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.
a) It's not "progress" when the OneWorld types are trying to limit use of the resource that has done so much to advance Man's lot in the world- improved health/ survival, improved economy/more jobs, improved ag yield, etc etc
b) The Left seems to want to eliminate choice.
Coalman-- another good post.
No one is trying to limit choice. If you can contain the output of carbon fuels without putting it into the atmosphere where it can impact others... go for it.
I suppose to prove the point to people of where we are on batteries is .................. to stick them in a modern diesel-electric submarine that is testing its submerge limit?
modern submarine's already have cleaner fuel alternatives.... nuclear.
EVs have their place, and that's mostly in crowded areas with many commuters, high gas prices, and mild climates. After being available for years, they are just now approaching 2% of all car sales nationwide, but almost 8% in California where the conditions suit them. I don't expect the total to ever go above about 10% nationwide, there are just too many of us that need the range of the gas engine, power for towing and hauling, or have cold winter climates.
I think as batteries improve, you will get better range and better usage in winter climates. Towing won't be too much of a problem since you can get more torque from an electric motor at lower RPM.
Most of the criticisms listed above are relatively small nuisances about logistical problems concerning EV filling stations and such.
One of Dwight Eisenhower's first commands was the 1919 Transcontinental Motor Caravan whose purpose was not only to transport men & material for the Army to the west coat, but to test the feasibility of military motor transport. The Lincoln Highway was just getting under construction in the east half of the country....I bet Ike had more problems planning and executing his mission than DC's friend had with a few minor inconveniences in his adventure in a Tesla.
In 1905, gasoline was bought in 5 gal tins at the general store, and not many stores stocked it. As the popularity of autos grew, it became not only economically feasible to provide many gas filling depots, it became lucrative.
Those kinds of problems can and will be solved. It's the battery utility that will continue to be problematic. (I posted a reference here recently by a guy involved in battery research. He says there's nothing on the horizon that is going to provide a significant solution to the problem.)
But bigger than that-- where are we going to get all this extra electric power from? I did an order of magnitude calculation a couple yrs ago. US automotive energy consumption and non-automotive power consumption are just about equal. How will we double our generation of electricity without using more fossil fuel?...And if we do double production using fossils, then we're defeating the intended purpose, so why do it?
EVs will remain a niche solution for short commutes, delivery routes and virtue signaling. The only thing that will change that is stupid govt'l meddling picking and choosing pet projects.
So much ignorance in this post... you guys are lucky to have a physicist here.
Our electrical grid is much more efficient at transporting energy across a wide area than our ability to transfer fuel. Yes, you can concentrate much more energy to specific locations via fuel, but we're not building for one location in the US. We're building for the entire US. Our power grid is far from being able to handle 100% EVs on the road... but it's not that we need this to be available tomorrow, or even 10 years from now.
There's 5 primary avenues of promising battery research. One in the public space (Germany), one via academic research (multiple universities) and 3 in the private sector. We will likely see these improvements before we see the powergrid we need.
The biggest concern in this post, however, is the ignorance around generation of electricity for the grid. It's much more efficient to generate electricity using carbon fuel at a powerplant than it is to run a ICE in car. Car engines are just horribly inefficient. They generate way to much heat that isn't put to use. In fact, they are so inefficient, that the loss from transporting electricity across power lines doesn't even make a dent in the loss from heat in an ICE.
Alternatively, electricity can be produced in other ways... and that's being worked on independently of this.
The a/c (compressor) consumes much less battery range than the heat (resistive, as there's not engine coolant to flow across your heater core, and battery coolant doesn't get quite that hot. if it did, you'd be in big trouble).
Hard to explain the rights resistance to progress and their refusal to admit that electric cars and hybrids both have a place.
The right is not resistant to progress, nor does it refuse to admit that electric, hybrid, and ICE all have a place. What the right is resistant to is forcing a specific solution either by funding some businesses over others using taxpayer money or by over regulating some industries to produce a politically desired outcome.
The right also accepts the need to fund basic research that could be used by the market, but doesn't believe in shaping the market by picking specific winners and losers. Solyndra anyone?
Left without market interference, progress will happen organically and naturally.
The biggest concern in this post, however, is the ignorance around generation of electricity for the grid. It's much more efficient to generate electricity using carbon fuel at a powerplant than it is to run a ICE in car.
.
I think you just repeated everything I said. Thanks for the confirmation.
In regards power efficiency, while an ICE is ~15% efficient, Coal plants are only ~40%, then subtract the power loss of transmission and the power loss at the charging station (the faster, the worse), and we won't even mention the power loss with temp changes mentioned in the OP, and you're down to the same 15% efficiency rating. Add in the weather related problems and the EV is behind. ...It's often been said that EVs only change the specific location that the carbon's being dumped into the air without changing the amount.
EVs only provide some sort of advantage when the power generation comes from non-fossil fuel sources- nuclear, hydro- or private/small scale PV or wind. Commercial PV/wind installations require back-up- often fossil fuel- silly redundancy.
I think you just repeated everything I said. Thanks for the confirmation.
In regards power efficiency, while an ICE is ~15% efficient, Coal plants are only ~40%, then subtract the power loss of transmission and the power loss at the charging station (the faster, the worse), and we won't even mention the power loss with temp changes mentioned in the OP, and you're down to the same 15% efficiency rating. Add in the weather related problems and the EV is behind. ...It's often been said that EVs only change the specific location that the carbon's being dumped into the air without changing the amount.
EVs only provide some sort of advantage when the power generation comes from non-fossil fuel sources- nuclear, hydro- or private/small scale PV or wind. Commercial PV/wind installations require back-up- often fossil fuel- silly redundancy.
Coal plants are much closer to 33% efficient. You confuse power and energy. They aren't the same. EV's have better emission characteristics even when charged by 100% coal.
modern submarine's already have cleaner fuel alternatives.... nuclear.
ONLY IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT! (leaving out the noise consideration.........)
Which countries have nuclear submarines? US, China, Russia, Britain, France, and India at times. Have I left anyone out?
Even other countries of the Commonwealth like Canada and Australia don't have nuclear submarines. Even countries with great coast lines to patrol, like Italy, don't have nuclear submarines.
Why? Because they are extremely expensive while a diesel/electric can be quite economical. Nuclear submarines are great if you going to operate or even invade half a world away. Ie, "The Fleet will be in the south Atlantic in a week. Go down ahead and clear out the area.".
There is, of course, Air Independent Propulsion where, as I recall, the submarine has an isotopic system that is not enough to run propulsion directly but is enough to keep the batteries charged. Dubbed "the poor man's nuclear submarine" in the 80s, it appears, in a quick google search, not to have been done by anyone except those who can afford the full blown like China........(but I could be wrong since I have not been in that area for years).
Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because the big boys do it that everyone can do it.
Submariner provided a nice account of what it is like to live off batteries.
The right also accepts the need to fund basic research that could be used by the market, but doesn't believe in shaping the market by picking specific winners and losers.
Hahaha. HAHAHhahahahah. Sure it does. Just their OWN winners and losers, like the 36 BILLION in oil company subsidies and even more in farm subsidies for things like corn syrup. And lets not even talk about the subsidies and tax breaks for banks, hedge fundies, and other wealthy people.
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.
