It's Simple To Make Cars More Efficient
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2024
- Simple physics tells us how we can easily make automobiles much more efficient. But Car makers and governments don't want you to understand this.
Support this channel through Patreon; / clauskellerman
![[Gegagedigedagedago] NEW Help Gegagedigedagedago Nugget escape from Nikocado Avocado Challenge](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJWnwRC2Fz8/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video Claus. Also, the proponents of EVs never want to discuss the inability of the grid infrastructure that is required to power these vehicles.
I'm from the UK, most of our vehicles only usually carry 1 person. If Governments forced people working in towns and cities to drive smaller cars it would make a great difference. The other factor that not many people talk about, is that in most countries that want everyone driving an EV by 2035, virtually all Multi-story car parks cannot take the weight if every vehicle that enters was an EV. I believe your idea Claus of smaller slower cars is the answer. Less cost to build, possibly less collisions, less death due to speed, creating less cost to the Emergency services. Great video, great opinion.
you lost me at "if government forced"
@@DustinSilva Same here, the government can leave me the hell alone. I have PTSD and cant deal with crowds so I drive alone on purpose and necessity
@@DustinSilvagrow up
Claus, you captured my thoughts exactly. One other very important component is tire wear as well, the biggest source of microplastics. High torque heavy EV's need tire replacements about 3 times faster, and tire wear also means that roads need repair or replacement equally faster. The irony is that in my home country the Netherlands, I pay road tax with my efficient Honda Jazz (called Fit in NA) while the heavy EV's are exempted....luckily that is going to change as of 2024.
My Physics professor used the F=MA in an equation to show the difference between the force of an accident when you're wearing a seat belt compared to when you're not when crashing into a tree in a Volkswagen Beetle. The difference is you decelerate at the rate of the car instead of remaining at the speed the car was going while your face and body crash into the dashboard. It was pretty eye opening. I'll bet all my fellow students started wearing their seat belts after that if they hadn't already. I know I do. Good stuff Claus. I like these discussions.
maybe your physics professor saved some lives...
The EV 18-wheeler has a range of 150 miles and takes 16 hours to recharge. What genus came with this?
Cut from the same cloth as the idiot that built the first internal combustion auto. Those things were garbage. A hundred years ago people like you said the automobile would never replace the horse. Imagine what that EV long haul truck will look like in 20-100 years.
seems claus is talking about the Volkswagen XL1. Im totally with you claus in the terms of Suvs and big vehicles.
Speaking of cars with Eco mode, my old diesel doesn't have one but about 6 months ago I noticed that the car was really weak to accelerate, it would get me everywhere just fine the only problem was it was very slow to accelerate but it held its speed no problem. Then I noticed it was basically burning hardly any diesel, I put in 50 euro of diesel into it and it lasted me like a month of driving around the place and it was still at a quarter tank.
Turned out that there was some carbon buildup on the mass airflow sensor, so the car's computer was not able to tell how much oxygen was making it into the engine, so it was running INCREDIBLY lean and basically just using the minimum amount of diesel possible. It's crazy when you realise that it's entirely possible for engines to run way more efficiently at the cost of acceleration with just a few tweaks to the air fuel mixture like that.
This is the exact point I was making. Acceleration is the killer of fuel efficiency...
That's interesting hear a lot of that, though my instinct gut feeling would say it's not possible that could happen but having said that in the past I was given a 2 litre non turbo diesel with an intermittent fault on the ECU system, because of it indirectly I was getting about 90 MPG maybe more. But that I think was really more because I removed every bit of the emission controls gear, was just an alternative simple injection pump replacing all of the electronics. And I was doing very long motorway runs around 70 mph @@clauskellermanpov3004
Thank you, Claus. We have a huge problem in education today. North American secondary schools focus on the social "sciences" almost to the exclusion of STEM. Those students go on to university with a barebones science and math background with many of them becoming...secondary school teachers, members of boards of education and politicians.
What you have explained in this video is very familiar to people who have taken a basic high school physics course. Unfortunately our "problem in education today" is that far, far too many people haven't taken even a single physical science course in their life, believe in Cargo Cult Science, think that going all EV means we somehow get a free lunch energy-wise, that the electricity used to charge the EVs is Manna from Heaven magically produced by an electric grid that does not actually exist and for which there is no plan to build one, and the metals and other chemicals used in the manufacture of batteries are easily obtained, massless and non-polluting. And they are the people making the decisions.
Very good. Thank you
There must some kind of "law-of-" for when a concept is so simple to understand that hardly anyone gets it
Nice Claus!
In the 70's there was a massive fuel shortage in the UK and the Government imposed a 50 MPH max speed limit across the nation to save fuel. Pity that wasn't kept. If everyone allowed more time for their journey, and went along at 50 MPH, probably we wouldn't need to have these bloody stupid electric cars foisted upon us!!!
75%, for real, you computed that? I was in line at the Starbucks yesterday behind a "I have a small penis" massive truck. Four wheel drive too, no that it will ever be driven off road. What a waste of resources and money.
Oh, for decoration the outer walls of this Starbucks have green colored metal lattice screens attached to them. Are these screens armor for the building? I think of you whenever I see this.
yes I know all about mass ,acceleration, speed, resistance that`s why I drive and accelerate slower, close windows to eliminate resistance, glide in neutral when going down the hill or approaching red lights 150m away and if I do all this I spend $4 on fuel per day but if I don`t do it my fuel consumption is like $6 per day, also when I bought recently all brand new 4 tyres and replaced almost bold ones cos me $400 but then I realised that just nice new tyres with full threads and bigger diameter reduced fuel consumption to $1 per day so in 1 year or 365 days my new tyres will pay themselves off almost 😊
nice work!
Don't glide downhill, or approaching red lights - Modern engines use no fuel when you are fully off the throttle and using engine-braking.
Gliding in neutral uses a small amount of fuel to keep the engine ticking over.
You might be able to get that $4 down to $3.60 or $3.70
@@SimbianMinistry well if I take my foot off accelerator the car’s speed drops very quick within 80m distance while in drive D but if I shift to neutral N then I can glide for almost 300m while the speed drops only by 10km/h so neutral does glide better on straight while on steep downhill it's better to keep it in D but on few degrees slight slopes I still use N if no traffic in front of me.
Claus Kellerman for head of Department of Energy. Maybe, if we all slowed down a little bit, we'd probably live longer and be less stressed out.
Here in the States, the CAFE standards contribute to this. In order to conform to the standard, vehicles have grown in order to meet it. As for ev's, I'm not sold. At least as far as long distance travel is concerned. Inner city travel it's a no doubter, if I could afford to buy one, I would. Pretty sure my tramsportation costs, i.e. fuel, would go way down in comparison to what I'd spend on keeping the battery charged.
there was also a study on the so called "carbon footprint" of EV...its takes about 10 years of use until the carbon footprint on an EV crosses the "line" and begins to actually reduce the carbon footprint over a gas powered vehicle...but also by 10 years, you need to replace the batteries at least once which then pushes out the footprint curve even further...unless we get all our electricity from 100% renewable, it will never make any sense...how many people actually keep the vehicle for more then 10 years?
The whole idea of using less fuel by accelerating more carefully is demonstrated when you look at my driving vs my daughter's
We both have a similar size/weight car (Her a C-class Merc - Me a Skoda Superb) Both around 1,500kg (3300 pounds), and both have a turbo-diesel engine with close to 140 bhp.
She routinely accelerates hard, and drives close to the car in front, constantly on and off the throttle and brakes.
I accelerate far more smoothly, think ahead, and back off the car in front so I can maintain a more constant speed - less braking, and less need to re-accelerate.
We both take around the same time to cover a similar journey (she's maybe 5 mins quicker over 35-40 miles)
She gets around 37-38 mpg - I routinely get 50, sometimes more (British gallons are about 20% more than US gallons)
Last year, my car was off the road for a coupla weeks and I borrowed hers - Her average mpg was on 37 when I got it.... was on 48 when I gave it back to her.
exactly. if we all just drove a little calmer we could easily save 25% fuel. without even changing our cars. it's in the formula. f=ma. decrease "a" and you need less "f" ... "fuel"
Newton was solving a natural world relationship. Claus is applying it to the human world, as he acknowledged at the end. To reconcile this, the equation needs to include a constant (H) modifying (F). F^H=MA, where H=4. Good video!
Love the video Claus, but I'd offer that if one accelerates with 1/4 the force and thus takes four times as long to get up to speed, we haven't saved 4X the energy. Yes it's a savings, but not nearly what you'd think. When vehicles become highly efficient in energy expenses and potentially recaptured during braking, this F=ma analysis starts to break down a little. I do however wholeheartedly agree that EVs weight too much and drivers are dragging them around. Additionally, Tesla knew exactly what they were doing when they launched with the Model S.... Fast sells. All that Canada would need to do is limit electric power output by law and the sales would drop off immediately.
"limit electric output by law" simple. but will never happen. we want to be green but we want to accelerate fast too.
There is never one simple formula that covers everything, Claus! My petrol car will easily do 60 MPG in the summer, but now midwinter it's only doing 50 MPG. So seasonal temps effects thing too. Plus, 20 MPH speed limits now being brought in everywhere (in UK), 1 ton of metal driving at 20 MPH drastically brings down MPG. Newton never calculated muppets like Sadiq Kahn bringing in ULEZ zones.
Love your content as always Clause. EV’s have about 20 only moving parts responsible for motion which means F=MA is at an exponential gain for Ev over fuel. Cheers buddy
When the change in velocity is constant, accelerating quicker does generally not consume more energy. The remaining difference in EVs is a little more internal friction while in combustion cars it is massive efficiency drop while outside designed operating point.
What does consume more energy at higher speeds is mainly increased compensation of air friction.
EVs need strong motors to efficiently regenerate more braking power.
It's simple physics.
Accelerating quicker uses orders of magnitude more fuel. What physics are you using? lol
Hey Claus, how bout playing that strat for us?
Claus... you are a wonderfull thincker and my hero!! 😁
Have you ever watched those tractor drag races, it demonstrates the power needed as the mass increases while accelerating. A fine example of wasting fuel and pollution.
No tractor pulls are a competition, if your engine can withstand the fuel air produces more torque and hp are produced to win, not waste, just a simple problem. Get involved in how your vehicle actually works and you will see.
Car makers are putting to much electronics and crap jn car making it heavier. Gone are the days of the light weight vehicle thanks to micro management by government
i wanna see what exemptions there are for large trucks, or even joe blow and his pickup truck that is necessary to pull a trailer...will be interesting...there is no disputing that electric cars are needed and the way we need to go...
To be more precise: wind resistance is proportional to the square of speed, but it is not an exponential relation.
And oh yeah if shipping was slower than you're going to have supply chain issues and you'll need many more trucks on the road to keep up with demand😢😢😢
Consider how our world view and experience of travel has changed so radically since Newton. For example, in the Newton's time no one expected to be able to travel to the next town 20 miles away in 30 minutes or so as we do today. Unless you were a rich person with a horse, it was an 6 to 9 hour trip by foot, but even for the rich guy it was at least a couple of hours. But now our travel behavior has been driven (pun intended) by the personal automobile. It is all part of how we desire near instant response to most things in our world.Tell someone that it is going to take them 9 hours to walk to their favorite shopping mall, and see how often they go. One solution to our energy concerns is simply to stop traveling. But, that's like telling someone that if he wants to learn about a subject, he has to physically go to a library, work his way through a drawer full of subject index cars, make a list of the Dewey reference numbers, authors and titles from those cards of the books he hopes has what he wants, find the right shelf in the book stacks, take the book or books from the shelf to a place where he must then read them. Who wants to do that?
yes. the world has gotten itself into a big hurry!
It's how the big car companies have to work.
I believe most times they're just trying to survive.
The retooling they have to conform to is going to cost huge money .
This is a product of the free market.
Once anything becomes publicly traded stock, game over.
They are at the mercy of the stock holders.
Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring all of those empty flights a year just so companies don't lose their premium slots at airports and the absolutely monstrous amount of fuel it takes to have even just one cargo ship chug across an ocean.
Those organic pear slices you bought because they're healthy travelled around the world 3 times before they got to your local health food shop! 😆
Hi Claus, I want to know when do we get the flying cars they promised us back in the day when the "Jetson's" were on the TV Airwaves?
liked! i find it amusing that people who drive evs think theyre saving the world but their grid electricity still comes from oil and coal plants xD buying electric vehicles does fuck all for the environment
That's exactly the reason why I don't have a Subaru truck but a KIA Ceed. The other reason would be money of course 🤣
I still have my Smart Car. 😊 I was getting 48 mpg tops. Now 39 because of highway travel.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.
We need less government, not more...more government is almost always the problem, almost never the solution!!!
Thorium: The Superfuel is what you should do a video on next Claus. Thorium is a clean burning fuel that will replace Uranium and Plutonium in Nuclear Power Plants. Thorium is safe, no worries of a meltdow or radiation leaks. Thorium is the little sister of Uranium.
You missed one important point at the discussion. Most of the north American cars not only have a bigger mass, but also a shape like a garage. You easily can change the needed fuel by design a lower cw (drag coefficient). That's what they use to make electric cars more efficient.😮
that's one factor. but CV need to have radiators to suck in air and cool the engine. EV's dont.
AY UP CLAUS
"ALL" vehicles is the issue, I'm not going to use a Prius to haul 2 facecord of firewood out of the woods. I'll use my 1985 square body...
I as I believe, most of your viewers, started watching yo r WoT videos, but I have to say, that these other videos with different topics show, that you are not just a humoristic pixel game commentator... In this adventure of making everything more green is many aspects that are to be considered, no matter how effiecent electric cars and batteries can be made and you are right about the amount of energy needed to move more heavier cars with their batteries so instead of trying to make electric cars as powerful as conbustion using cars we could just make them more efficient. There is one problem though left and that is this one: Average consumer thinks that we already have all the electricity coming from our plugs in home and garage... so what's the big deal? Well the electricity must be prodused somehow in the first place and effiency and environmental aspects of producing that electricity still remain. So even if we lower the performance/ needed power for our cars and other transport as well, we should be consentrate our efforts to how we can make green energy. To give an example of wrong you can go in these green efforst, Germany at one time put down their whole nuclear powerplant infra just to find out that if they wanted to same amount electricity they have to re-open their coal using powerplants or buy natural gas from Russia, another great idea there too... for fucks sake!
good comment
In Canada we reduced octane a fare bit.. Alcohol 👎 Point is they loaded the deck.. high mileage per gallon cars are forbodden.. 😊
100% facts here.
Fantastic vid, well explained as usual. What they do not consider is that all these much heavier EV's are going to put too much pressure on our infrastructure, its already breaking down. Roads, more potholes, bridges, unstable and crumbling, Charging, not enough power on the grid. Governments wont have enough funds to improve all this leading to poorer surfaces and battery damage which will cause pollution and extreme cost to repair.
I really like your videos, But…. I wish it was this simple! First out, US have much more hwy trucks than any country. US can by that save the most. I’ve an EV but I almost never use the full power, quite the opposite I make it a sport to spend less electricity.
Professor Claus!
Lol.
The proper electric car would be small, light and relatively cheap.
and accelerate slowly... exactly!
Idrive 85 km/ hr and man people get pissed off
Here in the US...More and more SUVs, less smaller vehicles. Yep.
God: If you press this button, every atom in the universe will instantly cease to exi...
Me: Click - click, click click!
great video, more videos like this claus, more science please , i love science , also RussiaNG
But Claus I put a four Barrel Carburetor on my Chain saw.
The first problem is that customers demand a car that accelerates to highway speeds in at most 5 seconds and has a ridiculously long 300 mile range. Nobody ever drives 300 miles in one go but customers still demand it. Statistics show that 99.2% of car trips are less than 100 miles, the vast majority of those are less than 50 miles. A 150 mile car would cover most people with ease but people refuse to buy those.
The second problem is that the battery is a very expensive component so in order to make a profit they need to aim at the luxury segment. They can't sell tons of cheap EVs because there aren't enough batteries to go around.
I drive 300 miles in one go all the time. I live in Canada.
@@clauskellermanpov3004Then you are an outlier. It is extremely rare
that's called stagnation Claus, progress is needed... the future is not an only electric car, it's just a phase...
EVs are also requiring multi level parking garages to be reconstructed because they weren't designed to carry their mass. More wastage.
How about aptera
As soon as you put that equation up I knew where you were going with this. Do they even teach physics in schools anymore or just climate hocus pocus?
Good thinking Claus,....yet.... we might spare lot of energy to replace people in a group together, so not 1 or 2 person in a car, but a group in a bus
or train.....yes, less freedom, yes, no need of having expensive car when you live in a place with lot of people, like a town.... And right, efficiency on producing energy is very important ! Well batteries improve on efficiency, if we load them on sun-energy, or wind-energy, or a new innovated energy,
busses / trains and other innovated group transport will lose much less energy than single cars transport !! Helas for your Subaru..... But you live more isolated I think, so you need a Subaru (or a less energy using vehicle), hahahaha............ Still, have pleasure with your Subaru Claus !! (also good to travel to your interesting parents for instance.....
Lower mass? Shut down all fast food restaurants and Tim Hortons. No drivers license for people who weigh over 200 pounds.
Corporations own everything including the politicians that serve them.
😊 we blame you north Americans for your massive cars which we're all now following along with! European cars used to be tiny with tiny engines cos we had no oil or resources left.... That said, small engines have definitely become the norm again in the affordable segment; Ford's ecoboom (sic) being one of them
Indeed, I am still waiting for the reliable, durable, tiny and slow EV that I want. There is in Europe the Dacia Spring with 45 or 65 hp. Ideal for me, but as it turns out, it is not durable (Chinese crap quality drivetrain). But, cudo's to Stellantis (of which Dacia is a member) to think about people like me. Now make a better one.
A small affordable eco performance EV would sell like hot cakes. But the profit margin would be small. Tesla would prefer that you buy a Cyber Truck.
@@clauskellermanpov3004 They always knew that EV's would be a temporary agenda from the start.. They have always been about making private transport only available to their own super wealthy looked after kind and nobody else.. All planned that way and I said all this 5 years ago. If you are not anti EV then you are 100% an agent of the state.
All your agendas are noted... Nice Horse symbolism noted..
PS: IsaCC newton never existed.. It's all FAKE HISTORY and you know it.
@@clauskellermanpov3004 We have 2 vehicles, one pickup truck, live on an acreage and we have steers every year so I need the capacity to bring things to the farm and a small fuel efficient car for getting groceries and going to town. I do do solar lights, starting this year outside and they seem to be doing a good job so will continue. This push in the E direction worries me and makes me think who is really behind this and why? Just let the market do its thing naturally. Kind of like how China is doing it compared with the west
its called a scooter and they're the bane of pedestrians everywhere
So, Japanese calls from the 70s. :-)
I don't want to exist in a world without internal combustion engines.😢
Don't worry. You will cease to exist sooner than internal combustion engines cease to exist...
You left out the -a, the coming to a stop part. 😂 Electric vehicles can recuperate energy with their electric motors, using them as generators. While ICE cars can only coast or break and lose all the energy. F=m*a is also true while breaking.
yup
The best way to be efficient when moving, is not to move.
I'ts not only the energy to move them, it's the energy and materials to build, transport and repair a exponential growing number of cars as technological progress spreads trough the world
Problem is, our economic model as it is based on growth and, a substantial part of that growth, is based on movility: people and goods moving around, either for work or luxury.
If people don't move or move closer, the demand for cars, clothing, restaurants, tourism, all forms of travel, corporate real state and invesment on it, residential real state and on and on and on... is going to be heavily reduced or changed. That's the reason a lof of Top Managers are advocating now, when not forcing people, to go back to the office.
So, a real change implies a different economic model and that only will happen when everything goes to shit or there's a revolution: political or technological revolution. The latter is what most leaders are hoping for, so, they can continue to be the leaders.
The railroad companies have had it right the whole time diesel Electric😊
Tehre you go! NOW you're talking efficient. Like the new Honda CR-V hybrid... ICE engine just provides juice to the electic motors and they tossed the transmission. You get the best you can out of the electric motors while still taking advantage of the gas powered infrastructure for long range driving. Excellent comment Vonsmutty.
@@lexwaldez ty
I am really concerned for global logistics, comprising of trucks ships, planes etc. all of them are dependant on fossil fuels, once they run out its gonna be an absolute shitshow. trucks wont be able to exist in an electric era, simple because they wont be able to haul the heavy amounts of cargo all over the place, only local supply would be possible, the ships if they switched back to sail power its gonna slow everything down, and there will be major supply issues, for example food would be devastating, countries that rely on imports and they will experience extreme famine. and planes will simply cease to exist
I drive a VW Golf PHEV - best of both world =) U forgot 2 tell the difference between gas pollution and electric non pollution ........ Where I live, Norway (north Europe), all our electricity came from water turbins (waterfalls). That's why EVs and PHEVs are very popular here.
EV batteries contain nickel, manganese, cobalt, lithium, and graphite, which emit substantial amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in their mining and refining processes. In addition, producing one tonne of lithium (enough for ~100 car batteries) requires approximately 2 million tonnes of water, which makes battery production an extremely water-intensive practice. Lithium mines polluting the underwater channels and local ecosystem through toxic chemical leaks through water. Cobalt is perhaps one of the most problematic materials used in electric vehicles, both environmentally and socially. Cobalt mines produce toxic residues that can leach into the environment, poisoning groundwater and harming nearby communities. Additionally, smelting cobalt ore produces fumes with a high concentration of sulfur oxide and other air pollutants. Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car. EV battery can result in higher carbon emissions compared to gasoline cars.
Norway generates good reliable clean power - nice. In Alberta where I live most of our electricity comes from burning natural gas.
My EV is the best car ever, drives wonderful. And with the solar panels on the roof I drive cheap. And I don't give a.... About the environment.
nice. what EV do you have?
Kia Soul 64Kwh I am in the Netherlands, so small country so no long distance. Thumb up for your shows. Have nice holidays with your loved ones. Greetings
WIldy over-simplified Claus. ICE cars are inherently less efficient. You have an explosive force (thermo efficiency of the burn lost energy) then the explosive force pushes the piston down (lost energy), the linear force is translated to a rotational force (lost efficiency), that rotational force goes thru your transmission (lost efficiency), to a drive train (lost efficiency) and eventually the rotational force moves the wheels. At best your theoretically able to build something that's 50% efficient if you improve current ICE vehicles. Take an electric car, remove the transmission, you have a rotational force that gets transferred to the wheels. Job done. I think at best you're looking at a theoretical efficiency of 80% for a well designed modern electric car. Electric cars are faster, have more torque, and are wildly more efficient from a mechanical standpoint. Your weight argument is valid but you mention cars that were designed 5-10 years ago. When you look at the new cars coming off the line this year or next with new batteries. Look at a 2024 car like the Volvo EX you're talking a car with a curb weight of around 1950 kg. If you look at say a Toyota Corolla you're talking 1,300 kb. That Corolla weighs around 69% so your new EV is about 30% more mass. That EV is at least 30% more efficient at moving that mass. At WORST it's a wash and you're not dumping hydro carbons into the air. The next problem is how your electricity is generated so if it's solar from your roof you're WAAAAY better off. If it's nuclear you're better off (at least where I live... I can fully recharge an EV for just around $10 - 300 miles) while a full tank runs me $40 - 336 miles. From a dollar standpoint I'm wildy better off as far as fuel goes. I don't have to pay for oil changes. Something like the EX30 we looked at earlier will cost ~$35-45 before any incentives (govt or mfg). All things being equal, looking at technological advances in the near future, if your answer depends on people not being assholes I think I'll just vote with my wallet and get a small, efficient EV and pair that with a nice turbo-charged hybrid AWD/4x4. EV's made absolutely zero sense 10-15 years ago (and I still think anyone buying a Tesla is a mad lad - a fender bender costs upwards of over half the price of a new vehicle?!?!?) but as technology improves, competition brings about improvements and customers become more accustomed to what EV's have to offer it's just going to keep getting better. ICE vehicles are dead... they just don't know it yet.
After all that this still holds true. F=MA. The higher the mass the more force required to accelerate that mass. You can create the force any way you like. You can get out of the car and push your car by hand without electricity or hydrocarbon and F still equals MA.
SNAP!
1 problem. Nobody wants Nuclear energy built by the lowest bidder. Ergo, we have to have "Hydrocarbon" burning power plants to energize a Grid that can't handle the load for all these EVs. The chicken is DOA so forget the egg. 😆
France wants nuclear energy. Canada has some of the worlds first nuclear power plants.
The true problem is that "common sense" isn't so common....
I just want bigger, louder car, go more faster. I also will pay for it, so don't try to force ppl to do something. Incentivise them then they will do it on their own.
👍👍👍👍❤❤❤❤
think im going to stay with finding a way to put a catalytic converter on a cow so there
Some humans would need it too, at least in their working community or social encounters...
EV's are 100 year old tech and outdated. They are not the answer. The question is invalid as well.
Say no to expensive electric junk
I am anti EV as they are currently unsafe
Mass and Density not gravity. Magnetic fields not Gravity. We never went to the moon.
You used the terms mass, density, magnetic field and gravity in two sentences that make no sense. What are you trying to say?
@@clauskellermanpov3004 Basically this th-cam.com/video/984kY2uNLkI/w-d-xo.html and the so called UFO's are craft that use the earth magnetic field to fly. And they are not from space. The theory of Gravity is really these two things. Or you can just keep believing the theory. We all have free will to choose. I just was just offering a different choice. Loved the Subaru video. That was very well done and informative.
My wife is not a fat guy.😅
just cancel mass and you are good to go
or decrease it as much as possible...
Average battery replacement is $25,000. They start failing about 90,000 miles.
:)
Be careful, you’re speaking truth in facts so much that you tube may block this video because you’re making too much sense….
social media tends to promote hysterical rhetoric....
Your logic is incomplete, to put it nicely.
You are completely ignoring the change in how the force is generated. Electric motors deliver 100% torque at 0 RPM. Gas engines require 100% throttle or close to it (read max fuel consumption) to do the same.
Also, EVs can generate charge through regenerative braking. Negligible for highway driving but significant for urban commuters. Also, you can put solar panels on the car (this is being done now) and generate 30 km or so of range just by sitting or driving on a sunny day. Show me a gas powered vehicle generating a gallon of gas for doing the same. In addition, you can generate electrons by putting solar panels on your roof or yard. Other techniques are also possible if you are gifted with wind or micro hydro in your area. You won't find many people doing similar to make fuel for their gas powered truck. These systems will generate a profit over their life span and continue to get better.
In addition, why are the only EVs you mention trucks and Hummers. I agree with you that these are dumb vehicles, yet you fail to mention the much better EV alternatives. Did you know Musk has built a Giga factory in China with a goal of making $25K EVs?
Finally, your clickbait about going green is more than a little off the mark. You only mention green in negative connotations and barely at all. There is very little left to be gained after 100+ years of gas engine development. In contrast, electric generation, storage and use has massive future potential.
Yours is purely an anti green point of view. I comment to balance the scale a little.
good comment. mine is not an anti green point of view. i simply point out that if we used used the science provided by F=MA in building vehicles (EV's or gas powered) we could be orders of magnitude more efficient.
@@clauskellermanpov3004 car makers have been trying to make cars lighter for decades - that has little to do with being green
You fail to address the fact that our grid is not able to support the number of EVs on the road. I would refer you to the article Road Block in the 2023 July/August edition of Pivot published by CPA Canada.
@@richardroach7127 I will address it now. Am not hearing about grid failures throughout our fine land, so it is safe to assume we are OK for now. As EVs become more prevalent, there will of course be a need for a more robust grid. Some of it can be addressed, as I stated above, by individuals generating their own power. This pays for itself and eventually turns a profit even with today's technology. I would hope the feds can resist the powerful self serving energy lobby sufficiently to provide tax breaks for those who choose to be more energy self sufficient. What must be avoided at nearly all cost is constructing more fossil fuels burning plants. In fact, we need to reduce those in operation today and do what little is possible to make the remaining ones more efficient and less polluting. Power companies will always make decisions based on dollars so it is up to the Gov't to work with them via tax breaks and whatnot to encourage this. Any new plants to be built must be based on renewables. Pretty much every area has some natural advantage such as solar, tidal or wind. Alberta, where our esteemed host resides, has a geothermal research plant if memory serves. Check out Iceland to see some serious progress in this area. They are almost self sufficient, even including building heat in a cold climate. There is geothermal potential on every square inch of land on this glorious planet.
100 years ago, when gas became popular, did we look around and say there isn't enough production, refinement, gas stations or energy infastructure to fulfill the needs of all the cars we will build and then can the whole idea? Of course not. We built the necessary infrastructure.
This is no different with the exception there is a powerful energy lobby opposing change to the point of spreading disinformation and ignoring science all for the almighty buck and to hell with the planet.
Did you know this summer was the hottest ever recorded in the arctic? Just as the scientists predicted with their models decades ago. The situation is so serious that now, for every two greenhouse molecules sent up, a third goes up from the effects of the warming. All this when the sun is currently in a down tick in output and has been for a few decades. We have zero control over when it will return to the long term rise it has been in for millions of years. What will happen then?
@@clauskellermanpov3004 But when the change in velocity (delta v) is constant, accelerating quicker does not consume more energy.
Work = (1/2) * mass * (delta v)^2
People were smarter 100 years ago when they gave up on electric vehicles.
Nope. They were dumber so they ate the "oil is good" story. Unfortunately, some people are still idiots.
Anyway "EV" is a religion. Doesn't have to be true just believable
So much BS for a "no-BS channel". Where do I even start?
- wind resistance force is not exponential in velocity, it's quadratic. There are, however, other sources of energy loss that have weaker dependence on velocity such as rolling resistance and electronics (a/c in particular), which become dominant at lower speeds. Speed increase from 100 to 120 kph will decrease the efficiency by 23% -- noticeable, but hardly "huge"
- The appropriate equation for car acceleration vs energy loss is E=mv^2/2 rather than F=ma. That is, energy required to accelerate a mass to a given speed depends on a final speed, not an acceleration. Though one has to produce more energy while accelerating faster, the duration of acceleration is shorter, resulting in the same energy requirement.
- Eco mode consumes less energy than sports mode not because of a slower acceleration pre se, but rather due to inefficiencies of an internal combustion engine; such engines have the highest efficiency at around 2000 rpm and the highest power output at around 6000 rpm. In eco mode, the car keeps an engine around 2000 rpm while in sports pushes to much higher rpms, sacrificing efficiency. Such effect does not exist for electric vehicles since electric motors are equally efficient in a very wide range of rpms.
- Both electric and hybrid vehicles are equipped with regenerative brakes, allowing them to recuperate and store a substantial fraction of the kinetic energy when stopping. Conventional vehicles dissipate the kinetic energy into heat while stopping. That's why hybrid vehicles see comparable mpg in both city and highway regimes while their conventional counterparts lose a third of the efficiency in a city cycle.
Ok. Let's talk science.
Yes, you'll need more energy to drive heavier cars. However, electric engine is far more efficient than the equivalent ICE engine, and you're simply ignoring that fact.
I'm not ignoring anything. The "fact" is this. The larger the mass the more force required to accelerate it. You can generate the force however you like. But you will need more of it. You can get out and push the car yourself and not use any electricity or hydrocarbon if you like.
@@clauskellermanpov3004 oh, you know the.math better than I do. Lets say ICE angine has X kg, and EV has X+25%< and 200HP ICE engine has 30% (it has less) energy conversion, compared to 75% with electric engine (it has more), then how are EVs a problem compared to ICE?
We all know elementary school physics, but the calculation is a bit more complex than that.
Oh, yes, and US is not the entire world. Many countries have no problem with smaller, lighter vehicles, with less battery and HP.
P.S. And there will also (hopefully) be Aptera very soon.
Claus the big EV's are not selling so common sense will help us save energy... LOL