Tesla's New Tabless Electrode Battery Cell Patent Is 'Way More Important Than It Sounds' says crazy-person Elon Musk

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,811
This is the only glimpse of objective reality that you seem to be willing to recognize in your EV evangelism.

You liken ICE inferiority/EV superiority to the fall of coal energy, when the only reason that coal is no longer a viable technology is because the government for all intents and purposes banned it. We have virtually infinite stockpiles of coal and the plants were very cheap to produce and operate, without much major pollution in their later designs save for harmless carbon dioxide. The government created various laws specifically targeting coal energy to destroy the market while simultaneously massively subsidizing inferior technology that otherwise couldn't sustain itself on the market like ethanol, solar, and wind, and then pretend like that demonstrates its a superior technology. Its simply a matter of big government artificially creating winners and losers, and on some level you seem to recognize that now with the banning of ICE.
It failed because coal was obsolete junk propped up by lobbying and tobacco style marketing campaigns.

Example, court filings reveal some of those groups paid for misinformation campaigns and shaping regional politics in favor of protecting obsolete incumbent business:
https://electrek.co/2019/12/18/bob-murray-science-denial-instead-coal-workers-wages-bankrupt/

Right now it's such a glaringly obvious matter that even corrupt lobbying can save that boondoggle.

tl;dr: If ICE were inherently inferior and EV superior, then allow the market to decide and end any and all EV subsidies immediately and there would be no need to ban or regulate ICE into forced extinction.
The obsolete ICE technology is going away, that part is an obvious fact, how fast it does is the question, and many governments are not interested in delaying it.

Aside from the fact that many civilized nations are not anti-science, they also don't wanna wait for their auto industry to collapse and lose out to the competition, especially the upcoming Chinese invasion of EVs.

This wisdom does not exist in America - more on that below - but Europe will certainly put pressure on their manufacturers to keep up, despite protestations of companies like Mercedes and BMW. Ironically for VW the diesel scandal was a blessing in disguise when it comes to EVs, they'll probably make it because they themselves were lobbying for EU nations to not relax emissions rules now.

Down here the companies operate on the dim-witted wisdom of "quarterly" Wallstreet results, the executives don't really care where Ford of GM is going long-term as long as they get their golden parachutes. A bankruptcy for them is a good way to shed responsibilities anyway - just like Murray did with coal miner pensions - so who cares right?

I had a laugh earlier when someone mentioned bailouts not being a sign of a company's failure but just a "creative accounting" process, let that bizarre self immolating logic sink for a minute considering the above: In the mind of a crooked executive this is indeed true, who gives a shit about the average Joe? The system is working as intended, fail on the taxpayer's dime all you like!

When some of the grunts think the way that executive does, a self-inflicted lack of self worth, that just takes the cake lol, but here we are.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
It failed because coal was obsolete junk propped up by lobbying and tobacco style marketing campaigns.
Your divorce from reality is quite astounding... you act like the coal industry, relentlessly regulated into oblivion by the government, is somehow the pet of the government and receiving massive lobby money and a barrage of media misinformation campaigns, when its so patently obviously projecting from the alternative energy industry that is getting non-stop assistance from fake news even on youtube when you're watching a video about a platapus some overweight girl with purple dyed hair and half her head shaved is talking about climate change and the need for electric cars, with billions being funneled directly and openly into massively subsidized alternative energy industries.

Its the same old tired strategy of accuse your opponent of doing precisely what you're doing right now, as a confusing distraction technique. Its like you have peanut butter all over your mouth and fingers and being outraged saying "I can't believe you're eating peanut butter", as if they aren't just talking about themselves. I guess that low-IQ type of debate strategy works on some people.
The obsolete ICE technology is going away, that part is an obvious fact, how fast it does is the question, and many governments are not interested in delaying it.
Just a moment ago there was a moment of honesty when you admitted that world governments are doing everything they can to destroy ICE technology in favor of alternative energy, and yet now you're putting your foot in your mouth acting like governments are propping them up artificially. Look, if you actually believe the two-faced nonsense you claim, then you should support any and all incentives and subsidies for electric vehicles to end today, and the war on ICE with constant punitive regulations and taxes against them to end since its an "obsolete technology" that should go away on its own, since consumers will pick the clearly superior electric options even at true market prices without massive subsidy and government perks on carpool lanes and blocking off downtown to non-electrics, massive gasoline taxes, and so forth.
Aside from the fact that many civilized nations are not anti-science
LOL, I love all the buzzwords from the ctrl-left, but "anti-science" is one of my favorite. They will admit that grant-shopping (the practice of making the desired result known in advance and funding people to reinforce that) is bad science, like the government funded studies against marijuana in which apes were given so much marijuana smoke that they suffered oxygen deprivation causing brain damage just to show the desired result that marijuana is harmful to the brain, but then the exact same grant-shopping for climate alarmism that they push is suddenly perfectly good science. In fact, all the data that contradicts it when brought to light is labeled "anti-science".... because the left has a monopoly on true-science^tm, enforced by their ministry of truth (big tech and liberal media), and any numbers that contradict that are as taboo and impermissible for the public to even hear on their platforms as questioning holocaust numbers... they even use the same verbiage as "holocaust denial" calling it "climate change denial".
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
I don't buy into anything. I take debates from the position of the person on the other side because they are the objective of the discussion. If the other side finds a topic important then one argues from that view point but in the direction of your presented facts.
If you ever hear anyone argue about "destroying all life" to anything... Well that's pretty much always going to be a false position. Biospheres are pretty ridiculously tough things. Complex lifeforms not so much. Civilizations less so.

I wont take a position on any side of the debate on this forum but I will say I have yet to meet a computer model of any complexity that doesn't have compounding errors or missing variables. Case in point. Picture a room full of engineers. Picture that they have spent 4 years planning every tiny detail of a billion dollar project. Picture the day(s) come to construct said project. Then picture how we have to crib in parts as we are building this meticulously designed thing with physical book sized reams of plans and prints all because we found out there were questions we didn't know to ask. That said I really hate being reactionary. It sucks. It's always more expensive in the long run.

----------------
Yeah... those reports about how much oil we have? From someone in that industry they are complete and utter horseshite.
People have tried(and utterly failed) to predict world reserves over and over. Trying to do so was described to me by men and women waaaay above my paygrade as "Trying to use 'pin the tail on the donkey' in a dark maze to measure the maze".

We've had 1000hp engines since the 1920s. Aircraft engines beat automotive to the punch a loooong time ago. Of course they had really shite power to weight ratios. Engine efficiency is not really hurt by current regulation. Honestly using an ICE to actually power a drivetrain is a really awful idea. Transmissions are horrible. What you can do with a 500lb engine I can do with a 5lb electric motor full stop all day long. Heck STEAM is more efficient AND more powerful.
What makes ICE special and the actual reason they wont go away anytime soon is more about energy density than any other factor. Let's consider a car... you could have 30gal of gasoline, 2 tons of batteries, or the weight of the car in hydrogen.(this is hyperbole...mostly)
When you need energy to be transportable and independent liquid is king and always will be no matter how dense batteries get.

The question you should be asking is: If EVs need novel materials that may never happen and gasoline has very limited room to grow.... why don't we just change the fuel so ICEs can continue to get smaller, lighter, and more efficient at their jobs?
Sometimes people get so obsessed with the new that they forget the older technology is far easier to improve if you just change one variable.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
@Wierdo
China isnt really preparing for EVs...
They are preparing for methanol. They are setting the standard for methanol fuel. They have been for twenty years.
Why?
1]Very little consumer shock required.
2]Very little change to current manufacturing.
3]Environmental upsides in every single category(Worst case scenarios are 1:1 consumption to production of CO2 with less than 1% other pollutants compared to gas)
4]You can set this crap up anywhere and use just about everything as feed gas.

Oh India and Africa are more interested in china's methanol vehicles than they are EVs.. mostly because most of them can make methanol a whole heck of great deal easier than they can build the infrastructure required for electric.

America and the EU are kinda the ones with their heads stuck in the sand on this one...
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
Yeah... those reports about how much oil we have? From someone in that industry they are complete and utter horseshite. People have tried(and utterly failed) to predict world reserves over and over. Trying to do so was described to me by men and women waaaay above my paygrade as "Trying to use 'pin the tail on the donkey' in a dark maze to measure the maze".
The report came from the ex-CEO of BP, and you have to realize that the statement is not something that is good for the oilfield industry; quite the opposite. Its essentially explaining why they are abandoning billions in exploration, because relatively new technologies such as fracking have drastically increased cheap available known sources of oil. The US, once the world's largest importer of oil, has recently become a net exporter (prior to the COVID market disruption), just to put things in perspective.

While you may argue that the figures may be off by a few decades plus or minus, what is clear is that the fear mongering of "peak oil" (popularized in our culture by movies like Mad Max) has come and gone and proven to be another complete hoax from the left. How many hoaxes of imminent doom do we have to hear before we stop pretending they have any credibility left?
We've had 1000hp engines since the 1920s. Aircraft engines beat automotive to the punch a loooong time ago.
Its not really important for my point of "What is important is the power to weight ratio of the powertrain. And were it not for constant regulations trying to hurt the efficiency of ICE, we could all have pint-sized engines making 1000hp today." We had no engines in the 1920s with the power to weight ratio of the 1.5 liter turbocharged engines in the mid 80s F1 vehicles.
Engine efficiency is not really hurt by current regulation.
This is such a ridiculous comment considering it took us so many decades just to get back to the power levels of the 1960s thanks to punitive regulations on ICE which damn near destroyed the established automotive industry that were invested in larger vehicles, which can be likened to the asteroid that wiped out all the large dinosaurs.
The question you should be asking is: If EVs need novel materials that may never happen and gasoline has very limited room to grow.... why don't we just change the fuel so ICEs can continue to get smaller, lighter, and more efficient at their jobs?
EV battery technology will continue to improve and the batteries will become lighter and cheaper, which is a good thing and I support it. Gasoline and diesel are not problematic fuel sources, so I'm not sure what you're on about there. We can produce them in tremendous abundance and they have fantastic energy density, and being a liquid means recharging rates that aren't likely to be seen anytime soon on EVs. The biggest problem with ICE right now is that the landscape is ever changing, with regulations constantly and intentionally being juggled left and right, where such a moving goalpost makes engine design so complicated.

The worst culprit are the EU regulators that have no automotive knowledge and whose only goal seems to be stop the people from having affordable personal mobility, as one year they'll put in rules that hurt large naturally aspirated engines (like displacement taxes) and then the next they'll put in new laws that target small turbocharged engines, and this causes huge developmental costs for the manufacturers that have to pass that on to consumers. Porsche rightfully went on a rant about this recently, how they think their rather new turbocharged engine can no longer be viable under Euro 7 so all that money is flushed down the toilet and the catalytic converters required to meet the ridiculous regulations would be so massive as to be unviable to fit on subcompact and compact performance vehicles.

If we had the same limited regulations and taxes as in the 1960s that remained static until today, cars would be so much cheaper and higher performance, and particularly without all the artificial government interference propping up companies like Tesla, its unlikely we'd see any all electric cars on the roads yet as there just wouldn't be any market demand for it, and instead we'd just see a few mild hybrids.
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,659
Engine efficiency is not really hurt by current regulation. Honestly using an ICE to actually power a drivetrain is a really awful idea. Transmissions are horrible. What you can do with a 500lb engine I can do with a 5lb electric motor full stop all day long. Heck STEAM is more efficient AND more powerful.


The question you should be asking is: If EVs need novel materials that may never happen and gasoline has very limited room to grow.... why don't we just change the fuel so ICEs can continue to get smaller, lighter, and more efficient at their jobs?
Sometimes people get so obsessed with the new that they forget the older technology is far easier to improve if you just change one variable.
Restrictive exhaust directly hurts ICE efficiency. Thats bs about a 5lb electric motor. you can get about 3hp out of a 5lb motor. Additionally, a electric drivetrain (including the battery) weighs more then a ice drive train (including a full fuel tank).

Have any suggestions for a fuel that can be produced in the quantities used by automobiles? It also has to be relatively stable. compressed gasses are a pain. Currently we commonly use:
Gas, Diesel, Compressed natural gas, Propane
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
The report came from the ex-CEO of BP, and you have to realize that the statement is not something that is good for the oilfield industry; quite the opposite. Its essentially explaining why they are abandoning billions in exploration, because relatively new technologies such as fracking have drastically increased cheap available known sources of oil. The US, once the world's largest importer of oil, has recently become a net exporter (prior to the COVID market disruption), just to put things in perspective.

While you may argue that the figures may be off by a few decades plus or minus, what is clear is that the fear mongering of "peak oil" (popularized in our culture by movies like Mad Max) has come and gone and proven to be another complete hoax from the left. How many hoaxes of imminent doom do we have to hear before we stop pretending they have any credibility left?

Its not really important for my point of "What is important is the power to weight ratio of the powertrain. And were it not for constant regulations trying to hurt the efficiency of ICE, we could all have pint-sized engines making 1000hp today." We had no engines in the 1920s with the power to weight ratio of the 1.5 liter turbocharged engines in the mid 80s F1 vehicles.

This is such a ridiculous comment considering it took us so many decades just to get back to the power levels of the 1960s thanks to punitive regulations on ICE which damn near destroyed the established automotive industry that were invested in larger vehicles, which can be likened to the asteroid that wiped out all the large dinosaurs.

EV battery technology will continue to improve and the batteries will become lighter and cheaper, which is a good thing and I support it. Gasoline and diesel are not problematic fuel sources, so I'm not sure what you're on about there. We can produce them in tremendous abundance and they have fantastic energy density, and being a liquid means recharging rates that aren't likely to be seen anytime soon on EVs. The biggest problem with ICE right now is that the landscape is ever changing, with regulations constantly and intentionally being juggled left and right, where such a moving goalpost makes engine design so complicated.

The worst culprit are the EU regulators that have no automotive knowledge and whose only goal seems to be stop the people from having affordable personal mobility, as one year they'll put in rules that hurt large naturally aspirated engines (like displacement taxes) and then the next they'll put in new laws that target small turbocharged engines, and this causes huge developmental costs for the manufacturers that have to pass that on to consumers. Porsche rightfully went on a rant about this recently, how they think their rather new turbocharged engine can no longer be viable under Euro 7 so all that money is flushed down the toilet and the catalytic converters required to meet the ridiculous regulations would be so massive as to be unviable to fit on subcompact and compact performance vehicles.

If we had the same limited regulations and taxes as in the 1960s that remained static until today, cars would be so much cheaper and higher performance, and particularly without all the artificial government interference propping up companies like Tesla, its unlikely we'd see any all electric cars on the roads yet as there just wouldn't be any market demand for it, and instead we'd just see a few mild hybrids.
I will repeat... there is no one on the planet who has ever guessed correctly or even closely as to the limits of our reserves. I also state that one very common theme among people of wealth is to claim they have none.
No one in economics right or left actually has data to back up peak oil claims. The best estimation out there still suggest over 50 years of oil production and consumption at or in excess of current levels.

We have pint sized engines that can produce 1000hp(technically 800hp). There are hard physical limits to size and kw of energy possible. No regulation stopped the development of those engines. Extreme engineering difficulty in getting a high torque high rpm motor to not... you know... explode randomly was the only reason its taken this long. There is zero regulatory limitation on the production or design of ICE that will impact its end point performance. There is arguments for vehicles and performance however though every single case is more cost related rather than performance related.

There is zero "slump" in engine or dynamo power curves. We have been advancing those engines since they were first dreamed up. There is no old engine that is magically better than new engines. Modern ICE are magic compared to early versions of the 1920s.

If you have zero idea why gasoline is a problematic resource then you have never touched a rig or worked at a refinery in your life. Gasoline is toxic garbage. It sucks. Its dangerous, temperamental, and toxic garbage. It's only useful claim to fame is cheapness and energy density. Even diesel is terrible at the job its best at(turning a dynamo) when compared to other fuels. I will always have a special place in my head in thanks for diesel dragging our civilization out of the technological stone age but there are far better things on the horizon. Benzene and Toluene should never be allowed anywhere near an organic thing period dot end. I wont go into the EU because the EU is... well the EU. Its a bees nest of corruption for everything and has been for thousands of years.

Regulation isn't remotely as bad as you think. Remember I work in this industry. There is no one(not even the old farts like me) who wants to go back to the "old days" unless they are terminally stupid from inhaling to much benzene. For one... we make more money with regulations oddly enough... mostly because they were things we were going to do industry wise anyway. Taxes are the biggest gripe. Governments think we are free piggy banks and we really aren't. Farting on a refinery comes with a 5000 dollar charge. I swear I've seen more young engineers break down over valve overload than anyone would believe. True the USA version may be more pita now but I haven't worked there in decades.

-------------------------
About china...

M100 isn't remotely as corrosive as you seem to think it is. It also isn't actually the methanol that is corrosive. This is a huge and very common misconception.
Methanol fuel was seen as corrosive because old refining methods(1980s) were not remotely as good as they are today and would allow far more water into the end product. Steam is brutal to metal especially under compression.
Modern M100 uses very few additives but it does not have the corrosion effects of the 1980s tests... not even remotely close. This doesn't even touch on advancements in alloys used in engines and O-rings. I could convert any car you own to methanol fuel in a day and you wouldn't even notice the difference except your exhaust would stop smelling. Even at current costs you would see a maximum of 30% cost increase as well for gasoline and less than 12% for diesel. Methanol is more a diesel replacement than a gasoline one. Electric is the direct competition to gasoline.

Additionally you don't use food to make methanol. You CAN draw feed gas from landfills to produce it but using "fresh" crop food would be a very bad idea and very inefficient.

China has been using more than 7500 taxies on pure m100 for over 20 years as a study and their results showed it curb stomped gas/diesel for industries that cannot realistically switch to electric. They also produce more than 75% of the worlds supply of methanol and are rapidly scaling up these processes. Why? Coal and NG are cheap and very effective sources of feed gas for production and they have absurd supplies of both. Even for the environmentalists it also is a safe way to process both without releasing methane or CO2 as well. Also it plays well to their culture and politics. China HATES relying on anyone but china. They also have a government which can just edict hundred year plans that dont change suddenly.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
Restrictive exhaust directly hurts ICE efficiency. Thats bs about a 5lb electric motor. you can get about 3hp out of a 5lb motor. Additionally, a electric drivetrain (including the battery) weighs more then a ice drive train (including a full fuel tank).

Have any suggestions for a fuel that can be produced in the quantities used by automobiles? It also has to be relatively stable. compressed gasses are a pain. Currently we commonly use:
Gas, Diesel, Compressed natural gas, Propane
Vehicle limitations are not engine limitations. Pedantic yes but still true. Exhaust restrictions in modern cars are below 10%. Older cars get more yes but honestly its a very overblown theory that going back cat is actually doing anything significant.

Methanol. Works in everything gas works in with minor seals updates. Actually will prolong the life of the engine with proper additives.
In 25 years you could probably replace most North American ship diesel, trains, and trucks fuel supply with far less cost than a competing oil setup. A "small" 1m ton/yr would fit on a medium sized industrial plot and would need minimal upgrade to the gas pipelines if using NG and cost 1billionish with older tech. There is tech for larger plants(Iran just popped up a 7000ton/day unit). This technology is very scalable and I am not kidding when I say you can put it ANYWHERE. If you have natural gas and CO2 you can print methanol.
USA EPA tests and studies have categorically stated it is also superior and safer to gasoline both for human contact, land, and waterways. Dump benzene into a lake.. never drink it again. Dump methanol into a lake.. Wait 12 years or boil it out.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
No regulation stopped the development of those engines. Extreme engineering difficulty in getting a high torque high rpm motor to not... you know... explode randomly was the only reason its taken this long. There is zero regulatory limitation on the production or design of ICE that will impact its end point performance.
Its quite blatantly obvious that you're a shill for the methanol industry, as no one could be that dense to genuinely believe that fleet fuel economy, displacement taxes, and the plethora of emissions regulations have no impact on engine performance and costs.

For example, in the 1960s we had the Mustang Super Cobra Jet which was underrated for insurance/government reasons but made around 400hp and the Camaro ZL1 made around 500hp. Then the government stepped in and put in a ton of punitive regulations that massively increased engine costs while reducing their performance, and they even coined a term for this catastrophic event called the "malaise era" where cars just frankly sucked for an entire decade, and you had third generation Mustang Cobras with V8s making 115hp and the Z28's V8 was down to 165hp. Heck, even Ferraris of that era like the 308 on Magnum Pi only made a tick over 230hp thanks to US over-regulation, despite decades of technological advancements from the 60s.

Frankly, its rather insulting that you think so little of our intelligence to even attempt to peddle such obvious lies. Sad.
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,659
Vehicle limitations are not engine limitations. Pedantic yes but still true. Exhaust restrictions in modern cars are below 10%. Older cars get more yes but honestly its a very overblown theory that going back cat is actually doing anything significant.

Methanol. Works in everything gas works in with minor seals updates. Actually will prolong the life of the engine with proper additives.
In 25 years you could probably replace most North American ship diesel, trains, and trucks fuel supply with far less cost than a competing oil setup. A "small" 1m ton/yr would fit on a medium sized industrial plot and would need minimal upgrade to the gas pipelines if using NG and cost 1billionish with older tech. There is tech for larger plants(Iran just popped up a 7000ton/day unit). This technology is very scalable and I am not kidding when I say you can put it ANYWHERE. If you have natural gas and CO2 you can print methanol.
USA EPA tests and studies have categorically stated it is also superior and safer to gasoline both for human contact, land, and waterways. Dump benzene into a lake.. never drink it again. Dump methanol into a lake.. Wait 12 years or boil it out.

Methanol has less then half the energy density gas has. Not saying you cant run a engine on it but that much of a energy differnce requires more then just a seal change to be efficient. As far as ships go they would need an entirely differnt setup as the sludge they currently run on is FAR differnt then methonal. It also wont do anything for engine life as fuel is not really what is causing wear. The cats are a restriction. Modern engines are tuned with that in mind so wont benifits from the removal of them but there are gains to be realized on a tuned engine with no cats.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
Methanol has less then half the energy density gas has. Not saying you cant run a engine on it but that much of a energy differnce requires more then just a seal change to be efficient. As far as ships go they would need an entirely differnt setup as the sludge they currently run on is FAR differnt then methonal. It also wont do anything for engine life as fuel is not really what is causing wear. The cats are a restriction. Modern engines are tuned with that in mind so wont benifits from the removal of them but there are gains to be realized on a tuned engine with no cats.
Yep nothing here was incorrect. Not entirely full story though.
Ship engines do need redesigns to make the most of the less dense fuel but it has marked advantages and the construction of new hulls centered around these advantages has already been happening for years. Mostly compared to ship diesel methanol burns cleaner and requires a higher compression for optimal usage(slower burn). For power generation purposes a well designed methanol engine is looking to actually surpass a diesel option in both efficiency and power to weight. This is mostly due to the fact that you can gut the weight of the things compared to diesel engines and the slower burn tends to allow for more work to be done by the combustion similar to how we slowed down gunpowder burns back in the day. The fact that a byproduct is water also allows for some fun cooling options as well.

Fuel wear is actually a thing with alcohol fuels. Removing water is much more difficult for alcohol refining than it is gasoline. When people first started to look at alternative fuels methanol had a serious issue with water. It caused mark degradation of pistons and cylinders at nearly five times the rate of gasoline. There are secondary effects on certain metal alloys as well especially aluminum. That said we have methanol resistant aluminum alloys now that are comparable in cost.

For a car engine you will see a 36-45% increased fuel usage without a modified engine. When I say modified I mean physically. We can adjust a modern vehicle with a simple flash to its onboard. Converting a passenger car or truck is very simple compared to say a NG conversion. As I said china has done much of the legwork on this physically. A 20 year study that they expected to be a failure but ended up a huge success is hard to argue with.

Engines for vehicles stopped being about raw horsepower some time ago. Brute force is inefficient on fuel and just like the rocket equation there are trinities of engine weight, engine power, and fuel weight for getting a vehicle to do its job. In many cases "more HP" is not the right answer. Look at modern trucks. a 7th gen fords motor is only incrementally better than an Fseries engine wise(380ish hp to 380ish hp). The weights of the vehicles are comparable and their max work loads are comparable. What changed was how we put things together. There are significantly more parts and dodads(and oh gods comfort) inside the new fseries over the old 7th. We peaked on what we needed for performance and now focus on providing more efficiency to do the same job and comfort. Same thing with ships and trains really. Aircraft are a bit weirder but eh they fly. Only time a ship flies is if its hydrofoil or something really bad happened...

/edit duuur Brain failed at remembering things.


@Ducman69
So I'm a nuclear shill, a methanol shill, and a natural gas shill all at once? Yeah makes sense. I tend to talk about technologies that actually work. Do I get a paycheck for it? :D
You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that more engine is always superior. Having 1000hp in a car is just... dumb. There are physical limits on how much energy can move around quickly in an ICE tied to a transmission driving on rubber tires. A passenger car driving on speed restricted roads that has more than 350hp is an absolute ridiculous waste of a car. You may feel otherwise for various reasons and that's fine. I understand the thrill of big engines. I just don't think building a tool so far beyond its intended usage is good engineering.
 
Last edited:

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,535
So I'm a nuclear shill, a methanol shill, and a natural gas shill all at once?
Yes, because methanol is typically made from natural gas, and nuclear is a non-competing dead industry in the US so there's no harm in praising it.
You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that more engine is always superior. Having 1000hp in a car is just... dumb.
And you seem to be quite intellectually dishonest, pretending to be completely oblivious to the points made, and then when pointed out how wrong your counter-arguments are you stick on a tangent that isn't at all germane to the original point. No, we don't need 1.3K horsepower in a grocery getter, but my point was the fact that we could accomplish that in the 1980s with a tiny four-banger engine when there are no emissions regulations demonstrates how government regulations can choke an industry, especially relevant since at that time in the 80s as pointed out street cars that did have to abide by all the new regulations had big V8s barely breaking 100hp. That means that were we still using regulations of the 1960s today, we'd have incredibly inexpensive, reliable, and simple to maintain 300hp grocery getters. I'm done with this circus, but will just reiterate the point one last time... governments are and have been actively working to limit personal mobility to the upper class and push the plebs into mass transit. The easiest way to achieve that politically is to simply price the average Joe and Jane out of the market, using guilt and fear mongering as motivation tools to silence dissenting voices.

You can do that with regressive fuel taxes, gas guzzler taxes, displacement taxes, by creating ever changing restrictive regulations that make achieving a certain horsepower ever more expensive, or heck like in Singapore sell permits to own a car to only the highest bidders, while simultaneously subsidizing expensive new electric Teslas and Porsches they can't afford but benefit the upper class who can then enjoy more ample parking and less congestion on their roads as the plebs are forced to live in apartments in certain parts of town near mass transit options in which you can pack them like cattle and exercise more control on them and make them dependent on the government to get around.

I don't really care about methanol, other than that I don't want it mixed into my fuel as a way to destroy perfectly good older vehicles, because we have abundant cheap gasoline with highest energy density and I don't want it getting any government subsidies because I believe in the free market.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
Yes, because methanol is typically made from natural gas, and nuclear is a non-competing dead industry in the US so there's no harm in praising it.

And you seem to be quite intellectually dishonest, pretending to be completely oblivious to the points made, and then when pointed out how wrong your counter-arguments are you stick on a tangent that isn't at all germane to the original point. No, we don't need 1.3K horsepower in a grocery getter, but my point was the fact that we could accomplish that in the 1980s with a tiny four-banger engine when there are no emissions regulations demonstrates how government regulations can choke an industry, especially relevant since at that time in the 80s as pointed out street cars that did have to abide by all the new regulations had big V8s barely breaking 100hp. That means that were we still using regulations of the 1960s today, we'd have incredibly inexpensive, reliable, and simple to maintain 300hp grocery getters. I'm done with this circus, but will just reiterate the point one last time... governments are and have been actively working to limit personal mobility to the upper class and push the plebs into mass transit. The easiest way to achieve that politically is to simply price the average Joe and Jane out of the market, using guilt and fear mongering as motivation tools to silence dissenting voices.

You can do that with regressive fuel taxes, gas guzzler taxes, displacement taxes, by creating ever changing restrictive regulations that make achieving a certain horsepower ever more expensive, or heck like in Singapore sell permits to own a car to only the highest bidders, while simultaneously subsidizing expensive new electric Teslas and Porsches they can't afford but benefit the upper class who can then enjoy more ample parking and less congestion on their roads as the plebs are forced to live in apartments in certain parts of town near mass transit options in which you can pack them like cattle and exercise more control on them and make them dependent on the government to get around.

I don't really care about methanol, other than that I don't want it mixed into my fuel as a way to destroy perfectly good older vehicles, because we have abundant cheap gasoline with highest energy density and I don't want it getting any government subsidies because I believe in the free market.
Yes.... yes... Noncompeting dead end industry. Totally why they are approving and certifying an aSMR design next year and totally why Canada is actually building them.

So let me get this straight...
You think the USA regulated engines to death... and no one else on the planet took that opportunity to zoom straight past us?
You also think an alcohol fuel somehow is bad for the country with the largest natural gas reserves on the planet? Never mind the fact its cheaper, safer, and far more economically friendly to american markets.
I also don't understand how you think cars are somehow more expensive now than previously. A model T with inflation is what? 21k USD? By inflation cars have actually stayed pretty close to parity or gotten cheaper with inflation since the 1995. Hell the real reason the automotive sector got hit in the 80s was due to Iran and Asian cars just being more fuel efficient at the time.

Honestly though I still cant get over that I'm a methanol shill. I mean... industry wise we've never had a shill before. Could be fun?
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
251
If people are curious this is DTIs(Danish Technological In report on its tests of methanol. It might give more insight into why EVs only is a poor choice and hopefully educate people in what actual scientists and engineers are doing to improve things.
http://danskbiomethanol.dk/Papers/Report DK.pdf
https://www.iea-amf.org/app/webroot/files/file/Annex Reports/AMF_Annex_56.pdf

If you can read Chinese look at Geely. This report and its findings have been repeated by over a dozen governmental organizations worldwide as of 2020.
 
Top