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.
I could use an electric car quite well: two of us in the family, one of whom has a short commute. One IC car and one electric would work dandy for us. Politics would not enter into it.
Hard to explain the rights resistance to progress and their refusal to admit that electric cars and hybrids both have a place.
It's not progress they're resistant to. It's losing their voice in decisions that affect them; decisions made by those who think they have all the answers, who know better than everyone else, who feel they have the right to dictate to others, and it's their way or the highway.
I am a righty who gets excited about both electric and hybrid vehicles. They are new, they are fun. Not sure yet if they are any great progress. But the last thing I'd want is some snarky kid or government agency to take away my choices, or to force me into compliance with their own agenda.
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.
Oil subsidies (agreed, they're stupid) amount to about 1% of BigOil's budget.
We haven't directly subsidized farmers in many yrs. Fed subsidy programs only amount to ~$20B/yr- chump change to the Feds. Two-thirds of farms receive none at all. A little less thn half of Fed spending on farms is in the form of insurance assistance, disaster relief and conservation programs. https://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000
Tax "loop holes" benefitting the rich & big businesses are generally calculated to return even more benefit to the workers & the govt by virtue of the multiplier effect of money spent by the private sector.
The fact that you seem to be against those kinds of things suggest you've given up and never hope to be successful yourself.
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.
I think you're confused. You get about the same energy out of oxidizing the C-C & the C-H bonds whether they come from solid hydrocarbons or liquid hydrocarbons.
The energy converted to kinetic energy in a vehicle of mass M to go a speed V is the same for ICE or EV. Only 15% of the chemical energy in the gasoline actually produces the KE....For coal generated Electricity, 35% of the chemical energy leaves the generator as juice. Then ~7% is lost in transmission and another 10-20% is lost in charging the car.(and it can be more). 35-7-15 = 13% left for KE (I'll give you a break and ignore the inefficiency of the E -motors themselves.)
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Well, if your original range was 300 miles, and the cold reduces that by 50 percent, you still have 150 miles. Most people don't drive that far in one day.
Having said that, once everyone is driving an electric car, they'll have ranges of 500 miles, just like an ICE car, so if it dips 50% due to cold, it will still be 250 miles.
An alternative is the hydrogen fuel cell -- the hydrogen has to extracted from water using green energy (nuclear, renewables) -- as those work perfectly well in extreme temperatures. We used them on the Shuttle as well as Apollo, Mercury and Gemini with no issues. Of course with H2, we have to develop infrastructure to store it and transport it safely. With batteries, said infrastructure already exists.
But we probably need both. A jet engine will never run purely on batteries, because it needs a source of heat to get thrust. A nuclear reactor would work and not produce any pollution (the Chair Force tested that in the 60s...they actually flew the reactor on the plane, although they didn't use the heat from it for thrust; they were just proving that a reactor could be made small enough for that), but there would be issues if there was a mid air collision. Jets will probably use hydrogen or artificial fuels based on hydrogen.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
EVs are losers if they're powered only on coal.
Complete nonsense. A heat engine -- an ICE is a heat engine -- is at best 35% efficient.
The batteries and motor in an electric car are 90%+ efficient.
Therefore you're producing far less CO2 to drive the vehicle the same distance using an EV powered by coal.
Having said that, all fossil fuel should be replaced by nuclear reactors. I'm a nuclear submarines veteran and I can tell you that they are perfectly safe when operated properly. It's like a firearm (several of which I am also qualified in). Handle it safely and your situation will be safe.
Don't disagree with but another poster mentioned they fueled their car with their solar panels. My problem is I'm helping to pay to fuel the car, I'm helping to pay for the car and because they pay no fuel tax I'm paying more for the infrastructure they are driving on.
They need to pay their fair share especially where the road infrastructure is concerned.
That's because that's the way the govt chose to tax for the roads. Don't blame the car. After all, you can say that a vehicle that gets 35 mpg pays less for roads than someone who drives a car that gets 20mpg. And so on and so forth. And someone who rides a bicycle to work gets a free ride!
The fact is that infrastructure is paid for in different ways. Special grants, different taxes, on both federal and state levels. The gas tax is for hwy maintenance and improvements.
You could also argue that a lightweight 35mpg car is doing less damage to the road than a 20mpg truck or SUV. And the bicycle does no perceptible damage at all.
What about people who get into an accident, damaging the roadway? Should they pay a special tax, because they damaged the road, whereas someone else did not?
I read an article that the gasoline tax is woefully underfunding the hwy fund. So I guess we can look forward to a hefty raise on that in the future. Unless they tax it some other way.
We have a Pacifica Hybrid and a Nissan Leaf. We picked up a 2018 Leaf and, with all applicable credits and dealer incentives, we managed to get one cheaper than a comparable Prius. It only has about 100 miles of range, but I use it for work and we try to do as many of our short trips/errands in it as possible. It works for its intende use, but it wouldn’t be suitable for all of our needs (that’s where the Pacifica comes in).
Ultimately I think EVs will not be able to replace ICEs until they can go 400+ miles on a range and they can be charged completely in five minutes or less.
I agree but you have the right idea of how to benefit from an electric car. They aren’t the answer for everybody but they are constantly making improvements. The on the road charging is still a big factor in relieving range anxiety for people who choose only an electric vehicle.
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.
