A post EV era

[Andres125sx]

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."

You never thought about that because that´s an ridiculously absurd excuse from someone trying to justify his own bias

If we waste resources with SUVs -> user problem, they´re fat and need a big car.
If we waste resources with BEV -> EV´s problem, they´re not as efficient as they told us


it´s comical reading people who like ICEs twice or three times what would be necessary, complaining about efficiency of EVs

[J.A.W.]

^Still missing the point...

Big SUV/4x4 vehicles are out of place in the 'urban jungle' for most users,
who would get the vast majority of the tasks done, with space enough from a
station-wagon/estate car or a moderately sized 'mum-bus' passenger van machine.

However, many ill-informed drivers/buyers of the big SUV/4x4s erroneously imagine
that they & their passengers are safer, & can see better sitting up high in traffic.

They have no concern with blocking the view of other road users, from parking spots to
motorways, nor contributing size to 'gridlock', clogging city streets/blocking small roads,
or hitting smaller machines: 'Oops, sorry - didn't see you down there'.

They also routinely lose control & crash, again due to an unrealistic conflation of 'passive'
safety features with 'active safety' driving capabilities..

Fact is, EV types of these 'cars' are yet more expensive & heavier, to match the self-serving,
hubristic, supercilious, attitudes of their hilariously hypocritical owners as arbiters of
'tomorrow today' faux-futurism.

At least a low-slung roadster won't block your view, & will be less likely to hold you up
in a space-wasting procession from city block to city block, or in a parking situation.

[DChemTech]

There is not going to be a post EV era.

So, synfuels. Lot of stuff about solar panel efficiency. Thing is, for synfuel, you need to get energy from a renewable resource - solar panel, windmill, whatever. So the efficiency of solar cells is irrelevant when it comes to battery vs. synfuel, both need their external energy input. Both are essentially 'batteries', just one solid-state and one liquid-state. The only thing that matters then in terms of efficiency is how much of the energy stored gets converted into useful work. In that field, battery + electromotor crushes synfuel + combustion engine. Add to that the fact that CO2 is still emitted from synfuel (which needs to be recaptured from air to 'regenerate' the fuel), and the fact that for by far most consumer traffic the action radius of an EV is really quite sufficient... synfuel makes no sense for commuter traffic.

Now sure, batteries are not perfect. Lithium mining has it's challenges and supply chain improvements need to be made (let's not pretend like oil mining is flawless though...). That's why I'm a big fan of true cost accounting - account for the social and ecological impact in the price of goods to cover the damage done, for any product (people like to call that a tax, but I disagree - it's real costs that are being made, and currently not explicitly accounted for.)

And in the end, the simple statement that the most environmentally friendly energy is the energy not being spent holds true. So I fully agree with Andres - regardless of what car is being made, tune it to the needs of the product. No oversized cars with oversized engines that require a lot more energy simply to move their own oversized bodies around. Customers might 'ask' for them (although, they ask for them because they are there, too, so it's not solely the customers fault - car manufacturers, Tesla included, advertise that bigger is better), but customers are not always known to act in their own long term interests...

[Edax]

^Still missing the point...

Big SUV/4x4 vehicles are out of place in the 'urban jungle' for most users,
who would get the vast majority of the tasks done, with space enough from a
station-wagon/estate car or a moderately sized 'mum-bus' passenger van machine.

However, many ill-informed drivers/buyers of the big SUV/4x4s erroneously imagine
that they & their passengers are safer, & can see better sitting up high in traffic.

They have no concern with blocking the view of other road users, from parking spots to
motorways, nor contributing size to 'gridlock', clogging city streets/blocking small roads,
or hitting smaller machines: 'Oops, sorry - didn't see you down there'.

They also routinely lose control & crash, again due to an unrealistic conflation of 'passive'
safety features with 'active safety' driving capabilities..

Fact is, EV types of these 'cars' are yet more expensive & heavier, to match the self-serving,
hubristic, supercilious, attitudes of their hilariously hypocritical owners as arbiters of
'tomorrow today' faux-futurism.

At least a low-slung roadster won't block your view, & will be less likely to hold you up
in a space-wasting procession from city block to city block, or in a parking situation.

I actually like sitting low. I prefer a sleek sedan or hatchback over any SUV.

But I am afraid that that is not the road EV’s are going. Tesla has the luxury of being able to design the complete drivetrain and battery in conjunction with the chassis, and a clientele that is willing to pay a premium.

Others (eg volkswagen, gm) are aiming to build platforms which can be put in as many cars as possible without modifications, to keep the cost down. That is creating some interesting dynamic. I think the investment for launching a new car (brand) is lower than it has been in the past 60 years, since half the car has become a buy in part. You only have to worry about the outer body shell, trim and some funky lights to show you’re different.

But that does mean that most cars will end up being a body, bolted on top of a bulky battery pack, marketed as a SUV, crossover and the like.

[johnny comelately]

Combustion Webinar 03/19/2022, Speaker: Gautam Kalghatgi

The dominant narrative in the affluent west is that climate change poses an “existential threat” and very rapid cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and hence fossil fuel use are needed to avoid it. Combustion is demonised and policies are in place to eliminate it. However, to replace just 60% of current fossil fuel use, the world will have to build 9400 GW of new, continuous CO2-free power generation capacity. Simultaneously oil, gas, coal, aviation, steel and cement industries and livestock farming have to be largely shut down to eliminate GHG and global lifestyles have to be transformed. This will not happen by 2050, let alone 2030. Transport is particularly difficult to decarbonise and current policies focusing entirely on battery electric vehicles will not and should not succeed. Global GHG levels are unlikely to come down significantly in the next several decades and even if they did, extreme weather events will not disappear. It is better to recognise such realities and make societies more resilient to the effects of any future climate change. Humanity will have to adapt to any further warming as it has done with the previous warming of about 1.1 oC over the past century. Combustion research, particularly in engine combustion, might be seen as unwanted in some countries in the short term though it will be absolutely necessary in order to ensure that energy use is improved since combustion of fossil fuels will continue to be very significant for decades to come. The gap between current policies and reality will need to be bridged but it is not clear how this will come about.

[DChemTech]

Combustion Webinar 03/19/2022, Speaker: Gautam Kalghatgi

The dominant narrative in the affluent west is that climate change poses an “existential threat” and very rapid cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and hence fossil fuel use are needed to avoid it. Combustion is demonised and policies are in place to eliminate it. However, to replace just 60% of current fossil fuel use, the world will have to build 9400 GW of new, continuous CO2-free power generation capacity. Simultaneously oil, gas, coal, aviation, steel and cement industries and livestock farming have to be largely shut down to eliminate GHG and global lifestyles have to be transformed. This will not happen by 2050, let alone 2030. Transport is particularly difficult to decarbonise and current policies focusing entirely on battery electric vehicles will not and should not succeed. Global GHG levels are unlikely to come down significantly in the next several decades and even if they did, extreme weather events will not disappear. It is better to recognise such realities and make societies more resilient to the effects of any future climate change. Humanity will have to adapt to any further warming as it has done with the previous warming of about 1.1 oC over the past century. Combustion research, particularly in engine combustion, might be seen as unwanted in some countries in the short term though it will be absolutely necessary in order to ensure that energy use is improved since combustion of fossil fuels will continue to be very significant for decades to come. The gap between current policies and reality will need to be bridged but it is not clear how this will come about.

Climate adaptation as a central policy is the single most outrageous thing to do. We have absolutely no way of adapting to a +4 to +6 degree planet that will occur once major climatological tipping points are activated, whilst maintaining anything that resembles current human lifestyle. The capacity of the planet to support human life will be massively reduced. Adaptation is a necessary additional activity with respect to the damage already done (which indeed we cannot revert), but the central aspect of any policy should absolutely be do not make things worse - avoidance, mitigation, whatever you would like to call it. Not adaptation. Even on an economic level, legions of studies (that work with linear climate models and likely under-estimate the impact of global warming) find that mitigation is cheaper than adaptation.

Anyway, that aside, there is some truth that combustion will maintain (although there is no reason to maintain it in consumer cars, an for long-haul road traffic I am hoping for fuel cells), and that where it remains, it must be done as efficiently as possible. I support that part. Not the rest of the abstract. It hugely underplays the impacts of global warming.

[johnny comelately]

comparison screenshot IMAGE (of a youtube lecture)

[Andres125sx]

Curious how people missing the point, assume anyone disagreing is missing the point

Fact is, EV types of these 'cars' are yet more expensive & heavier

Fact is it the discussion was about efficiency, not cost or weight

“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

Obviously electric SUVs are a lot more efficient than ICE SUVs, even if they´re still a waste of resources

All petrolheads who never bothered about wasting fuel and resources with big SUVs, hypercars or much bigger than necessary engines, now have suddenly become environment layers who care about the resources used to manufacture an electric vehicle

Not sure what is the correct term to use in this case... hypocrite? Cinic? Liar? Incongruous? Ignorant? All the previous?

I understand Newey's point, how can it be that difficult to grasp?

An EV version of a large SUV/4x4 is even more ludicrous as a 'town car', since it shares all the
'waste of space' issues of its ICE siblings, but is heavier, harder on tyre/road wastage & is just
about useless as a potential out-of-town rural touring car, (unless its packing/carries a ICE gen-unit!)

Sarcastic is the correct word to describe the 'virtue signal brigade' who tout their 'switched on'
awareness of the 'climate change emergency' by driving an EV, yet choosing one of those 'mammoths'..

Again curious how now you ignore the higher waste of fuel of SUVs and efficiency point wich was the point of discussion. Also curious how you say they´re useless as a rural touring car, when an EV is much much better off road than any ICE, petrol or diesel, as it´s similar to a city trip where EVs are the most efficient, and EVs are also much better off road for the higher torque from still without using a clutch

Looks like you can focus on whatever secondary data wich support your point, while ignoring the main one. Not a surprise tough, pretty common on EV haters who try to refute environmental arguments


SUVs are useless in city, but an electric SUV at least reduces pollution drastically since the unavoidable waste of energy to move those 2 tons at least become much more efficient, with no local emissions, and if some day the owner makes a mistake ang goes off road (pun intended), the electric motor will behave much better at low speed off road than the comparable ICE

[Andres125sx]

comparison screenshot IMAGE (of a youtube lecture)

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca88777 ... WxcTThIYbU

When I read or watch some similar video, article, study, or whatever, stating EVs are similar to ICE pollution wise, it´s like playing the spot the difference game, try to find where the comparison is flawed, because it surely is.

In this case it was obvious just with that screenshot, no need to watch the video. The upper sentence "changing one or two batteries BEV could emit more CO2 than ICE"... well, maybe comparing apples to oranges, as he´s comparing average BEV with most efficient ICE. Comparing average with average, or most efficient with most efficient, EVs pollute considerably less, but let´s ignore this fact

[DChemTech]

comparison screenshot IMAGE (of a youtube lecture)

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca88777 ... WxcTThIYbU

Yeah, I suppose 'fuel cycle' is the energy generation for an EV? You know what's great about that part? It can actually change, and over the years will be changing, to a more sustainable energy mix. In other words, the overall bar for EVs will go down, for combustion vehicles it will not (at least, not much, efficiency gains are eventually limited - it can never go to near-zero tailpipe emissions).

[johnny comelately]

Worth watching IMO
The car part starts at about 5 minute timestamp, but to keep context the lot is relevant.

[johnny comelately]

This is a cool insight into the operation of the Audi Dakar car.
Wasnt quite sure if it deserved a thread of its own, so here we are:

[NL_Fer]

I think EV will mostly be crossovers or SUV’s. Simply because there no technical reason not to.

For example, a mid-engine sportscar was designed like it was, because it needed a big heavy engine with 10 or 12 cilinders and they wanted to keep the balance and cog as low as possible.

But an EV already has the battery in the floor and the compact electric motor on the rear axle. So even an SUV model has a low cog, good balance and rwd. Like the BMW iX, looks like a tank, but handles like a supercar.

[Jolle]

I think EV will mostly be crossovers or SUV’s. Simply because there no technical reason not to.

For example, a mid-engine sportscar was designed like it was, because it needed a big heavy engine with 10 or 12 cilinders and they wanted to keep the balance and cog as low as possible.

But an EV already has the battery in the floor and the compact electric motor on the rear axle. So even an SUV model has a low cog, good balance and rwd. Like the BMW iX, looks like a tank, but handles like a supercar.

Most cars sold in Europe are short range small, sub-compact or compact cars, used for short range. These types are perfect for EV.

[johnny comelately]

And a bit of a contra argument
SCREENSHOT



From: