Electric Cars Pose Little Threat to Oil Demand
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Welcome to VWvortex - The Volkswagen Enthusiast Website.
    You're currently browsing VWvortex site as a guest. Please sign up or sign in and take part in the conversation. VWvortex has over 750,000+ registered users discussing a wide variety of Volkswagen related topics. Take a minute to sign up to enjoy all the features of VWvortex.
    The Car Lounge
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 47
    1. #1
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 8th, 2017
      Location
      Calgary, AB, Canada
      Posts
      311

      Electric Cars Pose Little Threat to Oil Demand

      https://www.ft.com/content/502c4e3c-...0-768954394623
      https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

      I want to create a counter thread to the "other" thread about gasoline cars going Do Do. According to an environmentally neutral organization (Financial Times) - oil and gas isn't going anywhere. Hooray!

    2. #2
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 8th, 2017
      Location
      Calgary, AB, Canada
      Posts
      311
      On the other hand there's this:

      https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

      VW wants to take on Tesla and beat them.

    3. #3
      Member xo_vw's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 30th, 2009
      Location
      Southern California
      Posts
      2,635
      I think if there was a major shift across every industry then oil would take a big hit. Electric airplanes? Cargo ships? Semi- trucks? That's obviously years and years away though.

    4. #4
      Member
      Join Date
      Aug 23rd, 2013
      Location
      South of Heaven
      Posts
      1,029
      Quote Originally Posted by xo_vw View Post
      I think if there was a major shift across every industry then oil would take a big hit. Electric airplanes? Cargo ships? Semi- trucks? That's obviously years and years away though.
      You hit it dead on. If you look at the use of oil you will see industry and transportation are the biggest users then cars are down there comparatively. The top 10 largest cargo ships use more oil and put out more pollution than every car on earth combined.
      - 2000 Audi A4
      - 1994 Corrado VR6
      - 1991 Jetta Syncro Coupe

    5. #5
      Volkswagen has always had bad luck with electrical systems.

    6. #6
      Quote Originally Posted by xo_vw View Post
      I think if there was a major shift across every industry then oil would take a big hit. Electric airplanes? Cargo ships? Semi- trucks? That's obviously years and years away though.
      Electric jet aircraft won't happen. Jets rely on core thrust from expanding exhaust gases for a majority portion of total thrust at high altitudes where the fan loses efficiency. This is a simple limitation of the laws of physics and how turbine engines need to operate at sea-level and 51,000-foot atmospheric environments. Also, aircraft need to shed weight as they consume fuel for both structural and range reasons. Instead, existing jet engines can run on renewable biojet fuel without modification, meaning only the fuel needs to change, not the hardware.

      Currently exploring a masters degree in this field. "Be the change", etc.

    7. #7
      Member xo_vw's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 30th, 2009
      Location
      Southern California
      Posts
      2,635
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      Electric jet aircraft won't happen. Jets rely on core thrust from expanding exhaust gases for a majority portion of total thrust at high altitudes where the fan loses efficiency. This is a simple limitation of the laws of physics and how turbine engines need to operate at sea-level and 51,000-foot atmospheric environments. Also, aircraft need to shed weight as they consume fuel for both structural and range reasons. Instead, existing jet engines can run on renewable biojet fuel without modification, meaning only the fuel needs to change, not the hardware.

      Currently exploring a masters degree in this field. "Be the change", etc.
      I didn't know that and was just thinking about it when I made that post. Interesting!

    8. #8
      Member BUJonathan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2nd, 2004
      Location
      Chicagoland, IL
      Posts
      2,938
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      Electric jet aircraft won't happen. Jets rely on core thrust from expanding exhaust gases for a majority portion of total thrust at high altitudes where the fan loses efficiency. This is a simple limitation of the laws of physics and how turbine engines need to operate at sea-level and 51,000-foot atmospheric environments. Also, aircraft need to shed weight as they consume fuel for both structural and range reasons. Instead, existing jet engines can run on renewable biojet fuel without modification, meaning only the fuel needs to change, not the hardware.

      Currently exploring a masters degree in this field. "Be the change", etc.
      I realize this thread is about oil demand, but renewable fuel combustion in a turbojet/turbofan engine is likely an interim step only since it doesn't address the emissions side of the equation.

      Also, virtually every large commercial aircraft today uses a high-bypass turbofan engine. A significant portion of the thrust comes from fan air...

      Currently actually doing this in industry.
      =

    9. #9
      Quote Originally Posted by xo_vw View Post
      I didn't know that and was just thinking about it when I made that post. Interesting!
      The plane I fly has three Honeywell TFE731 engines, each producing 4650 pounds of thrust (at sea-level, max continuous rating). At low altitudes (sea-level to maybe 10,000 feet) the fan produces about 60% of total thrust, and the core exhaust produces about 40% of total thrust. As you climb and the atmosphere becomes less dense both the fan and the core lose efficiency, but the fan loses efficiency at a much greater rate. At high cruise altitude, the fan is only producing about 40% of the (now-lower) total, and the core is producing about 60% of the total thrust. An electric fanjet would be useless at high altitude since there would be ONLY a fan and no core exhaust thrust at all. That's why a combustion solution is vital to jet operations, unlike any other mode of transportation. Those engines burn a sum total of about 2200 pounds of Jet-A per hour overall (say about 330 USGallons). That's a ****ton of fossil carbon being dumped into the atmosphere, not to mention the overhead CO2 produced during extraction/refining/transportation of that fuel before it's used. If that fuel were replaced with, say biojet derived from algae, there would be net-zero CO2 added to the atmosphere because the carbon came FROM the atmosphere to grow the algae to begin with. This can be done with no change to the design of the engines, which are already VERY simple and VERY reliable. Changing the fuel instantly changes the plane to be totally 'green' in operation. Couple that with the limited supply and distribution needed (only to airports, not to every corner fuel station), and there is really no question that it's the greatest good from the least effort of any renewables project.

      HOWEVER, that has ****-all to do with cars. Just like switching to battery EV cars has ****-all to do with cargo ships, trains, trucks, or airplanes. People like to drag up the OTR truck / airplane / ship straw-man whenever the discussion of mass changeover of passenger cars to battery-electric power comes up. Each one of those modes of transportation has their own unique challenges, operating environments, and business/regulatory environments. They DO belong in discussions of how to address those challenges individually, they do NOT belong in a discussion of passenger car electrification. They are apples and oranges, and saying "yeah but they pollute more so cars don't make a difference" is an incorrect approach. Each is a separate case that equally merits a solution.

      • Trucks can be battery powered (waiting for Tesla's upcoming announcement), but for long-haul trucking things like catenary wires are doable if we just have the will to do so. They already work for trains, trolleys, busses, etc. Short-haul can be battery or biodiesel.
      • Piston airplanes (light single-engine) that already exist (most of the fleet) are going to need a drop-in replacement for AvGas. That's already in the works, since the current highly-leaded AvGas really needs to go away.
      • Many new light piston-engine airplanes can be had with diesel engines that run on jet fuel - which is just diesel fuel, really. So biojet would work for them. (see: new Piper Archer DX, Diamond DA42 and DA62, for examples).
      • Jet aircraft need a drop-in replacement biofuel. It exists. There needs to be incentives to make it happen, and everyone's just standing around staring at their feet. I want to change that.
      • Ships could be engineered to use sails for ocean crossings, cutting their emissions drastically. It would require innovation in engineering (= lots of jobs).
      • Batteries are the best solution for cars. Battery tech will continue to improve and be innovated every year.

    10. #10
      Quote Originally Posted by BUJonathan View Post
      renewable fuel combustion in a turbojet/turbofan engine is likely an interim step only since it doesn't address the emissions side of the equation.
      Renewable fuel EXACTLY addresses the emissions side of the equation.
      Take fossil carbon from ground and put into atmosphere (net increase) vs. take atmospheric carbon --> plant (algae) --> fuel --> atmosphere (net zero).

      Quote Originally Posted by BUJonathan View Post
      Also, virtually every large commercial aircraft today uses a high-bypass turbofan engine. A significant portion of the thrust comes from fan air...
      See my post above.

      Quote Originally Posted by BUJonathan View Post
      Currently actually doing this in industry.
      Mmm hmm...


    11. #11
      Member
      Join Date
      Jun 29th, 2016
      Location
      Manhattan Island
      Posts
      170
      I think we are witnessing the best, unintentional (and likely short term) thread jack in TCL history!
      Formally Known As | DTMTrini

    12. #12
      Member Blade3562's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 17th, 2012
      Location
      Garfield Heights, OH
      Posts
      3,084
      I'm sorry, but I don't see bio-fuel being common in aviation for years to come. I work at a reliever airport and most of the aircraft operating here were manufactured in the 70/80s/90s. Unless you can come up with an easy way to convert these guys over or offer incentives to modernize they will keep flying the older Citations and Lears with rebuilds. Even the newer aircraft can't easily be converted over to biofuel. We've had a couple guys fly in with Cessna 152/172s that have Turbo Diesel retrofits, and they state the performance envelope is entirely different from the original 4 cylinder, not to mention for safety you need redundancy which doesn't exist in most motors outside of aviation.

      Another issue from what I recall is the fuel itself isn't very "Stable"(I'm blanking on the word I want). It becomes a gel after very short periods. If you park an a/c like many people do it may have many pounds of unusable fuel you'll need to drain. Just like ethanol in older cars, it's hard on rubber seals.

      I graduated in 2015, and in our aircraft design systems classes didn't even touch biofuels other than to mention that they are testing them.



      Side Note: American and Delta still fly those terribly inefficient MD-80s and MD-88s regularly, when are those things going to die. I love the replacement Embraer E-170/175/190/195s.

    13. #13
      Senior Member AZGolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 6th, 2000
      Location
      Phoenix area
      Posts
      28,713
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      Renewable fuel EXACTLY addresses the emissions side of the equation.
      Take fossil carbon from ground and put into atmosphere (net increase) vs. take atmospheric carbon --> plant (algae) --> fuel --> atmosphere (net zero).
      He meant emissions, not greenhouse gasses. Switching the fuel type doesn't make a huge amount of improvement in the overall environmental impact of a jet.

    14. #14
      Senior Member AZGolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 6th, 2000
      Location
      Phoenix area
      Posts
      28,713
      Quote Originally Posted by Blade3562 View Post
      Side Note: American and Delta still fly those terribly inefficient MD-80s and MD-88s regularly, when are those things going to die.
      They'll die when airlines have to pay more than then $1.67/gallon for jet fuel that they're paying now. I've read a number of articles in the past few years about airlines delaying taking delivery of new planes because fuel got so cheap that it was significantly more affordable to keep the old planes in service rather than switch to newer (more expensive) planes that burned less fuel.

    15. #15
      Quote Originally Posted by Blade3562 View Post
      I'm sorry, but I don't see bio-fuel being common in aviation for years to come. I work at a reliever airport and most of the aircraft operating here were manufactured in the 70/80s/90s. Unless you can come up with an easy way to convert these guys over or offer incentives to modernize they will keep flying the older Citations and Lears with rebuilds. Even the newer aircraft can't easily be converted over to biofuel. We've had a couple guys fly in with Cessna 152/172s that have Turbo Diesel retrofits, and they state the performance envelope is entirely different from the original 4 cylinder, not to mention for safety you need redundancy which doesn't exist in most motors outside of aviation.

      Another issue from what I recall is the fuel itself isn't very "Stable"(I'm blanking on the word I want). It becomes a gel after very short periods. If you park an a/c like many people do it may have many pounds of unusable fuel you'll need to drain. Just like ethanol in older cars, it's hard on rubber seals.

      I graduated in 2015, and in our aircraft design systems classes didn't even touch biofuels other than to mention that they are testing them.



      Side Note: American and Delta still fly those terribly inefficient MD-80s and MD-88s regularly, when are those things going to die. I love the replacement Embraer E-170/175/190/195s.

      This is why biofuel or synthetic fuel with the same characteristics look most likely to succeed. It has to be compatible with the current infrastructures and equipments. Electric vehicles are going nowhere. A few gadget lovers will pay for them as trendy, but they are basically just another pipedream.

    16. #16
      Member Omega360's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 13th, 2014
      Location
      Ohio
      Posts
      533
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      The plane I fly has three Honeywell TFE731 engines, each producing 4650 pounds of thrust (at sea-level, max continuous rating). At low altitudes (sea-level to maybe 10,000 feet) the fan produces about 60% of total thrust, and the core exhaust produces about 40% of total thrust. As you climb and the atmosphere becomes less dense both the fan and the core lose efficiency, but the fan loses efficiency at a much greater rate. At high cruise altitude, the fan is only producing about 40% of the (now-lower) total, and the core is producing about 60% of the total thrust. An electric fanjet would be useless at high altitude since there would be ONLY a fan and no core exhaust thrust at all. That's why a combustion solution is vital to jet operations, unlike any other mode of transportation. Those engines burn a sum total of about 2200 pounds of Jet-A per hour overall (say about 330 USGallons). That's a ****ton of fossil carbon being dumped into the atmosphere, not to mention the overhead CO2 produced during extraction/refining/transportation of that fuel before it's used. If that fuel were replaced with, say biojet derived from algae, there would be net-zero CO2 added to the atmosphere because the carbon came FROM the atmosphere to grow the algae to begin with. This can be done with no change to the design of the engines, which are already VERY simple and VERY reliable. Changing the fuel instantly changes the plane to be totally 'green' in operation. Couple that with the limited supply and distribution needed (only to airports, not to every corner fuel station), and there is really no question that it's the greatest good from the least effort of any renewables project.

      HOWEVER, that has ****-all to do with cars. Just like switching to battery EV cars has ****-all to do with cargo ships, trains, trucks, or airplanes. People like to drag up the OTR truck / airplane / ship straw-man whenever the discussion of mass changeover of passenger cars to battery-electric power comes up. Each one of those modes of transportation has their own unique challenges, operating environments, and business/regulatory environments. They DO belong in discussions of how to address those challenges individually, they do NOT belong in a discussion of passenger car electrification. They are apples and oranges, and saying "yeah but they pollute more so cars don't make a difference" is an incorrect approach. Each is a separate case that equally merits a solution.

      • Trucks can be battery powered (waiting for Tesla's upcoming announcement), but for long-haul trucking things like catenary wires are doable if we just have the will to do so. They already work for trains, trolleys, busses, etc. Short-haul can be battery or biodiesel.
      • Piston airplanes (light single-engine) that already exist (most of the fleet) are going to need a drop-in replacement for AvGas. That's already in the works, since the current highly-leaded AvGas really needs to go away.
      • Many new light piston-engine airplanes can be had with diesel engines that run on jet fuel - which is just diesel fuel, really. So biojet would work for them. (see: new Piper Archer DX, Diamond DA42 and DA62, for examples).
      • Jet aircraft need a drop-in replacement biofuel. It exists. There needs to be incentives to make it happen, and everyone's just standing around staring at their feet. I want to change that.
      • Ships could be engineered to use sails for ocean crossings, cutting their emissions drastically. It would require innovation in engineering (= lots of jobs).
      • Batteries are the best solution for cars. Battery tech will continue to improve and be innovated every year.
      Awesome post, thanks
      "Look pal, I'm an engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like: what is beauty? Because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of Philosophy. I solve practical problems!" ~ Dell C.
      Proud owner of a 2015 GTI SE (midnight blue) with performance pack, lighting package and 6 speed

    17. #17
      Member Blade3562's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 17th, 2012
      Location
      Garfield Heights, OH
      Posts
      3,084
      Quote Originally Posted by BlakeV View Post
      This is why biofuel or synthetic fuel with the same characteristics look most likely to succeed. It has to be compatible with the current infrastructures and equipments. Electric vehicles are going nowhere. A few gadget lovers will pay for them as trendy, but they are basically just another pipedream.
      One thing I forgot to add. The quickest solution are these bad boys called WheelTug. The largest waste of fuel is taxiing, especially at large airports. Using an electric motor powered by the APU would save quite a bit of fuel and eliminate the need for huge fleets of tugs on the ground.


    18. #18
      Member rich!'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 18th, 1999
      Location
      SoFLA
      Posts
      9,567
      Quote Originally Posted by xo_vw View Post
      I think if there was a major shift across every industry then oil would take a big hit. Electric airplanes? Cargo ships? Semi- trucks? That's obviously years and years away though.
      I dunno, if you dent a 1m/bpd - may have an impact. The CAFE standard (well if that sticks around because need to drill more oil for some reason) by 2025 calls for reduction of 2m/bpd by just upping the 45mpg standard. Now if cars in general continue their mpg trend. Sure, electric cars technically did little to pose a threat.

      https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...m?page=oil_use

      Product Annual consumption (million barrels per day)

      Finished motor gasoline 9.178
      Distillate fuel oil (diesel fuel and heating oil) 3.995
      Hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGL) 2.549
      Kerosene-type jet fuel 1.548
      Still gas 0.683


      for the mean time. enjoy oil pumping wars as they are imploding and think we are exporting 4x as much than a year ago (edit link > https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...s=MCREXUS2&f=M )



      Last edited by rich!; 05-18-2017 at 08:05 AM.
      FireVortex (sorry, no more)... bunch of VWs.
      I came back for #Dieselgate

    19. #19
      Quote Originally Posted by Blade3562 View Post
      I'm sorry, but I don't see bio-fuel being common in aviation for years to come. I work at a reliever airport and most of the aircraft operating here were manufactured in the 70/80s/90s. Unless you can come up with an easy way to convert these guys over or offer incentives to modernize they will keep flying the older Citations and Lears with rebuilds. Even the newer aircraft can't easily be converted over to biofuel. We've had a couple guys fly in with Cessna 152/172s that have Turbo Diesel retrofits, and they state the performance envelope is entirely different from the original 4 cylinder,
      You didn't fully read the prior posts.

      You are mixing "Citations and Lears" (jets) with "Cessna 172s" (piston). Two very different situations.

      1. Jets DO NOT need to be 'converted' to run on biojet. The fuel is a 'drop-in' replacement, and is 100% compatible with legacy fuel (since tanks will never be completely empty, and could be fueled partially from different sources.) Five such fuels exist, are approved for usage, and are approved by the engine manufacturers. https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=85425.

      2. For piston engines, the first step is to get away from heavily-leaded AvGas. Fuels are being tested (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...e-leaded-avgas) but they are not renewables. A renewable gasoline replacement is much more difficult - if not impossible - compared to diesel (jet) fuel. Old light-single aircraft will probably never see a renewable fuel, but they are a tiny contribution to overall emissions/GHG.

      3. Aircraft engines are not usually specific to the make/model of the aircraft; one engine may be used across many different models. The most common engine in bizjets today (that is, manufactured since the mid 1970s) is probably the TFE731 family - with variations in rated power, it's been installed on tens of thousands of Falcon, Hawker, Lear, Westwind, Astra, G150, Sabreliner, JetStar, certain Citation models, and others. The most common engine in turboprops is the Pratt&Whitney PT6 family. Approval by the engine manufacturers for these new fuels (which has been done) instantly grants a broad swath of aircraft compatibility. EDIT: This is in major contrast to cars, where not only do most manufacturers make their own engines, the variation across models/trims/years/markets is very complex.

      4. Diesel *retrofits* for piston aircraft are extremely rare. Yes the performance envelope is different, usually in a good way.

      Quote Originally Posted by Blade3562 View Post
      not to mention for safety you need redundancy which doesn't exist in most motors outside of aviation.
      WTF are you talking about? Nobody's saying to fit a VW TDI engine on an airplane. Aircraft diesel engines have all needed redundancy. The new Piper Archer is available with the Continental CD-155, for example. Where piston aircraft engines are developed from automotive ones (like the Austro engines on the Diamond DA42/DA62), the installed product has been reengineered to meet all certifications requirements.
      Last edited by OOOO-A3; 05-18-2017 at 10:29 AM.

    20. #20
      Member nemesis099's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 16th, 2002
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      5,814
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      The plane I fly has three Honeywell TFE731 engines, each producing 4650 pounds of thrust (at sea-level, max continuous rating). At low altitudes (sea-level to maybe 10,000 feet) the fan produces about 60% of total thrust, and the core exhaust produces about 40% of total thrust. As you climb and the atmosphere becomes less dense both the fan and the core lose efficiency, but the fan loses efficiency at a much greater rate. At high cruise altitude, the fan is only producing about 40% of the (now-lower) total, and the core is producing about 60% of the total thrust. An electric fanjet would be useless at high altitude since there would be ONLY a fan and no core exhaust thrust at all. That's why a combustion solution is vital to jet operations, unlike any other mode of transportation. Those engines burn a sum total of about 2200 pounds of Jet-A per hour overall (say about 330 USGallons). That's a ****ton of fossil carbon being dumped into the atmosphere, not to mention the overhead CO2 produced during extraction/refining/transportation of that fuel before it's used. If that fuel were replaced with, say biojet derived from algae, there would be net-zero CO2 added to the atmosphere because the carbon came FROM the atmosphere to grow the algae to begin with. This can be done with no change to the design of the engines, which are already VERY simple and VERY reliable. Changing the fuel instantly changes the plane to be totally 'green' in operation. Couple that with the limited supply and distribution needed (only to airports, not to every corner fuel station), and there is really no question that it's the greatest good from the least effort of any renewables project.

      HOWEVER, that has ****-all to do with cars. Just like switching to battery EV cars has ****-all to do with cargo ships, trains, trucks, or airplanes. People like to drag up the OTR truck / airplane / ship straw-man whenever the discussion of mass changeover of passenger cars to battery-electric power comes up. Each one of those modes of transportation has their own unique challenges, operating environments, and business/regulatory environments. They DO belong in discussions of how to address those challenges individually, they do NOT belong in a discussion of passenger car electrification. They are apples and oranges, and saying "yeah but they pollute more so cars don't make a difference" is an incorrect approach. Each is a separate case that equally merits a solution.

      • Trucks can be battery powered (waiting for Tesla's upcoming announcement), but for long-haul trucking things like catenary wires are doable if we just have the will to do so. They already work for trains, trolleys, busses, etc. Short-haul can be battery or biodiesel.
      • Piston airplanes (light single-engine) that already exist (most of the fleet) are going to need a drop-in replacement for AvGas. That's already in the works, since the current highly-leaded AvGas really needs to go away.
      • Many new light piston-engine airplanes can be had with diesel engines that run on jet fuel - which is just diesel fuel, really. So biojet would work for them. (see: new Piper Archer DX, Diamond DA42 and DA62, for examples).
      • Jet aircraft need a drop-in replacement biofuel. It exists. There needs to be incentives to make it happen, and everyone's just standing around staring at their feet. I want to change that.
      • Ships could be engineered to use sails for ocean crossings, cutting their emissions drastically. It would require innovation in engineering (= lots of jobs).
      • Batteries are the best solution for cars. Battery tech will continue to improve and be innovated every year.

      I agree if we focus on cars that will also have an impact on the price of oil in the other industries not to mention it will really help with the air we breath closest to home.

      This also removes oil price shocks from directly affecting commuting which would really help stabilize the economy as fuel costs going up can shock the economy.

      Saying all of that I can agree that Electric cars could post little threat in the short term as battery tech still needs to find ways to charge faster and have better economy in cold weather. Talking to Tesla owners when it drops below 32 degrees F they can loose a good portion of the range due to heating.

    21. #21
      Quote Originally Posted by BlakeV View Post
      This is why biofuel or synthetic fuel with the same characteristics look most likely to succeed. It has to be compatible with the current infrastructures and equipments. Electric vehicles are going nowhere. A few gadget lovers will pay for them as trendy, but they are basically just another pipedream.
      You clearly didn't read or comprehend anything that I posted. As usual, you went straight to your standard, ill-informed, anti-EV statement.

      I made it completely clear that AIRCRAFT are a different situation from SHIPS which are a different situation from TRUCKS which are a different situation from CARS. Solutions for one DO NOT imply the same solution for another, and progress (or lack of it) in one sector DOES NOT mean that another sector need not be dealt with IN IT'S OWN WAY.

      Again...

      EACH

      TRANSPORTATION

      SECTOR

      IS

      DIFFERENT.



      Piston combustion engines in CARS are dying. They are inefficient in terms of total energy usage. They are complex, too many moving parts, too much friction, too much wear. There is no biofuel replacement for GASOLINE that is scalable to a national or world-wide level. The current "infrastructure and equipments" [sic] are inefficient, dirty, and not sustainable. ICE cars are the past. BEVs are the way forward in the automotive sector.

    22. #22
      Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2nd, 2011
      Location
      Rochester, NY
      Posts
      465
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      You clearly didn't read or comprehend anything that I posted. As usual, you went straight to your standard, ill-informed, anti-EV statement.

      I made it completely clear that AIRCRAFT are a different situation from SHIPS which are a different situation from TRUCKS which are a different situation from CARS. Solutions for one DO NOT imply the same solution for another, and progress (or lack of it) in one sector DOES NOT mean that another sector need not be dealt with IN IT'S OWN WAY.

      Again...

      EACH

      TRANSPORTATION

      SECTOR

      IS

      DIFFERENT.



      Piston combustion engines in CARS are dying. They are inefficient in terms of total energy usage. They are complex, too many moving parts, too much friction, too much wear. There is no biofuel replacement for GASOLINE that is scalable to a national or world-wide level. The current "infrastructure and equipments" [sic] are inefficient, dirty, and not sustainable. ICE cars are the past. BEVs are the way forward in the automotive sector.
      Thank you for the posts. I did some digging into the net-zero aviation fuels...I had no idea. Cool stuff, and an even cooler thread jack

      My senior mastery project in high school (equivalent to a final dissertation at a grade-school level) centered around the fuel of the future for automotive. I predicted that a combination of PHEV and diesel would rule for the interim, while BEV would gradually phase out ICE tech. Diesel electric would be too expensive to push through the market (and is now tarnished because of dieselgate), fuel cell has too many cost and infrastructure hurdles, and as you said above, biofuel is not scale-able.

      Battery tech is the main constraint, but I believe that this is a good thing. It is pushing the industry to adapt clever ways to squeeze every last mile out of the cells. Trick active aero, lower mass (both sprung and unsprung), and new tire tech is making this an exciting time to be a part of the industry. As a mechanical engineer on GDi fuel pumps, it's rewarding to have my finger on the pulse of the automotive world.
      Quote Originally Posted by Triumph View Post
      That's like a child saying, "I'm going to swing my fists and walk towards you, and if you get hit, it's your fault!"

    23. #23
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      You clearly didn't read or comprehend anything that I posted.
      I did read and comprehend what you wrote, and I *disagree with you* because it is magical thinking, it doesn't make sens financially and practicability concerns continue after all this time. You can't bear that? Be it.

    24. #24
      Member BUJonathan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2nd, 2004
      Location
      Chicagoland, IL
      Posts
      2,938
      Quote Originally Posted by OOOO-A3 View Post
      Renewable fuel EXACTLY addresses the emissions side of the equation.
      Take fossil carbon from ground and put into atmosphere (net increase) vs. take atmospheric carbon --> plant (algae) --> fuel --> atmosphere (net zero).
      You're neglecting other forms of emissions created by burning biofuels in atmosphere. So even if biofuels were perfectly carbon neutral like you imply (and realistically they are not), then you still have non-carbon emissions to contend with. I'm not saying I'm against biofuels, and I'm not saying they are without merit. However, your argument vastly over simplifies reality and overstates the benefit. Ergo why I said they're more of an interim step than an end goal. If we're truly going to fix pollution and global warming, then we need to be honest about the facts.


      See my post above.
      Turbofans are more efficient than turbojets, and for a given airspeed a high bypass turbofan will be more efficient than a low bypass turbofan. Hence why commercial aircraft no longer use turbojets and trend towards high bypass ratio. Also, specific fuel consumption (lbm of fuel per lbm of thrust) improves with increasing altitude.


      Mmm hmm...
      OK.
      =

    25. #25
      Member Rav_VW's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2005
      Location
      Philly Burbs
      Posts
      1,446
      Eventually we will run out of hydrocarbons in the ground, whether it takes 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years. We will either need alternative energy sources like electric , or we will need to produce high-energy chemical fuels from scratch which are also renewable and/or sustainable.

      Where high-energy is needed, such as high-speed air travel, you probably need a chemical fuel solution, and I could see going to 2-fuel (think rockets) depending what the byproduct of the combustion is compared to current or future jet fuels.

      Ground-based transportation can certainly be all electric, sea-based is possible depending on the technology, but air isn't going to be possible any time soon unless there are massive breakthroughs in battery weight and capacity.

      Just my thoughts.

    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast