What's new

GM promises the end of their gasoline vehicles in 20 years

It's basically solved at this point. Between the state of the art in batteries (which is improving rapidly), fast charging, and expanding charge networks, range is mostly a non-issue going forward. Personally I could do most of the driving I do now without ever having to charge away from home. And I love my road trips A LOT.

Most people could do most of what they do now riding mass transit. Not the point.

Batteries are not even close to "solved". They're still a factor of 10 less energy-dense than IC fuel. Now, you can convince yourself that a moped and a GSXR do the same thing, but they don't.

And the eco issues of battery manufacture aren't even addressed, much less solved.
 
Most people could do most of what they do now riding mass transit. Not the point.

Batteries are not even close to "solved". They're still a factor of 10 less energy-dense than IC fuel. Now, you can convince yourself that a moped and a GSXR do the same thing, but they don't.

And the eco issues of battery manufacture aren't even addressed, much less solved.

Yeah, but they are actively ignored by the green crowd, which is just as good as solved, no?
 
Meanwhile in 20 years Dodge will stillbe stuffing hellcat motors in minivans

GM-Ford ECO_ Mopar Hellcat.jpg
 
Someone smarter than me can do the math. Using today's figures:

I'm order to replace, say 50%, of the current ICE vehicles in use with eletric counterparts. What kind of strain would that put on the grid? Where would the power come from?

how much in subsidies and backroom deals is this costing taxpayers? (Yes I know national debt doesnt matter, it's all a game now)
 
Someone smarter than me can do the math. Using today's figures:

I'm order to replace, say 50%, of the current ICE vehicles in use with eletric counterparts. What kind of strain would that put on the grid? Where would the power come from?

how much in subsidies and backroom deals is this costing taxpayers? (Yes I know national debt doesnt matter, it's all a game now)

Not only that but I would venture to guess that about 75% of homes have a electrical panel that cannot support charging a car anyway. Well maybe, you just can't cook, dry laundry and charge the car. :rolleyes:
 
I *think* solar panels reflect more light than the general landscape. They're only about 20% efficient. Quite a bit of the remainder of the light is reflected.

It's basically solved at this point. Between the state of the art in batteries (which is improving rapidly), fast charging, and expanding charge networks, range is mostly a non-issue going forward. Personally I could do most of the driving I do now without ever having to charge away from home. And I love my road trips A LOT.

Think what you want.
 
Word vomit.

IC engines have reigned king in the transportation world because of the energy and cost densities of petroleum products.

A question my engineer professor Peck Cho from Michigan tech once asked us. “What can fit in a teacup and move 1 ton 100 miles?”

Until we can replicate this petroleum energy will always be king.
 
Most people could do most of what they do now riding mass transit. Not the point.

Batteries are not even close to "solved". They're still a factor of 10 less energy-dense than IC fuel. Now, you can convince yourself that a moped and a GSXR do the same thing, but they don't.

And the eco issues of battery manufacture aren't even addressed, much less solved.
In what way can someone do what they currently do in a car, with mass transit? That's just laughable on its face.

You're not paying attention, at all. The energy density issue isn't even close to that simple. Raw density is a lot less than gasoline, but the vastly higher efficiency of battery/inverter/motor vs an ICE brings batteries much closer to parity than you imply. The real issues are range, charge time, and charger availability, and those issues are evaporating rapidly. Comparing an electric car to a moped only demonstrates how out of touch your thinking is. Go take a look at the specs on the latest Tesla Model S refresh. That "moped" would smoke an actual GSXR.

Eco issues with battery manufacturing is definately a problem. Which is also improving rapidly.
 
All true. But the vast majority of electricity still comes from coal and nat gas. Hell, I love this planet as much as anyone and do everything I can to keep it clean. I do however disagree with people that think that Americans burning gasoline is doing anything to warm the planet. Maybe, just maybe other countries with huge populations and no real environmental laws are having an effect. But the fact is the planet is always either heating or cooling and it is usually the Sun that controls this.

I read an article about how dirty concrete is as far as CO2 emissions go and how China is using 60% of the worlds supply and obviously they DGAF about any kind of emissions.

Beijing’s new airport is just the latest megaproject that has seen China pour more concrete every two years than the US did in the entire 20th century
Amy Hawkins in Beijing
@XLHawkinsThu 28 Feb 2019 01.00 EST
273In the suburbs south of Beijing, what could one day be the world’s busiest airport is rapidly taking shape. Nicknamed “the starfish” due to the striking design by Zaha Hadid Architects, the Beijing Daxing international airport is set to open in October, and could eventually handle more than 100 million passengers a year.

While the 52,000-tonne steel exoskeleton covering the airport’s six concourses immediately catches the eye, what lies beneath is familiar to many Chinese mega-projects: concrete – 1.6m cubic metres of it.



Construction of the new airport hub started in 2014, and is one of the largest infrastructure projects initiated by the country’s president, Xi Jinping, in an effort to jumpstart China’s slowing economy and place Beijing firmly on the international stage.
Q&AWhat is Guardian concrete week?

Show
Located 67km south of the capital, the airport sprawls across 780,000 sq metres – about a third of the size of Edinburgh. It aims to process 72 million passengers a year, and will have four runways by 2025, but there is a longer-term vision for additional runways and talk of 200 million passengers. Beijing’s existing international airport in the north-east, which will stay open, already handles around 96 million passengers a year.

One group who won’t benefit from the cutting-edge contemporary design are the 20,000 people evicted from Daxing’s villages to make way for construction. Another 20 villages are slated for relocation after the airport opens due to concerns over noise pollution.
3000.jpg
A five-tier ship lock, part of the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, the largest concrete structure in the world. Photograph: Xinhua/Alamy
The new airport is just the latest chapter in the story of how China became the concrete superpower of the 21st century. Since 2003, China has poured more cement every two years than the US managed in the entire 20th century. Even after a dip in recent years, China uses almost half the world’s concrete. The construction sector – roads, bridges, railways, urban development and other concrete-and-steel projects – accounted for one-third of the expansion of the Chinese economy in 2017.

China is already home to the largest concrete structure in the world – the Three Gorges Dam across the Yangtze River. Sometimes touted as China’s “new Great Wall”, the dam includes 27.2m cubic metres of concrete and its hydroelectric power station is the world’s largest power station in terms of capacity.

Concrete: the most destructive material on Earth

Read more
Like all of China’s concrete achievements, the Three Gorges Dam has been mired in controversy. Around 1.4 million people were displaced by the project, and there were complaints that the rehousing settlements were inadequate or that compensation money disappeared into local government coffers. More than 100 workers died in the construction process, and archaeological and cultural sites were flooded. None of this prevented Li Yongan, general manager of the Three Gorges Corporation, from declaring in 2006 that the dam was “the grandest project the Chinese people have undertaken in thousands of years”.

Advertisement

Li only had to wait seven more years to be outdone by yet another Chinese feat of concrete. In 2013, the eastern route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project opened, connecting the Grand Canal in China’s east with the capital in the north. The project is a multi-decade plan to divert the water from China’s lush south to its arid north, where water scarcity is an acute problem. The waterway has already cost around $80bn (£61bn), making it the most expensive infrastructure project in the world. In the first phase alone, it has used more than double the amount of concrete in the Three Gorges Dam: 65m cubic metres. The project ultimately aims to transport fresh water a distance of more than 4,300km.

Such ambitious infrastructure projects require a ready and vast supply of concrete. It is a demand that has been easily met by the country’s cement supply: in 2017, China produced 2.4bn tonnes of the stuff, more than the rest of the world combined. But China’s total capacity for cement, the main ingredient in concrete, is closer to 4bn tonnes. This discrepancy is accounted for by thousands of unused or underused cement factories that litter China’s industrial heartlands, a relic of years of rampant supply-side investment, supported by cheap loans to state-owned companies that disregarded profits in favour of growth, employment and kickbacks.
3700.jpg
Part of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project, already the most expensive infrastructure project in the world. Photograph: Olli Geibel/Alamy
China’s overcapacity problem, particularly in heavy industry, is well-documented. In February last year, the country’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced that capacity-expansion in the cement industry would be strictly off-limits for the rest of the year, with the aim of reducing capacity by a 10th by 2020.

Advertisement

Such curbs on production don’t yet seem to be putting a halt on China’s concrete love story, though. In October 2018, the world’s longest sea bridge, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, was officially opened by Xi. At 55km, it is also the longest fixed link in the world – 20 times the length of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. It took 1.08m cubic metres of concrete, nine years and $18.3bn (£14bn) to build the snaking structure, which consists of bridges, artificial islands and tunnels.

A brief history of concrete: from 10,000BC to 3D printed houses

Read more
In China, where concrete goes, controversy follows. The first hiccup in the mega-bridge was a specifically concrete-related one. In December 2017, a Hong Kong laboratory technician was jailed for eight months for falsifying concrete compression test results for the bridge. Ray Chan, a Hong Kong lawmaker, said the scandal “created a crisis of trust in the [Hong Kong] government’s ability to monitor and ensure the credibility of large-scale construction projects”, reported the Hong Kong Free Press.

But the crisis of trust was not just about safety standards. The million cubic metres of concrete also represent mainland China’s growing reach into the supposedly autonomous regions of Macau and Hong Kong. Eddie Chu, a pro-democracy lawmaker, said last year that the bridge was a “politically driven mega-project without urgent need”, given the existing transport links between Hong Kong and the mainland. Others have called it a “white elephant” and an unfair burden on Hong Kong taxpayers.
3951.jpg
A section of the 55km Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, the world’s longest sea bridge. Photograph: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty ImagesAdvertisement

China’s concrete mania shows little sign of abating. High-rise apartments are constantly being added to the cities’ edges to accommodate the never-ending flow of migrants from the countryside, and headline projects such as the new Beijing airport or the Hong Kong bridge are considered prestigious achievements.

On a more humble scale, the world’s longest 3D-printed concrete bridge was unveiled in Shanghai earlier this year. It is a feat of engineering, constructed from 176 individual 3D printed concrete units.

As Xu Weiguo, the architect of the 3D bridge, says: “It’s very easy to get and widely used in construction projects.” After all, he adds, “concrete is the cheapest construction material in China”.

Guardian Concrete Week investigates the shocking impact of concrete on the modern world. Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and use the hashtag #GuardianConcreteWeek to join the discussion or sign up for our weekly newsletter
 
I have an automotive engineering book from back around the turn of the 20th century. It includes steam, gasoline, electric, and (gasp) gasoline-electric hybrid automobiles. At the time there was no clear winner but the expectation was that gasoline-powered cars would prevail.

Separately, someone calculate the BTUs of energy consumed each year by fossil-fueled vehicles and then calculate, at current or projected energy-density levels, how much battery, recharging, and electrical generation infrastructure will need to be added.

Check out this table - a gallon of gasoline has ten times the energy density of the best batteries - on top of this, gasoline weighs 50 times less than a comparative energy density of batteries:

EnergyDensity3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: IGT
Word vomit.

IC engines have reigned king in the transportation world because of the energy and cost densities of petroleum products.

Also EVs have a couple of major problems.

1. Charge time is too long for many uses. Driving cross country SUX when the recharge time is significantly longer than filling up a gas tank.
2. The very real problem of used up batteries. Significant environmental issues with disposal.
3. We have a very real problem with generating enough electricity without the added load of charging all those EVs.
4. Batteries are still much more expensive than the IC engine.
 
Word vomit.

IC engines have reigned king in the transportation world because of the energy and cost densities of petroleum products.

You are correct, and when the electric industry tech develops to the point where EVs match the energy and cost density of petroleum, AND us dinosaurs who grew up on Petro fumes die off....why wouldn't EVs take over?
 
Someone smarter than me can do the math. Using today's figures:

I'm order to replace, say 50%, of the current ICE vehicles in use with eletric counterparts. What kind of strain would that put on the grid? Where would the power come from?

280 million vehicles in the US in 2019 x .5 = 140 million vehicles.
Average battery size? 50kwh maybe?
Charged how often? 3 X per week?
= 1,092,000,000,000 kwh per year needed. (1.09 trillion, right?)

"In 2019, about 4,127 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.13 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States"
 
Last edited:
Remove subsidies.

let the market decide.

If they would make a decent GenSet hybrid I’d look into it. Like the Fisker Kharma. But these hybrid ones they have now no thanks. Plus they look like trash.

full electric is 100 years away. Batteries will have to have massive leaps in technology that we silply
don’t have on earth.
 
Remove subsidies.

let the market decide.

If they would make a decent GenSet hybrid I’d look into it. Like the Fisker Kharma. But these hybrid ones they have now no thanks. Plus they look like trash.

full electric is 100 years away. Batteries will have to have massive leaps in technology that we silply
don’t have on earth.

The least expensive Tesla and GM (cough) vehicles have a range of over 260 miles, easily. And they have no more than 5 years of tech into them. You will be, you have been left in the dust. Japan pre-empted California in requiring all electric vehicles earlier this year. Where have you been ?
 
My company is making money off these plants they are retooling so IDGAF what they do.

Springhill is the next project in the works.
 
Not only that but I would venture to guess that about 75% of homes have a electrical panel that cannot support charging a car anyway. Well maybe, you just can't cook, dry laundry and charge the car. :rolleyes:

Power companies are already increasing the power put IN to the grid right now to account for it. California already requires new homes to have solar panels so it will be easier to add a charging station to a home built in 2020 in 20 years than a home built in 2000.
 
And they will also fly.

It won't be but a minute before all those truck driving jobs are gone.
 
Top Back Refresh