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?