Formula E...? (Electric car racing...)

[Costas Athan]

Um, not sure if you're serious? I'm not saying gasoline is better. I just take issue with calling EVs "zero emission" vehicles when they are not. Indeed it is never a zero-sum game, even with renewable resources.

For the sake of argument let's only consider the operational requirements, not the initial energy requirements needed to build the EV or power source.



See my first post...



I never said there wasn't a benefit of using electric cars. Their equivalent emissions are a fraction of even the best ICE cars. I never even implied that they were a bad idea. I just take issue with how things are said and have concerns about the safety of EVs.



Read this article: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm

By 2040 renewables are projected to be a whopping 16% (vs 12% now) of the US energy supply. 27 years from now is quite a long ways away, and renewables will still be a small fraction of the energy supply in the US. That's not much more after a relatively long time.



I never 'added' their emissions. I said that burning natural gas produces "some amount of emissions." Am I wrong?



Fortunately, someone did this for us: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

I must correct myself here though. Apparently the equivalent emissions aren't nearly as different as I had previously learned. EVs produce about 62% of the CO2 equivalent emissions as an ICE.

Note that I never claimed to add up actual emissions. I never tried to calculate the benefit of EVs here. I used a rule of thumb, as I stated. I learned that rule of thumb when I was simulating and analyzing driving cycles of various vehicles during college. Clearly the cost of gasoline and electricity have changed since then and that number is no longer quite accurate.

You should use the new MPGe standard for further information on how an EV stacks up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent



Nuke plats are very good. In fact, they're some of the most efficient power generators in the US right now. I will grant you that. I question your magical 99% number there.



There's no problem with using sources. However, you offer little insight or thought about interpreting the sources you quote. Nor did you use them to address any of my points. You stated numbers that were accurate, but did not address anything I actually talked about, only things you seem to have made up that I never said.

I didn't say that you said gasoline is better. From your initial post I thought you tried to say that the benefits from EVs are marginal. I thought you implied the emissions are the same...

By 2040 coal will be the source only of 35% of total energy in USA according to your link. I think that's the most important thing. Other sources which aren't considered renewable have a less severe impact than coal. And 2040 is only 26 years away. It's not that far away. Our generation will leave to see the change (hopefully).

As for the 99% is just a symbolic number. I tried to emphasize that the indirect emissions are just a drop in the ocean.

With the sources I used I tried to show two things. That there are renewable sources with zero emissions and that some of the none renewable sources have very low emissions compared to coal. I quoted certain sites in order to provide real numbers. What I tried to say is that there is a benefit from EVs that can't be overlooked. Gasoline has always high emissions but other power sources we use to charge our vehicles have zero or little (compared to gasoline) emissions.

 

[JCH13]

I didn't say that you said gasoline is better.

That response was the Phanuel, whom I quoted above.

From your initial post I thought you tried to say that the benefits from EVs are marginal. I thought you implied the emissions are the same...

I do not see how you could have skewed my statements so thoroughly. I do not mean this question in a sarcastic manner: is English your second language? (I see your location is Greece)

By 2040 coal will be the source only of 35% of total energy in USA according to your link. I think that's the most important thing. Other sources which aren't considered renewable have a less severe impact than coal. And 2040 is only 26 years away. It's not that far away. Our generation will leave to see the change (hopefully).

Only 35%? It's 37% right now! It is hardly dropping at all over the next 26 years. Just as renewable sources are not going to make up a significantly higher fraction.

Your statement: "in the (relatively near) future when renewable resources will be more common." is not, strictly speaking, inaccurate. But it is misleading.

Renewable energy gaining 4% 'market share' to 16% while coal only drops 2%, from 37% to 35%, is hardly a significant change over 26 years. At that rate of change it will be over 50 years before renewable energy finally overtakes coal, and over 100 years before renewable energy is 1/3 of our energy supply. That is not the 'relatively near future' at all.

As for the 99% is just a symbolic number. I tried to emphasize that the indirect emissions are just a drop in the ocean.

Exaggerated personal estimations are not a good way to make your point. :sneaky:

With the sources I used I tried to show two things. That there are renewable sources with zero emissions and that some of the none renewable sources have very low emissions compared to coal. I quoted certain sites in order to provide real numbers. What I tried to say is that there is a benefit from EVs that can't be overlooked. Gasoline has always high emissions but other power sources we use to charge our vehicles have zero or little (compared to gasoline) emissions.

I'm not disputing that the numbers were real, or that coal has worse emissions than natural gas.

I am asking you to understand what you're trying to argue against (or for) before posting a bunch of stuff. You totally misunderstood nearly everything I said (it almost seemed intentional) and just confused things further by referencing sources that weren't really related.

 

[Costas Athan]

That response was the Phanuel, whom I quoted above.



I do not see how you could have skewed my statements so thoroughly. I do not mean this question in a sarcastic manner: is English your second language? (I see your location is Greece)



Only 35%? It's 37% right now! It is hardly dropping at all over the next 26 years. Just as renewable sources are not going to make up a significantly higher fraction.

Your statement: "in the (relatively near) future when renewable resources will be more common." is not, strictly speaking, inaccurate. But it is misleading.

Renewable energy gaining 4% 'market share' to 16% while coal only drops 2%, from 37% to 35%, is hardly a significant change over 26 years. At that rate of change it will be over 50 years before renewable energy finally overtakes coal, and over 100 years before renewable energy is 1/3 of our energy supply. That is not the 'relatively near future' at all.



Exaggerated personal estimations are not a good way to make your point. :sneaky:



I'm not disputing that the numbers were real, or that coal has worse emissions than natural gas.

I am asking you to understand what you're trying to argue against (or for) before posting a bunch of stuff. You totally misunderstood nearly everything I said (it almost seemed intentional) and just confused things further by referencing sources that weren't really related.

I answered in a hurry and didn't notice the quote.

As I said I assumed from your initial post:

I had to laugh at the 'zero emissions' thing. How do they think those batteries are being charged?

[...]

that you were laughing at the benefits of EVs. It was an assumption based on your question "How do they think those batteries are being charged?". I believed that the spirit of this question was: "Is it possible that there are any people who believe this thing (the emission related benefits of the EVs)?". I thought that you implied that the same emissions produced by a gasoline car are produced by the power plants when charging an electric vehicle. My level of English is good enough. You can judge it yourself. I didn't interpret the meaning of your words wrong. I just thought that behind these words your point was that electric cars don't really do any good (which means that there isn't any change in emissions).

As for coal the power percentage according to your own link in 2011 was 42%:

Coal remains the largest energy source for electricity generation throughout the projection period, but its share of total generation declines from 42 percent in 2011 to 35 percent in 2040 (Figure 12).

I don't see a number for 2013. The diagram has an estimation for 2013 as for 2040. The data is from 2011. (If somewhere in the text says its 37% then sorry, I didn't read it line by line.)

And that numbers have to do only with USA. It doesn't mean that the whole world follows the same rates. EU which has more strict pollution rules than USA from 2000 to 2010 almost doubled the power production from renewable sources. At the same time according to the same link you provided USA didn't make any change. In fact there was a drop around 2008.


As for the numbers I quoted from different sources I don't see how they are unrelated. I used all these sources to show that energy for charging the cars comes from sources that have less emissions than gasoline. I think all this data supports my point that EVs are emission efficient compared to gasoline cars. I really don't see how or why is unrelated!

 

[Bartman39]

OK back to the real topic...
I found this to be very interesting...
http://www.fiaformulae.com/

Did a search under (Formula E race car) and got a ton of sweet links... Who woulda thunk...?

 

[Costas Athan]

Sure, there are many types of renewable energy sources, but they account for a very small portion of electrical energy generation.

Coal has emissions, Natural gas has emissions, that's 67% (two thirds!) right there. The emissions of nuke plants are debatable, but they're non-renewable and require mining to get the fuel, so that also results in emissions. Another 19%. 2% come from petroleum and other gases, So, 88% of electricity generated in the US has some amount of emissions associated with it.

12% of the energy in the US comes from renewable sources. That's not a lot.

The rule of thumb as far as emissions go is that EV power generation is worth about 120mpg for an ICE car. That is to say when an EV goes 120 miles, the power generation required to recharge the batteries will emit the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline's worth of bad stuff.

Unless the batteries were charged using 100% renewable resources (solar, hydro, wind) then the vehicle has emissions associated with it's use. I laugh because of the ignorance and narrow view a phrase like "zero emissions vehicle" assumes.

It is towing a generator on a trailer behind an EV to keep it recharged and saying: "my EV doesn't emit any green house gases or pollutants!" Sure, the vehicle itself doesn't, but it's energy source sure as hell does.

A last off topic message from me. I think that we took the thread way out of its purpose.

1) I quoted your post which I think was the start of our miscommunication. In this post I felt you tried to put all the non-renewable power sources in the same category. (You said later though in another post that you didn't have any intention to add their emissions.) I thought that you tried to say that any benefits from EVs come when you charge them from renewable power sources which produce only 12% of the total power in USA. From what I have read my understanding is that charging an EV from a coal power source has no benefit, but the other non-renewable power sources give a reduction in emissions which isn't negligible. That's why I used references to the amounts of emissions produced by natural gas for example in order to highlight the difference between natural gas and coal.

2) I said that I used the 99% reduction in emissions from nuclear plants as an exaggeration. It turns out that it isn't an exaggeration! See the table from World Nuclear Association here --> http://world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/Greenhouse-gas-emissions-avoided/

Nuclear power plants reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to lignite (which is widely used in Greece) by 97.25% and from coal by 96.74%. (You have to calculate the percentages from the values of CO2 produced by its power source.)

 

[Costas Athan]

1 hour racing... Guess they have to recharge and start again the next day and would they be called full size slot cars...:biggrin:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/fox-broadcast-electric-racing-series-191343979--spt.html

Should be quite interesting anyhow...? Figure with no sound other than tires screeching and no worries about fuel or oil fires then it may come down to who has the best Duracell...? Would be sweet to see the new tech though for electric racing...

Did a search but saw nothing on this but if a repost oh well (it was buried and could not find it)...

About the sound:

Formula E knows that the noise of any racing car is very important to its fans, which is why the sound of the new Spark-Renault SRT_01E will be one of the Championship's most unique and exciting features. Contrary to popular belief, the Formula E cars are far from silent producing a modern, futuristic sound, combined with the fusion of the tyres on the track, the car's aero package and the electric drivetrain itself.

At high speed the sound produced by one SRT_01E will be approximately 80 decibels, more than an average petrol road car which produces around 70db. Meanwhile, and purely for reasons of safety, an artificial sound will be used when the cars enter the pit lane to ensure they can be heard by mechanics and officials. This will be produced with the aid of an expert sound designer.

And so by reducing excessive noise, fans of all ages will be able to enjoy a new experience in motorsport with added benefits such as clearer trackside race commentary.

Source: http://www.fiaformulae.com/guide/sound

 

[Hugo L.]

That thing is a joke. I hope it fails HARD.

 

[JCH13]

That thing is a joke. I hope it fails HARD.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Topweasel]

I am not an electronic car fan and think most people move to Hybrids or all electric for all the wrong reasons, but me I want to see this succeed. Both the potential advancements in electric transportation (and honestly the charging could eventually work its way into phones, imagine setting your phone on a charging pad and having it at 100% in 5 seconds) and being able to see how well electronic drive-trains perform when they are actually made for performance.

The real worry I have is the FIA really. I haven't quite figured out if this is a Spec Series or a Manufacturer series. If its a Manufacturer series, which is what I want to see. I don't see the FIA giving them a whole lot of range for very long and with an all electric series, they can basically turn it into a spec series a lot easier then what they have been doing to F1 in the last 5-10 years.

 

[Hugo L.]

Obvious troll is obvious.

What the fuck? Formula E is a heresy. I repeat : I want it to fail hard, and I hope any dumbass who invests in it goes bankrupt.

There are enough racing series as it is that are struggling to make ends meet.

A not-so-noisy series in which you have to change batteries during the race? Really?

Please do not troll post. Neither the members nor the moderation staff appreciate it.
Administrator allisolm

 

[Topweasel]

What the fuck? Formula E is a heresy. I repeat : I want it to fail hard, and I hope any dumbass who invests in it goes bankrupt.

There are enough racing series as it is that are struggling to make ends meet.

A not-so-noisy series in which you have to change batteries during the race? Really?

That should be read that there are enough racing series with minor differences and 70% of them should die the death they need to so that there is more room for truly different forms of racing with different technologies that could have a true impact to society. You are picking out the boring parts, besides the fact that the racing on the field (and not the noise) should be what matters most, watching the technologydevelop over years and decades, can be thrilling. But someone who only cares how loud their fart cans are to their neighbors can't understand that.

Also you obviously came in to troll and didn't read a damn thing or you would have caught that they aren't changing batteries.

 

[JCH13]

That should be read that there are enough racing series with minor differences and 70% of them should die the death they need to so that there is more room for truly different forms of racing with different technologies that could have a true impact to society. You are picking out the boring parts, besides the fact that the racing on the field (and not the noise) should be what matters most, watching the technology and technology develop over years and decades, can be thrilling. But someone who only cares how loud their fart cans are to their neighbors can't understand that.

Also you obviously came in to troll and didn't read a damn thing or you would have caught that they aren't changing batteries.

:awe:

True facts yo.

 

[Howard]

I had to laugh at the 'zero emissions' thing. How do they think those batteries are being charged?



I lol'd, and gree. Hopefully rescue and safety staff are trained VERY well on how to deal with high-voltage systems and battery fires. And, you know, battery explosions.

Still though, I'd love to see this catch on.

The cars themselves produce zero pollutants when being driven... but of course that is a limited view.

 

[Howard]

What the fuck? Formula E is a heresy. I repeat : I want it to fail hard, and I hope any dumbass who invests in it goes bankrupt.

There are enough racing series as it is that are struggling to make ends meet.

A not-so-noisy series in which you have to change batteries during the race? Really?

get the fuck out of here

 

[natto fire]

What the fuck? Formula E is a heresy. I repeat : I want it to fail hard, and I hope any dumbass who invests in it goes bankrupt.

There are enough racing series as it is that are struggling to make ends meet.

A not-so-noisy series in which you have to change batteries during the race? Really?

Any true race fan is in it for the driver skill, means of propulsion should be secondary. Wishing failure upon people being forward thinking is a whole 'nother can of worms that I don't really care to address.

People like you probably existed when they switched from water powered mills to steam/electric, and we can all see where that went.

I love the growl of a proper V8 as much as the next gear head, but am also a torque junkie. As such, I realize that electric motors have filled my fix much easier than IC, and their widespread use in industrial applications is but a small testament.

Luckily there are true engineers more qualified than the average forum asshat that figure out how to make an idea feasible instead of chiding one variable to death. You are the asshat, and engineers are employed by the numerous racing teams. To deny that motorsports have improved regular vehicles is to deny the entire automobile industry, which is a fight you cannot win.

 

[Costas Athan]

What the fuck? Formula E is a heresy. I repeat : I want it to fail hard, and I hope any dumbass who invests in it goes bankrupt.

There are enough racing series as it is that are struggling to make ends meet.

A not-so-noisy series in which you have to change batteries during the race? Really?

I don't know how motorsports' fans see EVs racing, but I'm sure that from a driver's point of view driving a car to its limits it's always interesting regardless the type of its power source.

Any true race fan is in it for the driver skill, means of propulsion should be secondary. Wishing failure upon people being forward thinking is a whole 'nother can of worms that I don't really care to address.

People like you probably existed when they switched from water powered mills to steam/electric, and we can all see where that went.

I love the growl of a proper V8 as much as the next gear head, but am also a torque junkie. As such, I realize that electric motors have filled my fix much easier than IC, and their widespread use in industrial applications is but a small testament.

Luckily there are true engineers more qualified than the average forum asshat that figure out how to make an idea feasible instead of chiding one variable to death. You are the asshat, and engineers are employed by the numerous racing teams. To deny that motorsports have improved regular vehicles is to deny the entire automobile industry, which is a fight you cannot win.

New technologies have also drawbacks. The problem with industrial revolution, pesticides, food preservatives etc. is that we don't take all the available measures to avoid their harmful effects. (That differs from country to country but I'm pretty sure that there is no country which applies the recommended measures to a full scale.) Technology would be much more useful if it was used in a responsible manner, but unfortunately that isn't the case.