follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Speed By Design
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB > Off-Topic Discussions > Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions

Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions Discuss all other cars and automotive news here.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-10-2021, 05:09 PM   #729
WildCard600
Senior Member
 
WildCard600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Drives: 2020 86
Location: Pepperidge Farm
Posts: 382
Thanks: 757
Thanked 624 Times in 257 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
The problem is measurable by the rise in CO2. Now, it may be debatable as to whether that rise will lead to global warming or whether it has already lead to global warming. I think the evidence is already in, but I'll concede the point because the larger point is that it can't continue to increase forever without being checked. That is a fact. And we are foolish to gamble on the possibility. I shouldn't care. I have no kids who will deal with the ramifications, but I care about the future of other members in my family and for the future of mankind. I'm not incredibly attached to our species or my lineage, really, but it would be a shame to destroy ourselves and half the planet with us. Again, running this experiment is silly.

Besides CO2, oil reserves are finite. We would need to switch to sustainable biofuels under a controlled population at minimum. Watch the video below on why that might not be realistic. Even if someone believes EVs are a poor solution, then they would have to believe in an alternative solution to BEVs or HPEVs and biofuels are likely not the answer.

There are plenty of videos I have posted that address the feasibility of converting the energy grid to renewables (which is happening in many countries and here), or for getting the masses on EVs (which is happening in countries like Norway), or for scaling the energy grid quickly (see Engineering Explained's video), or for recycling batteries (which is already happening for raw materials and as grid storage), etc.

It is worth considering that we don't have the oil reserves to likely last us at an economically cost effective prices for 100 years, let alone a thousand years or more. In other words, we might have oil left in 50 years, but if you had to pay $20/gallon at the pump adjusting for inflation, we can't expect people to pay to use that oil for transportation at that cost. Many industries currently depend on oil for products besides for use as a source of transportation, so burning through oil only to reduce supply and increase demand means costs for other products might go through the roof. Considering this fact, burning through oil at the rate we are going through it seems illogical, especially when it will take many industries years to figure out and switch to alternatives for oil.

There are other things you mentioned that I wanted to unpack like deficit spending or mining lithium or more details, but I'm trying to keep the conversation on topic or trying not to be redundant on subjects that have been well covered here, while focusing on the key points. I think the key points are what is your alternative plan for using fossil fuels for transportation or for the energy grid if not EVs and renewables, and what do you think should be done to control rising CO2 levels, acknowledging the fact that they can't rise forever without being checked?


https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...143867&page=27

Efuel reduces CO2 emissions by ~85%. It's made from capturing CO2 from the air or industrial emissions and combining it with hydrogen. Might not even have to change the pumps at the gas station.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...ars-after-2030

Now, making hydrogen is energy intensive. So, maybe we should stop ****ing around with toxic battery BS and start putting some serious work into figuring out easier ways to obtain hydrogen. It's only the most abundant element in the universe. -

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-harves...nogardens.html

I grew up not far from the Rock of Ages granite and marble quarry in VT. I've been to the site a number of times and removing millions of tons of stone leaves quite the scar on the landscape. But that's a drop in the bucket to the tens of millions of tons of earth that would need to be strip mined and then refined with sulfuric acid to make tens of thousands of tons of lithium in the case of the Thacker Pass mine. At least a rock quarry could eventually be repurposed as a reservoir or man made lake, can't so much do that with a strip mined superfund site.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/02/...-costs-of-evs/
WildCard600 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WildCard600 For This Useful Post:
Spuds (06-11-2021), weederr33 (06-12-2021)
Old 06-11-2021, 01:02 AM   #730
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,883
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,802 Times in 3,297 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCard600 View Post
Efuel reduces CO2 emissions by ~85%. It's made from capturing CO2 from the air or industrial emissions and combining it with hydrogen. Might not even have to change the pumps at the gas station.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...ars-after-2030
So you are fine with the proposition that we can rapidly expand the energy grid to produce e-fuels from renewables, but making electricity for EVs by scaling the energy grid is impossible?

I'm curious what this fuel will cost. Porsche says their cost would currently be around $38 per gallon.




Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCard600 View Post
Now, making hydrogen is energy intensive. So, maybe we should stop ****ing around with toxic battery BS and start putting some serious work into figuring out easier ways to obtain hydrogen. It's only the most abundant element in the universe. -

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-harves...nogardens.html

It would be nice if we could use hydrogen. It would require a huge increase in our energy grid beyond the requirements for BEVs because of the reduced efficiency. We still need to build batteries with FCEVs, but smaller ones, so this could be a good solution if we can scale renewables. Hydrogen ICEs is possible, but it isn't a great idea. Hydrogen will definitely be in our future. I don't think it will be adopted as fast as BEVs.




Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCard600 View Post
I grew up not far from the Rock of Ages granite and marble quarry in VT. I've been to the site a number of times and removing millions of tons of stone leaves quite the scar on the landscape. But that's a drop in the bucket to the tens of millions of tons of earth that would need to be strip mined and then refined with sulfuric acid to make tens of thousands of tons of lithium in the case of the Thacker Pass mine. At least a rock quarry could eventually be repurposed as a reservoir or man made lake, can't so much do that with a strip mined superfund site.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/02/...-costs-of-evs/
There might be other ways to mine lithium:



https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...e-green-energy

Also, Tesla is working on a sulfate-free process to harvest lithium pulled from mines in Nevada:



There are also plenty of people working on alternatives to lithium ion batteries. There are already alternatives that can be used for grid storage that are far cheaper and better than lithium too, where size/energy density isn't as important as car batteries.
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post:
Spuds (06-11-2021)
Old 06-11-2021, 07:59 AM   #731
Dadhawk
1st86 Driver!
 
Dadhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: '13 FR-S (#3 of 1st 86)
Location: Powder Springs, GA
Posts: 19,798
Thanks: 38,786
Thanked 24,907 Times in 11,362 Posts
Mentioned: 181 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
It would be nice if we could use hydrogen. It would require a huge increase in our energy grid beyond the requirements for BEVs because of the reduced efficiency. We still need to build batteries with FCEVs, but smaller ones, so this could be a good solution if we can scale renewables. Hydrogen ICEs is possible, but it isn't a great idea. Hydrogen will definitely be in our future. I don't think it will be adopted as fast as BEVs.
Speaking of fuel cells, looks like Rolls Royce has joined the ranks of those looking at that, although no surprise since they also produce "long haul" engines like aircraft and other transport where fuel cells make way more sense than pure battery/electric.
__________________

Visit my Owner's Journal where I wax philosophic on all things FR-S
Post your 86 or see others in front of a(n) (in)famous landmark.
What fits in your 86? Show us the "Junk In Your Trunk".
Dadhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dadhawk For This Useful Post:
Irace86.2.0 (06-11-2021), MICHAEL450f (06-11-2021), Spuds (06-11-2021)
Old 06-11-2021, 04:31 PM   #732
WildCard600
Senior Member
 
WildCard600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Drives: 2020 86
Location: Pepperidge Farm
Posts: 382
Thanks: 757
Thanked 624 Times in 257 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
So you are fine with the proposition that we can rapidly expand the energy grid to produce e-fuels from renewables, but making electricity for EVs by scaling the energy grid is impossible?

I'm curious what this fuel will cost. Porsche says their cost would currently be around $38 per gallon.
There is an industrial gas production facility a few miles from my house that produces CO2, nitrogen, oxygen and very small amounts of noble gases by literally sucking in air, cooling it and then distilling the desired gases out. It would be much easier to expand power production and delivery to a smaller amount of key facilities than the entirety of the united states population, especially where renewable energy is concerned.

Let's get theoretical for a moment. I never lived in a house that had more than 100 amp main service until I moved out of New England, you can't charge a BEV with that kind of electric service unless you plan on shutting down every appliance in the house while charging.

Would it be easier to increase the delivery of energy or even onsite production at a handful of regional e-fuel production facilities ? Or would it be easier to go around one by one to millions of homes just in VT, NH and Maine and rip out all the old wiring and pull millions of feet of new wire to update those houses to potentially support home EV charging ? And do it all by some arbitrary date set forth by politicians ? And that's the best case scenario where we assume the transmission lines coming from the local power distribution center (or the distribution center itself) can even handle the increased load. Brownouts on hot days where everyone turns on their AC is already an issue in many places.

I'm sure cost per gallon would go way down once it was being produced in quantities outside these early experiments. Especially with advances in growing hydrogen catalysts to increase production efficiency as in the second link I posted. 15 years ago a single 100kwh battery pack was absurdly expensive, increased research and development along with increased production could do the same for e-fuel as it did for battery packs.


Quote:
It would be nice if we could use hydrogen. It would require a huge increase in our energy grid beyond the requirements for BEVs because of the reduced efficiency. We still need to build batteries with FCEVs, but smaller ones, so this could be a good solution if we can scale renewables. Hydrogen ICEs is possible, but it isn't a great idea. Hydrogen will definitely be in our future. I don't think it will be adopted as fast as BEVs.

See above. Burning hydrogen directly is not the idea. Mix it with the CO2 and make synthetic hydrocarbons. This retains our existing fueling infrastructure for everything from lawn mowers to aviation and marine applications which for many of those things will not be electrified anytime in the near future (if ever).

Quote:
There might be other ways to mine lithium:


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...e-green-energy

Also, Tesla is working on a sulfate-free process to harvest lithium pulled from mines in Nevada:



There are also plenty of people working on alternatives to lithium ion batteries. There are already alternatives that can be used for grid storage that are far cheaper and better than lithium too, where size/energy density isn't as important as car batteries.
I'm all for cleaner batteries because batteries are not going away. I just don't think it's a smart idea to go around shoving thousands of pounds of batteries into every car to replace much smaller quantities of much more energy dense liquid fuels. There are some cases where a BEV makes sense, but it's far from an ubiquitous solution.

Liquid fuel is not going anywhere for a long time. There are far too many military, industrial, agricultural and even recreational requirements. What would be needed is a complete revolution in both drastically smaller, lighter, multiple megawatt batteries and solar panels that can produce multiple tens of kilowatts per hour in a few square feet of space. This makes an even bigger case in developing nations and areas where the electric grid is much more limited or even essentially non existent.


*Removed pictures and video links to make quote smaller*
WildCard600 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2021, 05:42 PM   #733
Lynxis
Senior Member
 
Lynxis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Drives: 2013 WRB BRZ 6MT
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,020
Thanks: 917
Thanked 604 Times in 387 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadhawk View Post
Speaking of trucks, on the Toyota live event today they said that 77% of their overall saies are trucks and SUVs. That is much higher than I expected from a company that still sells "low roof" models which is the new way of saying coupes and sedans.
I personally know a lot of people who buy large Trucks/SUVs for no other reason than because they perceive them as being safer than smaller vehicles. The idea being that they don't want to be the smaller vehicle in a given collision if they can help it. The possibility to use the vehicle for it's intended purpose if the need arises plays into it. I can't comment on the validity of this line of thinking without having done any research but it's definitely a feeling people I know have.
Lynxis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lynxis For This Useful Post:
Dadhawk (06-11-2021), Irace86.2.0 (06-12-2021)
Old 06-12-2021, 12:26 AM   #734
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,883
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,802 Times in 3,297 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCard600 View Post
There is an industrial gas production facility a few miles from my house that produces CO2, nitrogen, oxygen and very small amounts of noble gases by literally sucking in air, cooling it and then distilling the desired gases out. It would be much easier to expand power production and delivery to a smaller amount of key facilities than the entirety of the united states population, especially where renewable energy is concerned.

Let's get theoretical for a moment. I never lived in a house that had more than 100 amp main service until I moved out of New England, you can't charge a BEV with that kind of electric service unless you plan on shutting down every appliance in the house while charging.

Would it be easier to increase the delivery of energy or even onsite production at a handful of regional e-fuel production facilities ? Or would it be easier to go around one by one to millions of homes just in VT, NH and Maine and rip out all the old wiring and pull millions of feet of new wire to update those houses to potentially support home EV charging ? And do it all by some arbitrary date set forth by politicians ? And that's the best case scenario where we assume the transmission lines coming from the local power distribution center (or the distribution center itself) can even handle the increased load. Brownouts on hot days where everyone turns on their AC is already an issue in many places.

I'm sure cost per gallon would go way down once it was being produced in quantities outside these early experiments. Especially with advances in growing hydrogen catalysts to increase production efficiency as in the second link I posted. 15 years ago a single 100kwh battery pack was absurdly expensive, increased research and development along with increased production could do the same for e-fuel as it did for battery packs.





See above. Burning hydrogen directly is not the idea. Mix it with the CO2 and make synthetic hydrocarbons. This retains our existing fueling infrastructure for everything from lawn mowers to aviation and marine applications which for many of those things will not be electrified anytime in the near future (if ever).



I'm all for cleaner batteries because batteries are not going away. I just don't think it's a smart idea to go around shoving thousands of pounds of batteries into every car to replace much smaller quantities of much more energy dense liquid fuels. There are some cases where a BEV makes sense, but it's far from an ubiquitous solution.

Liquid fuel is not going anywhere for a long time. There are far too many military, industrial, agricultural and even recreational requirements. What would be needed is a complete revolution in both drastically smaller, lighter, multiple megawatt batteries and solar panels that can produce multiple tens of kilowatts per hour in a few square feet of space. This makes an even bigger case in developing nations and areas where the electric grid is much more limited or even essentially non existent.


*Removed pictures and video links to make quote smaller*
A person doesn’t need to fully charge their car every day. The average person drives 30-40 miles a day. At 20 amps, that might take 3-4 hours while a person sleeps. If someone can charge at work on a level 2 charger then they may never need to charge at home. This seems easiest to me.

E-fuels would need to get far cheaper, but that might never happen. Consider the cost of petrol. You think making synthetic petrol will be the same price as pulling it out of the ground and refining it? Synthetic petrol will be really expensive. It will also take a lot of green energy to produce the synthetic fuel. More energy than just feeding the grid more energy.

They make electric boats, electric lawn mowers, FCEV planes—just saying. Remember, we don’t need to eliminate all CO2 production. We don’t need a 747 to be electric if everything else is electric. Hydrogen fuels and synthetic fuels are better suited to these applications than for mass transport.
Attached Images
 
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post:
MICHAEL450f (06-12-2021)
Old 06-12-2021, 06:14 AM   #735
WildCard600
Senior Member
 
WildCard600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Drives: 2020 86
Location: Pepperidge Farm
Posts: 382
Thanks: 757
Thanked 624 Times in 257 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
A person doesn’t need to fully charge their car every day. The average person drives 30-40 miles a day. At 20 amps, that might take 3-4 hours while a person sleeps. If someone can charge at work on a level 2 charger then they may never need to charge at home. This seems easiest to me.

E-fuels would need to get far cheaper, but that might never happen. Consider the cost of petrol. You think making synthetic petrol will be the same price as pulling it out of the ground and refining it? Synthetic petrol will be really expensive. It will also take a lot of green energy to produce the synthetic fuel. More energy than just feeding the grid more energy.

They make electric boats, electric lawn mowers, FCEV planes—just saying. Remember, we don’t need to eliminate all CO2 production. We don’t need a 747 to be electric if everything else is electric. Hydrogen fuels and synthetic fuels are better suited to these applications than for mass transport.
What is the rate of charge at 120v ? Many of those old houses can't easily run 240v (at least not according the NEC guidelines) so we are back to retrofitting lots of homes. This also assumes that people even have a place to park that could even support charging at home. Many places only have street parking or parking areas that can't simply be supported by sticking a charger on an exterior wall of the home (like my current house).

I'm not sure the charge at work idea holds water. I've never worked in a place that had any kind of parking setup that would be conducive to people charging their cars. Now, I admit that is anecdotal and might be atypical but the charge at work idea has some issues IMO based on my personal work experience -

1. Need to have parking areas that would could be easily (read: not very expensive) to electrify every (or nearly every) parking space.

2. Providing charging for 200+ vehicles. At most I think you would be lucky to see a handful of spots and hope that somehow the 50 or so people that would want to be bothered doing the "charge my car shuffle" at work could process through the queue every day.

3. The daily office commute is dying rapidly. I work from home. My wife works from home. I only know 2 people that still commute to an office and they might be working from home within the next year. The rest of the people I know travel to various job sites throughout the day and don't have a "base" where you could simply plug in and forget about your car for an 8 hour shift. Now, obviously working from home means no commute so less miles traveled. That works in the EV's favor unless you can't easily charge at home so now you just go sit at the charging station for 45 minutes every time you need to "fill up". I'll pass on that.

To the potential cost of e-fuel, petrol would be dirt cheap if it weren't taxed out the ass. Synthetic fuel might very well end up being cheaper than fossil fuel if the powers that be resist from onerous taxes on every gallon. Again lets go back to how expensive lithium-ion battery packs used to be. Large scale production brought lithium packs down from ludicrously expensive to somewhat economically viable. Would e-fuel somehow be magically immune to market forces ?

I'm a small town guy and have been so for nearly my whole life. I used to commute to the "city" and I don't see BEV's could be anything but an inconvenience to my life as it currently is. From what I've seen in the "city" it would be even worse for those people who don't have dedicated parking or have to park on the street.
WildCard600 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2021, 08:24 AM   #736
Captain Snooze
Because compromise ®
 
Captain Snooze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Red Herring
Location: australia
Posts: 7,711
Thanks: 3,984
Thanked 9,318 Times in 4,120 Posts
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post

Wtf??
All the promo I've seen for hydrogen fuel has said the only exhaust is H2O.
No one has ever mentioned NOx to me before!!
__________________
My car is completely stock except for all the mods.

Captain Snooze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2021, 10:36 AM   #737
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,883
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,802 Times in 3,297 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze View Post
Wtf??
All the promo I've seen for hydrogen fuel has said the only exhaust is H2O.
No one has ever mentioned NOx to me before!!
I think even hydrogen fuel cells produce a little bit of nitrogen oxides, but the ICEs are worse because of the heat. Three-way cats use carbon to convert NOx to CO2, but there are no hydrocarbons, so no cats.

https://www.fastcompany.com/1678206/...s-dirty-secret

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...uel-cell-sedan
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2021, 11:56 AM   #738
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,883
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,802 Times in 3,297 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCard600 View Post
What is the rate of charge at 120v ? Many of those old houses can't easily run 240v (at least not according the NEC guidelines) so we are back to retrofitting lots of homes. This also assumes that people even have a place to park that could even support charging at home. Many places only have street parking or parking areas that can't simply be supported by sticking a charger on an exterior wall of the home (like my current house).

I'm not sure the charge at work idea holds water. I've never worked in a place that had any kind of parking setup that would be conducive to people charging their cars. Now, I admit that is anecdotal and might be atypical but the charge at work idea has some issues IMO based on my personal work experience -

1. Need to have parking areas that would could be easily (read: not very expensive) to electrify every (or nearly every) parking space.

2. Providing charging for 200+ vehicles. At most I think you would be lucky to see a handful of spots and hope that somehow the 50 or so people that would want to be bothered doing the "charge my car shuffle" at work could process through the queue every day.

3. The daily office commute is dying rapidly. I work from home. My wife works from home. I only know 2 people that still commute to an office and they might be working from home within the next year. The rest of the people I know travel to various job sites throughout the day and don't have a "base" where you could simply plug in and forget about your car for an 8 hour shift. Now, obviously working from home means no commute so less miles traveled. That works in the EV's favor unless you can't easily charge at home so now you just go sit at the charging station for 45 minutes every time you need to "fill up". I'll pass on that.

To the potential cost of e-fuel, petrol would be dirt cheap if it weren't taxed out the ass. Synthetic fuel might very well end up being cheaper than fossil fuel if the powers that be resist from onerous taxes on every gallon. Again lets go back to how expensive lithium-ion battery packs used to be. Large scale production brought lithium packs down from ludicrously expensive to somewhat economically viable. Would e-fuel somehow be magically immune to market forces ?

I'm a small town guy and have been so for nearly my whole life. I used to commute to the "city" and I don't see BEV's could be anything but an inconvenience to my life as it currently is. From what I've seen in the "city" it would be even worse for those people who don't have dedicated parking or have to park on the street.
I think your objections come down to one of cost or convenience and not of feasibility. Most homes have a dual 120v plug running 15-20 amps that could probably be cheaply converted to a 240v plug. Even if not, a 120v will change 5 miles per hour, which covers most people’s daily needs if all they did was charge at night. Some days my car is in my garage all day. That would add 120 miles on the most basic charger. A V3 supercharger will add 75 miles in five minutes, so fast charging could be done. Who doesn’t have five minutes? Remember, feasibility, not convenience. Towns have added street chargers next to parking meters. They have added level 2 chargers to mall parking, to hotel parking, to parking structures, etc. This will only increase with demand. There are companies that will charge up your EV in any parking lot, while you are at work. There may be a point not too far off where the EV drops you off then drives to a charging facility to charge up and then returns to a parking spot or summons itself to your work when you get off. The other interim possibility is plug in hybrids, which have smaller batteries for short commutes, and then we can tax fuel more to incentivize charging.

Even in California, total gasoline taxes is less than a dollar, but fuel is currently over four dollars a gallon. That seems high compared to most consumer goods, but it isn’t prohibitively high for the vast majority. The cost of e-fuels would come down, but there is no reason to believe they would be less than petrol, even if they weren’t taxed, but of course they would still be taxed. Meanwhile, the current projections suggest they would require five times the infrastructure as EVs and cost consumers 40% more than EVs:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...s-vs-batteries
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2021, 01:48 PM   #739
soundman98
ProCrastinationConsultant
 
soundman98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: '14 Ranger, '18 Tacoma 4Dr LB
Location: chicago-ish
Posts: 11,326
Thanks: 35,214
Thanked 13,661 Times in 6,778 Posts
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCard600 View Post
Let's get theoretical for a moment. I never lived in a house that had more than 100 amp main service until I moved out of New England, you can't charge a BEV with that kind of electric service unless you plan on shutting down every appliance in the house while charging.
i missed this before. the size of the electrical service is set in the national electrical code. there's a number of codes and required specific-size circuits that are required, but very generically speaking, since about the 90's, any house under about 2000 sq ft is going to have a 100A service unless the heating system and all major appliances are electric. overall, most new houses now have a 200A service.

but the overall load of a car charger is very similar to an a/c unit. car chargers are all over the place, and some like the tesla charger, have jumpers to set the maximum allowed charge rate. chargers can be anywhere from 20A-80A, the tesla charger has a minimum 40A setting. using that 40A setting, and assuming that the only major electrical appliance in the house is a roughly 30A a/c with all other heating/cooking/cleaning appliances being gas heat, there's no reason a 20-40A charger couldn't be added onto a 100A service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCard600 View Post
Liquid fuel is not going anywhere for a long time. There are far too many military, industrial, agricultural and even recreational requirements. What would be needed is a complete revolution in both drastically smaller, lighter, multiple megawatt batteries and solar panels that can produce multiple tens of kilowatts per hour in a few square feet of space. This makes an even bigger case in developing nations and areas where the electric grid is much more limited or even essentially non existent.
just remember, the ban is for new vehicle sales, they're not even entertaining the idea yet of banning or removing existing vehicles from the roads. that means that even if it's 15 years away, we'd still have at least another 20-ish years after that to start to put a significant dent in ICE.

but that estimate assumes the current purchasing/usage/maintenance/retirement cycles.

when the latest certified clean idle laws were enacted on new semi trucks a number of years ago, it significantly reduced gas mileage on the rigs, as well as increased maintenance cycles(ask any diesel guy about how much they love when the trucks go into regen), and many of the larger trucking outfits took to buying up 10-20 year old, nearly worn out non-clean-idle trucks, and would entirely rebuild the truck so they would essentially have a 20 year old brand new truck. i'm still seeing the old, old flat front semi's on the roads specifically because of this.

i expect that we'll start to see something similar to a cuba-esque industry pop up of people unwilling to convert to electric, where they buy up and re-build otherwise unimpressive ICE vehicles to make a 'old' new vehicles to skirt the law, furthering how long the goal of the transition is going to take.
__________________
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time"
soundman98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2021, 04:30 PM   #740
WildCard600
Senior Member
 
WildCard600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Drives: 2020 86
Location: Pepperidge Farm
Posts: 382
Thanks: 757
Thanked 624 Times in 257 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98 View Post
i missed this before. the size of the electrical service is set in the national electrical code. there's a number of codes and required specific-size circuits that are required, but very generically speaking, since about the 90's, any house under about 2000 sq ft is going to have a 100A service unless the heating system and all major appliances are electric. overall, most new houses now have a 200A service.

but the overall load of a car charger is very similar to an a/c unit. car chargers are all over the place, and some like the tesla charger, have jumpers to set the maximum allowed charge rate. chargers can be anywhere from 20A-80A, the tesla charger has a minimum 40A setting. using that 40A setting, and assuming that the only major electrical appliance in the house is a roughly 30A a/c with all other heating/cooking/cleaning appliances being gas heat, there's no reason a 20-40A charger couldn't be added onto a 100A service.
Fair point, but keep in mind that 100A was the best case. The last home I lived in up there was built in 1799 and the electric system hadn't been updated since at least the Eisenhower administration. Screw in fuses with 60A service there. That is not atypical for the region.

Point I'm trying to make is that electrification is not a one size fits all solution and something car manufacturers and politicians need to keep in mind before trying to shoehorn everyone into the same box. Massachusetts is doing something similar to California and I'm interested to see how it turns out there because there are just as many, if not more, really old houses that have not been updated in decades.

Add in mandates that more renewables need to be utilized in a region where the sun might not shine for weeks and wind is much harder to utilize due to terrain and climate. The skeptic in me has the feeling the state of Mass might end up quietly walking back some of these promises/mandates if it turns out the whole thing wasn't as feasible as they thought.

Quote:
just remember, the ban is for new vehicle sales, they're not even entertaining the idea yet of banning or removing existing vehicles from the roads. that means that even if it's 15 years away, we'd still have at least another 20-ish years after that to start to put a significant dent in ICE.

but that estimate assumes the current purchasing/usage/maintenance/retirement cycles.

when the latest certified clean idle laws were enacted on new semi trucks a number of years ago, it significantly reduced gas mileage on the rigs, as well as increased maintenance cycles(ask any diesel guy about how much they love when the trucks go into regen), and many of the larger trucking outfits took to buying up 10-20 year old, nearly worn out non-clean-idle trucks, and would entirely rebuild the truck so they would essentially have a 20 year old brand new truck. i'm still seeing the old, old flat front semi's on the roads specifically because of this.

i expect that we'll start to see something similar to a cuba-esque industry pop up of people unwilling to convert to electric, where they buy up and re-build otherwise unimpressive ICE vehicles to make a 'old' new vehicles to skirt the law, furthering how long the goal of the transition is going to take.
That's why I'm not seeing the end of ICE anytime soon. Lots of farms are still using equipment from the 60's and 70's and anyone who bought a new piece of equipment in the last few years isn't going to abandon a $750,000 machine until it's reached the end of it's service life many decades from now. Assuming that is, if a battery powered combine or similar is even able to be made workable.
WildCard600 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WildCard600 For This Useful Post:
Dadhawk (06-12-2021), soundman98 (06-12-2021)
Old 06-12-2021, 04:50 PM   #741
WildCard600
Senior Member
 
WildCard600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Drives: 2020 86
Location: Pepperidge Farm
Posts: 382
Thanks: 757
Thanked 624 Times in 257 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
I think your objections come down to one of cost or convenience and not of feasibility. Most homes have a dual 120v plug running 15-20 amps that could probably be cheaply converted to a 240v plug. Even if not, a 120v will change 5 miles per hour, which covers most people’s daily needs if all they did was charge at night. Some days my car is in my garage all day. That would add 120 miles on the most basic charger. A V3 supercharger will add 75 miles in five minutes, so fast charging could be done. Who doesn’t have five minutes? Remember, feasibility, not convenience. Towns have added street chargers next to parking meters. They have added level 2 chargers to mall parking, to hotel parking, to parking structures, etc. This will only increase with demand. There are companies that will charge up your EV in any parking lot, while you are at work. There may be a point not too far off where the EV drops you off then drives to a charging facility to charge up and then returns to a parking spot or summons itself to your work when you get off. The other interim possibility is plug in hybrids, which have smaller batteries for short commutes, and then we can tax fuel more to incentivize charging.
Correct. It all comes down to cost and convivence for me. It would be feasible for me to not even own a car, but it sure would be inconvenient. I'm sure there is a not insignificant amount of other people out there who feel the same.

Quote:
Even in California, total gasoline taxes is less than a dollar, but fuel is currently over four dollars a gallon. That seems high compared to most consumer goods, but it isn’t prohibitively high for the vast majority. The cost of e-fuels would come down, but there is no reason to believe they would be less than petrol, even if they weren’t taxed, but of course they would still be taxed. Meanwhile, the current projections suggest they would require five times the infrastructure as EVs and cost consumers 40% more than EVs:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...s-vs-batteries
That article seems pretty biased and reading this quote -

"It would cost automakers an average 10,000 euros (about $12,000 at current exchange rates) in emissions credits to cover synthetic-fuel cars in 2030, but battery prices could drop to 3,000 euros ($3,600) by that time, according to the paper. It would also cost five times as much to set up synthetic-fueling infrastructure than continued expansion of charging infrastructure, the paper said."

Makes me think the greatest variable in the quoted "cost" projections are because of carbon credit taxation schemes and not because e-fuel would be inherently much more expensive to produce.

The idea that e-fuel will always be much more energy intensive to produce based on the small quantities currently being produced with current technology is about as short sighted as the people who were saying that a BEV could only ever have <100 mile range 15 years ago.
WildCard600 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2021, 04:51 PM   #742
Dadhawk
1st86 Driver!
 
Dadhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: '13 FR-S (#3 of 1st 86)
Location: Powder Springs, GA
Posts: 19,798
Thanks: 38,786
Thanked 24,907 Times in 11,362 Posts
Mentioned: 181 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze View Post
Wtf??
All the promo I've seen for hydrogen fuel has said the only exhaust is H2O.
No one has ever mentioned NOx to me before!!
That's if you are burning it, not if you are using it in a fuel cell. At least that's my understanding.
__________________

Visit my Owner's Journal where I wax philosophic on all things FR-S
Post your 86 or see others in front of a(n) (in)famous landmark.
What fits in your 86? Show us the "Junk In Your Trunk".
Dadhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tcoat banned? Hotrodheart Off-Topic Lounge [WARNING: NO POLITICS] 95 07-06-2019 01:46 AM
Does anyone know why pansontw got banned? Soloside Off-Topic Lounge [WARNING: NO POLITICS] 17 10-26-2018 04:20 AM
Got banned from gf's complex jdmblood Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions 11 07-12-2015 12:46 PM
Why have so many users been banned? xuimod Site Announcements / Questions / Issues 9 03-08-2015 02:23 PM
Banned Toyota GT 86 Advert Banned Nevermore FR-S & 86 Photos, Videos, Wallpapers, Gallery Forum 9 11-16-2012 07:27 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.