# Is the reign of the ICE ending?



## begreen

Tesla passed Ford for the #2 spot on Monday and passed GM to take the #1 spot on the next day. So far this is all Wall St. driven. Could an improvement in battery tech that increases range while decreasing charge time be the final hurdle?
http://grist.org/briefly/the-market-has-spoken-and-it-said-electric-cars-are-the-future/


----------



## velvetfoot

I got into my crappy Hyundai Accent and drove it from NY to FL last year for spring training (lots of fans, more expensive).  
Then, after a week, I drove it back (19 hours, as I recall).
The final hurdle is a long way off.
How about a 3rd rail?  Or catenaries?  Maybe on all interstates as a start.
I jest.


----------



## Circus

begreen said:


> Tesla passed Ford for the #2 spot on Monday and passed GM to take the #1 spot on the next day. So far this is all Wall St. driven. Could an improvement in battery tech that increases range while decreasing charge time be the final hurdle?
> http://grist.org/briefly/the-market-has-spoken-and-it-said-electric-cars-are-the-future/


It's only Wall St speculators betting on the next month or so. As far as I know Tesla buys all its cars and converts them to electric.Sort of like the Worldcom illusion fifteen years ago. It's just to easy for anyone to retrofit batteries to an existing car for anyone to have an advantage for long.


----------



## begreen

It's happening, and sometimes in the most ironic ways.
http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Kentucky-Coal-Mining-Museum-converts-to-solar-power-418430563.html


----------



## begreen

Circus said:


> It's only Wall St speculators betting on the next month or so. As far as I know Tesla buys all its cars and converts them to electric.Sort of like the Worldcom illusion fifteen years ago. It's just to easy for anyone to retrofit batteries to an existing car for anyone to have an advantage for long.


They are speculating on the success of the model 3 I think. With over 400,000 reservations it will be interesting to see if Tesla can deliver well in a major production mode.

FWIW, there are some distinct advantages to a well designed electric car over a retrofitted one. Most notably it is battery size and location. Most retrofits have a big hump in the trunk that reduces capacity and prevents a fold down rear seat. The Tesla and Volt have the battery lower and hidden. This improves interior space and usability and provides a lower center of gravity for better handling.


----------



## jatoxico

Here is another take on Tesla's valuation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/business/tesla-story-stocks.html

In this analysis Tesla is not really (or only) riding high based on the power plant but on Tesla's investment into safety and the promise to deliver autonomous driving and ride/vehicle sharing ala Uber.


----------



## pdf27

The problem Tesla have is that when it comes to making cars, technology is only a small part of the story. Making them cost-effectively is hard: Tesla haven't had to yet, because they can charge high prices and hence make a lot of profit on an expensive car to make. Problem is that they're heading down-market into terrain dominated by existing car makers, who have their own electric cars already there: Nissan have already sold 250,000 electric cars despite not being an electric car company while Tesla is only at 150,000.


----------



## peakbagger

There are some very interesting fossil fueled engines on the horizon that will keep the ICE around for awhile unless they are legislated out of existence. The fiesta 1 liter ecoboost is quite small but powerful package. The Liquid Piston rotary is also another one to watch out for (note its rotary in name but has a completely different cycle than a Wankel/NSU rotary. There is also homogeneous charge ignition engine that has been right on the cusp of viability for a few years.Fundamentally ICE engines are far cheaper to build as percent of vehicle cost than a current battery and electronic package. That means ICEs will retain the low end of the market. Unfortunately with fuel dirt cheap and an administration dedicated to rolling back mandatory fuel economy, large trucks an SUVs pretty well own the market in the short term.


----------



## begreen

peakbagger said:


> Unfortunately with fuel dirt cheap and an administration dedicated to rolling back mandatory fuel economy, large trucks an SUVs pretty well own the market in the short term.





pdf27 said:


> Nissan have already sold 250,000 electric cars despite not being an electric car company while Tesla is only at 150,000.


The US market is not the largest for electric vehicles. China's is much larger and the growth there is significant. Europe is second. We come in third.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country


----------



## velvetfoot

Yesterday, I ordered a MINI 4 door hardtop with the 1.5 l, 3cyl, 2 stage turbo, 6 speed auto (because of the knees).  Doesn't get fabulous mpgs, so it'll probably spin a little high.  Should be fun though.  It was an impulse buy.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

I like my intake compression power and exauhst engines. I really like my intake/compression power/exauhst engines. I don't think a battery will ever fit my needs. Maybe just for the fact I can't rebuild it at home , I spose I could but that's some pretty nasty stuff


----------



## iamlucky13

Even with low fuel prices, conditions seem decent for electric car growth as several of the current models have been on the market long enough to demonstrate their viability, and with prices starting to come down. If fuel prices trend back upwards, obviously electrics look even more appealing.

The ICE engine is not going away anytime soon though. We're now 6 years since the Leaf was introduced, and 4 years since the Model S, and the market hasn't quite cracked 1% of sales. The raw numbers growth will definitely accelerate, but even the International Energy Agency, who has a really aggressive target for electric car adoption (even more so than the Paris Agreement), does not seem to be holding out hope for more than 40% of the global passenger vehicle fleet being electric by 2050, and of course, even as the market continues beyond that share, ICE's will continue to dominate where energy density is critical, particularly in freight movements.


----------



## Where2

velvetfoot said:


> I got into my crappy Hyundai Accent and drove it from NY to FL last year for spring training (lots of fans, more expensive).
> Then, after a week, I drove it back (19 hours, as I recall).
> The final hurdle is a long way off.
> How about a 3rd rail?  Or catenaries?  Maybe on all interstates as a start.



Waiting for a Tesla with a trailer hitch and a rental battery system to tow behind to double or triple the vehicle range. Then we'll start to come close to the bladder busting 600-700 mile per fill-up range of the ICE vehicles currently in my driveway.


----------



## DBoon

Circus said:


> As far as I know Tesla buys all its cars and converts them to electric.


Sorry to tell you, but what you know is incorrect.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000

Lloyd the redneck said:


> I like my intake compression power and exauhst engines. I really like my intake/compression power/exauhst engines. I don't think a battery will ever fit my needs. Maybe just for the fact I can't rebuild it at home , I spose I could but that's some pretty nasty stuff


You ought to take a drive in a Tesla to compare the feel of power. Those pesky, heavy transmissions really are a burden. For doing work, on the other hand, I'm with you. And, most of us can't really work on the new ICE vehicles at home anymore either.  That's one of the reasons I prefer the "classic" stuff.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

ED 3000 said:


> You ought to take a drive in a Tesla to compare the feel of power. Those pesky, heavy transmissions really are a burden. For doing work, on the other hand, I'm with you. And, most of us can't really work on the new ICE vehicles at home anymore either.  That's one of the reasons I prefer the "classic" stuff.



Me too. About 2000 is new enough. I prefer the older stuff


----------



## blades

Work on your car- yes you can but it requires a different way of thinking than in the past. Those lovely( tongue in cheek ) codes are only telling you the result of something amiss-  NOT the actual problem- and my friend this is where most shade tree guys gals get in trouble. Not that sensors can't fail but that replacing one is a last resort.  One has to think of the section as a whole that the sensor/s are reporting on to address the actual problem.  Re-educating younger or less experienced technicians was my primary duty many moons ago- getting them to look at the whole picture of a machine and the flow chart of the cycle was not fun.  Like my son recently  Gets an intermittent signal of low oil and then a low oil code, calls me - he is all set to replace oil sensor in his GM  ( $90)  after repeatedly adding oil after an oil change-  In his defense it was very bad weather and getting under a low slung car is  difficult ( no garage)  There were no visible oil puddles or leaks when at temp or after sitting awhile after use,  to shorten things up when the oil filter was changed the filter seal of the old one stayed put with the new filter and seal on top so when cold starting it would squirt oil out through the double seals until it warmed up  then stop, note: it doesn't do this when the engine is already warm. ( not an uncommon problem).  Of course when this happens you are in car driving away and likely never notice the oil spot trail from a cold start.


----------



## velvetfoot

I'll disagree here.  In some ways cars may be easier to work on nowadays.  The engine and probably auto trans, for sure.  I got a cel on my 2005 Silverado for fuel trim and I was able to trace it to a vacuum leak of the brake booster.

Nowadays, there are computer networks in cars connecting an ever increasing number of modules for different aspects of the car. Thing is, stuff other than the engine and trans on the car would be easy to diagnose as well IF you had the proper equipment.  I don't think it's required to be publicly available for anything but the engine and maybe trans.   

So, for example, my salesman has led me to believe that the heating elements for the seat are already in place even though I didn't get that option.  You'd think you could buy the stock switches and cabling, hook it up and voila.  I don't think so, because it's likely the 'comfort' module, or whatever, has to be programmed, and that's probably only possible with equipment possessed by the dealer, or...., someone familiar with a hack that can do this with other equipment.


----------



## velvetfoot

Not disagreeing with you, blades.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I think we'll see cars without drivers being the norm before the ice goes away.


----------



## velvetfoot

uggh
Hey, Uber coming to upstate.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

No idea.  It's not likely to affect me.


----------



## velvetfoot

Part of yesterday's budget deal, apparently.  Affects us.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Im surprised the New GM bolt is not doing better. With 238 miles of range it  should be a winner ,i wonder what that same battery would do in a pickup truck or SUV, 100 miles AER would be fantastic! Probably too much to ask for.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000

blades said:


> Work on your car- yes you can but it requires a different way of thinking than in the past. Those lovely( tongue in cheek ) codes are only telling you the result of something amiss-  NOT the actual problem- and my friend this is where most shade tree guys gals get in trouble. Not that sensors can't fail but that replacing one is a last resort.  One has to think of the section as a whole that the sensor/s are reporting on to address the actual problem.  Re-educating younger or less experienced technicians was my primary duty many moons ago- getting them to look at the whole picture of a machine and the flow chart of the cycle was not fun.  Like my son recently  Gets an intermittent signal of low oil and then a low oil code, calls me - he is all set to replace oil sensor in his GM  ( $90)  after repeatedly adding oil after an oil change-  In his defense it was very bad weather and getting under a low slung car is  difficult ( no garage)  There were no visible oil puddles or leaks when at temp or after sitting awhile after use,  to shorten things up when the oil filter was changed the filter seal of the old one stayed put with the new filter and seal on top so when cold starting it would squirt oil out through the double seals until it warmed up  then stop, note: it doesn't do this when the engine is already warm. ( not an uncommon problem).  Of course when this happens you are in car driving away and likely never notice the oil spot trail from a cold start.


Interesting story about the oil seal, glad I stopped changing my own a few years back- it's really hard to reach on my Korean sedan, and nobody seems to want my used oil.  

I used to have pipe dreams about getting the code reader and diving in, but really I'm already over my head with my old Wheel Horse tractor.


----------



## peakbagger

I have had a few battles with code readers and diagnostic trees on various vehicles. A factory service manual is pretty much mandatory as the alternative is lot of hit or miss parts replacement. Many cars use CAN bus for body control and a typical code reader does not read CAN bus.


----------



## woodgeek

I read an alternative history novel once where all the cars looked and operated just like our cars on the road, but they were all STEAM engines rather than ICE engines.  Not the focus of the story, but the only issue was throttlability (no surprise to woodstove owners).  Wealthy car owners just had chauffeurs that kept their car boilers stoked on standby, or in advance of the boss needing a drive.  Poor folks took the steam powered bus, or stoked their own cars.  All in all it sounded a lot more practical than horses, and almost as functional as ICE cars.

Of course, to our eyes the whole rigamarole of stoking and solid fuel handling seemed kinda crazy, but to the folks in that universe it was completely normal...and it suited their needs and economy seamlessly.  Their car owners raved about acceleration, loved the whirring and purring of the steam engine, the smell of the smoke, the tone of the steam whistles they used for horns. We are an adaptable species.

That story may have permanently changed how I look at ICE engines now.   I see them as a functional technology with a certain amount of utility, that obviously powered a lot of 20th century applications.  But at the same time, ABSURD.  Internal combustion? Necessarily incomplete mixing and combustion, high temperature NOx production or both, yuk.  Pistons with oil-sealed rings?  A mechanically inefficient kludge, with run lifetimes merely in the thousands of hours before complete rebuild is required? Yuk.

Nissan nailed it with this ad:

(my favorite part...the guy is gassing up a VOLT)

All your debates about DIY repair: you are making the argument.  Only crappy tech needs constant repair, especially after a century of engineering!


----------



## velvetfoot

woodgeek said:


> All your debates about DIY repair: you are making the argument. Only crappy tech needs constant repair, especially after a century of engineering!


My crappy Accent, the one that made it back from Florida in 19 hours,  has a 100,000/10 year drivetrain warranty, and doesn't need to get an expensive battery replacement job.    There are reasons why electric and steam powered cars lost favor to the ICE engine, and those reasons remain.


----------



## Tegbert

woodgeek said:


> I read an alternative history novel once where all the cars looked and operated just like our cars on the road, but they were all STEAM engines rather than ICE engines.  Not the focus of the story, but the only issue was throttlability (no surprise to woodstove owners).  Wealthy car owners just had chauffeurs that kept their car boilers stoked on standby, or in advance of the boss needing a drive.  Poor folks took the steam powered bus, or stoked their own cars.  All in all it sounded a lot more practical than horses, and almost as functional as ICE cars.
> 
> Of course, to our eyes the whole rigamarole of stoking and solid fuel handling seemed kinda crazy, but to the folks in that universe it was completely normal...and it suited their needs and economy seamlessly.  Their car owners raved about acceleration, loved the whirring and purring of the steam engine, the smell of the smoke, the tone of the steam whistles they used for horns. We are an adaptable species.
> 
> That story may have permanently changed how I look at ICE engines now.   I see them as a functional technology with a certain amount of utility, that obviously powered a lot of 20th century applications.  But at the same time, ABSURD.  Internal combustion? Necessarily incomplete mixing and combustion, high temperature NOx production or both, yuk.  Pistons with oil-sealed rings?  A mechanically inefficient kludge, with run lifetimes merely in the thousands of hours before complete rebuild is required? Yuk.
> 
> Nissan nailed it with this ad:
> 
> (my favorite part...the guy is gassing up a VOLT)
> 
> All your debates about DIY repair: you are making the argument.  Only crappy tech needs constant repair, especially after a century of engineering!




Well the volt is not 100% electric. It runs about 40 miles on a charge (last I checked which has been a while) and uses an ICE to recharge the batteries and keep going as far as you need till you can recharge it or refuel it if you can't plug it in. The engine doesn't run to move the car like other hybrids. Only is used to provide power to the electric motor. 


Lopi Rockport


----------



## woodgeek

velvetfoot said:


> My crappy Accent, the one that made it back from Florida in 19 hours,  has a 100,000/10 year drivetrain warranty, and doesn't need to get an expensive battery replacement job.    There are reasons why electric and steam powered cars lost favor to the ICE engine, and those reasons remain.



Well, the tech is still in development.  A proper long range electric car with fast charging would happily make that trip, but would need ~5 separate one hour long charging stops on the way.  Hardly the end of the world if you like to eat and sleep during some of them and are not in a hurry.

In 2016 and before, that long-range BEV car would have been >$80k (Tesla).  In 2017 you could do it with a Bolt for $40k.  Next year you can do it with a $40k Model 3 or a $30k Leaf Gen 2.  And the cost is gonna keep falling.

If you don't want to wait 5 hours for charging along the way...not a problem. There is NO physical reason these batteries can't be engineered to charge at 4-6C, or in 10-15 minutes every 3-4 hours of driving.  As the market expands, companies will compete on fast charging time, but its still early days there.

And that amazing 100,000 mile warranty is actually a 3000 run hour warranty in practice.  If your computer or AC or refrigerator or TV died after 3000 hours run time (about 2x that of an incandescent bulb) you would demand your money back.  With your car, you line up to buy a new one, LOL.


----------



## woodgeek

Tegbert said:


> Well the volt is not 100% electric. It runs about 40 miles on a charge (last I checked which has been a while) and uses an ICE to recharge the batteries and keep going as far as you need till you can recharge it or refuel it if you can't plug it in. The engine doesn't run to move the car like other hybrids. Only is used to provide power to the electric motor.
> 
> Lopi Rockport



That's exactly why its so funny......the Volt is the only stinky old gaswagon getting a shout-out!  And BTW, the Volt transmission DOES allow direct mechanical transmission of ICE power to wheels.  Doesn't always do it, but it was engineered in as an option.


----------



## velvetfoot

woodgeek said:


> With your car, you line up to buy a new one, LOL.


And when your battery craps out....


----------



## woodgeek

velvetfoot said:


> And when your battery craps out....



Yeah, current Li-ion batteris are good for 1000 cycles, or a mileage 1000x their full range.  For a long range BEV that will be well over 200k miles, and will probably be warrantied for such.  Shelf life is a bigger challenge....10 years maybe.  How many people drive 200k miles in 10 years?  

Time to car share I guess.


----------



## Tegbert

woodgeek said:


> That's exactly why its so funny......the Volt is the only stinky old gaswagon getting a shout-out!  And BTW, the Volt transmission DOES allow direct mechanical transmission of ICE power to wheels.  Doesn't always do it, but it was engineered in as an option.



I guess that's how long it's been since I researched it. Back then gm was saying the opposite. Good to know. 


Lopi Rockport


----------



## EatenByLimestone

woodgeek said:


> Well, the tech is still in development.  A proper long range electric car with fast charging would happily make that trip, but would need ~5 separate one hour long charging stops on the way.  Hardly the end of the world if you like to eat and sleep during some of them and are not in a hurry.
> 
> In 2016 and before, that long-range BEV car would have been >$80k (Tesla).  In 2017 you could do it with a Bolt for $40k.  Next year you can do it with a $40k Model 3 or a $30k Leaf Gen 2.  And the cost is gonna keep falling.
> 
> If you don't want to wait 5 hours for charging along the way...not a problem. There is NO physical reason these batteries can't be engineered to charge at 4-6C, or in 10-15 minutes every 3-4 hours of driving.  As the market expands, companies will compete on fast charging time, but its still early days there.
> 
> And that amazing 100,000 mile warranty is actually a 3000 run hour warranty in practice.  If your computer or AC or refrigerator or TV died after 3000 hours run time (about 2x that of an incandescent bulb) you would demand your money back.  With your car, you line up to buy a new one, LOL.




I haven't seen a vehicle die the moment the warranty is up.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

woodgeek said:


> Yeah, current Li-ion batteris are good for 1000 cycles, or a mileage 1000x their full range.  For a long range BEV that will be well over 200k miles, and will probably be warrantied for such.  Shelf life is a bigger challenge....10 years maybe.  How many people drive 200k miles in 10 years?
> 
> Time to car share I guess.



I drive just under 40k miles a year.  30k for work, 7k on my truck.  Never counted how much I put on the wife's car.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000

EatenByLimestone said:


> I haven't seen a vehicle die the moment the warranty is up.


I've been lucky- not the moment the warranty was up, but shortly thereafter, twice!  Both times Hondas, both times, transmissions. I switched from Japan to Korea after #2.


----------



## begreen

Tegbert said:


> Well the volt is not 100% electric. It runs about 40 miles on a charge (last I checked which has been a while) and uses an ICE to recharge the batteries and keep going as far as you need till you can recharge it or refuel it if you can't plug it in. The engine doesn't run to move the car like other hybrids. Only is used to provide power to the electric motor.


LOL It was a good commercial. FWIW, we gas up the Volt about 2-3 times a year unless going on a trip. What the commercial didn't show was a Leaf stuck in the eastern WA desert with the nearest charging station 100 miles away. If we had a pure electric car we would need a second car for trips. Love having both options. So far the Volt has had to engage the engine to transmission feature once in the past 4 yrs..


----------



## woodgeek

begreen said:


> What the commercial didn't show was a Leaf stuck in the eastern WA desert with the nearest charging station 100 miles away.



Really no 120VAC outlets within 100 miles?


----------



## begreen

woodgeek said:


> Really no 120VAC outlets within 100 miles?


Surely you jest. If I am on a trip to Idaho I am not going to knock on doors asking random people if I can charge for 8 hrs.. It's a long enough trip already.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

That and they'd look at BG like he had a Vgang box stove half a foot from the wall, on carpet, with single wall stovepipe exiting up through a piece of plywood in a window!  Or that's at least how I'd look at somebody at my front door asking to plug in their car... Unless they looked like Sandra Bullock.  Then it'd be OK.


----------



## jebatty

An EV will be our next new car. A 200 mile range (with 20-50% reduction for really cold winter days) already is comfortably sufficient for probably 90% of our "local" trips, the longest of those being 95 miles round trip. A 400 mile range, with the same discount, would cover everything except road trips without charging stations along the route. And for those we would choose to rent an ICE or hybrid car. One of our sons is on the list for a Tesla and will likely install a high capacity charger in his home when his Tesla arrives. He also just installed PV at his home. We would cover the cost to install a fast charger at the homes of our other children. Fossil carbon-free energy is both the present and the future.


----------



## sportbikerider78

All I want to see is small and medium sized diesel engines become popular in the US.  Europe has some amazing vehicles that we can't buy...and it shouldn't be that way. 

I'd love my SUV to have a midsized turbo diesel.


----------



## sportbikerider78

blades said:


> Work on your car- yes you can but it requires a different way of thinking than in the past. Those lovely( tongue in cheek ) codes are only telling you the result of something amiss-  NOT the actual problem- and my friend this is where most shade tree guys gals get in trouble. Not that sensors can't fail but that replacing one is a last resort.  One has to think of the section as a whole that the sensor/s are reporting on to address the actual problem.  Re-educating younger or less experienced technicians was my primary duty many moons ago- getting them to look at the whole picture of a machine and the flow chart of the cycle was not fun.  Like my son recently  Gets an intermittent signal of low oil and then a low oil code, calls me - he is all set to replace oil sensor in his GM  ( $90)  after repeatedly adding oil after an oil change-  In his defense it was very bad weather and getting under a low slung car is  difficult ( no garage)  There were no visible oil puddles or leaks when at temp or after sitting awhile after use,  to shorten things up when the oil filter was changed the filter seal of the old one stayed put with the new filter and seal on top so when cold starting it would squirt oil out through the double seals until it warmed up  then stop, note: it doesn't do this when the engine is already warm. ( not an uncommon problem).  Of course when this happens you are in car driving away and likely never notice the oil spot trail from a cold start.


I do all my own changes, but what got me wise to the very problem you described is someone that had the same thing happen on their motorcycle.  The doubled up seal blew oil all over their tires and they had an accident because of it.  

Ever since then, I inspect the old filter to make sure the seal is intact.


----------



## Highbeam

sportbikerider78 said:


> All I want to see is small and medium sized diesel engines become popular in the US.  Europe has some amazing vehicles that we can't buy...and it shouldn't be that way.
> 
> I'd love my SUV to have a midsized turbo diesel.



I've seen them filling up recently. Audi, BMW, jeeps, all with the small diesels.


----------



## jatoxico

Isn't Europe looking to get away from using diesel at least in passenger vehicles? I believe diesels were subsidized w/ tax breaks in UK for instance that are no longer available. The concern is particulates and health and London has proposed (enacted?) a tax on high with high emissions of those. The VW scandal didn't help either. That could start to impact use and development worldwide.


----------



## begreen

sportbikerider78 said:


> All I want to see is small and medium sized diesel engines become popular in the US.  Europe has some amazing vehicles that we can't buy...and it shouldn't be that way.
> 
> I'd love my SUV to have a midsized turbo diesel.


It was a grand experiment, but Europe is turning away from diesel as they find the high NOx emissions are causing serious urban air pollution and health issues. Electric makes much more sense, particularly in the cities and their suburbs.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-diesel-in-europe-impact-on-health-pollution
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ot-so-harmless-and-could-damage-human-health/
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14...emissions-nitrogen-oxides-trucks-buses-europe


----------



## blades

Electric all fine and dandy until you look at battery mfg. and disposal.


----------



## Tegbert

begreen said:


> It was a grand experiment, but Europe is turning away from diesel as they find the high NOx emissions are causing serious urban air pollution and health issues. Electric makes much more sense, particularly in the cities and their suburbs.
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-diesel-in-europe-impact-on-health-pollution
> https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ot-so-harmless-and-could-damage-human-health/
> http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14...emissions-nitrogen-oxides-trucks-buses-europe



Yes because Europes emissions on NOx levels particulate matter are higher than the US. That is one reason they have so many diesel vehicles there that won't come here. To get the new diesels to pass all our requirements they need to have dpf filters NOx filters and whatever else they deem necessary to pass. All of which adds to the cost of the vehicle and most manufacturers didn't want to take the risk of fitting them with those systems to not have them sell well here. 

I would bet that if they tightened up on diesel emissions there and the people that buy them still want them they would make it here eventually as it would be less of a risk. But since laws are going in place preventing them from operating in certain areas that probably won't happen. 

It is interesting that manufacturers here are coming out with small and half ton diesel trucks now though. 



Lopi Rockport


----------



## begreen

blades said:


> Electric all fine and dandy until you look at battery mfg. and disposal.


Most auto battery components are recycled, not disposed of. Electric car batteries last a long time and then even when replaced they often have a lot of life left in them for secondary market use.
http://fortune.com/2016/08/25/used-electric-car-batteries/
https://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/23/electric-vehicle-battery-can-recycled/


----------



## sportbikerider78

begreen said:


> It was a grand experiment, but Europe is turning away from diesel as they find the high NOx emissions are causing serious urban air pollution and health issues. Electric makes much more sense, particularly in the cities and their suburbs.
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-diesel-in-europe-impact-on-health-pollution
> https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ot-so-harmless-and-could-damage-human-health/
> http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14...emissions-nitrogen-oxides-trucks-buses-europe


Yes...and the US is a very different place with many more non-urban areas.


----------



## sportbikerider78

Tegbert said:


> Yes because Europes emissions on NOx levels particulate matter are higher than the US. That is one reason they have so many diesel vehicles there that won't come here. To get the new diesels to pass all our requirements they need to have dpf filters NOx filters and whatever else they deem necessary to pass. All of which adds to the cost of the vehicle and most manufacturers didn't want to take the risk of fitting them with those systems to not have them sell well here.



So it is EPA regulations that allow me to buy a Suburban that gets 8-12mpg with gasoline and not a small diesel car that gets 50mpg?

Not really surprised there.  Lets get some regs changed so we can see the forest through the trees.

Or maybe the fed and state governments realize that they will lose TONS of money if people are buying more efficient cars and lose revenue.  

I've been to Europe many times and never seen a diesel that was even the slightest bit smoky.


----------



## peakbagger

One of the large Diesel engine manufacturers for big rigs, Navistar bet their company on selling a non SCR equipped diesel in the US. I don't know how it was resolved but the engines were practically un-drivable and If I remember correctly they owed the Fed a bundle in fines. Small European Diesels (as VW found out) have a choice install SCR or cheat. Fundamentally ideal fuel ratio is a balance of CO vs NOx production. Get rid of CO by running hot which ups NOx or run cold and get CO. In both cases there are catalysts that can be installed downstream of the engine to deal with both but they are costly (usually rare earth)  relative to the cost of the vehicle and they extract power. It made sense that VW would have cheated on their low cost vehicles but a lot less so on the Touregs, Audis and Porsches.

The reasons small diesels are coming to the US is the corporate average fuel standards for trucks and SUVs. Even with catalysts diesels can be more efficient than gas engines and they tend to put out more torque. I don't see a lot of them being sold unless the manufacturers discount them to raise the fleet gas mileage. Ford and GM does it with their small cars, they sell them at or near a loss and force them on dealers in order to get them into the overall fleet mileage

Note that the Obama administration did substantially increase the fuel economy standards for large trucks, the current administration has stated that they are going to roll back those standards.


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> Yes...and the US is a very different place with many more non-urban areas.


Yes and because of that we drive many more miles.  I have no issue with deisels but they should not take the place of developing alternatives.  No electric vehicles wont work for everyone but they already will for many and they keep getting better.


----------



## bholler

Well I do have a problem when people take a perfectly good relativly clean burning truck and pump tons of extra fuel in making it blow huge clouds of smoke for no reason.  You can make big power without doing that.  It is just rediculous.


----------



## woodgeek

Went to dinner with a fellow the other day from the NIH.  He recounted a study (from thirty years ago) that correlated local air pollution levels with hospital admits for cardiovascular events.  They were expecting a small correlation that might be hard to see.  Instead they found that nearly all the heart attacks occurred on days with poor air quality.  This study (replicated several times by others) was the rationale for the clean air act, and tightening it up later on.

Other studies have shown that many cancers are caused by gasoline vapors, something like 2x the lifetime cancer risk if you live within 500 yards of a gas station.  They **think** its the benzene component, so the EPA has been reducing allowed benzene levels.

Nowadays, people are studying the correlation between Parkinson's and Alzheimers and air pollution....also a fairly clear signal, but more difficult to study with the 20-30 year latency (people move around).  And a lot of people in rural areas get more particulate exposure (due to diesel equipment, obsolete wood burners, etc)...and they are at elevated risk compared to some urban folks.

And yet people still think that pesticide residues are killing them...when it's the air around them.


----------



## iamlucky13

bholler said:


> Well I do have a problem when people take a perfectly good relativly clean burning truck and pump tons of extra fuel in making it blow huge clouds of smoke for no reason.  You can make big power without doing that.  It is just rediculous.



I'm fairly certain even non-modified diesel engines have been getting worse lately due to the NOx restrictions. They're nowhere near as bad as the utterly senseless practice of "rolling coal,"* but I swear trucks built in the last 5 years or so produce more visible soot under load than those from the 10 years before that. Our farm trucks growing up included Cummins engines from the early 90's and early 2000's. I don't recall ever noticing visible smoke from either, and since I was usually the one stacking the hay on the trailer, right behind the truck, under the low speed, high load conditions that are conducive to soot formation, I should have noticed. I would have been the one breathing it in.

The CO production peakbagger mentioned is due to partial combustion. Even worse partial combustion results in soot (aka, particulate matter). Designing for lower peak temperatures to avoid NOx formation results in worse partial combustion.


* Even if they think they're making some kind of vague political statement, I hear a much more clear statement, "I'm foolish enough to purposely coat my valves and injectors in carbon deposits and potentially increase cylinder abrasion, while reducing engine performance and wasting money on excess fuel use."


----------



## Highbeam

bholler said:


> Well I do have a problem when people take a perfectly good relativly clean burning truck and pump tons of extra fuel in making it blow huge clouds of smoke for no reason.  You can make big power without doing that.  It is just rediculous.



It's illegal too. A good discussion about diesel engines as part of a transportation system would not include the criminals that do this. It's like condemning all wood burners because some of them burn plastic milk jugs.


----------



## bholler

Highbeam said:


> It's illegal too. A good discussion about diesel engines as part of a transportation system would not include the criminals that do this. It's like condemning all wood burners because some of them burn plastic milk jugs.


I know that those that do this do not at all reflect what diesels can and should run like I was not saying that at all.


----------



## sportbikerider78

Pollution is relative.  In no way would I defend those that purposefully blow huge clouds of smoke into the air just to see the smoke and look macho...at the same time, I'd ride my motorcycle around the southern states for 8 days straight and rack up 3000 miles...just for fun.  I'm polluting too..likely much more.  One is just more socially acceptable.


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> Pollution is relative. In no way would I defend those that purposefully blow huge clouds of smoke into the air just to see the smoke and look macho...at the same time, I'd ride my motorcycle around the southern states for 8 days straight and rack up 3000 miles...just for fun. I'm polluting too..likely much more. One is just more socially acceptable.


no one is polluting for the sake of polluting nothing more.  The other is riding your bike for pleasure which yes does pollute some yes but you are not doing it for the sole purpose creating pollution.


----------



## Highbeam

bholler said:


> no one is polluting for the sake of polluting nothing more.



I've been known to "crop dust" my daughters for no reason other than to pollute their air space!


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000

Highbeam said:


> It's illegal too. A good discussion about diesel engines as part of a transportation system would not include the criminals that do this. It's like condemning all wood burners because some of them burn plastic milk jugs.


You can burn plastic milk jugs? Which plastic do they represent?


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000

Highbeam said:


> I've been known to "crop dust" my daughters for no reason other than to pollute their air space!


I guess this is good preparation for what they can expect from the boys they date when that time arises. Boys will be boys. 

What, are we expected to hold it in?


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Heavy trucks were on the cusp of 13mpg. Then emissions came into play. And we are back to 1980. Later 90's engines were million mile engines and got 8-10mpg. 2007.5 went into effect and we wound back up in the 6-8 mpg and rebuilds at 300-500k. It's sad. We have the technology to be efficient.  A million mile motor that gets 10 , much better than 8 plus 3 overhauls and atleast 2 catalyst systems made with rare earth heavy metals.


----------



## bholler

Lloyd the redneck said:


> Heavy trucks were on the cusp of 13mpg. Then emissions came into play. And we are back to 1980. Later 90's engines were million mile engines and got 8-10mpg. 2007.5 went into effect and we wound back up in the 6-8 mpg and rebuilds at 300-500k. It's sad. We have the technology to be efficient. A million mile motor that gets 10 , much better than 8 plus 3 overhauls and atleast 2 catalyst systems made with rare earth heavy metals.


Yes but give them a couple years and they will be back up over 10 and close to the same durability all while reducing emissions.   The same things happened with cars the first reduced emissions cars had problems now they are better than ever.  And look at wood stoves every time the standards are tightened everyone freaks out but it ends up making better stoves.


----------



## jebatty

Efficient in terms of mpg does not mean necessarily free from emissions harmful to the health of humans and other living things. Other than water, is there any emission from combustion in ICE that is not contributing to the degradation of the environment?


----------



## bholler

jebatty said:


> Efficient in terms of mpg does not mean necessarily free from emissions harmful to the health of humans and other living things. Other than water, is there any emission from combustion in ICE that is not contributing to the degradation of the environment?


You are absolutly correct a vehicle can be very fuel efficient while still emitting a lot of polution.  But fuel efficiency should not be overlooked in the name of reduced emissions.


----------



## jebatty

Agreed. The focus on mpg likely has to do with the pump pricing of the fuel, which doesn't take into account all of the social, health, environmental and other external costs. The emission standards are partly an attempt to force the pricing to account for at least some of these external costs. I suspect that the pricing still does not account for all of the external costs, which then are borne by those who have to pay all of these other costs, either directly through suffering, sickness, death and loss of quality of life, or indirectly by increased costs of health insurance, water treatment, and taxes, etc., to pay these same costs.


----------



## begreen

There is some correlation between emissions and fuel efficiency. Most modern cars have achieved greatly reduced emissions while improving  gas mileage. The Corvette is an example of an amazing improvement in both areas.


----------



## bholler

begreen said:


> There is some correlation between emissions and fuel efficiency. Most modern cars have achieved greatly reduced emissions while improving  gas mileage. The Corvette is an example of an amazing improvement in both areas.


Yes that is usually the case but not always.  Right now heavy trucks like loyd said are down pretty much in fuel efficiency.  But i have little doubt that will change before long.


----------



## blades

I just hate being the BETA tester for 25-30 years- particularly when I have to pay for it up front.


----------



## peakbagger

With respect to efficiency versus emissions, its actually not that simple. The main pollutants are particulate, Carbon Monoxide and NOx (nitrogen oxides). CO2 is primarily related to fuel input, make a more efficient engine and you get less CO2.

Carbon Monoxide is definitely a sign of inefficiency, it partially combusted fuel. CO out means more fuel in. NOx is the tricky one, NOx generation is related to a mix of fuel bound nitrogen that comes in with the fuel and thermal NOx which is generated in the engine if the combustion temp exceeds 2800 F. The problem is the best way to reduce CO is to maintain the combustion temps as high as possible and that leads to thermal NOX. Diesels operate at higher combustion temps ( which are primarily related to a compression ratio) then a gas engine. Its up to the manufacturer to make a choice, optimize CO removal or NOx removal. The non catalyst way to do that is exhaust gas recirculation. Exhaust gas is routed out of the exhaust manifold and metered back into the engine, this cools the peak combustion temps it unfortunately also increases the pumping losses of the engine as effectively inert gas is being moved through the engine twice. The EGR is fighting against highly efficient combustion so CO could go up. Most cars have O2 sensors in the exhaust, the main goal of this sensor is to ensure that the engine is running at the ideal air fuel ratio, too little air and the engine doesn't fully combust the fuel leading to CO, too much air and the engine is working harder to pump extra air. Many firms played the EGR game with diesel and EGR systems are still are in place on most cars but most firms have bit the bullet and installed CO and NOx catalysts. A CO catalyst is pretty simple and most woodburners know that they cause the CO to burn at a lower temperature, in theory the catalyst promotes this lower temp but there is no required additive to the catalyst. A NOx catalyst lowers a reaction temp where the NOx is broken back into its constituents. The chemistry is trickier as the reaction temp needs to be in range of temps, too low and the NOx doesn't react, too high and the catalyst can actually form more NOx. This reaction requires ammonia to work. Gaseous ammonia could be used but due to potential hazards with ammonia, most firms use urea, which when heated up forms ammonia. Urea is diluted with water to make it easy to handle so somewhere there has to be enough heat to evaporate out the water and additional heat to break down the urea into ammonia.

Particulate is generally a mix of various combustion reaction products mostly related to other compounds along for the ride with diesel. It also can be unburned carbon if the engine is not tuned efficiently. The only real fix is optimized combustion design and higher combustion temps but as discussed that can mean thermal NOx. The particulates usually are dealt with in particulate trap which captures the particulate in ceramic filter, that filter is regenerated on occasion by running the engine at higher temp. It unfortunately works like "cork" in the tailpipe and the engine has to work harder to move gases through the engine.

It is interesting to note that Diesel engines that run on plant based biodiesels generally put out far less particulate as the chemistry of the incoming fuel is lot cleaner. Unfortunately plant based diesel does tend to increase NOx (I haven't spent a lot of time researching this.

Add it all up and then let the politicians weigh in. Europe tends to have lot more low speed urban driving, they lack any significant liquid fossil fuels production and they have been through a series of oil shocks. Thus the policy was oriented to maximum fuel efficiency which is obtainable by a diesel and smaller displacement engines to maximize the urban cycle and then a turbo and possibly charge air cooling  to get enough power for highway use. Unfortunately that has bit them in the butt as in order to maximize efficiency they didn't regulate NOx, now they are coming to conclusion that urban NOx is significant issue so they are stuck with the same issues that US firms have. The emission controls dont scale well, on a 50 K truck they are just a small percentage of the vehicle cost but add it to a small car and it's a much bigger percentage.


----------



## begreen

Last fall Germany passed a law that bans the ICE by 2030. That's only 13 years away. Germany's auto industry is the world's 4th largest. Wondering if the EU will follow.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertel...d-of-internal-combustion-engine/#4ee7074c60bd


----------



## gregbesia

begreen said:


> Last fall Germany passed a law that bans the ICE by 2030. That's only 13 years away. Germany's auto industry is the world's 4th largest. Wondering if the EU will follow.
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertel...d-of-internal-combustion-engine/#4ee7074c60bd


Interesting, however its not a law , yet.


----------



## kennyp2339

woodgeek said:


> Yeah, current Li-ion batteris are good for 1000 cycles, or a mileage 1000x their full range.  For a long range BEV that will be well over 200k miles, and will probably be warrantied for such.  Shelf life is a bigger challenge....10 years maybe.  How many people drive 200k miles in 10 years?
> 
> Time to car share I guess.


I def blow that out of the park, I'm close to 30k a year, 22 of that is just driving to and from work.


----------



## begreen

gregbesia said:


> Interesting, however its not a law , yet.


Yes, watching this one. Not an EU law yet, but the resolution was passed by all 16 German states. Where Germany goes the EU usually follows. Norway and the Netherlands have proposed similar resolutions with Norway shooting at 2025 for 100% electric cars. Currently they are at 51%. It's happening.


----------



## begreen

China has the world's largest car market. They are considering putting in a quota requirement for car sales. Ford says that 70% of their models sold in China will have electric options by 2025.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-autos-electric-idUSKBN17R086
http://www.hindustantimes.com/autos...-car-market/story-ZySSKDAJv25BH6ahhkQMfN.html


----------



## jebatty

The reign of the ICE should end, and soon. Much better technology is available, and the energy which drives that technology is provided daily in great abundance in wind, solar, and hydro, all with minimal adverse impacts on the environment which is the life source for humans and all living things. The alternative is not hopeful for life as we know it.

Following WWII the US was a leader in nearly every area of research, technology, design, manufacturing and science. Great things were accomplished. Over the years the lack of will by public leaders, a greed-driven economic system marked by tax cuts and wealth concentration, and the framing of so many important issues as conservative or liberal, all have resulted in ceding progress to other countries, such that the US no longer is the respected and successful leader it once was.

Several of the US states and regions of many more states now probably rank close to 3rd world countries in terms of health care, education, infrastructure, economic conditions, and concentration of wealth. An upward trajectory for future US leadership is in doubt. Other countries which are forward looking will provide the leadership. A slogan on "greatness," a disrespect for science and science based education, and failure to provide funds to meet the many very important needs -- all will only distract from the work which really needs to be done and will result in accelerating the decline.

ICE -- RIP.


----------



## woodgeek

jebatty said:


> Following WWII the US was a leader in nearly every area of research, technology, design, manufacturing and science. Great things were accomplished. Over the years the lack of will by public leaders, a greed-driven economic system marked by tax cuts and wealth concentration, and the framing of so many important issues as conservative or liberal, all have resulted in ceding progress to other countries, such that the US no longer is the respected and successful leader it once was.



In real terms, the amount the US spends on technology R&D is a small fraction of what it was in the 60s to 80s.  Most corporations had large research labs (Bell, IBM, Exxon, Dow) at which they spent a finite fraction of their revenue on 'pure' research.  The cumulative $$ and personnel of these labs was several times larger than the Fed-supported (NIH, DOE and NSF) academic research labs (that also do pure research).  

And in the 1980s these labs became seen as loss leaders, and were all closed or repurposed.  I have heard this was mostly because of a cut in the corporate tax rate, as the cos saw them as tax write-offs.

All the large companies in East Asia and Europe emulated our corporate labs (spending a couple % of revenue on pure research) and DID NOT close them....they have produced all the new tech hitting the market for the last two decades.


----------



## jebatty

A friend of mine is an astrophysicist who works for a govt agency. He indicates continuing budget cuts over many years. The direction has been to focus on things likely to be immediately useful and profitable. The research in his department has been shifting from basic research to applied research. Basic research has as its goal discoveries of things not yet known and/or not known now how they may be useful in the future. Basic research underlies nearly all applied R&D, and without basic research, the pipeline of things yet to come narrows or dries up. The US has fallen far behind other countries in basic research. As a country we cannot lead without actually leading, and not leading is where we are now.


----------



## sportbikerider78

The reason we are falling behind isn't because our government isn't pumping taxpayer money into research at the rate it used to.  It is because our school system has failed and is a failure.  We are not producing minds that have a passion for science and discovery.  Kids are taught what to believe, not how to think.  Schools have become cities, not classrooms.  They are nursery schools that keep the kids out of the parents hair from 7:30-4pm.  They have games and sports with millions of candle power lights, blasting through the night so 10 kids can practice.  They have fireworks at games.  This is what's important..not science...not learning...not education...entertainment.  Parents want the entertainment...so the schools gave it to them.  

Passion for science is a cultural phenomenon and it is up to parents to demand and provide the right education for their kids.  If we aren't willing to correct the problems we know we have, how can we move forward.  It all starts at home.  Teach your kids that there is value in discovery, adventure, order, exploration...the passion for science will follow.


----------



## woodgeek

I'm not going to agree about the schools.  I went to school in the 70s and 80s, and I can say that science, math and engineering were not popular then.  It was all sports, arts and music that the kids and parents got excited about.  To be a nerd, meant to be bullied, you kept your head down and didn't talk about your interests.  Science fairs, math teams, chess clubs....forget about those...send the marching band to tour the country....yep.  And yet my current kids schools have all those....it is the golden age to be a nerd in school TODAY.

I run a govt financed pure research academic lab.  My grant applications (which take about a month each to write) go to agencies where the competitive intensity is such that 95-97% of applications get rejected.  Many very talented younger people...who have devoted their lives to science and engineering and research, doing in school what you wanted them to do....now finally get to be professors and don't get tenure and are fired because they get zero funding after sending out 50 of those month-of-work apps for 5 years.  Happened to a brilliant guy I know that was doing amazing, ground-breaking cancer research.

And the awards they do get...the dollar amount has stayed the same **nominal dollar amount** since the 1980s.  IOW, they have fallen in size by 70-75% due to inflation, and yet each grant is expected to be as productive as before.  Thirty years ago the grant accept rate was 20%, and two grants could run a busy lab full of students.  Now it takes 6-10 grants, and the accept rate is 3-5%.

*But I'm not even talking about that! *Until thirty years ago, that govt sponsored research was a drop in the bucket compared to the big industrial labs doing pure research on corporate dollars (think Bell labs).  Many such big labs (each spending several billions of dollars per year on pure research) still exist, but they are ALL in Holland, Germany, Korea and Japan. Think Phillips, Sony, LG, Siemens, Samsung, etc. Google and Apple's R&D effort might just rate on this scale, but there is very little pure research budget there.


----------



## sportbikerider78

Are these all overseas?  I'm asking because I don't know.  Amazon tops with $13.3B.  Some pretty big bucks!  I'm 100% confident a great deal of that is creating new automation, which will benefit many people. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-29/amazon-and-facebook-are-big-spenders-on-r-d





Having worked in manufacturing (not R&D) my whole life..I see a different side of the coin...but still the same coin.  I see a total lack of talented individuals who are ready to learn and pursue technical trades.  Robot programmers, machinists, hydraulic machine techs, automation techs...I have lived in more than 6 states on the east coast in the last 15 years and the problem is the same.  Kids are not getting into creating new things and learning (sometimes well paying) trades. 
This might not relate directly to R&D, but it is connected.  I think it is more of a leading indicator that we have an issue.

I see the perils of wall street and quarterly cash reporting every day in every company I have worked in.  Short sighted goals.  Lack of real long term strategy.  But whats the alternative?  Some companies get it, some don't.  If there is money to be made, smart companies invest.  If not, they fall behind and disappear...another one rises up.


----------



## woodgeek

sportbikerider78 said:


> Are these all overseas?  I'm asking because I don't know.  Amazon tops with $13.3B.  Some pretty big bucks!  I'm 100% confident a great deal of that is creating new automation, which will benefit many people.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-29/amazon-and-facebook-are-big-spenders-on-r-d
> 
> View attachment 197154
> 
> 
> Having worked in manufacturing (not R&D) my whole life..I see a different side of the coin...but still the same coin.  I see a total lack of talented individuals who are ready to learn and pursue technical trades.  Robot programmers, machinists, hydraulic machine techs, automation techs...I have lived in more than 6 states on the east coast in the last 15 years and the problem is the same.  Kids are not getting into creating new things and learning (sometimes well paying) trades.
> This might not relate directly to R&D, but it is connected.  I think it is more of a leading indicator that we have an issue.
> 
> I see the perils of wall street and quarterly cash reporting every day in every company I have worked in.  Short sighted goals.  Lack of real long term strategy.  But whats the alternative?  Some companies get it, some don't.  If there is money to be made, smart companies invest.  If not, they fall behind and disappear...another one rises up.



Maybe we can agree that there are multiple problems...

As for your bar chart, only Intel and J and J and the pharma are doing long-term 'pure' research IMO, and a lot of that is pretty applied. (based upon where I see our engineering grads go)

You are talking about the supply of American-born scientists and engineers.  I am talking about whether they can get nice, well-paying jobs after spending 20+ years in school/training.  We can blame a culture or schools that turn off young people to science.  I am saying that even those that do go through the system have a hard time finding good jobs afterwards....due to a severe lack of R and D activity in the US across the board.   There are a lot of PhD scientists and engineers going to Wall Street or consulting firms b/c there are no jobs that use their skills.

I think the culture side is improving...if you look at the 'Make' movement, robot clubs, etc.  But it will just mean more people getting advanced training that don't have any Research to do....and they'll do something else.


----------



## woodgeek

Another way to look at it....Novel prizes for Chemistry and Physics.  Up to the 1980s, many of these were awarded for fundamental discoveries made **at US industrial labs**.  Indeed, many of these research labs such as Bell, IBM and Exxon had more Nobel prizes awarded for work there than our elite Universities did.

How many in recent years....in bio there are some at pharma companies....but the awards are all moving overseas, despite a bias for US research by the award cmte.


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> This might not relate directly to R&D, but it is connected. I think it is more of a leading indicator that we have an issue.


But without the r&d there will be nothing worthwhile to produce.  I agree not enough emphasis is put on trades but honestly that is there it is up to the parents to push their kids into what fits them best.  the schools just teach they are not there to make life choices for kids.  



woodgeek said:


> I am saying that even those that do go through the system have a hard time finding good jobs afterwards....due to a severe lack of R and D activity in the US across the board.


Absolutely I have industrial design and engineering degrees and just before I graduated most of the design departments closed up in the us.  Which is why I am now a partner in the family business.  The training is redily available and there are many qualified people like me out there for jobs that no longer exist.



sportbikerider78 said:


> Kids are taught what to believe, not how to think.


That is totally untrue our schools do not teach what to believe.  And as far as being taught to think that is not taught.  Yes it can be nurtured if it is there but the ability is innate.  The problem is not with the schools it is with the parents who expect the schools to do all of the work for them.  If your kid is best suited for a job in the trades push them that way if they have a good scientific mind point them in that direction.  That is not the schools job.


----------



## begreen

Drifting far off topic. Maybe start a new thread on education in the Inglenook?


----------



## woodgeek

Getting back on topic......now we know why those flying cars never showed up....they're not practical with ICE.

Nice batteries and electric motors...no problem!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html
http://www.vox.com/technology/2017/4/20/15367806/flying-cars-survey

Seriously, while power/weight is obviously ok, slow throttle response is a problem for control (in a multirotor aircraft with fixed angle blades), and distributing power to rotors by multiple driveshafts and transmissions would be a pita, and the redundancy possible with 6-8 electric motors is not possible with one ICE engine.  Not even counting the higher reliability of electric motors in general (much higher run hour life).

EVs are the gateway.  The Jetsons aired in 1964, and was set in 2064.  We are a little over halfway there.  Once the flying cars show up, it will be billed as prescient.

My current car already sounds more like the Jetson's car than any ICE car.


----------



## begreen

Here's another electric flying car from Germany. It can do a vertical take off and landing. 300km range. It's a pretty slick package that looks close to production.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15369850/lilium-jet-flying-car-first-flight-vtol-aviation-munich


----------



## pdf27

woodgeek said:


> Getting back on topic......now we know why those flying cars never showed up....they're not practical with ICE.
> 
> Nice batteries and electric motors...no problem!
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html
> http://www.vox.com/technology/2017/4/20/15367806/flying-cars-survey
> 
> Seriously, while power/weight is obviously ok, slow throttle response is a problem for control (in a multirotor aircraft with fixed angle blades), and distributing power to rotors by multiple driveshafts and transmissions would be a pita, and the redundancy possible with 6-8 electric motors is not possible with one ICE engine.  Not even counting the higher reliability of electric motors in general (much higher run hour life).


This is one of those times when I wish I could tell you what I'm doing at work. All I think I can say is that this is happening, and a bunch of Tier 1 and airframer aerospace companies are putting an awful lot of money into making it happen in the very near future. Given the regulatory environment, I genuinely don't think that the various silicon valley companies will be more than a flash in the pan - the people involved have got the ability and background to make it all work within the current commercial regulatory environment.


----------



## woodgeek

As you've said elsewhere, fixed wing have a huge advantage, both in energy use and forward speed.  It is interesting to hear that the aerospace industry is 'on it'. When can we expect the big boys to reveal their ideas?

Other than the E-fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan

The Valley is mostly about 'flashes in the pan', this should not be any different.   But disruptions still occur sometimes.  Incumbent carmakers can make EVs to their tastes (and slow timelines)...or Tesla can define a new normal and race it to market.  Is it impossible that a (well funded) startup can develop a product/model category for air travel that is radically different than the aerospace incumbents, and successful?

That said, it is hard to see where regulatory environments go over time.  Taxis were highly regulated....and then disrupted anyway.  If other countries have success with different models of airspace control over cities, there will the a hue and cry to do the same here.


----------



## begreen

I like the German version better. VTOL, fast and with good range. 

In other news today the state of WA just bought 117 new Chevy Bolts, doubling its electric car fleet.
http://kuow.org/post/state-washington-doubling-its-electric-vehicle-fleet


----------



## pdf27

woodgeek said:


> As you've said elsewhere, fixed wing have a huge advantage, both in energy use and forward speed.  It is interesting to hear that the aerospace industry is 'on it'. When can we expect the big boys to reveal their ideas?
> 
> Other than the E-fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan


Umm... some of it is out there if you know where to look, but the benefits are often quite subtle and not what or where you would expect. So far as timescales go, all I can really say is "soon" - it's all a bit flavour of the month at the moment and we're being asked to get stuff built yesterday.

To give you an example of the sort of problems and benefits faced, electric motors in the landing gear for ground taxiing purposes have been proposed for years, and the idea usually get shelved within about 6 months of surfacing. The problem is that the fuel savings are actually fairly modest compared to the added weight and cost of a big enough electric motor + wiring system to drive around an airport. However, the most recent interest in it was sparked for a completely different reason - an airline was having a dispute with their ground handling staff and wanted to be able to reverse away from the gate instead of needing a push back. 
Something similar is the case with electric rotorcraft - fuel efficiency probably isn't much improved, but do it right and say the noise & vibration levels in the cabin could be drastically reduced, which is critical for things like air ambulances. Helicopters delivering crews to offshore oil platforms are another good example - the dunk trainer that everybody has to go through is because all the heavy bits are on the roof of a helicopter so it turns over and sinks on landing in water. If you use an electrical rather than mechanical transmission, you can put the heavy bits on the bottom and come up with a vastly safer design in the event of a water landing.


----------



## woodgeek

begreen said:


> I like the German version better. VTOL, fast and with good range.
> 
> In other news today the state of WA just bought 117 new Chevy Bolts, doubling its electric car fleet.
> http://kuow.org/post/state-washington-doubling-its-electric-vehicle-fleet



Me too.  Vertical landing and the speed and eff of fixed wing in flight.  And probably also facilitated by electric drivetrain, redundancy and control.


----------



## pdf27

woodgeek said:


> Me too.  Vertical landing and the speed and eff of fixed wing in flight.  And probably also facilitated by electric drivetrain, redundancy and control.



Lets you do a number of other nice structural things too because the mass of the motors is so well distributed, and you're using distributed motors to blow air over the wing as well to improve lift at low speed. 
I think they're on a hiding to nothing by trying to use a pair of tiny diesel-electric generators however, at least if they're the conventional 4 stroke type - might work for some very niche applications but for most things I think it'll be too heavy to make up for the efficiency gain. Generation is one of those things that's much easier in bigger aircraft however as the fluid mechanics/thermodynamics of the prime mover is quite hard to do well in very small engines.


----------



## begreen

And then there is the heavy truck. This is a big market that is ripe for redesign. Musk said they will have a demo model unveiling in September. Bets are that it will have autonomous driving ability. This is a very large market with some significant implications if they pull it off. Another company raising cash here is Nikola. Their model one has a hydrogen fuel cell built in plus a ~320 kWh battery pack. To support this model they will need to build out hydrogen stations.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4062770-crunching-numbers-teslas-semi
https://nikolamotor.com/


----------



## pdf27

Interestingly the autonomous driving isn't necessarily where the economics is pushing you to go - there has been a lot of work on running trucks in platoons (say a dozen really closely nose to tail) in order to reduce emissions, which is both more complicated and more valuable than the Tesla-style autopilot. A completely driverless truck is also not necessarily worth having beyond a few specialist tasks - the driver does a lot on arrival and departure which can't be done automatically or by teleprescence.
It's also worth noting that a fully driverless truck is a very bad candidate for battery power: with no driver's hours restrictions it will never be in one place long enough to recharge.


----------



## begreen

Another point of view on TaaS as a disrupter using EVs.
http://theamericanenergynews.com/ma...try-by-2030-says-stanford-economist-tony-seba


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> Another point of view on TaaS as a disrupter using EVs.
> http://theamericanenergynews.com/ma...try-by-2030-says-stanford-economist-tony-seba


Not buying the timeline on this at all. It may happen to some extent eventually, but im betting it will take a heck of a lot longer than 13 Yrs.


----------



## Highbeam

pdf27 said:


> It's also worth noting that a fully driverless truck is a very bad candidate for battery power: with no driver's hours restrictions it will never be in one place long enough to recharge.



You would just swap out the battery pack with a fully charged one.


----------



## pdf27

Highbeam said:


> You would just swap out the battery pack with a fully charged one.


Only if you're something like a UPS truck with a relatively short route which ends back at a depot every day. That's a fairly small fraction of the total market in the US as I understand it - in theory if you came up with a strict standard that everyone adheres to then you could swap them out at truckstops and the like, but in reality governments are the only people with the power to impose such a standard and they aren't interested. All attempts to do this with cars have crashed and burned taking the companies involved with them, and the problem with trucks looks to be harder still.


----------



## spirilis

Just test-loaned a Leaf for 24hr this week.  Love the car.  Wife doesn't want us to buy yet, but I am considering putting "Plug-in Hybrid" a minimum constraint for our next car.

Also, 240V/40A circuit somewhere in the garage or on a post outside the house... assuming we stay in our house this year.

Random thought dump:
Elon Musk's new Boring company, https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/

Talking about loading cars onto "electric sleds" and shuffling them through tunnels at fast speeds using electricity -

*Eliminating hazardous emissions. *Electric sleds are zero-emission vehicles, and thus do not output hazardous gases like internal combustion cars do.  Every mile the sled transports a gas-burning vehicle becomes a zero-emission mile.
The problem here is what about the car's climate control/comfort?  ICE cars use engine heat for heating (that might still work for a while) but engine for A/C too... I wonder if auto companies should consider adding J1772 ports to all ICE cars just for maintaining the lower-voltage DC busses for comfort control during these "electric sled" rides.  Naturally, the electric sleds must provide a J1772 cable.

Electrification of ICE car accessories (A/C, P/S, etc) is already a thing from what I hear, and having a >=48V DC bus for doing rapid engine start-stop may be a thing soon (outside of hybrids), while the J1772 will support keeping all of those electrified things topped off, while serving as a charging point for BEV/PHEV's at the same time.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I think the GM Bolt has made the Nissan leaf obsolete. Why would anyone  settle for less than half the AER  of the bolt plus the spotty record and battery degradation of the leaf battery.  Unless the leaf was half the price.


----------



## spirilis

Seasoned Oak said:


> I thing the GM Bolt has made the Nissan leaf obsolete. Why would anyone  settle for less than half the AER  of the bolt plus the spotty record and battery degradation of the leaf battery.  Unless the leaf was half the price.


The price seemed somewhat attractive but, I bet it will get even more attractive as the 2018's come out.  Fire sale will sell those last 30kwh Leafs!


----------



## begreen

Locally Bolts and Volts are being advertised for $27,995 during a Memorial Day sale in which Chevrolet is kicking in some incentives. This is before the tax credit.


----------



## jebatty

Minnesota is not the best place to try to find a new Bolt or Leaf from a dealer.


----------



## woodgeek

Easily found a dealer with inventory selling new and used LEAFs in Minneapolis....are you saying that they are not motivated?

Bolts are not in nationwide delivery yet....they're only in the CARB states at this point.  Should be nationwide by the end of the summer.


----------



## spirilis

begreen said:


> Locally Bolts and Volts are being advertised for $27,995 during a Memorial Day sale in which Chevrolet is kicking in some incentives. This is before the tax credit.


Now a Bolt at that price range would be a slam dunk for me.  Still $38K ish around here.

edit: Found one listed for $34.6K but not sure what incentives involved.


----------



## ihookem

Elelctric cars would be great in the cities. Less pollution, less noise too. I dont know why they are not selling in the big cities. It also seems that less will go wrong with them too.  For people that pull double axle trailers with lumber and drywall to work, it won't work. There is no doubt we are going to have to redo a lot of electrical grid, power plants will be needed, natural gas will surely go up , hence the cost of heating our homes. I'm not sure that an electric car is going to be a cheaper lunch in the long run, even if the car itself goes down in price.


----------



## begreen

They are great in stop and go traffic in the city, or in our gridlocked highways and freeways going thru the cities.


----------



## woodgeek

ihookem said:


> Elelctric cars would be great in the cities. Less pollution, less noise too. I dont know why they are not selling in the big cities. It also seems that less will go wrong with them too.  For people that pull double axle trailers with lumber and drywall to work, it won't work. There is no doubt we are going to have to redo a lot of electrical grid, power plants will be needed, natural gas will surely go up , hence the cost of heating our homes. I'm not sure that an electric car is going to be a cheaper lunch in the long run, even if the car itself goes down in price.



Hard to say....electrifying all US light transportation might need about 25-30% as much electric that the US currently generates.  While this sounds like a lot, it will mostly be in off peak times (like night), so no new capacity would be needed.  

As for nat gas prices....hmm. Dispatchable demand (in EVs) will facilitate more renewable energy on the grid, so gas demand might not go up marginally due to EVs.  IF however, oil prices tank due to  EV reduced demand, nat gas prices could rise due to reduced gas production.  Most tight oil production produces gas as a byproduct....when tight oil plays out nat gas will get more expensive.


----------



## Ashful

ihookem said:


> Elelctric cars would be great in the cities. Less pollution, less noise too. I dont know why they are not selling in the big cities.



I know Philly might not represent every city, but I do travel, and it seems there has been a general move from the cities to the 'burbs that started with our parents, and has accelerated in my lifetime.  When I spend an evening in the city, I notice block after block of 14 story buildings with the lower two floors taken by shops or restaurants, and the apartments which used to occupy the upper 12 floors vacant.

Now, am I the only one irritated you can't get a motor over 6 liters in a 1/2 ton pickup anymore?  I'd be driving an SRT-10, if they still made it, but had to settle for the 5.7 liter Hemi, this time around.


----------



## jatoxico

Around here the twenty somethings are moving into the cities.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jatoxico said:


> Around here the twenty somethings are moving into the cities.


I want to live as far from the city as possible. Top reasons are: Traffic jams ,waiting in line, crowds,pollution,noise, high cost of living, crime, ect ,ect did i leave out lack of good firewood?


----------



## jatoxico

I'm with you but the urban living has its good points. First no car needed. They are using mass transit to work. Second all restaurants and entertainment is a short walk away.  Best ex. right now is Brooklyn.  Not for me but I can see the attraction.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jatoxico said:


> I'm with you but the urban living has its good points. First no car needed. They are using mass transit to work. Second all restaurants and entertainment is a short walk away.  Best ex. right now is Brooklyn.  Not for me but I can see the attraction.


It depends what you want to see looking out your windows and when you step out of the house.   Steel ,asphalt and concrete ,or trees, sky and grass.  I live in a small town but have some land in the country.  Its so much easier on the eyes in the country ,both winter and summer. All the stress  goes away the farther i get from the concrete.


----------



## jatoxico

Seasoned Oak said:


> Steel ,asphalt and concrete



Well a lot of these neighborhoods are really beautiful. Many are tree lined with great architecture etc.I just like my peace and quiet but younger folks enjoy the culture and action.


----------



## sportbikerider78

ihookem said:


> Elelctric cars would be great in the cities. Less pollution, less noise too. I dont know why they are not selling in the big cities. It also seems that less will go wrong with them too.  For people that pull double axle trailers with lumber and drywall to work, it won't work. There is no doubt we are going to have to redo a lot of electrical grid, power plants will be needed, natural gas will surely go up , hence the cost of heating our homes. I'm not sure that an electric car is going to be a cheaper lunch in the long run, even if the car itself goes down in price.


Because rich people in cities have options.  It costs a ton of money to park and own a car in a big city.  If you can afford it, the odds are you want a nice SUV not a little electric car.


----------



## spirilis

Seasoned Oak said:


> It depends what you want to see looking out your windows and when you step out of the house.   Steel ,asphalt and concrete ,or trees, sky and grass.  I live in a small town but have some land in the country.  Its so much easier on the eyes in the country ,both winter and summer. All the stress  goes away the farther i get from the concrete.


My wife and I are having an argument about this right now.  She wants the city, hates driving, hates being cooped up when we have a snowstorm (oh, all 2-3 times a year that happens)... I hate concrete jungles, she complains every time I use the phrase.  Right now I'm saying, if we can move to the city and I see trees & greenery and a serviceably-sized permaculture garden outside my window when I wake up, I'll do it.


----------



## woodgeek

sportbikerider78 said:


> Because rich people in cities have options.  It costs a ton of money to park and own a car in a big city.  If you can afford it, the odds are you want a nice SUV not a little electric car.



Not that simple....my LEAF is not a mini-car...it seats 5 adults and a lot of cargo.  Gas and car repair is also a PITA in the city, so a parking location with a charger would be great.  Also, a lot of city people don't drive their cars very often...and then find the battery is dead, etc.  The electric car has great 'standby'....it can sit for months and starts right up every time.


----------



## begreen

A lot of cities have single-family residential neighborhoods. Seattle has several and lots of EVs too.


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> Because rich people in cities have options. It costs a ton of money to park and own a car in a big city. If you can afford it, the odds are you want a nice SUV not a little electric car.


Well lots of people in the city are not rich and saving on fuel costs can hep.  There are also lots of areas in every city where it does not cost any more to park or own a car than out of the city.  I lived in philly for years and loved it the whole time.  But I moved out to raise a family and because of cost of housing.  My transportation costs were no different other than I used my car much less.


----------



## Hasufel

spirilis said:


> My wife and I are having an argument about this right now.  She wants the city, hates driving, hates being cooped up when we have a snowstorm (oh, all 2-3 times a year that happens)... I hate concrete jungles, she complains every time I use the phrase.  Right now I'm saying, if we can move to the city and I see trees & greenery and a serviceably-sized permaculture garden outside my window when I wake up, I'll do it.


I can take cities and actually enjoy them to some degree, but only in small doses. A friend in DC made me slightly jealous when she mentioned being able to walk across the street to Starbucks in the morning. The next day, I made myself a cup of coffee and stepped outside on a beautiful morning to split some firewood, with not a single person in sight. I realized then and there that I wasn't missing much! 

That said, I do recognize that cities tend to be more energy efficient. I heard that NYC is the most energy efficient city per capita in the US, thanks to public transportation and the preponderance of high-rise buildings...


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

spirilis said:


> My wife and I are having an argument about this right now.  She wants the city, hates driving, hates being cooped up when we have a snowstorm (oh, all 2-3 times a year that happens)... I hate concrete jungles, she complains every time I use the phrase.  Right now I'm saying, if we can move to the city and I see trees & greenery and a serviceably-sized permaculture garden outside my window when I wake up, I'll do it.



I think you should move farther from town. After all it is about your happiness right?


----------



## jebatty

One aspect of city/country is whether or not the style of living distances a person from the experience and knowledge that all life, including human life, is dependent upon a vibrant, healthy and diverse ecosystem, and that ecosystem does not exist merely to serve the pleasures and needs of humans, but to sustain life as we know it. Both city and country residents can be equally distanced from the critical nature of our environment, and vice versa. Maybe we all need a large dose of the wonder a young child displays when she picks up an earth worm and watches it wiggle in her hand, when he sees a butterfly dancing around wild flowers, or when they both see clean water bubbling down a wilderness creek. These three and thousands of other things need to be protected and sustained if any of us are to have a healthy future life on earth.


----------



## jebatty

Another aspect of city/country life that offers a very good comment on another dimension of this question: Tidy Life


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Hasufel said:


> That said, I do recognize that cities tend to be more energy efficient. I heard that NYC is the most energy efficient city per capita in the US, thanks to public transportation and the preponderance of high-rise buildings...


I have no desire to use a "public anything"  
 Public transportation would be a giant step backwards for some myself included.   Quality of life is not always compatible with
the most efficient way.


----------



## Ashful

Lloyd the redneck said:


> I think you should move farther from town. After all it is about your happiness right?


My my, Lloyd.  One confrontational post after another today.  Did someone piss in your cornflakes?


----------



## sportbikerider78

Seasoned Oak said:


> I have no desire to use a "public anything"
> Public transportation would be a giant step backwards for some myself included.   Quality of life is not always compatible with
> the most efficient way.


Same for me.  Can't stand public transportation.  Every surface is sticky and dirty feeling to me.  

Plus, I live 19 miles from work and in the country.  It would make less sense for a bus to pick me up than to drive myself.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I have no desire to use a "public anything"


So you dont drive?  You would turn down help from police or fire if you needed it?  Of course public transportation does not make sense everywhere and for everyone.  But there are lots of people who it does make sense for what is wrong with that?



sportbikerider78 said:


> Same for me. Can't stand public transportation. Every surface is sticky and dirty feeling to me.
> 
> Plus, I live 19 miles from work and in the country. It would make less sense for a bus to pick me up than to drive myself.


Again no one said public transportation would work everywhere but it does work well in lots of areas.


----------



## sportbikerider78

What do you mean by working well?  How much subsidization of someone else's ticket makes it successful?  In some cases a taxpayer is paying for more than the person using the transportation.  Sometimes it's the same person, sometimes not.  

It cannot be assumed that public uses less energy and is better for the environment.  

I can't debate that sometimes subsides actually benefit the economy...some people love transit systems and will move to an area and stay longer if they have easy transportation.  Some in dying/depressed areas make little to no improvement and are just another burden on the taxpayer.


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> What do you mean by working well?  How much subsidization of someone else's ticket makes it successful?  In some cases a taxpayer is paying for more than the person using the transportation.  Sometimes it's the same person, sometimes not.
> 
> It cannot be assumed that public uses less energy and is better for the environment.
> 
> I can't debate that sometimes subsides actually benefit the economy...some people love transit systems and will move to an area and stay longer if they have easy transportation.  Some in dying/depressed areas make little to no improvement and are just another burden on the taxpayer.


In some areas there is little subsidy in others there is allot.  But how much of our highway system is subsidised?  Does that mean it isnt working?  And there is no need to assume public transportation is more efficent it has been proven over and over no assumption needed.


----------



## Ashful

I am a strong supporter of public transportation.  It removes non-enthusiasts from the road, and saves the gas for me!


----------



## jatoxico

I've gone down to DC using nothing but rail/subway, LIRR back and forth to NYC for work and pleasure and a couple concerts in Brooklyn. Its good. No fighting for parking or traffic issues. Can have a few drinks or work or both.


----------



## begreen

I commuted for 15 yrs. via public transit. Total distance about 25 miles. I much preferred to take the ferry and bus to driving. During those years I met many fine friends and got a lot of reading done. I'd take that any day to fighting rush hour traffic.


----------



## sportbikerider78

bholler said:


> In some areas there is little subsidy in others there is allot.  But how much of our highway system is subsidised?  Does that mean it isnt working?  And there is no need to assume public transportation is more efficent it has been proven over and over no assumption needed.


I would say that our highway system isn't working.  The massive taxes we pay in fuel are supposed to be keeping the highways in good order.   In many places, they aren't and people are paying tolls on top of that.  Infrastructure is crumbling because the funds get siphoned off for other uses.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Since im already paying  for public roads and police and fire ill use em if i chose to.  As far as public transportation, im glad i dont live in an area where theres traffic jams ,iv been there and wouldnt want to live like that. But its good that a lot of people are fine with it. Leaves the rural areas less crowded. Although lots of people moving here from the city supposedly to get away from crime and crowds but i think they are bringing it with them as crime rates shooting up.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

To get back to the original subject ,Id love to have a GM bolt, and put the ICE family van behind me but would prefer if it was twice as big  and would be fine at half the range.  Gas prices will probably determine how quickly these new modes of transportation will be adopted into the mainstream.


----------



## begreen

Thread is getting way off track. I don't have a crystal ball, but it would not surprise me if global climate conditions becomes the driving force between retooling and infrastructure change, sooner than later.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> Thread is getting way off track. I don't have a crystal ball, but it would not surprise me if global climate conditions becomes the driving force between retooling and infrastructure change, sooner than later.


I'll agree it's inevitable, but don't see it coming all that soon.  Frankly, there's no reason, considering the cost of maintaining our current infrastructure, that we shouldn't all be zooming to work in autonomous pods in underground tunnels at 600 mph.  But each move we make is toward maintaining the mostly-senseless idea of driving large vehicles on deteriorating roads, albeit possibly electric vehicles in place of ICE's.  At a minimum, if we could get commercial delivery traffic out of delivery trucks and into a plumbed system, it would dramatically cut down on congestion, noise, and emissions.  Yet, folks seem to fight even the simplest such delivery systems, such as refinery pipelines.


----------



## jatoxico

Ashful said:


> folks seem to fight even the simplest such delivery systems, such as refinery pipelines.



A lot of truth in that. Many parts of Long Island are notorious for traffic which is served E/W largely by one expressway that can accommodate commercial traffic. A proposal to build a yard that would have allowed for rail shipment of building materials etc and was expected to remove an untold number of trucks from the roads at reduced cost and with less fuel was vigorously opposed. Same idiots will be complaining about their commute time with their next breath.


----------



## begreen

Get to work on replicators, transporters and anti-gravity vehicles. Then beam me up, Scotty.


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> Yet, folks seem to fight even the simplest such delivery systems, such as refinery pipelines.



I for one oppose some pipelines because I see them as expensive mal-investments.  The Bakken is in permanent decline and marginal economically (Dakota Access), and Canadian oil-sands appear likely to be un-economic for most plausible future oil price scenarios (Keystone).

Dakota Access might save lives by preventing some trains from exploding (including in our neighborhood), but a better alternative is to tell Warren Buffet he can afford better engineered rail cars.

Gas pipelines to ship PA nat gas to cold Bostoners....I'm all in. But they're not building that.


----------



## jebatty

sportbikerider78 said:


> I would say that our highway system isn't working.  The massive taxes we pay in fuel are supposed to be keeping the highways in good order.   In many places, they aren't and people are paying tolls on top of that.  Infrastructure is crumbling because the funds get siphoned off for other uses.


 I would like to see hard data on the amount of fuel taxes "siphoned off for other uses" vs the amount used for roads and bridges. And then also on the amount of funds which in fact are needed to keep the roads and bridges "in good order." I suspect that in fact, while some funds may be siphoned off, the fuel taxes themselves are woefully insufficient to maintain the highway system, and that is the primary reason why the highway system isn't working as well as it could.

The highway system itself is extremely inefficient. Designing a system which works well at peak load means a very excessive and costly system at less than peak load. Combine that with vehicles which are carrying far less than maximum load (one person vs 4-6 design capacity) makes this inefficiency even worse. Passenger vehicle traffic could be reduced by 50% if vehicles simply by each vehicle carrying more people, and congestion would disappear. 

Better managing traffic flow through driver-less vehicles also likely would result in the existing system being able to handle 30-50% more traffic. Driver behavior is a cause of a large portion of current congestion.


----------



## Ashful

Excellent post, as always, jebatty.  Rideshare programs have been successful in some high-traffic corridors, but obviously don't work well in the vast areas of suburban sprawl where many live today.  It's not practical for many to find three passengers going from a common source to a common destination, on the same departure and return schedule, on a daily basis.  My version of rideshare is having my kids in the back seat, and passing their schools on my way to work, where I stop and drop them off.  This may be more common for those in my narrow age demographic, but that's a short fraction of life.



jebatty said:


> Better managing traffic flow through driver-less vehicles also likely would result in the existing system being able to handle 30-50% more traffic. Driver behavior is a cause of a large portion of current congestion.



Yes!  Driver behavior is a huge factor in congestion, not to mention frustration!  At the top of the list is distracted drivers, followed by a large fraction of the elderly, and those self-appointed vigilantes who like to hang out in the left lane to throttle traffic on the expressway.  I was stuck in a long line of traffic behind a driver yesterday, who seemingly didn't know that one could press the skinny pedal on the right to accelerate, rather choosing to coast up to their final speed (never topping 30 mph in a 45 mph zone) with the engine at idle.  This morning, I had a driver come around a sharp blind bend in the road at me, in MY lane!  I don't think they even realized they were more than half a vehicle-width out of their lane.

However, some of us might like not resorting to driverless vehicles to resolve this problem, there should be other sensible means of removing such drivers from the road.  Not everyone is meant to operate a 5000 lb. instrument of death, yet it seems anyone can get a license to drive!


----------



## jatoxico

Ashful said:


> those self-appointed vigilantes who like to hang out in the left lane to throttle traffic on the expressway.



My personal pet peeve and one of the biggest causes of subsequent aggressive and dangerous driving (not on my part!). My oldest son got his license about a year ago. We paid for private lessons and of course he read all associated info and took all required written tests prior to the road test. When I asked, he said that no one had ever told him the left lane is for passing only.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Expanding population is the root of all problems. Not sure people were meant to live stacked on top of one another, for most of history at least.
The ICE isnt going anywhere overnight, but may have to share throne.


----------



## jatoxico

Seasoned Oak said:


> for most of history at least.



For most of history people died at 25 of horrible diseases and injuries.


----------



## Ashful

jatoxico said:


> For most of history people died at 25 of horrible diseases and injuries.


You're talking about a few fairly narrow windows of time, such as the American frontier period, or the formerly-named "dark ages".  The truth is, 2500 years ago, the average Athenian making it past childhood was living to age 85.  The same can be said of the Roman's, at least those not dying in battle.


----------



## jatoxico

Ashful said:


> Incorrect.  You're talking about a few fairly narrow windows of time, such as the American frontier period, or the formerly-named "dark ages".  2500 years ago, the average Athenian was living to age 85.  The same can be said of the Roman's, at least those not dying in battle.



You selected some special point in place and time that I can't confirm or refute but in any case missed the point. I meant human history going back 30K years etc. The point being society technology etc evolves/improves so imagining we should continue to live the same way just because that's how we have always lived makes no sense. Not to mention we have lived in cities and towns largely to our benefit for a long time.

I'm not going to have the ridiculous debate that people lived longer 3 hundred or a thousand years ago before antibiotics etc.


----------



## Ashful

jatoxico said:


> You selected some special point in place and time that I can't confirm or refute but in any case missed the point. I meant human history going back 30K years etc. The point being society technology etc evolves/improves so imagining we should continue to live the same way just because that's how we have always lived makes no sense. Not to mention we have lived in cities and towns largely to our benefit for a long time.
> 
> I'm not going to have the ridiculous debate that people lived longer 3 hundred or a thousand years ago before antibiotics etc.


You mean before Dow chemical, asbestos, Glaxo, and Marlboro?  If I have missed your point, it is because of the example you chose to illustrate it.



jatoxico said:


> For most of history people died at 25 of horrible diseases and injuries.



I cannot think of a period of history where this statement is correct.  For most of recorded human history, anyone making it to age 25 was very likely have a life expectancy similar to our own modern history.  The low "average life expectancy" figures you may remember from history class are almost entirely due to infant and child mortality creating a very strong downward skew.  Like one "zero" in an otherwise decent school term, a few dead 3-month old kids can really drag down the average quickly.


----------



## jatoxico

You're confusing or at least conflating life span and expectancy but in any case I disagree and I'm out. Let's talk about your truck or splitter, good luck with both BTW, sincerely.


----------



## Ashful

lol... no hard feelings intended, jatoxico.  Just a boring Thursday, I guess, watching a few computers run computations.  Wasn't trying to pick a fight!


----------



## begreen

From the death of the infernal combustion engine to the death of humans in 16 pages. One certainty is that they will both die over time. 

Prolly time for a wrap here. Philosophy can continue in the Inglenook.


----------

