Is the End in Sight for ICE ?

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp

I'm confident they will have generators that will run on electricity instead of diesel very soon.

I'm sorry, but what? If a "generator" is not producing electricity, that what is it producing? As far as I am aware, all generators produce electricity from some other form of input. There are hydro generators that use moving water to spin the input shaft of the generator, which then produces the electricity. Diesel, Gas, Natural Gas, Propane, and kerosene generators all burn fuel in an ICE to spin the input shaft of the generator, which then produces the electricity. Coal and Geothermal generators are variants on the steam generator, which nuclear also falls under. Heat up the water, which turns to steam, which is then used to spin the generator, producing electricity. In other words, you can't use electricity to generate electricity. So no, I don't believe you will be seeing an all electric electricity generator anytime soon. BC.

Perhaps I should have added a smiley to indicate I was being facetious.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol

I'm convinced that politics will decide when the end of ICEs are, nothing else.

Yes, I agree...

 

[edwardh1]

Originally Posted By: John_K

Originally Posted By: Nick1994

I don't think so, the ice dispenser is working great in my fridge?

That's funny, I was thinking Immigration and Customs Enforcement!

me too, too much use of abbreviations

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp

Perhaps I should have added a smiley to indicate I was being facetious.

phew, you almost got me... knowing you worked with engines for years, i thought you gone cuckoo too....

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol

I'm convinced that politics will decide when the end of ICEs are, nothing else.

Yes, I agree...

You may say that. I don't know if you can classify EPA and CARB(California Air Resource Board) as playing politic or not. CARB demands a percentage of all new vehicles sold in CA as ZEV(battery electric vehicle and fuel cell vehicle). Source: http://electrek.co/2016/07/07/california-stricter-zev-mandate-tesla/ Most car manufactures are gearing up for producing hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and ZEV's. Also, some countries are thinking of banning new ICE vehicle entirely down the road. Below is what Honda CEO said about clean vehicles, Toyota plans almost no ICE vehicles by 2050. If you do a search of ZEV or hybrid of other manufactures you will see similar result. EPA and CARB may raise fuel economy and tighten emission further such that ICE just can't meet the requirements.

Quote:

By the year 2030 two out of three Honda automobiles will be either a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery electric car, or hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. This stretch goal was expressed this week by Honda CEO Takahiro Hachigo as part of overarching plans by the automaker long associated with fuel efficiency, but of late less convincing to hard-core plug-in advocates. Currently, electrified vehicles account for about 5 percent of Honda’s sales, with most of that coming from hybrids. In addition, the second-generation Clarity fuel-cell vehicle will be available for lease in California and sale in Japan in March.

Quote:

Hachigo said that hybrids and plug-in hybrids would make up about half of Honda’s sales in 2030, while EVs would account for about 15 percent. Rival Toyota has made a similar promise, saying that almost all of its lineup will be electrified by 2050, but the company didn’t mention plug-in hybrids, instead focusing on fuel cells and hybrids. General Motors has said it aims to have 500,000 electrified models on the market by 2017.

http://www.hybridcars.com/hondas-model-line-to-be-two-thirds-green-by-2030/

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

I don't know if you can classify EPA and CARB(California Air Resource Board) as playing politic or not. CARB demands a percentage of all new vehicles sold in CA as ZEV(battery electric vehicle and fuel cell vehicle). Source: http://electrek.co/2016/07/07/california-stricter-zev-mandate-tesla/ Most car manufactures are gearing up for producing hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and ZEV's. Also, some countries are thinking of banning new ICE vehicle entirely down the road. Below is what Honda CEO said about clean vehicles, Toyota plans almost no ICE vehicles by 2050. If you do a search of ZEV or hybrid of other manufactures you will see similar result. EPA and CARB may raise fuel economy and tighten emission further such that ICE just can't meet the requirements.

We've discussed this before When they are declaring meanings for ZEV, that clearly AREN'T, they just defer the pollution to someone else' back yard, then even you would have to cede that it's political...none of these "ZEV" is likely as good as a current Prius in terms of CO2 per mile. When they get around to replacing coal and nukes with "sustainable" solar and windmills, you won't be able to afford to charge your Tesla. You won't want to drive anywhere anyway, as all the places you would have the range to travel will be full of windmills and panels.

 

[Cujet]

YIKES! It truly is amazing that some people believe the "electric" hype. We've had comments about "generators that run on electricity" We've had comments about "replacing fuel powered city buses with electric" We've had comments about "Diesel being replaceable" AND, not one reply to my note about the very real and very limiting "electrochemical energy storage limits" . Doing real work requires real power. Hence my aviation example. Sorry, but electrical power is FAR from ideal for portable forms of energy. A very large number of people really do think they understand why things work. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, most humans confuse social smarts and scientific prowess. They can, and will, argue a point Ad Infinitum, while completely misunderstanding the most basic of technical concepts.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

I don't know if you can classify EPA and CARB(California Air Resource Board) as playing politic or not. CARB demands a percentage of all new vehicles sold in CA as ZEV(battery electric vehicle and fuel cell vehicle). Source: http://electrek.co/2016/07/07/california-stricter-zev-mandate-tesla/ Most car manufactures are gearing up for producing hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and ZEV's. Also, some countries are thinking of banning new ICE vehicle entirely down the road. Below is what Honda CEO said about clean vehicles, Toyota plans almost no ICE vehicles by 2050. If you do a search of ZEV or hybrid of other manufactures you will see similar result. EPA and CARB may raise fuel economy and tighten emission further such that ICE just can't meet the requirements.

We've discussed this before When they are declaring meanings for ZEV, that clearly AREN'T, they just defer the pollution to someone else' back yard, then even you would have to cede that it's political...none of these "ZEV" is likely as good as a current Prius in terms of CO2 per mile. When they get around to replacing coal and nukes with "sustainable" solar and windmills, you won't be able to afford to charge your Tesla. You won't want to drive anywhere anyway, as all the places you would have the range to travel will be full of windmills and panels.

You can arguing anything you want, but ZEV is clearly defined and accepted by most countries on Earth. Only you and a handful of weirdos don't accept the definition of ZEV. Definition of ZEV: Zero Emission Vehicle http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zero-emission-vehicle

Quote:

zero-emission vehicle noun 1. a vehicle, as an automobile, that does not directly produce atmospheric pollutants. Abbreviation: ZEV.

Quote:

Contemporary definitions for zero-emission vehicle noun any vehicle that emits nothing, such as electric-powered vehicles

If Prius and/or other hybrids are better than BEV(Battery Electric Vehicle) in term of pollution then why almost no country has any incentive for buying it ? But many countries have various incentives for buying BEV ? Yes, politic is in play and somehow Tesla convinced many countries in giving incentives for its cars ??? Is this what you think ???

 

[slacktide_bitog]

All cars built in the past 20 years are practically zero-emitting.

 

[DoubleWasp]

The definition of ZEV is a complete side-step of the entire emissions issue. Calling a ZEV a ZEV is like calling a withdrawal from my checking account "Zero Work Money", because work is not directly involved it the withdrawal from my account. All I did was ask for the money and it was given to me! If emissions were finance, a person would be arrested by the Federal Government for calling a BEV a Zero Emissions Vehicle. There is a great deal of emissions overhead involved in the operation of a "ZEV" that makes calling it a ZEV as stupid as judging the income from a business entirely by its gross profits. Electricity doesn't fling itself out of thin air. The definition of a ZEV is a purely political definition brought about by public ignorance of the simple fact that the electricity absolutely has to come from somewhere. Why does this theory go over so well with politicians? Because they're politicians. They sell feel-good bull feces everyday. Simple solutions that are not solutions is their business. Why does it go over so well with people? Because environmentalism is a hot fad right now, and most people who follow a fad do very little research. The Toyota Prius has been proven again and again to cause more significant environmental damage while it has zero miles on it than the entire life of a traditional ICE vehicle. But still people think they are saving the environment by driving one. A lot of people share one poster's ideal that they simply don't give a rat's behind if a ZEV or SULEV leaves a trail of destruction throughout the planet as long as most of it ends before the US border. "ZEV" is a complete joke. There is a price to pay whether you call it "Zero" or not. I'd place a better bet of finding a true intimate relationship with no strings attached than buying a true zero emissions vehicle in a BEV. And don't forget to pretend that emissions is the only way that the manufacture and operation of a motor vehicle harms the environment so you can really believe in "Zero".

 

[HTSS_TR]

Definition of ZEV: Zero Emission Vehicle http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zero-emission-vehicle

Quote:

zero-emission vehicle noun 1. a vehicle, as an automobile, that does not directly produce atmospheric pollutants. Abbreviation: ZEV.

This is the definition of ZEV - Zero Emission Vehicle. If you can find a different definition of ZEV, please post. I searched as much as I could and I couldn't find any other definition. Currently only 2 types of vehicle can be classified as ZEV: Battery Electric Vehicle and Fuel Cell Vehicle. The two vehicle types don't produce pollutants while in operation, how/where the electricity and hydrogen are generated are not part of the vehicle itself. The only pollution came from these vehicles are CO2 from occupants.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Definition of ZEV: Zero Emission Vehicle http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zero-emission-vehicle

Quote:

zero-emission vehicle noun 1. a vehicle, as an automobile, that does not directly produce atmospheric pollutants. Abbreviation: ZEV.

This is the definition of ZEV - Zero Emission Vehicle. If you can find a different definition of ZEV, please post. I searched as much as I could and I couldn't find any other definition. Currently only 2 types of vehicle can be classified as ZEV: Battery Electric Vehicle and Fuel Cell Vehicle. The two vehicle types don't produce pollutants while in operation, how/where the electricity and hydrogen are generated are not part of the vehicle itself. The only pollution came from these vehicles are CO2 from occupants.

And this is exactly what is wrong with the definition. A complete lack of understanding (or whitewashing of the issue) of pollution that comes from producing and driving an electric car. It is complete ignorance to believe that there are zero emissions that occur because you drive from point A to point B. There are emissions occurring while you are plugged in. Therefore, to go from point A to point B required you to fuel up your electric car. During the fueling process you are emitting emissions into the atmosphere at the power plant which is directly connected to your car thru electric lines regardless if it is 1 mile away or 100 miles away. Unless your electric bill is funding 100% renewable energy (which in of itself is also not zero emission) then you can not get from point A to point B except to emit pollution.

 

[bunnspecial]

The whole ZEV thing is the most ridiculous discussion I've seen. In thermodynamics, there's no such thing as a free lunch. The fact that the power source is coming from a plant that you can't see is something people keep wanting to ignore. One of the guys in my research group in graduate school was working with dye sensitized solar cells, which are one of the "hot" areas of research in terms of trying to improve the efficiency of solar cell technology. I don't have a copy of it, but he had a great slide he'd put together for conference presentations that detailed the world's current energy demands in comparison with the sun's output, the area of earth, and the current efficiency of solar cells. At current efficiencies, covering the entire earth with solar cells wouldn't meet current energy demands. Fossil fuels are here with us for a while.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Definition of ZEV: Zero Emission Vehicle http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zero-emission-vehicle

Quote:

zero-emission vehicle noun 1. a vehicle, as an automobile, that does not directly produce atmospheric pollutants. Abbreviation: ZEV.

This is the definition of ZEV - Zero Emission Vehicle. If you can find a different definition of ZEV, please post. I searched as much as I could and I couldn't find any other definition. Currently only 2 types of vehicle can be classified as ZEV: Battery Electric Vehicle and Fuel Cell Vehicle. The two vehicle types don't produce pollutants while in operation, how/where the electricity and hydrogen are generated are not part of the vehicle itself. The only pollution came from these vehicles are CO2 from occupants.

Proving my point that the definition is completely inadequate and completely naive.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

We've discussed this before When they are declaring meanings for ZEV, that clearly AREN'T, they just defer the pollution to someone else' back yard, then even you would have to cede that it's political...

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

You can arguing anything you want, but ZEV is clearly defined and accepted by most countries on Earth. Only you and a handful of weirdos don't accept the definition of ZEV.

You just don't get it. He isn't arguing, he's stating facts. The fact that ZEV is "clearly defined" is irrelevant, you can quote dictionary.com and or Wikipedia all you want but it doesn't in any way affect the legitimacy of Shannow's above statement. You are having a mental block between "accepting the definition" and the point being made, which is that this definition, which nobody is questioning the existence of, simply ignores the fact that the pollution is just moved away from the vehicle. Calling people that question the legitimacy (not to be confused with the acceptance of the existence of) this obviously agenda-driven definition "weirdos" betrays your motivation, which as we already know, only focuses on what directly affects you and cares not for "elsewhere" that may be affected by this sham.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

If Prius and/or other hybrids are better than BEV(Battery Electric Vehicle) in term of pollution then why almost no country has any incentive for buying it ? But many countries have various incentives for buying BEV ? Yes, politic is in play and somehow Tesla convinced many countries in giving incentives for its cars ??? Is this what you think ???

Well, for starters, the BEV is a niche at this point and given the global "green" agenda being pushed by most governments (taxing carbon, installing solar and wind, also incentivized) aligning themselves with its adoption looks "green", and as we know, image is far more important than honesty, science, facts.....etc. This is a political game where we move the pollution around while ignoring anything that doesn't align with the agenda to fool the general populous who are either too lazy, ignorant, or both, to bother and look any further than what is presented to them. Example: "Denmark is "super green" because they don't have any coal power plants....etc. The vast majority of their generating capacity is wind and solar! " Reality: Denmark only produces 36% of their power domestically, despite their massive installed base of wind and solar. For this luxury they pay some of, if not THE highest hydro rates in the developed world at north of $0.40KWh. The power purchased from their neighbours is generated via coal, nukes, GT....etc. So they are contributing to the pollution, but simply letting it happen in somebody else's backyard, which aligns with what Shannow has stated. This is how Agenda works.

 

[HTSS_TR]

The definition of an object is by itself, nothing else. There are 3 words associate with ZEV(Zero Emission Vehicle): Zero, Emission and Vehicle A ZEV is a vehicle that produces no harmful pollution while it is operated. Of the 3 words in the ZEV is there anything saying about the energy source ? I challenge all of you to show any definition of ZEV include source of power/energy. Something likes "ZEV is a vehicle that has its power source generated by zero emission mean and generate no harmful pollution while it is operated." Until you can produce such document, the only valid definition of ZEV is currently defined in any dictionary you can find anywhere in this world. If you go to another world you may find another definition of "ZEV". What you guys think is totally irrelevant and 100% wrong, just show the proof that "ZEV is only ZEV if its is powered by a clean source of energy". Then I will accept I was wrong, but as of now you guys are 100% wrong.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Nobody is claiming that the definition is not what you say it is. We are saying that the definition is ignorant, incomplete, and fails to address the total environmental impact of the alleged ZEV. It does not matter what the political definition is. It's not Zero Emissions. You keep backing into the corner of the definition, because you know that is your head were outside of that shallow representation, you'd be forced to acknowledge that there are an incredible amount of emissions and other non-emission environmental damage associated with those cars.

 

[4WD]

Agree. Late in the current "Green" US Whitehouse Administration - The USAF now working design/procurement of the next (several) Air Force One - I'm thinking Boeing B748i derivative - GE GenX engines - limited space for high speed solar panels ...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

The definition of an object is by itself, nothing else. There are 3 words associate with ZEV(Zero Emission Vehicle): Zero, Emission and Vehicle A ZEV is a vehicle that produces no harmful pollution while it is operated. Of the 3 words in the ZEV is there anything saying about the energy source ? I challenge all of you to show any definition of ZEV include source of power/energy. Something likes "ZEV is a vehicle that has its power source generated by zero emission mean and generate no harmful pollution while it is operated." Until you can produce such document, the only valid definition of ZEV is currently defined in any dictionary you can find anywhere in this world. If you go to another world you may find another definition of "ZEV". What you guys think is totally irrelevant and 100% wrong, just show the proof that "ZEV is only ZEV if its is powered by a clean source of energy". Then I will accept I was wrong, but as of now you guys are 100% wrong.

You need to sit back, relax, and read my post again until you get it. At this point it appears to have gone right over your head because you've just gone and done exactly what I claimed in my 2nd sentence that you could do, and it would have absolutely zero bearing on the legitimacy of what is being stated. But please, find us some more dictionary definitions of ZEV that nobody has contested exist, and continue to completely fail to understand the body of the discussion.

 

[wwillson]

Political - lock time