Chris from Cali

I just know I want a V12 Vantage...

Twice now I've spurned the sexy looks of the Aston to stick with a 911, but the siren song is calling me. I think I really need a lotto win.

LlBr

Here's a place to start. Might help a little bit.

https://www.astonmartin.com/newcolle...-cast%20Models

GHills

Paul S

IC engines are wasteful compared to what?!

Are you aware that steam cycle engines/power plants are max 30% efficient. 70% of the energy goes from the low pressure steam out the cooling stack via the condenser......damn thermodynamics

Mike in CA

To the best of my knowledge, there are no steam cycle engines powering automobiles so I'm not sure how relevant that fact is. I think Paul S was referring to the efficiency of ICE's in cars (approx 20%) versus the efficiency of electric motors in EV's (approx 80%). This was discussed at length in another recent thread.

ADias

You are correct. There's a lot of wishful thinking and misinformation out there. Some stated in this forum tha an ICE is 20% efficient and that is wrong and they stated an electrical motor was 95% efficient and that is false too.

We live in an age of delusion about many subjects. I came across this interview givenby Bill Gates at Techonomy. He still seems to believe the man-driven global warming scam but he offers realistic perspectives on energy issues.

Bill gates on energy issues.

Spend some time playing the 40-min video interview.

B. Gates - "... Batteries haven’t improved hardly at all. There are deep physical limits. I’m funding 5 battery startups, there’s probably 50 out there. It may not be solvable in an economic way. We are fooled by this [Moores Law and IT innovation]. There are things that don’t move forward. Nuclear energy stopped in the 1970′s. We have to have a blended model, the optimism of our IT, and the realism of the energy sector."

Mike in CA

Speaking of misinformation....First, there are many sources which refer to the average efficiency of the ICE in automotive applications. I asked if you could provide information to the contrary in the "Tesla drive" thread. Do you now have documentation you'd like to share which supports your statement that the 20% number is grossly wrong? Or is this (still) merely your unsubstantiated opinion?

Second, with regard to the efficiency of electric motors, in stand alone applications they are typically 95% efficient at converting electrical energy into mechanical energy. As was discussed in that Tesla thread, in automotive EV applications, due to other factors, that efficiency drops to around 80%. To characterize the issue as "someone stated an electric motor was 95% efficient and that is false" is misleading. Besides, even at 80% efficency, electric motors are still about 4 times more effiecient than ICE's which was the primary point of the original discussion.

Finally, it's fascinating that you offer the Bill Gates example. When his opinion mirrors yours as it does on the viability of battery technology, he's a genius worthy of quotation. But when he disagrees with you as he does on climate change, he's a fool who buys into the "scam". Interesting dichotomy.

ADias

ICEs have a 37% thermodynamic limit according to your often cited Reference. I am pretty sure that a 997.2 engine is far moe efficient than 20%. You should ask PAG.

Maritime diesel engines have been shown to deliver 52% efficiency - REFERENCE.

What the 'Tesla' thread called upon was total raw oil to mechanical propulsion efficiency. My argument is that it failed to the same for the E-motor - raw fuel (coal/oil) to e-motion efficiency, which is far from 95%.

Re Gates positions: yeah I can agree with him on some areas and disagree with him on others. Nobody's perfect.

Mike in CA

You've confused the reference to the thermodynamic limit of an ICE (37%) with the average efficiency number (18-20%) in an automotive application. I wish I had an inside line to Weissach on the 997.2 motor, but I don't. It's possible, maybe likely, that it does better than average, but we'd just be speculating.

You made quite a point in the Tesla thread about how using numbers like 95% for electric motors wasn't relevant because they weren't installed in a car. Since efficiency in cars is the point of the discussion, and since I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing the highest efficiency maritime diesel engine ever tested in our cars anytime soon, that 52% figure, while interesting, isn't relevant either.

The original issue in the Tesla thread (at least once it was hijacked for our discussion ) was that electric motors were inherently more efficient than ICE's and wasted much, much less of the energy used to fuel/power them as heat. Still true.

alexb76

What about efficiency of our Power Plants and CO2 emssions? You gotto CHARGE that car, aren't you? I love the Top Gear review of Telsa, followed the plug to the Power plant and all the pollution it generates (not just CO2, but also LOTS of pollution much worse than a modern engine with Catalytic converter).

Until the day we generate 80% of our electricity out of Nuclear/Solar/Wind/Hydro, the current propulsion engine is the most efficient/greenest way to transport us around the country.

BTW, I have no issue with Hybrid, I think that's a lot smarter/efficient than pure electric, as it uses WASTED heat to charge the battery instead of relying on the grid, has unlimited range with gas engine, and doesn’t require extra electricity in our grids. Best solution is to make basic street/public cars hybrid, and keep our fun sports cars as-is.

Oh, and Global Warming... complete HOAX! Livestock produces more Carbon than cars, whta's next? go vegetarian?

ADias

Alex: you got that right. That has been my argument all along. These guys compare ICE efficiency fuel to motion to electricity to motion. Electricity is not a fuel - it requires mostly coal or oil to be produced.

ADias

I am not changing your mind, and you will not change mine. I long learned that the fuel-to-motion efficiency of an ICE is about 35%. The 'new' Wikipedia (read left-liberal rag) 20% figure is a 'new math' number derived to make a point in a certain direction. I am pretty sure my 997.2S 9A1 engine is far more energy efficient than 20%.

I am a technologist but I am not a zealot. I would be the first to sign on for electric transportation if it was competitive with ICE, when you look at the total process. Not so. The energy conversion efficiencies for electric transportation are limited and future improvements will be small increments, asymptotically converging to a low theoretical limit, notwithstanding what the pseudo science of the left says. As Bill said - electric cars are for 'rich people' to play with.

Mike in CA

If you're going to figure electric power plants into the equation then we have to talk about everything that goes into oil production too, including the geopolitical ramifications, so you can't necessarily use that as an argument that overall ICE's are the most efficient use of energy without a much more in-depth analysis.

But look, that's far more expansive than the point of the original discussion, at least from when I got into it (Post #42 of the Tesla Ride thread). Another poster made a simple factual statement (and I'm paraphrasing here) that electric motors were more efficient (we can argue over how much more) at converting energy/fuel to power than were ICE's, and I agreed with him. From there it was off to the races.

BTW, your capitalization of the word hoax does not make your belief more true. There are far, far more scientists, scientific organizations, governmental bodies, educational institutions, etc. worldwide who have evidence and believe that climate change is occuring and that human activity is a component of that change than those who say it's a fake. In and of itself, that means nothing, of course. Galileo is a pretty good example of that. I do find it amusing, however, when people use the argument that the reason for the disparity is that it's just those "lib scientists" trying to push their agenda. As if the "right wing scientists" and the corporations they may work for, don't have incentives just as powerful, if not more, to push their own agenda and maintain the status quo.

And yes, livestock (raised by humans) produce more greenhouse gases than cars. I'm not sure that does anything to prove your point about climate change, but let's go with it. Should we all stop eating meat? I for one, am not interested in giving up a nice grilled New York steak, but my wife doesn't eat pork or red meat and we do go meatless a couple of nights a week, no doubt to the benefit of my health. The point is, regardless of what I choose to eat, it doesn't change the simple fact that using energy and food resources to feed animals, and then eating the animals, is less efficient than growing the food for ourselves. I may not enjoy the logical dilemma that puts me in if I still decide (which I have) to keep eating meat, but in a world who's population is approaching 7 billion people and still growing, it's something I have to face.

So what to do? If I'm not going to stop eating steak, or stop driving a Porsche, it doesn't mean that when I can, I shouldn't try to embrace ideas and use technologies and strategies to modify my behavior here and there to help compensate. To me, that seems to make more sense than going into full denial mode and pretending those 7 billion people and their civilization are having absolutely no impact on the planet, and I don't have to change a thing. My .04 cents.

alexb76

Omg. I had to respond even this late. Mike, I find you very intelligent so please don't try to confuse things by comparing apples to oranges. Were not talking about extracting oil vs. Producing batteries. Were talking what sort of emission is produced generating the same energy out of oil vs. Electricity hat has to be prodcued WITH burning fossil fuels that are in most cases a Lot less efficient and more pollutant than ur 997 engine.

If you wanna add what takes to extract oil, then you gotto add what taked to extract nickel, and all other materials to make the batteries going into the beloved electric car.

We can agree to disagree but let's stick to facts pls.

Mike in CA

I understand what you're saying Alex. The issues you mention are incredibly complicated and involve many different factors from battery technology to power plant emissions to making war for resources. I haven't seen a comprehensive unbiased analysis which accounts for all of them and would allow me to say, without just relying on speculation, that the pipeline for producing, delivering, and storing electricity is cleaner or dirtier than the one for gasoline.

Which is why I've been trying to back away from that whole argument and just get back to the original point which is that I contend electric motors are more efficient at turning a given amount of energy, stored in electricity, into power, than ICE's are at converting an equal amount of energy stored in gasoline. Period. That doesn't mean they are presently more practical in some applications (cars) nor does it account for the total energy food chain, or a bunch of other factors. What it does mean is that due to their inherent design, assuming the other issues can be worked out, they might be a viable alternative some day to the ICE in automobiles. Not saying I'm looking forward to that day, just that it's a reasonable possiblity. Can I just leave it at that? I'm willing to defer the rest of the discussion for some future date.

winkingchef

As long as cow farts create more greenhouse effects than cars, I really don't see why I should care.

If I go vegetarian will people leave me alone about my car? I might take that deal.