Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[hollus]

No more personal stuff and wild derails, warnings do follow. Thank you.

[Zynerji]

We need some sort of hold over until we can make solid Element 115!

What will Moscovium bring to the party?

Antigravity

[Just_a_fan]

We need some sort of hold over until we can make solid Element 115!

What will Moscovium bring to the party?

Antigravity

Ah, it's one of your less-serious side notes. I should have seen it coming!

[Big Tea]

No more personal stuff and wild derails, warnings do follow. Thank you.

I know it falls into that category, but can I please slip this link in if I promise to be good for a while?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_phicOPoQT8

[Andres125sx]

No more personal stuff and wild derails, warnings do follow. Thank you.

I know it falls into that category, but can I please slip this link in if I promise to be good for a while?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_phicOPoQT8

The baseline of the video, trains produce a half of plane emissions, is flawed. Trains are electric, so emissions will depend on electricity production. If we assume they produce a half of plane emissions today ok, but that number is constantly decreasing as renewable energy increases its share of total energy production, and some day it may be zero emissions or at least it will be much lower than today

Blimps are too weather dependant, and too slow to be a viable alternative IMHO

[Jolle]

No more personal stuff and wild derails, warnings do follow. Thank you.

I know it falls into that category, but can I please slip this link in if I promise to be good for a while?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_phicOPoQT8

The baseline of the video, trains produce a half of plane emissions, is flawed. Trains are electric, so emissions will depend on electricity production. If we assume they produce a half of plane emissions today ok, but that number is constantly decreasing as renewable energy increases its share of total energy production, and some day it may be zero emissions or at least it will be much lower than today

Blimps are too weather dependant, and too slow to be a viable alternative IMHO

In The Netherlands trains (apart from a handful of old diesel trains) all run on 100% renewable energy.

[nzjrs]

In The Netherlands trains (apart from a handful of old diesel trains) all run on 100% renewable energy.

How does this work? I thought the Netherlands was like 75% fossil fuel generation?

[DChemTech]

In The Netherlands trains (apart from a handful of old diesel trains) all run on 100% renewable energy.

How does this work? I thought the Netherlands was like 75% fossil fuel generation?

Just contractual. In practice, indeed, the energy mix used is not fully green. Although contractual commitment of large players like the national railways can of course speed up the transition to a greener energy mix by increasing specific demand for renewables, and hence one may indeed allocate a different energy mix to the railways than the national average to account for that... that's all still a matter of book-keeping.

However, the claim in the video that 'trains produce half the CO2 of flights' comes out of the blue. Half the CO2 on what basis? Per movement? A train is a lot bigger than a plane. Per kilometer? Per passenger?
The fairest way of comparison is CO2/(passenger * kilometer), and on that account, trains beat planes by a wider margin (and typically beat cars), even on fossil fuels. There will still be substantial regional differences though, say between an intensively used Dutch railway, or a meagerly used American one - and indeed, the energy mix of the country. (https://www.carbonbrief.org/eight-chart ... -emissions gives a decent overview in the first figure, although the extremes of poorly populated routes are likely not included in the range).

Added to that, there's of course the greenification-potential. It's simpler to make energy renewable than to make fuel renewable, and so as the energy mix changes, the advantage of trains will grow.

[J.A.W.]

It will be interesting to see if any/what research has been considered regarding the effect of C-19
reductions in passenger-jet flight frequency over the past ~18/12 or so, on the stratosphere/albedo.

Also of interest, given the likes of EV champ Lron Musque's input via huge hydrocarbon-efflux rockets:

https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/

[Andres125sx]

It will be interesting to see if any/what research has been considered regarding the effect of C-19
reductions in passenger-jet flight frequency over the past ~18/12 or so, on the stratosphere/albedo.

What do you expect exactly? Airliners pollute a lot, but they´re just a fraction of the problem, a 2.4% according to that article exactly. A partial reduction of a small fraction will barely be noticeable

Also of interest, given the likes of EV champ Lron Musque's input via huge hydrocarbon-efflux rockets:

https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/

This is even more irrelevant with only a hundred launches a year in the whole planet. Who cares? It´s peanuts


If now, suddenly, you´re worrying about CC, you could for example worry about emissions of american muscle cars that use engines 2x, 3x or even 4x bigger than necessary, and that obviously pollute a lot more than necessary with the only reason of human arrogance

[J.A.W.]

American muscle car engines are never big enough, why they ah, currently have a struggle on hand
to waste a max-spec Tesla! & anyhow, the huge US 'pick-up' & SUV machines far outnumber them.

We don't know for sure what effect vastly more rocket-efflux into the highest atmosphere will have,
nor what the massive cut on stratospheric gas-turbine usage will do, so no arrogant presumption, thanks..

[Xwang]

Will flow batteries have a part in electrification?
They last longer and permit (at least in theory) to change the electrolyte with a recharged one pretty in the same way and time you do with fuels.
Moreover their power and energy characteristics can be designed separately, but they are more complex (they needs some pumps) and have less energy and power densities.

[Brake Horse Power]

Quite recently a Dutch professor of Eindhoven university made a short movie explaining trains are often not more sustainable than airliners. This due to the enormous amount (length) of rail and materials needed for bridges and tunnels (depending on location). In his opinion making carbon neutral aviation fuel is far cheaper, and cleaner, than seriously expanding railway systems.

[Greg Locock]

Will flow batteries have a part in electrification?
have less energy and power densities.

They do already have a commercial niche market, providing storage for lifts (elevators). As you say they can be recharged by replenishing the fluid, or by recharging it, and for static installations they make some sense - you can make the energy storage bigger simply by making the tanks bigger. They aren't amazingly efficient at 80% round trip, not a number that is widely publicised for many battery types. That is, if i deliver X kWh to your battery facility, and later get Y kWh, leaving the battery in the same state of charge, what is Y/X? All the electrical jiggery pokery and hotel loads should be accounted for by that method.

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

[Andres125sx]

American muscle car engines are never big enough, why they ah, currently have a struggle on hand
to waste a max-spec Tesla!

Not sure what you mean, but...

& anyhow, the huge US 'pick-up' & SUV machines far outnumber them.

Agree, pick-ups and SUVs are an even a bigger problem. And contrary to rockets, there´s a viable alternative for all of them

We don't know for sure what effect vastly more rocket-efflux into the highest atmosphere will have,
nor what the massive cut on stratospheric gas-turbine usage will do, so no arrogant presumption, thanks..

Trying to divert attention JAW? I´ll remember this is the "viability of EVs" thread, a hundred rocket launches a year will never be a comparable problem to hundreds millions cars driving daily, many of them with engines much much bigger than necessary, with emission levels several orders of magnitude higher than necessary, just because some humans feel the need to own a car with much much, much more power than he really need.

As you may guess from a F1T member I love those machines, but if we discuss about viability, emissions, and what is rational and what is not, anyone with a brain will have to agree a 6 litres engine is not necessary for a car at all, actually not even a half of that is necessary at all. Also, there are much more rational alternatives so they could be replaced easily.

OTOH a rocket does not have any viable alternative yet, so what do you think we should focus on JAW? Something wich is used a hundred times a year with no viable alternative? Or on something wich is used thousands millions times a year and actually have many viable alternatives?