V8 potential problems coming? [ADMIN WARNING: *** NO POLITICS ***]

[sk47]

Where exactly did you come from 2014 to today? What technology breakthrough happened in the meantime that I missed that made electric cars attractive?

In the last 10 years battery technology made improvements that did not moved the needle in the scale that much, if not at all.
I'm not talking promises or research or publications, but industrial technologies that can deliver a finite product on a mass scale. Did I miss something here?

Hello; I agree with you on the scale of improvement. What i find when I look into EV's with better range is that they manage to stuff more batteries into the chassis. Not that the "normal" battery packs are greatly improved. On top of that the greater range EV's cost a whole lot more as you have to pay for the extra batteries.

I do not think you have missed anything. It is like the three-legged dog story I posted a while back. The point is a guy was talking up the dog saying what a great dog it is and on and on. I heard him and it sounded good but I still saw a dog missing a leg. Might be the best three-legged dog ever but still did not match up to a regular dog.

Sponsored

 

[Bikeman315]

That's a reply to my question, even if you put a lot of distractions in it. Technological advancements have been very little.
The assortment you see there is because manufacturers are being forced to make them, and they are making them losing a lot of money and we are paying a lot of government subsides.

Let's bypass the whole "forcing issue" because that's a bottomless hole. As far a making money, EV's were very profitable up until Covid/Ukraine and the escalating cost of raw materials. This will work its way out eventually. And yes we both pay a lot in government subsidies. Here in the US the amount of dollars given to the oil companies (whose profits are in the billions) far outweight what is given for alternate fuels.

I will not reply to the comment involving taking my head out of the sand because I have a certain feeling about where this is going.

Apologies, that comment was uncalled for and deleted. It's just that many of us here in the US are so dead set on having their ICE V8's that they just refuse to see the need for alternatives. Don't get me wrong I want my V8 too. I just realize what the future is and understand that it is not changing.

 

[FinitePrimus]

We only need about 30% more energy output in the US meet the demand of all of Us driving and charging an EV.

Also, companies are already working on ways to leverage EV's as mass energy storage devices (batteries) to support the grid. This means every EV connected to a charger that is sitting at 100% could instead be offloading back energy into your house or even back to the grid.

Vehicle-to-Home and Vehicle-to-Grid are all well under development with large financial investments.

https://www.virta.global/vehicle-to-grid-v2g

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/08/21/1st-vehicle-to-grid-system-on-nyc-grid-launches/

 

[sk47]

Also, companies are already working on ways to leverage EV's as mass energy storage devices (batteries) to support the grid. This means every EV connected to a charger that is sitting at 100% could instead be offloading back energy into your house or even back to the grid.

Vehicle-to-Home and Vehicle-to-Grid are all well under development with large financial investments.

https://www.virta.global/vehicle-to-grid-v2g

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/08/21/1st-vehicle-to-grid-system-on-nyc-grid-launches/

Hello; In a way the idea of EV's being a reservoir of energy for the brief time it is 100% deflects from the main issue surrounding the EV concept. Let me first concede a small part. That being if the generation of electricity from solar or wind is used to charge up the EV then there is some bit of positive for the EV plan. The knock of solar-wind being they are not always around. So being able to more effectively use these energy sources might be a positive.

That said, the bulk of electric power will still come from fossil fuels for a long time to come. No matter how clever systems become at pushing electric energy around that fact is the Achillies heel of the EV.
This bit is a false equivalency.
"This means every EV connected to a charger that is sitting at 100% could instead be offloading back energy into your house or even back to the grid."
By that I mean is sounds a bit of smoke and mirrors. If the EV is 100% charged then what ever energy is passing thru back to the grid could just as well be in the grid anyway.
Picture it this way. The EV is 100% and you unplug it for the grid. The energy that was merely passing thru the EV will still be in the grid. The EV that is 100% charged is just not drawing energy from the grid. I do admit it is a cleaver play on words.

To be a reservoir for the grid the EV battery charge must be drawn down from 100% to 90% to 80% and so on. If the EV stays at 100% it is not contributing to the grid. For this idea to make sense EV owners must be willing to not use the energy stored in their EV's by driving them.

The idea is a no sale.

 

[james cole]

So it appears the only potential problem for the V8 5.0 are EVs!

 

[luca1290]

It's just that many of us here in the US are so dead set on having their ICE V8's that they just refuse to see the need for alternatives. Don't get me wrong I want my V8 too. I just realize what the future is and understand that it is not changing.

I would like to think that there is a viable alternative to fossils fuels, the real answer is that as far as now, there isn't. At least for transportation because nothing beats the energy density of fossils fuel.

Instead of coming up and wasting precious resources in things that don't work we should invest in stationary power generation that does not emit CO2, is environmentally friendly and does not kills the ecosystem in the name of producing "less" CO2. We have technologies to answer to this need from the 50s but are politically averse.

While I love the sound of an ICE (being it 1,2,4,6,8,12 cylinders) I'm not against letting go if I'm offered an alternative that is at least comparable.
I don't understand this fury against cars. People forgot what they represent.

 

[FinitePrimus]

To be a reservoir for the grid the EV battery charge must be drawn down from 100% to 90% to 80% and so on. If the EV stays at 100% it is not contributing to the grid. For this idea to make sense EV owners must be willing to not use the energy stored in their EV's by driving them.

The idea is a no sale.

I think this is the rub. I think the public is being pushed into a greater good scenario with the push to EVs. We know we are told to turn down our home air conditioning on hot days to prevent blackouts. I think this is part of the plan to:

1. Have a mass network of "batteries" than in the event of an energy shortfall can be forced to "give back to the grid".
2. Leverage technology to limit how and when we use our cars. We are seeing Europe mandate speed governance technology based on GPS with new builds. We will see acceleration limits placed on EVs, etc. As they are one big computer that only works when connected to the networks, it will be easier to restrict them. We could also see limits on what days you can drive the EV.
3. Increase the cost of vehicles to the point ownership becomes less affordable and popular. We will see vehicle-on-demand services like Uber leveraging self-driving cars. This is still a while away but it will happen. EVs will start to cost 3,4,5 hundred K so it will make sense for car manufacturers to switch their business models to become services with 24/7 cars. From a profit perspective there is probably more profit in selling less volume but higher priced cars to corporations. This will get rid of any issues with battery life/maintenance etc. as it's all part of the service.

I don't think we will have too many people owning a car that sits parked 96% of the time. Could be wrong but if you look at the signals in the news. That's my main reason for enjoying a V8 while I can.

 

[Hack]

Eight years is hardly “immediate”. And most of us are not planning for a ”wonderland”.

Yes, there are real issues to be addressed and solved. No question about that. But the amount of money, effort, and time being spend is accelerating the progress of the technology. Look at where we have come since 2014 and you can see that 2030 could be very very CRAPPY.

I fixed that for you, sir.

It's just that many of us here in the US are so dead set on having their ICE V8's that they just refuse to see the need for alternatives. Don't get me wrong I want my V8 too. I just realize what the future is and understand that it is not changing.

I'm fine with alternatives to the V8. I just bought a little 4 banger car as an alternative.

I'm not sure we really NEEEEED alternatives to fossil fuels, though. In fact I'm positive we don't need them.

 

[sk47]

I fixed that for you, sir.



I'm fine with alternatives to the V8. I just bought a little 4 banger car as an alternative.

I'm not sure we really NEEEEED alternatives to fossil fuels, though. In fact I'm positive we don't need them.

Hello; The published notion is fossil fuels are "evil". Evil in the sense of causing damage to the environment. In particular currently causing climate change pretty much all by themselves if the claims are to be believed.
There is a grain of truth involved. Cars use to be a lot dirtier. I can recall when young watching smoke come out of down tubes in cars in front of me. Now we have closed systems in ICE so very little escapes to the air in a raw form. The chemicals that caused SMOG in the past are largely changed into less toxic compounds by the CATS along with the more refined computer control of the air -fuel mix in an ICE. Even diesel has been cleaned up a lot.

The evil fossil fuels idea has become a talking point and a rallying cry well beyond the reality. Same for the other side of the coin. The EV has become idealized well beyond its actual level of clean. Saying an EV does not pollute at all is a false claim. Sure, the final on the road EV product is clean in that there is no exhaust. I could make a rough analogy between hunting and supermarkets.

Some of the same people who hate hunting have no problem buying a pack of burgers at the market. The hunting videos generally show the actual kill of a game animal. Sometimes they show the slaughter after or at least the part where the guts are cut out in the field. Hunting is bloody and Bambi's father is killed on the TV.
Thing is the same thing happens in order for us to get hamburger or a steak. We just do not see it. All we see is the neatly wrapped final product in a clear plastic wrap. Often with an absorbent pad under the meat to catch any stray fluids.
Point being while an ICE does emit some pollutants when in use and the EV does not as much, there is the background stuff going on with the EV. We have cleaned up the burning of petroleum a lot. Natural gas, propane and methane all burn clean to begin with. Coal is the harder of the mix to burn clean but even it has been improved on. Turns out the premature move to EV's is premature because a solid alternative to burning coal to get electricity is not yet had. A cart before the horse sort of thing.

Yes, there are other ways to make electricity to be sure. Thing is those other methods are too restricted in a number of ways. Most of us understand those restrictions. Back to the question of do we need to replace fossil fuels. I say no as well. First thing being there is not a good replacement with a large enough capacity to do the job. The cry being if we spend multi -trillions of monies we do not have then at some future date these inadequate energy producers can be made to work. Maybe. No guarantee that plan will work but a sure guarantee the money will be spent.

The real issue falls back to the claim of fossil fuels causing climate change. I do not doubt that billions of active humans have an impact on the environment. Decades ago, when bottled water became the norm was a big clue. But to claim our activities have a major effect on the climate seems a stretch. A side note follows

I watch the local news out of Knoxville TN. The last few summers they have kept track of 90-degree F days. Some months we have a lot more 90-degree days than normal. Here is the kicker. Even our current records of 90-degree days do not beat the records of the 1930's. Saw that again this summer. We had a lot of 90-degree days one month this summer but still nowhere near records from the 1930's.
Watched a program called "The Climate Hustle " a few weeks ago. Still have it saved. Turns out according to that program the modern climate/temperature models omit the high heat years of the 1930's. I am sure some will pan this as misinformation from that program and I cannot confirm or deny myself. I can see why such high temperatures would be left out at they would skew the figures to some degree. Be hard to explain how we had temperature years so much higher than the current nearly a hundred years ago. Does not fit the scenario so leave it out. To me, whatever the truth happens to be ought to be considered no matter whose agenda it helps or hurts. I do not know for sure, but I do know the TV weathers guys in Knoxville have talked about the record setting 1930's again this summer.

Sorry about the long post Hack. I got on a roll. To summarize. I also run small four bangers and have for decades. Some getting great mpg. My current car gets around 35 mpgs. I also like a V8. I also do not see the need to do away with fossil fuels. Let those who want an EV have them. Let those who want an ICE have them. If one turns out to be the better, then it will come to dominate. This EV push is based on fear and a questionable climate claim.

 

[sk47]

Hello; The published notion is fossil fuels are "evil". Evil in the sense of causing damage to the environment. In particular currently causing climate change pretty much all by themselves if the claims are to be believed.
There is a grain of truth involved. Cars use to be a lot dirtier. I can recall when young watching smoke come out of down tubes in cars in front of me. Now we have closed systems in ICE so very little escapes to the air in a raw form. The chemicals that caused SMOG in the past are largely changed into less toxic compounds by the CATS along with the more refined computer control of the air -fuel mix in an ICE. Even diesel has been cleaned up a lot.

The evil fossil fuels idea has become a talking point and a rallying cry well beyond the reality. Same for the other side of the coin. The EV has become idealized well beyond its actual level of clean. Saying an EV does not pollute at all is a false claim. Sure, the final on the road EV product is clean in that there is no exhaust. I could make a rough analogy between hunting and supermarkets.

Some of the same people who hate hunting have no problem buying a pack of burgers at the market. The hunting videos generally show the actual kill of a game animal. Sometimes they show the slaughter after or at least the part where the guts are cut out in the field. Hunting is bloody and Bambi's father is killed on the TV.
Thing is the same thing happens in order for us to get hamburger or a steak. We just do not see it. All we see is the neatly wrapped final product in a clear plastic wrap. Often with an absorbent pad under the meat to catch any stray fluids.
Point being while an ICE does emit some pollutants when in use and the EV does not as much, there is the background stuff going on with the EV. We have cleaned up the burning of petroleum a lot. Natural gas, propane and methane all burn clean to begin with. Coal is the harder of the mix to burn clean but even it has been improved on. Turns out the premature move to EV's is premature because a solid alternative to burning coal to get electricity is not yet had. A cart before the horse sort of thing.

Yes, there are other ways to make electricity to be sure. Thing is those other methods are too restricted in a number of ways. Most of us understand those restrictions. Back to the question of do we need to replace fossil fuels. I say no as well. First thing being there is not a good replacement with a large enough capacity to do the job. The cry being if we spend multi -trillions of monies we do not have then at some future date these inadequate energy producers can be made to work. Maybe. No guarantee that plan will work but a sure guarantee the money will be spent.

The real issue falls back to the claim of fossil fuels causing climate change. I do not doubt that billions of active humans have an impact on the environment. Decades ago, when bottled water became the norm was a big clue. But to claim our activities have a major effect on the climate seems a stretch. A side note follows

I watch the local news out of Knoxville TN. The last few summers they have kept track of 90-degree F days. Some months we have a lot more 90-degree days than normal. Here is the kicker. Even our current records of 90-degree days do not beat the records of the 1930's. Saw that again this summer. We had a lot of 90-degree days one month this summer but still nowhere near records from the 1930's.
Watched a program called "The Climate Hustle " a few weeks ago. Still have it saved. Turns out according to that program the modern climate/temperature models omit the high heat years of the 1930's. I am sure some will pan this as misinformation from that program and I cannot confirm or deny myself. I can see why such high temperatures would be left out at they would skew the figures to some degree. Be hard to explain how we had temperature years so much higher than the current nearly a hundred years ago. Does not fit the scenario so leave it out. To me, whatever the truth happens to be ought to be considered no matter whose agenda it helps or hurts. I do not know for sure, but I do know the TV weathers guys in Knoxville have talked about the record setting 1930's again this summer.

Sorry about the long post Hack. I got on a roll. To summarize. I also run small four bangers and have for decades. Some getting great mpg. My current car gets around 35 mpgs. I also like a V8. I also do not see the need to do away with fossil fuels. Let those who want an EV have them. Let those who want an ICE have them. If one turns out to be the better, then it will come to dominate. This EV push is based on fear and a questionable climate claim.

Hello; Let me edit my own post a bit. The part about current temperature models leaving out the temperature data from the 1930's. I do recall after the above post the narrator saying the 1930's data was omitted from the climate models. That is what I recall. I can look at the program again to be sure if any want. Here is a question such a thing raises if that is indeed true. Are the folks building up these models inside a computer program somehow "cherry picking" data?

In a different thread on this site we had a long go around about climate change. A portion of the discussion centered around models. I did some searching and reading. What i found in two articles written by those who build the models were anomalies. My recall is not super clear but one such thing was that a model did not catch a real world event when tested against past climate events for which we have actual data. I posted the links at the time. My contention then as it is now is a model with such an error is not something on which to base a dramatic change in our lifestyle as is happening with these EV mandates. Lives and livelihoods will be in the balance.

While not the same thing we can use the Covid lockdowns and mandates as an example of how unintended consequences can be devastating. The virologist and contagious disease experts had decades of real time work to base their action on and still got so much wrong.

 

[K4fxd]

Michael Crichton wrote a novel with the intent of proving man made climate change. He wove it into a story, great read if you like to read. Every reference he listed is gone, every NASA chart he copied is gone.

He came away with the finding that man made climate change is a false religion.

When the book first came out all reference data was searchable. I did search it out. Hell he actually put all reference data at the bottom of each page, like a text book.

Anyway you cannot take temp readings from the same place 10 years apart when the first reading was in deep woods and the second reading is in a city suburb.

Just heard on the news that a roman village was just discovered due to rescinding water levels. We call it a drought, I'm sure the Romans called it a flood....and climate change......

 

[Nightmonkey]

He came away with the finding that man made climate change is a false religion.

Regardless, climate change is a threat in my opinion.
I think the mechanisms of influence on the climate by man-made emissions are indisputable.
Even if the majority of climate change is not man-made, we should at least have an interest in doing what is humanly possible to mitigate what is happening for future generations.
If it helps well, if not: Everybody knows Mad Max -> V8 ftw!

 

[Zooks527]

Imagine 10,000 EV's plugged in every night each pulling in 45 amps, plus what is normally drawn from the power station. That is 450 thousand extra amps of power needing to be generated. What if 1 million EV's are plugged in?

Where is this power coming from? It sure is not solar and wind unless we want to give up all our farm land.

No, no, no. We've passed a law saying it will happen, so it will happen. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is because those damn engineers haven't magicked massive scale storage systems into place the way we have demanded.

 

[luca1290]

No, no, no. We've passed a law saying it will happen, so it will happen. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is because those damn engineers haven't magicked massive scale storage systems into place the way we have demanded.

You reminded me of this book.

 

[sk47]

Regardless, climate change is a threat in my opinion.
I think the mechanisms of influence on the climate by man-made emissions are indisputable.
Even if the majority of climate change is not man-made, we should at least have an interest in doing what is humanly possible to mitigate what is happening for future generations.
If it helps well, if not: Everybody knows Mad Max -> V8 ftw!

Hello; A point or few. First is the notion that even if the majority of climate change is not human caused, we should do the massive changes to our economies and lifestyles as a just in case. This is problematic at its core. If, as I suspect, a major part of climate change is natural as it has been for millions of years, then doing damage to our lifestyles is overkill.

Here are points taken from those who argue in favor of drastic changes to human behavior. As I understand it the facts presented the say results of these changes if put into 100% effect will not show benefits: (1) For at least 50 years. Perhaps even longer than 50 years. (2) The calculated benefits 50 to 100 years from now will be on the order of reducing warming by less than one degree. (3) The theories presented say that some warming is already baked in hard, and nothing can change this warming of perhaps two degrees. In other words, it is already too late to halt some warming. (4) These points remain true even if we somehow worldwide went to ZERO carbon emissions next month and stayed at ZERO emissions for the next 50 to 100 years. These are points I gathered from looking into the subject.

I have no problem with doing some things to mitigate pollution and other environmental harm. This "do what is humanly possible" notion allows for drastic measures that could, like the covid lockdowns, have consequences far worse than the events being fought against. Perhaps like burning down a house to get rid of a wasp's nest. Some measures can be taken to be sure, but these drastic EV mandated changes will hurt economies for very little, if any, benefit. That questionable benefit not to come about for at least 50 years is one main point.

Sponsored