Gasoline Cars are the Film Cameras of the Future.

Google "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
I watched it for free on long flight some years ago.

Ontario has history of Electric Cars multiple initiatives.
Zero support from local governments. Previous government of Ontario ignored local EV initiative and was using tax money to pay for non Canadian EVs.
The reason? They are getting huge tax money (nobody knows how spend for) on every 1L of gasoline sold. But they couldn't figure out how to rip-off taxpayer on EV refuel bill.
EV could be charged from off the grid solar panels. Tax free energy.
 
In the early 70’s, for a brief time I owned a really ratty 59 Karmann Ghia. The original engine had been swapped out for a 40 hp from a 65 bug.
The 59 had no fuel gauge, there was a 1.5 gallon reserve fuel lever down in the footwell.
On my first long interstate run, this was right after the national 55mph speed limit was put in place, after 150 miles thought I’d better fill it up to check mileage. At a steady 55mph it was getting 44mpg! This was with two people in the car.
Now days my ‘modern’ Nissan roller skate struggles to get 38mpg at 60 mph.
 
Ambro51 said:
Dangers of slow speed pedestrian accidents are real. While at speed there is noticeable tire noise, in city conditions the chronically unaware phone holding mask wearing citizen is not especially aware of an electric vehicle nearby.
Click to expand...
"The dream of reason produces monsters"


Most, if not all EV have noise producing unit to have it noticeable. In fact, then our hybrid SUV is on batteries, it triggers everyone attention by its sound. I could hear it before I could see it. I could hear it in the garage, while I'm in the house with closed doors.
 
Different from film, gasoline will eventually run out, earth doesn't have an unlimited abundance. Similar to gasoline, LIB (lithium ion batteries) will run out because also earth crust's Li content is limited (much less than sodium, Na, at 2.6%). There simply isn't enough Li available on earth to assemble the number of batteries required to power the same number of gasoline vehicles we are having now operating worldwide. The obvious alternative would be the sodium ion battery, which was in focus of research at the same time as the lithium ion battery was. However, with the discovery of graphite lithium intercalation compounds that could be used as anode materials, the lithium battery technology won, the same technology cannot be used for sodium because of different ion size and ion charge density.

Renewable energies are the only choice. Biofuel is one possibility but at the moment requires very large farming areas, possibly this could be changed to industrial crop farming in buildings in the future.

In my opinion, hydrogen gas powered fuel cells are the only way to go. It doesn't require a complete new infrastructure but the existing gasoline infrastructure can be converted step by step. Interestingly, also the aviation industry is now heavily investing into this technology as a future energy source for aircrafts. Interesting times ahead, hopefully we can document it using film.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
The big problems that folks don't want to face are the hypocrisy of electrical and the inefficiencies of it. The transmission lines and the grid necessary to support this move doesn't exist and will be a national project on the order of the creation of the Federal Interstate system if it is to work at all. Don't even get me started about how this power is generated. There is no such thing as making more energy than the potential energy which is contained in one unit. I'm saying that if you're burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to send out over power lines then to dump in a car, that is inherently wasteful. There is always loss, some bleeding of power here and there because of inefficiencies in the stem between pulling that fuel out of the ground to creating torque with it in the motor of a car. If these vehicles are powered by now-existing, largely fossil fuel generation, all the individual drivers are doing is unburdening themselves of their personal carbon footprint, which instead is a cloud out in the suburbs or rural area, choking our wildlife and contaminating our water. Just kicking the can down and across the street, so one doesn't have to look at it, but it's still one's own trash.

The only way to make electric cars environmentally friendly (as can be) is to use solar, hydro, or wind generation. Other than that, an electric car powered by a fossil fuel plant somewhere else, is more wasteful than an in-tune fossil fuel powered car. My 1972 Mercedes-Benz reliably gets 32+ mpg. I have a range of about 400 miles on one tank. There is no existing electric car out there that can take my 4,300lb car 400 miles on one charge. My old 1978 Toyota Corolla got 41 mpg, as measured in 2002. We had this efficiency thing under control in the mid to late 70s, done with innovation on already existing technology.

What about diesel fuel? Diesel technology is far more environmentally friendly now than back in the days of black smoke belching Detroit diesels, which are still very efficient for internal combustion engines. These days, we have bacteria and algae that can digest any cellulose material to produce a cleaner and more environmentally friendly version of diesel fuel. Even bio-diesel, made from largely soy and rapeseed, is far more clean burning than the dinosaur fuel we all know and love. This is before the addition of catalytic reduction, which drastically reduces harmful emissions. Really, if you look at efficiency, follow the money and what is the most efficient way of moving material is turbodiesel internal combustion engines, or diesel/electric engines, if it were any other way, the people who have money to make and money to save on how commodities were being moved would have gone there. Semi trucks and trains would burn gasoline, instead of diesel, LPG or light distillate. Ships would do the same thing.

I'm all for saving the planet and I absolutely believe climate change is a man-made real thing that is going to make life much more difficult for future generations, but I also think that innovating the technologies we have now, instead of coming up with more junk for people to buy, use, and sell, is the way we'll save the planet and ourselves. Until we come up with a totally clean way of generating power and an extremely efficient way of transmitting that power, personal electric vehicles will not be an answer to anything other than unburdening ourselves of our perceived fossil fuel usage, while that fuel has instead just been burned out in the burbs somewhere.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Completely correct. The blather about ‘electrification’ ignores basic physics . If you are burning coal to generate electricity to send over a grid to charge an electric car, might as well burn gas or diesel at the end point.

This is also a political point - here in philly there are environmental groups that have pushed for the city to dismantle its natural gas infrastructure, actually demanding ‘electrification’ by name. No discussion as to how everyone would pay for the upgrades .

Obviously they have an agenda...
 
zauhar said:
Completely correct. The blather about ‘electrification’ ignores basic physics . If you are burning coal to generate electricity to send over a grid to charge an electric car, might as well burn gas or diesel at the end point.

This is also a political point - here in philly there are environmental groups that have pushed for the city to dismantle its natural gas infrastructure, actually demanding ‘electrification’ by name. No discussion as to how everyone would pay for the upgrades .

Obviously they have an agenda...
Click to expand...

No agenda, just backing of a solid scientific analysis. But, hey, don't let facts interfere with your opinion.

"The total global warming emissions from EVs—including manufacturing, driving, and disposal—are about half the emissions of a comparable gasoline car over its lifetime. As more EVs hit the road, the nation will consume less oil, which could help alleviate pollution-related health problems caused by burning gasoline and diesel fuel."

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/state-electric-vehicle-benefits
 
The law of thermodynamics can't be made to act any other way. Generate power somewhere, distribute that power, use that power to create work. Unless this is all done below -100 celsius, it is inherently wasteful. Great on the dark side of the moon, or maybe during the antarctic winter, but in real life use, it is grossly inefficient. Add to that the fact that maybe people should ride a bike or walk, or use a push scooter, or skateboard for the short trips that electric vehicle proponents are encouraging. Ride a bike, don't drive a car, for local trips. It works perfectly for commuting and leaves the body and mind in a great condition.
For those longer trips, burning the fuel right in the vehicle being moved is still the most efficient way of creating work. If it were any other way, we'd have perpetual motion machines all over the place, but last I checked, no such thing has been invented yet. Goodness knows we've been trying for 600 years.
Phil Forrest
 
There is so much misinformation in this thread.

Gasoline cars will become niche.

The main reason is that EV will be cheaper to build than ICE. Right now big manufacturers have equipment that is currently building ICE cars. When those go they will replace them with Machines that build EV.

What is limiting most manufacturers is that they do not have the capacity to roll out a lot of EV cars yet. This is why we are seeing a lot of older cars being phased out and EV cars being introduced.

Once factories, and machines get set up to produce EV vehicles it won’t stop. It’s cheaper to produce plain and simple. Thousands of less parts to worry about.

It’s incredibly funny that a forum with a bunch of purists that complain that digital cameras are too complicated, can not see the simple fact that EV cars are incredibly more simple than ICE vehicles.
 
phrons said:
.......Once factories, and machines get set up to produce EV vehicles it won’t stop. It’s cheaper to produce plain and simple. Thousands of less parts to worry about.......
Click to expand...

What you say is true, but it's also not that simple. Batteries, right now, are expensive. Note that almost every EV on sale is a luxury vehicle costing $50,000+. The new electric Hummer costs, $112,500 USD. Who in the hell can afford that? EV's, now, are for the rich, not for the common man. Once battery cost comes down, there may be more acceptance to owning an EV. But in the U.S., it will be a slow process. Lack of charging stations, and poor battery performance in cold weather (a major factor in the northern states), will hamper sales. But eventually the market will shift to EV's. But don't hold your breath.

Jim B.
 
There is always waste. Having a bit less is the key. The grid is already there, working. A power plant could be coal, or nuclear, or a wind farm, or solar. A refinery eats only one thing. The thing it eats has only a few locations in the world where it is viable to get and sell. Politics come into play. War comes into play. And it needs a vast amount of power to keep it going. Then an army of trucks transport their cargo from the closest refinery, burning fuel the entire time. To gas stations where vapours are let loose, a spilt drop here and there. Into vehicles that may not be in the best shape, belching and leaking. In the drive thru, in the line up doing the school run. Sounds pretty efficient :)
 
hap said:
Much of this documented in a book Case For Fossil Fuels. Although that sounds unharmonious to many ears, the point of it was stated above in a Chapter Wells to wheels (ie the efficiency argument). And yes, the smoke and carbon has to be burned and exhausted somewhere while others are virtue signaling in their electric cars.

We will innovate . there will be a hierarchy of power sources depending on circumstance and location.
Click to expand...

This is the case. Electric generation may be a bit more efficient, but a lot is lost in distribution. Some proponents say we will move to "green" energy, but I am not sure how viable that is (without a large contingent of nuclear in the mix).

But we need to move past the burning and carbon arguments. A case can be made for high quality electric cars, and they should compete alongside gas and diesel cars (if diesel ever makes a comeback).
 
phrons said:
There is so much misinformation in this thread.

Gasoline cars will become niche.

The main reason is that EV will be cheaper to build than ICE. Right now big manufacturers have equipment that is currently building ICE cars. When those go they will replace them with Machines that build EV.

What is limiting most manufacturers is that they do not have the capacity to roll out a lot of EV cars yet. This is why we are seeing a lot of older cars being phased out and EV cars being introduced.

Once factories, and machines get set up to produce EV vehicles it won’t stop. It’s cheaper to produce plain and simple. Thousands of less parts to worry about.

It’s incredibly funny that a forum with a bunch of purists that complain that digital cameras are too complicated, can not see the simple fact that EV cars are incredibly more simple than ICE vehicles.
Click to expand...

Gasoline cars may become niche. However, ramping up a predominance of EV cars is going to rely on fossil fuels for a long time....to allow for mining all the minerals and energy to build batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, power distribution systems. Much of the stuff we have already made is getting old , inefficient, and requires disposal. that will be fun.

There is a lot more to do in power if we intend to have any sort of manufacturing industry. BTW, the massive Google , Amazon, Facebook server farms consume huge amounts of power to operate and to cool. 24/7/365.

At the base of any reasonable future power pyramid is nuclear. All lthe rest is commentary.
 
phrons said:
There is so much misinformation in this thread.

Gasoline cars will become niche.

The main reason is that EV will be cheaper to build than ICE. Right now big manufacturers have equipment that is currently building ICE cars. When those go they will replace them with Machines that build EV.

What is limiting most manufacturers is that they do not have the capacity to roll out a lot of EV cars yet. This is why we are seeing a lot of older cars being phased out and EV cars being introduced.

Once factories, and machines get set up to produce EV vehicles it won’t stop. It’s cheaper to produce plain and simple. Thousands of less parts to worry about.

It’s incredibly funny that a forum with a bunch of purists that complain that digital cameras are too complicated, can not see the simple fact that EV cars are incredibly more simple than ICE vehicles.
Click to expand...

That to me is the main advantage of electric vehicles- mechanical simplicity. Now that we have tuned gasoline engines to highest degree with computer controls, etc., we are abandoning the technology for something simpler.

Reminds me of the Sacramento train museum. They have close together the most amazing, highest power largest monster of a steam engine (one of the last built) and the first diesel-electric which came out at around the same time. The diesel electric was tiny in comparison, yet produced more power. The steam engine was a testament to steam engineering, but then again, the diesel-electric was a better testament to good engineering. The diesel electric came out at the right time.
 
Quote: "That to me is the main advantage of electric vehicles- mechanical simplicity. Now that we have tuned gasoline engines to highest degree with computer controls, etc., we are abandoning the technology for something simpler."


I also predict that ev's will last longer or eventually, at least, will be kept longer.
 
besk said:
I also predict that ev's will last longer or eventually, at least, will be kept longer.
Click to expand...
To get people, especially people in the USA, to keep something longer than X cycle of use is something which could help us out now, not 50 years in the future. We live in a society which is based upon disposable commodities. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule but the auto industry would fail if people simply kept their cars for three or four more years past the expected time to turn them in for the next big shiny. Just like cell phones, cars have become a huge sector of the economy, not based upon servicing existing ones, but creating new ones and sending the used ones who knows where. There is NO REASON that a person needs a new car every couple years. The same goes for a cellular phone, or computer, or whatever. It is the nature of the society that some parts of the world live in which encourages rampant spending and consumption. If we curbed this addiction for new stuff and actually maintained or improved what we already have, we might be able to save ourselves from choking to death on our own waste.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
To get people, especially people in the USA, to keep something longer than X cycle of use is something which could help us out now, not 50 years in the future. We live in a society which is based upon disposable commodities. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule but the auto industry would fail if people simply kept their cars for three or four more years past the expected time to turn them in for the next big shiny. Just like cell phones, cars have become a huge sector of the economy, not based upon servicing existing ones, but creating new ones and sending the used ones who knows where. There is NO REASON that a person needs a new car every couple years. The same goes for a cellular phone, or computer, or whatever. It is the nature of the society that some parts of the world live in which encourages rampant spending and consumption. If we curbed this addiction for new stuff and actually maintained or improved what we already have, we might be able to save ourselves from choking to death on our own waste.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

You’ve been doing so well with commentary.

However now I have commodore Amiga in the attic you might like to have. Or should I put it back in service?

I like my galaxy s5 but can I find a non dead battery for it? Are mission critical uses still supported by the OS?

My car is almost 18.
 
hap said:
You’ve been doing so well with commentary.

However now I have commodore Amiga in the attic you might like to have. Or should I put it back in service?

I like my galaxy s5 but can I find a non dead battery for it? Are mission critical uses still supported by the OS?

My car is almost 18.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions to every rule. I'd love to play with that Amiga!

Phil Forrest
 
People in the US of A are keeping their cars and trucks longer:
https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/average-age-vehicles-us-roads-hits-118-years

But let's not forget that the world's human population is larger now than it's ever been, and the upward trend will continue for a few decades longer (due to people simply living longer) before trending downwards.

I think in some ways, the thing which will (or should) make the internal-combustion automobile obsolete isn't the electric car, but no-car: One or two people per privately-owned vehicle was never an efficient means of transportation, especially when the support infrastructure is considered: There's a lot of real estate which currently does nothing more productive than provide storage space for cars when they're not being used, which is probably 95% of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom