Sorry to hear about issues you are facing with the transmission, did any software update help you in your case?

 

No, I wouldn't call them problems, it's just not the best trans.

 

First am sorry if I am (or we are) getting off topic… [please skip reading this comment if u want to read about transmissions : )]
But, as a nuclear professional myself and with 3 advanced degrees all in the nuclear field, I just want to clarify “and couldn’t hold myself) and say that the statement that switching from nuclear to hydropower is a “cleaner” electricity is not really true. Nuclear does not emit a single gram of greenhouse gases during power generation. As for resources, Hydro, solar and/or wind resources can require significant amounts of land and resources to produce energy on a large scale. Additionally, the manufacturing and disposal of renewable energy infrastructure can also have environmental impacts. Nuclear energy nowadays have breeder reactors that technically generate almost no-waste after the life-cycle of the reactor (i.e.: beyond 60 years), in a way that waste fuel is used as a fuel for the following reactor. Nuclear generally is not renewable simply because Uranium is a finite resource, but keep in mind that a single reactor generating 3000 MWe of electricity needs less than 30 tons of Uranium. About 10 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium. So technically, despite being a finite resource (not renewable), it is almost an infinite source (especially that current technologies such as breeder reactorscan generate more material “fuel” at the end of it’s cycle than it consumes! (Sounds like an exaggeration, but that’s 100% true)… hence waste* fuel is actually a fuel for the next reactor when the reactor reaches the end of it’s lifetime.

 

Welcome to my world. This is so true. By the way I do (or work on) this 24/7 and that’s what I do for living. Feel free to drop a private message if you’d like to chat more about that.
Sorry again for going off topic, back to transmission stuff….

 

So at least the updates I've gotten didn't make the transmission start over. The improvements were immediately noticeable after service, but it still had my adaptations. The updates just ironed out some of the rough edges.

 

Good post, thanks.

Summary for me: there is no free lunch.

2nd law of thermodynamics always holds. This means all energy “costs” something and something is always emitted or consumed.

The payback to society on the investment in eletricity+battery driven transportation is many decades away.

Buildout of the EV infrastructure “costs” society more energy (emissions and consumption) than doing nothing, therefore the buildout is an investment that needs to be returned in the form of lower total lifecycle emissions.


The buildout itself requires decades; the return on this investment requires still more decades thereafter. During these decades combustion technology will continue to improve, further extending the societal return on EV investment.

 

There are problems with nuclear on the timelines we're talking about.

We managed to make it take 40 years to get a plant online in the US. Thats an outlier but my understanding is you can figure 7 to 10 years to see power from a plant that you start building today but that wont happen unless you've already completed the 4 years to site it and gain regulatory approval.

Then there's the cost, or more specifically the problem up front is it's impossible to put a cost on it. There are few recent plants in the west but all of them are, or were, significantly more expensive than planned, up to 2 or even 3 times the estimated costs before construction began. This inhibits construction on the front end but also changes the calculus for the comparative cost versus other source since something like 3/4 the total cost of nuclear comes from construction of the plant.

You've got the profit motive. Green is happening, but this being capitalism, everyone wants to maximize the profits and you don't build nuclear powerplants without friends in high places. Nuclear needs to show a business case versus other sources of power production so that the people who put money into reelection campaigns will feel generous, or it has no champions in state or federal government.

These things are how plants have not been getting built for decades. I'm a fan of nuclear as a vital ingredient in moving toward greener power and fully believe the science in regard to greenhouse gases but the goal is not to build plants of any type, it's not to build EVs, it's lower carbon.

EVs in aggregate sold in the US this year will go from new car to the junkyard as a net carbon gain. Even were the green power available today we have no way of making all those cars without finding and sourcing raw materials which we believe is possible but have done little to prove out. This weighs particularly heavy on the 2035 timeline in the EU and is why MB has invested billions in a consortium looking for new materials sources. It's not just a matter of vertical integration and costs, there isn't enough to get there now and they don't know where it's coming from... yet.

I'd say I made do with 4 years of school but that would be a bit misleading as it actually took 5; what I see isn't just a need to embrace a long term commitment, I see the possibility of failure over a long period doing what we're doing now.

Or maybe I'm too pessimistic. With some experts in the field here I'm more than willing to learn something new if they care to explain what I'm missing.

Also, to be clear, my car has a transmission which is NOT supplied power from a nuclear plant. Don't want anyone to think this post is off-topic.

 

The thing is there is no green energy. The second law of thermodynamics assures us of this.

Emissions and consumption are the fact for all energy sources, without exception.

 

That's not quite correct. There's no energy conversion without a loss, but not necessarily emissions. For example converting electrical energy to mechanical energy doesn't produce emissions. It produces a loss in the form of waste heat, but no emissions. The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't say there are emissions. It just says not all of the energy can be converted to work.

 

lol My point is that there is a point and that would be reducing carbon output, not building power plants, not building EVs, etc. Those are potential means to that end, not the goal itself. Not sure what you were shooting for there but I think you know that most people talking about green in this context are referring to some aspect of reducing carbon output, not magic fairy dust.

 

That is good to hear glad it worked out for you.

 

Not correct. "Loss" as you correctly pointed out is always the case. "Loss" means something is wasted. Waste = emissions, whether by incomplete combustion, residual radiation, or upstream losses (emissions) in the capital equipment (wind turbines, solar cells) manufacturing process. Take a holistic end-to-end look at this.

Name one mainstream energy conversion process used to deliver electricity or motive (transportative) power to consumers that does not produce an emission of one kind or another, taking an end-to-end view.

 

In principal you are certainly correct, but the problem are the harmful emissions and that's what we are concerned about. Emitting waste heat into the environment when converting electricity into motion in an EV while technically an emission is not harmful. Solar panels and wind farms generate electricity w/o harmful emissions. Now you could argue that solar and wind farms require large amounts of land, so they do have an impact on the environment. Even radiation from nuclear plants while very harmful on their own can be shielded quite well with water, lead and concrete to keep it from going into the environment.

There are indeed harmful upstream emissions currently in the production of pretty much all the equipment needed to produce energy. Solar panels don't grow on trees etc. But that is because we are still burning fossil fuel upstream. The goal as was stated above is decarbonization, so that all of our energy sources become carbon neutral. Now let's be clear, that doesn't mean they don't have emissions, but the harmful emissions can be abated such as via capturing technology, or the fuel in case of e-fuel captures CO2 that's already there and then when it's released back into the atmosphere it isn't a net increase.

You are absolutely correct that every energy conversion produces byproducts. The question is are those byproducts harmful or harmless, and if they are harmful, can they be easily neutralized.

 

Sorry for missing your post and thank you for your comment on my post. You brought up great points and I enjoyed the read, thank you.

 

Well, my transmission clunked for the first time. It’s starting to hunt gears and jerk when I step off of throttle. Man, I was really hoping this one would be better than what I had in my GLE. It really detracts from what is a great car. I’ll still reserve final judgment for another thousand miles since I just 800.

 

Sadly enough get used to it. Mine isn’t too bad happens rarely but it does happen. I have 7000 km on it (approximately 4200 miles) and it’s still slightly there.

 

It works better in sport, less clunky and it's still a softer throttle and shifting paradigm than found on the rental Camry I'm driving at the moment. Don't be afraid to try it because of the name, sport is not at all sporty. To keep your comfort level where it is you'd want to go individual with sport engine enabled but leave the rest as is for maximum comfort.


You may want to consider trying the sport steering while your fiddling with individual settings. Much like the individual engine it is not at all sporty and retains one finger effort.

Neither may work for you but you'll know you've been there and done that.If you do want to retain one or the other you can check the box that will give you the toast at start up to retain the previous mode.

 

Wait, is there not a setting for transmission to set as sport in individual or am I missing something (missing something as in the trick is that engine has to be in sport and not transmission?)

 

Ouch sorry to hear about this, I mean at least it is not as loud as the GLE thankfully.

 

The trans and engine are under the same setting, you can also adjust the suspension, steering, and the nanny's.

 

I see.