Bear with me that this is right off the top of my head and I haven't researched this, but from I have read of Electric cars they use the same batteries as are found in laptops and cellphones right? Well, don't those batteries drain if you let them sit for a while? So, if you don't use your car every day you'll need to recharche the c0cksucker constantly? Thus, totally destroying any MPG benefits and probably making it much thirstier than a regular gas car.
The other problem is the Power Grid, especially the one in California that keeps going out. How are you supposed to take on the extra load of electricity demand? You're already importing electric power from Canada in the Northeast and the Rolling Blackouts of the west don't fare well for there either.
The last thing isn't a problem, but it's two concerns about electric cars. Since they suck up all the juice and people need to drive a lot, won't the government start regulating electrical appliances like computers and TVs and refrigerators? Eventually banning huge 60+ inch TV's and such? Don't laugh, it could happen.
Just thinking out loud. I love bull sessions with you guys. You're better than any bar buddies.
No on both. The Volt will stop charging when the batteries are fully charged so you can keep it plugged in w/o it raping your electric bill. Also the Volt will be mostly plugged in @ night when the grid is strained less.
Hmm, interesting. I still think electrics will end up overloading the grids though. There's just too much demand and they want to introduce them too quickly.
Thanks for the video Wade. I've always liked Electric Engines, just never thought Electric Cars fueled by batteries could work. Personally I think we'll see Electric super luxury cars like Aston Martins, Maybachs, Bentleys and Rolls-Royces in the next 10 years. They're the perfect engines for those. Quiet, smooth and powerful. Electric engines rock, they just suck at
Also, what's nice is that the car is an older model converted to electric power. I bet the greenies will scream murder when people start racing electrics, but it's bound to happen. Like they say, the first race occured when the second ever car was built.
(Damn lack of an edit button) Thanks for the video Wade. I've always liked Electric Engines, just never thought Electric Cars fueled by batteries could work. Personally I think we'll see Electric super luxury cars like Aston Martins, Maybachs, Bentleys and Rolls-Royces in the next 10 years. They're the perfect engines for those. Quiet, smooth and powerful. Electric engines rock, they just suck at ...having a decent range and in the weight department. Hydrogen fuel cells offer much better performance and value imo.
"White Zombie" has made some very qiuck runs. A little lacking in the travel distance department though. Last I knew the battery pack was replaced with a much more efficient battery type.
I have another one. What about cold weather. When it is -30 outside your battery isn't gonna last very long, so any electric car would have an extremely short range in the winter time.
Jonathan wrote:I have another one. What about cold weather. When it is -30 outside your battery isn't gonna last very long, so any electric car would have an extremely short range in the winter time.
I see this a big issue for electric only cars. Heaters and AC are big power eaters.
Many of the CA brown outs were profit motivated. Nighttime power is far cheaper to produce.
The only way electric carn replace IC cars will be if they are powered by a Hydrogen fuel cell.
Batteries will simply be a recycling disaster.
You guys are not getting on board with the P.R.O.G.R.A.M. We are raping the planet, ruining the habitat of the yellow-tuffted titmouse, pissing oil into the water of our aquatic friends and such.
Electric is good.....gasoline bad. Now eat your rice cake, drink your organic soy milk and take a nap.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm sure that's sarcasm, but it is actually true; whether everyone chooses to ignore it or not. Oh, and I do have organic soy milk and rice cakes in my kitchen.
There is no combination of electric, hybrid, hydrogen, or other type of car that is ever going to be environmentally sustainable or friendly. The whole idea of everyone having their own personal vehicle like we do is just mind-blowingly stupid. With all the rapid westernization of countries like China and India it becomes apparant that if everyone has their own car there won't even be room to park them all, that's assuming that there is enough material on earth to even build the cars (there isn't).
That being said, there is never going to be a vehicle that comes without problems, like producing the electricity to charge the batteries, or a source of hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a huge waste also.
People get all excited because ooooh its exhaust is water. Well look at the amount of electricty required to split enough water particles to create hydrogen and we are pretty much breaking even. Hydrogen doesnt occur naturally in its natural state its alwasy bonded to another element so no matter what were splitting it from something.
Craig Lewis wrote:Many of the CA brown outs were profit motivated. Nighttime power is far cheaper to produce.
Check out that Enron movie, most of the black outs back then were caused by Enron selling power out the the state, and then importing it back in at a huge premium.
They also shut down power plants during peak demand times.
I've been saying that the electric load that would be placed on the system if even 5% of all cars in the next 5 years would be unsustainable.
TheSundownFire wrote:Hydrogen is a huge waste also.
People get all excited because ooooh its exhaust is water. Well look at the amount of electricty required to split enough water particles to create hydrogen and we are pretty much breaking even. Hydrogen doesnt occur naturally in its natural state its alwasy bonded to another element so no matter what were splitting it from something.
Here's what I believe the answer is......
Plug in hybrid
Batteries and capacitors for regenerative breaking and quick discharge.
Hydrogen fuel cell for long trips.
The hydrogen could be burned directly to heat the interior or use it's expansion to cool.
Most of our journeys could be satisfied with electric alone so we only need to fill the hydrogen tank every so often or when we are on a long trip.
Since the time between fillups is long, we can cheaply make hydrogen on a small scale at home. I have electrlolosized(?) enough hydrogen with a 12 volt battery to keep a candle size flame going.
Whether you use the grid or produce it with any form of home made electricity, you can make the Hydrogen when the energy is cheap and store it for the next fillup.
Understand that our energy grid is designed to deal with dramatic peaks. When considering slow and steady supplies of energy to produce hydrogen, we can utilize many more oportunities. Noteably the ability to make it easily at home.
Quantity of scale willl help with the costs as it will for the cell itself.. About ten years ago, it cost about 30g's for a cell big enough to power a car. If we were only building one car with it, it would be cheaper by now....
Even if we release carbon to make electricity, we can at least manage those emissions from centralized locations. You might be amazed at how cleanly coal can be burned now. They use what amounts to massive catalitic converters to burn of the badness in a controlled and monitored way. It's better than allowing the common person who find's it too costly to fix an oil leak let alone assure that thier emissions and tune are perfect..
I have actually hear that there are times where nuclear plants have to burn off extra energy off peak. It's my undersatanding that one company owns most of the worlds nuclear material, so I'm not to sure about relying on that. It's my understanding that no nuclear plant has ever really paid for itself anywway.
We are really far off on electric replacements for many things. I for one would like to leave some fuel for the toys and try to make my daily transportation more efficient and environment friendly. If we had moved earlier, maybe the two stroke would have stayed around.
I also believe that we should try to figure out how to take power from a highway as we are on it. I can't help but think of my slot cars as a kid.
Since the automotive industry tore down most of the suburban railways in order to sell cars instead, our cities can never be rebuilt to make room for decent mass transit.. People don't want it anyway. Personal transportation is wanted and needed. We just need to get people to accept that they don't need to drive 600km on one tank of energy. At least, not allllll the time with 3 empty seats.
I love the smell of gas. I want to be able to burn it. I want future generations to burn it too. The maybe unrealized beauty of hydrogen is that if we ever do run out of oil, you could still convert that 427 to burn the big H.
Cellulosic ethanol > hydrogen
The engines are already on the road. The infrastructure is already there.
Craig Lewis wrote:I have electrlolosized(?) enough hydrogen with a 12 volt battery to keep a candle size flame going.
Whether you use the grid or produce it with any form of home made electricity, you can make the Hydrogen when the energy is cheap and store it for the next fillup.
That is so incredibly inefficient it's a step backwards. Not to mention you have to actually capture that hydrogen. People can brew ethanol at home too, but it doesn't mean they
should.
Craig Lewis wrote:Even if we release carbon to make electricity, we can at least manage those emissions from centralized locations. You might be amazed at how cleanly coal can be burned now. They use what amounts to massive catalitic converters to burn of the badness in a controlled and monitored way.
Clean coal may be cleaner when it comes to certian byproducts, but its carbon output is still rampant. I've also seen stats suggesting the nuclear waste expelled from burning coal is actually greater than fission generation (per kW electricity produced).
Craig Lewis wrote:I have actually hear that there are times where nuclear plants have to burn off extra energy off peak. It's my understanding that no nuclear plant has ever really paid for itself anywway.
The off-peak can not be used as an issue if you are arguing FOR plug-in vehicles... Also, seeing as most nuclear plants are 20 years past their initial life cycle estimate, I guarantee they are VERY profittable now. The savings from not having to build new plants is probably helping greatly to offset new solar plant start-up costs.
Craig Lewis wrote:The maybe unrealized beauty of hydrogen is that if we ever do run out of oil, you could still convert that 427 to burn the big H.
Or ethanol, more easily
We did a study on the use of hydrogen as fuel in internal combustion engines, and bottom line, it might as well be a joke because it's certainly not a practical solution.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Quiklilcav wrote:as well as the E85 that makes my food more expensive due to increased demand on corn and grain.
While you're emailing those death threats to your state senators, tell them to stop supporting corn subsidies and start supporting cellulosic production. Both will lower your food prices considerably.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
OHV notec,
You'll have to forgive my issues with the quotes.
As an emergency measure, I certainly agree with having the vehicles capable of using plant fuel. However, competition between growing fuel and food will drive prices of both up. Aggressive farming has proven time and again to damage the lands. Corporate farmers will load the soil with fertilizer(petrochemicals) in order to maximize profit. We should also take value in that an electric car needs little to no maintenance. With our roadways jammed and no hope for relief., there is no question idling time is a massive issue for any form of internal combustion engine.
Remember, with a hydrogen fuel cell/plug in hybrid, the car idealy should be able to handle everyones daily camute. It could be three months before you need a fill of hydrogen as you were plugging it in every night. If you had three months to gather hydrogen, there would be an economical way. Imagine a small windmill providing the power. If you are not using it in the house, make H. If that windmill spins a thousand times in waste to make hydrogen, there is no loss.
My point about coal was to illustrate that centralizing carbon emissions makes for a more manageable burn. Leaving it to the hands of the populace to be responsible is pointless. I am in no way suggesting that we burn coal for hydrogen. I would still use coal to fill in gaps in power during peak since coal can be fired up easily.
Nuclear plants go through massive refurbishings throughout their life. Generally costing far more than they did to build in the first place. Then there's the almost eternal cost of storing waste. I believe nuclear has a place in our world, but I challenge anyone to show me a profitable one without government subsidy. In my area, the company owning a plant expects 600 million from the government just to connect it to the grid. Costs are expected to double and each KW will be subsidized after that.
How about an air powered car.
http://www.snotr.com/video/835
Knoxfire Esquire wrote:Eventually banning huge 60+ inch TV's and such? Don't laugh, it could happen.
Its not funny, it is already happening in California...
Quote:
Your Big Screen Banned?
(courtesy of ocregister.com)
In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV
Couch potatoes, beware.
The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.
"The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California," said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.
Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary – because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.
Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.
"This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use," Johnson said.
Poppycock, says the commission.
Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.
The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30 per television per year.
"I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like to save money," Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb said the commission is exploring the regulations to reduce the strain on the energy grid and to avoid building new power plants.
Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Californians are buying bigger TVs, and more of them. If something doesn’t happen, televisions are going to devour a bigger and bigger piece of the state’s power grid, which means we’ll need more power plants. More power plants mean more greenhouse gas emissions.
"Consumers aren’t aware of the hidden cost of powering these things," Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb insisted that the regulations wouldn’t eliminate big screens from California stores. But the commission’s own draft report says TV energy use is "proportional to the screen size." And there’s no doubt the regulations will limit energy use.
So if you’re in the market for big screen TV, now might be the time to buy. The regulations are expected to be approved this summer.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein
When I first read this thread I was hoping you had a reply in it. 10 minutes later it came true, sweet deal, and thanks for the truly educated input on said subject Rosario.
Rosario wrote:Quote:
I've been saying that the electric load that would be placed on the system if even 5% of all cars in the next 5 years would be unsustainable.
If you belive that, you must have no knowledge on how the Countries electrical system works...
Our local power company estimates almost a doubling in electrical demand if 25% of drivers go electric. It's not that the grid itself can't handle it, it's that they can't produce nearly enough to feed it.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
What do I know....im not gunna argue
An interesting tidbit about that White Zombie Datsun. It makes 240+ hp and 772 ft. lbs. torque. Which is astounding. It also doesn't have a transmission, instead the "gear" changes and engine speeds are computer controlled. I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense that electric cars wouldn't need transmissions at all, instead using the motor itself as a transmission.
Personally, I think electric engines are the future. If they can get past the problems of powering them we could see a new generation of very cool cars come along.
I vote for Mr. Fusion in every vehicle by 2015, followed immediately by flight, foldup wheels, and flux capacitors...
ONE-POINT-TWENTY-ONE-GIGAWATTS!!!!
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
