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 have heard as much as well. I also wonder about the idea of replacement battery costs being a contributing factor.
I've heard that a large portion of the battery tends to sit lower into the frame of the vehicle and encompass a large portion of the vehicle's footprint. This would make you wonder if fender benders that we're a big deal to ICE cars might be a problem for EVs. If structural integrity is compromised too deeply it may damage the battery unit.
Most likely it would be a series of cells and would maybe just require replacing the damaged portions. If not, a whole battery changed out because of a vehicle accident that while not bad enough to comprise the entire vehicle, but still be an expensive replacement may be a factor in some decisions. Just thinking out loud a bit here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
You might want to look up how subsidies work.
Nobody "gave" the oil companies anything other than a reduced tax rate.
Letting them keep more of their own money for R&D helps keep our gas prices lower than Europe etc.
Also, the oil they produce goes into a lot more than gasoline.... Including making EV's.
Subsidies are nothing but the government circumventing the usual supply and demand system and also kickbacks to special interests for the EV vehicle industry in general.
You do realize electric loses its charge. Tesla's lose 1%+ a day in electric. It becomes a serious issue for people parking at airports or long term parking situations.
Additionally batteries need to be replaced every ~10-15 years and the battery itself cost nearly as much as a new car.
That only happens if they leave OPTIONAL features on such as sentry mode. If they don't, it's more like 1% every 4-5 days.
I think the problem with that analysis is, with ICE cars you have 250 million separate power generators running around the country. With EVs, the power generation is greatly centralized, which offers some efficiencies of its own.
You also forgot about solar and wind, in which case the fuel is removed from your equation.
Didn't forget about renewables other than hydro. Their shortfall is intermittent and irregular power output, which necessitates an expensive back up (usually dratted fossil fuel plants). So they actually have a LOWER EFFICIENCY overall (because the back up plants are rarely run up to full capacity and best efficiency).
- - -
Yes, there are 250 million separate heat engines converting fuel into movement.
No, they are not necessarily more efficient, than one big engine driving AC generators. The cumulative losses mount rapidly, as the output is transformed UP, sent across high tension lines (with their inherent losses), transformed DOWN to household current, then transformed again, to DC converter voltage levels, which then charge a battery (expensive lithium ion), and if there's any significant delay in use, another drop in efficiency from storage losses, then discharge into the electric motor to drive the wheels (and operate any other devices - fans - air conditioning - headlights - etc).
A diesel electric locomotive is very very efficient, since its motor / generator has no transmission losses. Of course, a catenary powered electric locomotive saves on the need for a generator and fuel weight, giving it a bump in efficiency.
If all government meddling (penalties and subsidies) were eliminated, ask engineers what would be the "best" solution: BEVs or ICEs? Ans: Neither.
The most efficient form of transportation is water based. Of course, where there is no navigable water, then you need the most efficient form of land transport.
. . .
Barring an engineering breakthrough, old fashioned steel wheel on steel rail (rail roading) is the remedy.
. . .
Where the destination is too far from the rail depot, then one would need a short haul mode - passenger and or cargo carriers - taxis, trucks, and buses. (Multimodal is fine)
. . .
The impetus to shift from petroleum has some merit - since the fossil fuel stocks are being rapidly consumed. Consider that civilization has only been using petroleum since the mid 1800s. And in less than 200 years, the world supply of cheap and plentiful oil was depleted. There still will be some oil to find, but it won't be cheap nor plentiful, especially at the rate we're consuming it. Worse, there are ecological consequences to shale oil extraction that have just been realized. Ditto, for fracking.
. . . THE LONG VIEW
If we assume population will keep growing (whatever the rate), there will be an ever greater need to move passengers and cargo, at the lowest cost.
That recommends restoring water routes, like abandoned canals and engineering navigable water routes. Slow, but cheap.
Then we need to ratchet up recovering abandoned rail rights of way, where practical, and rebuild the lost urban, suburban and heavy rail network. The biggest upgrade would be to completely electrify the rail rights of way. This network of power distribution might be ideal for interconnection with BEVs, extending their range, when running in a metropolitian area.
With BEVs able to tap into the power grid, they would be more flexible and convenient to use. But due to the expensive batteries, and other materials, I don't see a 1:1 replacement for existing ICEs. I fear it will be more like 10%. Which means the other 90% denied access to personal transport will need mass transit in all forms.
GREEN BANE
The environMENTALISTs will be wroth, but we're going to have to engineer our watershed to extract energy via hydroelectric generation. That means DAMMING waterways, wherever practical. Fortunately, for the USA, estimates for available power extraction compute to 126% of current production / consumption (fossil, nuclear, and other). This means we might be able to double our supply with a renewable, non-polluting source of electrical power. To appease the Greenies, let's make sure there are fish ladders and other means for migration.
There are dozens of electric-vehicles being developed to the Model 3 formula. That's small mid-size, 4400 pounds weight, 300 mile driving range, and $40000 price.
Also, since the electric powergrid is not carbon-free or carbon-neutral either one then the electric-vehicles don't very much reduce carbon-release
.
I disagree, the EV is a better daily driver and I have both an EV and a hybrid. The only area a hybrid is better is on long trips.
Most daily drivers ... commuters, soccer moms, people who travel substantial distances to get somewhere would benefit "at this time" from hybrids. Plug in hybrids are more versatile.
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.
