Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Stewie26, Apr 22, 2021.
Shades of the mid '70s quad audio wars.
Modern electric-driven steering systems are essentially maintenance-free. Brakes yes they need maintenance but regenerative braking makes the parts last much longer. Maybe brake fluid changes. Tires always.
Lubrication? Transmissions are mostly lifetime sealed. There’s basically no such thing as a “lube job” on modern cars. Trucks with their real 4wd have their requirements.
Annual service schedules are mostly about checking the computer for fault codes, checking brakes and tires, and not much more.
There are huge opportunities for companies to refurbish, rebuild, and repurpose EV batteries.
Second Life: Carmakers and Storage Startups Get Serious About Reusing Batteries
EV Battery Rebuilds - EV Battery Rebuilds
I'd be working on synthetic tire technology as well, those darn rubber trees could catch something and die off and then what ?
I think "where does the power come from?" is a really interesting question. I'm disappointed that at this moment I cannot remember the source, but I read that our really good strides and wind and solar energy in the USA have been eaten up by cryptocurrency mining. How long can that continue? I worry about that power draw being enough to kill the grid on a hot summer day when many of us in the American West are running air conditioning. I'm hoping it doesn't take some catastrophic events to figure out a solution.
I'm grateful for the progress in wind and solar, so that these methods of producing are far far more viable than they used to be.
I’d take anything from that website with a truckload of salt. Looks pretty biased and pseudoscience-ish.
I pick up my EV hatchback next week - it'll be the first car I've owned since my first-ever car drowned in 1993. Next trick is to get solar panels and a quick-charge battery bank installed in the house. The test-drive in the demo model was reassuringly nippy, so I'm looking forward to it.
Meantime, I ran into an argument on FB about electric bikes, with predictable fist-waving about prying ICE bikes from cold, dead hands. There was a bit less fist-waving from a couple of participants when I pointed out that there isn't a big enough two-wheeled market in Europe to keep the petroleum infrastructure running, and we're already on a slow approach to having too few ICE cars to support it.
Nuclear power will very likely be needed/useful as an interim solution while we collectively get the renewables grid up and running, but it shares the same limitation as fossil-fuels: once we've finished digging it out of the ground, there ain't no more coming.
As I've bounced around the western half of this continent over the last few years, there's been a heartening spread of wind and solar farms, and an increasing proportion of roofs sporting solar panels. It's a matter of time, and whether we can adapt and switch over fast enough to avoid a nasty shock.
It's true that EVs don't automatically solve the problem of pollution from the power stations. However, increased adoption of them means a corresponding reduction of pollution as the generating grid is switched over. Think of it as an enabling factor, rather than a straw-man failed solution.
As @bluesblaster pointed out, tyres are an issue that has yet to be properly solved. I'm also vaguely curious about what'll replace ashphalt as a road-surface - concrete? Recycled plastics? Some variation on algae-derived biodiesel?
The argument about EVs and domestic power-banks is a little disingenuous, though. Remember how ICE cars were once horribly expensive playthings for the idle rich, that working-class people would never be able to afford?
I believe the diesel-powered car charger was real, but it was created as a humorous comment on the unsuitability of EVs for use in the Australian outback (although I'd have thought an outback EV would just need solar panels on its roof to charge while driving!).
Another major problem with electric cars. All ICE cars use the same few grades of gas, and the same nozzles.
The fact is, without massive non-free market subsidiaries, it's not profitable to build electric cars or build/operate charging stations. Until/unless that changes, nothing is changing.
There is also hydrogen and synthetic zero emission fuels coming down the pipe.
There's no such thing as "hydrogen fuel", it has to be artificially created, sucking down tons of energy. Hydrogen is essentially a spectacularly inefficient battery. Non-starter for sustainability.
You are absolutely correct. I bought some Tesla stock back in 2015 for my retirement fund against the advice of multiple financial advisors. After doing the research, it was very apparent that Tesla's big picture and business plan is an energy company and building electric cars was part of the means to achieve their company mission. Back at that time, the Wall Street boys just didn't get it and just thought of them as a start up car company..
Technically this isn't correct since diesel pumps & vehicles use their own nozzle. Just being a wise guy.
There are 3 types of EV charging ports.
J1772/CCS: This is the standard that the vast majority of EV manufacturers have adopted worldwide. Pretty much everyone uses it except Tesla and Nissan.
Tesla uses a proprietary system. HOWEVER inexpensive adapters are available so a Tesla can plug into a Level 2 J1772 AC charger. For DC Supercharging, Teslas must plug into the Tesla network.
Nissan put all their chips on CHadEMO way back when they released the first LEAF. They're still building vehicles using CHadEMO but they've publicly stated they're moving away from it to J1772/CCS.
So the point is every brand of EV does not use its own proprietary "nozzle". Standards exist.
EDIT Forgot to mention there are also adapters for CHAdeMO cars like the LEAF to charge from J1772 chargers.
As long as it's not biofuels, there's enough deforestation as it is.
I didn't say every brand. But right now gas stations make a profit selling gas. Charging stations cannot. Part of that is the different systems.
With the limited range of EVs, and the unavailability of charging stations, they just are not practical for most. People. Imagine taking a long trip (say NY to Disney in Florida).
That is a very perceptive comment!
Indeed, we know what the pros and cons of nuclear are.
When we get to other, newer tech we have the issue of what Don Rumsfeld called "the unknown unknowns." Those are the questions we don't know enough to ask about the impacts we don't yet foresee. The one thing that's predictable about the unknown unknowns is that they will indeed be discovered, and we will have to deal with them when they are.
Think about radioactive materials; when they were discovered they were experimented with for everything from stomach remedies to watch dial materials, and it all led to disease and death from human exposure to radioactive materials. This happened because of commercial interests pushing to use the materials despite the unknown properties of radiation. We didn't know the questions what we needed to ask. Over time those unknown issues become visible, and they changed to "known unknowns" in which we know there is a problem but we don't yet know the solution. Eventually they became known safety issues and methods of dealing with them were developed.
Sincere props to Don Rumsfeld for his extremely cogent but challenging comments on this topic: There are known knowns - Wikipedia
Batteries aren't the solution to nighttime power with solar, but the idea of using some kind of kinetic potential energy storage might be. Or maybe very small localized batteries, like in each building. Even here in the cloudy maritime Great North Wet, there's the potential to generate a decent amount of solar power. Maybe small wind turbines would work as well. They exist but aren't useful yet. And maybe solar runs the place during the day and nuclear runs the place at night in a pinch. The nuclear capacity could be reduced significantly if that's the case.
One of the things that doesn't get mentioned much is the ability to address point source pollution more efficiently than dispersed tailpipe emissions. Even a coal plant can be cleaned up, up to a point. Also, the distribution of power comes into play. There are transmission losses no matter what we do, but building a pipeline to a power plant is far more efficient than trucking fuel to a zillion gas stations all over the place. There will be losses from distribution on the grid, but those are also smaller than fuel distribution costs.
One last thing is that our collective behavior may have to adapt. A/C in a place like Phoenix sucks up a lot of power, but that is a city that has an enormous amount of potential solar power. There are now roof paints that reflect heat back into space and actually cool the structure below. That's another aspect of this. It's a multi-avenue solution to a problem. One answer won't do it, but a lot of little answers that solve some of it might.
Using solar power during the day to separate H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, then burning the hydrogen at night to provide electricity at night is another way to store power.
there are many ways to produce hydrogen, most probably arent viable but some are. The problem at this point in time as with most new technologies is the cost. Right now it would need to be at $2.00 Klg. or less to make it a viable competitor to EV, its currently about $5-6 Klg. The only thing preventing it from being a source of power to the masses is the desire and the willingness by some entity to do the work to make it so in much the same way Elon Musk built his business. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, lithium for batteries.... not so much.
Tesla think they are Apple. Proprietary chargers suck.
And for the record, this is coming and it will be great. I'm also a pathological optimist, so take it all for what it's worth.
Here are some related products that TB members are talking about.
Clicking on a product will take you to TB’s partner,
where you can find links to TB discussions about these products.
Browser not compatible