Are Electric Cars the Future of Transportation?

[Sustainabilit]

Am trying to know*how electric cars could be more desirable to own and the public views on the future of electric cars?

[spam deleted]

 

[neu]

Electric cars are unnatractive as they take hours to charge and you need lots of filling stations before anyone buys a car, so business needs to make a big leap before anyone considers it.

But a good idea I heard was that instead of charging your own battery, you lease one. And when you run it down you pull into a depot and just replace the battery with a fully charged one.

It's also a lot less hastle and much safer than having millions of gallons of petrol being transported and stored everywhere.

Of course you still have the question of where the electricity comes from.

 

[Blenton]

The best thing i see about electric cars is the reduction of pollution in city areas. Even though they run on electricity and it is ultimately produced by 'unclean' sources, at least the powerplants are usually positioned away from the populace. Since being in a city, you don't need huge acceleration and or longevity on battery life.

 

[neu]

ultimately you want to get people out of cars altogether, especially in the city, and onto public transport.That way even with combustion engines you're hugely reducing the CO2e per head.

 

[hypatia]

The one hazard I noticed while walking in a historic area, that ran many old electric cars, was that you could not hear them coming.

 

[LowlyPion]

The one hazard I noticed while walking in a historic area, that ran many old electric cars, was that you could not hear them coming.

They need to outfit them with speakers playing the sound of a revving engine I think.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Am trying to know*how electric cars could be more desirable to own and the public views on the future of electric cars?

I'll take one of these right now! It is only $100K or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6gD6r3-cw

 

[russ_watters]

In case no one noticed, the OP was just spam...I'll leave the thread open since it seems to have generated some real discussion, though.

 

[LowlyPion]

There's also the Tesla, if they survive:
http://www.teslamotors.com/

$109K

 

[drankin]

We just need a cleaner burning fuels. Then everything can stay pretty much as is. We've had this discussion numerous times. A strictly electric vehicle doesn't have the energy capacity needed by most commuters. For example, most people I work with live at least 30 miles away. Look at all the energy needed to heat/cool a vehicle and move it from A to B across diverse terrain. Sure it can be done, but not at a price the masses will buy into. In order for the costs to come down, everyone would have to buy into it, our infrastructure would have to change significantly. Nice ideas but I don't see it ever happening on a large scale.

 

[russ_watters]

Define "clean". All fossil fuels will emit carbon dioxide, which today is considered a pollutant.

 

[neu]

Define "clean". All fossil fuels will emit carbon dioxide, which today is considered a pollutant.

hydrogen can be implemented like natural gas (but with a lower power/volume ratio) and is clean. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis using electricity from renewables but this is only ~30% efficient, Or potentially harvested from photocatalytic metal oxide surfaces, but a long way off yet. And it's difficult to transport large volumes of H compared to natural gas.

W.r.t to transport, we can still have massive cuts in emmisions by changing the way we travel. As I mentioned, a more efficient and pleasent public transport system, if it were used by everyone, would reduce emissions per person hugely without changing our source of fuel.

There is no panecea, e.g. electric cars, we cannot go on living the way we do, e.g. 1 person per car, we have to change, not necessarily for the worse, our entire way of life, particulaly in the developed world, in order to give ourselves any chance of stemming climate change

 

[drankin]

hydrogen can be implemented like natural gas (but with a lower power/volume ratio) and is clean. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis using electricity from renewables but this is only ~30% efficient, Or potentially harvested from photocatalytic metal oxide surfaces, but a long way off yet. And it's difficult to transport large volumes of H compared to natural gas.

W.r.t to transport, we can still have massive cuts in emmisions by changing the way we travel. As I mentioned, a more efficient and pleasent public transport system, if it were used by everyone, would reduce emissions per person hugely without changing our source of fuel.

There is no panecea, e.g. electric cars, we cannot go on living the way we do, e.g. 1 person per car, we have to change, not necessarily for the worse, our entire way of life, particulaly in the developed world, in order to give ourselves any chance of stemming climate change

You can't stop climate change. If all human activity stopped tomorrow the climate would still "change".

 

[DaveC426913]

You can't stop climate change. If all human activity stopped tomorrow the climate would still "change".

Fine. Insert the phrase "human-activity-induced global warming" if that works better for you.

 

[hypatia]

I keep telling my family not to eat so many beans.

 

[misgfool]

I keep telling my family not to eat so many beans.

That will never work. You have to set up bean eating quotas and strict sanctions for violating them.

 

[mgb_phys]

Define "clean". All fossil fuels will emit carbon dioxide, which today is considered a pollutant.

A modern small diesel engine does better end-end efficiency and lower CO2 than most electric cars, especially when 50% of your power is from coal.

 

[LowlyPion]

A modern small diesel engine does better end-end efficiency and lower CO2 than most electric cars, especially when 50% of your power is from coal.

Coal is clean. I've seen the commercials now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_U1Z0vezw

 

[russ_watters]

hydrogen can be implemented like natural gas (but with a lower power/volume ratio) and is clean. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis using electricity from renewables but this is only ~30% efficient, Or potentially harvested from photocatalytic metal oxide surfaces, but a long way off yet. And it's difficult to transport large volumes of H compared to natural gas.

Since all electricity is transported on the same wires, you can't just say 'this power is coming from renewables'. It just doesn't work that way. If you power something with electricity, it's energy comes from whatever the mix of energy sources is that provides the electricity. In our case, that's 50% coal.

Even if you build a dedicated solar plant that only powers an electrolysis plant, the net effect is the same: you could have plugged the solar plant into the grid and offset some coal based power instead.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A modern small diesel engine does better end-end efficiency and lower CO2 than most electric cars, especially when 50% of your power is from coal.

Esp when the diesel is burning biodiesel derived from algae - approximately CO2 neutral. Note also that a mix of oils from algae and jatropha was tested, in flight, on a 737. The biodiesel performed just as well as the regular fuel and was more efficient [higher mileage].
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/08/airline.biofuels/index.html?iref=newssearch

There is also a good chance that biologically produced hydrogen is [will be] the solution to the H2 supply problem. A group at MIT is pursuing the algae-to-hydrogen option right now.

 

[neu]

Since all electricity is transported on the same wires, you can't just say 'this power is coming from renewables'. It just doesn't work that way. If you power something with electricity, it's energy comes from whatever the mix of energy sources is that provides the electricity. In our case, that's 50% coal.

Even if you build a dedicated solar plant that only powers an electrolysis plant, the net effect is the same: you could have plugged the solar plant into the grid and offset some coal based power instead.

OK consider it a gedanken experiment

 

[neu]

Esp when the diesel is burning biodiesel derived from algae - approximately CO2 neutral.

There is also a good chance that biologically produced hydrogen is [will be] the solution to the H2 supply problem. A group at MIT is pursuing the algae-to-hydrogen option right now.

Excuse me if I'm misconstruing your point, but when anyone mentions biofuels seriously w.r.t Climate change I want to scratch my eyes out.

You mention algae, does this involve oceans filled with iron fillings or is it a sustainable and ecologically acceptable means of harvesting fuel? As opposed to the idea (i realize separate idea) of sticking a bigger price tag on biofuel crops than food crops, whilst also requiring double the agricultural land space.

Sorry I'm genuinely interested in the study you mentioned, do you have a ref?

 

[mgb_phys]

You mention algae, does this involve oceans filled with iron fillings or is it a sustainable and ecologically acceptable means of harvesting fuel?

It could be - take waste material (sewage / corn stalks / bark chips/ chicken feathers) in a few transparent plastic covered tanks in the desert and it could be a good way of converting sunlight into energy.
Especially for applications like aircraft where it's going to be tricky to use electric or hydrogen

As opposed to the idea (i realize separate idea) of sticking a bigger price tag on biofuel crops than food crops,

Crops for fuel have nothing to do with global warming - they are all to do with subsidising farmers in a way that doesn't annoy the WTO.

 

[drankin]

Fine. Insert the phrase "human-activity-induced global warming" if that works better for you.

The only problem with that is many of us are not convinced that "human-activity-induced global warming" is a reality. Human induced polution, of course. Polution = global warming, not convinced. There are many posts debating this if you are interested.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Excuse me if I'm misconstruing your point, but when anyone mentions biofuels seriously w.r.t Climate change I want to scratch my eyes out.

Sounds like a personal problem. Algae would be a carbon-neutral fuel source IF, unlike ethanol from corn, it is a net energy positive process. Unlike corn-ethanol, the high yields are what make algae an attractive option.

You mention algae, does this involve oceans filled with iron fillings or is it a sustainable and ecologically acceptable means of harvesting fuel? As opposed to the idea (i realize separate idea) of sticking a bigger price tag on biofuel crops than food crops, whilst also requiring double the agricultural land space.

Take a look. I have never seen a viable option that offers as much promise.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274

Some companies have proposed starting algae blooms in the ocean, in return for carbon credits, but that is purely for CO2 purposes and not what I am referencing. Biodiesel from algae offers a sustainable path to energy independence, which is worth between a half to a trillion dollars a year in oil imports - money that is evaporating from the US economy right now. In fact oil imports accounts for ~ 60% of our trade deficit, [depending on the price of petrol, etc]. The reason that this is the best of all options is that it is not only a sustainable technology, not only does it have net energy yields [per acre-year] that is twenty or forty times better than any other option, the fuel is compatible with modern diesel engines. Note also that above I linked a 737 test flight using a mix of algae oil.

 

[neu]

Crops for fuel have nothing to do with global warming - they are all to do with subsidising farmers in a way that doesn't annoy the WTO.

I agree, There is also the extremely unpleasant added consequence of a market that favours growing food for cars over food for people.

w.r.t fuel from algae, I'm only vaguely aware of this, I previously, perhaps naively, lumped it in with land farmed biofuels, i'll take a look.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, please don't confuse food crops with second generation fuel techonologies. We all know that that corn-ethanol in particular is a joke. Biodiesel has the same problem when it comes from things like soybeans - the yields per acre-year are far too low to be viable as a general fuel source option.

 

[Loren Booda]

Neglecting friction, at least how long (or far) would it take a total load of 100 kg, propelled by the Earth's magnetic field, to accelerate to 100 kmh?