A post EV era

[vorticism]

Looked it up, and it indeed is a significant amount. Current higher spec panels have around a 20% efficiency rating.
However, what imo the difference is is that, whereas there is a lot of energy wasted in a solar panel, there isn't any energy or resources spent to produce this loss.
In the case of synthetic fuels you spend energy, resources and labor to then use ~50% of it.

The tradeoff is the convenience of storage, transport and use of the fuel. If the synthesizing process (Sabatier, pyrolisis, or Fischer Tropf, etc) is closed loop then it's point of use efficiency is less relevant in terms of total systems costs and value of the end product.

f.e. to speak of two dimensions only, a tank of fuel would have a miniscule floor plan compared to an equivalent solar array.

This won't come as a surprise to many here, but NCAP assessments are finding that the greenness of EVs, once quantified, is overstated compared to modern hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.

First, overstated looks like a political and populist statement

This is one of the main points of the post. Non-scientific claims were made to form certain policy decisions; the same game will be played to support the policy decisions that supplant them.

now the sun is out so there's no reception (digital radio or digital TV) for the Imola thing
60 years ago they sent this stuff down the landlines to a UK transmitter that actually worked
... I shall take a bath

Never understood why the analogue broadcast signal was abandoned; the digital version always struggled with distance and weather by comparison. If one's concerned about TV fidelity or extra features surely they'd be using land lines to the house or internet TV. I'd say lobbying but surely the digital converter box market couldn't have been that huge.

[Greg Locock]

Off topic

"Never understood why the analogue broadcast signal was abandoned"

Those who believe you can get something for nothing (politicians) were persuaded that they could squeeze more channels into a given bandwidth (and charge the broadcasters more) by switching to digital with no loss of quality.

I suppose the example of CDs versus vinyl is a pretty positive example of that, lunatics aside. (Yes, I do own a record player). And of course mobile phones vs land lines.

But, (and as Tyrion said, everything before the but is just filler) digital broadcasting is more fragile and does not degrade gracefully.

Now back to the BEV fad...

This it the EIA's prediction for light vehicle sales in the USA out to 2050. 60%+ boring old gasoline

Last chart in this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblack ... 3d2e3f39c5

[vorticism]

Ah, tax revenue. Makes sense; should have guessed. (re: the broadcasting comment)

There are great expectations placed upon EV markets and manufacturing. Tesla comes to mind, and their stock valuation remains mystifying to those outside of the stock market casinos (or maybe just me). If I had to guess I would say established manufacturers will catch up on Tesla sooner than they can fully realize their investor's expectations. They're all developing the same tech now, including self driving. Tesla are however the only ones with a serious semi truck EV concept in development, although this again points to an EV fault: continuous use is not the BEV's strong suit. Hence JCB banking on hydrogen for their 'green' tech alternative.

There has to be a lag and even a limit for widespread public EV uptake, so that 60% statistic seems realistic. Just one point to raise on that would be: individuals and rural people will have an easier time working on an ICE than trying to make or repair PCBs, mosfets, and battery cells. Not that they couldn't but the infrastructure isn't there and not everyone has use for a black box warranty mobile.

[Andres125sx]

.... Current higher spec panels have around a 20% efficiency rating.
However, what imo the difference is is that, whereas there is a lot of energy wasted in a solar panel, there isn't any energy or resources spent to produce this loss.

5-10 times more capital cost and 5-10 times more land required ?

What do you mean? I don´t understand any of these two statements.

More capital cost than what?

More land than what? Ecofuels need more land by a huge factor for sure. And PV can be installed in deserts, no need to waste fruitful land like ecofuels need.



Sunpower panels (top class according to the maintenance company I work with who is a true expert) get 24% efficiency. And they´re worth because the solar panels are insanely affordable these days


There´re also hybrid panels, wich get both photovoltaic electricity and thermal power for hot water

[vorticism]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/newey-in ... etirement/

Thoroughly intriguing read - an interview with Adrian Newey

“That’s on the competition side. But I’d also like to develop the road car side of things. I feel I could hopefully offer something there. It’s a difficult area, incredibly competitive and obviously driven by the buyer – which is extra complicated to say the least. But I do feel that automotive just seems to be going in the wrong direction. Manufacturers are responding to what the buyer wants but the cars are becoming ever-bigger, ever-heavier.

“We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient.”

[Andres125sx]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/newey-in ... etirement/

Thoroughly intriguing read - an interview with Adrian Newey

“That’s on the competition side. But I’d also like to develop the road car side of things. I feel I could hopefully offer something there. It’s a difficult area, incredibly competitive and obviously driven by the buyer – which is extra complicated to say the least. But I do feel that automotive just seems to be going in the wrong direction. Manufacturers are responding to what the buyer wants but the cars are becoming ever-bigger, ever-heavier.

“We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient.”

Interesting read, thanks. But the statement you quoted should be this:

“We now have SUVs – huge 4x4s! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient in terms of the aero, weights, engine size.

SUVs, and hipercars , are actually ludicrous from any efficiency point of view, economic, resources use, weight, engine size...

I find this statement from Newey quite cynical sincerely, considering the road car he´s designed

[Brake Horse Power]

The whole synthetic fuel process in it's own right is incredibly wasteful when you consider you will only use about 50% of the energy for its intended purpose. That alone makes synthetic fuel not all that interesting.

It is also a demographic question. I.e. solar panels in Marocco deliver triple the amount of energy compared to the Netherlands. The efficiency loss is therefore well compensated. Transporting molecules is easy. Only use this option where needed. For European cars a battery is mostly sufficient and the environmental impact is lowest

[Edax]

I guess it all depends on the usecase. Unless someone finds a convincing case for putting a cornfield on my roof and a refinery in my garage, the combi solar and EV is unbeatable for me.

But that is due to the fact that I could place a few KW on my roof with relative good efficiency, and that I don’t need my car during the day and thus can charge it at home. For others the balance would be more towards synfuel.

So I guess we’ll see both develop. The only one I don’t understand is hydrogen. That seems to combine the worst of all options available.

[NL_Fer]

Anybody ever did a comparison between syn-fuel and nextgen non-rechargeble batteries, like Al-Air? Doesn't sound efficient to construct batteries and ship them around the globe. But syn-fuel isn't very efficient either.

[J.A.W.]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/newey-in ... etirement/

Thoroughly intriguing read - an interview with Adrian Newey

“That’s on the competition side. But I’d also like to develop the road car side of things. I feel I could hopefully offer something there. It’s a difficult area, incredibly competitive and obviously driven by the buyer – which is extra complicated to say the least. But I do feel that automotive just seems to be going in the wrong direction. Manufacturers are responding to what the buyer wants but the cars are becoming ever-bigger, ever-heavier.

“We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient.”

Interesting read, thanks. But the statement you quoted should be this:

“We now have SUVs – huge 4x4s! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient in terms of the aero, weights, engine size.

SUVs, and hipercars , are actually ludicrous from any efficiency point of view, economic, resources use, weight, engine size...

I find this statement from Newey quite cynical sincerely, considering the road car he´s designed

Not many "...hipercars" compared to SUV/4x4s - clogging the roads/parking spots (blocking the view),
& its not like "...hipercars" are very often used as a 'daily driver' - for general transport, either..

[Jolle]

Almost all people try to find the most boring car possible, preferably in grey. That’s why Toyota and VW are the largest car brands.
EV’s are perfect for that

[Andres125sx]

Not many "...hipercars" compared to SUV/4x4s - clogging the roads/parking spots (blocking the view),
& its not like "...hipercars" are very often used as a 'daily driver' - for general transport, either..

Efficiency is not related with number of sales


It´s curious how some people discover new parameters to judge cars... only with EVs

If a petrol car efficiency is so low it´s embarrasing, none cares. It doesn´t matter if huge resources are wasted to build a 6 litres engine to move a pickup wich will use the same fuel as 2 or 3 small cars togheter

But if an EV efficiency is not fully optimized to the limit, you´ll quickly find people pointing how unnefficient it is, even if it´s using energy 4x-5x better than SUV, hypercars, etc. but the one receiving huge critics will be the much more efficient EV

[J.A.W.]

Needlessly large SUV/4x4 vehicles used as 'city cars' seem to have become a match for the obesity
growth - seen in physiological & psychosocial terms of the buyers themselves - for the past couple of
decades, no matter if the bloated machines are powered by petrol/diesel/HEV, or EV only.

About the only real difference is, that unless the EV versions are heavily tax-payer subsidised,
& the ICE variants are heavily tax-penalised, then the cost difference is such that ICE fuel costs
added to purchase price only ~ match the EV, by the time the EV batteries are about cycled out...

(Added to which, the EV versions are not going to be practical range-wise very far from town,
& the EV weight penalty pounds pot-holes out of roads more readily, & is ^ dangerous in crashes).

[gruntguru]

The whole synthetic fuel process in it's own right is incredibly wasteful when you consider you will only use about 50% of the energy for its intended purpose. That alone makes synthetic fuel not all that interesting.

~90% of the solar radiation absorbed by a solar panel is rejected as heat, iirc

(Closer to 80% actually)

100% of the solar radiation reaching the ground becomes heat.

[gruntguru]

Needlessly large SUV/4x4 vehicles used as 'city cars' seem to have become a match for the obesity
growth - seen in physiological & psychosocial terms of the buyers themselves - for the past couple of
decades, no matter if the bloated machines are powered by petrol/diesel/HEV, or EV only.

Nice - I never thought of it that way. "I need to buy a car that makes me look smaller."