  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1147 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100 |
apparently some in Silicon Valley think so http://www.ktvu.com/globalwarm ing/9423042/detail.html | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2596 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.234.183.131 |
Reductio ad absurdum  | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 753 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 68.40.119.216 |
Well, good luck trying to merge on a freeway with one of those babies. I also wonder of they'll last as long as a gallon of gas before they need to be recharged. Ideally, this is the way to go but until performance and cost get close to the gas combustion engine you won't see sales improve much. | ||
7milekid Member Username: 7milekid Post Number: 112 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 68.61.161.193 |
its funny that they think they are doing something great for the earth by not burning gasoline but instead burning coal to make electricity. | ||
Dillpicklesoup Member Username: Dillpicklesoup Post Number: 96 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 64.7.188.164 |
right fossil fuel must be burned to generate electricity- but I spoze this will be good news for the coal industry- | ||
Fishtoes2000 Member Username: Fishtoes2000 Post Number: 112 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.14.26.135 |
That's like saying thiefs are morally superior to pedophiles. The truth is bicyclists are morally superior -- the most energy efficient form of transportation known to man. [For those keeping score, that's two-thirds sarcasm and one-third fact.] | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 97 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
The available data generally supports the notion that the permitted exhaust emissions from coal-fueled power plants, when prorated to electric vehicle (EV) mileage, are still less than the per-mile level of exhaust emissions coming from today's cars with internal combustion engines (ICE). The overall thermal energy efficiencies of EV and ICE vehicles systems are both very low, about 28% for EV and 14% for ICE (this means that 14% of the heat value of crude oil actually gets turned into motion for an ICE vehicle). The ICE itself is the most inefficient component (15% efficient) in the ICE vehicle system while the inefficiencies in the EV system are primarily at the fossil fuel power generating plants (40% eff.), with the remainder spread across the electrical distribution (93% eff.), battery charging (88% eff.) and vehicle operation (88% eff.) processes. What gets ignored is the fact that the electrical generating and transmission capacity in this country is already unable to meet peak demands. If EVs ever become a mass-produced product, their recharging will either have to be limited to the non-peak demand hours (requiring punative time-of-day pricing that will further reduce the daily range of an EV) or there will have to be a lot of new electric generating plants and transmission lines built. To my way of thinking, EVs as a mode of mass transportation can only happen if the battery range can be significantly increased and the current gridlock on new power plant and transmission line construction can be broken. And unless the new electricity generating capacity comes from high-efficiency (80%+) co-generation or nuclear plants, it is a waste of capital to build incremental generating capacity costing billions of dollars just to replace an old transportation method that is 14% energy efficient with one that is only 28% efficient. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1148 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100 |
your emissions numbers - you say 'today's cars' so I'm assuming gasoline powered not alternative fuel - is that correct? | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 98 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Yes, but I think the fairly significant gap in EV's favor is more affected by a study's assumptions about the mix of electric powerplants (nuclear, coal, fuel oil or natural gas fired, a mix which varies from region to region) than it is by any differences in the type of fuels burned in an ICE. | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 40 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 68.21.43.26 |
Electricity can be generated by coal, biomass, wind solar, whatever. There is no restriction to use coal. Currently we do use a lot of coal, but saying that that is an argument against electric vehicles is incredibly short sighted. Also, by having centralized production facilities, we can buy scrubbers and such that would eliminate impact on the environment. This is much more efficient than having millions of little power mobile power plants (ICE cars). Yes, the batteries do have to become better. Look at the gains in efficiency that we have made with the internal combustion engine since the model T. At the time of the model T, no one new what would happen with the automotive industry. There were as many or more electric cars as internal combustion and there were also steam cars that were competitive. The Model T changed all that by becoming a best seller and changing the automotive market forever. The electrics could not compete and so disappeared and there has been little to no research and development of them since (compared to ICE). If we are to invest dollars and time into the development of new batteries (lithium ion, lithium polymer, sodium sulpher, super capacitors, etc.) than these problems will be solved. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 99 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
LOL, what arrogance! The geniuses in Silicon Valley are experts at designing electrically powered computer components and networking them into systems, which then get "plugged into" the real world. They have always struggled with improving the man/machine interface of their systems and they never gave much thought to things like the quality and availablilty of the power consumed by what they designed. While there may be some analogies between electronic circuits and mechanical chassis subsystems (capacitor = shock absorber), they've never had to design a complex mechanical system that rides and handles well over a variety of speeds and surfaces and that never leaves the customer stranded. Blinded by their success in the 1990s, they think that all they need to do is solve EV's electrical storage and control issues and the rest is a piece of cake.
Welcome to the real world, Mr. Tarpenning! | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 100 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Nainrouge-
I never used coal-fired plants an argument against EVs. From an emissions standpoint, studies that assumed a mix heavy on coal-fired plants (the dirtiest and least efficient) show the EV still coming out better than the ICE. What I did say was that if EVs ever begin to generate demand enough to cause added generating capacity to be built, it doesn't make sense to build 40% efficient coal-fired plants when you can build co-generation or nuclear power plants that are 80%+ efficient and thereby increase the overall energy efficiency of the EV from 28% to nearly 60%.
Yes, in the early days there were as many or more electric (and some steam) vehicles than ICE, but the reason they did not predominate is because they were not competitive in the eyes of the users. ICEs predominated because they had a longer range in all kinds of temperatures and their downtime to refuel was measured in minutes rather than hours. EVs will not become popular again (without subsidies) until potential customers decide they are just as convenient as an ICE vehicle. | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 41 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 68.21.43.26 |
Everything has to be subsidized or regulated before it happens. I remember how the auto industry fought against airbags, then turned around and used them to advertise as if it was all their idea when they realized that they couldn't fight the regulations. They also said that fuel economy goals were "technically impossible" until they were met and then exceeded. I am for subsidies for electric vehicles. I think that anyone driving one should get a massive tax break - especially since I own two electric vehicles  | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2597 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 128.36.14.165 |
IMO electric cars have three significant advantages over ICEs (regular, hybrid or alt fuel) or fuel cells or other micro generation power schemes in that: (1) they obtain power that is generated remotely from large SOA plants and there exists a well established familiar network for transporting this power to where it is needed fairly efficiently. Assuming there are enough of these plants (coal, nuke, hydro, gas, whatever) to supply the power, it is reasonable to reckon (Enrons notwithstanding) that economies of scale would optimize power production, cut down on waste emission, and keep costs down much more readily than with a system having a hundred million individual little power plants strapped to every car, truck, delivery van etc. (2) This is a weird seemingly minor point but if you think about it it is actually significant: the waste heat used in the power generation from these large plants (for all but hydro) COULD be used for other things (i.e. greenhouse farming, heating small and not so small towns (e.g the DET's CBD's legacy steam heat). It isn't right now but that's just because it isn't worth it to do so. Waste heat from gas and diesel autos (and any other alt fuel you could think of) is simply lost through the radiator (a small amount of heat is used to heat the cabin in cold weather, but most is simply lost through the radiator). Further, it is pretty much unreasonable to imagine any scheme for collecting this heat and using it for something useful. This is no MINOR point when you consider the amount of energy that is simply given away (the majority of power generated in IC) is simply lost). (3) not counting the battery technology, electric cars have a much simpler engine with less complexity (e.g. no compression or exhaust cycles, trivial cooling and lubrication) and have huge industries already making electric motors with vertical interests in the electric power biz (consider a little company called G.E. and some of its foreign competitors). Disadvantages to electric vehicles: (1) gasoline is such a powerful and cheep energy source. burning a gallon of gas releases >60kW-hours, that is more more energy (converting chemical potential energy into kinetic energy and heat) than several dozen POUNDS of TNT, except it is controllably released by the gentle application of your foot on the accellerator pedal. wireless. portable. all for $3. my numbers might be off a bit, but the point is the same With that much energy avaible you can affordably waste 80% of it no problem. Further ya don't have to make it, it is simply pumped out of the ground and refined. Not bad ... (2) the gasoline distribution network is legacied in place, it is well-established, familiar and easily adjusts for population shifts. The large numbers of additional power generation plants required for large scale implimentation of electric cars each faces NIMBYism, cronyism, corruption etc to be built AND they each cost LOTS of $$. The US is busy right now trading $$ with china for goods and borrowing $$ to fight a war or two here or there. IT is difficult to imagine where the $$ will come to do this in the US. Western Europe and Japan are facing looming financial disaster with flat or negative birth rates (imagine the pension problems GM has but instead it being an entire nation (or subcontinent!) so don't expect big things from them in our lifetimes. IMO China or India would be most likely to build additional electric power plants (beyond what is required to support their booming economies) than the US in the near future. (3) improved battery or capacitor storage technology for electric cars is still costly and/or unproven in the market and it's environmental impact in a large scale consumable application like autos is unclear. (This is rapidly changing, with the ubiquity protable electronics with shorter and shorter shelf lifes it will become easier to introduce new electric power storage technologies beyond Li-Ion, today's supercapacitors etc. BUT for now is the case.) | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 102 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
With regards to subsidies and regulations, maybe so in a competetive marketplace when it comes to solutions that add cost to the customer in orders to reduce "costs" elsewhere, but who do you trust to make the right call on what is the best technology that will solve the "problem"? Regarding your memory, let me remind you that when someone asks several eyewitnesses to recount what they saw you will get several different descriptions of the same event. My eyewitness account is at odds with yours when it comes to the popular claim that the automakers supposedly "fought against airbags". GM never fought to keep airbag technology from their customers, in fact they were leaders in developing that technology. I remember being a "wet behind the ears" GM manufacturing engineer in 1974 who was assigned to work in a group that was designing an airbag folding machine. That airbag option was put into production and heavily promoted, yet it failed to win in the marketplace for a variety of reasons. During the subsequent FMVSS safety standards hearings, GM pushed for rulemaking that would allow different approaches to provide comparable levels of passenger safety, yet the Govt. ended up enacting safety standards that could only be solved through the inclusion of airbag technology. Regarding fuel economy standards (and emissions and crash standards, since they are all intertwined from a solution standpoint), again I think the memories of those who were closer to the situation might be different than yours. Originally the proposed fuel economy standards (they were "standards" not "goals", big difference!) were "technically impossible" to achieve while simultaneously trying to also meet the Federal structural crash standards and emissions standards. Technical solutions for meeting crash and emissions standards at that time involved things that added mass, which is counterproductive to reducing fuel economy. The main reasons GM was able to eventually meet (and exceed) these standards was the development of a) the catalytic converter (it cleaned the exhaust using less mass and fuel than the old air pumps) b) high-strength steels by the steelmakers that allowed GM to meet crash test standards and while also taking out mass. | ||
Themax Member Username: Themax Post Number: 61 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 69.246.123.118 |
Personally I like the idea of the car that runs on compressed air. www.aircar.com NPR did a story on Who Killed the Electric Car? yesterday. I missed it but here it is. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/2 23/electric-car-timeline.html | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 42 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 68.21.43.26 |
quote: "GM never fought to keep airbag technology from their customers, in fact they were leaders in developing that technology." Yes, there were leaders in this technology, so why did it take 20 years for the air bag to become standard in GM cars? Would that have happened on its own? I never argued that GM engineers weren't pretty smart but it doesn't mean squat if it isn't in the products that they make. GM was also the leader in the development of the EV1 - to date the best production electric vehicle ever. Does that make them "leaders" in the EV market today? By your own statement, the government regulations led to the development of the catalytic converter and the use of better steel. That's good, right? GM at the forefront of manufacturers of fuel efficient vehicles????? I guess my memory and my perception of reality is a bit different. How much gas does a Hummer use again? Auto companies are in the business of making money. They are morally responsible to their stockholders. This is not a bad thing, this is how capitalism works. It does mean, however, that the government needs to step in occasionally to represent the common welfare which is often damaging to quarterly profits. Whether or not the electric car is the solution and should be promoted as a solution is the topic of this thread. I would argue that it is PART of the solution because I have owned and operated an electric vehicle and I know what they are like. BTW, I don't have different memories, just a different perspective. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1213 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.252.124.43 |
Rustic, I believe that's the Ford Nucleon in your pic? Not sure why that one never quite made it to production... | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1975 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.52.159 |
Nainrouge, You're showing your ignorance as to how technology is brought into vehicles. It took over 20 years to get an airbag into a vehicle because it was very immature technology. Those 20 years were used to reduce the cost of the airbag. All new technology is brought into vehicles from the most expensive to the least expensive for a reason. Early airbags were obnoxiously expensive. Even if they were available no one would have been able to afford them. When they were first brought out they were a $2500 option even without adjusting for inflation. Would you have been willing to pay $2500 extra on a $7500 car. Most people wouldn't. Many people couldn't afford it. Vehicle sales would have plummeted. The Airbag itself wasn't the limiting factor. The computer needed to run an airbag system was the limiting technology. The computer chip currently used to run an airbag cost $2 to $3 now. A computer chip with comparable computing power was not even available in 1980. When airbags were first in development they would tie complete workstations to the backseat to run the system. We have a similar problem with Electric vehicles. The technology is not ready. the current limiting factor is the Battery technology. We have everything else in a price range that makes sense. Until someone can make a battery that is instantly rechargeable and give a vehicle a 300 mile range they will not sell. For any price. You wishing the technology was cost effective does not make it so. There are real technical limitaions to what can be achieved in a vehicle. There are real limitations on what people are willing to pay for those technical achievements. Vehicles are tied to our understanding of the state of physics just like every other invention in the known universe has been. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2601 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.234.183.131 |
Dougw, yeah ... perhaps some day, lol! | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 2755 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.59.60 |
Electric cars promise to open a can of political worms. Electric powering of cars will, de facto, force non-car owners to subsidize owners. By extreme example if all vehicles were suddenly converted to electric imagine how the price of electricity would go out the roof - for everybody. Likewise the question arises of how the government assesses me for highway costs, when I plug in at my house. Gas stations are, afterall, huge built in tax collections agencies. Waiting for that stuff to hit the fan… | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 2602 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.234.183.131 |
Lowell's point is valid and that money would hafta come through some other means (increased licensing fees, metered and separately rated electric power for charging cars, odometer based tolls, whatever), but if you condsider how much we Americans currently pay in taxes and debt load, political capital, military losses, etc. securing stable global access to vast petroleum reserves all over the place it is dificult to imagine us not coming out ahead the the long run if this dependence were to somehow disappear ... ain't gonna happen anytime soon, but it is fun to think about ... | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 67 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Even if somebody built a better mousetrap, this being an electric car, it would be litigated into failure, technology stolen by some Asian producer and "our" government" would "react" by taking campaign contributions from the sellers and blame everybody here that actually did any work. The airbag reference says it all, when GM first put them on sale, nobody bought them, in fact, nobody wanted to be in the car with them. The exact same thing happened with the EV1. Nobody wanted them. But here it is few years later the media and the associated idiots are painting a new story. God damn are we a nation of morons. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 2758 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.59.60 |
^^ deserves some kind of an award for 'best job of choosing a forum name that best fits his posts'. LOL | ||
Themax Member Username: Themax Post Number: 66 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 69.246.123.118 |
If the electric car takes off, we can bring up once again the relative advantages of coal and nuclear. http://www.1nuclearplace.com/ (I especially liked the story about storing nuclear waste on tribal lands in Utah.) | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 68 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
I'll take it and the award for seeing through the bullshit spead by "our" current crop of media representatives. |
