Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Jolle]

This above draws attention on what is the most hurtful of the Bezos excursion into space, not the actual pollution or general boosting of his wealth (to be honest, all that order from his company are in one way or another complicit as well, we gave him that wealth), but no.

The biggest challenge we face that the wealthy part of the world, the first world nations, have to individually change their behaviour. And now, because of stupid @ss Bezos everybody is pointing at him as the problem, diverting the problems from their own consumption.

Thanks Jeff. Not!

[Andres125sx]

Quite recently a Dutch professor of Eindhoven university made a short movie explaining trains are often not more sustainable than airliners. This due to the enormous amount (length) of rail and materials needed for bridges and tunnels (depending on location). In his opinion making carbon neutral aviation fuel is far cheaper, and cleaner, than seriously expanding railway systems.

Interesting.

Did he take into account oil extraction, refinement and transport?
What time usage of those bridges, tunnels and railways did he consider to make the comparison?
Did he also consider airports construction into the equation?

Something makes me think he made a similar comparison to those flawed reports wich compare construction, energy production and usage of EVs vs only usage of ICEs, and even with that flawed comparison EVs still pollute a bit less.

But no idea if that is the case, so that´s the reason I´m asking

[Andres125sx]

Will flow batteries have a part in electrification?
They last longer and permit (at least in theory) to change the electrolyte with a recharged one pretty in the same way and time you do with fuels.
Moreover their power and energy characteristics can be designed separately, but they are more complex (they needs some pumps) and have less energy and power densities.

They do already have a commercial niche market, providing storage for lifts (elevators). As you say they can be recharged by replenishing the fluid, or by recharging it, and for static installations they make some sense - you can make the energy storage bigger simply by making the tanks bigger. They aren't amazingly efficient at 80% round trip, not a number that is widely publicised for many battery types. That is, if i deliver X kWh to your battery facility, and later get Y kWh, leaving the battery in the same state of charge, what is Y/X? All the electrical jiggery pokery and hotel loads should be accounted for by that method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

It´s a while since I last checked flow batteries. In the day they did look as they may be a great alternative for renewable home systems, but don´t know if they evolved or not. Any recent development of flow batteries?

[J.A.W.]

American muscle car engines are never big enough, why they ah, currently have a struggle on hand
to waste a max-spec Tesla!

Not sure what you mean, but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLs5CcvsjNc

& anyhow, the huge US 'pick-up' & SUV machines far outnumber them.

Agree, pick-ups and SUVs are an even a bigger problem. And contrary to rockets, there´s a viable alternative for all of them

We don't know for sure what effect vastly more rocket-efflux into the highest atmosphere will have,
nor what the massive cut on stratospheric gas-turbine usage will do, so no arrogant presumption, thanks..

Trying to divert attention JAW? I´ll remember this is the "viability of EVs" thread, a hundred rocket launches a year will never be a comparable problem to hundreds millions cars driving daily, many of them with engines much much bigger than necessary, with emission levels several orders of magnitude higher than necessary, just because some humans feel the need to own a car with much much, much more power than he really need.

As you may guess from a F1T member I love those machines, but if we discuss about viability, emissions, and what is rational and what is not, anyone with a brain will have to agree a 6 litres engine is not necessary for a car at all, actually not even a half of that is necessary at all. Also, there are much more rational alternatives so they could be replaced easily.

OTOH a rocket does not have any viable alternative yet, so what do you think we should focus on JAW? Something wich is used a hundred times a year with no viable alternative? Or on something wich is used thousands millions times a year and actually have many viable alternatives?

Hey, pick the right SUV, like a Jeep, & the Tesla is toast: (scroll across to ~5:00 minutes in)




& of course, the Tesla is flat out at speeds well below any modern performance car (in fact, its no
faster than Euro-agreement artificially speed-limited 'executive' cars from ~30 years ago!).




There is no need for billionaires to be dabbling in huge rockets, but if they can do so,
then you can drive a 6 litre car, & add a couple of turbos as well, if you can afford it.

Lron Musque however, appears to want to parade 'green' credentials, & does he imagine that
he has earned sufficient 'social credit' by dint of his EVs, & is thus 'free' to blast hydrocarbons?

[Big Tea]

!

There is no need for billionaires to be dabbling in huge rockets, but if they can do so,
then you can drive a 6 litre car, & add a couple of turbos as well, if you can afford it.

Lron Musque however, appears to want to parade 'green' credentials, & does he imagine that
he has earned sufficient 'social credit' by dint of his EVs, & is thus 'free' to blast hydrocarbons?

SpaceX (Elon Musk) is using methane, with the intention to collect fuel off world (eventually) and has a capacity of taking 100+ ton to orbit. Once things are produced in space, with all that unfiltered continual sunlight it will soon move over to the green side of the sum.

[djos]

Hey, pick the right SUV, like a Jeep, & the Tesla is toast: (scroll across to ~5:00 minutes in)




& of course, the Tesla is flat out at speeds well below any modern performance car (in fact, its no
faster than Euro-agreement artificially speed-limited 'executive' cars from ~30 years ago!).




There is no need for billionaires to be dabbling in huge rockets, but if they can do so,
then you can drive a 6 litre car, & add a couple of turbos as well, if you can afford it.

Lron Musque however, appears to want to parade 'green' credentials, & does he imagine that
he has earned sufficient 'social credit' by dint of his EVs, & is thus 'free' to blast hydrocarbons?

Lol, a lovely attempt at cherry-picking your competitors! However, the new Model S Plaid (stupid name, but whatever) just redefined the phrase "fast production car".

It'll do around 9.20 1/4 miles all day on street tires (at ~150mph), that's faster than a stock Mustang GT500 and even a tuned 1,200hp GT500.

[J.A.W.]

Not "cherry picking" any more than the vid you posted, & did you read the timeslip printout?
The Mustang guy was out-reaction timed, but had a faster top end, & in a 1000 metre sprint,
would've run over the top of the Tesla, handily...

[Just_a_fan]

There is no need for billionaires to be dabbling in huge rockets, but if they can do so,
then you can drive a 6 litre car, & add a couple of turbos as well, if you can afford it.

Lron Musque however, appears to want to parade 'green' credentials, & does he imagine that
he has earned sufficient 'social credit' by dint of his EVs, & is thus 'free' to blast hydrocarbons?

A typical SpaceX launch creates a couple of hundred tonnes of CO2. In the US, the average passenger car makes about 4.5 tonnes CO2 per year. So the rocket launch is about the same as 50 or so cars.

When you consider that there are about 270 million cars in the USA, Musk can make 5 million launches before he's as bad as the cars are.

So the Teslas that are sold are actually offsetting the rocket launches.

[Just_a_fan]

Hey, pick the right SUV, like a Jeep, & the Tesla is toast: (scroll across to ~5:00 minutes in)

Interesting that Jeep reckon it's got best-in-class towing capacity at 7200lbs. All of Land Rover's equivalent vehicles are rated at 3500kg / 7700lb. A little bit of naughtiness from Jeep there, perhaps?

[Brake Horse Power]

Quite recently a Dutch professor of Eindhoven university made a short movie explaining trains are often not more sustainable than airliners. This due to the enormous amount (length) of rail and materials needed for bridges and tunnels (depending on location). In his opinion making carbon neutral aviation fuel is far cheaper, and cleaner, than seriously expanding railway systems.

Interesting.

Did he take into account oil extraction, refinement and transport?
What time usage of those bridges, tunnels and railways did he consider to make the comparison?
Did he also consider airports construction into the equation?

Something makes me think he made a similar comparison to those flawed reports wich compare construction, energy production and usage of EVs vs only usage of ICEs, and even with that flawed comparison EVs still pollute a bit less.

But no idea if that is the case, so that´s the reason I´m asking

Well he only had 5minutes for his youtube video, it was on some sort of knowledge channel. So he couldn’t go into too much details.

In general he and some other professors say sensible things in the media. So I guess he has a good comparison.

However probably railways could be practical and useful for transportation of heavy goods instead of trucks. So in some way you could say you need the railway anyway. But probably high speed rail and
Goods transportation are hard to combine. Slow speed rail can’t really be seen as a competitor or valid alternative to airplanes?..

[djos]

Not "cherry picking" any more than the vid you posted, & did you read the timeslip printout?
The Mustang guy was out-reaction timed, but had a faster top end, & in a 1000 metre sprint,
would've run over the top of the Tesla, handily...

ET is all that really counts here.

[J.A.W.]

Not "cherry picking" any more than the vid you posted, & did you read the timeslip printout?
The Mustang guy was out-reaction timed, but had a faster top end, & in a 1000 metre sprint,
would've run over the top of the Tesla, handily...

ET is all that really counts here.

No, because that really would mean 'cherry picking', since the results were so close,
(well, except that the Tesla was ah, all played out by the end of the 1/4 mile)...

& further to to my (much maligned) 'Don't believe the hype' response, I'd reckon its fairly
cogent to point out that certain claims were made prior to the launch of the triple-motor
Plaid, viz: being the capability of sub 9 sec 1/4 mile; sub 2 sec 0-60 mph; 200 mph top speed;
& world's best production road car aerodynamic drag mitigation...

None of these 'bold claims' have proven feasible in the one machine in road trim, its almost
as if pulling these kind of 'cheat mode' stunts is de rigueur for Tesla, & done utterly shamelessly..

Ok, 'production car' homologation series used to be a part of manufacturers schemes, but hey,
these machines (such as the mighty 1968 SS/AA lightweight drag-Hemi Barracuda/Dart pair),
were actively down-played, not hyped up, but then, Tesla aint entering any real competition..

(& for that matter, nor could the Plaid beat those Mopars from over 1/2 century ago, if/when
they are updated/prepped to use modern performance - but equivalent - drag-tech).

Seems ol' Elron Musque has a sense of humour, choosing the name 'Plaid', since anyone who buys
the hype certainly has been 'played'...

[DChemTech]

Who cares about top speed or acceleration comparisons anyway?
None of these things matter for a consumer car. If anything, I hope Tesla stops focusing on such indicators, and just makes a decent, affordable and efficient car, and rather with a top speed of 130 than 250.

[J.A.W.]

Who cares about top speed or acceleration comparisons anyway?
None of these things matter for a consumer car. If anything, I hope Tesla stops focusing on such indicators, and just makes a decent, affordable and efficient car, and rather with a top speed of 130 than 250.

Well, evidently the Tesla directorship def' want a 'show-pony' to 'grandstand' with & are aiming to
take that high-end market, rather than produce a low-cost EV 'peoples car' as such, regardless of
those such as yourself, who don't care about super-car performance attributes...

That is Tesla's - 'free world' prerogative in the 'EV market' - as it stands too, of course...

[Just_a_fan]

Who cares about top speed or acceleration comparisons anyway?
None of these things matter for a consumer car. If anything, I hope Tesla stops focusing on such indicators, and just makes a decent, affordable and efficient car, and rather with a top speed of 130 than 250.

Well, evidently the Tesla directorship def' want a 'show-pony' to 'grandstand' with & are aiming to
take that high-end market, rather than produce a low-cost EV 'peoples car' as such, regardless of
those such as yourself, who don't care about super-car performance attributes...

That is Tesla's - 'free world' prerogative in the 'EV market' - as it stands too, of course...

Irrespective of one's preferences for Tesla the brand (or the man behind it), EVs in general are very good at "getting off the line". It's one of the things that makes them excellent city cars, for example.

The top performing Tesla is impressive if for no other reason than it gives you supercar performance with full saloon car practicality at less than typical supercar prices. But it, like supercars and Jeep Trackhawks, etc., are all show ponies. The real work is done by the lower end of the brands' ranges. And there, EVs make a lot of sense in appropriate circumstances.

Yes, we can make a list of why EVs are terrible - it's easy to pick out extreme ends of the bell curve and say "look, they can't do this therefore they are worthless", but one can do similar with ICE cars if one wishes. Non-ICE cars are the future, whether that is EV, hydrogen fuel cell, or some other system. There is too much political pressure worldwide to row back on the direction that personal transport is going. Sure, places like the US will no doubt be bastions of large capacity ICE for years to come, but the world as a whole is moving on.