RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet extant EVs are still around a thousand pounds heavier than and equivalent ICE vehicle. Dont forget that. All that extra weight takes extra energy to move it, or are you claiming that because a vehicle is an EV, all that extra weight doesn't count?
I suspect that the fundamental bit of schoolboy physics you don't understand is that the extra energy required to accelerate a larger mass is not dissipated in the act of accelerating it, it is merely converted to kinetic energy. It is only chucked away when you decelerate with friction brakes and turn it into heat. If you decelerate with a regenerative braking system then a large proportion of it is recovered. If regeneration were 100% efficient, the effect of mass on the energy required to accelerate the car would make no difference at all the amount of energy needed to move it.Pan Pan Pan said:
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
This is the hilarious bit. EV zealots have jumped on the first EV bandwagon tha came along, and are desperate to try to convince every one else, to do the same, so that they dont get left holding the Betamax version of a car.
Electric motors may well be the main form of traction for vehicles to go, but DC batteries? that particular question is a long, long way out for discussion. Especially when new much cheaper lighter forms of batteries appear to be being discovered.
Then there is Germany and other countries who are trying to go down the route of E fuels for cars, rather than relying solely on heavy battery EVs.
Those who rushed out and bought a heavy expensive EV now, might look a bit foolish if/when this happens.
Not unlike when Thomas Edison tried to convince everyone that DC was the way the world should go. Then along came Nicola Tesla, who was one person on his own, who believed that AC was the way to go. They made fun of him, and tried to denigrate him for his view, but guess who was proven right in the end? Clue! it wasn't Thomas Edison's DC. Wonder how the EV zealots will feel about their Betamax EVs then?
As a friend once said, learning from mistakes is only good, when you do it from `other' people's mistakes.
Are you suggesting AC batteries?Electric motors may well be the main form of traction for vehicles to go, but DC batteries? that particular question is a long, long way out for discussion. Especially when new much cheaper lighter forms of batteries appear to be being discovered.
Then there is Germany and other countries who are trying to go down the route of E fuels for cars, rather than relying solely on heavy battery EVs.
Those who rushed out and bought a heavy expensive EV now, might look a bit foolish if/when this happens.
Not unlike when Thomas Edison tried to convince everyone that DC was the way the world should go. Then along came Nicola Tesla, who was one person on his own, who believed that AC was the way to go. They made fun of him, and tried to denigrate him for his view, but guess who was proven right in the end? Clue! it wasn't Thomas Edison's DC. Wonder how the EV zealots will feel about their Betamax EVs then?
As a friend once said, learning from mistakes is only good, when you do it from `other' people's mistakes.
GT9 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet extant EVs are still around a thousand pounds heavier than and equivalent ICE vehicle. Dont forget that. All that extra weight takes extra energy to move it, or are you claiming that because a vehicle is an EV, all that extra weight doesn't count?
For crying out loud, I've said previously that the extra mass of the EV is more than compensated for by the ability to recover up to 75% of the kinetic energy.From a vehicle dynamics perspective, the extra mass is positioned low and central in the car, whilst at the same time removing a large and high up concentrated mass at the front (the engine). This results in excellent dynamic behaviour for a car that weighs so much.
Yes, the mass is there. We all know that.
Modern engineering has more than compensated for it. END OF.
Now please fixate on something else because the 'weight thing' is so last year and makes you look like you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Tests show that even when an identical ICE and EV are pitted against each other, the EV is slower, because its increased weight means it cannot handle and go round bends better than the ICE version. Then there were tests on modern electric vans which showed they when loaded had ridiculously small ranges of around 87 and 93 miles, and had to slow down to 50 mph going up hills, to stop their already ridiculous range being reduced still further.
If and when they make EVs that are actually better than their ICE equivalents, people will switch to them in droves, Only they haven't invented such an EV yet, especially one that the ordinary punter can afford.
911hope said:
It is difficult for someone who is not an expert in the field. They can only have an uniformed opinion.
I would count myself to be in this category. So on what basis could I argue that the 97% climate scientists are wrong.
I would count myself to be in this category. So on what basis could I argue that the 97% climate scientists are wrong.
Same here.People can debate whether AGW is a thing or not, but GW clearly is*, and we know enough about physics and chemistry to understand the impact certain gases (notably but not exclusively CO2 and Methane) have on it.
Add-in that we are already seeing environmental impacts - glacial retreat, increased iceberg calving off the Antarctic ice-sheets, massive retreat of Arctic ice, changing monsoon patterns, rising sea temperatures, etc. etc.
So my view is quite simple - GW (with or without the A) is happening. We as a species are scientifically advanced enough to not only recognise and measure it, but also to influence it. So why the f
k should we continue to prioritise short-term profits and lifestyles over long-term stability for both our descendants and for the trillions of other lifeforms on the planet. Just because those making the decisions won't be around to mop-up the aftermath???* There are stacks of data-points which show this clearly, and also show rate-of-change. With that breadth of data, no respectable scientist is going to argue with it.
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
This is the hilarious bit. EV zealots have jumped on the first EV bandwagon tha came along, and are desperate to try to convince every one else, to do the same, so that they dont get left holding the Betamax version of a car.
Electric motors may well be the main form of traction for vehicles to go, but DC batteries? that particular question is a long, long way out for discussion. Especially when new much cheaper lighter forms of batteries appear to be being discovered.
Then there is Germany and other countries who are trying to go down the route of E fuels for cars, rather than relying solely on heavy battery EVs.
Those who rushed out and bought a heavy expensive EV now, might look a bit foolish if/when this happens.
Not unlike when Thomas Edison tried to convince everyone that DC was the way the world should go. Then along came Nicola Tesla, who was one person on his own, who believed that AC was the way to go. They made fun of him, and tried to denigrate him for his view, but guess who was proven right in the end? Clue! it wasn't Thomas Edison's DC. Wonder how the EV zealots will feel about their Betamax EVs then?
As a friend once said, learning from mistakes is only good, when you do it from `other' people's mistakes.
Are you suggesting AC batteries?Electric motors may well be the main form of traction for vehicles to go, but DC batteries? that particular question is a long, long way out for discussion. Especially when new much cheaper lighter forms of batteries appear to be being discovered.
Then there is Germany and other countries who are trying to go down the route of E fuels for cars, rather than relying solely on heavy battery EVs.
Those who rushed out and bought a heavy expensive EV now, might look a bit foolish if/when this happens.
Not unlike when Thomas Edison tried to convince everyone that DC was the way the world should go. Then along came Nicola Tesla, who was one person on his own, who believed that AC was the way to go. They made fun of him, and tried to denigrate him for his view, but guess who was proven right in the end? Clue! it wasn't Thomas Edison's DC. Wonder how the EV zealots will feel about their Betamax EVs then?
As a friend once said, learning from mistakes is only good, when you do it from `other' people's mistakes.
Pan Pan Pan said:
No it seems like you wish to adhere to the blind obsession with EVs when other options are available. Not least other countries, including Germany who are considering carrying on beyond 2035 with ICE vehicles using E Fuels.
You really must open your eyes, and broaden your outlook. Like Tesla discovered DC batteries may not be the best way to go.
Fortunately my qualifications and background is engineering so i do understand basic physics. It's been explained to you repeatedly but rather than undertake some proper research you stick you your ignorance in this specific field. You really must open your eyes, and broaden your outlook. Like Tesla discovered DC batteries may not be the best way to go.
I have no blind obsession with anything and its is you that chooses to ignore good science and engineering.
If ICEs did not produce toxic emissions were more efficient and less unnecessarily noisy and the fuels could be produced pollution free economically then we would not be having this discussion. The Internal Combustion engine is inherently inefficient and over the last century or so the efficiencies have increased just a little.
The situation with Germany will be interesting to watch but I suspect they will be brought back in line within the coming months.
P.S. I drive a Hybrid estate car. I do not like SUVs so will not change until a similar replacement is available.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Monday 27th March 10:56
Nomme de Plum said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
No it seems like you wish to adhere to the blind obsession with EVs when other options are available. Not least other countries, including Germany who are considering carrying on beyond 2035 with ICE vehicles using E Fuels.
You really must open your eyes, and broaden your outlook. Like Tesla discovered DC batteries may not be the best way to go.
Fortunately my qualifications and background is engineering so i do understand basic physics. It's been explained to you repeatedly but rather than undertake some proper research you stick you your ignorance in this specific field. You really must open your eyes, and broaden your outlook. Like Tesla discovered DC batteries may not be the best way to go.
I have no blind obsession with anything and its is you that chooses to ignore good science and engineering.
If ICEs did not produce toxic emissions were more efficient and less unnecessarily noisy and the fuels could be produced pollution free economically then we would not be having this discussion. The Internal Combustion engine is inherently inefficient and over the last century or so the efficiencies have increased just a little.
The situation with Germany will be interesting to watch but I suspect they will be brought back in line within the coming months.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Then you probably suspect wrongly. especially when trying to convince ordinary punters to buy a massively expensive EV with sh*t range, and charging difficulties, especially when they just can carry on with their much more practical ICE vehicles running on E Fuels.
MMMM really?Efficiency: Firstly, a number of papers have looked at the lifecycle efficiency of eFuel production, from the processing of the feedstock to the final eFuel. The International Council of Clean Transportation calculated that the total conversion efficiency throughout the process could be as low as 16%[vi]. This is partly due to the inherent inefficiency of the internal combustion engine and partly explains the low value. It remains an issue for the conventional fuel industry.
Energy demand: Secondly, the energy requirement is significant. The UK aviation industry consumed 13.7 Mtoe (159 TWh) of jet fuel in 2019 according to BEIS[vii]. Taking into account the inefficiencies of the eFuel production process, the required renewable generation for eFuels to solely decarbonise the aviation sector would total 717 TWh. To put this figure into context, UK renewable generation for 2020 amounted to 135 TWh. A similar point has been found by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)[viii], which estimates that the use of eFuels to decarbonise shipping would require the world’s current total of renewable generation.
Costs: Finally, The Royal Society found prices of eFuels are roughly 3-5 times higher than conventional fuels[ix]. Recent price spikes have made eFuels relatively more affordable; however, there would still need to be significant production cost reductions and an effective carbon tax on conventional fuels to make this cost comparable. Confidence within the industry has grown that the price of production will fall significantly as plants scale up and take advantage of economies of scale. In particular, the cost of hydrogen electrolysers is expected to fall significantly[x]. However, the efficiency losses involved in conversion of electricity to hydrogen and hydrogen to eFuel will mean that they are likely to remain inherently expensive.
Pan Pan Pan said:
See what happens when you go into a haulage company and tell them you have a 4000 pound load to shift, but you only want to pay for hauling 3000 pounds. When they have finished laughing at you, they will tell you that nothing get shifted for nothing,(Even in the world of EVs)
Tests show that even when an identical ICE and EV are pitted against each other, the EV is slower, because its increased weight means it cannot handle and go round bends better than the ICE version. Then there were tests on modern electric vans which showed they when loaded had ridiculously small ranges of around 87 and 93 miles, and had to slow down to 50 mph going up hills, to stop their already ridiculous range being reduced still further.
If and when they make EVs that are actually better than their ICE equivalents, people will switch to them in droves, Only they haven't invented such an EV yet, especially one that the ordinary punter can afford.
You are talking out of your arse. Tests show that even when an identical ICE and EV are pitted against each other, the EV is slower, because its increased weight means it cannot handle and go round bends better than the ICE version. Then there were tests on modern electric vans which showed they when loaded had ridiculously small ranges of around 87 and 93 miles, and had to slow down to 50 mph going up hills, to stop their already ridiculous range being reduced still further.
If and when they make EVs that are actually better than their ICE equivalents, people will switch to them in droves, Only they haven't invented such an EV yet, especially one that the ordinary punter can afford.
The amount of energy expended to move a heavier EV is several times lower than the lighter ICE for two reasons.
1. Regenerative braking.
2. In ICE engine has a terrible thermal efficiency compared to an electric motor.
You have fixated on mass, no. 2 above has no relation to mass whatsoever.
There is also another characteristic of ANY vehicle that has just as much impact on its energy efficiency, and that the aerodynamic performance.
Which has no relationship with mass either.
Guess which car can be made to be far slipperier through the air?
The one with loads of cooling apertures to cool the massive radiator at the front and the friction brakes, or the other one...
You are so far out of your depth on this topic from an engineering perspective.
It's insulting to adults that you keep posting what you do.
GT9 said:
For crying out loud, I've said previously that the extra mass of the EV is more than compensated for by the ability to recover up to 75% of the kinetic energy.
From a vehicle dynamics perspective, the extra mass is positioned low and central in the car, whilst at the same time removing a large and high up concentrated mass at the front (the engine). This results in excellent dynamic behaviour for a car that weighs so much.
Yes, the mass is there. We all know that.
Modern engineering has more than compensated for it. END OF.
Now please fixate on something else because the 'weight thing' is so last year and makes you look like you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
There is only one thing more clear than that the efficiency advantage of EVs over any ICE vehicle and that is the futility of trying to explain it to PPP.From a vehicle dynamics perspective, the extra mass is positioned low and central in the car, whilst at the same time removing a large and high up concentrated mass at the front (the engine). This results in excellent dynamic behaviour for a car that weighs so much.
Yes, the mass is there. We all know that.
Modern engineering has more than compensated for it. END OF.
Now please fixate on something else because the 'weight thing' is so last year and makes you look like you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
It is difficult to understand how PPP can restate the same nonsense over and over again, while having it repeatedly disproved by many with superior understanding.
It seems unlikely that PPP is being honest with failure to understand, since the key compelling offsetting mechanisms (regenerative braking and vastly superior efficiency of electric motors over ICE drivetrains) are hardly difficult to understand.
It is more likely that PPP is just seeking to annoy people.
911hope said:
To successfully question the widely accepted view on climate change, it would be necessary to read the key papers, understand the papers, consider the evidence and then ask questions. Perhaps about the data, analysis, confounding factors. That would be the approach that the scientific machine would recognise, respect and respond to.
The problem is that many who say they question the view have not done this. Are they "questioning" or are they disagreeing? In general they are disagreeing (but from a position of ignorance) They simply want to believe otherwise and align to an opposing minority, with their theories (which they have not read, understood nor questioned) as "evidence"
It is difficult for someone who is not an expert in the field. They can only have an uniformed opinion.
I would count myself to be in this category. So on what basis could I argue that the 97% climate scientists are wrong.
Do your own research, sheeple.The problem is that many who say they question the view have not done this. Are they "questioning" or are they disagreeing? In general they are disagreeing (but from a position of ignorance) They simply want to believe otherwise and align to an opposing minority, with their theories (which they have not read, understood nor questioned) as "evidence"
It is difficult for someone who is not an expert in the field. They can only have an uniformed opinion.
I would count myself to be in this category. So on what basis could I argue that the 97% climate scientists are wrong.
(Research = googling for opinion pieces by those with the view you wish were true rather than that backed up by observation and verification of predictions).
Pan Pan Pan said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
No it seems like you wish to adhere to the blind obsession with EVs when other options are available. Not least other countries, including Germany who are considering carrying on beyond 2035 with ICE vehicles using E Fuels.
You really must open your eyes, and broaden your outlook. Like Tesla discovered DC batteries may not be the best way to go.
Fortunately my qualifications and background is engineering so i do understand basic physics. It's been explained to you repeatedly but rather than undertake some proper research you stick you your ignorance in this specific field. You really must open your eyes, and broaden your outlook. Like Tesla discovered DC batteries may not be the best way to go.
I have no blind obsession with anything and its is you that chooses to ignore good science and engineering.
If ICEs did not produce toxic emissions were more efficient and less unnecessarily noisy and the fuels could be produced pollution free economically then we would not be having this discussion. The Internal Combustion engine is inherently inefficient and over the last century or so the efficiencies have increased just a little.
The situation with Germany will be interesting to watch but I suspect they will be brought back in line within the coming months.
GT9 said:
From a vehicle dynamics perspective, the extra mass is positioned low and central in the car, whilst at the same time removing a large and high up concentrated mass at the front (the engine). This results in excellent dynamic behaviour for a car that weighs so much.
Yes, the mass is there. We all know that.
Modern engineering has more than compensated for it. END OF.
Difficult to compensate for impaired yaw response due to large increase in polar moment. Although EVs could always resort to rear wheel steering I suppose.Yes, the mass is there. We all know that.
Modern engineering has more than compensated for it. END OF.
But probably not sufficiently sporting to matter. EVs are supposed to be dynamically dull...
bigothunter said:
Difficult to compensate for impaired yaw response due to large increase in polar moment. Although EVs could always resort to rear wheel steering I suppose.
But probably not sufficiently sporting to matter. EVs are supposed to be dynamically dull...
Which of these imposes a greater lateral force on the front tyres in a turn:But probably not sufficiently sporting to matter. EVs are supposed to be dynamically dull...
1. An engine positioned over the front axle
2. A battery that is twice as heavy positioned at halfway between the axles
Which of them imposes the greater rolling force if one is at floor level and the other one substantially higher?
Pan Pan Pan said:
GT9 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet extant EVs are still around a thousand pounds heavier than and equivalent ICE vehicle. Dont forget that. All that extra weight takes extra energy to move it, or are you claiming that because a vehicle is an EV, all that extra weight doesn't count?
For crying out loud, I've said previously that the extra mass of the EV is more than compensated for by the ability to recover up to 75% of the kinetic energy.From a vehicle dynamics perspective, the extra mass is positioned low and central in the car, whilst at the same time removing a large and high up concentrated mass at the front (the engine). This results in excellent dynamic behaviour for a car that weighs so much.
Yes, the mass is there. We all know that.
Modern engineering has more than compensated for it. END OF.
Now please fixate on something else because the 'weight thing' is so last year and makes you look like you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Tests show that even when an identical ICE and EV are pitted against each other, the EV is slower, because its increased weight means it cannot handle and go round bends better than the ICE version. Then there were tests on modern electric vans which showed they when loaded had ridiculously small ranges of around 87 and 93 miles, and had to slow down to 50 mph going up hills, to stop their already ridiculous range being reduced still further.
If and when they make EVs that are actually better than their ICE equivalents, people will switch to them in droves, Only they haven't invented such an EV yet, especially one that the ordinary punter can afford.
Have you got to the bottom of which of 34 miles and 10 miles is further, yet? I though perhaps over the weekend, when maybe your genius was less taxed by other matters of global import, you might have found the time to get properly stuck into this question?
We all agree now on the famous 4000/3000 challenge. I for one was glad we put that toughie to bed.
34/10. The real question of the age.
Strangely Brown said:
911hope said:
So on what basis could I argue that the 97% climate scientists are wrong.
Nobody is saying that 97% of climate scientists are wrong. They are saying that the claim that 97% of scientists agree with the narrative is wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM
From 1:17:45
Edited by Strangely Brown on Monday 27th March 10:09
GT9 said:
Which of these imposes a greater lateral force on the front tyres in a turn:
1. An engine positioned over the front axle
2. A battery that is twice as heavy positioned at halfway between the axles
Which of them imposes the greater rolling force if one is at floor level and the other one substantially higher?
This is something which is really noticeable - my E class Estate is 'only' 80kg heavier than my wife's Born (1890 vs 1811kg), but the Born feels so much more eager to turn in and change direction, subjectively a good half a ton lighter than it is in reality. It feels cruel to the front tyres on the E-class to do anything in any type of hurry, whereas the Born just scoots around the bends. 1. An engine positioned over the front axle
2. A battery that is twice as heavy positioned at halfway between the axles
Which of them imposes the greater rolling force if one is at floor level and the other one substantially higher?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff