Split Electric Vehicles (from Twitter idiot)

[bilby]

EV is helping get a hell of a lot closer than ICE. You have to start somewhere. The model T wasn't that great at first either but fortunately people had the vision to transition from horses.

The Model T was released in 1908.

The first electric vehicles were developed in the 1830s; Electric cars weren't widely used until the 1870s, but they had certainly been popular for over thirty years before Ford started selling the Model T.

And we would have started using batteries more back then if global warming had been known and cared about. The point is that autos replaced horses even though (back then) autos weren't that great

Horses weren't that great either. Cars don't need fuelling even if you don't use them; And you don't need to shovel up their exhaust emissions or end up neck-deep in horseshit.

Autos are "that great" now, so replacing them isn't going to be possible until and unless their replacement is at least comparable in greatness.

Ultimately, EVs are a useful part of the solution if, and only if, the generation of electricity becomes dramatically more environmentally sound. Hydrogen is just EV with extra steps, because Hydrogen is generated using electricity.

An EV in Sweden, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Tasmania or Ontario is a significant benefit to the environment, because electricity in those places is generated with very low carbon emissions.

An EV in the UK, California, Germany or Finland is a marginal benefit to the environment at best; It's going to generate similar amounts of carbon dioxide per km driven, with the determination of which is better being dependent on a wide range of details, including the emissions due to battery manufacturing, the time of day or night that charging is done, and the number of km per annum that the vehicle is used for. A person who does a lot of mileage, and mostly charges their battery in the afternoon in California (for example) will have a much lower emissions per km than a neighbour who uses their car infrequently, and charges the battery overnight, for example.

An EV in Queensland, NSW or Victoria; Or in Poland, large parts of the USA, South Africa, India, Argentina, or most of China is probably going to do more harm than good*, because switching from gasoline to electricity in these places is effectively switching from gasoline to coal.

A move towards EVs is only useful in the context of an electricity grid that is (or is moving towards) being built on nuclear and/or hydroelectric power. Solar power can also help, if you're typically charging your EV in the afternoons when insolation is at its highest; Wind power could also help, if you are careful to watch the forecasts and avoid charging your car when the winds are too light (or too strong).

Most EV charging happens at nighttime, so Solar power is irrelevant, and Wind power is about 30% green, and the other 70% whatever else your electricity generator is using - which could be green Nuclear or Hydro, but is more likely not at all green Gas (but hey, at least Putin will be happy), or even less green Coal.





*In terms of carbon dioxide emissions. EVs have other environmental benefits though. Moving the exhaust gases from the city centre, out into the countryside where your gas or coal power plants are located, but your population isn't, can significantly reduce the impact on health of inhalation of soot particles, and toxic combustion products, and makes the city a nicer and safer place to live. Even here in Brisbane, where electric vehicles are powered by coal, the removal of ICE vehicles from the city is an obvious short term and local plus, albeit one with a hidden long term and global carbon emissions minus.

 

[RVonse]

All what you say with regards the EV and the electrical grid you are correct no argument Bilby. It is the further advancement with hydrogen you are forgetting because unlike raw electricity, hydrogen can be stored and transported efficiently without the batteries...meaning a ton of extremely low carbon power can be generated in Arizona and then transported efficiently to the midwest and northern states where there is no sunshine. There is a lot to do, a lot to invent, and a lot to build in order to get to that point. But the journey getting there must first start using Tesla cars and batteries first. You have to crawl before you can run. It took 11 Apollo missions before we were actually ready to walk on the moon, each mission put us closer to that goal.

With the use of hydrogen there should be no reason whatsoever not to generate all power using no carbon at all (wind, solor, hydro).

 

[Copernicus]

And don't forget that hydrogen power can be a real blast to use. What could go wrong?

 

[RVonse]

And don't forget that hydrogen power can be a real blast to use. What could go wrong?

No one is claiming there won't be technical challenges moving away from fossil fuels to clean energy. Its never been done and its not going to be easy. What I am saying though is that there is a clear path to get carbon free including the use of Tesla vehicals which we already have (thanks to Musk) today.

Personally, I would rather try to accomplish something worthwhile and fail at doing so. Rather than to just keep burning gas in ICE cars and pretending Musk and his electric cars are stupid.

 

[crazyfingers]

And don't forget that hydrogen power can be a real blast to use. What could go wrong?

Hydrogen rises. Two-thirds of the people on the Hindenburg survived.

Hydrogen fires are less destructive to immediate surroundings than gasoline explosions because of the buoyancy of diatomic hydrogen, which causes heat of combustion to be released upwards more than circumferentially as the leaked mass ascends in the atmosphere; hydrogen fires are more survivable than fires of gasoline or wood.[26] The hydrogen in the Hindenburg burned out within about 90 seconds.

Hindenburg disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyway, any car would probably use a hydrogen fuel cell. The trick is to make the hydrogen without creating Co2. Solar, etc..

 

[bilby]

hydrogen can be stored and transported efficiently

It really can't. It's probably more sensible to make, store and transport methanol or even synthetic gasoline, rather than hydrogen. Hydrogen has a serious propensity to leak, and is explosive in a very wide range of mixture proportions in air; It's not a material you want every yahoo and redneck to be storing in their (often poorly maintained) vehicles.

I have yet to see anything hydrogen can do better than liquid hydrocarbon or alcohol fuels, that are just as easy to manufacture, but far easier to store or transport.

 

[Copernicus]

And don't forget that hydrogen power can be a real blast to use. What could go wrong?

Hydrogen rises. Two-thirds of the people on the Hindenburg survived.

Still, nobody argued that they ought to have continued building those flying firebombs.

...

Anyway, any car would probably use a hydrogen fuel cell. The trick is to make the hydrogen without creating Co2. Solar, etc..

I think that this problem will ultimately be overcome, but it still offers no "clear path to get carbon free", as @RVonse has claimed. Hydrogen still looks like a dirty solution to our search for clean energy. We need to produce commercial quantities of green hydrogen:

Green Hydrogen: Could It Be Key to a Carbon-Free Economy?​

 

[RVonse]

I think that this problem will ultimately be overcome, but it still offers no "clear path to get carbon free", as @RVonse has claimed. Hydrogen still looks like a dirty solution to our search for clean energy. We need to produce commercial quantities of green hydrogen:

Green Hydrogen: Could It Be Key to a Carbon-Free Economy?​

Green hydrogen is just exactly what I said. What part of wind, solar, and hydro in my aforementioned post would not be green? If you do not think hydrogen has a clear path to be made green why are you then posting a link showing.....the green path. ?????????

 

[crazyfingers]

Still, nobody argued that they ought to have continued building those flying firebombs.

Obviously helium was preferred and was used by US airships. The Hindenburg used hydrogen because the US refused to sell them Helium.

But airships went out not because of hydrogen but because they were very impractical.

 

[Gospel]

What's strange to me about the debate on EV emissions VS ICE is battery manufacturing VS oil refining and then getting it to your gas pump not being compared. Granted Tesla doesn't release enough data to do the analysis but you'd have to smoke a lot of strong crack.to think it's anywhere close.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that this problem will ultimately be overcome, but it still offers no "clear path to get carbon free", as @RVonse has claimed. Hydrogen still looks like a dirty solution to our search for clean energy. We need to produce commercial quantities of green hydrogen:

Green Hydrogen: Could It Be Key to a Carbon-Free Economy?​

Green hydrogen is just exactly what I said. What part of wind, solar, and hydro in my aforementioned post would not be green? If you do not think hydrogen has a clear path to be made green why are you then posting a link showing.....the green path. ?????????

You did not read that article very carefully. It tried to strike an optimistic note, but much of the article was about the obstacles to making it work both economically and environmentally. In 2020, when the article was written, there were a few "green hydrogen" factories that were scheduled to open, but no reports of real successes.

For example:

While it has advantages, says Michael Liebreich, a Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst in the United Kingdom and a green hydrogen skeptic, “it displays an equally impressive list of disadvantages.”

“It does not occur in nature so it requires energy to separate,” Liebreich wrote in a pair of recent essays for BloombergNEF. “Its storage requires compression to 700 times atmospheric pressure, refrigeration to 253 degrees Celsius… It carries one quarter the energy per unit volume of natural gas… It can embrittle metal; it escapes through the tiniest leaks and yes, it really is explosive.”

In spite of these problems, Liebreich wrote, green hydrogen still “holds a vice-like grip over the imaginations of techno-optimists.”

Ben Gallagher, an energy analyst at Wood McKenzie who studies green hydrogen, said the fuel is so new that its future remains unclear. “No one has any true idea what is going on here,” he said. “It’s speculation at this point. Right now it’s difficult to view this as the new oil. However, it could make up an important part of the overall fuel mix.”

And later on...

BloombergNEF estimates that to generate enough green hydrogen to meet a quarter of the world’s energy needs would take more electricity than the world generates now from all sources and an investment of $11 trillion in production and storage. That’s why the focus for now is on the 15 percent of the economy with energy needs not easily supplied by wind and solar power, such as heavy manufacturing, long-distance trucking, and fuel for cargo ships and aircraft.

It's not that there is no future for green hydrogen but that the path to get it carbon free in the quantities that we need and handle it safely in those quantities is far from clear.

 

[bilby]

But airships went out not because of hydrogen but because they were very impractical.

They were perfectly practical, as long as lightweight engines weren't available. Heavier than air planes were a pretty marginal proposition when powered by piston engines made from cast iron - lugging around the weight of the engine meant low payloads and low ranges.

With the development of lightweight alloys that were strong enough to use for engine blocks, the airship's days were numbered - planes were suddenly able to make trans-oceanic flights with reasonable amounts of cargo and/or passengers, something that only airships had previously been able to do.

The real killer was the jet engine. The power to weight ratio of jet engines is phenomenally good, and nobody's interested in a Zeppelin trip across the Atlantic that takes two days, if the alternative is to take a jet that does the same journey in five hours.

 

[Tigers!]

For the love of Talos the Jeep Wrangler 4xe can only go 49 Miles fully Electric with a range of 370 miles on gas at a OMFG 20mpg. That gets the EV tax credit. A tesla Model X and S have an all electric (no gas) range at an average 320 miles and they don't get the EV tax credit. Like...WTF?

Edit: It's an Electric Vehicle Tax Credit. ELECTRIC VEHICLE.

Don't bang your head on the keyboard too hard or too often. Does not increase the life span of either object.
is better

 

[Tigers!]

Incoming rant.

I've been thinking (my first mistake).

End rant.

Thinking might be unwise rather than a mistake. But with practice you will be better at it.
We certainly need bucket loads more of thinking people out there

 

[Elixir]

is better

…as long as you can resist the urge to gouge your own eyes out …

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And don't forget that hydrogen power can be a real blast to use. What could go wrong?

Hydrogen rises. Two-thirds of the people on the Hindenburg survived.

Still, nobody argued that they ought to have continued building those flying firebombs.

It's not that we don't want those firebombs, it's that airplanes totally dominate lighter-than-air transport craft. We do use them for situations where we don't expect to go much of anywhere. We have enough helium, we don't need the headaches of hydrogen.

 

[Copernicus]

And don't forget that hydrogen power can be a real blast to use. What could go wrong?

Hydrogen rises. Two-thirds of the people on the Hindenburg survived.

Still, nobody argued that they ought to have continued building those flying firebombs.

It's not that we don't want those firebombs, it's that airplanes totally dominate lighter-than-air transport craft. We do use them for situations where we don't expect to go much of anywhere. We have enough helium, we don't need the headaches of hydrogen.

Right. They used helium, because they didn't want those firebombs filled with very explosive hydrogen. Despite the fact that 2/3 of the passengers survived the Hindenburg, the image did leave an indelible impression on spectators, not to mention the 2/3 that survived.

 

[ZiprHead]

We have enough helium

Helium is actually in very short supply. It's used in medical and physics research but we're wasting it on childrens party balloons.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Also, you can do a lot by getting a second car that is EV. I use my ( $15,000) EV to communte to work and if I need to go anywhere further, I take an ICE vehicle. The ICE vehicles stay parked most of the time and only fire up when required.

I kinda do the same, except instead of an EV, I use a velomobile.

Pedal power, the only thing I use electricity for is the small (5600mAh) battery that runs the lights, turn signals, and horn. Fully enclosed, three wheels for stability even in slippery conditions (I've ridden it in the snow), gets me exercise, and has minimal environmental impact.

The only time I drive is when getting a lot of groceries (I use the velo for frequent, small trips) and when I have to take my mom somewhere. Longer trips where time is an issue, I take one of my motorcycles, that get 45-55 mpg.

 

[Gospel]

The US Electric grid can't handle the demand from EV's!

The adoption rate (people buying EV's) is not high enough to overload the grid. We have time to adjust for the demand. Also, I believe most EV owners like myself charge their vehicles at night during off peak hours so they can commute during the day. If every EV owner charged during the day that would be on the news for sure. Long lines and reports of road rage incidents at charging stations! More at 11!


Long road trips are not viable in an EV!

Nonsense, it is recommended that you stop and rest every 100 miles or so (or 2 hours). Every EV on the market can travel up to 330 miles on a single charge. Tesla (not sure about the rest) takes 15 minutes to replace 200 miles. That's a 15 minute rest you should be taking after driving 200 miles anyway.

Edit: By every EV can travel up to 330 miles I meant every EV built for long range.