A post EV era

[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.

[pgfpro]

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.

I agree100%. I live in the PNW in the United States, and we are expecting electrical grid black outs this Summer. There is no sign of our government rebuilding our grid before then. They just keep pushing EV's down our throat big time!!!

[DChemTech]

Johnny, you posted the same text already a page before. Why repeat? And as I stated there already, adaptation is not a viable option. Fully agree with Andres.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Fully agree with Andres.

isn't that agreeing with ? .....

playing God (downvote-punishing free speech if it's not environmentalist)

the Eurocentric preaching (that is rejected by most countries eg India)

[DChemTech]

... Fully agree with Andres.

isn't that agreeing with ? .....

playing God (downvote-punishing free speech if it's not environmentalist)

the Eurocentric preaching (that is rejected by most countries eg India)

I referred to contend, not downvoting. Also find it hard to rhyme with eurocentric. If anything, europe has relativelty little to lose from early warming. The consequences are far worse for developing countries (in teems of e.g. heat waves, particularly India).

[johnny comelately]

Johnny, you posted the same text already a page before. Why repeat? And as I stated there already, adaptation is not a viable option. Fully agree with Andres.

I am deeply sorry Your Honour
It is the first time I have made a mistake in my life.

[lucafo]

The deny of one technology by another is not technically good.
EV has some very good application, but it is far from "green".
Wind turbines, for example, have lot of recycling problems and short life (high speed at the end of the blades just destroy them).
On the other hand, a oil platform have a solid engineer background and high recyclable capacity (steel), but fossil fuel have either political and logistical problems (see Russia x Ukraine).
Backing to topic, maybe there will not be a post EV era, but a time with lot of mixed technologies.
And, in this era, we should need to talk more about recycling and mining rare material problems - something no car making company wants to talk about.
Regarding the recycle thing, my suggestion would be that a company should only be allowed to sell a new product if they take back (or recycle) a similar used one.
That could work for car makers, but it would not for oil companies... well, just a initial shot.

[Jolle]

The deny of one technology by another is not technically good.
EV has some very good application, but it is far from "green".
Wind turbines, for example, have lot of recycling problems and short life (high speed at the end of the blades just destroy them).
On the other hand, a oil platform have a solid engineer background and high recyclable capacity (steel), but fossil fuel have either political and logistical problems (see Russia x Ukraine).
Backing to topic, maybe there will not be a post EV era, but a time with lot of mixed technologies.
And, in this era, we should need to talk more about recycling and mining rare material problems - something no car making company wants to talk about.
Regarding the recycle thing, my suggestion would be that a company should only be allowed to sell a new product if they take back (or recycle) a similar used one.
That could work for car makers, but it would not for oil companies... well, just a initial shot.

I think it’s pretty clear we humans can’t handle oil. Wars, waste, spills, burns, pollution, sickness, exploitation, etc etc etc. And that is even before climate change.
Just imagine what would happen if we could take oil for a great part out of our consumption.

[DChemTech]

The deny of one technology by another is not technically good.
EV has some very good application, but it is far from "green".
Wind turbines, for example, have lot of recycling problems and short life (high speed at the end of the blades just destroy them).
On the other hand, a oil platform have a solid engineer background and high recyclable capacity (steel), but fossil fuel have either political and logistical problems (see Russia x Ukraine).
Backing to topic, maybe there will not be a post EV era, but a time with lot of mixed technologies.
And, in this era, we should need to talk more about recycling and mining rare material problems - something no car making company wants to talk about.
Regarding the recycle thing, my suggestion would be that a company should only be allowed to sell a new product if they take back (or recycle) a similar used one.
That could work for car makers, but it would not for oil companies... well, just a initial shot.

The whole 'recycling issue' with windmills is completely blown out of proportion by people seeking to demonize windmills. There is a perfectly fine end-of-life solution for composite materials: bury them. That's what happens to most of it, like aircraft parts and boats, which make up a far more significant composite waste stream than windmill blades do. And noone bats an eye about them, they're inert materials after all, which just lie there. But when it comes to windmills, people suddenly act like it's the end of the world.

Also, when comparing solid waste/kWh power produced, windmills perform much better than, say, coal. Yes, the mass of solid waste (ashes) per kWh produced power of coal is larger than the mass of composite waste produced per kWh of wind power produced (and not a bit more - around 200x more). That is excluding all the other wastes (CO2 and other gaseous emissions, water pollution, etc.) that coal also produces. What happens to those ashes - that are certainly not inert? They are buried or used as filler in construction material, from where they leach into ground water and do damage. And noone bats an eye. But when we bury a windmill blade... o my.

And then still, more and more companies are coming up with ways to recycle existing blades, or produce new materials that are recycling. Great, even better. But not a necessity - avoiding wind power because of the recyclability 'issue', while retaining a fossil status quo in place, is absolutely ludicrous.

For more on the topic: https://medium.com/climate-conscious/wi ... 61913dcbd9

[DChemTech]

Johnny, you posted the same text already a page before. Why repeat? And as I stated there already, adaptation is not a viable option. Fully agree with Andres.

I am deeply sorry Your Honour
It is the first time I have made a mistake in my life.

Thanks for your mature take on the discussion. I was just wondering why you made the exact same post twice, instead of considering the responses made to that post already, is that a weird thing to do? No need to get passive-aggressive there.

[lucafo]

The whole 'recycling issue' with windmills is completely blown out of proportion by people seeking to demonize windmills. There is a perfectly fine end-of-life solution for composite materials: bury them. That's what happens to most of it, like aircraft parts and boats, which make up a far more significant composite waste stream than windmill blades do. And noone bats an eye about them, they're inert materials after all, which just lie there. But when it comes to windmills, people suddenly act like it's the end of the world.

Also, when comparing solid waste/kWh power produced, windmills perform much better than, say, coal. Yes, the mass of solid waste (ashes) per kWh produced power of coal is larger than the mass of composite waste produced per kWh of wind power produced (and not a bit more - around 200x more). That is excluding all the other wastes (CO2 and other gaseous emissions, water pollution, etc.) that coal also produces. What happens to those ashes - that are certainly not inert? They are buried or used as filler in construction material, from where they leach into ground water and do damage. And noone bats an eye. But when we bury a windmill blade... o my.

And then still, more and more companies are coming up with ways to recycle existing blades, or produce new materials that are recycling. Great, even better. But not a necessity - avoiding wind power because of the recyclability 'issue', while retaining a fossil status quo in place, is absolutely ludicrous.

For more on the topic: https://medium.com/climate-conscious/wi ... 61913dcbd9

Thanks for your mature take on the discussion and the provided data.
As I wrote previously, blades was just a example.
I am not neglecting any technology; there are problems on all of them and none could exist without the other - there is no carbon fiber for wind blades without oil.
By the way, what we should do with older or broken solar panel? Burn either?
What I mean is that there are lot of resources not put into account.
And, last, you are talking about the gains on burning windblades, but how much energy did you use to construct (produce carbon fiber), install, decommissioning, grind and finally burn? The energy do not comes from nothing; if it burns better you should have put some (lots of) energy on the process.
There is no simple solution and politics plays a big hole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lucafo]

I think it’s pretty clear we humans can’t handle oil. Wars, waste, spills, burns, pollution, sickness, exploitation, etc etc etc. And that is even before climate change.
Just imagine what would happen if we could take oil for a great part out of our consumption.

Totally agreed, but feasible?
I hope my grandkids will see a world like that.
For now we have to wait for wind, solar, nuclear and any other new (fusion?) to became mature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jolle]

I think it’s pretty clear we humans can’t handle oil. Wars, waste, spills, burns, pollution, sickness, exploitation, etc etc etc. And that is even before climate change.
Just imagine what would happen if we could take oil for a great part out of our consumption.

Totally agreed, but feasible?
I hope my grandkids will see a world like that.
For now we have to wait for wind, solar, nuclear and any other new (fusion?) to became mature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With a change in behaviour, why not?

just remember, 2 ½ ago it was impossible to think we could all work from home in an instance. now lots of people don't want to go back to their offices. behaviour is difficult to change, but once you do, lots of people don't want to go back.

[NL_Fer]

Even if you would doubt climate change or the effect of carbon emissions. How can it be good if we burn an amount of oil in 200 years, which took more than 200000 to 200 million years to create.

F1 is al about balance. How can moving so much carbon from under the ground to the air, can be in balance?

But on electric vehicles. I think that there is a bigger potential for alternative powering an EV, like battery swapping, single use batteries or refuel electrolytes, wireless quick chargers. Than there will be an efficient green fueled combustion engine.

[gruntguru]

And a bit of a contra argument
SCREENSHOT

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

From:

Some glaring errors in that screenshot.
.
.

"Even such a large increase will lead to about 5% reductions in GHG"
"Modern ICEV's could easily deliver this by improvements in efficiency"

Perhaps we need both?
.
.
.

BEV's which weigh about 30% more will lead to more PM 2.5 because of tyre wear.

No evidence is supplied for this. To my mind BEVs offer several advantages in tyre wear:
- lower CG
- superior launch torque control than clutched transmissions
- electronic control of a large % of retardation events (regen)
- superior traction control
- easier and more frequent implementation of AWD with electronic distribution of torque