A post EV era

[vorticism]

This won't come as a surprise to many here, but NCAP assessments are finding that the greenness of EVs, once quantified, is overstated compared to modern hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. "Official" statements like these may be significant. As with the rise of the EV fad, the next fad may arise from a combination of bureaucratic moral appeals and industry needs. Life-cycle-assessment offers a good opportunity to derive desired conclusions from data and hide intent within stacks of sympathetic peer reviewed papers. It could be the next epidemiology or climate change type of big data based argumentation.

Synthetic fuels would be the logical next permutation of the greenwashing urge (synfuel cars as EV alternative), contingent upon Western civilization continuing to provide a stable base for advanced industry. As well, can a synfuel industry be bootstrapped quickly enough to compete with the lithium battery industry? Battery tech seems to have plateaued the past decade; is novel industrial fuel chemistry just the next "ten years" away vaporware?

https://www.fiaregion1.com/green-ncap-r ... t-results/

[Big Tea]

This won't come as a surprise to many here, but NCAP assessments are finding that the greenness of EVs, once quantified, is overstated compared to modern hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. "Official" statements like these may be significant. As with the rise of the EV fad, the next fad may arise from a combination of bureaucratic moral appeals and industry needs. Life-cycle-assessment offers a good opportunity to derive desired conclusions from data and hide intent within stacks of sympathetic peer reviewed papers. It could be the next epidemiology or climate change type of big data based argumentation.

Synthetic fuels would be the logical next permutation of the greenwashing urge (synfuel cars as EV alternative), contingent upon Western civilization continuing to provide a stable base for advanced industry. As well, can a synfuel industry be bootstrapped quickly enough to compete with the lithium battery industry? Battery tech seems to have plateaued the past decade; is novel industrial fuel chemistry just the next "ten years" away vaporware?

https://www.fiaregion1.com/green-ncap-r ... t-results/

I think there was somewhat of a bottleneck 5 years ago when the panic hit maximum and there was little option other than electric, and it has become difficult to move away from it.

It is not a technical issue it is a political issue such as when manufacturers said 'give us 4 years and we can make our cars very very low emissions' but the politicians said 'No, you fit cat converters from 2 years time' and most cats lost a huge amount of economy so burned more fuel plus all the use of precious metals and almost a halt on the research that was heading to very high fuel economy.

There is a perceived political benefit from being rigid on it, so politicians will do nothing else.

[wesley123]

The whole synthetic fuel process in it's own right is incredibly wasteful when you consider you will only use about 50% of the energy for its intended purpose. That alone makes synthetic fuel not all that interesting.

[Greg Locock]

Engineering efficiency is not always a good guide to whether something is worth doing. For example the efficiency of a Newcomen atmospheric engine was perhaps 2% (WAG, much less than 10 anyway), but it still solved a problem and was transformative.

If you are getting power from solar or wind there are times when the generator has to be turned off, because you have to overbuild renewables by 3 to 10 to account for variability. Battery storage at grid level needs to last for days, and is hopelessly expensive.

So turning that more or less unusable peak power into fuel, even at a low engineering efficiency, is better than not doing it, if you can figure the finances out. One method of doing that is to let the taxpayer pay for most of your upfront costs and then cream off the operating profit yourself.

[Big Tea]

More grist to the mill, here in UK there are studies going on with government looking at ways of charging for road use.

It has traditionally been a one off payment yearly and then loading on petrol and diesel, so you indirectly pay a mileage charge.
It has been very attractive to run an electric car with no road fund and cheap power without extra tax, but when it is added the difference may be quite small and the lure of electric may fall sharply.

[vorticism]

So turning that more or less unusable peak power into fuel, even at a low engineering efficiency, is better than not doing it, if you can figure the finances out. One method of doing that is to let the taxpayer pay for most of your upfront costs and then cream off the operating profit yourself.

The ease of storing liquid fuels and gaseous hydrocarbons remains important, compared to storing electrical charges and hydrogen. Incredible infrastructure already exists. If the supply side of synthetic fuels is figured out it should proliferate quickly.

[vorticism]

The whole synthetic fuel process in it's own right is incredibly wasteful when you consider you will only use about 50% of the energy for its intended purpose. That alone makes synthetic fuel not all that interesting.

~90% of the solar radiation absorbed by a solar panel is rejected as heat, iirc

I think there was somewhat of a bottleneck 5 years ago when the panic hit maximum and there was little option other than electric, and it has become difficult to move away from it.

EV legislation is based on many assumptions. The myriad expectations placed upon yet to exist EV markets in the next few decades does not seem connected to reality.

[Big Tea]

So turning that more or less unusable peak power into fuel, even at a low engineering efficiency, is better than not doing it, if you can figure the finances out. One method of doing that is to let the taxpayer pay for most of your upfront costs and then cream off the operating profit yourself.

The ease of storing liquid fuels and gaseous hydrocarbons remains important, compared to storing electrical charges and hydrogen. Incredible infrastructure already exists. If the supply side of synthetic fuels is figured out it should proliferate quickly.

I see it as being ease of refill/recharge and the time taken rather than the actual bulk or weight of the battery or tank. To most drivers it is something they never see or think about until it needs filling. 5 Min to refill is fine, an hour always needs thinking about

[Andres125sx]

This won't come as a surprise to many here, but NCAP assessments are finding that the greenness of EVs, once quantified, is overstated compared to modern hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.

First, overstated looks like a political and populist statement to imply they´re not greener, when it might mean they´re still greener even if in a lower scale, so I tend to ignore this kind of statements.

Second, I´d love to see the data. Way too many biased reports out there paid from petrol companies to manipulate people. I can´t believe any statement wich does not include data.

Third, even if EV are not as green as some assume, they actually are greener each year, since the renewable energy percentage in most grids in the world in constantly increasing. OTOH ICEs are the opposite, they pollute more and more each year, since petrol engines are never as efficient as new, building cinder, increasing drag, wear and dead play on most of its thousand moving pieces wich makes them less efficient and more polluting each year. I´ve yet to see any report taking this into account

Fourth, EV are frequently confused with BEV, pointing fingers to the motor because of battery problems wich are not related to the motor. An EV can be feed with electricity from green hydrogen for example, or with a small fusion reactor and those will not have any of the battery manufacturing and recycling problems wich are the costly part of a BEV pollution wise, but they still are EVs.

The ICE-EV debate is so biased and manipulated its really disturbing

[Big Tea]

This won't come as a surprise to many here, but NCAP assessments are finding that the greenness of EVs, once quantified, is overstated compared to modern hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.

First, overstated looks like a political and populist statement to imply they´re not greener, when it might mean they´re still greener even if in a lower scale, so I tend to ignore this kind of statements.

Second, I´d love to see the data. Way too many biased reports out there paid from petrol companies to manipulate people. I can´t believe any statement wich does not include data.

Third, even if EV are not as green as some assume, they actually are greener each year, since the renewable energy percentage in most grids in the world in constantly increasing. OTOH ICEs are the opposite, they pollute more and more each year, since petrol engines are never as efficient as new, building cinder, increasing drag, wear and dead play on most of its thousand moving pieces wich makes them less efficient and more polluting each year. I´ve yet to see any report taking this into account

Fourth, EV are frequently confused with BEV, pointing fingers to the motor because of battery problems wich are not related to the motor. An EV can be feed with electricity from green hydrogen for example, or with a small fusion reactor and those will not have any of the battery manufacturing and recycling problems, but they still are EVs.

The ICE-EV debate is so biased and manipulated its really disturbing

I think there is a need to differentiate between why EV's are better (environment etc), and EV,s are just plain better without needing any other reason. I go along with the second part, the first part I still need convincing.

Perspective, a 1ltr car 50 years ago weighed about 750Kg and returned around 30MPG and had an expected like of around 80k miles. We should compare new RV's with this and project the development

[Andres125sx]

This won't come as a surprise to many here, but NCAP assessments are finding that the greenness of EVs, once quantified, is overstated compared to modern hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.

First, overstated looks like a political and populist statement to imply they´re not greener, when it might mean they´re still greener even if in a lower scale, so I tend to ignore this kind of statements.

Second, I´d love to see the data. Way too many biased reports out there paid from petrol companies to manipulate people. I can´t believe any statement wich does not include data.

Third, even if EV are not as green as some assume, they actually are greener each year, since the renewable energy percentage in most grids in the world in constantly increasing. OTOH ICEs are the opposite, they pollute more and more each year, since petrol engines are never as efficient as new, building cinder, increasing drag, wear and dead play on most of its thousand moving pieces wich makes them less efficient and more polluting each year. I´ve yet to see any report taking this into account

Fourth, EV are frequently confused with BEV, pointing fingers to the motor because of battery problems wich are not related to the motor. An EV can be feed with electricity from green hydrogen for example, or with a small fusion reactor and those will not have any of the battery manufacturing and recycling problems, but they still are EVs.

The ICE-EV debate is so biased and manipulated its really disturbing

I think there is a need to differentiate between why EV's are better (environment etc), and EV,s are just plain better without needing any other reason. I go along with the second part, the first part I still need convincing.

Perspective, a 1ltr car 50 years ago weighed about 750Kg and returned around 30MPG and had an expected like of around 80k miles. We should compare new RV's with this and project the development

You just need to imagine an EV wich does not need to carry 300kg of batteries, or wich needs hours for charging, to get a glimpse about how good EVs are, just remove the B part. Batteries are the limiting factor, but they evolve and can be replaced with other energy storing/generating solutions. Without the batteries or wich much better batteries (wich are just a matter of time) the advantages are so obvious and numerous (motor simplicity, lack of moving parts, theoretically eternal lifespan, reliability in a different league, perfect power band, no vibrations at all, no noise...) there´s no question about what´s better.

And notice I didn´t even mention the environmental advantage, just with the technical part the advantage is quite obvious

[NL_Fer]

Once 600KW DC charge is commonly available, there is no practice reason not to drive an EV.

They are heavy, but the weight is in the floor. It does’t seem to be a disadvantage for a street car.

[Big Tea]

First, overstated looks like a political and populist statement to imply they´re not greener, when it might mean they´re still greener even if in a lower scale, so I tend to ignore this kind of statements.

Second, I´d love to see the data. Way too many biased reports out there paid from petrol companies to manipulate people. I can´t believe any statement wich does not include data.

Third, even if EV are not as green as some assume, they actually are greener each year, since the renewable energy percentage in most grids in the world in constantly increasing. OTOH ICEs are the opposite, they pollute more and more each year, since petrol engines are never as efficient as new, building cinder, increasing drag, wear and dead play on most of its thousand moving pieces wich makes them less efficient and more polluting each year. I´ve yet to see any report taking this into account

Fourth, EV are frequently confused with BEV, pointing fingers to the motor because of battery problems wich are not related to the motor. An EV can be feed with electricity from green hydrogen for example, or with a small fusion reactor and those will not have any of the battery manufacturing and recycling problems, but they still are EVs.

The ICE-EV debate is so biased and manipulated its really disturbing

I think there is a need to differentiate between why EV's are better (environment etc), and EV,s are just plain better without needing any other reason. I go along with the second part, the first part I still need convincing.

Perspective, a 1ltr car 50 years ago weighed about 750Kg and returned around 30MPG and had an expected like of around 80k miles. We should compare new RV's with this and project the development

You just need to imagine an EV wich does not need to carry 300kg of batteries, or wich needs hours for charging, to get a glimpse about how good EVs are, just remove the B part. Batteries are the limiting factor, but they evolve and can be replaced with other energy storing/generating solutions. Without the batteries or wich much better batteries (wich are just a matter of time) the advantages are so obvious and numerous (motor simplicity, lack of moving parts, theoretically eternal lifespan, reliability in a different league, perfect power band, no vibrations at all, no noise...) there´s no question about what´s better.

And notice I didn´t even mention the environmental advantage, just with the technical part the advantage is quite obvious

If we do not start building them now, we can not start improving them now.


This is a good watch, and consider if they had kept on developing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc

[wesley123]

The whole synthetic fuel process in it's own right is incredibly wasteful when you consider you will only use about 50% of the energy for its intended purpose. That alone makes synthetic fuel not all that interesting.

~90% of the solar radiation absorbed by a solar panel is rejected as heat, iirc

Looked it up, and it indeed is a significant amount. Current higher spec panels have around a 20% efficiency rating.

However, what imo the difference is is that, whereas there is a lot of energy wasted in a solar panel, there isn't any energy or resources spent to produce this loss.

In the case of synthetic fuels you spend energy, resources and labor to then use ~50% of it.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... Current higher spec panels have around a 20% efficiency rating.
However, what imo the difference is is that, whereas there is a lot of energy wasted in a solar panel, there isn't any energy or resources spent to produce this loss.

5-10 times more capital cost and 5-10 times more land required ?

factor this 10-20% 'efficiency' with the 9% 'utilisation' (at UK insolation rate) .... and you get .... 1% ?
replace the lot every 20-30 years ?
goody-woody !


now the sun is out so there's no reception (digital radio or digital TV) for the Imola thing
60 years ago they sent this stuff down the landlines to a UK transmitter that actually worked
... I shall take a bath