Electric Cars - Automobile Industry

Davo · 16th October 2006, 07:03 PM

The automobile Industry seems to be avoiding electric vehicles and going for Hydrogen fuel powered vehicles.

Rechargeable vehicles seem to be an option. Note 2 vehicles as an example:

I can`t post URL`s yet but look under Wrightspeed X1 and teslamotors roadster.

Both vehicles with a 0-60 of 3/4 seconds and a reasonable mileage.

If independant producers are coming up with these vehicles, why not the big companies who have far more technical experience.

Not looking at this as some sort of conspiracy theory, just looking for some answers.

Interested to hear some feedback.

joobz · 16th October 2006, 07:21 PM

Electric cars are great for limiting emissions in cities, but the electricity is still coming from powerplants most likely burning coal.

However, with the loss of energy from power transmission, you kinda lose the energy savings advantage you get from electric cars.

It seems like Disel and biodisel offers the greatest advantages in resource management, but we'll see if that catches on

Davo · 16th October 2006, 07:26 PM

Coal, hydro, nuclear, solar, and natural gas are typical sources for generating electricity. Power generation plants, even coal burning ones, are inherently more efficient and less polluting than vehicles due to economies of scale and the ability to more efficiently remove pollutants from a smaller number of much larger fixed locations.

Also, an electric car is far more efficient than a gasoline car, so the amount of pollution generated by producing the electricity to drive an EV a given distance is much less than the pollution from the gasoline to drive an internal combustion car the same distance.

Above quote from tesla motors site.

Recharging cars would also take advantage of using off peak energy supplies

snooziums · 16th October 2006, 07:37 PM

However, hybrid vehicles offer the advantages of both electric and fuel power. At a stop, the engine is off, not idling. When slowing down or breaking, the generator is recharging the batteries. During acceleration, the electric motor kicks in - thus a less powerful and thus a less polluting fuel engine is needed.

Also, the vehicle never needs to be plugged in. And the alternator and starter are replaced by one unit.

There are about 10 models of hybrid vehicles being sold, and they will push electric vehicle technology since they are part electric.

joobz · 16th October 2006, 07:40 PM

true...to an extent.
But it's still a borrow from peter to pay paul situation.
I'd like to see a direct comparison of miles/carbon burnt. That'd be the only way to really show fuel efficiency of electric cars over gas engines over hybrids.

Also, batteries don't last forever. Replacement would be expensive (an issue facing many of the hybrids) Also, they are made of heavy metals, so hazardous waste is still a concern (not as green as you'd think).

the hydrogen economy is a great dream, but it's application would be near impossible to inact on any scale.

Again, I'm willing to bet disel provides the most realistic option, next to hybrid

Davo · 16th October 2006, 09:30 PM

Electric cars are at least twice as efficient as hybrids.Hybrids are around 30% more efficient than conventional vehicles.Should get around 120 miles per gallon equivalent.

I do see hybrids pushing the electric vehicle market as people get used to electric rather than combustion systems.

Take the point of battery toxicity.Apparently All Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. I believe that parts of the battery can also be recycled. One other bonus is you wouldn`t have engine oil, clutch fluid to deal with as waste material.

I do see a problem with hydrogen economy as using electricity to generate hydrogen to convert back to electricity is not a very efficient process. Probably no more efficient than combustion just transferring the pollution source from the car to the power station.

Advise checking out the tesla motors website, answers a lot of these subjects in detail. Interested to hear your comments on the tesla roadster.

trvlr2 · 16th October 2006, 09:43 PM

From the website:
"
Zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds with a top speed of over 130 mph*. But this is not the whole story. Because it has no clutch and a very wide, flat torque curve, the acceleration of the Tesla Roadster is much more available to enjoy: just step on the accelerator and go - no matter what speed you are driving, no matter what gear you are in, the acceleration is instantaneous.

* We are currently in the midst of the important and time-consuming safety and durability testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications."

You can't see it till 2007. Apparently it hasn't been produced as yet,maybe just prototype? Even though they claim 100 units sold-they don't mention ANY delivery.
My BS detector is going off.

Daylight · 17th October 2006, 01:32 AM

If you add $30,000 in photovoltaic cells to the roof of your house (minus $10,000 credit from fed/state), live in a mostly sunny state you’ll basically have an electric car that has free energy. Factor in about $250 you no longer need to spend on gas and that could apply towards the car payment.

What I don’t like for other methods is you are just substituting dependence on oil with another. How long before the prices on the replacement go up?

One other thing to consider, if you replace CO2 with water vapor in a city like Los Angeles, wouldn’t that increase the humidity? Increase the humidity too much and you get a hot fog. Which can’t be good. Sort of like a green house effect?

fuelair · 17th October 2006, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by trvlr2

From the website:
"
Zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds with a top speed of over 130 mph*. But this is not the whole story. Because it has no clutch and a very wide, flat torque curve, the acceleration of the Tesla Roadster is much more available to enjoy: just step on the accelerator and go - no matter what speed you are driving, no matter what gear you are in, the acceleration is instantaneous.

* We are currently in the midst of the important and time-consuming safety and durability testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications."

You can't see it till 2007. Apparently it hasn't been produced as yet,maybe just prototype? Even though they claim 100 units sold-they don't mention ANY delivery.
My BS detector is going off.

Info in Oct. Popular Mechanics - and picture - + you get a neat article on how to make some fun devices including a potato gun (and where to get materials to make one that will launch the potato at 400mph and will shoot it 400 yards!!.)!

Cuddles · 17th October 2006, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by Davo

The automobile Industry seems to be avoiding electric vehicles and going for Hydrogen fuel powered vehicles.

Hydrogen powered cars are electric cars. Fuel cells are simply very efficient, clean batteries. Conventional batteries are very inefficient, heavy and have limited lifetimes, so it is not really possible to make cars with decent power, since there is simply not enough space to fit all the batteries, plus charging them would take a long time.

Fuel cells are much smaller and can be over 90% efficient, so it is fairly easy to fit enough in a car to give decent power. The main issues are with storage and distribution, which is more of a problem than natural gas since hydrogen molecules are so much smaller, and more explosive. If these problems are solved, and it seems likely they will be, electric cars will take over.

The issue of producing the hydrogen can be solved by producing it on site through solar and wind power. If every filling station had a roof of solar cells and a small wind turbine they should be able to produce enough fuel. This also raises the possibility of just storing the hydrogen and then recharging regular electric cars using in situ fuel cells, if storing hydrogen in the cars themselves turns out to be impractical. There is also the option of sending hydrogen down established natural gas pipelines so that people can refuel their cars at home, as well as power their homes from a distributed power system. One of my friends is currently working on exactly this problem.

Hybrids are pretty much pointless, since they still burn oil. They are more efficient than normal cars because their engines always run at the most efficient rate, but since we are going to run out of oil they canot be the answer. Biodiesel is controversial, since studies have shown that the power used to produce it actually causes more pollution than is saved by using it. These results are disputed though. In any case, it is unlikely to provide the whole answer, since the area needed to provide biodiesel for everyone is far larger than is actually available.

The Don · 17th October 2006, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

The issue of producing the hydrogen can be solved by producing it on site through solar and wind power. If every filling station had a roof of solar cells and a small wind turbine they should be able to produce enough fuel.

Energy density of gasoline, 34 MJ/litre according to this site http://www.woodgas.com/fuel_densities.htm

Assuming 100 vehicles a day, 50 litres per car, that's 170 GJ of energy requirement

Because electric vehicles are twice as efficient, but there's a cost of converting to Hydrogen, let's assume 100 GJ is required which, if we had 24 hours of generation would be 2 MW

Of course, we only have 12 hours of solar and 24 hours of wind, so that's a 1MW wind turbine and 2MW of solar cells.

A 1 MW wind turbine stands 50m tall, and has a rotor diameter of 54 m. from this site, http://www.afm.dtu.dk/wind/smep/bonus.html one in Denmark generated 1670 MWH in a year, we require 8800MWH from our wind turbine so we need 5 of them

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power it would seem that 1KWh per square metre per day is a good average output from solar cells. We would require 24,000 square metres of solar cells to get our 24MWH. That's quite big.

Of course this is for a tiny petrol station (5,000 l /day)

Kenny 10 Bellys · 17th October 2006, 05:20 AM

I love it when you talk maths!

Oil is dirty and running out rapidly, and every day we see the very human results of the hydraulic despotism that controls it. Electric vehicles in one form or another are pretty much the only way ahead at this point, unless someone somewhere knows something we dont? Be it fusion, hydrogen or anti-matter reactor driven, you or your kids will one day be driving an electric vehicle, regardless of cost effectiveness.

Cuddles · 17th October 2006, 05:26 AM

Fair enough, I don't think that idea was being considered too seriously, presumably that's why. I think the general concensus is it have a national distribution system like the gas one. This has it's own problems, but they should be solveable. In any case, I demand an anti-matter reactor in mine.

Bindamel · 17th October 2006, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Davo

Electric cars are at least twice as efficient as hybrids.Hybrids are around 30% more efficient than conventional vehicles.Should get around 120 miles per gallon equivalent.

Do you have a source for the at least twice as efficient statement? Is it an average? Power generation is very different in different places, and is affected by distance and mode of transimission. Is it Nuclear, Wind, Coal, Hydro, Solar?

If you are saying that the car itself is far more efficient, well yes. It's the equivalent of separating the car into an engine and a passenger compartment with transmission. The passenger car with transmission is very efficient. The engine, not so much.

The one thing electric cars do well is control pollution. If all of the pollution is centralized at a power plant, it is much easier to regulate emissions.

Quote:

I do see hybrids pushing the electric vehicle market as people get used to electric rather than combustion systems.

Absolutely, and the ebil gub'mint may have delayed the practical realization of the hybrid with its electric fleet requirements a decade ago. Once released from government mandate, more companies poured a lot more money into the hybrid market.

Quote:

Take the point of battery toxicity.Apparently All Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. I believe that parts of the battery can also be recycled. One other bonus is you wouldn`t have engine oil, clutch fluid to deal with as waste material.

I have introduced myself before as someone who at least WAS deeply involved in Li-ion research (I have been away from it for 5-6 years). Just because the government says that the materials in the batteries are classed non-hazardous, it doesn't mean they are. One of the best salts for Li-ion electrolytes is LiPF₆, which hydrolyzes in moist air to form HF, which then proceeds to leach calcium from your bones, which is a bad (TM) thing.

Quote:

I do see a problem with hydrogen economy as using electricity to generate hydrogen to convert back to electricity is not a very efficient process. Probably no more efficient than combustion just transferring the pollution source from the car to the power station.

Good that you recognize that hydrogen requires electricity to make the hydrogen. Too many folks jumping on the hydrogen bandwagon are thinking that hydrogen is a free energy solution. I suspect it is more efficient than current ICE technology, however. I've never researched hydrogen fuel cells, so I can't speak confidently on the issue.

Quote:

Advise checking out the tesla motors website, answers a lot of these subjects in detail. Interested to hear your comments on the tesla roadster.

I'll reserve comment for release. Just as hybrids integrated themselves into society, electrics can too. I've seen a lot of failures, though, so I'm going to wait for the physical evidence of pracitical electric vehicles.

Topspy · 17th October 2006, 05:43 AM

Of course there is the problem that electric cars take hours to charge, and every few years you get smacked with a bill for thousands of dollars to replace the batteries..... hard to sell a car like that.

Cuddles · 17th October 2006, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Topspy

Of course there is the problem that electric cars take hours to charge, and every few years you get smacked with a bill for thousands of dollars to replace the batteries..... hard to sell a car like that.

Which is exactly why fuel cells are so good.

joobz · 17th October 2006, 06:08 AM

Diesel is really a strong alternative, you just need to our technology. The reason why diesel didn't work before was that engines were noisy and exaust was sooty

Well, times have changed.
1.)Higher quality diesels and better scrubbers in cars eliminate this dirty emission.
2.)Engine quality/technology has improved greatly, not as noisy.
3.) Pieseelectric fuel injectors have greatly increased the fuel economy, getting even more power and lower gas costs.
4.) Diesel isn't as volitile as gasoline, so not as dangerous. You could lite a cigarette standing in a puddle of diesel and not have an explosion. COuldn't do that with gas.
5.) generation of Biodiesel (cleavage/removal of glycerol from fats without creating soap) is the primary step. As a ChemE, i expect this technology to improve and become more affordable faster than solar panels are placed at weigh stations.
6.)Diesel cars last forever. (Typical engine life span is +300,000miles). You consider the waste of the gas, consider the waste of the car. It's not trivial. What's the life span of an electric car?

I'd be interested if there was attempts at doing diesel/hybrid. (I don't know if that's even possible). But you'd really get a nice/bang for your buck.

With all that said, I'd love to see us on a hydrogen type economy. But again, safety is a huge concern. Nuclear is by far the most useful energy source, but we don't use it because of safety.

joobz · 17th October 2006, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Which is exactly why fuel cells are so good.

Yeah, I remember seeing a popular science where they showed if they could get pure fuel cell cars, it could completely change the way they are designed. You could have a flat chassis with all of the engine and steering, and you could place any cab on top to suit the needs of the person buying it. Really cool.

But I'm still waiting.

Also, don't forget that GM was burned by the electric car, literally. (they caught fire while charging). They pulled the entire line. It's part of the reason why they are so reluctant to go hybrid.

They are placing full stock into fuel cells (from what my bro-in-law says, he works there). Although, they will adapt designs to fit with biosource energies (like E85). That problem is just those small alochols are havoc on rubber seals. I've asked him about deisel, and he said there's no plans unless market forces push them that way.

The Don · 17th October 2006, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Nuclear is by far the most useful energy source, but we don't use it because of safety.

So far nuclear has been the largest scale non-carbon producing source of energy. The arguments against it are a combination of safety (or the perception thereof) and financial (nuclear power plants are quite pricey to decomission). Speaking as one who lives on an island, the development of practical tidal generators would be of immense benefit. Other possibilities I'd consider above solar and wind would include geotherman and hydroelectric.

TjW · 17th October 2006, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Which is exactly why fuel cells are so good.

Right. There you've got a car which gradually degrades in performance over hundreds of hours, and then you're presented with a bill for new membranes.

scotth · 17th October 2006, 07:50 AM

There is some murmering about some new storage technology that is more like existing capacitors than batteries. The big news is that the energy density is of a similar order as a can of gasoline.

Electric cars could be competive today, superior more likely, if battery tech allowed similar energy as 10 gallons of gasoline to be stored in a 200lb package of reasonable size.

Hopefully somebody can find a link to this.... I'm coming up with nothing relevant.

Target info for searching:

Technology developed by Bell Labs.
Bell Labs recently created a (privately held) company to bring this Tech to market.
Nobody at the new firm or within Bell Labs is interested in discussing this with the media
And maybe titanium being involved in a new type of capacitor.

Clearly, battery based would be easier to work with than the voltage decay curve of a capacitor. But, that can be overcome if the energy density is there.

joobz · 17th October 2006, 08:07 AM

Then how do you charge an electric car on a cross country trip? What's the recharge rate? I'd hate to have to refuel in 8 hours what used to take 5 minutes.

Electric cars may serve a nitch like in cities, (maybe something like the smart car). however, this idea never caught on in the states. Although, if you can imagine what cities would sound like if you removed all of those combustion engines with quite buzzes. that'd definitely be peaceful.

Cuddles · 17th October 2006, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Diesel is really a strong alternative, you just need to our technology. The reason why diesel didn't work before was that engines were noisy and exaust was sooty

Diesel is just as pointless as petrol. There is a limited supply of oil and we are getting close to running out. Biodiesel is more promising, but has the problems I posted above.

scotth · 17th October 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Then how do you charge an electric car on a cross country trip? What's the recharge rate? I'd hate to have to refuel in 8 hours what used to take 5 minutes.

Electric cars may serve a nitch like in cities, (maybe something like the smart car). however, this idea never caught on in the states. Although, if you can imagine what cities would sound like if you removed all of those combustion engines with quite buzzes. that'd definitely be peaceful.

The recharge rate is supposed to be just minutes.... That would obviously require a charging system that delivers a massive power flow. Probably a slow, overnight charge at home, and a fast charge at 'filling stations' using special high power equipment.

Cuddles · 17th October 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by TjW

Right. There you've got a car which gradually degrades in performance over hundreds of hours, and then you're presented with a bill for new membranes.

Because obviously no other car has parts that wear out. Generally, hydrogen fuel cells have much longer lifetimes than this, it's the ones that run on methane or convert gas themselves that have a problem with short lifetimes.

scotth · 17th October 2006, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Diesel is just as pointless as petrol. There is a limited supply of oil and we are getting close to running out.

I think you will be amazed how much more oil the world has left at 40-70 bucks a barrel. We are getting low on oil that can be had for $20 barrel. The higher price will make enormous volumes of oil economically recoverable.

With the higher prices, all you see in North Texas are oil and gas drilling rigs, everywhere.

joobz · 17th October 2006, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Diesel is just as pointless as petrol. There is a limited supply of oil and we are getting close to running out. Biodiesel is more promising, but has the problems I posted above.

When I say deisel, I include the development of biodeisel as well. I just hate the word biodeisel since adding "bio" to the front of terms is a huge trend in science, along with adding "nano"

But as for biodeisel limitations, I again state that the processing technology will improve quite fast, provided the market exists. Since Diesel cars can already accept portions of biodeisel...you don't need to worry about creating both the car and the energy source.

Yup, I would love to see a zero carbon economy, but I haven't seen real alternatives. The best we can do right now is generate renewable sources. Then figure out what to do with the CO2.

But again, you need to show a energy/Carbon emission to see if electric cars are better. Everyone is claiming electric power comes from sunshine and giggles, but until all powerplants are non-fossil fuel this isn't true.

scotth · 17th October 2006, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Yup, I would love to see a zero carbon economy, but I haven't seen real alternatives. The best we can do right now is generate renewable sources. Then figure out what to do with the CO2.

But again, you need to show a energy/Carbon emission to see if electric cars are better. Everyone is claiming electric power comes from sunshine and giggles, but until all powerplants are non-fossil fuel this isn't true.

If you generate a renewable resource, you don't have to figure out what to do with the carbon. You had to sequester carbon to make the fuel. You wind with a carbon 'wash' after the fuel is consumed.

Electricity is generated by a mix of fuel technologies. Significant portions are carbonless, today. And for that which is not carbonless, it would be much easier to build carbon re-capturing technology for a relatively few non-mobile/size-doesn't-matter-as-much power plants, than attempting to attatch it to every tail pipe.

joobz · 17th October 2006, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by scotth

If you generate a renewable resource, you don't have to figure out what to do with the carbon. You had to sequester carbon to make the fuel. You wind with a carbon 'wash' after the fuel is consumed.

Conceptually, yes. But Practically. I'm talking about farming production of biodeisel, which is renewable not sustainable. As for carbon scrubbers, show me one that isn't costly and reclaims carbon in a non-oxidzied form. There are some biomass attempts at this, I don't know how effective they are.

Quote:

Electricity is generated by a mix of fuel technologies. Significant portions are carbonless, today.

current estimates:
U.S. Electricity Sources (from world fact book http://bartleby.com/151/fields/77.html)
fossil fuel: 71.4%
hydro: 5.6%
other: 2.3% (2001)
nuclear: 20.7%

You have a strange definition of Significant. with 71% electricty coming from fossil fuels, electric cars aren't going to be that much better than hybrids. And with that extra power drain on the electric grid, brownouts will be a much more common phenomenon until Power companies create more plants, which will increase cost of electricity and increase carbon output...

Quote:

And for that which is not carbonless, it would be much easier to build carbon re-capturing technology for a relatively few non-mobile/size-doesn't-matter-as-much power plants, than attempting to attatch it to every tail pipe.

I almost would have to agree with you here. Except, considering the shear mass of CO2 produced at each powerplant, that would be heck of a reclimation setup needed. And like I said, I do not know of any technology that can really do it in the way you think it should be done.
You have chemical scrubbers only traps CO2 and it must be released to be reused
you have Activated carbon adsorbers: same as the chemical scrubber
Biomass (algaes): You'd need an amazing amount of algae to get all of the CO2.

roger · 17th October 2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Although, if you can imagine what cities would sound like if you removed all of those combustion engines with quite buzzes. that'd definitely be peaceful.

Most automobile noise is due to tire noise, not engine noise, I do believe.

joobz · 17th October 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by roger

Most automobile noise is due to tire noise, not engine noise, I do believe.

you believe half true. Engine noise is the larger source of external noise pollution. By elliminating the need for continuous controlled explosions, you'd cut down on noise pollution a ton. But fully, but a lot.

If you ever sat at a stopsign in a hybrid, you'd know what i mean.

Serenity · 17th October 2006, 10:23 AM

The solution will likely be a shotgun approach: Hybrids, electrics, and hydrogen, with each catering to their own niche market.

Check out this well delivered and informative MIT lecture for some interesting perspective. Don't miss the Q&A at the end. One of the speaker’s many points: If we can’t move beyond platinum (or other exotic metals) for fuel cell construction, fuel cells will remain costly and increase in direct proportion to demand.

The following Honda Solar Hydrogen Refueling Station if I recall correctly--when run off-grid--using solar, it is only capable of delivering one families yearly energy needs. Great concept though when or if it becomes cheap enough. Manufacture hydrogen via a blend of off-peak grid utilization and solar/wind, etc...
http://www.ieahia.org/pdfs/honda.pdf

ponderingturtle · 17th October 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by roger

Most automobile noise is due to tire noise, not engine noise, I do believe.

This depends alot on how good the exaust system is.

luchog · 17th October 2006, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Conceptually, yes. But Practically. I'm talking about farming production of biodeisel, which is renewable not sustainable.

It is perfectly possible to grow commercial biodiesel and other biofuel crops using sustainable methods. Some will even grow well on marginal land.

As for carbon, using strictly biofuels, carbon recover isn't necessary, since all recovered carbon is part of the existing carbon cycle. The problem with fossil fuels is that utilization of them releases massive amounts of carbon which has been sequestered for millenia, and is not part of the existing carbon cycle.

snooziums · 17th October 2006, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Diesel cars last forever. (Typical engine life span is +300,000miles). You consider the waste of the gas, consider the waste of the car. It's not trivial. What's the life span of an electric car?

The electric motor should last for a very long time.

Oh, and let us not forget steam engines. Those last practically forever.

Originally Posted by scotth

There is some murmering about some new storage technology that is more like existing capacitors than batteries. The big news is that the energy density is of a similar order as a can of gasoline.

Since I had two years in electronics in college, maybe I should say something. Capacitors can store quite a bit of energy, and they charge and discharge very fast. They are used in power supplies (to hold power between the AC cycles), and in applications like camera flashes that require lots of energy fast.

The problems with capacitors is that the leek energy internally, very badly. Let one sit for a while and it will discharge over half of its energy. Not a good choice if you want something that can sit for a while. The second problem with them is that they can explode or rupture internally if overcharged, or experience a voltage spike above their limit.

Originally Posted by scotth

The recharge rate is supposed to be just minutes...

I would really worry about recharging batteries in just minutes. Rapid charging and/or discharging of batteries shortens their life span considerably.

Originally Posted by joobz

Yup, I would love to see a zero carbon economy...

But, but, we are made of carbon. A "zero carbon economy" would not have any living things, including humans... (Note: I am kidding, just having some fun between discussions).

Originally Posted by joobz

If you ever sat at a stopsign in a hybrid, you'd know what i mean.

I know someone that has one. It is scary being at a stop, at first they had to keep reminding themselves not to keep starting the car. Then again, the car did not have any keys, the "remote" (keyless entry) was just placed in a slot on the dashboard.

Things reduced (not there) in an electric car: Cooling system (unless it has a large electric motor), carburetor or fuel injection, fuel pump, clutch or torque converter, separate alternator and starter, internal engine components like valves, camshafts, crankshafts, valve springs, push-rods and rocker arms (unless overhead cam), timing chain or belt (or in rare cases gear), and so on.

Things added in an electric car: Electric motor (far fewer internal parts), batteries, voltage converter/inverter (very complex), and so on.

scotth · 17th October 2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by snooziums

Since I had two years in electronics in college, maybe I should say something. Capacitors can store quite a bit of energy, and they charge and discharge very fast. They are used in power supplies (to hold power between the AC cycles), and in applications like camera flashes that require lots of energy fast.

The problems with capacitors is that the leek energy internally, very badly. Let one sit for a while and it will discharge over half of its energy. Not a good choice if you want something that can sit for a while. The second problem with them is that they can explode or rupture internally if overcharged, or experience a voltage spike above their limit.

I would really worry about recharging batteries in just minutes. Rapid charging and/or discharging of batteries shortens their life span considerably.

Since I spent eight years as a radar tech have a masters level handle on electronics....

Capacitors may be charged and discharged very rapidly, The actual charge time depends on their capacitance and the actual rate.

Capacitors do not necessarily leak their charge. You can get nailed by cap months after it has been used. Months, at least.

Batteries can explode or rupture internally if overcharged, or experience a voltage spike above their limit. Engines can explode or rupture internally for revving them to high, or not keeping their oil full, not to mention what can happen to a tank of gasoline if it is ill handled. Anything that can store enough energy to propel a car 300+ miles must be handled with proper care.

These aren't batteries. You've just been discussing capacitors for several lines. And the fact that capacitors can handle rapid charge/discharge rates was pointed by none other than you.

Not that much of the above has any bearing, anyway. Obviously, any capacitor with an energy density approaching that of gasoline is completely unlike any capacitor that has ever existed. And it is being designed with purpose of powering a car in mind. By professional engineers. With degrees and experience. From one of the most successful R&D labs in the world.

Will they turn it into a practical product? I don't know. I do know you are attempting to dismiss it as unpractical entirely prematurely.

The Don · 18th October 2006, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

It is perfectly possible to grow commercial biodiesel and other biofuel crops using sustainable methods. Some will even grow well on marginal land.

I understand that there's an issue around capacity and the fact that quite a lot of biodiesel would go into growing crops to make more biodiesel.

A new scientist artcle referred to here by a nuclear energy pressure group and so who's objectivity is suspect, give figures that:

- Existing corn and soyabean crops would only meet 5% of vehicular needs
- reductions in emmissions are low due to the fuel that goes into farming

scotth · 18th October 2006, 05:57 AM

The problem is the calculation to figure how much fuel one can 'grow' is pretty straightforward. I've seen them done numorous times. The percentage varies a bit, but the end conclusion is always the same. We really don't have near enough farmland to make a bid dent in our fuel needs....

Davo · 18th October 2006, 12:57 PM

One of the earlier posts referred to GM`s electric car fleet (ex)

Seemed that was actually quite a good vehicle, but never went on sale, only on lease.

Unsure of what truth there is in the vehicle being withdrawn because of fire hazard during battery charging.

Seems as though GM are deliberately trying to put people off electric vehicles. Typical excuses like "people don`t want to buy electric vehicles", even when people wanted to buy them. Offers were put in for the car fleet but GM still chose to scrap them. This case with GM is brought up in a movie/documentary," Who killed the electric car", haven`t seen it yet, but would be interested to see it on DVD release.

ponderingturtle · 18th October 2006, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Davo

One of the earlier posts referred to GM`s electric car fleet (ex)

Seemed that was actually quite a good vehicle, but never went on sale, only on lease.

Unsure of what truth there is in the vehicle being withdrawn because of fire hazard during battery charging.

Seems as though GM are deliberately trying to put people off electric vehicles. Typical excuses like "people don`t want to buy electric vehicles", even when people wanted to buy them. Offers were put in for the car fleet but GM still chose to scrap them. This case with GM is brought up in a movie/documentary," Who killed the electric car", haven`t seen it yet, but would be interested to see it on DVD release.

see this thread for a discussion of the movie, and why it made sense for GM to not sell the cars.

16th October 2006, 07:03 PM	#1
Davo Thinker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Auckland Posts: 218	Electric Cars - Automobile Industry The automobile Industry seems to be avoiding electric vehicles and going for Hydrogen fuel powered vehicles. Rechargeable vehicles seem to be an option. Note 2 vehicles as an example: I can`t post URL`s yet but look under Wrightspeed X1 and teslamotors roadster. Both vehicles with a 0-60 of 3/4 seconds and a reasonable mileage. If independant producers are coming up with these vehicles, why not the big companies who have far more technical experience. Not looking at this as some sort of conspiracy theory, just looking for some answers. Interested to hear some feedback.

16th October 2006, 07:21 PM	#2
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Electric cars are great for limiting emissions in cities, but the electricity is still coming from powerplants most likely burning coal. However, with the loss of energy from power transmission, you kinda lose the energy savings advantage you get from electric cars. It seems like Disel and biodisel offers the greatest advantages in resource management, but we'll see if that catches on
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

16th October 2006, 07:26 PM	#3
Davo Thinker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Auckland Posts: 218	electric cars - power source Coal, hydro, nuclear, solar, and natural gas are typical sources for generating electricity. Power generation plants, even coal burning ones, are inherently more efficient and less polluting than vehicles due to economies of scale and the ability to more efficiently remove pollutants from a smaller number of much larger fixed locations. Also, an electric car is far more efficient than a gasoline car, so the amount of pollution generated by producing the electricity to drive an EV a given distance is much less than the pollution from the gasoline to drive an internal combustion car the same distance. Above quote from tesla motors site. Recharging cars would also take advantage of using off peak energy supplies

16th October 2006, 07:37 PM	#4
snooziums Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 265	However, hybrid vehicles offer the advantages of both electric and fuel power. At a stop, the engine is off, not idling. When slowing down or breaking, the generator is recharging the batteries. During acceleration, the electric motor kicks in - thus a less powerful and thus a less polluting fuel engine is needed. Also, the vehicle never needs to be plugged in. And the alternator and starter are replaced by one unit. There are about 10 models of hybrid vehicles being sold, and they will push electric vehicle technology since they are part electric.
	__________________

16th October 2006, 07:40 PM	#5
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	true...to an extent. But it's still a borrow from peter to pay paul situation. I'd like to see a direct comparison of miles/carbon burnt. That'd be the only way to really show fuel efficiency of electric cars over gas engines over hybrids. Also, batteries don't last forever. Replacement would be expensive (an issue facing many of the hybrids) Also, they are made of heavy metals, so hazardous waste is still a concern (not as green as you'd think). the hydrogen economy is a great dream, but it's application would be near impossible to inact on any scale. Again, I'm willing to bet disel provides the most realistic option, next to hybrid
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

16th October 2006, 09:30 PM	#6
Davo Thinker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Auckland Posts: 218	vehicle efficiency Electric cars are at least twice as efficient as hybrids.Hybrids are around 30% more efficient than conventional vehicles.Should get around 120 miles per gallon equivalent. I do see hybrids pushing the electric vehicle market as people get used to electric rather than combustion systems. Take the point of battery toxicity.Apparently All Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. I believe that parts of the battery can also be recycled. One other bonus is you wouldn`t have engine oil, clutch fluid to deal with as waste material. I do see a problem with hydrogen economy as using electricity to generate hydrogen to convert back to electricity is not a very efficient process. Probably no more efficient than combustion just transferring the pollution source from the car to the power station. Advise checking out the tesla motors website, answers a lot of these subjects in detail. Interested to hear your comments on the tesla roadster.

16th October 2006, 09:43 PM	#7
trvlr2 Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 799	Tesla Motors? From the website: " Zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds with a top speed of over 130 mph. But this is not the whole story. Because it has no clutch and a very wide, flat torque curve, the acceleration of the Tesla Roadster is much more available to enjoy: just step on the accelerator and go - no matter what speed you are driving, no matter what gear you are in, the acceleration is instantaneous. We are currently in the midst of the important and time-consuming safety and durability testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications." You can't see it till 2007. Apparently it hasn't been produced as yet,maybe just prototype? Even though they claim 100 units sold-they don't mention ANY delivery. My BS detector is going off.
	__________________ Ignorance and stupidity should be painful,in trivial cases; excruciatingly so, in willful instance ; and invariably fatal, in arrogant, willful, cases. Owww! That smarts!

17th October 2006, 01:32 AM	#8
Daylight Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 499	If you add $30,000 in photovoltaic cells to the roof of your house (minus $10,000 credit from fed/state), live in a mostly sunny state you’ll basically have an electric car that has free energy. Factor in about $250 you no longer need to spend on gas and that could apply towards the car payment. What I don’t like for other methods is you are just substituting dependence on oil with another. How long before the prices on the replacement go up? One other thing to consider, if you replace CO2 with water vapor in a city like Los Angeles, wouldn’t that increase the humidity? Increase the humidity too much and you get a hot fog. Which can’t be good. Sort of like a green house effect?
Daylight Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 499

17th October 2006, 04:02 AM	#9
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,942	Originally Posted by trvlr2 From the website: " Zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds with a top speed of over 130 mph. But this is not the whole story. Because it has no clutch and a very wide, flat torque curve, the acceleration of the Tesla Roadster is much more available to enjoy: just step on the accelerator and go - no matter what speed you are driving, no matter what gear you are in, the acceleration is instantaneous. We are currently in the midst of the important and time-consuming safety and durability testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications." You can't see it till 2007. Apparently it hasn't been produced as yet,maybe just prototype? Even though they claim 100 units sold-they don't mention ANY delivery. My BS detector is going off. Info in Oct. Popular Mechanics - and picture - + you get a neat article on how to make some fun devices including a potato gun (and where to get materials to make one that will launch the potato at 400mph and will shoot it 400 yards!!.)!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,942

17th October 2006, 04:23 AM	#10
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,586	Originally Posted by Davo The automobile Industry seems to be avoiding electric vehicles and going for Hydrogen fuel powered vehicles. Hydrogen powered cars are electric cars. Fuel cells are simply very efficient, clean batteries. Conventional batteries are very inefficient, heavy and have limited lifetimes, so it is not really possible to make cars with decent power, since there is simply not enough space to fit all the batteries, plus charging them would take a long time. Fuel cells are much smaller and can be over 90% efficient, so it is fairly easy to fit enough in a car to give decent power. The main issues are with storage and distribution, which is more of a problem than natural gas since hydrogen molecules are so much smaller, and more explosive. If these problems are solved, and it seems likely they will be, electric cars will take over. The issue of producing the hydrogen can be solved by producing it on site through solar and wind power. If every filling station had a roof of solar cells and a small wind turbine they should be able to produce enough fuel. This also raises the possibility of just storing the hydrogen and then recharging regular electric cars using in situ fuel cells, if storing hydrogen in the cars themselves turns out to be impractical. There is also the option of sending hydrogen down established natural gas pipelines so that people can refuel their cars at home, as well as power their homes from a distributed power system. One of my friends is currently working on exactly this problem. Hybrids are pretty much pointless, since they still burn oil. They are more efficient than normal cars because their engines always run at the most efficient rate, but since we are going to run out of oil they canot be the answer. Biodiesel is controversial, since studies have shown that the power used to produce it actually causes more pollution than is saved by using it. These results are disputed though. In any case, it is unlikely to provide the whole answer, since the area needed to provide biodiesel for everyone is far larger than is actually available.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

17th October 2006, 05:03 AM	#11
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,239	Originally Posted by Cuddles The issue of producing the hydrogen can be solved by producing it on site through solar and wind power. If every filling station had a roof of solar cells and a small wind turbine they should be able to produce enough fuel. Energy density of gasoline, 34 MJ/litre according to this site http://www.woodgas.com/fuel_densities.htm Assuming 100 vehicles a day, 50 litres per car, that's 170 GJ of energy requirement Because electric vehicles are twice as efficient, but there's a cost of converting to Hydrogen, let's assume 100 GJ is required which, if we had 24 hours of generation would be 2 MW Of course, we only have 12 hours of solar and 24 hours of wind, so that's a 1MW wind turbine and 2MW of solar cells. A 1 MW wind turbine stands 50m tall, and has a rotor diameter of 54 m. from this site, http://www.afm.dtu.dk/wind/smep/bonus.html one in Denmark generated 1670 MWH in a year, we require 8800MWH from our wind turbine so we need 5 of them From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power it would seem that 1KWh per square metre per day is a good average output from solar cells. We would require 24,000 square metres of solar cells to get our 24MWH. That's quite big. Of course this is for a tiny petrol station (5,000 l /day)

17th October 2006, 05:20 AM	#12
Kenny 10 Bellys Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Central Scotland Posts: 291	I love it when you talk maths! Oil is dirty and running out rapidly, and every day we see the very human results of the hydraulic despotism that controls it. Electric vehicles in one form or another are pretty much the only way ahead at this point, unless someone somewhere knows something we dont? Be it fusion, hydrogen or anti-matter reactor driven, you or your kids will one day be driving an electric vehicle, regardless of cost effectiveness.
	__________________ Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth!

17th October 2006, 05:26 AM	#13
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,586	Fair enough, I don't think that idea was being considered too seriously, presumably that's why. I think the general concensus is it have a national distribution system like the gas one. This has it's own problems, but they should be solveable. In any case, I demand an anti-matter reactor in mine.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

17th October 2006, 05:34 AM	#14
Bindamel Muse Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 914	Originally Posted by Davo Electric cars are at least twice as efficient as hybrids.Hybrids are around 30% more efficient than conventional vehicles.Should get around 120 miles per gallon equivalent. Do you have a source for the at least twice as efficient statement? Is it an average? Power generation is very different in different places, and is affected by distance and mode of transimission. Is it Nuclear, Wind, Coal, Hydro, Solar? If you are saying that the car itself is far more efficient, well yes. It's the equivalent of separating the car into an engine and a passenger compartment with transmission. The passenger car with transmission is very efficient. The engine, not so much. The one thing electric cars do well is control pollution. If all of the pollution is centralized at a power plant, it is much easier to regulate emissions. Quote: I do see hybrids pushing the electric vehicle market as people get used to electric rather than combustion systems. Absolutely, and the ebil gub'mint may have delayed the practical realization of the hybrid with its electric fleet requirements a decade ago. Once released from government mandate, more companies poured a lot more money into the hybrid market. Quote: Take the point of battery toxicity.Apparently All Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. I believe that parts of the battery can also be recycled. One other bonus is you wouldn`t have engine oil, clutch fluid to deal with as waste material. I have introduced myself before as someone who at least WAS deeply involved in Li-ion research (I have been away from it for 5-6 years). Just because the government says that the materials in the batteries are classed non-hazardous, it doesn't mean they are. One of the best salts for Li-ion electrolytes is LiPF₆, which hydrolyzes in moist air to form HF, which then proceeds to leach calcium from your bones, which is a bad (TM) thing. Quote: I do see a problem with hydrogen economy as using electricity to generate hydrogen to convert back to electricity is not a very efficient process. Probably no more efficient than combustion just transferring the pollution source from the car to the power station. Good that you recognize that hydrogen requires electricity to make the hydrogen. Too many folks jumping on the hydrogen bandwagon are thinking that hydrogen is a free energy solution. I suspect it is more efficient than current ICE technology, however. I've never researched hydrogen fuel cells, so I can't speak confidently on the issue. Quote: Advise checking out the tesla motors website, answers a lot of these subjects in detail. Interested to hear your comments on the tesla roadster. I'll reserve comment for release. Just as hybrids integrated themselves into society, electrics can too. I've seen a lot of failures, though, so I'm going to wait for the physical evidence of pracitical electric vehicles.
Bindamel Muse Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 914

17th October 2006, 05:43 AM	#15
Topspy Scholar Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 119	Of course there is the problem that electric cars take hours to charge, and every few years you get smacked with a bill for thousands of dollars to replace the batteries..... hard to sell a car like that.

17th October 2006, 05:45 AM	#16
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,586	Originally Posted by Topspy Of course there is the problem that electric cars take hours to charge, and every few years you get smacked with a bill for thousands of dollars to replace the batteries..... hard to sell a car like that. Which is exactly why fuel cells are so good.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

17th October 2006, 06:08 AM	#17
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Diesel is really a strong alternative, you just need to our technology. The reason why diesel didn't work before was that engines were noisy and exaust was sooty Well, times have changed. 1.)Higher quality diesels and better scrubbers in cars eliminate this dirty emission. 2.)Engine quality/technology has improved greatly, not as noisy. 3.) Pieseelectric fuel injectors have greatly increased the fuel economy, getting even more power and lower gas costs. 4.) Diesel isn't as volitile as gasoline, so not as dangerous. You could lite a cigarette standing in a puddle of diesel and not have an explosion. COuldn't do that with gas. 5.) generation of Biodiesel (cleavage/removal of glycerol from fats without creating soap) is the primary step. As a ChemE, i expect this technology to improve and become more affordable faster than solar panels are placed at weigh stations. 6.)Diesel cars last forever. (Typical engine life span is +300,000miles). You consider the waste of the gas, consider the waste of the car. It's not trivial. What's the life span of an electric car? I'd be interested if there was attempts at doing diesel/hybrid. (I don't know if that's even possible). But you'd really get a nice/bang for your buck. With all that said, I'd love to see us on a hydrogen type economy. But again, safety is a huge concern. Nuclear is by far the most useful energy source, but we don't use it because of safety.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th October 2006, 06:13 AM	#18
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by Cuddles Which is exactly why fuel cells are so good. Yeah, I remember seeing a popular science where they showed if they could get pure fuel cell cars, it could completely change the way they are designed. You could have a flat chassis with all of the engine and steering, and you could place any cab on top to suit the needs of the person buying it. Really cool. But I'm still waiting. Also, don't forget that GM was burned by the electric car, literally. (they caught fire while charging). They pulled the entire line. It's part of the reason why they are so reluctant to go hybrid. They are placing full stock into fuel cells (from what my bro-in-law says, he works there). Although, they will adapt designs to fit with biosource energies (like E85). That problem is just those small alochols are havoc on rubber seals. I've asked him about deisel, and he said there's no plans unless market forces push them that way.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th October 2006, 06:30 AM	#19
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,239	Originally Posted by joobz Nuclear is by far the most useful energy source, but we don't use it because of safety. So far nuclear has been the largest scale non-carbon producing source of energy. The arguments against it are a combination of safety (or the perception thereof) and financial (nuclear power plants are quite pricey to decomission). Speaking as one who lives on an island, the development of practical tidal generators would be of immense benefit. Other possibilities I'd consider above solar and wind would include geotherman and hydroelectric.

17th October 2006, 07:44 AM	#20
TjW Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 9,991	Originally Posted by Cuddles Which is exactly why fuel cells are so good. Right. There you've got a car which gradually degrades in performance over hundreds of hours, and then you're presented with a bill for new membranes.
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly

17th October 2006, 07:50 AM	#21
scotth Atheist Political Candidate Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DFW, TX area Posts: 1,801	There is some murmering about some new storage technology that is more like existing capacitors than batteries. The big news is that the energy density is of a similar order as a can of gasoline. Electric cars could be competive today, superior more likely, if battery tech allowed similar energy as 10 gallons of gasoline to be stored in a 200lb package of reasonable size. Hopefully somebody can find a link to this.... I'm coming up with nothing relevant. Target info for searching: Technology developed by Bell Labs. Bell Labs recently created a (privately held) company to bring this Tech to market. Nobody at the new firm or within Bell Labs is interested in discussing this with the media And maybe titanium being involved in a new type of capacitor. Clearly, battery based would be easier to work with than the voltage decay curve of a capacitor. But, that can be overcome if the energy density is there.
	__________________ "This is one of things that I find so dangerous about religion. It actually allows people who are perfectly healthy psychologically, and quite intelligent even, to believe things that only a lunatic or an idiot could believe on his own." - Sam Harris in an internet radio interview with www.rationalresponders.com Hurst Photography

17th October 2006, 08:07 AM	#22
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Then how do you charge an electric car on a cross country trip? What's the recharge rate? I'd hate to have to refuel in 8 hours what used to take 5 minutes. Electric cars may serve a nitch like in cities, (maybe something like the smart car). however, this idea never caught on in the states. Although, if you can imagine what cities would sound like if you removed all of those combustion engines with quite buzzes. that'd definitely be peaceful.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th October 2006, 08:13 AM	#23
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,586	Originally Posted by joobz Diesel is really a strong alternative, you just need to our technology. The reason why diesel didn't work before was that engines were noisy and exaust was sooty Diesel is just as pointless as petrol. There is a limited supply of oil and we are getting close to running out. Biodiesel is more promising, but has the problems I posted above.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

17th October 2006, 08:15 AM	#24
scotth Atheist Political Candidate Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DFW, TX area Posts: 1,801	Originally Posted by joobz Then how do you charge an electric car on a cross country trip? What's the recharge rate? I'd hate to have to refuel in 8 hours what used to take 5 minutes. Electric cars may serve a nitch like in cities, (maybe something like the smart car). however, this idea never caught on in the states. Although, if you can imagine what cities would sound like if you removed all of those combustion engines with quite buzzes. that'd definitely be peaceful. The recharge rate is supposed to be just minutes.... That would obviously require a charging system that delivers a massive power flow. Probably a slow, overnight charge at home, and a fast charge at 'filling stations' using special high power equipment.
	__________________ "This is one of things that I find so dangerous about religion. It actually allows people who are perfectly healthy psychologically, and quite intelligent even, to believe things that only a lunatic or an idiot could believe on his own." - Sam Harris in an internet radio interview with www.rationalresponders.com Hurst Photography

17th October 2006, 08:15 AM	#25
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,586	Originally Posted by TjW Right. There you've got a car which gradually degrades in performance over hundreds of hours, and then you're presented with a bill for new membranes. Because obviously no other car has parts that wear out. Generally, hydrogen fuel cells have much longer lifetimes than this, it's the ones that run on methane or convert gas themselves that have a problem with short lifetimes.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

17th October 2006, 08:19 AM	#26
scotth Atheist Political Candidate Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DFW, TX area Posts: 1,801	Originally Posted by Cuddles Diesel is just as pointless as petrol. There is a limited supply of oil and we are getting close to running out. I think you will be amazed how much more oil the world has left at 40-70 bucks a barrel. We are getting low on oil that can be had for $20 barrel. The higher price will make enormous volumes of oil economically recoverable. With the higher prices, all you see in North Texas are oil and gas drilling rigs, everywhere.
	__________________ "This is one of things that I find so dangerous about religion. It actually allows people who are perfectly healthy psychologically, and quite intelligent even, to believe things that only a lunatic or an idiot could believe on his own." - Sam Harris in an internet radio interview with www.rationalresponders.com Hurst Photography

17th October 2006, 08:36 AM	#27
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by Cuddles Diesel is just as pointless as petrol. There is a limited supply of oil and we are getting close to running out. Biodiesel is more promising, but has the problems I posted above. When I say deisel, I include the development of biodeisel as well. I just hate the word biodeisel since adding "bio" to the front of terms is a huge trend in science, along with adding "nano" But as for biodeisel limitations, I again state that the processing technology will improve quite fast, provided the market exists. Since Diesel cars can already accept portions of biodeisel...you don't need to worry about creating both the car and the energy source. Yup, I would love to see a zero carbon economy, but I haven't seen real alternatives. The best we can do right now is generate renewable sources. Then figure out what to do with the CO2. But again, you need to show a energy/Carbon emission to see if electric cars are better. Everyone is claiming electric power comes from sunshine and giggles, but until all powerplants are non-fossil fuel this isn't true.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th October 2006, 08:43 AM	#28
scotth Atheist Political Candidate Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DFW, TX area Posts: 1,801	Originally Posted by joobz Yup, I would love to see a zero carbon economy, but I haven't seen real alternatives. The best we can do right now is generate renewable sources. Then figure out what to do with the CO2. But again, you need to show a energy/Carbon emission to see if electric cars are better. Everyone is claiming electric power comes from sunshine and giggles, but until all powerplants are non-fossil fuel this isn't true. If you generate a renewable resource, you don't have to figure out what to do with the carbon. You had to sequester carbon to make the fuel. You wind with a carbon 'wash' after the fuel is consumed. Electricity is generated by a mix of fuel technologies. Significant portions are carbonless, today. And for that which is not carbonless, it would be much easier to build carbon re-capturing technology for a relatively few non-mobile/size-doesn't-matter-as-much power plants, than attempting to attatch it to every tail pipe.
	__________________ "This is one of things that I find so dangerous about religion. It actually allows people who are perfectly healthy psychologically, and quite intelligent even, to believe things that only a lunatic or an idiot could believe on his own." - Sam Harris in an internet radio interview with www.rationalresponders.com Hurst Photography

17th October 2006, 09:47 AM	#29
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by scotth If you generate a renewable resource, you don't have to figure out what to do with the carbon. You had to sequester carbon to make the fuel. You wind with a carbon 'wash' after the fuel is consumed. Conceptually, yes. But Practically. I'm talking about farming production of biodeisel, which is renewable not sustainable. As for carbon scrubbers, show me one that isn't costly and reclaims carbon in a non-oxidzied form. There are some biomass attempts at this, I don't know how effective they are. Quote: Electricity is generated by a mix of fuel technologies. Significant portions are carbonless, today. current estimates: U.S. Electricity Sources (from world fact book http://bartleby.com/151/fields/77.html) fossil fuel: 71.4% hydro: 5.6% other: 2.3% (2001) nuclear: 20.7% You have a strange definition of Significant. with 71% electricty coming from fossil fuels, electric cars aren't going to be that much better than hybrids. And with that extra power drain on the electric grid, brownouts will be a much more common phenomenon until Power companies create more plants, which will increase cost of electricity and increase carbon output... Quote: And for that which is not carbonless, it would be much easier to build carbon re-capturing technology for a relatively few non-mobile/size-doesn't-matter-as-much power plants, than attempting to attatch it to every tail pipe. I almost would have to agree with you here. Except, considering the shear mass of CO2 produced at each powerplant, that would be heck of a reclimation setup needed. And like I said, I do not know of any technology that can really do it in the way you think it should be done. You have chemical scrubbers only traps CO2 and it must be released to be reused you have Activated carbon adsorbers: same as the chemical scrubber Biomass (algaes): You'd need an amazing amount of algae to get all of the CO2.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser Last edited by joobz; 17th October 2006 at 09:49 AM. Reason: had a missplaced smilie instead of an "o" sorry

17th October 2006, 10:05 AM	#30
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	Originally Posted by joobz Although, if you can imagine what cities would sound like if you removed all of those combustion engines with quite buzzes. that'd definitely be peaceful. Most automobile noise is due to tire noise, not engine noise, I do believe.
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

17th October 2006, 10:18 AM	#31
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by roger Most automobile noise is due to tire noise, not engine noise, I do believe. you believe half true. Engine noise is the larger source of external noise pollution. By elliminating the need for continuous controlled explosions, you'd cut down on noise pollution a ton. But fully, but a lot. If you ever sat at a stopsign in a hybrid, you'd know what i mean.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th October 2006, 10:23 AM	#32
Serenity Serenity Now! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: CT Central Lowlands Posts: 862	The solution will likely be a shotgun approach: Hybrids, electrics, and hydrogen, with each catering to their own niche market. Check out this well delivered and informative MIT lecture for some interesting perspective. Don't miss the Q&A at the end. One of the speaker’s many points: If we can’t move beyond platinum (or other exotic metals) for fuel cell construction, fuel cells will remain costly and increase in direct proportion to demand. The following Honda Solar Hydrogen Refueling Station if I recall correctly--when run off-grid--using solar, it is only capable of delivering one families yearly energy needs. Great concept though when or if it becomes cheap enough. Manufacture hydrogen via a blend of off-peak grid utilization and solar/wind, etc... http://www.ieahia.org/pdfs/honda.pdf

17th October 2006, 10:23 AM	#33
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by roger Most automobile noise is due to tire noise, not engine noise, I do believe. This depends alot on how good the exaust system is.

17th October 2006, 04:20 PM	#34
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 7,958	Originally Posted by joobz Conceptually, yes. But Practically. I'm talking about farming production of biodeisel, which is renewable not sustainable. It is perfectly possible to grow commercial biodiesel and other biofuel crops using sustainable methods. Some will even grow well on marginal land. As for carbon, using strictly biofuels, carbon recover isn't necessary, since all recovered carbon is part of the existing carbon cycle. The problem with fossil fuels is that utilization of them releases massive amounts of carbon which has been sequestered for millenia, and is not part of the existing carbon cycle.
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf "Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

17th October 2006, 06:33 PM	#35
snooziums Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 265	Originally Posted by joobz Diesel cars last forever. (Typical engine life span is +300,000miles). You consider the waste of the gas, consider the waste of the car. It's not trivial. What's the life span of an electric car? The electric motor should last for a very long time. Oh, and let us not forget steam engines. Those last practically forever. Originally Posted by scotth There is some murmering about some new storage technology that is more like existing capacitors than batteries. The big news is that the energy density is of a similar order as a can of gasoline. Since I had two years in electronics in college, maybe I should say something. Capacitors can store quite a bit of energy, and they charge and discharge very fast. They are used in power supplies (to hold power between the AC cycles), and in applications like camera flashes that require lots of energy fast. The problems with capacitors is that the leek energy internally, very badly. Let one sit for a while and it will discharge over half of its energy. Not a good choice if you want something that can sit for a while. The second problem with them is that they can explode or rupture internally if overcharged, or experience a voltage spike above their limit. Originally Posted by scotth The recharge rate is supposed to be just minutes... I would really worry about recharging batteries in just minutes. Rapid charging and/or discharging of batteries shortens their life span considerably. Originally Posted by joobz Yup, I would love to see a zero carbon economy... But, but, we are made of carbon. A "zero carbon economy" would not have any living things, including humans... (Note: I am kidding, just having some fun between discussions). Originally Posted by joobz If you ever sat at a stopsign in a hybrid, you'd know what i mean. I know someone that has one. It is scary being at a stop, at first they had to keep reminding themselves not to keep starting the car. Then again, the car did not have any keys, the "remote" (keyless entry) was just placed in a slot on the dashboard. Things reduced (not there) in an electric car: Cooling system (unless it has a large electric motor), carburetor or fuel injection, fuel pump, clutch or torque converter, separate alternator and starter, internal engine components like valves, camshafts, crankshafts, valve springs, push-rods and rocker arms (unless overhead cam), timing chain or belt (or in rare cases gear), and so on. Things added in an electric car: Electric motor (far fewer internal parts), batteries, voltage converter/inverter (very complex), and so on.
	__________________