Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 11 Nov 2017, 22:14:01

ralfy wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
ralfy wrote:ICEs are needed to make EVs.

No they are not.


They are used in various mining equipment, some energy sources for manufacturing, and many forms of transport, including container ships and trucks. They are even used in mechanized agriculture and to make more ICEs.

Yes but electric versions of all those things exist with the exception of aircraft. ICEs are at present the cheapest way to go by far but when oil is depleted we do have alternatives.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 11:44:41

Outcast_Searcher wrote:So EV's can't drive on the same roads as ICE's? Sounds a bit odd to me.


EVs can't handle very steep inclines, heavy loads, and very rough roads. Diesel-powered vehicles usually can.


In other words, don't blame the fact that the third world wants to build out to become the first world on EV's.


Unfortunately, that's how the real world works. EV manufacturers in competition with each other need expanding markets. The same goes for other businesses. Hence,

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 11:50:43

vtsnowedin wrote: Yes but electric versions of all those things exist with the exception of aircraft. ICEs are at present the cheapest way to go by far but when oil is depleted we do have alternatives.


All sources of energy have low returns and quantity:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786

Also, material resources in general face diminishing returns, while the type of economies that will sell EVs require the opposite.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby dolanbaker » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 11:57:25

ralfy wrote:

EVs can't handle very steep inclines, heavy loads, and very rough roads. Diesel-powered vehicles usually can.

[

You can design an EV to do almost anything you want it to do, steep hill climbing and the ability to carry a heavy load along a rough road. All it needs is a bit of designing and building and you'll have an EV that does precisely what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_hBrjSF-o
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 12:03:00

A fully optioned Tesla Model S has up to 691 horsepower, with maximum torque at low speeds (unlike ICEs). That's more than the Ford super-duty at roughly 410 horsepower.

So they can't handle hills?

As far as range goes, yes, an EV trying to tow something heavy up a mountain is not a good idea, but the motors have the power and some of the energy will regen on the way back down again.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 12:08:22

dolanbaker wrote:
ralfy wrote:

EVs can't handle very steep inclines, heavy loads, and very rough roads. Diesel-powered vehicles usually can.

[

You can design an EV to do almost anything you want it to do, steep hill climbing and the ability to carry a heavy load along a rough road. All it needs is a bit of designing and building and you'll have an EV that does precisely what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_hBrjSF-o

Such a machine will never be competitive with an ICE cart, not when 1/3 of its payload is heavy batteries.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26304
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 12:33:30

asg70 wrote:A fully optioned Tesla Model S has up to 691 horsepower, with maximum torque at low speeds (unlike ICEs). That's more than the Ford super-duty at roughly 410 horsepower.

So they can't handle hills?

As far as range goes, yes, an EV trying to tow something heavy up a mountain is not a good idea, but the motors have the power and some of the energy will regen on the way back down again.

+1

It's the usual FUD denier stuff, over and over, that ralphy tries in relation to EV's. Every possible configuration he can imagine doesn't exist today, so he pretends like any others are impossible. Since EV's are still in their infancy (as far as a modern build-out), such assumptions are as silly as the idea that solar and wind can't provide as much energy as FF's since they're only getting cranked up.

Luckily, such denier ideas keep getting knocked down like dominos -- it just takes some time, which any realistic assessors of green energy and EV's never denied.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 12:38:15

pstarr wrote:Such a machine will never be competitive with an ICE cart


More intelligent drive-by commentary from the peanut gallery.

Image
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 12:47:28

The battery is about 29% of the total weight of the Tesla Model S. The big flat deck is 1200 pounds of batteries. The electronic controls and the motor itself are the two cylinders in the foreground, and weigh about 150 pounds total. The car weighs 4,323 to 4,936 lbs
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26304
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 12:56:53

pstarr wrote:The battery is about 29% of the total weight of the Tesla Model S. The big flat deck is 1200 pounds of batteries. The electronic controls and the motor itself are the two cylinders in the foreground, and weigh about 150 pounds total. The car weighs 4,323 to 4,936 lbs


Yeah, so? It's also not the kind of vehicle people would normally use to tow big loads up hills, even though it can do it. Wait until there actually are EV trucks before you start saying what can or can't be done.

Not only that, if the purpose is to facilitate moving crap from place to place, and it's a matter of the survival of BAU, then just run catenary and send electric trains instead. Solves the battery problem right there. But this doomer subtext that civilization will keel over because only ICE trucks can huff and puff over a hill is ridiculous.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Luckily, such denier ideas keep getting knocked down like dominos


Image
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 16:54:07

pstarr wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:
ralfy wrote:

EVs can't handle very steep inclines, heavy loads, and very rough roads. Diesel-powered vehicles usually can.

[

You can design an EV to do almost anything you want it to do, steep hill climbing and the ability to carry a heavy load along a rough road. All it needs is a bit of designing and building and you'll have an EV that does precisely what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_hBrjSF-o

Such a machine will never be competitive with an ICE cart, not when 1/3 of its payload is heavy batteries.

Get your terms correct Pstarr. The batteries are not payload. They are part of the curb weight just as the engine and gas tank (Full) is in a ICE.
For example a F-250 can have a curb weight of 6700 lbs and a gross (loaded) weight of 10,000 lbs. Deduct 300 lbs. for driver and passenger and you can have a payload of 3,000 lbs. Now if that same truck is 4X4 then you have to deduct the extra weight of the transfer case and front differential which is about another 1000 lbs. leaving you with just 2000 of payload.
1/3 of the curb weight of an EV being batteries compares well to the weight of the driveline (radiator to tires) of an ICE vehicle, the glass sheet metal ,plastic and seats really don't weigh that much, and I'm surprised it is that low.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 17:22:21

ralfy wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:So EV's can't drive on the same roads as ICE's? Sounds a bit odd to me.


EVs can't handle very steep inclines, heavy loads, and very rough roads. Diesel-powered vehicles usually can.


The kool aid some LATOC'ers drink.

EV racing up Pikes Peak
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 17:43:41

vtsnowedin wrote:
pstarr wrote:Such a machine will never be competitive with an ICE cart, not when 1/3 of its payload is heavy batteries.

Get your terms correct Pstarr. The batteries are not payload. They are part of the curb weight just as the engine and gas tank (Full) is in a ICE.

They batteries are certainly functionally equivalent to payload, in a vehicle that must compete for markets share with a John Deere RoboGator
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26304
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 18:01:15

pstarr wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
pstarr wrote:Such a machine will never be competitive with an ICE cart, not when 1/3 of its payload is heavy batteries.

Get your terms correct Pstarr. The batteries are not payload. They are part of the curb weight just as the engine and gas tank (Full) is in a ICE.

They batteries are certainly functionally equivalent to payload, in a vehicle that must compete for markets share with a John Deere RoboGator

Are you really that dense?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 12 Nov 2017, 20:10:54

dolanbaker wrote:You can design an EV to do almost anything you want it to do, steep hill climbing and the ability to carry a heavy load along a rough road. All it needs is a bit of designing and building and you'll have an EV that does precisely what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_hBrjSF-o


My understanding is that mining and other processes in a global capitalist economy involve economies of scale. That means increased levels of production at the same cost. This explains why over 70 pct of energy used in mining involves diesel engines. And as diminishing returns kick in (which is the opposite of what that economy needs), ramping up becomes increasingly critical.

In which case, what we will need are electric motors that, for example, can run ultra-class trucks many times larger than what was presented and that can carry very heavy loads (at least 450 metric tons), and then much more than that given diminishing returns.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 00:00:33

ralfy wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:You can design an EV to do almost anything you want it to do, steep hill climbing and the ability to carry a heavy load along a rough road. All it needs is a bit of designing and building and you'll have an EV that does precisely what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69_hBrjSF-o


My understanding is that mining and other processes in a global capitalist economy involve economies of scale. That means increased levels of production at the same cost. This explains why over 70 pct of energy used in mining involves diesel engines. And as diminishing returns kick in (which is the opposite of what that economy needs), ramping up becomes increasingly critical.

In which case, what we will need are electric motors that, for example, can run ultra-class trucks many times larger than what was presented and that can carry very heavy loads (at least 450 metric tons), and then much more than that given diminishing returns.

That 70 percent figure is only true today because diesel fuel is cheap and plentiful today. When supply and prices change the economics of mining will change right along with it. Electric powered conveyor belts set up in series can transport material the same distance heavy mine trucks can without using a drop of diesel.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby baha » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 05:18:32

Did you'all forget about this?

https://im-mining.com/2017/06/28/e-dump ... itzerland/

A mining truck that is not only electric but produces power. The only limit is your imagination.
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 06:32:23

What absolute bullshit Baha. There's no net positive, perpetual motion machines are just lies, big trucks full in this case.
SeaGypsy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 03:00:00

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 06:33:51

A quote from that article.

“sounds like a perpetual motion machine is gradually becoming a reality.”

Perhaps this is best forgotten about.

Ah, Sea beat me to it!
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9398
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Bans on Internal Combustion Engines May Backfire

Unread postby baha » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 07:48:35

Of course it's not perpetual motion. Dude :)

It's a human designed mechanical system that produces more power than it uses. More commonly known as a powerplant. I didn't write the stupid article and you latched onto one word and quit reading without grokking the concept.

There is nothing an ICE motor can do that an electric motor cannot do better...The source of easily stored power is the only advantage it has. And that source is waning.
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests