Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

[pseudoid]

I think eVs do have a transmission of sorts and some call them "Single speed transmission", but some additonal factoids are necessary.

Overall, an electric vehicle on average converts 77% of the electricity stored in its battery toward moving the car forward, while a gas-powered car converts from 12% to 30% of the energy stored in the gasoline in its tank. Much of the rest is wasted as heat. The transmitting power from an EV's motor to its wheels is 89% to 98% efficient, depending on the vehicle, whereas in an ICE car, the same process from engine to wheels is only 14% to 26% efficient.
Some newer EVs, including the Audi e-tron GT and the Porsche Taycan, do have multiple gears, which allow them to deliver more torque to the wheels to increase acceleration. The planned Jeep Magneto will even have a manual transmission with multiple gears.
Some ICE and hybrid vehicles have continuously variable transmissions (CVT), a form of automatic transmission which accelerates seamlessly from speed to speed, using pulleys rather than gears. CVT systems have recently been introduced for electric vehicles, which can increase the torque at lower speeds to accommodate heavier vehicles and loads
Some EVs solve this problem by having multiple motors with different gear ratios to deliver more or less torque, depending on the needs of the vehicle, with electronics more efficiently shifting electrons to different motors rather than a transmission less efficiently shifting gears.
The Rivian electric pickup trucks even have independent motors attached to each wheel, allowing the truck to perform "tank turns." (Link)

In ZF’s (transmission photo above, maybe same as @RayDunzl's ??) testing, it’s proven that the benefits are as real for mass-production EVs as they are for conversions. Not only did they achieve a 5% increase in vehicle range, but they also got better acceleration numbers compared to a single-speed vehicle. This allows a vehicle to sidestep the tradeoff between efficiency and performance by allowing for both. (link)
There’s a problem, though. Electric motors do not generate the same torque from zero to maximum RPM. They all put out full power until a certain speed, and then their torque begins to drop off. Efficiency is also not consistent across the full range of speeds the motor is capable of going. The speeds at which they’re most efficient can vary, but the “sweet spot” is usually around ⅓ to ½ power at 30–40 MPH (50–65 km/h).
You may or may not know that Tesla originally planned to put a 2-speed gearbox in the original Roadster. (Link)

It should have never been a binary question, and "hybrids" attest to that!

 

[blueone]

Not "direct" like the typical electric fan, but a single gear ratio.

Tesla Model S transmission. Gear 1 is the output ring gear and gear 2 is the intermediate gear​

Maybe n

By direct I meant having only one gear ratio, but I'll gladly accept the correction in the name of precision.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well the most economical speed for almost all ICE vehicles in light trucks, cars and SUVs is around 45 mph. Much reduced economy below 40 mph and above 50 mph.

 

[pseudoid]

I learned that whole "range anxiety" thingy using my eBicycle.
OMG, it's real and not a good feeling at all!
I've had to pedal back home only twice, but cussin' up a storm...
Should I seek therapy or drugs?

 

[blueone]

I learned that whole "range anxiety" thingy using my eBicycle.
OMG, it's real and not a good feeling at all!
I've had to pedal back home only twice, but cussin' up a storm...
Should I seek therapy or drugs?

A personal trainer...

 

[Chromatischism]

Yes and don’t plants grow well in them!

Not once it stops raining in your region.

 

[Chromatischism]

"Greenhouse gases" is considered in the climate science fields as a horrible analogy. Superficially, yes, the idea of "holding heat in" as compared to not holding heat in has some descriptive merit. But otherwise there is no similarity, so while it may be an effective social term, it's a terrible scientific term.

Greenhouse gases is an appropriate term. Some gases are effective at trapping heat, some more so than others. Not sure I could break it down any simpler than that.

That said, we wouldn't be here without GHGs. And whatever one might say about the dangers of global warming, if it had worked out the other way (if industrialization had caused depletion of CO2, or otherwise had more of a cooling effect than a warming effect), it would have been far more deadly than however it will turn out. Just looking at the bright side. (CO2 depletion in the Little Ice Age caused massive crop failures and starvation, including the root of the Great Famine less than 200 years ago.)

In logical fallacies, they call this a red herring.

 

[earlevel]

Greenhouse gases is an appropriate term. Some gases are effective at trapping heat, some more so than others. Not sure I could break it down any simpler than that.

Like I said, effective social term, poor scientific term. But you ignore the context, you're "It's also influenced by greenhouse gases. Ever been to a greenhouse?" Since a greenhouse doesn't work anything like GHGs, you might as well have said any hot room.

In logical fallacies, they call this a red herring.

Good grief—I can't make a side comment without committing a "logical fallacy"? Like you haven't in this thread?

And, you are the guy who claimed most climate temperature models "have so far been underestimating the warming"—wildly incorrect, yet no mea culpa, no defending the claim.

 

[pseudoid]

Good grief...

Thank you for the flashback.

In logical fallacies, they call this a red herring.,,

Ignoratio Elenchi is not forbidden at ASR but at times does reveal relevant information! Excluding mine!

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't know why green house gases are not like a greenhouse. Glass or plastic panes let light in. It hits other matter and is transformed into heat. Those same panels retain the heat. I suppose it is more of an insulating than absorbing effect. Greenhouse gases let light in and when infrared is going back out they absorb it and re-radiate it back to the earth's surface. So the gases aren't insulating exactly though the same effect. Both let solar energy in, and both reduce the radiation of infrared back out.

 

[pseudoid]

I don't know why green house gases are not like a greenhouse. Glass or plastic panes let light in. It hits other matter and is transformed into heat. Those same panels retain the heat. I suppose it is more of an insulating than absorbing effect. Greenhouse gases let light in and when infrared is going back out they absorb it and re-radiate it back to the earth's surface. So the gases aren't insulating exactly though the same effect. Both let solar energy in, and both reduce the radiation of infrared back out.

I get it!
Makes sense to me, as long as the little munchkins driving their (outsourced) eVs, inside the 'greenhouse', are definitely into NIMBY!
I think the US and EU think their continents are in NIMBY Bubbles, as they (we) did with oil, and cement, and methane, and freon, and trees, and forever particles and even guano!

These statement are NOT intended to be political?

 

[pseudoid]

When Tesla was but a cottage builder, they had finally introduced the original Tesla Roadster (Lotus Elise based) for 2008 year.

Impractical as it was I tried to figure a way to buy one but $110K was a number that could not work for me.
The Roadster did not have the stigma that eVs have gotten since those innocent days!

 

[Marc v E]

Here is an interview with a Cambridge professor on hydrogen as a fuel. The best explanation I've seen so far. After you've seen this you probably know all you need to know. There is a long intro, the interview starts at 6:14 .

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Not once it stops raining in your region.

Do plants outside a greenhouse grow any better without rain? Any solution to the environmental issues affecting us must be practical, affordable and dependable. Yet what we get from the environmental lobby are short term measures which do not meet any of the above criteria.

 

[Colonel7]

I said that implies certainty, and there is no certainty. If there were certainty, why would the IPCC publish such a wide range of scenarios?

Well, there's no certainty in anything out to 2100 so I'm not sure what point you're making. Why 5 scenarios in a report? Because it depends on future human behavior that's why. I would agree with you that climate modeling and science a couple decades ago left something to be desired, but now it is quite good and advanced quite a bit in last dozen years of so. While you're seeming to throw specifics out they're not really due to you mixing some old stuff with new; your point is a general one that there isn't certainty, especially since forecasting was not very good in the past. The world is certainly getting warmer and 1.5 C is a hope and not likely at all. Where I'd guess we strongly agree is that policies will have poor efficacy on mitigating (changing the earth's energy system rapidly) but change who govts enrich and punish. There is not enough money to be invested globally to achieve mitigation when there are other priorities too, and govts seem bent on trade protectionism and making all energy more expensive of late. More resources need to be spent on adaptation and dealing with things we are assured of (don't build where you're putting a bullseye on your house, effective flood control, resilient grid, etc.), but no one wants to admit that or be an actuary when there are subsidies to be handed out.

 

[earlevel]

Well, there's no certainty in anything out to 2100 so I'm not sure what point you're making. Why 5 scenarios in a report? Because it depends on future human behavior that's why. I would agree with you that climate modeling and science a couple decades ago left something to be desired, but now it is quite good and advanced quite a bit in last dozen years of so. While you're seeming to throw specifics out they're not really due to you mixing some old stuff with new; your point is a general one that there isn't certainty, especially since forecasting was not very good in the past. The world is certainly getting warmer and 1.5 C is a hope and not likely at all. Where I'd guess we strongly agree is that policies will have poor efficacy on mitigating (changing the earth's energy system rapidly) but change who govts enrich and punish. There is not enough money to be invested globally to achieve mitigation when there are other priorities too, and govts seem bent on trade protectionism and making all energy more expensive of late. More resources need to be spent on adaptation and dealing with things we are assured of (don't build where you're putting a bullseye on your house, effective flood control, resilient grid, etc.), but no one wants to admit that or be an actuary when there are subsidies to be handed out.

You don't understand the point I was making...My last reply on this point, because it was a simple point that I think I delivered clearly. I think on sensitive topics, peoples' eyes get attracted to assertions, and don't pay a lot of attention to context, and also they tend to think there must be there must be a deeper reason a person is saying it (like, if I point out that the outcome is so difficult to predict that their are multiple scenarios that span a wide range, maybe I'm really saying it's all a conspiracy to make stuff up. Even if I didn't say that).

The OP said he read an article and "in fact", and we are heading to 3 C. I simply made the point that that level of certainty doesn't exist. And used the latest IPCC Assessment Report to demonstrate. When you say we're better at it now—I don't know how more current I can get.

But yes, I think we do both share some of the same thoughts about doing smart things. I appreciate your comments there.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You don't understand the point I was making...My last reply on this point, because it was a simple point that I think I delivered clearly. I think on sensitive topics, peoples' eyes get attracted to assertions, and don't pay a lot of attention to context, and also they tend to think there must be there must be a deeper reason a person is saying it (like, if I point out that the outcome is so difficult to predict that their are multiple scenarios that span a wide range, maybe I'm really saying it's all a conspiracy to make stuff up. Even if I didn't say that).

The OP said he read an article and "in fact", and we are heading to 3 C. I simply made the point that that level of certainty doesn't exist. And used the latest IPCC Assessment Report to demonstrate. When you say we're better at it now—I don't know how more current I can get.

But yes, I think we do both share some of the same thoughts about doing smart things. I appreciate your comments there.

I suppose people are making predictions about predictions. Is it possible to do a big worldwide turn around and keep it to 1.5 degrees C? Maybe. With China, India and possible other developing areas such a result is very unlikely. Doing very little to abate any warming is probably more likely than the low end predictions. However, some better tech is emerging and will help, but that takes time and in time will simply be the most economical most prosperous route to take.

So the value of models is to define what happens in different scenarios to hopefully allow better informed decisions. Those models actually aren't predictions of what will happen. The problem is political entities want to treat them that way rather than as guidelines to make smart decisions. Of course no one is calling the shots globally. I think using the models as information, and seeing how certainly in the next decade we aren't going to be able to switch things to achieve the low end temperature rise, it isn't unreasonable to think 1.5 degrees is off the table. Nor to think 3 degrees is a more likely result. But of course no one can be certain that far into the future (2100 in this case). What predictions could have been made in 1944 about now which would have been accurate?

 

[pseudoid]

WOE? ['What On Earth' >> trying to stop using 'WTF']
TL&DR version (1 picture = 1k words)

It got me all confused, when it stated that the reverse process turns the oxidation (rust) BACK into IRON!
Huh?

 

[EJ3]

WOE? ['What On Earth' >> trying to stop using 'WTF']
TL&DR version (1 picture = 1k words)

View attachment 235416
It got me all confused, when it stated that the reverse process turns the oxidation (rust) BACK into IRON!
Huh?

I wonder if we can do that to my cast iron railings around my back porch and power the house. Yes WOE!

 

[dtaylo1066]

Here are the top 6 countries that account for nearly 60% of global carbon emissions. The U.S. has the highest per capita emissions. China the highest overall amount of emissions.