Fuel prices

[Ridelght]

Ever the optimist. Lab in England had a working very very small lab fusion reaction.
I'd say 20 years to scale it up and 20-30 years for industry to build the large scale reactors and updated grid system. Could make chargers as common as gas stations and perhaps just as fast.
The real world me also believes the politicians and power companies will make this expensive.


View attachment 76981

A lot of people believe charging their new EVS will be free in the future. I highly doubt that, I mentioned my sister bought herself a Tesla. She was shocked when she bought her plates as here there is a extra charge since you wont be paying tax at the pump for gas. Nothing is ever simple like people want it to be.
I have read studies about the cost difference and even with that not taken in to the equation really not much of a difference over a typical car loan or lease period.
So I agree with you about the Goverment getting thier piece.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: I get the physics but turbo 4 cyls are an example of 1 source running another and increasing power.

NO power is NOT increased !!! A turbo engine tries to be more efficient at transforming the energy in the gasoline into rotary motion than a nonturbo engine. I say try because there's a LOT of 'math and physics' needed to constantly fine tune an engine into getting the most 'bang for the buck'.
The idea of storing 'downhill' energy in capacitors is 'good on paper' BUT it costs you energy carrying those capacitors ALL the time. Plus there's the up front real money of them and the electronics to store and use the energy.

sad joke of the day is that it was announced that Windsor,Ont will have a 5 BILLION dollar ' help' to make batteries for EVs. In the very, very short term it'll create 2-3000 jobs IF we can get the raw materials like lithium and nickel at an affordable price. NONE of the batteries will last more than 8 years here and cost +-20K to replace....

 

[Ridelght]

re: I get the physics but turbo 4 cyls are an example of 1 source running another and increasing power.

NO power is NOT increased !!! A turbo engine tries to be more efficient at transforming the energy in the gasoline into rotary motion than a nonturbo engine. I say try because there's a LOT of 'math and physics' needed to constantly fine tune an engine into getting the most 'bang for the buck'.
The idea of storing 'downhill' energy in capacitors is 'good on paper' BUT it costs you energy carrying those capacitors ALL the time. Plus there's the up front real money of them and the electronics to store and use the energy.

sad joke of the day is that it was announced that Windsor,Ont will have a 5 BILLION dollar ' help' to make batteries for EVs. In the very, very short term it'll create 2-3000 jobs IF we can get the raw materials like lithium and nickel at an affordable price. NONE of the batteries will last more than 8 years here and cost +-20K to replace....

Interesting...i always thought turbos increased air, thus compression thus Horsepower. Same with superchargers.

I agree about battery cost. The handtool market shows that. A bare tool is cheap. The batteries are expensive and go bad realatively quick. Then therr is the recycling issue. I mentioned rare earth in a post. I was advised to invest in that market as the rare earth magnets are in the motors on each wheel. I was excited till i saw the cost and who has the resources. China and Russia.
So your new E 150 comes with sickle emobossed floor mats i guess.

Thanks for the replies, im learning a lot and it explains why no one cam solve this dilema.
It will be years. Sad we are being pushed toward it and held at ransom at the pumps.
Very little to do with Putin. Was already trending this way before the invasion.
Politicians never let a horrific sitiation go wasted though to camouflage thier agendas.

 

[dirtydeed]

Interesting...i always thought turbos increased air, thus compression thus Horsepower. Same with superchargers.

you forgot one important ingredient in that summary...it's increased air AND increased fuel.

 

[Ridelght]

you forgot one important ingredient in that summary...it's increased air AND increased fuel.

So much for ecoboost. Lol.... stands to reason gas consumption would be increased to some degree.

 

[Deleted member 47704]

It takes .5 lbs of fuel per horse power per hour. End of story.
Whether you make 400 hp normally aspirated or turbo charged it takes the same amount of fuel per hp.

There are no 200 mpg carburetors either.

Eco boost is fallacy, They turbo a tiny engine that cruises off boost making no power which is why it gets some economy but on boost it sucks fuel.

 

[Biker1mike]

It takes .5 lbs of fuel per horse power per hour. End of story.
.....

So tempted to quote the old math teacher, 'you need to show your work'. Kidding, of course.

 

[hagrid]

Are exhaust driven turbocharged engines more efficient than naturally aspirated engines?

 

[DaveFromMi]

The purpose turbochargers these days is to get decent acceleration out of small displacement engines. The net result is better fuel economy. That was the theory behind the Ecoboost. In theory, the vehicle should get better FE during highway driving when the boost is low or none.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

You can get a vehicle to get 100 MPG.
You can get a vehicle to go 100 MPH.
You cannot get a vehicle to go 100 MPH AND get 100 MPG.

You also can't do 100 MPH with 1000# in a pickup and get ANY kind of 'fuel economy'.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

You cannot get a vehicle to go 100 MPH AND get 100 MPG.

Yes you can, for a brief amount of time...
The time it takes for you to drive it off a cliff, till the time you hit the ground.

 

[skeets]

There aint no free lunch kids !

 

[Freeheeler]

Yes you can, for a brief amount of time...
The time it takes for you to drive it off a cliff, till the time you hit the ground.

I was gonna say throw it out of a plane. But technically, the fuel you burn driving it up to the top of the cliff or the plane's fuel to get it up in the air would bring the mpg down substantially.
Tractor talk brings up some strange topics sometimes

 

[AndyM]

U.S. energy facts explained - consumption and production - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. energy supply by types of energy sources and energy consumption by transportation, industrial, commercial, residential, and electric power sectors.

www.eia.gov

According to this source "biomass" (aka burning something) accounts for 39% of "Green" energy compared to Solar - 11%, Wind - 26%.

 

[aaluck]

Anything technological that is new, is going to be more expensive till it's refined, manufacturing designs fine tuned, and cost of production and demand are brought down.

Which is the point. At some time in the future--I suggest about 20 years or more, the technology will be such that it will be affordable AND far more efficient.

Let's look at flat screen TVs. I remember seeing my first one in Vegas in about 1985. It was about 50 inches, and 8 inches thick and cost about $15,000. Now I can go to walmart and get a 65 inch, about two inches thick for under $500. Took about 25 years.

The problem with this electric push on everyone is we are still in the 1985 era of flat screen TVs, on electric vehicles. Not just the technology but more importantly the infrastructure.

Example: I was traveling for work this week and in the Marriott I stayed at they had FOUR plug ins for electric vehicles, in the parking lot. About 100 cars in that same lot. There was also SIX gas stations within a mile--which can 'fully recharge' 100s of vehicles per hour. Do you want to stay at the Marriott an extra 10 days (at $189 per day--$1,890.00) to wait in line to charge your vehicle on one of the FOUR chargers, so that you can go 300 miles and repeat the process? So lets just say that the government gives every household a FREE electric vehicle. The GHGs would actually get worse from all of the tow trucks picking up dead cars and hauling them to a line days long to get a charge.

Electric cars are the FUTURE, no doubt. However, they are NOT the present. AND until they are the present we need to pump as much oil as humanly possible out of OUR land.

 

[Ridelght]

Which is the point. At some time in the future--I suggest about 20 years or more, the technology will be such that it will be affordable AND far more efficient.

Let's look at flat screen TVs. I remember seeing my first one in Vegas in about 1985. It was about 50 inches, and 8 inches thick and cost about $15,000. Now I can go to walmart and get a 65 inch, about two inches thick for under $500. Took about 25 years.

The problem with this electric push on everyone is we are still in the 1985 era of flat screen TVs, on electric vehicles. Not just the technology but more importantly the infrastructure.

Example: I was traveling for work this week and in the Marriott I stayed at they had FOUR plug ins for electric vehicles, in the parking lot. About 100 cars in that same lot. There was also SIX gas stations within a mile--which can 'fully recharge' 100s of vehicles per hour. Do you want to stay at the Marriott an extra 10 days (at $189 per day--$1,890.00) to wait in line to charge your vehicle on one of the FOUR chargers, so that you can go 300 miles and repeat the process? So lets just say that the government gives every household a FREE electric vehicle. The GHGs would actually get worse from all of the tow trucks picking up dead cars and hauling them to a line days long to get a charge.

Electric cars are the FUTURE, no doubt. However, they are NOT the present. AND until they are the present we need to pump as much oil as humanly possible out of OUR land.

Very well said. I agree 100 percent. So hijacking oil prices using the threat of less on the Market from Russia is totally unnecessary and way premature. Remember cell phones from 1986 ? Like a military field phone from ww2. Now fit in t-shirt pocket. There are SOOO many things besides infrastructure though that need adressed. Recycling the battieries for 1.
Thanks for your post

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: Electric cars are the FUTURE, no doubt

Have to disagree unless you can tell us where the power necessary to recharge the $$$$ batteries will come from, where is the infrastructure, and WHO is going to pay for the tremendous cost to dispose of the used up batteries ?
One ,simple example...
In the USA, it's going to cost a MINIMUM of 5 BILLION bucks to install +-940 charging stations on the Interstates. No posting how many jacks per station and no one ever posts REAL time to recharge their EVs. No one every puts in writing the cost to add a 100 service to EVERY house in North America AND the cost to get the power TO those houses, and of course ,um, WHERE are the electrons coming from to power those home charging stations. Pie in the sky.. EVs in every driveway, cept where Winter rears it's cold,ugly head.
I get daily updates about the 'tech', some interesting like needing liquid cooled hoses NOT simple wires to at the chargers. Everyone will pay high prices as we get 100% into 'time of use' smart meters where rates are based on the clock, and 'off peak' time slots will be reduced(already have here in Ontario BTW).

 

[Ridelght]

re: Electric cars are the FUTURE, no doubt

Have to disagree unless you can tell us where the power necessary to recharge the $$$$ batteries will come from, where is the infrastructure, and WHO is going to pay for the tremendous cost to dispose of the used up batteries ?
One ,simple example...
In the USA, it's going to cost a MINIMUM of 5 BILLION bucks to install +-940 charging stations on the Interstates. No posting how many jacks per station and no one ever posts REAL time to recharge their EVs. No one every puts in writing the cost to add a 100 service to EVERY house in North America AND the cost to get the power TO those houses, and of course ,um, WHERE are the electrons coming from to power those home charging stations. Pie in the sky.. EVs in every driveway, cept where Winter rears it's cold,ugly head.
I get daily updates about the 'tech', some interesting like needing liquid cooled hoses NOT simple wires to at the chargers. Everyone will pay high prices as we get 100% into 'time of use' smart meters where rates are based on the clock, and 'off peak' time slots will be reduced(already have here in Ontario BTW).

I have wondered if the house chargers require updated service. Not every home is 200 amps here in Ohio. A lot of older homes that were never upgraded past 100 amp.
I do though think at some point EV S will be standard. Gas or diesel for lawn equipment and tractors. Maybe not in my lifetime but it will be pushed. Right now its all for show.
The electric we currently use is genetated from facilities using fossil fuels. So who's kidding who.

 

[Ridelght]

Are exhaust driven turbocharged engines more efficient than naturally aspirated engines?

I think so. See a lot of high performance engines using those.

 

[lynnmor]

It is amazing how the media and government can plant a seed and watch the people scramble after the fruit thinking they must. The whole EV scam is just a way of leading the people in a direction they may not want to go. Follow along, but don’t complain when you finally wake up.