SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Speculating about the next years, Fred Lambert writes that once there are good all-electric options across the car market internal combustion engines will be as good as dead.
Before 2025, there's going to be a point where there's not going to be a single car buyer in their right mind who's going to want to buy a new gasoline car. Not a single one. Because they're going to look at the market, they're going to look at what's out there, and all the different electric car models that are out there now. By that point, by 2025, there's going to be dozens and dozens of more EV models than what's available today. And attractive ones!
It's going to be hard for someone to justify buying a gas-powered car at that point, because they're going to think about the resale value of it.
I think the resale value of gasoline cars is going to drop massively in the next five years, and predicted value is going to drop even more drastically. Buying a gasoline car right now is a bad choice. Buying a gasoline car within the next five years is going to be just a financial suicide for most people.
Earlier on SN:
Every Electric Vehicle on Sale in the US for 2019 and Its Range (2019)
Australian Plan to Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars (2019)
Have We Reached Peak Car? (2018)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @08:39AM (27 children)
* with apologies to Mark Twain
Under the headline, "Engine researchers: 50% gasoline-engine efficiency in sight" Automotive Engineering magazine discusses some current research in combustion engine improvements,
https://www.sae.org/news/2019/04/high-efficiency-ic-engines-symposium-2019-delphi-gdci-engine [sae.org]
The article goes on to discuss some of the details that will be incorporated into their 4th generation design. It also mentions similar work being done by Mazda.
At 60 mpg, a 10 gallon gas tank gives 600 miles range...enough to get across Nevada on Highway 50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada [wikipedia.org] with about 200 miles for side trips out into the desert.
Or, put another way, plenty of range in the winter, when battery cars lose a major portion of their energy storage due to the cold, and more to run heaters for the passengers & for the battery.
Yet another option-if a similar (but smaller) engine was fitted in Prius-like car (low air drag, special low rolling resistance tires, brake pad retraction, etc) the mileage would be even greater.
ICE isn't going down without a fight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @08:47AM (6 children)
I agree sir, much like my post following yours. I wish H2 was chosen as the path.
Think of all the issue Tesla and other car manufacturers have, with lion battery sourcing. All gone, if H2 was used!
But they worry about refill infrastructure. Bah.
Plus, cost! Imagine how much CHEAPER without all those batteries! Instead, an H2 tank!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @10:24AM (5 children)
It tends to permeate into whatever pressure container it is held within (because its mollecules are so small) and over time render the pressure container walls brittle [1].
Brittle is not a word you want to use to describe the wall of a high pressure H2 tank.
Fuels that are liquids at STP are simply by far much easier to handle. What is really needed is using carbon capture along with solar or wind farms to synthesize a liquid fuel (alcohol or gasoline or diesel) that could then be easily transported and distributed to end users (cars). Using carbon capture results in no additional carbon added, and we retain all the convenient aspects of liquid fuels.
[1] https://www.imetllc.com/training-article/hydrogen-embrittlement-steel/ [imetllc.com]
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday July 09 2019, @01:07PM (1 child)
H2 has one irritating little problem.
It tends to permeate into whatever pressure container it is held within (because its mollecules are so small) and over time render the pressure container walls brittle [1].
Very long time ago, there was some progress using metal hyrdides for storage. Some of it looked quite promising but I do not know the current status and whether it can be practical as feul storage.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:38PM
wasn't the hindenburg full of hydrogen too
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:37PM (2 children)
maybe they can make enough progress to generate the hydrogen on demand from electrolysis and just burn it as it's generated. no storage issues then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:43PM
or nitrogen from the air.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday July 09 2019, @06:49PM
They could use batteries to store the electrical energy required for this to work. Batteries have gotten a lot better in the past decade, to the point where this might be feasible.
Basically, electrolysis adds chemical energy to water by breaking the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. This energy can then be stored as hydrogen (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread). The oxygen doesn't need to be stored at all, because there's enough floating around in the air wherever a reasonable person might want to drive. That feature can save a lot of weight, as oxygen is heavy, but it does take a lot of volume or pressure, both of which have drawbacks.
The idea of generating hydrogen on demand avoids the drawbacks associated with storage. You can temporarily store the chemical energy in a battery until you need to use it to make hydrogen, which can then be turned into thermal energy, which (of course) is then turned into mechanical energy by the internal combustion engine. Easy peasy!
It's really hard to make the case for this...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @10:34AM (14 children)
But, the fact remains, absent a 'renewable' source of liquid fuel (carbon capture for gasoline or alcohol synthesis) the fact remains that the only part of the article that might be wrong is the predicted date.
2025 might be too early for the tipping point to arrive, but at some future date the tipping point will arrive and ICE (without fuel synthesis from carbon capture) will be on its way out fast.
It will be the same effect as the DVD had on VHS. For a long while, not much changed, then, seemingly all at once, VHS players and tapes all but disappeared from store shelves over the course of about 1-2 years.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:58PM (13 children)
Indeed. And electrical also has other advantages: it's very compact, and has a relatively flat power curve, unlike ICEs which mostly have an extremely narrow power band necessitating a relatively complicated and inefficient transmission. In other words, electric is perfect for delivering motive power to the wheels/propellers/etc.
Electric is also power agnostic - it doesn't care whether the electricity comes from batteries, supercapacitors, flywheels, or ICE generators (or external combustion for that matter - steam and stirling engines both have much to recommend them if you can buffer the output power). That last one opens a lot of doors - something like the Tesla only consumes 10-15kW (13-20hp) cruising down the highway, which means you could install a 30hp ICE generator, tuned to operate at a single maximally clean and efficient speed and load, and recharge your batteries while you drive. Leave out the batteries entirely and you'd have an electric transmission as is used by most modern train engines, or include batteries for only a modest 30mile range and be able to handle 90% of typical daily usage as a plug-in electric, while being able to use much more energy-dense fuels for longer range journeys.
I have high hopes for the Liquid Piston engine being developed for the defense department - they're the ones targetting a 30kW flex-fuel generator that fits in a 12" cube, while being more efficient than grid power. But there are other more mature options as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @03:59PM (7 children)
To pull just one quote from your post,
> ... a 30hp ICE generator, tuned to operate at a single maximally clean and efficient speed and load, ... Leave out the batteries entirely and you'd have an electric transmission as is used by most modern train engines, ...
This works for trains because the tracks have limited grade (and when the grades are steeper in the mountains, they put on extra engines). Won't work for cars unless you only operate in a very flat area...and don't expect to accelerate away from stop lights very quickly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @04:44PM (5 children)
Won't generate the same performance we've come to expect from ICE cars, you mean. You could still get up steep grades, it'd just be really slow.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday July 09 2019, @06:53PM (3 children)
You have identified the precise reason that it won't work for cars.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2019, @03:17AM (2 children)
Except that it does work, just not as well. And someone has already noted that you could just put in a beefier engine and get better performance.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday July 10 2019, @07:30PM (1 child)
I suppose my American bias is showing, but slow cars don't meet the expectations of a large portion of car buyers. That could be solved by marketing, I guess, or by much higher fuel prices, but the performance requirements would have to change.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2019, @11:48PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @11:50PM
Yup, may I suggest a cow as the mascot animal.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday July 09 2019, @07:35PM
Agreed. If you use it as a transmission the generator needs to be able to instantaneously deliver as much power as is currently needed. Throw in even a small (battery?) buffer though and that dependence goes away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @04:00PM (3 children)
The future is almost certainly going to be hydrogen fuel cell powered electric cars or equivalent. We don't have enough raw materials to build the necessary batteries for all the vehicles we need. In the future, batteries are likely to be limited to warehouses and places where you don't need to go very far and can easily charge the batteries.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:28PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @08:25PM (1 child)
Sadly using the stored energy has a host of nasty side effects, specifically pollution and excess heat.
Ah well, the sooner your oil fields lose relevance the better.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2019, @03:28AM
So does electricity production. Which nasty side effects you get will depend on the mix of power generation.
There's always biofuels to keep the more than a trillion dollars in infrastructure viable. Keep in mind the value of the transportation is much more than the energy cost of the fuel used.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @06:27PM
was think about that: "external ICE" to make electricity the most efficient way a ICE can.
the battery is most important. as it is with ANY ICE-only vehicule, all energy is always LOST TOTALLY when you step on the break.
it feels like people designing roads with stop lights are in bed with the oil industry, where the road builders get "incentives" to add red-light-signals (at the meetings at 5 star hotel resorts they collectively chant "WASTE! WASTE! WASTE!).
anyways, if one can figure out a "reasonable" top-cruise (*urgs*) speed, add a bit of natural wind to the headwind xor a uphill slop and then figure out the kwh requirements of the electrical-engine in that situation, then a electricity-only-producing ICE *should* work for all circumstances (in 98% of cases)?
add two batteries, one powering or being recharged by the electrical motor connected to wheel(s) and the second one being most efficiently recharged by the ICE and then switch over as required. for example.
ofc stoping at a electrical recharge station (your solar powered house) will recharge both batteries.
and so, like nissan saw correctly, when a disaster happens, connect the car to the house (which also should ha-ha-have solar panels) and with enough gasoline storage (if the solar isn't enough), one could continue to enjoy frozen, well-kept and unspoiled food from the re-fridge ... and maybe have some light at night while the disaster is remedied by the democratically voted central cluberment ...
bottom line, batteries are great. putting the trust of whole humankind ONLY into batteries is probably a mistake, since most all people cannot make their own batteries.
i suspect that compressors, ICEs, pipes etc etc infrastructure might be easier to rebuild from a global disaster and that the mechanical machinery to make flammable liquids and gases (with external energy input) is less technologically difficult then "membranes" and "nano-stuff" and other stuff?
lastly, who knows what more can happen if mechanical machinery (like a ICE) has a baby with capacitors, coils and all kinds of multi-phase electricity?
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:48PM (2 children)
For context, the maximum theoretical BTE is given by thermodynamics as 1 - (Tint/Tenv) where Tint is the internal combustion temperature and Tenv is the environmental temperature in absolute temperature (e.g. deg K). For a a combustion temperature of 1500 deg F in a room temperature setting it’s about 73%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:57PM
Sorry typo, that’s 1 - (Tenv/Tint)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @07:18PM
Thanks. Your comment and ones like it are the rich nuggets among the quartz and mica.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 10 2019, @04:18PM (1 child)
no, the article's basic premise is correct. i'm hanging out with my brother right now, who is an automotive engineer in Ford's advanced manufacturing division. he drives a BMW i3 and i was running this article by him. he says the EV eliminates so many hassles and saves time.
1. he no longer watches the variable gas prices when needing to fill up. his electricity cost is constant. he spends 1/4 for energy vs ICE cars.
2. all the maintenance expenses and hassle go away.
3. he spends ten seconds to plug his car in in his garage when he gets home at night, and ten seconds when leaving in the morning, so two minutes and twenty seconds per week vs five minutes per week for a gas car.
the only drawback is he forgets to clean his windshield because he doesn't pull up to the pump with its squeegee anymore.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 11 2019, @02:59AM
Glad to hear it fits his use case. But I bet someone else in his family has a gasoline fueled car for longer trips.