Sorry, I'm honestly laughing here. What do you think an electric car needs a fancy computer diagnostics system where every single battery cell reports in? Because there's so much to go wrong! Same goes for modern ICE vehicles to a degree, as you've explained also. You're proving my point.
One point on complexity regarding cars in general. Yes there are challenges, but also benefits. One of the greatest advancements in making driving more pleasant imo, is the development of matrix LED headlights (sadly illegal in the USA, since headlights by law are not allowed to move, they do not distinguish between a headlight with lose screws, and one that is intended to move) absolutely brilliant. Literally. Now, they do have over a 1000 LEDs so yes complex, but they come close to turning the night into day, and since LEDs are shut off to put oncoming cars into a shadow you are basically driving with high beams all the time, which if augmented by a laser throws a carpet of light one km long. Pricey but worth every penny.
My brother actually has a relatively modern car (ie <20 years old) that has become unusable because the catalytic converter has decided it's failed, and as soon as the motor warms up it sends an error that causes the motor to turn off. It runs perfectly fine (the catalytic converter is a non-essential component), but stops after a couple of minutes for no reason whatsoever other than that the computer system shuts it down. It's impossible to remove the catalytic converter on this model as it's built into the exhaust manifold, and a new one is worth more than the value of the car. So this car, with a perfectly good engine etc, cannot even be used as a farm hack. We can't even pull out the engine and use it in a machine. All because of one message from one sensor to an over-complex computer. Such an environmentally destructive waste of resources (it will require a new car to be sourced instead of being able to just recycle the old one) - and all because of a misguided idea to "save the environment".
So.......the feature is working as designed? If it is just your brother that is driving around with a broken cat, then it is not an issue, if a plurality of people in Auckland or Wellington would do so, it would be a concern. The catalytic converter is an environmental success story. It is basically solved the smog and acid rain issue.
Perhaps, from a resource point of view, it would be best to install new cats. I guess it depends on whether your brother thinks the transmission or something else will go next year.
Just to be clear, no your 100 year old Dodge is not an issue, historic cars do not really have much of an impact. Frankly we have some pre cat stuff as well.
I could go on a rant on gasoline lawn mowers, or chainsaws, but I digress.
First of all, they were generous to combustion cars, since they could have used a BMW M3 or something as a comparison, but no, they used a BMW 118 Diesel, which was one of the most efficient cars of that era. It has a similar size, and the BMW 1 Series was built at the same factory in Leipzig Germany, which I guess is why they used it.
Driven 150,000km (93,200miles for the Americans) i3 has 30% of CO2 emission when used with renewables, and 50% when powered by EU27 mix compared to the 118D.
One of the biggest offsets was that the carbon fiber was 100% hydro. The biggest source of CO2 was the battery.
Too Bad for Germany. They are going to be toast. Because they MUST rely on some "bigger grid." Theirs won't survive.
Wind (et al) is not "renewable," in spite of CNN/MSNBC/BS. It does NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH TOTAL ENERGY over its economic lifespan to reproduce. It will be charity, or collapse.
I know more about the subject than CNN/MSNB. Frankly they could hire me as an expert.
Ultimately it's pure communist "Economics." Without subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates, NO intelligent (non-DEI/PC) fleet manager would ever make such a decision. Hertz learned the hard way.
Hertz ran into the problem that they bought a large number of Teslas, right before Tesla slashed the prices by $10,000 and more. For rental companies the residual value is paramount, since they sell the vehicles within months, and Tesla almost killed them.
It's like 'analyzing' the price of a steak, and thinking it has to do only with raising a cow.
Yes, eating the grain uses 1/6 of the resources as feeding the cow, and then eating the meat would, if that was your point.
That 'carbon fiber' is energy intensive to produce - somewhere else.
Hence, the auto industry has moved past it - for now at least - except for high end applications. BMW is using carbon fiber reinforced aluminum alloy in the 7 and 5 series, they believe that is most efficient. Not sure what they are planning for Neue Klasse (actually Neue, Neue Klasse would be more accurate) but it seems to be metal.
And without the energy infrastructure to SUSTAIN it (and the mining, from steel to coal to lithium) it will inevitably - like the 'green economy' brown out to a standstill over only a few generations of "less than unity" energy gain.
Try to understand what the economics of "energy density" and "energy gain" mean. TOTAL costs of producing a barrel of oil, or of NG, yield +/- 40 TIMES of the energy required to produce them. That fueled the industrial age, after coal. Whereas wind (even solar) have a gain LESS THAN UNITY. They are NOT 'sustainable' to subsequent generations.
Are you an audio engineer? The only place I have heard "gain less then unity" used was in the instruction manual of a Bryston amplifier, and a quick google search confirms it is an amplifier engineering term. I know what you mean but it was oddly phrased.
First of all one can mine the raw resources in a sustainable way. VW is building a battery plan in Canada, that will not just build packs, they are building the cells from raw materials. Again access to hydro electricity was the pull, plus Canada mines to strict standards.
Wind turbines are net energy positive.
Wind turbine life cycle CO2 emissions are between 0.009 - 0.018 kg per kWh. For natural gas it is between 0.27 - 0.97 kg per kWh. Coal is between 0.63 - 1.633 kg.
You underestimate how much they produce. A typical nuclear plant produces 1000 MW. Currently the most powerful wind turbine deployed is a Siemens turbine with 14.7 MW, the most powerful one in development currently has 22 MW. So less then 100 equal a nuclear plant, and I am being VERRRY generous with the math.
And no, higher power levels is not something they only reach in a lab. No, no, no. Let us look at a pedestrian wind turbine as an advantage. Enercon has the charts readily available so I can just yank them.
Here is a wind map of the USA.
Since you are against subsidies might I assume that this indicates that you are willing to pay the full price of oil exploration, and the cost of cleaning up the environment afterwards at the pump, we can get rid of subsidies for oil and gas? Lets us take a few cranks at the cash register then.
Nuclear is about the only denser source (ZPE, fusion, etc, offer potential, at best hidden so far.)
Again, nuclear power can not exist without government to cover the cost. I find it bizarr that you mention ZPE, fusion etc. You are against government research, and yet you post about potential energy sources that are government financed basic physic programs, either at NASA etc, or at companies like Lockheed Martin with government money
50% renewables in Germany? Really?
Germany may need to rely on coal-fired power generation for longer than anticipated to ensure grid stability and prevent power shortages.
oilprice.com
Yes, really. They passed the threshold in 2023.
Let us look at facts. German energy production in the last few days
here is the legend, it is in German, but pretty self explanatory. Notice that German hardly does any off shore wind production, that is were wind production really takes off.
Let us also look at the height of summer 2024:
Yowsers! Obviously one will find times were renewables are less, and yes, all that hideous coal stuff needs to go.
And no, this was not AI generated, I put more time into this then would be reasonable, but I am unwilling to be less then precise.
