ICE Engines Hear to Stay Regardless of War Against

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Thats what I always wondered.  For Britain.  As they banned ice 2030. Same with Quebec... that has plenty of hydro power. I saw an article that Egyptian gov subsidized nat gas ice conversion after their big gas find.... is there not a economic and responsible way to implement green ? I feel alot of copy and paste going on. I ask about Britain since its recently coal free at times.

Here in Canada solar power really can't pay off.  The reason is winter. They want us to use electric heating and are imposing taxes to do it. Like 11$ carbon tax per mcf vs gas that is worth 3$ (2030 tax rate) . But you swap cars and house heating to E from FF and my 500kwh house is at 2000kwh in sept with no sun . And a roof that could mabey supply 1200kwh 100% covered and with sunny side of garage covered. So doesnt make sense.  We have tons of room water and  NG so a proper mix of hydro nuclear and gas should have us plenty clean and cheap. And NG vehicles would do alot also if you could find one and not get ripped on for propane or compression (filling) . 

 I agree that each country should consider the most economic way to pursue green depending on their own resources. Britain is blessed with superb wind resources, and is only a tiny country compared to Canada. They have an EV fast-charger in virtually every petrol station, and do not generally drive large distances. I have always said that cold countries should continue using NG for heating where that is the most practical method. However, I think it largely depends on whether you live in a city or in a rural area. That is why I don't like Carbon taxes. They apply too broadly and I think "direct action" is a better solution. The Canadian govt should be able to drastically cut Canada's emissions through appropriate regulations whilst making allowances for those that live in rural areas such as yourself. Agree that it silly for Canada to pursue 100% solar and wind when you have such wonderful Hydro resources, however, your govt might have an eye on the future which is likely to be dominated by H2. You have a lot of room for windmills, so maybe that is their plan?

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

https://youtu.be/H4G7Hr2ZaCc?t=56

[Boat + 1,315]

On 12/7/2020 at 12:54 AM, ronwagn said:

https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/despite-lefts-war-fossil-fuels-internal-combustion-engine-stay/

The veracity of ICE staying power is obvious but many choose to deceive themselves and others. Ronwagn

Despite left's war on fossil fuels, internal combustion engine 'here to stay'

Analysis cites cost, power, ease of use and more

By WND News Services
Published December 6, 2020 at 7:08pm

 

Energy is not left and right. Just pollution is right. Lol Who does not want energy independence to keep the right out of oil wars. Home grown renewables = jobs and cleaner air. What’s not to like.

[Boat + 1,315]

On 12/7/2020 at 12:54 AM, ronwagn said:

https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/despite-lefts-war-fossil-fuels-internal-combustion-engine-stay/

The veracity of ICE staying power is obvious but many choose to deceive themselves and others. Ronwagn

Despite left's war on fossil fuels, internal combustion engine 'here to stay'

Analysis cites cost, power, ease of use and more

By WND News Services
Published December 6, 2020 at 7:08pm

 

Energy is not left and right. Just pollution is right. Lol Who does not want energy independence to keep the right out of oil wars. Home grown renewables = jobs and cleaner air. What’s not to like.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

7 hours ago, Wombat said:

 I agree that each country should consider the most economic way to pursue green depending on their own resources. Britain is blessed with superb wind resources, and is only a tiny country compared to Canada. They have an EV fast-charger in virtually every petrol station, and do not generally drive large distances. I have always said that cold countries should continue using NG for heating where that is the most practical method. However, I think it largely depends on whether you live in a city or in a rural area. That is why I don't like Carbon taxes. They apply too broadly and I think "direct action" is a better solution. The Canadian govt should be able to drastically cut Canada's emissions through appropriate regulations whilst making allowances for those that live in rural areas such as yourself. Agree that it silly for Canada to pursue 100% solar and wind when you have such wonderful Hydro resources, however, your govt might have an eye on the future which is likely to be dominated by H2. You have a lot of room for windmills, so maybe that is their plan?

If Britain can get there on wind is then the question. 

The carbon tax are just that . Not specific.  Wealth transfer from rich to poor (and that doesn't lower emissions just changes their location)

Im not in the city but also not in the country. A major shopping mall is 5 mins away not like growing up being 30 mins away. And I got dirt bikes and atvs going up and down my street pretty regularly (now). 

As for the smallness of Britain : seems like larger countries should leave the EV till last and let current battery tech and production go to where its used best. 

And finally does Canada have a emission problem? Wouldn't it be better to help a bad area then improve a good area? I know energy use per person is high ... but population is low, climate is energy dependent and lifestyle are energy dependent.

I was reading on places using coal and cow dung to heat their homes. I'm not for socialism or globalism or my government shipping away money but I'd rather funding at low interest rates for 2nd / 3rd world countries to get jobs and a green economy than forcing us to change our jobs and economy. The article was saying many in the ex USSR place can't remember where couldn't afford the 500$ for coal and had stripped nat gas lines out for scrap. I'd rather help them then the guy with a mansion and a tesla. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Boat said:

Energy is not left and right. Just pollution is right. Lol Who does not want energy independence to keep the right out of oil wars. Home grown renewables = jobs and cleaner air. What’s not to like.

California pays double for energy. We don't want to pay double in the rest of the country. Politicians make a stupid mistake when they think they can eliminate fossil fuels. Don't you agree? You are not that stupid. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Boat said:

Energy is not left and right. Just pollution is right. Lol Who does not want energy independence to keep the right out of oil wars. Home grown renewables = jobs and cleaner air. What’s not to like.

Renewables create more expensive energy, if they can compete, they will win EVENTUALLY. Let the principles of capitalism take their course without wasting money in the meantime. 

China is increasing pollution while we are already reducing it. They are gaining a great economic advantage by doing so. We must wake up to that FACT. 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Renewables create more expensive energy, if they can compete, they will win EVENTUALLY. Let the principles of capitalism take their course without wasting money in the meantime. 

China is increasing pollution while we are already reducing it. They are gaining a great economic advantage by doing so. We must wake up to that FACT. 

I think Solar is the way to go for California and that is relatively cheap just ask @Jay McKinsey and is getting cheaper.

The cost of installation may remain a barrier however, but I'm sure Jay will inform you better than me on that.

Ron I totally agree with you on NG regarding heating and for power gen back up to renewables.

It truly is a crime regarding all the flaring in the shale patch. Is there no practical/economical way of capturing this resource? or should there be an environmental tax on all flaring to reduce this.

Welcome your thoughts.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

Here you go @ronwagn right on cue from Oil Price

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-EV-Of-The-Future-May-Never-Have-To-Be-Charged.html

I think there is a place for ICE cars/trucks in the future but with these sorts of advancements ICE vehicles will be niche not mainstream. ICE vehicles will remain a mainstay for the military for example for some time to come.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't fancy driving one of these but its just the start, in 5-10 years you'll probably have a 4 wheel, 4/5 door saloon that will do the same.

https://www.aptera.us/

You can bet Tesla and its rivals will already be looking at similar options for the body shell to be the battery and to be self charging. That infrastructure argument becomes irrelevant pretty damn quick.

[Boat + 1,315]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

California pays double for energy. We don't want to pay double in the rest of the country. Politicians make a stupid mistake when they think they can eliminate fossil fuels. Don't you agree? You are not that stupid. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1108684/monthly-utility-costs-usa-state/

 

Just more right talking California hating. Lol Turns our California pays less than most states on the actual monthly bill. It’s location, location, location. Aparently they don’t use as much electricity. 

You feel bad now? Look at those high prices for nat gas for the states that pay the highest monthly bill. See the trend? 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Boat

[Boat + 1,315]

13 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Renewables create more expensive energy, if they can compete, they will win EVENTUALLY. Let the principles of capitalism take their course without wasting money in the meantime. 

China is increasing pollution while we are already reducing it. They are gaining a great economic advantage by doing so. We must wake up to that

So why is wind doing so well in red states with red governors, red state legislators along with a Red president to boot? Are you saying wind is a Republican problem and their wasting money? How did wind become a Dem problem/compete with China problem in red states. Now Tesla is building a huge electrical vehicle factory that will employ thousands and take oil market share in Texas. Is that the fault of Dems? Are Republicans working with China?

Edited December 15, 2020 by Boat

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/15/2020 at 1:13 PM, Boat said:

So why is wind doing so well in red states with red governors, red state legislators along with a Red president to boot? Are you saying wind is a Republican problem and their wasting money? How did wind become a Dem problem/compete with China problem in red states. Now Tesla is building a huge electrical vehicle factory that will employ thousands and take oil market share in Texas. Is that the fault of Dems? Are Republicans working with China?

I am not against electricity from wind and solar. I am against higher prices that are charged to customers. If you can actually beat natural gas, on a level playing field, then go for it. I am against coal and nuclear for good reasons. There are no good reasons to oppose natural gas any more than wind and solar. Also it will be decades before electric vehicles gain replace half of the ICE, gasoline, and diesel market. 

I have nothing against electric vehicles either, but they must be affordable over the long term and the population must not be forced to use them by trying to eliminated their choices and paying taxes to pay for others to buy them. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 12/15/2020 at 3:56 PM, ronwagn said:

California pays double for energy. We don't want to pay double in the rest of the country. Politicians make a stupid mistake when they think they can eliminate fossil fuels. Don't you agree? You are not that stupid. 

Ron, Texas is leading California in the green race and has amongst the lowest electricity prices in the USA. It is the wildfires that make CA prices so high.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

Ron, Texas is leading California in the green race and has amongst the lowest electricity prices in the USA. It is the wildfires that make CA prices so high.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2020/august/ercot.php

47.4% of their electricity comes from natural gas.

20.3 % from coal

20% from wind

10.8% from nuclear

1.1% from solar

 

 

[Boat + 1,315]

On 12/7/2020 at 9:45 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

This is one of every six dealerships, which sounds bad. But the underlying story is that a dealership had to commit to the purchase of $200,000 of new diagnostic equipment and had to train their technicians on their own dime. So what really happened was the smallest one-sixth of the dealerships decided that this did not make economic sense.  This is more about the elimination of small dealerships than it is about EVs.

On the other side of the equation, GM/Cadillac is very late to the luxury EV market. The dealers know that Tesla already completely owns that market, and trying to win against Tesla and Tesla's non-dealership sales approach is unlikely to work.

Finally, Cadillac's customer demographic is still fairly weighted toward retired folks, and many of these are fairly set in their ways and unlikely to buy an EV in the first place.

I disagree. There are only a few million electric cars in exhistance while the car market is getting close to 100 million per year? Plenty of room for late bloomers. In 10 years Musk hopes to be making 20 million a year. Plenty of meat on the bone left.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

48 minutes ago, Boat said:

I disagree. There are only a few million electric cars in exhistance while the car market is getting close to 100 million per year? Plenty of room for late bloomers. In 10 years Musk hopes to be making 20 million a year. Plenty of meat on the bone left.

I just read GM has broken the Nikola deal and is going solo into ev. They have the biggest battery 200kwh and plan on having 23 pure EV models by 2023. So I guess there playing EV ball. I don't see Tesla doing well. Also read about NIO . Probably going to out sell tesla in China.  Toyota bought the Motor manufacturer for Tesla and is selling EV tech along with a 10 min recharge batter. So id say EV will take market because its being mandated to. Auto makers are increasing offerings and competing on cost . And fuel being over taxed. But as for stock markets I wouldn't be long Tesla. It's only hope would be to become a self driving delivery service of people and goods. Otherwise Volvo has a EV semi Nicola has a semi out ( who knows if the thing ever gets to market) . I'd say 2025 tesla sales are effected. They'll need alot of money to sell 20M cars./ year. Consider how much they've already put into their plants from stock sales. And even if they get there they need the profit per car to stay at a lofted EV like 650B$ 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

Yeah, there's still a lot of improvement on Internal combustion engine, Formula 1 did get 50% efficiency and over 1000 Horsepower from tiny 1.6 V6, 4 years ago, most likely they are nowadays at around 55% efficiency, and that's with just a single turbo, no thermal recovery system, no dual spark plugs, no urea-water injection in the intake, passive instead of active jet ignition, no turbocompound, no second stage turbocharger

And is a small 13000RPM engine, larger slower revving engines with similar tech would be more efficient and surpass the 60% barrier, before you start attaching the aforementioned stuff

Your theoretical max Internal combustion efficiency is around 80%, having a shot at 65% efficiency wouldn't be a much of a trouble with current technology.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 12/15/2020 at 6:05 AM, Rob Plant said:

Here you go @ronwagn right on cue from Oil Price

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-EV-Of-The-Future-May-Never-Have-To-Be-Charged.html

I think there is a place for ICE cars/trucks in the future but with these sorts of advancements ICE vehicles will be niche not mainstream. ICE vehicles will remain a mainstay for the military for example for some time to come.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't fancy driving one of these but its just the start, in 5-10 years you'll probably have a 4 wheel, 4/5 door saloon that will do the same.

https://www.aptera.us/

You can bet Tesla and its rivals will already be looking at similar options for the body shell to be the battery and to be self charging. That infrastructure argument becomes irrelevant pretty damn quick.

Sorry, no, based on the laws of physics. There is a maximum theoretical amount of solar energy available per square meter per day, and a there is a minimum practical amount of energy needed per day for a real car. There is simply not enough solar energy falling on the car over the course of a day to power it for the day, even if the car could capture all of that energy. There is no way a real car can become as efficient as an Aptera. The Aptera is basically a motorized single-person recumbent tricycle wrapped in solar panels. In perfect conditions, the Aptera can capture enough energy per day to go 40 miles at low speed with no hills. That simply does not scale to a real car, for many reasons.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

9 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry, no, based on the laws of physics. There is a maximum theoretical amount of solar energy available per square meter per day, and a there is a minimum practical amount of energy needed per day for a real car. There is simply not enough solar energy falling on the car over the course of a day to power it for the day, even if the car could capture all of that energy. There is no way a real car can become as efficient as an Aptera. The Aptera is basically a motorized single-person recumbent tricycle wrapped in solar panels. In perfect conditions, the Aptera can capture enough energy per day to go 40 miles at low speed with no hills. That simply does not scale to a real car, for many reasons.

Dan I agree 100% with what you say based on current technology.

What I was trying to point out to @ronwagn who asked why dont they have solar panels on EV's  was that they already did and here is one.

The fact that Aptera claim to never need to charge it is somewhat fanciful I would agree and I don't class this as a car.

The point I was making originally is that the car body panels will be the battery (ie graphene battery) in the future, no solar panels, lightweight (no heavy battery to cart about) 1000 mile range, super fast charging (a few minutes) this is what I see as being the future and whoever cracks it will be king of the EV world and ICE engines will be niche only ie military

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

10 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Dan I agree 100% with what you say based on current technology.

What I was trying to point out to @ronwagn who asked why dont they have solar panels on EV's  was that they already did and here is one.

The fact that Aptera claim to never need to charge it is somewhat fanciful I would agree and I don't class this as a car.

The point I was making originally is that the car body panels will be the battery (ie graphene battery) in the future, no solar panels, lightweight (no heavy battery to cart about) 1000 mile range, super fast charging (a few minutes) this is what I see as being the future and whoever cracks it will be king of the EV world and ICE engines will be niche only ie military

Making the car body panels into a battery is a awful idea, you need more wirings, more complex protection, the fear the whole body panels will not catch fire when it crashes or cracks

The "crack the code" for ev batteries is the fluoride ion battery, sure it needs to work at 150°C, but so what? if you put it into a box with multilayer-aerogel core vacuum insulated panels is not a big deal, plus theres much less concern with copper and fluorite mining

what will determine if ICEs will go over the 2050s is engine efficiency and fuel price, because at 65% efficiency and with fuel prices of 0.25U$D/liter the EV is nearly dead again, it would need charging stations at 45U$D/MWh to be competitive

Edited December 17, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

6 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Making the car body panels into a battery is a awful idea, you need more wirings, more complex protection, the fear the whole body panels will not catch fire when it crashes or cracks

The "crack the code" for ev batteries is the fluoride ion battery, sure it needs to work at 150°C, but so what? if you put it into a box with multilayer-aerogel core vacuum insulated panels is not a big deal, plus theres much less concern with copper and fluorite mining

what will determine if ICEs will go over the 2050s is engine efficiency and fuel price, because at 65% efficiency and with fuel prices of 0.25U$D/liter the EV is nearly dead again, it would need charging stations at 45U$D/MWh to be competitive

Sorry but nope 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/graphene-batteries-supercapacitors

https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/nanoscience-investing/graphene-investing/graphene-battery-tesla/

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/graphene-based-supercapacitors-could-eliminate-batteries-electric-cars-within-5-years/

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

11 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Sorry but nope 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/graphene-batteries-supercapacitors

https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/nanoscience-investing/graphene-investing/graphene-battery-tesla/

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/graphene-based-supercapacitors-could-eliminate-batteries-electric-cars-within-5-years/

>Wired
>IFL Science

A Fluoride ion battery has potential to go to 2000Wh/kg and 5400Wh/l and last 2500 cycles, while those graphene supercapacitors have around 150Wh/kg is 10 times better than normal capacitors, which is not such a high bar really

https://anr.fr/Project-ANR-12-PRGE-0009

Edited December 17, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

25 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Dan I agree 100% with what you say based on current technology.

What I was trying to point out to @ronwagn who asked why dont they have solar panels on EV's  was that they already did and here is one.

The fact that Aptera claim to never need to charge it is somewhat fanciful I would agree and I don't class this as a car.

The point I was making originally is that the car body panels will be the battery (ie graphene battery) in the future, no solar panels, lightweight (no heavy battery to cart about) 1000 mile range, super fast charging (a few minutes) this is what I see as being the future and whoever cracks it will be king of the EV world and ICE engines will be niche only ie military

My discussion was not about "current technology". It was about the maximum theoretical energy available with perfect 100% energy capture, to power a practical (4-door, five-seater, peppy) car with a 100% efficient drive train. There is just not enough energy except under perfect conditions, and perfect conditions never occur. Therefore it is better to have a big enough battery in the car and charge it using power from properly located solar panels on your home's roof and stored in your home's battery. Panels suitable for your home do not need to be rugged enough to withstand a car crash, or light weight, or conformable, and they can be optimally sited, so that should continue to be much cheaper than panels on a car. Assume that the energy loss (home panel->home battery->car battery) is 20%. This is about what we expect for today's technology. Then we need to buy 20% more panels, but these panels will be at most half the cost of panels on the car,and the home panels also provide power to the home. Furthermore, our roof panels are more optimally sited than a car can possibly be, so in practice we need less area, not more, to capture the same energy.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

4 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

My discussion was not about "current technology". It was about the maximum theoretical energy available with perfect 100% energy capture, to power a practical (4-door, five-seater, peppy) car with a 100% efficient drive train. There is just not enough energy except under perfect conditions, and perfect conditions never occur. Therefore it is better to have a big enough battery in the car and charge it using power from properly located solar panels on your home's roof and stored in your home's battery. Panels suitable for your home do not need to be rugged enough to withstand a car crash, or light weight, or conformable, and they can be optimally sited, so that should continue to be much cheaper than panels on a car. Assume that the energy loss (home panel->home battery->car battery) is 20%. This is about what we expect for today's technology. Then we need to buy 20% more panels, but these panels will be at most half the cost of panels on the car,and the home panels also provide power to the home. Furthermore, our roof panels are more optimally sited than a car can possibly be, so in practice we need less area, not more, to capture the same energy.

I agree with your argument but your over complicating it. Cars have leaky moon roofs , heavy creaky panoramic glass roofs, expensive carbon fiber ultra light roofs, fiberglass caps / roofs ... so a few cheap ish thin well placed panels across say a van or hatch back or better a semi trailer .... anything to get a few extra km , run the lights or hvac ect. But agree totally your not driving a car on 1 or 2 roof sized panels.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

6 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Yeah, there's still a lot of improvement on Internal combustion engine, Formula 1 did get 50% efficiency and over 1000 Horsepower from tiny 1.6 V6, 4 years ago, most likely they are nowadays at around 55% efficiency, and that's with just a single turbo, no thermal recovery system, no dual spark plugs, no urea-water injection in the intake, passive instead of active jet ignition, no turbocompound, no second stage turbocharger

And is a small 13000RPM engine, larger slower revving engines with similar tech would be more efficient and surpass the 60% barrier, before you start attaching the aforementioned stuff

Your theoretical max Internal combustion efficiency is around 80%, having a shot at 65% efficiency wouldn't be a much of a trouble with current technology.

I've never hear of efficiency anywhere near thoes numbers. I've worked on single and dual turbo cars and trucks with dual spark plugs. I think your trying to imagine a hp/engine size when efficiency is distance over energy. Diesel with compression ign and turbo can be close to 33%-35% efficient if it is off at a light. You want minimal drag smooth idle steady power and quiet . So for gas a prius type hybrid or volt / bmw would be most efficient.  Captures heat in thermos so no warm up . Off at lights . Charges battery apon breaking . Still 4L/100 say? New ones probably closer to 3L/100... volt like 2.4? So a regular small car like an accent or versa is 6-7L/100km. So that would be 70% efficient if it were measured that way but its not your joining a 33% efficient engine with a power scavenging EV power train and heat gathering system. If what you were saying is true Toyota would put in a 600cc Twin turbo dual spark plug and have 3L/100 then ev scavenging to 1L/100km.