So Much for the Recovery

[bmc]

I just don't see electric cars being the solution. Heck, yah have to plug the darn things in and you have to generate the electricity to charge them, so instead of paying big oil money, you'll end up paying "big electricity".
Fishheadjoe

Invalid Link Removed

0-60 in 3.7 seconds, 245 miles /394km between charges.

Given my daily commute, that would last me about nine days between charging. I could live with that.

 

[Rusty Chainsaw]

I just don't see electric cars being the solution. Heck, yah have to plug the darn things in and you have to generate the electricity to charge them, so instead of paying big oil money, you'll end up paying "big electricity".
Fishheadjoe

True. But think about it - you can have thousands of small generators (ie, car engines) or one big generator (a power station). One big generator is going to be far more efficient than thousands of small ones, has significant economies of scale, plus is subject to stringent EPA oversight.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

True. But think about it - you can have thousands of small generators (ie, car engines) or one big generator (a power station). One big generator is going to be far more efficient than thousands of small ones, has significant economies of scale, plus is subject to stringent EPA oversight.

But at the same time:

Fuel -> combustion -> kinetic energy

is going to be more efficient than:

Fuel -> combustion -> electrical energy -> kinetic energy


The more steps in the process, the more room for loss. I do however agree that electric cars of some variety will likely be the future.


Edit - Dare say, thinking about it, there'll be a fair amount saved in not having to drive the gasoline around the country to service stations.

 

[Fishheadjoe]

Electricity costs here in Ontario have sky rocketed in the last couple of years and as a result of increased demand, they will be building more nukes, four of them to be exact, just down the lake here, from Toronto. They are telling us to expect yet another close to 100% increase by 2020...
Electric cars may well be the solution for European countires, but I really have to question the viability of such technology in a country the size of Canada. Yes, for the average commuter, these cars may be a solution, but certainly not the end all.
So we go from fossil fuel to power our vehicles, to electricity... hmmm, I can see the lights dimming as people get home from work, plug in their vehicles and carry on with life...
We are also now using something called smart meters, which allow the Electricity company's to charge us variable rates, based on time of use... I can tell you that my home hydro bills have almost doubled, since this thing was strapped to my house. And know I can expect my bills to double again in another 8 years... I already find myself doing things like laundrey only on weekends... and really who actually cooks their meals at 5-7pm on a daily basis... Oh yah, I do! So every time I turn on my stove, I am paying huge! With Canada's drastic climate changes, my furnace is running...
Oh well, better get back to work so I can pay my bills! LOL
Fishheadjoe

 

[Rusty Chainsaw]

Every "big oil" (oh teh noes, a corporation that is successful! That's proof they're evil! Hoe dare they make modern life possible by selling their hugely desired and urgently needed goods!) company is spending a lot of money doing R&D trying to find an alternative to oil.

Think about it: if oil is a finite resource, and your business is based on selling oil... wouldn't you be looking at what will replace it, and trying to be the leader in that field? If any alternative fuel was a viable alternative, "big oil" would be all over it. It's easy to simplify and just say "Oh yeah, there are tons of easy and readily available solutions, but that conspiracy of eeeevvvvvviiiilllllll corporations are just keeping us down."

Many people assume throwing money at a problem is some magical solution. It's really not.

The oil companies know that, basically, they have the world by the b@lls, as long as the world's infrastructure requires oil. Changing that infrastructure is going to be slow and incredibly expensive. And there has been some movement on the part of these companies to embrace some aspects of this - BP, for instance, have made a fairly large commitment towards hydrogen research (which, out of all the alternative energy technologies out there, is probably the most promising, as much existing infrastructure can be used).

The problem is with the consumer - they're empowering the oil companies by not pushing for alternative energy solutions with their buying power. As you say, you can't necessarily fault a company for selling something that's in demand.

With the exception of the Tesla and the new Fisker Karma (which are both insanely expensive), there hasn't been a truly desirable electric or hydrogen car yet. Once there is, maybe then we'll see a shift in consumer buying patterns.

 

[AntekStalich]

Reading with much interest.
I'm a chemical engineer with deep insight in alternative energy sources.

I tell you what.

A. The hybrid car would reduce petrol demand, since the whole idea is to significantly increase the efficiency of the energy conversion process:

Fuel -> combustion -> kinetic energy
(slowing down, braking) Kinetic energy -> generator -> electricity
(speeding up) Electricity -> motor -> kinetic energy.

If only hybrid cars could be really cheaper it would reduce gas consumption on great scale, only due to the efficiency increase of the whole cycle.

B. Electric cars would make sense:
1. For Switzerland, Norway -> huge resources of hydropower per population, but these are small countries.

2. In case the majority of electricity is made the nuclear way, but "greens" are against (stupidly IMHO)

3. Perhaps solar power, I do not believe it. Perhaps in sunny countries/states

C. Bioethanol seems to be dead end or at least matter of the future. Whole bioethanol used in Sweden is made in Brazil, on the cost of reducing the rain-forest. The more ethanol is made, the less rain-forest remains.
Unites States could share larger market thanks to huge farming potential if the efficiency of bioethanol manufacturing could be really increased.

First generation bioethanol technology (from edible material) reduces food/fodder availability and is expensive due to raw material cost. The second generation technologies (from useless cellulosic material) are of low efficiency and are economically killed by the cost of necessary enzymes.

D. Natural gas (methane) would be fine, but it requires large technology investments to produce, transport and distribute Liquefied Natural Gas.

E. Hydrogen can be made either from natural gas (wroooong!) OR using electric power, and that is the cheapest from nuclear powerplant.

F. Biodiesel is totally dead-end.

I cannot see anything to come easy in near future.

 

[VS]

We need to sell more motorcycles with sidecars for the kids,lol. -Luke

 

[Rusty Chainsaw]

2. In case the majority of electricity is made the nuclear way, but "greens" are against (stupidly IMHO)

Bingo. Nuclear power should be embraced, and I'm saying that as a greenie.

Current nuclear reactor technology is far removed from Chernobyl/Three Mile Island-era tech and is far safer and cleaner - it's practically impossible to have a meltdown at a modern nuclear power plant, and the radioactive waste can now be recycled to produce even more energy. It's probably the cleanest and most renewable method of large-scale power generation available to us right now. Supplement nuclear power with solar, hydro and wind power, and you should have more electricity then you know what to do with.

All we really need is the impetus - the mainstream car companies producing desirable electric vehicles with decently long ranges, or with range-extending tech (a la Chevy Volt) would be a good start. The Volt's a good start, but it's a midsized 2WD hatchback, which isn't to everyone's taste. Once there's a good-looking full-size electric sedan or SUV that is affordable, then people in the US might start taking notice and, at that point, the laws of supply and demand start to take effect.

 

[Rusty Chainsaw]

James May, one of the presenters of Top Gear in the UK, expresses his opinion on hydrogen-fuelled cars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...king-the-problem-of-hydrogen-fuel-future.html

James drives a Ferrari and a Rolls, and is quite the petrolhead (even if he's known for his "polite" driving style), so seeing him this enthusiastic about alternative energy gives me hope.

 

[aborgman]

I can't believe some people seem to like high gas prices.

I don't like high gas prices.

I like gas consumers paying for all the costs associated with gas use though... and we tend to ignore a massive amount of externalities associated with gas here in the USA.

 

[AntekStalich]

Yes, the fuel-cell. Used as a power source in conventional submarines for a long time. Why not in cars?

 

[AfroCubanFunkMa]

As much as I don't care for more expenses, one thing I will welcome is fewer gas guzzlers riding my A$$ on the highway. Funny how little that happens when they can watch their gas gauges go down in real time at >$100 per fill-up.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

We need to drill more eventually, though we're not actually pumping all that we've already drilled.

 

[bassrique]

I don't like high gas prices.

I like gas consumers paying for all the costs associated with gas use though... and we tend to ignore a massive amount of externalities associated with gas here in the USA.

What would those be?

 

[iamlowsound]

Bingo. Nuclear power should be embraced, and I'm saying that as a greenie.

Current nuclear reactor technology is far removed from Chernobyl/Three Mile Island-era tech and is far safer and cleaner - it's practically impossible to have a meltdown at a modern nuclear power plant, and the radioactive waste can now be recycled to produce even more energy. It's probably the cleanest and most renewable method of large-scale power generation available to us right now. Supplement nuclear power with solar, hydro and wind power, and you should have more electricity then you know what to do with.

One of my best friends works for the company that builds the CANDU nuclear reactor as a mechanical engineer. He was telling me that even if one of those reactors goes into a meltdown, which is nearly impossible, that it will be entierly self contained. So a disaster like Chernobyl has odds of happening of around 1 in a million meltdowns. Nuclear power is the safest form of power production in the world. A modern hydroelectric dam has a higher chance of failing than a CANDU reactor.

lowsound

 

[iamlowsound]

We need to drill more eventually, though we're not actually pumping all that we've already drilled.

The US needs to get off of Canada's back about our oil sands, the production is 100% cleaner than it was 5 years ago. After all, Alberta is your biggest source of oil and Saskatchewan is sitting on more oil than the Saudis.

lowsound

 

[aborgman]

But at the same time:

Fuel -> combustion -> kinetic energy

is going to be more efficient than:

Fuel -> combustion -> electrical energy -> kinetic energy


The more steps in the process, the more room for loss. I do however agree that electric cars of some variety will likely be the future.


Edit - Dare say, thinking about it, there'll be a fair amount saved in not having to drive the gasoline around the country to service stations.

Another thing to remember - an electric power plant is scads more efficient than an ICE.

...and electric motors are much more efficient than and ICE.

An electric car converts electrical energy into kinetic energy with about 80% efficiency. An ICE converts chemical energy into kinetic energy with about 25% efficiency.

If we assume the following:

2 identical cars, one ICE and one electric

$3.20/gallon gas (price in my town this morning)

$0.10/KWh electric (price on my last electric bill)

Gas car gets 30 mpg with 25% efficient ICE.


-----

There are ~32.9 KWh of energy in a gallon of gas. Car gets 30mpg. The car gets .91 miles/KWh at 25% efficiency. If it were 100% efficient it would get 3.65 miles/KWh.

The electric car is much more efficient - about 80%. Which means it get .8*(3.65 miles/KWh) = 2.9 miles/KWh.

For the gas car:
.91 miles/KWh
.10 cents/KWh ($3.20/32.9)

= $0.11 per mile

For the electric car:
2.9 miles/KWh
.10 cents/KWh

= $0.035 per mile

 

[aborgman]

What would those be?

Environmental costs associated with gasoline (both extraction and use)

Military/diplomatic costs associated with gasoline (both extraction and use)

 

[DwaynieAD]

i'd like to see more windfarms. just because they look cool. i just cant see it messing up bird migrations and killing birds like i've heard. if i'm wrong and that is true, well then i guess evolution is just being helped along

 

[Balog]

The oil companies know that, basically, they have the world by the b@lls, as long as the world's infrastructure requires oil. Changing that infrastructure is going to be slow and incredibly expensive. And there has been some movement on the part of these companies to embrace some aspects of this - BP, for instance, have made a fairly large commitment towards hydrogen research (which, out of all the alternative energy technologies out there, is probably the most promising, as much existing infrastructure can be used).

The problem is with the consumer - they're empowering the oil companies by not pushing for alternative energy solutions with their buying power. As you say, you can't necessarily fault a company for selling something that's in demand.

With the exception of the Tesla and the new Fisker Karma (which are both insanely expensive), there hasn't been a truly desirable electric or hydrogen car yet. Once there is, maybe then we'll see a shift in consumer buying patterns.

Consumers don't want to pay more for an inferior product? Shocking.

I do heartily agree that moar nukes is the way to go. It makes me hate the filthy hippies that tie up every attempt to build more plants. The safest, cleanest, most efficient form of power the world has ever seen and it's being denied because a bunch of useless treehuggers watched some propaganda films about nuclear power and fill their pants at the thought of using it. :scowl:

In terms of environmental impact, one thing I rarely see mentioned is how incredibly toxic the sort of high energy batteries needed for viable electric cars are. Firstly, the batteries themselves are wildly toxic and cannot be recycled or safely disposed of in conventional land fills. Secondly, the chemicals used to extract lithium (which never occurs as a free element only in compounds) are wildly toxic. Finally, even if we accept electric cars as a viable alternative, we'll have people whinging about our dependence on foreign "big lithium."

Now, hydrogen is a very interesting concept, and I think it and nuke plants are the only really viable alternative energy sources.