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.
The interstate here [I-95] is posted at 75mph. The general flow of traffic is somewhere between 78 and 83mph. On a daily basis, I set my cruise control at 82mph. EV works great at that 'low' speed.
I'm not really a content contributor to wikipedia (although I am a donation contributor). I tend to contribute to academic journals. If you're a contributor to wikipedia, feel free to add the details.
At least this is valid proof that your ignorance comes from lack of experience with the actual product in which you're discussing. Knowledge goes a long way. I suggest you get some.
The interstate here [I-95] is posted at 75mph. The general flow of traffic is somewhere between 78 and 83mph. On a daily basis, I set my cruise control at 82mph. EV works great at that 'low' speed.
This is common knowledge among the educated. Unfortunately, we have uneducated folks such as guidoLaMoto pretending to be knowledgeable on the topic. Education goes a long way and we appreciate you sharing knowledge, Submariner.
I'm not really a content contributor to wikipedia (although I am a donation contributor). I tend to contribute to academic journals. If you're a contributor to wikipedia, feel free to add the details.
At least this is valid proof that your ignorance comes from lack of experience with the actual product in which you're discussing. Knowledge goes a long way. I suggest you get some.
This is common knowledge among the educated. Unfortunately, we have uneducated folks such as guidoLaMoto pretending to be knowledgeable on the topic. Education goes a long way and we appreciate you sharing knowledge, Submariner.
I'm too stupid to see your point.
My contention is that EVs are of value due to their superior low end torque and the fact that they can sit without using energy in traffic, ie-- they're better than an ICE for stop & go traffic such as driving in rush hour or for delivery routes....Nobody here has presented any evidence that that isn't true. The Wiki article seems to agree with me about configurations of hybrids.
Submariner is pointing out that they can travel at fast speeds, which I am not contesting. Formula E racing is based on EVs- top speeds 140mph-- they could up the formula if they wanted to. Big Deal. Rocket ships can reach escape velocity. Speed is not the point here.
The point is that EVs have few real advantages, several disadvantages and are stupidly expensive. Submariner won't reach the economic break-even point on his unless he drives it almost a qtr century and it would take even longer if he were using grid power....Now that disadvantage of economy is artificial and will go away if they can ever get anybody to buy one who isn't doing it just for the sake of virtue signaling. Some are willing to pay the high price for a cookie & a ribbon....That's fine with me. Some people find fun in playing chess, others in sky-diving. What ever makes you feel good.
I heard on NPR the other day that the latest and greatest thing in automotive power is the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. The only negative point at the present time is the cost. the vehicles are quite expensive. That should go down as the tech progresses and manufacturing time is reduced.
The only emission is water vapor. Of course, the reporter showed his lack of knowledge by stating that "Nothing is burned, it just combines Hydrogen with Oxygen!". Right... Oxidation of Hydrogen... Isn't oxidation a definition of "burning"? Kinda reminds me of the catalytic propane portable heaters that saturate a platinum sponge with the propane gas and light it. NO FLAME! But, it sure does burn propane, creating carbon dioxide and water vapor.
I heard on NPR the other day that the latest and greatest thing in automotive power is the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. The only negative point at the present time is the cost. the vehicles are quite expensive. That should go down as the tech progresses and manufacturing time is reduced.
The only emission is water vapor. Of course, the reporter showed his lack of knowledge by stating that "Nothing is burned, it just combines Hydrogen with Oxygen!". Right... Oxidation of Hydrogen... Isn't oxidation a definition of "burning"? Kinda reminds me of the catalytic propane portable heaters that saturate a platinum sponge with the propane gas and light it. NO FLAME! But, it sure does burn propane, creating carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Even this is a slight of hand, they do it with mirrors trick-- There's basically no free hydrogen on our planet. It's highly reactive so any that comes into being temporarily is quickly lapped up and turned into some H-containing compound, or, being so light, it's speed at ambient temps literally attains escape velocity.
Any chemical reaction that frees up the H from a H-containing compound is exothermic- you have to knock it loose, so to speak, with added energy. Now you can take the H and oxidize it, as you have stated, basically "burning" it, which is an endothermic reaction--ie- it releases energy...But thanks to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you'll get less useable energy out of the process than you put into it to produce the H2.....Bad efficiency....unless... you use some "free" energy source like hydro-, nuclear, wind or solar.-->
Each of those alternatives has its own set of negatives to deal with. Nothing is perfect...For the foreseeable future, it looks like fossil fuels are still the best combination of costs vs benefits.
Each time you turn one energy source into another, you lose some energy as wasted heat (2nd Law). Turning Sunilght into electricity wastes some. Turning electricity into H loses some. Turning H into H2O to run the car loses some....It may be more efficient just to use the electricity to run the vehicle.
edited to add: To be honest, we usually ignore the real inefficiency of fossil fuels. They represent the solar energy collected over the course of millions upon millions of years concentrated in our planet's reserves. We're on schedule to be about to have used them all up in the course of only 3 or 4 centuries. It'll take another Carboniferous Age to replace them...That's kind like using a PV cell for 100 yrs to charge your flashlight, then burning it out in only 10 minutes of use.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 03-19-2019 at 10:26 AM..
My contention is that EVs are of value due to their superior low end torque and the fact that they can sit without using energy in traffic, ie-- they're better than an ICE for stop & go traffic such as driving in rush hour or for delivery routes....Nobody here has presented any evidence that that isn't true. The Wiki article seems to agree with me about configurations of hybrids.
I understand the point that you are trying to make. But it's invalidated by your lack of knowledge in this area. When you use statements like the following to back up your incorrect opinion and then backtrack when you learn that your statement is false, it just goes to discredit your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
In a hybrid, electric motors power the car at low speeds, and are shut off when standing still in stop & go traffic. This avoids the inefficiency of wasting fuel at idle. The ICE kicks on at higher speeds or if the batteries run low.
Also, you've already pointed out that the wiki you linked to is missing the information that has been brought up repeatedly in this thread. In fact, if you're a contributor to wikipedia, you should update it. So I'm not sure why you're using a wiki that you pointed out was missing information as evidence of you false opinions on hybrids.
I understand the point that you are trying to make. But it's invalidated by your lack of knowledge in this area. When you use statements like the following to back up your incorrect opinion and then backtrack when you learn that your statement is false, it just goes to discredit your point.
Also, you've already pointed out that the wiki you linked to is missing the information that has been brought up repeatedly in this thread. In fact, if you're a contributor to wikipedia, you should update it. So I'm not sure why you're using a wiki that you pointed out was missing information as evidence of you false opinions on hybrids.
"Mild hybrids.... allowing the engine to be turned off whenever the truck is coasting, braking, or stopped, yet restart quickly to provide power. …. The large electric motor spins up the engine to operating speeds before injecting fuel." ie- engine off when stopped or until running speed is attained. QED.
Mild hybrid is the most often encountered configuration. Another uses the ICE as an on-board generator of electricity in the manner of a locomotive-- seems inefficient to carry around all that extra weight, although it solves the range problem.
BTW- exactly what "info that has been brought up repeatedly in this thread" are you talking about? I see, as usual, a dearth of factual information from others and only vague references to anecdotes or misinformation with no attempt to provide documentation.
I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion when I see data that warrants that.
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.
