Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57739
That doesn't seem at all odd. A gas station takes up a lot of square footage of expensive real estate, while charging stations are easily added to any parking garage, private, public, and hotels.
That doesn't seem at all odd. A gas station takes up a lot of square footage of expensive real estate, while charging stations are easily added to any parking garage, private, public, and hotels.
Gas stations in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn are vanishing at a fast rate. With record high land prices and NYC real estate market booming property owners are being made offers they just cannot refuse.
If you do the math, electric cars used in areas like NE US, where a large portion of the electricity is generated from fossil fuels, actually contribute more co2 to the atmosphere than conventional ICEs. This goes back to the 2nd Law and the tremendous inefficiency of power production & transmission. A "high performance vehicle" like the Tesla is particularly inefficient.
Electric vehicles only make sense when they are conservative (ie- lite weight and "low performance") and their power source is "alternative."
In regards gas stations vs charging points in Manhattan, I've never been to NY, but isn't car ownership in Manhattan pretty rare?
If you do the math, electric cars used in areas like NE US, where a large portion of the electricity is generated from fossil fuels, actually contribute more co2 to the atmosphere than conventional ICEs. This goes back to the 2nd Law and the tremendous inefficiency of power production & transmission. A "high performance vehicle" like the Tesla is particularly inefficient.
Electric vehicles only make sense when they are conservative (ie- lite weight and "low performance") and their power source is "alternative."
In regards gas stations vs charging points in Manhattan, I've never been to NY, but isn't car ownership in Manhattan pretty rare?
Have you actually done the math? Because you're wrong.
With the exception of PA, the majority of electricity in the NE US is generated by nuclear fission and natural gas. ME stands out because it generates a lot of electricity from hydro power plants.
58% to 62% of energy in a liquid fossil fuel is lost in a conventional ICE vehicle (hybrids are a different story).
In the NE, 30% to 50% of energy is lost in power transmission (it's much higher in other parts of the nation).
Unlike high performance ICE's, high performance electric motors are not much more inefficient than their low performance counterparts. The energy conversion in a modern electric motor is near linear.
Car ownership in Manhattan is not rare, but it's not common either. The vast majority of people who go into Manhattan during the day do not reside there. So they tend to live in other parts of NY/NJ/CT and drive in or take public transportation.
Have you actually done the math? Because you're wrong.
n.
Yes, I have. Have you? And unless Newton's principles of mechanics don't apply to electric vehicles, a high perf electric defeats the purpose. It's like using a solar array to power a big screen TV. If you want to conserve, then conserve.
Transmission of electricity is only 50% efficient, but add in the inefficiency at the plant itself and you lose another 25%+.
And we won't even discuss fill-up time: with an ICE, you can drive 300 miles on a tank of gas and take 3 minutes to fill up & get back on the road. The Tesla takes at least an hour to fill up. Dillinger would stick to his Ford.
Electrics have their applications, but they're not the panacea the TreeHuggers fantasize about.
Transmission of electricity is only 50% efficient, but add in the inefficiency at the plant itself and you lose another 25%+.
WOW. Just Wow. This part . . . totally making up, right?
Wow. You are saying the Electrical Transmission is 50% efficient . . . you mean like Power Out / Power In = 50%??????
ummm. No. That is why the Huge GSU (Generator Step Up) Transformers Exist. To step the Voltage up from around 15 to 18kV (typical Generator) to at least 138kV (Texas) or 345kV, or some areas -- 500kV and up.
The High Voltages make the Current (Amps) rather low, and losses are minimal.
Typically 1 to 2%, along with less than that on the transformers (required both ends).
Wiki goes into better detail than I would care to . . . .
And we won't even discuss fill-up time: with an ICE, you can drive 300 miles on a tank of gas and take 3 minutes to fill up & get back on the road. The Tesla takes at least an hour to fill up. Dillinger would stick to his Ford.
Electrics have their applications, but they're not the panacea the TreeHuggers fantasize about.
Industry already knows the "fix" on this. It is still just early in the game. Swap-out batteries allow a plug-and-play go in Seconds -- faster than filling a Gasoline Tank.
For rates similar to Filling a Gasoline Tank, pre-charged "pellets" work, as well. I helped on the R&D on those 20 years ago.
But the best fix is just to get rid of the batteries . . . may look like this >>>
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
