• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Biden To Pitch EV Plan [Electric vehicle discussion]

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
988
Reaction score
455
After 4 hours of driving, 15 min is a ridiculously short break. Recommended is 15 min every 2 hours, 30-60 min after 4 hours.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Be honest with yourself, you like big boofy trucks and SUVs because you like them, no other reason,

If I said that, I'd be a liar. Because I actually *don't* particularly like "big boofy trucks." My own car is quite small. It suits my needs. It would suit them better if it had VTOL capability, was self-driving and rustproof, but I gotta work with what I have. but *other* people like other kinds of vehicles. What I have a problem with are the people who don;t like "big boofy trucks" and therefore decide that other people shouldn't have them.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
I just looked a bit into range extenders, and I think there was typical pointless government micromanaging that does not help. The other thing is the slow development cycle of established automakers when superior tech rolls around. Not that it'd have a lasting impact at this point in the battery development curve, but still.

From wiki:
According to 2012 Amendments to the Zero Emission Vehicle Regulations adopted in March 2012 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), a range-extended battery-electric vehicle, designated as BEVx, should comply, among others, with the following criteria:[2]
  1. The vehicle must have a rated all-electric range of at least 120 km (75 miles). This is higher than the 80 km (50 miles) required of a zero-emission vehicle;
  2. The auxiliary power unit (APU) must provide range less than or equal to battery range;
  3. The APU must not be capable of switching on until the battery charge has been depleted;
  4. The vehicle must meet super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV) requirements; and
  5. The APU and all associated fuel systems must comply with zero evaporative emissions requirements.
None of the above points is really necessary for the technology to make sense. A vehicle with lower costs than traditional ICE (1/2 or less engine output, steady state operation, plus small battery) with operating costs of a BEV (95% of trips is short range), with no sacrifice in performance (outside of continuous peak output, aka racing) is possible.

In a battery constrained situation this would have cut emissions and user costs faster than BEV/ICE direct replacement.

The inability to sort out charging infrastructure in the PHEV era means the desired emission reduction didn't materialize, and here years down the road the charging infrastructure is still a mess. :confused:

HoA-topia~ HoA-topia~
-----
edit:
Sometimes I wonder if America is at the grips of the counter-force, in which every possible improvement in transport technology is countered by equal and opposite development in zoning, regulations and urban planning, with things like cul de sac and Stroads nicely neutralizing the automobile.

I look forward to legendary social innovation around countering autonomous vehicles and vtols. What will it be?
 
Last edited:

dannydale

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
350
Reaction score
139
Sometimes I wonder if America is at the grips of the counter-force, in which every possible improvement in transport technology is countered by equal and opposite development in zoning, regulations and urban planning, with things like cul de sac and Stroads nicely neutralizing the automobile.
Nailed it.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
cant we just beam the energy down to the cars as microwaves?

Not directly; the power density (W/square meter) is far too low. A car gets around a kilowatt per square meter of direct sunlight at noon, depending on latitude; and solar powered cars that function off nothing but solar power are fabulously impractical vehicles for tooling around town. Beamed energy would have efficiency benefits due to being a single wavelength; the PV arrays could probably be in the area of 90% efficiency as opposed to 30-40% for solar PV, but that still doesn't buy you much. And you're not going to blanket a whole region with microwaves that are as strong or stronger than sunlight. You'd have to individually target cars with high energy lasers at low altitude, requiring multiple laser emitters in the hundred kilowatt class per car. Each one of these lasers would be a practical energy weapon capable of causing substantial destruction. I'm sure the National Raygun Association will be in favor of spreading Modern Sporting Lasers around, but not too many other people will be thrilled at the notion of such beams crisscrossing the highways.

If you have space-based power generation, a better and far safer and more practical system would be to beam the energy down to fixed receiving stations. There the microwaves are turned into usable electricity and used to juice up Batteries or run thermal depolymerization plants that convert plastic and bio waste into clean, carbon neutral petrochemicals.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
Space based laser arrays are too useful not to be built for space supremacy forest fires laser sails trash disposal. Solar on cars is also going to be a neat low cost (soon-ish) convenience feature for countering charge loss and running auxiliary systems when parked outside. Beamed power will only be a economical, organizational and regulatory problem.

The huge service area of a beam power service means that organizational costs can indeed be overcome with a profitable business model: one that profits from failure of standard systems. Telecommunication satellites historically makes all the money when submarine cables fail after all. Power satellite providers would make money when power grids fail (imagine a battery fire), or things like dumb rich people fail at trip planning. If HAPS solar aircraft became popular, regular service can also be a thing as a small space beam power system can lower vehicle cost and increase their operating flexibility for a global fleet. There can even be applications in things like directly countering hypothermia with a phone call, just enter the coordinates....

Whether the basic system would let you drive with multiple solar fluxes on top of the roof is another question, since it should be too uncommon enough to be designed for.
 
Last edited:

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,528
Reaction score
751

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
66
Reaction score
63
Sure replacing oil (a finite resource) by lithium (another finite resource) won't help.
It is also a matter of 8 billion people (soon) wanting a common standard of living: the one from the advanced countries which is all by itself unaffordable...
One major difference is that oil is irreversibly turned into carbon dioxide and water vapor but lithium is one electrode of a rechargeable battery, so it's not completely destroyed. There are, of course, also alternative battery technologies that are being developed, some of which may be in use in a few years, some of which don't use lithium.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
One major difference is that oil is irreversibly turned into carbon dioxide and water vapor ...

Hardly irreversible. Go to YouTube, search for "plastic waste into diesel" or words to that effect. You'll find videos from high tech European companies building advanced transportable containerized systems that you pour scrap plastic into and get fuel out of; you'll find videos from third world villagers and back woods survivalists turning plastic into fuel using hardware that itself was scrap. With a bit more effort you can turn *any* hydrocarbon into petroleum; a company 15 or so years ago was turning dead turkeys into oil.

Plants, sewage, dead animals, plastic and paper waste are a virtually infinitely renewable resource that, unlike lithium, you don't need to go mining for. Hell, people will willingly *dump* this resource on you.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
66
Reaction score
63
One major difference is that oil is irreversibly turned into carbon dioxide and water vapor ...

Hardly irreversible. Go to YouTube, search for "plastic waste into diesel" or words to that effect. You'll find videos from high tech European companies building advanced transportable containerized systems that you pour scrap plastic into and get fuel out of; you'll find videos from third world villagers and back woods survivalists turning plastic into fuel using hardware that itself was scrap. With a bit more effort you can turn *any* hydrocarbon into petroleum; a company 15 or so years ago was turning dead turkeys into oil.

Plants, sewage, dead animals, plastic and paper waste are a virtually infinitely renewable resource that, unlike lithium, you don't need to go mining for. Hell, people will willingly *dump* this resource on you.

Absolutely irreversible; CO2 + H2O => CnHm (where n and m are integers) is both energetically (First Law) and entropically (Second Law) disadvantageous.

Burning petroleum (diesel) results in about 43 MJ/kg of heat produced (but much less energy, usually less than 10 MJ/kg for road vehicle engines). Turning CO2 and water vapor back into diesel requires at least that much energy (see: First Law of Thermodynamics) Converting plastic waste into diesel is not the same thing as converting CO2 and H2O back into diesel; breaking the long-chain polymers that form plastics into the shorter chains of diesel may require energy input, but it's also increasing entropy (lots of small molecules have more entropy than a few big ones), so it's easier.

Plants, sewage, dead animals, and waste are used for energy production. Trash-to-energy plants are pretty common.
 
Last edited:

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
753
Direct Carbon Capture from the air and Fisher Tropsch (the process for reacting CO2 and water back together) it into a petrochemical is currently a hot topic thanks to Musk’s X Prize. To do it at a useful scale all that’s needed is energy, a mind boggling amount and a massive building..... no, really eye watering massively big.

The Eco warriors are promoting this but without really presenting a balanced case. So in order to provide some balance I recommend you watch;-

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9uRHKnQ3b5s


In order to remove the CO2 from 2019 commercial air travel in the same time span that it was produced, using Carbon Engineering process, all that’s needed is a 10m high structure, 5000km long, powered by 1/3 of the total electric production of American. To Fisher Tropsch it back into a liquid fuel, there’s about another third - half gone.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Absolutely irreversible; CO2 + H2O => CnHm (where n and m are integers) is both energetically (First Law) and entropically (Second Law) disadvantageous.

Whether its disadvantageous or not doesn't change the fact that it is in fact reversible. Energy is vastly abundant. Wallpaper the moon with PV arrays and microwave transmitters and the energy needs of Earth, fossil fuel reversal included, will be dealt with for centuries to come.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
View: https://twitter.com/WEschenbach/status/1394562021929095170

"First, they say no fossil fuel cars after 2035. In the US we drive 3.2 trillion miles per year. Electric cars use ~0.3 kwh/mile. We'll need to build a 1 GW nuclear plant every three weeks starting tomorrow JUST for the extra electricity to charge the cards."

"But it's much worse than that. That's just US sparky cars. To completely get the globe off of fossil fuels by 2050, we'd have to build two 2.1 GW nuclear plants EVERY SINGLE DAY FROM NOW TO 2050. The IEA is a sick joke. WE CAN'T GET THERE!!!"
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960
O RLY ?


Climate change denial. Hell, no, we don't go.

No surprise that guy isn't exactly enthusiastic about EVs...
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
O RLY ?


Climate change denial. Hell, no, we don't go.

No surprise that guy isn't exactly enthusiastic about EVs...

Is his math wrong about the need to install a *lot* of electrical power fairly quickly? "Climate change" and "electric cars" are separate topics.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
791
It sort of ruins his credibility.
What's the total power generating capacity of nations?
What's the projected capacity for 2050?
What's the fraction of that needed to propel EVs?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960
You nailed it, Arjen. "Credibility" is really the point I wanted to make

It is a bit like a wolf delivering the keynote of "the international conference on sheep herds safety". ROTFL
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
You nailed it, Arjen. "Credibility" is really the point I wanted to make

Then show where his math is wrong. It shouldn't be that hard: Americans drive X miles per year. Electric cars require Y kwh/mile. That gives you a decent estimate of how much electricity will be needed. this is electricity above and beyond current generation capability, since current capability doesn't currently have to charge up that many electric vehicles.

Once you show how much new generation capacity is needed, it should be simplicity itself to show how many 1 gigawatt powerplants (nuke, solar, wind, whatever) will be needed.

The math is straightforward.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Here, I'll help...because I know that even though math is easy, it's easier still to complain and cast aspersions when someone says something politically inconvenient:

New estimates released today by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) show that U.S. driving topped 3.2 trillion miles last year.

On average, an electric vehicle uses around 30 kWh to travel 100 miles.

These are the same numbers used above.

You have the numbers. Can you do the math?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
2,107
The National Grid in the UK don't seem too concerned.
By 20230 they hope to have 40GW of offshore wind power, which is 30GW more generating capacity than we currently have.
They estimate that even if everyone in the UK swapped to an EV overnight, the peak demand would only increase by 10%. The big problem is handling when the spikes occur.
The highest demand in the UK peaked in 2002 at 62GW but has now fallen to just over 50GW in winter. So that extra 30GW in capacity should more than cover it and that's not including new nuclear or other renewable sources factored in.

The largest EV charging site in the UK currently under construction has 38 fast and ultra-rapid chargers with a combined capacity of 10MW straight from the National Grid. 40 of these sites are planned. So that's around 0.4GW combined to charge 1,520 cars on rapid charge.

You have to remember that for most people they will be charging off-peak overnight (thus you can spread the load 24 hours a day) and with short journeys you will recharge less often just as you fill up less often. For people doing long-distance miles its a different matter, rapid charging is certainly a power hog.
Also, simple miles = GW maths doesn't factor in hybrids with self-charging and energy recouping from regenerative braking etc.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/...ysis-how-uk-grid-will-cope-ev-revolution-2030
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/advice-electric-cars/how-national-grid-will-work-electric-cars
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...bly-robust-cope-electric-car-demand-2030.html
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,303
Reaction score
1,316
Just a hint to the participants of this discussion :

- "electric cars" are a topic, that is generally regarded as important within the discussion about climate change,
as without the latter, there would be no promotion of the former.

- Checking the numbers in every statement about such highly discussed themes should be mandatory to everyone,
participating in such a discussion.

- Such checks, to my opinion, are a very good way to judge the credibilty of a statement, if the results are given in
a verifiable way then, of course. Much better, than assessing it by just using a generic adjective, especially in a
technical-minded forum like this one.

- So, if the discussion runs in a reasonable way, as it did during the latest post (with different opinions, of course),
I don't see a reason to stop it. Imporatnt here is the first part of this sentence !

- There's absolutely no need to flood the reports for every single post in a thread, that doesn't reflect the reporters
opinion !
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
791
To start, running vehicles, running business, powering households, etc all require energy.
The energy for running ground vehicles is currently provided by ICEs - not the most efficient use of fuel. Replacing ICEs with electric drive could be more efficient, reducing the overall energy need.
Secondly, average mileage/kWh depends on the kind of EV.
1 and 2 are suitable for (sub)urban traffic. 2 will keep you and your passenger dry.
1.jpg 2.jpg
3 and 4 are suitable for faster, longer range traffic.
3.jpg 4.jpg
5 lets you move house.
5.jpg
I have arranged them in ascending order of energy requirements. Whatever your activities, you need energy. ICE-powered vehicles are inefficient (and polluting), they raise the total energy required for your society when compared to EVs. Granted, generating plants are needed to power the lot, but they need to be built anyway. Cleaning the efflux of power plants is a lot easier than cleaning the efflux from individual ICE-powered vehicles.
A society's energy requirements could be reduced by switching from ICE-powered 6
6.jpg
...to the more modest ICE-powered 7
7.jpg
...but even that is too much for some.
Societies have an energy budget - gas burning ICEs, power plants (nuclear, fossil fuel, renewables). Switching from ICE-powered vehicles to EVs could reduce that, as would switching to smaller vehicles. Combine the two.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960
- There's absolutely no need to flood the reports for every single post in a thread, that doesn't reflect the reporters
opinion !

CLIMATE DENIAL is not tolerable on this site. I proved the source was from a climate denialist - like it or not, feel free to bury your head in the sand, I won't.

God damn it, I was asked to do math - no problem with that (yeeeah! )
- but not to justify a flawed source, flawed = written by a climate denialist to justify his rotten agenda.

Common, we know that the source cited is touting impossible numbers just to justify his climate denial bullshit. That's the way it works, just read MERCHANTS OF DOUBT.


I can't accept this.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
Is his math wrong about the need to install a *lot* of electrical power fairly quickly? "Climate change" and "electric cars" are separate topics.
Replacing billions of individual engines with 3+ orders of magnitude less engines at combined less than 30% rated output is a problem?

One major difference is that oil is irreversibly turned into carbon dioxide and water vapor
Despite the best effort of thermodynamics, the oxygen catastrophe does not appear to reverse itself.

----
Snarking aside, I looked in the CAFE and after seeing very counterproductive rules on range extenders....and (note: didn't pay any attention since I am not American)


:mad:
In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track... Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint.... rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.
Then there is actually spending more than 3 brain cells on the whole whole federal tax credits thing: A tax rebate that is basically a giveme to wealthy urbanites and not optimized for cost/emissions or even industrial strategy. (granted, it is the main voter block of one of the parties, but that does not make it less ugly)

The entire category of policy of government micromanaging new cars actually slows adaption of new technology and emissions reduction by raising prices of new vehicles (relative to optimal policy) and introducing inefficient market distortions (and is a huge hole for regulatory capture). Much of this should not escape someone who is even mildly educated in economics.

..... Just ..... Tax ...... Carbon/Pollution/Road Use/etc to remove externalities.

.....All those 'tactical' applications of a rhetorically generated 'ethical principle' for gain. *sighs*

------

I suppose the good news is that the problem isn't serious enough to actually get serious. (except for people without power, lol to them!)
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
The National Grid in the UK don't seem too concerned.
By 20230 they hope to have 40GW of offshore wind power, which is 30GW more generating capacity than we currently have.
They estimate that even if everyone in the UK swapped to an EV overnight, the peak demand would only increase by 10%. The big problem is handling when the spikes occur.
The highest demand in the UK peaked in 2002 at 62GW but has now fallen to just over 50GW in winter. So that extra 30GW in capacity should more than cover it and that's not including new nuclear or other renewable sources factored in.

The largest EV charging site in the UK currently under construction has 38 fast and ultra-rapid chargers with a combined capacity of 10MW straight from the National Grid. 40 of these sites are planned. So that's around 0.4GW combined to charge 1,520 cars on rapid charge.

You have to remember that for most people they will be charging off-peak overnight (thus you can spread the load 24 hours a day) and with short journeys you will recharge less often just as you fill up less often. For people doing long-distance miles its a different matter, rapid charging is certainly a power hog.
Also, simple miles = GW maths doesn't factor in hybrids with self-charging and energy recouping from regenerative braking etc.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/...ysis-how-uk-grid-will-cope-ev-revolution-2030
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/advice-electric-cars/how-national-grid-will-work-electric-cars
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...bly-robust-cope-electric-car-demand-2030.html
All of these sites have batteries, so the grid is not overburdened, and they probably have contracts to allow the National Grid to limit their take, literally second to second, to help balance the Grid.

As more EV's come along, and home battery storage, many more of these batteries(inc the parked car) will be linked to the Grid, so you can control/program so if you have a fully charged car, but the grid needs power, you can sell some power, and vice versa, limit your charging at peak times etc,. its all pretty much available now. Add in home solar, and LED lights, reducing the demand, and a big increase in wind, and your their.

There is still backup for no-wind days, at the moment this is a lot of diesel generators sitting, but not running, but this will be reduced by yet more batteries, owned by the Grid.

And most cars spend a great deal of time, sitting doing absolutely nothing(except rusting away) so while the theoretical demand is there, the actual real world demand is not the same. And, EV's trapped in traffic use much less energy than an ICE.

So certainly in the UK, we appear to have a plan. How about that!
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
CLIMATE DENIAL is not tolerable on this site. I proved the source was from a climate denialist - like it or not, feel free to bury your head in the sand, I won't.

Is *Nazism* tolerable on this site? If that's the case, then all references to German aircraft designed between 1933 and 1945 should be scrubbed from the site.

As for burying one's head in the sand... who is denying the math because they don't like the politics of one guy who ran the numbers?

Admittedly, that could prove to be an endless source of amusement. If the fact that a global warming denier likes something means that you will now refuse to engage with it, you can be maneuvered into *anything.* I'm sure a denier can be found who likes your favorite books, TV shows, movies, animals, music, religion, politicians, foods. What happens if a climate denier publicly announces that he likes *you?* What if a denier announces that the sky is blue, water is wet, the world is round, Apollo went to the moon, Oswald shot JFK?
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Is his math wrong about the need to install a *lot* of electrical power fairly quickly? "Climate change" and "electric cars" are separate topics.
Replacing billions of individual engines with 3+ orders of magnitude less engines at combined less than 30% rated output is a problem?

Umm... YES.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,303
Reaction score
1,316
- There's absolutely no need to flood the reports for every single post in a thread, that doesn't reflect the reporters
opinion !

CLIMATE DENIAL is not tolerable on this site. I proved the source was from a climate denialist - like it or not, feel free to bury your head in the sand, I won't.

God damn it, I was asked to do math - no problem with that (yeeeah! )
- but not to justify a flawed source, flawed = written by a climate denialist to justify his rotten agenda.

Common, we know that the source cited is touting impossible numbers just to justify his climate denial bullshit. That's the way it works, just read MERCHANTS OF DOUBT.


I can't accept this.
Picking one argument, whatever it is, not necessarily means, that the poster supports all arguments from that source.
Not supporting e-mobility doesn't necessarily turn someone into a climate denialist.
If a source is wrong with regards to the posted arguments, prove it, or post counter-arguments.
This procedure is called "discussion". Using cusses, capitals, and so on (in a written communication), just is an
attempt to decry the "enemy", quite common today, but please not here !
To all participants: Keep your temper, or this thread will have to be locked.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
753
I have sympathy for Orionblamblam view on the maths as I’ve commonly found there’s a complete lack of understanding of the scale of the change required among those promoting green alternatives. Please consider that approx 82 % of the world energy comes from Petroleum and it’s stunningly energy dense compared to green alternatives. Take for example Commercial Air Transport (CAT) which uses just a few percent of world’s petroleum;- in 2019 CAT released a gigatonn of CO2. People, such as Boeing’s boss, talks glibly about Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) for CAT solving the emissions problems. However in its near term format it’s anything but sustainable because it’s second use Carbon…. Ie waste plastic into oil. To get it fully sustainable you need Direct Carbon Capture from the air (Bio based fuels are massively inefficient;- 0.5% of input energy yielded as output ) . To remove 2019 CAT CO2 emissions using the best method available today (ie Carbon Engineering) it needs a capture machine which is 10m tall, ….5000km…..long and consumes an equivalent of…..one third of the electricity production of the USA today. Of course anything that goes into this machine has to be emission free electricity. That’s just to get the air through the filter section at the desired pressure/mass flow and not to capture or turn the CO2 into anything useful. Now I’m sure people will say it’s gonna improve. Well it may or may not and even it does a ten fold improvement will be close to a miracle and I still need a machine which would start in London and end just before Geneva.

BTW I’m an engineer = good at maths and physics & not = to a climate change denier.
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
1,915
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
To get it fully sustainable you need Direct Carbon Capture from the air (Bio based fuels are massively inefficient;- 0.5% of input energy yielded as output ) . To remove 2019 CAT CO2 emissions using the best method available today (ie Carbon Engineering) it needs a capture machine which is 10m tall, ….5000km…..long and consumes an equivalent of…..one third of the electricity production of the USA today.

There is an alternative: plants. Find or engineer a plant that grows insanely fast, sucking CO2 out of the air and converting it into carbohydrates. The harvest and feed into thermal depolymerization system or some similar to convert to petroleum, refine into standard fuels, feed into jet aircraft, rinse and repeat.

Some plants, like kudzu, grows like mad whether you want them to or not. Seems to me that there are places where all you'd need to do is let it do its thing and just harvest regularly.

This could work with the confluence of SPECTRE-level civil engineering projects. Build sizable artificial lakes in the Australian outback, Sahara desert, American southwest. Places in the midwest where the farming ain't what it used to be could be dug out fifteen, thirty feet deep , a few dozen miles on a side, filled in with pumped-in floodwater. Fill the lakes with sludge and crap and special algae that lives for that, grows incessantly, gets scooped up and fed into the fuel-factory.

*THAT* is an infrastructure program I could get behind. Hell, I've got a koy fish pond that I didn't ask for that produces a couple pounds of algae or duckweed or whatever it is a *day.*
 

Similar threads

Top