So who killed it?
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by fathergoat
ZOMG! Consipiracy!
Um, no. Electric cars have been tried since the early 1900's.
http://inventors.about.com/library/w...selectrica.htm
At that time no one bought them because they were weak and expensive. The electirc cars today have become faster but are still expensive. While the initial cost of the car and operating costs aren't too bad, the maintance will kill you. Imagine buying 20 new batteries every five years. Oh, but electric cars are clean right? Bullshit. Just because it's not coming out of your exhuast doesn't mean you not polluting. The US get's 51.6% of it's electicity from burning coal. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...m/epm_sum.html Imagine burning coal half the time to run your car becuase that's what you'd be doing. Then there is hazardous materials from the manufacture and disposal of the batteries. That's more environmental damage, but hey you don't see it so weeee! Hydrogen fuel cell cars are even worse because it takes more electicity to crack the hydrogen than it would to just charge a battery to run a car the same amount. Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is. You should consider where the energy is coming from rateher than jump on the bandwagon. I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of not caring about the environment just because I'm not the that bandwagon. You couldn't be more wrong. I want to keep things clean, I'm just not willing to jump on a fad that could make things worse. The best answer we have right now that consumers(you know the people that drive the market) are willing to accept is ethanol. It's a renewable resource that is maginally cleaner than gasoline. If we switch to that and make cars more efficient at running on it. Then we could fund reasearch into a better fuel instead of half-assed fixes that simply transfer the pollution to another part of the country.
Um, no. Electric cars have been tried since the early 1900's.
http://inventors.about.com/library/w...selectrica.htm
At that time no one bought them because they were weak and expensive. The electirc cars today have become faster but are still expensive. While the initial cost of the car and operating costs aren't too bad, the maintance will kill you. Imagine buying 20 new batteries every five years. Oh, but electric cars are clean right? Bullshit. Just because it's not coming out of your exhuast doesn't mean you not polluting. The US get's 51.6% of it's electicity from burning coal. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...m/epm_sum.html Imagine burning coal half the time to run your car becuase that's what you'd be doing. Then there is hazardous materials from the manufacture and disposal of the batteries. That's more environmental damage, but hey you don't see it so weeee! Hydrogen fuel cell cars are even worse because it takes more electicity to crack the hydrogen than it would to just charge a battery to run a car the same amount. Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is. You should consider where the energy is coming from rateher than jump on the bandwagon. I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of not caring about the environment just because I'm not the that bandwagon. You couldn't be more wrong. I want to keep things clean, I'm just not willing to jump on a fad that could make things worse. The best answer we have right now that consumers(you know the people that drive the market) are willing to accept is ethanol. It's a renewable resource that is maginally cleaner than gasoline. If we switch to that and make cars more efficient at running on it. Then we could fund reasearch into a better fuel instead of half-assed fixes that simply transfer the pollution to another part of the country.
In the end, a nuclear power plant charging an EV will produce zero emissions.
:3
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,713
Likes: 0
From: BFE
Originally Posted by MellowGold
Power-plants are considerably more efficient than your everyday car. So yes, you would be saving energy and hence polluting less. In addition to this, much of the US is powered by 'clean' sources (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc). These clean sources of power are slowly becoming more popular.
In the end, a nuclear power plant charging an EV will produce zero emissions.
In the end, a nuclear power plant charging an EV will produce zero emissions.
http://www.catf.us/publications/view/3
yeah they're real clean alright, and only a small number have the scrubbers to clean the emissions, many were granfathered in. Not to mention coal is a fossil fuel and non-renewable resource. So we would be going from dependance on oil to coal. That's what we call a latteral move.Nuclear would be great, if it weren't for all that radioactive waste we have to store for a bazillion years. Then of course there is the cost of building the amount of plants we would need to compensate for the increase in demand. Thus raising the price and the amount of waste.
Why can't you just accept that the tree humpping hippie cars are fucking junk? Quit clinging to you feel good idealism and look at reality. If we all have our heads in our asses nothing will ever get done. We should be researching better technology instead of wasting time with something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.
Last edited by fathergoat; Jul 4, 2006 at 05:15 PM.
pukimonster
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,967
Likes: 2
From: Milwaukee, WI
If you think that an internal combustion gasoline engine is as efficient as any fossil-fuel power plant, you're dead wrong. Also, if you think that a gasoline engine emits less polution per watt than any powerplant does, you're waaaay off 
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Originally Posted by brtecson
If you think that an internal combustion gasoline engine is as efficient as any fossil-fuel power plant, you're dead wrong. Also, if you think that a gasoline engine emits less polution per watt than any powerplant does, you're waaaay off
:3
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,713
Likes: 0
From: BFE
Bring some data, prove me wrong. What I would love to see is how much pollution is produced per kilowatt hour by burning coal at an average plant then see how many miles a car can travel on one kilowatt hour of electricity. Then we could compare apples to apples. I don't care to put the effort into it when I know I'm just going to get another lame excuse.
Oh and we need to calculate in the pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of the batteries for these wonderful cars that run on dreams and starlight. Since internal combustion engines don't require so many batteries.
Oh and we need to calculate in the pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of the batteries for these wonderful cars that run on dreams and starlight. Since internal combustion engines don't require so many batteries.
Last edited by fathergoat; Jul 4, 2006 at 06:52 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~w...ytishlong.html
Here is an entire report done by OSU. You are right...sort of. More accurately, we are both wrong. Electric cars will have a place in the future, but they do not now. It all depends on where the car is drawing the energy from.
Sooo...it all comes down to the energy source. In all honesty, I stand completely behind nuclear power. Radioactive waste is a small price to pay for clean energy, and new improvements and advances in the field are quickly making waste a much smaller problem. Meltdowns are a near impossiblility.
Advances in any of these areas will benifit our society in general. Better batteries will solve our endless struggle for longer range portable appliances. Nuclear research will happen regardless. Cleaner power plants and tougher emissions controls will benefit the whole world. This is not a waste of money. This research is happening anyways.
I wholeheartily agree that we should be spending money researching clean sources of power. EVs would just be a by-product of these research.
Here is an entire report done by OSU. You are right...sort of. More accurately, we are both wrong. Electric cars will have a place in the future, but they do not now. It all depends on where the car is drawing the energy from.
Sooo...it all comes down to the energy source. In all honesty, I stand completely behind nuclear power. Radioactive waste is a small price to pay for clean energy, and new improvements and advances in the field are quickly making waste a much smaller problem. Meltdowns are a near impossiblility.
Advances in any of these areas will benifit our society in general. Better batteries will solve our endless struggle for longer range portable appliances. Nuclear research will happen regardless. Cleaner power plants and tougher emissions controls will benefit the whole world. This is not a waste of money. This research is happening anyways.
I wholeheartily agree that we should be spending money researching clean sources of power. EVs would just be a by-product of these research.
today is not my birthday.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,035
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
electric cars are only as clean as the source of the electricity. If coal was burned to supply that vehicle with its electricity than where is the environmental benefits of using an all electric automobile?
Push to shock!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
From: Palo Alto, CA
Originally Posted by Draconius
Yeah, I saw a preview for that at "An Inconvenient Truth". Looks good. My girlfriend found an article about these guys who built a roadster electric car that beat the Porsche GT and a Ferrari. He also adapted the ariel atom into an all electric car
Originally Posted by OLDMAN
The Ariel Atom conversion was in our Sunday paper.
I had a nice little response typed up, but then accidentally hit the back button and I don't feel like writing it again. So from the perspective of a single car, electric cars are more efficient, handsdown. Most electric motors can do 95% efficiency across the entire powerband, with 60% charging efficiency of the battery, leading to an overall efficiency of ~55%. The Toyota Prius drivetrain brochure is listed as 35% efficient; your average combustion engine is ~ 20-25%. As far as batteries go, battery recycling is well established due to the electronics boom of recent years. There are electrolyte reclamation techniques for both NiMH and Li-ion that allows old electrolyte to be used in new batteries.
So yes, power plants take the difference. Why is it better/easier to optimize emissions/efficiency on a stationary power plant instead of a moving car?
- You have power source options on a stationary generator. You can use anything from hydroelectric to coal to solar. Power source on a car needs to be portable.
- You can't put that much emissions scrubbing, combustion monitoring, or combined thermal cycle equipment on a car.
- Cars operate on a wide powerband, anything from idle to full throttle (which is why the IC engine is only 20-25% efficient). Powerplants are throttle slowly, and most operate in one condition most of the time, making the optimization easier.
Just my thoughts. Electric cars are the way to go for in city commuting.
Last edited by Kestrel; Jul 4, 2006 at 11:19 PM.
:3
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,713
Likes: 0
From: BFE
Originally Posted by MellowGold
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~w...ytishlong.html
Here is an entire report done by OSU. You are right...sort of. More accurately, we are both wrong. Electric cars will have a place in the future, but they do not now. It all depends on where the car is drawing the energy from.
Sooo...it all comes down to the energy source. In all honesty, I stand completely behind nuclear power. Radioactive waste is a small price to pay for clean energy, and new improvements and advances in the field are quickly making waste a much smaller problem. Meltdowns are a near impossiblility.
Advances in any of these areas will benifit our society in general. Better batteries will solve our endless struggle for longer range portable appliances. Nuclear research will happen regardless. Cleaner power plants and tougher emissions controls will benefit the whole world. This is not a waste of money. This research is happening anyways.
I wholeheartily agree that we should be spending money researching clean sources of power. EVs would just be a by-product of these research.
Here is an entire report done by OSU. You are right...sort of. More accurately, we are both wrong. Electric cars will have a place in the future, but they do not now. It all depends on where the car is drawing the energy from.
Sooo...it all comes down to the energy source. In all honesty, I stand completely behind nuclear power. Radioactive waste is a small price to pay for clean energy, and new improvements and advances in the field are quickly making waste a much smaller problem. Meltdowns are a near impossiblility.
Advances in any of these areas will benifit our society in general. Better batteries will solve our endless struggle for longer range portable appliances. Nuclear research will happen regardless. Cleaner power plants and tougher emissions controls will benefit the whole world. This is not a waste of money. This research is happening anyways.
I wholeheartily agree that we should be spending money researching clean sources of power. EVs would just be a by-product of these research.