8 ms·
History is littered with the corpses of 'better' IC engine designs... the basic problem is you need to retool your entire factory and re-design your vehicles.
by mangecoeur 6y ago
History is littered with the corpses of 'better' IC engine designs... the basic problem is you need to retool your entire factory and re-design your vehicles. If you are doing that today, why not just jump straight to electric motors?
- sneak 6y agoAviation comes to mind, where the power density of batteries is not yet anywhere near sufficient for long-haul or cargo.
- pjc50 6y agoAviation tends to use turbines. Tiny general aviation aircraft tend to use small volumes of old proven designs.
- close04 6y ago> why not just jump straight to electric motors Because they can't satisfy every need just yet. Imagine we still have horses even with engines being around for more than a century. And adapting to a newer IC tech might actually be cheaper and easier than redesigning for EV tech. Manufacturers already have the experience, logistics chains, much of the designs, etc. Some transitions are never complete because sometimes there's no "one size fits all" option for the manufacturer or the consumer.
- nicoburns 6y agoYeah, but in 10 years when this technology is productionised, the use cases for it are going to be increasingly niche. Just like horses.
- close04 6y agoPerhaps generators or heavy construction equipment would benefit from something like this. Lower pollution, lower costs for the operator, while still offering some flexibility that electric tech may not even in a decade. There are still hundreds of thousands to millions of work horses around the world. I'm still very much for improving old tech where it's possible and makes sense, even if it's niche.
- nicoburns 6y agoDefinitely agree with you here.
- fnordfnordfnord 6y agoIt's not just the tech, it's the lack of infrastructure, especially rural infrastructure. It'll be more than 10 years.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoBecause battery efficiency is still only 10% of liquid fuel efficiency, in kwh/kg.
- travisporter 6y agoThis is correct, but this is density not efficiency.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoFor transportation that's the pivotal interesting measure. Efficiency is for grids etc. For moving energy around, the weight is critical.
- trickstra 6y agoWith highly efficient grid you don't need to move around that much weight. But I really wish the main argument was our survival. We simply won't survive if we continue burning fossil fuels.
- travisporter 6y agoI agree the weight is critical but kWh/kg is still not efficiency. Efficiency = "power discharged by"/"power delivered to" battery
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoYes thanks everybody knows what efficiency is. It factors into transportation, only in the effect it has on fuel weight. Essentially, on how it effects kWh(delivered)/kg.
- bananabreakfast 6y agoBattery efficiency is far, far higher than liquid fuel efficiency. A car wastes 90%+ of the energy in its gasoline. kwh/kg is a measure of density, not efficiency. Very different concepts.
- carapace 6y agoLike the Tesla turbine, an engine with only one moving part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine (When I was a kid this thing was mythological and now it has a Wikipedia page. What a world!)