why i think electric cars are stupid

[djAdvocate]

the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them.

the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission.
a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency.  a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient.  therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.  and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen.

[mollyanna58]

So, if I put a couple of solar panels on the roof, it won't be enough to power my electric car? 

[rockon]

I'm with you. Burning coal to create electricity never seemed that "clean" to me either but it is shocking how many view anything powered with electricity to be green and clean.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2014 15:03:09 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

So, if I put a couple of solar panels on the roof, it won't be enough to power my electric car? 

i have no idea.  will it?

next question: what if you live in an apartment, or some place where CC&R's won't allow panels?
or, to put it differently: will that be a requirement for owning such a vehicle?

[Lizard King]

See also: corn ethanol in fuel.

It turns out working out the overall total carbon footprint of alternative processes is a very fraught business.

On its face, it would seem that a precursor to a society in which everybody uses renewable energy sources is a society in which some people do so and accrue sufficient advantage thereby to drive demand that-a-way.

It may be that there are interim stages of suboptimal energy-efficiency on that path: it may not, of course.

[EVT1]

Jan 27, 2014 14:26:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them.

the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission.
a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency.  a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient.  therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.  and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen.

Would have to get out a calculator- but there are a lot of variables when it comes to the efficiency calculation.  Plus- depends where you live- whether nuclear, hydro, etc.- not always coal.  I think even when taking into account the pollution from the power generating and transmission they still come out ahead.  Plus you have companies like Tesla building solar powered charging stations free for their customers.

There are other things- for example the motor does not have to have oil changes, regenerative braking pretty much eliminates brake jobs, and other systems that are different that change the equation.  I like them for commuter vehicles.

I am a gear head- so I like my gas engines.  But all I can say is drive one- you will be impressed.  I think it will be the standard in the future- just a matter of battery technology- and look how fast that is improving.  Won't be long before a recharge is almost instant- probably won't have to get out of the car in the future.  What I can see is inductive charging ran under roads- even highways- not all of it but certain sections. I can see semis running down a dedicated lane, on electric, with no drivers. Do you see gas or diesel in the top slot 50 years from now? Remember- they are going to keep legislating tighter emissions and economy.

BTW if you catch this in time Nate Silver is on Colbert tonight.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2014 20:09:21 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 27, 2014 14:26:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them.

the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission.
a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency.  a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient.  therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.  and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen.

Would have to get out a calculator- but there are a lot of variables when it comes to the efficiency calculation.  Plus- depends where you live- whether nuclear, hydro, etc.- not always coal.  I think even when taking into account the pollution from the power generating and transmission they still come out ahead.  Plus you have companies like Tesla building solar powered charging stations free for their customers.

There are other things- for example the motor does not have to have oil changes, regenerative braking pretty much eliminates brake jobs, and other systems that are different that change the equation.  I like them for commuter vehicles.

I am a gear head- so I like my gas engines.  But all I can say is drive one- you will be impressed.  I think it will be the standard in the future- just a matter of battery technology- and look how fast that is improving.  Won't be long before a recharge is almost instant- probably won't have to get out of the car in the future.  What I can see is inductive charging ran under roads- even highways- not all of it but certain sections. I can see semis running down a dedicated lane, on electric, with no drivers. Do you see gas or diesel in the top slot 50 years from now? Remember- they are going to keep legislating tighter emissions and economy.

BTW if you catch this in time Nate Silver is on Colbert tonight.

i don't have TV, but i am sure i can get a rebroadcast on my laptop.

[EVT1]

If you can't I will have to revoke your computer owner license   Have no idea what he is going to be talking about- upcoming elections?  Mentioned the Signal in the Noise in the description/referred to him as a political analyst- didn't he go into sports or something?  Thought he was getting out of politics form some reason.  All I know is the man knows his numbers.  Maybe Billy Beane should hire him

[Lizard King]

He didn't go into sports. He went into politics.

Silver started out crunching numbers on baseball.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2014 22:02:53 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

He didn't go into sports. He went into politics.

Silver started out crunching numbers on baseball.

precisely.  he wanted to stay IN sports, not only because the stats are interesting, but because he loves it.

[EVT1]

For the record I liked statistics.  Then again I liked physics   I always saw statistics as a liars tool.  In fact- the first day of class our teacher said I will teach you statistics, and show you how to easy it is to lie with statistics.

But done right....That's when you have Karl Rove dumbfounded.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 27, 2014 14:26:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them.

the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission.
a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency.  a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient.  therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.  and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen.

I'm all for any car that people want to buy and drive.  I don't want to subsidize the cost, I don't want to force people to buy and drive cars they don't want.  I don't believe in "we".  I think what's needed is for the government to take a step back, massively deregulate the auto industry, and see what shakes loose.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 28, 2014 8:52:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 27, 2014 14:26:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them.

the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission.
a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency.  a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient.  therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.  and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen.

I'm all for any car that people want to buy and drive.  I don't want to subsidize the cost, I don't want to force people to buy and drive cars they don't want.  I don't believe in "we".  I think what's needed is for the government to take a step back, massively deregulate the auto industry, and see what shakes loose.

the government (in the pocket of big auto) has blocked the export of small diesels for decades, now.  i am sure you would like that to stop.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2014 22:59:10 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

For the record I liked statistics.  Then again I liked physics   I always saw statistics as a liars tool.  In fact- the first day of class our teacher said I will teach you statistics, and show you how to easy it is to lie with statistics.

But done right....That's when you have Karl Rove dumbfounded.

the problem with Rove, and many other pundits, is not that he doesn't believe the stats, but that he believes his own BS.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Jan 27, 2014 14:26:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them.

the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission.
a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency.  a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient.  therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.  and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen.

A big problem in addition to what you point out is that the large bulk of the US population live in cities and urban areas, and park their vehicles on the street. Most of the time far away from their homes. An electric vehicle just would not work for me as there would be no place to plug the thing in.

[phil5185]

Currently, about 45% of carbon pollution is vehicles and 45% is power plants.
1. If we were to pull all fossil power plants off line and replace them with nuclear power, that fixes half of our problem.
2. And if we put together a Manhattan project and invent a 700 mile car battery, that takes care of another 45%.  (The car batts are charged by the nukes). (700 miles allows you to drive all day on a trip and charge overnight at motels.)

A few engineering issues. We have 440 nuclear power plants in the world, 103 in the US. They supply 20% of US power, almost 100% of French power, much of the Japanese power. Lots of negative public sentiment, very few reactors that are newer than 30 yrs. And every time there is a burp, the public reacts with passion, not science. The japanese incident showed that 40 reactors did what they were supposed to do in a world-class quake. And we also learned that you shouldn't site them on the beach where a tsunami can swamp your diesel engines - ie, put them on the hill a few miles away from beaches.  The major current nuclear activity is in China, they are constructing 25 modern mega reactors and have plans for 10 more, each reactor is several times larger than our US units.

But this concept does away with 90% of our pollution. The sky over our major cities should be cleaner than it was in the 1800's - before cars but during the coal-burning furnace era.

[EVT1]

I don't think battery tech will need a Manhattan project.  It's on the way- little old but:

www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/8-potential-ev-and-hybrid-battery-breakthroughs

I think it just a matter of what path it goes- rapid charging, more storage, etc.  Probably a mix of both.  Now if they would get of their asses and embrace new generation reactors- we could solve the energy problem.  One way or another cheap energy is in the future- gas powered cars are going to be history.

[phil5185]

Now if they would get of their asses and embrace new generation reactors- we could solve the energy problem. One way or another cheap energy is in the future- gas powered cars are going to be history.

Good article, 500 miles - getting closer. So 700 miles should be coming up soon. That's a pretty good days' drive, gets you across the US in 3 days. And no flash-charges needed, just plug it in over-night for a slow charge.

And as you say, get the US govt to license about 200 more nuclear plants (or a 100 mega plants) with modern safety & nearly 100% recycled rods so that we have a power source for our cars.  I'm certain that the public will be astonished at how quickly the atmosphere cleans up.

[Virgil Showlion]

1. If we were to pull all fossil power plants off line and replace them with nuclear power, that fixes half of our problem.

The MIT Technology Review did an analysis a few years back of how many nuke plants would have to come online to make this happen in the US. They also looked at the amount of time, money, paperwork, etc. needed to bring a nuclear plant online.

Short answer: It ain't gonna happen.

I'm as strong a proponent for nuclear power as anyone, but it's only going to be a small part of the solution.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.

You didn't. The whole concept of a "green" electric car works iff electricity can be produced en masse with green technologies.

[grits]

Jan 28, 2014 19:11:41 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

Currently, about 45% of carbon pollution is vehicles and 45% is power plants.
1. If we were to pull all fossil power plants off line and replace them with nuclear power, that fixes half of our problem.
2. And if we put together a Manhattan project and invent a 700 mile car battery, that takes care of another 45%.  (The car batts are charged by the nukes). (700 miles allows you to drive all day on a trip and charge overnight at motels.)

A few engineering issues. We have 440 nuclear power plants in the world, 103 in the US. They supply 20% of US power, almost 100% of French power, much of the Japanese power. Lots of negative public sentiment, very few reactors that are newer than 30 yrs. And every time there is a burp, the public reacts with passion, not science. The japanese incident showed that 40 reactors did what they were supposed to do in a world-class quake. And we also learned that you shouldn't site them on the beach where a tsunami can swamp your diesel engines - ie, put them on the hill a few miles away from beaches.  The major current nuclear activity is in China, they are constructing 25 modern mega reactors and have plans for 10 more, each reactor is several times larger than our US units.

But this concept does away with 90% of our pollution. The sky over our major cities should be cleaner than it was in the 1800's - before cars but during the coal-burning furnace era.

What do you propose to do with the radioactive waste?  There has yet to be a totally safe way to dispose of radioactive waste.  A former colleague worked on a project for a large defense contractor that was trying to encapsulate it in glass.  They never were successful.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2014 23:37:00 GMT -5 grits said:

Jan 28, 2014 19:11:41 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

Currently, about 45% of carbon pollution is vehicles and 45% is power plants.
1. If we were to pull all fossil power plants off line and replace them with nuclear power, that fixes half of our problem.
2. And if we put together a Manhattan project and invent a 700 mile car battery, that takes care of another 45%.  (The car batts are charged by the nukes). (700 miles allows you to drive all day on a trip and charge overnight at motels.)

A few engineering issues. We have 440 nuclear power plants in the world, 103 in the US. They supply 20% of US power, almost 100% of French power, much of the Japanese power. Lots of negative public sentiment, very few reactors that are newer than 30 yrs. And every time there is a burp, the public reacts with passion, not science. The japanese incident showed that 40 reactors did what they were supposed to do in a world-class quake. And we also learned that you shouldn't site them on the beach where a tsunami can swamp your diesel engines - ie, put them on the hill a few miles away from beaches.  The major current nuclear activity is in China, they are constructing 25 modern mega reactors and have plans for 10 more, each reactor is several times larger than our US units.

But this concept does away with 90% of our pollution. The sky over our major cities should be cleaner than it was in the 1800's - before cars but during the coal-burning furnace era.

What do you propose to do with the radioactive waste?  There has yet to be a totally safe way to dispose of radioactive waste.  A former colleague worked on a project for a large defense contractor that was trying to encapsulate it in glass.  They never were successful.

Bury it six miles underground in a geologically stable region and cement it over. Unless new volcanoes start springing up in the middle of nowhere, problem solved for at least 50 million years.

[grits]

Do you have an idea of where that region might be? The nation is full of fault lines. Not to mention all of the sinkholes, fracking, drilling, and other activities going on.

How about, we tie it to the backs of snow tigers, and send them running through the artic? It will give a whole new meaning to Northern Lights.

[Virgil Showlion]

The nation is full of fault lines. Not to mention all of the sinkholes, fracking, drilling, and other activities going on.

Not that any of those activities penetrate as deep as six miles, but if you're worried, ship the stuff up here to the Canadian shield. We'll happily take it off your hands and bury it in solid rock a thousand miles from civilization.

For a small fee, of course.

How about, we tie it to the backs of snow tigers, and send them running through the artic?

If you mean snow leopards, I could live with that.

[grits]

I did mean snow leopards. It has been a long day for me.

One thing I wonder about is how will they dispose of the waste created by the used batteries?

Do we use them to manufacture mechanical snow leopards?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2014 0:29:42 GMT -5 grits said:

I did mean snow leopards. It has been a long day for me.

One thing I wonder about is how will they dispose of the waste created by the used batteries?

Do we use them to manufacture mechanical snow leopards?

Battery materials can be recycled. They're not irrecoverable in the same sense that radioactive waste is irrecoverable.

Not only that, but if the price of various metals continues to rise, you'll see companies and governments competing to buy defunct batteries.

[grits]

You missed the joke Virgil.

[grits]

I would not want to go over the Houston ship channel bridge, and have the batteries die. Ahhhhhhh rolling down it backwards.

[phil5185]

What do you propose to do with the radioactive waste? There has yet to be a totally safe way to dispose of radioactive waste. A former colleague worked on a project for a large defense contractor that was trying to encapsulate it in glass. They never were successful.

Yeah - it 'shines thru glass', we used ferrous metal barriers. But that was long long ago, before we learned how to recycle the radioactive 'waste'. 

[happyhoix]

Jan 28, 2014 15:11:34 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Jan 27, 2014 14:26:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them.

the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission.
a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency.  a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient.  therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation.

let me know if i got any of that wrong.  and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen.

A big problem in addition to what you point out is that the large bulk of the US population live in cities and urban areas, and park their vehicles on the street. Most of the time far away from their homes. An electric vehicle just would not work for me as there would be no place to plug the thing in.

Electric cars and buses contribute to a cleaner urban area, which is an issue in our city, due to a high amount of pass through highway truck traffic. Air emissions from non stationary sources are higher than stationary sources here and there are days when we're out of compliance with the air standards (a lot has to do with the local topography, too).  It's true though that there are still some type of emissions somewhere to produce the electricity in the first place. We're under the TVA network here and  at their offices downtown I've noticed some electric car hook ups, presumably for employees to use. I would assume LEED certified buildings would get points for electric hook ups as well, so if you worked at one of those you might be able to get your employer to install one of those things.

This is kind of like the whole disposable diaper vs cloth diaper thing. Cloth might be more eco friendly if clean water isn't an issue, but if you live in the southwest where water is becoming increasingly harder to find, disposables would be more eco-friendly. That or letting your heathen run around bare ass naked.

[EVT1]

Jan 29, 2014 0:58:16 GMT -5 grits said:

I would not want to go over the Houston ship channel bridge, and have the batteries die. Ahhhhhhh rolling down it backwards.

Good thing gas engines never stall