- #1
sr241
- 83
- 0
the requirement of electricity by EV would lead to huge investment in power stations so should electric vehicles be banned. For more information: [crackpot link deleted]
Last edited by a moderator:
Topher925 said:You are right, a hydrogen economy makes much better sense.
sr241 said:how this can be nonsense? think about the nuclear waste from 100 times more fission reactors. until fusion reactor becomes economically viable (at least 50-100 years away), massive electrification of vehicle is absolute nonsense.
sr241 said:a home uses 5-30kWh per day vehicle needs 10-300 kWh per hour. so think about the massive nuclear waste to be disposed.
sr241 said:so increasing efficiency of thermal engines is the best way to survive.
sr241 said:does the manufacturers don't know this basic facts
sr241 said:2010 Prius curb weight = 3042 lbs
2010 Prius mpg = about 50
1984 Honda CRX HF curb weight = 1713 lbs
1984 Honda CRX HF mpg = 50-55
2009 Tesla roadster curb weight = 2723 lbs
well to charging station efficiency electricity from natural gas 52.5% (80% of it is 40.3%)
well to gas station efficiency diesel from crude oil gas 90.1% (50% of it is 45%)
well to gas station efficiency natural gas from natural gas 86%
well to gas station efficiency Hydrogen from natural gas 61%
well to gas station efficiency gasoline from crude oil gas 81.7%
you can clearly see that 80 % efficient electric vehicle(motor efficiency = 90% charge discharge efficiency of battery = 85%) consumes more fuel than 50% efficient diesel engine or diesal engine is more well to wheel efficient
charging time for Tesla is About 3.5 hours at 240 Volts and 70 amps.converting to kWh 3.5*240*70/1000=58.8kwh per day for Tesla or at 100mph speed, for 2 hours (range 200miles)
don't ignore the fact that fission fusion reactors use steam turbines. so improving heat engines has definite advantage.
mgb_phys said:so a new VW Golf doesn't get the same mpg that a 1985 model did.
mgb_phys said:everything else has to get bigger so you can survive a crash with a 4ton SUV, which then get bigger and so on.
When I moved to burger-eating side of the pond - the smallest VW I could buy was a 2.5L Golf that did 29mpg (UK gallons) and no diesels.xxChrisxx said:Mine does :P. I really miss my mk2 though. The mk4 weighs just about twice that of the mk2, even a new polo is bigger.
Any electric vehicle likely to plugged in at a residence would use no more than ~20 kWh in an hour (i.e. for 60 miles); this is based on a metric of ~4 miles per kWh for the new electric vehicles (Tesla, Leaf, iMiEV). The average US daily commute usage would be more like 10 kWh.sr241 said:vehicle needs 10-300 kWh per hour
[highlighting mine]mgb_phys said:... People buy bigger vehicles because they are safer (they aren't - it's an amazing victory for advertising) so crash standards have to improve and everything else has to get bigger
so you can survive a crash with a 4ton SUV...
mheslep said:This:
[highlighting mine]
seems to conflict with this?
Or the infrastructure needs to catch up (i.e. battery switching or fast charge). See, e.g., http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1044370_better-place-launches-battery-swap-test-in-four-tokyo-taxis" electric taxi service which runs all day using battery switch.xxChrisxx said:No as the future for short jump (supermini for a short daily commute to work) vehichles is electric. They are totally useless for longer distance travel currently, but that's only battery technology that needs to catch up.[...]
sr241 said:well to charging station efficiency electricity from natural gas 52.5% (80% of it is 40.3%)
well to gas station efficiency diesel from crude oil gas 90.1% (50% of it is 45%)
well to gas station efficiency natural gas from natural gas 86%
well to gas station efficiency Hydrogen from natural gas 61%
well to gas station efficiency gasoline from crude oil gas 81.7%
sr241 said:don't ignore the fact that fission fusion reactors use steam turbines. so improving heat engines has definite advantage.
That's not quite what the link says (the link is much worse), but even that is just useless.sr241 said:how this can be nonsense?
...
a home uses 5-30kWh per day vehicle needs 10-300 kWh per hour.
This part of your post is not about stiffness or old technology vs old. It's about big heavy car vs small, i.e. mass matters regarding safety.xxChrisxx said:This is why there is a trend on the school run for a huge 4x4 to be used, it's deemed to be safer. However this makes it less safe for anyone NOT in a 4x4, therefore other people buy them. So if everyone wen't back to driving a small family car (NCAP 5 star), the occupants would be just as safe in a crash.
mheslep said:This part of your post is not about stiffness or old technology vs old. It's about big heavy car vs small, i.e. mass matters regarding safety.
Reinforces my response to mgb_phy's #12.xxChrisxx said:And?
russ_watters said:The safety side-discussion is all just a matter of talking past each other. Saying bigger cars are/aren't safer than smaller cars depends on for whom you are talking about. If you buy a bigger car than you have now, you'll be safer, but everyone else on the road will be less safe.
Assuming you mean less safe than smaller vehicles, says who?mgb_phys said:SUVs are inheritantly less safe,
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/safest-cars-volvo-subaru-honda-ford/story?id=9729865"The single most important contributor to a vehicle's crash survivability is its mass," said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Arlington, Va.-based Insurance Institute, which conducts ongoing crash tests on 150 vehicles.
mheslep said:Assuming you mean less safe than smaller vehicles, says who?http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/safest-cars-volvo-subaru-honda-ford/story?id=9729865
sr241 said:you think massive vehicles are safer in crash, how? do you know conservation of momentum (mass * velocity). In heavy vehicle impact of crash will be higher due to high momentum. And you think extra weight in Tesla and Prius are for safety only battery and hybrid system doesn't add mass hugely? think again.
of course crumble zones and air bag add safety but protects passenger cabin only
"well to charging station efficiency electricity from natural gas 52.5% (80% of it is 40.3%)
well to gas station efficiency diesel from crude oil gas 90.1% (50% of it is 45%)
well to gas station efficiency natural gas from natural gas 86%
well to gas station efficiency Hydrogen from natural gas 61%
well to gas station efficiency gasoline from crude oil gas 81.7% " these data are from Tesla official site (http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/well_to_wheel.php) you think that site is crackpot ? whose side are you on?
But only because there is 5% vat on the domestic electric and 99% tax on the diesel (forget the real figures). You can bet whoever is PM tomorrow isn't going to say "oh well petrol tax was nice while it lasted", they are going to find a way of extracting the same amount of tax for electric carsxxChrisxx said:The tesla is also cheaper to refuel given night electricity rates. I pay about 12p per kWh (I can't find a real figure, this seems semi sensible). As you say it takes 58 kWh. Coming to a grand total of £6.96 to charge something that will get you 200 miles. £6.96 will now get you about 5.5 lites of diesel (1.2 gallons imp) giving you a total range of 84 miles in the polo.
mgb_phys said:But only because there is 5% vat on the domestic electric and 99% tax on the diesel (forget the real figures). You can bet whoever is PM tomorrow isn't going to say "oh well petrol tax was nice while it lasted", they are going to find a way of extracting the same amount of tax for electric cars