Stupid Physics Question

[MW1515]

There's also research being done on e-fuel by Porsche and a Canadian company that makes fuel from air both of which would take all existing ICE vehicles and make them burn carbon neutral fuels. Additionally, there's also things like the zero emission turbine engines which are being worked on. Unfortunately, people are stuck on electricity, batteries and solar as the great savior. It's sad that so many people have electrical tunnel vision. People need to wake up to all alternatives.

Solar is becoming the "nuclear waste" of our time (recent article). Solving atmospheric problems with more toxic ground problems isn't a win in my books.

I'm TOTALLY open to any new technology that lessens the impact humans are having on our planet. Right now IMO batteries are a much better option than gas for cars, and those are the 2 real world options we have now. If that air fuel car is ready by the time i buy my next car ill get it. ? My point is that comparing the 2 right now is not really fair since ICE for cars have been in development for 100 years and the development of batteries for transportation is still in its infancy. The few advantages that gas has now (density, convenience, etc) could be mostly gone in 20 years.

Recycling of solar panels and batteries is also an industry that is still in its infancy so I think its very premature to assume that solar inevitably leads to toxic waste piling up at the dump.

The amount of solar energy that hits the US every hour is enough to power the country for a year so there is obviously a ton of untapped potential out there.

Sponsored

 

[jgcom]

I'm a physics prof., and I answered a similar question last year, before I got my car:

https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...eries-heavier-than-dead-ones.6116/post-174554

If you read my old post carefully, you will note that the effect is minuscule, would be difficult to measure, but is real. Also, note that other uninteresting effects (gas venting and thermally-induced buoyancy changes during charging) might well be larger. Some people reply by saying that E=mc^2 only applies to nuclear energy. They are incorrect.

Joe

 

[timbop]

But the density does relate to range

They are related in that the lower energy dense battery needs to have more mass to get to the same range. That is NOT the same thing as efficiency, which has to do with how much energy is WASTED during the process of converting potential to kinetic energy.

The energy density relates to how big your "fuel tank" has to be to reach a certain range, and of course the more fuel you're carrying your efficiency goes down. In the case of a BEV it is so much more fuel efficient even the ungodly heavy hummer ev has better fuel efficiency than a gas engine.

 

[timbop]

Modern solar panels are already extremely efficient.

No, they are extremely INEFFICIENT relative to the amount of energy that hits their surface area. They only react to to a small portion of the spectrum (the yellow/red range), giving the best panels roughly 25% efficiency. The holy grail of solar panels is finding a material that can convert a much wider span of the spectrum into electrical energy.

 

[DYohn]

All I know is the empty bottle of V8 juice I keep in my frunk is there for smart-asses who ask "what's under the hood," and as long as it remains empty, if it rolls around any changes to vehicle weight or performance dynamics are most likely on the quantum scale.

 

[ctenidae]

All I know is the empty bottle of V8 juice I keep in my frunk is there for smart-asses who ask "what's under the hood," and as long as it remains empty, if it rolls around any changes to vehicle weight or performance dynamics are most likely on the quantum scale.

What's under there?
A V8

 

[ctenidae]

Also, to all the folks who "hate regen" and bemoan the lack of the ability to coast, note the conversation re: wasted energy and converting kinetic energy to heat.

 

[Mach1E]

No, they are extremely INEFFICIENT relative to the amount of energy that hits their surface area. They only react to to a small portion of the spectrum (the yellow/red range), giving the best panels roughly 25% efficiency. The holy grail of solar panels is finding a material that can convert a much wider span of the spectrum into electrical energy.

That’s where we disagree.

I think being able to convert 30% roughly to electricity is very good.

The “holy grail” as you put it may never exist. So my point is that we may be as “efficient as reasonably possible” with solar or close to it.

But either way, it doesn’t change my argument. Even if you find the holy grail, it’s just not enough energy to move us around.

Solar panels on competitor BEVs add 1 mile of range a day (when it’s sunny).

So triple that and you get 3 miles/day. Not gonna cut it.

 

[MW1515]

No, they are extremely INEFFICIENT relative to the amount of energy that hits their surface area. They only react to to a small portion of the spectrum (the yellow/red range), giving the best panels roughly 25% efficiency. The holy grail of solar panels is finding a material that can convert a much wider span of the spectrum into electrical energy.

This is pretty cool
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091...tricity-at-night-have-been-developed-at-stanf

 

[Mach1E]

I'm TOTALLY open to any new technology that lessens the impact humans are having on our planet. Right now IMO batteries are a much better option than gas for cars, and those are the 2 real world options we have now. If that air fuel car is ready by the time i buy my next car ill get it. ? My point is that comparing the 2 right now is not really fair since ICE for cars have been in development for 100 years and the development of batteries for transportation is still in its infancy. The few advantages that gas has now (density, convenience, etc) could be mostly gone in 20 years.

Recycling of solar panels and batteries is also an industry that is still in its infancy so I think its very premature to assume that solar inevitably leads to toxic waste piling up at the dump.

The amount of solar energy that hits the US every hour is enough to power the country for a year so there is obviously a ton of untapped potential out there.

Battery tech and solar panels aren’t even remotely close to their “infancy.”

One could even argue we have spent way more trying to perfect battery tech than we have on internal combustion.

The fuel (Gasoline) has barely changed in decades. And the basics of how the engines work? The same. Crank, pistons, cam, intake, fuel……… design is hardly different from a hundred years ago.

 

[MW1515]

That’s where we disagree.

I think being able to convert 30% roughly to electricity is very good.

The “holy grail” as you put it may never exist. So my point is that we may be as “efficient as reasonably possible” with solar or close to it.

But either way, it doesn’t change my argument. Even if you find the holy grail, it’s just not enough energy to move us around.

Solar panels on competitor BEVs add 1 mile of range a day (when it’s sunny).

So triple that and you get 3 miles/day. Not gonna cut it.

Have you heard of the Lightyear? It says it can get 70km worth of range per day sitting out in the sun, which is 43 miles. Let's say one day those panels are twice as efficient. That's 80 miles per day from sitting outside. Sure, it's crazy expensive now, but it might not be in 15 years...

https://lightyear.one/

 

[dml105]

I think we've seen this thread before:

https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/are-charged-batteries-heavier-than-dead-ones.6116/page-2

EDIT: I see the good physics prof already posted it.

 

[Mach1E]

Have you heard of the Lightyear? It says it can get 70km worth of range per day sitting out in the sun, which is 43 miles. Let's say one day those panels are twice as efficient. That's 80 miles per day from sitting outside. Sure, it's crazy expensive now, but it might not be in 15 years...

https://lightyear.one/

Interesting. Haven’t heard of it, but some of their claims seem a bit…….. far fetched.

Definitely need to see some independent verification and real tests to believe it.

Seen waaaaaaaay too many tech startups in this category that make outrageous claims (to get investors to give them $$) then never deliver.

Website claims test drives started June 2022. Did it happen?

Edit: did some googling-
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40396442/lightyear-zero-solar-ev-first-drive/

May be the only $265,000 car you don’t put in the garage. ?

 

[MW1515]

Battery tech and solar panels aren’t even remotely close to their “infancy.”

One could even argue we have spent way more trying to perfect battery tech than we have on internal combustion.

The fuel (Gasoline) has barely changed in decades. And the basics of how the engines work? The same. Crank, pistons, cam, intake, fuel……… design is hardly different from a hundred years ago.

Research on battery tech has always focused on consumer electronics, not transportation. Battery tech for transportation is still in it's infancy. It's a very different application.

You have a great point about gasoline. There is not a whole lot more efficiency to squeeze out.

 

[Mach1E]

Research on battery tech has always focused on consumer electronics, not transportation. Battery tech for transportation is still in it's infancy. It's a very different application.

You have a great point about gasoline. There is not a whole lot more efficiency to squeeze out.

This just isn’t true. Many seem to assume that we’ve barely scratched the surface and some amazing breakthrough technology is just right around the corner. That’s more science fiction than science unfortunately.

Here’s some good reading:

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-history-of-the-electric-car-1830-to-present/

Worth the Watt: A Brief History of the Electric Car, 1830 to Present
EVs weren't born yesterday.

Sponsored