Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
The mining of all the precious metals for the batteries is also a really dirty business. That being said, I've yet to see a study that includes the environmental impact of that mining. Are you aware of any?
I haven't seen studies per se, but lithium mining, as with all mining, is a dirty business too. But unlike oil extraction, refining, and transport, the manufacturing of a new battery occurs at most a few times in a car's lifetime, but fossil fuel use is an every week thing.

The discussion I've seen is mostly about coal-powered electrical generation and its impact on the overall pollution from electric vehicles, but given that coal is in such rapid decline in the US the real discussion is gas-turbine generation and transmission costs. (Note that in Asia coal is still on the rise.). Gas turbine generation is about twice as efficient as coal in sustained output terms, but gas turbines can be stopped and restarted in a very short period of time, while coal plants can't do that. This makes gas powered generation much more responsive overall to the varying loads on the grid.

This is a very interesting study on gas generation done by the Department of Energy:

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/CHP-Gas Turbine.pdf

Given that so much natural gas production is literally a throw-away these days from oil production, and the fact that gas burns so cleanly compared to coal and oil, it looks like a really good idea to use it in place of coal. I also like gas generation versus wind because you can place a gas power plant where the demand is, rather than wind turbines which have to be placed where the wind is, and need long high-voltage transmission lines to get the power to metropolitan areas. Anyone who looks at the process of coal mining probably comes to the conclusion that using natural gas is better for the environment, even if it didn't burn more cleanly, but it does, for a double bonus.

I think the evidence would should that using electricity to power vehicles is probably a lot better than diesel or gasoline for the environment. Distributing gasoline and diesel fuel is like transporting billions of gallons of toxic chemicals every day through cities and the countryside.

Nonetheless, I still think the best long-term solution overall for electrical generation is nuclear.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
I haven't seen studies per se, but lithium mining, as with all mining, is a dirty business too. But unlike oil extraction, refining, and transport, the manufacturing of a new battery occurs at most a few times in a car's lifetime, but fossil fuel use is an every week thing.

The discussion I've seen is mostly about coal-powered electrical generation and its impact on the overall pollution from electric vehicles, but given that coal is in such rapid decline in the US the real discussion is gas-turbine generation and transmission costs. (Note that in Asia coal is still on the rise.). Gas turbine generation is about twice as efficient as coal in sustained output terms, but gas turbines can be stopped and restarted in a very short period of time, while coal plants can't do that. This makes gas powered generation much more responsive overall to the varying loads on the grid.

This is a very interesting study on gas generation done by the Department of Energy:

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/CHP-Gas Turbine.pdf

Given that so much natural gas production is literally a throw-away these days from oil production, and the fact that gas burns so cleanly compared to coal and oil, it looks like a really good idea to use it in place of coal. I also like gas generation versus wind because you can place a gas power plant where the demand is, rather than wind turbines which have to be placed where the wind is, and need long high-voltage transmission lines to get the power to metropolitan areas. Anyone who looks at the process of coal mining probably comes to the conclusion that using natural gas is better for the environment, even if it didn't burn more cleanly, but it does, for a double bonus.

I think the evidence would should that using electricity to power vehicles is probably a lot better than diesel or gasoline for the environment. Distributing gasoline and diesel fuel is like transporting billions of gallons of toxic chemicals every day through cities and the countryside.

Nonetheless, I still think the best long-term solution overall for electrical generation is nuclear.
The supply of Lithium is not as plentiful as many other substances, which limits the likelihood of its being THE solution of the problem, IMO. They still need to get a handle on the fires caused during recharging, too. I know a SnapOn dealer who lost his garage, SnapOn truck full of tools, a pickup, his wife's car and the Alpha Romeo he inherited from his dad when the Ryobi LiIon battery that was being charged burned. YouTube and news reports have many instances of vaping batteries shooting fire through pants pockets and the recent loss of 35 people on a dive boat in CA is said to have been caused by a phone that was being charged.

I made your comment bold, about Asia using more coal- that's one of the things that pisses me off about the environmental protesters- they constantly yammer about the US cleaning up its act when someone else is causing the harm. Yes, we should be as clean as possible, but they need to realize that the US has made great strides WRT pollution levels and the Milwaukee River, less than a mile from my house is a very good example- when I was a kid, the water was terrible and the only fish that were found tended to be Carp, Bullheads and not much else. They weren't plentiful, either. Now, we have Salmon, Trout, Muskie, Pike, Walleye, Bass, Sturgeon and other species- Salmon and Trout do not live where the water is highly polluted. The water is clear and only smells bad after storm runoff from farms gets into it. Otherwise, it has almost no smell at all.

Coal is a good fuel, but the whole country has restrictions on the amount of fish that should be eaten because of the Mercury. Natural Gas is definitely the best choice for large-scale energy generation since too many people are afraid that Nuclear power is dangerous, although repairs/upgrades have been ongoing for quite a while in the US, according to a friend who was a Sr Project Architect for a large corporation that designed and managed that kind of project.

For cars, gasoline has come a long way although proper maintenance is a must if they're to perform at the level needed. Should be obvious, but when the choice is pay rent/put food on the table/get the kids' school clothes, car maintenance isn't gonna happen.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
The injectors themselves are more expensive than port injectors, because they have to survive inside of a combustion chamber. The real cost difference, however, is in the much higher pressure fuel pump direct injection uses. Cheap high pressure fuel pumps, which are often derivatives of diesel pumps, make a lot of noise, one of the reasons I understand for the hybrid approaches.

Coal power generation in the US is on a fast decline. Even natural gas generation, along with power transmission losses on the grid (about 10%?) are better than the power consumed by oil refineries, pipelines, and last leg truck transport. Gasoline production is a really dirty business.
I understand the need to survive in a combustion chamber, but it's not a particularly new technology and they have been used for decades.

I have worked on fuel injected engines and have gone back to boat servicing- the in-tank pumps are the same Carter pumps used in many domestic cars and it's possible to get the pump body for less than $200, then replace the one in the cartridge. The pump assembly is expensive, not the pump- it looks very similar to a common electric fuel pump- I think the cost may be high because they can charge whatever they want and people won't try to find a workaround. I wouldn't use the cost of a pump as the basis for the argument- it's the catalytic converters, additional sensors (O2, mainly),testing/development/validation that drive the price up. These are being used in boat exhaust systems, and have been since about 2005. When I went to Mastercraft Boats training in 2000, the shop where we were trained had been working on ways to have an O2 sensor and catalytic converter that wouldn't fail early because of exposure to water- the shop manager where I work said he repaired one boat with many problems due to its being used in Florida for several years- it has three converters on each cylinder bank and each one costs $1100. As I wrote, EPA and CARB don't care how much it costs the consumer as long as it hits their numbers. Remember MTBA? That went away almost overnight after it was found in the groundwater around Lake Tahoe in about 2000.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
This incident was in 2005, so my memory is being stretched, but the part alone was over $400. Even now if you do a search for a Corvette C5 front wheel bearing from AC Delco (only OEM parts, this was a dealer) you'll see that they go for $185 each from Advance Auto Parts, and dealers don't charge internet prices. Prices have also dropped on these parts since then, since they're not the latest thing and there's aftermarket competition. Then there's dealer labor rates, which were something like $100/hour, and (just guessing) about 3-4 hours of labor. Add in all of the disposal fees and shop fees and I don't think my guess was that far off, if it was at all.
They call that a 'hub assembly' and it's more expensive because it also has the ABS sensor in it. I just did a google search and found one for $79.95.

3-4 hours for one hub assembly? What were they on, Quaaludes? I had to replace one on my Buick in the late-'90s, had to buy a 35mm socket in order to remove & install the nut and it still didn't take me that long- I had never done it before, Corvette, or not.

Was it making a droning sound on hard turns? Those last much longer than the old style bearing & race- my Astro van has almost 218K miles on the original ones.

I have a friend who worked at the GM Desert Proving Ground in Mesa, AZ- when I asked about lubrication of the front bearings on that Buick and the lack of grease fittings, he told me that these are sealed. When I asked why they go bad, he said "That's the beauty of the design". Ha, freaking ha.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
They call that a 'hub assembly' and it's more expensive because it also has the ABS sensor in it. I just did a google search and found one for $79.95.

3-4 hours for one hub assembly? What were they on, Quaaludes? I had to replace one on my Buick in the late-'90s, had to buy a 35mm socket in order to remove & install the nut and it still didn't take me that long- I had never done it before, Corvette, or not.

Was it making a droning sound on hard turns? Those last much longer than the old style bearing & race- my Astro van has almost 218K miles on the original ones.

I have a friend who worked at the GM Desert Proving Ground in Mesa, AZ- when I asked about lubrication of the front bearings on that Buick and the lack of grease fittings, he told me that these are sealed. When I asked why they go bad, he said "That's the beauty of the design". Ha, freaking ha.
You're over-thinking this. The Z06 was hurt badly in a head-on collision at a 4-way stop, where I was turning left and a fool in a Jeep Cherokee ran his stop sign at about 40mph, as estimated by insurance adjuster and the dealer. The hit was so bad one of the hydro-formed frame rails was bent. The angle of the hit was responsible for the damage to wheel bearing, which as you noted is part of a hub assembly. The dealer was the general contractor for the rebuild, and used all new factory parts, including the $400+ hub assembly. The car had less than 25K miles on it when it was hit. I think the dealer resisted mostly because they had to admit they missed the bearing damage, which made them look silly and required more paperwork and explanations. I think they billed the insurance company for whatever it cost. Current internet prices are meaningless in this context because I wasn't paying anyway.

As for the 3-4 hours of labor... step one is remove the entire brake assembly, including the caliper and rotor. Other steps involve disammbly of suspensions components, because unlike your Astro Van, C5 Corvettes have a fully adjustable short-long arm suspension on every corner. It's not as simple as with MacPherson struts. Then there's reassembly and I think a wheel alignment in the process.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I understand the need to survive in a combustion chamber, but it's not a particularly new technology and they have been used for decades.

I have worked on fuel injected engines and have gone back to boat servicing- the in-tank pumps are the same Carter pumps used in many domestic cars and it's possible to get the pump body for less than $200, then replace the one in the cartridge. The pump assembly is expensive, not the pump- it looks very similar to a common electric fuel pump- I think the cost may be high because they can charge whatever they want and people won't try to find a workaround. I wouldn't use the cost of a pump as the basis for the argument- it's the catalytic converters, additional sensors (O2, mainly),testing/development/validation that drive the price up. These are being used in boat exhaust systems, and have been since about 2005. When I went to Mastercraft Boats training in 2000, the shop where we were trained had been working on ways to have an O2 sensor and catalytic converter that wouldn't fail early because of exposure to water- the shop manager where I work said he repaired one boat with many problems due to its being used in Florida for several years- it has three converters on each cylinder bank and each one costs $1100. As I wrote, EPA and CARB don't care how much it costs the consumer as long as it hits their numbers. Remember MTBA? That went away almost overnight after it was found in the groundwater around Lake Tahoe in about 2000.
High pressure fuel pumps are more expensive than the lower pressure pumps you used intended for port injected engines. And the quieter they must be the more expensive they get. For port versus direct injection the injectors and the fuel pump are the only revelant parts. The catalytic converters are the same for both implementations.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
High pressure fuel pumps are more expensive than the lower pressure pumps you used intended for port injected engines. And the quieter they must be the more expensive they get. For port versus direct injection the injectors and the fuel pump are the only revelant parts. The catalytic converters are the same for both implementations.
some models have multi-port- they're car/truck engines, just with marine exhaust and calibration, as well as some other accessories. The first Mastercraft EFI engine was the LT-1 with the black plastic covers over the fuel rails. In'99, they went to in-tank Carter fuel pumps, same part as in cars because they need high pressure. The Coast Guard was very resistant to the in-tank pump but it only operates when the engine is providing RPM info to the ECM, which latches the fuel pump relay.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top