Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 294

Thread: Electric cars

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    The promise of hydrogen is very supportive of EV, Keith. With a ready supply of hydrogen, fuel cells can power those electric motors and reduce the dependence on large batteries. That's win-win. Unfortunately, we'll have to be patient on that because we lag on the solar side which as you state is the most likely best future scenario for hydrogen production. Chickens and Eggs, oh my!!
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Becker View Post
    The promise of hydrogen is very supportive of EV, Keith. With a ready supply of hydrogen, fuel cells can power those electric motors and reduce the dependence on large batteries. That's win-win. Unfortunately, we'll have to be patient on that because we lag on the solar side which as you state is the most likely best future scenario for hydrogen production. Chickens and Eggs, oh my!!
    No doubt, hydrogen safety issues need to be figured out and fail safe before hydrogen will ever be consumer ready.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs View Post
    ... the news of the report indicating that immediate action is needed to prevent catastrophic loss of life and massive reduction in GDP ...
    I have been following the above for a long time. A bit after the first pronouncements by (IIRC) the Union of Concerned Scientists, ASME released a peer-reviewed analysis of the engineering required by the scientist's CO2 predictions. I can't find a link to it anymore, but it was comprehensive look at global energy impact, and bottomline, I recall something about ~1/3 of the human population starving to death if we adopted the UCS plan. The above linked report is the 3rd 'change-in-a-decade-or-else' prediction that I know of. The first 2 are at least 15-20 yrs past our 'expiration date'. So some of the possible iterations: the first was right, and we are already past the point of no return (drat!); the first 2 were wrong, but this latest is right (repent or else!); or, maybe none are right. Anybody look at the actual data? Or do we just accept the analysis at face value? Anybody look at the potential bias of the climate seers? Anybody thought about the actual cost-benefit ratio of the Paris accord? ...I think the benefit is 0.1degC reduction in gain, so what cost are you willing to bear for that?? We don't have to be scientists, its just some basic math. YMMV

    We have a short societal memory. One thing we shouldn't forget is that humans have been remarkably adept at meeting our energy needs throughout our history (something on the order of 60-70 millennia). I bet that won't change in the future. Most of that history we got by with a camp fire. Now we need Teslas and PV arrays on the roof. Based on rate of change in technology, I doubt we've even seen the technology our grand-demons will use. And in case anyone thinks they have all the answers, Giggle the web for 'NF3' (nitrogen trifluoride) emissions - - rising at 11% per year (if you believe the scientist's reports) and mostly from PV manufacturing.

    As for the electric cars, this is a lot like the self-driving cars thread - lots of opinions and virtually none in the middle! ....Popcorn, anyone? IMHO, great concept with lots of bugs to work thru - battery life/cost/chemistry; recharging/exchange options and infrastructure; and of course, the subsidies (buy what you want, but please don't ask me to foot part of the bill). Love the torque!!

    Wanna eliminate hydrocarbon chemistry...? Make sure you know what its used in: fuels, fertilizer, packaging, clothing, plastics, etc, etc. Careful what you wish for.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    I think you are overlooking a few facts. As someone pointed out earlier, the majority of cars on the road today travel a relatively short distance per day much less than the range of most electric cars. Thus they could do the majority of their recharging overnight at home which means no waiting at a gas station and consuming electricity when demand is low, win win. For those who regularly travel long distances then a hybrid would be the solution. You are forgetting that electric cars are a solution to a serious problem.
    I don't care about the majority of cars, I care about me. Currently, if I want to take off on a 1000 mile road trip, I can. I know I will find plenty of gas stations along the way where I can refuel in 10 minutes or less. I can't do that with electric, therefore electric isn't for me. It might be for other people but it isn't for me. I can think of plenty of days at work where I'll be on the road all day, going long distances, sometimes to other states, where I can probably do more than 400 miles in a day and I don't have time to sit around and wait to recharge. I have places to be. How is this going to work for long-haul truck drivers? They don't have time to sit around and wait either. It seems people want us to accept less efficiency because they want to solve a problem. Sorry. Try again.

  5. #65
    I would really like to see a 'total cost of ownership' comparison over 1-10 years for a few examples of both ICE and selected 'electric', battery, hybrid etc.

    that should include cost of vehicle, gas, electric costs, home charging installation, service, battery replacement, oil changes etc. As stated total cost of ownership, not selected points, but the whole package.

    I think there will be a lot of surprises for some people when considering upgrading to electric. Installation of a 240v charging station by a pro can really eat into the projected savings for instance.

    Adding PV panels for that purpose sounds great, until you price package, controls, panels, installation etc.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    No doubt, hydrogen safety issues need to be figured out and fail safe before hydrogen will ever be consumer ready.
    Yes, that's true, but I don't think it's insurmountable considering that we already have LNG powered vehicles on the road today.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Outten View Post
    Beat me if you like but I believe Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Our planet is 80% water so the source is inexhaustible and we can extract hydrogen from water via solar technology. There will be zero pollution and no nasty chemicals in our local recycling centers. Water is the only effluent from burning hydrogen gas. We already have the technology to convert to hydrogen gas, the only mountain to cross is our own Federal Government because it will never be able to control hydrogen the way they do every other source of fuel.
    One problem of hydrogen is efficiency of conversions. Let me talk about that.

    Let's start with 100 units of electric power, produced by some renewable means (solar, wind, etc.) and use that to do electrolysis of water. The energy contained in the hydrogen you get from that electrolysis is about 70% of the input energy, so now you have 70 units of energy.

    Then, you get to one of the major problems - how to transport the hydrogen. You either have to have a way of producing hydrogen close to where it's going to be consumed or you have to compress it and transport it. Pipeline is the cheapest but there not much hydrogen pipeline. Compressing it and transporting it by truck is expensive. Hydrogen has the lowest amount of energy per volume of fuels. But let's be generous and assume that it takes 10% of the energy to compress and transport it. That gets us to 67.5 units of energy.

    Then, the hydrogen is put into a fuel cell which is about 60% efficient, and that gets us 40.5 units of energy to go into the motors on the car. The motors are about 90% so we get to use about 34.5% of the energy we started with.

    Looking at an electric battery car, let's start with the same 100 units of electric power, produced from renewal sources.
    Transporting that energy to the charging station uses about 5% of the energy, which gets us to 95 units of energy.

    A battery is about 90% efficient so the power to the electric motors is 85.5 units of energy.
    The motors are about 90% efficient so the power we get from that 100 original units of energy is about 77 units.

    Today, most of the hydrogen available is produced from fossil fuel.

    While conversion efficiency is not everything, it will affect energy cost for powering your car (cents per mile).

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Henderson View Post
    I don't care about the majority of cars, I care about me. Currently, if I want to take off on a 1000 mile road trip, I can. I know I will find plenty of gas stations along the way where I can refuel in 10 minutes or less.
    I think it's worth considering how the ubiquity of gas stations may change if the majority of cars no longer require gas. You say you aren't concerned about the "majority of cars", but the gas-distribution infrastructure isn't built for *you* - it's built for the majority of cars.

    Re: "Solving a problem". I don't necessarily care about electric cars "solving" climate change (although that is very important) - I see them as something I want because they meet my transportation needs better than gas cars.

    For most people, electric cars offer incredible advantages:
    • No inconvenience of stopping for gas - plug in at your garage/office
    • Reduced operating costs (arguable, but promising)
    • Radically reduced maintenance: no oil changes, transmission fluid changes, etc
    • Improved performance (re: acceleration, braking)
    • Improved safety (generally, due to low-center-of-gravity from heavy, low batteries)


    And aside from niche uses (pulling trailers), the only real down-side is availability/convenience of charging. And for the majority of people who live in urban areas - or don't travel long distances by car - that's a non-issue.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    TX, NM or on the road
    Posts
    845
    The technology that is used in the electric vehicle industry is moving too fast to predict what could happen in the next year. Today the electric vehicles are at the horse and buggy stage of the automobile era, it is just the beginning. Batteries are improving, as is the efficiency of the motors. What could they be by the end of next year?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    2,336
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Cutler View Post
    Electric vehicles are coming. It will take time to develop the infrastructure, but it will happen.
    In the early days of gasoline powered vehicles, trips revolved around the location of "Filling Stations". As the demand for these increased, the need was met. The same will happen with the electric cars. Right now they are suited to the more urban environment, but will expand.
    Renewable energies will certainly progress also, but this thread was about cars.

    Art Mann
    "As far as the environment goes, it is in better shape now than it has been in the last 50 years I have been paying attention to it."

    Yathin Krishnappa
    "Are you trying to troll or do you really believe that?"

    I do not believe that Art is "trolling". I also agree with Art. I am 59 years old and I can tell you that we are much better off today, than in 1978.
    The US has increased it's population by 150 million people since 1968, and a 125million since 1978. The time frame between 1968 and 1978 was probably the beginning of the environmental awareness in the country. Also the beginning of some of the government agencies that regulate environmental cleanliness.
    For having an increase in 150 million people over the past 50 years, we are a lot better off environmentally than where we were in 1978. Had we not had the awareness that began in the late 60's, going outside today would be just awful.
    This isn't trolling, this is the experience of living through all of these changes.

    I work in a facility that puts 2200 Megawatts to the grid with zero carbon pollution, in any weather condition. Yet we are not the future. People want to believe in "free energy", such as solar panels, but it doesn't exist. Energy is not free, there is always a price.
    I agree that we are trying harder but not that the environment is in better shape. That aside, I once heard a presentation by some former cabinet secretary and he made a truly amazing statement which I will try to paraphrase, "A car today, driving at highway speed, produces less pollution than a pre-1979 car parked with the engine off." I was, like, what??? But around 1979, they pressurized the gas tanks and added stuff to the gas to keep it from evaporating so much. So, yeah, I guess that's about right.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the movement chose the wrong poster child. True, the earth is heating up and true, the cause is us. But that's all a little squishy. What isn't squishy is that the oceans absorb more CO2 than the atmosphere does and they are becoming more acid. The change in pH is stressing the corals, plankton and krill and may well disrupt the ocean food chain. There is absolutely no question that the oceans are changing and that the change is caused by fossil fuel. There is also no question that if we cure the oceans, we cure the atmosphere.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Feeley View Post
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the movement chose the wrong poster child. True, the earth is heating up and true, the cause is us. But that's all a little squishy. What isn't squishy is that the oceans absorb more CO2 than the atmosphere does and they are becoming more acid. The change in pH is stressing the corals, plankton and krill and may well disrupt the ocean food chain. There is absolutely no question that the oceans are changing and that the change is caused by fossil fuel. There is also no question that if we cure the oceans, we cure the atmosphere.
    Anyone who has snorkeled in the same area 20 or 30 years ago and again in the last 10 years can't help but see that our oceans are in trouble.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Henderson View Post
    I don't care about the majority of cars, I care about me. Currently, if I want to take off on a 1000 mile road trip, I can. I know I will find plenty of gas stations along the way where I can refuel in 10 minutes or less. I can't do that with electric, therefore electric isn't for me. It might be for other people but it isn't for me. I can think of plenty of days at work where I'll be on the road all day, going long distances, sometimes to other states, where I can probably do more than 400 miles in a day and I don't have time to sit around and wait to recharge. I have places to be. How is this going to work for long-haul truck drivers? They don't have time to sit around and wait either. It seems people want us to accept less efficiency because they want to solve a problem. Sorry. Try again.
    You've described yourself as the classic late adopter and there's nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, you're in good company because the majority of people are late adopters with a stronger fixation on what they might lose by adopting technology as compared to what they might gain in benefits.

    The latest of the late adopters end up ultimately getting forced along the curve when (in this case) charging will become faster and more accessible, and traditional gas stations will start to die off and become less available due to declining demand.
    At that point the cost of holding on to the old days becomes prohibitive and considerably more inconvenient and the benefits of change will be too compelling. I'm surprised that there would be any debate that this is the way it's moving, but I can understand that the big question is how long will it take?

  13. #73
    Electricity can be super cheap. It’s all around us naturally. But… Infrastructure is already there. Almost everybody has a lithium ion battery impact screw gun. why? Why… They are light, portable and they will do 100 holes before recharging requirements and they are cheap. I can pop the battery out, plug-in a new one, and as I am charging, I’m off to the races.

    A car moving 1-3 occupants around in short distances (under 200 miles) before recharging would be a great little commuting vehicle. But…would suck for long trips. There is no 600 pound battery swap out stations.

    Pound for pound you can’t beat diesel or gasoline on the kw scale. You’ll never get a transport truck weighing 100,000 pounds travelling 10 hours before refill powered by batteries . You’ll never get an airplane flying 16 hours without a refill powered by batteries.

    Currently batteries waigh about 2-4+++ times the same power output of fuel. This is why charging a battery usually cost more to charge. Fuel is used natural gas to create electricity. This infrastructure gets paid for in one way or another.

    I work at a school (part time) they have three free charging stations of the 800 spots as a government incentive. The hospital I go to has 10 free charging stations 2000 spots is a government incentive. Do you think these facilities will keep getting funding if it is 25% free recharging instead of .005%
    Last edited by Matt Mattingley; 12-06-2018 at 12:54 AM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Mattingley View Post
    You’ll never get a transport truck weighing 100,000 pounds travelling 10 hours before refill powered by batteries .
    Never is a long time. " Tesla's Elon Musk is promising a truck that can go 800 km at highway speeds and rip to nearly 100 km/h in 20 seconds with a trailer loaded with more than 36,000 kg of cargo." In addition to Tesla, Volvo, Mercedes Benz, Cummins, Volkswagen and several others are all developing electric trucks. I'll bet they would all disagree with you. It only took 4 decades for Diesel locomotives to replace coal fired steam locomotives, what makes you think electric can't replace Diesel in a similar (probably shorter) period of time. Think of all the things in our lifetimes (I'm 69) that are already redundant. VCR's, Blu ray, CD's, phone booths, 8 tracks, cassette decks. CRT TV's, film cameras ................. and none of them were causing irreparable damage to our planet. And you think Diesel trucks will never be replaced? I think the only question is by what and when or is your workshop still powered by water power?

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    is your workshop still powered by water power?
    Water... do you mean hyro electric??? YES. And Nuclear... water moves almost anything in its way. Why not harness it? Quebec turns water in to electrical while you sleep. If you don’t use it, they just dump the power dams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •