New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Another take down of liquid hydrogen ICEs. I'm not really sure what Toyota is trying to do--fapping, it would seem.

[Dadhawk]

Tesla releases "Magic Dock, Home Edition" for L2 charging.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/new...bors-petition/



To ballpark some figures to make a general comparison:



Battery chemistry differs across Tesla's different models and in different markets, and of course, it has changed over time; the 4680 cells were actually less dense, but much cheaper to produce. I think at best, the power density has been as high as 275 Wh/kg in like the Model S, but if the Model 3 had a 450 Wh/kg Amprius battery, the battery could weigh a third as much, and there would be a boost in range from carrying 707 less pounds, weighing only 3100lbs instead of 3800lbs. Or, there would be much more range like 930 miles of range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_...(540%20kJ%2Fkg).

Isn't that the old cell weight vs. battery weight issue? i.e. 450wh/kg cell density =/= 450wh/kg battery density.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Isn't that the old cell weight vs. battery weight issue? i.e. 450wh/kg cell density =/= 450wh/kg battery density.

Yes, I suppose you are right. My mistake. The cell energy density is closer to 250wh/kg, but the pack density is closer to 150wh/kg. I suppose the pack density is slightly higher too now that they are integrating the battery pack in with the structural component of the car, which means the casing is a fraction of what it was, where about 75% of the pack was just the battery cells, but maybe now it account for 85% of the weight.

This would mean the cell density would be closer to a doubling than tripling like their chart suggests; at least for the Tesla, but maybe a tripling for less energy dense batteries on the market. Still impressive.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Another take down of liquid hydrogen ICEs. I'm not really sure what Toyota is trying to do--fapping, it would seem.

Interesting video, although not much new content compared to his analysis on the hydrogen 7 series.

What's missing -to me- is the comparison with a FCEV in terms of efficiency, weight, etc.

Also interested in the safety aspect of a track car filled with H2. Especially when it's out the back.

I don't really share his analysis on synthetic fuels as they come with their lot of questions (How can we certify it's actually sustainable? How about local emissions? How can it be made sustainably if our grid isn't sustainable? Is the use of clean power to make sustainable fuel more efficient than using said power to fill batteries? Etc.)

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Interesting video, although not much new content compared to his analysis on the hydrogen 7 series.

What's missing -to me- is the comparison with a FCEV in terms of efficiency, weight, etc.

Also interested in the safety aspect of a track car filled with H2. Especially when it's out the back.

I don't really share his analysis on synthetic fuels as they come with their lot of questions (How can we certify it's actually sustainable? How about local emissions? How can it be made sustainably if our grid isn't sustainable? Is the use of clean power to make sustainable fuel more efficient than using said power to fill batteries? Etc.)

He has compared hydrogen ICEs to HCEVs, and the data is obvious that it is far more efficient and green to have HCEVs. He has also stated that synthetic fuels are also less efficient and far more expensive than BEVs. What he is saying here is that the best use of ICEs in the future that is the greenest would be with synthetic fuels when those synthetic fuels are made with renewables. Skip the fancy engineering because it is a dead end. BEVs are the future.

[Opie]

[alex87f]

Only watched the first one... it's well-worded and somewhat true in many ways, but what's the underlying message? Does mustache guy have a better option to offer?

"Electric car's aren't the silver bullet" is true. But that doesn't mean we're entitled to say "heh, can't be bothered then, I'll just carry on as usual".
The silver bullet is a reshaping of our way of living, which the average American (or westerner for that matter) will like a lot less than simply driving an electric car instead of a petrol one.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Does mustache guy have a better option to offer?

That isn't John Stossel's schtick. He's a (pretty much true) libertarian reporter that basically has done this same style of reporting for years. The "here is what they say, but here it is what really true and not true about it".

Basically the "EV change is a good thing, but its not the whole thing or even the most thing" is the message.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

That isn't John Stossel's schtick. He's a (pretty much true) libertarian reporter that basically has done this same style of reporting for years. The "here is what they say, but here it is what really true and not true about it".

Basically the "EV change is a good thing, but its not the whole thing or even the most thing" is the message.

I'm missing the American culture to know who John Stossel is, but I think I see your point.

Still, the issue with this type of videos is that, aside from hardly being a research paper, the initial message tends to get re-interpreted into "Well then new technology xxx is crap, let's hate on it and change nothing"

Speaking of research papers, if you have time this one's pretty good : https://www.transportenvironment.org...port%20v04.pdf

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Still, the issue with this type of videos is that, aside from hardly being a research paper, the initial message tends to get re-interpreted into "Well then new technology xxx is crap, let's hate on it and change nothing"

In this particular case I don't think that is the message. I think it is is closer to what I alluded to, in that the technology is good, and likely inevitable, but here is where reality meets hype, and you aren't getting the whole truth along the path.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Opie

Videos

1. More electric cars will hardly dent oil use

Transportation makes up 16.2% of global carbon emissions, and 11.9% is road transportation (1), so he isn't wrong, but it is false to paint the narrative that switching to EVs isn't necessary because it won't do enough. Every industry is trying to get to net-zero carbon emissions. We hear about EVs because that is what we need to do, but every industry is facing regulations and pressure to adopt new standards.

2. Electric cars are not all that green

Anyone who says they are driving a zero emissions vehicle is potentially ignorant, while being entirely accurate to say that there are no direct emissions because there are no tailpipes. If they believe it is simply a greener car then they are right, most likely. Studies have compared EVs to ICEs for end-of-life carbon emissions when both receive energy from fossil fuels, and even then, EVs are significantly greener, but if EVs receive power from renewables, it isn't even close. There is no future for ICEs where we could carbon capture CO2 to produce e-fuels that would make less carbon emissions than EVs. They have even compared the benefits of maintaining an older car than selling it and buying an EV, and the EV is better. It is also better to remove local emissions from cities that cause respiratory emergencies, asthma and death, killing around 53k a year (2). The crossover point in miles depends on whether someone is replacing a Prius or Geo Metro with a Hummer EV, but if someone compares like-cars to like-cars then it is no contest. Here is a comparison from the Argonne National Laboratory based on 100% renewables, US mixed grid and 100% coal (3). The crossover point for a Model 3 vs Corolla (which is not a one to one comparison because the Model 3 is replacing more Camrys and BMW 3 series than Corollas, but okay), the crossover point is 8.4k miles, 13.5k miles or 78.7k miles, respectively, so the 60k miles quoted by VW is probably the worst case scenario.

3. Batteries are lousy at storing energy

Batteries will likely never be as energy dense as fossil fuels, but they don't need to be. They need to be energy dense enough for our convenience. If we can recharge a battery, and they get us down the road far enough then we are fine. Fast charging and battery swapping would eliminate any issue with its deficiencies in mileage. It is worth remembering that BEVs are far more efficient at using energy, which is the point too, and that is why a BEV powered by coal is better than an ICE over the life of the car. This is because only about a third of the energy of fuel goes to moving the vehicle, and the rest is waisted emissions and heat. If we ever get to room temperature superconductors then energy losses with transferring electricity would be even lower.

4. Miracle batteries powerful enough to replace fossil fuels are a fantasy

We have solid state batteries coming, lithium-ion silicon batteries coming, and we have light weighting of other products like the radial flux motors. Once people get away from the idea that everyone needs to own a tank then battery size won't be as big either. The idea that we need 400 years worth of batteries is also off. Musk has said the world needs about 50-100 gigafactories, which worldwide, it isn't a lot and has gone up faster than 400 years, and if he is referring to batteries to store electricity for the grid, the grid doesn't need 400 years to develop batteries because it doesn't need that many lithium-ion batteries. Batteries from cars get charged throughout the day at home and in parking structures, and they can be timed to charge off-peak times. Rondo batteries use bricks to store excess energy and are like 80% cheaper than lithium-ion batteries and last for 100 years, so we don't need lithium-ion batteries; there are many alternative solutions.

5. We just don't have enough electricity for all electric cars

We don't now, but we will in 40 years when the majority of cars on the road are electric. Only 6% of cars on the road are new cars, and the goal is 100% new cars sales are electric by 2035 in California and 50% electric by 2030 for everywhere else, so this is 3% by 2030 in the US and 6% by 2035 in California. We need to add enough energy to the grid to cover 6% more cars on the grid, and this is entirely achievable. We have added this rate in the past. The good news is solar and wind are cheaper than coal, nuclear and natural gas, so prices in the long run should be cheaper and more stable, and it also means the economics of building more utilities mean investors will opt for solar and wind in order to save more, so they can make more.

BTW, those lines of people in Poland trying to get coal isn't a result of green energy policies like this video would like you to believe. Poland enacted an embargo on buying coal from Russia because of its invasion of the Ukraine, which is what led to a supply deficit and rising prices of coal. Many people in Poland burn coal at home instead of wood.

FWIW, we need to reduce demand on oil consumption because we only have around 47 years of known reserves left at current consumption rate, which means less if poorer areas increase their consumption, so we should be aggressive about moving off of oil, regardless of the climate issues.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

FWIW, we need to reduce demand on oil consumption because we only have around 47 years of known reserves left at current consumption rate, which means less if poorer areas increase their consumption, so we should be aggressive about moving off of oil, regardless of the climate issues.

This has been repeatedly proven wrong....we are not running out of oil
https://www.discovermagazine.com/pla...ing-out-of-oil

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Opie

This has been repeatedly proven wrong....we are not running out of oil
https://www.discovermagazine.com/pla...ing-out-of-oil

Yea, this has almost been as consistent as the prediction of flying cars. "in 15 to 20 years...".

Here's a decent history of those predictions.

I do think we need to get off petroleum, but supply doesn't seem to be a primary driver. If it was, it likely would happen faster.