kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
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.
Is the reign of the ICE ending?
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
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.
Last edited:
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
(broken link removed to http://www.hindustantimes.com/autos/china-s-new-energy-vehicle-quota-threat-charges-up-electric-car-market/story-ZySSKDAJv25BH6ahhkQMfN.html)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-autos-electric-idUSKBN17R086
(broken link removed to http://www.hindustantimes.com/autos/china-s-new-energy-vehicle-quota-threat-charges-up-electric-car-market/story-ZySSKDAJv25BH6ahhkQMfN.html)
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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
Minister of Fire
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
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
![[Hearth.com] Is the reign of the ICE ending?](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/197/197183-24d6d6824bf50813641be4673f888f0c.jpg?hash=stH_IfQIwi "[Hearth.com] Is the reign of the ICE ending?")
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Last edited:
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
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15369850/lilium-jet-flying-car-first-flight-vtol-aviation-munich
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.Getting back on topic...
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).
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.
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.
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.
(broken link removed)
In other news today the state of WA just bought 117 new Chevy Bolts, doubling its electric car fleet.
(broken link removed)
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.
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.
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/
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4062770-crunching-numbers-teslas-semi
https://nikolamotor.com/
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.
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.
Another point of view on TaaS as a disrupter using EVs.
http://theamericanenergynews.com/ma...try-by-2030-says-stanford-economist-tony-seba
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.
- Status
