Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Should Electric vehicle be banned?

  1. May 3, 2010 #1
    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: May 4, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. May 3, 2010 #2

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Does your underbridge acomodation not include a charging station then?
     
  4. May 4, 2010 #3
    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.
     
  5. May 4, 2010 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sorry, that link is just crackpot nonsense and such things are not allowed here, so I deleted it.
     
  6. May 4, 2010 #5
    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
     
  7. May 4, 2010 #6
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  8. May 4, 2010 #7
    You are right, a hydrogen economy makes much better sense. :smile:
     
  9. May 4, 2010 #8
    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.
     
  10. May 4, 2010 #9

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    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)...

    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...

    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.
     
  11. May 4, 2010 #10
    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.
     
  12. May 4, 2010 #11
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  13. May 4, 2010 #12

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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 thats a separate rant!
     
  14. May 4, 2010 #13
    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.

    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.
     
  15. May 4, 2010 #14

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  16. May 4, 2010 #15

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. May 4, 2010 #16

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This:
    [highlighting mine]
    seems to conflict with this?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  18. May 4, 2010 #17
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
  19. May 4, 2010 #18

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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" [Broken] electric taxi service which runs all day using battery switch.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  20. May 4, 2010 #19

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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!


    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.
     
  21. May 4, 2010 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2010
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook