Energy Discussion

[exNavyOffRec]

You mentioned weight in your previous post. They weigh about the same as comparable german sports sedans. 3series=4000ish pounds, Model 3=4000ish pounds. Same with the S if you were to compare to a 5/7 series. The batteries give the thing an insane low center of gravity, even for the SUVs, thereby improving their handling and rollover characteristics.

They seem to pass the safety ratings test with flying colors and there's really not much other hard data to go by besides that.

I get the safety ratings, but these guys have seen it all, they know how the safety rating are achieved and the test they do and I would go by what they have seen in actual accidents on the road more than anything, when I buy my next car I am talking with them to get a list of cars they would put their family in.

In some cases to be honest the law of tonnage applies, the car could be just fine vs another car of the same size, but that car against a vehicle 2 or 3 times its size and bad things happen.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Not so much in the winter. My son had one (company car) and cold weather really caused limited miles and slow recharges. Still, it is among the most enjoyable cars I have ever driven.

I do agree the capability should improve over time.

Yeah they certainly perform worse at temperature extremes and sustained high speeds. I’m just saying they’ve advanced rapidly and are already close to the performance of existing vehicles.

The limiting factor won’t be electric vehicle performance, it will be infrastructure (charging and electricity production), and the ability to make the massive number of batteries required.

 

[Hair Warrior]

One thing to note: if you are calculating the energy savings on an electric car, don’t forget to add in the upfront (sunk costs) energy required to mine & refine the rare earth elements required for the battery, and also don’t forget to factor in the back-end energy/ environmental costs of proper disposal of spent batteries (end of lifecycle or after a crash). Those upfront and backend processes are not cheap or environmentally friendly, in general.

 

[Notanaviator]

The most VC and PE dollars being thrown at the space right now involve quantum leaps in quality and efficiency for batteries and charging tech. Not that far from being in a place where range is higher than a gas vehicle even with weather limitations, and that EV will get a full charge in 15 minutes or less.

As far as distribution of charging stations, that’s been a super easy box for super major oil companies that already have downstream (gas station) operations to check when they’re making green/transition commitments. Just buy a network or build it. Easier than the shift from how you make the energy which is a much more complex nut to crack.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

well the city of Seattle did it.

Seattle Council OKs ban on most commercial natural gas use

SEATTLE — The Seattle City Council has unanimously approved changes to energy codes that will impose strict limits on the use of natural gas or other fossil fuels for heating in new commercial buildings or apartment complexes taller than three stories. The ordinance approved Monday bans natural...

komonews.com

 

[nittany03]

well the city of Seattle did it.

Seattle Council OKs ban on most commercial natural gas use

SEATTLE — The Seattle City Council has unanimously approved changes to energy codes that will impose strict limits on the use of natural gas or other fossil fuels for heating in new commercial buildings or apartment complexes taller than three stories. The ordinance approved Monday bans natural...

komonews.com

Space heating in new construction, and replacement heating systems in older commercial buildings. Water heating in hotels and apartments. That doesn't include anything involving cooking in any of the above, and also doesn't include anything in single-family residential homes.

Don't get me wrong; the Seattle City Council are collectively a bunch of left-wing clowns, and thankfully they're limited in jurisdiction to Seattle proper, where it's too damn expensive to live anyway. But let's not make this out to be more than it is, either. It affects developers, not homeowners.

 

[SlickAg]

Space heating in new construction, and replacement heating systems in older commercial buildings. Water heating in hotels and apartments. That doesn't include anything involving cooking in any of the above, and also doesn't include anything in single-family residential homes.

Don't get me wrong; the Seattle City Council are collectively a bunch of left-wing clowns, and thankfully they're limited in jurisdiction to Seattle proper, where it's too damn expensive to live anyway. But let's not make this out to be more than it is, either. It affects developers, not homeowners.

I mean, they’re not forcing single-family homeowners to update their dwellings (yet), but do you think that ultimately this will make things more or less expensive for residents of Seattle? Unless this was included in the 1.9T spending bill, I’m inclined to go with the former.

 

[scoolbubba]

Space heating in new construction, and replacement heating systems in older commercial buildings. Water heating in hotels and apartments. That doesn't include anything involving cooking in any of the above, and also doesn't include anything in single-family residential homes.

Don't get me wrong; the Seattle City Council are collectively a bunch of left-wing clowns, and thankfully they're limited in jurisdiction to Seattle proper, where it's too damn expensive to live anyway. But let's not make this out to be more than it is, either. It affects developers, not homeowners.

I'm sure this will help with the cost of living in Seattle proper.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Space heating in new construction, and replacement heating systems in older commercial buildings. Water heating in hotels and apartments. That doesn't include anything involving cooking in any of the above, and also doesn't include anything in single-family residential homes.

Don't get me wrong; the Seattle City Council are collectively a bunch of left-wing clowns, and thankfully they're limited in jurisdiction to Seattle proper, where it's too damn expensive to live anyway. But let's not make this out to be more than it is, either. It affects developers, not homeowners.

That is what they originally wanted to do, and I don't think it will be too long before they force this on residential as well.

 

[nittany03]

That is what they originally wanted to do, and I don't think it will be too long before they force this on residential as well.

As long as it stays within the city limits of Seattle, IDGAF. Because I'm never going to waste my money residing under the jurisdiction of that left-wing clown show. Wake me up when King County or WA State start pulling shenanigans and not grandfathering half-century-plus-old houses, and I'll get a gas line or propane tank put in before it's too late.

 

[sevenhelmet]

One thing to note: if you are calculating the energy savings on an electric car, don’t forget to add in the upfront (sunk costs) energy required to mine & refine the rare earth elements required for the battery, and also don’t forget to factor in the back-end energy/ environmental costs of proper disposal of spent batteries (end of lifecycle or after a crash). Those upfront and backend processes are not cheap or environmentally friendly, in general.

That's a big roger. If the recycling process for vehicle batteries could be scaled up and made simpler, that could go a long way toward solving that particular problem.

We're not going to replace every vehicle on the road with an eVehicle tomorrow, or even 14 years from now. What's wrong with trying to make existing vehicles more efficient? Also, how about more widespread adoption of diesel, particularly in consumer vehicles? The infrastructure already exists for consumer adoption, and it improves flexibility of fuel sources. Plus, I've been led to believe making gasoline is a net energy loss in that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline than you get from that gallon.

 

[Hair Warrior]

That's a big roger. If the recycling process for vehicle batteries could be scaled up and made simpler, that could go a long way toward solving that particular problem.

We're not going to replace every vehicle on the road with an eVehicle tomorrow, or even 14 years from now. What's wrong with trying to make existing vehicles more efficient? Also, how about more widespread adoption of diesel, particularly in consumer vehicles? The infrastructure already exists for consumer adoption, and it improves flexibility of fuel sources. Plus, I've been led to believe making gasoline is a net energy loss in that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline than you get from that gallon.

There’s a process called thermal depolymerization which is pretty intruiging. It uses immense heat and pressure to squeeze apart molecules at a literally atomic level. If you put an old computer into the depolymerization process, the gold gets melted and squeezed out separately, so you can sell/reuse it; the plastic gets coverted into a hydrogen based oil that can be burned. If you put a turkey carcass into it (or better yet, waste oil from restaurant fryers) you get a clean burning biodiesel plus the calcium from the turkey bones.

I would love to see a company somehow make this profitable by 1) getting paid to remove the waste oil from fast food restaurant fryers, 2) getting paid for selling the biodiesel at the gas pump to truckers, and 3) making enough money on both ends of that trade to cover the costs of the thermal depolymerization and still sell the biodiesel for less than conventional diesel. I was thinking it could work if they harnessed the heat of geothermal (volcanic) sources to create the necessary heat, rather than expending grid electricity to create that heat.

 

[Jim123]

I would love to see a company somehow make this profitable by 1) getting paid to remove the waste oil from fast food restaurant fryers, 2) getting paid for selling the biodiesel at the gas pump to truckers, and 3) making enough money on both ends of that trade to cover the costs of the thermal depolymerization and still sell the biodiesel for less than conventional diesel. I was thinking it could work if they harnessed the heat of geothermal (volcanic) sources to create the necessary heat, rather than expending grid electricity to create that heat.

I'm not going to comment one way or the other about the technical feasibility of it (because for one thing I'd be speaking from ignorance) but I like that you're framing it as a business and economics question.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Also, how about more widespread adoption of diesel, particularly in consumer vehicles? The infrastructure already exists for consumer adoption, and it improves flexibility of fuel sources.

You would probably have to reconfigure the refineries in the US to switch output from gasoline to diesel.

 

[Griz882]

On the fringes of this conversation there is this news...

Rolls-Royce Runs 100% SAF on Pearl 700 Bizjet Engine | AIN

Rolls-Royce has successfully conducted its first tests on a business jet engine using 100 percent SAF.

www.ainonline.com

Tests have already been run of some biofuels for some helicopter turbines as well.