Fixing Americas car industry

Calliban · 2021-12-21 01:46:58

Space Nut, fuel efficiency standards are quite sensible at this point. The Permian is the only US oil producing region that is not past peak. Conventional oil production has declined 80% since 1971. Global oil demand may exceed global pumping capacity as early as next year. Oil consumption needs to decline through greater efficiency, if we are to avoid shortages.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-21 01:48:31)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-21 09:06:13

Opec learned along time ago to slow production in order to increase price by forcing you to produce your own oil.
Efficiency does not change the fact that more vehicles are being added to the consumption rate, along with new homes, power plants that are seeking what ever is cheapest to make power with. Its growth of population and requirements that keep this ball rolling....
We have plenty of coal but we chose not to convert it to none fossil fuel use of direct burning as that costs energy and money to build up that infrastructure.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who regularly opposes bills and legislation as it stands now Manchin's Vote May Pull Plug On Biden's EV Tax Credit Proposal

The bill is still being worked on so all the details are still subject to change but it's not just the EV tax credit or some other content in the bill that Manchin is pushing back against, and it's not just Manchin who will decide the bill's fate. As the bill also includes an extension of a fund that provides benefits to coal miners suffering from black lung disease, which expires at the end of the year.

EVs have more mass and lots of torque, but the tires need to be efficient and quiet.

Obviously, the four black rubber rings on a car are important—they're the only parts that actually interface with the road. But EVs have a few quirks that complicate life for a tire.
For one thing, EVs are generally heavier than an equivalent-sized, conventionally powered vehicle. And because range is so important to the EV-buying market, low rolling resistance is essential. In fact, a 20 percent increase in rolling resistance can reduce range by 5–8 percent. But the tire still needs to have plenty of grip because electric motors make so much torque—and from so low in their rev range.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-22 15:09:56

I have noticed articles against the various efforts to aid in turning back the clock on climate with regards to Automobiles where statements of mining have turned to not in my back yard.
Do We Want All Of These Electric Car Mines

In coal mining we have people with specialties that would lend to other types of mining and give jobs back to those in need with the skills required to make it possible.

Of course or every one that is negative we can and do find Nebraska project finds key minerals, but can it mine them?
Finding deposit of elements that can be used to make steel and aluminum stronger niobium, scandium and titanium — is instead providing a case study in the difficulty of actually launching such projects in the U.S.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-23 19:54:04

Taxation avoidance has always been something the big 3 have tried Canada plans to formally join Mexico in calling for an arbitration panel to resolve a dispute with the U.S. over how to interpret rules governing the origin of vehicle parts.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-24 18:11:57

Something that if the price is correct for the auto industry will aid it returning as Reviving U.S. heavy industry would build a safer, more sustainable world

here is why they are not here currently

Additionally, the heavy industrial sectors—steel, aluminum, chemicals, minerals, and more—
are now located disproportionately in countries with weaker environmental and labor standards.
They also emit a disproportionate share of greenhouse gases, which calls for a shift toward cleaner manufacturing with a lower carbon footprint—the kind more likely to be found in the U.S. and in other advanced democracies.

with some thinking that this is the solution

Imposing a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) could help level the playing field by requiring companies outside of the United States to either clean up their production processes or pay a fee based on the carbon intensity of their products, making domestic firms more cost competitive while disincentivizing companies from moving overseas to countries with lax environmental standards.
Clean product standards
Another option for U.S. decision makers is to develop a specific set of standards for manufactured goods or materials produced by the heavy industry sector. Already, such an approach exists for vehicles and appliances with fuel economy and efficiency standards (think of the labels on new cars or refrigerators).
A clean product standard (CPS) would create a technology-neutral, market-based standard that defines the maximum amount of emissions per unit of material produced. Producers could use any pathway they choose—whether it be clean energy, technological innovations, or even carbon capture systems—to meet the standard.
A CPS should cover all goods sold in the United States—and here is the key—requiring importers to follow the same standard as domestic producers.
The combination of “Buy American” and “Buy Clean” are not only moral imperatives, but they also advance our national and economic security by helping to secure critical industrial supply chains and the good jobs and wages they provide.

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-24 21:22:56

For SpaceNut .... this report on research toward re-charging while driving could go in many topics ...

I'll start it off here because this topic is active right now, and the Italian research might prove useful in the US.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/motorcy … hp&pc=U531

Italy’s Inductive Charging Highway Project Moves Into Testing
Dustin Wheelen - 10h ago

Never plug in again?
Many European governments continue to expand their electric infrastructure to support a shift away from fossil fuels. As a result, many countries have charging station goals to meet by the next decade. However, Italian automotive group Stellantis believes they can retrofit the current infrastructure for on-the-go EV charging.
Similar to wireless smartphone charging, Stellantis plans to use inductive charging technology to power both parked and in-motion electric vehicles. By installing the company’s Dynamic Wireless Power Transfer (DWPT) tech under the roadway, the system wirelessly charges all-electric vehicles with Stellantis’ special receiver. The project now moves into Phase 3, where the firm will test the charging system at a closed-circuit built near Italy’s A35 autostrada.
external_image
Labeled the Arena del Futuro (Arena of the Future), the project consists of a 1,050-meter (0.65-mile) track powered with a 1-Megawatt DWPT system. In the trial phase, a Fiat 500 Electric and an Iveco E-Way Bus will test the roadway's dynamic inductive charging capabilities. While stationary wireless charging is a step in the right direction, powering cars on the move would be a giant leap for the EV industry.
“This is a cutting-edge solution to provide a concrete answer to the issues of range and charging, both of which customers are concerned about,” noted Stellantis’ Head of Global E-Mobility Anne-Lise Richard. “We’re accelerating our role of defining the mobility of the future and, in this sense, DWPT technology seems to us to be in line with our desire to offer a concrete response to customers’ requirements. Charging vehicles while they are on the move provides clear advantages in terms of charging times and the size of their batteries.”
To provide the utmost safety, the Arena del Futuro also features 5G connectivity and IoT (Internet of Things) technology to ensure optimal communication between the vehicles and roadways. While the project is an exciting prospect for EV owners, Stellantis is investing €30 billion in further electrification and software development. Initial reports may be "more than encouraging", but we can’t wait to see where Stellantis takes the Arena del Futuro next.

This is a technology Louis was forecasting.

I'm glad to see signs someone is investing in trials.

The efficiency of charging while moving may be poor, but if the method saves time for customers, it might end up improving over all efficiency.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-12-24 21:24:05

I have watched a number of YouTube videos where people took Harbor Freight or similar air cooled gasoline engines intended for lawn mowers, and retrofitted them into vehicles up to the size of a small truck. With appropriate gearing, these engines can produce astonishing acceleration and torque.

The video linked below is of a Dodge Ram D100 light truck that was designed as an off-road hauling vehicle by a young man who had very little money, but needed a working truck to haul stuff around the farm. The truck is powered by a 212cc Predator gasoline engine. The truck has 6.5hp. With a few minor upgrades, the $125 Predator lawn mower engine can produce up to 20hp, which should be sufficient for a top speed of around 40mph or so, which is at or near the practical off-road speed limit for a farm truck. That is also plenty of power for on-road applications in cities, for off-highway use. It should be noted that larger 670cc 2 cylinder lawn mower engines can supply sufficient power for highway use in light cars and trucks, with turbocharged variants making up to 70hp.

Predator Truck Driving

Episode 6. MPG on our Honda insight with $99 dollar lawnmower engine

54mpg for the 9.5hp lawn mower engine in the 1,300 pound Honda InSight using 87 octane 10% Ethanol gasoline. Top speed was 50mph. If the engine was modified to produce 20hp, then it should be capable of reaching 65mph.

First Road Test, 60+ MPH! | 670cc Auto Chopper Pt. 4

Episode 15. We finish the 420 HEMI engine swap on our lawnmower powered car.

The 420cc "Hemi" lawn mower engine's fuel economy started at 35mpg.

Episode 27. We road test the Speeduino NO2C EFI on our 420 cc street legal go kart.

Switching from carburetion to EFI resulted in 45mpg with the hood off. More importantly, the 0-50mph time was only 31 seconds and top speed was 64mph. All acceleration times were also measured with the vehicle in 3rd gear, rather than 1st or 2nd.

This begs the question of how much power is truly required, how much money truly needs to be spent, and whether or not you want a car that can drive all week on 10 gallons of gas, or if you want to spend hundreds to many thousands of dollars more for a much more powerful tubocharged liquid cooled engine, or a battery electronic vehicle which costs double to triple what a gasoline powered variant costs.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-26 20:49:46

Not everyone has been happy with Musk's Tesla vehicles Tesla owner blows up Model S instead of footing $22,600 repair bill
Can not say that would be what I would do but neither would be the repair costs... for a battery replacement...

considering that the base price for a new 2013 Tesla Model S started at $57,400, later increasing to $59,900 when the car first came out

kbd512 · 2021-12-26 22:15:53

SpaceNut,

Well, that was a waste of a perfectly good car that could have be re-powered by a real engine, like the LS V8 that Rich Rebuilds used. That man's reaction to the repair bill seems a lot like the liberal regressive reaction to "there's no such thing as a battery suitable for replacing an internal combustion engine". Both are examples of conniption fits thrown by children masquerading as adults. Stop buying non-repairable and expensive electronic junk, and the manufacturers will get the message loud and clear. The car manufacturers only understand the language of money and nothing else. If you stop buying their product, then they understand. Nothing else will change how they do business. That is what an informed consumer needs to know and accept. Personally, I prefer to purchase my expensive non-repairable electronic junk from Apple. I don't need any expensive electronic junk inside a toaster or motor vehicle. For the umpteenth time, a car is not supposed to be an arcade game on wheels. Pointless electronic gadgets don't add any utility to a motor vehicle, and can only increase its production and repair costs.

Calliban · 2021-12-27 05:54:26

The UK and a few other countries have talked about actually banning new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54981425

These idiot politicians really don't know what to do next. They clearly don't have any real engineers advising them. And they are usually too arrogant to admit they might need some external advice on such matters.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-27 05:59:04)

kbd512 · 2021-12-27 06:39:41

Calliban,

I find it odd that we never had to "ban the sale of new horses" after the introduction of combustion engine powered motor vehicles. If electric vehicles are good enough that most people actually want one, then why do we need to ban gasoline powered vehicles?

SpaceNut · 2021-12-27 12:55:23

Follow up article UK Inches Closer To Eliminating Private Car Ownership

The main issue for mass transit is not all vehicles are with more than a driver in it as convenience to be able to come and go as one needs.

There are several hybrid vehicles of which you would not use any fuels with in other than to charge a battery.

The twike comes to mind along with many others.

Of course the issue is you are buying a modified bike if its got no weather enclosure for the comfort of its use in inclement weather.

Sure it needs doors but it can carry your bags in the back

Safety is the issue on roads where motorist still collide with motorcycles.

edit more to what is being said with personal choice and low carbon shared transport
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/uk … ar-AASbota

of course the desire of praise not only public transportation but also bike share services, e-scooters, and ride sharing platforms is a joke as we live greater distances and this does nothing for transportation of goods...

What’s more, 300 residents in Coventry recently expressed interest in giving up their personal cars. The tradeoff from the government reportedly would be a mobility credit worth up to £3,000. This mobility credit program has been going since March of this year, with 73 cars turned in and crushed

Buses do not work when you need to have one passing the stop every half hour in a 24 hour day and its mostly empty going to paths that force you to find another means to get to the place you are needing to get to hopefully less than a half mile away other wise we need more transporting systems for that last mile.

kbd512 · 2021-12-27 17:55:54

SpaceNut,

The officials in the UK aren't simply talking about banning gasoline or diesel vehicles, they're talking about banning all privately owned motor vehicles. The latest ban on gasoline and diesel powered cars is merely a ploy to distract away from their ultimate goal of theft of private property.

The only question left is how much of your hard work you're willing to give up to petty tyrants before it becomes intolerable. If you allow them to, ideologues without moral values will take everything you have, including your life and the lives of your family members. Anyone who believes otherwise is either suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or deluded by their "normalcy bias" beyond all reason. Anyone who proclaims, "Oh, that'll never happen here", should probably ask the Native Americans how well that worked out for them. Oh wait, I almost forgot, they're all dead. So, "just have a think" on that one.

clark · 2021-12-30 02:43:53

So if the government banned all sales of lead based paint, that would be a bad thing? How about they ban the sale of asbestos as a part of construction in schools? How would we feel if the government passed a law that stated we couldn't install lead pipes in the city water system?

You can take different positions on the matter of combustion engine vehicles, but the premise that rights are abridged is disingenuous. But hey, smoke that cigarette on an airplane. I'm sure everyone around you doesn't mind. OR. We achieve these changes in behavior after years of experience and science tell us, collectively, that this is a better way forward.

Don't worry, lot's of people still love the Amish. You will be in good company.

kbd512 · 2021-12-30 05:10:43

clark,

So if the government banned all sales of Arsenic-based solar panels, that would be a bad thing? How about they ban the sale of Cadmium as a part of construction of solar panels? How would we feel if the government passed a law that stated we couldn't install solar panels containing Lead solder?

All of that stuff ends up in the ground water within a month after the panels crack, because that's about how long it takes rain water to leach it out of the photovoltaic panels, on average. Did I mention that the same thing happens when they're being manufactured since the production of semiconductors requires so much water?

So, do I think having Arsenic or Cadmium in solar panels is acceptable, knowing that Arsenic and Cadmium are even more poisonous than Lead?

ABSOLUTELY!

We don't have any commercial solar panels without Arsenic and Cadmium, silicon wafer based or thin film.

We don't have any wind turbines without rare Earth metals, which also produces Thorium. Spreading the mined Thorium all over the place instead of concentrating it to use it in a nuclear reactor is a deliberate choice, though, and not a very good one, but that's what they actually do with it.

Science has yet to produce a battery that approaches within an order of magnitude of the energy density of a gallon of gasoline. Current batteries are 42X less energy dense than gasoline, even after the inefficiencies of combustion engines are taken into account. All science is based in mathematics. In math, orders of magnitude and multipliers have significant effects that people involved in engineering can't ignore when they also want to produce a commercially viable product. Anyone claiming "that this is a better way" should first demonstrate an acceptance of basic mathematics, as it relates to engineering feasibility.

Pseudo-sciency religious groups who pretend to care about the environment to distract attention away from the fact that they really hate people, should not have any say in what technologies are most appropriate for a given use case. Electric cars are popular with these clowns because those unwashed / unclean poor people should never be allowed to breathe in their arrogant / ignorant opinions, much less drive, and their electric cars are so much more expensive that it makes them unaffordable for the people who they would erase from existence, whenever given the opportunity. You only have to listen to them talk at their little meetings to understand what kind of psychopaths most of them are. In fairness, there were also a few people present who genuinely cared about the environment. Unfortunately, their "thought leaders" are appallingly evil anti-humanists. They're merely one more reason why I'm not a fan of organized religion. Environmentalists are the new Scientologists.

Beyond that, they also can't do enough basic math to figure out that simply producing an electric car is equivalent to the emissions of both production and operation of an efficient gasoline powered car over the projected design service life of both vehicles. Tesla's GigaFactory doesn't actually produce any cars using solar panels on the factory roof, nor batteries from the billions of batteries that they churn out, because that would be utterly impossible for any reasonable cost. The GigaFactory certainly wasn't built using solar panels and batteries, either. Those are unimportant little details to their cult.

How would I be in good company with a group of people who choose to live the way we did before industrialization?

That's the end goal of our pseudo-environmentalists. I take no issue with the Amish because they don't demand that I also live the way they do, but I really don't want anything to do with either group because I'm not the least bit interested in regressing back to pre-industrialization.

I'd rather take my own plane so that I don't have to listen to the incessant shrieking of all the nail-biters freaking out about dying while they're inside a paper thin metal tube hurtling through air too thin to breathe at 600mph. If I do that, then they whine that I'm destroying the environment. There's no pleasing them because they're misanthropes. Maybe if they had a smoke they could chill out while they're still alive. Everyone who was ever born is going to die. The difference is that I accepted that fact a long time ago, and then moved on with the business of living life.

It's not safe! It's not safe!

No, kidding. It never was, except in your head, nor will it ever be, except in your head. That's the only place "safety" ever existed.

On that note, it's time for a smoke and a few hours of shut-eye before I'm off to work again. Toodles.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-30 10:09:03

The issues with laws has to do with those that do not want them no matter what the content is. So they sue instead of getting them changed such that the courts undermine them or better yet the state write the law that makes the original tainted and ignored until it ends up in court as well.

As for no vehicles in a given area and making it a walk able experience we have those areas in some of our down towns currently and they do just fine. So let me see one of those no car people ever travel the end to end of the UK or even across the large state of Texas or California. All it promotes is even larger cities to have people crawling over each other like rats in a cage.

Better yet how are all the goods needed by those extra large cities going to get there from ports or farms without spoiling if no trucks are employed to bring them to them.

So as much as I do not want to breath the exhaust of these vehicles we must focus on getting spread back out rather than concentrating to relieve the congestion on the streets idling in stop and go rather than moving as you would be if spread out more.

At some point we are trading one evil for another.

kbd512 · 2021-12-30 12:38:05

SpaceNut,

These days the laws are applied so inconsistently as to be a farce. People who are worried about Lead in their drinking water should also be in favor of banning photovoltaic panels containing Lead, but that would be most of the solar panels so it would end any hope of their "green energy" future that they lust after, that science and technology can't deliver in any practical manner when the decision makers are ignorant of both science and technology. Basically, they don't know what "right looks like", nor do any of their unthinking followers who have been brainwashed to the point where they utterly ignore every real issue presented with their utopian ideas. Even though there's less Lead in photovoltaics than there is in the Lead-acid car batteries, for example, very near to 100% of those car batteries get recycled while very near to 100% of defunct solar panels either degrade in place at EOL or end up in land fills after they're crushed. Car batteries get recycled because they fetch a fair price and are easy to identify / locate / remove / recycle or refurbish. That's why you never see any car batteries in the junk yards. They've already been removed and sent on to the recyclers and the functional ones are kept separate from the vehicles.

Prior to plastics, Lead held the distinction of not corroding like crazy, the way Iron pipes did. The corrosion product in Iron pipes is something that fungi and bacteria grow on, sickening or killing people. People died and still die a lot faster from water-borne diseases than Lead poisoning, and in far greater numbers.

Do I take any issue with removing Lead pipes? No, of course not.

Would I ever put Lead in drinking water pipes? No, of course not.

Do I personally want Lead in my drinking water pipes? No, of course not.

Do I think Lead pipes need to be banned by government? No, I don't.

There are much better options available today that cost less money than Lead, and are even less prone to corrosion or leaching toxic chemicals into the water supply. Lead pipes didn't need to be banned, because plastic is now cheaper than Lead or Copper and even Iron in the quantities required, and not by a little bit.

So, what was the actual point of all that regulation?

Since so many cities still have Lead pipes in the ground, nothing much, apparently. Industry switched to using PVC and PEX the moment those materials became available in quantity and for less money than alternatives, because even all those poor working class people know that PVC is better than any kind of metal for carrying water. They also know that Lead is toxic because they're taught as much in school. You won't see them eating off of Lead plates or drinking from Lead cups, either.

Want to remove all the Copper pipes in addition to all the Lead pipes?

Well, you're talking about removing and replacing pipes in nearly every home and office building in America.

The infrastructure bill asked for $45B to remove all the Lead pipe service lines from the major cities across the country but was funded to the tune of $15B. They're being replaced with Copper, despite the fact that Copper is also noted for its toxicity and is also regulated under the same "Lead and Copper Rule" legislation / regulation. Leaded solder is still used to braze the joints, which I guess is better than a pipe made entirely from Lead, but again, the brazed joints or metal coatings, such as those on galvanized pipes, are no longer used because both metals and metal coatings still leach whatever they contain into the water supply. That leaves you with concrete, stainless steel, or plastic as material choices. Concrete is now lined with plastic here in Houston because it degrades too quickly. Stainless is incredibly expensive and still corrodes over time.

Q: What do all these simpletons who think the solution to every problem is to ban something, also have on their short list of items to ban?

A: They also want to ban plastic.

Sooner or later, one could be forgiven for thinking that their ultimate desire is to make modern life unaffordably expensive, short, and bleak, because they hate humanity. They want to regress back to a time before modern technology by dictating which technologies are used, and in their ignorance or vengeance against humanity, dictating that unaffordable / unsuitable / inadequate energy and materials solutions are written into law to smite humanity as part of their environmental crusade- that somehow destroys the environment and hurts all those humans who were supposed to somehow benefit from it. It's the worst aspects of a religious cult manifesting itself in people who have sworn off the desert religions in favor of their scary new religion. Most people can't live without religion, because they don't know how. They need a "higher cause / higher purpose" to believe in, in order to act in a way that they deem "moral" or "righteous", no matter how contorted and twisted their "logic" becomes to an outside observer.

Yes, at some point we are merely trading one problem for a brand new problem. Familiarity breeds contempt. This isn't about good and evil, though. Lead is not evil. Iron is not evil. Plastic is not evil. People who personify the use of materials for engineering purposes are either too immature to take part in rational design processes or psychotic. There is only medical and engineering trade-offs, forever and always. Injecting irrational personal feelings and religious beliefs into the engineering equation does not solve any problems and typically creates entirely new problems that would not have existed if people with near-zero engineering knowledge became involved in the decision making process. Using all materials is about accepting medical and engineering trade-offs that most people can live with. Lack of indoor plumbing killed a lot more people than Lead ever has or ever will, so Lead pipe was superior to the alternative, which was dying of disease early and often from lack of sanitation.

Someone out there who likes Lead pipe will swear that plastic is the problem, whereas someone who likes plastic pipe will swear that Lead is the problem. They're both equally wrong, but in different ways. Arguing with them over the engineering merits of using both materials is pointless, because their only arguments are reductive and emotional in nature. Children masquerading as adults should have no say in engineering decisions, which require adult thinking that they repeatedly prove themselves incapable of applying to real world problems.

Calliban · 2021-12-30 13:02:26

Industrial civilisation on Earth is using practically every concentrated resource at a rate faster than nature can regenerate it. And pollutants are entering sinks faster than they can be sequestered. It isn't just energy resources that are being used in this way. All mineral resources are being used faster than they will naturally regenerate. Fresh water is being used at rates faster than local sources can replenish it and water tables are falling. Soils are being degraded. Biomass is being removed from old growth forests faster that it can regenerate.

Replacing energy production based on fossil fuels, with renewable energy sources that require orders of magnitude more embodied energy and materials than what they are replacing, doesn't help our collective predicament. For our civilisation to be sustainable, total consumption of all resources must ultimately decline to much lower levels. This means fewer people, and lower per capita resource consumption. Or higher per capita energy consumption, allowing us to recycle practically everything we now throw away. That is incompatible with the vision of providing energy with low power density, low EROI technologies.

It was recognition of the effects that resource limitations would have on Earth based civilisation, that initially peaked my interest in space colonisation. Resources and personal options are limited so long as we stay on this finite ball of rock. Human numbers and resource consumption have reached the point where supply can no longer meet demand.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-30 13:09:02)

kbd512 · 2021-12-30 14:34:13

Calliban,

The blow from the declining EROEI problem could be lessened by making more intelligent energy infrastructure selections, but that appears impossible in light of the behavior of activists who have hijacked the energy policy of nations. If any of them actually believed in math, which is the bedrock foundation that all science has been built upon, then the wisdom of using concentrated energy sources like Uranium and Thorium would instantly become crystal clear. All I see is religious cult-like behavior being exhibited by these "follow the science, but not the math" characters. There is no science without math, and math doesn't care about anyone's religious beliefs or feelings.

For starters, there's no such thing as "clean energy" by their definition. Solar panels contain Arsenic, Gallium, Cadmium, and/or Lead. Wind turbines and batteries require strip mining of metals. Coal, oil, and gas produce CO2 and airborne particulate matter. Nuclear power creates nuclear waste. That only leaves solutions that are more or less damaging to Earth's natural environment.

So, what's more damaging to Earth's environment:

A: All the nuclear waste ever generated in the history of America's use of nuclear power, which provided 20% of the nation's electricity, fitting onto a single football field when stacked to a height of 50 feet above the field

B: All the toxic chemical waste ever generated in the history of America's use of wind and solar power, which would easily cover a city the size of Houston to the same height

Which of those is more difficult to clean up, given that we require 100% of nuclear waste to tracked and separated, from initial production to long after disposal? That doesn't require too much in the way of sophisticated thinking, does it? But nuclear materials are radioactive for millions of years, right? Well, yes, but Arsenic / Cadmium / Lead will remain Arsenic / Cadmium / Lead until the end of time. You can't eat Arsenic or Lead in the same way that you can't eat Uranium or Thorium. The only difference is the quantity of Arsenic required is orders of magnitude greater than the quantity of Uranium or Thorium required to produce a given amount of power in a given amount of time. I can't mount a nuclear reactor on my roof, but neither can anyone obtain power from a solar panel at night, so if there's no requirement from a solar panel to produce power at night then there should be no arbitrary requirement to put nuclear reactors on rooftops, either.

In math, orders of magnitude ALWAYS have meaning. If aircraft required 42X more weight than they actually do, in order to fly, then flying would be grossly impractical, even though it would still be technically feasible. That's effectively what these people are demanding from electric cars, whether they realize and accept it or not. Sure, it's still technically feasible to do. I can technically make a crane fly by putting rocket engines on it. Nobody does that because it's a pointless absurdity with no practical utility. However, if there was enough of a market for rocket powered flying cranes, then you can bet your last dollar that the PT Barnums of this world would be out there selling their flying cranes to the consumer public. There's a sucker born every minute and the unscrupulous amongst us will find a way to relieve them of their money.

My assertion about motor vehicles, which is based in simple math that anyone with a pocket calculator could knock out within a few hours, is that the only practical solution that both permits people to travel freely and to reduce energy consumption to tolerable levels, is to drastically decrease the weight and power output of motor vehicles. They will accelerate like the cars of the 1930s, which could still manage 55mph to 70mph, but they will be sustainable and affordable to the masses, on account of their simplicity, drastically reduced weight, and drastically increased maintainability. They're based upon the permanence principle, rather than the planned obsolescence principle.

Humanity does not need and cannot survive a never-ending cycle of planned obsolescence, greatly exacerbated by these new non-repairable and non-recyclable electric cars that require 3X as much energy consumption up-front in order to produce them, yet still only last for 5 years before their electronics crap out, their careless owners wreck them because they can't be bothered to pay attention to driving their rolling arcade game, or want a brand new model with more useless gadgets that have proven so wildly detrimental to the maintainability of the vehicle. When a motor vehicle contains more miles of wiring and requires more computational power than the Space Shuttle, you should accept that your argument is invalid. Anything that is purportedly "simpler" than a combustion engine would not require more computational power than the Space Shuttle. If it was truly more efficient, than it would not require 3X as much energy investment to make one, which is immediately reflected in purchase prices.

If we're absolutely dead set on making what used to be a durable good into a disposable appliance, then the thing should be so cheap to replace and easy to recycle that it makes little difference. Since we can't seem to actually do that... Maybe, just maybe, our engineering approach is wrong.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-30 16:13:49

Most electronics are using a more organic low temperature solder which is not the lead product of old.
Brazing is mostly done with silver solder rather than lead.

As far as replacing lead pipes tell that to the slum lords that never fix anything with them but sure love's your money weekly or monthly depending on how you pay. Most new builds use pex tubing as you noted.

Old car batteries if exchanged when new one is purchased get maybe $5 but other wise to dispose of them at a dump or reclamation area they charge you instead.

The "never-ending cycle of planned obsolescence" is a problem when the technology and non support of the old and we are see this will the cellphone industry making use of the existing 3g tower to upgrade the to 5g making you go out and buy a new phone due to upgrading that is not downward compatible. I have no desire to keep up with "the jones" not even my computer which is another thing being forced on us..

kbd512 · 2021-12-30 17:13:25

SpaceNut,

If the solar panels were made in China, as nearly all of them are, then they use Lead solder. You can argue that until you're blue in the face, but you're still wrong. They test this stuff. That's how we know. That said, any photovoltaic semiconductor made from / with Gallium Arsenide, Cadmium Selenide, or Cadmium Telluride are chemicals that are specifically known to be highly toxic and create highly toxic chemical waste products during manufacturing.

They show rainbows and sunshine when they're selling the product, but they don't dope Silicon with unicorn farts and smiley faces. It's nasty stuff, as are the chemicals used to make them. Semiconductor production is one of the least efficient and most polluting processes we undertake at an industrial scale, so it's a darn good thing we don't make more of them than we absolutely have to. Now we have people who demand exponential growth of semiconductor manufacturing to power their "green energy" dreams.

Again, I never said I was in favor of using Lead pipes. I said I think the government's ban on Lead pipes was superfluous and did nothing to "get the Lead out" afterwards. We traded Lead poisoning for Copper poisoning.

When the same people who want to ban Lead pipes also want to ban the plastic alternative that does not cause Lead or Copper poisoning, what does that say about what they actually want?

When you turn in an old car battery, you only get $5 to $20, but that's still at least $5 you didn't have before returning it. If you have your own bullet making molds, then you can recycle that Lead in more profitable ways. How else are you supposed to afford to shoot at the prices they're charging for ammo these days?

The very people who assert that people like myself want to "live in the past", are the ones who want to roll back technology availability and use to pre-industrialization America, through their ignorance of energy. If you tilt the rose colored glasses just so and squint a little, then their purported solutions appear to be "magical" to some people, but once you get your vision corrected and can see properly (properly educated), and assuming you haven't been intellectually disabled by "green ideology", then you begin to understand how absurd their claims are and how divergent from reality they've become.

Calliban · 2021-12-30 17:46:34

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
The blow from the declining EROEI problem could be lessened by making more intelligent energy infrastructure selections, but that appears impossible in light of the behavior of activists who have hijacked the energy policy of nations. If any of them actually believed in math, which is the bedrock foundation that all science has been built upon, then the wisdom of using concentrated energy sources like Uranium and Thorium would instantly become crystal clear. All I see is religious cult-like behavior being exhibited by these "follow the science, but not the math" characters. There is no science without math, and math doesn't care about anyone's religious beliefs or feelings.
For starters, there's no such thing as "clean energy" by their definition. Solar panels contain Arsenic, Gallium, Cadmium, and/or Lead. Wind turbines and batteries require strip mining of metals. Coal, oil, and gas produce CO2 and airborne particulate matter. Nuclear power creates nuclear waste. That only leaves solutions that are more or less damaging to Earth's natural environment.

Agreed. There are no perfect solutions in this world. We can only ever choose options that are relatively good or relatively bad. Every patch of land that we build anything on, is land that we have taken from some other living thing, plant, insect, animal, or all three. The present ambient energy craze actually increases human environmental impact. Renewable energy systems need to be country sized in order to provide GW scales of power output. And the amount of mining needed to produce the requisite volumes of materials appears to be obscene. Much of the material is not easily recyclable at present, so one has to question exactly what it is about this that is renewable? It is doubtful that solar power could generate enough net energy to mine, manufacture and assemble its own energy producing infrastructure.

I have nothing against environmentalism. If our goal is to preserve natural habitats, then I am all for it. But most of the time, those that claim to be environmentalists do not advocate anything that has practical value to other creatures living on this planet. They seem to become trapped in a naturalist fallacy, that leads them to advocate obtaining all human energy needs from sunlight. They then pursue this fallacy obsessively, to the point where all reasonable environmental goals are discarded in favour of 'green' ideological goals. I think we have reached the point where we would have to say that green political ideology really has nothing to do with environmental protection. It is an anti-human ideology that is really just a branch of Marxism. The very existence of industrial civilisation represents a break with the tradition of using sunlight as our principal energy source. Since that happened in the 18th century, our numbers have increased by a factor of ten and our per capital resource consumption have increased almost as much. Our aggregate energy needs are now beyond what can reasonably be supported by sunlight intercepted by Earth's surface.

Instead of attempting to do this, with low power density energy harvesting technology, nuclear energy, both fission and fusion, gives us the option of bringing the equivalent of the sun to the Earth surface. This will always be more efficient in terms of resources, because we can control the energy flux from a nuclear reactor core, which is typically around 10,000 times greater than the energy flux of sunlight. Power dense systems will always be more energy and resource efficient than less power dense systems.

Renewable energy harvesting technologies are not new. We have had wind powered ships, windmills, water mills and have harvested solar energy through biomass, for a very long time. In many respects, this technology has moved backwards. A coppice woods was a solar energy system. But it was far more sustainable than a PV power plant. No mining is needed to harness energy from coppice. If we selectively harvest wood on a short rotation, return ash to the forest, we can continue to harvest solar energy for millennia with no toxic contamination. And wood is easily storable for when power is needed. But such a system cannot scale to provide industrial levels of energy or support high population density.

Wind Mills date from medieval times. Until the 20th century, they were made from wood and stone, with only small amounts of wrought and cast iron used in bearings, nails and braces. No rare earth elements were needed. No copper was needed, or steel or aluminium. Wood, used for sails and rotating shafts, is a renewable material. Stone towers have lasted for centuries with proper maintenance. Wind power was not stored, but was used as it was generated and loads were adapted to supply, not the other way around. Wind power was used to provide direct mechanical power until well into the 20th century. The construction of the wind machines, the low embodied energy materials used, the long life expectancy of the stone tower under compressive loads, the lack of energy storage and the use of direct mechanical power; all contributed to a workable EROI. The machines were economically competitive in many industries, provided people were prepared to adapt to their limitations. Fast forward a century and we find modern wind machines made from steel and high strength plastics, with rare earth based electric generators, barely last 20 years, before the blades and tower reach the end of their fatigue life. Huge battery stores are needed to store electrical energy to meet the frequency control requirements of national grids,nwhich were never really designed to work with intermittent energy.

The problem with renewable energy is that it is being applied to a task for which it is unsuited. It is being used to provide industrial levels of electrical power and heat. It is the inherent unsuitability of ambient energy to this task that is leading to the absurdities that you discuss. We end up needing huge quantities of Gallium, silicon, aluminium, Arsenic, silver, steel and glass, because this is the only way of harvesting solar power on an industrial scale. To try and harvest solar power sustainably, would exceed the land requirements of most nations. The sensible thing to do at that point is to admit to oneself that living on ambient energy is not sensible. Our numbers and living standard expectations have exceeded its capabilities. We should therefore develop compact nuclear energy systems to at least minimise our impact on the ecosystem. But green ideology cannot concede that point. So we are now stuck with a depleting fossil fuel base on one hand and a completely inadequate set of ambient energy harvesting technologies on the other. The people in charge desperately maintain that there are no other options. So seventy years after the practical achievement of nuclear power, they are forcing us into the use of energy infrastructure that was already archaic a century ago and which new technology has rendered even less sustainable than it was then.

kbd512 wrote:

My assertion about motor vehicles, which is based in simple math that anyone with a pocket calculator could knock out within a few hours, is that the only practical solution that both permits people to travel freely and to reduce energy consumption to tolerable levels, is to drastically decrease the weight and power output of motor vehicles. They will accelerate like the cars of the 1930s, which could still manage 55mph to 70mph, but they will be sustainable and affordable to the masses, on account of their simplicity, drastically reduced weight, and drastically increased maintainability. They're based upon the permanence principle, rather than the planned obsolescence principle.
Humanity does not need and cannot survive a never-ending cycle of planned obsolescence, greatly exacerbated by these new non-repairable and non-recyclable electric cars that require 3X as much energy consumption up-front in order to produce them, yet still only last for 5 years before their electronics crap out, their careless owners wreck them because they can't be bothered to pay attention to driving their rolling arcade game, or want a brand new model with more useless gadgets that have proven so wildly detrimental to the maintainability of the vehicle. When a motor vehicle contains more miles of wiring and requires more computational power than the Space Shuttle, you should accept that your argument is invalid. Anything that is purportedly "simpler" than a combustion engine would not require more computational power than the Space Shuttle. If it was truly more efficient, than it would not require 3X as much energy investment to make one, which is immediately reflected in purchase prices.
If we're absolutely dead set on making what used to be a durable good into a disposable appliance, then the thing should be so cheap to replace and easy to recycle that it makes little difference. Since we can't seem to actually do that... Maybe, just maybe, our engineering approach is wrong.

I generally agree with your assessment. Motor vehicles did not appear in large numbers until the development of the petrol and diesel engine. Edison attempted to develop a nickel iron battery that would have powered electric cars. Had he attempted to mass produce this invention, it would have rapidly exceeded the limits of the world's nickel supply at the time. Even if people had been willing to live with the short range limitations of the battery, we could never have had an electric Model T Ford at the sort of production volumes that were achieved with gasoline powered engines. The gasoline cars were achievable within resource limits of the time, because gas engines were compact and could be produced from steel and cast iron. That made the engines cheap to build. And the electric cars at the time were powered by coal based electricity. Motor vehicles are an oil optimised system. It is technically feasible to run them on batteries, just as it is technically feasible to harvest sunlight for electricity. Incidentally, Edison's original battery was about the most rugged battery ever produced. It relied on two relatively common metals, was not vulnerable to overcharging; was capable of deep discharge without damage and lasts for many decades, with many of his original units still working! Compare these to modern lithium ion batteries that wear out after just 1000-2000 charge discharge cycles!

Once again, technology has been used to allow us to hammer a square peg into a round hole. A lot of people who should know better, continue to believe that technology is some kind of magic that allows all physical laws to eventually be ignored, leading us to a star trek future, of machines with limitless capability. The truth is that new technology can provide us with new options. But the laws of physics don't change and the nature of resources don't change. This is why a lot of high tech machines end up being just sleeker versions of low tech machines. No amount of technological advancement has ever replaced the wheel. But wheels and tyres are a lot more optimised now, than they were a century ago. Likewise, cars can be better optimised to the road environment. Technology is valuable in this instance, in that it allows vehicles that make better use of the shrinking oil resource base. But the fundamental nature of the machines themselves are unlikely to change, because cars would not be a resource efficient means of travel using any energy source other than oil.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-30 18:27:38)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-30 17:47:08

any photovoltaic semiconductor made from / with Gallium Arsenide, Cadmium Selenide, or Cadmium Telluride are chemicals that are specifically known to be highly toxic and create highly toxic chemical waste products during manufacturing.

None of these use lead solder internally and it is agreed that these are why most of the chip industry in not in the US due to regulations of these waste products.

So was it state or federal law that is not being followed for pipes material being used or is it both with a lack of enforceable penalties for not correcting them?

Solar cells and panels are supposed to have a sealing layer typically a clear conformal coating or epoxy of the materials to keep rain from leaching them from the panels and it does yellow with UV exposure and gets cloudy looking.

The homeless are living the good old days but that is not due to the making of automobiles but rather other issues of a wide variety that has no magic bullet that will fix all of there issues. I do not know of anyone that truly wants to live under the stars unless there is no other choice that can be had locally for those that should be able to get some help. A good portion of this is people tend to be lazy or not knowing of how to do things let alone civil or respectful to others and property. When

kbd512 · 2021-12-30 18:45:12

SpaceNut,

Lead solder is not used internally as part of the silicon wafer fabrication process, although I never claimed that it was. It's used externally in the electrical connections between the wafers, because it's mixed in with the Silver in small quantities. The solder used is not a pure metal, in much the same way that Natural Gas is not pure Methane. For pipe joint brazing and most consumer electronics, I'll grant you that the majority of the solder used is Lead-free. However, some of it is not and it's still available for sale, so I presume it's being used. I kinda don't understand what the point of arguing this is, though. These things are tested in labs and that's why we know what materials are present, and in what quantities.

Regarding all the plastic trash, whether associated with people living in homes or on the street, all I can say is that this is people being irresponsible with the environment and it should be cleaned up and recycled or burned for energy.

SpaceNut · 2022-01-02 13:04:05

Why Do Electric Cars Still Use 12-Volt Batteries?

Year by year, lithium-ion battery technology improves, and EV range and performance leap forward. We're now seeing electric pickups trucks with what would've been supercar acceleration not too long ago, a sedan with 520 miles of range, and Hyundais and Kias that use 800-volt charging. And yet, most of the electric cars and PHEVs on the road right now, whatever their range or 0-to-60-mph time, depend on a relic to get moving: a 12-volt battery, usually of the lead-acid variety.

Its something I ran into by leaving the electronics on and had to get to where its hidden to give it a jump

worthless without the help of a battery you might see lining the shelves at your local O 'Reilly's. And if you kill it, you'll be bricked,

One of the reasons to make this a better system as you can barely use regular jumper cables

We asked Hyundai's EV engineers why the 12-volt battery persists, and Ryan Miller, manager of electrified powertrain development, responded. "All the ECUs in the vehicle are powered from the low voltage, as well as the power relays that separate power from the high-voltage battery pack and the rest of the high-voltage network in the car," he said. "That separation allows us to safely disconnect the high voltage from the low voltage when the vehicle is not being driven or in the event of a crash." You don't want first responders to contend with door locks powered by Doc Brown's Mr. Fusion.

After making modifications why for the second answer is

There's also a legacy situation at play. Everyone—manufacturers and suppliers—knows how to make a 12-volt system work, affordably and reliably. Even if you manage to drain the 12-volt battery, you can break out the ol' jumper cables or Weego and solve the problem in a minute or two. Given all the other financial and technical challenges of building an EV, going with a 12-volt system for the car's computers and accessories makes sense. That's particularly true in the case of plug-in hybrids, which often retain as much commonality as possible with their traditional internal-combustion cousins. The plug-in Ford Escape Hybrid uses a 14.4-kWh battery pack good for 37 miles of EPA-rated range, but the whole thing powers up via an old-school lead-acid 12-volt bolted in the spare-tire well under the rear cargo floor.

Some day we will possibly see an even higher voltage to run all of those other things we need.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2021-12-21 01:46:58

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#152 2021-12-21 09:06:13

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#153 2021-12-22 15:09:56

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#154 2021-12-23 19:54:04

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#155 2021-12-24 18:11:57

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#156 2021-12-24 21:22:56

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#157 2021-12-24 21:24:05

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#158 2021-12-26 20:49:46

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#159 2021-12-26 22:15:53

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#160 2021-12-27 05:54:26

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#161 2021-12-27 06:39:41

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#162 2021-12-27 12:55:23

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#163 2021-12-27 17:55:54

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#164 2021-12-30 02:43:53

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#165 2021-12-30 05:10:43

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#166 2021-12-30 10:09:03

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#167 2021-12-30 12:38:05

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#168 2021-12-30 13:02:26

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#169 2021-12-30 14:34:13

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#170 2021-12-30 16:13:49

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#171 2021-12-30 17:13:25

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#172 2021-12-30 17:46:34

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#173 2021-12-30 17:47:08

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#174 2021-12-30 18:45:12

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#175 2022-01-02 13:04:05

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

Board footer