Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Off-Topic Tech
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-04-2019, 05:45 PM   #171 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Vman455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Urbana, IL
Posts: 1,939

Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two
Team Toyota
SUV
90 day: 51.62 mpg (US)

Tycho the Truck - '91 Toyota Pickup DLX 4WD
90 day: 22.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 199
Thanked 1,804 Times in 941 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
Reading through the Reddit, the latest comments said Tesla rates the SR and SR+ as the same weight, with the medium range heavier, and the long range heavier still.
Tesla's website lists:

Standard Range: 3627 lbs
Standard Plus: 3627 lbs
Mid Range: 3686 lbs
Long Range: 4072 lbs

If the Mid Range does have a physically different battery than the Standard Range, it isn't much bigger. Part of that weight difference is probably in the sound system too, which jumps from "basic audio" and "upgraded audio - immersive sound" (I'm betting these are 6- and 8-speaker systems) to "Premium audio – 14 speakers, 1 subwoofer, 2 amps and immersive sound" in the Mid Range.

But then, they also list the same weight for Long Range RWD and AWD, so who knows.

__________________
UIUC Aerospace Engineering
www.amateuraerodynamics.com
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-04-2019, 05:46 PM   #172 (permalink)
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,737

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - CBR600 - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - Dodge/Cummins - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)

Model Y - '24 Tesla Y LR AWD

Pacifica Hybrid - '21 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
90 day: 85.85 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,316
Thanked 4,467 Times in 3,432 Posts
It has been mentioned the audio upgrade might be software differentiated rather than hardware. In which case, they would weight the same.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2019, 06:00 PM   #173 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,501
Thanks: 8,061
Thanked 8,864 Times in 7,317 Posts
Quote:
Depreciation is the #1 cost for most any [new] car.
My Superbeetle has appreciated $3150 since I bought it according to NADA mid-book.
__________________
.
.
Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster

____________________
.
.
Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar --You can't say that is a coincidence.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2019, 06:07 PM   #174 (permalink)
Master EcoWalker
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,999

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 53.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,714
Thanked 2,246 Times in 1,455 Posts
59 lbs is what a battery upgrade may weigh. Or 6-8 extra high end audio speakers.
Or cast iron rear bench seat heaters
__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.2 Gmeter or 0.13 Mmile.


For confirmation go to people just like you.
For education go to people unlike yourself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2019, 01:02 AM   #175 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 455

Jeep - '97 Jeep Cherokee Sport
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)

Blueberry - '07 Toyota Camry SE
Thanks: 180
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
1st I think we also need to recognize some of the choices being made.

BEV fires like those seen in some Tesla video's are a result of deliberate choices .. not necessarily a requirement of having a BEV.

Rich on rich rebuild , his fire (linked to above) was not about the Tesla battery system .. Rich was extremely negligent .. he disabled the Tesla safety systems .. he had no BMS .. no balancing .. no thermal regulation .. the charger didn't turn off when the battery was fully charged .. then instead of leaving it alone or using ABC dry/foam fire extinguishers they started sprayed the burning Li batteries with water .. any rookie fire fighter knows you don't spray water on a live electrical fire , but the rich video did just that , causing more electrical short-circuits on other cells .. any rookie fire fighter knows you don't spray water on a burning puddle/pool of floating flammable liquid .. like a large tank of gasoline .. the floating flammable liquid will just float on the water surface and spreads the fire .. but that's what they did in the rich fire video .. the venting liquid flammable electrolyte spread by the water , the already over heated and fully charged battery short circuited by the water .. it was almost like they deliberately went out of their way to cause the fire , and make it worse .. the enormous number of video camera angles they had setup in advance , also make it further suspect .. for people who supposedly knew better they seemed to go out of their way to deliberately do many things wrong .. all while having lots of cameras in place to catch the whole thing on video.

For instance (one such example) the Toshiba SCiB LTO battery does not have a thermal run away condition .. Even if you puncture short-circuit it with nail .. it doesn't burst into flames like some of the other battery chemistry choices currently being used in BEVs .. sure it isn't a super conductor so there are is IR heating from the discharge .. but no fire from events that would cause a Tesla battery to burst into flames .. .. It also lasts about 3-4x more cycles / years than the other battery chemistry choices currently be used in BEVs .. .. but .. this choice is currently deliberate .. It is currently more expensive $/wh , and lower energy density wh/kg .. So the same size and weight Tesla Pack that got ~300miles of range new with a ~8year ~80% of marketed Capacity warranty .. would for a little more money only get ~150 miles using that Toshiba LTO , and be like ~24 years to ~80% of marketed capacity , and the added fire safety thing too .. the market value (consumer choice preference) for 24yrs or for the increased fire safety is too small to counter the market value of ~300 miles range for less out of pocket $ .. sure I drive a 19 year old car , but most people don't.

The same potential to 'swap' to a safer energy carrier , is not possible for gasoline or diesel to a 'non-flamible' safer energy carrier fuel .. gasoline and diesel fuels have to be the high energy flammable dangerous products they are in order for the ICE to work.

---

As to your question:

NTSHA already studied it .. back when the 1st gen Volt caught fire after it was in one of their crash tests.

When an accident happens ICE or BEV .. at that time .. the BEV is not any more likely to have a fire than a ICE .. nor is there any greater chance of injury from a fire when it happens.

Given the reports of improvements to BEV safety in the years after that .. but no such reports of any fire safety improvements to ICE vehicles .. it stands to reason it is at worst , still no more dangerous or likely BEV or ICE .. and .. at best , less likely/dangerous in BEV than ICE.

Thus we do reasonably know .. it's no greater risk to happen (might be less) .. and we know we can make the energy carrier (batteries) more safe in the BEV (if we want to) .. but we can't make the ICE energy carrier more safe (even if we wanted to) , the ICE depends on it being the high energy flammable product it is .. and the BEV is very likely to bring with it far less energy to do any work (like burn or melt things) .. the 1st Gen Leaf (fully charged) had what , less than 1 gallon worth of ICE fuel energy.

Of course .. as was already posted .. we will have to wait many more years to see how things shake out for aging BEVs vs aging ICE .. and as the % of BEVs on the road increases .. but .. the old BEV reduces it's kwh of fammable potential over time .. has even less energy kwh than the new BEV .. soo , it seems to me to be pretty unlikely that trend/tide will flip directions.

---

To the thread topic .. I agree with the previously posted position .. I expect it will be a slow transition .. 50-100 years .. and even then .. like horses and wagons .. there will be hold outs still using ICEs long after the vast majority of society no longer does.

Mobile fossil fuel use will not be as efficient as a stationary facility could be.

But even the stationary facilities are starting to buckle to RE.

RE has been getting cheaper $/wh over time .. and in many places it is already cheaper than it's fossil fuel counter part .. and that trend continues.

Sure there is RE ICE fuel .. but it just has not been keeping pace with the efficiency gains nor cost reductions of other RE options like Solar/Wind.

That RE side of the ICE to BEV equation will also take a long time .. it's a big job .. I suspect 50-100 years .. but the numbers are already there today in allot of places , and the trend to continue to improve the numbers only continues to push the others further and further.
I'm confused as to what exactly you are saying. Are you saying that they are comparable other than the higher energy content of crude oil derived fuels?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2019, 08:31 PM   #176 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
Are you saying that they are comparable other than the higher energy content of crude oil derived fuels?
No , I made no such claim.

Sense you're asking about me .. I would also say , I don't think 'comparable' , is a useful term in the context of this discussion .. especially applied as it was in that sentence .. far too vague/general/open-ended/etc .. me personally me , I would prefer to be more specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
I'm confused as to what exactly you are saying.
In the post of mine you referenced I wrote about several things.
I will try to provide additional explanations bellow of each to help clarify .. mostly chronologically:

Please , let me know if any further clarification on any specific part is needed.

---

#1> It is important to recognize the relevance/consequences of choices that are being made in certain examples referenced.

If person 1 chooses battery 1 (that is not as fire safe as battery 2) to use in BEV 1 .. that choice matters .. a different choice , such as to the more fire safe battery 2 , would have changed how fire safe BEV 1 is.

Just because person 1 made that choice , does not mean all other possible battery choices would produce the same results.

Choosing to use a non-matched battery pack is not the same as choosing to use a matched battery pack.

Choosing to use a non-balanced battery pack is not the same as choosing to use a balanced battery pack.

Choosing to not use thermal regulation of the battery pack is not the same as choosing to use thermal regulation of the battery pack.

etc .. etc.

If someone is trying to make a very broad/general/generic claim .. BEVs (ALL) .. and .. ICEs (ALL) .. that effectively blunts the bell curve .. due to the vast number of different options and the effect of those options.

------

#2> It is not reasonable (even misleading) to use the terminology 'typical' when referencing the Rich Rebuilds Fire.

As per #1 .. The rich example , had many choices made that vastly changed the risks .. risk of an event happening .. and the risk of the severity of that event (if it happened) .. their numerous far from the mean choices .. effectively moved this example into such a high sigma away from the mean , so as to no longer be reasonable to refer to is as 'typical'.

-----

#3> Not all battery types pose equal risk .. risk of an event happening .. or if/when an event happens, how sever it is likely to be.

I gave one such example on the battery level that can make a statistically significant effect of such risks .. I also gave some basic highlights as to the pros and cons of such a choice , why in some instances a person might choose option1 is 'good enough' , instead of the sacrifices needed for an alternative option2.

-----

#4> The two classes do not have equal availability to them of choices for improved fire safety.

The BEV has options the ICE does not.

The ICE have options the BEV does not.

I also gave an example .. while the BEV class does have the option available to it to choose to use battery types that can vastly reduce the risks , and the severity ... the ICE class does not have that option available , due to the science of how an ICE works, it is required to use energy dense fuels that are flammable / explosive / etc.

I personally suspect that in terms of safety .. and even specifically about fire safety .. the breadth of options available to BEVs , gives them a potential to exceed the options available to ICEs.

------

#5> I pointed out to you that there was a context in which the NTHSA already answered the question you asked about the risk of fire in BEV or ICE.

------

#6> I pointed out that sense that time (point #5 above) .. there has been media coverage of significant / noteworthy safety improvements (and specifically fire safety) , that have been implemented on various BEVs.

-----

#7> I pointed out that over the same time period (#6 above) .. I am not aware of any similar reports nor adds of the available ICE's having implemented any improvements to their fire safety systems.

-----

#8> I pointed out that given #5 , #6, #7 .. it is reasonable to assume .. at a minimum #5 is likely to still apply today .. and .. it is also reasonable to think that things are possibly even better for the BEV today.

-----

#9> I pointed out the significance of energy content .. The ICE has a much higher likelihood of bringing with it a much larger amount of energy .. because of how energy dense it's fuel is , and because of how low efficiency ICEs are , it is very common to carry significant quantities of that fuel/energy-carrier.

Any such ICE that brings more kwh of energy , can always do more work .. how much can you burn to ashes , how hot can you make something , how much metal can you melt , etc .. any type of work requires energy to do it.

-----

#10> I agree with previous post about comparing horses still in use today .. the ICE is not likely to go to true zero , just like the horse still hasn't .. but it will move more and more to the rarity/exception/fringe etc.

-----

#11> I suspect #10 above .. is likely to be a slow process in the 50-100 year range.

-----

#12> Part of my reason to suspect #11 as an ovrall trend direction .. is the net total life time costs.

RE (solar/wind) are already starting to beat out (increasingly more commonly) the stationary combustion engines .. such stationary combustion engines have inherent advantages , which can be more tweaked for better efficiencies and such than mobile application can .. and yet , even those stationary applications are staring to buckle to the increasing financial pressures of RE systems.

-----

#13> Bio-Fuels are already significantly behind (with no sign of catching up) the development and implementation curves ... compared to Solar/Wind/etc , and BEVs.

Soo , while in principle you can run your ICE on solar energy from plants/ algae , etc .. , similar to a solar fueled BEV .. the current situation has that bio-option way behind the likes of solar/wind.
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - LiFePO4 PHEV - Solar
2020 Inmotion V11 PEV ~30miles/kwh
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 12:09 AM   #177 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,501
Thanks: 8,061
Thanked 8,864 Times in 7,317 Posts
Quote:
Joe Sherlock, The Car Blog, posted this from the The Detroit News:

a list of the 10 least popular cars in America.
the Fiat 124 Spider (461-day supply in inventory},
the Dodge Viper, which was discontinued in 2017 still has a 425-day supply remaining,
the Dodge Dart, last produced in 2016 has a 358-day supply,
Fiat 500L MPV/wagon (329-day supply),
Chevrolet Corvette (232-day supply - Chevrolet dealers are currently sitting on around 9,000 unsold Corvettes nationwide),
Jeep Patriot (discontinued in 2016: 217-day supply),
the Acura RLX flagship sedan (210-day supply),
the tiny, 143-inch long Chevrolet Spark (208-day supply),
the Chinese-made Buick Envision (201-day supply),
the Buick Regal - available in sedan or station wagon form (182-day supply)
and the Fiat 500X crossover (180-day supply).
Just A Car Guy: There are a lot of unwanted new cars on the lots... and they aren't ever going to drop prices farther than they arlready are
__________________
.
.
Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster

____________________
.
.
Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar --You can't say that is a coincidence.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 12:13 AM   #178 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 455

Jeep - '97 Jeep Cherokee Sport
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)

Blueberry - '07 Toyota Camry SE
Thanks: 180
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
No , I made no such claim.

In the post of mine you referenced I wrote about several things.
I will try to provide additional explanations bellow of each to help clarify .. mostly chronologically:
.
Since you gave me a lengthy reply, I owe you the courtesy of replying to all of your points.

1. That is a good point. I did not consider that there are different kinds of batteries, and that would affect the safety and reliability of the EV. As I do more reading, there are many factors to keep in mind. There is battery management technology, as well as cooling systems to consider. I am sure that people with malicious intent could also hack into the computer and cause a fire. It remains to be seen how all of these things affect the car's safety and reliability over time.

2. Well then what would be your example of typical? I was basically trying to find an example of what a burning battery looks like.

3. I addressed this in the first section.

4. I'm sure EVs have options to reduce fire risk, such as the titanium plate that the Tesla model S uses.

ICE cars do have measures to prevent fires. In a certain version of the Grand Cherokee, the rear was designed in such a way that there is a high fire risk in the event of a vehicle ramming the back. Chrysler recalled these vehicles and installed a hitch to prevent that from happening.

An EV will catch fire just like an ICE car in a car crash. One of the big causes of fires in ICEs is lack of maintenance. It remains to be seen how EVs will withstand owners overheating the batteries and using bad charging habits.

5-6. EVs have also gotten notable attention on fires too.

7. I gave you an example of this.

8. Hopefully they are better. Many manufacturers are looking towards EVs.

9. ICEs do carry more energy. However I dislike the idea of the majority of battery packs being directly underneath the passenger cabin, as opposed to a gas tank usually underneath the trunk.

10-11. I think the rise of EVs will represent a logarithmic graph rather than a linear or exponential one. I think ICEs will be relevant still in 100 years in some form or another.

12. That would be good if those renewables took over. However, I believe that business owners would be very reluctant to embrace the new technology. It will likely be outside of most budgets, especially for small businesses.

13. It would only take one breakthrough for biofuel to catch on.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 08:49 PM   #179 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
Since you gave me a lengthy reply, I owe you the courtesy of replying to all of your points.

Strap in


Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
2. Well then what would be your example of typical? I was basically trying to find an example of what a burning battery looks like.
From my own PoV .. to qualify as 'typical' .. it would have to be within no more than 1 sigma from the mean .. any sigma higher than that is too much of the fringe to seem reasonable to justify the use of the term 'typical'.

Having difficulty in such a search is itself evidence .. that having been said .. there are numerous videos and such on the internet of car fires .. ICE or BEV.

However , as one looks at what is 'typical' today .. Point #1 retains it's significance about alternatives , even if they are not 'typical' today.

Personally .. sense you asked for my opinion .. if you are looking for a single car fire to be 'typical' so that you can then broadly apply that individual fire across the entire diverse class of BEVs .. I'd personally say that logic is fundamentally flawed .. that would be a misuse of what 'typical' is.

At best talking about 'typical' only tells you about 'typical' .. typical , by the very nature of what typical is , excludes those parts of the class which are not typical .. both those better and those worse.

You could look at the distribution %s of various BEVs today and use those to mathematically find a 'typical' .. weather it is a single specific vehicle .. or if that typical (due to the nature of such math) ends up being a mix of various different BEVs .. like the typical human is not necessarily a match to a specific individual real person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
An EV will catch fire just like an ICE car in a car crash.
Too overly generalized to be anything but incorrect.

Although you haven't yet .. Even if you did yet show this to be true for a specific BEV vs a specific ICE .. that would not justify this claim about both entire classes .. Even if you did manage to show it to be the case for every specific BEV on the road today vs every ICE on the road today .. that still would not account for the issue of #1 .. the choices made and what options they have that they could have chosen differently.

Perhaps it will help .. if you accept that being a battery does not require that thing to also be flammable at all .. the ICE has no choice .. it must use a flammable / explosive fuel/energy-carrier .. the BEV does not share this fire risk requirement.

Even if a battery is chosen that is still flammable .. there are also battery choices that are less flammable than gasoline is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
One of the big causes of fires in ICEs is lack of maintenance. It remains to be seen how EVs will withstand owners overheating the batteries and using bad charging habits.
Time will tell .. but so far everything I've seen puts BEVs further ahead of the ICEs in this regaurd .. they have more sensors throughout the system and keep better track of each part of the system.

For example (there are others) .. Very few ICEs have a temperature sensor inside the gas tank .. but .. BEVs it is a standard feature to have numerous temperature sensors inside the battery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
#5> I pointed out to you that there was a context in which the NTHSA already answered the question you asked about the risk of fire in BEV or ICE.

#6> I pointed out that sense that time (point #5 above) .. there has been media coverage of significant / noteworthy safety improvements (and specifically fire safety) , that have been implemented on various BEVs.
5-6. EVs have also gotten notable attention on fires too.
I don't see the significance of someone bringing attention to a specific individual fire.

For example:
No amount of someone choosing to pay attention to one specific BEV fire, changes the NTSHA study or their findings in any way.

No amount of someone choosing to pay attention to one specific BEV fire, changes the fire safety improvements .. improvements that effected numerous vehicles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
7. I gave you an example of this.
I am not aware of such an example being given.

I read you give an ICE example of the opposite .. one where the ICE OEM made choices , that made an ICE that was an even greater than normal ICE fire risk and danger .. then later when the OEM looses a lawsuit .. the NTSHA orders (they had not choice) to recall and fix the issue .. Then the OEM goes just far enough in the fix to make it comply with NTSHA and be more normal ICE risk of fire levels.

At best that example is a case of .. .1st .. 1 step backward (making things worse) .. then (only after they are forced to) 1 step forward .. if it hadn't been for the need to force them to fix it .. it might have just been -1+1=0 no net change overall .. but .. they did have to force them .. and they arguably did the bare minimum fix .. ie . overall it is more of an example of the opposite.

Compared to what we know of the BEV OEMs .. Even when a fire did happen .. and even though no one was finding them to have made a faulty or dangerous vehicle .. and no one was forcing them to take measures to improve it .. they voluntarily went out of their way to improve it.

Add Pintos .. etc .. the ICE industry as a track record that .. If anything the behavior of the two .. make the BEV look better than the ICE.

To qualify to be such an example as described in #7 .. the ICE example you give has to be .. fire safety progress .. I am not yet aware of such an example for ICEs in recent years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
9. ICEs do carry more energy. However I dislike the idea of the majority of battery packs being directly underneath the passenger cabin, as opposed to a gas tank usually underneath the trunk.
You are welcome to your personal preference.

However .. point #5 stands .. unless you happen to personally be more qualified than the NTSHA to make such determinations .. well .. you'll need more than your personal preference to be convincing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
10-11. I think the rise of EVs will represent a logarithmic graph rather than a linear or exponential one. I think ICEs will be relevant still in 100 years in some form or another.
possible .. however .. there are also compounding positive feedback mechanisms .. economies of scale work in both directions.

As the % of ICEs continues to slowly drop .. that means they loose more and more of the economies of scale leverages .. this will make them more expensive to make , to repair, to fuel , etc .. and as they slip further it only further encourages people to switch.

I personally expect a more compound curve .. for the next several decades we are in the positive feedback period .. every 1% more market share shifts to BEVs that means 1% market share shifts away from ICEs.

On the BEV side this means larger economies of scale .. thus cheaper / easier to make .. cheaper /easier to repair / service .. cheaper / easier to operate .. etc.

While on the ICE side the exact opposite happens .. as ICEs loose the current economies of scale benefits they enjoy today .. that means .. they become even more expensive/difficult to make .. even more expensive/difficult to service/repair .. eve more expensive/difficult to operate .. etc.

Soo at first it will be a slow , but increasing rate .. thus .. 5 year by 5 year type periods will initially look more like a near exponential shift.

Right now the magnitudes of changes are still small .. this first increasing slope period will take a long time.

Then eventually after a long period .. their will begin to become diminishing returns .. on both sides .. further loss of ICE % market share have smaller impacts .. and further gains of BEV % market share also have smaller impacts.

Thus eventually in toward the end .. I agree it will probably go more logarithmic .. very similar to the transition away from horses did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
12. That would be good if those renewables took over. However, I believe that business owners would be very reluctant to embrace the new technology. It will likely be outside of most budgets, especially for small businesses.
It's the opposite effect.

Ultimately those businesses who invest in RE .. lower their operating costs .. increase their yearly profits .. and make themselves more competitive .. etc.

Those Businesses that don't do so .. they just in the long run end up spending more money on utilities , make themselves less competitive , reduce their profits , etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor95 View Post
13. It would only take one breakthrough for biofuel to catch on.
Sorry .. but no.

Without 'magic' .. the current science limitations mean .. Bio-RE will always be less energy efficient , less land efficient , slower , more infrastructure dependents , etc , etc.

Just as an example of one of those:
The very best most efficient photo synthesis known is only about ~8% .. compared to the very best Photovoltaic over 40% .. and co-generation photovoltaic and solar thermal combined systems have been able to get around ~80% .. then it only gets worse .. the RE-Bio has less efficient steps to then apply that harvested solar energy to get desired work out of it .. like move a car .. heat a house .. etc.

At the current state .. it would actually take at least several dozens of major improvements .. or hundreds of small ones .. and even if that were to happen tomorrow .. that's just in the lab .. they are still decades behind in deployment of those .. and that is just to get them up to where other RE like Solar/Wind are already at today .. and while Bio-Re is trying to play catch-up it isn't like the Solar/wind is just waiting for them .. they keep moving too.

Maybe not impossible .. but .. outside of the two applications of our food and the air we breath .. Re-Bio is a dead end .. now for those two .. it would say it is likely to stay 'on top' for at least a few centuries yet.
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - LiFePO4 PHEV - Solar
2020 Inmotion V11 PEV ~30miles/kwh
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 09:39 PM   #180 (permalink)
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,265

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,568 Times in 2,832 Posts
Battery isolation looks a lot more absolute than fuel tank isolation.
Main problem is a good poke to the battery and you are just about guaranteed a fire. The good news is that usually doesn't happen.

__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com