Fossil Fuels are Not the Enemy

[Jimmy Dean]

In it's current state yes, with 99% of the heat generated going to waste. One could theoretically make use of such heat energy so instead of just being wasted into the atmosphere, that energy could be used to propel the vehicle.

Difficult and expensive to implement sure, but not impossible thus the theoritical limit of ICEs is more than 46%.

No.

you do not get it. you CANNOT, no matter how much waste heat you can capture, net more than ~46% efficiency out of ANYTHING that uses gasoline and the otto cycle.

Now, if we change cycles, it may be possible to net higher efficiency out of gasoline, but no such achievable cycle has been designed as of yet.

Sponsored

 

[EFI]

ANYTHING that uses gasoline

Who said anything about gasoline? I'm talking about ICEs, regardless of what they burn.

If we're talking about pure gasoline ICE, sure I agree with that statement. But I'm sure they can discover other things to burn, and that will be the only way the ICE survives.

 

[lacanteen]

Maybe some day someone will invent a compact atom smasher where we can fill the tank with water, separate the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom, burn the hydrogen, the waste will be oxygen! What's not to like?

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Like this

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Maybe some day someone will invent a compact atom smasher where we can fill the tank with water, separate the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom, burn the hydrogen, the waste will be oxygen! What's not to like?

I actually have a concept along these lines, using fuel cells. the problem of course with fuel cells is sourcing the fuel, hydrogen and oxygen.

two ways to get these things, either you process air, ala Air Liquide and Air Products does, which is the largest source of hydrogen and oxygen and other naturally present gases currently, or you perform electrohydrolysis on water and seperate the two.
We'll look at the second option.
the issue is that it takes a lot of energy to do this, which defeats the purpose, right? Why use electricity to do this and then turn around and burn it to create more electricity to turn a cars electric motors, when you could just 'bottle' the electricity directly to the car and turn the motors that way.
Of course, we have to acknowledge that our current electric grid cannot support the migration of 100 million cars or more to electricity, it would have to be updated. to handle the swings and consistent, reliable power, you'd be looking at natural gas, oil, or coal plants to carry alot of this load.
Seems that defeats the purpose of moving away from burning hydrocarbons to have to burn more in plants to make up for the increased electrical need.

Now, one point with electrohydrolysis, is that it requires less power at higher temperatures of the water or steam. Plus alot of power.

Now, let's jump over to nuclear power. What is the biggest downfall of nuclear in the power grid? It cannot be acelerated or throttled quickly. It is a good solid base load power generator, but cannot compensate for the peaks during the day. So, you would traditionally build nuclear to cover the minimum power requirements throughout the day, every day of the week, and rely on coal/gas/oil to cover the peaks throughout the day.


What is we instead built nuclear to the full value of the peaks?



You would end up with hours of the day where the nuclear plants are outputting all of this power, and it has nowhere to go. While we move to more EVs, we would expect the peaks and valleys to change some as people start charing millions of cars at home every evening, but it certainly wouldnot level things out completely. We would still have hours and hours of the day and weekends where the nuc plants are outputting more power than the grid needs.



What if…just supposing…during these off peak hours, we applied the extra electricity on the grid to electrohydrolis….of the hot cooling steam at the nuclear power plants?



You have now supplied electricity is the cleanest form we currrently can, with nuclear power, you have provided alternative transportable fuel sources, ala hydrogen and oxygen for fuel cells, and done it without incurring excess enviromental costs. You’ve also supplied all the power you need for increasing EVs

 

[Shadow277]

How does that have anything to do with the point I made? 800,000 people committed suicide in 2020. You gonna follow there lead also?

Red herring.

 

[Shadow277]

Yup, let's cover up half the country with solar panels and batteries cuz that's what's going to take to power the whole country and 300 million cars. Surely that won't have any impact on the environment.

And let's not forget the amount of metal and plastics that all those panels and batteries will need mined, extracted and processed to be built. And what are you going to do with millions of tons of those materials when they reach the end of their life cycle? That certainly won't impact the environment in any way.

Used recycled materials to fabricate. People can place solar panels on their home and buildings can use new solar panel technology to replace windows. Plenty of options and resources.

 

[shogun32]

How will driving around during the cold season affect EV efficiency overall?

a little search-engine use should have led to

 

[shogun32]

Maybe some day someone will invent a compact atom smasher where we can fill the tank with water, separate the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom, burn the hydrogen, the waste will be oxygen! What's not to like?

you have to put more energy into the breaking of the atomic bonds than you get from 'burning' aka re-combining them. Basic physics. Which EV acolytes apparently never bothered to take.

We should be building nuclear non-uranium-cycle reactors by the fistful (no Plutonium byproducts, scram safely) but 'we' have refused to get out of the research reactor level. The military WANTS it's weapon and despite the incredibly dangerous spent-fuel and fuel-reprocessing processes and 1000 year hazards, we don't move on to the better technology. Ditto coal - we should be doing what the Germans did in WW2 and make synth-fuel. That way you're not burning the C and having to deal with all the loose Sulphur in the exhaust.

Every dollar spent on solar/wind (which are as useful as masturbating) properly belongs on fixing the nuclear problem.

 

[sk47]

a little search-engine use should have led to

Hello; Yes I could have done it myself. But I do appreciate your effort. Afraid the video did not do much to move my opinion. So if I dismiss the the series of rationalizations made about battery efficiency and stick to the initial statement it appears a loss of around 40% depending on the temperatures. Not as bad as expected.
I get my other objection will possibly be taken care of at some future time, but where I live there must not be many charging stations. At least when the screen shot of charging stations was shown. I saw two chargers in Knoxville TN about 60 miles away.

I also wonder what happens if the road gets shutdown for a few hours due to wrecks or snow. I would not be willing to take the risk of a partial charge during winter. Even in a ICE vehicle I do not let the tank get much below half a tank on a trip. Too many times I had to sit.

That he made the two trips without having to get a tow was good. I was not too keen about the total time to charge however. Also sitting in a car waiting for a charge does not appeal.

Could I manage to live with an EV? Yes I think I could. I do not want to at this point. I did a calculation on what the trip would cost me in my Sentra at 35 MPG with gas at an even $2 a gallon. It is $140. Of course gas is closer to $2.20 a gallon now.
Given the higher initial cost of EV's currently I was expecting the "fuel" cost of the EV to be better to even out the operating expense of an ICE. If I heard correctly the cost of the fuel (electricity) for his trip was around $170. I do not recall for sure so could be wrong.

With the range anxiety, the high initial purchase price and the expected expense of a battery pack replacement at around ten years I do not see the economics of an EV.
Of course the cost of ICE fuels appears to be on the way up. Driven up artificially by the policies of those in power, not by normal supply and demand. So if they get the cost of ICE fuel high enough then it could be cheaper to run an EV, but of course that is cheating.

 

[TexasMetallic5.0]

you have to put more energy into the breaking of the atomic bonds than you get from 'burning' aka re-combining them. Basic physics. Which EV acolytes apparently never bothered to take.

We should be building nuclear non-uranium-cycle reactors by the fistful (no Plutonium byproducts, scram safely) but 'we' have refused to get out of the research reactor level. The military WANTS it's weapon and despite the incredibly dangerous spent-fuel and fuel-reprocessing processes and 1000 year hazards, we don't move on to the better technology. Ditto coal - we should be doing what the Germans did in WW2 and make synth-fuel. That way you're not burning the C and having to deal with all the loose Sulphur in the exhaust.

Every dollar spent on solar/wind (which are as useful as masturbating) properly belongs on fixing the nuclear problem.

Germany definitely had their gas usage down to a science.

 

[Stage_3]

EV cars won't make it for long once we all start driving them. Roads are built and maintained by road taxes on each gallon of gas. Take away the gas cars, no more gas sales, no more dollars for the roads. Replace them with EVs and the roads will just go away without gas tax funding to maintain them. Maybe the gov't ought to be looking toward electric powered helicopters since they won't need roads!

I wish it were that easy bro!!
They'll just give everyone an excise tax! We get yearly excise tax bills here every year in MA. As a matter of fact, I got 2 of them today!

 

[dps]

Share this with the person that believes there are only 20 moving parts in an #EV! If you want a peek at the #vocational #hitech career of the future, you'll enjoy this (all coolant and oils already removed) #Tesla #Model3 #Motor Tear Down - talk about complex! #EV via @YouTube

 

[shogun32]

not only not your enemy, they'll literally save your ass from freezing to death.
https://stopthesethings.com/2021/02...ezing-germans-desperate-for-coal-fired-power/

Back in Carter oil crisis days there were PSAs to find 20 lbs in the trunk to remove to improve mpg. Now the globalist message is carry 1,000 lb batteries around all day instead of 50 lbs of gasoline.

 

[sk47]

not only not your enemy, they'll literally save your ass from freezing to death.
https://stopthesethings.com/2021/02...ezing-germans-desperate-for-coal-fired-power/

Back in Carter oil crisis days there were PSAs to find 20 lbs in the trunk to remove to improve mpg. Now the globalist message is carry 1,000 lb batteries around all day instead of 50 lbs of gasoline.

Hello; Good informative post. God link to point out real world issues.
To me a thing left out of the save the planet with electric cars, ban fossil fuels and have clean energy is the sort of life style we will have to endure. A "do without" sort of change in lifestyle. So many estimates of how the grid will not be able to keep up with electricity demand after these all electric rules are in place. Well if the electricity is not there you do without some things run by electricity.
I can picture folks sitting around in the house with no TV or other stuff we take for granted so the reduced amount of electricity can keep them from being too cold in the winter. In the summer I can picture how few will be able to run AC all the time.
Sure my predictions are unfounded so far, but not out of the question.

Sponsored