Should Electric vehicle be banned?

[sr241]

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]

 

[mgb_phys]

Does your underbridge acomodation not include a charging station then?

 

[xxChrisxx]

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.

I really don't see what your argument is, even if you use an oil fired power station to charge the car, the fact it's much larger and can benefit from thigs such as CO2 scrubbing, economies of scale.

Also when oil inevitably becomes more expensive, and if there was a switch to nuclear or whatever, then the benefits of the electric car are even greater.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, that link is just crackpot nonsense and such things are not allowed here, so I deleted it.

 

[sr241]

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. a home uses 5-30kWh per day vehicle needs 10-300 kWh per hour. so think about the massive nuclear waste to be disposed. so increasing efficiency of thermal engines is the best way to survive. does the manufacturers don't know this basic facts

 

[xxChrisxx]

Total bollocks.

You are using up 'x' amount of energy whether you burn petrol in a car or in a power station. Power stations are better equiped to deal with the waste, they are also more efficient in converting raw fuel to power than a car is (especially CHP plants). Plus power stations are making the electicity anyway, a massive proportion of that goes to waste at night, when they could be used to charge cars.

And the claim that you can simply increase the efficiency of a combustion engine to 55% is utter ********. It's getting to the point that even marginal gains are prohibitavely expensive. Your typical highly turbocharged modern diesel engine is running close to 40-45% efficieny. You can't just find another 10, just like that.

 

[Topher925]

You are right, a hydrogen economy makes much better sense.

 

[xxChrisxx]

You are right, a hydrogen economy makes much better sense.

I actually think fuel cell cars are a better bet than battery EV. Problem is the chicken and the egg, they won't make hydrogen cars viable until there is widespread h2 refilling infrastructure, and they won't make the infrastructure until there is a good market for it.

You've still got to use the powerstations to liberabte those lovely H2 molecules though.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

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.

Nuclear waste is relatively easy to take care of, especially with modern reactor designs that recycle much of the waste into less toxic mixtures with shorter half-lives. As an interesting side-note: coal power plants release more radiation into the environment than a properly functioning nuclear plant, because burned coal releases trace amounts of radioactive materials.

The future of electrical power is nuclear; fission first, then possibly fusion later. What we need is better education of people regarding nuclear waste and radiation. Irrational fears of misunderstood (or misrepresented) issues are the biggest political hurdle against nuclear power right now.

a home uses 5-30kWh per day vehicle needs 10-300 kWh per hour. so think about the massive nuclear waste to be disposed.

Do you have any concept of how much nuclear waste is generated for a certain amount of energy? It isn't much (in the grand scheme of things)...

so increasing efficiency of thermal engines is the best way to survive.

We can already create electric drivetrains that are at least twice as efficient as gas engines, if not 3 times as efficient. The main problem is charge time for energy storage. Internal combustion engines are inefficient, and they will eventually have to be phased out. how long that will take is a tough question to answer...

does the manufacturers don't know this basic facts

Believe me they know. You're right that the electrical grid will need a lot more capacity before we can have an all-electric vehicle society, but it's at very least possible.

 

[sr241]

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.

 

[xxChrisxx]

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.

Did you learn nothing form the crackpot site being removed. Copy pasting from it doesn't improve it's legitimacy. Those figures have nothing to back them up but bs claims.

Also the IC engine has had approx 120ish years of development work done on it. They really were rubbish 120 years ago, should they have been banned as they weren't as good as the alternative?

If you are only going to continue to post snippets from a joke of a site please do us all a favour and stop posting now.And just a snippet from your about the Prius vs the CRX. Comparing different classes of cars it's totally meaningless, a 50cc 2 stroke scooter will get over 100mpg. Weight kills fuel economy, as it clearly shows the Prius is nearly 1.75x the weight of the CRX yet gets the same fuel economy. I know which one i'd prefer to sit in in a crash (HINT: It's not the CRX).

Though a CRX SiR was a cool car, bloody quick too.

 

[mgb_phys]

Ignoring the figures from the crackpot site (how exactly are you doing crude-diesel energy efficiency)

It's not clear that if you were generating your electricity from oil that a small car diesel isn't better than electric, at least on highways where you don't have a big regenerative braking effect and with current battery technology.

One problem with the analysis is that cars have got a lot heavier - so a new VW Golf doesn't get the same mpg that a 1985 model did.
Partly this is marketing, it's always easier to add more features to each new model year than remove then.
But it's also a safety arms-race. 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, which then get bigger and so on.

But that's a separate rant!

 

[xxChrisxx]

so a new VW Golf doesn't get the same mpg that a 1985 model did.

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.

everything else has to get bigger so you can survive a crash with a 4ton SUV, which then get bigger and so on.

Very true, huge 4x4 for the school run. They are like nuclear weapons, you want to keep your child safe so the only option is to drive a tank to school.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

vehicle needs 10-300 kWh per hour

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.

The overnight slack in the US electrical generation capacity is around 10%, or 100 GW electric. That 100 GW would charge 120 million EVs overnight without building a single new power plant.

 

[mheslep]

This:

... 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

[highlighting mine]
seems to conflict with this?

so you can survive a crash with a 4ton SUV...

 

[xxChrisxx]

This:
[highlighting mine]
seems to conflict with this?

It's not in conflict, it's a comment on escalation. To survive a crash with a newer stiffer car, you need a more stiff car loaded with airbags, crumple zones and assorted goodies.

If you crashed 2 cars from the 90's together then both would suffer equal amounts of damage. If you crash a modern car into an older one, the older car is infinitely worse off. 5th gear did this where an old espace crashed into a new one. CLIP: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/538578/a_crash_between_old_and_new_car/

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.
EDITL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXeKSDpFjlg&feature=related
This was the other one I was after.

 

[mheslep]

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.[...]

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.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

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%

All of these numbers are purely speculation and fantasy without citations as to how they were calculated. For all I know, they're all a factor of 2 off!

don't ignore the fact that fission fusion reactors use steam turbines. so improving heat engines has definite advantage.

HA! It's ridiculous to try and compare the two. COMPLETELY different, including their power source; in fact the only similarity is that somewhere in there they utilize energy.

 

[russ_watters]

how this can be nonsense?
...
a home uses 5-30kWh per day vehicle needs 10-300 kWh per hour.

That's not quite what the link says (the link is much worse), but even that is just useless.

Please put some thought into it: how many cars are on the road at a time? How many houses are there? So how many more power plants would it really take to power all of our cars? It ain't 100x what we have now - not even close. Hint: national energy usage stats are published, so you could easly just google the answer in terms of gallons of gas used per year and kWh generated per year and convert from one to the other. Heck, you may even find a pie chart with the data already compared for you!

The efficiency claims for the engine the site is pushing are also just silly.

One more chance here. Calm down, put some thought into this, and stop just spewing nonsense from that crackpot site. Maybe you'll learn something. Otherwise, we'll just have to end the conversation - we don't humor crackpot information here, it is a waste of time and gives free advertising to crackpots.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I really wish i'd read the link properly now, I could do with a laugh.

 

[mheslep]

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.

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]

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.

And?

EDIT: To further the flippant remark. There are two problems. 1 is a gap of technology, the other is the 'compatibility problem'. Both explain the point that bigger does not mean an overall increase in safety. Which you seemed to havea problem with.

Please note that safety doesn't just mean those sat in the larger car in question.

If we both drove small cars, had a bump, we'd both have minor injuries but likely survive. I come along in a 4x4 and drive through your car killing you and your passenger, but my passenger cabin is sound as a pound. How is that a safer situation? To reasonably combat this, you would then have to drive around in something as large or larger than my 4x4.
You get an arms race type situation.

This is also the reason that NCAP also include a pedestrian safety test in new cars.

 

[mheslep]

And?

Reinforces my response to mgb_phy's #12.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[xxChrisxx]

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.

The marketing for it rather obviously aims it at the purchaser, which (i assume) was the conclusion mheslep came to. Yet mgb's point was a general increase in safety to all road users. Which is why there was no contradiction in post#12.

To be honest, this has all been off topic, but as the original topic was a bit rubbish anyway.

EDIT: You mods must get sick of playing referee to us users who like a good 'heated debate'

 

[mgb_phys]

There has been an overall increase in crash safety of the average car, safety is now a major design point, but I'm not convinced that it has made the roads safer - especially for cyclists and pedestrians.

SUVs are inheritantly less safe, they tip over more easily, they are heavier and have longer stopping distance especially on ice. Ever tried to do an emergency stop in a pickup truck with no load in the bed? There is also evidence that you drive with less care and attention because you are invunerable.

There is a famous book by a french designer (name?) who was brought in by a US car maker to convince people that SUVs were safe. He designed the modern concept of the SUV and explains how curved surfaces and a high seating position makes you feel safe - even when the reality isn't.

There is also the danger to other road users. A 2seater sportscar hit by an SUV is going to come off worse, both from mass and because the higher vehicle will ride up over the smaller. The only way to win a head-on is to have the higher heavier car (or reactive armor - my preferred solution) The trouble with this is when everyone else has a humvee - you have to drive a semi-tractor, or possibly an M1-Abraham.
It is also only true for car-car collisions, the accident rate/mile is twice as high for SUVs as hatchbacks.

So classic small cars (original VW bug, mini, 2CV) would never pass modern crash tests, but would the roads be more dangerous if everyone was driving one of these?
As a cyclist I would be a lot happier.

 

[mheslep]

SUVs are inheritantly less safe,

Assuming you mean less safe than smaller vehicles, says who?

"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.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/safest-cars-volvo-subaru-honda-ford/story?id=9729865

 

[xxChrisxx]

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

EDIT: I'm going to clarify my position on this. I don't agree that big 4x4 are inherently less safe than a small car, just that they don't increase overall road safety. This is mainly down to the type of driver behind the wheel.

If you drive around a very large modern car YOU INSIDE are more safe from a shunt of given magnitude than someone in an older/smaller car. Noone is saying otherwise, but it's a bit of a f you jack attitude to take. (EDIT: As an asside I'm not a selfish driver but as there are nutters out there i'd pick the safest car I can. Obv if it's me vs them, i'd pick me)

It's GENERAL ROAD SAFETY that mgb is on about. These new cars that insulate you totally from the exterior of the car, make people think they are invincible. They then driver faster, and more dangerously. This has the effect of increasing the severity of any accident they do have.

In an old car, when you are doing speed, you FEEL like you are going fast. In my old MK2 golf, going 80 felt really fast, you could hear the road rumble and wind rush, the little rattles you get when going really quickly. Going 80odd got your heart pumping. In my mk4 golf I can drift past 80 on the motorway without really realising it, going 100 the car feels really quiet and stable.

This is the reason people who buy 4x4's drive like such utter bastards. They think that they are immune to injury in a crash, so tend to drive with less prudence for avoiding an accident. They have the "f you I'm alright mate" attitude which contributed to an overall decrease in road safety.

I can't remember who said the following, but it's true:
If they wanted to reduce road death due to speed, but a machete in cars about throat height, I gan gaurantee no one will drive over 3 miles an hour.

You give people a car that will safely do 30 they will always push to 40, then when you make it safe at 40 they want to go 50. It's the nature of the human condition to be a total PITA. UK road deaths have approximately halved since the mid 60's (so car safety is working,, no doubt), yet the imapct energies a car can survive without compromising the passenger cell are, at a conservative guess, probably 5 times that of the 60's (certainly way over double). If people still drove at 60's speeds we'd have a much lower death rate.

 

[sr241]

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?

 

[sr241]

as for night time charging at night 10% power is used then fuel used too will be 10% if 100% power is required at night for charging EVs then 9 times more fule is required.
considering the low efficiency of electricity transmission only 50% energy is received at charging stations .
"well to charging station efficiency electricity from natural gas 52.5%"

and tesla requires a 240 volt 70amp charging station for 3.5 hours you can easily calculate kWh from that . if you don't know don't blame me. Its around 58 kWh

 

[xxChrisxx]

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?

Go away. We are having a nice conversation about safety in this hijacked thread.

Also the way you've tried to represent that data is skewing it to the point where it's out of context. Also I really don't know where you are getting figures of 50% from for a 4 stroke diesel engine in ANY production car. But that's just total ********. Most efficient diesel out there atm is closer to 40%. Even taking 45% (which is a stretch)

Running your results with real figures.
You get a well to wheel efficiency of 40% with electricity.
You get a well to wheel efficiency of 40% with a 45% efficient diesel.

The above is overly simplistic and giving the worst possible scenario for an electric potential and best possible for diesel. This puts them on a roughtly equal footing efficiency wise.

However in reality we don't care about the efficiency figure itsself. All we care about is fuel (energy) consumption.

A blue motion diesel polo gets 70MPG and a power output of 70BHP. Which is 0.03 l per km. A litre of diesel has an energy of about 38MJ. A small blue motion polo uses 1.14 MJ/km travelled. An electric car such as the tesla with 250 BHP gets 1.14 km/MJ. So that's 0.88 MJ/km.

Now let's take a likkle look at emissions shall we. CO2 is the biggest concern right now. Blue motion polo = 99gCO2/km A gas fired power station generates 143kg/GJ. Thats 143g/MJ used. Thats 125gCO2/km.

Car weights: Polo about 1 ton ,Tesla about 1.25 tons.

So as a summary with more real figures:
The efficiency is about the same well to wheel.
The tesla uses about the same energy to travel a km despite being heavier and having much more power. This is at a slight cost of more CO2 per km.

The only reason this isn't being used widespread is that you can only get about 200miles on a charge with the Tesla and it's costs about £70000. The blue mostion costs 14 grand and gets about 600 miles to a tank of fuel.

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.

Basically what you are saying by just looking at efficiency figures is that it'd be better to pop to the shops in the car using a 6 litre engine that gets 40% efficiency rather than a 1 litre engine that gets 30% efficiency. You are totally ignoring the fact that the 6 litre engine burns far more fuel.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

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

 

[xxChrisxx]

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

They can't tax it in the same way though. As there in no reasonable way they can prove what your electricity is used for, short of metering it seperately. I don't think they will put an electricity tax on the electric car, at least not for a very long time. There's just no point, it would kill the whole thing stone dead and as we overproduce electricity at night there is no reasonable explination for taxing it.

I can forsee road tax going up once they become popular. Anything under 99g/km gets tax free now. As there are no direct emissions, they will have to come up with an alternate way.

 

[sr241]

but additional electricity has to come from thermal power stations . I think manufacture keep their hands clean by saying that "they produce emission free 90% efficient electric cars, the thermal power stations are inefficient but that's their problem". what manufactures going to do to improve 90 % efficient electric motor I think they will add automatic groceries ordering system in the next generation cars.

 

[xxChrisxx]

but additional electricity has to come from thermal power stations . I think manufacture keep their hands clean by saying that "they produce emission free 90% efficient electric cars, the thermal power stations are inefficient but that's their problem". what manufactures going to do to improve 90 % efficient electric motor I think they will add automatic groceries ordering system in the next generation cars.

Jesus. NOTE: THERMAL POWERSTATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF IC ENGINES ARE NOT THE SAME THING. kthx

Thermal powerstations aren't inefficient, there is a thermodynamic efficincy limit to cycles such as this, they are as efficient as they can be within a sensible cost. Not only that they are pretty much the most efficient way we have of generating electricity. Also most new power stations are CHP so they have a utilisation ratio of 1 of all input heat. Most the power goes to making electricity, the waste goes to heating.

A progressive switch to nuclear power plants, totally solves the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Reduces the amount of oil we need. It just required people to stop irrationally dismissing it. You say Nuclear Power to someone, they will immedately respond Chernobyl. Ignoring the fact that about 80% of electricity in France is generated in nuclear power plants with a fantastic safety record.



So far the only argument you have for 'BAN THE ELECTRIC CAR' is they will use more electricity.
It's been shown that even fledgling electric cars can be made to run as well as the most efficient oil burner (with 120 years wirth of development), whilst being cheaper to charge and running with similar emissions. The IC engine is nearing the end of it's life now, it's reached maturity and will at some point in the near future enter a decline phase. (SEE: product life cycle). The electric car is in the transition from birth to growth. There are still some major technical challenged to be sorted before EV become viable for widespread use, but that's what develoment is for.

It does not make sense to stop the development of new products to put money into developing things that are reaching the end of their life. Don't get me wrong the IC engine has not yet reached it's full potential, but it's getting there.
So I put the question back to you? Do you think they should ban the electric car and why? Well formed thoughts only, not ctrl+c, ctrl+v from crackpot sites please.

 

[russ_watters]

one way or another nuclear power is going to make a comeback so the power plant efficiency/pollution argument carries a lot less weight than it would have 10 years ago.

 

[mgb_phys]

Also most new power stations are CHP so they have a utilisation ratio of 1 of all input heat. Most the power goes to making electricity, the waste goes to heating.

In northern climates - in most of the US the largest part of domestic electricity usage is AC (electricity per head is something like 4x higher in Houston than NY), getting rid of heat profitably isn't as easy.

The big advantage of electric cars is that they constitute a vast distributed power storage scheme. Once you have enough electric cars hooked upto smart meters then unreliable sources like wind power become a lot more practical.

 

[mheslep]

EDIT: I'm going to clarify my position on this. I don't agree that big 4x4 are inherently less safe than a small car, just that they don't increase overall road safety. This is mainly down to the type of driver behind the wheel.


If you drive around a very large modern car YOU INSIDE are more safe from a shunt of given magnitude than someone in an older/smaller car.

I don't know about overall road safety; that's a nebulous phrase, but fair enough, it is clear what you are saying about size.

 

[mheslep]

Go away. We are having a nice conversation about safety in this hijacked thread.

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.

Yes. Or put another way, the same 200 miles of energy in that diesel Polo will cost £17 versus the Tesla's £7, and that cost difference can only grow as the price of oil inevitably goes up.

 

[mgb_phys]

the same 200 miles of energy in that diesel Polo will cost £17 versus the Tesla's £7

But only £0.35 of the £7 is tax, whereas £10.50 of the £17 is tax - there is no way that's going to continue!

 

[gmax137]

The big advantage of electric cars is that they constitute a vast distributed power storage scheme. Once you have enough electric cars hooked upto smart meters then unreliable sources like wind power become a lot more practical.

That makes sense if the winds are blowing at night, when the majority of the cars will be charging. But, does wind 'peak' at night? Or, are we going to have charging stations in the parking lot at work?

Also, don't batteries have a finite number of charge cycles? If it's *my* battery, why would I let the grid wear it out? Or are the power companies going to let me use their batteries?

These are genuine questions, not an attack on your statement...

EDIT: I think your concern about taxes is right on. I hadn't really even thought of it myself.

 

[Topher925]

That makes sense if the winds are blowing at night, when the majority of the cars will be charging. But, does wind 'peak' at night? Or, are we going to have charging stations in the parking lot at work?

Also, don't batteries have a finite number of charge cycles? If it's *my* battery, why would I let the grid wear it out? Or are the power companies going to let me use their batteries?

These are genuine questions, not an attack on your statement...

EDIT: I think your concern about taxes is right on. I hadn't really even thought of it myself.

Peak wind capacity is usually during the day, roughly around 2pmish in most windy locations. I doubt there would be charging stations at any business as charging stations cost a lot of money.

Yes, batteries do have a finite number of cycles and letting your car act as a load buffer would shorten its battery's lifespan. Using cars to buffer the load of the grid is a neat idea, but not a very efficient or economic one considering energy could be better stored at the location of power plants.

 

[mheslep]

I don't know how wide spread this is, but in many areas in the midwest US, http://www.uwig.org/opimpactspaper.pdf" , wind is a little higher at night, for example:

[...]Xcel currently has an aggregate wind plant within its control area of about 280 MW capacity located at Lake Benton, Minnesota. Annual capacity factor of the wind plant is about 30%, [...]. Historical data of the wind energy production shows a modest diurnal pattern with slightly higher production at night.

Which is nice but not a requirement for wind to complement EVs. Whenever wind actually does peak, it can be used to offset more expensive natural gas plants, and then the gas plants can run at night if needed. (Gas plants are cheap to build but expensive to run, thus there's a lot gas plants sitting idle[1]).

In some smaller early adopter areas - http://www.betterplace.com/images/photos/B_342.jpg" , Denmark - charge points are due to be installed throughout the country - several hundred thousand total, in shopping areas, office parks, residences. So yes charging during the day, and night, is anticipated there.

Batteries do have a cycle life. Newer Li Ion chemistry achieves http://www.a123systems.com/a123/technology/life" before losing 10% of permanent capacity if the temperature and charge/discharge rate is not extreme. [2] Thus the question of how long the battery 'lasts' over time depends on the mainly size of the battery installed in your vehicle. If it's small, enough for say only five miles, then the average driver will 'kill' such a battery in ~20,000 miles of 100% charge/discharge cycles. If the battery is larger, the size used in the forthcoming EV's (100 miles / 25 kWh), it should easily outlive the vehicle - and thus have plenty of cycles left to loan to the grid - though it complicates the end of life cost of the vehicle considerably.

There are a couple of business models in play right now for battery ownership. One is you own the battery as part of the vehicle (Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, etc), buy it upfront adding ~$10-12k to the vehicle price and you might well object to the grid pulling power from it without a complicated power+cycle compensation plan arrangement with a utility company (one? many?). The other model is battery leasing (Renault Fluence), so the vehicle upfront cost is ~$10-12k less than model one. With the odd battery exchange station around the vehicle owner really doesn't care about cycle life, and the grid power pull/push arrangement can be part of the one-time battery lease agreement.

[1] See total US gas electric installed capacity http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p2.html" at 21.4% of total.
[2] Also see cycle life assessments by ANNL:
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2008/02/60978.pdf, tables 3,4
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publicat...il.php?id=1292, table 1

 

[mgb_phys]

Peak wind capacity is usually during the day, roughly around 2pmish in most windy locations.

That depends on the location and offshore vs inland. If wind is to be more than a decimal point worth of the supply you need something like this.

I doubt there would be charging stations at any business as charging stations cost a lot of money.

So do parking spaces, businesses are prepared to let you park for free to persuade you to shop there rather than at a competitor.

Yes, batteries do have a finite number of cycles and letting your car act as a load buffer would shorten its battery's lifespan.

A lot of that is about thermal management, allowing a smart meter to charge your car for 20mins in any hour is better for the battery than the high power charge/discharge of regenerative braking.

considering energy could be better stored at the location of power plants.

600MW worth of power storage capacity at the power station is pricey. Currently pumped storage schemes cost more per KWH than the wind farms that would be using them - effectively it doubles the cost of renewable energy.

Smart metering and 'optimized' $$$ charging schemes are definitely coming - look how profitable billing is for cable and cellphone companies, the power generators want some of that action.

At the moment to cope with peak demand the power company has to run up gas stations which cost 50% more to operate than baseline coal - it also has to have these stations maintained and manned ready when not used. So when everybody turns on the kettle in an ad break in Pop idol t really costs them. Also unless you have a really good grid you need a lot of gas stations serving each area.
Back in the days of 4 TV channels and 30million viewers for a program the grid used to publish demand charts showing the peaks which matched ad breaks in soaps!

 

[sr241]

but there are losses in transmission of electricity and it increases with current,in high current(amp) charging stations these losses are high.
finding new hydro power stations are difficult and it will cut forest or forests will be sink in water. in wind power stations power density per area is low. thermal power stations are only as efficient as engines. fission reactors produce hazardous waste and fuel like uranium are limited. economically viable fusion reactors are 50-100 years away. so why hurry for EVs, why don't manufactures try to increase efficiency of IC engines or use alternative IC engine designs like new gen rotary engines

 

[mgb_phys]

why don't manufactures try to increase efficiency of IC engines or use alternative IC engine designs like new gen rotary engines

What do you think they have been doing for 120years?

The problem is that this needs public support - lobby your senator / congressman to have them repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[xxChrisxx]

why don't manufactures try to increase efficiency of IC engines or use alternative IC engine designs like new gen rotary engines

Are you aware of the phrase "diminishing returns"?

Plus, rotaries are rubbish if you want economy. FACT. As they all have
a) poor compression.
b) poor sealing.

They are inherent problems with the design. Just like a positive displacement engine has the disadvantage of big heavy pistons flying up and down.

 

[Topher925]

There are some significant fuel efficiency improvements that can be made with DISI engines but until someone figures out how to get the NOx emissions down, you'll never see them in the US in widespread use.

As stated above, rotary engines are pretty much complete garbage when it comes to automotive applications. I don't think any fundamental change in geometry of the engine will help much with efficiency anyway. Really the only thing that can be improved is the combustion process, not necessarily the geometry of the compression components.

 

[xxChrisxx]

There are some significant fuel efficiency improvements that can be made with DISI engines but until someone figures out how to get the NOx emissions down, you'll never see them in the US in widespread use.

Seriously, they won't see widesperead use, why? That is the single biggest advancement in engine technology there's been in years. Make petrol like a diesel, and you ramp up the efficiency. NOx and particulate emissions are pretty low. Is this why diesels aen't used over there?