This rubbishes my pet theory of motorsport being the ultimate test bench for motoring technology.
F1 switched from 2.4l V8s with a small amount of optional energy recovery to the current 1.5l V6s with batteries and much more energy recovery (braking and recoverable heat from turbochargers) in 2014. They also reduced maximum fuel tank size to 1/3 of what it had been. The result was cars did a race distance on 1/3 of the fuel and within 3 years were the fastest F1 cars we’d ever had.
So there, with these very expensive, very sophisticated “power units” (we don’t say “engine” any more in F1), the cars were hugely more efficient and emissions must have dropped because they using literally 1/3 the fuel they used to use.
F1 had not conceived these motors all by themselves. They asked the manufacturers involved in the sport what they wanted, and they came up with that specification of engine (heavy and expensive as it was) because they said the technology would trickle down into production vehicles.
Yeah right.
At the risc of being both non-PC, unpopular, bigotted and being ostracized from forums [again] - herewith my take; my solar system, my car, my electric toothbrush - even my PC which I use and most of my former employment all contribute to and result in the destruction of nature on all fronts - even some of the food I consume - the core and bottom line is idolatry - I even partake in this destruction in order not to exit my creature comfort bubble - which also makes me a hypocrite… yet in order to live, even this cocoon of safety must be expunged… just my two-pence, or was that thirty pieces of silver?
Cheers
G
Recently posted this on another forum:
This is a series, but dang, when Billy Bob Thornton as Tommy Norris in Landman, tells their attorney about oil, most of it made sense - no ALL OF IT made sense:
Wonder how they going to make all that without oil … as he said:
…it will take 30 years if we started tomorrow … we have a 120 year petroleum based infrastructure, our whole lives depend on it … we’re going to run out of it before we find it’s replacement … what is going to kill us is running out before we find a alternative …
So renewables, if it can buy the world a lot more time to find an alternative to oil, then lets do that.
Oh man, this thing. It is really simple. This was a PEOPLE failure.
The cars can be driven like EVs. But a lot of people drive them like ordinary hybrids, never charging them. As a result, they were worse in real life than in the estimate.
I remember reading years ago – not sure if this is still the case – that many PHEVs are company vehicles (due to the relative high cost), and as it turns out, companies are also fond of paying for the petrol spent by their management (and up) people. So if the company pays for the petrol, why would you use your electricity to charge it?
What the study found was that the cars are 19% cleaner than a petrol car instead of the estimated 75%. Because people.
Now, if you think about it… far from proving how BAD the tech is… it actually proves how good it is when you use it correctly. Five freaken times!
A lot of that stuff was also just made up.
The whole “we’re off grid” bit with the turbines seems wrong to me. Wind turbines aren’t grid forming. They cannot be, the generated frequency is relative to the wind speed, that is, variable. Most of them takes that energy and converts it to something that can be injected into an existing grid.
It could be that what he meant was that they were off-grid, mostly running off Diesel generators, and the wind turbines help lower the cost. And of course, this has been going on forever. Oil companies do use renewables to lower their own input costs. Of course they do. Usually solar though.
Oh that’s interesting. So the problem with plug-in hybrids is that we don’t plug them in?
Yup.
The story is almost a month old too. The issue is the utility factor (what percentage of the time it will run around in electrical mode). This was estimated at 84%. Real world it is 27%.