Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

kjclow said:

The one thing that always pops into my mind was the thousands of dollars spent to develop an ink pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

Click to expand...

You're referring to the story of the "space pen" (my mother has one - got it in a promotion they did on a Cheerios box back in the early 80s, has a little shuttle on it and the "TANG" logo). Anyway, NASA didn't develop it, "Fisher" did: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen/

In any event, pencils are bad in space for two reasons:

1. Using them causes graphite dust. Graphite is highly conductive, and you definitely do NOT want something like that floating around in your capsule if you can help it.

2. Pencils are made of wood. Wood burns. Fire Bad (Apollo 1).

oilhammer said:

The Russian R1 was a copy of the V2, and the R1 was the starting point for all the Russian launch vehicles, including the one that put Sputnik in orbit.
However, the term "rocket" as it applies here in its most basic form could all be traced back to the German program in much the same way all things termed "automobile" could be traced back to Daimler's original creation.

Click to expand...

And the German rocket program can be traced back to the pioneering rocketry of the American scientist Robert Goddard. Von Braun was happy to point out that he stood on the shoulders of Goddard anytime journalists praised him as the father of modern rocketry.

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you eant that the Satrun V and shuttle rockets were based on Soviet designs Now I see that you are referring to our ahving to rely on the Russians to get us into space.

Yeah, I see how that could be interpreted a few different ways. Whenever Boeing sends their capsule up with astronauts it will be launched by the incredibly efficient Russian RD-180 engines. But the RD-180 design is only about 25 years old, iirc.

Human Space flight is very complex no matter how you slice it.

turbobrick240 said:

I had goosebumps too. My stomach was in my throat for the first few seconds after ignition. I do see it as historic- the first commercial launch of astronauts to orbit is a very big deal, imo. As cool as the space shuttles were, they were death traps, and insanely expensive. We have entered a new era of space flight. No more relying on 50 year old Russian rocket designs to get our folks to space!

Click to expand...

It is always very good to have redundancy.

The Russian human space flight is the most reliable in the world for the time being. No luxury, very tight space (three people max vs seven in the Crew Dragon). Historical data from the 60's shows high safety with relative high statistical confidence. Also on time launch reliability is higher than Florida East coast due to a more stable weather pattern in Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Having said that, SpaceX is capable of increasing the human space flight safety and reliability in the next decade or so if they do not rush things (not only for NASA flights of course).

Human Space flight is very complex no matter how you slice it.

Will America Win The Race For Nuclear Fusion?

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...-America-Win-The-Race-For-Nuclear-Fusion.html

More potential energy options for EVs in the future.

tikal said:

It is always very good to have redundancy.

The Russian human space flight is the most reliable in the world for the time being. No luxury, very tight space (three people max vs seven in the Crew Dragon). Historical data from the 60's shows high safety with relative high statistical confidence. Also on time launch reliability is higher than Florida East coast due to a more stable weather pattern in Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Having said that, SpaceX is capable of increasing the human space flight safety and reliability in the next decade or so if they do not rush things (not only for NASA flights of course).

Human Space flight is very complex no matter how you slice it.

Click to expand...

Yes, several layers of redundancy is always good in space travel. The Russian engineering is top notch, but the kleptocracy govt. is troubling. You never know when that special inconel alloy might get swapped with something cheaper so that some goon can line his pockets. But the Russian safety record has been pretty impressive to date.

Baikonur isn't as good of a launch site as Cape Canaveral. It's at 46°N as opposed to 28.5°N for the Cape. The planet's rotation contributes less delta V further from the equator for most launches. Retrograde and circumpolar orbits being the exceptions.

Recycling EV batteries being addressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpe8HalVXFU

El Dobro said:

Recycling EV batteries being addressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpe8HalVXFU

Click to expand...

There are still many questions left about the general use of toxic chemicals in production and recycling of batteries and the impact of recycling on CO2 that sort of thing, but this video is very interesting to me on several fronts:

1. The reporter has a higher than 8th grade level of intelligence (refreshing after living with US reportage of hate)
2. The company is small illustrating the German way of economics - support for small business as a pillar of German industrial capability, including innovation
3. No MBA's to be found - engineers rule! The American business model tends to be closer to "lowest common denominator" not unlike the Ford Model T assembly line - good but not always what we want.
4. The video makes it clear that battery recycling can be very good and gain with expected development of new processes etc.
5. The American way would include patent hoarding and legal implications as well as liability overreach, impeding small enterprises like this one.

Love this video!

It was surprising to hear that half the energy for the recycling process comes from discharging the batteries and recycling the energy itself. Very cool.

In other news, the Model 3 was the best selling vehicle (all segments) in California during the first quarter. Even outselling stalwarts like the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla and Camry!
https://www-cnet-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/tesla-model-3-california-best-selling-car/?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D

turbobrick240 said:

Yes, several layers of redundancy is always good in space travel. The Russian engineering is top notch, but the kleptocracy govt. is troubling. You never know when that special inconel alloy might get swapped with something cheaper so that some goon can line his pockets. But the Russian safety record has been pretty impressive to date.

Baikonur isn't as good of a launch site as Cape Canaveral. It's at 46°N as opposed to 28.5°N for the Cape. The planet's rotation contributes less delta V further from the equator for most launches. Retrograde and circumpolar orbits being the exceptions.

Click to expand...

Indeed, from a perspective of energy usage, the Cape is a better location for launches. From a perspective of Climate impact the Cape is in a more risky area in my view. There are indications the US military has been preparing to a certain degree for this (naval ports and so forth). Maybe Vandenberg is more protected in this way but I do not foresee launch rates growing there anytime soon there.

tikal said:

Indeed, from a perspective of energy usage, the Cape is a better location for launches. From a perspective of Climate impact the Cape is in a more risky area in my view. There are indications the US military has been preparing to a certain degree for this (naval ports and so forth). Maybe Vandenberg is more protected in this way but I do not foresee launch rates growing there anytime soon there.

Click to expand...

The problem with Vandenberg is that the majority of launches are into a prograde orbit, or with the Earth's rotation. That involves launching eastward. East of Vandenberg is a whole lot of US landmass. We tend to frown upon dropping spent rocket debris on inhabited areas here in the US. Maybe that won't be so much of a concern going forward as expendable rockets are phased out and safety improves. No site is perfect. The weather at Baikonur can be challenging too- sand storms, bitter cold, etc. Plus it's extremely remote and not even in Russian territory.

I saw a launch from Vandenberg a decade or so accidently from Hawaii, we were just stargazing on the volcano and we saw it fly over from the east.. it was some sort of spy satellite when I looked it up later.. but yeah, seems they launch westward from the west coast so thats not an orbit thats gonna get you to rendezvous w/the ISS thats going the other direction.

turbobrick240 said:

The problem with Vandenberg is that the majority of launches are into a prograde orbit, or with the Earth's rotation. That involves launching eastward. East of Vandenberg is a whole lot of US landmass. We tend to frown upon dropping spent rocket debris on inhabited areas here in the US. Maybe that won't be so much of a concern going forward as expendable rockets are phased out and safety improves. No site is perfect. The weather at Baikonur can be challenging too- sand storms, bitter cold, etc. Plus it's extremely remote and not even in Russian territory.

Click to expand...

Eastern coast barrier islands have been used for other things where prevaling winds have keep cities safe from other manmade harm.

Automotive News article that pretty much sums it up: https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/future-evs-us-depends-charging-networks-gaps

I love this from the article:

Utilities meanwhile have asked for permission to build an additional 245,000 plugs, some $3.3 billion in infrastructure that they can offset by raising rates on the electricity being piped in to homes and businesses.

Click to expand...

What this means, ladies and germs, is that all of us will be forced to subsidize EV owners, whether we want to or not. First health insurance, now EVs. Who says 'Murica is the land of the free?

Cheers,

PH

Well, we are already subsidizing EVs and more.

ticaf said:

Well, we are already subsidizing EVs and more.

Click to expand...

Can't wait to see the virtue-signaling and enviro-shaming to stop - when reality hits.


Human nature, unfortunately, needs to change. The thought of sharing charging infrastructure with the public is rarely if ever discussed. How many charging stations will have a waiting line or be damaged by normally careless public citizens? When with people realize they are exposed to theft and robbery or worse in lonely charging areas? Infrastructure will need to be secure and safe for travelers. Covid-19 has made traveling in "cattle car" public transit or "highly infectious" ride-hailing "solutions" somewhat dicey.


Americans need to adapt to change, but hopefully not too much to mob mentality. Policing is under attack but is necessary for EV infrastructure and is expensive.....

tikal said:

Define "mainstream" please.

Here, it shows EVs penetration in the US as 0.5% in the US for Q1 2020, the lowest among many industrialized countries (tied with Italy):

Click to expand...

We all probably define that for ourselves; I don't know that it's any certain market share. EVs are standard, off-the-lot products that people just go and buy and use. They aren't experimental or just for EV geeks. People buy them who don't give a hoot what's under the bodywork; they just want something to work and it does. I see them in line at the school across the street and I see them all over town. Half a percent, 1 out of 200 cars, maybe not even that. But they aren't rare or special. I think ziplines, sandboxes, pools and swingsets are pretty mainstream but the actual rate of adoption in backyards isn't very high.

Someone asked why pro-EV people are posting here. I've been driving diesel VWs for 40 years and posting here for 20 years, but when I need to drive around town I grab the Volt any time I can. WAY better user experience in certain ways. Gas station once every six months, tops.

And that user experience gets to another straw man from maybe five pages ago that claimed EVs needed to be cost competitive with certain other cars in the same market segment, whatever that is. NO!! People don't buy EVs because they cost the same as some ICE car, they buy them because they're EVs. You wouldn't shop a $3000 sailboat against a $3000 motorboat if you wanted a sailboat. There's no magic in the price of an EV dropping to that of some sort-of-similar (but fundamentally different) car.

AntonLargiader said:

People don't buy EVs because they cost the same as some ICE car, they buy them because they're EVs.

Click to expand...

I think this is what a lot of manufacturers are just now figuring out. And it advantages Tesla, because if you see a Tesla you know it's an EV. If you see a BMW or Audi, EV, people probably first assume it's and ICE vehicle, becuase that's what they've historically built. So it doesn't have the cachet of a Tesla.

VW creating a new brand may help them capture some of that exclusivity they wouldn't have if their EV line were branded VW. We'll see. It's not a lot different from when manufacturers create separate brands for luxury cars. VW learned the hard way that no one wants to buy an $80K VW.

And regarding costs, people already typically spend more money on a car than they have to. So paying a premium for an EV isn't a new thing. If it was, we'd all be driving around in 10 year old Hyundais.

Well, you're talking cachet there and I'm talking just the practical part. Heck, a friend of mine wants an EV but can't buy a Model 3, even though it's cost-competitive, because she "can't be seen driving around in a Tesla" for appearance reasons. So the cachet cuts both ways.

I think a lot of people who want an EV just look at what it costs and what they get. Maybe some extra money up front, no gas station visits, silence, no tunnel in the interior, leave with a "full tank" every morning, no ICE maintenance and petro products everywhere, etc. So when I say they buy it because it's an EV, that's the stuff I'm talking about.

I think you may be giving buyers more credit for making rational and objective choices then they deserve. Just look at how many people drive around by themselves in huge pickup trucks and never put anything in the bed. That has very little to do with an objective buying choice. People may say the reasons you list are why they buy an EV, but I'm skeptical that those are the real reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

The people who buy EVs are largely the same demographic of consumer who buy solar panels for their homes. It's a fast growing demographic. Overall I would say their motivations are quite benign.

Perhaps, but I don't think you pick a car using the same criteria as picking solar panels. At least I don't. Solar panels are an appliance that you rarely even see, much less think about. The just do their job. I don't care what my solar panels look like (within reason) or what brand they are: I'm not even sure I know. But a car I see, drive, get seen in, and care for: then I care about brand, image, appearance, even if I say I don't. Everybody does. Well, almost everybody.

turbobrick240 said:

The people who buy EVs are largely the same demographic of consumer who buy solar panels for their homes. It's a fast growing demographic. Overall I would say their motivations are quite benign.

Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe rapidly approaching 0.5% of US households.


https://www.seia.org/news/united-states-surpasses-2-million-solar-installations

IndigoBlueWagon said:

I think you may be giving buyers more credit for making rational and objective choices then they deserve. Just look at how many people drive around by themselves in huge pickup trucks and never put anything in the bed....

Click to expand...

They are not EV buyers... it's quite plausible that the market has rational and irrational buyers, right?

Tin Man said:

Yeah, maybe rapidly approaching 0.5% of US households.https://www.seia.org/news/united-states-surpasses-2-million-solar-installations

Click to expand...

That's a year old; let's conservatively say there are now 2.5 million and 2 million of those are residential. Out of 95 million single family homes (the only homes that are real candidates for PV arrays) that's 4%. Pretty high IMO, and climbing.

AntonLargiader said:

That's a year old; let's conservatively say there are now 2.5 million and 2 million of those are residential. Out of 95 million single family homes (the only homes that are real candidates for PV arrays) that's 4%. Pretty high IMO, and climbing.

Click to expand...

Convenient ignoring other forms of housing to goose the stats. Sorry. Its not a "fast growing demographic" even at 4%. We'll see how many Covid-19 economically devastated consumers will opt for the investment in solar power. After all, we are not Costa Rica.


Remind me what the latest "break-even" point is on solar power - 8 years for ROI? Nice, but not "fast."

Am i missing something or is 2 million out of 95 million closer to 2% than 4%?

Regardless, solar installation was one of the best improvements I've made to my home. Installed in 2013, investment recovered in about 3 years, and now my electric bills, which formerly averaged $150-175 monthly, are gone. And I get $2,000 - $2,500/year in carbon credit payments. Zero maintenance or repairs. And that's in New England, in a less than ideal site (trees around). Hard to beat.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Am i missing something or is 2 million out of 95 million closer to 2% than 4%?

Regardless, solar installation was one of the best improvements I've made to my home. Installed in 2013, investment recovered in about 3 years, and now my electric bills, which formerly averaged $150-175 monthly, are gone. And I get $2,000 - $2,500/year in carbon credit payments. Zero maintenance or repairs. And that's in New England, in a less than ideal site (trees around). Hard to beat.

Click to expand...

You guys must either have REALLY high rates or you got substantial subsidies (or both). I haven't seen ROI numbers that short but I've never seriously researched. My site won't work for solar. No brainer with that short an ROI. Glad it worked out so well!

Are the carbon credit payments just part of the tax process or ??? Much of a pain/red tape?

Tin Man said:

Convenient ignoring other forms of housing to goose the stats.

Click to expand...

I have no dog in that race. If you're looking at the percentage of homes with solar as a gauge of support for solar in general, you should be looking at the homes that are capable of having solar in the first place. You can't go by people (my wife and I wouldn't have separate PV arrays if we were pro-solar) and you can't go by household (apartment occupants can't have private solar if they wanted to). So you need to have a realistic denominator. 95 million is the number of single-family attached and detached homes; sounds like a good basis to me but I'm all ears.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Am i missing something or is 2 million out of 95 million closer to 2% than 4%?

Click to expand...

Yes! Dunno what I was thinking. Thanks.