Biden To Pitch EV Plan [Electric vehicle discussion]

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,717
Reaction score
6,950
(makes a mental note: of remembering in the future that even rotten sources by rotten people in denial of reality - can be used to justify a point of view as long as the debate remains "courteous" and "healthy")

This lesson will not be forgotten... (vomits loudly)
 
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,872
Reaction score
8,837
(makes a mental note: of remembering in the future that even rotten sources by rotten people in denial of reality - can be used to justify a point of view as long as the debate remains "courteous" and "healthy")

This lesson will not be forgotten... (vomits loudly)
Enough. Your recent behavior on the forum is uncouth and childish. It doesn't help your arguments one iota, it hinders them.

Maths is maths. Possibly this person's figures are faked, massaged or 'worst case scenario' due to their views, but you dispute them using maths not ad hominem attacks.

The scale of the additional clean energy generation needed to replace existing fossil fuels in cars is huge regardless of your views on climate change. A climate change denier can say "too hard, lets do nothing about it", as a believer you don't get to just disbelieve the maths, you have to believe that technology and behavioural change together can find a solution. Here in New Zealand we have the third highest rate of renewable energy use in the world, at 40% - but that leave 60% to replace still if we are all going to drive electric cars etc. It is a problem requiring serious action - giant new geothermal plants, additional hydroelectric stations, wind farms, solar panels on houses....
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,282
Reaction score
4,098
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Here in New Zealand we have the third highest rate of renewable energy use in the world, at 40% - but that leave 60% to replace still if we are all going to drive electric cars etc. It is a problem requiring serious action - giant new geothermal plants, additional hydroelectric stations, wind farms, solar panels on houses....

There is an obvious solution: nuclear power plants. Imagine it... New Zealand becomes a nuclear powerhouse. Wouldn't that be nice?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,282
Reaction score
4,098
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Possibly this person's figures are faked, massaged or 'worst case scenario' due to their views,


Actually, you'll see that the numbers he used are pretty much exactly the same ones I found. And I found them not by googling his numbers, but by googling things like "miles driven in the US" and "kilowatt hours per mile for electric vehicles." I suspect the original Tweeter did much the same. Like the man or not, he *apparently* used numbers that seem to be accepted.
 

drejr

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
286
Reaction score
265
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?

3.2 trillion miles at 300 Wh per mile is 960 TWh.

Add 17.3 GW of extra generation capacity for 14 years and you end up with roughly 2,122 extra TWh of energy.

He's doubled the number to account for peak use in a way I'm not quite sure makes sense, and he's assuming all those miles will be driven by electric vehicles in 2035, which nobody is seriously considering.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,282
Reaction score
4,098
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
He's doubled the number to account for peak use in a way I'm not quite sure makes sense,

Things get fuzzier if you assume something other than nuclear... for instance peak solar production is probably when most of the driving is being done. Cars parked and charging at home will do a lot of that at night when solar is off and wind is generally reduced, so lacking nukes you'd need a *lot* of battery capacity, and that introduces efficiency losses. In any event I suspect most driving, at least of passenger cars, would occur at local "rush hour" which is actually a few hours long, twice a day, so most cars would be charged at times other than those, reducing the number of effective hours in the day for charging.

he's assuming all those miles will be driven by electric vehicles in 2035, which nobody is seriously considering.

There are lots of politicians and planners who want to try to reach that. Seems doubtful they'll succeed, especially if batteries remain terrible compared to IC engines, but it nevertheless remains a goal worth taking note of.

3.2 trillion miles at 300 Wh per mile is 960 TWh.

That's one year. 2020 was reduced due to the pandemic, but I suspect that there has been a general year-to-year rise. Wait, yup:


An attempt to copy/paste the data resulted in a joke of a mess, but some highlights:
1999: 2.68 trillion miles
2009: 2.96 trillion miles
2019: 3.27 trillion

Handwave something like 4 trillion miles driven in the late 2030's. If electric cars get cheaper as suggested, if electricity remains cheap and driving electrically stays cheap and potentially gets cheaper, and especially if self-driving cars become a practical thing... I expect there will be a *lot* more driving. If you had to go a thousand miles, would you rather do it for a few dozen electro-bucks in your own vehicle that you can sleep away much of the trip in (getting the trip done in maybe 12 hours on the road), or would you rather spend several hundred to a few grand to go through TSA security theater to get crammed onto a jetliner, a process that might only be two hours in the air, but four hours on the ground before the flight and two to three more at the other end? The possibility exists, if the technology supports and the infrastructure is properly expanded, that in twenty year the annual road miles traveled might go up 50%.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
626
Reaction score
692
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.
1. The pool of motor vehicles turns over naturally with the lifetime of the vehicle, massive industrial capacity already exists. Think 25 year natural turnover and here is a 10+ year head start.
2. Removing the constrain on scale and field operation and rarely used peak power, standing generators can be optimized to be far more efficient in dimensions of choice due to removed constrains. The fact that unconstrained engines are orders of magnitudes larger than motor vehicle engines shows that existing motor vehicles are very far from the optimal scale. This is reflected that electricity (whose cost includes engine, conversion, transmission and 'noncompetitive market capture cost') is cheaper than gasoline even before counting in the costs of motor vehicle engines.
3. The lack of constraint for electrical generation means just about anything can be made to feed into the grid. Even a hybrid car with some electrical doodads added can feed back into the grid.

Generation, in a broad view, is and will not be the constraint.

The question is whether you can get clean generation and production of sufficient electrical distribution and storage equipment at lowered cost to fulfill demand is still somewhat up in the air. If you successfully identify bottlenecks (long on nickel and copper in 2017?) a killing is to be made.

Electricity is more like an "foundation" to the energy system by enabling efficient usage and fast transmission and conversions everywhere, and it can basically absorb all energy source and consumer within, working with more technology you can imagine. The success of the electrical grid as a technology up to this point, displacing all static heat engines at this point, means it is unwise to bet against it.

The history of the post industrial revolution world is relentless growth that finds ways around all constraints. In term of crisis, the 1960s projections of billions of death due to famine was far more actually threatening, but green revolution goes burrrrrr

Unlike previous crisis that demands new production, this is a replacement of an old system that consumed very significant human and other resources: Pictured: a oil sand mine. To think, dig a hole in the ground only to use it up the resource once. Compare that to production of machines that can be used for decades before being recycled.

enrpresc1_000048714798_2400.jpg


"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!!!"
The problem isn't seen as a real one, because it has historically be solved so well. It is precisely because all the gigawatts up to this point is so invisible to the average upper middle class urban voter that all kind of grandstanding can exist. Compare that with smog, which gets banned and even the Chinese leadership that don't really care about carbon is pushing EVs because breathing Beijing air is obviously unfitting for the new master of the universe. (coal plants in xinjian? lol to them) If electricity prices is really hitting the motivation of that class of people (direct access to the media), building will happen.

The world actually have excess in resources. Just think, some thing like 50+% of the economy is employed in pushing paper to each other and 'virtual' thingys. The smartest people in the generation is building advertising platforms because the big problem is people not buying more stuff rather than making stuff.

"Trivial" means of increasing the production of stuff is known forever, and not pursued because people don't want it. If resources are mobilized like it were ww2 again...oh oh

-------------------

The "utility" of material objects relative to the human animal beyond what goes into stomach and lungs is ultimately very questionable. On a meta-level stuff is socially calibrated status game, and non-central one to boot. So many generations of humanity lived through far more material poor times just fine. People care about social, political and other games just as much as money.

In some sense, the thing to worry is not about the industrial system failing to regrow to fill current capacity, but it succeeding too much and throwing everyone's lives into chaos.

The motor vehicle has been a defining force of geography and society for more than a generation. Fleets of autonomous aerial vehicles have potential reshape society. We don't know what that looks like at all, and it could be bad.
 

drejr

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
286
Reaction score
265
Things get fuzzier if you assume something other than nuclear... for instance peak solar production is probably when most of the driving is being done.

Is the math straightforward or fuzzy?

he's assuming all those miles will be driven by electric vehicles in 2035, which nobody is seriously considering.

There are lots of politicians and planners who want to try to reach that. Seems doubtful they'll succeed, especially if batteries remain terrible compared to IC engines, but it nevertheless remains a goal worth taking note of.

This is the most fundamental error in his math. Phasing out production of IC vehicles by 2035 doesn't mean they disappear from the road instantly. The median age of a light vehicle is ~10 years. This suggests more than half of vehicles on the road in 2035 will be IC even if California (or the IEA roadmap he's specifically critiquing) gets its way. And not even California is planning on phasing out heavy-duty diesel road transport by 2035.

Maths is maths. Possibly this person's figures are faked, massaged or 'worst case scenario' due to their views, but you dispute them using maths not ad hominem attacks.

This is kind of irresistible.

otuvhND.png
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,717
Reaction score
6,950
Also speaks volume of the man "credentials" discussing the subject. On top of climate denial. Surely enough, *psychology* and *massage* really help making him a reference.

Enough said... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,282
Reaction score
4,098
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Also speaks volume of the man "credentials" discussing the subject.

Note to self: reality is now defined by credentials. If a flat earther says water is wet, water is now a gritty solid. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere.

Further note to self: never again use the execrable "note to self" nonsense favored by modern keyboard warriors. Anyone who uses it in seriousness is not to be taken seriously.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,282
Reaction score
4,098
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Things get fuzzier if you assume something other than nuclear... for instance peak solar production is probably when most of the driving is being done.

Is the math straightforward or fuzzy?

Depends on the math and the intention. It also matters if you decide that established facts cease to be a fact if they are stated b y someone who holds opposition views.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
704
Reaction score
1,158
Phasing out production of IC vehicles by 2035 doesn't mean they disappear from the road instantly. The median age of a light vehicle is ~10 years. This suggests more than half of vehicles on the road in 2035 will be IC even if California (or the IEA roadmap he's specifically critiquing) gets its way. And not even California is planning on phasing out heavy-duty diesel road transport by 2035.

The rate of draw down of auto IC will match the rate of auto fuel retail shut down. The margins made by auto fuel retail is generally small so all the independents will fold first, so imagine trying to operate a car without these. Suddenly for some, getting a tank of gas becomes a really big trip. You’ll see whole area’s becoming no go because there’s no fuel conveniently available. (Can you get gas home delivery from Amazon ?…. no doubt delivered in a single use plastic container). People in these will more or less be forced by practicality to move to EV. Conversely other areas, maybe without the affluence to move to EV will tend to hold on to their IC’s so it’ll still be profitable to retail gas. With clean air city specific regulations pushing final stages of close down it’ll happen remarkably quick and for some it’ll be very painfully.

Another issue is heavy haulage which is diesel dependant. These tend to rely on major highway routes so it’s reasonable to assume a supply network will persist along these. But how much auto diesel will be left ?
 

Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,377
Reaction score
1,666
"Depends on the math and the intention" ....
Absolutely correct, I think !
And exactly that's the problem, as the mathmetical field, we are talking about, is "statistics".
And though this subject principally is just meant to visualize big numbers of individual data records,
it was and is subjetc to lots of abuse ... from all sides in nearly every discussion !
I admit, that I'm prone to agreeing to those statistics, that support my own view on a theme, and simply
condemning all others. It's the easy way, and, like the current trend in journalism, too, ".. don't bother
about facts, we have to make headway !", (see Philipp Oehmke about the end of neutrality in journalism)
so you can feel to be on moral high ground, too. Looking at the worldwide problems, and the difficulties
to solve them, that's fully understandable, as the old say goes "The end justifies the means".
But such tricks not always, but often enough, are easy to see through. And in the end, both sides will lose
their credibility, or, as Paul said "It doesn't help your arguments one iota" !
 

drejr

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
286
Reaction score
265
Things get fuzzier if you assume something other than nuclear... for instance peak solar production is probably when most of the driving is being done.

Is the math straightforward or fuzzy?

Depends on the math and the intention. It also matters if you decide that established facts cease to be a fact if they are stated b y someone who holds opposition views.

His established facts are probably correct.

His use of them to critique the IAE report as a "sick joke" is invalid because his math doesn't describe any scenario in the report - which actually has an alternate "All‐Electric Case" for 2050 it rejects as undesirable compared to "plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles and advanced biofuels" like you were just advocating.

The report isn't "switching to electric cars powered by solar is quick and easy hurr-durr," it's a fairly comprehensive examination of the massive investments that would have to happen to achieve a net carbon zero economy by 2050 using every source of energy. Multiplying two numbers together isn't exactly a masterstroke of refutation.
 
Last edited:

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
626
Reaction score
692
bp-historical-worl-oil-production-1900-to-2006.png

The oil age isn't that old. Look at how fast production ramped up 60s. Once supply chain gets set in place stuff can change fast, unless getting stuck behind a hard resource bottleneck. Even oil, a singular, consumed resource and source of many supply scares, gets its bottleneck avoided with new technology like fraking though it slowed growth for a bit.
The rate of draw down of auto IC will match the rate of auto fuel retail shut down. The margins made by auto fuel retail is generally small so all the independents will fold first, so imagine trying to operate a car without these.
If electric adaption is slow, the fuel system does not get shut down (unless banned/regulated/taxes to death by overzealous ideology driven govt.), so no problem.

If electric adaption is fast (which need workable products), than no problem either.

That said: retail will just raise prices, unless people want to figure out redeveloping superfund sites. The high energy density of gas means very few sites is needed to enable usage, and I would indeed expect delivery for areas without fixed supply. (perhaps self driving electric tanker with a pump) After all, people run ICE vehicle in places like Somalia. The use of fuel for aircraft, heavy vehicle, and ships mean supply shouldn't be a problem in the 30s. (Harder to say in the 40s+, depends on alt energy development)

The thing to expect is that EV will get significant lifecycle price superiority in the transportation as a service sense, but people do things like buy sports cars. As ICE cars become higher cost, it'd actually be dumped by lower income segments highly sensitive to economics (it already is in high gas tax areas) and become toys for middle class+ people and these people have resources to operate regardless of economics. It is the rural upper middle class with all their toys that is crying about the EV killing their ability to tow a boat and RV for huge distances for fun, those are not demographics are is deprived and need "actual practicality" in any sense.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
834
Reaction score
736
Phasing out production of IC vehicles by 2035 doesn't mean they disappear from the road instantly. The median age of a light vehicle is ~10 years. This suggests more than half of vehicles on the road in 2035 will be IC even if California (or the IEA roadmap he's specifically critiquing) gets its way. And not even California is planning on phasing out heavy-duty diesel road transport by 2035.

The rate of draw down of auto IC will match the rate of auto fuel retail shut down. The margins made by auto fuel retail is generally small so all the independents will fold first, so imagine trying to operate a car without these. Suddenly for some, getting a tank of gas becomes a really big trip. You’ll see whole area’s becoming no go because there’s no fuel conveniently available. (Can you get gas home delivery from Amazon ?…. no doubt delivered in a single use plastic container). People in these will more or less be forced by practicality to move to EV. Conversely other areas, maybe without the affluence to move to EV will tend to hold on to their IC’s so it’ll still be profitable to retail gas. With clean air city specific regulations pushing final stages of close down it’ll happen remarkably quick and for some it’ll be very painfully.

Another issue is heavy haulage which is diesel dependant. These tend to rely on major highway routes so it’s reasonable to assume a supply network will persist along these. But how much auto diesel will be left ?
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
834
Reaction score
736
Clearly an emotive subject, across the world. Interesting to me at least, is that cars is the 4th on the list, Industry, electricity/Heating, and agri are bigger producers of Co2.

1623519448825.png
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
98
Reaction score
104
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.*
The closest plan to that is heavy subsidies of corn (US) and sugar cane (Brazil) to produce ethanol. For corn-based ethanol, the amount of petroleum or coal required to provide the fertilizer for the corn production and the energy for the destructive distillation process just about equals the carbon savings. It's mostly a welfare plan for corn farmers.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,282
Reaction score
4,098
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The closest plan to that is heavy subsidies of corn (US) and sugar cane (Brazil) to produce ethanol. For corn-based ethanol, the amount of petroleum or coal required to provide the fertilizer for the corn production and the energy for the destructive distillation process just about equals the carbon savings. It's mostly a welfare plan for corn farmers.

Indeed. One of the problems with those is that the crops are grown in order to convert a small part of the plant into some sort of fuel, but with something like thermal depolymerization, you convert the *whole* plant into fuel. And plants like corn and cane require some effort to cultivate... but some plants like kudzu and other weeds grow whether you want them to or not. Weeds and pond scum are plants with no other good use, while corn you can *eat.* Corn turned into fuel is corn not used to feed people or food critters.

I'd be interested to see the results of as serious and well funded effort to compare the economics of converting grass and kudzu and algae and duckweed and seaweed and whatever else into petroleum via TDP. The ability to manufacture petroleum would be handy not just for fuel, but the plastics industry.
 

Basil

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
294
Reaction score
83
Clearly an emotive subject, across the world. Interesting to me at least, is that cars is the 4th on the list, Industry, electricity/Heating, and agri are bigger producers of Co2.

View attachment 658872

Yes, an interesting presentation of emission sources, although now a bit older than 10 years. More recent representations show a de facto unchanged distribution of emission sources.

It is undisputed that a shift from fossil fuels to renewables will have to occur in the coming decades.
But it is also apparent that the global transportation sector contributes a comparatively small amount of greenhouse gases to other emitters at 12%; global road transport is likely to be 8-10%, with shipping and aviation making up the remainder.

For reasons that are not necessarily rational, there is currently an enormous political pressure (at least in Europe) to switch from internal combustion engines to battery vehicles. The bizarre thing here is that politics prescribes the technical solution (battery drive), instead of politics leaving the solution of CO2 reduction to science and industry in the form of technology openness. Such approaches have almost never led to viable long-term situations.

Interestingly, battery vehicles (at least in Europe) are considered as zero-emission vehicles with no cradle-to-grave consideration or no consideration of where the electrical energy comes from, and are massively subsidized. This will lead to a shift of CO2 emissions from road transport to the energy sector (electricity production) without any noticeable relief of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Covering the enormous additional electrical energy demand when switching to battery-powered vehicles with renewable sources will naturally remain wishful thinking, however, with a lot of economic and possibly also environmental collateral damages, especially since both caloric and nuclear power plant construction will experience (and is already experiencing) a corresponding boost.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
306
Reaction score
264
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.

Kudzu can also be used as a food source.

It's used to make mochi in Tokyo (the roots are starchy so they can be used for glutinous foods), the flowers can make a jam, and bumblebees can use its nectar for honey.

Kudzu Jam (and starch) Jello would probably be the natural American outcome I suppose.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
626
Reaction score
692
For reasons that are not necessarily rational, there is currently an enormous political pressure (at least in Europe) to switch from internal combustion engines to battery vehicles. The bizarre thing here is that politics prescribes the technical solution (battery drive), instead of politics leaving the solution of CO2 reduction to science and industry in the form of technology openness. Such approaches have almost never led to viable long-term situations.
It is pretty rational when you view it politically. The rational politician obviously optimize for success.

There is a sizable irrational voter block and various rational actors piggybacking it that is enough to build a coalition. It is uncommon to have a policy position that appeals to green left, urban media classes, industrial right and even fringe nationalists.

Large industrial investment requirement is actually a plus as far as policy support goes, as power infrastructure is local. After all, the job of representatives is job creation, and small block with huge benefit has more influence on policy than the majority where small costs extracted are too low to care and organize. There is also no one that'd organize on behalf of say, Saudis.

The timing of a lot of the policy (why now, not earlier or later? or hydrogen or whatever) is because the trend looks clear enough that it is safe to jump into it without backfiring on the person calling for it. If a natural trend is working out, how can a politician not insert themselves via policy claims for an opportunity to claim credit a few years down the road?
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
834
Reaction score
736
Clearly an emotive subject, across the world. Interesting to me at least, is that cars is the 4th on the list, Industry, electricity/Heating, and agri are bigger producers of Co2.

View attachment 658872

Yes, an interesting presentation of emission sources, although now a bit older than 10 years. More recent representations show a de facto unchanged distribution of emission sources.

It is undisputed that a shift from fossil fuels to renewables will have to occur in the coming decades.
But it is also apparent that the global transportation sector contributes a comparatively small amount of greenhouse gases to other emitters at 12%; global road transport is likely to be 8-10%, with shipping and aviation making up the remainder.

For reasons that are not necessarily rational, there is currently an enormous political pressure (at least in Europe) to switch from internal combustion engines to battery vehicles. The bizarre thing here is that politics prescribes the technical solution (battery drive), instead of politics leaving the solution of CO2 reduction to science and industry in the form of technology openness. Such approaches have almost never led to viable long-term situations.

Interestingly, battery vehicles (at least in Europe) are considered as zero-emission vehicles with no cradle-to-grave consideration or no consideration of where the electrical energy comes from, and are massively subsidized. This will lead to a shift of CO2 emissions from road transport to the energy sector (electricity production) without any noticeable relief of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Covering the enormous additional electrical energy demand when switching to battery-powered vehicles with renewable sources will naturally remain wishful thinking, however, with a lot of economic and possibly also environmental collateral damages, especially since both caloric and nuclear power plant construction will experience (and is already experiencing) a corresponding boost.
I think one of the changes that will help, is that having an EV, pushes the owner to get solar PV, if they can. Certainly in the UK the price for PV is now quite affordable and is a no-brainer versus paying the grid for power.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
98
Reaction score
104
Even with the inefficiencies of transmission and battery charge/discharge, there is still a net savings in CO2 production by going to electric vehicles, as utility plants tend to much more efficient than motor vehicle engines. However, utility generation is not exclusively by fossil fuels, as there are alternatives, such as hydropower, nuclear, wind, and solar (tidal and wave energy are likely to remain trivial), which generate varying percentages of utility power in different regions. As an example, the Northeastern US is far less dependent on fossil fuel electricity production than states like Indiana, and France, Switzerland, and New Zealand have low levels of fossil fuel powered electricity production.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
626
Reaction score
692
Some news in this sector:

The key problem with power batteries is the high price, but BYD has cut the cost of the Blade by at least CNY600 (USD92.56) per kilowatt hour, Sun Huajun, deputy general manager of BYD subsidiary Fudi Battery, told the media last year.

It is calculated that at $100k USD /kWh a 350 mile EV can be made at the same price as a Camry (at $26,000), enabling cost parity replacement of ICE in most market segments.
-------
The vehicle prices actually do reflect the low price of the battery pack: a look on their lineup:

The BYD Yuan Pro for example:
$14,000 USD for 300km range. $17,000 USD for 400km.

There is also a whole family of vehicles in the price range on sale in China.

Upcoming BYD Dolphin will be exported to Australia and Europe, so homologation is on the table. The price is suggested to be from 15~22k USD in Australia in early 2022, with 400km range and 800V fast charging (150km/5minutes charge rate?)
--------
Some people have suggested that future battery breakthroughs will be necessary for widespread BEV adaption. I suspect that the necessary breakthrough is the adaption of LFP battery in automotive.
1. No bottleneck minerals. No nickel, no cobalt. Lithium Iron Phosphate are all common around the world.
2. Higher safety than alternative chemistries
3. Fast charge friendly

The increased weight makes it an unsexy choice, but it may prove to be the economic choice as sheer production efficiency could make it work.

Solid state batteries with unproven production methods and incomplete supply chain will not reach cost parity any time soon and would end in high end products for the weight savings.

---------------
On the long haul front, I think this is a neat idea that'd kill railroads once highway self drive is solved.

-------------
This thread started on Biden support of electrification. That is not interesting when other major economies is doing the same for whatever reason. The more interesting thing to watch is when Chinese producers managed to scale and have surplus capacity to export: what kind of trade war will happen then?

The other thing to watch is ships: when will governments apply pressure and what technology will win out?
 

dannydale

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
547
Reaction score
380
The other thing to watch is ships: when will governments apply pressure and what technology will win out?
My impression is that shipping companies have massively powerful lobbying efforts. This is going to take a lot of pressure, and the companies might want to retaliate by way of directing some of their hundreds of abandoned cargo and tanker ships toward land. Think Sri Lanka, but as an intentional warfare tactic by stateless or multinational actors.


Powerful people have engaged in worse, more destructive temper tantrums over smaller slights in the past.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
704
Reaction score
1,158
The other thing to watch is ships: when will governments apply pressure and what technology will win out?

Shipping is going to Green Ammonia;- they’ve transported Ammonia as a cargo for decades so are unphased by it (ie they’re free from the LH2 religious zealots who wish to brand NH3 as a nerve gas to suit they’re nonsense agenda), diesel engines run very nicely on it, it’s even retrofittable in existing ships and fuel mass isn’t a problem. A lot of Mann Marine Engines are already qualified to run on it;-


“ship that uses ammonia as marine fuel. Begun in April 2021, the project is being sponsored by Lloyds Register (UK) and the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping (Denmark),** and A. P. Moller-Maersk (Denmark), MAN Energy Solutions (Germany), Total (France), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan), and NYK are participating.”

That’s most of the maritime industry.

 
Last edited:

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
834
Reaction score
736
The oil age isn't that old. Look at how fast production ramped up 60s. Once supply chain gets set in place stuff can change fast, unless getting stuck behind a hard resource bottleneck. Even oil, a singular, consumed resource and source of many supply scares, gets its bottleneck avoided with new technology like fraking though it slowed growth for a bit.
The rate of draw down of auto IC will match the rate of auto fuel retail shut down. The margins made by auto fuel retail is generally small so all the independents will fold first, so imagine trying to operate a car without these.
If electric adaption is slow, the fuel system does not get shut down (unless banned/regulated/taxes to death by overzealous ideology driven govt.), so no problem.

If electric adaption is fast (which need workable products), than no problem either.

That said: retail will just raise prices, unless people want to figure out redeveloping superfund sites. The high energy density of gas means very few sites is needed to enable usage, and I would indeed expect delivery for areas without fixed supply. (perhaps self driving electric tanker with a pump) After all, people run ICE vehicle in places like Somalia. The use of fuel for aircraft, heavy vehicle, and ships mean supply shouldn't be a problem in the 30s. (Harder to say in the 40s+, depends on alt energy development)

The thing to expect is that EV will get significant lifecycle price superiority in the transportation as a service sense, but people do things like buy sports cars. As ICE cars become higher cost, it'd actually be dumped by lower income segments highly sensitive to economics (it already is in high gas tax areas) and become toys for middle class+ people and these people have resources to operate regardless of economics. It is the rural upper middle class with all their toys that is crying about the EV killing their ability to tow a boat and RV for huge distances for fun, those are not demographics are is deprived and need "actual practicality" in any sense.
Remote areas, can have a charging station in a shipping container, solar panels and a battery - these systems already exist. Sure a large upfront cost, but the running costs are low.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
626
Reaction score
692
A idea have just hit me.

Is technology converging on faster road travel? Look at the following trends:
1. Much Lower Cost energy in electricity
2. Low Cost high speed performance
3. Computer assisted driving for safety
4. Safety from improved vehicle structure due to reduced geometric constraints.

There are two road blocks in faster speed, in
1. Low energy storage
2. Infrastructure/regulations

And for #1, it is problem that can be dealt with by
1. Lowered battery costs for more onboard capacity (all of automotive investment going here)
2. Energy transmission while driving: eg. overhead wires (or fancier) in trollybuses.
3. Quality battery swap technology and infrastructure (see nio)
4. Very fast charging with infrastructure support (100km/2min@100km/h charge available now? with graphene)

And basically, any "long range EV" should convert surplus energy storage into speed for any sub-threshold travel distance as the marginal cost is nothing. The time optimal travel curve would change quite a bit with extra fast chargers.

it is the legal and traffic management side that has no technological solution.
------------------
Now I'll add this came from thinking about how to replicate the high speed rail experience without high speed rail costs. The first thing is figuring out how to up the speed limit, the rest can be done by the invisible hand.

The ability of graphene to improve charge/discharge rates is already shown in the real graphene power bank. Will scaling it for automotive become the first killer app for this hard to fab material?

Remote areas, can have a charging station in a shipping container, solar panels and a battery - these systems already exist. Sure a large upfront cost, but the running costs are low.
Low utilization means return on investment is poor, and depreciation/limited system lifespan hurts bad. I'd think this kind of system would only really make economic sense once the ecosystem is mature and one can build a ultra long lifespan system that'd pay itself back in decades, otherwise it is a money loser and probably have to be subsidized by automakers and government.
 
Last edited:

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
650
I don't see this happening.

1. Drag goes up with the square of speed. Double the speed = 4 times the energy use, 1/4 the range.
2. The time optimal travel curve sucks even for petrol cars. Going from 120 km/h to 180 km/h 'goal speed' only rose my average from 100 km/h to 120 km/h over a 500 km journey on quiet, unrestricted Autobahns, while adding a fuel stop.
3. supplying energy to moving cars is difficult at the scale you'd need. You could get it to work for a few cars, but a motorway full of them? The power draw is going to be enormous. For example, overhead catenary is limited to a few thousand A before the wire melts. In the Netherlands, trains have to leave large stations at intervals to avoid overloading the local substion.
4. We're a long way away from having the kind of excess power generation that would make this not seem a frivolous waste.
 

Similar threads

Top