Alfa Romeo Forums banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
16,944 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
A nephew has one of the electric 500, bought so that his Italian mother-in-law could use it for local driving when visiting her daughter's family here in the States. Really likes it for city travel, EXCEPT, the trunk is just a couple of inches too short. If the basic 500 in general was just maybe 2 inches longer, no more, aft of the rear seat, it would be much better for, say, grocery shopping or short vacation trips, while still keeping it's original wonderfully cute look, which is much better looking than the other versions.

However, while I agree that, contrary to Michael's opinion, electric cars will most likely certainly be the majority of urban/suburban private transportation. I see maybe a dozen variousTesla, et al, just on my drive to the grocery store, and we don't live in a high rent area at all. The percentage of hybrids and full electrics growing by the day.

Still, getting back to what we like, I get much more fun out of driving our "old death traps". So much fun in interacting with the machinery, both in the manual tranny manipulation, and the dynamics of driving on curvy roads with vigor, and sound of course, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sepehr

·
Premium Member
1988 Spider Quadrifoglio
Joined
·
217 Posts
Here in BC electricity is cheap, gasoline is very expensive, and both the federal and provincial governments are throwing money at us to buy an electric. If I fill up more than maybe 3 times a month the economics lean toward electric. I really don't see buying another IC daily driver again.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
16,944 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
At our ages, and with the cars we have, and the few miles we drive nowadays relatively speaking, I don't see buying either gas or electric, unless something really disastrous happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
I am hoping that the interpretation of Fiat's and Alfa's statements are incorrect. I am thinking they mean they will have a fully electric option available by 2030. It could also mean they may have a hybrid option with an internal combustion engine and some battery / electric motors in the line up as well. But the reality is that certain northern European countries are banning the sale of vehicles that run on internal combustion at some point in time. Fiat and Alfa need to have a product ready for then, other than a small 500E. Good luck to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,590 Posts
Let’s not confuse private transport with personal transport. Cars exist in their current form to provide personal transport but in most 1st world countries they aren’t owned by the people that use them, but rather by banks and other finance companies. Often it‘s the manufactures themselves who finance the new or near new ones, and they borrow at a corporate level to fund their operations and hence these cars.

Reason this is relevant is that if the manufacturers and banks decide to offer better deals on EV’s rather than ICE cars, or only finance EV’s, then that’s what we’ll drive.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
16,944 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
True for many, but many here do own their cars outright, free from loans, the pattern being that people are just keeping their cars longer. While it seems many countries discourage owning used cars of over a certain age, here in the US you can own any used car of any age, often for very little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
Without huge subsidies or mandatory purchasing nobody buys EV. Not even hybrids sell.

Everywhere you find no pricing or running cost subsidies nobody chooses to buy any form of EV.

The "calculation" that purports to show that only a modest increase in construction of electrical generating capacity is just flat out incorrect, by a factor of ten, very roughly.

The Tesla dealer here seems to sell "a lot of cars" but take up of EV or all types here is around 2% of sales and not showing any signs of market domination. No subsidies for purchase but still absurdly no fuel tax. What really burns my butt is parking privileges at free charging stations. Sometimes even preferential to handicapped stalls. HOV preferences are similarly indefensible.

What car makers mean by "electric vehicles" includes the new 48v systems which can be easily configured to recharge for a daily commute. That will become standard equipment for most if not all vehicles fairly soon but hardly qualifies as "electric". Main motive power will remain gasoline for cars and diesel or possibly CNG for road transport. Rail will remain diesel electric here for a long time yet.
 

·
Premium Member
1988 Spider Quadrifoglio
Joined
·
217 Posts
Those are numbers from various reputable sources. I only really converted units.
But still, a degree of magnitude difference in the amount of additional energy required is still 3 TWh annually, which is still less than 0.5% increase in this country's generation capacity. Am I off by two degrees of magnitude? Then that's still 5%. Why would that be so impossible over a whole decade?

Those are the numbers. There's not much more I can add. 🤷‍♂️
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Without huge subsidies or mandatory purchasing nobody buys EV. Not even hybrids sell.

Everywhere you find no pricing or running cost subsidies nobody chooses to buy any form of EV.

The "calculation" that purports to show that only a modest increase in construction of electrical generating capacity is just flat out incorrect, by a factor of ten, very roughly.

The Tesla dealer here seems to sell "a lot of cars" but take up of EV or all types here is around 2% of sales and not showing any signs of market domination. No subsidies for purchase but still absurdly no fuel tax. What really burns my butt is parking privileges at free charging stations. Sometimes even preferential to handicapped stalls. HOV preferences are similarly indefensible.

What car makers mean by "electric vehicles" includes the new 48v systems which can be easily configured to recharge for a daily commute. That will become standard equipment for most if not all vehicles fairly soon but hardly qualifies as "electric". Main motive power will remain gasoline for cars and diesel or possibly CNG for road transport. Rail will remain diesel electric here for a long time yet.
Mike, electric car owners do not pay taxes to support the road infrastructure of Canada. Basically in the cost of fuel is about 50% of the taxes for developing of the roads.
I would charge them based on the weight of the car. Electric cars do the same harm to our roads as HD pickup because of the similar weight. I would charge electric cars owners 10c/km :)


Sent from my motorola one vision using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
Those are numbers from various reputable sources. I only really converted units.
But still, a degree of magnitude difference in the amount of additional energy required is still 3 TWh annually, which is still less than 0.5% increase in this country's generation capacity. Am I off by two degrees of magnitude? Then that's still 5%. Why would that be so impossible over a whole decade?

Those are the numbers. There's not much more I can add. 🤷‍♂️
The relative efficiency numbers you use are not valid in the real World. If you can provide the source for all of your efficiency discounts in favour of electrical power showing those savings are real and explain how grid stability can be preserved while enjoying those full benefits then you do have something to add. Otherwise, I agree your numbers are your numbers. They just happen to be incorrect.

A Tesla weighs over two tonnes and half of that is fuel tank and drivetrain. The fuel tank weighs the same whether charged or not. Simple physics dictate that a Tesla cannot be more energy efficient than a gasoline powered car, it's far too heavy.

The main problem is that replacing fossil fuels used for transport with electricity that uses no fossil fuels to generate is simply not possible unless a lot of nuclear power plants are constructed.

Electric vehicles are posited as solving the CO2 " problem". They don't and they can't.
 

·
Premium Member
1988 Spider Quadrifoglio
Joined
·
217 Posts
If you don't see CO2 as a problem at this point in time, well, you can stop reading now. You've already made your leap of faith and there's no convincing you, and I don't really want to have that argument. This is a classic car forum, not a school house.

I must insist that I'm showing you real numbers based on actual, real measurements. You're just dismissing them as wrong without offering any real evidence to refute them.

To address your claims of invalid numbers:

  • The total amounts of road vehicle fuel sold in Canada are as reported by Stats Canada. They have these numbers because we pay taxes on the fuel we buy.
  • The energy content of gasoline, diesel, and LPG are what they are. No feelings or opinions at play here.
  • The efficiency numbers I used are based on very established figures grounded in the real world. I can address these. Not only that, I've fudged them somewhat to be generous to the IC cars and conservative on the EVs.

You raised EV efficiency. Here are some actual measurements of EV efficiency. The methodology can be summarized as: Charge the car, measure how much energy went into the battery, drive the car, then see how far it goes. Not sure what more you could do there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_EPA_fuel_economy

Before you say the EPA driving circuits are not reflective of the real world, I would encourage you to compare the above numbers to equivalent EPA tests for gasoline and diesel cars. This will give you more of an apples to apples comparison.

Let's review some thermodynamics: The maximum theoretical thermal efficiency of an Otto cycle heat engine running on gasoline ( let's say 13:1 air to fuel ratio, 12:1 compression ratio) cannot be much more than 50%. Here's the formula, try it yourself:
1689725

Eta is efficiency, r is compression ratio, gamma is the air to fuel ratio divided by 10. Want to see the derivation? Look here:

Otto cycle - Wikipedia

This is as a theoretical model in the absence of any friction, pumping losses, ideal adiabatic behaviour during the compression and power strokes etc. In reality, the most efficient modern IC engines struggle to reach 40%, and that's only in constant RPM applications (e.g. generators, locomotive power plants, ...). A very efficient car engine running optimally is at just over 30% efficiency at the crank.

An electric motor, by comparison, will transform can transform substantially more than 80% of electrical energy input into mechanical energy. I'm not making this up either, you can open any electrical engineering textbook on the subject and read the same thing. In addition, almost all EVs have regenerative braking, so a significant portion of the mechanical energy that would be otherwise wasted as heat when braking is recaptured by recharging the battery.

Now, you're probably going to say "Sepehr, you're just burning the fossil fuels at the power plant instead of your engine!" In some circumstances, you'd be correct, but you should also consider: 60% of electricity in Canada is currently generated by hydro, 15% by nuclear. 18% is by coal, natural gas, and oil/diesel. 7% is mostly solar and wind. Those are NRCAN numbers:

For the sake of argument, let us assume 100% of the electricity we used to charge an EV was generated in a fossil fuel powered thermal plant. Let's also assume that said plant burns coal, which tend to be a bit less efficient. Well, I'd like to point out that the efficiency ranges from the upper 30's for our aging coal plants, to just over 40% for more efficient newer ones in Asia. Some pilot projects in China are well into the 40s. You can also verify this by flipping through some trade publications, written by people in the actual industry. Not "greenies" or "hippies" or "socialist university elites" or whatever nonsense today's village idiots rant on about when they're not concentrating on dragging their knuckles.

That's certainly better than the engine in your car can do, given it's having to spin up and down constantly. Now, let's factor in electricity transmission losses, losses during charging, and losses through the motor and drive train. Usually, when you run an EV in an area that generates electricity with fossil fuels, you are at worst no farther ahead than driving an IC car, and at best slightly ahead. Look at the above numbers, is that so hard to believe? In this situation, it would be better to drive a non-plugin hybrid. At least you get an efficiency boost from the regenerative braking. If you live in Alberta or Saskatchewan, EVs do not currently have much advantage over gasoline and diesel cars from a CO2 emission perspective. It's hybrid cars that should be emphasized as a stop-gap. Maybe that will change when they get carbon capture tech to work properly.

If you're going to drive up North, then a battery electric vehicle is not going to work. Continue driving a gasoline car. There's hardly anyone up there anyways. It won't make a measurable difference.

Finally, just for fun, let's say all of the engineering knowledge we have is WRONG. Let's say we're in an imaginary world where gasoline engines are 90% efficient and electric motors are 10% efficient. Primary school math (fractions!) will show you that the very approximate number that I calculated for additional electricity generation would not change very much in significance in relation to the total electricity generation in the country. It's hundreds of GWh vs more than 600 TWh.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
16,944 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Nevertheless, significant electric vehicle use is where we are headed. At least the governments promoting this change are not foolish enough to outlaw existing IC engine vehicles, yet. The populace wouldn't stand for it, it is thought, unless the country is run by an autocrat, where the populace won't have a choice.

I am reminded, though, of an old story in one of the car mags, titled maybe "The last Ferrari" where IC engine cars have been outlawed and destroyed or confiscated, thus creating underground activities of hiding or recreating exotic IC cars such as a Ferrari, and driving them surreptitiously, damaged/destroyed due to the inevitable chase by the authorities, and illegally rebuilt again on the sly. A foretelling of a potential future?

In real life, the percentage of IC vehicles will slowly fade to maybe even less than half in the next several decades, as older IC vehicles are slowly scrapped out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
Well, I believe in the scientific method. So, since there' s no proof that elevated levels of CO2 can produce the effects predicted I remain totally unconvinced. EV make absolutely no sense from an engineering perspective or we'd all be driving them already.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
16,944 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 · (Edited)
"since there' s no proof that elevated levels of CO2 can produce the effects predicted"

How about the effects already being produced? My scientist friends at Goddard have plenty of evidence for changes which were already predicted. We will see more of this when we go back to visit again this coming Fall.

An overview:

The science behind the climate crisis

By Brandon Miller, CNN Meterologist and Jen Christensen, CNN

Published 10:38 AM EDT, Wed September 4, 2019


But never mind, I suspect we've figured out your stance on the subject.

Meanwhile, the companies will crank out electric vehicles, and if that is all the companies will eventually produce, if someone wants a new car, it will have to be electric. Per the title of this posting series, it will be interesting to see just what Fiat, et al, comes out with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Sepehr,

I can tell you how drivers of IC cars support community (this is the answer why gas is expensive in BC):
18.5 c/l- Translink Tax (to support TransLink transit system of BC)
6.75 c/l - B.C. Transportation Financing Authority Tax (to support the road infrastructure of BC)
1.75 c/l - Provincial Motor Fuel Tax (general revenue)
Total - 27 c/l
Carbon tax - 9.96 c/l - to develop green solutions in BC
Provincial tax total - 36.96 c/l

Basically every driver of the IC car pays approx 1000-1300 CAD every year to support the transit system and the infrastructure. Why the owners of the electric cars do not pay such taxes? Why are they allowed to use the roads?
 

·
Premium Member
1988 Spider Quadrifoglio
Joined
·
217 Posts
Sepehr,

I can tell you how drivers of IC cars support community (this is the answer why gas is expensive in BC):
18.5 c/l- Translink Tax (to support TransLink transit system of BC)
6.75 c/l - B.C. Transportation Financing Authority Tax (to support the road infrastructure of BC)
1.75 c/l - Provincial Motor Fuel Tax (general revenue)
Total - 27 c/l
Carbon tax - 9.96 c/l - to develop green solutions in BC
Provincial tax total - 36.96 c/l

Basically every driver of the IC car pays approx 1000-1300 CAD every year to support the transit system and the infrastructure. Why the owners of the electric cars do not pay such taxes? Why are they allowed to use the roads?
No contest. That's a problem and it needs to be fixed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
I wrote there's no proof that rising levels of CO2 are causing a problem. Nor is there any proof it can or will produce a problem in the future. Evidence is not proof. Models are not proof. That's how science works. "Climate science" just isn't science of any sort, as currently practiced. It is a weird kind of statistical analysis, I.e. a version of theoretical mathematics, and just not science.

The evidence supports the claim that the average temperature of the lower troposphere is slowly rising. The evidence supports the claim that this has been going on since the depth of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century. Before that it was getting colder, slowly, for about three hundred years. A lot colder, dangerously colder. Before that it was getting warmer for about three hundred years.

Nobody knows how or why this happened much less where temperatures will go after today. Let me repeat that for clarity: nobody knows. Nobody can know based on current scientific knowledge and skills. My prediction is that nobody can ever know. There are some things we are not smart enough to know and never will be. Not even me.

That's basically it.

As for the probability of EV "taking over the market" in the absence of government regulation that is not going to happen. There is no evidence this is ever going to happen. Current market penetrations of EV are trivial, everywhere. What politicians say they will do is not only not evidence it is almost never credible.

Based on my back of the envelope estimations it cannot happen. I have not seen evidence that we as a society, worldwide, can build enough additional "clean" power generating capacity (I.e. not CO2 producing, which is the claimed objective) to convert even a meaningful proportion of our total vehicle fleet to electric power. That's just cars,

Just not going to happen because it can't happen.

I believe we have Alfisti who refuse to drive an Alfa equipped with an automatic transmission. Several complain about the lack of a coupe or sportscar version. Several say the electronics are too complex and detract from the driving experience. Well, test drive a Tesla. They are stultifyingly boring to drive. You want to experience life after death just buy a Tesla, or any electric car.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
16,944 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 · (Edited)
OK, believe what you want. Doesn't make it reality as observed and measured so far by the scientific world.

Meanwhile, get used to the increasing number of electric cars on the road, like it or not. In a couple of decades, it will be difficult to buy a new IC vehicle, no 'back of the envelope' calcs needed there.

Oh, and as for driving a Tesla, been there, done that. Yes, they are very quiet, and if one likes that, as many do in their IC luxocars, that's ok. Otherwise, they handle ok, are nicely built/appointed, AND, the acceleration is stunning. Personally, we do not like the big tv screen in the middle of the dash, but I suppose if you are into computer stuff, it is probably 'the cat's meow' for you. We wouldn't buy one, yet. Not enough interaction for old sparts car people. Others seem to love them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HJR

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
Science is not about belief. It's about proof. I neither believe nor disbelieve the idea of CAGW. It is not a provable fact. Until it is proved one way or the other it's just somebody's idea. Actually, CAGW doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. There is no statement anywhere of what CAGW is. Nor is there any testable proposal for proving or disproving CAGW. Technically, a hypothesis is only disproved and never proved. If a hypothesis is tested often enough and does not get disproved we conclude it is likely correct and promote it to a theory but a theory is always one experiment away from being disproved.

I'd be happier if there were to be a disprovable hypothesis. At least then we'd have half a chance of finding the answer. As matters stand climate science is just farting into the wind.

The mathematics and the physics of electric powered transportation just do not work. You can't make them work. The sad thing is we don't even know whether we need them to work.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
16,944 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
You can lead them to water...

I suggest you read the latest issue (Vol 102, no.6, June 2021) of EOS magazine, "Science News by AGU (the American Geophysics Union").
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top