RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
kambites said:
otolith said:
kambites said:
otolith said:
Most cars on the road will still be petrol or diesel in 2035
I'm not sure that's necessarily a given. With EVs now making up roughly one in six new car sales and many people predicting they will be over one in four by the end of this year and 50% by the end of 2025 it's possible we'll see the majority of cars on the road being electric by 2035. I guess the big question is when EV market share will start to stall due to charging infrastructure not keeping up.
EV sales are about 400k/annum now? That'll get to around 1m but it's really not likely to go much higher than that as so many potential car buyers cannot yet use an EV.
A fair projection based on economic/GDP per capita projections would suggest somewhere between 10-15m EVs by 2035. So about one third of cars.
We can also predict that the scrapping rate of ICE is going to decline which will further suppress EV percentages.
What will skew sales to EV quicker than predicted will be if cheap and usable EVs appear in the next decade that offer clear savings over ICE. That's the unknown factor that the higher predictions are relying on.
80%? 85%?
IIRC something like 60% of all of us do, but that includes the majority of people who never buy a new car.
So over the next 12 years, the typical new car buyer will get through, what, 3-4 new cars? The faster these lucky people go EV, the greater and quicker the positive effect on prices for used EV buyers.
500TORQUES said:
DonkeyApple said:
braddo said:
500TORQUES said:
Methanol is used extensively in historic racing cars and in modern US racing cars.
For a race and then the tank is emptied. Methanol is a crap road fuel and you'd be mad to do what the snake oil pedlars are wanting you to do and pour that muck into a valuable classic.
You need to run FT on the alcohol to create real hydrocarbons.
DonkeyApple said:
So what? This is PH. We know what methanol is used for. We also know what it is rubbish for. So why bang on about 'racecar'?
Methanol is a crap road fuel and you'd be mad to do what the snake oil pedlars are wanting you to do and pour that muck into a valuable classic.
You need to run FT on the alcohol to create real hydrocarbons.
I was only replying to your tirade with a real life example that methanol is used in some classics, the cars built to run on that fuel wont run on anything else.Methanol is a crap road fuel and you'd be mad to do what the snake oil pedlars are wanting you to do and pour that muck into a valuable classic.
You need to run FT on the alcohol to create real hydrocarbons.
It has it's benefits which is why it was used extensively in the past, it works a treat as a mixer with petrol too if you are forced to run in an area with low octane fuel or you want to maximise torque on a high compression turbo engine.
It's also a very cheap and easy to make option, often made from waste wood chips in the UK.
Edited by 500TORQUES on Friday 17th March 21:07
Pan Pan Pan said:
People will probably `prefer' to be given the choice between using an EV or an ICE vehicle for a very long time to come.
On this site yes, but for most people, I honestly don't think they give a damn. If they can choose a car that is cheaper to own, easier to drive, quieter, smoother and more spacious, they will.
EVs are not quite there yet, but in another decade, possibly.
500TORQUES said:
DonkeyApple said:
So what? This is PH. We know what methanol is used for. We also know what it is rubbish for. So why bang on about 'racecar'?
Methanol is a crap road fuel and you'd be mad to do what the snake oil pedlars are wanting you to do and pour that muck into a valuable classic.
You need to run FT on the alcohol to create real hydrocarbons.
I was only replying to your tirade with a real life example that methanol is used in some classics, the cars built to run on that fuel wont run on anything else.Methanol is a crap road fuel and you'd be mad to do what the snake oil pedlars are wanting you to do and pour that muck into a valuable classic.
You need to run FT on the alcohol to create real hydrocarbons.
It has it's benefits which is why it was used extensively in the past, it works a treat as a mixer with petrol too if you are forced to run in an area with low octane fuel or you want to maximise torque on a high compression turbo engine.
It's also a very cheap and easy to make option, often made from waste wood chips in the UK.
Edited by 500TORQUES on Friday 17th March 21:07
500TORQUES said:
SpeckledJim said:
How much does it cost?
Depends how much you buy and from where.£1.05 per litre + vat doing a quick look.
Then factor in taxes once used as a road fuel and the cost of engine set up and maintenance. And of course the reality that the amount that can be manufactured is insignificant compared to naptha consumption. 'Efuel' is just a silly rebranding of hundred year old tech that was bypassed over a hundred years ago for the same reason it remains infeasible as a transport solution to replace either batteries or petrol.
All the EU would be doing by permitting its use for a few affluent punters in toys is heaping more demand pressure on the minuscule supply of green hydrogen for industries that need to decarbonise by stopping using grey hydrogen.
All the EU would be doing by permitting its use for a few affluent punters in toys is heaping more demand pressure on the minuscule supply of green hydrogen for industries that need to decarbonise by stopping using grey hydrogen.
bigothunter said:
500TORQUES said:
SpeckledJim said:
How much does it cost?
Depends how much you buy and from where.£1.05 per litre + vat doing a quick look.
Got it.
SpeckledJim said:
Right. So when he says ‘cheap’ he means ‘expensive’ then.
Got it.
Thats for low quantity supply costs. E85 for example is approx $0.30 per gallon more than SUL gasoline equivalent. (E85 its cheaper per gallon but uses more)Got it.
Supplied at scale alcohol fuels are affordable, south America runs on the stuff.
Edited by 500TORQUES on Friday 17th March 23:23
DonkeyApple said:
Then factor in taxes once used as a road fuel and the cost of engine set up and maintenance. And of course the reality that the amount that can be manufactured is insignificant compared to naptha consumption. 'Efuel' is just a silly rebranding of hundred year old tech that was bypassed over a hundred years ago for the same reason it remains infeasible as a transport solution to replace either batteries or petrol.
All the EU would be doing by permitting its use for a few affluent punters in toys is heaping more demand pressure on the minuscule supply of green hydrogen for industries that need to decarbonise by stopping using grey hydrogen.
You seem obsessed with a none existant extra engine cost. All the EU would be doing by permitting its use for a few affluent punters in toys is heaping more demand pressure on the minuscule supply of green hydrogen for industries that need to decarbonise by stopping using grey hydrogen.
500TORQUES said:
You seem obsessed with a none existant extra engine cost.
Nope. People are talking about pouring this stuff into their classics. Which you rather obviously can't do without spending money on your engine. The issue here is that you are not seeming to understand the difference between an alcohol and a long chain hydrocarbon nor appreciating the cost and volumes of synthesising just the most basic of alcohols and attempting to use it to replace petrol in road cars.
These synthetic fuels have been around for well over 100 years. FT is over 100 years old. Society has resorted to these processes on repeated occasions since the Victorian era. We know all about them and how much can be produced and where they can be used. People are bizarrely acting as if any of this stuff is somehow new just because it's been rebranded.
Even you understand that it is a niche use within a niche industry such as motorsport yet you appear to be saying that because of that it somehow magically makes it a viable replacement for petrol in road cars? It very obviously doesn't nor will it.
Germany is in a lot of trouble right now. It doesn't have access to enough carbon credits for its legacy industry to reach net zero by 2050. It has little chance of being renewable self sufficient due to its inland geography and absence of coastline. The love of GH stems from the supply of carbon credits it will generate for polluting industries. The realisation that it can't be shipped to Enel in Italy for burning back to electricity and further carbon credit issuance is why VW is now spinning up the magic solution of methanol while being deceptive re the supply of carbon atoms and why the domestic automotive industry is suddenly trying to get the use of methanol permitted post 2035.
If seimens, Enel, VW and the others can't get the EU to permit the burning of methanol post 2035 then HIF loses its now primary source of carbon credit production which means the likes of VW, in order to survive, will need to move even more production to China.
But the volumes that can be produced are small and fixed. The max volume of methanol is defined by the amount of renewable electricity that Chile can produce while assuming enough fossil fuel sources carbon can be imported to Chile. You can't produce more methanol than electricity being delivered and as that number is known then the max potential volume of methanol, efuel, is known and it's far too small to be used as a viable petrol replacement across the EU for normal road transport.
But more importantly, the airline industry has no electric solution and growing tax penalties so a far greater incentive to be outbidding for the methanol to run FT on it and produce a synthetic kerosene.
This delivers a solid flow of carbon credits to VW even if they never use a drop of the alcohol but they have the problem that it won't be until well into the 2040s until the volume of methanol is high enough to be viable for the air industry and the FT plants have been built. That means that before then VW et al have to find a use for that methanol. And that's where the bandits and robber barons of motorsport step in and deliver wonderful greenwashing and PR spin and start talking utter tripe about atmospheric carbon capture and all the other tomfoolery through their legal entities thus derisking VW from yet another scandal while banking them the tax credits. Note just how careful Porsche's legal department are being when advertising efuel to keep to the non public road uses such as motorsport while still pushing all road production to 100% EV. Smarter to let Dave Richards et al do the selling and PR work.
What would really surprise me would be if the EU didn't sign off on this. It seems unfathomable that the industrial bases of the only relevant economies within the EU don't own enough of Brussels to get this change through?
SpeckledJim said:
DonkeyApple said:
kambites said:
otolith said:
kambites said:
otolith said:
Most cars on the road will still be petrol or diesel in 2035
I'm not sure that's necessarily a given. With EVs now making up roughly one in six new car sales and many people predicting they will be over one in four by the end of this year and 50% by the end of 2025 it's possible we'll see the majority of cars on the road being electric by 2035. I guess the big question is when EV market share will start to stall due to charging infrastructure not keeping up.
EV sales are about 400k/annum now? That'll get to around 1m but it's really not likely to go much higher than that as so many potential car buyers cannot yet use an EV.
A fair projection based on economic/GDP per capita projections would suggest somewhere between 10-15m EVs by 2035. So about one third of cars.
We can also predict that the scrapping rate of ICE is going to decline which will further suppress EV percentages.
What will skew sales to EV quicker than predicted will be if cheap and usable EVs appear in the next decade that offer clear savings over ICE. That's the unknown factor that the higher predictions are relying on.
80%? 85%?
IIRC something like 60% of all of us do, but that includes the majority of people who never buy a new car.
So over the next 12 years, the typical new car buyer will get through, what, 3-4 new cars? The faster these lucky people go EV, the greater and quicker the positive effect on prices for used EV buyers.
No doubt these issues can be worked through in time.
I will keep my ICE vehicle for as long as absolutely possible, so that by the time I can no longer use it, or when it becomes less practical than using an EV I can just step out of one, and into the other.
One thing that concerns me about EVs, is that unlike an ICE vehicle the battery weighs the same, regardless of whether it is full, or empty. A medium sized ICE vehicle typically has an eleven gallon fuel tank which weighs (Including the weight of the tank itself) 67/70 pounds when full. The tank itself (which can be made from steel, aluminium or plastic typically weighs around 22 pounds. As the vehicle consumes the fuel in the tank, it gets lighter, and its efficiency is consequently improved because in moving vehicles weight is usually the enemy of performance and fuel efficiency.
The weight of the batteries in an equivalent size EV, will be 1200 pounds, and it will have to haul around this weight ALL the time regardless of whether it is fully charged or virtually empty. This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
Pan Pan Pan said:
At the moment there are still too many impracticalities, for the general public to adopt EVs, Not least the price of them compared to an identical ICE vehicle.
No doubt these issues can be worked through in time.
I will keep my ICE vehicle for as long as absolutely possible, so that by the time I can no longer use it, or when it becomes less practical than using an EV I can just step out of one, and into the other.
One thing that concerns me about EVs, is that unlike an ICE vehicle the battery weighs the same, regardless of whether it is full, or empty. A medium sized ICE vehicle typically has an eleven gallon fuel tank which weighs (Including the weight of the tank itself) 67/70 pounds when full. The tank itself (which can be made from steel, aluminium or plastic typically weighs around 22 pounds. As the vehicle consumes the fuel in the tank, it gets lighter, and its efficiency is consequently improved because in moving vehicles weight is usually the enemy of performance and fuel efficiency.
The weight of the batteries in an equivalent size EV, will be 1200 pounds, and it will have to haul around this weight ALL the time regardless of whether it is fully charged or virtually empty. This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
Bear in mind that an EV drive train is about 3X more efficient than an ICE drive train.No doubt these issues can be worked through in time.
I will keep my ICE vehicle for as long as absolutely possible, so that by the time I can no longer use it, or when it becomes less practical than using an EV I can just step out of one, and into the other.
One thing that concerns me about EVs, is that unlike an ICE vehicle the battery weighs the same, regardless of whether it is full, or empty. A medium sized ICE vehicle typically has an eleven gallon fuel tank which weighs (Including the weight of the tank itself) 67/70 pounds when full. The tank itself (which can be made from steel, aluminium or plastic typically weighs around 22 pounds. As the vehicle consumes the fuel in the tank, it gets lighter, and its efficiency is consequently improved because in moving vehicles weight is usually the enemy of performance and fuel efficiency.
The weight of the batteries in an equivalent size EV, will be 1200 pounds, and it will have to haul around this weight ALL the time regardless of whether it is fully charged or virtually empty. This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
If estimating overall efficiency calculations, you will need to consider all the factors.
DonkeyApple said:
Nope. People are talking about pouring this stuff into their classics. Which you rather obviously can't do without spending money on your engine.
The classics being discussed are those already designed to use methanol.There is no issue using an alcohol fuel in a car designed to use it.
Many old cars and many new cars are built to be alcohol compatible.
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
Bear in mind that an EV drive train is about 3X more efficient than an ICE drive train.If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
If estimating overall efficiency calculations, you will need to consider all the factors.
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
At the moment there are still too many impracticalities, for the general public to adopt EVs, Not least the price of them compared to an identical ICE vehicle.
No doubt these issues can be worked through in time.
I will keep my ICE vehicle for as long as absolutely possible, so that by the time I can no longer use it, or when it becomes less practical than using an EV I can just step out of one, and into the other.
One thing that concerns me about EVs, is that unlike an ICE vehicle the battery weighs the same, regardless of whether it is full, or empty. A medium sized ICE vehicle typically has an eleven gallon fuel tank which weighs (Including the weight of the tank itself) 67/70 pounds when full. The tank itself (which can be made from steel, aluminium or plastic typically weighs around 22 pounds. As the vehicle consumes the fuel in the tank, it gets lighter, and its efficiency is consequently improved because in moving vehicles weight is usually the enemy of performance and fuel efficiency.
The weight of the batteries in an equivalent size EV, will be 1200 pounds, and it will have to haul around this weight ALL the time regardless of whether it is fully charged or virtually empty. This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
Bear in mind that an EV drive train is about 3X more efficient than an ICE drive train.No doubt these issues can be worked through in time.
I will keep my ICE vehicle for as long as absolutely possible, so that by the time I can no longer use it, or when it becomes less practical than using an EV I can just step out of one, and into the other.
One thing that concerns me about EVs, is that unlike an ICE vehicle the battery weighs the same, regardless of whether it is full, or empty. A medium sized ICE vehicle typically has an eleven gallon fuel tank which weighs (Including the weight of the tank itself) 67/70 pounds when full. The tank itself (which can be made from steel, aluminium or plastic typically weighs around 22 pounds. As the vehicle consumes the fuel in the tank, it gets lighter, and its efficiency is consequently improved because in moving vehicles weight is usually the enemy of performance and fuel efficiency.
The weight of the batteries in an equivalent size EV, will be 1200 pounds, and it will have to haul around this weight ALL the time regardless of whether it is fully charged or virtually empty. This means that a significant proportion of the energy in the battery must be used to move the deadweight of the battery around, as well as the weight of the vehicle itself.
If someone was asked to shift some weight, for which they would be paid the exactly same amount for doing so, and there were two piles of `goods' to be moved, one at 70 pounds, and the other at 1200 pounds, which one would `most' of us choose to shift, for the money?
If estimating overall efficiency calculations, you will need to consider all the factors.
Heavier suspension, steering components, body structure and tyres (and tyre wear) needed to cope with much heavier weight of EVs must also be taken into account, if an overall like for like comparison is to be made.
An EV battery is 17X heavier than an equivalent full petrol tank, so having a drive train, that is only 3X more efficient isn't really going to cut it.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Saturday 18th March 11:29
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff