8 states are planning to BAN the sale of gas-powered cars entirely - after Biden unveiled ambitious plans to phase them out by 2032

[FireDragon76]

I'm for more public transportation in the US but politically it is largely a dead issue, though there at least are groups fighting to change that.

That's the sad reality. All the real evidence is that widespread car ownership is highly problematic, in a way that's obvious to anybody looking at this from a systems perspective, but car-based culture and infrastructure are deeply rooted in life in North America as both a narrative and built reality. Even a country like the UK, which is one of the most car-heavy in Europe, has about 2/3 the rate of obesity of the US. It's because people there, even though they eat mostly the same (largely bad) foods, on average walk 2,000 steps more per day, compared to people in North America.

In the US, every year gyms mostly are sold as a way for people to try to get physically fit (often as a New Years resolution after the gluttony of the holidays). 30 minutes of cardio once or twice a week isn't going to make up for the fact most people are driving to the gym in the first place, and driving everywhere else they go. A person that does 30 minutes on a treadmill or elliptical once or twice a week (the most the average person in the US can manage) isn't going to be as healthy as somebody that walks 10,000 steps every day consistently, even though the walking is often far less intense in terms of cardiovascular exercise.

And that isn't saying anything about pedestrian deaths, environmental pollution, etc. Just from a physical health standpoint, sitting for hours in traffic every week doesn't make sense.

Ah yes, for lithium China has over half of the world's refining capability but Australia mines the most lithium. China has purchased rights to vast amounts of cobalt:

From Cobalt to Cars: How China Exploits Child and Forced Labor in the Congo

Child and forced labor taint the supply chain of cobalt, a metal that is a critical component in the lithium-ion batteries and other products important for modern technologies, including electric vehicles.

www.cecc.gov

Everyone charging their cars at night could change the dynamics so that peak overall electricity usage is during the night.

Doubtful. The biggest drains on the electric grid are industries and commercial buildings, not households. Electric cars aren't really going to change that.

And remember too that the majority of electrical power in this country is produced from fossil fuels. How much efficiency is lost by burning fossil fuels and then transporting electricity over the wires to be installed in batteries, and then the batteries lose charge when not in use (especially in cold climates?) Like I've said, there is more wear and tear on roads and tires. Why not consider the more and more efficient gas powered cars that we are producing? Perhaps hydrogen powered cars will be the future. There is no one clear top choice, and so the government needs to stay out of it.

Internal combustion engines, like gasoline engines, have an upper limit in terms of efficiency that's really quite low, around 35 percent. So it's really quite easy to beat them in terms of efficiency, by switching to an electric-based motor.

 

[AlexB23]

We have the same problem here. Where's fusion when we need it?

A few companies are working on fusion tech, but it is a few years off. But hey, fusion seems to be always a few years off. Helion's fusion reactor looks similar to a Star Trek warp core, ready to propel a spacecraft to another solar system.

Helion Fusion Company: This startup says its first fusion plant is five years away. Experts doubt it.

Article Summary:
The article by James Temple, published on May 10, 2023, discusses Helion Energy, a startup backed by Sam Altman that claims it will flip on the world's first fusion power plant in five years. Fusion power is a carbon-free energy source that has eluded scientists for three-quarters of a century, and if successful, it could provide a steady stream of clean electricity without the intermittency challenges of solar and wind power or the controversies associated with nuclear fission.

Helion Energy has already signed a power purchase agreement with Microsoft for its planned commercial facility, which is expected to be built in Washington state and go online in 2028. The plant's generating capacity will be at least 50 megawatts, although this is small compared to typical US natural-gas plants with over 500 megawatts of capacity.

However, the company's claim of being on the verge of commercializing fusion power is questionable, as it has not yet achieved "scientific net energy gain" or "engineering gain," which are essential for developing practical commercial fusion systems. Scientific net energy gain refers to producing more energy from fusion than is delivered through the process, while engineering gain takes into account the total energy used to power up the system.

Despite these challenges, Helion Energy has made some significant advances, including developing and testing six prototypes, achieving temperatures of over 100 million degrees Celsius in the latest prototype (Trenta), and building a seventh prototype called Polaris that is expected to demonstrate the ability to produce electricity from fusion reactions next year.

Helion Energy's approach to fusion involves a "pulsed non-ignition fusion system," which only requires fusion to take place for short periods. The company's device is a six-by-40-foot barbell-shaped "plasma accelerator" that uses powerful magnets to heat a gas mixture, creating rings of plasma on either end. The magnets then propel the rings at each other at a million miles per hour and compress them in the middle, triggering fusion reactions. Helion's process can recover electricity directly from the plasma, making it easier to convert into alternating current and route onto the grid as compared to other fusion approaches.

The planned commercial generator would need additional systems for cooling, electricity connections, and other purposes but wouldn't require a larger physical size than Helion's latest prototype. However, there are challenges to be addressed, including the need to produce more energy from the process than is required for the pulses and to prove that they can create a large enough pulse to generate sufficient energy while capturing enough of it to fuel the next pulse.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently made a key determination over how it will license fusion plants, adopting an approach used for research particle accelerators rather than the more onerous process used for fission power plants. However, it will still need to develop a specific rule-making process for licensing fusion within this approach, which could take months to years.

Helion Energy has raised $570 million in venture capital and has significant financial backing from Sam Altman, who initially invested about $10 million but dramatically boosted his investment due to his confidence in the company. The power purchase agreement with Microsoft demonstrates market demand and allows Helion to zero in on a location, potentially spurring additional activity in commercial fusion.

Despite the challenges, Helion Energy's CEO, David Kirtley, is confident that they will be able to turn on the world's first fusion power plant before the decade's end. However, he acknowledges that there are significant challenges and potential for delays. Other fusion startups aim to begin operating power plants in the early 2030s, and some observers think even those timelines are overly optimistic.

 

[weekEd]

Geesh 7/11 will go broke!!

 

[weekEd]

And doesn't the government have better things to do than pay Saturday Arabia for fuel...

 

[AlexB23]

Geesh 7/11 will go broke!!

No one knows when fusion will happen, so 7/11 will still be around. Even in the fusion era. Americans seem to enjoy convenience food.

 

[weekEd]

^Ok.
Yeah so the government gets involved in building alternative fuel fighter jets and then we'll see...

 

[AlexB23]

^Ok.
Yeah so the government gets involved in building alternative fuel fighter jets and then we'll see...

Fighter jets do not run on nuclear fusion, and instead run on fossil fuel based kerosene. E-kerosene is possible though, a fuel made from combining CO2 extracted from the air with hydrogen extracted from electrolysis.

E-kerosene: E-kerosene made with sustainable CO2 can make air traffic fossil free – report

Also, bro, it is more convenient for other forums users if you can quote the person who you are responding to, such as how I quoted you.

 

[SimplyMe]

Ah yes, for lithium China has over half of the world's refining capability but Australia mines the most lithium. China has purchased rights to vast amounts of cobalt:

From Cobalt to Cars: How China Exploits Child and Forced Labor in the Congo

Child and forced labor taint the supply chain of cobalt, a metal that is a critical component in the lithium-ion batteries and other products important for modern technologies, including electric vehicles.

www.cecc.gov

Good job ignoring what I stated -- particularly about the part of how we are working to completely remove Chinese products in US batteries. Additionally I mentioned how many US EVs are switching to LFP batteries, or other types, which have no Cobalt. Agreements have been signed by automakers to buy these minerals from US and Canadian mines and refiners, some of which are building because there is now demand. And, of course, this could change quickly if solid state batteries become the norm in the next few years, as some are claiming.

Everyone charging their cars at night could change the dynamics so that peak overall electricity usage is during the night. And remember too that the majority of electrical power in this country is produced from fossil fuels.

Let's clarify, the majority is from natural gas, not from oil or coal; over twice as much from natural gas as from coal -- though together they do make up about 55%. While I have seen some liquid natural gas cars, there definitely aren't too many on the road and they wouldn't be a horrible alternative, other than it isn't really viable.

How much efficiency is lost by burning fossil fuels and then transporting electricity over the wires to be installed in batteries, and then the batteries lose charge when not in use (especially in cold climates?)

Except batteries don't "lose charge" in the cold. Instead, the battery works less efficiently while cold, meaning you can't get as much power out. Of course, this can be largely "fixed" by warming up the battery -- particularly while still connected to power while at home -- at which point the battery has a similar charge to a warm day. But again, the same issues largely apply to ICE vehicles, just with a larger amount of "stored" power, people don't worry about the losses as much when it is cold.

And, again, the efficiency of EVs -- to include power transportation and losses while charging -- is about 90%. As for Natural Gas and similar fossil fuel plants, their efficiency is more like 60% -- more efficient (by about 50%) than gasoline car engines.

Like I've said, there is more wear and tear on roads and tires.

Yes, you've claimed that but presented no evidence it is true, other than a simple claim that EVs are heavier. And it totally ignores the fact that a single 18 wheeler causes more damage to roads than 9,600 cars. At best, maybe you could claim that EVs are 25% heavier than an equivalent gas car (which we'd need to look at to see how true it is) and so an 18-wheeler might only be equivalent to 7,200 EVs. This is one of those points that I'm sure sounded good, on whatever anti-EV website you got it from, but just isn't as large an issue as what is claimed by them. Again, the largest factors with tire wear have to do with how you drive and if tires are properly maintained.

Why not consider the more and more efficient gas powered cars that we are producing? Perhaps hydrogen powered cars will be the future. There is no one clear top choice, and so the government needs to stay out of it.

Again, the most efficient gas cars we produce are still terribly inefficient. I think the absolute best is the Prius, and they claim their engine is 45% efficient (aided by the fact it has a battery and electric powertrain), making it heavier and more complex. Personally, I really like the idea of hydrogen but it doesn't seem realistic. There are huge issues just storing and refilling hydrogen vehicles -- the tanks are under extreme high pressure and have to be dispensed between 200 and 500 bar, and kept at -40 degrees (either C or F).

Then you have the issue of isolating the hydrogen, which tends to take more power to isolate than the hydrogen that is captured will produce -- not to mention the additional power costs of putting it at such high pressure and low temperatures. As such, current prices at gas stations tend to be between $78 and $90 to fill a hydrogen car, and the car can travel roughly 300 miles on that tank of hydrogen. While it would be great to have hydrogen cars, as it could solve various issues with EVs, the technology is not there, with no real breakthroughs in sight. The Japanese car companies invested heavily in hydrogen power but it isn't something that has caught on outside of Japan, if no other reason than the cost to fill the vehicles. And this is ignoring the risks of carrying large amounts of compressed hydrogen in cars, where there are frequently accidents.

I have no issue with an alternative to EVs popping up, and there is research going on with alternative solutions, such as hydrogen, just nothing that currently appears to be a better alternative.

 

[weekEd]

Fighter jets do not run on nuclear fusion, and instead run on fossil fuel based kerosene. E-kerosene is possible though, a fuel made from combining CO2 extracted from the air with hydrogen extracted from electrolysis.

E-kerosene: E-kerosene made with sustainable CO2 can make air traffic fossil free – report

Also, bro, it is more convenient for other forums users if you can quote the person who you are responding to, such as how I quoted you.

Ok so it would be manly to have an efficient fighter jet that runs on renewable energy...

 

[AlexB23]

Ok so it would be manly to have an efficient fighter jet that runs on renewable energy...

It would be really cool. E-kerosene is manly, and green. Much more so manly compared to a Prius or Tesla.

 

[weekEd]

It would be really cool. E-kerosene is manly, and green. Much more so manly compared to a Prius or Tesla.

We got so much coal though...
I'll have to look up e kerosene

 

[SimplyMe]

We got so much coal though...
I'll have to look up e kerosene

Hmm... a coal powered fighter jet? I guess I don't have a good enough imagination to visualize how that would work.

 

[AlexB23]

We got so much coal though...
I'll have to look up e kerosene

Coal is a heavy pollutant, and is not good for miners to collect. E-kerosene just needs some wind turbines (or other renewable or clean energy, even nuclear could work), water, and CO2 from the air.

 

[AlexB23]

Hmm... a coal powered fighter jet? I guess I don't have a good enough imagination to visualize how that would work.

Me neither. WeekEd might not understand that fighter jets use Jet A1 or JP-8 or similar kerosene blends, but let us not judge him for that.

Fighter jet fuel: https://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htm

 

[weekEd]

Me neither. WeekEd might not understand that fighter jets use Jet A1 or JP-8 or similar kerosene blends, but let us not judge him for that.

Fighter jet fuel: https://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htm

Yeah more dense fuel only makes sense
Coal is pretty dense...

 

[AlexB23]

Yeah more dense fuel only makes sense
Coal is pretty dense...

Umm, that is not how fuel works man. I will let the other folks here explain energy density vs mass density, as it is getting late here in my city.

 

[weekEd]

Umm, that is not how fuel works man. I will let the other folks here explain energy density vs mass density, as it is getting late here in my city.

Liquified coal seems to be a thing.
We got so much coal that it's not even charging for anymore

 

[weekEd]

Do you mean the 9-9-9 guy? It isn't in German.

The pronunciation is

 

[ozso]

By the time 2032 comes around it will be a totally different administration and a different playing field.

 

[JustOneWay]

The pronunciation is

Nein ist es nicht