Electric Vehicles, Hybrids...Battery tech... Land Air and Sea. Let's See 'em.

Is the internal combustion engine doomed to history

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • No

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 5 12.8%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • ...er... what was the question again?

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    39
Provided the quoted ranges are established to a known standard by an independent source I have no issue with that.
However, where I do have an issue is that these are only given for typical summer temperatures.
IMO they should also give them for temperatures nearer freezing as that would be significantly lower.

I was caught by this when I picked up my plug in Hybrid in December (winter in the UK).
The quoted range was 44 miles on a charge and I managed 29. It was only when I queried this that the difference in range due to temperature was explained to me.
Come the summer and the 44 miles was achievable.

Perhaps rather than manufacturers being dishonest it is more a case of not giving the full story?

IMO this is something the legislators need to impose but the cynic in thinks they won't as it is a negative for EV's.
 
Fully agree that manufacturers will quote figures in a way they see as favourable. But I think the point @Mailman was making in this posting:

https://www.xs650.com/threads/elect...and-air-and-sea-lets-see-em.61181/post-803033

is that somebody at Tesla decided that it was ok to write software that deliberately exaggerated - told porkies. To me, that's a big step beyond not giving the full story.
If the manufactures quote expected range is by using defined method, i.e. EPA, WLTP or NEDC then the results should be reproducible by anyone with the appropriate test facility.
If they have doctored the vehicle so the test exaggerated the range then I agree that is unacceptable. VW fell foul of such tricks some years ago.

If the in car software that predicts range was written to be deliberately misleading then IMO that wouldn't have been a particularly bright idea as the driver would soon realise that it was over optimistic. This would then come back to haunt the manufacturer as customers make complaints, the dealer network makes claims for work investigating the 'problem' which costs the manufacturer.
The story develops from there...........
 
1691262811882.png


Companies working on electric air transport face different problems, but noise is common. The start-up Whisper Aero has proposed a solution in the form of the world's quietest engine for electric planes.

Here's What We Know​

Whisper Aero has unveiled a mock-up of the propulsion system. It is called Whisper Jet. According to the developers, it is the world's quietest and most efficient engine for electric planes. It is "100 times quieter than similar engines" and its efficiency has been "increased by 20 per cent".

The start-up has already tested its development and compared it with peers. The tests took place at night in the same sound environment. As it turned out, with background noise at 30 dBA, the sound of 6" propellers cannot be heard at a distance of 61 metres.

The start-up also tested the propulsion system at a distance of 30.5 metres with its counterparts. The Whisper Jet showed the best performance. The noise level was 34.1 dBA. The Schubeler and CAMcarbon results were 44.9 / 52.1 dBA and 49.4 / 58.7 dBA respectively.

https://gagadget.com/en/262339-whis...opulsion-system-is-inaudible-from-61-metres-/
 
The link takes to a discussion of lithium mining, which countries produce it, the environmental impacts. All good stuff, but also interesting comments on the Murrican way of life, the central role of the car, the poor public transport and the nigh impossibility of walking or cycling in many US cities. There are of course similar issues in other urbanised countries, including Britain.

Bill Bryson, 'A Walk in the Woods', talks about towns where the infrastructure is totally pedestrian hostile - funny anecdotes about trying to get on foot from a motel room to a restaurant or even a supermarket, climbing metal barriers, risking life & limb to cross four-lane urban roads, walking across endless car parks on a quest to find something to eat. And those are just small towns along the Appalachian Way.

In the UK, we are told sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles will be banned from 2030. Our politicians often get muddled up and say we're banning fossil fuel vehicles from 2030 - uh? Excuse me?

But a mass change-over to electric vehicles won't be as easy as just flicking a switch, so to speak. We would need to re-think our towns, the ways we commute, our casual use of the automobile, our economies, power generation and distribution. Our whole culture and way of life.

Gonna be interesting.
 
That’s very interesting! So they drilled down to a depth of a mile and a half and we’re able to hit temperatures of 347 degrees, since water boils at 212 degrees, I assume they create steam to drive turbine generators? I wonder if that can be duplicated all over the country? And how cost effective that type of power is?
I think the big thing here was using oil and gas technology directed drilling to go sideways at the hot rocks depth.
Still gotta be in a hot spot.
These guys are supposed to be able to go REALLY deep at a fraction of previous method's cost.
https://newatlas.com/energy/quaise-deep-geothermal-drilling-questions/#gallery:1
That allows getting to REALLY hot about anywhere not just where there's geothermal activity.

Temperatures at 20 km depth are above the supercritical point of water, which allows ten times more energy to be transferred given the same volumetric flow.[6] The supercritical water is then used in a supercritical steam generator which may previously have been powered with fossil fuels.

I tried to find recent news about Quaise and deep drilling but the web is dark, anyone else want to try?
A tiny blurb mentioned electrical arcing as a problem....


some more; https://energy.mit.edu/news/mit-spi...lls-made-from-the-deepest-holes-in-the-world/
 
Last edited:
I think the big thing here was using oil and gas technology directed drilling to go sideways at the hot rocks depth.
Still gotta be in a hot spot.
These guys are supposed to be able to go REALLY deep at a fraction of previous method's cost.
https://newatlas.com/energy/quaise-deep-geothermal-drilling-questions/#gallery:1
That allows getting to REALLY hot about anywhere not just where there's geothermal activity.

Temperatures at 20 km depth are above the supercritical point of water, which allows ten times more energy to be transferred given the same volumetric flow.[6] The supercritical water is then used in a supercritical steam generator which may previously have been powered with fossil fuels.

I tried to find recent news about Quaise and deep drilling but the web is dark, anyone else want to try?
A tiny blurb mentioned electrical arcing as a problem....


some more; https://energy.mit.edu/news/mit-spi...lls-made-from-the-deepest-holes-in-the-world/
Lot's of good things about that approach.......uses existing grid infrastructure (no new permitting process), maintains local tax bases(political support). Don't know about the safety of poking holes in earth's crust to bring heat to the surface.
 
Last edited:
Some have tried drilling right into magma pockets it raises in the hole cools and plugs itself off. Even a 3' diameter hole is tiny by volcano standards.
 
Lot's of good things about that approach.......uses existing grid infrastructure (no new permitting process), maintains local tax bases(political support). Don't know about the safety of poking holes in earth's crust to bring heat to the surface.
Don't wanna drill tooooo deep - might wake the Earth up and it won't like that.
 
I've occasionally wondered about using shallow geothermal to provide a temperature differential to run a sterling motor, turning a low torque/low amp generator, in a large bank. Almost zero operating cost, and would run in either hot or cold weather...
 
NZ has been using Geothermal power since 1958. That power station now produces the largest quantity of power, (must have been expanded in 2008), compared to all the other Geo power stations. All up geothermal power production is 17% of NZ's power needs.

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

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/geothermal-power-stations-new-zealand/
The third-largest geothermal power station in New Zealand is Nga Awa Purua, which is another power plant based at the edge of the Taupo Volcanic Zone, in the Rotokawa field.

Named Rotokawa II, the NZ$430m ($308m) project was developed through a joint venture between Mercury Energy and the Tauhara North No 2 Trust.

Construction of the 140-MW capacity power station began in May 2008, with commissioning completed in May 2010. It now meets about 3% of the country’s electricity requirements.

Generating an annual output of 1,100GWh, which can power about 140,000 homes, the plant lies right beside the existing Rotokawa stage I power station. Nga Awa Purua’s steam turbine is the world’s largest single shaft, triple flash geothermal turbine.

https://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/geothermal-in-nz/what-is-geothermal/
Some extracted info...........Well worth a read. Especially the Geothermal Emissions drop box

The capacity of installed geothermal electricity generation worldwide is equivalent to the combustion of nearly 30 million tonnes of coal or the output of about 10 nuclear plants.

Geothermal energy is effectively a renewable resource, which does not consume any fuel or produce significant emissions. Although some geothermal fields have been degraded, none have been exhausted and sustainable development is possible. Geothermal energy also has the advantage, over other renewables, that it is independent of climatic variation.

The emissions factors for geothermal power stations in New Zealand for the calendar year 2018 are given in the table and figures below. These are the emissions of CO2(eq) released from the geothermal fluid during operation of the plant. The median emissions factor for 2018 is 62 gCO2(eq)/kWh and this is a standard measure of the central tendency of this kind of dataset with outliers. The use of the median (and other percentiles) is the same approach as used by the IPCC in the 2011 Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Another useful statistic is the weighted average of 76 gCO2(eq)/kWh, which is weighted using the total energy generated from each plant, thus accounting for the fact that not all plants are the same size and hence their individual numbers for emission factor do not carry the same weight.

For comparison, the emissions factors from other renewable energy sources during operation are:

- Hydro: > 0 gCO2(eq)/kWh (some methane is emitted from decomposition of organic material in the reservoir, though this is hard to quantify)
- Solar photovoltaic (PV): 0 gCO2(eq)/kWh (no emissions from sunlight)
- Wind: 0 gCO2(eq)/kWh (no emissions from wind)

And emissions factors from fossil fuel plants from fuel combustion during operation are (national average NZ, source MBIE):

- Coal: 970 gCO2(eq)/kWh
- Natural gas (open-cycle gas turbine): 530 gCO2(eq)/kWh
- Natural gas (combined-cycle gas turbine): 390 gCO2(eq)/kWh
 
Last edited:
Back
Top