Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
ParticipantAnother advantage of FC over battery is its ability to be used in many more applications. There’s current development for plains, busses, tractors, etc. So, FCEV would ultimately make a bigger dent in CO2 emission if it can replace all the 18 wheelers, busses, and heavy machineries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
Participant[quote=ocrenter]3. if we can actually remove all subsidies to Big Oil I would personally fly back to DC and hand deliver my solar and my EV rebates directly back to the IRS with a big bow on top.
4. That’s great, thanks for the link. I’m open to any alternative to fossil fuel. Any idea when the production version of solid oxide fuel cell will be hitting the streets? As for battery, battery density is getting incredibly good in extremely short period of time. As for degradation, aside from the first gen LEAFs in extreme weather locations, degradation has been minimal.
5. Agree about incentivizing walkability, much healthier and will help with the obesity epidemic. Not only that, cities don’t have to pay for maintenance of huge number of roads. Once the oil subsidies are gone, we would have plenty of funds to consider the all of the above strategies.
6. If there comes a time when the batteries are fully exausted, as in down to less than 30% capacity, the lithium is recyclable.[/quote]
3. It’s funny you say that, but then you fully support the creation of the next “Big Oil”. As we’ve seen, once money have been doled out, it’s hard to close the spigot.
4. I saw them on 60 minutes many years ago. They at the time were promising residential units, but I think for financial reason, they’re concentrating on business first. Although as you can see, I hate crony capitalism, but if we must dole out government subsidies, I rather it be dump into these Fuel Cell companies to help them reduce the size and have these units be put in every home. That would make a much bigger dent in CO2 emission than BEV IMHO. This is why I don’t believe in crony capitalism. I want want one possible new technology to get unfair advantage over another, when we don’t really know which technology is the right technology. Maybe they all are and all are needed at different time for different purpose.
5. Totally agree.
6. Studies have shown a 70% capacity battery have about 10 years life served as grid storage. We’re talking about about 15-20 years life span. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are better for recycling because of the Nickel. The advanced lithium batteries in most plug-in cars today are more difficult to recycle, in part because automakers use various chemistries, and the several chemical components have different recycling values. However, lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries found in many modern plug-in cars are better because of the nickel. But I don’t think the lithium, manganese, and cobalt are easily recyclable.Participant[quote=spdrun]Goal should be to raise standards of living, but reduce population and thus consumption everywhere. Gaia can’t take it much longer, clean energy or not. Limiting people to one kid per couple would be a good start.[/quote]
LoL, I’m pretty sure Gaia will last long after the human race is gone. Think the dinosaur.Participant[quote=ocrenter]3. if there is a level playing field, I agree. the problem is Big Oil is so entrenched that it is impossible to remove the oil subsidies. so what do you do?
4. Why is using energy to create a new form of energy storage that is then burnt to generate energy, therefore losing energy twice in the process, the right process?
5. I agree, if we can minimize commute, it would definitely help reduce carbon footprint overall. but the infrastructure is already therefore suburban lifestyle. you are better off helping the owners of these homes to generate their own energy, store their own energy, and use their generated energy to commute.
6. I meant it as an EV from a solar home. in that scenario it is CO2 free. as for the degraded batteries, there’s a lot of example of reused and repurposed batteries everywhere.[/quote]
3. Add more crony capitalism will only create the next “Big Oil”. I don’t want another “Big Oil”. I want to remove “Big Oil”.4. First, you’re assuming Hydrogen Fuel Cell is the only type of Fuel Cell. Think http://www.bloomenergy.com/. Now that we abundant clean and renewable electricity, we can use that clean and renewable energy in many ways. We can use it to fuel up super capacitors, or to split hydrogen from H2O, or the many other ways we can solve this storage problem. Battery is not the only problem. If we solve the production problem, then storing Hydrogen is A LOT cleaner than BEV and a lot better for the environment long term. It won’t add to the land fill. Battery eventually will lose all of its efficiency and need to be discarded. Which is bad for the environment. The storage tank used to store Hydrogen can be repaired of damaged or recycled.
5. Infrastructure is there for now, but need to be maintained. New infrastructure also need to be created as we add more suburbs. So, you’re better off helping the environment if you disincentivize long commutes and incentivize walk-ability. Just because we’ve done a bad thing doesn’t mean we have to continue to incentivize that bad behavior.
6. Again, repurposed batteries is only applicable for a finite period of time. Eventually, you will still need to chuck it. You also need heavy machinery to mine for the minerals that’s need to make battery. If we solve the production of electricity problem, where we can produce it cleanly and indefinitely, then we can use that electricity to split hydrogen from H2O, which will give us clean energy and fuel indefinitely with nothing to fill up our landfill.
Participant1. Agree. Was just saying that not all who got solar have been subsidizing other for years. I gave example of people in my age group. We went from being subsidized for using little to being subsidize for going solar because we either got a SFR or EV.
2. Agree.
3. Again, we shouldn’t continue to repeat the crony capitalism. More crony capitalism isn’t the solution. We should remove the subsidies from the oil and gas industry.
4. I’ll disagree. They both have their advantage and disadvantages. However, I think FC is a better solution than BEV.
5. I don’t understand the argument. Current system, you live close and you’re rewarded with a smaller fuel bill. Which mean the gas tax you’re paying might not cover the cost of maintenance of the road. Those who drive further pay more gas tax, which more than cover their share of maintenance. As for Big Oil having too much pull, I agree and that’s the crony capitalism I’ve been talking about. But adding more cronyism isn’t the solution. You’re assuming condo is cheaper than SFR. That’s not always the case. I think what you mean is, expensive home owners get more mortgage deduction. Which is true. But my point being, if your goal is reducing carbon footprint per person, then we should take money from SFR owner and give tax credit to condo owners. We should take money from people who live further away from work and give credit to those who live closer to work. That will reduce carbon footprint as well.
6. Your link show it’s not CO2 free. But again, I think we haven’t fully thought through the cost to the environment when we need to dispose of inefficient batteries. If our goal is to reduce CO2, we should penalize those who live 30 miles away and incentivize those who live closer to work in smaller homes. Just as you want us to do for solar and EV.
7. Again, this comes down to you thinking BEV is the right solution. I disagree.Keep in my we actually reduced our carbon footprint recently due to natural gas. I want everyone to have reliable energy like we have enjoyed here. I think to that goal, natural gas is a better short to medium term solution. I don’t think excess CO2 is a good thing, just as much as I don’t think you believe people who don’t have reliable energy is a good thing. But I think it’s a necessary evil to raise the living standard of people who live in the 3rd world where reliable energy is an amazing thing.
Participant1. Subsidizer or paying their fair share. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
2. I don’t believe BEV will ever replace this group of vehicles. So they should be used to compare. You should compare Apple to Apple.
3. I don’t believe government should pick winner and loser. Just because there were past crony capitalism with the oil industry doesn’t make it OK for crony capitalism for industry you like. If the technology is good, there will be plenty of money available. Just thinking k Facebook, Uber, etc.
4. Again, you’re assuming battery is the right technology long term. I don’t believe it is. I believe fuel cell, nuclear and fusion is better long term. But that’s just MHO. Maybe 10 years from now something else even better will be discovered. We don’t know. What happened. To those battery when that new technology get discovered?
5. It would take me 6x longer than those who have 30 miles one way commute. But my point is, if you’re OK for subsidizing for EV because it will lower a person’s carbon foot print, should I get subsidy for reducing my carbon foot print by living closer to work? Should those who live in larger houses pay subsidy to those who live in smaller homes? Should people in SFR pay subsidy to those who live in condo due to their increase carbon footprint? Should those with kids pay subsidies for those who don’t have kids? Since having kids increase the total carbon footprint of our society. I’m sure you get my point.
6. I agree. However, I don’t want to be those people who drink 6 cans of diet coke a day either, just because it has less sugar. That’s similar to those who have EV but live 30 miles away from work in a 3000+ sq-ft house.
7. Agree. But which infrastructure? Which technology?Why isn’t it sustainable and who are we to say those other poor countries can’t have a cheap and reliable source of energy? The same energy source that enable us to live in the luxurious life we enjoy and allow our economy to prosper.
ParticipantThat $550B annual, is that the subsidy that that US government give them?
1. I and many people in my age group don’t apply. I only pay in tier 4 for about a year or two, then I went solar.
2. Telsa Model X is heavier than most cars/trucks. Model S is heavier than most cars. Nissan Leaf is heavier than all the cars in its size. However, regardless of how much damage it make to the road relative to other cars, it still make damage and it’s not paying their fair share to maintain the road.
3. I don’t like either of these type of subsidies.
4. That’s only because EV/Hybrid are a small small % of all cars. What would happen to all the batteries when every car is EV/hybrid? There won’t be enough need to reuse all of those batteries. Then tell me what happen when those battery degrade <30-50%? Which will happen. Do you think it will never be disposed?
5. I totally understand. I'm not arguing that ICE car is cleaner than EV. However, there are many variables. Such as distance driven. My commute is 6 miles one way. My ICE car produce less CO2 than a EV if the owner commute 30 miles one way.
6. Yes, the evidence is everywhere. Just look how many people are lifted out of poverty because of it. Along with the many other benefits. I can't imagine the world w/out airplane, cargo ships, plastic, electricity, etc.
7. Agree. But it doesn't make it any less unfair. Yes, EVs are limited to the rich. Tell me how you're supposed to charge your EV if you live in an old apartment?
Let me put it this way, IMHO, the benefit of fossil fuel up to this point far out weigh the increase in CO2 emission. Of course that doesn't mean we should find way to reduce CO2. I just think when you're dirt poor, having reliable electricity is a BIG deal. I grew up in an area where there wasn't reliable electricity and I feel like many people here don't understand how big of an impact it is because we take reliable electricity for granted.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Cars with 6, 7 speed transmissions or CVTs already have a tall top gear at detriment to throttle response. The issue isn’t gearing at this point — efficiency is limited by air, drivetrain, and road drag.
You might be able to gain efficiency by making cars lighter (lesser crash safety if they crash less), but above 80 mph, drag is mostly from air resistance. Frontal area isn’t going to change much unless you start building 4-person autonomous motorbikes.
And if anything, autonomous cars will be even more bloated since people will want to stand up, eat, go to the toilet. Think of an 80s VW Microbus except scaled up 25% in all directions for fatties.[/quote]
Average cars today still have drag co-efficient between .25-.35. They can totally reduce that to the high teens low 20s. Think Model 3. Regarding drive train, it’s not about the amount of gear but about the gear ratio of the overdrive gear. Then there’s the tuning of the engine. Think gas throttle response vs diesel gas mileage. If we no longer care about throttle response, then we can come up with engines like the turbo diesel that get awesome highway gas mileage at the detriment of throttle response.Also keep in mind we’re talking about varying degrees of efficiency, not absolute in-efficiency. I would take slightly less efficiency for the convenience of autonomous car over train any day of the week and on Sunday.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=AN]If every car is autonomous, I’m sure it would be safe for every car to be traveling at >100MPH, since they all will know where other cars around them are and where they’re going, so there would never be any surprise.[/quote]
It might be safe but it wouldn’t be efficient. Cars traveling at 100+ mph use up a a lot more fuel/energy than a car traveling at 55 to 65 mphs. Autonomous cars should be able to draft better though.
As for high speed rail. I like the idea of it but I don’t know that the cost of California’s project is worth it. Last I heard the project was going to be over $100 billion. That just doesn’t seem to be worth it.[/quote]
What make you think it won’t be efficient? Keep in mind the current power output and gearing is specifically designed for good performance response @<80MPH. However, if everything is fully autonomous, then there's no need to worry about throttle response. Then the gearing can be much taller and engine tuning can gear toward higher low end torque. Which would greatly increase efficiency at the detriment of throttle response.ParticipantI personally think autonomous car will be the death nail in the public transit coffin. Once every car is autonomous, then you can picture a very efficient system, along the line of a system in the iRobot movie. If I need to be in SF the next day, I can leave SD the night before, go to sleep in the car and wake up at my destination. Why should I even bother with a train. Also keep in mind that the current speed limit is set because of human. If every car is autonomous, I’m sure it would be safe for every car to be traveling at >100MPH, since they all will know where other cars around them are and where they’re going, so there would never be any surprise.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
you are right, tech is moving but in addition, this is why the way the math is calculated needs to change.right now gasoline is over subsidized and the wasted energy to refine and transport gas, gas wasted in traffic, as well as the CO2 emissions are all not counted into the equation.
Right now we are looking at a cup of Prego spaghetti sauce (with 1000 mg of sodium and enough sugar to fulfill one’s daily allowance) and comparing it to a cup of freshly made spaghetti sauce without the added sodium and sugar. And right now consumers are making the conclusion that the Prego is a much better choice due to the price point. But if we factor in the increased risk for hypertension and diabetes from the Prego into the equation, the conclusion may be very different.[/quote]It’s funny you feel that gasoline is over subsidized. I feel that green energy is over subsidized. I’m not complaining, because it’s benefiting me and I’m taking full advantage of it. However, I’m also aware of the amount if subsidy that people like me get. I.E. people with solar are not paying to maintain the grid, yet we use it. People with EV don’t pay gas tax, which is used to maintain the road, yet EV driver use it. Not to mention the obvious tax credit as well. We’re talking about $10k/car if you’re living CA.
I don’t think your example regarding food is a good analogy because I don’t think it’s as black and white as your food analogy. Yes, EV car itself doesn’t emit CO2. However, it has other harmful effect to the environment that ICE car doesn’t. Such as the disposal of battery once it reaches its life span. What will you do with it? You can melt down an ICE engine’s metal and reuse it. Can’t really do that with battery. Then there’s the question of where you’re getting the energy from. Keep in mind that most of US’s electricity is still coming from coal, which is much more dirtier than an ICE engine. How about the heavy equipment that are used to mine the rare minerals that are needed to create those battery.
Also, keep in mind that these subsidies are going to the top 10% of the population. Which I think is unfair in and of itself. I don’t think the bottom 90% of the people should have to subsidize something that only the top 10% can afford to get.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]But then a used Prius is pricier and in general with a lot more miles on it.
if we are talking poor folks where every cent counts, are they really the types to turn on the AC in the golden afternoon peak generation period for TOU2?
The cost for EV is coming down rapidly and the used LEAF fleet does present a case for EV trickling down to the lower socioeconomic groups. I think the reason why poor folks have not taken to EVs have more to do with lack of information and knowledge.[/quote]You’re right, Prius is more expensive.
That’s the problem isn’t it? the poor folks who count every cents won’t be living in a house, so a Leaf would be useless to them, since they can’t charge it (no garage). Maybe that’s why the depreciation on the Leaf is so huge. You’re right, those who count every penny won’t be turning on the AC in the peak time because they’re working.
I don’t think the Leaf will ever be a useful car for the lower socioeconomic groups. I don’t think it’s lack of information and knowledge. I think the main reason is what I stated above. Those in the lower socioeconomic groups won’t be living in a place that allow them to charge an electric car. The only way EV would reach that group of buyers is if they can fix the charging problem (20-30 min for a supercharge isn’t good enough, it needs to be at 2-3 minutes). Once they fix that, then every gas station can sell electricity as well as petroleum.
Majority of people don’t live in a single family home. How do you expect them to charge their EV? This is why I think until the fix the charging problem, the lowest socioeconomic group EV can reach down to is the middle class who live in a SFR.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Looks like the lion’s share of problems are cosmetic/body/trim, not serious.[/quote]LoL, I would hate to be the owner who have to deal w/ those stuff after dropping $40k+ for the car. Would you say the same thing if your BMW, Benz, etc. have the same build quality?
Participant[quote=flu]I don’t know, I think 325k people with that $1000 deposit just funded the first 100 so to be built. I hope the remaining 324.9k people get a car or at least get their deposit back and Tesla doesn’t go belly up. I hope this isn’t auto vaporware.
I don’t see Tesla building 325k model 3’s anytime soon, as it appears they can’t even build Model X’s fast enough. And if they somehow can crank up the volume, I wonder if they can keep quality up to par.
This will probably be the car that will make or break Tesla. I do hope Musk succeeds.[/quote]Have you checked the Model S reliability? http://www.truedelta.com/Tesla-Model-S/reliability-1095
Base on the stuff I see, I don’t know if I want them to just “keep quality up to par”, since it’s not up to par today. They sure fix the problem quickly, but what happen when you’re out of warranty? How many things will break and how much will it cost to fix? Go fast and fix shit quickly works in the software world, but it doesn’t work for a car, when some of those fixes require a person to tighten bolts and stuff. -
AuthorPosts
