RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
TheBinarySheep said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I dont know whether to feel shocked, or sorry that some are so desperate to promote EVs, they want people to ignore basic physics and just use flimflam, to try to kid people, that it takes `less' energy to move the 1200 pound weight of an EV battery, than it does to move a the 70 pound weight a (full) ICE petrol tank (including the weight of the fuel tank tank itself) for the same sized vehicles.
Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
If you assume that both are being pushed by the same power source, then yes, it takes more energy to move the battery.Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
However, in the real world, if you have a 1200kg ICE and a 2000kg EV, and you want to move them both the same distance, the EV will use less energy. That's because let's say you need 3kw to move the ICE vehicle, then because it's only 20% efficient you would actually need 15kw of energy. On the other hand, if the EV needs 6kw to move it, then you'd still only need 7kw to move it because the conversion of energy to kenetic energy is 90% efficient.
At least that's my basic understanding anyway, but happy to be corrected.
PPP, here we go.
How far does an ICE go on a litre of petrol?
A: 10 miles assuming a reasonable 45mpg. (we can assume the tank is nearly empty if that helps you?)
[quick google] a litre of petrol is 31,500,000 joules, which corresponds to 8.8kWh. [/quick google]
How far does an EV go on 8.8kWh?
A: 8.8kWh x 4 miles per kWh = 35.2 miles)
PPP, are you still with us?
Which is further? 10 miles, or 35.2 miles?
SpeckledJim said:
bigothunter said:
SpeckledJim said:
A 40 tonner does, what, about 6mpg? Which in EV terms is about 18mpg equivalent. You need the truck to do, what, 450 miles on a 'tank' if you're going to get 150,000 miles a year out of it.
A Model S with a c.600kg battery does 300 miles at the equivalent of 150mpg. So to do the 450 miles you'd need about a 900kg battery. But to pull the truck instead of push the Tesla you'll need about 8.3 of those batteries. So you're into about 7.5 tons of batteries. So take that out of your payload. And can you put all that weight in the tractor unit?
But this is just today. A few weeks ago there was news of a huge potential step forward in energy density. Maybe in 10 years we're talking 2 tons of batteries, and it all goes fine.
Increase GVM from 44 to 50 tonnes. Manage axle loads so road damage is not exacerbated. Problem solved A Model S with a c.600kg battery does 300 miles at the equivalent of 150mpg. So to do the 450 miles you'd need about a 900kg battery. But to pull the truck instead of push the Tesla you'll need about 8.3 of those batteries. So you're into about 7.5 tons of batteries. So take that out of your payload. And can you put all that weight in the tractor unit?
But this is just today. A few weeks ago there was news of a huge potential step forward in energy density. Maybe in 10 years we're talking 2 tons of batteries, and it all goes fine.
What does a tractor unit already weigh though, and is adding 7.5 tons of battery a go-er? Surely it won't be practical to add the batteries to the trailer units, given how they outnumber the tractors.
Underslung battery packs loaded by forklift could accommodate trailer-mounting. Solution is certainly not beyond the wit of man especially as trailers often take hours to load. Also overhead catenary power/charging on motorways has potential.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I dont know whether to feel shocked, or sorry that some are so desperate to promote EVs, they want people to ignore basic physics and just use flimflam, to try to kid people, that it takes `less' energy to move the 1200 pound weight of an EV battery, than it does to move a the 70 pound weight a (full) ICE petrol tank (including the weight of the fuel tank tank itself) for the same sized vehicles.
Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
You could make the same point about a 30kg electric motor vs a 200kg engine, and it would be almost as pointless. You need to look at the mass of the entire vehicle, not just the energy store or just the motor. My F34 335D is heavier than most Tesla Model 3s, despite them having a big heavy battery and my car only carrying 48kg of diesel.Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
The other two elephants in the room you are ignoring are that an electric car powertrain is much more energy efficient than an ICE powertrain, and that EVs can reclaim most of the kinetic energy put into the car when they slow down. Do the maths, it's not hard.
Someone asked about the Tesla Truck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBODCJKn6vQ
and followup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-TUfTwWdHM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBODCJKn6vQ
and followup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-TUfTwWdHM
DonkeyApple said:
On the continent you have trials with ideas like overhead cables but it's only logistically feasible a solution at certain points where there is a below average level of road infrastructure.
If only there was an existing transport infrastructure with such overhead cables that could be used to transport large amounts of haulage between key depots? 
Pan Pan Pan said:
I dont know whether to feel shocked, or sorry that some are so desperate to promote EVs, they want people to ignore basic physics and just use flimflam, to try to kid people, that it takes `less' energy to move the 1200 pound weight of an EV battery, than it does to move a the 70 pound weight a (full) ICE petrol tank (including the weight of the fuel tank tank itself) for the same sized vehicles.
Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
Spectacular maths and physics fail, I've explained it three times already, but you seem to be hellbent on highlighting to everyone how little you understand about this.Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
Apart from whatever kinetic energy you use for coasting, the ICE loses all its kinetic energy to waste heat under friction braking.
For an ICE, 100% of the entire car's kinetic energy is lost.
For an EV, only around 25% of the kinetic energy of the entire car is lost.
100% of 1500 kg is 3 times larger than 25% of 2000 kg.
Once you factor in where the kinetic energy came from and how efficiently it was converted from stored energy to kinetic energy, the ICE is left woefully behind in the efficiency stakes.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I agree, I give up with you. Trying to kid people that moving 70 pounds takes less energy than it takes to move1200 pound is a complete nonsense. Only 43% of UK electricity is generated using renewables. You need to look at the Governments fuel factor tables.
Genuine question do you have any gcse/a level stem qualifications?SpeckledJim said:
Indeed, I bet that's going to be the answer. Rather than hydrogen, anyway.
What does a tractor unit already weigh though, and is adding 7.5 tons of battery a go-er? Surely it won't be practical to add the batteries to the trailer units, given how they outnumber the tractors.
The issue with tractors is the weight in the fields. Adverse conditions and not only will they get bogged down but you won't have any other machinery able to drag it out. What does a tractor unit already weigh though, and is adding 7.5 tons of battery a go-er? Surely it won't be practical to add the batteries to the trailer units, given how they outnumber the tractors.
The quickest way to decarbonise farming is to use the tractor for fewer jobs. Farming drones is a hugely interesting area for increasing crop yields and carrying out multiple light work that tractors currently get used for and of course they can be recharged for free on site and reduce labour hours due to being autonomous.
DonkeyApple said:
SpeckledJim said:
Indeed, I bet that's going to be the answer. Rather than hydrogen, anyway.
What does a tractor unit already weigh though, and is adding 7.5 tons of battery a go-er? Surely it won't be practical to add the batteries to the trailer units, given how they outnumber the tractors.
The issue with tractors is the weight in the fields. Adverse conditions and not only will they get bogged down but you won't have any other machinery able to drag it out. What does a tractor unit already weigh though, and is adding 7.5 tons of battery a go-er? Surely it won't be practical to add the batteries to the trailer units, given how they outnumber the tractors.
The quickest way to decarbonise farming is to use the tractor for fewer jobs. Farming drones is a hugely interesting area for increasing crop yields and carrying out multiple light work that tractors currently get used for and of course they can be recharged for free on site and reduce labour hours due to being autonomous.
DonkeyApple said:
But this Germanic centric desperation to revert to 1940s emergency engineering of manufacturing a synthetic alcohol in a foreign country and importing it to try and solve an issue with Russia is just laughable if people think it has anything at all to do with allowing them to keep driving an ICE. It has nothing at all to do with punters and their cars. And one only has to look at the dodgy old geezers trying to push the idea in the U.K. to see right through the farce even if someone has no natural understanding of the basic science involved that reveals the idiocy of what these people are saying and trying to con everyone over
Finally, a show and tell of the Porsche Efuel plant.Edited by DonkeyApple on Monday 20th March 07:37
You'll learn that there is no carbon capture from the air, they have to ship the CO2 in; the whole process is energy intensive and it's expensive, very very expensive. The presenter is a clown, but please look past that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUKN3m8wD2Q
500TORQUES said:
DonkeyApple said:
Haulage is primarily not a cause of pollution but a symptom of excess consumption which in itself can only occurs when enables by excess consumer lending.
DA does make some good points occasionally, but they appear to be lost under the weight of tin-foil-hatness!
(In this instance, I'd argue it's not excess consumer lending, but it's the unfettered globalism / lack of tariffs that has facilitated globalism, as if Europewide/worldwide transport is a consequence-free cost. Movement of car-parts across Europe, for example...seat trims in Slovakia, infotainment in Poland, wiring harness in Romania, engine in south Wales, assembly plant in Merseyside...you get the point.)
NMNeil said:
Finally, a show and tell of the Porsche Efuel plant.
You'll learn that there is no carbon capture from the air, they have to ship the CO2 in; the whole process is energy intensive and it's expensive, very very expensive. The presenter is a clown, but please look past that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUKN3m8wD2Q
$40 a gallon. Seems a much better option than using cheap renewable electricity. You'll learn that there is no carbon capture from the air, they have to ship the CO2 in; the whole process is energy intensive and it's expensive, very very expensive. The presenter is a clown, but please look past that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUKN3m8wD2Q
Fastlane said:
$40 a gallon. Seems a much better option than using cheap renewable electricity.
Looks like Germany and Italy have a fight on their hands.https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliamen...
It's just odd that they want an exemption for Efuels that are made from captured carbon, but no practical technology exists to capture the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
havoc said:
Seconded.
DA does make some good points occasionally, but they appear to be lost under the weight of tin-foil-hatness!
(In this instance, I'd argue it's not excess consumer lending, but it's the unfettered globalism / lack of tariffs that has facilitated globalism, as if Europewide/worldwide transport is a consequence-free cost. Movement of car-parts across Europe, for example...seat trims in Slovakia, infotainment in Poland, wiring harness in Romania, engine in south Wales, assembly plant in Merseyside...you get the point.)
People simply don't understand how every aspect of life is touched by the ability to have a flexible and cheap goods transport system.DA does make some good points occasionally, but they appear to be lost under the weight of tin-foil-hatness!
(In this instance, I'd argue it's not excess consumer lending, but it's the unfettered globalism / lack of tariffs that has facilitated globalism, as if Europewide/worldwide transport is a consequence-free cost. Movement of car-parts across Europe, for example...seat trims in Slovakia, infotainment in Poland, wiring harness in Romania, engine in south Wales, assembly plant in Merseyside...you get the point.)
Globalisation as we have known it since the end of WW2 is on it's way out now, the USA has given up on it as a concept and is onshoring rapidly and making sure China can't steal any more of its IP.
Mainland European industry is buggered now it doesn't have access to cheap energy, even the largest and most important chemical company in Germany is doing a rapid downscale domestically and doing a runner to the USA and temporarily China because it sees German industry is terminally holed below the water line.
We got away with it this year on the energy front for mainland Europe, but thats not sustainable without cheap Russian energy, next year you will see just how buggered German industry and its eastern block supply chain will become.
The next ten years will see China in the s
t as western tech leaves in droves and onshore as much as possible. The world has woken up to how untrustworthy China is, and how it's heading for a collapse under its current dictator, who is killing anyone with brains and listening to no one.If you want to future proof your last ICE vehicle, dont buy German, buy UK, USA, Japanese or South Korean, because German manufacturing is going to be in trouble.
NMNeil said:
Looks like Germany and Italy have a fight on their hands.
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliamen...
It's just odd that they want an exemption for Efuels that are made from captured carbon, but no practical technology exists to capture the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
The EU will do what the EU always does, talk cobblers for years then spend 3 days and nights thrashing out a compromise which destroys the intent of the policy, followed by lots of back slapping and champagne.https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliamen...
It's just odd that they want an exemption for Efuels that are made from captured carbon, but no practical technology exists to capture the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Meanwhile industry collapses as it wastes what little time and money it has left, leaving ROW with yet more competitive products.
Fastlane said:
NMNeil said:
Finally, a show and tell of the Porsche Efuel plant.
You'll learn that there is no carbon capture from the air, they have to ship the CO2 in; the whole process is energy intensive and it's expensive, very very expensive. The presenter is a clown, but please look past that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUKN3m8wD2Q
$40 a gallon. Seems a much better option than using cheap renewable electricity. You'll learn that there is no carbon capture from the air, they have to ship the CO2 in; the whole process is energy intensive and it's expensive, very very expensive. The presenter is a clown, but please look past that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUKN3m8wD2Q
It's renewable and sustainable, really it is.
And it ignores the elephant in the corner.
If direct air carbon capture worked then the best thing to do would be to use the machines to capture carbon and then use renewable energy sources to power vehicles.
500TORQUES said:
NMNeil said:
Looks like Germany and Italy have a fight on their hands.
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliamen...
It's just odd that they want an exemption for Efuels that are made from captured carbon, but no practical technology exists to capture the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
The EU will do what the EU always does, talk cobblers for years then spend 3 days and nights thrashing out a compromise which destroys the intent of the policy, followed by lots of back slapping and champagne.https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliamen...
It's just odd that they want an exemption for Efuels that are made from captured carbon, but no practical technology exists to capture the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Meanwhile industry collapses as it wastes what little time and money it has left, leaving ROW with yet more competitive products.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff