User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:12:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Problem with batteries is they steadily degrade over time. You lose 1% capacity per month on a lithium-ion battery. So after 5 years, you've lost 60% of the battery's performance. Instead of 300 miles on a charge, you only get 120. Consider that current production lithium based cells produced by A123 Systems are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, they still hold 80% of their original capacity. 7000 cycles at one cycle per day is NINETEEN YEARS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:13:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The answer is not no. EPRI has done studies and significant numbers of electric cars can be accomodated.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? Electric cars are about as much of an electrical burden as a refrigerator... But whatever works. Not to mention peak time for electrical usage is during the heat of the day. If the Electrical system can handle A/C, it can handle electric cars. But can it handle BOTH at the same time? The answer is no. Quit living in a dreamworld full of rainbow unicorns and understressed power grids. I won't even mention the fact that those same idiots want us to go to unreliable wind and solar energy for a significant portion of electric output. I'd bet that somewhere right now, some retard greenie is suggesting we can use solar energy to recharge the batteries at night......................and people will buy it because they are weak, stupid, and easily used by others. It's also not likely that electric cars will hit the market in a huge flood due to current costs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:14:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will never ever own an electric car. ever,  I would, but not for the ridiculous idea that we are somehow "saving the earth". I'd own one if it were economical, useful and it allowed me to be more independent (like I could charge it at home with solar or wind power). All the eco-weenie green-power crap is just Communist propaganda repackaged. What's holding you back? If it can be done in Anacortes, it can be done in Wyoming - http://www.zenncars.com/media/documents/HomePower.pdf From the article: "Range: Up to 35 miles" That won't even get me to town. 
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the eco-weenies pushing this stuff. They are basically Communists with a repackaged ad campaign. But that doesn't mean that an electric car would be a bad thing ***IF*** it attained the goals I mentioned above: economical, useful and it allowed me to be more independent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:22:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: The answer is not no. EPRI has done studies and significant numbers of electric cars can be accomodated. It's also not likely that electric cars will hit the market in a huge flood due to current costs. What's funny, you 'tard? When is electrical usage at it's peak? Is it overnight, when most plug in vehicles will charge? NO. Will market penetration be huge right away? NO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:24:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Actually, you bring up a very good point.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? Electric cars are about as much of an electrical burden as a refrigerator... But whatever works. Not to mention peak time for electrical usage is during the heat of the day. If the Electrical system can handle A/C, it can handle electric cars. But can it handle BOTH at the same time? The answer is no. Quit living in a dreamworld full of rainbow unicorns and understressed power grids. I won't even mention the fact that those same idiots want us to go to unreliable wind and solar energy for a significant portion of electric output. I'd bet that somewhere right now, some retard greenie is suggesting we can use solar energy to recharge the batteries at night......................and people will buy it because they are weak, stupid, and easily used by others. Wind and solar are not reliable sources of power, so they do not have a real application in providing power to homes and for most commercial and industrial use. The only thing that wind and solar really accomplish is that during periods when they output, convential power plants are powered back which saves fuel. One place they could provide useful power is for electric plug in hybrid cars. Because electric hybrid cars can store energy in the the battery and also in the fuel tank, they could use electric power sources that fluctuate. Most commuter cars will spend the vast majority of their time parked and could be getting charged. When renewable energy is producing, the cars could be charged. If the renewable energy cuts back, then the cars won't get charged, but that is not a disaster since they have stored energy in the form of fuel or electricity in the battery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:31:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: All types of power plants can be used to follow loads including nuclear. Generally, certain power plants are used to provide the majority of power and are called base load plants. These plants are operated at minimum cost/maximum efficiency near their capacity. Other plants are expected to follow the load and are called peaker's. Peak loads usually occur in the morning when everybody gets up and goes to work and again when they come home. This will vary depending on the locale and also on industrial consumers. Quoted: Quoted: And now for something more realistic.So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? A guy like me who lives in a modest house that he paid off years ago, who drives modestly priced American cars bought with cash and doesn't pay $100 a month for cable likes the concept of being able to have a car that can cover 98% of his yearly mileage without being dependent on foreign oil. He remembers the oil embargo of 1973 and knows about gas lines and even/odd license plate rationing. He knows that we import 60% of our fuel now and something like 40% then. He buys an electric car which is charged at night when peak rates are low and the power plants supplying the grid are operating at reduced output anyway. An oil embargo, war, jihad malfunction or some other worldly cluster fuck occurs and the imports slow down or stop. I drive to work in my electric car along with six other people who used to make fun of the electric car. I have the last laugh on my now captive audience. Of course, I think the Chevy volt or plug in hybrid concepts are better than pure electric, so you could take the car on trips. Electric automobiles provide one of the only realistic ways of utilizing solar cells for massive amounts of electricity production. Solar parking lots could be erected to charge the cars while parked during the day without affecting the grid. On days with lots of sun, the cars would use less gasoline (assuming plug in hybrid or Chevy Volt locomotive style cars). On days with rain or clouds, the cars would use more gasoline, but that's okay because gasoline can easily be stored while electricity is much harder to store on grid sized scales. Explain this "power down" BS about power plants............................. Unless they are peakers, plants don't "power down" at reduced energy times and power back up when demand rises unless they are dedicated [and expensive to run] peakers. Since a power company must meet demand at peak, some power plant somewhere or multiple power plants are operated at reduced capacity when the peak demand reduces. Electric power companies would love to have sources that allow them to even out the process more. That is why they will give credits to customers who allow them to fit electric water heaters and ac's with radio controls that allow them to reduce demand. Electric car charging would be another application that would make them happy, since they can reduce demand when they have a hard time meeting it and can increase demand when they have excess capacity available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:33:56 PM EDT
[#7]
A lot of california greenie environmentalists think that the world can be powered on wind/solar/hydro alone, and that everyone will be driving electric cars in a few years. One of the biggest problems of these sources of power is not only that they are sporadic (windy days vs not windy days), but also that the US capability to move power long distances is almost zero. You could fill Nevada 100% with solar panels, but you could not get that energy to the east coast to save your life.
I would bet that wind/solar/hydro will supplement home use moreso in the future, but that nuclear energy will continue to increase and will power the majority of home and especially industrial electric needs. Once a solid grid is put into place and the amount of nuclear power plants are built (takes ~10 years to build a plant), I could see electric cars becoming commonplace and very affordable. By the time this energy grid is put into place, I am sure battery technology will have significantly increased enough to be comparable to the range/fill time of gas power vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:35:38 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one.Electrification is coming, guys. The first models won't be cheap as evidenced by any 'new' technology, and the first battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Roadster. At over $100k, it's out of reach of most people, however, it could be very useful to many people. As a pure commuting vehicle, it would work great. 99% of the time I, and other people, drive to the office, they only have themselves and a briefcase and/or a sack lunch. Battery technology is advancing greatly. It's like the computer industry in the 90s. There have been new developments in anode material and other components that have the potential to increase storage capacity. In some case 5 to 10 fold! It takes time for R&D and for production. People worried about the grid falling over need to realize something. Peak usage happens in the afternoon. Most plug in cars will be charged overnight. Overnight, the capacity of the grid is very high since most industry is shut down for the day. I'm trying to find the article now, but within the last couple years, the IEEE suggested that off-peak capacity of our grid as-is could support something like 175,000 plug-in vehicles. Factor in, also, that over 70% of Americans commute 40 miles or less every day. If there were capacity to plug in at work, or an 80 mile range, that number goes above 90%. First, I think we'll see 'extended range electric vehicles' like the GM Volt. All aspersions about GM aside, what they're doing with the Volt will evolve the automotive industry. Being able to achieve 40 miles on electric power only will allow the average commuter to drive to and from work using no fuel. This uses 8kWh of power from the battery. Compensating for charging inefficiencies, assume 10kWh of power from the wall to charge. At my rate of $0.139/kWh it's an easy calculation - I could get 40 miles of travel on $1.39. If I want to hop in and drive to Phoenix (1000 miles from where I live), I can do it. Just stop and put gas in it like any other car. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be around for a LONG time. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:38:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The answer is not no. EPRI has done studies and significant numbers of electric cars can be accommodated.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? Electric cars are about as much of an electrical burden as a refrigerator... But whatever works. Not to mention peak time for electrical usage is during the heat of the day. If the Electrical system can handle A/C, it can handle electric cars. But can it handle BOTH at the same time? The answer is no. Quit living in a dreamworld full of rainbow unicorns and understressed power grids. I won't even mention the fact that those same idiots want us to go to unreliable wind and solar energy for a significant portion of electric output. I'd bet that somewhere right now, some retard greenie is suggesting we can use solar energy to recharge the batteries at night......................and people will buy it because they are weak, stupid, and easily used by others. It's also not likely that electric cars will hit the market in a huge flood due to current costs. This. Consider that plug in cars will be charged overnight, during off-peak times. Consider that market penetration will be SLOW. It will be YEARS maybe DECADES before plug in vehicles comprise any considerable portion of our fleet. Consider that domestic energy production means that buying that energy stays domestic. We DO need to smack the greenies down. We NEED MORE NUKES. We need STRONG baseline energy generation, and nuclear is simply the best way to do it. Petroleum is the biggest source of our trade deficit, our biggest vulnerability to our economy, and our biggest vulnerability in war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:40:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: So you know more than EPRI? Or do you consider EPRI an unreliable source? Or you don't know what EPRI is? Or you think electric cars costing 50 to 100K will suddenly leap onto the road?Quoted: Quoted: The answer is not no. EPRI has done studies and significant numbers of electric cars can be accomodated.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? Electric cars are about as much of an electrical burden as a refrigerator... But whatever works. Not to mention peak time for electrical usage is during the heat of the day. If the Electrical system can handle A/C, it can handle electric cars. But can it handle BOTH at the same time? The answer is no. Quit living in a dreamworld full of rainbow unicorns and understressed power grids. I won't even mention the fact that those same idiots want us to go to unreliable wind and solar energy for a significant portion of electric output. I'd bet that somewhere right now, some retard greenie is suggesting we can use solar energy to recharge the batteries at night......................and people will buy it because they are weak, stupid, and easily used by others. It's also not likely that electric cars will hit the market in a huge flood due to current costs. Or you just aren't capable of using information and drawing logical conclusions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:42:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one.
Electrification is coming, guys. The first models won't be cheap as evidenced by any 'new' technology, and the first battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Roadster. At over $100k, it's out of reach of most people, however, it could be very useful to many people. As a pure commuting vehicle, it would work great. 99% of the time I, and other people, drive to the office, they only have themselves and a briefcase and/or a sack lunch. Battery technology is advancing greatly. It's like the computer industry in the 90s. There have been new developments in anode material and other components that have the potential to increase storage capacity. In some case 5 to 10 fold! It takes time for R&D and for production. People worried about the grid falling over need to realize something. Peak usage happens in the afternoon. Most plug in cars will be charged overnight. Overnight, the capacity of the grid is very high since most industry is shut down for the day. I'm trying to find the article now, but within the last couple years, the IEEE suggested that off-peak capacity of our grid as-is could support something like 175,000 plug-in vehicles. Factor in, also, that over 70% of Americans commute 40 miles or less every day. If there were capacity to plug in at work, or an 80 mile range, that number goes above 90%. First, I think we'll see 'extended range electric vehicles' like the GM Volt. All aspersions about GM aside, what they're doing with the Volt will evolve the automotive industry. Being able to achieve 40 miles on electric power only will allow the average commuter to drive to and from work using no fuel. This uses 8kWh of power from the battery. Compensating for charging inefficiencies, assume 10kWh of power from the wall to charge. At my rate of $0.139/kWh it's an easy calculation - I could get 40 miles of travel on $1.39. If I want to hop in and drive to Phoenix (1000 miles from where I live), I can do it. Just stop and put gas in it like any other car. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be around for a LONG time. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. We have lots of oil locked up by our most wonderful all knowing and all seeing government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:42:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: A lot of california greenie environmentalists think that the world can be powered on wind/solar/hydro alone, and that everyone will be driving electric cars in a few years. One of the biggest problems of these sources of power is not only that they are sporadic (windy days vs not windy days), but also that the US capability to move power long distances is almost zero. You could fill Nevada 100% with solar panels, but you could not get that energy to the east coast to save your life. I would bet that wind/solar/hydro will supplement home use moreso in the future, but that nuclear energy will continue to increase and will power the majority of home and especially industrial electric needs. Once a solid grid is put into place and the amount of nuclear power plants are built (takes ~10 years to build a plant), I could see electric cars becoming commonplace and very affordable. By the time this energy grid is put into place, I am sure battery technology will have significantly increased enough to be comparable to the range/fill time of gas power vehicles. Logic and knowledge combined to produce useful thought. Were did you come from and are there others like you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:46:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, you bring up a very good point.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? Electric cars are about as much of an electrical burden as a refrigerator... But whatever works. Not to mention peak time for electrical usage is during the heat of the day. If the Electrical system can handle A/C, it can handle electric cars. But can it handle BOTH at the same time? The answer is no. Quit living in a dreamworld full of rainbow unicorns and understressed power grids. I won't even mention the fact that those same idiots want us to go to unreliable wind and solar energy for a significant portion of electric output. I'd bet that somewhere right now, some retard greenie is suggesting we can use solar energy to recharge the batteries at night......................and people will buy it because they are weak, stupid, and easily used by others. Wind and solar are not reliable sources of power, so they do not have a real application in providing power to homes and for most commercial and industrial use. The only thing that wind and solar really accomplish is that during periods when they output, convential power plants are powered back which saves fuel. One place they could provide useful power is for electric plug in hybrid cars. Because electric hybrid cars can store energy in the the battery and also in the fuel tank, they could use electric power sources that fluctuate. Most commuter cars will spend the vast majority of their time parked and could be getting charged. When renewable energy is producing, the cars could be charged. If the renewable energy cuts back, then the cars won't get charged, but that is not a disaster since they have stored energy in the form of fuel or electricity in the battery. You cannot power up and power down large plants to match the output of solar or wind power. Small plants are to expensive to run as compared to a large one. I see that few people here understand how interconnected the power grid is in the US and what can happen if a cascade event occurs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:47:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one.
Electrification is coming, guys. The first models won't be cheap as evidenced by any 'new' technology, and the first battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Roadster. At over $100k, it's out of reach of most people, however, it could be very useful to many people. As a pure commuting vehicle, it would work great. 99% of the time I, and other people, drive to the office, they only have themselves and a briefcase and/or a sack lunch. Battery technology is advancing greatly. It's like the computer industry in the 90s. There have been new developments in anode material and other components that have the potential to increase storage capacity. In some case 5 to 10 fold! It takes time for R&D and for production. People worried about the grid falling over need to realize something. Peak usage happens in the afternoon. Most plug in cars will be charged overnight. Overnight, the capacity of the grid is very high since most industry is shut down for the day. I'm trying to find the article now, but within the last couple years, the IEEE suggested that off-peak capacity of our grid as-is could support something like 175,000 plug-in vehicles. Factor in, also, that over 70% of Americans commute 40 miles or less every day. If there were capacity to plug in at work, or an 80 mile range, that number goes above 90%. First, I think we'll see 'extended range electric vehicles' like the GM Volt. All aspersions about GM aside, what they're doing with the Volt will evolve the automotive industry. Being able to achieve 40 miles on electric power only will allow the average commuter to drive to and from work using no fuel. This uses 8kWh of power from the battery. Compensating for charging inefficiencies, assume 10kWh of power from the wall to charge. At my rate of $0.139/kWh it's an easy calculation - I could get 40 miles of travel on $1.39. If I want to hop in and drive to Phoenix (1000 miles from where I live), I can do it. Just stop and put gas in it like any other car. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be around for a LONG time. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. Lets see where do we start? 1. Hi maintenance cost 2 40 to 50 miles per charge
3. battery life expectancy 4 Huge expense to change batteries out when they wear out. They do not last forever. 4. Battery disposal. Where is the faggety "green" supposed to come in here. 5. The electricity from your wall has to come from somewhere. Fuel powered electric plants. 6 Just the hassle of having to wait for something to charge is enough to scare me away. That's a few things. I am sure others can add more or correct me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:53:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: We do not allow drilling off the coast of California where 10 billion barrels of oil is in shallow water and mapped out, nor do we allow drilling off the coast of Florida.Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one.Electrification is coming, guys. The first models won't be cheap as evidenced by any 'new' technology, and the first battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Roadster. At over $100k, it's out of reach of most people, however, it could be very useful to many people. As a pure commuting vehicle, it would work great. 99% of the time I, and other people, drive to the office, they only have themselves and a briefcase and/or a sack lunch. Battery technology is advancing greatly. It's like the computer industry in the 90s. There have been new developments in anode material and other components that have the potential to increase storage capacity. In some case 5 to 10 fold! It takes time for R&D and for production. People worried about the grid falling over need to realize something. Peak usage happens in the afternoon. Most plug in cars will be charged overnight. Overnight, the capacity of the grid is very high since most industry is shut down for the day. I'm trying to find the article now, but within the last couple years, the IEEE suggested that off-peak capacity of our grid as-is could support something like 175,000 plug-in vehicles. Factor in, also, that over 70% of Americans commute 40 miles or less every day. If there were capacity to plug in at work, or an 80 mile range, that number goes above 90%. First, I think we'll see 'extended range electric vehicles' like the GM Volt. All aspersions about GM aside, what they're doing with the Volt will evolve the automotive industry. Being able to achieve 40 miles on electric power only will allow the average commuter to drive to and from work using no fuel. This uses 8kWh of power from the battery. Compensating for charging inefficiencies, assume 10kWh of power from the wall to charge. At my rate of $0.139/kWh it's an easy calculation - I could get 40 miles of travel on $1.39. If I want to hop in and drive to Phoenix (1000 miles from where I live), I can do it. Just stop and put gas in it like any other car. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be around for a LONG time. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. We have lots of oil locked up by our most wonderful all knowing and all seeing government. Yes, our government is stupid. Even if we drill all available oil, we will likely still need more energy. I support the advancement of technology on all energy fronts. Since solar cells are solid state/material oriented technology, I can see advancement in this area to the point where solar parking lots and buildings could provide useful power and electric cars provide an ideal place to use it. The energy tragedy in all of this is nuclear. The United States developed it, researched it, and developed numerous advances on it in the 70's and then nearly abandoned it when the biggest advances were being made. There were numerous, big and powerful American companies all over nuclear power and we just sold it all off to foreign companies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 12:55:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Actually, you bring up a very good point.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? Electric cars are about as much of an electrical burden as a refrigerator... But whatever works. Not to mention peak time for electrical usage is during the heat of the day. If the Electrical system can handle A/C, it can handle electric cars. But can it handle BOTH at the same time? The answer is no. Quit living in a dreamworld full of rainbow unicorns and understressed power grids. I won't even mention the fact that those same idiots want us to go to unreliable wind and solar energy for a significant portion of electric output. I'd bet that somewhere right now, some retard greenie is suggesting we can use solar energy to recharge the batteries at night......................and people will buy it because they are weak, stupid, and easily used by others. Wind and solar are not reliable sources of power, so they do not have a real application in providing power to homes and for most commercial and industrial use. The only thing that wind and solar really accomplish is that during periods when they output, convential power plants are powered back which saves fuel. One place they could provide useful power is for electric plug in hybrid cars. Because electric hybrid cars can store energy in the the battery and also in the fuel tank, they could use electric power sources that fluctuate. Most commuter cars will spend the vast majority of their time parked and could be getting charged. When renewable energy is producing, the cars could be charged. If the renewable energy cuts back, then the cars won't get charged, but that is not a disaster since they have stored energy in the form of fuel or electricity in the battery. You cannot power up and power down large plants to match the output of solar or wind power. Small plants are to expensive to run as compared to a large one. I see that few people here understand how interconnected the power grid is in the US and what can happen if a cascade event occurs. I think your problem is that you think that I, and others like me who support or find interesting electric vehicles, DON'T realize the grid situation. Liking electric cars and being completely ignorant of the grid situation are not the same thing. You'll find that those of us here who support electric vehicles also support things like nuclear power for baseload power generation. We'd also love it if we drilled HERE. Anything that keeps our power generation and money spent on it's consumption in our economy are good things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:02:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: You missed the entire point. The entire point is that electric cars present a load that can be controlled to minimize load following in at the behest of the utility which is a dream for them.Quoted: Quoted: Actually, you bring up a very good point.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, 5% of the population buys electric vehicles. John Greenieweenie comes home and plugs in to charge over night. The grid is presently at 105% of capacity. Brownout or even "Wump!" Blackout. "Honey," his wife says, "Looks like sandwiches again for dinner." Cold shower. No A/C. No Survivor on TV. Next morning his car isn't charged and he has to ride his kid's bike to work, making him late. But he's saving the Earth... that's what counts. Right? Electric cars are about as much of an electrical burden as a refrigerator... But whatever works. Not to mention peak time for electrical usage is during the heat of the day. If the Electrical system can handle A/C, it can handle electric cars. But can it handle BOTH at the same time? The answer is no. Quit living in a dreamworld full of rainbow unicorns and understressed power grids. I won't even mention the fact that those same idiots want us to go to unreliable wind and solar energy for a significant portion of electric output. I'd bet that somewhere right now, some retard greenie is suggesting we can use solar energy to recharge the batteries at night......................and people will buy it because they are weak, stupid, and easily used by others. Wind and solar are not reliable sources of power, so they do not have a real application in providing power to homes and for most commercial and industrial use. The only thing that wind and solar really accomplish is that during periods when they output, convential power plants are powered back which saves fuel. One place they could provide useful power is for electric plug in hybrid cars. Because electric hybrid cars can store energy in the the battery and also in the fuel tank, they could use electric power sources that fluctuate. Most commuter cars will spend the vast majority of their time parked and could be getting charged. When renewable energy is producing, the cars could be charged. If the renewable energy cuts back, then the cars won't get charged, but that is not a disaster since they have stored energy in the form of fuel or electricity in the battery. You cannot power up and power down large plants to match the output of solar or wind power. Small plants are to expensive to run as compared to a large one. I see that few people here understand how interconnected the power grid is in the US and what can happen if a cascade event occurs. Second, you are flat wrong about load following. Power plants can and do follow load. It is an inescapable fact that they must do so. A utility would be much happier with a steady load since they can run at optimum efficiency and least cost that way, but they don't have that luxury. Every day, load cycles and power plants cycle with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:06:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Lets see where do we start? 1. Hi maintenance cost Where do you come up with that? There are no oil changes, no timing chains, no spark plugs, etc etc. In a pure electric vehicle you have 1 moving part - the motor. In a common car you have hundreds. 2 40 to 50 miles per charge Where do you come up with that? Since there are only a few pure electric vehicles available, you have to be grabbing at straws. The Tesla Roadster, as an example of an electric car that is in production today, gets 200+ miles on a charge. 3. battery life expectancy You might have missed my statement in a previous post. A123 Systems, a US battery manufacturer, produces lithium based cells that are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, the cells still hold 80% of their original capacity. At one cycle per day, that's NINETEEN YEARS of use. What was the last car you owned for 19 years? 4 Huge expense to change batteries out when they wear out. They do not last forever. See the above statement. Battery technology is advancing. They will NOT need to be replaced every couple years. They will likely last as long as you keep the car. Then there are capacitive units in development that do not suffer the characteristics of batteries and would last for millions of charges. 4. Battery disposal. Where is the faggety "green" supposed to come in here. Pretty much all batteries are recyclable. I know that lead acid batteries are 98% recyclable. I'm not sure about NiMH or Li based chemistries, but they CAN be recycled. 5. The electricity from your wall has to come from somewhere. Fuel powered electric plants. This is true. However, most plug in cars will charge overnight. Most power plants cannot turn off at night, or throttle down, so a lot of energy is wasted because it's not being used at night. Enter electric cars, and there's now a market for that energy. 6 Just the hassle of having to wait for something to charge is enough to scare me away. This is a major hurdle, of course, but for MOST people, plugging in at night will work just fine. I also foresee many plug in vehicles that also have a generator onboard, allowing you to drive as far and as long as you want, provided you can purchase fuel. That's a few things. I am sure others can add more or correct me. There are hurdles, but they're not as high or as difficult as you make them out to be. The biggest for you and I will be the cost. They will be prohibitively expensive for the average person. But remember just a couple decades ago when personal computers were cost prohibitive. Now they're in the majority of homes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:08:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Petroleum fueled cars don't last forever either. Batteries can and will be recycled.Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one.Electrification is coming, guys. The first models won't be cheap as evidenced by any 'new' technology, and the first battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Roadster. At over $100k, it's out of reach of most people, however, it could be very useful to many people. As a pure commuting vehicle, it would work great. 99% of the time I, and other people, drive to the office, they only have themselves and a briefcase and/or a sack lunch. Battery technology is advancing greatly. It's like the computer industry in the 90s. There have been new developments in anode material and other components that have the potential to increase storage capacity. In some case 5 to 10 fold! It takes time for R&D and for production. People worried about the grid falling over need to realize something. Peak usage happens in the afternoon. Most plug in cars will be charged overnight. Overnight, the capacity of the grid is very high since most industry is shut down for the day. I'm trying to find the article now, but within the last couple years, the IEEE suggested that off-peak capacity of our grid as-is could support something like 175,000 plug-in vehicles. Factor in, also, that over 70% of Americans commute 40 miles or less every day. If there were capacity to plug in at work, or an 80 mile range, that number goes above 90%. First, I think we'll see 'extended range electric vehicles' like the GM Volt. All aspersions about GM aside, what they're doing with the Volt will evolve the automotive industry. Being able to achieve 40 miles on electric power only will allow the average commuter to drive to and from work using no fuel. This uses 8kWh of power from the battery. Compensating for charging inefficiencies, assume 10kWh of power from the wall to charge. At my rate of $0.139/kWh it's an easy calculation - I could get 40 miles of travel on $1.39. If I want to hop in and drive to Phoenix (1000 miles from where I live), I can do it. Just stop and put gas in it like any other car. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be around for a LONG time. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. Lets see where do we start? 1. Hi maintenance cost 2 40 to 50 miles per charge 3. battery life expectancy 4 Huge expense to change batteries out when they wear out. They do not last forever. 4. Battery disposal. Where is the faggety "green" supposed to come in here. 5. The electricity from your wall has to come from somewhere. Fuel powered electric plants. 6 Just the hassle of having to wait for something to charge is enough to scare me away. That's a few things. I am sure others can add more or correct me. Petroleum fueled cars will be subject to oil price volatility. Remember $4.00 a gallon? We import nearly 60% of our oil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:19:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
coal power generation is about 35% efficient -7% transmission losses-10% battery losses=18% cars are about 15% coal plant have much better scrubbers than cars. lead batteries are recyclable . If you install a cogenerator in your home ( comparable in price to a regular heating system) you could heat your house,domestic hot water, and charge you car/ home ellectical power at the same time with the same dime. You can also use coal/wood pellet/oil/diesel to run a steam/freon/sterling generator/ turbine, or a conventional diesel plant. this could all be computer controlled and web monitored (like security systems), so you would not have to worry about it, you could also be grid tied and sell your extra power so you don't need home batteries. Cool - I like numbers too. 
According to Hans-Dieter Schilling, the coal number is closer to 31%. Coal also produces 2/3 of the world's sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere. Gasoline engine efficiency numbers are generally quoted to be a bit closer to 20-30% efficient. So, using your math with new numbers, coal into electricity into battery charger into battery and back out = 14%. I suspect that the numbers are a bit lower when you take into account the losses of conversion to charge the batteries. All of my chargers get hot to the touch and heat = energy into the atmosphere where it cannot work for me. Coal = 14% Gasoline = 20% (using low number) For the record, I don't like either form of energy but I live with both. Arguing the merits of either is semantics. The next big step is not going to be storage (battery or fuel cell), it is going to be generation using a new form of fuel. Something along the scale of nuclear..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:26:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets see where do we start? 1. Hi maintenance cost Where do you come up with that? There are no oil changes, no timing chains, no spark plugs, etc etc. In a pure electric vehicle you have 1 moving part - the motor. In a common car you have hundreds. 2 40 to 50 miles per charge
Where do you come up with that? Since there are only a few pure electric vehicles available, you have to be grabbing at straws. The Tesla Roadster, as an example of an electric car that is in production today, gets 200+ miles on a charge. 3. battery life expectancy You might have missed my statement in a previous post. A123 Systems, a US battery manufacturer, produces lithium based cells that are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, the cells still hold 80% of their original capacity. At one cycle per day, that's NINETEEN YEARS of use. What was the last car you owned for 19 years? 4 Huge expense to change batteries out when they wear out. They do not last forever. See the above statement. Battery technology is advancing. They will NOT need to be replaced every couple years. They will likely last as long as you keep the car. Then there are capacitive units in development that do not suffer the characteristics of batteries and would last for millions of charges. 4. Battery disposal. Where is the faggety "green" supposed to come in here. Pretty much all batteries are recyclable. I know that lead acid batteries are 98% recyclable. I'm not sure about NiMH or Li based chemistries, but they CAN be recycled. 5. The electricity from your wall has to come from somewhere. Fuel powered electric plants. This is true. However, most plug in cars will charge overnight. Most power plants cannot turn off at night, or throttle down, so a lot of energy is wasted because it's not being used at night. Enter electric cars, and there's now a market for that energy. 6 Just the hassle of having to wait for something to charge is enough to scare me away. This is a major hurdle, of course, but for MOST people, plugging in at night will work just fine. I also foresee many plug in vehicles that also have a generator onboard, allowing you to drive as far and as long as you want, provided you can purchase fuel. That's a few things. I am sure others can add more or correct me. There are hurdles, but they're not as high or as difficult as you make them out to be. The biggest for you and I will be the cost. They will be prohibitively expensive for the average person. But remember just a couple decades ago when personal computers were cost prohibitive. Now they're in the majority of homes. http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/24/editorial-why-not-electric-cars/ Interesting article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:32:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
coal power generation is about 35% efficient -7% transmission losses-10% battery losses=18% cars are about 15% coal plant have much better scrubbers than cars. lead batteries are recyclable . If you install a cogenerator in your home ( comparable in price to a regular heating system) you could heat your house,domestic hot water, and charge you car/ home ellectical power at the same time with the same dime. You can also use coal/wood pellet/oil/diesel to run a steam/freon/sterling generator/ turbine, or a conventional diesel plant. this could all be computer controlled and web monitored (like security systems), so you would not have to worry about it, you could also be grid tied and sell your extra power so you don't need home batteries. Cool - I like numbers too.
According to Hans-Dieter Schilling, the coal number is closer to 31%. Coal also produces 2/3 of the world's sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere. Gasoline engine efficiency numbers are generally quoted to be a bit closer to 20-30% efficient. So, using your math with new numbers, coal into electricity into battery charger into battery and back out = 14%. I suspect that the numbers are a bit lower when you take into account the losses of conversion to charge the batteries. All of my chargers get hot to the touch and heat = energy into the atmosphere where it cannot work for me. Coal = 14% Gasoline = 20% (using low number) For the record, I don't like either form of energy but I live with both. Arguing the merits of either is semantics. The next big step is not going to be storage (battery or fuel cell), it is going to be generation using a new form of fuel. Something along the scale of nuclear..... Assuming the % loss numbers are actually accurate... 1kJ of thermal energy is created by burning coal. 310J of electric energy reach the wire. 7% transmission losses mean 288.3J reach the batteries. 10% battery losses mean 259.5J of energy can actually be used to power the vehicle. That yields an overall efficiency of 26%, which is considerably better than most IC engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:37:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Problem with batteries is they steadily degrade over time. You lose 1% capacity per month on a lithium-ion battery. So after 5 years, you've lost 60% of the battery's performance. Instead of 300 miles on a charge, you only get 120. Consider that current production lithium based cells produced by A123 Systems are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, they still hold 80% of their original capacity. 7000 cycles at one cycle per day is NINETEEN YEARS. That's not the capacity loss I'm talking about. Li-ion batteries permanently lose 1% of their capacity each month whether you cycle them or not. Show me a 5-6 year old Li-ion laptop battery that still has 80% of its original capacity... or even 50% for that matter. They sure don't last 19 years, and are typically totally dead by 7. Battery wear leveling is an issue for cars. The Prius keeps its battery pack between 40 and 60% charged so that mileage does not steadily drop throughout the life of the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:45:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lets see where do we start? 1. Hi maintenance cost Where do you come up with that? There are no oil changes, no timing chains, no spark plugs, etc etc. In a pure electric vehicle you have 1 moving part - the motor. In a common car you have hundreds. 2 40 to 50 miles per charge Where do you come up with that? Since there are only a few pure electric vehicles available, you have to be grabbing at straws. The Tesla Roadster, as an example of an electric car that is in production today, gets 200+ miles on a charge. 3. battery life expectancy You might have missed my statement in a previous post. A123 Systems, a US battery manufacturer, produces lithium based cells that are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, the cells still hold 80% of their original capacity. At one cycle per day, that's NINETEEN YEARS of use. What was the last car you owned for 19 years? 4 Huge expense to change batteries out when they wear out. They do not last forever. See the above statement. Battery technology is advancing. They will NOT need to be replaced every couple years. They will likely last as long as you keep the car. Then there are capacitive units in development that do not suffer the characteristics of batteries and would last for millions of charges. 4. Battery disposal. Where is the faggety "green" supposed to come in here. Pretty much all batteries are recyclable. I know that lead acid batteries are 98% recyclable. I'm not sure about NiMH or Li based chemistries, but they CAN be recycled. 5. The electricity from your wall has to come from somewhere. Fuel powered electric plants. This is true. However, most plug in cars will charge overnight. Most power plants cannot turn off at night, or throttle down, so a lot of energy is wasted because it's not being used at night. Enter electric cars, and there's now a market for that energy. 6 Just the hassle of having to wait for something to charge is enough to scare me away. This is a major hurdle, of course, but for MOST people, plugging in at night will work just fine. I also foresee many plug in vehicles that also have a generator onboard, allowing you to drive as far and as long as you want, provided you can purchase fuel. That's a few things. I am sure others can add more or correct me. There are hurdles, but they're not as high or as difficult as you make them out to be. The biggest for you and I will be the cost. They will be prohibitively expensive for the average person. But remember just a couple decades ago when personal computers were cost prohibitive. Now they're in the majority of homes. http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/24/editorial-why-not-electric-cars/ Interesting article. That's not an article, it's an editorial - basically an opinion piece. A lot of it is factually correct, though. Electric 'horseless carriages' did come before internal combustion engines. At the time (that's a key phrase) batteries and motors were expensive, and making internal combustion engines was much cheaper. Today, it's much cheaper because there's already tooling and infrastructure to support it, and there's a huge market for them. The DoE document, like any other government document (recall the DHS document calling us all terrorists) can't be trusted to be accurate. I've mentioned several advances, but didn't specifically call them out. One is silicone nanowire material used in the anode of a lithium based battery which theoretically could increase it's energy storage 5 to 10 times. There's also lithium sulphur. There are many others. These advancements, while a few years from production viability, are in the pipeline. It might not be in the coming decade, it might be after, it might even be later, but it's coming. I don't like to mention it because it's continually delayed and remains vaporware... but EEStor is working on capacitive storage that would be cheaper and easier to manufacture that could also be charged and discharged millions of times with no degradation. The fact that it can't be done TODAY is not indicative of the unlikeliness that it will happen tomorrow. I'm sure tons of people riding horses laughed at the 'horseless carriages', and look where they are today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:53:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Problem with batteries is they steadily degrade over time. You lose 1% capacity per month on a lithium-ion battery. So after 5 years, you've lost 60% of the battery's performance. Instead of 300 miles on a charge, you only get 120. Consider that current production lithium based cells produced by A123 Systems are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, they still hold 80% of their original capacity. 7000 cycles at one cycle per day is NINETEEN YEARS. That's not the capacity loss I'm talking about. Li-ion batteries permanently lose 1% of their capacity each month whether you cycle them or not. Show me a 5-6 year old Li-ion laptop battery that still has 80% of its original capacity... or even 50% for that matter. They sure don't last 19 years, and are typically totally dead by 7. Battery wear leveling is an issue for cars. The Prius keeps its battery pack between 40 and 60% charged so that mileage does not steadily drop throughout the life of the vehicle. You are incorrect. LiIon batteries do not permanently lose capacity every month. What you're talking about is if you charge up a lithium ion battery and put it away. It will lose charge. That's normal. Just about every battery chemistry will self discharge if not maintained or used. You're confusing that phenomenon with reduced capacity due to age and use. I have a 5 year old Kodak digicam with a Lithium Ion battery that still takes a charge and functions. In fact, all three LiIon batteries I have for it still function, and I cannot detect any degradation in their life, although I am sure there is some degradation. By your math, they would be paperweights completely incapable of taking any charge. Check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery: "At a 100% charge level, a typical Li-ion laptop battery that is full most of the time at 25 °C or 77 °F will irreversibly lose approximately 20% capacity per year." That's if you charge it and shelf it for a year. It's under the "Shelf Life" section. The battery management in the Prius keeps the state of charge in the middle range of the battery, this is true. Not really for mileage purpose, but for longevity. Not completely cycling the cells reduces stress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:53:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Thats right, forget about getting away from imported fuel. I'm happy to be a slave to the oil rich countries in the middle east.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 1:58:36 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
We do not allow drilling off the coast of California where 10 billion barrels of oil is in shallow water and mapped out, nor do we allow drilling off the coast of Florida.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one.
Electrification is coming, guys. The first models won't be cheap as evidenced by any 'new' technology, and the first battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Roadster. At over $100k, it's out of reach of most people, however, it could be very useful to many people. As a pure commuting vehicle, it would work great. 99% of the time I, and other people, drive to the office, they only have themselves and a briefcase and/or a sack lunch. Battery technology is advancing greatly. It's like the computer industry in the 90s. There have been new developments in anode material and other components that have the potential to increase storage capacity. In some case 5 to 10 fold! It takes time for R&D and for production. People worried about the grid falling over need to realize something. Peak usage happens in the afternoon. Most plug in cars will be charged overnight. Overnight, the capacity of the grid is very high since most industry is shut down for the day. I'm trying to find the article now, but within the last couple years, the IEEE suggested that off-peak capacity of our grid as-is could support something like 175,000 plug-in vehicles. Factor in, also, that over 70% of Americans commute 40 miles or less every day. If there were capacity to plug in at work, or an 80 mile range, that number goes above 90%. First, I think we'll see 'extended range electric vehicles' like the GM Volt. All aspersions about GM aside, what they're doing with the Volt will evolve the automotive industry. Being able to achieve 40 miles on electric power only will allow the average commuter to drive to and from work using no fuel. This uses 8kWh of power from the battery. Compensating for charging inefficiencies, assume 10kWh of power from the wall to charge. At my rate of $0.139/kWh it's an easy calculation - I could get 40 miles of travel on $1.39. If I want to hop in and drive to Phoenix (1000 miles from where I live), I can do it. Just stop and put gas in it like any other car. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be around for a LONG time. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. We have lots of oil locked up by our most wonderful all knowing and all seeing government. Yes, our government is stupid. Even if we drill all available oil, we will likely still need more energy. I support the advancement of technology on all energy fronts. Since solar cells are solid state/material oriented technology, I can see advancement in this area to the point where solar parking lots and buildings could provide useful power and electric cars provide an ideal place to use it. The energy tragedy in all of this is nuclear. The United States developed it, researched it, and developed numerous advances on it in the 70's and then nearly abandoned it when the biggest advances were being made. There were numerous, big and powerful American companies all over nuclear power and we just sold it all off to foreign companies. Think media, suckers and TMI. TMI was the kiss of death for nuke plants and the media, politicians, and stoner hippie idiots who couldn't understand how to roast a marshmallow killed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 2:00:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
That's not the capacity loss I'm talking about. Li-ion batteries permanently lose 1% of their capacity each month whether you cycle them or not. Show me a 5-6 year old Li-ion laptop battery that still has 80% of its original capacity... or even 50% for that matter. They sure don't last 19 years, and are typically totally dead by 7. Battery wear leveling is an issue for cars. The Prius keeps its battery pack between 40 and 60% charged so that mileage does not steadily drop throughout the life of the vehicle. And that Li-Ion battery in that laptop is now obsolete, by 2 generations or more of battery technology. Try lurking in an electric RC forum. Small Li-Ion packs were the rage, several years ago, for the really small RC's running on tiny motors. Then Li-poly packs made Li-Ion packs obsolete, allowing packs with much higher capacity (both in discharge amps and in total capacity), and less danger of the battery doing something really destructive in a crash. Now, the A123 batteries are the rage. Far more durable and longer lasting than Li-Ion or Li-Poly, but since they are still new, they are expensive. Give it time, and the A123's will come down in price. There's a company packaging A123's (or a very similar cell) as a battery pack the same size as a typical 12volt car battery, at half the weight of lead acid and much higher capacity. I had the address for their website, but a virus crashed my old harddrive and I haven't come across it again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 2:02:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Nope, doesn't work out that way.Quoted: coal power generation is about 35% efficient -7% transmission losses-10% battery losses=18% cars are about 15% coal plant have much better scrubbers than cars. lead batteries are recyclable . If you install a cogenerator in your home ( comparable in price to a regular heating system) you could heat your house,domestic hot water, and charge you car/ home ellectical power at the same time with the same dime. You can also use coal/wood pellet/oil/diesel to run a steam/freon/sterling generator/ turbine, or a conventional diesel plant. this could all be computer controlled and web monitored (like security systems), so you would not have to worry about it, you could also be grid tied and sell your extra power so you don't need home batteries. Cool - I like numbers too. According to Hans-Dieter Schilling, the coal number is closer to 31%. Coal also produces 2/3 of the world's sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere. Gasoline engine efficiency numbers are generally quoted to be a bit closer to 20-30% efficient. So, using your math with new numbers, coal into electricity into battery charger into battery and back out = 14%. I suspect that the numbers are a bit lower when you take into account the losses of conversion to charge the batteries. All of my chargers get hot to the touch and heat = energy into the atmosphere where it cannot work for me. Coal = 14% Gasoline = 20% (using low number) For the record, I don't like either form of energy but I live with both. Arguing the merits of either is semantics. The next big step is not going to be storage (battery or fuel cell), it is going to be generation using a new form of fuel. Something along the scale of nuclear..... Your gasoline numbers aren't well to wheel. "Well" to wheel is more efficient with electric than well to wheel with gasoline. Diesel electric hybrids are the only thing that could get close to an all electric. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/sample_results.html I have always thought that the way to do a hybrid is like a diesel electric train except with battery added. The diesel would run at peak efficiency to charge the battery like a Chevy Volt except a small turbo diesel would be used instead of a gasoline engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 2:45:44 PM EDT
[#30]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml
cars are about 15% the web site for coal said 30-40% I split the difference. If you make your own electricity, and use the waste heat you can subtract your heating cost too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 2:51:53 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: By the way, page 7 of the following document shows how utilities typically cycle power plants meet changing demand.Quoted: Quoted: We do not allow drilling off the coast of California where 10 billion barrels of oil is in shallow water and mapped out, nor do we allow drilling off the coast of Florida.Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one.Electrification is coming, guys. The first models won't be cheap as evidenced by any 'new' technology, and the first battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Roadster. At over $100k, it's out of reach of most people, however, it could be very useful to many people. As a pure commuting vehicle, it would work great. 99% of the time I, and other people, drive to the office, they only have themselves and a briefcase and/or a sack lunch. Battery technology is advancing greatly. It's like the computer industry in the 90s. There have been new developments in anode material and other components that have the potential to increase storage capacity. In some case 5 to 10 fold! It takes time for R&D and for production. People worried about the grid falling over need to realize something. Peak usage happens in the afternoon. Most plug in cars will be charged overnight. Overnight, the capacity of the grid is very high since most industry is shut down for the day. I'm trying to find the article now, but within the last couple years, the IEEE suggested that off-peak capacity of our grid as-is could support something like 175,000 plug-in vehicles. Factor in, also, that over 70% of Americans commute 40 miles or less every day. If there were capacity to plug in at work, or an 80 mile range, that number goes above 90%. First, I think we'll see 'extended range electric vehicles' like the GM Volt. All aspersions about GM aside, what they're doing with the Volt will evolve the automotive industry. Being able to achieve 40 miles on electric power only will allow the average commuter to drive to and from work using no fuel. This uses 8kWh of power from the battery. Compensating for charging inefficiencies, assume 10kWh of power from the wall to charge. At my rate of $0.139/kWh it's an easy calculation - I could get 40 miles of travel on $1.39. If I want to hop in and drive to Phoenix (1000 miles from where I live), I can do it. Just stop and put gas in it like any other car. Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be around for a LONG time. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. We have lots of oil locked up by our most wonderful all knowing and all seeing government. Yes, our government is stupid. Even if we drill all available oil, we will likely still need more energy. I support the advancement of technology on all energy fronts. Since solar cells are solid state/material oriented technology, I can see advancement in this area to the point where solar parking lots and buildings could provide useful power and electric cars provide an ideal place to use it. The energy tragedy in all of this is nuclear. The United States developed it, researched it, and developed numerous advances on it in the 70's and then nearly abandoned it when the biggest advances were being made. There were numerous, big and powerful American companies all over nuclear power and we just sold it all off to foreign companies. Think media, suckers and TMI. TMI was the kiss of death for nuke plants and the media, politicians, and stoner hippie idiots who couldn't understand how to roast a marshmallow killed it. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/559.pdf Nuclear power plants can be cycled, but they usually aren't. It is possible to ramp them up from 50% to 100% in an hour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 2:56:14 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: TMI. TMI was the kiss of death for nuke plants.
Chernobyl was the real killer, which is too bad. TMI was damn near nothing (80mrem if you had been standing at the power plant fence. you receive 300ishmrem a year naturally). Since we use water as a Neutron buffer in the US, Chernobyl is literally impossible in a US plant. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 2:59:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Nuclear power plants can be cycled, but they usually aren't. This. The Indian Point nuke plants in NY are the cheapest source of power in the entire state. Whenever they aren't being refueled (which is about 80% of the time) they are running at near maximum capacity. "Throttling down" a nuke plant really isn't going to be an issue until nukes provide about 80% of the nation's power, which will never happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 3:22:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Nuclear power plants can be cycled, but they usually aren't. This. The Indian Point nuke plants in NY are the cheapest source of power in the entire state. Whenever they aren't being refueled (which is about 80% of the time) they are running at near maximum capacity. "Throttling down" a nuke plant really isn't going to be an issue until nukes provide about 80% of the nation's power, which will never happen.  A very pretty nuke plant. For some reason, it is widely believed by ARFcommers that power plants can not be cycled to follow load, when the actuality is that power plants of various types in various parts of the country are cycled. Mostly, gas or oil fired turbines are used, but steam power plants can also follow load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 3:37:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nuclear power plants can be cycled, but they usually aren't. This. The Indian Point nuke plants in NY are the cheapest source of power in the entire state. Whenever they aren't being refueled (which is about 80% of the time) they are running at near maximum capacity. "Throttling down" a nuke plant really isn't going to be an issue until nukes provide about 80% of the nation's power, which will never happen. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Indian_Point.jpg/800px-Indian_Point.jpg A very pretty nuke plant. For some reason, it is widely believed by ARFcommers that power plants can not be cycled to follow load, when the actuality is that power plants of various types in various parts of the country are cycled. Mostly, gas or oil fired turbines are used, but steam power plants can also follow load. Gas and oil burners can cycle easier then nuke and coal. Still, you always have to run above capacity to avoid brown outs. How much above is the buffer but spooling up and down plants while they CAN do it can be a crapshoot. We have hundreds of years of coal left, it's idiotic to use gas and oil for power generation with the clean coal technology of today. It's basically ROCK, dug up, crushed, pulverized into a slurry and burned, the fly ash can be used also, yet...................we choose the types [gov] that will make us even more dependant on the government and are less reliable. Heck, hydro is "evil" nowadays but grinding up birds in a windmill [NIMBY tho] is perfectly OK. Doh! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 3:39:05 PM EDT
[#36]
After actually using an EV at work for 3 years I can tell you the following
3 hour charge? maybe if you use the 277 volt wall unit that looks and sounds like an arc welder, and really spins the electric meter, the 110 volt not takes 23 hours to charge it fully 35 mile range? maybe, use the AC or the heat(also electric), or climb hills amd your mileage will vary, like half the range performace? with fully charged batteries not bad, as they run down, slower and slower, remember your RC cars? same thing Golf carts yes, cars no |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 3:41:54 PM EDT
[#37]
I'm all for electric cars, as long as I am not forced to get one until they meet my satisfaction.
Forcing, to me, includes heavy taxes on gasoline or gasoline-powered vehicles, or excessive tax breaks on electric-only cars, or taxing/regulating gas stations to such a point where a significant percentage have to shut down. In other words, I'm all about the technology, and I am absolutely against the politics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 3:43:25 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets see where do we start? 1. Hi maintenance cost Where do you come up with that? There are no oil changes, no timing chains, no spark plugs, etc etc. In a pure electric vehicle you have 1 moving part - the motor. In a common car you have hundreds. 2 40 to 50 miles per charge
Where do you come up with that? Since there are only a few pure electric vehicles available, you have to be grabbing at straws. The Tesla Roadster, as an example of an electric car that is in production today, gets 200+ miles on a charge. 3. battery life expectancy You might have missed my statement in a previous post. A123 Systems, a US battery manufacturer, produces lithium based cells that are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, the cells still hold 80% of their original capacity. At one cycle per day, that's NINETEEN YEARS of use. What was the last car you owned for 19 years? 4 Huge expense to change batteries out when they wear out. They do not last forever. See the above statement. Battery technology is advancing. They will NOT need to be replaced every couple years. They will likely last as long as you keep the car. Then there are capacitive units in development that do not suffer the characteristics of batteries and would last for millions of charges. 4. Battery disposal. Where is the faggety "green" supposed to come in here. Pretty much all batteries are recyclable. I know that lead acid batteries are 98% recyclable. I'm not sure about NiMH or Li based chemistries, but they CAN be recycled. 5. The electricity from your wall has to come from somewhere. Fuel powered electric plants. This is true. However, most plug in cars will charge overnight. Most power plants cannot turn off at night, or throttle down, so a lot of energy is wasted because it's not being used at night. Enter electric cars, and there's now a market for that energy. 6 Just the hassle of having to wait for something to charge is enough to scare me away. This is a major hurdle, of course, but for MOST people, plugging in at night will work just fine. I also foresee many plug in vehicles that also have a generator onboard, allowing you to drive as far and as long as you want, provided you can purchase fuel. That's a few things. I am sure others can add more or correct me. There are hurdles, but they're not as high or as difficult as you make them out to be. The biggest for you and I will be the cost. They will be prohibitively expensive for the average person. But remember just a couple decades ago when personal computers were cost prohibitive. Now they're in the majority of homes. http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/24/editorial-why-not-electric-cars/ Interesting article. That's not an article, it's an editorial - basically an opinion piece. A lot of it is factually correct, though. Electric 'horseless carriages' did come before internal combustion engines. At the time (that's a key phrase) batteries and motors were expensive, and making internal combustion engines was much cheaper. Today, it's much cheaper because there's already tooling and infrastructure to support it, and there's a huge market for them. The DoE document, like any other government document (recall the DHS document calling us all terrorists) can't be trusted to be accurate. I've mentioned several advances, but didn't specifically call them out. One is silicone nanowire material used in the anode of a lithium based battery which theoretically could increase it's energy storage 5 to 10 times. There's also lithium sulphur. There are many others. These advancements, while a few years from production viability, are in the pipeline. It might not be in the coming decade, it might be after, it might even be later, but it's coming. I don't like to mention it because it's continually delayed and remains vaporware... but EEStor is working on capacitive storage that would be cheaper and easier to manufacture that could also be charged and discharged millions of times with no degradation. The fact that it can't be done TODAY is not indicative of the unlikeliness that it will happen tomorrow. I'm sure tons of people riding horses laughed at the 'horseless carriages', and look where they are today. You obviously know a shit ton more about it than I so I am going to shut up now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 3:50:24 PM EDT
[#39]
If this was more common, electric vehicles would be much more feasible.
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 3:55:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
A very pretty nuke plant. If you look closely, you can see the machine gun bunkers on the roof that protect the plant from an assault across the river. I'm not kidding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 4:45:17 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
If this was more common, electric vehicles would be much more feasible. Very pretty. Do you have a picture of how it looks one day after the pigeons come in to roost? Without the sarcasm, I thought that solar panels took more energy to make than they could ever produce. This may have changed but it certainly is not "free". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 4:58:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
If this was more common, electric vehicles would be much more feasible. What would the cost be for something like that, and how well do solar panels stand up to hail damage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:01:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this was more common, electric vehicles would be much more feasible. Very pretty. Do you have a picture of how it looks one day after the pigeons come in to roost? Without the sarcasm, I thought that solar panels took more energy to make than they could ever produce. This may have changed but it certainly is not "free". Ever is a long, long time. At this time, they are very, very expensive but good in some applications. The real future for solar (if it even has one) is thermal arrays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:06:57 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Problem with batteries is they steadily degrade over time. You lose 1% capacity per month on a lithium-ion battery. So after 5 years, you've lost 60% of the battery's performance. Instead of 300 miles on a charge, you only get 120. Consider that current production lithium based cells produced by A123 Systems are rated at 7000 cycles. After 7000 cycles, they still hold 80% of their original capacity. 7000 cycles at one cycle per day is NINETEEN YEARS. Each time the gasoline motor starts up, and you start a charge, that's a 'cycle'..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:07:43 PM EDT
[#45]
I would have a hard time. Most of the time a range of 100 miles would be OK. I manage the IT infrastructure at 4 hospitals. If I go to any one hospital and home I'm OK. If I had to do two or three I'd be screwed. At least with the volt you will have your on board generator.
I would bet that 300 mile range is really about half that with normal driving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:08:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this was more common, electric vehicles would be much more feasible. What would the cost be for something like that, and how well do solar panels stand up to hail damage? As for cost, I didn't see one. But...the company that installed that job sells over $12billion worth of product a year. Here is a case study on a similar setup:http://www.kyocerasolar.com/pdf/profiles/ucsd_pp_100608-2_proof.pdf As for hail damage, it would be possible to protect the PV panels but...I have no idea what that would to to the capital cost of the project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:11:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: I don't understand the vitriol toward vehicles that allow greater energy independence and keep energy production in the U.S. instead of paying $140.00 or more per barrel. If they don't want an electric or electric plug in hybrid, they don't have to buy one. Too many people want to make up reasons to be against them instead of learning the actual benefits and tradeoff's. Because we KNOW that once they are on the market, the greenie-weenies will try to make them mandatory... If we lived in a free market society, without that threat, I would care less - the market would produce what people want to buy (be it my V8 Camaro, or Matt's Prius).... The problem is, people like me look at the Greenie-weenie cars and see a future where that's all we are allowed to buy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:31:43 PM EDT
[#48]
The problem is, people like me look at the Greenie-weenie cars and see a future where that's all we are allowed to buy.
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint." what the fuck are you saying? on one hand you think government should tell you how to live and on the other they should not I think you are very confused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:35:29 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2009 5:40:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Solar panels pay for the energy they cost very quickly. Less than 3 years and this is dropping. This is not to say they return their economic value that quickly, but that is dropping too.Quoted: If this was more common, electric vehicles would be much more feasible. Very pretty. Do you have a picture of how it looks one day after the pigeons come in to roost? Without the sarcasm, I thought that solar panels took more energy to make than they could ever produce. This may have changed but it certainly is not "free". |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
