Re: Great Packards at Auction, PLEASE READ

Posted by Fish'n Jim On 2022/4/8 17:38:26
Interesting views to say the least.
I was reading a book on the "disappeared" pre-depression auto companies and all the same things that are being said here about EVs were said 100+ years ago. Not much progress in 100 years but beau coup hype.
If the "anticarbon-ites" were "serious", octane is 84% carbon, ethanol is 54.5% but one has to use ~25% more ethanol for the same energy.
Thermodynamics says, electric will consume more energy, not less, due to it's high "quality". It's the spent energy sent to the environment(heat sink) that's at issue, not the rate of cooling. CO2 is only present at ~400 ppm, where water which is more potent is in percentages. Methane is in ppbs, so immaterial. They're not selling "science" and UN is the pusher.

No one can predict the future, the further out, the less certainty that can be achieved. There's mathematical reasons for that.
The batteries in use are lithium and the electrolyte is flammable, and very high energy density, that's what causes the fires. If you increase the range, you have to increase the energy density and thus the risk. Like fueling your "P" with TNT... They have developed solid state electrolyte that's avoids that but has been slow to appear. Your cell phone has basically the same battery and why the samsungs were flaming a while back. If you take one apart, you'll find it's in a plastic bag and pliable and lots of carbon.
Hydrogen power was touted when I was in grade school, which is >60 years ago and never really could be mastered because of the universal properties of hydrogen. Lowest molecular weight element so requires high pressures for any substantial amount. Also produces waste heat and water vapor same as carbon fuels.
I worked on lithium electrolytes and membranes for hydrogen fuel cells nearly 20 year ago now, so it's a slower curve than the sales people/media claim.

This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=242659