RE: DiCaprio's Formula E team
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Technomatt said:
Back on a racing theme, this electric car Formula E racing venture looks like it has that failed A1 GP type feel about it.
Kicking off in Sept 14 to supposedly fill the gaps in the winter F1 calendar and going for city circuits, it looks like another over ambitious venture with cars that just look just like any sub F1, GP2 type offerings.
The only interest factor is the technology going on under the surface and if the interest level in solely electric powered propulsion mirrors the minimal public interest in electric road cars, the inevitable demise is already decided. F1 already has a sop towards ecological sustainability with KERS.
I bet you're a barrel of laughs at parties........... Kicking off in Sept 14 to supposedly fill the gaps in the winter F1 calendar and going for city circuits, it looks like another over ambitious venture with cars that just look just like any sub F1, GP2 type offerings.
The only interest factor is the technology going on under the surface and if the interest level in solely electric powered propulsion mirrors the minimal public interest in electric road cars, the inevitable demise is already decided. F1 already has a sop towards ecological sustainability with KERS.
canucklehead said:
"The future of our planet depends on our ability to embrace fuel-efficient, clean-energy vehicles," said the Titanic star.
Hmm. Whilst this statement is debatable in the first place, even if true, EVs are not really the answer. Let's try some joined-up thinking, that gets beyond the fallacy that EVs are "zero-emissions".
Let us first assume we live in a wonderful world where EVs have a sensible range, cost no more than a Fiord Fiesta, and can be charged from 0 Volts to full charge in a couple/three minutes (oh and have sufficient cargo capacity to transport that lovely unicorn that lives in your garden).
In such a world, there will be millions, nay hundreds of millions of such vehicles on the planet. And every single one of them will need energy from somewhere. Unless we can find electricity fairies, bustling around lifting up electrons to give them potential, at the bottom of our garden, we will have to generate that somehow. That will means lots more electrical generating capacity, and I do mean LOTS. I will leave others to do the sums (hi Elon - if it works for you it works for me), but that's a shedload of investment in infrastructure, which I do not suppose the likes of Tesla and Fisker will be contributing towards.
Ok, so imagine we have as a society somehow found enough cash to build all this additional generating capacity. Some of it will be green - wind, waves, etc, (each of which has environmental impacts, some of which we do not fully understand yet) but the likelihood is that most of it will be very non-green - fossil fuels, hydropower (ask a flooded biosphere how they feel about hydropower), or nuclear fission. We take all this energy, which we have generated at some finite, less-than-one, efficiency, and transmit and distribute it to the users - this is all done at some finite, less-than-one efficiency. Then we have to put that electricity into our vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Lastly it is used in the vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Again, like Elon, I will leave others to do the sums, however our total energy efficiency is not going to be great. And we still have a whole load of environmental issues to deal with, from the place where all the electricity got generated. (Note that this is unlikely to be Hollywood - unless we can collect all the hot air generated by celebs who think they understand this stuff.)
This is not to suggest that we can go on using fossil fuels to power our transportation indefinitely - we need solutions. But the EV is a poor solution that merely displaces the issues from the point of use to somewhere else, and, due to the lengthy supply chain, sheds efficiency in the process. You could I suppose promote distributed generation (e.g. everyone has their own electric generator at home) - but this option has a whole load of other issues that would need solving (e.g. how many people would be willing to have a diesel generator in their backyard, or a large wind turbine, or a small fission reactor?), even if we return to our first assumption that somehow EVs have been developed and engineered to become a viable mass private transportation solution.
As a stopgap solution while we try to make fuel-cells viable or while we try to make a viable fusion reactor EVs might have some value. But a solution that saves the planet? Puh-leeease!
Its very simple. Hmm. Whilst this statement is debatable in the first place, even if true, EVs are not really the answer. Let's try some joined-up thinking, that gets beyond the fallacy that EVs are "zero-emissions".
Let us first assume we live in a wonderful world where EVs have a sensible range, cost no more than a Fiord Fiesta, and can be charged from 0 Volts to full charge in a couple/three minutes (oh and have sufficient cargo capacity to transport that lovely unicorn that lives in your garden).
In such a world, there will be millions, nay hundreds of millions of such vehicles on the planet. And every single one of them will need energy from somewhere. Unless we can find electricity fairies, bustling around lifting up electrons to give them potential, at the bottom of our garden, we will have to generate that somehow. That will means lots more electrical generating capacity, and I do mean LOTS. I will leave others to do the sums (hi Elon - if it works for you it works for me), but that's a shedload of investment in infrastructure, which I do not suppose the likes of Tesla and Fisker will be contributing towards.
Ok, so imagine we have as a society somehow found enough cash to build all this additional generating capacity. Some of it will be green - wind, waves, etc, (each of which has environmental impacts, some of which we do not fully understand yet) but the likelihood is that most of it will be very non-green - fossil fuels, hydropower (ask a flooded biosphere how they feel about hydropower), or nuclear fission. We take all this energy, which we have generated at some finite, less-than-one, efficiency, and transmit and distribute it to the users - this is all done at some finite, less-than-one efficiency. Then we have to put that electricity into our vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Lastly it is used in the vehicle, again at a finite, less-than-one efficiency. Again, like Elon, I will leave others to do the sums, however our total energy efficiency is not going to be great. And we still have a whole load of environmental issues to deal with, from the place where all the electricity got generated. (Note that this is unlikely to be Hollywood - unless we can collect all the hot air generated by celebs who think they understand this stuff.)
This is not to suggest that we can go on using fossil fuels to power our transportation indefinitely - we need solutions. But the EV is a poor solution that merely displaces the issues from the point of use to somewhere else, and, due to the lengthy supply chain, sheds efficiency in the process. You could I suppose promote distributed generation (e.g. everyone has their own electric generator at home) - but this option has a whole load of other issues that would need solving (e.g. how many people would be willing to have a diesel generator in their backyard, or a large wind turbine, or a small fission reactor?), even if we return to our first assumption that somehow EVs have been developed and engineered to become a viable mass private transportation solution.
As a stopgap solution while we try to make fuel-cells viable or while we try to make a viable fusion reactor EVs might have some value. But a solution that saves the planet? Puh-leeease!
An average driver does 30 miles per day. An EV will consume about 8 to 9kWh in 30 miles.
Thats about the same as a hob running for an hour, so unless we can't currently cope with that, we already have plenty of capacity. Once you factor in that they will charge over night it starts to become insignificant.
Hears the real kicker. It takes about 8kWh of electrical energy to produce a gallon of petrol, so for every gallon of petrol in, and you've already consumed the electrical energy it would take to move an ICE car 30 miles.
Don't let that stop you perpetuating myths though.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 11th December 19:26
98elise said:
Its very simple.
An average driver does 30 miles per day. An EV will consume about 8 to 9kWh in 30 miles.
Thats about the same as a hob running for an hour, so unless we can't currently cope with that, we already have plenty of capacity. Once you factor in that they will charge over night it starts to become insignificant.
Hears the real kicker. It takes about 8kWh of electrical energy to produce a gallon of petrol, so for every gallon of petrol in, and you've already consumed the electrical energy it would take to move an ICE car 30 miles.
Don't let that stop you perpetuating myths though.
And here’s an even more interesting kicker, Peak Oil has been constantly shifting to the right.An average driver does 30 miles per day. An EV will consume about 8 to 9kWh in 30 miles.
Thats about the same as a hob running for an hour, so unless we can't currently cope with that, we already have plenty of capacity. Once you factor in that they will charge over night it starts to become insignificant.
Hears the real kicker. It takes about 8kWh of electrical energy to produce a gallon of petrol, so for every gallon of petrol in, and you've already consumed the electrical energy it would take to move an ICE car 30 miles.
Don't let that stop you perpetuating myths though.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 11th December 19:26
Plenty of oil to keep the ICE in successful business while the misinformed ideological, political and green agenda bandwagons keep trying to push the seriously flawed EV as a solution.
Fortunately, the push is becoming more uphill as people are now realising what they are actually trying to push.
Technomatt said:
98elise said:
Its very simple.
An average driver does 30 miles per day. An EV will consume about 8 to 9kWh in 30 miles.
Thats about the same as a hob running for an hour, so unless we can't currently cope with that, we already have plenty of capacity. Once you factor in that they will charge over night it starts to become insignificant.
Hears the real kicker. It takes about 8kWh of electrical energy to produce a gallon of petrol, so for every gallon of petrol in, and you've already consumed the electrical energy it would take to move an ICE car 30 miles.
Don't let that stop you perpetuating myths though.
And here’s an even more interesting kicker, Peak Oil has been constantly shifting to the right.An average driver does 30 miles per day. An EV will consume about 8 to 9kWh in 30 miles.
Thats about the same as a hob running for an hour, so unless we can't currently cope with that, we already have plenty of capacity. Once you factor in that they will charge over night it starts to become insignificant.
Hears the real kicker. It takes about 8kWh of electrical energy to produce a gallon of petrol, so for every gallon of petrol in, and you've already consumed the electrical energy it would take to move an ICE car 30 miles.
Don't let that stop you perpetuating myths though.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 11th December 19:26
Plenty of oil to keep the ICE in successful business while the misinformed ideological, political and green agenda bandwagons keep trying to push the seriously flawed EV as a solution.
Fortunately, the push is becoming more uphill as people are now realising what they are actually trying to push.
Technomatt said:
98elise said:
Its very simple.
An average driver does 30 miles per day. An EV will consume about 8 to 9kWh in 30 miles.
Thats about the same as a hob running for an hour, so unless we can't currently cope with that, we already have plenty of capacity. Once you factor in that they will charge over night it starts to become insignificant.
Hears the real kicker. It takes about 8kWh of electrical energy to produce a gallon of petrol, so for every gallon of petrol in, and you've already consumed the electrical energy it would take to move an ICE car 30 miles.
Don't let that stop you perpetuating myths though.
And here’s an even more interesting kicker, Peak Oil has been constantly shifting to the right.An average driver does 30 miles per day. An EV will consume about 8 to 9kWh in 30 miles.
Thats about the same as a hob running for an hour, so unless we can't currently cope with that, we already have plenty of capacity. Once you factor in that they will charge over night it starts to become insignificant.
Hears the real kicker. It takes about 8kWh of electrical energy to produce a gallon of petrol, so for every gallon of petrol in, and you've already consumed the electrical energy it would take to move an ICE car 30 miles.
Don't let that stop you perpetuating myths though.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 11th December 19:26
Plenty of oil to keep the ICE in successful business while the misinformed ideological, political and green agenda bandwagons keep trying to push the seriously flawed EV as a solution.
Fortunately, the push is becoming more uphill as people are now realising what they are actually trying to push.
I'm not bothered about the green agenda, that's just am added bonus to me. I like that they are simple, quiet and reliable. That's all I ask for my A to B transport. Even better when it will self drive.
98elise said:
Is your only objection to EV's based on batteries, or the whole drive train? I've been in engineering for most of my adult life, and I can see no downsides to an electric drive train.
I'm not bothered about the green agenda, that's just am added bonus to me. I like that they are simple, quiet and reliable. That's all I ask for my A to B transport. Even better when it will self drive.
Whilst individual elements of the EV had commendable advantages, the combined package has serious limitations, is technologically immature, expensive and seriously limited in general appeal and application. Come back in 15 years. I'm not bothered about the green agenda, that's just am added bonus to me. I like that they are simple, quiet and reliable. That's all I ask for my A to B transport. Even better when it will self drive.
Regarding your ‘green issue’ comment, as always the emphasis with EVs is a false and biased agenda on CO2 and the environment. The tree huggers and politicians like to champion the EV, which will always remain an insignificant environmental player due to pathetically small numbers sold, whilst the greatest impact achievable is through improved (and proven) efficiencies in the mass market ICE. Traget the majority not the insignificant minority.
Unfortunately, the uneducated ‘blue ‘i badge brigade’ have no concept of that wider issue and politicians just cleverly play the green motoring agenda for public consumption, international bragging rights and to achieve a seat at the green conference table which they commute to in large ICE powered vehicles.
Technomatt said:
Whilst individual elements of the EV had commendable advantages, the combined package has serious limitations, is technologically immature, expensive and seriously limited in general appeal and application. Come back in 15 years.
Do you mean your 15 years, where EV's have been dumped as a bucket of steaming poo, and therefore no progress has been made as there's no incentive to do so?Or do you mean the 15 years where pioneers and early adopters work through the growing pains of a new technology, pushing it, testing it, hating it, loving it, until it's "good enough" for the hoi polloi?
The "Green Agenda" (see I even capitalised it!) is more about driving change, the fact all the graphs have that "hockey stick to infinity" is a dead give away as nothing behaves like that (it'll all fall apart before then). However, without a reason nothing will change, be it war, famine, disease, and as we conquer these, new goals need to be made. ICE in the last 10 years has become incredibly complex off the back of driving change, but the tech is amazing.
Now translate all that effort into economic effort. Without it, unemployment would be a much bigger problem! You see it in every industry, take "test achats" (gender neutrality for insurance), one small legal policy generated €billions of work for 100,000's across the whole of Europe as one example. Without policy to drive innovation, car manufacturers would be knocking out the same old models for more years, or with much more basic setups, suppliers, R&D, dealers would all suffer more than the manufactuers IMHO.
Technomatt said:
Whilst individual elements of the EV had commendable advantages, the combined package has serious limitations, is technologically immature, expensive and seriously limited in general appeal and application. Come back in 15 years.
Regarding your ‘green issue’ comment, as always the emphasis with EVs is a false and biased agenda on CO2 and the environment. The tree huggers and politicians like to champion the EV, which will always remain an insignificant environmental player due to pathetically small numbers sold, whilst the greatest impact achievable is through improved (and proven) efficiencies in the mass market ICE. Traget the majority not the insignificant minority.
Unfortunately, the uneducated ‘blue ‘i badge brigade’ have no concept of that wider issue and politicians just cleverly play the green motoring agenda for public consumption, international bragging rights and to achieve a seat at the green conference table which they commute to in large ICE powered vehicles.
Serious question. Regarding your ‘green issue’ comment, as always the emphasis with EVs is a false and biased agenda on CO2 and the environment. The tree huggers and politicians like to champion the EV, which will always remain an insignificant environmental player due to pathetically small numbers sold, whilst the greatest impact achievable is through improved (and proven) efficiencies in the mass market ICE. Traget the majority not the insignificant minority.
Unfortunately, the uneducated ‘blue ‘i badge brigade’ have no concept of that wider issue and politicians just cleverly play the green motoring agenda for public consumption, international bragging rights and to achieve a seat at the green conference table which they commute to in large ICE powered vehicles.
What is it like being so against something you spend a huge amount of time trying to make sure others share your views? I mean really EV's may not be the final or best solution, but they are a solution and like every solution to a problem it takes time to find the right one. I'm glad they're being developed, rolled out, tested by consumers who vote with their wallet and will be tested in race situations too.
If we do get an affordable, sustainable and reliable EV in 20 years time it will be because of what is happening now. To dismiss something in its infancy as vehemently as you seem to be would be ludicrous and the same attitude from your fellow homo sapiens would have seen us all in caves, clubbing food with rocks and walking barefoot.
RemarkLima said:
Technomatt said:
Whilst individual elements of the EV had commendable advantages, the combined package has serious limitations, is technologically immature, expensive and seriously limited in general appeal and application. Come back in 15 years.
Do you mean your 15 years, where EV's have been dumped as a bucket of steaming poo, and therefore no progress has been made as there's no incentive to do so?Or do you mean the 15 years where pioneers and early adopters work through the growing pains of a new technology, pushing it, testing it, hating it, loving it, until it's "good enough" for the hoi polloi?
The "Green Agenda" (see I even capitalised it!) is more about driving change, the fact all the graphs have that "hockey stick to infinity" is a dead give away as nothing behaves like that (it'll all fall apart before then). However, without a reason nothing will change, be it war, famine, disease, and as we conquer these, new goals need to be made. ICE in the last 10 years has become incredibly complex off the back of driving change, but the tech is amazing.
Now translate all that effort into economic effort. Without it, unemployment would be a much bigger problem! You see it in every industry, take "test achats" (gender neutrality for insurance), one small legal policy generated €billions of work for 100,000's across the whole of Europe as one example. Without policy to drive innovation, car manufacturers would be knocking out the same old models for more years, or with much more basic setups, suppliers, R&D, dealers would all suffer more than the manufactuers IMHO.
Unfortunately, the EV game is now set to play out with the Early Victims (EV zealots: substitute Victim with Adpoters) playing their part in the whole folly.
Even the UK has now realised EV preferential taxation, grants and subsidies are being applied to a minority sector with an owner social asset class now deemed less than politically desirable. Or in the words of a lower order of asset class buyers, ‘mate, the f
kers have now realised they aint going to flog expensive 70 mile range electric motors to the ordinary bloke in the street’. Edited by Technomatt on Thursday 12th December 11:31
Technomatt said:
In and ideal world, come back in 15 years when EV technology has developed and matured to provide a viable, affordable and effective solution for more mass market consumption. Existing battery technology is the limiting factor.
Without consumers how does that evolution happen? I'm not certain you have the mental faculty of a fully functioning human.
Technomatt said:
Unfortunately, the EV game is now set to play out with the Early Victims (EV zealots: substitute Victim with Adpoters) playing their part in the whole folly.
Ok, i realise that there is no point in even entering a discussion with you matt, becuase you have already made up your own mind, but i just want to point out that so far, exactly ZERO people have been forced to buy an EV. They have bought on, with their money because they wanted to. End of. Of course, they might have been better off spending their money on something else, but that applies to anything one buys. It's their money, they can spend it how they see fit.chrisw666 said:
Technomatt said:
In and ideal world, come back in 15 years when EV technology has developed and matured to provide a viable, affordable and effective solution for more mass market consumption. Existing battery technology is the limiting factor.
Without consumers how does that evolution happen? I'm not certain you have the mental faculty of a fully functioning human.
The majority of consumers, with their fully functioning brains are not stupid enough to buy one.
Technomatt said:
Maybe I can put it in slightly more simple terms for you.
The majority of consumers, with their fully functioning brains are not stupid enough to buy one.
I actually think you were touched inappropriately by an EV. The majority of consumers, with their fully functioning brains are not stupid enough to buy one.
People will but them if they fit their needs and budgetary requirements. Most two vehicle households could manage with one EV and one normal car and as tech evolves cars will become more affordable and people who live in cities or have a predictable commute will use them and will put up with the limited range. You can cry and slate them all you like but they're here and part of our future.
Edited by chrisw666 on Thursday 12th December 11:44
AnotherClarkey said:
Technomatt said:
Maybe I can put it in slightly more simple terms for you.
The majority of consumers, with their fully functioning brains are not stupid enough to buy one.
Don't worry about it, you always use simple terms.The majority of consumers, with their fully functioning brains are not stupid enough to buy one.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff