Battery based vehicles of today and tomorrow pt 2

[Gale Hawkins]

PV numbers continue to increase.

US to add 63 GW of PV by end 2024

Solar and wind generation are expected to reach 16% of the US grid’s supply this year, doubling the 2018 total, said the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). By 2024, renewables will account for more than one-quarter of electricity generation in the United States.

www.pv-magazine.com

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Why did the net cost of my new 2023 Tesla Model Y drop $20,500.00 since a month ago?

Ted Oakley is based out of Austin Texas
Elon Musk is based out of Austin Texas.

Both are saying the same about the economic crash which is about to go into reverse hyperdrive.

The wait time for a Tesla was 12+ months in the past.

My car was built in Austin Texas in January 2023. I ordered it 14 Jan 2023 and picked it up in Nashville Tennessee on 20 Jan 2023 after paying $1200 for it to be shipped from Austin Texas

Musk does not want to be one of the many companies going bankrupt in 2023 so he is giving up half of his huge profit margins in these times.

 

[MossRoad]

This is about the simplest explanation I can find. If you can't understand this, I'm not going to make fun of you. There have been several times over the past years here where I just could not grasp a concept. People did not give up on me, and by calmly explaining it in the simplest terms that even I could understand, I realized where I was missing the concept. There's no shame in that.



So here you go. Take a few breaths. Read it. I hope this helps.

Why do carbon dioxide emissions weigh more than the original fuel?

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is produced from burning a fuel weighs more than the amount of the fuel itself, because during complete combustion, each carbon atom in the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms in the air to make CO2. The addition of two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom forms CO2, which has an atomic weight of 44—about 3.6667 times the atomic weight of the carbon, which is 12.

 

[sd455dan]

This is about the simplest explanation I can find. If you can't understand this, I'm not going to make fun of you. There have been several times over the past years here where I just could not grasp a concept. People did not give up on me, and by calmly explaining it in the simplest terms that even I could understand, I realized where I was missing the concept. There's no shame in that.



So here you go. Take a few breaths. Read it. I hope this helps.

Why do carbon dioxide emissions weigh more than the original fuel?

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is produced from burning a fuel weighs more than the amount of the fuel itself, because during complete combustion, each carbon atom in the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms in the air to make CO2. The addition of two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom forms CO2, which has an atomic weight of 44—about 3.6667 times the atomic weight of the carbon, which is 12.

Now That does make sense.
Thanks Moss

 

[Egon]

With all respect...no I'm not. A closed container, atmospheric air and a running mower in it. As the gasoline is burned "experts" say the weight increases.
Tell me where I'm wrong.

The closed container will not change in weight but it’s contents will change in composition.

 

[Egon]

Yes I made that up for a reason. To repeat for the 10th time, and THIS time I'll go slow, people are NOT getting it. Read each sentence s l o w l y. Remember...this is from "experts", not me. I'm NOT an expert.
1) Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide

Now...re-read again until it sinks in. To repeat: "Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide"

2) Now...moving forward...a container...hanging from a scale...(note: a scale WEIGHS things).
3) Inside container is a gallon of gasoline.
4) you ignite that gasoline...doesn't matter by match, engine, doesn't matter.
5) the container is large enough and has enough atmospheric air in it to completely burn ALL of that gallon gasoline.
6) BEFORE ignition, scale reads 100 pounds.
7) AFTER ALL THAT GALLON OF GASOLINE HAS BURNED it NOW weighs 113.7 pounds.
8) we started with a CLOSED CONTAINER on a scale. Inside is gasoline, air, ignition source. Experts said I'll repeat once again "Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide".
9) So 100 pounds, 6.3 of which is gasoline is now gone...turned into CO2 (and other gasses)...so 100-6.3=93.7 pounds + 20 pounds CO2=113.7 pounds.
10) Burning 6.3 pounds of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, therefore AS IT BURNS we'll watch the scale increase.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Nothing comes in. Nothing goes out. There is no weight change. There are chemical changes to the contents.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Model Y Owner's Manual | Tesla

Learn about Autosteer and its specifications.

www.tesla.com

I have made some progress understanding Auto Steer features in the standard Autopilot suite. Tesla recommends to master it before paying for upgrades since it's part of the Full Self Driving option.

All Teslas come with the complete FSD hardware.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

The closed container will not change in weight but it’s contents will change in composition.

Ah-ha! Thank you! Law of conservation of mass, therefore burning 6 pounds of gasoline does not produce 20 pounds of CO2 as experts say. Now experts would argue the atmosphere isn't a closed container, burning gasoline combines with oxygen making atmospheric gas heavier.
This is long but proof with a burning candle (petroleum paraffin) in closed jar.

Paraffin wax is classified as a petroleum wax. It comes from petroleum, coal and oil shale.

Jennifer Hudspeth
Indiana University Bloomington:

A burning candle is covered by a jar. The whole arrangement has a mass of 500 g. What will be the approximate mass of the arrangement when the candle is completely burnt, after four minutes? A) 0 g B) 50 g C) 250 g D) 500 g
"Hi there. To answer this question, we need to talk about the law of conservation of mass. The law of conservation of mass says that in any chemical reaction mass cannot be created or lost. Alright, So in a chemical reaction matter is rearranged but we can't create matter. We can't destroy matter. So whatever mass we have at the beginning of a reaction. In other words, the total mass of the reactant will equal the total mass of the products. It took chemists quite a while to realize this because so many reactions produce gasses. And if you don't capture those gasses, they're not destroyed, but they go off into the air and you can't mask them. So it took scientists a long time to realize this law. Um but here you have a burning candle and it's covered by a jar And you mask the entire apparatus, the entire setup and it has 500 g. And after the reaction is complete, we want to know what the masses at that time. Well, remember the candle is covered by a jar so the gasses cannot escape. Therefore, we should be able to see actually see the law of conservation of mass here. And we will see that the total mass of direct evidence, mm hmm. Will be equal to the total mass of the products. The products. There's not. No, there is no mass created or destroyed. So the mass of the products are going to be exactly the same as the masses reactant. So, letter d 500 g is our answer.

 

[bnold]

Ah-ha! Thank you! Law of conservation of mass, therefore burning 6 pounds of gasoline does not produce 20 pounds of CO2 as experts say. Now experts would argue the atmosphere isn't a closed container, burning gasoline combines with oxygen making atmospheric gas heavier.
This is long but proof with a burning candle (petroleum paraffin) in closed jar.

Your enclosure doesn’t change weight.

Weight of the ‘air’ in enclosure and gasoline will be the same before and after combustion.

The contents of the enclosure will change.
There will be less oxygen and more CO2 in the enclosure (20lbs more CO2). There will be 6lbs less gas, there will be more water.

Overall mass doesn’t change. Chemical makeup of that mass does.

 

[/pine]

Where you said "exhaust gasses weigh more than the mass of the air (gasses) going in...??"

You need to write more clearly if what you wrote, now isn't what you meant.

Since there were "exhaust gasses"...the premise was that an ICE was being used in the hypothetical scenario to burn the fuel...