How do you feel about the decline of petrol vehicles? | Page 23 | GTAMotorcycle.com

How do you feel about the decline of petrol vehicles?

Back sort of on topic.

This new fuel cell could turbocharge renewable power

By Robert F. ServiceFeb. 12, 2018 , 1:20 PM
Fuel cells are far greener than gas-powered engines because they produce electricity without burning up the hydrogen (or other fuel) that powers them. But they’re often impractical on a commercial scale because they’re so much more expensive to make. Now, researchers report that by creating a fuel cell that can run at a midrange temperature, they’ve made an inexpensive, powerful version that could boost the prospects for plentiful green energy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/new-fuel-cell-could-turbocharge-renewable-power
 
A Chev Volt on electricity creates about 50g of Co2/km

Can you provide a source for that information please?

In Alberta and SK where fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, making the electricity to drive a Volt 1km creates 300 to 600g of Co2 - 2 to 4 times more than a Cruze. This is an often under considered fact when evaluating EVs -- particularly in areas that generate a lot of C02 when making electricity. ICE cars are cleaner.

This is an age old argument that many pull out of their hats when discussing the "negatives" of EV downstream emissions.

However, almost always, including here, all the other CO2 generating steps involved with gasoline are conveniently omitted.

  • That gasoline was produced (Yes, even in Canada) by heavy oil that likely came out of the ground on some other continent (IE, Sauda Arabia etc) and then was loaded on a supertanker which itself consumed between 200-300 TONS of heavy high-sulphur heavy fuel oil every day while it sails to a port on our continent to unload that oil.
  • That oil is then (in the case of areas where pipelines, another hot button topic, don't exist) is loaded on either a train or a truck that transports it to a refinery. Trains burn hundreds of liters of fuel every hour, a truck will burn between 40-50L/hour.
  • The oil is then refined into gasoline, a process that releases a lot of co2. It's actually quite amazing how much CO2 is emitted during the refinery process
  • That finished gasoline is then loaded onto a truck again and then trucked to your local gas station and dumped in their tanks, burning at least 40L of diesel again for a local gas station up to many hundreds of litres of diesel for more distant gas stations. Yep, more CO2 in the transportation.

Now, many make the argument that in some areas of Canada and the USA we make our own oil, but they ignore the fact that we still import a lot regardless, and our own oil (oilsands) is hardly clean, and many of the same realities above still firmly exist.

When you face those realities suddenly the math that some use claiming "just using gasoline emits less CO2" are completely out the window. With an EV, in an area where electricity is created via high Co2 emitting sources, the circle is complete in only one step - generation, and if you want to nitpick, a little bit of loss in transmission an consumption. That's it. There are no supertankers, trucks, trains, refining, etc.

Yes, if they're burning coal, there's admittedly some transportation and such involved there as well, but it still pales in comparison to the realities behind gasoline when you actually start to dig deep into how it's produced.

With gas, people forget all the intermediate steps that happened between that oil coming out of the ground, and going into their tank, much the same as people who ***** about trucks but then think everything that they buy at various stores every day (groceries, etc etc etc) just falls out of the ceiling at night.

Do you just make S#!t up?

When it fits his argument, absolutely.

Hydrogen only solves the problem if it's made using solar/wind or hydro electricity.

I see you understand my argument above then, but I'm surprised you didn't use the same comparison when making your statements about gasoline, accordingly.

The Volt only uses more than a Prius when it is operating in combustion-engine mode in a specific set of circumstances - Volt's battery drained and at higher highway speed.

The design intent of the Volt has it operating electric-only with the combustion engine as a backup. A normal Prius can only operate electric-only in a very narrow set of circumstances. (low speed and very light load)

If you operate a Volt as per its design intent - as an EV with a combustion-engine backup for the long trips - see PrivatePilot's real world results, which a Prius cannot match.

EXACTLY. But Sunny doesn't want to admit this.

For those who didn't see it elsewhere, here was my January overall MPG figures in my Volt. And this was in January, a month that was very cold and typically hard on EV's, the same as it is on an ICE vehicle. In the summer my numbers will probably show half the fuel consumption.

voltjanuarympg.jpg


And yes, I have said it before, in some circumstances where you regularly drive outside the EV range of something like a Volt, yes, a traditional hybrid like the Prius DOES sometimes make more sense, but for those who use a Volt as designed, there's simply no comparison in the fuel economy figures that can be achieved.

And when it comes to pure EV's, with electricity being dirt cheap when compared to gasoline in this province, on a per KM operational cost, it's not even close.
 
Last edited:
Can you provide a source for that information please?
I just did the math for Ontario. A portion of Ontario's power is generated using combustible fuels (bio and natural gas). Get the Co2 generating stats in real time at http://canadianenergyissues.com/ontario-power-stats/ then do the math on a Volt's electricity consumption.

I think you may have missed my point. In Ontario, the Volt does very well because we don't produce a lot of Co2 when making electricity -- so your Volt will be cleaner than any ICE or H2 engined cars. That's not the case where they burn fuels in higher ratios than Ontario -- like SK and AB (and most of the developing world) where they burn fuel used to generate the electricity.

You make a point about he carbon generated in making and distributing gasoline, and you are correct this does add to ICE numbers. It also adds to electricity when it's generated by burning fuel -- coal doesn't dig and deliver itself -- it goes around the world on ships, trains and trucks too.

Simply put, this means EVs powered by clean electricity (Ontario, Quebec, BC, Norway) are helpful to the environment because they generate less C02 than the equivalent ICE car. In places like China, SK, AB, Australia and most of the developing world, C02 from electricity generation can generate more C02 than a similar ICE burning gas.

Let me be clear on one point - I'm a VOLT fan, I kick myself everyday for buying a Cruze instead of a Volt. I made a mistake in letting a salesman talk me out of a Volt (they didn't have any). I guarantee you when my lease is up on my Cruze, I'll be in a Volt.

For a quick comparison: My 2017 Cruze used 68l to do it's last 1000km at a cost of $82. I'm guessing your Volt used about $20 in energy to cover the same range. I do 1500km/mo, so I'd save $90/mo if we swapped cars. That's enough to pay the additional cost of a Volt over the comparably equipped Cruze. In the summer my employer is installing free chargers -- that would make my lawnmower fuel costs more than my car.
 
Something you miss tho in an otherwise good commentary is that massive fossil fuel generating stations are far more efficient at energy conversion to electricity and EVs are more efficient themselves. ( ICE are horrid for extracting energy ).

This is an excellent article on a compay with real H products and big ambitions down the road. Good read

This company may have solved one of the hardest problems in clean energy
The “hydrogen economy” may be a thing after all.
By David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Feb 16, 2018, 9:00am EST


snip - sensible plan

HyTech is targeting a big market to get to an even bigger one

HyTech Power, based in Redmond, Washington, intends to introduce three products over the next year or two.

The first will use hydrogen to clean up existing diesel engines, increasing their fuel efficiency by a third and eliminating over half their air pollution, with an average nine-month payback, the company says. That’s a potentially enormous market with plenty of existing demand, which HyTech hopes will capitalize its second product, a retrofit that will transform any internal combustion vehicle into a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) by enabling it to run on pure hydrogen. That will primarily be targeted at large fleets.

And that will tee up the third product — the one Johnson’s had his eye on from the beginning, the one that could revolutionize and decentralize the energy system — a stationary energy-storage product meant to compete with, and eventually outcompete, big batteries like Tesla’s Powerwall.

At least, that’s the plan.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...drogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage

High prolile ex-Boeing exec too.
 
Something you miss tho in an otherwise good commentary is that massive fossil fuel generating stations are far more efficient at energy conversion to electricity and EVs are more efficient themselves. ( ICE are horrid for extracting energy ).

This is an excellent article on a compay with real H products and big ambitions down the road. Good read




snip - sensible plan


https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...drogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage

High prolile ex-Boeing exec too.

An interesting take on the hydrogen injection idea.

Energy required to drive the electrolizer < energy gains from improved combustion.

Fascinating and promising if true. A small scale version for diesel pickups would be an easy sell I think.
 
Something you miss tho in an otherwise good commentary is that massive fossil fuel generating stations are far more efficient at energy conversion to electricity and EVs are more efficient themselves. ( ICE are horrid for extracting energy ).
That's true, energy conversion in a power plant is more efficient than in a car.

Burning fossil fuel to generate electricity makes LOTS of C02 - that's the problem. If you make electricity to power a for 1km VOLT in Alberta will create between 300-600gm of C02. Driving a Cruze 1 KM in Alberta will chug about 150g C02.
 
The hydrogen injection setups have been a thing since the late 90's. In the early 2000's I actually made occasional pickups of the actual equipment out of a company in Pickering called Dynamic Fuel Systems. Back then the claims on many of the systems were based around large MPG increase claims, but those seldom materialized as reality showed much more minor gains - often little to nothing. The problem is that the energy required for onboard electrolysis doesn't come out of the thin air - the much higher alternator load burned more diesel in the end.

15-16 years later I just googled the company and although it appears they are still around under a new name (no longer in Pickering either) their main goals now are emissions reductions, which ARE a very real thing with HHO systems...but hardly a priority for 99% of fleets in the cut-throat trucking industry where few fleet managers are willing to invest thousands of dollars per truck for little to no ROI aside from "feel good" stuff.
 
The world hasn't completely thought of all the ramifications electric vehicles, not to mention of how we will fund the repair and building of roadways which is now taxed at about 60% of the cost of gasoline at the pumps.

But beside that the two biggest elephants in the room with electric vehicles are:
1) According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $0.11 per kwh. 16 kwh x $0.11 per kwh = $1.76 to charge the battery. $1.76 per charge divided by 40 km = $0.04 per km (not including road tax....yet) to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 8 litres/100 km at $1.20 per litre = $0.09 per km (road tax included). Also consider that if and when electric captures a significantly large share of electric usage, demand goes up and cost go up, and somehow road tax will eventually be factored in. Result? No savings, and no change in pollution because instead of tail-pipe emissions you will still have that same gasoline/oil burned at thermo electric generating plants.

2) I was talking to a hydro executive. I asked him about renewable energy and he laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you need to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. The costs to upgrade the entire electric grid in cities would be in the trillions of $. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!

So choose your poison; gas or electric, and find it's still drinking from the same poison cup.
 
Last edited:
No savings, and no change in pollution because instead of tail-pipe emissions you will still have that same gasoline/oil burned at thermo electric generating plants

Ummm you are rather out of date natural gas turbines are only used in Ontario as fill in when ( rarely ) needed.

Ontarios-Electricity-Supply-Mix.jpg


off-peak rate 7.7 cents/kWh

Time of charging is not an issue...10 hours is at a very small amperage.

Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you go beating the political drum so nonsensically.

Lithium batteries actually provide a buffer for grid systems as they can be drawn on ...but of course you knew that :rolleyes:
 
Harley, a lot of your info is straight from the anti-EV Kool-Aid crowd and isn’t really based entirely in reality.

I’ll respond in more detail later when I have the time.
 
The world hasn't completely thought of all the ramifications electric vehicles, not to mention of how we will fund the repair and building of roadways which is now taxed at about 60% of the cost of gasoline at the pumps.

But beside that the two biggest elephants in the room with electric vehicles are:
1) According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $0.11 per kwh = $1.76 to charge the battery. $1.76 per charge divided by 40 km = $0.04 per km (not including road tax....yet) to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 8 litres/100 km at $1.20 per litre = $0.09 per km (road tax included). Also consider that if and when electric captures a significantly large share of electric usage, demand goes up and cost go up, and somehow road tax will eventually be factored in. Result? No savings, and no change in pollution because instead of tail-pipe emissions you will still have that same gasoline/oil burned at thermo electric generating plants.

2) I was talking to a hydro executive. I asked him about renewable energy and he laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you need to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. The costs to upgrade the entire electric grid in cities would be in the trillions of $. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!

So choose your poison; gas or electric, and find it's still drinking from the same poison cup.

Have read this as well.

This is what happens when engineers have to cut corners due to budget constraints; woohoo for technological debt!
 
The world hasn't completely thought of all the ramifications electric vehicles, not to mention of how we will fund the repair and building of roadways which is now taxed at about 60% of the cost of gasoline at the pumps.

But beside that the two biggest elephants in the room with electric vehicles are:
1) According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $0.11 per kwh = $1.76 to charge the battery. $1.76 per charge divided by 40 km = $0.04 per km (not including road tax....yet) to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 8 litres/100 km at $1.20 per litre = $0.09 per km (road tax included). Also consider that if and when electric captures a significantly large share of electric usage, demand goes up and cost go up, and somehow road tax will eventually be factored in. Result? No savings, and no change in pollution because instead of tail-pipe emissions you will still have that same gasoline/oil burned at thermo electric generating plants.

2) I was talking to a hydro executive. I asked him about renewable energy and he laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you need to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. The costs to upgrade the entire electric grid in cities would be in the trillions of $. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!

So choose your poison; gas or electric, and find it's still drinking from the same poison cup.

Sorry, but this is not even worth commenting on. The only fact worth considering is your first paragraph ... after that, no different than any other for-oil based propaganda one can read almost daily. One day, it will come to you that none of the above turns out to be true when all is said and done. But it will be long time from now, so nobody will care or remember that these type of silly, not fact-based discussions have ever happened.
 
Sorry, but this is not even worth commenting on. The only fact worth considering is your first paragraph ... after that, no different than any other for-oil based propaganda one can read almost daily. One day, it will come to you that none of the above turns out to be true when all is said and done. But it will be long time from now, so nobody will care or remember that these type of silly, not fact-based discussions have ever happened.

I think the second point is accurate though. I've heard the same issues he's mentioned multiple times.

At the same time...it's not like we've got a choice; update the system or push the Earth past the point of no return.
 
油井緋色;2548154 said:
I think the second point is accurate though. I've heard the same issues he's mentioned multiple times.

Sadly, it is not accurate. Hearing counter-points does not make them accurate or true.

And it has been debunked by a number of hydro organizations around the world. It depends who produced such study. Some studies conveniently leave out certain important facts .... like the one that not all people flip on Monday and get a Tesla EV requiring 100kW at peak. The S curve is called s-curve for a reason .... Secondly, We have done nothing yet as far as, implementing some smart analytical tools to control EV related consumption so untimely peakiness is avoided. there's a huge potential in that, but it will only be needed when the EV numbers actually get-off the ground. Yes, some elements of the delivery system will need to be updated ... so what? This is supposed to slow down the transition? Remember, the utilities will increase revenue as more kWh's are consumed with EV adoption, they will gladly make the investments where needed. After all they are business of making money.

Anyway, these sort of negative hit pieces have been around for ages.
 
The simplest solution to the Tesla problem is to switch to a pricing model more like industrial clients. If you are drawing less than 10 kW, price is 0.07/kWh, for between 10 and 30 kW, price is 0.12/kWh etc. This should be as easy as a line of code now that we are all on smart meters. It is very rare when people actually need to dump 100A into a car (400 km drive today and another one less than 10 hours from now). For most EV's, I expect a 30A charge rate is sufficient to cancel out the daily usage when charged overnight.
 
The second statement about a certain Street only being able to handle three Tesla-type loads at the same time is the first indication something is awry with this. It’s suggestive of the fact that an entire street of 25 houses can’t handle an additional load of a 225a?

So if 6 of those 55 houses turned on their stoves using 50A each (hello, Thanksgiving / Christmas dinner?) it’d blow out the entire street?

That’s ridiculous and was the first bit that points towards this being just more fallacy material.

Add to the fact that few/no other EV’s charge at more than ~30a to begin with and it’s even less of an issue. That’s less than an electric clothes dryer, or some baseboard electric heaters.

Add to that the reality that most EV’s charge at night when there gobs of capacity to spare and the grid is woefully under utilized anyways (and we pay other provinces and US states to TAKE our extra capacity) the arguments fall apart even more.

These are not real issues.
 
Sadly, it is not accurate. Hearing counter-points does not make them accurate or true.

And it has been debunked by a number of hydro organizations around the world. It depends who produced such study. Some studies conveniently leave out certain important facts .... like the one that not all people flip on Monday and get a Tesla EV requiring 100kW at peak. The S curve is called s-curve for a reason .... Secondly, We have done nothing yet as far as, implementing some smart analytical tools to control EV related consumption so untimely peakiness is avoided. there's a huge potential in that, but it will only be needed when the EV numbers actually get-off the ground. Yes, some elements of the delivery system will need to be updated ... so what? This is supposed to slow down the transition? Remember, the utilities will increase revenue as more kWh's are consumed with EV adoption, they will gladly make the investments where needed. After all they are business of making money.

Anyway, these sort of negative hit pieces have been around for ages.

Sigh. Looks like I almost fell for the "I heard from a friend and another friend so it has to be true" trick.

Thank you, kind sir, from keeping me away from said pitfall.
 
Btw Harley, you are mistaking the *capacity* of the Volts battery with its actual useable capacity.

It is not 16kw usable. There’s a buffer that never gets used.

Your time to charge stats are also off.

Lots of just incorrect details.

Actual cost to charge ANY Volt (there’s a variety of different battery capacities across the generations / years) at the off peak $0.065/kWh Hydro One rate is less than $1.
 
The world hasn't completely thought of all the ramifications electric vehicles, not to mention of how we will fund the repair and building of roadways which is now taxed at about 60% of the cost of gasoline at the pumps.

But beside that the two biggest elephants in the room with electric vehicles are:
1) According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $0.11 per kwh = $1.76 to charge the battery. $1.76 per charge divided by 40 km = $0.04 per km (not including road tax....yet) to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 8 litres/100 km at $1.20 per litre = $0.09 per km (road tax included). Also consider that if and when electric captures a significantly large share of electric usage, demand goes up and cost go up, and somehow road tax will eventually be factored in. Result? No savings, and no change in pollution because instead of tail-pipe emissions you will still have that same gasoline/oil burned at thermo electric generating plants.

2) I was talking to a hydro executive. I asked him about renewable energy and he laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you need to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. The costs to upgrade the entire electric grid in cities would be in the trillions of $. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!

So choose your poison; gas or electric, and find it's still drinking from the same poison cup.
Yu might want to sharpen your research. Your math calculating EV savings -- when you're counting in pennies you had better be precise -- you're off by 1.5 cents in cost comparison -- a penny and a half doesn't seem like a whole lot however it is a 25% error -- which would be a helluva surprise at the end of a year.

Now I understand why Hydro is such a mess -- it's executives don't know the basics! A L2 charger charging a VOLT draws less than 10amps - the average home with a 200A service could fuel 15 VOLTS at once and still have lots to run the house. Tesla L2 chargers draw 20amps, so you could only do about 6 Teslas at each house. Also, the growth in cars is slow and predictable, the chance of it outracing grid upgrades is zero. So, you only need to worry if everyone on your small street has 3 Teslas in their driveway.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom