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

Corn ethanol no, corn yes.

Now to turn the analogy between humans and cars in reverse, better to have a direct to the wheels drivetrain than a multi-step serial EV

SageBrush said:

Corn ethanol no, corn yes.

Click to expand...

Corn is actually worse in a return on energy standpoint. Now we humans can't eat sunlight or fossil fuels so growing some food is rather important but the return on energy is dreadful. Intentionally growing more food to use human power (the least efficient conversion process possible) is just asinine.

Now to turn the analogy between humans and cars in reverse, better to have a direct to the wheels drivetrain than a multi-step serial EV

Click to expand...

Well there is no direct to drive. You have a human which is capable of converting roughly 20% of the chemical energy in food into motive power. To efficiency process that food usually requires cooking and that step alone adds 50% to 100% overhead. So just from raw food magically appearing in front of you to motive force the efficiency is a mere 10% to 16%. When you factor in irrigation, fertilizer, herbicides, harvesting, transport, distribution, processing, refrigeration, etc you are looking at a 8:1 overhead (US is closer to 11:1).

There is a reason why fossil fuels greatly increased life expectancy, quality of life, and longevity. It is an order of magnitude more efficient than human power. BEV are even more efficient. That isn't to say there are not consequences and we as a species have been horribly wasteful but it is this superior efficiency which lead to prosperity in spite of that wastefulness. Fossil fuels are like a one time gift. Billions of years of stored photosynthesis. We need to move beyond them but they are incredibly powerful.

^^ You may be jumping the gun.
I have not read the source material this blog is using, but look at this table from
Carbon Footprint Ranking of Food
The following table shows the greenhouse gas emissions produced by one kilo of each food. It includes all the emissions produced on the farm, in the factory, on the road, in the shop and in your home. It also shows how many miles you need to drive to produce that many greenhouse gases. For example, you need to drive 63 miles to produce the same emissions as eating one kilogram of beef.
Meat, cheese and eggs have the highest carbon footprint. Fruit, vegetables, beans and nuts have much lower carbon footprints. If you move towards a mainly vegetarian diet, you can have a large impact on your personal carbon footprint.
Rank
Food
CO2 Kilos Equivalent
Car Miles*Equivalent





Figures from the Environmental Working Group’s Meat Eater’s Guide and the EPA’s Guide to Passenger Vehicle Emissions.

Lets say a car mile is 1/25th of a gallon, thus 0.04*9000 grams of CO2 or
About 0.04*33,400 = 13336 Wh of source energy to grow one Kg of lentils

In return, food worth 4000 kCal is obtained, equal to 4649 Wh.

So rather than asinine, a better answer is it depends on what food first and foremost, and then how it is grown.

Yeah but even that specific example using a highly efficient crop is a horrible return on energy. I will assume your math is correct. I show 1kg of raw lentils being 4100 Wh and not sure if this chart includes the energy cost of cooking but lets use those numbers.

13,336 Wh of energy = 4,639 Wh of raw food hydrocarbons = 927 Wh motive energy (@ 20% energy conversion).

On a bike at 15 mph the energy requirement (71kg rider & 9kg bike) is ~7 Wh per mile. So 1kg of lentil fuel (13,336) provides energy for 132 miles or 100 Wh/mi well to wheels.

If instead that 13,336 Wh of raw energy was combusted to produce electricity @ 40% efficiency, 6% transmission loss, 10% charging loss, and used to power a cheap 70% efficient electric motor on an electric bike it would provide energy for 451 miles or 29 Wh/mi. That is with today's relatively cheap eBikes (low efficiency hub motor). You could almost cut that in half by using higher efficiency chargers, motors, and regenerative braking. That is a pretty straight forward comparison. Roughly the same structure just a comparison of two motors (human power or electrical power).

A Tesla Model S uses about 200 Wh/mi (wall to wheel) at 15 mph which would be ~500 Wh/mi (well to wheel). Now that is 5x the energy for a human powered bike but one could move 5 people at that cost. The Tesla is also a rather heavy EV. I am not suggesting replace all bikes with Teslas but replacing all bikes with electric bikes would be a good start.

Human power just is horribly inefficient. It makes low efficiency gasoline engines look downright technologically advanced. You got 927 Wh of motive force from 13,336 Wh of energy input. That is a well to wheel efficiency of ~6%. Gasoline ICE are about 15% to 20%, diesel or hybrids are closer to 20% to 25% and BEV are 35% to 50% (with the largest factor being energy production). Even a more balanced healthy diet is going to drop that in half. Human powered anything is a step backwards in terms of quality of life and longevity.

I deleted my post for this instead:
http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/...t_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf

It is the source data behind the table. Very interesting reading.
In the case of lentils e.g., the total CO2e emissions for 1 Kg is 540 grams, of which about half is N2O from the soil. The actual fossil fuel inputs are 340 grams of CO2 after combustion.

So the efficiency calc I think should be about like this:
1 Kg of lentils has 3500 kCal energy, or 875 kCal of human motive energy

How much electricity can be generated that results in 340 grams of CO2 ?
The US grid IIRC has a carbon intensity of about 700 grams CO2 per kWh, so ~ 0.5 kWh.
Half a kWh is 430 kCal.

Bottom line: Human powered bicycling can beat the e-bike handsomely, but it takes a Vegan/Vegetarian to do it. Those that eschew red meat are about equal.

ChemMan said:

Human power just is horribly inefficient. It makes low efficiency gasoline engines look downright technologically advanced. You got 927 Wh of motive force from 13,336 Wh of energy input.

Click to expand...

The 13,336 includes solar.

No doubt about it though: getting people out of cars and on to bikes -- electric or not -- would be a tremendous advance.

Human mechanical efficiency:

SageBrush said:

The 13,336 includes solar.
No doubt about it though: getting people out of cars and on to bikes -- electric or not -- would be a tremendous advance.

Click to expand...

Sorry...... but come on this is a waste of thought energy....

In the real world most here with winter & summer weather extremes(snow, ice & rain in temps ranging from 100+ to -30* F) in the spread out US very few will ever give up an auto for transportation, gasser, diesel, hybrid or EV....

Denver keeps taking lanes of travel away using this thought experiment which aren't used by anyone most of year.....

These lanes added to W. Florida Ave and W. Jewel Ave have always been a less than useless application of this thought experiment, These roads are the only east west running roads in the area for traffic trying to get from Santa Fee & Federal Ave to the main north south arterial stretches of Federal, Sheriden, Wadsworth & Kipling Avenues.

These lane reductions come at the loss of one travel lane in each direction, two main 4 lane roads cut now down to one lane each way with bike lanes no one uses taking up a lane of travel.

While they added a center turn lane the only lane of normal travel backs up 20-50 cars deep each way during rush hours. That fantasy based idea some speak of which was used to cut lanes of travel has lead to back ups which have lead directly to an increased crash rate for cars which must travel these stretches!

A thought experiment which makes travel for the rest of us more dangerous from the increased congestion they created for those of us in the real world!

It is a nice idea for a place in fantasy land where no one lives, but pretty useless for the rest of us in the real world.....

Now back to reality, when will EVs get enough range( at a useful & practical price) to be useful to those of us who need a range and recharge rate similar to what is currently available with gasser or diesel power???

I pretty sure that I and many others have shown we ain't there yet.......Likely not to be there in my lifetime......

rotarykid said:

Sorry...... but come on this is a waste of thought energy....
In the real world most here with winter & summer weather extremes(snow, ice & rain in temps ranging from 100+ to -30* F) in the spread out US very few will ever give up an auto for transportation, gasser, diesel, hybrid or EV....
Denver keeps taking lanes of travel away using this thought experiment which aren't used by anyone most of year.....
These lanes added to W. Florida Ave and W. Jewel Ave have always been a less than useless application of this thought experiment, These roads are the only east west running roads in the area for traffic trying to get from Santa Fee & Federal Ave to the main north south arterial stretches of Federal, Sheriden, Wadsworth & Kipling Avenues.
These lane reductions come at the loss of one travel lane in each direction, two main 4 lane roads cut now down to one lane each way with bike lanes no one uses taking up a lane of travel.
While they added a center turn lane the only lane of normal travel backs up 20-50 cars deep each way during rush hours. That fantasy based idea some speak of which was used to cut lanes of travel has lead to back ups which have lead directly to an increased crash rate for cars which must travel these stretches!
A thought experiment which makes travel for the rest of us more dangerous from the increased congestion they created for those of us in the real world!
It is a nice idea for a place in fantasy land where no one lives, but pretty useless for the rest of us in the real world.....
Now back to reality, when will EVs get enough range( at a useful & practical price) to be useful to those of us who need a range and recharge rate similar to what is currently available with gasser or diesel power???
I pretty sure that I and many others have shown we ain't there yet.......Likely not to be there in my lifetime......

Click to expand...

You're beating that drum to death. We understand that the current EV situation does not suit your driving style. That, however, doesn't mean that EVs don't suit anybody's driving style. There are a lot of people in this world with more typical commutes in places that get a lot of sun.

I don't know how much longer your lifetime is, but I fully expect to see the death of the internal combustion engine in automotive applications during my lifetime.

VeeDubTDI said:

You're beating that drum to death. We understand that the current EV situation does not suit your driving style. That, however, doesn't mean that EVs don't suit anybody's driving style. There are a lot of people in this world with more typical commutes in places that get a lot of sun.
I don't know how much longer your lifetime is, but I fully expect to see the death of the internal combustion engine in automotive applications during my lifetime.

Click to expand...

I never said they were not useful to some, to those which live in a place where there is real mass transit they can and want to use yes.....Or to those who live close to work, close enough to allow travel without running out of charge....Or to those who live somewhere there are many of these super & otherwise charging stations all around....

But here is the real issue and this is a really big issue..... none of the current offerings would exist today without their large tax credits @ purchase and their continuing free road tax ride!

A place like the cities of the front range of Colorado or my region of the Carolina's, no practical mass transit is available.....No one has the time to waste two plus hours for a trip that in the worst of rush hour can be done in half that....In normal travel times can be done in 20 mins......

In the Carolina's where I am from there is !NO! mass transit there. Most who live in a suburb ring which covers ~45 miles in every direction work in the Charlotte metro region. That is an average drive required of 30 to 60 miles each way to work, which gives a drive range approaching & exceeding the derivable range on a single charge. While there are more charging stations available in the region today many peoples work do not offer them....

And if you in one of areas in eastern NC travel to one of the eastern cities just to it can exceed the charge range.......Not to mention getting home without a full charge for the return trip......

I am not beating a dead horse here, but I am pointing out real issues with current technoligy which makes it useless to most I describe.......But I have gotten no real answers to this from those who seem to only have asinine comments (Like I& anyone else who needs reliable transportation to cover real distances today should be replaced with a web page)....

How about these people stop deflecting with their religious like support of EVs today to give real responses to the issues I have brought up with today's EV cars....

They are today legalized road tax cheats! They do only exist today because to the tax credits given at time of purchase since their purchase price today is many times that of the average gas or diesel car they are meant to replace......

You are repeating yourself. We get it. The technology has to start somewhere, and we're seeing very rapid advance in the industry. As this technology grows and becomes more mainstream, subsidies will fade away.

Speaking of subsidies, all kinds of industries get tax incentives for various things. Agriculture, oil, education, and much much more. Let's not get fixated on that.

Also, regarding cycling, a good network actually reduces car traffic more than the lane closures would lead one to believe. (This means a network that actually provides safety to cyclists, is designed to avoid cyclist/motorist interaction, and actually gets cyclists to real places, that aren't just roads to nowhere.) And, adding lanes to roads tends to not help traffic: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Weather-related concerns... there's ways around it. Electrifying a bicycle can help a lot, especially under the federal 750 W/20 mph limit laws, for heat. For rain and for cold, velomobiles can be enclosed. For snow... that's harder, although I also suspect that during extremely cold weather that makes personal transportation difficult, it may simply just require either hardening the **** up, or commerce slowing down on those days.

Finally, cyclists are traffic. So, bike routes along major routes that are the only way to get from point A to point B, where point A and point B are popular endpoints, are actually good parts of networks.

How about this fact, in the big picture of the goal from those who worship at the religion of current EV tech....

If your goal is really a substantial reduction of energy use light duty diesels today are the only real on shelf tech which could work for 98 % of US drivers in the conditions they face....

A reduction for a period of time in emissions regs allowing the most fuel efficient small displacement light duty fuel sipping diesel autos to be offered here for sale would accomplish the most with these given today tax breaks at time of purchase & road tax breaks......

If reductions of energy used, a real amount of energy from a fleet of these being added to all of our roads would get us to a point significantly lower than these pie in the sky EVs today will ever produce!

Then a re-evaluation of EV tech a decade or so from now will show if that tech has matured enough to give benefits which approach the fantasy of some here.....If EVs do then have the needed abilities by many today across the US, we could then pass laws to bring light duty diesel autos back to today's levels and push EV tech for all which hopefully by then has matured to the point it's promised today fantasy based vision.....

That is my gripe with today's setup. EVs are being given a tax credit break in road tax & purchase price which is not deserved from what they can for the foreseeable future...

While a similar tax break given to light duty diesel autos having current on shelf fuel sipping tech today could get us to reduced energy use right now!!!

And any cost to air quality would be far more balanced out by what they could give us today, all of us!

rotarykid said:

How about this fact, in the big picture of the goal from those who worship at the religion of current EV tech....
If your goal is really a substantial reduction of energy use light duty diesels today are the only real on shelf tech which could work for 98 % of US drivers in the conditions they face....

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ips-could-be-made-in-electric-cars-says-study

Of the 106,681 survey participants who drove to work every day in a car, 95 percent of them travelled less than 40 miles to work, with the average commute distance being 13.6 miles.

Because of how the study was conducted, 39 percent of cars owned by participating households in the 2009 NHTS were not driven on study days examining total mileage drive. But of the 179,848 cars examined that were used on what the study calls the Travel Day, 93 percent of them drove less than 100 miles.

The average daily drive total for urban-based cars was just 36.5 miles, while rural-based cars drove an average of 48.6 miles.

Click to expand...

So, for 95% of drivers, for commuting (most driving), any EV on the market would work with sufficient charging infrastructure, and some EVs would work period. And, for the average driver, any EV currently on the market would work period.

95% of drivers don't need TDI range, they need EV range. And, for those that do need more range, EREVs are still an option that can provide a significant reduction in carbon footprint. (And, for the occasional long drive, rentals are a fantastic option. Especially as EVs proliferate, they'll become more common.)

Today.

And, if you're going to complain about EVs getting tax breaks on purchase and on road usage, let's talk about how ICEs get a $598.5 billion subsidy in the form of the Department of Defense. (OK, that's hyperbole, but a lot of our current military activity is related to securing oil supply.)

bhtooefr said:

Also, regarding cycling, a good network actually reduces car traffic more than the lane closures would lead one to believe. (This means a network that actually provides safety to cyclists, is designed to avoid cyclist/motorist interaction, and actually gets cyclists to real places, that aren't just roads to nowhere.) And, adding lanes to roads tends to not help traffic: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Weather-related concerns... there's ways around it. Electrifying a bicycle can help a lot, especially under the federal 750 W/20 mph limit laws, for heat. For rain and for cold, velomobiles can be enclosed. For snow... that's harder, although I also suspect that during extremely cold weather that makes personal transportation difficult, it may simply just require either hardening the **** up, or commerce slowing down on those days.

Finally, cyclists are traffic. So, bike routes along major routes that are the only way to get from point A to point B, where point A and point B are popular endpoints, are actually good parts of networks.

Click to expand...

That is all well & good, but outside of the very young who is shape which could physically handle more adverse weather while using a bike, these are empty places of roads which 10s of thousands of drivers rely on to get to work, to the store, to the hospital, all places which require a vehicle 70-80 % of the time during the year in Colorado........

Taking a lane of travel away to be used a few times a year by a very few is not in anyone's best interest...And will never lead to increased bike use....

By the way the Denver metro area has hundreds of miles of bike trails which lead from the suburbs to downtown for those who really wish to ride a bike to & from the area....

And I do not buy the BS bikes need a special lane to be useful to most.....WE the drivers know the law, we must in Colorado give them ~6 ft when available to give when passing......WE the drivers must not take actions which endanger the person on the bike as we pass....

But it would help if more bike riders followed the law. stop running stop signs, stop ignoring stop lights, stop acting like I am on the bike so get the !!!! out of my way when I am approaching.......Many bike riders are such ashats that they bread contempt against them which leads to direct conflicts with autos......

I see this kind of non-sense whenever I go to Boulder, it seems to be from many on their bike's attitude that !!!! u get out of my way.....And giving them a bike lane they refuse to use to let traffic by renders the bike lane pretty useless.......

We would go a long way to make travel safer for all by making it clear to those on a bike they must follow the rules of the road the same as those they share the road with in an auto......

The bike lane needs to actually be safer for cyclists to actually use it (hint: a bike lane is typically the wrong way to do that, it needs to be separated from motorists by more than paint). Taking the lane is generally safer than using dangerous infrastructure, because it forces motorists to notice you, and react to you, rather than just turn right in your path.

And, for the very people you mention who aren't young or in shape, dedicated infrastructure gets them to use it - just look at the Netherlands, where in cold, rain, and snow, people of all ages use the often pervasive cycling infrastructure. Our current cycling "infrastructure" only appeals to young, fit riders, because it requires maximum speed to survive.

As far as following the law, motorists don't get to be all high and mighty about cyclists breaking laws when they break laws all the time, too. Speeding laws, lane change laws, texting laws, that kind of thing. And, what happens if a cyclist runs a stop sign or a red and gets hit? Cyclist loses. What happens if a motorist runs a stop sign or a red and hits someone? Cyclist or pedestrian loses. The danger to others of a cyclist not respecting traffic control devices is much lower than that of a motorist doing the same thing. And, cyclists tend to have more situational awareness, and can therefore determine whether something's coming more easily than a motorist.

Also, because of our laws and infrastructure that are extremely anti-cyclist, the only people who are crazy enough to regularly cycle are outlaw types, that are less likely to respect laws that they don't see as protecting them. (And, in some cases, it may actually be safer for a cyclist to run a red, to get out of a dangerous situation.) Make the system work for cycling, and people will work with the system. The system doesn't work for cycling, so the few that do cycle don't work with it.

It's also worth noting that most attempts at installing infrastructure in the US are dangerous designs that were discredited 40 years ago in actual advanced countries. Safe designs avoid cars crossing the path, when it's required it gives enough space for a car to cross perpendicular to the path, it gives tactile signs that you are crossing a path (elevated surface, that kind of thing), and they definitely don't just dump the cyclist into the right turn lane, or require right turning traffic to cross the path at a shallow angle, at intersections - they actually continue through the intersection, on a separate light cycle. Then, routing motor vehicle traffic away from destinations, unless it's actually going to those destinations, helps, because then the roads that cyclists use are lower traffic (and can be reduced in width and/or speed limit), even when they must share with cars.

OK now I am really confused.....

ARe you saying it was a good idea to take two normal lanes of travel away from two main western metro Denver(Denver & Lakewood) roads to give us used by no one bike lanes???

Or did this action just make travel less safe for the imaginary bikers and the real auto users??????

I'm saying taking the lanes of travel away to provide a safer route for cyclists is a good thing, if it's done properly.

For what it's worth, that chart about food sources did include cooking energy.

The source: http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/...at-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/

The other thing that'd be nice to see is if the graph were presented in CO2e per, say, 1000 kcal, rather than per kg. Some foods are not calorically dense, and therefore will have far higher CO2e than that graph indicates.

In SoCal, where electricity costs .47c per kWh at the top tier, this website showed some interesting numbers:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml

EV plug-in:

Per 25 miles of driving = $3.46

Jetta SW TDI:

Per 25 miles of driving = $1.80

guess I'll keep the Jetta

rotarykid said:

How about this fact, in the big picture of the goal from those who worship at the religion of current EV tech....

If your goal is really a substantial reduction of energy use light duty diesels today are the only real on shelf tech which could work for 98 % of US drivers in the conditions they face....

A reduction for a period of time in emissions regs allowing the most fuel efficient small displacement light duty fuel sipping diesel autos to be offered here for sale would accomplish the most with these given today tax breaks at time of purchase & road tax breaks......

If reductions of energy used, a real amount of energy from a fleet of these being added to all of our roads would get us to a point significantly lower than these pie in the sky EVs today will ever produce!

Then a re-evaluation of EV tech a decade or so from now will show if that tech has matured enough to give benefits which approach the fantasy of some here.....If EVs do then have the needed abilities by many today across the US, we could then pass laws to bring light duty diesel autos back to today's levels and push EV tech for all which hopefully by then has matured to the point it's promised today fantasy based vision.....

That is my gripe with today's setup. EVs are being given a tax credit break in road tax & purchase price which is not deserved from what they can for the foreseeable future...

While a similar tax break given to light duty diesel autos having current on shelf fuel sipping tech today could get us to reduced energy use right now!!!

And any cost to air quality would be far more balanced out by what they could give us today, all of us!

Click to expand...

What VeeDubTDI said. EV tax credits pale in comparison to other industry subsidies. As soon as an affordable 150+ mile range EV comes on market, I'm outta here, subsidized or not.

Rockwater said:

What VeeDubTDI said. EV tax credits pale in comparison to other industry subsidies. As soon as an affordable 150+ mile range EV comes on market, I'm outta here, subsidized or not.

Click to expand...

Have you driven a volt yet? The 2016 is getting rave reviews.

Rockwater said:

EV tax credits pale in comparison to other industry subsidies.

Click to expand...

That's absurd, and simply not true. No industry receives the favorable regulatory benefits, tax subsidies, guaranteed loans, federal research funds and outright cash grants that alternative energy / transportation are granted. It simply would not exist at this level today without it.

Call it whatever you want, an investment in our future or a boondoggle for Democrat insiders - but don't deny the reality of the enormous underwriting and planned economy of alt energy/transport.

SuburbanTDI said:

That's absurd, and simply not true. No industry receives the favorable regulatory benefits, tax subsidies, guaranteed loans, federal research funds and outright cash grants that alternative energy / transportation are granted. It simply would not exist at this level today without it.

Click to expand...

*cough* IRAQ WAR *cough*

$2T

Seriously doubt the combined tax credits and R&D come even close... that's without counting the cost of climate change and pollution.

nwdiver said:

Have you driven a volt yet? The 2016 is getting rave reviews.

Click to expand...

Yep, test drove one a couple years ago and liked it. The 2016 sounds even better, however, I'm waiting to go full EV.

I can't find that anyone mentioned the e-Golf yet. We snagged one in "Pacific Blue" in March - the local dealership had gotten 5 of them just before we took the JSW in for service and my wife drove it out of the showroom - $295/month 3 year lease. The rest were gone by the end of the week Range is only 90-ish miles, but my wife never drives more than 90 miles a day around town and she loves it - when she can pry my hands off the steering wheel. From stopped, it accelerates like a rocket and it is way more fun to drive than the Nissan Leaf

TDI2000Zim said:

Wouldn't it be interesting if the TDI club became an EV club?

That's scary.

Click to expand...

Not in my lifetime,

rotarykid said:

Sorry...... but come on this is a waste of thought energy....
In the real world most here with winter & summer weather extremes(snow, ice & rain in temps ranging from 100+ to -30* F) in the spread out US very few will ever give up an auto for transportation, gasser, diesel, hybrid or EV....
Denver keeps taking lanes of travel away using this thought experiment which aren't used by anyone most of year.....
These lanes added to W. Florida Ave and W. Jewel Ave have always been a less than useless application of this thought experiment, These roads are the only east west running roads in the area for traffic trying to get from Santa Fee & Federal Ave to the main north south arterial stretches of Federal, Sheriden, Wadsworth & Kipling Avenues.
These lane reductions come at the loss of one travel lane in each direction, two main 4 lane roads cut now down to one lane each way with bike lanes no one uses taking up a lane of travel.
While they added a center turn lane the only lane of normal travel backs up 20-50 cars deep each way during rush hours. That fantasy based idea some speak of which was used to cut lanes of travel has lead to back ups which have lead directly to an increased crash rate for cars which must travel these stretches!
A thought experiment which makes travel for the rest of us more dangerous from the increased congestion they created for those of us in the real world!
It is a nice idea for a place in fantasy land where no one lives, but pretty useless for the rest of us in the real world.....
Now back to reality, when will EVs get enough range( at a useful & practical price) to be useful to those of us who need a range and recharge rate similar to what is currently available with gasser or diesel power???
I pretty sure that I and many others have shown we ain't there yet.......Likely not to be there in my lifetime......

Click to expand...

Vancouver BC has added bike lanes that are rarely used yet its makes congestion worse. Yep, big win, more idling cars and "Vision" team calls this a triumph for bike riders,

VeeDubTDI said:

I don't know how much longer your lifetime is, but I fully expect to see the death of the internal combustion engine in automotive applications during my lifetime.

Click to expand...

Not sure how old you are but it won't happen in my lifetime, maybe my kids.

Personally, I'd love an EV car "IF" they didnt' cost so much but its hard to beat $2000 Jetta's with ALH's that get 40 mpg and with the Jet fuel I get and others, makes it like an EV car,

TDI2000Zim said:

Wouldn't it be interesting if the TDI club became an EV club?

That's scary.

Click to expand...

Not in my lifetime,

rotarykid said:

Sorry...... but come on this is a waste of thought energy....
In the real world most here with winter & summer weather extremes(snow, ice & rain in temps ranging from 100+ to -30* F) in the spread out US very few will ever give up an auto for transportation, gasser, diesel, hybrid or EV....
Denver keeps taking lanes of travel away using this thought experiment which aren't used by anyone most of year.....
These lanes added to W. Florida Ave and W. Jewel Ave have always been a less than useless application of this thought experiment, These roads are the only east west running roads in the area for traffic trying to get from Santa Fee & Federal Ave to the main north south arterial stretches of Federal, Sheriden, Wadsworth & Kipling Avenues.
These lane reductions come at the loss of one travel lane in each direction, two main 4 lane roads cut now down to one lane each way with bike lanes no one uses taking up a lane of travel.
While they added a center turn lane the only lane of normal travel backs up 20-50 cars deep each way during rush hours. That fantasy based idea some speak of which was used to cut lanes of travel has lead to back ups which have lead directly to an increased crash rate for cars which must travel these stretches!
A thought experiment which makes travel for the rest of us more dangerous from the increased congestion they created for those of us in the real world!
It is a nice idea for a place in fantasy land where no one lives, but pretty useless for the rest of us in the real world.....
Now back to reality, when will EVs get enough range( at a useful & practical price) to be useful to those of us who need a range and recharge rate similar to what is currently available with gasser or diesel power???
I pretty sure that I and many others have shown we ain't there yet.......Likely not to be there in my lifetime......

Click to expand...

Vancouver BC has added bike lanes that are rarely used yet its makes congestion worse. Yep, big win, more idling cars and "Vision" team calls this a triumph for bike riders,

VeeDubTDI said:

I don't know how much longer your lifetime is, but I fully expect to see the death of the internal combustion engine in automotive applications during my lifetime.

Click to expand...

Not sure how old you are but it won't happen in my lifetime, maybe my kids.

Personally, I'd love an EV car "IF" they didnt' cost so much but its hard to beat $2000 Jetta's with ALH's that get 40 mpg and with the Jet fuel I get and others, makes it like an EV car,

turbovan+tdi said:

Not in my lifetime,



Vancouver BC has added bike lanes that are rarely used yet its makes congestion worse. Yep, big win, more idling cars and "Vision" team calls this a triumph for bike riders,

Click to expand...

The envirotards can very rarely see the reality of any situation through the green cloud of thier own bs and spew. The idea that modest regulation works well, so let's push to an extreme and destroy everything is just incomprehensible to their one sided viewpoints.

Good things can cease to be good when overdone, plain and simple!

And I am certain that all 11 bikers using that lane are thrilled . . . the tens of thousand others are just screwed . . .

- Tim

tadawson said:

The envirotards can very rarely see the reality of any situation through the green cloud of thier own bs and spew.
- Tim

Click to expand...

Hmmm... let's see... virtually zero maintenance for ~500k miles; 150 miles(50kWh) of energy delivered on average everyday; 90 miles on the energy in a gallon of gas... AND... for those that accept reality and care about its implications... ~90% less CO2 per mile from a PV powered EV than a petrol powered ICE.

we're the 'crazy' ones? LOL...

~5 more years and all this will be cheaper than a new TDI... if they still sell 'em.