In comparison BEVs will primarily be recharged at their normal parking spot. Once you have installed an EV charging point it doesn't require people maintaining it and refilling it 24/7. The power grid already exists, so you only need to install new endpoints. I can't imagine it would be more expensive, even initially. For hydrogen you need to build factories and trucks, employ and educate a new hydrogen workforce as well as modify the existing refuelling stations with expensive specialised machinery and tanks. EV infrastructure should be mostly maintenance free standard power electronics and repairs/installation can be handled by a normal electrician.Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.
Even people who doesn't believe in global warming should agree since coal produce air-pollution which is literally killing millions every year.
No, the power grid doesn't exist. That is the problem. When switching over to 100% EVs you'll need roughly 25% extra generating capacity. According to statistics of the Netherlands, currently 16% of the electricity is used for domestic use. If you want to charge EVs at home (or in the street) you'll likely need to double the capacity going towards the homes. Do not underestimate the amount of power an EV needs.Right, so additionally all the hydrogen cars need to take a detour to a special refueling station taking time for the driver and spending even more fuel on non-productive maintenance. In comparison BEVs will primarily be recharged at their normal parking spot. Once you have installed an EV charging point it doesn't require people maintaining it and refilling it 24/7. The power grid already exists,Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.
There is a ton of scientific studies out there. The world health organisation has a page about air-pollution you can take a look at to begin with: https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution (https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution)Even people who doesn't believe in global warming should agree since coal produce air-pollution which is literally killing millions every year.I have heard this parroted many times but I am yet to see the actual evidence they base it on.
The story usually goes that some organization estimates xxx deaths per year but they never say what the deaths are caused by specifically or how they can directly relate that to coal and not anything or many other things combined.
Do they do autopsy's and find coal ash in people lungs or do they just come up with a number that suits the agenda of the people paying them to do the supposed study?
What are the deaths caused by ( cancer, heart problems etc) and how can they specifically relate these deaths to coal and not anything else?
While they Make a song and dance of coal emissions, the ramifications of Fukishima for one and the contamination of the environment and the deaths that will cause is supposed to be nothing at all. :bullshit:I'll much rather take my chances with nuclear since coal power has a more than 1000 times higher mortality rate than nuclear power.
Yeah right! |O
I'll take my chances with coal thanks.
You would have to increase capacity in some locations perhaps, but you don't have to build a whole new grid from scratch. I meant low maintenance compared to what is required for hydrogen. You don't need a continuous supply of trucks to the EV charging stations which you do to the hydrogen stations (even when everything is working perfectly). For hydrogen you need additional factories, a fleet of trucks, boats, trains, etc, and personell operating all that. For EVs it will be enough with additional charging points and power cables.No, the power grid doesn't exist. That is the problem. When switching over to 100% EVs you'll need roughly 25% extra generating capacity. According to statistics of the Netherlands, currently 16% of the electricity is used for domestic use. If you want to charge EVs at home (or in the street) you'll likely need to double the capacity going towards the homes. Do not underestimate the amount of power an EV needs.Right, so additionally all the hydrogen cars need to take a detour to a special refueling station taking time for the driver and spending even more fuel on non-productive maintenance. In comparison BEVs will primarily be recharged at their normal parking spot. Once you have installed an EV charging point it doesn't require people maintaining it and refilling it 24/7. The power grid already exists,Well, this was in a report from 2005 or so. It makes a lot of sense to me because you don't need to have an infrastructure which reaches to each and every car. In the Netherlands it is estimated that it will take 3 to 4 million charging points for EVs to be usefull. That is a charging point for every two cars. With hydrogen you can keep the existing fueling stations.(according to an old report) the costs for the infrastructure will be 4 times cheaper compared to EVs.That is nonsense. The infrastructure required for hydrogen would be absolutely enormous.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
I also disagree about low maintenance costs. A lot of the charging points will be public and subject to weather and abuse.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
I also disagree about low maintenance costs. A lot of the charging points will be public and subject to weather and abuse.
Found a video about filling/ putting 1kg of hydrogen in a car in around one minute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt02JOax0Xg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt02JOax0Xg)
There is a ton of scientific studies out there. The world health organisation has a page about air-pollution you can take a look at to begin with: https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution (https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution)
For example, Iaea estimated less than 4000 premature deaths from Chernobyl, while a more commonly cited figure is 30000. In either case it's peanuts compared to premature deaths caused by air-pollution from coal power _every year_.
My points proven again!
1, figures from biased sources cannot be trusted without verification,
2. You are saying one number is insignificant to the other when the number you favour is also an estimate from a biased source with no explanation of how it was calculated !
Why are nuke deaths peanuts compared to coal power when we haven't even established a credible figure, just "estimates".QuoteIf you look at the civilian nuclear energy industry as a whole, and calculate the average deaths per kWh produced, nuclear is even safer than solar power according to some:
Yep, there is always a way to spin numbers and statistics to say what you want.
How about we crunch the numbers for the cost of cleanup and the lives lost in doing so for coal plant accidents and Nuke accidents.
Lets give the Nuke side a head start and we'll just include Chernobyl, Fukishima and 3 Mile island. You can heap together all the accidents on record for coal.
Lets look at all the radiation released into the oceans directly attributable to coal through unique isotopes that could have come from no where else as against those that are only found in nuke reactors and are not naturally occurring.
Lets have a look at the amount of people evacuated and displaced by nuke accidents as against those evacuated, displaces and never allowed to return to their homes from coal accidents . How about how many towns and citys are permanently off limits due to the accidents and emissions from coal plants compared to nuke plants.
The old "air travel is the safest form of transport" crap won't wash with me. You can shoot that down just by changing the parameters from miles traveled to number of journeys taken and then planes don't looks so hot. Clearly the same with the nuke debate.
Maybe we could look at how many tons of coal ash lies in unuseable stockpiles of containers and is buried in mountains for eternity because a drum of the stuff could potentialy wipe out thousands of acres of land, poison water tables and lay waste to everything it contaminated. Coal is used in concrete, roads and other building materials and can easily not only be disposed of but put to practical use.
Yes, coal ash IS radio active but so are bananas and just like bananas, coal ash does not contain hot particles that if ingested have a 99% of causing a cancer that will kill you in a painful and indignant death.
I really don't know why people try to defend something like nuke. The green washed are always going on about " The children and future generations" Crap yet no regard is paid to this in the nuke support.
I'd rather only have power during the day when the sun was shining than have a Nuke plant anywhere in the country giving free power 24/7.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHc9u89-nc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHc9u89-nc)
The State of California is spending $200 million to get the development of Hydrogen cars moving along.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
The State of California is spending $200 million to get the development of Hydrogen cars moving along.
How much have they spent on EV subsidies and infrastructure?
Wasn't there a federal subsidy @ $7500 per car till dec 18 then another at $3750 till July then 1850 till dec '19.
What is the all up cost of that going to be?
I don't know but given the amount of vehicles coming out and what Tesla alone has already sold, i'd say it kinda makes $200M look like a bargain in comparison doesn't it? ::)
Sorry you are right. Well spotted. In my defense: It was late. With the right numbers it looks at lot more doable:
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
No wonder you guys don't get it. You don't understand basic math. Perhaps you can find a 4th grader and have them help you with your multiplication.
Sorry you are right. Well spotted. In my defense: It was late. With the right numbers it looks at lot more doable:
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
No wonder you guys don't get it. You don't understand basic math. Perhaps you can find a 4th grader and have them help you with your multiplication.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=2kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*2kWh=460kWh just for one person to go to work. It still is a big chunk of the electricity usage of one person and as Goerge80 mentioned this number is on the low side.
Apis linked to a more scientific report earlier. Also other sources underwrite these conclusions. I guess it is like smoking: it has been accepted for such a long time that it is hard to convince people it is very bad for your health.There is a ton of scientific studies out there. The world health organisation has a page about air-pollution you can take a look at to begin with: https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution (https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution)
Thank you for the links.
They prove exactly what I said perfectly.
When I look at the first link the sub headlines on the first page are:
Air pollution levels remain dangerously high in many parts of the world. New data from WHO shows that 9 out of 10 people breathe air containing high levels of pollutants.
WHO estimates that around 7 million people die every year from exposure to polluted air.
Ambient air pollution alone caused some 4.2 million deaths in 2016, while household air pollution from cooking with polluting fuels and technologies caused an estimated 3.8 million deaths in the same period.
They Bundle coal in with industry ( which by extrapolation including the building of EV's and filthy proces for components like battery chemistry) and they make mention of Cooking with biomass in the 3rd world but I could NOT find anything that specifically and uniquely pointed to coal even after doing a site search. The closest match was again using it as a fuel source in the 3rd world which closing power plants in the first wold is not going to affect in any way.
Sorry you are right. Well spotted. In my defense: It was late. With the right numbers it looks at lot more doable:
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
No wonder you guys don't get it. You don't understand basic math. Perhaps you can find a 4th grader and have them help you with your multiplication.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=2kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*2kWh=460kWh just for one person to go to work. It still is a big chunk of the electricity usage of one person and as Goerge80 mentioned this number is on the low side.
My annual usage is 2MW, about 4 times that, my annul self generation is estimated at 5.3MW, since the beginning of the year I have already generated 600KW. As we already know ICE vehicles will use more power per mile/Km. If cost was not an object i could be self sufficient. My 13 mile round trip to work each day would use 5.2KWh, anually (assuming i drive the same every day I don't go to work too) I would use sub 2MWh.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=2kWh per day.
With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*2kWh=460kWh just for one person to go to work. It still is a big chunk of the electricity usage of one person and as Goerge80 mentioned this number is on the low side.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=2kWh per day.
I took the figures at face value, should have paid more attention. None the less, the 200 figure at the risk, no certainty, of being labeled a denier or what ever, is unrealistically low. I looked on a bunch of sites and while the smallest cars can get this, the reports I read for things bigger than a sardine car all said in real world driving their usage was a fair bit higher over all depending on the vehicle. 200 Wh is less than double the power in my electric Drill battery. The battery in my camera flash is 120 Wh. No one is going to tell me there is enough power in 200wh to propel a ton and a half of mid size EV 1KM down the road unless it's all down hill.
You can do a crude estimation. An efficient ICE needs about 50ml of gas/petrol to drive one km (20km/litre). That 50ml has 2.2MJ of energy. Say 40% of that energy gets converted you end up with needing 880kJ. 200Wh is 720kJ (=200*3600). All in all these numbers seem to be in the same order of magnitude.A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=2kWh per day.I took the figures at face value, should have paid more attention. None the less, the 200 figure at the risk, no certainty, of being labeled a denier or what ever, is unrealistically low. I looked on a bunch of sites and while the smallest cars can get this, the reports I read for things bigger than a sardine car all said in real world driving their usage was a fair bit higher over all depending on the vehicle. 200 Wh is less than double the power in my electric Drill battery. The battery in my camera flash is 120 Wh. No one is going to tell me there is enough power in 200wh to propel a ton and a half of mid size EV 1KM down the road unless it's all down hill.
Nuclear - All of the nuclear power accidents combined over the last 60 years have killed just under 75 people.
So i use the same figures as those arguing against and now I'm wrong. You really can't win can you? I am comparing to a small car yes, like the one i own, a "cheap" runaround. I don't care how much power your drill battery has the comparison is irrelevant. How long does the drill last? more than a minute or two and does it do regenerative breaking?
my car does 9.5m/L that is 15Km/L, that is a little fiesta. why do you throw the 40% efficiency in, don't you want to count the fuel you throw away as part of the input, with 36MJ/L that is 10KWh/L that is 666Wh/Km, you were the one that says that electric does 200Wh/Km, your mate was doubting the 200Wh/Km and 666*0.4 = 266Wh/m but that 40% is err, very optimistic..... my car does not do that because every day I drive 6.5 (10.5) miles (Km) and in winter just as i approach the end of the journey my engine has warmed up and might be becoming efficient. i have been down at 6.6m/L in winter. I forget to mention that I leave home 1 hour before i start work to miss the traffic so don't side around with an idling engine.It is just a crude estimation to see if the numbers aren't way off (like 5 times or more). Doing these estimations is good to do a sanity check on calculations. BTW you might just as well reason the 200Wh/km is too low but any discussion on that is moot; it is not the goal of a sanity check.
my car does 9.5m/L that is 15Km/L, that is a little fiesta. why do you throw the 40% efficiency in, don't you want to count the fuel you throw away as part of the input, with 36MJ/L that is 10KWh/L that is 666Wh/Km, you were the one that says that electric does 200Wh/Km, your mate was doubting the 200Wh/Km and 666*0.4 = 266Wh/m but that 40% is err, very optimistic..... my car does not do that because every day I drive 6.5 (10.5) miles (Km) and in winter just as i approach the end of the journey my engine has warmed up and might be becoming efficient. i have been down at 6.6m/L in winter. I forget to mention that I leave home 1 hour before i start work to miss the traffic so don't side around with an idling engine.It is just a crude estimation to see if the numbers aren't way off (like 5 times or more). You might just as well reason the 200Wh/km is too low.
Sorry, but you are really missing the point here. I just wanted to show George80 that 200Wh/km is a sensible number to propel an EV. Now you want to drill down and get a result with 3 significant digits behind the dot. That serves no purpose in this case. The result of my calculation has an error margin of like +/-50% and that doesn't matter. What part of 'crude estimation' is unclear?So now you say your figure is wrong, make up your mind! we use your figures and when they don't work out you act as though we all made a mistake, we sure did using your numbers. We can't win, when your are proven wrong you decide it's because YOU are using dodgy numbers.my car does 9.5m/L that is 15Km/L, that is a little fiesta. why do you throw the 40% efficiency in, don't you want to count the fuel you throw away as part of the input, with 36MJ/L that is 10KWh/L that is 666Wh/Km, you were the one that says that electric does 200Wh/Km, your mate was doubting the 200Wh/Km and 666*0.4 = 266Wh/m but that 40% is err, very optimistic..... my car does not do that because every day I drive 6.5 (10.5) miles (Km) and in winter just as i approach the end of the journey my engine has warmed up and might be becoming efficient. i have been down at 6.6m/L in winter. I forget to mention that I leave home 1 hour before i start work to miss the traffic so don't side around with an idling engine.It is just a crude estimation to see if the numbers aren't way off (like 5 times or more). You might just as well reason the 200Wh/km is too low.
Sorry you are right. Well spotted. In my defense: It was late. With the right numbers it looks at lot more doable:
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
No wonder you guys don't get it. You don't understand basic math. Perhaps you can find a 4th grader and have them help you with your multiplication.
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=2kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*2kWh=460kWh just for one person to go to work. It still is a big chunk of the electricity usage of one person and as Goerge80 mentioned this number is on the low side.
Another thing I didn't consider with these figures is the use of a heater, AC, stereo, wipers and lights at night. They would have to add significantly in real world conditions as the reports I mentioned outlined. AC seems to give a big hit as do heaters which would be expected.
40km * 200Wh/km = 8kWh (not 20, not 2)
Around here that's $0.80 worth of electricity.
same car in ICE is 7l/100km car is 2.8 l @ 1.429/l = $4.00, five times the cost to make the same commute on gasoline.
I agree that the days of driving around in gas guzzling ICE cars are numbered but for reasons I outlined earlier I'm sure EVs are not the solution. EVs add up to too much costs.
See how the French almost went for another revolution due to rising fuel prices because the government wanted to tax ICE cars away. The main problem is that people who don't have a lot of money, spend a large portion of their income on getting to and from their work. Usually they can't afford to move closer to work either. Increasing their transportation costs by a few euro per week takes their holiday away. It is simple as that. So any transition towards reducing CO2 output for transportion has to be cost neutral for the working people.
See how the French almost went for another revolution due to rising fuel prices because the government wanted to tax ICE cars away. The main problem is that people who don't have a lot of money, spend a large portion of their income on getting to and from their work. Usually they can't afford to move closer to work either. Increasing their transportation costs by a few euro per week takes their holiday away. It is simple as that. So any transition towards reducing CO2 output for transportion has to be cost neutral for the working people.Hence why I like the idea of requiring all new cars to get a higher minimum MPG. It would get the automakers to actually be serious about optimizing for efficiency.
I would expect more in the way of hybrids and engine optimizations like Atkinson cycle, as well as aerodynamics tweaks. 30 MPG highway is by no means a hard target and many existing cars already do that or better. What gets trickier is raising the requirement over time to prevent stagnation, since there will be some point where it would no longer be economical to continue.
when an EV goes down hill it does not use 200Wh/m, more like -200Wh/m that is what you fail to grasp. the power used is that used to get the vehicle to speed and to overcome frictions, breaking/slowing down is done by recovering the kinetic energy back into the battery. This is the bit i missed when I originally opposed EV's
my car does 9.5m/L that is 15Km/L, that is a little fiesta. why do you throw the 40% efficiency in, don't you want to count the fuel you throw away as part of the input, with 36MJ/L that is 10KWh/L that is 666Wh/Km, you were the one that says that electric does 200Wh/Km, your mate was doubting the 200Wh/Km and 666*0.4 = 266Wh/m but that 40% is err, very optimistic..... my car does not do that because every day I drive 6.5 (10.5) miles (Km) and in winter just as i approach the end of the journey my engine has warmed up and might be becoming efficient. i have been down at 6.6m/L in winter. I forget to mention that I leave home 1 hour before i start work to miss the traffic so don't side around with an idling engine.I think he used the 40% to try to find out how much shaft power was required by the car.
Exactly!my car does 9.5m/L that is 15Km/L, that is a little fiesta. why do you throw the 40% efficiency in, don't you want to count the fuel you throw away as part of the input, with 36MJ/L that is 10KWh/L that is 666Wh/Km, you were the one that says that electric does 200Wh/Km, your mate was doubting the 200Wh/Km and 666*0.4 = 266Wh/m but that 40% is err, very optimistic..... my car does not do that because every day I drive 6.5 (10.5) miles (Km) and in winter just as i approach the end of the journey my engine has warmed up and might be becoming efficient. i have been down at 6.6m/L in winter. I forget to mention that I leave home 1 hour before i start work to miss the traffic so don't side around with an idling engine.I think he used the 40% to try to find out how much shaft power was required by the car.
I would expect more in the way of hybrids and engine optimizations like Atkinson cycle, as well as aerodynamics tweaks. 30 MPG highway is by no means a hard target and many existing cars already do that or better. What gets trickier is raising the requirement over time to prevent stagnation, since there will be some point where it would no longer be economical to continue.
Mild hybrids, which focus on brake energy recovery, and need only a small battery, seem to be a hot topic right now.I would expect more in the way of hybrids and engine optimizations like Atkinson cycle, as well as aerodynamics tweaks. 30 MPG highway is by no means a hard target and many existing cars already do that or better. What gets trickier is raising the requirement over time to prevent stagnation, since there will be some point where it would no longer be economical to continue.
Hybrids are what are being discontinued. VW stopped making there's a couple of years ago. And Chevy announced end of production for their car. It appears the car manufactures are giving up on hybrids. Didn't Volvo say they are only going to make BEV and NOT hybrids?
The first link shows that the world health organisation thinks air pollution is one of the biggest health problems today. It's not a controversial fact so they probably don't feel they need to link everything. But it was not a particularly good website now that I look at it more carefully. It's not so hard to google and find better sources though, if you are really interested. Some quick googling right now led me to these:There is a ton of scientific studies out there. The world health organisation has a page about air-pollution you can take a look at to begin with: https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution (https://www.who.int/news-room/air-pollution)Thank you for the links.
They prove exactly what I said perfectly.
I can only assume if coal were such a terrible killer it would be a headline with the numbers for the 3rd world cooking.If you cook with coal briquettes indoors at home it's obviously going to be worse than burning coal in a large coal power plant which can be more efficient and have proper chimneys and hopefully some filtering.
The second link again proves my point.??? Did you read the right article? Let me link it again:
All ESTIMATES from various ( green biased) organisations that state something as irrefutable gospel but no explanation of how these ESTIMATES were calculated nor the source .
Energy Source | Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) |
Coal – global average | 100,000 (41% global electricity) |
Coal – China | 170,000 (75% China’s electricity) |
Coal – U.S. | 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) |
Oil | 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity) |
Natural Gas | 4,000 (22% global electricity) |
Biofuel/Biomass | 24,000 (21% global energy) |
Solar (rooftop) | 440 (< 1% global electricity) |
Wind | 150 (2% global electricity) |
Hydro – global average | 1,400 (16% global electricity) |
Hydro – U.S. | 5 (6% U.S. electricity) |
Nuclear – global average | 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) |
Nuclear – U.S. | 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) |
Why are nuke deaths peanuts compared to coal power when we haven't even established a credible figure, just "estimates".Chernobyl is the worst civilian nuclear accident. Now, after 30 years of scientific studies we have decent worst case estimates of the health impact. Lets take the higher figure of 30000 premature deaths. Lets say Fukushima is just as bad (by all accounts I've read so far Fukushima is much less severe though). That means a total of 60000. That is the total worst case number of deaths from civilian nuclear power since nuclear power was invented. Global electricity production from coal was about 10000 TWh in 2016 according to Iea (https://webstore.iea.org/download/direct/2291?fileName=Key_World_2018.pdf), so coal power kills roughly 1000000 people every year! :(
This is a very interesting article comparing impacts and damage costs for coal and nuclear:QuoteIf you look at the civilian nuclear energy industry as a whole, and calculate the average deaths per kWh produced, nuclear is even safer than solar power according to some:
Yep, there is always a way to spin numbers and statistics to say what you want.
How about we crunch the numbers for the cost of cleanup and the lives lost in doing so for coal plant accidents and Nuke accidents.
Lets give the Nuke side a head start and we'll just include Chernobyl, Fukishima and 3 Mile island. You can heap together all the accidents on record for coal.
Tobacco industry once said smoking was not harmful as well so forgive me if I just take things which logic and experience tell me is questionable with blind and unquestionable faith.Indeed they did. Same way the fossil fuel industry now says global warming isn't real and that air pollution from coal power stations is not harmfull.
To me it seems every car manufacturer has a different idea on what the future of cars is. Therefore it is no surprise they go in different directions, usually based on their strong and weak points.
Nuclear is not a good idea, our current new station is being built by a conglomerate of private companies including the chinese and why the British need a french company to build them a nuclear power station using a Chinese contractor baffles and scars me. These companies are in it for one reason only - money. And once built, if they do not build more of something this too will over run on it's intended life and become a danger.Both the French and Chinese have a lot of experience with nuclear power. I can't argue against your prophecy but at least the historic track record shows that nuclear is the safest and arguably the most environmentally friendly type of power there is. Maybe that will change in the future, but to me it would seem more logical that the risk of accidents decrease as we learn from previous mistakes and improve the designs and technology.
No - There you are wrong again. As California has shown we can control and influence the cars the car companies produce. It was. You have California to thank for forcing car manufactures to produce cars produce less pollution.You mean like the billions the germans put in their turbo diesel engine development since 2000 which all was just a big lie?
No - There you are wrong again. As California has shown we can control and influence the cars the car companies produce. It was. You have California to thank for forcing car manufactures to produce cars produce less pollution.You mean like the billions the germans put in their turbo diesel engine development since 2000 which all was just a big lie?
One state can't change global car development, if Ford still produces and sells F150 which is one if the most selling cars in the US, proves they can't even influence their country.
No, the power grid doesn't exist. That is the problem. When switching over to 100% EVs you'll need roughly 25% extra generating capacity. According to statistics of the Netherlands, currently 16% of the electricity is used for domestic use. If you want to charge EVs at home (or in the street) you'll likely need to double the capacity going towards the homes. Do not underestimate the amount of power an EV needs.You can find other references about energy consumption:
A quick sum: if you drive 20km to work every day in a small EV which needs 200Wh/km. That means 40*0.2=20kWh per day. With 46 work weeks in a year that adds up to 46*5*20kWh=4600kWh just for one person to go to work.
I also disagree about low maintenance costs. A lot of the charging points will be public and subject to weather and abuse.
Yes they did great things in the past, but what are they doing now that has a global effect as you suggest?
If you keep focussing on efficiency your view is much too narrow. You have to look at the bigger picture to see where you can reduce the amount of CO2 output. ICE cars can run on bio-fuel for example. And because the existing ICEs are suitable to run on bio-fuel it is a very cost effective solution too. Also there is a lot of room for optimising ICEs using hybrids & downsized engines.There is a room, its the road, there is an elephant in it, 4 seat vehicles with single occupants.
I have to go to bed now but why would global car makers adjust their global plans?
If ice cars sell globally they ate going to produce them, o matter what happens in California.
In Europe we always had smaller more fuel efficient cars then in the US simply because the price of fuel plus taxes was many times higher than in the us.
So maybe that is a better way forward for your country, but only California, I am not convinced this would turn the tide.
250000 charging points sounds like a lot but the Netherlands currently has 122000 charging points and will need over 20 times more to get to 3 million charging points (yes, I have used my calculator this time) if nearly all cars are electric. The Netherlands is 10 times smaller than California and has less than half the number of people. Who is going to pay for all those charging points?
That is also an option and over here I see more and more electric micro cars. The problem however is that these don't mix very well with regular traffic. In the Netherlands these are about to be banned from the bike lanes so the micro cars will have to mix with regular traffic which make the micro cars less attractive to people due to traffic jams and safety.If you keep focussing on efficiency your view is much too narrow. You have to look at the bigger picture to see where you can reduce the amount of CO2 output. ICE cars can run on bio-fuel for example. And because the existing ICEs are suitable to run on bio-fuel it is a very cost effective solution too. Also there is a lot of room for optimising ICEs using hybrids & downsized engines.There is a room, its the road, there is an elephant in it, 4 seat vehicles with single occupants.
http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml (http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml)
You want to talk about efficiency? Small cheap vehicles that can be used for the majority of single occupant trips. Be that microcars or whatever. You could halve overall transportation energy use with that measure alone!
If you keep focussing on efficiency your view is much too narrow. You have to look at the bigger picture to see where you can reduce the amount of CO2 output. ICE cars can run on bio-fuel for example. And because the existing ICEs are suitable to run on bio-fuel it is a very cost effective solution too. Also there is a lot of room for optimising ICEs using hybrids & downsized engines.There is a room, its the road, there is an elephant in it, 4 seat vehicles with single occupants.
http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml (http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml)
You want to talk about efficiency? Small cheap vehicles that can be used for the majority of single occupant trips. Be that microcars or whatever. You could halve overall transportation energy use with that measure alone!
Tragedy of the common, take away those tanks and everyone is better off, but individually you are incentivised to have your personal tank.If you keep focussing on efficiency your view is much too narrow. You have to look at the bigger picture to see where you can reduce the amount of CO2 output. ICE cars can run on bio-fuel for example. And because the existing ICEs are suitable to run on bio-fuel it is a very cost effective solution too. Also there is a lot of room for optimising ICEs using hybrids & downsized engines.There is a room, its the road, there is an elephant in it, 4 seat vehicles with single occupants.
http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml (http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml)
You want to talk about efficiency? Small cheap vehicles that can be used for the majority of single occupant trips. Be that microcars or whatever. You could halve overall transportation energy use with that measure alone!
Not in California or Texas my friend. Our highly skilled drivers get into too many accidents. Next to suicide death by car accident is the number 2 killer. Don't see anyone in California giving up their 4 seater tank to travel around in a small lightweight car that can will disappear when two semitrucks collide. Or be blown off the road in a wind storm.
Nice idea, but not practical for us.
This is a problem of registration and compliance, the microcars you think of are the quadricycles:That is also an option and over here I see more and more electric micro cars. The problem however is that these don't mix very well with regular traffic. In the Netherlands these are about to be banned from the bike lanes so the micro cars will have to mix with regular traffic which make the micro cars less attractive to people due to traffic jams and safety.If you keep focussing on efficiency your view is much too narrow. You have to look at the bigger picture to see where you can reduce the amount of CO2 output. ICE cars can run on bio-fuel for example. And because the existing ICEs are suitable to run on bio-fuel it is a very cost effective solution too. Also there is a lot of room for optimising ICEs using hybrids & downsized engines.There is a room, its the road, there is an elephant in it, 4 seat vehicles with single occupants.
http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml (http://www.withouthotair.com/cA/page_257.shtml)
You want to talk about efficiency? Small cheap vehicles that can be used for the majority of single occupant trips. Be that microcars or whatever. You could halve overall transportation energy use with that measure alone!
You want to talk about efficiency? Small cheap vehicles that can be used for the majority of single occupant trips. Be that microcars or whatever. You could halve overall transportation energy use with that measure alone!Don't even need to downsize by much - a Prius gets 50 MPG.
Around the world are similar power, weight, or speed limits for small vehicles. There is nothing stopping them being built with higher power engines and highways speeds, except for the laws which prevent them being registered/used. Here in Australia such vehciles would need to be registered as a full car:If those tiny cars are not allowed on the roads for being "unsafe", what about motorcycles that are even more unsafe?
https://www.caradvice.com.au/300727/renault-twizy-lands-in-australia/ (https://www.caradvice.com.au/300727/renault-twizy-lands-in-australia/)
But due to anticipated low demand the companies arent investing the big sums of money to get homologation (so you can't even register it if import one privately).
You want to talk about efficiency? Small cheap vehicles that can be used for the majority of single occupant trips. Be that microcars or whatever. You could halve overall transportation energy use with that measure alone!Don't even need to downsize by much - a Prius gets 50 MPG.Around the world are similar power, weight, or speed limits for small vehicles. There is nothing stopping them being built with higher power engines and highways speeds, except for the laws which prevent them being registered/used. Here in Australia such vehciles would need to be registered as a full car:If those tiny cars are not allowed on the roads for being "unsafe", what about motorcycles that are even more unsafe?
https://www.caradvice.com.au/300727/renault-twizy-lands-in-australia/ (https://www.caradvice.com.au/300727/renault-twizy-lands-in-australia/)
But due to anticipated low demand the companies arent investing the big sums of money to get homologation (so you can't even register it if import one privately).
If those tiny cars are not allowed on the roads for being "unsafe", what about motorcycles that are even more unsafe?Imagine a population/world in the present day that didn't have private motor vehicles but everything else was the same. Trucks deliver goods and professional drivers move vehicles around in a much safer manner. Now you stand up in public and propose that:
If those tiny cars are not allowed on the roads for being "unsafe", what about motorcycles that are even more unsafe?Imagine a population/world in the present day that didn't have private motor vehicles but everything else was the same. Trucks deliver goods and professional drivers move vehicles around in a much safer manner. Now you stand up in public and propose that:
Everyone should be allowed to operate a 2 tonne armoured metal box, that has nothing keeping it from colliding with other objects beyond the skill and attention of the driver. We need to reduce the licensing barrier to entry for vehicle use because.... [insert argument here]
You'd be laughed out of town in the current safety environment in most countries, private cars only continue to exist because they have been grandfathered into "safety" considerations. If we moved to smaller and lighter vehicles it would be a net positive improvement in safety. As for motor cycles, they can be driven safely but the self selecting group of people who use them are more likely to be high risk takers and drive them in very unsafe manners, this inflates the average rate of deaths and injuries. Even so the majority of accidents are found to be not the motor cyclists fault but with external sources. More reading is available here:
http://www.maids-study.eu/pdf/MAIDS2.pdf (http://www.maids-study.eu/pdf/MAIDS2.pdf)
Perhaps there is also a big difference in drivers quality.
It takes here average 20+ lessons of an hour, theoretical test and final 1 hour practical driving test to get your driving license. Lot of people flunk the first time.
But perhaps better hear it from an american at 0:50
https://youtu.be/lNxe2aM7w0Y
It's not about how much practice you get and if you .pass first time. I think most issues are culture and personality related. I hate driving in italy. I recently went back there on holiday and friends were surprised at some of what they saw as they were from the UK and i was like, yea? I did warn you they drive like this. My Italian friend that is a nervous driver did not even want to drive.Fair point. I must say that In those practice hours you do get driving ethics, the correct way how to drive. Most important you get to get a feel about traffic.
the problem with italy is that every maneuver is done bumper to bumper with no margin for error because they are arrogant cocks that take pleasure in thoir self created near misses.Rule number one of driving a car: don't hit any other car. Nobody wants a dent. Keep that in mind and driving in cities like Rome, Paris and Jakarta becomes much easier.
All I learnt in driving lessons was to manipulate a car to a fashion.
I just watched someone's walkaround at the Geneva Motor Show. There are a lot of fresh new plug in hybrids there. BMW is showing pretty much every car in their range in plug in hybrid form. The existence of most of these vehicles has little to do with their practical effectiveness, though. Its all about taxation rules.I would expect more in the way of hybrids and engine optimizations like Atkinson cycle, as well as aerodynamics tweaks. 30 MPG highway is by no means a hard target and many existing cars already do that or better. What gets trickier is raising the requirement over time to prevent stagnation, since there will be some point where it would no longer be economical to continue.
Hybrids are what are being discontinued. VW stopped making there's a couple of years ago. And Chevy announced end of production for their car. It appears the car manufactures are giving up on hybrids. Didn't Volvo say they are only going to make BEV and NOT hybrids?
As an American I have to say the worst drivers in all of Europe have to be the Brits. They honk there horns at me yelling you silly bloke.A typical 10 year old car in the UK will have had its horn honked 8 times - once in every annual MoT test, that is required by law after a car passes its third year.
As an American I have to say the worst drivers in all of Europe have to be the Brits. They honk there horns at me yelling you silly bloke.A typical 10 year old car in the UK will have had its horn honked 8 times - once in every annual MoT test, that is required by law after a car passes its third year.
To me it seems every car manufacturer has a different idea on what the future of cars is. Therefore it is no surprise they go in different directions, usually based on their strong and weak points.
You know that is a contradiction in itself. Sure there is a market for electric cars but it isn't infinite hence the reluctance. The Dutch government just released calculations on which future government decissions to reduce CO2 emissions are going to be based. Two important conclusions about electric cars: the necessary production volumes cannot be achieved due to material shortages and people can't pay for electric cars. Ergo: the majority of the cars sold in the Netherlands will not be electric for at least the next decade. The same will apply for every European country so rest assured that the majority of the cars being produced for sale in Europe will be ICEs. So any significant reduction in CO2 emission from cars will not be from using electric cars but have to be achieved through optimising ICEs and switching to renewable fuels.
Ergo: the majority of the cars sold in the Netherlands will not be electric for at least the next decade.
You know that is a contradiction in itself. Sure there is a market for electric cars but it isn't infinite hence the reluctance. The Dutch government just released calculations on which future government decissions to reduce CO2 emissions are going to be based. Two important conclusions about electric cars: the necessary production volumes cannot be achieved due to material shortages and people can't pay for electric cars. Ergo: the majority of the cars sold in the Netherlands will not be electric for at least the next decade. The same will apply for every European country so rest assured that the majority of the cars being produced for sale in Europe will be ICEs. So any significant reduction in CO2 emission from cars will not be from using electric cars but have to be achieved through optimising ICEs and switching to renewable fuels.
Looking at efficiency is the wrong way of looking at CO2 reduction. Bio-fuels and synthetic fuels can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels. ICE cars don't need to become radically more efficient for that to work. Also filtering CO2 won't do you any good. Where do you store it? I guess you mean NOx and HCs but these are already dealt with using EGR and catalytic converters for decades.You know that is a contradiction in itself. Sure there is a market for electric cars but it isn't infinite hence the reluctance. The Dutch government just released calculations on which future government decissions to reduce CO2 emissions are going to be based. Two important conclusions about electric cars: the necessary production volumes cannot be achieved due to material shortages and people can't pay for electric cars. Ergo: the majority of the cars sold in the Netherlands will not be electric for at least the next decade. The same will apply for every European country so rest assured that the majority of the cars being produced for sale in Europe will be ICEs. So any significant reduction in CO2 emission from cars will not be from using electric cars but have to be achieved through optimising ICEs and switching to renewable fuels.Why do you keep banging on about ICE's becoming more efficient like they are new developing technology? they will never be efficient, the clue is in the name. The motive power is a byproduct of combustion. If you want o reduce CO2 emissions you have to add filtering which restricts the engine and reduces efficiency. You live in cloud cookoo land I am afraid.
Ergo: the majority of the cars sold in the Netherlands will not be electric for at least the next decade.
Only thing I don't trust with that statement is I think it's overly optomistic.
Predictions I have seen say the majority of vehicles won't be electric for 20 years at least.
Looking at efficiency is the wrong way of looking at CO2 reduction. Bio-fuels and synthetic fuels can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels. ICE cars don't need to become radically more efficient for that to work. Also filtering CO2 won't do you any good. Where do you store it? I guess you mean NOx and HCs but these are already dealt with using EGR and catalytic converters for decades.You know that is a contradiction in itself. Sure there is a market for electric cars but it isn't infinite hence the reluctance. The Dutch government just released calculations on which future government decissions to reduce CO2 emissions are going to be based. Two important conclusions about electric cars: the necessary production volumes cannot be achieved due to material shortages and people can't pay for electric cars. Ergo: the majority of the cars sold in the Netherlands will not be electric for at least the next decade. The same will apply for every European country so rest assured that the majority of the cars being produced for sale in Europe will be ICEs. So any significant reduction in CO2 emission from cars will not be from using electric cars but have to be achieved through optimising ICEs and switching to renewable fuels.Why do you keep banging on about ICE's becoming more efficient like they are new developing technology? they will never be efficient, the clue is in the name. The motive power is a byproduct of combustion. If you want o reduce CO2 emissions you have to add filtering which restricts the engine and reduces efficiency. You live in cloud cookoo land I am afraid.
Besides that: which part of 'material shortage' and 'too expensive' didn't you understand? It all comes down to costs for the owner. Say your government taxes you out of your car. How do you get to your job? Or are you even going to work if that means having less money to spend compared to living of a social security check? That is the reality. The numbers of the Dutch government report clearly indicate that the people with the least income are getting hit the hardest when taxes on CO2 emitting activities are raised.
Why do you keep banging on about ICE's becoming more efficient like they are new developing technology? they will never be efficient, the clue is in the name.
If you want o reduce CO2 emissions
Plants turn CO2 into hydrocarbons.
If you would have read and understood my earlier posts then you'd know I fully agree with that when it comes to using palm oil which the article is about. The article isn't about bio-fuels in general. You should have noted that instead of making such a broad statement that it is false.Plants turn CO2 into hydrocarbons.
Is this what you were taught in school? Or were you smoking pot in your chemistry and biology classes? Do you live in a country where you only taught bull shit?
Do you even know what a hydrocarbon is? Were you not taught about the Calvin Cycle in school? Silly boy, plants use light energy, water and C02 to produce sugar and oxygen and energy. If it were not for plants producing O2 you would be dead.
Crud man, when will you stop posting FALSE and incorrect information.
Stop with the biofuel misinformation. Over 100 of your country's scientists say it's a FALSE solution.
Why do you keep believing and posting marketing hype BS and ignore the science?
Dutch scientists call crop-based biofuels a ‘false solution’
The use of crop-based biofuels is a ‘false solution’ to climate problems, the scientists say, adding that: ‘we urgently implore you to acknowledge that blending food crops into fuel causes severe damage to climate, nature and communities.’ They point out that research carried out for the European Commission shows the mixture leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions and that biodiesel from food crops emits on average 1.8 times as much carbon dioxide as fossil fuels. This increases to three times more in the case of biodiesel made from palm oil.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/12/dutch-scientists-call-crop-based-biofuels-a-false-solution/ (https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/12/dutch-scientists-call-crop-based-biofuels-a-false-solution/)
Stop with the biofuel misinformation. Over 100 of your country's scientists say it's a FALSE solution.