/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1119411

[315 / 48 / ?]

EV

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 13:04:25 No.1119411 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1119412 >>1119419 >>1119428 >>1119465 >>1119881 >>1121526 >>1121630 >>1122837 >>1123410 >>1131083 >>1135752 >>1138964 >>1143747 >>1143862 >>1150360 >>1152521 >>1152522

So /o/ pretty much hates them. What's does /n/ think? Are they the future of automobile transportation? Will we see electrically powered commercial ships & aircraft in our lifetimes? Is EV more environmentally friendly? What will happen to the ICE?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 13:33:01 No.1119412 Report

Quoted By: >>1119577 >>1150546

>>1119411
If I was a mechanic, I'd certainly hate electric cars. No more oil changes, radiators, transmissions, and tricky fuel injection systems. The gasoline/diesel auto is headed for certain death and there's little that oil industry and their political allies (at least in the US) can do to prevent it. All this is made possible by improved battery technology which will continue to get better. However, it's a long, long way to go in order to make electrical powered ships and airplanes. But who knows?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 13:52:59 No.1119417 Report

Quoted By: >>1121546

I tell people that the last car I bought will probable be the last gasoline powered vehicle that I buy.

They look at me like I'm so hippie, and I have to explain that within 10 years gasoline cars are going to be seriously phased out. The writing is on the wall. Electric vehicles are coming so there's no point in fighting it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 14:01:59 No.1119419 Report

Quoted By: >>1119421 >>1119520 >>1119577 >>1121902 >>1143998

>>1119411
Battery EV's are just as much of an environmental nightmare as fossil fuel powered vehicles, it's literally just that the carbon output from charging them and the environmental damage wrought by their battery production is out of sight, out of mind to the typical consumer.

The only way battery EV's become carbon neutral on a massive scale is if we embrace nuclear power, which will never happen because the typical EV advocate is a scientifically illiterate Luddite who's irrationally afraid of nuclear power and magically thinks that we'll be able to power the overnight baseline demand of everyone charging their EV's with wind and solar without having to turn every hill over 300' tall into a Taum Sauk-style pumped storage hydro facility.

Hydrogen EV's are the only way they make sense, but at that rate you might as well keep just the hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure and run hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines instead since they're a lot cheaper and less environmentally demanding to build than any hydrogen fuel cell will ever be.

Internal combustion ain't going anywhere so long as people have to drive more than 200 miles at a whack or park their vehicles long-term in places that they don't own. Until those two factors are fixed in a way that's affordable and attractive to consumers, EV's will never be more than overpriced memes for rich virtue signalling suburbanites.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 14:05:23 No.1119421 Report

Quoted By: >>1119423

>>1119419
> Hydrogen EV
Please start using Fuel Cell EV and not pretend hydrogen is one and only energy carrier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 14:12:14 No.1119423 Report

Quoted By: >>1121910 >>1136639

>>1119421
The only way that fuel cell EV's are even an option is because they use hydrogen, which is plentiful and relatively cheap. Add an expensive/exotic meme fuel on top of your already-expensive-as-fuck fuel cell and now you truly have the worst of both worlds.

Now, a realistic solution to tank CO2 emissions from vehicles would be to embrace LNG/LPG adoption now that post-fracking, we're making more of the stuff than we know what to do with. Furthermore, you can actually convert existing vehicles for chump change I the grand scheme of things.

If you could get even 10-20% of vehicles today converted to LPG/CNG, you could drastically improve air quality in most cities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 14:16:07 No.1119428 Report

Quoted By: >>1119429

>>1119411
1. BEV for cars ,and short-haul and special-purpose (eg garbage truck) heavy vehicles. FCEV/FCV or alternative fuel (biofuel like biodiesel or bio-DME, or synthetic whatever, I don't care) for trucks in general. Buses depend on terrain, although it seems to be a majority of urban local bus can transition to BEV. ICE has a place.

2. Ships: lol no. LNG, biomethane, biogas and other biofuel / alternative fuels. and fuel cells makes sense for them. Battery electric ferries a big maybe.

3. Regional aircrafts sure. It's the only segment battery electric makes sense. Fuel cell doesn't seem possible yet anywhere in aviation.

On the environmental friendliness of BEVs I still hold the cliche attitude of lesser of two evils. The only thing matters to me now is phasing out fossil fuel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 14:17:23 No.1119429 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119428
> * for trucks and heavy/commercial vehicles in general

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 14:52:16 No.1119433 Report

Quoted By: >>1119441 >>1152527 >>1152824

Biodiesel or whatever it's called will most certainly keep ICE's viable. Electric batteries just aren't the best way to store energy when it comes to being able to store lots of it with little weight and low maintenance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 15:16:54 No.1119441 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119433
This. Batteries suck donkey dick in terms of energy density, and they're even worse when it comes to quickly adding/storing energy.

For instance, my Volvo S60 T6 gets 19mpg city/26mpg. 325hp and AWD ftw, but it's a gas guzzling hog on the best of days.

That said, I can drive over 400 miles on a single tank of gas, stop at the local Sheetz, fill up in 5 minutes, and drive another 400+ miles straight without breaking a sweet. That sort of energy density and rapid energy replacement might as well be science fiction in the battery electric world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 15:50:11 No.1119447 Report

Quoted By: >>1119450 >>1119463 >>1119577 >>1121898 >>1143982

Why are no companies looking into battery swapping technology?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 16:01:27 No.1119450 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119447
*sigh* every time...
> no companies looking into battery swapping now

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cayman-e-volution-svg.jpg, 188KiB, 1280x658

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 16:19:29 No.1119455 Report

Quoted By: >>1119464 >>1121528 >>1121898 >>1122409 >>1143915 >>1152525

for private road transport evs are the future because government regulations are going to force conventional ice cars out of market in every civilised part of the world by the 2030s.

range isn't the practical issue people think it is, because you can charge at home overnight and drive the kind of distance that a normal person would drive in a day no problem. need to go 300 miles without stopping? take a train.

better for the environment? potentially, but it depends where the energy comes from. renewables, storage, and a sensible amount of nuclear gets you to zero emissions.

also, i'm an electric powertrain research and development engineer at a major auto maker (pic unrelated obv.). ask me anything. i might even answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 16:45:58 No.1119463 Report

Quoted By: >>1152192

>>1119447
it's a bad idea for a number of reasons. the battery pack is the biggest, heaviest, most expensive and potentially most dangerous part of an ev. car makers don't want to just entrust that to a third party - what if the battery station gave your customer a bad battery? it would make your car look shitty at best and burn them and their family alive in a horrifying battery fire at worst.

also, making the pack removable by a robot means adding mechanical structures, electrical switches and connectors, sensors etc that all cost money and take up space. when you're trying to cram as many kWh as possible into the available space, that is the last thing you want.

etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 16:46:30 No.1119464 Report

Quoted By: >>1119480 >>1121650 >>1125316 >>1143345 >>1143354 >>1143360 >>1143983

>>1119455
>range isn't the practical issue people think it is, because you can charge at home overnight and drive the kind of distance that a normal person would drive in a day no problem. range isn't the practical issue people think it is, because you can charge at home overnight and drive the kind of distance that a normal person would drive in a day no problem. need to go 300 miles without stopping? take a train.
>need to go 300 miles without stopping? take a train.

Maybe in Europe that's an option, but you're retarded if you think anyone but communists and autists will seriously suggest that as an alternative for road-tripping in the USA.

For instance: My fiancee and I love going on long road trips to camp in the wilderness of Maine, WV, North Carolina, etc, often traveling 400+ miles in a day to get there. That's the sort of shit that we live for, and there's no way that it'll ever be doable in an EV given the realities of charging one, not to mention driving over those sorts of distances in any reasonable timeframe.

EV's literally only make sense if you're rich, live in a suburb or have enough money to own your own parking pad in the city, and never do more than short day trips by car, flying everywhere else.

That makes sense, because that profile describes effete upper middle class liberals to a Time, and they're the exact folks who are working so hard to force EV's down our collective throats.

It also makes me chuckle, because the moment you decide to fly somewhere because your EV can't make the distance, you've just done as much environmental damage-per-person with your one flight as that road tripping family will do in a year or so of driving.

EV's are great if that's your thing, but nothing's more laughably tone deaf than the idea that the EV will somehow work for every American if not we just passed enough regulations that they're forced to embrace them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 16:47:45 No.1119465 Report

Quoted By: >>1119764

>>1119411
They're a great idea
The electricity can be generated by nuclear plants for super cheap

Win-win for everybody

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 17:36:24 No.1119480 Report

Quoted By: >>1119481 >>1119484

>>1119464

ah, road tripping across the usa, is it? headin out to the wilderness are we? sounds marvellous. really. lots of fun.

however, back in the real world, the overwhelming majority of people drive the same sub-50-mile journey five days a week and spend most weekends in relatively close proximity to where they live. and also, not for nothing, the overwhelming majority of people don't live in america and quite sensibly think that choosing to drive when faced with a 400 mile journey is fuckin bananas. most people live in the places where most people live: cities, suburbs and towns. you're just an edge case, an outlier.

but it's ok! you can still get a phev. that way you can do all you daily driving on electricity and then fall back on dino-juice for those 400 miles road trips you apparently like doing every week because you are an insane person.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 17:45:40 No.1119481 Report

Quoted By: >>1119484

>>1119480
He's just romanticising road trips when they really shitty and boring

Driving for days on end is incredibly tiring and shitty

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 17:53:47 No.1119484 Report

Quoted By: >>1119486 >>1119488

>>1119481
>>1119480

Only people who drive shitty cars and hate talking with their SO's hate road trips. For the rest of us, nothing beats leaving the city and actually seeing as much of the country as possible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 17:55:47 No.1119486 Report

Quoted By: >>1131085 >>1155933

>>1119484
i also think being inside a speeding air conditioned box is the best way to see the countryside

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 17:59:19 No.1119488 Report

Quoted By: >>1119513 >>1156106

>>1119484
also, you're allowed to talk on a train. you can even look at each other! wouldn't that be nicer than staring at asphalt for hours on end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 20:55:47 No.1119513 Report

Quoted By: >>1129698

>>1119488
But I never make eye contact with other people.

Baconrider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC04122.jpg, 969KiB, 1936x1395

Baconrider !yuA7eZE8l2 Fri 20 Oct 2017 21:57:16 No.1119520 Report

Quoted By: >>1119576

Nuclear?,,,you, didnt learn your lesson?!!?,
,,,no, Realy,,, nuclear?!?,,
,,,
>>1119419
>scientifically illiterate Luddite who's irrationally afraid of nuclear
,,,,,,,,,,,
,theshillingistrong.
,
,,EV Range,,, letme Fix and Improve that.,
,Trailer,,power trailer,, Robot smart power trailer, sensing the slightestug onits tounge,,,,Solar covered?, biodiesel made from liposuction fat,, a tank SOBIG, cango 401miles?, Ethenol?,,or,, nuclearly death? maybe,,justa bigger battery.,
,, Robotrailer rental,, size of SEMITRUCK,, has self driving, regening wheels,, powers thru turnsoft.,
,,mysolar, is past double payback$!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Oct 2017 22:04:41 No.1119524 Report

Quoted By: >>1119577 >>1136644

Does covering an EV in solar panels make any sense or is that as retarded as it sounds in my mind?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 01:48:45 No.1119576 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119520
this

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 02:02:43 No.1119577 Report

Quoted By: >>1119849 >>1119988 >>1150278

>>1119412
EV tech here - I'm not concerned about my future. Care are only going to get more complicated from here on out, and break just as often. Nobody is making a living doing oil changes and fuel injection is not "tricky."

>>1119419
Hydrogen is going nowhere

>>1119447
Not faster than charging, infrastructure nightmare, making one size fits all batteries severely limits auto development, just doesn't make any sense to do it.

>>1119524
Not worth the cost for almost no power generation. Fisker and Audi both have dabbled. It can barely run the A/C on low with the radio on when parked in direct sunlight. When you have a monstrous HV battery the solar panel is barely pissing in the ocean.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 02:37:47 No.1119593 Report

Quoted By: >>1119792 >>1119897

The only thing I don't like is short changing public transit for the autonomous EV meme. They'll be great for the vast majority of people. People that need to drive longer distances can still buy/rent an ICE (depending on how often they need it), or potentially tow a generator behind their car, which also adds cargo capacity.

Trains are already electric virtually everywhere, even if the electricity is generated on board with diesel fuel. I doubt we'll see the electrification of US freight lines for a long time.

As for boats, small, personal watercraft, maybe eventually. Large commercial ships? Fuck no. However, large ships can and should use on board nuclear generators like submarines, aircraft carriers, and ice breakers have been doing for decades. Marine propulsion is dirty as fuck right now. It's offset mathematically by the amount of freight it moves, making it look not as bad in terms of per-ton-of-cargo, but it's really dirty.

I think airlines will be one of the longest users of fossil fuels (or equivalent bio fuels if that happens). Airplanes *really* leverage the energy density of fossil fuels. Anything that replaces them will have to be as good or better. Nuclear is just too heavy. Batteries won't cut it for the imaginable future. That said, personal planes could utilize batteries. Short haul commercial planes could hypothetically do so as well, but short haul flights really lose out to rail. It's hard to imagine the number of short hauls not serviceable by rail (practically, islands or mountains that don't justify expensive solutions) will be numerous enough for economies of scale to make electric jetliners practical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 17:50:28 No.1119764 Report

Quoted By: >>1119830 >>1140051

>>1119465
>nuclear
No anon, nuclear is no longer in vogue with commies
Wind turbines, wind turbines everywhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 18:32:14 No.1119792 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119593
they already have EVs with built in generators to recharge the battery when its running low
chevy makes a pretty good one

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 19:37:08 No.1119830 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119764
But muh birds!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 21:05:02 No.1119849 Report

Quoted By: >>1119891

>>1119577
>infrastructure nightmare
Even more than providing multiple types of extremely flammable liquids on tap in large quantities?

And IMHO making one size fits all is more a patent and branding problem. If ICE were developed nowadays, every company would use their own unique, patented, secret fuel citing you hundreds of reasons why this makes their engine superior.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 23:20:03 No.1119881 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119411
I have doubts that we'll see electric jets flying across the Pacific or the Atlantic any time soon, but Light Aircraft defiantly a probability after all there have been a number of microlights that have been electric

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Oct 2017 23:43:34 No.1119891 Report

Quoted By: >>1121505

>>1119849
>Even more than providing multiple types of extremely flammable liquids on tap in large quantities?
Yes, and it's not close. EV batteries cannot be shipped at above 50% SOC, have tons of different physical configs, sizes, layouts, connections, etc. to accomodate the design of the car.

>And IMHO making one size fits all is more a patent and branding problem
Well, your opinion is not well informed. Nobody is claiming their cells are unique or special, and nobody has restrictive patents on HV batteries. They have to do many different things depending on the vehicle they are installed in.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO NSSavannah.jpg, 151KiB, 550x346

Anonymous Sun 22 Oct 2017 00:15:34 No.1119897 Report

Quoted By: >>1121578

>>1119593
>However, large ships can and should use on board nuclear generators like submarines, aircraft carriers, and ice breakers have been doing for decades.

This.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Oct 2017 12:41:32 No.1119988 Report

Quoted By: >>1121845

>>1119577
what about for trickle charging maintaining the batteries?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 09:40:04 No.1121503 Report

Quoted By:

You need clean energy for them to really work I think. They got to be better for the local environment though, cities & towns.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO teslabatterypasck.jpg, 1MiB, 3556x2000

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 09:43:52 No.1121505 Report

Quoted By: >>1121516

>>1119891
>EV batteries cannot be shipped at above 50% SOC
Thats interesting. Never knew this. But why?

>have tons of different physical configs, sizes, layouts, connections, etc. to accomodate the design of the car.
This on other hand is where work can be done to bring this to a single standard.

Do you think turning this into an automatically dock-able cartridge would be that much more complicated than e.g. a car wash station?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 10:13:59 No.1121516 Report

Quoted By: >>1121521 >>1126472 >>1128475 >>1129691 >>1135657

>>1121505
>This on other hand is where work can be done to bring this to a single standard.
How. How the fuck are you going to do that for a Yaris and a Suburban? Tesla couldn't even do it when they had two cars.

The real answer is that EVs are never going to be suitable for long haul trips in the way that ICEs are, unless there's a YUGE battery innovation that allows them to be charged in minutes or substantially increases their range. The best we're going to do, barring a revolutionary innovation, is use pure EVs for short haul driving where they make sense, and have plug-in hybrids and tow-able generators for people that also need to do long haul driving. Long haul trucking is unlikely to change as nothing is ever going to as efficient as a piston engine directly driving the wheels.

The best bet is to impose a pollution tax to internalize the costs of combustion engines, and the market will work to find the best solutions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 11:06:00 No.1121521 Report

Quoted By: >>1121530 >>1143348

>>1121516
>as efficient as a piston engine directly driving the wheels
Aahaha. Stop. So that's what you're about - butthurt gashead. Even steam engines are more efficient.

Feel free to drive your petrol guzzler to your deathbed. But why fight the future because of your backward views?

The fact that you're unable to accept new ways of transportation doesn't mean it cant be done. Get out of your comfort zone man.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 11:55:39 No.1121526 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119411

The power supply is the biggest problem.

It takes a fuckton of energy to get things going. In aircraft current batteries would be terrible. Even if you get the aircraft into the sky the landing weight is very important and current designs look at shedding fuel weight as an advantage. You'd have to design an aircraft that could handle the same landing weight as take of weight which means much beefier components so hence more weight again.

For large ships fuel is measured by the ton so you can imagine the weight of that battery bank

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 12:04:34 No.1121528 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 12:17:40 No.1121530 Report

Quoted By: >>1121557

>>1121521
>being this retarded
>2017
Not even the anon you were talking to. I'm all for EVs. My point was that as long as you have to have an on board power supply, as is the case with long haul travel, it's more efficient to just drive the wheels. You could use a turbine engine, which is more flexible with fuels and is much cleaner, but not as efficient. You could use a piston engine to generate electricity, but the process wouldn't be as efficient as gearing the vehicle properly and driving the wheels directly from the motor, which is what trucks do. All this changes with a revolutionary change in battery technology, but that's not in the foreseeable future, currently.

Stop being a fucking idiot. My point was only about long distance travel, and specifically in regards to trucking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 14:38:18 No.1121546 Report

Quoted By: >>1121559 >>1121561 >>1121576

>>1119417
I agree but I am going to say 20 years.

That and its not like electric cars are really all that clean. Most of the US at least is still powered by coal, and the solar systems from mr. musk and solar city apparently need to be rebuilt every 10 years according to a co-worker who worked for them previously

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 15:11:09 No.1121557 Report

Quoted By: >>1121573 >>1121656

>>1121530
>ou could use a piston engine to generate electricity, but the process wouldn't be as efficient as gearing the vehicle properly and driving the wheels directly from the motor
That depends on the motor and really on how many speeds the transmission has
Most ICEs have a pretty narrow range in which they're at their most efficient and efficiency drops off fast out of that range
A diesel-electric model or gas-electric allows the motor to always spin at the optimal rpm, which can be more efficient
That's why locomotives are almost always diesel electric, not straight diesel

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 15:12:52 No.1121559 Report

Quoted By: >>1121560 >>1121575

>>1121546
yeah, photovoltaics are a complete meme
they don't last very long, are outrageously expensive and energy intensive to make, and just aren't practical
real solar generators work though, and use mirror arrays to heat a fluid, then heat water to steam via an interchange to power a steam turbine

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO images.duckduckgo.jpg, 762KiB, 1500x988

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 15:13:55 No.1121560 Report

Quoted By: >>1121593

>>1121559
pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 15:16:35 No.1121561 Report

Quoted By: >>1121596

>>1121546
Even if coal plants are dirtier than gas engines, people generally aren't surrounded by them constantly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:29:02 No.1121573 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121557
(This)
Weight of diesel-electric transmissions weights down its adoption in road vehicles.
REx BEV / series hybrid PHEV is good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:30:38 No.1121575 Report

Quoted By: >>1121593

>>1121559
This is scientifically false and you should kill yourself for believing and propagating such a blatant lie.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:31:41 No.1121576 Report

Quoted By: >>1121577

>>1121546
Everything in this post is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:33:49 No.1121577 Report

Quoted By: >>1121579

>>1121576
>I'm going to disagree with you but not explain why
Okay, kiddo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:34:06 No.1121578 Report

Quoted By: >>1121595 >>1121597 >>1122826 >>1126674 >>1143917

>>1119897
It won't happen with currently available reactor tech. Fuel cell ships could definitely be a thing though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:36:13 No.1121579 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121577
Electric cars, even in heavily coal dependent states, emit less CO2 per mile than comparable ICE vehicles.

And panels have been proven to function fine way beyond 10 years.

Try reading a book and thinking for yourself asshole.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO redditfrog.gif, 3MiB, 500x500

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:39:40 No.1121581 Report

Quoted By:

PERSONAL R O T O R C R A F T S WHEN!!!!????
https://youtu.be/OM7HHB51WX8
https://youtu.be/OM7HHB51WX8
https://youtu.be/OM7HHB51WX8
https://youtu.be/OM7HHB51WX8

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 17:47:07 No.1121593 Report

Quoted By: >>1121639

>>1121575
it isn't false
its true that photovoltaics are no longer a net loss like they used to be
they do now produce more energy than it takes to make them by a fair margin
that doesn't change the fact that they are outrageously expensive per watt compared to natural gas or nuclear
not to mention that the are still somewhat fragile (again, less than they used to be), and don't last more than 20-ish years
it is still much much more practical and cost effective to use a large scale solar steam system like >>1121560 or nuclear
honestly, nuclear energy is the solution we've been looking for, and its been around for years
the only reason it isn't more widespread is treehuggers complaining about random bullshit
the few incidents that have happened have been from complete incompetence
i could have told you years ago building a reactor on a coastline that gets hit by storms is retarded

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO klt40s.jpg, 59KiB, 668x453

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 17:53:47 No.1121595 Report

Quoted By: >>1121638 >>1121869 >>1131086

>>1121578
>It won't happen with currently available reactor tech
The russians certainly disagree

Two of these babies could power a maersk e-class

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 17:55:34 No.1121596 Report

Quoted By: >>1121641

>>1121561
not him, but yeah, i agree that a dirtier power source that's outside the city is preferable to one in the city
i am not entirely sold on the whole (((global warming))) thing, but i do care quite a bit about air pollution in cities
i think the higher rates of cancer, asthma, autism and copd that we're seeing in most of the world is directly caused by PM2.5 from car exhaust
also, centralizing the source of the pollution allows you to do more to try to counteract its spread and filter the worst of it out
whereas there's really not much other than catalytic converters that you can do for cars

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 17:56:55 No.1121597 Report

Quoted By: >>1121641

>>1121578
its not a question of reactor technology, General Atomic has you covered if you want portable reactors
its more a question of regulation and laws regarding handling radioactive waste

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 19:44:12 No.1121630 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119411
>So /o/ pretty much hates them.
Well no shit. They're drooling cagers

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:23:14 No.1121638 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121595
Nobody said it isn't possible, just that it won't happen. Currently available reactor designs require extremely tight control and regulation. There are designs that would serve commercial applications much better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:24:59 No.1121639 Report

Quoted By: >>1121640 >>1121658

>>1121593
Net new solar is cheaper than net new gas in a lot of places all over the world. And it's universally cheaper than net new nuclear.

Did you honestly think you could blatantly make shit up and get away with it?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO nuclear vs renewables subsidies.jpg, 102KiB, 1200x904

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:25:50 No.1121640 Report

Quoted By: >>1121642 >>1121644

>>1121639
>subsidies make it cheaper
Not to the taxpayer

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:27:09 No.1121641 Report

Quoted By: >>1121661 >>1123410

>>1121596
> i am not entirely sold on the whole (((global warming))) thing
Well that's because you're an inbred illiterate that was constantly raped and beaten as a child.

>>1121597
There aren't commercially available reactors that are foolproof or proliferation resistant enough to go mainstream in commercial applications.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:28:43 No.1121642 Report

Quoted By: >>1121646

>>1121640
That's completely false. There are a ton of locations globally where unsubsidized solar is the cheapest. Nuclear is subsidized literally everywhere it is built, which doesn't make it bad, but it does make you (again) extremely fucking wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:30:32 No.1121644 Report

Quoted By: >>1121646

>>1121640
Oh and renewables is not synonymous with solar, fuckwad.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO energy subsidies.jpg, 36KiB, 620x344

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:54:05 No.1121646 Report

Quoted By: >>1121647

>>1121642
>>1121644
Prove me wrong

Show me solar+batteries that is cheaper than new nuclear

Solar by itself only does the day job

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:56:17 No.1121647 Report

Quoted By: >>1121653

>>1121646
That chart isn't even making an attempt to be truthful. It's literally claiming that coal and nuclear receive no subsidies of any kind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 20:59:34 No.1121650 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119464
Airplanes get 100 MPG per person when they're full though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:03:11 No.1121653 Report

Quoted By: >>1123410 >>1139506

>>1121647
Except it is truthful

Nuclear and Coal get very little subsidy for the amount of energy they produce, not nameplate capacity.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy/how-much-does-the-us-government-subsidize-electricity-generating-technologies

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:14:23 No.1121656 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121557
While that's true, since long haul trucking spends almost the entire time at highway speeds, and truck transmissions are huge and can have a shit load of gears, it's better just to gear it for highway speed and drive the wheels directly. A transmission for a train would be a nightmare; it's more cost effective than to just take the efficiency loss of converting to electricity than try to gear a diesel engine for locomotive use. However, when making a transmission to get you up to speed isn't a problem, and you spend almost you entire time at high speeds, coupling the engine straight to the wheels will be more efficient than using it to generate electricity to drive electric motors.

You could use a transfer case with a simpler transmission that drives a generator and electric motors during acceleration or for stop and go traffic, and then use a few gears to maximize efficiency at highway speeds. You could also go a different route for better emissions, it just won't be as efficient, again unless batteries become feasible for long haul trucking. A turbine generating electricity would be substantially cleaner, and would give more choice in fuel, but fucking again, it won't be more efficient than a diesel engine driving wheels at highway speeds. For it to make sense, economically for the trucking industry, the pollution cost of burning diesel in a piston engine would have to be greater than the extra fuel cost of using more to use a turbine engine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:17:04 No.1121658 Report

Quoted By: >>1121660

>>1121639
the cost of gas varies hugely between countries because many don't produce it or have distribution infra
in the USA, which is all i care about, and especially in Texas, where i am, gas is basically free, and electricity costs almost nothing
hell, at a lot of the oil fields down south they get some gas out of the ground too, and don't even store it or nothing, they just flare it off
and i'm not doubting that real steam solar systems are cost effective, the big one in cali does great, just that photovoltaics are
even with the tax deduction and the money you get from the energy companies for installing solar panels, you still barely break even
as for nuclear vs photovoltaics, look at the fucking chart:
https://openei.org/apps/TCDB/

Coal, NGCC, Fuel Cell (also from natural gas), Nuclear, and Wind blow Photovoltaics out of the water
Solar concentrators are more expensive, but closer to being worthwhile
Wind has the disadvantage of being irregular, so it is useful, but nowhere close to enough
Also, look at overnight capital cost, since you're so insistent that new nuclear is too expensive
Its right on par with photovoltaics, quite a bit lower than solar concentrators, and miles above NGCC (obviously)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:18:59 No.1121660 Report

Quoted By: >>1121664

>>1121658
And only one of those things can provide you power from your right on your own roof. Which could that be?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:20:51 No.1121661 Report

Quoted By: >>1121662

>>1121641
>There aren't commercially available reactors that are foolproof or proliferation resistant enough to go mainstream in commercial applications.
Large scale shipping is very highly regulated, and the engineers on those ships wouldn't count as fools in my book, most are ex navy
I agree that there would have to be quite a bit of oversight into the design and use of commercially available reactors, but its doable

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:22:40 No.1121662 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121661
It may be doable but it won't be done until there are vastly more modern designs available.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:25:06 No.1121664 Report

Quoted By: >>1121665

>>1121660
Centralizing power production allows larger scale, more efficient power plants
The whole argument with electric cars being greener is that centralized power plants produce power much more efficiently than an ICE
And also, did you forget that Wind is also much much cheaper than photovoltaics, and on par with NGCC?
You know that you can buy windmills right? Not at the same scale as a real wind farm obviously
Why are you so sold on photovoltaics? I am not saying we can't have cheap clean energy, we can
Also, small scale fuel cells have been a thing for ages, and can be done at the neighborhood or house level
I am just saying that photovoltaics are not practical, and have never been
They might one day make sense, but the technology would have to be much better than it is now and cost would have to come down
And I don't want to wait for a meme technology that may or may not one day be useful, when there's several that are ready right now

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 21:39:41 No.1121665 Report

Quoted By: >>1121671 >>1121672

>>1121664
>Centralizing power production allows larger scale, more efficient power plants
Decentralizing power puts less load on the entire grid and increases resiliency.

>The whole argument with electric cars being greener is that centralized power plants produce power much more efficiently than an ICE
No, that's not at all the entire argument or even the majority of the argument.

>And also, did you forget that Wind is also much much cheaper than photovoltaics, and on par with NGCC?
Offshore, the most efficient kind of wind, is definitely not cheaper yet. Onshore is competitive, but less scalable and suited to fewer locations.

>You know that you can buy windmills right? Not at the same scale as a real wind farm obviously
You can't buy windmills that can feasibly power a notable percentage of your home, particularly if you don't have a lot of land.

>Why are you so sold on photovoltaics? I am not saying we can't have cheap clean energy, we can
They are the only feasible self-generation source for the overwhelming majority of homes and businesses.

>Also, small scale fuel cells have been a thing for ages, and can be done at the neighborhood or house level
Not economical or available enough at this point. They are useful as critical service backups (hospitals, etc) and for large industrial applications.

>I am just saying that photovoltaics are not practical, and have never been
This is already (today) extremely wrong, and if you don't understand that, you are willful ignorant beyond repair.

>They might one day make sense, but the technology would have to be much better than it is now and cost would have to come down
See above.

>And I don't want to wait for a meme technology that may or may not one day be useful, when there's several that are ready right now
You mean like solar?

Honestly, fuck ignorant cuntswabs like you. You're the reason our society's scientific literacy is so pathetically low.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 22:02:33 No.1121671 Report

Quoted By: >>1121676

>>1121665
i just linked you to an up to date chart on department of energy price estimates for every type of power currently used here
look at the damn chart, photovoltaics are still too fucking expensive, and that's the end of it
you're right that they are the only thing available right now to power your own house
that doesn't make them any more cost effective or efficient though
you're right that the grid is over stressed, but that's due to shit design
look at the Texas grid it works beautifully, that's why we refused to merge it
>you are willful ignorant beyond repair.
i just showed you a breakdown of LCOE for currently available power technology, and photovoltaics are much worse on average than everything else
and even if you're talking about initial construction costs, they're still worse than almost everything except nuclear
are you doubting the department of energy's ability to determine prices or my interpretation of the graphs at https://openei.org/apps/TCDB/
>Honestly, fuck ignorant cuntswabs like you. You're the reason our society's scientific literacy is so pathetically low.
my conclusion is based on looking at the current data from the department of energy which is the best source i can think of
you haven't showed me anything that would that would change my mind, all you've done is insult me
i am not the problem here

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 22:09:37 No.1121672 Report

Quoted By: >>1121677

>>1121665
i also don't get why you prefer photovoltaics to solar thermal, except for the single house scale thing
solar thermal does have to be fairly large, but has a good roi and is just as "green" as photovoltaics
it also uses steam turbines pretty similar to the ones used for many other steam turbine based power plants, which is nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 22:24:46 No.1121676 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121671
So you have zero interest in controlling at least a portion of your energy sources. Good for you. Enjoy being totally reliant on the grid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 22:27:06 No.1121677 Report

Quoted By: >>1121682

>>1121672
> solar thermal does have to be fairly large
No it doesn't. You can put that on a roof as well (the passive kind, not the csp/mirror kind). People do that all the time for water and pool heating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 22:58:16 No.1121682 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121677
true yeah, solar water heaters are dope, i know a guy who lives on rain water and has one

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO EROI-Book-Figure.jpg, 76KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 23:34:24 No.1121692 Report

Quoted By: >>1121693 >>1121701

Weissbach reports in 2016 that solar is pretty low in terms of ERIO

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 23:39:07 No.1121693 Report

Quoted By: >>1121695 >>1121701

>>1121692
This is such a joke. This is the kind of nonsense that fossil fuel companies will push in sponsored studies despite it being proven mathematically false in a large number of places.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Oct 2017 23:51:23 No.1121695 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121693
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

Don't shoot the messenger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 00:33:50 No.1121701 Report

Quoted By: >>1121728

>>1121692
>>1121693
again, CSP and Wind are both practical as is Hydro when there's a waterway for it, its just that photovoltaics are too expensive right now to make sense
this isn't some kind of conspiracy by big coal to kill off clean energy, we do have clean energy technology that is practical, just not photovoltaics

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 02:38:52 No.1121728 Report

Quoted By: >>1121773

>>1121701
You keep saying that. But PV still has the cheapest levelized cost in wide swaths of the country.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 04:25:26 No.1121773 Report

Quoted By: >>1121864

>>1121728
where is your data for that though?
you can't just claim its cheaper
i don't know everything, maybe there are some places where there's no nuclear, natural gas, wind or hydro and photovoltaics are cheaper
where is this place though?

Baconrider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC03791.jpg, 353KiB, 2005x1142

Baconrider !yuA7eZE8l2 Sun 29 Oct 2017 06:23:10 No.1121790 Report

Quoted By: >>1121797

mysolar cost,, 700C (Clams),
,,and pays back 240C yearly,, so far, went upa bit last year, due to rate hike!!WoHOO!,,
,,, I'm,, nothearing about,, realife.,
,, my valley produces export power,, Geothermal and large solar,,, we also grow a tasty onion., YourWELCOME.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 06:29:56 No.1121797 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121790
thanks for the onions mr bacon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 13:08:25 No.1121845 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119988
That might be an option. Plenty of private (sailing) yachts that have a solar panel for trickle charging the start battery and appliance battery during the off-season.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO power prices.png, 634KiB, 1911x942

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 14:52:04 No.1121864 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121773
http://calculators.energy.utexas.edu/lcoe_map/#/county/tech

Taking into account availability. Coal is the cheapest in less than 3% of all locales. It's all wind, utility-scale PV, and gas (combined cycle).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 15:22:35 No.1121869 Report

Quoted By: >>1121888 >>1122827 >>1122831

>>1121595
These babies also need highly enriched fuel (aka nuke ready) that wont be allowed to run anywhere without armed military.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 17:10:23 No.1121888 Report

Quoted By: >>1123252

>>1121869
>15%
>highly enriched
???

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO The_greatest_cat.jpg, 57KiB, 534x604

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 17:40:29 No.1121898 Report

Quoted By: >>1121901

>>1119455
>range isn't the practical issue people think it is
No, its a huge issue. Its the reason the pre Tesla EV mobiles where basically glorified mini scooters.
Or gimmick mobiles with half an hour of range.
Because the reality of car life is that you will drive 70-80km/h, and it can quickly escalate to 1-3 hours each way, for any longer drive.
And thats before you start considering things like battery wear, or weather conditions reducing capacity a little.
There is a reason the Tesla of 2012 came with 370km of Range, which is a bit more than 4 hours of driving. It means its possible to give no fucks about range, and then charge it overnight if you travel that far. Or with a supercharger and go eat dinner.
Its possible to commute from a city to a neighbor city.
Its possible to use it as a commute tool, but not have to plug it after each short drive.

Let me repeat that: Range is the biggest issue. Then comes acceleration and compartment size.
EVs before Tesla, as far back as they where produced for tax cut reasons, used to fail at all 3 bulletin points.

>>1119447
Trucks and land trains, maybe. But only for larger transport operations, since you have to swap a few cells per day, to make the investment worth it.
Forklifts and deports for maintenance is already a thing, so infrastructure do exist to some degree.
For personal vehicles? No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 17:50:42 No.1121901 Report

Quoted By: >>1121909

>>1121898
yeah, range is the main reason that i can't buy an ev
i have to do a lot of highway miles between several cities in the Texas triangle area a couple times a month
if i can't just get in and go, and fill up on the way then it won't cut it for me, i can't wait overnight for a charge
stuff like the chevy volt gives you range on the highway since it can recharge its battery from a gas generator, but that kinda defeats the purpose, and i use a bike in cities anyway
however, a fuel cell car can be refueled pretty quickly, toyota has one at a carshow with like a 600 mile range and 2 minute refuel time, which is cool, so that may be an option
really though, i just want high speed rail between dfw and houston, and dfw austin and san antonio

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 17:54:27 No.1121902 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119419
Carbon output of the whole lifespan of EVs is currently around 50% lower than that of ICE equiv. Will only get better when share of wind and solar increases. Hydrogen is bullshit because of only 20% system efficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 18:39:47 No.1121909 Report

Quoted By: >>1122156

>>1121901
You'll never own a fuel cell car because they'll never be a widespread thing. 15 years ago it was an open question as to whether fuel cells or batteries would win out for consumer cars. Today, it's not a question: batteries won and the gap will only continue to widen rapidly. There isn't any company out that that has the will to install hydrogen infrastructure on a large scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 18:48:24 No.1121910 Report

Quoted By: >>1121911

>>1119423
Gas-electric hybrids are way more efficient than CNG vehicles and have much longer range.

And today, plug-in hybrids are the clear alternative for those who can't use a battery EV as a daily driver.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cng v hybrid.png, 73KiB, 587x386

Anonymous Sun 29 Oct 2017 18:49:40 No.1121911 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121910
forgot pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Oct 2017 21:18:52 No.1122156 Report

Quoted By: >>1122170 >>1122209 >>1123249

>>1121909
I mean
>Hydrogen is a chemical element with symbol H and atomic number 1. With a standard atomic weight of circa 1.008, hydrogen is the lightest element on the periodic table.
Look at that shit. If you think corrosion on metal is bad, check out fucking Hydrogen: Its not suitable for long term storage. Its simply too small. And while leaking is a partially solved issue, its not for long term.
However, its suitable for short term storage: Months.

Like, its cursed with the chicken and egg problem: If nobody builds out, you basically need a private refueling system to even use it.
If it gets built out, it could end up getting some R&D to make half a year of storage less worse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Oct 2017 22:07:47 No.1122170 Report

Quoted By:

>>1122156
compressed hydrogen isn't really as good a solution as using hydride salts though

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Oct 2017 01:44:06 No.1122209 Report

Quoted By:

>>1122156
R&D for it will continue. But as time goes on, that R&D will be more driven by and focused on things like shipping, emergency backup systems, potentially heaving trucking, possible long distance freight rail, heavily utility vehicles, construction equipment, and agricultural vehicles. It won't be that focused on passenger cars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Oct 2017 05:26:09 No.1122409 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119455
>need to go 300 miles without stopping? take a train.

That's a retarded argument, what if you have to go to to the countryside with no convenient public transport?
A petrol powered car gives you that freedom, EV still can't compete it in that aspect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Nov 2017 20:49:15 No.1122826 Report

Quoted By: >>1122828

>>1121578
>It won't happen with currently available reactor tech.

It did happen. With 1950's reactor technology. Using low grade, commercial reactor fuel so no security issues. They just didn't have the foresight to see the program through the jump in oil prices which would have made it economically feasible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Nov 2017 20:50:57 No.1122827 Report

Quoted By: >>1123252

>>1121869
>highly enriched fuel

No. Commercial reactor grade is good enough. Can't use for weapons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Nov 2017 20:54:08 No.1122828 Report

Quoted By: >>1123715

>>1122826
No it didn't. Current reactor tech is not in *widespread* use in civilian shipping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Nov 2017 20:57:54 No.1122831 Report

Quoted By: >>1123252

>>1121869
Kek you have no idea what nuke ready even is

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Nov 2017 21:11:33 No.1122837 Report

Quoted By: >>1122851 >>1123100 >>1123410

>>1119411

why does everyone assume EV will completely replace ICE?

It's the same case with gasoline vs. diesel vs. LGP. They co-exist.

If european diesel engines are so superior to gasline engines, why did anyone bought one (before dieselgate et.al).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Nov 2017 22:41:49 No.1122851 Report

Quoted By: >>1122853

>>1122837
diesel is taxed much heavier than gasoline in the states as a kind of extra tax on large trucks
its to the point where a 40mpg diesel car costs more to run than a 30mpg gas car

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Nov 2017 23:05:32 No.1122853 Report

Quoted By:

>>1122851
New gas engines easily match diesels in terms of pure mpg and regular hybrids blow them out of the water. There's literally no good argument for diesel engines to be in cars and light trucks anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Nov 2017 21:38:31 No.1123100 Report

Quoted By: >>1123281

>>1122837
Euro fuel economy for diesels makes them at the least 20% cheaper.
And thats before you consider that diesel development is meant to subsidize R&D for improving long distance hauls, so historically their horsepower and fuel economy has been rather good.

But Electrical Hybrids basically gain more than that, plus regenerative braking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 18:00:56 No.1123249 Report

Quoted By: >>1123285

>>1122156
>its not for long term
Neither is gasoline.

>"E10 Gas has a shelf life of only 3 months. Ethanol alcohol fuel blends have a shelf life of only 90-100 days, under ideal environmental conditions."

IMHO having 100L tank with 20L of usable hydrogen to get me to tank is better than 100L of unusable gas that might even clog up the whole system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 18:08:18 No.1123252 Report

Quoted By: >>1123253 >>1123268

>>1121888
>>1122827
>>1122831

>KLT-40:
>fueled by either 30–40% or 90% enriched uranium-235

>Uranium-235
> for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient

So yeah, not gonna happen without giant fence and comrades with Kalashnikovs that shoot to kill.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 18:11:39 No.1123253 Report

Quoted By: >>1123258

>>1123252
And in the real world, for a nuclear fission weapon you need uranium more on the order of 99.99% refined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 18:35:20 No.1123258 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123253
>real world
It's all about the regulations. If the institutions don't like something... cant hav. Otherwise we would all be using flying cars by now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 19:38:03 No.1123268 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123252
>The KLT-40S also uses low-enriched uranium at 14.1% enrichment to meet international proliferation standards

Your literacy sucks buddy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 21:24:33 No.1123281 Report

Quoted By: >>1123285

>>1123100
Hybrids are also meant for city driving, and don't do as well for long hauls as they have to lug around their electric equipment but won't use it.

A diesel-electric would also outperform a gasoline hybrid, because at the end of the day diesel engines are much more efficient than gasoline. The only disadvantage they have from a technical standpoint is emissions and weight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Nov 2017 21:45:33 No.1123285 Report

Quoted By: >>1123321 >>1123339

>>1123281
Hybrids are not meant for anything.
Its one thing that they do significantly better at stop and go, as well as starting, but its another that they will spend at least 1/6th of the journey just burning waste electricity, because the battery is only so so large.
And thats before you consider the advantages of regenerative braking. And extra torque to accelerate in a fun manner.

I agree on Diesel Hybrid. It would be the better solution.

>>1123249
Is that why scooters and mopeds are basically fucked if they go for long term storage?
Or are you talking about shelf life, if there is no vibration after take off?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 01:18:46 No.1123321 Report

Quoted By: >>1123327 >>1123531

>>1123285
>Hybrids are not meant for anything.
Their technology is significantly better for stop and go city driving, and they do worse on long haul trips on highways because regenerative braking and battery banks become dead weight. If all you use your care for is road trips, buying a hybrid would be a shitty decision.

As for diesel, it really depends on what you're going for. Diesels are much more efficient, and would up fuel mileage in hybrids, but they're nowhere near as clean, and they're more expensive to produce. Emissions wise, turbine engines would do much better, but they'd use more fuel, and their exhaust is unsafe. Gasoline hybrids just happen to be a happy middle ground, but hybrids in general aren't the best solution for long haul trips.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 02:01:15 No.1123327 Report

Quoted By: >>1123348

>>1123321
They get better mileage and have longer range than either gas or deisel comparable cars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 02:38:04 No.1123339 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123285
No, a DUKE Engine - hybrid is the better solution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 02:49:56 No.1123344 Report

Quoted By:

https://discord.gg/yZnFFdn

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 03:23:13 No.1123348 Report

Quoted By: >>1123369 >>1123531 >>1125906

>>1123327
>They get better mileage and have longer range than either gas or deisel comparable cars.
What, hybrids? Only in the city. On highways they act the same as conventional vehicles with the added weight of batteries and electric motors.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.04. (...).png, 321KiB, 1168x766

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 07:04:44 No.1123369 Report

Quoted By: >>1123370

>>1123348

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.06. (...).png, 263KiB, 784x780

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 07:07:01 No.1123370 Report

Quoted By: >>1123371

>>1123369

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.08. (...).png, 254KiB, 786x756

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 07:08:36 No.1123371 Report

Quoted By: >>1123372

>>1123370

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.09. (...).png, 260KiB, 1166x752

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 07:10:08 No.1123372 Report

Quoted By: >>1123373

>>1123371

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.11. (...).png, 252KiB, 786x854

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 07:11:32 No.1123373 Report

Quoted By: >>1123374

>>1123372

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.13. (...).png, 269KiB, 790x756

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 07:13:30 No.1123374 Report

Quoted By: >>1123376

>>1123373

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.14. (...).png, 286KiB, 782x734

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 07:14:50 No.1123376 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123374

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 11:39:25 No.1123410 Report

Quoted By: >>1123468 >>1131088

>>1122837
Can EV do away gasoline like gasoline did away steam powered vehicles?
>>1119411
>Electrically powered aircraft
Perhaps when intercontinental wireless charging technology development finished?
>>1121641
Lookup SMR reactor
>>1121653
lel

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 16:20:43 No.1123468 Report

Quoted By: >>1124139

>>1123410
SMRs are not in commercial operation anywhere in the world. Just because something could theoretically be commercialized and widely adopted doesn't mean it has been. That's the entire fucking point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Nov 2017 19:57:08 No.1123531 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123348
>>1123321
Why are you smoking space fumes?
Hybrid do not current mean 100-150km of battery, but like 2-3km of battery, meaning its barely bigger than the default mega bricks used to power cars.
Thats on top of all the effectivity gains you get from the EV parts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Nov 2017 16:12:24 No.1123715 Report

Quoted By: >>1123734

>>1122828
>Current reactor tech is not in *widespread*

Correct. Because of paranoia. Low grade fuel is not a weapons threat. And reprocessing waste is easy (ask the French). Hippies don't like it and we don't like to hear them whine.

So enjoy breathing your bunker fuel and coal soot particles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Nov 2017 17:44:13 No.1123734 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123715
You intentionally missed the point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Nov 2017 19:13:19 No.1123752 Report

Quoted By: >>1123754 >>1123948 >>1124869 >>1125360 >>1126474

How would reactor do in train? Is it more efficient to make a steam locomotive or turbine generator electric locomotive?

Would be cool to have atomic steam locos :D

In the meanwhile, how is this EV related? What are the prospects of hydrogen fuel cells?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Nov 2017 19:23:22 No.1123754 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123752
Fuel cells have next to no chance of being relevant for consumer vehicles. Their transportation hopes rest with heavy trucks and equipment and maritime applications.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Nov 2017 06:41:28 No.1123886 Report

Quoted By: >>1123948

I remember I had a professor who was working with some company on EV busses where at the stops it would hook up with some sort of supercapacitor that would rapid charge the battery of the bus so it would be fine between stops, looked cool.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Nov 2017 15:09:04 No.1123948 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123886
It looks really cool, but you would be better off with a main depot stop, and just change battery with forklifts and a few bolts.
Mostly because turbo charging is more expensive in the long term(wear), than simply changing batteries like twice or thrice a day.
I agree it looks radical as fuck, and might result in some profitable patents.

>>1123752
Steam is like pretty bad
Because it involves plasma -> heat transfer -> boiler -> actual displacement/energy
But jokes on you, Nuclear Plants is essentially modified steam plants, mostly due simplicity of engineering.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Nov 2017 05:28:04 No.1124139 Report

Quoted By: >>1124154

>>1123468
Barely new reaxtor construction have been done in past 30 years and that's why there arr no commercial application. Chinese government is now deploying SMRs to South China Sea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 07 Nov 2017 07:20:52 No.1124154 Report

Quoted By:

>>1124139
No they aren't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Nov 2017 21:02:25 No.1124869 Report

Quoted By: >>1125348

>>1123752
>How would reactor do in train?

Not well if it derailed. Ships are a natural application. Fewer chances of hull breaching accidents. And when they do happen, you are in a large cooling and neutron moderating medium.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Nov 2017 21:10:20 No.1124872 Report

Quoted By:

Energy density sucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Nov 2017 11:37:26 No.1125316 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119464
Isn't that sorta the point of Tesla?
You drive most of the range, find a Tesla charger via a app
Plug it in
Leave it and go eat dinner somewhere
Then travel the rest of the distance?

Unless you are camping, then you don't have good choices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Nov 2017 15:44:47 No.1125348 Report

Quoted By: >>1125360 >>1125590

>>1124869
How about fusion? Afak most of the radiation in there is only present during the reaction with only the activated reactor parts being an issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Nov 2017 16:48:21 No.1125360 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123752
>How would reactor do in train?
You would be better off electrifying the tracks or carrier, and just conventional electric trains.
And then use Hydro or Nuclear to power said traintracks, alongside civilization alongside those tracks.

>>1125348
Fusion is sorta eternal meme of this point.
It gets some funding, doesn't produce a lot of results, and keeps on going, because R&D takes a lot of time and money.
Its still in a better spot than commercial reactors, where they are not forced to do things properly, so everything from waste management to decommision is half assed as fuck.
Even if the plant has already earned a bazzilion dollars from powering all the industry in said area of the grid, with no real price competition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Nov 2017 19:18:43 No.1125400 Report

Quoted By: >>1125429

Thoughts on the car Lamborghini is developing with MIT where the actual body of the car is some sort of carbon fiber supercapacitor? i.e. the car itself is sort of the battery

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-07/lamborghini-terzo-millennio-concept-self-healing-electric-supercar

Seems like sort of a pipe dream at this point

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Nov 2017 21:25:04 No.1125429 Report

Quoted By: >>1125592

>>1125400
>Lamborghini
When was the last time you saw someone actually use it for transportation? E.g. going to work.
IMHO With that brand it doesn't even matter if they make it electric, reactor or antimatter. It's an even smaller niche than electric cars itself and bears no weight on real life transportation.

The basic reality is that Lithium has usable range. As soon as there are enough charging stations and refueling times get on par with drinking a cup of coffee there is no turning back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 05:07:04 No.1125514 Report

Quoted By:

I'm thinking about converting an old ute into an EV for my fathers farm, it doesn't need much range, and its more convienient to charge it than drive to fill it up, seem like the perfect usecase for EVs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 15:12:19 No.1125590 Report

Quoted By: >>1125703

>>1125348
buddy, if you can make a fusion reactor that outputs more energy than the energy put into stabilizing the reaction, then you've solved the energy crisis and global warming. powering a vehicle with one is of tertiary concern at best. but yeah, go for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 15:18:38 No.1125592 Report

Quoted By:

>>1125429
not him, but I assume the Lambo badge on it is just for sex appeal. concept cars by any maker are never supposed to be production models, they're just for proof-of-concept. something to get people excited, attract press, and therefore investors.

weren't the gen1 Teslas insanely expensive? and then didn't all the other makers pursue EV much more seriously?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 21:56:16 No.1125700 Report

Quoted By: >>1125711 >>1125714 >>1126500

wtf is the deal with the power/size/weight/value mismatch between car motors/inverters and industrial motors/inverters?

a 65hp seimens motor built for a car is 190lbs, 25 liter volume, and costs <$2k used
a 25hp 3 phase industrial motor is 400lbs, 50 liter volume, and costs >$1.5k used

a 88hp inverter built for a car is $2.5k, 5 liter volume
a 30hp inverter "vfd" built for industry is $4k, 25 liter volume

Sure, cars have lower duty cycle, but I can't imagine tweaking the duty cycle numbers to match up the other numbers. I couldn't possibly buy a 15hp industrial motor (to match the 200lb) and overdrive it to 65hp, that's insanity. And buying a 7.5hp vfd and overdriving it to 88hp? get real

this shit sucks

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 22:17:33 No.1125703 Report

Quoted By: >>1125706

>>1125590
>make a fusion reactor that outputs more energy than the energy put into stabilizing the reaction
The law of conservation of energy called, they said this is why fusion tech will forever remain a meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 22:26:50 No.1125706 Report

Quoted By: >>1125715

>>1125703
well, it works great for stars. anything terrestrial, not so much

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 22:36:28 No.1125711 Report

Quoted By:

>>1125700
There's no big problem making electric drive small. The problem is making it reliable. If an industrial motor fails losses could be orders of magnitude more than the cost of the motor itself. Nobody would buy anything from you anymore. If an electric car fails you just claim it's the owners fault and make him pay outta his ass to buy another one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 22:41:47 No.1125714 Report

Quoted By: >>1125736

>>1125700
HP isn't the same as operation weight anon.
Inverter in your example is almost twice as "powerful" as the 88hp one.

Nor does it include the fact car parts will have a frame to go on, while industry bricks doesn't.
Plus additional stuff like noise canceling, mounts, etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Nov 2017 22:42:01 No.1125715 Report

Quoted By:

>>1125706
well of course it works great for stars, they are using a relativistic force known as gravity so unless we harness gravity fusion tech is meme tier

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Nov 2017 00:03:22 No.1125736 Report

Quoted By: >>1125739

>>1125714
ok yea, hp is probably the wrong spec to compare inverters on. It's not necessarily wrong, but the motor is doing the hp, the inverter is just switching it, so it's misleading.

My point still stands though. The industrial inverter is rated at 80A continuous, with allowed 200% overload rated for 60 seconds. It's nowhere near the 135A continuous, 500A for 60s of the unit 1/5 its size

so how do you qualify it as "twice as powerful"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Nov 2017 00:24:49 No.1125739 Report

Quoted By:

>>1125736
Because they aren't rated for 80A. They are rated for 80A + failure margin + bad power supply overvolting + being able to run permanently.
So 2x for a minute is the same as 1.3x permanently.

Meanwhile the automobile uses its entire frame for cooling and attachment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Nov 2017 17:07:38 No.1125906 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123348
Hybrid allows you to have a more efficient and a smaller motor because you can pick up the slack with the electrical motor when accelerating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Nov 2017 19:47:19 No.1126472 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121516
Still, using words like
>Short haul driving
I guess thats just very dishonest, since it doesn't specify the range.
Nevermind that the sentence means different things depending on people view/experience as a normal drive distance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Nov 2017 19:56:32 No.1126474 Report

Quoted By: >>1126500

>>1123752
Long have I dreamed of building a nuclear-powered PRR S1 or Big Boy, Anon... Long have I dreamed....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Nov 2017 21:20:09 No.1126500 Report

Quoted By:

>>1125700
PM motor vs induction motor.
Also, used prices are bad indicators.

>>1126474
Do it! Well, maybe start without a reactor.. but make it reactor ready.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Nov 2017 11:42:37 No.1126674 Report

Quoted By: >>1126676 >>1129733

>>1121578
Fuel cells?
Why use chemical to electrical convertion when we could power ships with batteries...

There is in bread view little difference between hydrogen and battery power, both are storage of energy created elsewhere...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Nov 2017 11:44:35 No.1126676 Report

Quoted By:

>>1126674
...in broad view...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Nov 2017 19:26:55 No.1128475 Report

Quoted By: >>1132394 >>1135511 >>1139256

>>1121516
Tesla has an electric semi-truck now
Pretty cool stuff

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Nov 2017 09:20:44 No.1129691 Report

Quoted By: >>1129697

>>1121516
piston engine is horribly inefficient... It gets like 30% efficiency? 40% ?
Compare it to over 80% for electric drive. Top efficiency of AC traction motor gets to 98% and electric trucks will be designed to use it most of the time.
Problem with BEVs is energy density of batteries...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Nov 2017 10:38:23 No.1129697 Report

Quoted By: >>1129706 >>1129735

>>1129691
Ice cars produced energy on the go. That 40% figure is pretty good considering that.
Now take into account the production and transport losses of energy production and putting into a car and you arrive at around the same figure. Saying an ev is almost 100% efficient is like saying the energy moved from my diff to my wheels is almost 100% conserved. It's true but irrelevant

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Nov 2017 10:41:19 No.1129698 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119513
Trains actually have windows, you sperg

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Nov 2017 11:25:31 No.1129706 Report

Quoted By: >>1144034

>>1129697
I agree.
However looking at prices where I live (Poland) BEV is about 17 times cheaper to drive 100km than ICE. Add increasing diversification of power sources and for me BEV is the future. We just need to overcome energy density and fast charging problems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Nov 2017 16:32:21 No.1129733 Report

Quoted By: >>1129946

>>1126674
This is ignorant as fuck. Batteries are heavy and will remain so going forward the weight of a battery system for a container ship is totally impractical and perhaps impossible. A fuel cell system capable of powering the same ship would weigh a fraction of the battery system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Nov 2017 16:45:52 No.1129735 Report

Quoted By:

>>1129697
>Ice cars produced energy on the go.
Yep, the fuel was not extracted from the earth, transported, refined many times, transported again, then put in the vehicle, it's just born in the gas tank. Fucking retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 28 Nov 2017 12:54:59 No.1129946 Report

Quoted By:

>>1129733
OK, I had to check...
Right, hydrogen storage is a feathers compared to battery packs. And for long distances will probably be used.
However, for light vehicles BEV are the way. I think that huge advantage of them over FCV is ability to charge at home, or basically anywhere but some remote locations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 19:10:44 No.1131083 Report

Quoted By: >>1132403

>>1119411
/o/ hates Tesla and ridiculous futuristic looking transportation appliance boxes like that recent BMW concept more than it hates EVs. I've seen nothing but positivity about cars like the electric civic concept, the electric twingo modification, the BMW I8 and other practical non pretentious cars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 19:13:29 No.1131085 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119486
>Not rolling your windows down or driving a convertible
lrn2enjoy driving noob.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA cat.jpg, 72KiB, 720x690

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 19:15:56 No.1131086 Report

Quoted By: >>1131098

>>1121595
>Russian naval reactors

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 19:17:55 No.1131088 Report

Quoted By:

>>1123410
>Perhaps when intercontinental wireless charging technology development finished?
That will be never.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 20:19:06 No.1131098 Report

Quoted By: >>1131099

>>1131086
Not one incident with this new class.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 20:22:05 No.1131099 Report

Quoted By: >>1131104 >>1155857

>>1131098
Russia's track record with nuclear reactors (naval or otherwise) is slightly less than spectacular.
http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/
This is a fairly old page and I'm pretty sure it isn't a complete chronicle of the merry adventures of the Northern Fleet, but it goes into good detail about just how much of a disaster the USSR's subs are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Dec 2017 20:57:51 No.1131104 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131099
The KLT-40s has much less enegetic circuits than any other naval nuclear reactor.

The fuel is enriched to 15%, not 90%, and the circuits are 4 loops instead of 2.

Pretty much all of the submarine reactors of the Soviet Union were based off the same design from the 60s, that, along with the poor worksmanship and operation caused that.

The KLT-40 was designed on computers in the 90s and has operated without incident on their icebreakers.

https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/aris/2013/25.KLT-40S.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Dec 2017 17:13:14 No.1132394 Report

Quoted By:

>>1128475
>Tesla has an electric semi-truck now
>now

Wut?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Dec 2017 18:37:18 No.1132403 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131083
>BMW I8
>practical non pretentious
senor, por favor

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 16 Dec 2017 18:14:20 No.1135511 Report

Quoted By:

>>1128475
I say about 5 more years till we see them being used for commercial service

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2017 01:22:14 No.1135657 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121516
> Long haul trips
This is unironically what trains and airplanes are supposed to do, and if certain nations had functional networks that's all you'd need. Long haul cars are a stupid meme because 98% of driving is work or groceries.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2017 08:55:20 No.1135752 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119411
Electric-/o/ are still /o/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 09:26:48 No.1136637 Report

Quoted By:

>Are they the future of automobile transportation?

Yes

>Will we see electrically powered commercial ships & aircraft in our lifetimes?

Yes

>Is EV more environmentally friendly?

Yes

>What will happen to the ICE?

Dies off slowly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 09:34:23 No.1136639 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119423
>we're making more of the stuff than we know what to do with. Furthermore, you can actually convert existing vehicles for chump change I the grand scheme of things.
t. ex-corn industry shill lobbyist

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Rutan Quickie.jpg, 196KiB, 1000x660

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 09:47:42 No.1136643 Report

Quoted By:

I'm thinking of building an electric Quickie. The original did 120+ MPH with just an 18 HP lawnmower engine for power, so I don't think it's so far outside the realm of feasibility. Any ideas for sourcing the motor and controller? Model airplane motors aren't big enough, I was wondering if maybe something like a golf cart could be cannibalized for the job. Obviously the battery would be too heavy but it looks like I could get about an hour endurance (which means more like a half hour in practice, because VFR reserves) from 100 lbs of li-ion juice.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SionSono-Motors.jpg, 328KiB, 1920x1280

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 10:08:48 No.1136644 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119524
It can make sense if the car is constructed for maximal efficiency from the start like pic related. It doesn't make sense for a conventional car like a Tesla.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 14:24:26 No.1136665 Report

Quoted By: >>1136684 >>1144040

Years ago I planned on building my own EV, but no motor gave me sufficient performance for my build, and now I don't drive enough to justify it, I just rent a car the 3 times a year I actually need one. Sometimes I wish I had a sporty classic though. Hmm maybe I should ev convert a classic with a notoriously bad engine....

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 15:52:30 No.1136684 Report

Quoted By: >>1136710 >>1143366

>>1136665
>Years ago I planned on building my own EV,

I guess you are from USA or UK?

Because in continental EUrope it's a pain in the ass to get anything selfmade to street legal state.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO magnetization.jpg, 130KiB, 800x450

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 17:28:02 No.1136710 Report

Quoted By: >>1136712 >>1142646

>>1136684
>selfmade
>street legal
Is it even possible for person by law? Don't you have to be a company to legally pass certain certification requirements?
AFAIK you have to get company which holds certain manufacturing standards certificates to certify it for you, or something as similarly horrible sounding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2017 17:40:55 No.1136712 Report

Quoted By:

>>1136710
It's possible (depends somewhat on country in the EU) but it costs thousands of € and lot of time. Best bet is using a street legal combustion engine and convert it to electric motor. It will still cost thousands of € and time for certification (for instance electromagnetic compatibility needs to be proved) but less than building something from scratch.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ur_ALLGAY.jpg, 432KiB, 886x623

Anonymous Sun 24 Dec 2017 17:16:18 No.1138358 Report

Quoted By: >>1138457 >>1138787 >>1138963 >>1143767 >>1143919

Could your guys's tongues be any farther up authoritarian neoliberal ass? Biofuel is the answer but cuck artists like Musk want you to think that only manufacturers of solar cells and batteries should have the privilege of controlling energy.

Meanwhile biofuel reactors could give everyone a distributed energy source that's carbon neutral. They only are pretending to care about the environment but what they really want is to get you guys stuck in coffin agenda 21 studio apartments in the city instead of creating emerging markets with biofuel out in the country.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Dec 2017 20:55:31 No.1138457 Report

Quoted By: >>1138963 >>1143767

>>1138358
Biofuel is shit-tier

Thermally synthesized fuel from nuclear reactors would be better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Dec 2017 20:28:01 No.1138787 Report

Quoted By:

>>1138358
lol who payed you to shill that shit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO electric-cars-solar-sono-motors- (...).jpg, 20KiB, 620x413

Anonymous Tue 26 Dec 2017 12:51:50 No.1138963 Report

Quoted By: >>1139221 >>1139249 >>1142826 >>1152267 >>1152523

>>1138457
>>1138358

solar + electric motor = king

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Dec 2017 13:03:16 No.1138964 Report

Quoted By: >>1139218

>>1119411
>Is EV more environmentally friendly?
Depends entirely on how the electricity is sourced.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 06:56:01 No.1139218 Report

Quoted By: >>1139222

>>1138964
It's easier to regulate a single point of emissions than a million tailpipes. The biggest problem with EVs is the environmental damage caused by lithium and nickel mining.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 07:08:03 No.1139221 Report

Quoted By: >>1139229

>>1138963

Kek, no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 07:09:33 No.1139222 Report

Quoted By: >>1139225

>>1139218
Which is nowhere even remotely close to as bad as oil drilling and refining.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 07:32:43 No.1139225 Report

Quoted By: >>1139226 >>1143920

>>1139222

Incorrect.

Gotta love how the government forces it all offshore though, huh? Making it 100x more dangerous, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly... kind of like how they make the health insurance market a total mess by prohibiting shopping across state lines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 07:45:17 No.1139226 Report

Quoted By:

>>1139225
Keep being wrong as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 08:07:23 No.1139229 Report

Quoted By: >>1139230

>>1139221
Kek, yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 08:15:51 No.1139230 Report

Quoted By: >>1139236

>>1139229
It is physically impossible you fucking idiot. You can't power a car in any meaningful way with built in solar panels. At best you can power climate control and screens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 08:37:47 No.1139236 Report

Quoted By: >>1139242

>>1139230
>It is physically impossible you fucking idiot

lol, go get a life smelly jesus freak

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 08:55:55 No.1139242 Report

Quoted By: >>1139243 >>1142646 >>1142835

>>1139236
Nigger, you are fucking retarded. Electric cars have batteries with tens of kw of capacity. The roof of a minivan for example is ~63 sq ft and most vehicles' roofs are much smaller. Even if you assume 20W per sq ft, which is on the high end, that's only ~1.25kW. even on the Chrysler Pacifica plug-in hybrid's 16kWh battery, a solar roof would take nearly 13 hours at peak efficiency to fully recharge it. But your so fucking stupid that you think an electric car of any size uses less than 1.25kWh of energy per hour of driving.

Kill yourself immediately.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 08:59:06 No.1139243 Report

Quoted By: >>1139244 >>1139247

>>1139242
>It is physically impossible
>It is physically impossible
>It is physically impossible

Stop posting, subhuman trash

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:04:12 No.1139244 Report

Quoted By: >>1139254

>>1139243
Explain how you fit enough solar panels on the roof of a Bolt to make up for the 7.5-16.5 kWh of energy used per hour of driving.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:09:02 No.1139247 Report

Quoted By: >>1139254

>>1139243
Address the point. So far all you've done is prove that you don't know how solar panels work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:14:55 No.1139249 Report

Quoted By: >>1139254

>>1138963
>Under proper conditions the solar cells generate enough energy, to cover 30 kilometers per day with the Sion

That is straight from the company trying to build that car. Best case scenario, the panels produce enough energy for just 30km (18.6 miles) per day. The rest, and likely much more since ideal conditions are not a high percentage thing, comes from plugging into the grid just like every electric car

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ThyssenKrupp_SunRiser.jpg, 232KiB, 1280x854

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:26:37 No.1139254 Report

Quoted By: >>1139257 >>1139259 >>1142646 >>1142835

>>1139244
>>1139247
nice trash talk, mongrels

educate yourselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_car

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prototype_solar-powered_cars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sion_(electric_car)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_(solar_vehicles)

etc.
>>1139249
so what? It's after all 30km for free

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:35:19 No.1139256 Report

Quoted By:

>>1128475
Cummins made their one first, and did it better

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:37:42 No.1139257 Report

Quoted By:

>>1139254
You just admitted that it's totally impractical to power a car just with solar panels attached to the car. You straight up admitted that you're wrong and that you lied.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:40:58 No.1139259 Report

Quoted By: >>1139260 >>1142835

>>1139254
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sion_(electric_car)
>https://sonomotors.com/frequently-asked-questions.html/
>A total of 330 SunPower cells are producing 1,208 W peak at an efficiency of 24 %.

This amount could provide power for up to 40 km in one day. However, this is a theoretical maximum value which is highly unlikely to be achieved under real-life circumstances.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 27 Dec 2017 09:42:28 No.1139260 Report

Quoted By:

>>1139259
That last line was supposed to be greentexted as part of the last point. It is directly copy-pasted from the company's website.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Dec 2017 00:05:49 No.1139506 Report

Quoted By: >>1139513 >>1140052

>>1121653
Are you serious? Nuclear gets government billion dollar guaranteed loans at low interest rates. That is just one subsidy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 Dec 2017 00:29:52 No.1139513 Report

Quoted By:

>>1139506
Yeah, it does

Now, how many megawatt-hours is that per subsidy dollar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Dec 2017 16:20:13 No.1140051 Report

Quoted By: >>1140149 >>1140285 >>1143344

>>1119764
>No anon, nuclear is no longer in vogue with commies
China is rolling out 100+ AP 1000 plants anon. The Dutch are building new nukes, Finland just finished one, etc. Nuclear is very much in vogue with commies and god-fearing christians alike.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Dec 2017 16:23:35 No.1140052 Report

Quoted By:

>>1139506
you need to learn to reading comprehension, brah.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Dec 2017 22:52:45 No.1140149 Report

Quoted By: >>1140166

>>1140051
fake news

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Dec 2017 23:26:11 No.1140166 Report

Quoted By: >>1140285 >>1140297

>>1140149
You can’t hide or fake multi billion deals you cut with Westinghouse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Dec 2017 09:33:44 No.1140285 Report

Quoted By:

>>1140166
> westinghouse bankrupt because toshiba cooked the books

>>1140051
> communists and god-fearing christians
In name only.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Dec 2017 10:15:09 No.1140297 Report

Quoted By:

>>1140166
The real news is that outside of China nuclear energy is stagnating for several years despite
the rising demand for energy while renewables are experiencing a high level of growth. Even in China the investments in renewables are about five times higher than the investments in nuclear energy.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1311626779183.jpg, 69KiB, 600x480

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 00:33:36 No.1142646 Report

Quoted By: >>1142647 >>1142826

>>1136710
Assuming you only need to
1. Fill out paper work
2. Pass EU certification
3. Pass paperwork to get it insured
Yes, its possible. The problem is that you can only use parts that will fit on that paperwork, like engines or frame. Pollution class is avoided by marking it as a EV, or by copying what the parts are for normal gasoline.
Insurance is a different issue. Value is simple to calculate, its roughly parts + man hours. But insurance level isn't, so it will barely be more expensive to insure(for accidents).

>>1139242
>>1139254
So solar is reasonable, to have a method of slight recharge?
Mostly to avoid the battery getting damaged from inactivity drainage?
So for a hybrid vehicle, its still a lot of free range, assuming low commuting distance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 00:37:04 No.1142647 Report

Quoted By: >>1142649 >>1142836

>>1142646
It's a slight recharge that would give you no useful amount of range directly. Better for offsetting power used by subsystems than actually charging the battery.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Rapeface_car.png, 3KiB, 156x80

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 00:48:21 No.1142649 Report

Quoted By: >>1142656

>>1142647
Well
You never defined "useful range".
The only thing mentioned so far, is that a car that will get sun up to 30 degrees off angle, so everything thats the upper part of the frame is basically solar cells.
Which only yields 30km/day of recharge, in central europa.
Thats Sion, of start-up Sono Motors.

For something more realistic, like
Toyota Prius or Auris, Solar will be a small portion of the roof. Which won't even yield something as impressive as the Sion.
For realistic cars, it doesn't really serve any purpose, but charging the battery, to avoid drainage depletion, once the car is stationary.
Which is reasonable to spark up the engine, but not for a full on EV mode.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 01:22:15 No.1142656 Report

Quoted By:

>>1142649
What is your native language? The way you write is weird.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 21:50:36 No.1142826 Report

Quoted By:

>>1142646
>The problem is that you can only use parts that will fit on that paperwork

Depending on national law you will also have to proof things like qualification of the welder, EMT security and (expensive) nonsense like that

>So solar is reasonable

It can be reasonable if the vehicle is constructed that way (huge solar cell surface, low weight, good aerodynamics, low rolling resistance).
Specialized vehicles can go entirely on solar, compromising vehicles like the Sion >>1138963
can still harvest above 20 km range per day.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Borealis3windmills.jpg, 628KiB, 2000x1193

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 22:30:32 No.1142835 Report

Quoted By: >>1143213

>>1139242
I'm not going to go all SI-autist on you but goddamn can you please not mix square feet with watts when talking about solar power, it hurts my head. Insolation at the earth's surface is coincidentally close to 1000W/sqm, so it's super easy to convert from collector area and efficiency to get power output.

>>1139254
Yo, solar car bro here. I have actually sat in and driven the car pictured in your post. Ditto for Stella (your last link). I've raced three solar cars all over the world, two of which I helped build with my own two hands. And I have attended at least one solar car competition every year for over a decade.

Solar cars are a super neat engineering challenge, but it's a 100% impractical concept for an ordinary passenger car. Given how passenger cars are shaped, your average 4-door sedan has far LESS area for solar cells than the little single-seat racecars I built. And they consume orders of magnitude more energy. There's simply no way to build a modern, 4-door, crash-tested, low-NVH, consumer passenger vehicle that generates even a single percent of the energy it consumes via onboard solar cells.

>so what? It's after all 30km for free

Nope, costs money. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The solar array adds weight to your car (the cells themselves, extra wiring, extra power electronics, durable glass covering the cells on what would otherwise be lightweight sheetmetal, etc), and likely adds aerodynamic drag - both of which result in requiring extra energy to move around as a result! Spoiler: You are about 500% better off, dollar for dollar, spending the money to put a solar array on the roof of your house.

>>1139259
Yeah, and that 6sqm SunPower array is $10k in solar cells alone. Would probably add $30k to the cost of the car when you include all the wiring, control electronics, cover glass, etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 22:32:18 No.1142836 Report

Quoted By: >>1142844 >>1150245

>>1142647
> It's a slight recharge that would give you no useful amount of range directly. Better for offsetting power used by subsystems than actually charging the battery.

Energy is energy. Either a solar array on an EV generates enough energy to justify it's weight/cost, or it doesn't. Debating what to use that energy for is the highest level of pedantry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Jan 2018 22:59:03 No.1142844 Report

Quoted By: >>1143222

>>1142836
Okay, then it isn't justified. Full stop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 13:58:56 No.1143213 Report

Quoted By: >>1143663

>>1142835
>Yeah, and that 6sqm SunPower array is $10k in solar cells alone. Would probably add $30k to the cost of the car when you include all the wiring, control electronics, cover glass, etc.

lol (wrong)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 15:05:19 No.1143222 Report

Quoted By: >>1143421

>>1142844
>Full retard

fix

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 22:05:11 No.1143344 Report

Quoted By:

>>1140051
>The Dutch are building new nukes
u wot

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 22:09:35 No.1143345 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119464
>>do more than short day trips by car, flying everywhere else.

>>It also makes me chuckle, because the moment you decide to fly somewhere because your EV can't make the distance

It's called a train dumb fuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 22:18:17 No.1143348 Report

Quoted By:

>>1121521
>>Even steam engines are more efficient.
Yeah, that is why ships and trains still use them.... NOT

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 22:27:39 No.1143354 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119464
>and there's no way that it'll ever be doable in an EV

wrong

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2018-01-09_23-41-08.png, 285KiB, 668x487

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 22:42:35 No.1143360 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119464
>traveling 400+ miles in a day
>there's no way that it'll ever be doable in an EV

Being that dumb

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 23:00:45 No.1143366 Report

Quoted By: >>1143370

>>1136684
This is the one(1) good thing about living in Alabama. As long as you have a matching Vin you can register and insure it as there are no inspections at all. I know people who drive home made dune buggies legally because they welded on part of a frame with the Vin on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 23:06:57 No.1143370 Report

Quoted By: >>1143853

>>1143366
>yokel homebuilt death traps on public roads
>good
Also the other guy is overblowing the issue. First of all there's no singular European legislation, also most modifications will pass most European inspections so long as they're mechanically well executed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:57:35 No.1143421 Report

Quoted By: >>1143641

>>1143222
The scientific explanation was already given you illiterate nigger. The extra weight, the efficiency level, and the time it would function at all makes it not worthwhile.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO GettyImages-544388324-1600x1068.jpg, 369KiB, 1600x1068

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 20:01:05 No.1143641 Report

Quoted By: >>1143642 >>1143665 >>1143728

>>1143421
>ou illiterate nigger. The extra weight, the efficiency level, and the time it would function at all makes it not worthwhile.

Keep spamming your shit. Meanwhile in the real world...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO GettyImages-544388282-1600x1067.jpg, 322KiB, 1600x1067

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 20:02:14 No.1143642 Report

Quoted By: >>1143665 >>1143728

>>1143641

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 21:03:42 No.1143663 Report

Quoted By: >>1143711

>>1143213
Kiddo, I’ve been working with solar cars and in the solar industry for longer that you’ve had pubic hair.

Shitposting one word replies is the lowest and least defective form of trolling. Try harder.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 21:05:51 No.1143665 Report

Quoted By:

>>1143641
>>1143642
Lel at those piece of shit top-contact solar cells. That’s like a 400 watt array, tops. Smoke and mirrors to scam folks out of money; not a real product.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 01:40:21 No.1143711 Report

Quoted By:

>>1143663
>The solar array adds weight to your car

Well no shit, you have to be a genius to figure it out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 03:45:59 No.1143728 Report

Quoted By: >>1143798

>>1143641
>>1143642
Nothing you say is based in fact. You don't even understand the conversation enough to comment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 05:15:29 No.1143747 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119411
Love the idea. Electric cars make cars seem actually interesting to me. Still hate cars though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Synfuel vs. Petroleum Diesel.jpg, 14KiB, 246x211

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 06:53:17 No.1143767 Report

Quoted By:

>>1138457
>>1138358
>Not using synfuel
It's a straight one-for-one petroleum substitute (often of much higher quality, no less) and can be made from just about any feedstock you want. Biomass? You bet. Natural gas? For shizzle. Gasified coal? Why not? Seawater? Hell, if you've got the additional energy to put into it (i.e. from a reactor or PV panels), sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 10:49:19 No.1143798 Report

Quoted By: >>1143857

>>1143728

*cringe*

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 18:03:27 No.1143853 Report

Quoted By: >>1150245

>>1143370
Yes I should only be allowed to drive mexican made death traps on the road. A home made dune buggy is probably safer than 99% of shit on the roads.
Roll cage
4 point harness
Racing seat
Drivers wear a helmet because no wind shield
Built to handle unexpected bumps and obstacles

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 18:11:57 No.1143857 Report

Quoted By: >>1143864

>>1143798
Yes, willful ignorance is cringeworthy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 18:36:59 No.1143862 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119411
>electrically powered commercial ships
Aren't they already technically electrical? Don't they just have Diesel powered generators that run the electric motors? Like on submarines?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 18:42:20 No.1143864 Report

Quoted By: >>1143869

>>1143857
I'm not sure what you niggers are arguing about, but let me jump in here. Solar panels on EVs Connot provide enough power to independently supply the motor. If have an average size car say 6ft wide by 12ft long. Thats, in a perfect world, 72 square feet of area for a solar panel. An average Solar panel can provide 15 Watt per square foot so thats 1080 watts. Now convert that to horsepower assuming 100% efficiency. Thats ~ 1.5 HP. About what powers a childs go kart. That's not to say there is no reason to have a solar panel on a car. First you have to understand the niche that electric cars fill. They are grocery getters and short commuter. These types of vehicles are just sitting %80 of the day. Assuming 12 hours of sunlight that's 10 hours the vehicles is stationary and 10800 Watts of extra power. The effect is cumulative as that weight savings in batteries also extends the range a performance of the vehicle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 18:54:30 No.1143869 Report

Quoted By: >>1143873

>>1143864
Yeah, you're pretty much right, but some retard is "arguing" otherwise. I wouldn't generalize so much about idle time because a lot of cars spend time in garages, carports, and shaded lots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 19:01:21 No.1143873 Report

Quoted By: >>1143886

>>1143869
So city dwellers are out. Let just call EVs what they are. Suburban stay at home mother cars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 19:21:08 No.1143886 Report

Quoted By: >>1143890

>>1143873
The suburbs are even more like than the city to have covered parking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 19:45:17 No.1143890 Report

Quoted By: >>1143904

>>1143886
It's not like you couldn't part in the sun if you actually tried to park in the sun though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 20:30:05 No.1143904 Report

Quoted By:

>>1143890
That'd just make street parking and parking lots more crowded and discourage street and parking lot trees. It's not impossible, just pointless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 21:33:59 No.1143915 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119455
200 miles in winter is 150 or so real ones and with traffic whoops, that means you can't drive from NY to PA with any sort of reliable margin. When you can do the NY to DC run without recharging OR get recharging down to a decent short time (teslas are close), then you aren't a meme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 21:38:08 No.1143917 Report

Quoted By: >>1143990

>>1121578
1950s submarine reactors were a thing, its a LONG solved problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 21:44:29 No.1143919 Report

Quoted By:

>>1138358
Trust me, wayyy too many Chinese want this because they have lots of rural land that can be farmed, if this was possible China would have gladly done it, spoiler alert it isn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Jan 2018 21:45:32 No.1143920 Report

Quoted By:

>>1139225
we sort of ran low on a lot of land places, we still have wells in LA and Texas but the oil is now offshore so we go with the oil.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 00:37:28 No.1143982 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119447
Have you seen those shitty chink power banks that make your touchscreen go crazy or just fuck up with your internal battery? Imagine that but at the niggawatt scale, on a car that can go up to 120km/h.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 00:39:45 No.1143983 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119464
even in your utopia where a full tank gets you a range of 600 miles and an EV gets 5, EVs would be a hit in pretty much every country in the world that's not a massive wasteland full of niggers like USA, russia, india, brazil or china

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 00:59:08 No.1143990 Report

Quoted By:

>>1143917
You don't even understand the problem. It's not a reactor scalability issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 01:42:18 No.1143997 Report

Quoted By: >>1143999

I think eventually cars and trucks will become electric. However, ICEs will always have a place in large ships, airplanes, power generation, etc. And even cars and trucks with ICEs wont be gone for at least snother 50-60 years

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 01:46:48 No.1143998 Report

Quoted By: >>1144000

>>1119419
LOL at hydrogen. Hydrogen is dead. Always was always will be. Its just too difficult and inefficient to store large amounts of hydrogen, not to mention extremely dangerous. You'd have to keep it cryogenically frozen or highly compressed to store a decent amount of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 01:47:35 No.1143999 Report

Quoted By:

>>1143997
>large ships, airplanes, power generation
Can be done, and done better, without ICEs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 01:48:43 No.1144000 Report

Quoted By:

>>1143998
>being this stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 03:18:33 No.1144034 Report

Quoted By: >>1144046 >>1146104

>>1129706
>17 times cheaper
For now. As soon as electric becomes widespread, it will cost just as much as gasoline.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 03:34:57 No.1144040 Report

Quoted By: >>1147918 >>1150702

>>1136665
>ev swap a classic
do it and i will murder you and your family

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Jan 2018 03:53:36 No.1144046 Report

Quoted By:

>>1144034
That's not how electricity works son.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 18 Jan 2018 13:13:00 No.1146104 Report

Quoted By:

>>1144034
gas prices will only go up. While electricity will also go up, that difference will only become larger.
But there will be some kind of tax imposed on BEVs at some pointr...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jan 2018 11:01:49 No.1147918 Report

Quoted By: >>1150357

>>1144040
One question: do you prefer a classic car rusting to hell in some forgotten barn or defiled by converting into EV?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jan 2018 21:11:14 No.1150245 Report

Quoted By:

>>1142836
>Debating what to use that energy for is the highest level of pedantry.
That would be true, if there wasn't such things as wear, and non linear uses of power.
Startup power is a critical part of the current experience of driving a car. If Solar solves that from escalating into a issue, then its useful. I guess its even useful on normal cars, since electric engine starting is really useful in the long term, and can some times be the biggest wear of batteries, even more so with slight cable malfunctions.

And its also not pedantic since 100% solar car would use fucking weeks to recharge, meaning its not feasible as only recharge solution.
So it either has to get power from the grid, on a on property solar cell, most likely covering some garage roof.

>>1143853
Assuming EU certification bother to check for rolling? And weak soldering joints?
Homebrew car isn't that hard to do. Biggest challenge, if certification is required: Would be to find a mechanic to write "ok" on the paperwork. Stuff like emission testing doesn't cost that much in lab, in most of the civilized world.
Deathbuggie has good chances. Then again, its competing with ancient automobiles, which will be far more unsafe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jan 2018 23:00:43 No.1150278 Report

Quoted By: >>1150330

>>1119577
I've learned a lot about evs since I started engineering school. One thing I don't understand why people think EVs will he indestructible and maintenance free. EVs need maintenance too and he job is only going to grow more!complicated as when all things switch from Mechanical or analog to digital.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jan 2018 01:03:15 No.1150330 Report

Quoted By: >>1150332

>>1150278
>people go into massive debt to learn things like this in "engineering school"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_5021.jpg, 117KiB, 1024x682

Anonymous Tue 30 Jan 2018 01:08:10 No.1150332 Report

Quoted By: >>1150346

>>1150330
Mech E I already have a job and someone else paid for it get fucked fag.

> E fags get all butthurt when someone tells them their E cars aren't perfect

There is no doubt they are better ajd likely the future. But if you don't consider reality in an attempt to sell the product, you end up overselling it and huge problems and oversights result setting the product back significantly.
Stop being such a sensitive pussy willow and be realistic about thing you fucking reddit science retard faggot!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jan 2018 01:39:52 No.1150346 Report

Quoted By: >>1150401 >>1152178 >>1155791

>>1150332
I'm an actual engineer that develops EVs. I can't make out most of your broken text, but this part
>only going to grow more!complicated as when all things switch from Mechanical or analog to digital
Is where you exposed your are clueless. Solid state electronics are much simpler and more robust than mechanical components of ICE cars. The hardware coming out now can self diagnose and has massive amounts of redundancy, two things that aren't practical to accomplish mechanically in a car. The service intervals are also much longer, think of the amount of bearing surfaces in an ICE, crankshaft, rods, camshaft alone you have over 30 wearing surfaces alone depending on how many main and cam bearings there are. MUCH more heat generated in an ICE as well. It's impossible to argue that service is more difficult for EVs. I assume your "degree" was from 3rd world country and your job is designing styrofoam cups or something, it's pretty clear you have no clue what's going on with EVs, or really anything for that matter.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO japanese ass.png, 94KiB, 498x374

Anonymous Tue 30 Jan 2018 02:03:40 No.1150357 Report

Quoted By:

>>1147918
>have to pick between "I KNOW WHAT I GOT" boomers and gay ass millenials handling a classic car
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jan 2018 02:10:51 No.1150360 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119411
I think car culture as we know it is going out the window. I can speak for the United States at least. It seems city consolidation and reintegration is on the rise, instead of this suburban hellhole we live in. My hope is cars become less prolific and people start to walk and ride bikes to get around. I agree with pretty much all of these posts and I look forward to a green future.
Did you hear that GM is going fully electric?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jan 2018 03:48:58 No.1150401 Report

Quoted By:

>>1150346
I think what he is saying is that as cars grow more complex they also grow more closely monitored and cotrolled and specific in their service needs. All if the electronic features of modern cars have absolutely made for more diversity in the kinds of failures techs have to analyze and repair. And when you have less components but they are all huge expensive modules, costs are nit going to be lower than an ICE car with cheap to replace parts. For instance, batrery packs or MCUs. Cars are turning into computers now and as they do the option of fix gets less and less competitive with the option of throw away and buy new as electronics are pretty much universally.
Also remember that the drivetrain is the only thing that gets replaced. All of the other shit is still there and even gets more complicated. And most of the jobs my shop performs are brakes, climate control, steering and undercarriage components.
I'm not super worried about the EVs putting us low on business at all but I will definitely not be buying one for as long as possible when I can maintain my own ICE easily.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jan 2018 18:38:36 No.1150546 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119412
Electric vehicles still have brake fluid, transmission fluid, radiators, coolant, etc.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO zombie 222 electric mustang 2.jpg, 1MiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:23:41 No.1150702 Report

Quoted By:

>>1144040
too late
the thing is a monster, 1800 foot pounds of torque. hits 60 in under two seconds

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 13:09:13 No.1152178 Report

Quoted By: >>1152244 >>1152341 >>1152361

>>1150346
You aren’t designing shit, especially when you say “its impossible to argue that service is more difficult for EVs” when you should simply know how complicated the replacement and repair of advanced electronic components can be. Not even going to mention how much more expensive they are either.
Also, SS electronics are sensitive and fragile, and are the opposite of robust. I don’t know whether you’re straight up lying or a retarded troll, but both is more than likely the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 14:13:21 No.1152192 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119463

>what if they poured water in the gas

everything you asked is already a problem with what we have now

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 17:24:33 No.1152244 Report

Quoted By: >>1152378

>>1152178
>Also, SS electronics are sensitive and fragile, and are the opposite of robust
meanwhile, satellites that need to survive launch and massive shifts in hot and cold exist
electronics are only as robust as you can design them to be

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 680_Fusion-8__21094.1511222260[1].jpg, 217KiB, 1024x645

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 18:27:52 No.1152267 Report

Quoted By: >>1152344

>>1138963

wrong. electric + 60 lb vehicle = king

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 21:41:35 No.1152341 Report

Quoted By: >>1152378

>>1152178
Automotive electronics are far more reliable than any moving part. The vast majority of engine management systems never need to be looked at for the service life of the car

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 21:43:58 No.1152344 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152267
Wrong, human power + 20lb vehicle = KANG

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 22:23:39 No.1152361 Report

Quoted By: >>1152378

>>1152178
Everything in your post is wrong. Don't weigh in on things you know nothing about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Feb 2018 23:09:00 No.1152378 Report

Quoted By: >>1152405

>>1152244
And in mass production the quality goes down significantly, especially for vehicles that are designed with planned obsolescence.

>>1152341
That’s 100% wrong. Electronics components break constantly on cars, the only upside is that they don’t need to be routinely replaced like oil.

>>1152361
Nice job proving me wrong by using your feelings

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Feb 2018 01:39:52 No.1152405 Report

Quoted By: >>1152409 >>1152488 >>1153950

>>1152378
What fails more, an EMS or piston rings?
What fails more, an EMS or clutches?
What fails more, an EMS or wheel bearings?
What fails more, an EMS or turbo bearings?
What fails more, an EMS or catalytic converters?
What fails more, an EMS or the various engine gaskets?
What fails more, an EMS or timing belts/chains?

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC04251.jpg, 796KiB, 1763x1250

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Mon 05 Feb 2018 01:48:33 No.1152409 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152405
welletsee,,, ive had, battery failure,, control wire breakage,,,Battery conector fail,, shifty throttle, STUCK throttle<runaway Bike,, Ebrake fail sent me thru a blind stopsign<SPOOOKY!,
, my horn died a sssssslow squawking death,, butwas easy to fix., BEEP! BEEEEEP!
,,,don't blamethe bike,, itard assembly.,
,,,thats over 10 years Ebike, first gen.,
, my system is exposed,,, and still running strong.
pic>properhand signals

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Feb 2018 06:36:00 No.1152488 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152405
Mistaking normal wear for outright failure is your mistake in your argument
When an EMS fails it is more catastrophic and harder to fix

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO range-extender-trailer-electric- (...).jpg, 151KiB, 1200x689

Anonymous Mon 05 Feb 2018 09:58:21 No.1152521 Report

Quoted By: >>1152821 >>1158085

>>1119411
range extenders are neccesary and easily atached to evs so that individuals can resist being cucked by neoliberal governments that wish to limit their ability to travel outside of city limits

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO mjnbuggy.jpg, 62KiB, 600x400

Anonymous Mon 05 Feb 2018 10:02:04 No.1152522 Report

Quoted By: >>1153960

>>1119411
YOU CAN POWER CARS WITH FUCKING SALT WATER

TOO BAD EVERYONE THAT TRIES TO BRING THIS IDEA TO THE MARKET COMMITS "SUICIDE" WITH TWO GUNSHOTS TO THE BACK OF THEIR HEAD

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2739768/The-sports-car-runs-SALTWATER-Vehicle-goes-0-60mph-2-8-seconds-just-approved-EU-roads.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell

>Stanley Meyer died suddenly on March 20, 1998, after dining at a restaurant. His brother claimed that during a meeting with two Belgian investors in a restaurant, Meyer suddenly ran outside, saying "They poisoned me".[1] After an investigation, the Grove City police went with the Franklin County coroner report that ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a cerebral aneurysm.[1] Some of Meyer's supporters believe that he was assassinated to suppress his inventions.[1][2][12]

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Feb 2018 10:03:06 No.1152523 Report

Quoted By:

>>1138963
salt water plus electric motor

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FUCKINTIKITORCHES.jpg, 69KiB, 634x423

Anonymous Mon 05 Feb 2018 10:04:26 No.1152525 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119455
>for private road transport evs are the future because government regulations are going to force conventional ice cars out of market in every civilised part of the world by the 2030s.
this will also create fascism.. ESPECIALLY IN EUROPE

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1513749904938-0.jpg, 90KiB, 640x640

Anonymous Mon 05 Feb 2018 10:06:10 No.1152527 Report

Quoted By: >>1152835

>>1119433
it's HILARIOUS that all the authoritairans are so against biofuels!

this is because an algae biofuel could be maed by poor people in nothing more than a bucket and then they wouldnt have to rely on any kind of infrastructure

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSCN5125.jpg, 2MiB, 3520x2240

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Tue 06 Feb 2018 03:58:54 No.1152821 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152521
trailers,, the size of Semitrucks.,
,,smart,, allwheel power/regen, trailers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Feb 2018 04:07:03 No.1152824 Report

Quoted By: >>1154621

>>1119433
The problem with biofuel, in addition to it being difficult to make high energy long hydrocarbons, is the cost of biofuel is the cost of making it. Petroleum is merely securing rights and extracting. Gasoline would be expensive to make from raw hydrogen and carbon or sources of hydrogen and carbon instead of just pumping premade hydrocarbons out of the ground.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Feb 2018 04:50:18 No.1152835 Report

Quoted By: >>1158135

>>1152527
I bet you think Great Leap Forward backyard pot steel was high quality. Dipshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Feb 2018 12:12:24 No.1153950 Report

Quoted By: >>1153964

>>1152405
Also remember that manufacturers know how ICE works and try to squeeze everything out of it. In result we have engine that is as cheap as can be and still gives enough power and economy.
For electricity manufacturers still are afraid of mishaps so they play safe, but soon they will learn how to make it cheap and workable. And at that time more failures of EMS will happen.

Look at Prius drive, first gen was made from indestructible gears, now they put a chain in there to make it "better".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Feb 2018 13:17:11 No.1153960 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152522
> If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine.[2]

>To date, no peer reviewed studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature. An article in journal Nature described Meyer's claims as one more "water as fuel" myth.[2]

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Feb 2018 13:27:02 No.1153964 Report

Quoted By:

>>1153950
>Look at Prius drive, first gen was made from indestructible gears, now they put a chain in there to make it "better".

Other way around, chain drive from the PSD to the differential was the original design, switched to solid gears on the 3rd generation transmission.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Feb 2018 09:19:26 No.1154621 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152824
>>1152824
>algae
>allgay
>ALL GAY

bro all gay just means all you need is a place to brew fuel... could be on your roof? might as well.. why not

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Feb 2018 20:51:14 No.1155791 Report

Quoted By:

>>1150346
Under regular operating conditions the only times the cam or crank is wearing the bearings is for a brief moment on startup and shutdown. When oil pressure is up, cam and crank are hydraulically suspended on an oil film and aren't actually touching the bearings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Feb 2018 22:59:50 No.1155857 Report

Quoted By:

>>1131099
>how can you tell if a sailor served with the Red Banner Northern Fleet?
>turn off the lights and see if he glows

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Feb 2018 01:50:15 No.1155933 Report

Quoted By:

>>>1119486
>>Not rolling your windows down or driving a convertible
>lrn2enjoy driving noob.
I don't want to live next to a loud, smelly and dirty freeway so why would I choose to blast myself in the face with that via open windows/top down?

Otherwise you're sticking to the scenic routes and your 400 mi journey is a huge waste of resources to travel 100 mi as the crow flies.

I'm sorry, but eventually us Americans are going to have to drop the notion of driving willy-nilly at the drop of the hat on a whim.

Granted it would be nice if we had better regional options than Greyhound and amcrash.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Feb 2018 18:04:35 No.1156106 Report

Quoted By:

>>1119488
>Because there's trains that go directly into the middle of the isolated national parks we like to visit

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC04274.jpg, 3MiB, 2592x1944

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Wed 21 Feb 2018 05:29:28 No.1158085 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152521

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_5435.jpg, 280KiB, 873x790

Anonymous Wed 21 Feb 2018 09:57:22 No.1158135 Report

Quoted By:

>>1152835
> what r filters

> making a combustible liquid using plants id the same thing as metallurgy

Fucking faggot

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

EV