Climate Change
@seeds I think in the vid they mention the cost but can't remember exactly. There's so many modifications needed to be able to handle that sort of power so it adds up. But with more and more EVs entering the market costs will come down. The conversion cost would be more than a new car, so out of range for most. There are cheaper conversions, but not sure about here in Australia, we do seem to be lagging.
*This vid only came to me (I didn't look for it) the other day. So I don't know much about them at all, only what I've seen in half a dozen youtube vids. It surprised me, all I'd ever heard about electrics is that they're slow, no power etc. There's another 600hp beetle that he's done, faster than a supercar.
It interests me as a four wheel driver, for play and touring, when and if 4x4s go electric will they have enough power.
Also if towing needing good amounts of torque available. If it happens cost will probably be way out of my range.
Had a few kombis in my younger days and loved them. Except for the lack of power
Normal cars will probably be able to be converted to hydrogen quite easily so you can keep your old fourby or your 57 chev.
@seeds have a look at Rivian. Going to IPO soon as well and announced entry to Aus market.
+Ford F150 looks sick. Overall, US 4 x 4 market is well ahead of us but we will move sooner or later.
Also, ABC published an article on converting classic cars into electric cars not that long ago. It's definitely happening.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-10-18/converting-classic-cars-t...
@seeds , don’t have the answer for you but a close friend in perth who’s a auto electrician has a mate in the same business and he developed a electric drag racing car that did over 200 klm ph on the 1/4 mile track . He attracted a lot of attention from the US , this was about 6 years ago . Unfortunately he was bashed in a home invasion and not sure where he’s at with it all now but sounded like power wasn’t a problem .
Suppose the more batteries the more power but with that comes weight. Then losing the original donk makes up for it if these electric motors are significantly lighter. I suppose the bigger they get the heavier also. Be a happy medium somewhere.
@ flollo those Rivians have pretty good specs hey. Funny looking
I’ve driven a Prius work car and it was weird when running on electric. No engine noise was strange. I love the feel and sound of my V8. Manufacturer’s might have to add sound effects to keep us happy
seeds - Rev heads like you are maybe not the type that BB wants to reach on climate issues . If you knew anything about EV's you would know that the manufacturers already have . Silly boy !
Go onto the other thread and prove that I am wrong when I accused you of lying and not thinking .
What type of seeds have you been planting ?
I love the sound of big engines too, that vid appeared in my feed while looking at vids of big old aircraft engines.
The biggest questions I'd have with EVs would be range, and how / where to recharge. Does anyone know what recharge times would be?
"I love the sound of big engines too......."
More noise = Less power. The most pathetic vehicles on the road though are those Harleys designed to make the most possible noise "Look at me! Look at me!" Infantile stuff.
Hutchy 19 wrote:seeds - Rev heads like you are maybe not the type that BB wants to reach on climate issues . If you knew anything about EV's you would know that the manufacturers already have . Silly boy !
Go onto the other thread and prove that I am wrong when I accused you of lying and not thinking .
What type of seeds have you been planting ?
Not a rev head and never have been.
Serves a purpose but does also sound good as a bonus.
Quite agree with most of what Blindboy says even if he is boringly incessant with his on and on blathering as you are.
And this go onto the other thread and respond to me nonsense you do all the time when you haven’t had a response in a minute is pathetic.
You really are a dick!
blindboy wrote:"I love the sound of big engines too......."
More noise = Less power. The most pathetic vehicles on the road though are those Harleys designed to make the most possible noise "Look at me! Look at me!" Infantile stuff.
Well I’d agree they are just ridiculous. It’s a laugh when they all take off from the pub after a beer on their rides and they floor it for first 100 metres.
I don't like them on the roads though, never had one never will. Too dirty, use too much fuel, impractical. Not into motor racing of any kind. Was watching vids of restored ww2 fighter planes, and how sketchy they were to fly
I think the subconscious reason I posted the vid on the electric kombi was to show people who love their V8s / big loud cars, that electric cars can go much faster. V8s aren't so great after all
No they are great but will be relegated to history soon enough. My everyday driver is a 4 cylinder Holden Cruze. You oughta see me hanging out front of 7 Eleven in that on a Saturday night Hutchy!! Bonnet up,leaning on the fender, looking cool and all.
I drive all sorts of race cars and road cars have a evo9 for track and road
plus a multivan and coaster for off the grid searches. I was a V8 coach
and Hot lap driver driver for Fastrack racing until the China virus ruined
our lives and in my case lively hood. I love the roar of V8s and the power
and handling of turbos and pretty much any car that goes hard and handles
well. Personally in reality I dont think in the big picture of the world Australia
is a drop in the ocean compared to the likes of China , India, UK, USA etc
but here we are with the do gooders wankers saying we are going to lead the
world with climate change. I wont be giving up petrol until the last drop.
Electric cars are dangerously quite and go no where in distance they will
have to improve a hell of a lot to get me in one. Be interesting what the
do gooders and ignorant politicians do when most cars are electric and
kids and pedestrians get splattered all over the place.
Meanwhile we can't even reach the low hanging fruit.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/max-opray/2021/11/03/australia-...
@ evosurfer
I’ll attest to that. Few year ago having a quiet early morning walk in Hong Kong. No people around no traffic noise. Crossing the road where there was a bend. Half way across looked to my left as I sensed something and had a Tesla bearing down on me at speed. Didn’t hear a thing. Very very close
Blind One - did you read flollo's post ?"Rio Tinto estimates that committed supply and capacity expansions will contribute about 15% to demand growth over the 2020-2050 period. The remaining 85% would need to come from new projects. "
This is just EV demand . Batteries is extra . I do hope there is a substitute for lithium but I bet it doesn't grow on trees or lies on top of the ground .
You didn't believe the link that said new projects take between 10-15 years from discovery to production . Why ?
https://www.explorelesmines.com/en/mining-industry/mining-cycle.html
They are a pro mining group and would not OVERestimate the timeline .
Please provide any link with another timeline estimate .
This is a major issue ! The world will require millions of mega batteries by 2050 to enable us to get to net zero CO2 on top of the demand for EV's
As I have pointed out major new sources of rare commodities need to be found and mines built . RIO estimates the percentage at 85% just for EV's .The battery demand would be greater than EV demand .
How is all this possible ?
Where we are already. Observed global temperature changes since 1950.
Where we are NOW .
Authored by Pat Buchanan,
“Colossal Stakes as Leaders Meet to Talk Climate,” ran the headline.
“The Last Best Hope,” ran the subhead, which turned out to be a quote from President Joe Biden’s climate czar John Kerry.
But these alarmist headings were not atop an editorial. They topped the lead news story in Sunday’s New York Times, the opening line of which set the tone for Glasgow: “The future is on the line.”
Somini Sengupta, climate reporter, then laid out the “colossal stakes” of the summit.
“As presidents and prime ministers arrive in Glasgow this week for a pivotal climate summit, the outcome will determine, to a large extent, how the world’s seven billion people will survive on a hotter planet and whether far worse levels of warming can be averted …
“Already, the failure to slow rising temperatures — brought on by the burning of oil, gas and coal — has led to deadly floods, fires, heat, and drought around the world.”
The hype is on. And the establishment media are playing their assigned role - portraying a failure at Glasgow as a guarantee of the looming apocalypse.
The first leader the Times quoted was from Barbados.
“That we are now so perilously close to the edge for a number of countries,” said Prime Minister Mia Mottley, “is perhaps the tragedy of our times.”
The theology of the climate crisis runs like this.
The planet has warmed by 1.1 degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. If warming rises to more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above 1900 levels, more and more terrible weather disasters will occur: wildfires, hurricanes of growing severity, droughts, coastal and river flooding, and islands sinking into the sea.
The only way to stave off “climate catastrophe” is for all nations to cut carbon emissions radically now and for the world to reach net zero emissions by midcentury.
A fast phaseout of the major emitters of carbon dioxide — the burning of coal, oil and gas to heat homes, run cars and generate power — and replacement of these fossil fuels with clean energy — solar, wind, nuclear — is a moral and political imperative.
But if such a radical transformation of national economies is the only way to avert the impending crisis, we should brace ourselves and prepare for that crisis. For there is no way the demanded changes in energy consumption are going to be made by 2030.
Consider.
The world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China, which burns half of the world’s coal and is building new coal-fired plants even as the 30,000 summiteers gather in Glasgow.
China was given a license in the Paris climate accord of 2015 to burn all the coal it wishes until 2030, after which it has agreed to begin reducing carbon emissions. But the idea that China can or will convert in a few decades to wind, solar and nuclear power to run the world’s largest manufacturing plant seems preposterous.
The U.S., the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, gets 81% of its energy from oil, coal and natural gas. We depend on those fuels to heat our homes, run our vehicles and power our industry.
In his Build Back Better bill, Biden inserted a provision that would have imposed annually rising taxes on carbon producers and used the revenue to reward companies that reduced their reliance on fossil fuels.
The proposal had to be pulled out, lest it drag Biden’s entire bill down to defeat. Lest we forget, Sen. Joe Manchin is from West Virginia.
India, the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is also, like China, dependent on coal. But, though its population is as large as China’s, India is behind China industrially, and the standard of living of its 1.4 billion people is below that of China.
To demand that India begin to end its burning of coal and rely more on solar and wind is to demand that New Delhi accept a future where India’s standard of living remains lower than that of China.
As for Russia, the fourth largest emitter of carbon dioxide, it is rich in fossil fuels and the leading supplier of natural gas to Europe. But Moscow manipulates the supplies of its natural gas to its customers for reasons of both revenue and politics.
Neither Chinese President Xi Jinping nor Russian President Vladimir Putin will even be present in Glasgow.
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and other OPEC nations depend for their national income on oil exports. If fossil fuels become forbidden fuels, what is to become of these nations?
Will they accept a future where their primary natural resource is gradually outlawed by the rest of the world? Will they be content to rely on the industrialized world to provide them with windmills and solar panels to power their economies?
The world’s losers from this Glasgow summit are likely to be the billions of people who will never know the benefits of fossil fuels that produced the Industrial Revolution and created the affluent societies of the 20th century .
These two are probably enough evidence that COP26 is a non-serious attempt
instagram album downloader
but then there is this
and this
and this
Hey Evosurfer that's mad, quite a skillset. Perhaps you could teach myself or young one, one day in a roadgoing V8?
There will still be a place for naturally aspirated V8s, because some people will value the mechanical engagement and want to experience it. Maybe it will go E85 or E100 like the race cars. Also to note is many of the old V8s, particularly the manual ones, tend to become classics and are doing hardly any kms, so their impact is minimal in this guise. Don't get me started on container ships...
But for the momentum, it will go electric (with full torque from zero revs), I expect 4wds will get way better too, and probably not need snorkels! Imagine being able to dial in the revs to absolutely minute levels to crawl up/down things - no need for a mechanical/electronic traction control interface... There's also the promise of greater simplicity, less servicing - so long as we don't stuff them too full of electronic equipment. Cars could last a lot longer, just as many people convert to not owning one but rather paying for their transport on-demand through an app (TAAS) - though that one's probably more for city people and surfers like their wagons as their wagons. Plus the threat of the last passenger of the uber robo-car throwing up in it...
However, as described, we don't have quite enough lithium, rare earths (stuff like praseodymium) and even if we do, the supply chains are developing into two parallel systems - China, and West. This is why the Toyota approach I described in a page before (3 types of hydrogen power) is important too, as we are going to need multiple approaches to get there. Interesting as well, Toyota have announced their first electric car - they seem to have lagged in recent years after pioneering hybrid.
There's also the other feature of electric cars in a distributed power supply - the car batteries can act as backups to the grid. If parked and charged, homes could run off them if required for some time too. So we might be OK with the current very large batteries being installed as backup, renewables, and each house solar/battery with an electric car. (And of course a V8 in the shed!)
I'm currently doing energy budgeting trying to work out if I need extra capacity for a small electric commuter, generating 25 to 35kw/h per day, using 10-15kw/h and exporting some of the rest, car is traveling bugger all km, less than 10 on average per day - but this could be up to 100 if commuting to town. Still gathering data
Also on the cars, been watching Harry's Garage (founder of Evo magazine in the 90s) on yt and he's getting 68mpg from his hybrid 2.7tonne Range Rover, which is phenomenal when you think about it and remember they would get 15mpg on a good day. 2.0L petrol motor and battery/electric that can run about 20km before it needs motor input.
But we're not going that way.
"Prime Minister Scott Morrison may be on his way home from COP26, but Australia’s embarrassing stance on fossil fuels remains on full display in Glasgow – literally. The government is being widely criticised by everyone from bushfire survivors to experts for hosting gas company Santos at the Australian pavilion in the Scottish exhibition centre, where the business-focused part of the conference continues for another 10 days. (The summit has been described as “part-trade fair and part-public relations opportunity”.) The front of the Australian pavilion yesterday featured a “demonstration” of Santos’ newly confirmed Moomba carbon capture and storage project (experts have noted it will capture just 0.343 per cent of Australia’s annual emissions “at best”), with signage claiming that Australia can “lead the world” in the highly dubious technology. The disconcerting display comes amid the release of new analysis by The Australia Institute showing that the government has 116 fossil-fuel developments in the pipeline – projects that would result in nearly 1.7 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum, or about 5 per cent of global industrial emissions. It’s little wonder Australia was one of the only nations not to sign up to last night’s commitment to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. It wasn’t because, as acting PM Barnaby Joyce claims, you’d have to go out and shoot your cattle to achieve it. It likely has much more to do with the Coalition’s plan for a “gas-fired” recovery."
https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/rachel-withers/2021/03/2021/16359130...
velocityjohnno wrote:Also on the cars, been watching Harry's Garage (founder of Evo magazine in the 90s) on yt and he's getting 68mpg from his hybrid 2.7tonne Range Rover, which is phenomenal when you think about it and remember they would get 15mpg on a good day. 2.0L petrol motor and battery/electric that can run about 20km before it needs motor input.
That is incredible milage compared to old factory motor. Any idea how much torque the electric motor can produce for towing or off road applications.
Seeds - Car talk ( even if its EV's ) has had enough of a run on this thread imo .
Why don't you start a EV or not Rev Head Thread ? You can make all the noise you want there . You say you aren't a Rev head but you then TALK like this .
" Any idea how much torque the electric motor can produce". As a non RH that fits my definition .
Oh right you make the rules now Hutchy. What a conceited condescending old twat you are.
Cars and their future power source doesn’t have anything to do with climate change? They are burning fossil fuel to produce power just as coal fired power stations are.
And the need for torque isn’t limited to my recreational needs is it.
Big industry machinery, agriculture, trucking etc all have high torque requirements from their engines. I don’t think EVs are going to cut it.
Optimist might be right. Keeping the combustion engine powered by green hydrogen may be the way forward where needed
So you have never driven a hybrid or ev then seeds? Greater torque delivered instantly, orders of magnitude fewer moving parts in an ev. Then there are the benefits of reduced air, and noise, pollution. They would be happening even without climate change. And the electricity will come from solar, wind and other renewables.
As I’ve said earlier I have driven a Prius.
Have watched the clip VJ mentioned about the hybrid Range Rover.
It’s specs..
Turbo 2lt petrol motor torque 640NM
Electric motor torque 275NM
When real torque was needed wouldn’t the computer revert back to the petrol?
Any ideas?
I saw my first Toyota Mirai in the flesh the other day. Lovely looking vehicle.
Though both our cars are new atm, I reckon at least one of them when the time comes will be an EV. PHEV is pretty cool. You have the benefit of almost zero emissions and the other advantages what BB outlined above but you don't have the range anxiety of a pure EV. My wifes car is a 1,4tfsi and that's got heaps of power and is great on the highway. Good for about 700 k on a tank. IC engines are pretty refined these days though so a lot left in them I reckon .
Hi Zen the Range Rover on VL comment is a PHEV. They seem great especially for long trips. Review did mention best results with over night full charge.
Full EV sounds great for around town with home garaging/ charge
The torque difference in the Range Rover is just a design feature. Range anxiety will reduce when every servo has a recharge facility.
There's always the issue with charging time though- traditional IC car less than five mins. HFC vehicle about 5 mins to full and EV, even with 150kw charger looking at 20 mins + to get to 80%. I forsee huge problems when most cars are EV and lots of cars are needing to be charged at once. Can you imagine holiday times?
I know a couple of people with PHEV's and imo I reckon that's the best of both worlds right now until charging times decrease and range increases. For a daily commuter who can plug in at home or at work and usually overnight, it's a no-brainer.
Design feature? Can you explain what you mean
It’s a heavy vehicle and the petrol motor torque is insane for a 2lt motor. It would be needed and appreciated when towing say a big caravan. The EVs output is respectable but in certain applications?
I know it’s the way of the future and I’m on board
zenagain wrote:There's always the issue with charging time though- traditional IC car less than five mins. HFC vehicle about 5 mins to full and EV, even with 150kw charger looking at 20 mins + to get to 80%. I forsee huge problems when most cars are EV and lots of cars are needing to be charged at once. Can you imagine holiday times?
I know a couple of people with PHEV's and imo I reckon that's the best of both worlds right now until charging times decrease and range increases. For a daily commuter who can plug in at home or at work and usually overnight, it's a no-brainer.
That’s a good point about holiday times Zen. In general I’d be happy to stretch the legs for 20 minutes while I charge on a trip but if there’s a queue!
Seeds the GMC Hummer EV claims 11,500 pd-ft which is 15,591 nm. So yes it was a design feature.
Lol. Seeds, you're comparing a hybrid electric motor to a hybrid diesel or petrol engine....
You should be comparing a straight electric motor to a straight diesel or petrol engine. If you do you will quickly realize that an electric motor can produce much more torque.
Just as an ad on the Rivian has 14,000Nm of torque and independent control of each wheel.
No Carpetman I’m trying to understand how the future without diesel will work with EVs application where diesel motors were used. I don’t know much about this stuff.
carpetman wrote:Just as an ad on the Rivian has 14,000Nm of torque and independent control of each wheel.
Ok so you sound like you can learn me a thing or two. I’ve not claimed to have any knowledge in this area.
Easy seeds, forget the diesel, put in an electric motor. The only reason this isn't mainstream already is that Morrison campaigned against EVs last election.
Yep seems the future may well be bright BB.
Ps with the price of things these days let alone when I retire I’ll probably have revert back to a horse and cart
Hopefully after the next election we have new leadership that isn't against EVs, and actually encourages them. This should see availability / accessibility rise and prices drop.
From July 2021 the Vic Gov has a tax on electric vehicles I think based on kilometres driven to make up for lack of excise as compared to petrol. This may deter some from making the change. I think they justify it by saying it’s required for upkeep of roads and infrastructure.
Didn't Barnaby announce another tax on EVs just in the last week or two?
Seeds - I'm on a learning curve too with electric boats.
This might help - electric motors produce instant and consistent torque thru the rev range. So at low speeds a lower torque electric motor may well be producing the same torque as an ICE with a higher torque rating.
Torque from an ICE increases with speed until it hits the sweet spot in the mid rev range and then starts dropping off as it revs out. So its actual torque at low revs and high revs will be much lower than the rated torque.
Higher torque on an electric motor requires more current from the battery, which presents a challenge as it is harder for the battery to produce as it gets low on charge. So my understanding is that designers choose the lowest possible torque electric motor if they need to maximise battery life.
.