Perhaps calling it a crisis is being too dramatic, but it is a problem that is becoming evermore relevant and it is something that will have to be addressed. Petrol prices have for a long time (or at least since the OPEC embargo of the 70's) been increasing with little in the way to slow it down. It does not help that in many places around the world that excise taxes are also levied on fuels due to its inherent inelastic demand.
[img]http://www.stubbornmule.net/blog/wp-content/petrol-model1.png[/img]
Some would say that the market would eventually sort itself out as prices keep on increasing. Perhaps the days of high displacement V8s are over, or at least will meet its end in short time. However, relating to this issue of course is that current fuels, such as petrol, are massive polluters. Should we attempt to make a change now to ensure that we create a clean and sustainable world for future generations? I'm inclined to say so.
There are many ways to approach the problem, each having varying levels of effect. Some of these solutions include:
[B]- The switch to diesel fuels[/B]: While diesel fuels pollute almost like petrol (and are created from the same non-renewable resource), diesel engines are inherently more efficient than petrol engines. To keep it simple, this is because diesel engines can run higher compression ratios than petrol engines, and more compression equals more expansion (and more efficiency). European makers already produce a significant portion of their cars with diesel engines. American, Asian and Australian producers however are much slower to do this.
[B]- Ethanol blends such as E85[/B]: E85 (15% petrol, 85% ethanol) has sadly not taken off well here in Australia. Pretty much the only cars on the roads that can take E85 are a few Holden Commodore models. When engines are built to run on E85 they can be just as, if not more efficient than petrol engines while offering higher power. This is because E85 can be compressed much more than the best of premium fuels and like with diesels more compression equals more power.
The advantages of E85 is that it's made mostly with renewable resources and E85 pollutes far less per litre than conventional petrols. Disadvantages include that it [I]could[/I] reduce the availability of crops such as corn for use as food, potentially raising food prices. The availability of E85 (at least in Australia) is very minimal. Also, current engines that are designed to take E85 may not be optimised for it, so they do not get much advantage out of using E85.
[B]- The six-stroke engine[/B]: Perhaps a not very well-known development, but experiments have been done in recent years in regard to six-stroke engines. In a four-stroke engine there are the intake, compression, expansion (power) and exhaust strokes. However a lot of heat goes to waste in this system. Some six-stroke systems (based on one piston per cylinder) add a second power stroke after the exhaust stroke to make use of this waste. For example, the Crower cycle injects water into the cylinder which converts to steam and expands.
Such engines could improve fuel economy to figures of around 40%, depending on the source of the study and type of design. The Crower design is especially noteworthy as when water becomes steam its size is increased by more than 1,000 units. The injection of water also acts as a cooling device, and it is possible that engines could be made without heavy radiators (of course there would need to be a tank to store water, which would add more weight back on to the car).
[B]- Regulations on engines[/B]: Most, if not all cars imported from Japan typically have small engines. Why is this? Japanese car makers are taxed based on the displacement (size) of the engines they make. This has forced these car makers to create small engines and search for other methods of increasing power, such as turbochargers and variable valve timing. Government regulations on engine sizes would force car makers to make smaller, more efficient engines but it greatly reduces the choices that car makers can pursue.
[B]- Electrics, hybrids and hydrogen engines[/B]: Most of you would have heard about the Tesla Roadster, a sports car that is powered entirely by electricity. In operation, hybrids, electrics, hydrogen pollute far less than conventional petrol engines, or not even pollute at all. These technologies of course are very young and not as far developed as petrol or diesel engines, however with time they may perhaps present themselves as reasonable alternatives.
[B]- Car pooling and public transport[/B]: One alternative for the short term is to encourage the public to car pool or make use of public transport. This is already being encouraged in a way, with government subsidies of public transport as well as incentives to car pool, such as alternate parking for those who decide to car pool. This won't improve pollution per vehicle however it could lead to less cars on the road and less pollution in total.
The solutions above are of course explained as simple as possible, especially the ones regarding engines as not too many people here would know about that stuff. But what do you reckon? What methods should we pursue to deal with the inevitable fuel crisis? Personally, I reckon there should be more encouragement to pursue adoption of ethanol fuels and research into six-stroke engines, but there should also be further encouragement for car pooling.
i thought it was thought up that gasoline prices tend to be artificially inflated to create a supply-and-demand, like diamonds(which are common enough at this point to be relatively worthless)
the real problem being is that by the time we actually have a fossil fuel shortage, the earth's environment will have been so fucked that we cant save anything :v
We have more oil in known reservoirs than we've ever had in the history of mankind.
Even if we have plenty of fossil fuels, there are still the issues of price fixing and pollution that need to be considered. We cannot continue to use our cars the way they are for too much longer.
Of course there will be price fixing. We've made it all but impossible for new competition to start. We've essentially guaranteed an oligopoly.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41463716]We have more oil in known reservoirs than we've ever had in the history of mankind.[/QUOTE]
That's a misleading exaggeration.
Fossil fuel [I]surveying methods[/I] have gotten better, but that's irrelevant to the scheme of actually acquiring and processing the oil. There is a lot of oil left, but there's a steep law of diminishing returns in context towards acquiring and refining deep or otherwise inconvenient oil reserves.
At the turn of the last century oil was literally bursting out of the ground in many places, but as usage has increased dramatically, all the shallow and easier to reach oil reserves have been depleted, and the only ones that remains are beneath the ocean, or far beneath the ground, and the qaulity of the oil is poor by comparison. It used to cost virtually nothing to extract oil, but now in many sites (the tar sands for instance) it's nearly a 1:2 ratio in terms of how much oil is required in order to extract and refine more oil. Known Oil Reserves =/= Oil Production Quota. Advances in drilling technology have temporarily improved output compared to recent standards, however it's merely a blip in an otherwise downward trend in oil production efficiency.
Oil is only an effective source of energy as long as the work input required in extracting and refining it outweighs the volume of energy required to extract and refine. As oil becomes more difficult to extract and refine, the price increases.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41463362][B]- Electrics, hybrids and hydrogen engines[/B]: Most of you would have heard about the Tesla Roadster, a sports car that is powered entirely by electricity. In operation, hybrids, electrics, hydrogen pollute far less than conventional petrol engines, or not even pollute at all. These technologies of course are very young and not as far developed as petrol or diesel engines, however with time they may perhaps present themselves as reasonable alternatives.
[/QUOTE]
We're not as far off as you would think. Tesla is pushing the technology to heights Big car companies were not willing to do.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxtOwo8S8w[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0-sHtlCZ7M[/media]
[editline]15th July 2013[/editline]
Tesla's work with electric vehicles has made me believe in the ability of electric vehicles. My Ideal future for personal transportation would be electric everything. There would still be ICE vehicles but they would be more for play rather than work.
With an electric car you will never have to change the oil, never have to replace parts you have no idea about, never have to pay hundreds for gas each week. There's one moving part, three separate assemblies that bolt together: the body, the chassis, and the drive train. Everything is in the floor so you have more space for passengers and cargo and safety systems. Their acceleration is faster than your average gas powered car, they're quiet and don't produce poisonous gases so they can be driven indoors if needed. Their only drawback right now is the battery, but if we gave EV's as much money, research, and development as we do racing cars and high end cars then we would tackle that hurdle pretty quick.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41475102]That's a misleading exaggeration.
Fossil fuel [I]surveying methods[/I] have gotten better, but that's irrelevant to the scheme of actually acquiring and processing the oil. There is a lot of oil left, but there's a steep law of diminishing returns in context towards acquiring and refining deep or otherwise inconvenient oil reserves.
At the turn of the last century oil was literally bursting out of the ground in many places, but as usage has increased dramatically, all the shallow and easier to reach oil reserves have been depleted, and the only ones that remains are beneath the ocean, or far beneath the ground, and the qaulity of the oil is poor by comparison. It used to cost virtually nothing to extract oil, but now in many sites (the tar sands for instance) it's nearly a 1:2 ratio in terms of how much oil is required in order to extract and refine more oil. Known Oil Reserves =/= Oil Production Quota. Advances in drilling technology have temporarily improved output compared to recent standards, however it's merely a blip in an otherwise downward trend in oil production efficiency.
Oil is only an effective source of energy as long as the work input required in extracting and refining it outweighs the volume of energy required to extract and refine. As oil becomes more difficult to extract and refine, the price increases.[/QUOTE]
Known reserves is still of great importance because it means all the doom and gloom people who keep talking about running out of oil are full of BS.
As prices go up more people will embrace alternative energy sources.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41476866]Known reserves is still of great importance because it means all the doom and gloom people who keep talking about running out of oil are full of BS.
As prices go up more people will embrace alternative energy sources.[/QUOTE]
Yes you are right. We will never physically run out of fossil fuels, because as they become more expensive we will switch to alternatives. However, out of these alternatives what should we be investing in the most? What alternative should we be considering in the short term but ultimately which ones will be the best for us in the long term?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41487629]Yes you are right. We will never physically run out of fossil fuels, because as they become more expensive we will switch to alternatives. However, out of these alternatives what should we be investing in the most? What alternative should we be considering in the short term but ultimately which ones will be the best for us in the long term?[/QUOTE]
There is no way for us to answer those questions, as shown with solar panels. We've pumped literally tens of billions into that industry for over 10 years and still haven't seen them become close to viable.
Instead, we should let the market decide which energy source will actually work. This would include taking away all subsidies to oil and gas as well.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41463362]Perhaps the days of high displacement V8s are over[/quote] Not in my driveway. I'll be driving a V8 until there isn't a drop of anything left to fuel it with. V8s will run on more than just gasoline, after all. When the gas runs out I'll go buy a methanol carb and switch over to E85 or pure alky. No big deal. Take me about 20 minutes to switch the engine over, and about two hours to switch the entire fuel system over. I'm not at all worried about gasoline's end because I own a vehicle so stone age that it would take me longer to get the tools out than it will to switch it over to alcohol. I'll still be driving a vehicle from the 1980s looooooong after the gasoline it was originally fueled with is just a footnote in history textbooks, all because of how laughably easy they are to convert to renewable fuels.
[quote]However, relating to this issue of course is that current fuels, such as petrol, are massive polluters.[/quote]
That is the most hilarious thing I've heard all week. You want a massive pollution source go poke around coal fired power plants. Just one of the filthy bastards spews more CO2 than an entire rush hour, and they produce far faaaaaaaar more pollutants than just CO2. [i]They're[/i] the massive polluters. Shut them down and we can pretty much ignore auto emissions entirely.
[quote]
European makers already produce a significant portion of their cars with diesel engines. American, Asian and Australian producers however are much slower to do this.[/quote]
I don't speak for asian and austrialian markets, but here in the US diesel passenger cars never took on because the VWs and Volvos we got in the 1980s were clattery, sooty, smelly junkheaps that could barely outrun continental drift. Chevy also tinkered with a small diesel, a 5.7L V8 and a V6 based on that V8, neither of which sold very well for the same very reasons.
Only way you're selling an American a diesel is if it comes with over 600FT LBs of torque. That ain't happening in a sedan. IF you need proof just go count the ratio of gasoline Jettas to TDI Jettas on American streets. You can walk into any US Volkswagen dealer and order a Jetta TDI, but NOBODY does. Nobody wants 'em. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio was as high as 14 or 15 gasoline jettas to 1 diesel one.
[quote][B]- Ethanol blends such as E85[/B]: E85 (15% petrol, 85% ethanol) has sadly not taken off well here in Australia. Pretty much the only cars on the roads that can take E85 are a few Holden Commodore models. When engines are built to run on E85 they can be just as, if not more efficient than petrol engines while offering higher power. This is because E85 can be compressed much more than the best of premium fuels and like with diesels more compression equals more power.[/quote]
It doesn't take off because E85 engines also have to be able to handle normal E10. Plus, all that ethanol means food prices go through the roof since farmers will plant less food grade corn and more fuel grade corn. Or at least sell their corn crops to fuel companies instead.
[quote][B]- The six-stroke engine[/B]: Perhaps a not very well-known development, but experiments have been done in recent years in regard to six-stroke engines. In a four-stroke engine there are the intake, compression, expansion (power) and exhaust strokes. However a lot of heat goes to waste in this system. Some six-stroke systems (based on one piston per cylinder) add a second power stroke after the exhaust stroke to make use of this waste. For example, the Crower cycle injects water into the cylinder which converts to steam and expands.
Such engines could improve fuel economy to figures of around 40%, depending on the source of the study and type of design. The Crower design is especially noteworthy as when water becomes steam its size is increased by more than 1,000 units. The injection of water also acts as a cooling device, and it is possible that engines could be made without heavy radiators (of course there would need to be a tank to store water, which would add more weight back on to the car).[/quote]
Yes, let's overcomplicate the design and make engines that don't last very long again, because it's totally green to have to replace your car every 5-6 years because the engine wore out. We're better off fueling four strokes on alcohol. You'll do more environmental damage in the 30-40 years it takes to perfect six stroke car engines than you ever will by just using the existing four stroke ones.
[quote][B]- Regulations on engines[/B]: Most, if not all cars imported from Japan typically have small engines. Why is this? Japanese car makers are taxed based on the displacement (size) of the engines they make. This has forced these car makers to create small engines and search for other methods of increasing power, such as turbochargers and variable valve timing. Government regulations on engine sizes would force car makers to make smaller, more efficient engines but it greatly reduces the choices that car makers can pursue.[/quote]
No. If the public want to buy Suburbans instead of Civics they should be able to buy Suburbans. The government should have precisely zero input on how large or small someone's car's engine is.
[quote][B]- Electrics, hybrids and hydrogen engines[/B]: Most of you would have heard about the Tesla Roadster, a sports car that is powered entirely by electricity. In operation, hybrids, electrics, hydrogen pollute far less than conventional petrol engines, or not even pollute at all. These technologies of course are very young and not as far developed as petrol or diesel engines, however with time they may perhaps present themselves as reasonable alternatives.[/quote] Electrics and hybrids are an environmental nightmare right now, and it's all due to the battery. Producing those things is a terribly filthy business, as is dealing with them after they break down in 5-10 years tops.
Battery tech is just not where it needs to be for 100% electric cars to be competitive, either. In the real world you're lucky to get half the range out of an EV that I get out of my 30 year old gasoline burner, and you're going to be waiting a couple of hours to get it fully charged again. Until we have batteries that can fully recharge in 3-5 minutes, last 30+ years and well over a quarter million miles, and give us 300-400 miles of range per charge EVs are not going to be a viable replacement for ICE power.
[quote][B]- Car pooling and public transport[/B]: One alternative for the short term is to encourage the public to car pool or make use of public transport. This is already being encouraged in a way, with government subsidies of public transport as well as incentives to car pool, such as alternate parking for those who decide to car pool. This won't improve pollution per vehicle however it could lead to less cars on the road and less pollution in total.
[/quote]
I would waste more gas carpooling than I would save by taking another person's car off the road. It simply is not an option due to where I live. Where I live also renders public transportation a non-option as well.
[quote]What methods should we pursue to deal with the inevitable fuel crisis? [/quote]
Synthetic gasoline, making alcohol from non-food stuff, and...well that's about it really.
[quote]but there should also be further encouragement for car pooling.[/QUOTE]
Car pooling simply does not work for everyone. IF you live out in the sticks, as I do, you'll actually spend more fuel picking your carpool buddy up than you save by taking their car off the road.
BURN ALL THE FUEL!!!
leave none for anyone and no one can want more can they?
[QUOTE=TestECull;41513789]That is the most hilarious thing I've heard all week. You want a massive pollution source go poke around coal fired power plants. Just one of the filthy bastards spews more CO2 than an entire rush hour, and they produce far faaaaaaaar more pollutants than just CO2. [i]They're[/i] the massive polluters. Shut them down and we can pretty much ignore auto emissions entirely.[/quote]
"Ah, but X is worse than Y".
This isn't a way to defend polluting automobiles. You have to concede that the hundreds of millions of cars in the world makes a significant impact to emissions. Every little helps as well.
[quote]Yes, let's overcomplicate the design and make engines that don't last very long again, because it's totally green to have to replace your car every 5-6 years because the engine wore out. We're better off fueling four strokes on alcohol. You'll do more environmental damage in the 30-40 years it takes to perfect six stroke car engines than you ever will by just using the existing four stroke ones.[/quote]
Are these new models actually replaced this often? Do you think that in the long run its better to invest into these?
[quote]No. If the public want to buy Suburbans instead of Civics they should be able to buy Suburbans. The government should have precisely zero input on how large or small someone's car's engine is.[/quote]
Why not? Can you tell me the ecological or economic benefits gained?
[quote]Electrics and hybrids are an environmental nightmare right now, and it's all due to the battery. Producing those things is a terribly filthy business, as is dealing with them after they break down in 5-10 years tops.[/quote]
Despite continual improvement over the past few decades? Electric cars are gradually getting better, and the infrastructure to support them is improving as well.
[quote]Battery tech is just not where it needs to be for 100% electric cars to be competitive, either. In the real world you're lucky to get half the range out of an EV that I get out of my 30 year old gasoline burner, and you're going to be waiting a couple of hours to get it fully charged again. Until we have batteries that can fully recharge in 3-5 minutes, last 30+ years and well over a quarter million miles, and give us 300-400 miles of range per charge EVs are not going to be a viable replacement for ICE power.[/quote]
Alternatively we could bring in railways, maglev, trams, buses, bicycles, canals, sea-based travel, etc as well.
[quote]I would waste more gas carpooling than I would save by taking another person's car off the road. It simply is not an option due to where I live. Where I live also renders public transportation a non-option as well.[/quote]
Do you represent the majority of the population? Do remember that most people live in urban centers that should have well developed metropolitan railways, subways, bicycle routes, trams, buses, park and ride car parks on the edges of towns, etc.
[quote]Synthetic gasoline, making alcohol from non-food stuff, and...well that's about it really.[/quote]
We could phase it out of use and develop alternatives. In the long run, electricity will be king.
[quote]Car pooling simply does not work for everyone. IF you live out in the sticks, as I do, you'll actually spend more fuel picking your carpool buddy up than you save by taking their car off the road.[/QUOTE]
What about in densely populated areas?
[QUOTE=sgman91;41476866]Known reserves is still of great importance because it means all the doom and gloom people who keep talking about running out of oil are full of BS.
As prices go up more people will embrace alternative energy sources.[/QUOTE]
The problem with reserves is that it's not the same as the rate of production:
[url]http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-04-28/the-only-true-metric-of-energy-abundance-the-rate-of-flow[/url]
In fact, that's precisely why we are now forced to "embrace alternative energy sources." The problem is that "alternative energy sources" lack the energy returns that we need to maintain a middle class existence:
[url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth[/url]
[editline]19th July 2013[/editline]
A helpful backgrounder on what's happening concerning conventional production:
[video=youtube;YK730U0Q4NU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU[/video]
For non-conventional production:
[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_ab undance.html[/url]
and connections between peak oil, oil prices, and economic growth:
[url]http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/our-oil-constrained-future[/url]
The main problem with ethanol is that it's less efficient than real gas. Engines don't run as well and get worse gas mileage. Hell, people around where I live are thriving to get their hands on 100% gas rather than a mixture with ethanol. The other problem with ethanol is that it's expensive to produce and cuts into the food supply in the USA.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41515759]"Ah, but X is worse than Y".[/quote] And ignoring coal fired power plants while mercilessly attacking automobiles is fucking stupid.
[quote]This isn't a way to defend polluting automobiles.[/quote] Cars don't pollute anymore. They burn so clean that they only byproducts coming out the back are CO2 and water vapor.
[quote] You have to concede that the hundreds of millions of cars in the world makes a significant impact to emissions.[/quote] And it would be a negligible one if the world banned coal fired power plants.
[quote]Are these new models actually replaced this often?[/quote] Cars are already designed to live to the warranty and not a day longer. People already think cars are disposable appliances. They trade them in after the warranty is over on the latest and 'greatest' models.
[quote] Do you think that in the long run its better to invest into these?[/quote] No. IF you really want to improve the energy efficiency of ICE cars take a hint from freight trains. They achieve absolutely astronomical fuel efficiency. Use their drivetrain instead and you'll be able to buy a V8 powered Suburban that gets 20 city 30 highway [i]while towing a trailer[/i].
It's a simple setup, too. A freight locomotive runs a diesel engine of about 4,000HP on average to generate power. This engine turns a big-ass generator. Power from that generator is then routed to electric motors mounted in the bogeys, where it is used to turn the wheels and pull the train. Three such locomotives can move a freight train two miles long without too much trouble, and indeed are limited more by traction than anything else. They do not use a battery in the powertrain, either, the motors are wired directly to the speed controller, which itself is wired directly to the generator.
You put a similar powertrain in an ICE car and you're looking at the same 50-60% energy efficiency they get while avoiding the environmental clusterfuck surrounding producing car-sized lithium and nickel based battery packs.
[quote]Why not? Can you tell me the ecological or economic benefits gained?[/quote]
How would you like it if your light bill was paid by the work your half-ton pickup truck did and then got told by some government bureaucrat on the ass end of the country that "No, you shouldn't be in that. Drive a Golf TDI instead. We don't care if you use that truck, quite literally, to earn your living. You should be in a Golf. So sell the truck and buy a Golf or you're gonna get fined."
It's simply wrong. If someone wants to buy and drive a large V8 SUV they should be able to. They have their reasons, and "I like it" is a valid enough reason.
[quote]Despite continual improvement over the past few decades? Electric cars are gradually getting better, and the infrastructure to support them is improving as well.[/quote] And the manufacturing of their battery packs is a filthy business. That's why it's greener to drive an ICE car.
Not only that, but if you live somewhere where your electrical power comes from coal? You're polluting more in one month than my 30 year old Ford pickup pollutes in an entire year. Good job, yuppie. You're really saving the environment with that choice....
[quote]Alternatively we could bring in railways, maglev, trams, buses, bicycles, canals, sea-based travel, etc as well.[/quote] Which only work for some commuters.
[quote]Do you represent the majority of the population?[/quote] Read what I posted again.
[quote] Do remember that most people live in urban centers that should have well developed metropolitan railways, subways, bicycle routes, trams, buses, park and ride car parks on the edges of towns, etc.[/quote] They should move out. Living that close to one's neighbors is utter hell and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
[quote]We could phase it out of use and develop alternatives.[/quote] And that would be a sad day for us all. Besides that there isn't an alternative, and there won't be for a long time. The only feasible alternative we have now is this:
[img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/108/5/8/The_Chryslus_Corvega___FO3_by_Half_dude.jpg[/img]
We could build one of those right now. We have the necessary technology, and it would indeed perform better than internal combustion. The in-game specs are easily doable: ~750HP at the wheels, 0-60 times on par with sports cars(And likely limited by traction), doesn't need to be refueled except every quarter century or so. We could easily do that.
But it will never happen. The NIMBY assholes shit all over anyone who dares to build a new stationary NPP, they'll go absolutely ballistic at anyone who even suggests building a car with a fission reactor in the back. Heaven forbid you actually build a prototype...on that note I'll probably build a replica powered by a big block V8 though.
You've got to stop and think for a moment. There's a good reason these:
[img]http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/EF/leno-baker-electric-0507-de.jpg[/img]
Lost out to these:
[img]http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1908/tbig.jpg[/img]
The infrastructure for ICE power was no better than it was for E-power in the early 1900s. Yet the Baker Electric was a MASSIVE failure while the Model T basically invented modern transportation. The Baker failed for the same exact reasons modern EVs are at best a niche product, and it failed for the same reason they will continue to fail until we get a miracle battery breakthrough.
[quote] In the long run, electricity will be king.[/quote] I'll be flying Old Glory at half mast and playing TAPS over a loudspeaker that day.
[quote]What about in densely populated areas?[/QUOTE]
Some of those people should move out into suburbs and get a little breathing room.
We have too much of a good thing. That is why I've started to walk/bike/run/skate to places. Even if it takes me 5+ hours to walk/bike somewhere, I will still do it. Nothing is hard when you want to do it. I actually enjoy travelling more when I'm not driving now.
The only downside is I don't know many people at the moment who do this. People complain and aren't up to go these lengths. But it's fun!
[quote=OP]- Ethanol blends such as E85: E85 (15% petrol, 85% ethanol) has sadly not taken off well here in Australia. Pretty much the only cars on the roads that can take E85 are a few Holden Commodore models. When engines are built to run on E85 they can be just as, if not more efficient than petrol engines while offering higher power. This is because E85 can be compressed much more than the best of premium fuels and like with diesels more compression equals more power.[/quote]
A lot of these ideas are good, but most of them screw over any car that's not brand new or made to run on an alternative fuel. I remember reading a lot about E85 and how it runs in a more modern car, and as far as I remember, it completely corroded fuel tanks and made rubber fuel lines crack (and ultimately kill the engine). Only a couple brands in todays market supply vehicles that will run on E85 without dying, therefore I do not believe this alternative would work. We can't just remove old or classic cars from the roads of today.
Another thing I've noticed is that the OP is written in an A-B transport way, as in looking as cars as transport and [i]only that[/i]. And while a lot of people only use their cars as transport and don't give a damn on how their cars work, the equal amount enjoy driving, either just enjoying the drive to and from work or enthusiastic driving. An electric car isn't very engaging to drive compared to a petrol engine. They don't have 5 speed transmissions and they don't have a clutch. This is obviously only a problem for enthusiastic drivers, so the other part won't really be hurt.
What I'm trying to sum up in the above post is that you should feel free to drive whatever you want, as long as everyone gets along. You should still be able to drive your 6.9 V8 and the bloke down the street should be able to drive an electric Peugeot. Hell, I wouldn't mind driving an electric on daily basis, as long as I was still allowed to own and run an enthusiastic car in the weekends.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41555846]And ignoring coal fired power plants while mercilessly attacking automobiles is fucking stupid.[/quote]
Find me somebody who isn't attacking both.
[quote]Cars don't pollute anymore. They burn so clean that they only byproducts coming out the back are CO2 and water vapor.[/quote]
What absolute bollocks?
What about Nitrous Oxide, which (the biggest emissions of these are from cars don't forget!) creates nitric aid after reacting with ammonia! (If you like breathing clean air, you don't want that shit in you).
Or smog?
Ozone?
Benzene?
Particulates?
Don't talk about things you don't know.
[quote]And it would be a negligible one if the world banned coal fired power plants.[/quote]
Why do you keep going "but what about coal plants?!?!?? they're worse!!!".
It's almost as though you can't see that automobiles cause problems, but you want to deflect all attention away from them. Why is that? Why do you want to protect automobiles so much?
[quote]Cars are already designed to live to the warranty and not a day longer. People already think cars are disposable appliances. They trade them in after the warranty is over on the latest and 'greatest' models.[/quote]
Five year old cars don't go to the scrapheap. Many of them go to secondhand dealers, to rentals, to be sold abroad to poorer peoples. People still drive 50 year old bangers in Bangladesh, and the number of cars on the roads keep growing.
[quote]No. IF you really want to improve the energy efficiency of ICE cars take a hint from freight trains. They achieve absolutely astronomical fuel efficiency. Use their drivetrain instead and you'll be able to buy a V8 powered Suburban that gets 20 city 30 highway [i]while towing a trailer[/i].[/quote]
Railway locomotives are efficient because firstly, economies of scale. Secondly, they are driving on an near friction-less surface. Once you reach operating speed, you need to only apply just enough newtons of force to overcome the negligible friction.
[quote]It's a simple setup, too. A freight locomotive runs a diesel engine of about 4,000HP on average to generate power. This engine turns a big-ass generator. Power from that generator is then routed to electric motors mounted in the bogeys, where it is used to turn the wheels and pull the train. Three such locomotives can move a freight train two miles long without too much trouble, and indeed are limited more by traction than anything else. They do not use a battery in the powertrain, either, the motors are wired directly to the speed controller, which itself is wired directly to the generator.
You put a similar powertrain in an ICE car and you're looking at the same 50-60% energy efficiency they get while avoiding the environmental clusterfuck surrounding producing car-sized lithium and nickel based battery packs.[/quote]
If these are so brilliant, why has nobody jumped on this gold mine of opportunity then?
[quote]How would you like it if your light bill was paid by the work your half-ton pickup truck did and then got told by some government bureaucrat on the ass end of the country that "No, you shouldn't be in that. Drive a Golf TDI instead. We don't care if you use that truck, quite literally, to earn your living. You should be in a Golf. So sell the truck and buy a Golf or you're gonna get fined."[/quote]
Does this actually happen or are you trying to bring in some fallacious moral argument?
[quote]It's simply wrong. If someone wants to buy and drive a large V8 SUV they should be able to. They have their reasons, and "I like it" is a valid enough reason.[/quote]
If in aggregate it causes problems, that is a valid enough reason to restrict them. It's why we don't keep too many cattle on the village common grounds.
[quote]And the manufacturing of their battery packs is a filthy business. That's why it's greener to drive an ICE car.[/quote]
So, you got stats on that?
[quote]Not only that, but if you live somewhere where your electrical power comes from coal? You're polluting more in one month than my 30 year old Ford pickup pollutes in an entire year. Good job, yuppie. You're really saving the environment with that choice....[/quote]
Again, you are back to complaining about coal as though it's an excuse to ignore automobiles.
[quote]Which only work for some commuters.[/quote]
Up until the 1920s everybody seemed to do well in public transportation. In fact, until the 1920s, barely anybody in America owned a car. Most people went by public transport. The problem with cars is that they are horribly inefficient and polluting compared to buses or railways.
The British state eviscerated railways and trams during the 1960s with the hopes that cars would pick up the slack. They didn't, and it's been biting us in the ass so long we are actually getting them rebuilt now.
[quote]Read what I posted again.[/quote]
You need to offer solutions that most people can use, not one tailored best to a small minority.
[quote]They should move out. Living that close to one's neighbors is utter hell and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.[/quote]
That just increases fuel bills. What about the poor as well, who cannot afford to live out there?
[quote]And that would be a sad day for us all. Besides that there isn't an alternative, and there won't be for a long time. The only feasible alternative we have now is this:
We could build one of those right now.[/quote]
Are you high? We are working with reality, not some car enthusiasts wet dream.
[quote]We have the necessary technology, and it would indeed perform better than internal combustion. The in-game specs are easily doable: ~750HP at the wheels, 0-60 times on par with sports cars(And likely limited by traction), doesn't need to be refueled except every quarter century or so. We could easily do that.[/quote]
Yet nobody has built one, and most fission reactors are inside thick walls of lead?
[quote]But it will never happen. The NIMBY assholes shit all over anyone who dares to build a new stationary NPP, they'll go absolutely ballistic at anyone who even suggests building a car with a fission reactor in the back. Heaven forbid you actually build a prototype...on that note I'll probably build a replica powered by a big block V8 though. [/quote]
Dream on kiddo.
[quote]You've got to stop and think for a moment.[/quote]
Both cars you quoted are over 100 years old.
[quote]The infrastructure for ICE power was no better than it was for E-power in the early 1900s. Yet the Baker Electric was a MASSIVE failure while the Model T basically invented modern transportation. The Baker failed for the same exact reasons modern EVs are at best a niche product, and it failed for the same reason they will continue to fail until we get a miracle battery breakthrough.[/quote]
Except you fundamentally ignore the differences.
Petrol in the late 19th century was a waste byproduct of the oil industry. It was cheap and plentiful. It was easy to move in liquid containers, store, transport, etc.
Electricity by contrast, was mostly created by stationary steam engines inside large factories in urban cities, with high operating costs. Batteries were much weaker, bulkier, and cumbersome.
These days, the infrastructure for electric cars (and hybrids) is developing quite well, demand is growing, and the advent of solar and wind power, alongside more efficient and powerful engines and batteries, is much more feasible now.
Petroleum automobiles, whilst having advanced, are but a few decades away from becoming uneconomical. First the fuels will be diluted with substitutes, the engines made more efficient, everything brought into consideration. Next will see the inevitable inflation. Poor people will be priced out of these cars and be forced to fall onto either public transport or hybrids/electrics. This process would continue until petroleum cars are a niche product. I don't see the petrol car lasting much more than a few decades at best.
[quote]I'll be flying Old Glory at half mast and playing TAPS over a loudspeaker that day.[/quote]
I smell a conflict of interest. Perhaps you enjoy petrol cars so much, that you may wish to fudge the inconvenient truth about their economic and ecological impact. It doesn't matter as long as you get to burn rubber.
[quote]Some of those people should move out into suburbs and get a little breathing room.[/QUOTE]
Some people, amazingly enough, /prefer/ urban environments.
[editline]22nd July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MCCCXXXIII;41558028]We have too much of a good thing. That is why I've started to walk/bike/run/skate to places. Even if it takes me 5+ hours to walk/bike somewhere, I will still do it. Nothing is hard when you want to do it. I actually enjoy travelling more when I'm not driving now.
The only downside is I don't know many people at the moment who do this. People complain and aren't up to go these lengths. But it's fun![/QUOTE]
If the distance is a few miles, there's nothing really to stop you from walking or biking, unless you are lazy or pressed for time (I used to walk a lot home from school, even though it took me an hour).
[quote=emperorconer]People still drive 50 year old bangers in Bangladesh, and the number of cars on the roads keep growing.[/quote]
Cars were built VERY differently and to another standard 50 years ago. Due to systems being mechanical and built to way higher tolerances, they simply last longer. Mechanical systems outlast any type of software / hardware and can be repaired a lot easier by garage mechanics (when sortware / hardware is a [i]completely[/i] different story.)
The fact that materials in old cars are usually better than the new also fits the bill. The different conditions they had to go through, such as roads for very long distances made of poor materials, bumpy roads, worse air quality, etc all made them very tough things. A nice 50 year old car will most likely still be alive in another 50 years and more. A new car will not without understanding every piece of code and without learning new languages, etc. The fact that new cars are notoriously hard to work on without being a specialised mechanic also means that they will die out.
[QUOTE=Jackpody;41558785]Cars were built VERY differently and to another standard 50 years ago. Due to systems being mechanical and built to way higher tolerances, they simply last longer. Mechanical systems outlast any type of software / hardware and can be repaired a lot easier by garage mechanics (when sortware / hardware is a [i]completely[/i] different story.)
The fact that materials in old cars are usually better than the new also fits the bill. The different conditions they had to go through, such as roads for very long distances made of poor materials, bumpy roads, worse air quality, etc all made them very tough things. A nice 50 year old car will most likely still be alive in another 50 years and more. A new car will not.[/QUOTE]
It's not as though new cars are so fragile that they fall apart after 8 years.
Plus there's the fact that most people use cars to get from A to B over short distances in urban areas (and sometimes longer hauls on motorways) with ready access to repairmen, as opposed to driving them through a rain-forest with only a magnetized needle on a string and a 15th century map for navigation.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41558879]It's not as though new cars are so fragile that they fall apart after 8 years.[/quote]
No, but you need to realize that a 50 year old car is a fork and spoon in sophistication compared to a modern car. And on that, I found it funny that you used 8 years as a measurement, as this is commonly known as the time that new cars start to fail and cause problems. Rubber starts to crack, bearings need replacement, mechanics needs tune-up, etc.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41558879]
Plus there's the fact that most people use cars to get from A to B over short distances in urban areas[/quote]
Depends on where you live. Some people need the reliability and stability of a car that needs to do 125 mp/h all day without failing. You cannot do this with a 4 cylinder or an electric car. You can only do this with the big engines. Same goes for hauling. If you live in any big country, however mainly Germany with their autobahn and America with their long, straight highways, you need something reliable and stable that you can depend on. However I do agree that small city cars are good for, well the city. However they don't really work for collecting many hard highway miles.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41558879]with ready access to repairmen[/quote]
Most modern cars need to go to the dealership to get anything but a hose-pipe changed. You can't just bring in a modern Mercedes to a random repair shop, chances are they have no idea how it works due to hilarious sophistication.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41558879]as opposed to driving them through a rain-forest with only a magnetized needle on a string and a 15th century map for navigation.[/QUOTE]
This is what made the old cars tough, tough conditions. It'd be dumb to remove them from the roads of today.
[QUOTE=Jackpody;41558974]No, but you need to realize that a 50 year old car is a fork and spoon in sophistication compared to a modern car. And on that, I found it funny that you used 8 years as a measurement, as this is commonly known as the time that new cars start to fail and cause problems. Rubber starts to crack, bearings need replacement, mechanics needs tune-up, etc.[/quote]
True, but this is much less of a problem in well developed countries with ready access to mechanics.
[quote]Depends on where you live. Some people need the reliability and stability of a car that needs to do 125 mp/h all day without failing.[/quote]
Most motorways rarely allow speeds this high on them though.
[quote]You cannot do this with a 4 cylinder or an electric car. You can only do this with the big engines. Same goes for hauling. If you live in any big country, however mainly Germany with their autobahn and America with their long, straight highways, you need something reliable and stable that you can depend on. However I do agree that small city cars are good for, well the city. However they don't really work for collecting many hard highway miles.[/quote]
This is where they can do well, but do remember that most people do tend to use cars for relatively short distances. More further afield, and aircraft/railways tend to become popular. Also many smaller European countries and American states do not have long straight roads for high speed cars, with many of them contouring to ancient roadways laid down in centuries prior.
[quote]Most modern cars need to go to the dealership to get anything but a hose-pipe changed. You can't just bring in a modern Mercedes to a random repair shop, chances are they have no idea how it works due to hilarious sophistication.[/quote]
Here at least you can call roadway services like the AA (some of which are actually quite competent at fixing cars).
[quote]This is what made the old cars tough, tough conditions. It'd be dumb to remove them from the roads of today.[/QUOTE]
These tough conditions are less common now though. We tamed the wild, and these tough rough cars are increasingly less required. (If people wanted them, we would see bigger demand).
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559097]True, but this is much less of a problem in well developed countries with ready access to mechanics.
[/quote]
How about the countries that do not have ready access to mechanics? I wouldn't want my car to run on alternative fuel that's not paritcularily healthy for the car in a place with no mechanics.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559097]
Most motorways rarely allow speeds this high on them though.
[/quote]
Most highways allow 70-80 mph, and this is where most 4 cyls tend to loose their breath. Down-sizing for economy wouldn't work as traffic moves faster and faster, we need more economic ways for bigger engines to work, as they work under higher tolerances that most likely will be required on furure highways.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559097]
This is where they can do well, but do remember that most people do tend to use cars for relatively short distances.[/quote]
Correction: most people in /urban/ areas use cars for short distances. Anyone who doesn't live just right beside a big city will need to cover a fair amount of miles. This is the majority in a lot of countries.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559097]
Also many smaller European countries and American states do not have long straight roads for high speed cars, with many of them contouring to ancient roadways laid down in centuries prior.[/quote]
Cars don't need to go too high speeds for wear to really start digging in. Bigger engines have less to do and therefore wear less over long distances. This is why we need more economic ways to run bigger engines, they simply last longer.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559097]
Here at least you can call roadway services like the AA (some of which are actually quite competent at fixing cars).
[/quote]
Most roadway services go "well it's not something we can do here by the side of the road, we'll take you to __________", normally being a dealerships garage if it's not a cracked line or anyting visible.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559097]
These tough conditions are less common now though. We tamed the wild, and these tough rough cars are increasingly less required. (If people wanted them, we would see bigger demand).[/QUOTE]
You keep forgetting that there are many, many places on this earth that are not tamed the same way as Europe and similar. They only first stopped building the 1938 Volkswagen Beetle in Mexico and Brazil in 2003, simply because the old rugged design was the only that worked in their conditions. Using anything highly sophisticated, such as an electric car that is only repairable by a specialised mechanic or a new car does not work here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
