Engine mods and upgrades are NOT fun. The reason is that it often costs upwards of $100,000 to certify any conversion kit for a vehicle with the EPA. What this means is that all alternative fuel mods on post 1975 vehicles are a no-go. Unless the fuel can go in without conversion (like with biodiesel), then the costs are going to be too high to make it viable. This is why CNG is not our primary transportation fuel right now.
Hey, you're just doing the same with your sanctimony. Anyway, if I get a SUV/Truck, I'll be happy. It'll probably biodiesel or biogas and it won't (much) emit CO2. Then, I'll be car free, like all the cool kids!
Developed country population growth will not stop without closed borders, which is not politically fashionable. Developing country population growth will not stop without massive increases in wealth, which has real physical limits. Barring epidemics or massive warfare, how do you envision population growth stopping? Because nowhere on Earth is it stopping voluntarily.
This is the central flaw of Malthusianism. If you look at this graph, you'll see that population growth (births/woman) slows down as you get richer, with some noted exceptions in cases of religion. This means that wealth = no population growth.
There are clearly limits to wealth. The question is how big they are. History shows us that they are a lot bigger than we think. Here is the question. What would happen if everyone had a US style suburban home. The answer is that the only thing stopping it is energy. This is because our suburbs are powered by fossil fuels, not renewables. If we changed the equation and switched to renewables, 10 billion people could live in suburbia. 10 billion americans = 100 terawatts. The solar influx to the earth = 175,000 terrawatts. The prices of metals are all going down, meaning that they are getting less scarce.
"Innovation" currently goes almost exclusively into creating new consumer trinkets, healthcare and military applications which destroy wealth, increase lifespan and consumption, and create resource shortages.
A lot of innovation is going into producing the hated consumer trinkets, but much is going into renewables and finding new reserves of metals.
entirely new dooom-and-gloom scenario to get all worked up about.
That's the really scary scenario. Running out of doomsday scenarios. Seriously people, we could run out of things to be afraid of! The solution is recycling old, debunked doomsday scenarios to make new ones. Fortunately many people are trying to rectify the situation by ignoring the facts used to debunk old doomsday scenarios.
So what will you call it when global production peaks?
A transition from oil to renewable energy. Oil production will peak from traditional sources, because renewable energy prices will crash through the floor, and production will soar.
What, iron? We have that. It isn't economically viable. And it will never produce enough liquid fuel to provide for the level of transportation we currently enjoy.
Then why does south africa use it for their diesel? Because it is.
You realize that coal will peak also, and isn't unlimited?
Because you can feed waste biomass into the system, like sewage, trash, and wood scrap. This already happening in Africa.
Population grows exponentially.
Paul Erlich, Tomas Malthus and the members of the flat earth society still believe this. The problem is that it is false, because captalism = wealth = less population growth. India, China, the USA, all have zero or rapidly zeroing population growth rate.
"Affluence" will peak once we reach the limit of exploitable resources on Earth.
Actually it will stop because people are starting to get satisfied with the amount of stuff they have. Once you have a house and an SUV, and maybe a motor home, what else do you want?
"Technology level" (whatever that means exactly) will peak given a large enough supply-shock to send researchers heading for the hills.
Because population growth will stop, innovation will stop the shortages, and wealth will grow, this just won't happen.
You do the math.
I did the math. Now let's see some math from the Malthus flat earth society, who's basic core fact (exponential population growth) is utterly wrong.
No it's not. There is for all piratical purposes unlimited amounts of oil in the planet. We're getting to the lower ores, the tars and sluge, basically. Once we're below that, we've got air and water. That's why many, many people are looking to that unlimited oil resource (sky and water and sun), so that won't happen. There has never been a non-localized shortage on earth in history.
Oil will never run dry, ever. Right now, we throw out waste biomass equivalent to 20% of our oil consumption, and about 50% of our oil consumption. Cut oil use by 50% (even lead-acid plug-in hybrids can achieve this), and we don't need any of the above technologies. We just need the same stuff the South Africans currently use to turn coal into diesel.
Oh, and I should mention that natural gas, not oil, (really hydrogen) is the primary component of the "oil-based" fertilizers. A lot more of that than oil. In fact, ammonia was originally produced by using hydrogen form water and electricity from hydroelectric powerplants.
Al-air fuel cells. If could improve the technology to make it more efficient (its currently 40% aluminium to electricity), we could see a future where aluminium is a transportation fuel.
There is a reason why battery technology hasn't developed as fast as the technologies that use them; packing more and more energy into a given volume is a dangerous thing to do.
Not necessarily. What you want is something that is energy dense yet kinetically stable. Explosives are the opposite. Explosives deliver small amounts of power really fast. For example, the best explosives (according to wiki) are around 16 MJ/L and most around 3-5 MJ/L. Gasoline is at 34 MJ/L. If you want something that stores a lot of energy and won't explode, look no further than a pile of scrap aluminium. Aluminium stores roughly 83 MJ/L. You wouldn't be scared to have a ton of aluminium lying around behind your house, but that block could store enough energy to run your house for a year.
1. get clean energy to people in the developing world.
2. getting rid of people who oppose nuclear power in the developed world.
2. build nuclear plants.
3. synthesising gasoline and diesel fuel with nuclear power.
4. no more CO2!!! profit!
Those numbers already take into account battery and charger inefficiencies. They are wall outlet to road efficiencies. The EPA numbers are plant to wall outlet. Plant to wall outlet and wall outlet to road is powerplant to road. Still, the numbers are going to be off, up to 30% of fuel economy is due to the driver.
Better, but would likely suffer from shorter cycle life. Now a nickel-iron on the other hand...
Did they use any carbon fiber components to cut down the weight?
I hope not. Carbon fiber is expensive, and according to the EPA, saving 100 pounds is a 1% increase in fuel economy. With the electric system getting them a 70-80 increase, saving a few pounds here and there is not worth it.
How about front-ending the battery with a super capacitor for greater energy efficiency and better regenerative braking?
Regen gains you about a ten percent range increase. The system is already really efficient. You don't need nor want to spend money to make it more efficient.
Yep. My goal is to expand this post a bit, and then copy and paste into every misinformed anti-electric car post on/. Feel free to do the same for other websites. Let me know if you think of any more expanding I could do.
EVs are the first chance in a long time to dramatically improve air quality because a car itself can't be made "green" but the energy source can be made renewable if it is from a single large supplier.
Not entirely. If the car is directly solar powered, or if it is powered by a nuclear reactor, or some kind of "free energy" thing, then it's green.
DOE estimates average of 1.3 lbs CO2 per kWh. Coal (the worst CO2 emitter) emits 2.1 lbs CO2 per kWh. Electric cars get between 4 and 10 miles per kWh. Worst case, that means 0.5 pounds of CO2 per mile. 1 gallon = 19.4 lbs of CO2. So, that's around 38 mpg CO2 emissions equivalent in the absolute worst case scenario. In the average case, we are looking at around 59.7 MPG. Diesel emits more CO2 than gasoline, by a factor of about 1.15. So, worst case is 43.7 MPG diesel, and average is 68.7 MPG diesel. These numbers are EPA testing of Tesla roadster and Rav4EV.
Who is building all the new power generating plants we'll need when millions of drivers have electric cars? Now is the time to start. You can't build those plants overnight.
No one is, because no one needs to. Four big EV denier myths:
More electricity needed - debunked. Here's the link to the original Oak Ridge Nation Laboratory Report (currently down).
More global warming - not true. DOE estimates average of 1.3 lbs CO2 per kWh. Coal (the worst CO2 emitter) emits 2.1 lbs CO2 per kWh. Electric cars get between 4 and 10 miles per kWh. Worst case, that means 0.5 pounds of CO2 per mile. 1 gallon = 19.4 lbs of CO2. So, that's around 38 mpg CO2 emissions equivalent in the absolute worst case scenario. In the average case, we are looking at around 59.7 MPG. Diesel emits more CO2 than gasoline, by a factor of about 1.15. So, worst case is 43.7 MPG diesel, and average is 68.7 MPG diesel. These numbers are EPA testing of Tesla roadster and Rav4EV.
Toxic batteries - lithium-ion is largely non-toxic. Tesla was working on recycling before the cars even hit the streets. Lead acid (which is toxic) is 97% recycled.
I just got out of my 1987 hydrogen car. The hydrogen just got shipped from the far away middle east. How? By combining it with carbon and pumping the resulting liquid in to tanks in ships.
Slashdot Mirror
Engine mods and upgrades are NOT fun. The reason is that it often costs upwards of $100,000 to certify any conversion kit for a vehicle with the EPA. What this means is that all alternative fuel mods on post 1975 vehicles are a no-go. Unless the fuel can go in without conversion (like with biodiesel), then the costs are going to be too high to make it viable. This is why CNG is not our primary transportation fuel right now.
asshat compensating for his microscopic penis
Hey, you're just doing the same with your sanctimony. Anyway, if I get a SUV/Truck, I'll be happy. It'll probably biodiesel or biogas and it won't (much) emit CO2. Then, I'll be car free, like all the cool kids!
But at least I can agree with you about Windows.
Developed country population growth will not stop without closed borders, which is not politically fashionable. Developing country population growth will not stop without massive increases in wealth, which has real physical limits. Barring epidemics or massive warfare, how do you envision population growth stopping? Because nowhere on Earth is it stopping voluntarily.
This is the central flaw of Malthusianism. If you look at this graph, you'll see that population growth (births/woman) slows down as you get richer, with some noted exceptions in cases of religion. This means that wealth = no population growth.
There are clearly limits to wealth. The question is how big they are. History shows us that they are a lot bigger than we think. Here is the question. What would happen if everyone had a US style suburban home. The answer is that the only thing stopping it is energy. This is because our suburbs are powered by fossil fuels, not renewables. If we changed the equation and switched to renewables, 10 billion people could live in suburbia. 10 billion americans = 100 terawatts. The solar influx to the earth = 175,000 terrawatts. The prices of metals are all going down, meaning that they are getting less scarce.
"Innovation" currently goes almost exclusively into creating new consumer trinkets, healthcare and military applications which destroy wealth, increase lifespan and consumption, and create resource shortages.
A lot of innovation is going into producing the hated consumer trinkets, but much is going into renewables and finding new reserves of metals.
entirely new dooom-and-gloom scenario to get all worked up about.
That's the really scary scenario. Running out of doomsday scenarios. Seriously people, we could run out of things to be afraid of! The solution is recycling old, debunked doomsday scenarios to make new ones. Fortunately many people are trying to rectify the situation by ignoring the facts used to debunk old doomsday scenarios.
The AC is a troll.
So what will you call it when global production peaks?
A transition from oil to renewable energy. Oil production will peak from traditional sources, because renewable energy prices will crash through the floor, and production will soar.
What, iron? We have that. It isn't economically viable. And it will never produce enough liquid fuel to provide for the level of transportation we currently enjoy.
Then why does south africa use it for their diesel? Because it is.
You realize that coal will peak also, and isn't unlimited?
Because you can feed waste biomass into the system, like sewage, trash, and wood scrap. This already happening in Africa.
Population grows exponentially.
Paul Erlich, Tomas Malthus and the members of the flat earth society still believe this. The problem is that it is false, because captalism = wealth = less population growth. India, China, the USA, all have zero or rapidly zeroing population growth rate.
"Affluence" will peak once we reach the limit of exploitable resources on Earth.
Actually it will stop because people are starting to get satisfied with the amount of stuff they have. Once you have a house and an SUV, and maybe a motor home, what else do you want?
"Technology level" (whatever that means exactly) will peak given a large enough supply-shock to send researchers heading for the hills.
Because population growth will stop, innovation will stop the shortages, and wealth will grow, this just won't happen.
You do the math.
I did the math. Now let's see some math from the Malthus flat earth society, who's basic core fact (exponential population growth) is utterly wrong.
Steal oil from the pirates?
No it's not. There is for all piratical purposes unlimited amounts of oil in the planet. We're getting to the lower ores, the tars and sluge, basically. Once we're below that, we've got air and water. That's why many, many people are looking to that unlimited oil resource (sky and water and sun), so that won't happen. There has never been a non-localized shortage on earth in history.
Here's some of the best links in this regard:
1. The synthesis of gasoline and diesel with nuclear energy (PDF).
2. The Sandia CR-5 thermochemical engine (PDF).
3. Windfuels.
Oil will never run dry, ever. Right now, we throw out waste biomass equivalent to 20% of our oil consumption, and about 50% of our oil consumption. Cut oil use by 50% (even lead-acid plug-in hybrids can achieve this), and we don't need any of the above technologies. We just need the same stuff the South Africans currently use to turn coal into diesel.
Oh, and I should mention that natural gas, not oil, (really hydrogen) is the primary component of the "oil-based" fertilizers. A lot more of that than oil. In fact, ammonia was originally produced by using hydrogen form water and electricity from hydroelectric powerplants.
More people are killed every year in the USA by colds and flus than by cars and SUVs. But enjoy your two minutes hate against SUV drivers.
Al-air fuel cells. If could improve the technology to make it more efficient (its currently 40% aluminium to electricity), we could see a future where aluminium is a transportation fuel.
small amounts of power
Should be energy.
There is a reason why battery technology hasn't developed as fast as the technologies that use them; packing more and more energy into a given volume is a dangerous thing to do.
Not necessarily. What you want is something that is energy dense yet kinetically stable. Explosives are the opposite. Explosives deliver small amounts of power really fast. For example, the best explosives (according to wiki) are around 16 MJ/L and most around 3-5 MJ/L. Gasoline is at 34 MJ/L. If you want something that stores a lot of energy and won't explode, look no further than a pile of scrap aluminium. Aluminium stores roughly 83 MJ/L. You wouldn't be scared to have a ton of aluminium lying around behind your house, but that block could store enough energy to run your house for a year.
Keep it real.
Two links:
Link 1
Link 2
1. get clean energy to people in the developing world.
2. getting rid of people who oppose nuclear power in the developed world.
2. build nuclear plants.
3. synthesising gasoline and diesel fuel with nuclear power.
4. no more CO2!!! profit!
Notice: no ?????? mark step.
Those numbers already take into account battery and charger inefficiencies. They are wall outlet to road efficiencies. The EPA numbers are plant to wall outlet. Plant to wall outlet and wall outlet to road is powerplant to road. Still, the numbers are going to be off, up to 30% of fuel economy is due to the driver.
Nickel-metal hydride.
Better, but would likely suffer from shorter cycle life. Now a nickel-iron on the other hand...
Did they use any carbon fiber components to cut down the weight?
I hope not. Carbon fiber is expensive, and according to the EPA, saving 100 pounds is a 1% increase in fuel economy. With the electric system getting them a 70-80 increase, saving a few pounds here and there is not worth it.
How about front-ending the battery with a super capacitor for greater energy efficiency and better regenerative braking?
Regen gains you about a ten percent range increase. The system is already really efficient. You don't need nor want to spend money to make it more efficient.
EVs are the first chance in a long time to dramatically improve air quality because a car itself can't be made "green" but the energy source can be made renewable if it is from a single large supplier.
Not entirely. If the car is directly solar powered, or if it is powered by a nuclear reactor, or some kind of "free energy" thing, then it's green.
Yeah, I fail.
By riding motorcycles with no emissions controls.
DOE estimates average of 1.3 lbs CO2 per kWh. Coal (the worst CO2 emitter) emits 2.1 lbs CO2 per kWh. Electric cars get between 4 and 10 miles per kWh. Worst case, that means 0.5 pounds of CO2 per mile. 1 gallon = 19.4 lbs of CO2. So, that's around 38 mpg CO2 emissions equivalent in the absolute worst case scenario. In the average case, we are looking at around 59.7 MPG. Diesel emits more CO2 than gasoline, by a factor of about 1.15. So, worst case is 43.7 MPG diesel, and average is 68.7 MPG diesel. These numbers are EPA testing of Tesla roadster and Rav4EV.
And have a bigger, more expensive battery pack, as well as range issues.
Who is building all the new power generating plants we'll need when millions of drivers have electric cars? Now is the time to start. You can't build those plants overnight.
No one is, because no one needs to. Four big EV denier myths:
More electricity needed - debunked. Here's the link to the original Oak Ridge Nation Laboratory Report (currently down).
More global warming - not true. DOE estimates average of 1.3 lbs CO2 per kWh. Coal (the worst CO2 emitter) emits 2.1 lbs CO2 per kWh. Electric cars get between 4 and 10 miles per kWh. Worst case, that means 0.5 pounds of CO2 per mile. 1 gallon = 19.4 lbs of CO2. So, that's around 38 mpg CO2 emissions equivalent in the absolute worst case scenario. In the average case, we are looking at around 59.7 MPG. Diesel emits more CO2 than gasoline, by a factor of about 1.15. So, worst case is 43.7 MPG diesel, and average is 68.7 MPG diesel. These numbers are EPA testing of Tesla roadster and Rav4EV.
Rare lithium - peak lithium is a Li.
Toxic batteries - lithium-ion is largely non-toxic. Tesla was working on recycling before the cars even hit the streets. Lead acid (which is toxic) is 97% recycled.
I just got out of my 1987 hydrogen car. The hydrogen just got shipped from the far away middle east. How? By combining it with carbon and pumping the resulting liquid in to tanks in ships.
More like the "don't be evil bit".