And as battery tech improves, older generation EV's can get a bit of an upgrade with newer gen modular batteries - which may not be appealing to automakers in the long-run, but it could do a lot for re-sale value (it will be really interesting to see how the used EV market plays out).
New battery tech will occur much faster if Formula E unlocks development as part of their regulations. I would even like to see them open up motor development too.
Land on a minimum weight for chassis + driver less battery pack. Keep the energy limit for the race distance the same (~350 kw or so), but allow for recharging.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
Have to think the car companies are a bit too "business savvy" (a.k.a. greedy) to allow for upgraded batteries to be compatible on older models... Nice thought though.
I don't know if all the manufacturers will collude to that degree. I think the plausible path is if a major gas station service station retailer buys out or develops their own version of Ample and partners with certain automakers (or makes it open-source to anyone who wants).
I bet we see some later-adopters of EV manufacturing try a different approach
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK
New battery tech will occur much faster if Formula E unlocks development as part of their regulations. I would even like to see them open up motor development too.
Land on a minimum weight for chassis + driver less battery pack. Keep the energy limit for the race distance the same (~350 kw or so), but allow for recharging.
I haven't followed FE since the first season...are most teams making their own powertrain now, or is it more standardized? (a quick wiki read leaves me confused)
I understand why it is this way, but it's funny how much F1 and FE have boxed themselves in from developing useful innovations. Tire tech must have advanced dramatically during the various 'tire-wars' over the years in F1, though who knows how much that translated to consumer-level. For the next F1 power-unit I'd love to see them go nearly Spec on the ICE unit, but leave all of the other MGU elements as wide open as possible with a heftier minimum weight limit.
I don't think it would take too long before teams developed battery swap(s) that are as fast as a front-wing change.
Battery swaps or some insane super capacitor that causes the odd battery to explode and engulf a pit crew in flames
A Vertsappen might even be involved, but I don't know if there will be another Flavio out there to get his team to tinker with the recharging rig (skip to 0:28 if it isn't auto-starting there)...
Anyone have any insight into carbon capture? I've certainly read a lot of perspectives that it'll never be cost effective. But the thing I keep coming back to is the currently 'cost-ineffective' scrubbers, operating at a cost of $50-$100 USD per tonne of CO2 removed, are still cheaper than the planned 2030 carbon tax of $170 CAD per tonne of CO2 emitted. Am I wrong in thinking that the combination of the carbon tax and even existing scrubber technology will make implementing it inevitable for most heavy emitters by the end of the decade?
I imagine that for heavy emitters in Canada, there is the hope that the carbon tax gets scrapped at some point, but even if they resign themselves to making that change, there's going to be a difficult choice about when to implement, as you don't want to spend massively on carbon capture projects today if you think scrubbers are going to improve their cost efficiency in the next decade. My hunch is that this is why we see actual implementation in Canada so low in almost every sector beyond natural gas processing.
I tend to be in favour of carbon capture research funding like that recently announced by the Feds, because there's going to be intense economic pressure on emitters to make those changes by the end of the decade so the research and development needs to happen now. But I also feel like perspective isn't shared by most climate-concerned people I know, who view it as a technology that will never be practical.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Anyone have any insight into carbon capture? I've certainly read a lot of perspectives that it'll never be cost effective. But the thing I keep coming back to is the currently 'cost-ineffective' scrubbers, operating at a cost of $50-$100 USD per tonne of CO2 removed, are still cheaper than the planned 2030 carbon tax of $170 CAD per tonne of CO2 emitted. Am I wrong in thinking that the combination of the carbon tax and even existing scrubber technology will make implementing it inevitable for most heavy emitters by the end of the decade?
I imagine that for heavy emitters in Canada, there is the hope that the carbon tax gets scrapped at some point, but even if they resign themselves to making that change, there's going to be a difficult choice about when to implement, as you don't want to spend massively on carbon capture projects today if you think scrubbers are going to improve their cost efficiency in the next decade. My hunch is that this is why we see actual implementation in Canada so low in almost every sector beyond natural gas processing.
I tend to be in favour of carbon capture research funding like that recently announced by the Feds, because there's going to be intense economic pressure on emitters to make those changes by the end of the decade so the research and development needs to happen now. But I also feel like perspective isn't shared by most climate-concerned people I know, who view it as a technology that will never be practical.
Carbon capture is seeing a lot of investment. It's going to be a major part of the solution.
Carbon capture is seeing a lot of investment. It's going to be a major part of the solution.
The most investment in carbon capture in Canada is in Alberta, in the oil and gas sector. By far, actually. And it while it was the province and region that needed to do the most (most emissions, and industry has by far most emissions), it doesn't seem to be recognized anywhere.
You aware of all of that? Judging by your comments in the other thread, doubt it. Do you have any idea as to the absolute monstrous amount of time, resources, people and energy that is being put towards climate change and carbon sequestration or other similar projects in Alberta and in the oil and gas sector in Canada?
The most investment in carbon capture in Canada is in Alberta, in the oil and gas sector. By far, actually. And it while it was the province and region that needed to do the most (most emissions, and industry has by far most emissions), it doesn't seem to be recognized anywhere.
You aware of all of that? Judging by your comments in the other thread, doubt it.
Well, yes, it makes sense, doesn't it. (Most) Energy companies see the writing on the wall.
Well, yes, it makes sense, doesn't it. (Most) Energy companies see the writing on the wall.
Yep it just doesn't seem like Alberta gets the credit for it. I mean now our conversation is gliding across multiple threads lol but your comment about Alberta and the Machin thing is a perfect example of the perception out there that is not getting appropriate recognition for what is actually happening on the ground, within technical teams and engineer spreadsheet models, and in boardrooms in Calgary.
Reality is that banks and access to capital has caused the change, and the biggest risks and obstacles preventing acceleration of such projects is political and an inability to provide a clear transparent fully adopted carbon credit platform. And even in the face of this crazy insane risk / adversity; companies are still ploughing ahead with these efforts. This should be lauded and celebrated, not denounced when Machin makes a trip to Alberta.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Yep it just doesn't seem like Alberta gets the credit for it. I mean now our conversation is gliding across multiple threads lol but your comment about Alberta and the Machin thing is a perfect example of the perception out there that is not getting appropriate recognition for what is actually happening on the ground and in boardrooms in Calgary.
I was directing most of my ire at the Alberta government, which also seems to be doing a very good job of ignoring what companies and investment dollars are doing, and preferring to play fossil fuel populism at the first opportunity.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
I was directing most of my ire at the Alberta government, which also seems to be doing a very good job of ignoring what companies and investment dollars are doing, and preferring to play fossil fuel populism at the first opportunity.
Fortunately, given the devastation of that mal-investment on the energy security (and therefore food, heating and industrial production security) of Europe and parts of North America.
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Anyone have any insight into carbon capture? I've certainly read a lot of perspectives that it'll never be cost effective. But the thing I keep coming back to is the currently 'cost-ineffective' scrubbers, operating at a cost of $50-$100 USD per tonne of CO2 removed, are still cheaper than the planned 2030 carbon tax of $170 CAD per tonne of CO2 emitted. Am I wrong in thinking that the combination of the carbon tax and even existing scrubber technology will make implementing it inevitable for most heavy emitters by the end of the decade?
Check out what Carbon Engineering is up to in Squamish.
They think they can get it down to $100/ton for direct air capture.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
Not sure if it was mentioned yet or in another thread but I saw an editorial about how the Liberals are planning a tax on pickup trucks and maybe other larger vehicles.
Not sure if it was mentioned yet or in another thread but I saw an editorial about how the Liberals are planning a tax on pickup trucks and maybe other larger vehicles.
Currently pickup trucks are exempt from the Canadian gas guzzler tax, but the thresholds are so high that many half-ton pickups won't be effected. You have to do worse than 13L/100 km (combined) just to be charged $1000. As it is, even full-size truck-based SUVs like the Escalade/Suburban don't get charged.
The world’s biggest tech companies are getting serious about carbon removal, the still-nascent technology wherein humanity can pull heat-trapping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Yesterday, an alliance of prominent Silicon Valley companies—including Google, Meta, Shopify, and the payment company Stripe—announced that it is purchasing $925 million in carbon removal over the next eight years. In a world awash in overhyped corporate climate commitments, this is actually a big deal.
$925 million over 8 years by those giants is barely a rounding error on their spreadsheets. Not that I'm saying it's bad, but it's pretty small peanuts for them.
I wonder if buying these storage credits will be similar to carbon offsets from tree planting, and which is the greater net benefit per dollar spent.
I was wondering the same thing. Up till now lots of the companies with money to burn were either buying up clean power or carbon offsets. But being able to 'buy' carbon removal credits seems like a good idea if done properly.
I have been saying for years that carbon tax and climate policy will do very little towards solving, or even reducing climate change. It will be capitalism and the private sector (probably heavily backed by public money) that will do the most. We will find a way to weasel out of this and lots of people will make money doing so.
Climate policy today exists, at least partially, so ideological people can make lots of money for them and their friends (Al Gore, Justin Trudeau and company, etc). While they are profiting, they are also creating awareness and using some of the public money towards research and real solutions.
