What energy to propel the car of tomorrow? IFP

[I Citro]

Citro, I also found these subjects but we have no real "experience feedback". I think I'll create one to try to bait a potential user ...

Good idea.

How long has it been on the market?

Since Spring 2001. Or as I have already said, a little more than 25 years after the acquisition of the patent by ELF Aquitaine (in 1974-75), which today has become TOTALGAZ, the main supplier of French natural gas.
A fine example of a patent filed to block the dissemination of an innovative invention.
There should be laws against this kind of maneuver contrary to the public interest.
AUER-GIANOLA simply waited until the patent fell into the public domain, so that its use was FREE to exploit the technology.

[Christophe]

I think there are other reasons (the price of gas for example?).
Because a patent is 20 years renewable once ...

Ok go do the subject

[Woodcutter]

Gesundheit!

[pb2488]

(

pb last remark and after stop: I think either you have problems understanding the French language or you are looking for me on purpose for I don't know what reason ...
If janco had meant what YOU claim, would pkoi have said "ON" and not "THEY" ?? By speaking indefinitely, janco includes in "ON" the entire world economic system and that is why these words are GENIE because everything is said in a few sentences ...
The proof: "we told them energy costs less and less" because you think a lot of consumers say (and even believe) this ????
If it was a simple marketing problem that Janco mentioned, I would not have relayed this video ...

Last correction (a little late):

Hello again,
Sorry to insist on such an obvious subject,
When you quote this during the broadcast:
"(....) Today if consumers ask manufacturers to build cars that weigh 500 kilos, which cap at 90 and which have 18CV of engine power, that would make 1 L / 100. is not what we asked them, we told them the energy costs less and less. Please, make me cars of 1.5 tons which run at 150: that is an economic problem. (... .) "
Do the "we" and "me", which you place on several occasions, designate consumers?
The non-marketing of this "modern day 2CV" is in fact a simple marketing problem (no demand = no supply).
Is that what you understood from your intervention?
Sincerely,

Hello
Yes, "we" = consumers, of course!
In addition to what I have already told you, you can also look at some graphs of www.manicore.com/documentation/savings.html ; it speaks for itself ...
Sincerely
Jean-Marc Jancovici

)

[I Citro]

Thank you PB for this answer and especially for the link provided by JM JANCOVICI.
I regret, however, that he did not answer your question clearly.
However, he explains bluntly that vehicle consumption is decreasing in countries where fuel is expensive ...

Average consumption of the vehicle fleet per 100 km (vertical axis) in 1998 as a function of fuel prices in $ per liter (horizontal axis). It is just as obvious that the higher the price of fuel, the less the vehicles consume.

Source 30 Years of Energy Use in IEA Countries, IEA, 2004.

[Christophe]

Well what can I say, PB except that this sentence from Janco is not really that great ... I'm sorry I got carried away for "nothing" ... Janco disappointing on this one! You have "won" I bow ...

The fact remains that the "demands of the average consumer" are linked to his standard of living, therefore "energy purchasing power" and to the macro economy and therefore "my" interpretation of these words may be correct. . and therefore I do not entirely agree with the simplification of Jancovici which says "on" = "consumers" because they are not the only ones to make the request but hey ... we will stop there!

All this because of an imprecision of French ... pfff ...

So much the better for the debate!

ps: you quoted the forum in your emails I hope?

[Remundo]

However, regardless of the restriction of JMJ, the "on" can also designate the whole system.

Like Christophe, I will tend to say only the system because consumers are not asking manufacturers: "hey guys, oil is cheap, get us out of the big car."

It is the manufacturers who realize that they can get out a big car which consumes a lot on the one hand to manufacture by the affordable cost of oil, and on the other hand in subsequent economic viability for the consumer who will be able to pay the essence without difficulty.

And of course, "bigger, more beautiful" generally flatters the buyer and therefore attracts him and makes the decision to buy.

Because consumers primarily resemble the first 3 or 4 letters that qualify them.

On that, good night.

[pb2488]

Janco disappointing on this one!

If it is for this blow there, then, it is for all the others: This intervention is the exact summary of his cause for which he dedicates a good part of his career and his books. (That said, we may not agree. Besides, if these pessimo-realistic conclusions are often simple enough to understand, they remain very difficult to accept).

The fact remains that the "demands of the average consumer" are linked to his standard of living, therefore "energy purchasing power" and to the macro economy and therefore "my" interpretation of these words may be correct. .

This is absolutely correct and that's what I said from the start (see page 1 of the subject):

If there was a "demand", it would be a while since "eco-cars" would have taken over the market. Only to create this request, you have to either make people aware of the current energy / climate situation, or increase its price.

= No existing demand because too high energy purchasing power therefore no supply from manufacturers.

But it was not your original interpretation:

We didn't get the same reading of this video apparently. (...) It's funny but I "know" at least a few million French and Belgian people who would be interested in a car (thermal or electric, that's not the subject ) downsized making 20 hp and consuming 1L / 100 (or a few kWh) for 2 or 3 seats and sold between 5 and 10 € ... (....) This car would sell like hot cakes! Only it's the economy that's blocking ... as Janco says ... let's take a look again ...

= Existing demand but no offer from manufacturers because "blocking economy".

In short, all this because of an error of interpretation on your part ....

It is the manufacturers who realize that they can get out a big car which consumes a lot on the one hand to manufacture by the affordable cost of oil, and on the other hand in subsequent economic viability for the consumer who will be able to pay the essence without difficulty.

And how do they realize this? Simply by observing where the demand is located (example: there are cars with consumption ranging from 4L / 100 to 10L / 100, it is enough to look at where the consumption of the majority of sales is located. Same for the power and everything else). They only adapt the offer to the demand and this is quite normal. In a competitive sector, who would be foolish enough to propose an offer, if it is technically feasible, which is not in line with demand? To phase the thing, it would be necessary, at the limit, a legislative constraint via a political intervention (ex: max 40CV, max 90km / h on highway ...). But as politicians are ultimately elected by consumers .... hard hard.
Afterwards, we can consider these as "idiots", but on the one hand, they are in the majority (and often include us) and on the other hand, wanting "better and / or cheaper" is not necessarily proof. of stupidity.
Cdlt

[Remundo]

Hi Pb,

enough to agree with you on my quote.

Consumers as well as marketers are stupid on the energy question.

Nature will take care, by the finitude of its fossil resources, to show them their short-term, hypocritical and / or silly carelessness.

Regards too.

[Christophe]

Additional information by IFP:

Panorama 2010 - "What raw material resources for a sustainable energy system?"



Meeting the growing energy needs of the planet with a view to sustainable development is a major challenge for the 21st century. If the energy system of the future still remains to be defined, it nevertheless seems certain that all available forms of energy will be used: naturally low / non-carbon renewable energies, but also more traditional energies (fossils, nuclear) which need to be improved use in order to reduce the impact on the environment.

In this context, new sectors that have been little used until then are led to develop, while in traditional sectors, emerging technologies create new needs. Certain raw materials which have so far been little in demand have seen, or could see, their demand increasing sharply.

We can therefore wonder to what extent the resources available in raw materials will be sufficient to allow the development of a sustainable energy system.
In addition to responsible resource management, what types of innovative solutions will we need to develop so that their limitation and cost do not hamper the development of an energy system with a lower environmental impact (recycling, efficiency, etc.) ?

Faced with this problem, Panorama 2010 proposes to take stock of the technical, environmental, economic and political advances that will shape the energy system of tomorrow, with as a constraint the resources of raw materials for the production and use of energy: fossil and nuclear fuels, biomass, critical metals (Li, Pt, Pd, Ni).

http://www.ifp.fr/actualites/evenements ... orama-2010

Ask the price, you will cry!