Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Big Tea]

Back when I was a kid everyone had coal fires where I lived, and some mornings visibility was a few hundred feet if it was misty. I used to visit relatives in Lancashire and I always knew when we were close because of the smell of coal burning.

The 1952 "Great London Smog" is estimated to have killed as many as 12,000 people with ten times as many made seriously ill. That single event was worse than all of the nuclear disasters put together.

'Great Smogs' and similar are noticeable because so many die sort of 'at the time', The same amount of pollution was being put into the air every day and breathed in by people, but much of the effects would not show for years if it was a kid.
I am not talking about great smogs of a century ago, I mean maybe 1 day a week, but cumulative, and in the 1970s and probably later. I brought it up because although the smoke is not often discharged now, many of the combustion products still are, but without the smoke, are not noticeable.

London air was 'cleaned up' by the clean air act, which meant only 'smokeless fuel' could be burned within the city (and many other cities) but this meant that most of what would have become smoke in the city was burned (well roasted) off at the point it was extracted. Still breathed, but by people outside the city. (I suppose it was much less densely populated) and coke sent to the city.

[Just_a_fan]

Back when I was a kid everyone had coal fires where I lived, and some mornings visibility was a few hundred feet if it was misty. I used to visit relatives in Lancashire and I always knew when we were close because of the smell of coal burning.

The 1952 "Great London Smog" is estimated to have killed as many as 12,000 people with ten times as many made seriously ill. That single event was worse than all of the nuclear disasters put together.

'Great Smogs' and similar are noticeable because so many die sort of 'at the time', The same amount of pollution was being put into the air every day and breathed in by people, but much of the effects would not show for years if it was a kid.
I am not talking about great smogs of a century ago, I mean maybe 1 day a week, but cumulative, and in the 1970s and probably later. I brought it up because although the smoke is not often discharged now, many of the combustion products still are, but without the smoke, are not noticeable.

London air was 'cleaned up' by the clean air act, which meant only 'smokeless fuel' could be burned within the city (and many other cities) but this meant that most of what would have become smoke in the city was burned (well roasted) off at the point it was extracted. Still breathed, but by people outside the city. (I suppose it was much less densely populated) and coke sent to the city.

I wasn't disagreeing with you or trying to diminish your experience, merely giving an example of how poor air quality can kill lots of people.

One only has to think about the UK Midlands and the area called the Black Country because it was dark from soot and other air pollution. It's a problem that has existed for a couple of hundred years and still does today in parts of the world.

[Andres125sx]

I agree with the posts above. But if we´re going to make guesstimates about people deaths because of pollution of coal plants, we should also consider people deaths because of pollution of ICEs into cities, wich surely are a huge factor higher, as there are a lot more cities than coal plants, and in all of them there are hundreds thousands if not millions cars emitting toxic substances directly into our faces (CO2 is far from the most harmfull substance ICEs emit, even when most people focus only on CO2 when doing comparisons)

Anycase this is not a competition about what´s more harmful. Both are, and that´s the reason both are considered something wich should be replaced asap. If our politicians are ignorants who follow absurd advises from other ignorants that´s a different story tough. Renewables can´t replace all coal and fuel plants by theirselves at the rate they´ve planned, period.

Nuclear is a must if we want to reduce emissions quickly. Anyone with a brain know this, but politicians only worry about the short term and that is pretty dangerous for humankind and the whole planet.

The most depressing part is I can´t see any solution to this. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others

[Big Tea]

The 1952 "Great London Smog" is estimated to have killed as many as 12,000 people with ten times as many made seriously ill. That single event was worse than all of the nuclear disasters put together.

'Great Smogs' and similar are noticeable because so many die sort of 'at the time', The same amount of pollution was being put into the air every day and breathed in by people, but much of the effects would not show for years if it was a kid.
I am not talking about great smogs of a century ago, I mean maybe 1 day a week, but cumulative, and in the 1970s and probably later. I brought it up because although the smoke is not often discharged now, many of the combustion products still are, but without the smoke, are not noticeable.

London air was 'cleaned up' by the clean air act, which meant only 'smokeless fuel' could be burned within the city (and many other cities) but this meant that most of what would have become smoke in the city was burned (well roasted) off at the point it was extracted. Still breathed, but by people outside the city. (I suppose it was much less densely populated) and coke sent to the city.

I wasn't disagreeing with you or trying to diminish your experience, merely giving an example of how poor air quality can kill lots of people.

One only has to think about the UK Midlands and the area called the Black Country because it was dark from soot and other air pollution. It's a problem that has existed for a couple of hundred years and still does today in parts of the world.

Lol, I was doing the same. Expanding on what I said, and you agreed with My experience is fine in comparison to many millions of others, not complaining.

I was expanding on the 'just because we can no longer see it does not mean its not there' bit.



(edit. PS. I would not swap my childhood for ANY other, I loved every second of it )

[Tommy Cookers]

The 1952 "Great London Smog" is estimated to have killed as many as 12,000 people with ten times as many made seriously ill. That single event was worse than all of the nuclear disasters put together.

'Great Smogs' and similar are noticeable because so many die sort of 'at the time', The same amount of pollution was being put into the air every day and breathed in by people, but much of the effects would not show for years if it was a kid.
... London air was 'cleaned up' by the clean air act, which meant only 'smokeless fuel' could be burned within the city (and many other cities) but this meant that most of what would have become smoke in the city was burned (well roasted) off at the point it was extracted. Still breathed, but by people outside the city. (I suppose it was much less densely populated) and coke sent to the city.

like fog smog is due to still air and temperature inversion (preventing the usual dispersal of pollutants)
that's why it's rather far from everyday in the UK

making coke produces coal gas - generally collected, sold, and consumed as the well-known and useful product


officially the 'Great Smog' killed very few (doctors said just those already knocking on death's door)
now some seem to 'know' otherwise - and a new story is born ..... and (but) now ....
doctors say anyone dying of Covid 29 days or more after diagnosis didn't die of Covid (handily cutting the death count)

HMG and its friend the EU says public air is safe (up to the 'pollution' limit) ....
but some won't take their word for it

[Big Tea]

The 1952 "Great London Smog" is estimated to have killed as many as 12,000 people with ten times as many made seriously ill. That single event was worse than all of the nuclear disasters put together.

'Great Smogs' and similar are noticeable because so many die sort of 'at the time', The same amount of pollution was being put into the air every day and breathed in by people, but much of the effects would not show for years if it was a kid.
... London air was 'cleaned up' by the clean air act, which meant only 'smokeless fuel' could be burned within the city (and many other cities) but this meant that most of what would have become smoke in the city was burned (well roasted) off at the point it was extracted. Still breathed, but by people outside the city. (I suppose it was much less densely populated) and coke sent to the city.

like fog smog is due to still air and temperature inversion (preventing the usual dispersal of pollutants)
that's why it's rather far from everyday in the UK

making coke produces coal gas - generally collected, sold, and consumed as the well-known and useful product


officially the 'Great Smog' killed very few (doctors said just those already knocking on death's door)
now some seem to 'know' otherwise - and a new story is born ..... and (but) now ....
doctors say anyone dying of Covid 29 days or more after diagnosis didn't die of Covid (handily cutting the death count)

HMG and its friend the EU says public air is safe (up to the 'pollution' limit) ....
but some won't take their word for it

Just look at all that 'safe' that ends up on your duster

[Big Tea]

I just happened across this vid, which is worth watching on Aluminum Air Batteries for hot swap during pitstop

[Big Tea]

You guys seen this? First I have heard of it but it sounds so brilliantly simple I don't know why it was not done long ago.
Ideal for Trucks and busses which would then only need battery power for the 'off highway' miles.




(Sorry, it seems to be only me posting vids)

[Stu]

You guys seen this? First I have heard of it but it sounds so brilliantly simple I don't know why it was not done long ago.
Ideal for Trucks and busses which would then only need battery power for the 'off highway' miles.




(Sorry, it seems to be only me posting vids)

No apologies necessary, infrastructure is everything for electric .

[Zynerji]

https://interestingengineering.com/a-co ... ic-engines

[Andres125sx]

You guys seen this? First I have heard of it but it sounds so brilliantly simple I don't know why it was not done long ago.
Ideal for Trucks and busses which would then only need battery power for the 'off highway' miles.




(Sorry, it seems to be only me posting vids)

Interesting videos, no need for apologies

Agree, that´s a brilliantly simple idea

[Andres125sx]

https://interestingengineering.com/a-co ... ic-engines

A more powerfull motor is always welcome, but I´m struggling with the idea exposed on the article that 12kW/kg motors are necessary for airliners according to ARPA-E. What is a huge drawback for airliners, and any electric aircraft, is weight. It doesn´t matter if it comes from the motors, battery, structure or ballast. But it´s the battery what is adding an absurd ammount of weight. With lighter batteries motor weight would be negligible IMHO, obviously it will always be better if there´s a lighter alternative, but what is a critical drawback on electric aviation is battery weight, not motor weight

[Tommy Cookers]

You guys seen this? First I have heard of it but it sounds so brilliantly simple I don't know why it was not done long ago.
Ideal for Trucks and busses which would then only need battery power for the 'off highway' miles.

isn't this .... nonsense ?
the carbon saving would be trivial and insufficient to justify the capital costs
eg replacing diesel ICE use at 35% efficiency well-to-wheel with mainly fossil-fuel electricity at 40% efficiency w-t-w

it doesn't matter how we use 'carbon-good' electricity (in replacing 'carbon-bad' electricity)
unless and until all existing uses of electricity are fed entirely by 'good' electricity

but the UK has just shown its policy in response to the nonsense factor ....
limiting support to only 90000 heat pumps but maintaining unlimited support to EV numbers

we must treble our production of good electricity (and eliminate its intermittency) ...... and then treble it again ....
before we can usefully have trolley-trucks as above

[Big Tea]

You guys seen this? First I have heard of it but it sounds so brilliantly simple I don't know why it was not done long ago.
Ideal for Trucks and busses which would then only need battery power for the 'off highway' miles.

isn't this .... nonsense ?
the carbon saving would be trivial and insufficient to justify the capital costs
eg replacing diesel ICE use at 35% efficiency well-to-wheel with mainly fossil-fuel electricity at 40% efficiency w-t-w

it doesn't matter how we use 'carbon-good' electricity (in replacing 'carbon-bad' electricity)
unless and until all existing uses of electricity are fed entirely by 'good' electricity

but the UK has just shown its policy in response to the nonsense factor ....
limiting support to only 90000 heat pumps but maintaining unlimited support to EV numbers

we must treble our production of good electricity (and eliminate its intermittency) ...... and then treble it again ....
before we can usefully have trolley-trucks as above

It is not just the use of 'letric while moving between points, it means getting to the point where you leave the 'wires' with a full battery charge. From a logistic point it means not having to stop between out and in to recharge, or having a very limited mileage and having to top up or go hybrid during the 'shift' or look for a public charging point

[hollus]

@Tommy: Not every country has the same energy mix and policies as UK. In many places anything electrical automatically “outgreens” anything fossil even today. I am sure that a few countries have worse mixes than the UK as well.
When it comes to this issue, the particular energy mix of any given country is just local politics, really. It won’t apply to 90% of the users of the forum.