New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#101 2021-09-10 19:13:49

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,078

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

Glad that you have an answer to the problem.

With the age of the car its probably still had original cat's...its still bad enough for the cost I am sure.

My escape has 4 convertors in the system and they are not cheap....

adding context to next post

Spaniard wrote:
kbd512 wrote:

At a global scale, batteries don't work to power anything beyond laptops and cell phones.  Simple physics doesn't care about the feelings of our magical thinkers

But physics doesn't forbid anything of that. Biases does.

I see electric cars working perfectly now, and I didn't see "Mr Physics" appearing screaming to forbid it.

kbd512 wrote:

Every solar panel and wind turbine on the planet was made using fossil fuels.  That is a fact, whether anyone likes it or not.

What did you expect? You live in a world that works mostly on fossil fuels, so every industry, including renewable, using a lot of fossil fuels in the process.
But also uses electricity in a lot of steps of the process... And electricity has partially renewable based.
So, over the same argument, fossil fuels also use renewable energy embedded.

That's a sophism in a broader sense and doesn't means nothing. The thing is that the process to build renewable doesn't require fossil fuels. It uses because our current model uses.
It could need carbon materials and energy for sure. But that doesn't need fossil fuels per se.

In fact, most steps could be changed into electricity based alternatives that are more efficient with cheap electricity. Obviously, that isn't right if the electricity is fuel based from start, so the electricity generation is more wasteful than use the fuel directly in the industry.

But with renewable becoming more and more cheap, and fossil fuels becoming more and more expensive, there is a time where using renewable electricity in a electricity based industry is better and using fossil fuels in a burning fuel based industry.
Things like produce cement or steel will use a lot more electricity and a lot less fuel in next decades, because of the change of the energy mix of this future.

And the rhetoric of "renewable use fossil fuel" will turn false one step at a time.

As an argument about "because that renewable can't work" is flawed.

Spaniard wrote:
tahanson43206 wrote:

The fuel will be more expensive than fossil fuels, but in my opinion, that is a temporary situation.

In just a few years it will become a social faux pas to extract fossil fuel in order to use it for something so crude as burning it.

The technology needed to make synthetic fuel exists.  The challenge is to find ways to make it in sufficient quantity, and at a competitive price, so that it makes more sense to use ** real ** hydrocarbons as lubricants and for other useful products.

(th)

Market tends to choose best suited solution. fuel from electricity will be always more expensive that using electricity directly using batteries.

Of course, there is niches where price is not important, like rich people doesn't care about that, or maybe there is some aspect that is more important in that context. For example, police cars dedicated to persecution, it could be better not to be restricted by short range.

But I don't see good reasons for most people to use the expensive alternative when they can buy an electric car with a lot more cheap recharge.

Yes... Electric cars are more expensive... now. But it is a scale thing. If massive production, the price of batteries will be more cheap than the accumulated price of fuel-recharge difference across the vehicle life. Now, is around the same value. In next years, the difference will be obvious.

Besides... there is some bottlenecks in production. Well... It's expected that it will take time to scale the infrastructure. Battery factories, mining, mineral processing, adapt car manufacturing, etc. etc.

But the sells of electricity cars are exponential. Even if the numbers are low, with exponential numbers it will take less time that most think.

Offline

#102 2021-09-15 08:37:06

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,612

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

Spaniard,

Spaniard wrote:

But physics doesn't forbid anything of that. Biases does.

Speaking of sophisms, physics doesn't expressly forbid traveling faster than the speed of light, either, but in much the same way that nobody has come up with a fully reversible electrochemical reaction technology with an energy density within an order of magnitude of combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, thus far nobody has come up with a viable way to travel faster than light, either.  Whether something is expressly forbidden by known physics or not, everything we presently know about electrochemistry doesn't allow us to produce batteries that are functional like-kind replacements for combustion engines.  Nothing I've seen or heard or read about makes me think that's likely to change within the next half century.  Meanwhile, my patience is wearing thin with the "one day this, one day that, one day the other" people.

The global economy doesn't run on "hope and change" or "one day...".  It runs on science that's reducible to repeatable engineering practices.  As of right now, that means turning heat from combustion into power.  We obviously have other ways of producing power, but I've never seen a practical battery powered mining truck or a nuclear powered airplane.

One day someone may figure out how to make a practical warp drive as well, but I doubt that you or I will live to see it.

Spaniard wrote:

I see electric cars working perfectly now, and I didn't see "Mr Physics" appearing screaming to forbid it.

Your definition of "working perfectly" must vary quite a bit from mine.  I don't define "working perfectly" to mean the battery itself both costs and weighs as much as a complete combustion engine powered car to provide equivalent range, is not recyclable into a new battery, requires elements that are difficult to extract and at enormous energy cost to boot, yet also requires complete replacement every 10 years or so, assuming it doesn't short circuit first.  There are no Lithium-ion batteries produced 20 years ago that are still in use today.  20 years from now, none of the batteries in use today will be used then.  There are numerous combustion engines used in oilfield operations that have been providing continuous power for longer than Lithium-ion batteries have existed.  When science creates a battery that can be continuously operated for several decades, then you have a point.

"Mr Physics" says any technology that costs a lot upfront in terms of money and input energy, can't or won't be recycled into a new battery because the energy cost of doing that is well beyond the energy cost of making a new one using virgin materials, and can be easily destroyed whenever the electronics that control how it charges / discharges fail, and doesn't approach within an order of magnitude of the energy density of what the battery purports to replace, is NOT a very good solution.  Oddly enough, "Mr Pragmatism" says the same thing.

Spaniard wrote:

What did you expect? You live in a world that works mostly on fossil fuels, so every industry, including renewable, using a lot of fossil fuels in the process.

I expected that people who are so eager to prove that whatever they define as "renewable energy", is actually made using their "renewable energy", rather than copious quantities of fossil fuels, because that was the only way we made those technologies remotely affordable to begin with.  When the fossil fuels are gone, either through depletion or government mandates, our "renewable energy" future goes with it.  If those people want to convince me otherwise, then they can start by mining and smelting metal without burning coal and gas and diesel, then work their way up to trying to wholesale replace every other existing piece of energy generating infrastructure with silicon or wind turbines and batteries.  Thus far nobody has done that and it's painfully obvious why they haven't (because they can't).

Spaniard wrote:

But also uses electricity in a lot of steps of the process... And electricity has partially renewable based.  So, over the same argument, fossil fuels also use renewable energy embedded.

Does that mean we can stop using coal or gas or diesel powered machines to mine, refine, and transform the ridiculous quantities of materials that solar panels and wind turbines and batteries require?

When shall we expect our battery powered mining trucks to be recharged by clean renewable sunshine and wind?

10 years, 20 years, or maybe 50 years?

Batteries pre-date the internal combustion engine, so when should we expect that to happen?

If you think we can, then stop talking about it and get on with it.  Talk is cheap and time is wasting.

Spaniard wrote:

That's a sophism in a broader sense and doesn't means nothing. The thing is that the process to build renewable doesn't require fossil fuels. It uses because our current model uses.

It sure is.  We don't have one silly battery powered mining truck that's recharged by a wind turbine driving it uphill from the mine to the smelter, nor are we smelting any iron ore with sunlight.  Since enough of that clean renewable sunshine is capable of liquefying Tungsten, why isn't anybody actually doing that?  What are they waiting for (besides everyone else's money)?

Renewable energy uses fossil fuels because there is no other practical way to make all these absurdly inefficient and complex machines that never existed before fossil fuels existed.  The mere fact that something is possible doesn't mean someone will figure out how to do it.  Any suggestion to the contrary is a non-sequitur.

Spaniard wrote:

It could need carbon materials and energy for sure. But that doesn't need fossil fuels per se.

When should I expect Tesla to stop importing electricity from those coal-fired power plants?

Spaniard wrote:

In fact, most steps could be changed into electricity based alternatives that are more efficient with cheap electricity. Obviously, that isn't right if the electricity is fuel based from start, so the electricity generation is more wasteful than use the fuel directly in the industry.

Bingo.  That's why no corporation actually does what you just described doing.  The energy that would be required to produce all or even most of the input energy to make the next solar panel or wind turbine or battery would make them even more absurdly expensive than they already are.  That's before any recycling, since Lithium and rare earth metals and advanced composites don't grow on trees.

Spaniard wrote:

But with renewable becoming more and more cheap, and fossil fuels becoming more and more expensive, there is a time where using renewable electricity in a electricity based industry is better and using fossil fuels in a burning fuel based industry.

IF renewable energy was actually becoming cheaper, then at some point the electricity rates paid by the consumers of that "renewable electricity" would start going down, rather than up.  That clearly hasn't happened since this insanity began, so I can only conclude that renewable energy is NOT getting any cheaper.  The charlatans preaching their religion to the rest of us are merely getting more creative about how they attempt (and fail miserably) to hide the true cost.

Spaniard wrote:

Things like produce cement or steel will use a lot more electricity and a lot less fuel in next decades, because of the change of the energy mix of this future.

In that case, things like cement and steel will become so expensive that most people will no longer be able to afford to purchase them.  Since all forms of "renewable energy" require insane quantities of concrete and steel, that'll put a damper on our "renewable future".  Welcome to energy poverty.  Welcome to pre-industrial civilization, where life is very short and very bleak, and virtually everyone is destitute from the moment they're born.

Spaniard wrote:

And the rhetoric of "renewable use fossil fuel" will turn false one step at a time.

Whereas the rhetoric of the people claiming that their "renewable energy" is clean or cheap will somehow turn true?

I've yet to see any evidence of that.

The piper gets paid, no matter what form of energy you use.  I'm only questioning why we're paying the piper so much for so little energy.

Spaniard wrote:

As an argument about "because that renewable can't work" is flawed.

The argument that you can run a technologically advanced society using diffuse and intermittent energy sources that require 10 to 1,000 times greater material (and thus energy) input to provide equivalent power when compared to competing alternatives is flawed beyond all belief, in the mathematical sense of that term.

Finally, name off an energy efficiency improvement that has actually reduced energy consumption.  Take your time.  I'll wait, at least until I keel over, because that's how long I expect I'll be waiting.

Online

#103 2021-09-19 17:00:11

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,078

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

The number of fires and recalls surely are not the way to get Americans to buy our product produced here...
The Chevy Bolt recall is burning up what’s left of GM’s EV good will

On Thursday, GM announced that it is extending the Bolt’s production shutdown until mid-October, as it apparently hasn’t been able to get supplier LG to produce replacement batteries that are up to snuff. It will need a lot of them, too, as GM has recalled all Bolts made to date — nearly 150,000. (The company says some vehicles will only need certain modules replaced, while others will get the whole battery pack swapped.)


Still charging forward the auto make is planning more change to its product lines.

General Motors plans to launch 30 new electric vehicles around the world by 2025, and aspires to sell only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035.

Well make them affordable or they will be sitting on the dealerships lots…

not charging above 90 percent, or letting their vehicle’s battery drain below around 70 miles of range.

That sounds like a lithium Ion battery pack....plus fast charging is a no, no, as these are rated to charge at 10% of the ampere hour rating....

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB