Honda VTX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
872 Posts
Me either. they require more dirty fossil fuel energy than current engines! They are also impractical and still need a lot of research before blanketing our roadways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,240 Posts
I enjoy Driving / Riding way to much to be a passanger.. or a passanger behind a wheel / handlebars.

it took me months to get use to electronic cruise control. aka 1970's
my 1972 Kingswood station wagon. a great car 400/400/4.11 aka tow package.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
This tech will get shoved down our throats, whether we like it or not. The younger generation has already been indoctrinated to embrace it. The people will be controlled ... one way or the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,240 Posts
This tech will get shoved down our throats, whether we like it or not. The younger generation has already been indoctrinated to embrace it. The people will be controlled ... one way or the other.
Demolition Man (1993 ) Sylvester Stallone
Judge Dredd (1995)

then there is
The Time Machine (1960)...

humans need to wake up.

"Gort" will arrive one day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,071 Posts
State and Federal laws govern the streets and highways so they are the watchdogs of public safety. Write your local reps with any concerns to push back on anything "being pushed down our throats". Of course 'progress' is inevitable but those local communities and states that push back may not have to be the beta testers for mistakes in design that hurt/kill the locals. Let that will happen to the passive sheeple who do nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,001 Posts
Me either. they require more dirty fossil fuel energy than current engines! They are also impractical and still need a lot of research before blanketing our roadways.
I don't believe that is true, but if you've got a rational basis, I'd be eager to hear it. I will spend a few minutes researching the 'pro-battery propulsion side', and try to post an accurate assessment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,240 Posts
the little I know on the subject.

down here... Wind generators.... are everywhere.. and they kill most birds in the area..
battery power... limited range, Fuel, atomic or water power to recharge the batteries... ( SLOW )
battery replacement... $5,000 every 4-6 years .. plus Lipo does not recycle like ni-cad.. more cost and work.
charging stations to replace gas stations... where are they ??? very limited...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
I don't believe that is true, but if you've got a rational basis, I'd be eager to hear it. I will spend a few minutes researching the 'pro-battery propulsion side', and try to post an accurate assessment.
Dud, it depends on where you are. Germany rolled back it's electric mandate citing a lack of cleaner sources. For the life of the car a lean burning gasoline engine or a small clean diesel were cleaner (CO2 emissions) than using the existing power infrastructure to providing electricity. Most power technologies are exceedingly difficult to make clean. The reason is that demand is predicted and the goal is to not fall short. As a result, coal (the main source of electricity in Germany) is literally burned and wasted to be able to accommodate people plugging in their cars. So yeah, a small diesel is cleaner than electric, over the life of the car, and that assumes the cars are created using the same carbon footprint. We know that lithium mining is incredibly damaging to the earth and poisonous to the local populations of both humans and fauna. Of course we never hear about that because lithium mining is done in impoverished countries where environmental standards are low or non-existent, and local governments can be bought.

In regions like France, where power is largely nuclear, power generation would need to be increased to accommodate the surge in power requirements, and that raises concern for what to do with nuclear waste. Increase generation, increase waste. We still don't fully know how to store the waste until it is inert, only until it's not entirely deadly due to casual exposure. Still not a great solutions unless CO2 emissions is your only concern.

Wind and solar are highly unreliable and infrastructure to handle such low density power sources needs to be created. In itself, not a clean process, but perhaps better than none, yet both wind and solar have concerns with carbon neutrality. It's not a guarantee that any wind or solar installation would ever be carbon negative, which means that, while an improvement, not ideal by any means, and no wind, no sun, no charging your car, which means you're staying home.

To these items I have listed above you will find almost as much discussion supporting or denying as with man made climate change itself, so one must truly deep dive this.

As far as autonomous vehicles needing more research, this is largely true. Coders (software engineers) can be incredibly arrogant when it comes to replacing human machine interaction with code and computers. Hardware is never 100% reliable and nor is the code. Case in point the Boeing 737-MAX8 coding errors. Yes, this is absolutely how we learn, but at the expense of innocent lives. That is not to say that any loss of life was at all due to negligence or malice, but due to arrogance, and economy. A human being cannot conceive every possible failure mode, especially in anything as complex as driving a car, and traffic interaction. We can create neural nets that self learn and we can code the be-jesus out of it, but inevitably there will be a very large number of scenarios, however unlikely, untouched because humans could not possibly conceive such. The human brain is so complex and we understand only a small part of how it functions as a final result, yet our human arrogance insists we can duplicate such complexity with what we do understand, transistors (switches) manipulating bits. As a PC programmer and a machine safety expert, I can say with every degree of certainty, when I protect a machine from someone getting hurt, it is far safer than an autonomous vehicle can be, given current technology. That is only because in such a scenario I can dictate the terms of access and safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
872 Posts
I don't believe that is true, but if you've got a rational basis, I'd be eager to hear it. I will spend a few minutes researching the 'pro-battery propulsion side', and try to post an accurate assessment.
I am including battery manufacturing and chemicals. Also anytime you convert energy you lose some. What probably should have been done is develop natural gas engines. Just a thought.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
I am including battery manufacturing and chemicals. Also anytime you convert energy you lose some. What probably should have been done is develop natural gas engines. Just a thought.
While methane is cleaner, as an energy source it is less energy dense, so requires more in order to do the same job. IOW, you give up mileage. That and natural gas doesn't come in a form that lends itself well to transport, so it must first be compressed into a holding tank. Still, it is cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and takes a step in a direction, although it doesn't really address the problems with gasoline, it only mitigates them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,240 Posts
I know a little about tow-motor cng / lpt powered....

I did engine rebuilding for a dealership shop before I got married.

so NONE of this is really New... most have been operating since the 1950's. in one form or another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,001 Posts
What is the mix of electrical generation in the US?

Essentially carbon-free power generation (35.8%):
Nuclear – 19.4%
Hydro – 7.0%
Wind – 6.5%
Biomass – 1.4%
Solar – 1.5%

Carbon-intensive power generation (62.7%):
Coal – 27.5%
Natural gas – 35.2%

There are some other generation types out there that are tiny, like pumped storage hydro and exotic, developmental stuff, but the above list covers 98.5% of what gets on the grid, so it’s a good starting place.

So, to validate and quantify the claim that “electric cars get their power from dirty fossil fuel”, which is certainly at least partially true, let’s do some calculations.

Coal produces 27.5% of the power on the grid, and its share of CO2 generation is 1150 million metric tons, out of an energy sector total of 1763 million metric tons.

Natural gas produces 35.2% of the power on the grid, and its share of CO2 generation is 581 million metric tons, out of an energy sector total of 1763 million metric tons.

Other types of power production also generate about 32 million metric tons, but rather than bogging down in tiny details, I will just lump this added CO2 # in with the above two numbers, split evenly. That way, we will be fully penalizing electrical use so that battery-driven cars can be assigned the highest plausible impact for CO2 generation.

So, electric utilities put 4,171 billion KW-hours on the grid in 2018, and generated 1763 million metric tons of CO2. First, we convert metric tons to lbs by multiplying by 2204.62 and then divide by the generated power to get lbs of CO2 per 1000 KW-hours.

That gives you 931.85 lbs of CO2 for every 1000 KW-hours of power consumed from the grid, assuming the grid power was generated by a homogenous mix of nukes, hydros, coal and gas plants, etc. I’m using the base number of “1000 KW-hours” of power because that’s a ballpark number for typical household power consumption in a month.

Now, let’s see how much power we use in order to charge a Tesla up so that is will deliver 300 miles of transportation - Tesla says their Model S will deliver about 315 miles on a 100 KW-hour charge. Close enough; let’s just call it 300 miles. So, 100 KW-hours is one tenth of the household energy number listed above, so the CO2 cost is also 1/10th. That means your ‘electric tankful’ is going to contribute 93.2 lbs of CO2, and if your electric rates are ‘average’, it will cost you $13 for the fuel.

So, how much CO2 does an internal combustion engine generate? Let’s go with a low estimate of 17 lbs per gallon for E-10 gas. So, if we assume a pretty efficient car gets 30 mpg, that means we burn 10 gallons while travelling 300 miles. That’s 170 lbs of CO2. That 10 gallons of gas will cost you somewhere around $24.

Now, I will grant you that the above exercise in number crunching doesn't include 'cradle-to-grave' analysis to address the costs of lithium mining or battery production impacts, but it also doesn't penalize electricity with hidden costs of coal mining, or uranium mining, or fracking environment impacts, etc. So, if you want to argue that all the associated impacts have to be tallied before a claim of 'cleaner' choice can be determined, you have to admit to the accounting gaps in whatever choice you are choosing to promote as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
Your numbers are correct, but they make some assumptions, as is necessary. Power consumed from the grid does not correctly represent the amount of fuel burned to service consumption. An average home that generally uses 1000KWh of energy per day may require the power generation facility generate 1200 or even 1500KWh or maybe even more to allow for peak demand. It's not as simple as just, this is what I use, so this is what I'm responsible for. Any thermal power generation plant. coal, oil and natural gas, and to a great degree nuclear, are particularly slow to respond to changes in demand so must continuously generate an excess to what is required. increasing each homes power requirements by 10% doesn't sound like a big deal, but it could be depending on when that extra 10% is required.
IF, additional facilities are required, as would almost certainly be the case, then you will have even a greater level of waste.

It's fine to measure CO2 emissions due to electricity generation by measuring power consumption, but it's not an accurate picture. Really one would need to get a number of the total amount of coal and natural gas consumed and extrapolate from there. That said, it does depend on where you happen to be, and I think you've show that YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,001 Posts
Okay, in the above example, i used an approximation of "homogeneous mix" of electrical production methods in order to estimate the CO2 impact of the grid. Now, let's swap it to total worst case - let's say the added load that your Tesla puts on to your local power grid requires that the increased grid demand is solely produced by cranking up or increasing the load at a coal-fired plant. Using the already-provided numbers (coal generates 1150 million metric tons of CO2 per year), we can calculate that 1000 KW-hours of coal-produced power is also going to generate 2210.3 lbs of CO2. And that means that 300 miles of driving in the Tesla whose power was produced solely by a coal-fired plant will have contributed 221 lbs of CO2 to the environment, which is worse than the 170 lbs that would have come from a reasonably efficient gas-powered car.

This is a big part of the reason that older coal-fired plants are being retired so quickly in this country, and the facilities with considerable life left in them are rapidly being converted to natural gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,240 Posts
/
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,001 Posts
You have several significant mistakes in your rebuttal. Let me gently steer you in a more accurate direction.

Power consumed from the grid does not correctly represent the amount of fuel burned to service consumption.
An average home that generally uses 1000KWh of energy per day may require the power generation facility generate 1200 or even 1500KWh or maybe even more to allow for peak demand.
Wrong on every single point. Power consumed by retail and commercial customers was generated within seconds of the consumption. So, power consumed almost exactly matches power generated. For cases when grid demand fluctuates, there are storage systems such as pumped hydro storage and even batteries that efficiently balance generation and demand. And yes, utilities have "spinning reserve" such as smaller combustion turbines and hydro units that can very rapidly adjust to load changes so that things stay in balance. When grid imbalances occur, we see small fluctuations in frequency while generators are picking up more load. Your mistaken guesstimate of 1200 or 1500 KW-hr is nonsense, and these power consumption values are for a typical MONTH, not a day.

No utility is in the business of making electricity just so that it can be "thrown away". Even the teeniest of inefficiencies add up to hundreds of millions of dollars in a very short time, so rest assured the grid is maintained as perfectly as it possibly can be.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
You have several significant mistakes in your rebuttal. Let me gently steer you in a more accurate direction.

Wrong on every single point. Power consumed by retail and commercial customers was generated within seconds of the consumption. So, power consumed almost exactly matches power generated. For cases when grid demand fluctuates, there are storage systems such as pumped hydro storage and even batteries that efficiently balance generation and demand. And yes, utilities have "spinning reserve" such as smaller combustion turbines and hydro units that can very rapidly adjust to load changes so that things stay in balance. When grid imbalances occur, we see small fluctuations in frequency while generators are picking up more load. Your mistaken guesstimate of 1200 or 1500 KW-hr is nonsense, and these power consumption values are for a typical MONTH, not a day.

No utility is in the business of making electricity just so that it can be "thrown away". Even the teeniest of inefficiencies add up to hundreds of millions of dollars in a very short time, so rest assured the grid is maintained as perfectly as it possibly can be.
edited

Actually the point is moot as you based your calculations on consumption of coal which makes things more accurate rather than less. I stand by my assertions, but in context are irrelevant.

I'm curious though. You say an average household consumes about 1000KWh/mo. I'll buy that, but 300mi/mo is way shy ... I think, so the burden on the grid would increase more significantly than indicated. I know that wasn't the point there, but just thinking ahead.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top