Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming • Hacker News Board

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#391

Post by noipv4 » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 1:45 AM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #343

mojomark wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This!!! I've told everyone who'd listen for years that an electric motor is the better option for a pickup trucks due to the more appropriate matching of the torque curve to the hauling load demands. When my beloved '00 Ram 1500 died about 5 years ago I decided to hold out for an electric truck that I assumed would be coming to market. Looks like I may finally get my chance shortly. I honestly don't know if the cumul…

Trains are electric motors powered by diesel generators. Seems like it should be an easy sell for people that whatever trains do is an effective way to handle heavy loads.

The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV can do this too (replace diesel with gasoline)

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#392

Post by danans » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 1:51 AM UTC

fspeech wrote: post #292

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not arguing that an ICE vehicle is more efficient than an electric vehicle - I am saying that adding weight reduces efficiency for both. I was not making a general comparison between the pros and cons of electric vehicles, I was pointing out that one person's comment about better traction for electric vehicles was incredibly disingenuous because ICE vehicles can get the same benefit by simply adding weight - and…

Your argument is incorrect as pointed out by dropin685 earlier. Additional weight by itself does not waste energy. It does require more power to accelerate. The extra power is turned into higher kinetic energy for the same cruising speed. However kinetic energy is not waste. It can be recovered during deacceleration. It's the lack of regeneration that causes ICE powered vehicles to waste energy, which doesn't apply t…

> It's the lack of regeneration that causes ICE powered vehicles to waste energy,

Not just the lack of regen. ICEs waste energy while idling, as heat, noise, and vibration, and mechanical couplings like clutches and especially fluid couplings in automatic transmissions also waste energy. Automatic transmissions in particular are only 90% mechanically efficient, on top of all the losses from the ICE.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#393

Post by Fjolsvith » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 1:53 AM UTC

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #224

donkeyd wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ballast would then make the truck use even more fuel, which wouldn't make much sense.

Sure, but it solves the problem of traction. The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics. And being able to remove weight is always preferable to not being able to remove weight.

The battery weight is balanced by the removal of the engine, transmission and gas tank/gas weight.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#394

Post by Hyperborian » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 1:53 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #382

Hyperborian wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the pickup truck form factor is the most efficient and inexpensive one there is. No really, hear me out! I see this asked all the time, but you're actually asking the wrong question. I mean, think about it, what's the most minimal, lightest, cheapest form a motor vehicle could possibly take? It would have wheels, of course, some sort of frame to attach everything to, somewhere to put the engine, and somewhere…

I think you're implicitly talking about a classic style 2-door pickup truck, but most consumer trucks these days seem to have four doors. Small two door pickup trucks are even more extinct, at least in the US. I remember seeing a new Mazda pickup truck in the showroom, probably a B-series circa 1995, and it was tiny, had steel wheels, a relatively long bed, and probably a manual transmission. Price was maybe half wha…

> I think you're implicitly talking about a classic style 2-door pickup truck, but most consumer trucks these days seem to have four doors.

Replace the shortened bed in the back with a cover and a third row of seating, though, and you have an SUV that's still going to be even heavier and more expensive.

> Small two door pickup trucks are even more extinct, at least in the US.

Very true, and as a small pickup lover that makes me sad. :(

> It's been a long time since there was a market for those.

Indeed, which leads back to the question I posed above... why do we prefer such large vehicles?

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#395

Post by Havoc » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 1:57 AM UTC

graycat wrote: post #335

pm90 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the South (especially in Texas, where I lived for a bit) they're considered a symbol of rugged manliness, which is the main reason why they're so popular among city dwellers. They're also nice to go off-road in areas with not good roads. I've driven a few and they also offer a different perspective when you're driving (you feel "taller"). Also, they might be safer than tiny sedans (although not sure how they compa…

Here are some points about pickups that appeal to me and maybe to others: (1) Bumpers. Pickup trucks (PUTs) tend to have actual, steel bumpers (often chrome plated which indicates that they are steel), both front and rear. Passenger cars have, instead, plastic over some structures for crumple zones or some such. So, if run into something, say, a deer crossing the road in the middle of the night, then are better off w…

Different priorities for different people I guess. And also very much dependent on profession & lifestyle. Couple of the points you raised though I thought that's the exact opposite of what I want.

Crumple zones - I want that. My life matters more to me than repair cost. And it's missing a second reason for soft exteriors - pedestrian safety. Deers aren't the only thing getting hit.

Suspension, brakes etc designed to carry 1000+ pounds, to me that just means the it's calibrated for a state it'll rarely be in - and by default is suboptimal for that state it is then. Same for the weight of PUTs - the lighter the better due to stopping distance.

More ground clearance/higher seating = higher center of gravity which bring ends safety & handling issues.

Solid axle are mechanically simpler, but there is a reason most of the world dropped them - they will chew tires on turns. Also prevents nifty stuff like electronic stability control applying variable braking left & right.

I totally get the utility angle in the sense you lay it out. But the US population is like 80% urbanized. I don't see them sling 1000 pounds of hay-bales on their rides and regularly hitting deer on the way back from work.

People that need that exist sure, but it doesn't account for 50%+ of sales being pickups. pm90's "symbol of rugged manliness" theory seems much better at explaining that.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#396

Post by Hyperborian » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 1:58 AM UTC

caf wrote: post #369

Hyperborian wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the pickup truck form factor is the most efficient and inexpensive one there is. No really, hear me out! I see this asked all the time, but you're actually asking the wrong question. I mean, think about it, what's the most minimal, lightest, cheapest form a motor vehicle could possibly take? It would have wheels, of course, some sort of frame to attach everything to, somewhere to put the engine, and somewhere…

I mean, think about it, what's the most minimal, lightest, cheapest form a motor vehicle could possibly take? It would have wheels, of course, some sort of frame to attach everything to, somewhere to put the engine, and somewhere to put the driver. That's it! You appear to be describing a motorbike.

Ha! I didn't even think of that. :)

We're talking about a vehicle that's not really even relevant to the question of why different countries prefer different four-wheeled vehicles, though. People looking for a four-wheeled car or truck are generally not looking for a motorcycle, and vice versa.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#397

Post by Hyperborian » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

Miraste wrote: post #334

Hyperborian wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the pickup truck form factor is the most efficient and inexpensive one there is. No really, hear me out! I see this asked all the time, but you're actually asking the wrong question. I mean, think about it, what's the most minimal, lightest, cheapest form a motor vehicle could possibly take? It would have wheels, of course, some sort of frame to attach everything to, somewhere to put the engine, and somewhere…

Interesting perspective. If we control for size and stick with basic principles, does converting a hatchback to a pickup provide more gain from the lower weight than losses from inferior aerodynamics? I'm not convinced it does.

Depends on the speed you most commonly drive. For urban drivers, they spend a lot of time at slower speeds where aerodynamics is less critical. Also, even pickup trucks are designed to be much more aerodynamic and efficient then they used to be these days.

For rural drivers, they probably have other reasons to want a pickup truck besides simple cost effectiveness. They're usually the ones who actually do need the carrying capacity.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#398

Post by lutorm » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #389

Animats wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming in 2021, the electric Ford F-150.[1] That should be a great truck. Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better. [1] https://youtu.be/bXFHgoon7lg

Lose half the battery capacity in cold weather. EVs are less efficient at highway speeds. Two things rural half ton trucks need. Add to that the loss of carrying capacity due to the battery weight. I'm not sure if motors and battery weigh a similar amount as a drivetrain and fuel, I hope so. If it's only city travel it's fine but that's not what a truck was made for. I'm all for electric vehicles and I hope the techn…

EVs are less efficient at highway speeds

Huh? Less efficient than what? There is no way it is less efficient than an ICE.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#399

Post by nardi » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 2:28 AM UTC

mxschumacher wrote: post #100

Demand for oil&gas will continue to grow for a long time due to: - SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) and more cars + trucks in countries like Brazil, India, China, Indonesia - crazy growth in air travel (look at order numbers of Airbus, see how many airports are under construction, see miles traveled via plane) - simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost t…

- simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost to natural gas in the long term (LNG build-out is only now beginning)

I have a feeling natural gas plants will not be built out to the extent you are imagining, because solar, wind, and lithium-ion storage are now competitive, and still getting cheaper very quickly.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#400

Post by graycat » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 2:37 AM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #374

tyre wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve made a good case for pickup trucks for people who need them, but I highly doubt most pickup truck buyers need all of these features. Most people aren’t carrying 1000+ lbs loads or going off road or towing anything, so the features that make that life easier don’t apply.

Most of those features don't have a lot of negatives though. More ground clearance is hard to be a negative (I wasn't able to use the front bumper as a snow plow?) A towing capable engine is a negative if you're not using it, because MPG; but you can get small engined trucks too.

> A towing capable engine is a negative if you're not using it, because MPG;

If want to pull a 30' boat or a trailer big enough for a family of four up the Rockies, then, sure, can want a big engine. Otherwise two of the main things about a "towing capable engine" is (i) a bigger radiator and (ii) an engine oil cooler. The main issue is that when towing the engine can run at relatively high power levels for minutes at a time instead of the usual just seconds; then discover that the radiator is not big enough and the engine oil gets hot. The radiator never was "big enough" it's just that the high power levels lasted only for seconds instead of minutes, and the seconds were not long enough to overheat the coolant.