EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   Off-Topic Tech (https://ecomodder.com/forum/off-topic-tech.html)
-   -   The Slow Death of the Internal Combustion Engine (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/slow-death-internal-combustion-engine-37279.html)

Taylor95 02-18-2019 11:26 PM

The Slow Death of the Internal Combustion Engine
 
What I often see touted and inferred online by many journalists, politicians, and governments, is that the future is going to be fossil fuel free. Electric powered transportation would be used to move the masses. It will be a new green revolution, one that will succeed the oil and coal dominated revolution that started over a century ago. I see this in governments promising to ban gasoline and diesel by a certain year, by politicians who conjure lofty environmental goals and dub them as "The Green Deal", and by others who genuinely see the environment is worth protecting and believe that gas and oil are the evils we are waging a war against in this era.

Here's why I think that will never happen.

1. There must be diversity in our fuel sources.

While the percentage of gasoline cars will certainly decline with the rising popularity of EVs, it will never go away. I don't think it is possible for a population to produce enough electricity to support 100% of its vehicles to be electric powered. If each car traveled 1000 miles a month, that would amount to about 30-40% of what the average house consumes. Then add to that additional electricity that would be consumed by electric tractor trailers, farm equipment, and other commercial vehicles. That amounts to a substantial burden on our already strained electrical grid. It would take a complete overhaul of it to support such a system. Keeping gasoline around would not only ease the burden on the grid, but also limit our dependence on a single system.

2. Electricity cannot be stored efficiently.

It would require massive battery capacity to store electricity. What would happen in our all electric utopia if there was some sort of natural disaster? What if an area was cut off from power for an extended period of time? In today's world, fuel and supplies could be trucked in. Electricity cannot be trucked in. That would effectively limit the cleanup, rescue, and repairs that could be done. But wait... what if something could power a machine to generate electricity?

3. EVs are not powered by an ICE

I love working on cars. So do millions of other people in the US. The internal combustion engine is complex, and that makes it fun to work on. I think there will be a lot of resistance in the car community if gasoline was to be banned. The simplicity of electric motors would limit the amount of tinkering that others could do to it. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure I would love the instant torque an EV would provide. However, it is not an internal combustion engine.

4. The ICE is versatile

It has changed much in the 100+ years it has been around. Now we enjoy things such as forced induction and variable valve timing. This versatility has contributed to its survival, and will likely continue to do so.

5. Biofuel

I read that the US throws out enough plant waste to power about half of its vehicles if it were to be converted to biofuel. That is huge. It would be far more sustainable to use this waste to power vehicles than to whisk up electricity from solar or wind.

6. Lithium-ion batteries

I am very much a doubter when it comes to these batteries. They are bad for the environment, their cost is high, and they can catch on fire. Not to mention they can also explode. Gasoline also burns, however that is located towards the rear of the car, not underneath my feet.

oil pan 4 02-18-2019 11:53 PM

The "new green deal" sounds like the 4th grade special needs kids science project.
Eliminating fossil fuels might be possible if the base load were replaced by fissile fuel but the useful idiots calling for the end of fossil fuels are terrified of anything nuclear and have no frame of reference for the scale of how much energy the United States uses.

Punishingconsumers is not the answer.
Replacing coal with nuclear power is about the only thing that can make a meaningful different with out forcing energy poverty onto millions of people.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 02-19-2019 12:32 AM

The need for a diversity of fuel sources, and the neglect of biofuel feedstocks, are two reasons that make me agnostic about any prediction of an end of the ICE. Sure we could go fossil fuel-free, but not fuel-free at all. Well, even if we consider the last iteration of the ICE to be a microturbine (which by the way is more fuel-agnostic than most of the reciprocating engines) powering a "range extender" for an EV, turning it basically into a serial hybrid, it may be actually even more beneficial regarding the environmental impact, since it would allow the usage of certain raw materials as feedstock for biofuels instead of leaving them simply rot away releasing compounds which in the end may become more harmful.

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 07:54 AM

The plant waste could be used to replace good portion of synthetic fertilizer. Synthetic fertilizer uses huge amount of natural gas.

Taylor95 02-19-2019 10:44 AM

Nuclear may be a viable alternative. However, most people in my state (myself included) lean against it, as much of the nuclear waste produced in the US is stored in the great state of Nevada. But I admit that I have not done sufficient research on it. I would be more comfortable if they put it all somewhere farther away from the Pacific ring of fire.

Microturbines sound pretty intriguing. I have actually never heard of them before. Is it just a concept or have any been made?

Piotrsko 02-19-2019 11:46 AM

When you realize the majority of Nevada land is federal, and therefore "underutilized", the storage facilities for radioactive waste here make sense. Earthquakes? If you dont measure them they dont exist, or at least until the UNR SEISMO lab started building remote sensors. Dang the whole state is active. Oh well the stuff is too hazardous to move again.

The latest is secret shipments after a federal injunction was started.

Angel And The Wolf 02-19-2019 12:08 PM

A cheap method of splitting Hydrogen out of water would provide an alternative fuel for ICEs:
" Photobiological production of hydrogen involves using sunlight, a biological component, catalysts and an engineered system. Specific organisms, algae and bacteria, produce hydrogen as a byproduct of their metabolic processes. These organisms generally live in aqueous environments and therefore are extracting the hydrogen from water using their biological functions.

Currently, this technology is still in the research and development stage and the theoretical sunlight conversion efficiencies have been estimated up to 24%. Over 400 strains of primitive plants capable of producing hydrogen have been identified, with 25 impressively achieving carbon monoxide to hydrogen conversion efficiencies of 100%.

In one example, researchers have discovered that the alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, possesses an enzyme called hydrogenase that is capable of splitting water into its component parts of hydrogen and oxygen. The researchers have determined the mechanism for starting and stopping this process, which could lead to an almost limitless method for producing clean, renewable hydrogen.

The algae need sulfur to grow and photosynthesize. Scientists found that when they starved the algae of sulfur, in an oxygen-free environment, the algae reverted to a hydrogenase-utilizing mode. This mechanism of producing hydrogen from water has developed over millions of years of evolution for survival in oxygen-rich and oxygen-free environments. Once in this cycle, the algae released hydrogen, not oxygen. Further research is necessary to improve the efficiencies of the engineered plant systems, collection methods and the costs of hydrogen generation."
https://www.greenoptimistic.com/hydrogen-from-water/

Burning Hydrogen and air is not pollution free, as there is, in air, Nitrogen, but carbon emissions would be absent. If a cheap way of producing and storing Oxygen could also be found, a Hydrogen/Oxygen engine would only produce water.

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 12:11 PM

Literally the worst thing that can be done with spent nuclear fuel is leave it in temporary storage.
Recycle it, and bury the unusable wast isotopes very deep.
There is enough depleted uranium in Idaho sitting in caskets to power the United States for something like 700 years sitting in storage. Mostly left over from uranium enrichment during the cold war.
Unlimited carbon free energy.

Hydrogen is stupid. I'm perfectly fine getting around with an electric vehicle.
I have put almost 13,000 miles on my leaf since may of 2017 and electric vehicles shouldn't even work for me since I'm out in the country, there are 0 public charging stations, 0 quick chargers and I don't have charging at work.

Angel And The Wolf 02-19-2019 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 591478)
Hydrogen is stupid.

Hydrogen doesn't make sense if you can run your EV only from non-polluting produced electricity. Do you, or does your electricity come from hydrocarbon fueled (coal, diesel, natural gas, petroleum) generators?

Otherwise.....

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 12:53 PM

If you get a hydrogen powered car now or any time when natural gas is less that about $20 per million BTU all your hydrogenis going to come from natural gas.
My electricity comes mostly from coal and natural gas only about 20% of the electricity used in NM comes from wind.
But I really don't care. What I care about is the 7 cents a kwh base rate which makes my leaf cost less than 2 cents per mile to drive.
Why would I pay more for the same electricity?

My winter leaf economy is as low as 3.6 miles per kwh, when it's warmer I see closer to 4.5 miles per kwh.

A hydrogen car isn't going to come any where near 2 cents a mile even with cheap hydrogen made from cheap natural gas.

redpoint5 02-19-2019 12:59 PM

Lithium ion batteries are not bad for the environment, except for normal mining impacts to land. You can throw lithium ion batteries away as they are safer than alkaline batteries.

The case for the danger of lithium ion batteries compared to gasoline is weak. They are orders of magnitude safer than gasoline, mostly because it isn't a tank of liquid and because there's a lot less energy contained within.

Storing nuclear fuel is not a problem. People like to say it could be a problem, but so could a meteorite headed for earth. It's that level of probability with way lower risks. If Nevada shakes to pieces due to an earthquake that results in loss of containment of nuclear fuel, the radiation in the remote storage location is the least of anyone's problems.

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 02:48 PM

Not really.
In 2014 or 2015 a guy in california had a negligent discharg of a 9mm hand gun while diving a tesla. He put a 9mm bullet into the battery pack and the car burst into flames.
If a gasoline tank is penetrated in such a way about 99% of the time nothing happens besides the gasoline pouring out.
If a cell is damaged in such a way it's going to burn the car to the ground every time.

Nuclear fuels are very stable. Aside from very highly enriched uranium, which is only used in navy vessels, research reactors and Syrian atomic weapons.
But mixed oxide fuel (the recycled stuff), normal 3% enriched uranium for commercial power generation, plutonium for nuclear weapons, plutonium for nuclear powered space craft and depleted uranium are all very stable.

The most unstable stuff by far is spent nuclear fuel.

Angel And The Wolf 02-19-2019 02:59 PM

Hydrogen from natural gas produces CO2 and CO. Not an ecological solution. I was posting about a process in development that produces no green house gas:es.

From your viewpoint, I can see why you don't care how dirty your electricity is.

I, on the other hand am looking to the future of far cleaner ICE fuels.:)

redpoint5 02-19-2019 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 591502)
Not really.
In 2014 or 2015 a guy in california had a negligent discharg of a 9mm hand gun while diving a tesla. He put a 9mm bullet into the battery pack and the car burst into flames.
If a gasoline tank is penetrated in such a way about 99% of the time nothing happens besides the gasoline pouring out.
If a cell is damaged in such a way it's going to burn the car to the ground every time.

Anecdotes prove nothing other than some people are stupid. The largest cause of car fires isn't 9mm bullets; it's overheating or accidents that ignite spilled fuel or oil.

EVs travel more miles per fire than petrol vehicles, by orders of magnitude. Driving an EV may not be as safe as cooping up in a padded room, but it's safe when compared to ICE vehicles.

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 03:08 PM

It's going to take huge amounts of energy to compress hydrogen and move it around.
Depending on the pressures and assuming it will be moved around kind of the same way liquid fuels are then up to 25% of the energy of the fuel will be used to compress and transport it.

I burn coal to heat my house. Not going to worry about the power company burning it to make electricity.

Angel And The Wolf 02-19-2019 03:14 PM

As you have shown, you don't care about global warming. Some of us do.

Taylor95 02-19-2019 04:46 PM

Why we don't do something different with our nuclear waste is beyond me. I think there's a ban in place that prevents people from recycling it. Instead the government just secretly ships it to Nevada. A much better alternative is to pay another country to take it if we won't recycle it here.

If a gasoline car catches on fire, the fire will be contained in the engine bay or outside where fuel has spilled, and where the gas tank is located. Though gas burns hot and fast, I think my chances for survival are much better in that situation than the fire coming from directly underneath of me.

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 05:42 PM

Gas tanks and battery packs usually aren't damaged in most crashes. But if an EV pack sustains catastrophic penetrating damage a pack fire is pretty much guaranteed.

Nope. Obama very quietly restarted the US nuclear waste recycling program back around 2014 and started revitalizing the US nuclear weapons program pumping tens of millions of dollars into it.
One of the few intelligent things he did.

Angel And The Wolf 02-19-2019 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591521)
A much better alternative is to pay another country to take it if we won't recycle it here.

Iran will take it for free!

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel And The Wolf (Post 591511)
As you have shown, you don't care about global warming. Some of us do.

More than the average prius driver who says they care.

Angel And The Wolf 02-19-2019 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 591530)
More than the average prius driver who says they care.

Well, I don't burn coal, and I pay for the higher priced renew ably produced electricity from my electric provider, so, I guess I'm not the average Prius driver.
If you don't care if your provider generates electricity by loading up the air with coal burning byproducts, I don't see how you can claim to care more than me.

But, I guess driving your car at the lowest cost to you is your priority, and nothing else.

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 06:50 PM

You're not getting anything. You pay more for the same electricity as everyone else uses. But if thay makes you happy then go for it.

I burn high quality anthracite coal when I do burn coal. It burns cleaner than any wood I have ever burned. Most of my home heating comes from construction scraps and pallet wood that would have been sent to a land fill. My power bill is down nearly $200 a month compared to last year, all thanks to my wood stove and coal furnace. The wood stove and coal furnace will just about pay for them selves this year.
I save the coal for exceptionally cold nights.
But since you have never burned coal and don't know anything about it besides what you have been told to believe you wouldn't know.

Angel And The Wolf 02-19-2019 07:36 PM

OK, we are after different things. I withdraw.

redpoint5 02-19-2019 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591521)
If a gasoline car catches on fire, the fire will be contained in the engine bay or outside where fuel has spilled, and where the gas tank is located. Though gas burns hot and fast, I think my chances for survival are much better in that situation than the fire coming from directly underneath of me.

So are you implying that petrol cars are safer overall than EVs?

Fires are less frequent per mile in EVs than conventional vehicles.

As far as overall safety goes, that information doesn't seem to be easily obtainable.

I don't really believe those who say vehicle safety is #1 to them anyhow. 80% of Americans are at least overweight, and health issues related to weight/diet is the #1 threat to health besides aging itself. Then, limiting the number of miles driven and driving only during the safest times of day would be next on the list to keep you safe on the road. Somewhere near the bottom on the list of safety items is likelihood of burning to death in a vehicle crash.

Vman455 02-19-2019 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591521)
If a gasoline car catches on fire, the fire will be contained in the engine bay or outside where fuel has spilled, and where the gas tank is located. Though gas burns hot and fast, I think my chances for survival are much better in that situation than the fire coming from directly underneath of me.

You would think that, except the opposite may be true: when gasoline vehicles catch on fire, it happens more rapidly and unexpectedly than in an EV battery ("The biggest difference is the time it takes to ignite. Gasoline fires start almost immediately when gasoline comes in contact with a spark or flame, and spreads rapidly. Battery fires typically take some time to achieve the heat necessary to start the fire").

Here are some numbers. According to the National Fire Protection Association, there are approximately 175,000 ICE vehicle fires each year in the US. With 263 million vehicles on the road, that means on average 1:1,502 ICE vehicles catches fire each year. Since 2012, there have been 40 Tesla fires total, out of approximately 300,000 vehicles sold--that works out to an average 1:50,000 fires per year. This looks to me like a case of "familiarity breeds complacency."

What you should really be afraid of is your oven: more than 150,000 of those catch on fire every year in the US.

oil pan 4 02-19-2019 08:45 PM

Worry about fires?
Get a diesel.

Taylor95 02-20-2019 12:50 AM

Actually the percentage of overweight/obese adults is about 72% (sorry I'm a nutrition student). I'm sure some county in rural Mississippi has at least 80% though. But you're right; 6 of the top 10 causes of death have strong ties to nutrition. Accidental death is in the top ten though. When I talk about the risk of vehicle fires, I'm not concerned at all with the chance of that actually happening to me. The numbers are so small that it doesn't matter if it is 1 per 100,000 or 1 per 1,000,000. I think in terms of what the chances that I will make it out alive if that happened. So I reiterate--if a fire happened in a gasoline powered car, I think it would take awhile for the fire to get to where I'm sitting. In an electric vehicle, I would be toast. I would rather live through three "regular" car fires than become a statistic for deaths in an EV fire.

One problem that renewable "green" sources of energy must overcome is definitely the costs of operating using such sources. If it continues to command a substantially higher price than fossil fuels, no one would switch over. If governments mandated the switch, that would definitely stifle the economy and drive up prices of things. Until green energy can compete with fossil fuels on price, it will be nothing more than novelty. I see sources offering clean energy for "a few cents more" than conventional, per kwh. When the average house uses almost 1000 kwh, that is a substantial monthly difference.

Taylor95 02-20-2019 12:56 AM

That article pretty much said that gasoline cars are probably less safe than EV fires.

While battery fires take longer to catch fire, the article notes the drawback of that. It could occur after running something over (after the driver thinks everything is fine), or in a garage.

Vman455 02-20-2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591551)
When I talk about the risk of vehicle fires, I'm not concerned at all with the chance of that actually happening to me. The numbers are so small that it doesn't matter if it is 1 per 100,000 or 1 per 1,000,000. I think in terms of what the chances that I will make it out alive if that happened.

This position makes no sense to me. You're using the risk of a catastrophic event which has a very low probability of happening to you as a driver in a hypothetical purchasing decision? Why not focus on things that have a higher probability of happening? There's an extremely small chance that if I buy a house somewhere, a meteor will fall on that exact location and destroy it--but I won't factor that into my decision to buy a certain house or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591551)
So I reiterate--if a fire happened in a gasoline powered car, I think it would take awhile for the fire to get to where I'm sitting. In an electric vehicle, I would be toast.

You've averred this twice now, with no evidence to suggest it has any truth to it.

Taylor95 02-20-2019 11:37 AM

Just look at where the batteries are stored in a Tesla.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99VxHwTGKw0

Typical car fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdDi1haA71Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVN8AqI8eHY
You can see in these examples that the fire is contained in the engine bay. The cab won't spontaneously catch fire; it has to spread from where the source of the fire is.

EV fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdDi1haA71Q
This video clearly shows the batteries exploding when on fire.

Plus they can be harder to put out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gnK9WtZfyU

An interesting read:
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/...ns_with_li_ion

Taylor95 02-20-2019 11:38 AM

Some how the order of my videos got switched. You get the point though.

redpoint5 02-20-2019 01:09 PM

I get the point, but your point is false.

ICE fires are no joke. I'd much rather crash in an EV than an ICE vehicle. That said, it probably doesn't matter much where the fire begins, because once the rest of the vehicle catches fire, it will burn to the frame.

I have witnessed 2 bad ICE fires. In the first, a Durango caught fire and within 2 min not even the back seats were clear of the flames. I know, because I tried to remove the audio amp before the flames could reach it, and was unable to.

The other fire consumed the vehicle within seconds and the driver was burned (I don't know if they died on impact, or were burned alive). The firemen kinda just let it burn a little before putting it out after having looked into the cabin and determining there was nobody getting out.

Anecdotes are dumb though, but not as dumb as arguing the opposite of statistical evidence.

Taylor95 02-20-2019 02:09 PM

The current statistical evidence is like comparing apples to oranges. The average age of cars on the road is 10-11 years. The majority of tesla vehicles have been built in the last few years. ICE fires are not only caused by accidents, but by other things such as short circuits and fuel leaks. These things are more common in older vehicles. When the average age of EV is comparable to ICE powered cars, then we can know that fires aren't less common in EVs just because they are newer.

Taylor95 02-20-2019 02:13 PM

There are other things too. EVs are primarily owned by people who have more money. These people are also more likely to keep up on maintenance and other things than the average ICE owner, because they have money and paid more for their car.

This may be different for people who own a Leaf, but you get the point. No one who lives an apartment can own an EV anyway.

I think there are too many variables to compare the statistics like that.

redpoint5 02-20-2019 02:55 PM

The model S has a titanium shield to prevent penetration from below:

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.ne...kNDhi891zQ.gif

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.ne...1d-CRPZcFg.gif

oil pan 4 02-20-2019 08:59 PM

If they are willing to spend money on titanium that retails for around $100 per pound there must be something to it.

Damage to the battery pack and fuel tank is unusual because the whole design is based around protecting the fuel tank with the structure of the vehicle and it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591602)
There are other things too. EVs are primarily owned by people who have more money. These people are also more likely to keep up on maintenance and other things than the average ICE owner, because they have money and paid more for their car.

This may be different for people who own a Leaf, but you get the point. No one who lives an apartment can own an EV anyway.

I think there are too many variables to compare the statistics like that.

This is true.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 02-20-2019 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591602)
There are other things too. EVs are primarily owned by people who have more money. These people are also more likely to keep up on maintenance and other things than the average ICE owner, because they have money and paid more for their car.

Not only the maintenance costs are more affordable to them, but also the EVs are often perceived as less maintenance-intensive than an ICE-powered car. Well, maybe such perceived lack of complexity is likely to be troublesome once EVs eventually become mainstream or hybrids effectively take over even the so-called emerging markets.


Quote:

No one who lives an apartment can own an EV anyway.
The lack of a garage in the building where I live is what makes me more willing to get a motorcycle, for example.


Quote:

I think there are too many variables to compare the statistics like that.
Sure the one-size-fits-all approach is prone to failure. While someone like me would rely on a motor vehicle mostly for road trips through places where a battery charging spot might be harder to find, and then at least some ICE-powered "range extender" would be highly desirable, others could live with a full-EV as they don't even get too far away from home.

Taylor95 02-21-2019 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5 (Post 591607)

That's a very nice feature. Is that the only model that comes with the shield?
Quote:

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr (Post 591634)
Not only the maintenance costs are more affordable to them, but also the EVs are often perceived as less maintenance-intensive than an ICE-powered car. Well, maybe such perceived lack of complexity is likely to be troublesome once EVs eventually become mainstream or hybrids effectively take over even the so-called emerging markets.




The lack of a garage in the building where I live is what makes me more willing to get a motorcycle, for example.




Sure the one-size-fits-all approach is prone to failure. While someone like me would rely on a motor vehicle mostly for road trips through places where a battery charging spot might be harder to find, and then at least some ICE-powered "range extender" would be highly desirable, others could live with a full-EV as they don't even get too far away from home.

I'm sure in the distant future when a lot of people own EVs the percentage of vehicle fires will be much closer together. It's quite sad when people neglect their vehicles--I wonder how long an EV would last with those owners. You know it will be marketed as requiring less maintenance than a traditional vehicle.

redpoint5 02-21-2019 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor95 (Post 591699)
That's a very nice feature. Is that the only model that comes with the shield?


I'm sure in the distant future when a lot of people own EVs the percentage of vehicle fires will be much closer together. It's quite sad when people neglect their vehicles--I wonder how long an EV would last with those owners. You know it will be marketed as requiring less maintenance than a traditional vehicle.

As far as I know, the Model S is the only model. It was in response to a Tesla fire that was determined to be caused by something penetrating the undercarriage of the car. Perhaps they built a tougher undertray in the proceeding models.

What is there to neglect maintenance wise with an EV? Wiper fluid? Wipers? Tires?

You seem to be looking for ways to cast EVs in a negative light; ways which don't make any sense. There's plenty of reasons to not want an EV, such as the higher cost, the limited range, the slow charging... there's no need to create a false perception that they are also high maintenance or particularly prone to fire.

Taylor95 02-21-2019 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5 (Post 591700)
As far as I know, the Model S is the only model. It was in response to a Tesla fire that was determined to be caused by something penetrating the undercarriage of the car. Perhaps they built a tougher undertray in the proceeding models.

What is there to neglect maintenance wise with an EV? Wiper fluid? Wipers? Tires?

You seem to be looking for ways to cast EVs in a negative light; ways which don't make any sense. There's plenty of reasons to not want an EV, such as the higher cost, the limited range, the slow charging... there's no need to create a false perception that they are also high maintenance or particularly prone to fire.

Is saying that there will be required maintenance casting EVs in a negative light? I don't understand your thinking. And I never said that they are more prone to fire.

There are plenty of things that will need maintaining in an electric car. Things like brakes, wheel bearings, suspension, steering, and battery cables. As EVs are developed to have more range they will likely be liquid cooled. I'm sure some already have this. Also shocks go bad over time, and there are also lubricants in the drivetrain. Over time parts in the motor will likely require replacing as well.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com