Quote:
Originally Posted by ember1205
Your points are valid but mostly in reference to using the engine as a direct part of the driveline. To provide direct power to the wheels, and provide the ability to "rev" like a gasoline engine, there's a lot that has to be designed in and you get into situations where things like a turbo are an absolute necessity to provide direct torque to the wheels for towing (for example).
Using a very small diesel engine as nothing but a power generator (and feeding that power purely to keep the batteries charged) is very different and actually allows the engine to run in a significantly more efficient manner (constant RPM). And opting for diesel over gasoline is really a measure of less complexity, fewer overall parts, etc.
|
A lot of the problems I mentioned are directly associated with diesel engines' fundamental operations, though. High soot & NOx emissions and more expensive construction(due to higher compression ratios) are things you can't change with it being a range extender.
(And how is a diesel engine less complex, anyway? Lack of spark plugs? But they need glow plugs to ensure proper cold start. Lack of a catalytic converter? But they need DEF injection system to keep NOx in check as well as soot filters to limit soot emissions, and DEF is a consumable item unlike a catalytic converter. Gotta throw a DEF tank warmer in there as well because that stuff has a relatively high freezing point. The only thing I can remotely think of is a VVT system, but that's barely anything in this day and age considering practically every gas car you can buy has it.)
And again, this is where economy of scale rears its ugly head again. Now you are asking manufacturers to R&D a dedicated diesel engine that is only useful for this specific application, then market it(incredibly large risk, again thanks to VW), all of that just for some marginal gain in efficiency. Meanwhile, they could just take an existing gas engine, modify it slightly so it can run on Atkinson cycle, then use it in a hybrid drivetrain. No fuss with marketing. What do you think manufacturers will do?
And really, the car is effectively an EV at this point, so I don't really care if it has an ICE anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqWhole
No your points did not go over my head. I chose not to bring up the "using limited resources slower" argument because it seems obvious enough that I didn't need to mention it. But in any case, yes we will use those resources slower.
In any case the way I see it, from all the negative comments, the only way to think is that either way, no matter what, regardless of any choice that is made, we're all simply just hopelessly fcuked and there are no answers at all. EVs are an extremely horrible system that will destroy grids and leave entire cities in blackouts indefinitely and it'll lead to chaos and rampant violence and mayhem. Gas powered vehicles will continue to pollute the planet until our air in unbreathable and we'll all have to wear respirators to go outside or suffer mutations and cancers OR until we run out of gas and the entire planet will be submerged in an unbreakable cloud of darkness for all of eternity. So oh well. The world is screwed. We're all screwed. We have like 20 years left and then that's it.
Maybe the government should take to American Muscle Car forums to see all these expert ideas on how to save the planet and then present this overwhelmingly intelligent expert information that people's daughters in college and son's in high school and other extreme experts in these fields have to say. Maybe the top scientists in the world will finally listen and say "hey guys, we learned soo much from a car forum. We're gonna save the planet".
Of course I joke. But it is not as horrible as you all are trying to make it out to be. Gasoline engines have had their time. We came a long way from the days of old tech. However even if gas engines do become more efficient, there are still many more people driving. Populations are increasing exponentially. 10 years ago there were statements that we are facing overpopulation within 50 years. That was 10 years ago. Kids who were 7 then are all now driving and adding to the amount of cars on the road. So what is the difference between 5 cars that emit X amount of emissions vs 10 cars that are more efficient and emit half those emissions? What happens when the population continues to increase disproportionately? So either way, gas engines have got to go. If you don't believe me then come to North Jersey during rush hour traffic and sit there for 1 hour going nowhere. Or better yet, go into NY during rush hour.
|
Well, I think you missed another point of mine this time.
You wanna complain about traffic? Then EV doesn't solve sh*t. Plain and simple. Just means you are emitting less since you don't have to idle, but you are still miserable behind the wheel, and that's what matters to me(and a lot of others, I can confidently say).
With any car, ICE or EV, parking in downtown area still sucks. Again, if you don't deal with the traffic, take a bus/train or ride a bicycle.
But what if you must need a personal transportation capsule? Well you gotta reliably automate all cars which is another whole can of worms. There are also ideas about developing a competent train system which could also help. The point is, you have to revolutionize the way the roads work to solve the traffic and number of cars issue.
I don't claim to be an expert, far from it. I just hate Kool-Aid on both sides of the extreme, that's all. And if you think government always supports good green technology ideas, think again. Look up solar roadways if you want a good laugh.
P.S. I personally couldn't care less about the environmental arguments; we as a society will probably blow ourselves up anyway before the environmental damage takes its toll. Again, another can of worms that I am not gonna open.