I really need to hook my Wacom back up and get back to drawing. All these ideas that need hammering out rattling around and falling into neuronal sinkholes...
So why don't you? They were quite good, and you've done none lately.
Are EVs going to affect our oil consumption or is automotive fuel minor compared to industry need for oil?
1) 12 hours on LTE equates to 12 hours at highway speeds? That's 12 × 65 = 780 miles. That would be groundbreaking.
2) Would Mophie be a protective body panel with additionally battery life? Would those external charges that use your Lightning cable be a small trailer you tow behind your car?
This is from 2009 and US only:
Apart from that you have to consider that electric energy doesn't come for free. And only a few percent are currently created using wind, solar etc
As the first law thermodynamics said some time ago: nothing is for free
[QUOTE]The fact that Faraday has already teased a car may count against an Apple connection, but the kinds of hires the company has picked up are consistent with those attributed to Apple's electric car project. Apple has expressed a particular interest in BMW's i-series vehicles.[/QUOTE]
Anyone willing to set up a business in this space will do similar things, that doesn't proof anything. Now, Jia Yuetings story sounds a lot more plausible, because a link is actually found.
Here's a breakdown of the energy sources for electrify for 2014 in the US:
Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%
So don't get fooled into thinking that just because you drove an electric vehicle you're not polluting the environment.
Not so much, an electric car is 4 to 5 times as efficient as a non electric one.
When it's energy comes from non renewable sources it's roughly twice as efficient, but the added benefit is that it doesn't pollute all over the place and centralized pollution can be captured far more efficiently.
By the way CO2 isn't pollution (of course), but NO, NO2 and all kinds of sooth partials (from diesel engines) and other small particles that cause asthma and cancer, are the main pollutants.
Oh, hey, I hadn’t thought about that. Apple’s king when it comes to micro-punctures in metal that allow for hiding lights...
My idea for a car was centered around having the lighting in a ring around the entire body. With LEDs and other modern, energy efficient forms of lightning, it wouldn’t be demanding on the battery or operation of the vehicle to have–instead of two lights up front–lights across the entire front and back of the vehicle, and also down the sides. This would provide greater visibility for the driver (the frontmost sections of the side lights could be tuned to the color that is best for night viewing) as well as for other drivers (turn signals would be the strip along an entire half of the vehicle, etc.). With a single, unbroken line representing the lights going around the entire car, I’ve always thought the design could be more fluid. Designers could really have fun with that.
I really need to hook my Wacom back up and get back to drawing. All these ideas that need hammering out rattling around and falling into neuronal sinkholes...
Of course, after cars go pilotless headlights and glass windows will become a relic of the past.
Not so much, an electric car is 4 to 5 times as efficient as non electric one.
When it's energy source is from non renewable sources it's roughly twice as efficient, but the added benefit is that it doesn't pollute all over the place and centralized pollution can be captured far more efficiently.
By the way CO2 isn't pollution (of course), but NO, NO2 and all kinds of sooth partials (from diesel engines) and other small particles that cause asthma and cancer, are the main pollutants.
Well, I extend the term pollution to all factors included in generating the fuel/gasoline/electricity. One might consider nuclear power very very clean - if you neglect the small aspect of nuclear waste for a moment same with fracking, changes of climate due to wind energy, impact to flora and fauna etc. so from that perspective it is far more to be considered than what goes up into the air.
The efficiency gain of electric vehicles is not that clear. When taking your number this does not take into account that eg you'd need extra heating systems as the efficiency of electric engines is too high and do not generate sufficient waste heat. Then, modern cars increasingly incorporate recuperation of energy. The link below gives a factor of 2.5 in favor of the electric vehicle. But that is based on an average fuel consumption that's 50% higher than what you get today typically from a European car.
And while you can transport gasoline quite easily long distances this is more complex when looking at electricity. The distribution of electricity to power electric vehicles in a global basis is another factor in that equation.
I'm not saying that EVs do not make sense. I just have a hard time to seeing an electric only vehicle as the solution. Instead I see a mix based on area and requirements with hybrid solutions and fleet mixes. Where hybrid takes into account for example hydrogen engines, eg as well.
Oh, well yeah; I just don’t live where people have very many of those. Trucks have to have them on all the time, I believe, but more personal/residential vehicles don’t. And then you get the odd job who refuses to turn his lights on at night.
Not so much, an electric car is 4 to 5 times as efficient as a non electric one.
When it's energy comes from non renewable sources it's roughly twice as efficient, but the added benefit is that it doesn't pollute all over the place and centralized pollution can be captured far more efficiently.
By the way CO2 isn't pollution (of course), but NO, NO2 and all kinds of sooth partials (from diesel engines) and other small particles that cause asthma and cancer, are the main pollutants.
A number of things require correction in your post. (And I have no idea what you mean by '4 or 5 times as efficient').
1) Both the US Supreme Court and thr EPA would disagree with you about CO2 not being 'pollution.' In a famous 2007 court ruling, the SCOTUS ruled precisely that it is, thereby giving the EPA explicit authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. You can look it up. It's the letter of the law. Period.
2) There's lots of analysis comparing hybrids and electrics to gasoline-powered vehicles. The average emissions savings for Prius in a typical year, compared to an average similar sized car on gasoline, is about 10-15 tonnes of CO2. (It's quite easy to calculate from data provided by the Energy Information Administration of the US, www.eia.gov), depending on miles driven, type of gas etc. Yes, that's a non-zero amount, but not a huge amount. Given the embedded emissions in the grid, an electric car delivers only about 10% more CO2 savings than a hybrid, that's all. In some places, such as central and southeast US, especially during certain parts of the day, electrics are worse than hybrids in terms of their emissions (Data on the CO2 content of US electricity is maintained and updated by the EPA regularly for the 8-10 different grids in the country).
3) If we set a goal of, say, saving 25% in CO2 emissions savings from driving passenger cars, given the 10-(say)17 tonnes of savings for a typical electric or hybrid, it is a matter of simple arithmetic to then calculate how many of those we would need on the road. The numbers are staggering. Somewhere between 40-80 MILLION (yes, MILLION) electrics and hybrids. That's 20-40% of the total US passenger car population. And how many electrics and hybrids are there on US roads now? Less than 1 million. It's a pipe dream relative to the scale of what's required.
4) What do you mean by "doesn't pollute all over the place"? Any pollution often quickly ends up all over the place. For example, it does not matter where a molecule of GHG is emitted, the predicted impact on the earth's temperature is the same. Particulate pollution quickly ends up spreading across the globe -- e.g., Chinese smog and particulates end up on US shores every day, contributing to brown cloud in the West coast coast cities. Emissions and soot from coal plants in the US end up in the East Coast as acid rain and as carbon (and other particulate matter) deposits and on the Arctic ice sheets (In fact the latter problem is resulting in massive loss of albedo that regulates the earth's tempetartures, resulting from arctic ice sheet declines, and increasing the risk of permafrost loss).
It would be take me too much effort to gives you the cites to back up all this (not easy as I am on my iPad) but if you're interested, there's tons of research that back up these claims, and you can easily look it up.
It's a pipe dream relative to the scale of what's required.
Honestly? Good. Not that I don’t like electrics, but anything that goes against the globalists’ wishes is a positive thing.
What does driving an electric or a hybrid have to do with "globalists"? Who are they, anyway? Do they also include people who care about the impact of global terrorism, outsourcing, immigration, or Ebola across borders? Or only those who worry about stuff, you know, like the Left cares about, e.g., pollution and inequality across borders?
As to 'truth' I tend to leave that to higher powers. I happen to live in a world of laws.
What does driving an electric or a hybrid have to do with "globalists"?
The goal of the destruction of the industry of the Western world involves the premature removal of use of fossil fuels.
Who are they, anyway?
An international group of people.
Do they also include people who care about the impact of global terrorism, outsourcing, immigration, or Ebola across borders? Or only those who worry about stuff, you know, like the Left cares about, e.g., pollution and inequality across borders?
Let’s nip the ’think of the children’ in the bud.
As to 'truth' I tend to leave that to higher powers.
So you don’t consider yourself intelligent enough to comprehend truth independent of what you’re told it is?
I happen to live in a world of laws.
Laws you blindly follow and/or accept regardless of their accuracy or truthfulness?
What does driving an electric or a hybrid have to do with "globalists"?
The goal of the destruction of the industry of the Western world involves the premature removal of use of fossil fuels.
Who are they, anyway?
An international group of people.
Do they also include people who care about the impact of global terrorism, outsourcing, immigration, or Ebola across borders? Or only those who worry about stuff, you know, like the Left cares about, e.g., pollution and inequality across borders?
Let’s nip the ’think of the children’ in the bud.
As to 'truth' I tend to leave that to higher powers.
So you don’t consider yourself intelligent enough to comprehend truth independent of what you’re told it is?
I happen to live in a world of laws.
Laws you blindly follow and/or accept regardless of their accuracy or truthfulness?
Oh boy, TS, it always seems to descend into pointless political crap with your posts.
I'll desist, in the interests of not derailing (or boring) the thread.
Comments
So why don't you? They were quite good, and you've done none lately.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp
:rolleyes:
iCar? iAuto? iWantOne? Will they name it after something in Yosemite?
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, go!
how about the chrome plated version called 'Mirror Lake'?
Thank You. That fact took forever to be released and stated. Surprised most people especially auto and vehicle enthusiasts don't already know that .;)
This is from 2009 and US only:
Apart from that you have to consider that electric energy doesn't come for free. And only a few percent are currently created using wind, solar etc
As the first law thermodynamics said some time ago: nothing is for free
Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%
So don't get fooled into thinking that just because you drove an electric vehicle you're not polluting the environment.
Anyone willing to set up a business in this space will do similar things, that doesn't proof anything.
Now, Jia Yuetings story sounds a lot more plausible, because a link is actually found.
Not so much, an electric car is 4 to 5 times as efficient as a non electric one.
When it's energy comes from non renewable sources it's roughly twice as efficient, but the added benefit is that it doesn't pollute all over the place and centralized pollution can be captured far more efficiently.
By the way CO2 isn't pollution (of course), but NO, NO2 and all kinds of sooth partials (from diesel engines) and other small particles that cause asthma and cancer, are the main pollutants.
Of course, after cars go pilotless headlights and glass windows will become a relic of the past.
Well, I extend the term pollution to all factors included in generating the fuel/gasoline/electricity. One might consider nuclear power very very clean - if you neglect the small aspect of nuclear waste for a moment
The efficiency gain of electric vehicles is not that clear. When taking your number this does not take into account that eg you'd need extra heating systems as the efficiency of electric engines is too high and do not generate sufficient waste heat. Then, modern cars increasingly incorporate recuperation of energy. The link below gives a factor of 2.5 in favor of the electric vehicle. But that is based on an average fuel consumption that's 50% higher than what you get today typically from a European car.
And while you can transport gasoline quite easily long distances this is more complex when looking at electricity. The distribution of electricity to power electric vehicles in a global basis is another factor in that equation.
I'm not saying that EVs do not make sense. I just have a hard time to seeing an electric only vehicle as the solution. Instead I see a mix based on area and requirements with hybrid solutions and fleet mixes. Where hybrid takes into account for example hydrogen engines, eg as well.
Edit: forgot the link, here it is: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Energy_consumption_of_cars
It is nice to read a thoughtful post on the forum.
Oh, well yeah; I just don’t live where people have very many of those. Trucks have to have them on all the time, I believe, but more personal/residential vehicles don’t. And then you get the odd job who refuses to turn his lights on at night.
Do most modern vehicles force this feature, then?
Not just most. All. At least in the US, Canada, and a lot countries in the EU.
That’s what I get for keeping my cars until they die. 12 year old vehicle still going strong.
A number of things require correction in your post. (And I have no idea what you mean by '4 or 5 times as efficient').
1) Both the US Supreme Court and thr EPA would disagree with you about CO2 not being 'pollution.' In a famous 2007 court ruling, the SCOTUS ruled precisely that it is, thereby giving the EPA explicit authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. You can look it up. It's the letter of the law. Period.
2) There's lots of analysis comparing hybrids and electrics to gasoline-powered vehicles. The average emissions savings for Prius in a typical year, compared to an average similar sized car on gasoline, is about 10-15 tonnes of CO2. (It's quite easy to calculate from data provided by the Energy Information Administration of the US, www.eia.gov), depending on miles driven, type of gas etc. Yes, that's a non-zero amount, but not a huge amount. Given the embedded emissions in the grid, an electric car delivers only about 10% more CO2 savings than a hybrid, that's all. In some places, such as central and southeast US, especially during certain parts of the day, electrics are worse than hybrids in terms of their emissions (Data on the CO2 content of US electricity is maintained and updated by the EPA regularly for the 8-10 different grids in the country).
3) If we set a goal of, say, saving 25% in CO2 emissions savings from driving passenger cars, given the 10-(say)17 tonnes of savings for a typical electric or hybrid, it is a matter of simple arithmetic to then calculate how many of those we would need on the road. The numbers are staggering. Somewhere between 40-80 MILLION (yes, MILLION) electrics and hybrids. That's 20-40% of the total US passenger car population. And how many electrics and hybrids are there on US roads now? Less than 1 million. It's a pipe dream relative to the scale of what's required.
4) What do you mean by "doesn't pollute all over the place"? Any pollution often quickly ends up all over the place. For example, it does not matter where a molecule of GHG is emitted, the predicted impact on the earth's temperature is the same. Particulate pollution quickly ends up spreading across the globe -- e.g., Chinese smog and particulates end up on US shores every day, contributing to brown cloud in the West coast coast cities. Emissions and soot from coal plants in the US end up in the East Coast as acid rain and as carbon (and other particulate matter) deposits and on the Arctic ice sheets (In fact the latter problem is resulting in massive loss of albedo that regulates the earth's tempetartures, resulting from arctic ice sheet declines, and increasing the risk of permafrost loss).
It would be take me too much effort to gives you the cites to back up all this (not easy as I am on my iPad) but if you're interested, there's tons of research that back up these claims, and you can easily look it up.
Law ? truth.
Honestly? Good. Not that I don’t like electrics, but anything that goes against the globalists’ wishes is a positive thing.
What does driving an electric or a hybrid have to do with "globalists"? Who are they, anyway? Do they also include people who care about the impact of global terrorism, outsourcing, immigration, or Ebola across borders? Or only those who worry about stuff, you know, like the Left cares about, e.g., pollution and inequality across borders?
As to 'truth' I tend to leave that to higher powers. I happen to live in a world of laws.
The goal of the destruction of the industry of the Western world involves the premature removal of use of fossil fuels.
An international group of people.
Let’s nip the ’think of the children’ in the bud.
So you don’t consider yourself intelligent enough to comprehend truth independent of what you’re told it is?
Laws you blindly follow and/or accept regardless of their accuracy or truthfulness?
Oh boy, TS, it always seems to descend into pointless political crap with your posts.
I'll desist, in the interests of not derailing (or boring) the thread.