phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 5, 2014 11:46:12 GMT -5
But that is 'stop-gap' thinking, just another way to improve gas mileage. A real solution would be to stop using fossil-fuel as the primary world energy source and switch to a total solution. (such as nuclear).
Nuclear power plants - electric cars that derive their power from the nuke power plants, etc. Sadly, we are wasting decades - we could be nearly free of fossil-fuel pollution if we focused our govt spending away from the 'feel good' alternatives and worked on total solutions. We could pull the CO2 levels down below the levels of 1900 (<275 ppm), cut water vapor levels (also a product of combustion).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2014 12:10:44 GMT -5
But that is 'stop-gap' thinking, just another way to improve gas mileage. no, not really. i think it is the best solution out there, until cellular power systems are out there to meet the power demand.A real solution would be to stop using fossil-fuel as the primary world energy source and switch to a total solution. (such as nuclear). Nuclear power plants - electric cars that derive their power from the nuke power plants, etc. Sadly, we are wasting decades - we could be nearly free of fossil-fuel pollution if we focused our govt spending away from the 'feel good' alternatives and worked on total solutions. We could pull the CO2 levels down below the levels of 1900 (<275 ppm), cut water vapor levels (also a product of combustion). i have a lot of uranium holdings, so i like how you think.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 5, 2014 12:47:10 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 6, 2014 0:30:31 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with Thorium either. Pretty much infinite energy available if we want it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 13:04:18 GMT -5
Mercedes and Volkswagen have had diesel vehicles (cars) offered here for sale through the years, but cars always had more stringent emission requirements that were costly and troublesome to meet until the US changed to low sulfur fuel that happened just recently (2 years ago?). I expect more domestic manufacturers to offer diesel cars now that the trucks have to meet the standards also. The clean diesel technology cost is coming down with volume use and the standards are easier to meet with low sulfur fuel. I think Chevy has a diesel Cruze model for 2014 and is GM's first diesel car since the 1980's. vw and mb were the only ones available- but small diesels have been all over europe for decades. i remember looking into this about 2 decades ago, and it was import restrictions that were the issue. but now, apparently it is taxes: www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-european-diesel-cars/They were restricted from being imported because they didn't meet the EPA requirements, except for VW and MB at a high cost. Diesel fuel was always taxed higher because of the vehicle weight of trucks. With the new, very low sulfur fuel now at the pump, other manufacturers will soon jump onto the light diesel market. MPG sells in todays high fuel cost enviroment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 13:13:00 GMT -5
www.energy-daily.com/reports/CGD_Ranks_CO2_Emissions_From_Power_Plants_Worldwide_999.htmlIt's kind of a long read but it sure seems like electricity will never be clean energy until we produce it without coal or learn how to burn coal much cleaner. I did notice the article said no other single country came close to producing as much carbon from electric as the US (2.8 billion ton) but in the next sentence said China produced 2.7 billion ton. The other issue with electric cars for the near future will be the production, control and disposal of the batteries. I almost have to chuckle when these knuckle heads think they are being "green" while driving in the slow lane with their plug in Toyota. Maybe someday, but not today. If we ever get serious about global warming or climate change than we will also have to consider the fact that water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas in our enviroment by far and that we could probably do quite a few things to avoid producing excessive amounts. We could also increase the use of ethanol fuels that produces less carbon per gallon than our gasoline. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The amount of water on planet earth remains constant, whether it's in liquid form, solid form or vapour form. If the planet warms up even a little, say, from CO2, then more water will evaporate, resulting in more water vapour in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse "gas", causing more warming? What kinds of things do you propose we do to decrease the amount of vapour?
The amount of CO2 on planet earth remains constant (closed loop carbon cycle). The more radiant heat gained from the sunward side is offset by more heat loss on the dark side.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 13:39:59 GMT -5
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 only dragged up this month old thread because I read a 4 EV comparison test in a major car magazine (Car&Driver?) It did not include the Tesla because of it's high price. It did include the Nissan leaf and the Chevrolet Spark, can't remember the other two. The general consensus at the end of the article was that in a small gas car match up (usability) you're buying a high priced small car with a one gallon gas tank that takes 5 hours to fill. That's at today's technology level. Emissions and grid losses at the other end of the plug was not addressed in the article, just range and cost. It does explain the ability of these cars to be just about salesproof out in the real world.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 14, 2014 20:11:00 GMT -5
Depends on what you use the car for and where you live. Makes perfect sense for some people.
It's just a matter of time before the tech reaches a point- or gas prices do- that they will win out.
Tesla is the company to watch- sure GM and Nissan are toying around- but Tesla has a superior product and their cheaper models are coming- going to be one heck of a fight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 8:13:33 GMT -5
Depends on what you use the car for and where you live. Makes perfect sense for some people. It's just a matter of time before the tech reaches a point- or gas prices do- that they will win out. Tesla is the company to watch- sure GM and Nissan are toying around- but Tesla has a superior product and their cheaper models are coming- going to be one heck of a fight. Being an old fashioned capitalist, I prefer the no subsidy approach to product sales. The level playing field that weeds out the inferior device. Even if you increased battery performance by 100% which is a long way off. It would be what, an expensive small car with a 2 gallon gas tank that takes 5 to 10 hours to fill ? Tesla is an expensive niche vehicle, and their will always be a few buyers of these curiosities. The economy of scale will never be achieved until the technology improves exponentially. Right now, and in the near future these electric vehicles cannot carry enough energy to move themselves and their load with any efficiency.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 15, 2014 12:16:05 GMT -5
To start with your idea of a one or two gallon gas tank and charge times do not apply to Tesla vehicles today, much less in the future. Tesla is also building a huge battery factory that will bring down prices- while it may be a long time before these vehicles replace gas motors entirely- they are going to be the commuter vehicle of choice sooner than you think. Some people like never having to stop and buy gas.
Take the Model S- you are talking around a 250 mile range with current tech- you drive that much in a day? A week even? I don't. And they can fast charge- no where near ten hours unless you are using a standard wall outlet- and that tech is changing too.
I think you underestimate increasing technology by a mile and need to rethink what you consider efficient. I'd put my money on Tesla.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 13:59:45 GMT -5
A standard wall outlet can only produce about 1.5kW or 5000btu/hr. There is no way to change that. Fast charging at home will take expensive, specialized equipment no matter how you spin it. As for the Tesla factory, I hope it is successful, but there's talk of it being obsolete before it's built.
In any case, it will be at least 2 decades before totally electric cars are prevalent. The need for specialized charging equipment at home will be a significant impediment, but I'm still sure electric is the future.
A 60kWh charge on a Tesla would take about 5h at 220V and a 60A circuit (much bigger than most air conditioners). From a standard wall outlet, it would take 40hrs or more. Additionally, in the summer time the grid would not be able to handle very many cars charging during peak hours without major and expensive upgrades. So you home charging on the scale you suggest will also require significant infrastructure investment to limit A/C and charging during hot summer days, which most people will not like.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 15, 2014 16:03:10 GMT -5
It should be noted that for the most part these cars will not have to be fully recharged from empty every night- if I had one the range of one charge could last me two weeks depending on what I did on the weekend. It would be more of just a top-off- like plugging in the cell phone or the laptop even though it has plenty of charge left.
And of course get a 240V outlet in the garage if you get the car- that's no big deal. What special equipment is necessary for that- the car comes with a cable for it- if you want to charge faster I am sure there is an expensive option but not necessary.
I think they will be a great commuter vehicle for some people and will end up being a cheaper option down the road- costing less to operate, maintain and repair than a gas burner.
Tesla also claims its superchargers can recharge 50% in 20 minutes- that time is only going to come down in the future. I agree they are not for everyone but they are not just some fad or toy anymore like some people think. They are going to be real competition in the near future.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 16:59:13 GMT -5
Sure, but what you are talking about involves significant cultural and infrastructure changes that simply won't happen quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 8:25:59 GMT -5
To start with your idea of a one or two gallon gas tank and charge times do not apply to Tesla vehicles today, much less in the future. Tesla is also building a huge battery factory that will bring down prices- while it may be a long time before these vehicles replace gas motors entirely- they are going to be the commuter vehicle of choice sooner than you think. Some people like never having to stop and buy gas. Take the Model S- you are talking around a 250 mile range with current tech- you drive that much in a day? A week even? I don't. And they can fast charge- no where near ten hours unless you are using a standard wall outlet- and that tech is changing too. I think you underestimate increasing technology by a mile and need to rethink what you consider efficient. I'd put my money on Tesla. One US gallon of regular gasoline @ 6/lbs contains 125,000 btu's, diesel @ 7/lbs contains 137,000 btu's, do the math. Then you can tell me who's over/under estimating when moving vehicles and loads. Apply a same dollar subsidy to gasoline/diesel vehicle manufacturers and buyers to level the playing field (or remove all subsidy) and these electric wonders don't seem so wonderful. Electric is great for a fixed position usage, but hugely inefficient for mobile at our current technology level. The gains needed to make electric cars a financially sound choice are not just around the corner. Finding a niche use as a selling feature does not make it any more efficient.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 16, 2014 8:51:44 GMT -5
To start with your idea of a one or two gallon gas tank and charge times do not apply to Tesla vehicles today, much less in the future. Tesla is also building a huge battery factory that will bring down prices- while it may be a long time before these vehicles replace gas motors entirely- they are going to be the commuter vehicle of choice sooner than you think. Some people like never having to stop and buy gas. Take the Model S- you are talking around a 250 mile range with current tech- you drive that much in a day? A week even? I don't. And they can fast charge- no where near ten hours unless you are using a standard wall outlet- and that tech is changing too. I think you underestimate increasing technology by a mile and need to rethink what you consider efficient. I'd put my money on Tesla. One US gallon of regular gasoline @ 6/lbs contains 125,000 btu's, diesel @ 7/lbs contains 137,000 btu's, do the math. Then you can tell me who's over/under estimating when moving vehicles and loads. Apply a same dollar subsidy to gasoline/diesel vehicle manufacturers and buyers to level the playing field (or remove all subsidy) and these electric wonders don't seem so wonderful. Electric is great for a fixed position usage, but hugely inefficient for mobile at our current technology level. The gains needed to make electric cars a financially sound choice are not just around the corner. Finding a niche use as a selling feature does not make it any more efficient. i am not sure they make ecological sense, either, given our power generation situation.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 17, 2014 7:48:39 GMT -5
I was reading an article about the international group ITER creating a nuclear fusion reaction in the south of France.
It works by turning hydrogen into helium, which creates a tremendous amount of energy. Essentially it would be a plasma held in place by giant super cooled electromagnets.
In theory, it would take relatively easy to find fuel (hydrogen) and generate virtually no emissions, except for some relatively short lived radioactive waste products.
If it works, plenty of non-polluting electricity for everyone, and we can have electric cars and electric everything else.
Of course, it probably won't be a feasible technology for about 50 years, but hey, our grandkids can have electric cars.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 6:59:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 10:53:52 GMT -5
I was reading an article about the international group ITER creating a nuclear fusion reaction in the south of France. It works by turning hydrogen into helium, which creates a tremendous amount of energy. Essentially it would be a plasma held in place by giant super cooled electromagnets. In theory, it would take relatively easy to find fuel (hydrogen) and generate virtually no emissions, except for some relatively short lived radioactive waste products. If it works, plenty of non-polluting electricity for everyone, and we can have electric cars and electric everything else. Of course, it probably won't be a feasible technology for about 50 years, but hey, our grandkids can have electric cars. Right now the problem with electric cars is the cost, and the ability to carry enough energy to move themselves and their load. Could battery technology advance enough in the future to make them economically viable as general transportation, sure it could, but possibilities of the future are equally applied to everything. Hydrocarbon using engines can and will also become more efficient with technology advances. Hyundai is currently experimenting with a gasoline compression firing engine, like a diesel. This will extract more of the energy in the fuel raising the bar on thermal efficiency, keeping the pace ahead of battery improvements so far. That's about as far as I wish to take the maybe someday argument. There has to be at least a working model in place, not just a theory.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 18, 2014 12:59:57 GMT -5
A gas motor will never be as efficient as an electric. BTW the definition of a diesel is compression ignition- I don't know what you are thinking of- maybe you are thinking of direct injection gas engines. But- if you take away the spark plugs- you have yourself a diesel no matter what fuel you run in it.
|
|