Zero emission EVs

[Jet Cash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUEA9hEIRiA

Check out the smoke from this multi-EV fire.

[Hispo]

Imagine getting yourself an Electric vehicle, you happy about it since it is your first new vehicle.
You are having a wonderful day and decide to go for groceries, when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

Reminds me a bit the scandal Samsung had to face when their phones started to explode and burn by their own, because their batteries back some years ago.

i did not know that those cars were more dangerous when set ablaze than regular gas ones, one truly learns something new each day.

[paxmao]

Imagine getting yourself an Electric vehicle, you happy about it since it is your first new vehicle.
You are having a wonderful day and decide to go for groceries, when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

Reminds me a bit the scandal Samsung had to face when their phones started to explode and burn by their own, because their batteries back some years ago.

i did not know that those cars were more dangerous when set ablaze than regular gas ones, one truly learns something new each day.

For each of the fires in an EV that this Brexiter pro-Boris old plonker from probably Essex show, I can supply 10 of people burned in a conventional fuel car.

The future has to be clean and CO2 neutral, there is no way you are going to have a life as you know it unless you can achieve it. One way of doing so is decarbonising the energy generation and the using electricity is a way forward, since it is easier to de-carbonise the generation at large scale. There are many challenges to it, but certainly vehicles burning are not the main ones.

[Hispo]

Imagine getting yourself an Electric vehicle, you happy about it since it is your first new vehicle.
You are having a wonderful day and decide to go for groceries, when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

Reminds me a bit the scandal Samsung had to face when their phones started to explode and burn by their own, because their batteries back some years ago.

i did not know that those cars were more dangerous when set ablaze than regular gas ones, one truly learns something new each day.

... There are many challenges to it, but certainly vehicles burning are not the main ones.

It may depend on the statistics of those events happening as the adoption and push from the governments around the world towards Electric Vehicles continue to grow.

I have personally felt interested in technology applied to carbon traps, but realistically it could only happen once humanity managed to have access to very cheap and clean energy through nuclear fusion. So we can reverse the effects of CO2 on the climate worldwide.

[BADecker]

Imagine getting yourself an Electric vehicle, you happy about it since it is your first new vehicle.
You are having a wonderful day and decide to go for groceries, when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

Reminds me a bit the scandal Samsung had to face when their phones started to explode and burn by their own, because their batteries back some years ago.

i did not know that those cars were more dangerous when set ablaze than regular gas ones, one truly learns something new each day.

For each of the fires in an EV that this Brexiter pro-Boris old plonker from probably Essex show, I can supply 10 of people burned in a conventional fuel car.

The future has to be clean and CO2 neutral, there is no way you are going to have a life as you know it unless you can achieve it. One way of doing so is decarbonising the energy generation and the using electricity is a way forward, since it is easier to de-carbonise the generation at large scale. There are many challenges to it, but certainly vehicles burning are not the main ones.

The best way to reduce CO2 is to burn fossil fuels. Why? Because more CO2 in the atmosphere means more and better plant life. When plants grow in abundance, they reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, automatically, because they use CO2 to grow. In return for this automatic reduction in CO2, plants give us more food and more oxygen to breathe and use in our vehicles >>> burned with gasoline... and in our coal fired generators.

If this produces more global warming - which has not been proven for certain - it is good. More warming puts more water into the atmosphere, which gives us more H2O2 in the air, that destroys disease naturally... in us when we breathe it, and in our lakes and ponds when it goes in naturally through rain. In addition, a warming of the poles melts the ice somewhat, which makes water to flood the deserts (like the Sahara) so that there is more room for more population and food in plant and animal farming.

One of the best ways that more CO2 helps is, it gets rid of the lying, global warming cabal... and the fertilizer companies. There is enough wealth of nutrients in the soil if used properly.

There are loads of benefits to more CO2 in the atmosphere. The thing that is the problem is the other chemicals that are burned with the fossil fuels, and the incomplete burning of the fossil fuels themselves. Filtering these other chemicals out of the exhaust would help to produce purity in the atmosphere.

[Hispo]

Imagine getting yourself an Electric vehicle, you happy about it since it is your first new vehicle.
You are having a wonderful day and decide to go for groceries, when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

Reminds me a bit the scandal Samsung had to face when their phones started to explode and burn by their own, because their batteries back some years ago.

i did not know that those cars were more dangerous when set ablaze than regular gas ones, one truly learns something new each day.

For each of the fires in an EV that this Brexiter pro-Boris old plonker from probably Essex show, I can supply 10 of people burned in a conventional fuel car.

The future has to be clean and CO2 neutral, there is no way you are going to have a life as you know it unless you can achieve it. One way of doing so is decarbonising the energy generation and the using electricity is a way forward, since it is easier to de-carbonise the generation at large scale. There are many challenges to it, but certainly vehicles burning are not the main ones.

The best way to reduce CO2 is to burn fossil fuels. Why? Because more CO2 in the atmosphere means more and better plant life. When plants grow in abundance, they reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, automatically, because they use CO2 to grow. In return for this automatic reduction in CO2, plants give us more food and more oxygen to breathe and use in our vehicles >>> burned with gasoline... and in our coal fired generators.

If this produces more global warming - which has not been proven for certain - it is good. More warming puts more water into the atmosphere, which gives us more H2O2 in the air, that destroys disease naturally... in us when we breathe it, and in our lakes and ponds when it goes in naturally through rain. In addition, a warming of the poles melts the ice somewhat, which makes water to flood the deserts (like the Sahara) so that there is more room for more population and food in plant and animal farming.

One of the best ways that more CO2 helps is, it gets rid of the lying, global warming cabal... and the fertilizer companies. There is enough wealth of nutrients in the soil if used properly.

There are loads of benefits to more CO2 in the atmosphere. The thing that is the problem is the other chemicals that are burned with the fossil fuels, and the incomplete burning of the fossil fuels themselves. Filtering these other chemicals out of the exhaust would help to produce purity in the atmosphere.

There are lot of problems with those things you are saying. For example, you cannot expect plants to do all the work when human activity continues to chop down forests and entire ecosystems, and there are species of both animals and plans that need colder temperatures to thrive. It does not matter if plants trap carbon, if we continue to burn them for heat, the CO2 returns to the atmosphere.

What about the insular countries which would lose an important part of their surface because the increase of the sea level, where is that people supposed to live? Are you willing support your country in open their doors to them so they can live and sleep on dry soil?
 

[Jet Cash]

There are loads of benefits to more CO2 in the atmosphere. The thing that is the problem is the other chemicals that are burned with the fossil fuels, and the incomplete burning of the fossil fuels themselves. Filtering these other chemicals out of the exhaust would help to produce purity in the atmosphere.

You are forgetting the polution generated from the manufacture and distribution of new cars, and the poillution resulting from over complex engines that drivers can no longer maintain themselves, or afford to have garages maintain then. I drive a 1988 Volvo 740, and several reports state that it will take 20  years or more of my driving to equal the pollution created as a result oif the manufacture of one mid range Tesla. That doesn't include to pollution and damage resulting from the generation of the electricity to power it.

[jvanname]

If people really cared about carbon emissions, they would use a cryptocurrency where the mining algorithm were designed to solve the most important scientific problem. Cryptocurrency mining needs to be used to solve the problem of reversible computation because in the future, all computers will be reversible. I am not exaggerating when I say that reversible computation is the future and that cryptocurrency mining is the best strategy to solve this most important scientific problem. But I am the only person talking about this because everyone else lacks sentience.

Since people here are not willing to use the resources in cryptocurrency mining that are otherwise wasted to solve the most important scientific problem, I suggest that the people here simply buy a lot of gasoline and light it on fire.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

[Hispo]

If people really cared about carbon emissions, they would use a cryptocurrency where the mining algorithm were designed to solve the most important scientific problem. Cryptocurrency mining needs to be used to solve the problem of reversible computation because in the future, all computers will be reversible. I am not exaggerating when I say that reversible computation is the future and that cryptocurrency mining is the best strategy to solve this most important scientific problem. But I am the only person talking about this because everyone else lacks sentience.

Since people here are not willing to use the resources in cryptocurrency mining that are otherwise wasted to solve the most important scientific problem, I suggest that the people here simply buy a lot of gasoline and light it on fire.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Good afternoon, Dr. Joseph.
I have a question for you since you are an expert in mathematics, and I more into rough science like applied mathematics.  
Is there any way to use the power of reversible computation to enhance our transport/motion technology to make it more efficient in terms of fuel/termal efficiency?

Because as far as I know we would need to dish the model of termal machines to power movement (Carnot's Theorems) if we truly want to get better yields or mechanical output. How can reversible computing help us in that matter?

I have only studied the laws of Thermodynamics applied to big objects and the reversible processes are very difficult to achieve in those instances (in reality), as I am sure you already know, I have only used it in idealized models.

Thanks.

[BADecker]

Imagine getting yourself an Electric vehicle, you happy about it since it is your first new vehicle.
You are having a wonderful day and decide to go for groceries, when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

Reminds me a bit the scandal Samsung had to face when their phones started to explode and burn by their own, because their batteries back some years ago.

i did not know that those cars were more dangerous when set ablaze than regular gas ones, one truly learns something new each day.

For each of the fires in an EV that this Brexiter pro-Boris old plonker from probably Essex show, I can supply 10 of people burned in a conventional fuel car.

The future has to be clean and CO2 neutral, there is no way you are going to have a life as you know it unless you can achieve it. One way of doing so is decarbonising the energy generation and the using electricity is a way forward, since it is easier to de-carbonise the generation at large scale. There are many challenges to it, but certainly vehicles burning are not the main ones.

The best way to reduce CO2 is to burn fossil fuels. Why? Because more CO2 in the atmosphere means more and better plant life. When plants grow in abundance, they reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, automatically, because they use CO2 to grow. In return for this automatic reduction in CO2, plants give us more food and more oxygen to breathe and use in our vehicles >>> burned with gasoline... and in our coal fired generators.

If this produces more global warming - which has not been proven for certain - it is good. More warming puts more water into the atmosphere, which gives us more H2O2 in the air, that destroys disease naturally... in us when we breathe it, and in our lakes and ponds when it goes in naturally through rain. In addition, a warming of the poles melts the ice somewhat, which makes water to flood the deserts (like the Sahara) so that there is more room for more population and food in plant and animal farming.

One of the best ways that more CO2 helps is, it gets rid of the lying, global warming cabal... and the fertilizer companies. There is enough wealth of nutrients in the soil if used properly.

There are loads of benefits to more CO2 in the atmosphere. The thing that is the problem is the other chemicals that are burned with the fossil fuels, and the incomplete burning of the fossil fuels themselves. Filtering these other chemicals out of the exhaust would help to produce purity in the atmosphere.

There are lot of problems with those things you are saying. For example, you cannot expect plants to do all the work when human activity continues to chop down forests and entire ecosystems, and there are species of both animals and plans that need colder temperatures to thrive. It does not matter if plants trap carbon, if we continue to burn them for heat, the CO2 returns to the atmosphere.

What about the insular countries which would lose an important part of their surface because the increase of the sea level, where is that people supposed to live? Are you willing support your country in open their doors to them so they can live and sleep on dry soil?
 

The world is gigantic. There are way more plants than people imagine. Placing more CO2 into the atmosphere will make even more plants, even if the CO2 comes from burned plants.

Plants and animals will adapt to warmer weather, if such a thing really happens. Remember, when there is more moisture in the air, it will reflect the sun's energy automatically, to keep the earth from becoming too hot. After all, such is what governments are doing with chemtrails right now, except they aren't using moisture to do it.

If the oceans ever grew so high that the coastal lands were flooded, there are the deserts and northern lands that will become luscious gardens that people can move to. And there is seasteading.

The problems solved by natural global warming will be far less than trying to stop the inevitable.

There are loads of benefits to more CO2 in the atmosphere. The thing that is the problem is the other chemicals that are burned with the fossil fuels, and the incomplete burning of the fossil fuels themselves. Filtering these other chemicals out of the exhaust would help to produce purity in the atmosphere.

You are forgetting the polution generated from the manufacture and distribution of new cars, and the poillution resulting from over complex engines that drivers can no longer maintain themselves, or afford to have garages maintain then. I drive a 1988 Volvo 740, and several reports state that it will take 20  years or more of my driving to equal the pollution created as a result oif the manufacture of one mid range Tesla. That doesn't include to pollution and damage resulting from the generation of the electricity to power it.

I am not forgetting pollution. I mentioned it in my post with the idea of filtering the bad chemicals out of the exhaust. However, you are right about electric vehicles producing pollution, if only from their production.

One of the major problems from the EVs that most people never think about is the electric pollution. You can find reports of how electric wave energy is harmful to people.

If people really cared about carbon emissions, they would use a cryptocurrency where the mining algorithm were designed to solve the most important scientific problem. Cryptocurrency mining needs to be used to solve the problem of reversible computation because in the future, all computers will be reversible. I am not exaggerating when I say that reversible computation is the future and that cryptocurrency mining is the best strategy to solve this most important scientific problem. But I am the only person talking about this because everyone else lacks sentience.

Since people here are not willing to use the resources in cryptocurrency mining that are otherwise wasted to solve the most important scientific problem, I suggest that the people here simply buy a lot of gasoline and light it on fire.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

I agree with you to an extent. The thing the Big Bitcoin Mining Operations should do is invest in hydroelectric power plants that support electricity for everyone. They could add electricity sales to their mining profits.

Blockchain encryption is using 'tiny' encryption as it is. When the AI field becomes more popular, miners will adapt to it.

[jvanname]

Hispo-

"Is there any way to use the power of reversible computation to enhance our transport/motion technology to make it more efficient in terms of fuel/termal efficiency?"-Absolutely. When reversible computation replaces irreversible computation, we will use reversible computation for all purposes including making more efficient technologies. A lot of fluid dynamics that is necessary for improving efficiency of transportation consists of computer calculations. These computer calculations will be run on reversible computers because reversible computers will be general purpose machines that will be used for all computational problems. It is quantum computation that will be used for a few specialized calculations.

"Because as far as I know we would need to dish the model of termal machines to power movement (Carnot's Theorems) if we truly want to get better yields or mechanical output. How can reversible computing help us in that matter?"-Since reversible computing will eventually replace conventional computing, reversible computation will influence all technological developments. I cannot predict the specific ways that reversible computing will enhance the efficiency of engines, but I am confident that reversible computing will actually make our engines more energy efficient.

[Hispo]

Hispo-

"Is there any way to use the power of reversible computation to enhance our transport/motion technology to make it more efficient in terms of fuel/termal efficiency?"-Absolutely. When reversible computation replaces irreversible computation, we will use reversible computation for all purposes including making more efficient technologies. A lot of fluid dynamics that is necessary for improving efficiency of transportation consists of computer calculations. These computer calculations will be run on reversible computers because reversible computers will be general purpose machines that will be used for all computational problems. It is quantum computation that will be used for a few specialized calculations.

"Because as far as I know we would need to dish the model of termal machines to power movement (Carnot's Theorems) if we truly want to get better yields or mechanical output. How can reversible computing help us in that matter?"-Since reversible computing will eventually replace conventional computing, reversible computation will influence all technological developments. I cannot predict the specific ways that reversible computing will enhance the efficiency of engines, but I am confident that reversible computing will actually make our engines more energy efficient.

It is interesting, because I am aware that you must know about the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law a reversible ideal machine has an efficiency which depends entirely on the difference of temperature between the heat source and the heat sink.

That means that in order to increase the energy availability in transportation, the reversible computer must have a role beyond being simple control system in a vehicle (as conventional computers do nowadays), but rather reversible computers are supposed to be used to model and design the automobiles of the future which would likely not function operating an Otto or Diesel cycle but rather using another source of energy which would produce less entropy per Kilo Watt of output.

I assume reversible computers won't need to have heat sinks attached to them, right? because their near perfect efficiency?

[coolcoinz]

I would have nothing against EVs if the politicians weren't trying to force them down my throat. They obviously aren't as eco-friendly as they're being advertised.

when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

At least the groceries weren't inside. You have something to eat your sorrows away while you call your insurance company

[jvanname]

I am not a physicist or engineer, so anything I say about physics or engineering (except for quantum information theory) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Landauer's principle is a version of the second law of thermodynamics. We can certainly test how well reversible computation will be at modeling and designing automobiles today since any regular computer can inefficiently emulate a reversible computer. It may work well since the second law of thermodynamics is just a reformulation of the physical reversibility of the universe. But then again, any such computation will likely just be academic research until we get energy efficient reversible computers. While we are perfectly capable of creating good reversible programming languages and software at the moment, we will not be able to make a profit off this software until we get physically reversible hardware for this software to run on. This means that at the moment, most reversible computation software development will just be an unprofitable academic exercise.

It is hard for me to predict whether future reversible computers will need heat sinks or not.

If these reversible computers are built on superconductors, these superconductors will probably need to be cooled at least to liquid nitrogen temperatures. We currently do not have any room temperature superconductors (well, someone supposedly found one, but more research is needed on that), and we certainly do not have any room temperature superconductors that exist at reasonable pressures. This means that any reversible superconducting computer will need to be cooled much more than a regular computer. And energy efficient reversible computers will probably need to be cooled anyways because even though they will be more efficient at computing, they will still generate a substantial amount of heat because they will simply perform an increasing amount of computation.

I do not know what the cars of the future will run on, but I am not a fan of electric vehicles right now nor do I see them replacing internal combustion engines in the near future. But electric vehicles are not my area of expertise, so I will leave the discussion to those who have more to say than I do.

[Kelward]

I totally support the zero emission drive. They say that smoking is dangerous to health, but the smoke that we inhale from vehicle exhausts, smoke pollution from industries are maybe even more harmful than the one from cigarette. So any technology that can eradicate smoke emission is very much welcomed by me.

I commend auto companies that are in the forefront of this zero emission. The technology might have it's shortcomings for now. But eventually the perfection will come.

[paxmao]

I am not a physicist or engineer, so anything I say about physics or engineering (except for quantum information theory) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Landauer's principle is a version of the second law of thermodynamics. We can certainly test how well reversible computation will be at modeling and designing automobiles today since any regular computer can inefficiently emulate a reversible computer. It may work well since the second law of thermodynamics is just a reformulation of the physical reversibility of the universe. But then again, any such computation will likely just be academic research until we get energy efficient reversible computers. While we are perfectly capable of creating good reversible programming languages and software at the moment, we will not be able to make a profit off this software until we get physically reversible hardware for this software to run on. This means that at the moment, most reversible computation software development will just be an unprofitable academic exercise.

It is hard for me to predict whether future reversible computers will need heat sinks or not.

If these reversible computers are built on superconductors, these superconductors will probably need to be cooled at least to liquid nitrogen temperatures. We currently do not have any room temperature superconductors (well, someone supposedly found one, but more research is needed on that), and we certainly do not have any room temperature superconductors that exist at reasonable pressures. This means that any reversible superconducting computer will need to be cooled much more than a regular computer. And energy efficient reversible computers will probably need to be cooled anyways because even though they will be more efficient at computing, they will still generate a substantial amount of heat because they will simply perform an increasing amount of computation.

I do not know what the cars of the future will run on, but I am not a fan of electric vehicles right now nor do I see them replacing internal combustion engines in the near future. But electric vehicles are not my area of expertise, so I will leave the discussion to those who have more to say than I do.

Very interesting and very off topic. Reversible computation matters little on EV.

The current challenges are the following:
- Providing carbon neutral or carbon negative energy in an economic, sustainable and technically viable way.
- Enhancing the electrical grid. It takes very long to add significant capacity to the electric network and connecting it.
- Technical enhancements to battery duration and charging time. It simply takes too long to charge for a long travel.
- Production of EVs, as factories or old vehicles would be basically a loss in financial terms by obsolescence. Many car producers would find themselves with useless factories.
- Creating a charging points infrastructure. A slot for 6 cars takes around 1 MVA. Quite a lot.

You see... you do not need to understand muons for this.

[Die_empty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUEA9hEIRiA

Check out the smoke from this multi-EV fire.

Considering the health implications of this smoke, many people will die. I have always dreamt of living in an environment where there will be zero emissions and electric vehicles were my number one option. But this video is making me scared that EVs are not safe. In my country where the fire service is not too effective, this will be a disaster. I am also imagining this EV fire outbreak in the tight traffic jam in most cities in my country.

I believe this issue is just an electric fault that will be corrected by the manufacturers as soon as possible because I am beginning to think that living in a world of Zero emissions is a mirage.

You are forgetting the polution generated from the manufacture and distribution of new cars, and the poillution resulting from over complex engines that drivers can no longer maintain themselves, or afford to have garages maintain then. I drive a 1988 Volvo 740, and several reports state that it will take 20  years or more of my driving to equal the pollution created as a result oif the manufacture of one mid range Tesla. That doesn't include to pollution and damage resulting from the generation of the electricity to power it.

I see!!! Modern technology is hypocritical, it destroys more than it claims it could fix.

[Hispo]

I would have nothing against EVs if the politicians weren't trying to force them down my throat. They obviously aren't as eco-friendly as they're being advertised.

when you coming back with the load of candies and other supplies, you find your new EV being completely consumed by flames because either you had a faulty battery or someone parked next did.

At least the groceries weren't inside. You have something to eat your sorrows away

They are not as eco friendly as we are told most of the time. Obviously, in order to make new cars in an industrial scale a lot of fuel is supposed to be burnt and also many tonnes or raw material extracted from the environment. If you look on the internet about the environmental impacts of Lithium extraction/mining you will find out what I am talking about, also if I recall correctly, Lithium is not easy to recycle as Copper or Iron, it is more complex and expensive.

So the idea of the EV adoption in the short term is to make them even though they are not eco friendly, so in the future when we manage to efficiently get rid of gas and coal generation facilities, people can move around using that clean energy.

On the other hand, I would not be surprised if some politicians in USA and Even China were receiving some good money from battery companies and car makers, though.

[Gyfts]

You are forgetting the polution generated from the manufacture and distribution of new cars, and the poillution resulting from over complex engines that drivers can no longer maintain themselves, or afford to have garages maintain then. I drive a 1988 Volvo 740, and several reports state that it will take 20  years or more of my driving to equal the pollution created as a result oif the manufacture of one mid range Tesla. That doesn't include to pollution and damage resulting from the generation of the electricity to power it.

The cobalt mines for these EV's sure look like they produce a lot of pollution: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/15/22933022/cobalt-mining-ev-electriv-vehicle-working-conditions-congo

So much for human rights as long as people get their EV's and fulfil their environmental sanctimony. A lot of these mines are in African countries so the large battery manufacture don't have to bear the burden of paying for safety measures.

[Jet Cash]

I totally support the zero emission drive.

There is no such thing. Tailpipe emissions are just a small part of the equasion. It is grossly inefficient to chop down ancient forests using diesel powered equipoment, and then after chipping, transport it across the ocean in ships burning the incredibly polluting bunker fuel. Those chips are then burnt in generators like Drax, which is the most polluting plant in England. The electricity is then distributed via cables with a loss of power as it is distributed. It is then used to charge batteries with a further loss of power, and the batteries are used to propel vehicles, and yes, there is even more loss of power. It is far more effiucient and less polluting to generate the motive power directly in a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, Especially if nano-particle combining addiutives are present in the petrol.

I am starting to see a move away from virtue signalling with electric cards, as people start to realise they are accelerating global warming, and the destruction of gardens to provide charging spaces reduces cxarbon sequestration. What will happen to all those electric vans that boast about their electricity  consumption, when their customers and the public realise that they are contributing to blackouts and increased domestic electricitty prices.