Reality check on electric cars

[Into the Night]

The potential for massive advances in battery technology could really be spurred with a bulked up EV market.

There is no lighter metal than lithium. The Lithium-ion battery was developed in 1984. People generally don't want EVs. The EV market has already collapsed (again).

There's some really interesting technologies being explored right now.

Li-ion is the same chemistry. Nothing has changed.

The uptake of EV's, while not a perfect solution for everyone, is still going to be a great technology boon to the US.

EVs are older than gasoline cars, Twilight.

 

[Into the Night]

I've always heard that China doesn't innovate, but I don't trust that to be the case forever. Right now China is acting as the world's factory but there are a lot of really smart folks in China and they are humans. Humans innovate. It's kind of our thing.

China is primarily a communist nation. You are not allowed to innovate.

China will, one day if we stay on the current path we are on, dominate the planet much as we do.

China's economy is already collapsing (again). Their government broke once again. They will probably decline into their usual history of revolution after revolution before long.

Right now they are actually laying the groundwork for this with their "Belt and Road" initiative. They are doing what the colonialists should have done and actually building up poorer regions generating a lot of good will and connection to China. They are doing it all relatively quietly.

Sure they have an iron fist in that velvet glove but they are setting themselves up to knock us off the pedestal.

They haven't got a chance.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not entirely certain I understand this post. How does buying gasoline make you "free" while using electricity means you are controlled? Are you suggesting that just regular folks are able to go out and drill for their own oil and brew up some gasoline in the kitchen to drive their cars with?

That's actually possible, and how the first oil refining processes were developed!

Or is there something else I'm missing.

Quite a lot, much of which I've already explained.

Also on the matter of "pocket full of cash", unless you mean a pocket full of gold bars you are still using a "controlled" currency. You can't make your own and have to work to get the cash.

You don't have to carry around bars of gold to use gold as a base for currency.
Fiat currency has NO COMMODITY BASE.

If you could explain this to me it would be much appreciated.

I just did.

The use of gold (or silver) for a currency base means no central bank is required. The currency does not need to be 'managed' by the government. An ounce of gold is always an ounce of gold. What that ounce will buy is strictly determined by price discovery and market forces.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, I thought you knew since you posted it. Thanks, though.

She does.

 

[Into the Night]

That tracks.

No, it doesn't. It is YOU that denies theories of science. You have already denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have also denied electrochemistry.

I wonder if this is an effect one expects from a sufficiently advanced technological society that the technology and the science start advancing so fast that it pushes too hard on people's normal reticence to change. This would lead to a backlash against progress and science.

Which is what you are doing.

Since we are a nation that has had about 250 years of a fraught relationship with the idea of being a SINGLE country rather than 50 associated states,

The United States is a single country formed as a federated republic, or republics layered within republics. Each State is a republic, as well as each county or parish, and each city or town. Any identity crisis is YOURS.

the role of the Federal government has also grown which upsets that streak of "islands unto ourselves" concept in our collective personality as a nation.

The role of the federal government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It has no other role or authority.
Any department, law or regulation, that does not conform to that authorized by the Constitution of the United States is unconstitutional.

So I guess some of this makes sense for the Conservative side to lean anti-science

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON CONSERVATIVES!

and anti-progress

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON CONSERVATIVES!

and anti-government.

Conservatives are not anarchists, Twilight.

It's too much too fast for them and they are like the comfortable house cat who thinks it could survive in the cold outside.

Guess what? Another winter is coming, and people in the United States survive it quite well.

 

[Into the Night]

It seems you either didn't read my post or don't understand math. My post is to show that the current electrical grid can support charging EVs because it can support everyone running air conditioners.

Math error: Invalid operator. Logic error: False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

When will anyone force you to buy an EV?

Apparently you aren't aware of laws in the SDTC or several European nations, and the stated goals of the Democrats. You want to try to deny what's right in front of you.

No one will be forced to buy anything. You are free to keep your ICE vehicle and keep repairing it until gas stations disappear.

Gas stations are not going to disappear, and they are NOT the source of gasoline.

 

[Into the Night]

Bullshit.

Back up your claim the current electrical grid can support everyone owning an EV.

He already tried using a false dichotomy and a math error.

 

[Into the Night]

I already supported the claim I made. If you want to dispute it, then make an actual argument that references my post and my actual claim.

You didn't support any claim. A fallacy is not a valid argument.
Air conditioners require more than zero amps to run.
EVs' require more than zero amps to run.

The SDTC is ALREADY importing most of it's power, and those lines are heavily overloaded.

You can't charge your EV or run your air conditioners if the power goes out from a tripped power line.

 

[Into the Night]

Bullshit! You showed no proof, just claims. With EV's being a fraction of the vehicles sold we already have rolling brownouts and states telling people to refrain from charging their EV's .

Currently, less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.

 

[Into the Night]

Low-Energy Fridays: Will plugging in your electric vehicle cause a blackout? - R Street Institute

A question I am asked surprisingly often is if electric vehicles (EVs) will cause blackouts. The short answer is no, there’s no reason to think the electric grid won’t be able to adapt to the changing makeup of what’s on the road. But the question reflects what I think is an understandable...

www.rstreet.org

So it's not actually happening now.

Yes it is, and it will get worse. The SDTC is ALREADY experiencing rolling blackouts.

It is true that if we divert more of our transportation load to direct electrical charging the grid will have to be improved I suspect but that's probably a VERY long way off.

Not needed. The EV market has collapsed (again!).

EV's may never wholly supplant ICE vehicles, there's use case scenarios where it simply doesn't work. But that's kind of how America got to be the great country it is: we invent. We innovate. We learn, we grow, we advance.

EVs are NOT innovation. They are older than gasoline cars. The EV market has already collapsed yet again. The gasoline car is the vehicle of choice.

Besides: having a vehicle that is AMAZINGLY more efficient at its energy use than an ICE vehicle is something to shoot for, no?

The EV requires almost twice the energy of an equivalent sized gasoline car to go the same distance. I've already described why, Twilight. Pay attention.

People have been trying to squeeze out a few more fractions of a percent of efficiency from gas powered engines for nearly a century maybe more.

Modern FADEC gasoline cars are now approaching an efficiency of 40-45%, a hell of a lot better than an EV!

The EV jumps you up a crazy high amount.

No. The EV burns fuel at a power plant at approximately 35-40% efficiency, then wastes that energy in waste heat on power lines and equipment to run your charger. The battery also generates quite a lot of waste heat, both when charging, and again when discharging. The engine on the EV also generates a lot of waste heat, and so does all of it's controlling electronics.

When you add it all up, EVs use almost twice the energy of simply burning the gasoline in the vehicle directly for motive power.

Plus if we diversify our energy infrastructure to use more renewables we are helping the climate! It seems win-win to me.

Oil is renewable energy. So is natural gas. Coal might be (we don't know), but there IS plenty of it.

Solar power is the most expensive method of generating electricity (watt for watt) of any method (by far!). Worse, solar panels are subject to irrepairable damage from hail, snow, heavy rain, sandstorms, critters, and even sunlight. They only work during the day. They produce no power at night.

Wind generators are rather dangerous machines and last only about 15 years or so. They must be installed using expensive specially constructed trucks and helicopters (all of which run on oil products such as kerosene, diesel fuel, or gasoline. They kill birds (including protected species such as spotted owls, eagles, hawks, etc. A catastrophic failure of a propeller blade destroys the entire machine and can throw debris over a mile away.

They produce very little power and only when the wind is blowing at the narrow range of speed acceptable to the machine. In about 15-20 years, the machine must be dismantled. The blades are NOT renewable, but become rather large landfill.

Wind power is the 2nd most expensive method of producing power, watt for watt.

Nuclear power is FAR cheaper! Coal, oil, and natural gas power plants are far cheaper still! Nuclear power is NOT renewable, but oil and natural gas IS.

 

[Daylight63]

Yes it is, and it will get worse. The SDTC is ALREADY experiencing rolling blackouts.

Not needed. The EV market has collapsed (again!).

EVs are NOT innovation. They are older than gasoline cars. The EV market has already collapsed yet again. The gasoline car is the vehicle of choice.

The EV requires almost twice the energy of an equivalent sized gasoline car to go the same distance. I've already described why, Twilight. Pay attention.

Modern FADEC gasoline cars are now approaching an efficiency of 40-45%, a hell of a lot better than an EV!

No. The EV burns fuel at a power plant at approximately 35-40% efficiency, then wastes that energy in waste heat on power lines and equipment to run your charger. The battery also generates quite a lot of waste heat, both when charging, and again when discharging. The engine on the EV also generates a lot of waste heat, and so does all of it's controlling electronics.

When you add it all up, EVs use almost twice the energy of simply burning the gasoline in the vehicle directly for motive power.


Oil is renewable energy. So is natural gas. Coal might be (we don't know), but there IS plenty of it.

Solar power is the most expensive method of generating electricity (watt for watt) of any method (by far!). Worse, solar panels are subject to irrepairable damage from hail, snow, heavy rain, sandstorms, critters, and even sunlight. They only work during the day. They produce no power at night.

Wind generators are rather dangerous machines and last only about 15 years or so. They must be installed using expensive specially constructed trucks and helicopters (all of which run on oil products such as kerosene, diesel fuel, or gasoline. They kill birds (including protected species such as spotted owls, eagles, hawks, etc. A catastrophic failure of a propeller blade destroys the entire machine and can throw debris over a mile away.

They produce very little power and only when the wind is blowing at the narrow range of speed acceptable to the machine. In about 15-20 years, the machine must be dismantled. The blades are NOT renewable, but become rather large landfill.

Wind power is the 2nd most expensive method of producing power, watt for watt.

Nuclear power is FAR cheaper! Coal, oil, and natural gas power plants are far cheaper still! Nuclear power is NOT renewable, but oil and natural gas IS.

Doesn't feel like you know much about EV's or oil or coal or anything here.

Can I ask why you think oil is "renewable"?

 

[Into the Night]

You are correct that EV's were among the first cars. But they were also llimited to Pb Acid batteries so that's a limitation.

ALL batteries are a limitation. The Li-ion battery is no exception.

But if I understand correctly the mass produced Model T actually put gasoline cars into easy reach of more people so it won out on price.

It won out on price, on range, and on power and on maneuverability.

Then Texas had their oil boom and gasoline became easy to get and cheaper to make.

Texas did not invent oil fractioning. You seem to forget the massive oil fields in Pennsylvania as well, or the oil that was already being found in the Caribbean.

So it was because of the times and technology. Things are very, very different today.

Yes. Texas also produces a lot of oil. A lot can be obtained from wells all over the United States, including Alaska.

that isn't how the market works.

It is EXACTLY how the market works, Twilight!

Are you going to try to argue that gas stations existed when gasoline engines were first introduced??
No, Twilight. Gasoline stations exist BECAUSE people want and use gasoline engines!

The EV charging stations are installed by MANDATE (and at the property owner's expense! A massive TAX!).
The EV market itself is heavily subsidized.

If the EV is a market success (it isn't!), then why all the government mandates and subsidies???

An established type of product like the ICE vehicle which we've built our entire economy around (complete with gasoline infrastructure etc.) will always enjoy a market benefit over newer technologies (today's EV's are nothing like the ones of 1900)

EVs are OLDER technology, Luddite.

Leaded gasoline is a good example.

Of what? BTW, gasoline containing tetraethyl lead (TEL) as the moderator is still sold today! It is primarily used in aircraft, which have gaskets that are incompatible with ethyl alcohol as the moderator. Ethyl alcohol is also hygroscopic (it readily absorbs water), causing higher than normal corrosion problems in engines, particularly in the induction system.

Lead naturally occurs in the soil everywhere you go (regardless of whether you are near a road or not!). Lead-acid batteries are also most commonplace. Lead is also used in paints, fireworks and other explosives, solder, stained glass windows, fine glassware, pottery, nuclear shielding, electrical connectors, purification systems, etc.

Don't eat the stuff. It really is pretty simple. I suppose you are one of those types that tried to eat the whiteout used to correct typewritten pages.

Unfortunately it was poisoning people

It poisoned no one. Lead occurs naturally in the soil.

and we as a society agreed that we needed to "bias" the market against it and mandate the acceptance of unleaded gasoline.

There's that Marxist 'we' again!
You don't get to speak for everyone, Twilight.

Unleaded gasoline was MANDATED by government, along with that infamous pollution to pollution converter, the catalytic converter. TEL poisons the converter. The thing is the most useless (and expensive!) component on a car. It does NOTHING to stop smog. The EGA system does THAT, and it's just a simple bit of plumbing and a valve.

Whether you believe in science or not,

You have already discarded the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Ohm's law, and Newton's law of motion.
DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

enough people do that we all agree that climate change is real

Climate cannot change. Buzzword fallacy ('real').

and this is one way of improving our return on the use of fuels by increasing the efficiency of the cars.

Gasoline cars today are far more efficient than EVs.

Plus, unlike gasoline, we can find non-carbon alternatives to provide the "fuel" for Ev's

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. The fuel burned at the power plant is carbon based in most cases. Both oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again and you are also ignoring chemistry.

That's not true. EV's disappeared very quickly in the early 20th century.

They never did. There was always someone willing to buy or make them.

Then in the late 20th century we revisited the idea and we have massively improved the systems. We are currently seeing how this NEW type of EV competes and it isn't doing bad right now.

It is doing very badly. The market has already collapsed yet again. Ford (the largest auto maker in the United States) no longer manufactures EVs. Toyota (the largest auto manufacturer in the world) no longer manufactures EVs. Subaru has one, but it's not selling at all well and it will be discontinued.

Teslas are still around, if you want to waste the money on them (they cost about three times what a gasoline car costs!), and gasoline cars do not have to be recharged.

So you disagree with the folks who look at the auto industry?

https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-internal-combustion-engines/

An old magazine article is not the auto industry. Redefinition fallacy.

That's what R&D is for.

Government mandates and heavy subsidies are not R&D.

While Teslas drive around on batteries invented in the 1980's, the gasoline car engine has had MANY innovations through the years. Today's gasoline engine is FADEC (computer controlled), uses lighter and more resilient materials (head gaskets now often last the life of the car!) including plastic induction systems (less susceptible to corrosion and easily repaired with epoxy), and more efficient coolant systems (better efficiency through better heat dissipation to the cold side of the engine!), and higher engine temperatures (better efficiency via Carnot's law) WITHOUT the usual NOx problem of higher engine temperatures (thanks to improved EGR systems and better built cylinders and valve train).

Tesla HAS improved the engine (motor) a bit, by using a rotating field and a static stator coil arrangement, but the batteries remain the biggest problem. They are HEAVY, expensive, and easily damaged. The coolant system has improved marginally, but not by a lot. The engine oil in an EV is still the same as it always was (a synthetic, similar to Skydrol).

If yo mean I believe in science? Well, yeah. Kinda do.

DON'T LIE TO ME! You deny science! You deny mathematics. You deny engineering.

 

[Into the Night]

There you go. You are not understanding the difference between being forced to buy something and your choices being restricted.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Then you resort to, if it doesn't happen like I said then the government will just change the rules to make it happen.

That's a MANDATE, moron.

Just so you know, zero emission vehicles are not restricted to EVs.

Yes it is.

In 10 years you will be able to buy yourself a hydrogen car

You can buy a hydrogen car now if you want. They are not zero emission.
Hydrogen does not naturally occur. It must be manufactured. You must spend MORE energy in making it than you get out of it by burning it or using it in a fuel cell. It also is a very low density energy source, since even under high pressure, you cannot store the same moles of hydrogen as you can of a hydrocarbon.

and if you can't the government will just force you to buy one because that is the way you think government works.

That's a MANDATE, moron.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong! There was the Edison Iron-Nickel battery too. The problem then, and now, is that batteries are limited by the laws of chemistry and physics and can NEVER, EVER, exceed those limits, no matter how efficient they may be. Any single battery cell is limited to about a maximum of 3 VDC. Cell size determines ampacity. You CANNOT get around that! Not then, not now, not 100 years from now.

Because of those limits, batteries will always be heavy and low density for the energy they produce.

Gasoline is far more energy dense. That is what makes it a good portable energy source and batteries a poor choice.


Sure it is. The market chose ICE over EV technology and the latter died off. EV's simply couldn't compete in the market. EV's were an established product before ICE vehicles were. They lost out because they were impractical by comparison. It's that simple.


Leaded gasoline was done to improve the energy output of it as well as provide "anti-knock" lubrication of then soft valves in engines. Ending lead tetroxide as an additive was simple to do and actually reduced the cost of gasoline at a particular octane rating. Vehicle manufacturers adjusted their new production to use lower octane fuel and get equal performance.

Higher octane fuel burns SLOWER than lower octane fuels. They are NOT 'performance' fuels. They are used in high compression engines only to keep them from knocking by SLOWING down the burning rate of the fuel.

This was purely a pollution thing, and had nothing to do per se with vehicle performance. You can get equal performance with or without adding lead tetroxide to gasoline.

Not quite. TEL is a better moderator. It allows a wider variety of gasket material to be used, is not hygroscopic, an lubricates valves. That's why the market started using it instead of the ethyl alcohol that was used BEFORE.

Irrelevant appeal to popularity. As for EV's... There isn't enough recoverable minerals on the planet to feed the need for batteries.

Quite right. The process of extracting lithium ore, then purifying that into lithium metal and making batteries out of it (along with the cobalt, aluminum, and rare earth components required), is a slow and expensive AND environmentally damaging process. That's not even counting the enormous amount of shipping and heavy equipment involved.

EV's still need a source of electrical power to charge them and solar and wind aren't going to do that at a reasonable cost. That leaves either the use of oil or coal or you go to nuclear.

Wind and solar won't do that at a reasonable rate either. Piddle power takes way too long to charge an EV.

Even today, EV's are unpopular. Short of heavy-handed government mandates and subsidies, they are uncompetitive. In the US only about 5% of the market is willing to purchase one. The other 95% are going to have to be forced into it. That's playing out right now.

Exactly right!

Only in the sense that electric motors are more efficient at using energy than ICE engines.

No, they aren't. They still require power from somewhere. That power comes from power plants that burn fuel, just as a gasoline car does, but with the added lost energy due to distribution and heating of the EV's battery when charging AND discharging. It's why this stuff is all liquid cooled.

As Toyota already did, they found ICE and Hybrid vehicles blow EV's away on cost and efficiency.

Toyota has now discarded EVs, in favor of going back to hybrids again (which are gasoline cars).

 

[Into the Night]

That's just dissembling. If you are restricted, it's the same thing as forced.

Well, if in 10 years there are hydrogen powered cars available, we should skip the EV's and work towards those as they make sense. (Or ammonia powered vehicles). Government is the worst way to get things done. It should be a last resort, not the first.

Hydrogen won't make it in the market, due to the costs involved in manufacturing and distributing the hydrogen, and the short range of these cars.
Ammonia gas is EXTREMELY dangerous. Not practical. In the quantities required, ammonia must also be manufactured.

A practical power source is already available: gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene (all oil products). It's renewable, it can be cheap to obtain, is easily refined and distributed, and effectively gives these vehicles infinite range, since it only takes minutes to refuel.

 

[Daylight63]

ALL batteries are a limitation. The Li-ion battery is no exception.

It won out on price, on range, and on power and on maneuverability.

Texas did not invent oil fractioning. You seem to forget the massive oil fields in Pennsylvania as well, or the oil that was already being found in the Caribbean.

Yes. Texas also produces a lot of oil. A lot can be obtained from wells all over the United States, including Alaska.

It is EXACTLY how the market works, Twilight!

Are you going to try to argue that gas stations existed when gasoline engines were first introduced??
No, Twilight. Gasoline stations exist BECAUSE people want and use gasoline engines!

The EV charging stations are installed by MANDATE (and at the property owner's expense! A massive TAX!).
The EV market itself is heavily subsidized.

If the EV is a market success (it isn't!), then why all the government mandates and subsidies???

EVs are OLDER technology, Luddite.

Of what? BTW, gasoline containing tetraethyl lead (TEL) as the moderator is still sold today! It is primarily used in aircraft, which have gaskets that are incompatible with ethyl alcohol as the moderator. Ethyl alcohol is also hygroscopic (it readily absorbs water), causing higher than normal corrosion problems in engines, particularly in the induction system.

Lead naturally occurs in the soil everywhere you go (regardless of whether you are near a road or not!). Lead-acid batteries are also most commonplace. Lead is also used in paints, fireworks and other explosives, solder, stained glass windows, fine glassware, pottery, nuclear shielding, electrical connectors, purification systems, etc.

Don't eat the stuff. It really is pretty simple. I suppose you are one of those types that tried to eat the whiteout used to correct typewritten pages.


It poisoned no one. Lead occurs naturally in the soil.

There's that Marxist 'we' again!
You don't get to speak for everyone, Twilight.

Unleaded gasoline was MANDATED by government, along with that infamous pollution to pollution converter, the catalytic converter. TEL poisons the converter. The thing is the most useless (and expensive!) component on a car. It does NOTHING to stop smog. The EGA system does THAT, and it's just a simple bit of plumbing and a valve.


You have already discarded the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Ohm's law, and Newton's law of motion.
DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

Climate cannot change. Buzzword fallacy ('real').

Gasoline cars today are far more efficient than EVs.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. The fuel burned at the power plant is carbon based in most cases. Both oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again and you are also ignoring chemistry.

They never did. There was always someone willing to buy or make them.

It is doing very badly. The market has already collapsed yet again. Ford (the largest auto maker in the United States) no longer manufactures EVs. Toyota (the largest auto manufacturer in the world) no longer manufactures EVs. Subaru has one, but it's not selling at all well and it will be discontinued.

Teslas are still around, if you want to waste the money on them (they cost about three times what a gasoline car costs!), and gasoline cars do not have to be recharged.

An old magazine article is not the auto industry. Redefinition fallacy.

Government mandates and heavy subsidies are not R&D.

While Teslas drive around on batteries invented in the 1980's, the gasoline car engine has had MANY innovations through the years. Today's gasoline engine is FADEC (computer controlled), uses lighter and more resilient materials (head gaskets now often last the life of the car!) including plastic induction systems (less susceptible to corrosion and easily repaired with epoxy), and more efficient coolant systems (better efficiency through better heat dissipation to the cold side of the engine!), and higher engine temperatures (better efficiency via Carnot's law) WITHOUT the usual NOx problem of higher engine temperatures (thanks to improved EGR systems and better built cylinders and valve train).

Tesla HAS improved the engine (motor) a bit, by using a rotating field and a static stator coil arrangement, but the batteries remain the biggest problem. They are HEAVY, expensive, and easily damaged. The coolant system has improved marginally, but not by a lot. The engine oil in an EV is still the same as it always was (a synthetic, similar to Skydrol).


DON'T LIE TO ME! You deny science! You deny mathematics. You deny engineering.

I"m still curious why you think oil is a "renewable resource".

 

[Into the Night]

You are quite wrong. Yes there are limits on batteries but we are far from solving he battery issue. I should know, I worked with a chemist who was working on battery technology. It's a VERY hot research topic. As in super hot. If you want to get into some cool (but pretty difficult science...I never much liked electrochemistry) research, go become a battery researcher. It's not just a matter of how much charge they can carry it's weight, number charge-discharge cycles, and safety that also factor into the research.



The weight issue is exactly what some research is getting into.



Not going to disagree with gasoline's energy density, but that isn't the only factor in the whole complex system.

It pretty much is.

It's also a matter of efficiency of use of that energy and the knock-on effects of burning gasoline as a fuel source in individual cars.

Gasoline is more efficient.

You sound like you are pretty tech savvy overall, so presumably you understand the issues around climate impact as well.

Climate has no 'impact'. Climate cannot change.

But that isn't why it was mandated.

Stop playing word games. It doesn't work.

Besides, if you are OK with mandating energy efficiency you should be for EV research.

Fascism doesn't work.

You mentioned the Edison Ni Fe battery earlier.

Yes he did. Good for him!

Surely you also are familiar with the Pb Acid battery in your car currently.

So?

And the Li Ion battery in your watch

Nope. Coin batteries in watches are NOT Li-ion. They are Li metal. They are NOT rechargeable. The same is true of most any lithium based coin battery.

and the Zn C battery in your TV remote.

So?

Not all batteries are the same in terms of materials.

So?

Which is EXACTLY part of the research currently ongoing.

Denying electrochemistry again, I see.

I'm a firm believer in America's tech know how.

You're a Luddite, wanting to mandate old technology.

We built the atomic bomb in 4 years, we put a man on the moon, we've sent little autonomous robots to Mars. We got this.

By advancing technology, not mandating old technology like you want to.

Agreed. Nuclear is great because it scales well,

It is a non-renewable energy source.

we know how to use it and it is zero carbon (except for mining).

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not plutonium nor uranium.

Obviously that's going to be a tough nut to swallow for some folks...but there are options.

Mandates and fascism are not the 'solution', Twilight.

Just because we've built our economy to fit with fossil fuels doesn't mean it has to be ever thus.

Fossils don't burn. They are not used for fuel. There is no 'fossil fuel economy'.

Again, I believe in America's technologists and engineers and scientists. They've done a lot to change the world.

But you want to mandate using old technology.

Which is really the point.

You aren't making a point. You are preaching.

 

[Into the Night]

No, we're not. Battery technology is pretty much a dead end thing. The only thing we can do for the most part is incremental improvements. We can't get around that ALL batteries work on chemistry principles. You cannot ever get more than about 3 VDC out of a battery cell. That's, roughly, the maximum difference in electrical potential between any two elements on the periodic table.


Again, you can't get around battery chemistry. The amount of anode, cathode, and electrolyte determine ampacity. Bigger the cell, the bigger the ampacity. In fact, if anything, the small batteries used in EV's these days is a net weight gain over using fewer, larger cells.


Gasoline is a very efficient, for its weight and availability, energy source. That's why we use it. Except for the complexity of such vehicles, one way to increase its efficiency is to go to steam power heated by something like gasoline.

A 1925 car that can drive down the freeway at 70 mph, accelerates well, and meets current California emissions standards. You have to fill the gas tank and the water tank each time you go like 300 or 400 miles. I guess today, you could build a much more user-friendly version.


EV's are a dead end. Hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia make far more sense.


I am something of a battery expert. I had lots of training and classes on them with the Navy. In nuclear power, most is used in submarines, so they make all the electricians (me) learn all about batteries and how they work.

Politics gets in the way of nuclear power big time. Solar and wind are also less environmentally friendly. Nuclear backed by natural gas is the way forward with hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia (or both) as portable fuels. Near zero carbon and the best combination for low pollution in general.

Hydrogen and ammonia are not even starters, they are already a dead end.

 

[Into the Night]

It says that NEW vehicles must be EVs. Buying and selling ICEs will go on your whole far-right Trumpian life.

Paradox. Irrational. You can't argue both sides of a paradox, Sybil.