| Author |
 Topic  |
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 01/30/2011 : 12:26:10 AM
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the more nonsensical actions of the current Admin, like banning traditional litebulbs, comes the odyssey of the electric car push.
In colder weatherm the batteries of standard trucks and cars have trouble. When it gets down around 0 degrees Fahrenheit, they are sometimes unusable for starting up. Evidently, the situation is much worse for the electric cars. Battery efficiency falls as it gets cold, and cars will run out of power very much more quickly. If the heater is used to keep the driver and passengers warmer, the problem is compounded. This is exactly equal to loss of power from running out of gas, except that once you have gas, you still need the battery to begin.
So, they want everyone to pay doble the price for a vehicle whose utility is questionable for long parts of the year in most of the nation. Recharging still then requires burning fossil fuel with poor efficiency, or using nuclear power.
The entire project needs to prove itself in commercial competition, before we waste alot of money. If it was such a good idea, they would not need to push it so hard with government rather than just watching investors flock to put their money in to it.
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
runekkid
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 7:38:40 PM
|
I agree with you. I could see where electric cars could possibly work in Europe where driving distances are much shorter than here in the U.S.. Frankly, I am resentful that our tax dollars will be spent to promote this idea.
If I had a tail, I'd wag it!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 56 |
 |
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 9:04:03 PM
|
The relatively denser population of Europe does make electric vehicles marginlly more practical, but the more extreme winters in Northern and Eastern Europe partly counter that.
Having major cities dozens, instead of hundreds of miles apart, means that high-speed railroads can work in Europe, Japan, and parts of China or India. In North America, only the corridpr from Portland, Maine to Norfolk, Virginia comes halfway close in potential ridership. But even there, more than half the cities are smallish, like Wimington Del, or Trenton NJ. and there are large gaps like Boston Mass to Providence RI. or from Washington DC to Richmond.
Amtrak started as a bailout for part of the merged Pennsylvania & New York Central systems, that was supposed to be self-supporting by 1974. Note that, by 37 years ago. I will submit that the
taxpayers (that's us) are not getting their money's worth.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
natureboy1776
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/03/2011 : 1:36:48 PM
|
Balataf, you bring up some good points. However when you consider that the average American drives less than 40 miles a day, that is well within the usable range of most electric cars. The cold weather problems mentioned are primarily with traditional lead-acid batteries. Modern and future batteries like nickel metal hydride, Lithium based, etc, suffer much less in the cold. Electric cars can use modern ceramic heaters that heat up instantly and draw 1500 watts or less. This has only minor effect on range of a car with a properly sized battery. The cost issue will have to be overcome and it will as more electric cars are mass-produced. The price (and size) of all cars seems to have more than doubled since the 80s already. Electric cars are SO simple that once out of prototype stage they should be much CHEAPER to produce. Many many people have built their own electric cars for hundreds to a few thousand dollars by the way.
To me being able to never stop at a gas station again because I filled up while sleeping at home for $2.00, sounds good.
|
Edited by - natureboy1776 on 02/03/2011 7:46:30 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 11 |
|
|
|
HomeNudist
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/03/2011 : 6:48:55 PM
|
I see a few problems that no one wants to address.
1- When these newfangled electric cars are sold in quantity, where is all this electricity going to come from? We are not building enough power plants to meet the need if everyone goes electric.
2- If everyone plugs in your car at home then no one is paying the road maintenance taxes that are built into motor fuel purchases. If taxes are not collected, the roads will fall apart.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 182 |
|
|
|
natureboy1776
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/03/2011 : 7:39:49 PM
|
(1)Most electric cars will charge over night when power plants are dumping excess power or idling, because it is too expensive to shut down when not needed for daytime rush.
(2) the road taxes are paid annually at registration.
Remember, the reason electric cars are so efficient is because nearly all the power goes to motion, a conventional car splits at best 40% to motion 60% to heat.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 11 |
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/04/2011 : 12:58:05 PM
|
quote:
Remember, the reason electric cars are so efficient is because nearly all the power goes to motion, a conventional car splits at best 40% to motion 60% to heat.
Actually electric cars struggle for efficiently as well.
At least 20% will be lost in the charge discharge cycle (often more like 40%).
There are also large losses in the power generation and distribution, which is always a balance between efficiency and maximum power.
Over all there is little to chose between an electric car and a normal engine of similar power output, in terms of total fossil fuel used.
The big saving is that electricity is very lightly taxed.
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
natureboy1776
Forum Member
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/05/2011 : 1:22:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by natureboy1776
Well that actually is not true at all.
Thanks for that. And your degree is in? Mine's in Electrical & Electronic Engineering.
None of these are comparisons that work in the real world.
They talk about an underpowered, short range, electric car being more efficient than an average American car. Well yes it would be, but you need to compare like with like.
An electric motor will give 90% efficiency, but then they don't go on to mention that the battery would be lucky to be 70% efficient, if used with great care. Also the efficiency of electric cars becomes very poor at heavy loads, for example over 50mph.
Then there are the losses in the original generator and transmission of electricity. Looking at the well-to-wheel efficiency of electric vehicles, their emissions are comparable to an efficient gasoline or diesel of similar performance, because electricity generation relies on fossil fuels.
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
FlCpl4NewdFun
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/05/2011 : 3:52:49 PM
|
The efficiency claim is just used by opponents of electric vehicles as an albatross. The fact is all forms of heat transfer have efficiency losses.
The claim that electric cars are ultimately a wash in terms of total fossil fuel consumption when compared to traditional gasoline combustion engines is beyond ridiculous. That actually deserves repeating, beyond ridiculous!!!
While it certainly is true the battery charge comes from power generation, that power may be generated by many means. Oil, coal and natural gas are fossil fuels, but there is also base-load nuclear which supplies 20% of the united states energy with no emissions during production (80% in France) as well as wind, solar, and other renewables. However, gasoline comes from one place, Oil! In the U.S. burning oil to generate power is an extremely tiny portion of our total output.
Most of the posts above go to the economic basis for the opposition. Well you win, electric vehicles wouldn't survive without government subsidies. You also win again, electric vehicles are not economical as a product on a stand-alone basis with combustion engine vehicles. The problem is the comparisons in those economic terms are simplistic and naive. They don't factor in the true social and economic cost of gasoline cars. If the true cost of the pollutants, carbon, and other environmental hazards were factored in, the results may be different. Besides, the basic input of gasoline is derived from a product that is controlled and manipulated by a small cartel of countries that open and close the world supply continuously to apply political pressure on everything from civil wars to monetary policy to national defense. There is absolutely nothing about oil that resembles a free and open market based on principals of supply and demand.
I don't know about you, but I want to drink clean water, I want to breathe clean air, I want energy independence, and energy security. Are electric cars the answer, not entirely, but even if in a small way they start to shift the global addiction to oil, I'm fine with a few of my tax dollars going to support that effort.
Look, being the good Republican that I am, I like to consume a boatload of energy just as much as the next guy, I like my car (gasoline, hee heh), my air conditioner, my pool heater, and every other indulgence modern society has to offer. I'm not lost on the fact that all those activities generate pollutants. But but I also think if we can do that in a more responsible manner, which may even reduce the total economic burden to society in the long run, why not throw a few extra bucks that way today to benefit tomorrow. Sure we have a long way to go to clean up the pollutants from traditional power generation, but in time using cleaner burning natural gas with carbon capture technology, base-load nuclear, and wind, solar and other renewables to generate power may in fact enable us to continue with advancements in all areas of our lives while also being a responsible steward to the environment.
And before my "Pedigree" is called into question, lets just say I happen to know a thing or two about this topic.
Cheers!
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 219 |
|
|
|
natureboy1776
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/05/2011 : 7:41:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by doug2323
quote:
Originally posted by natureboy1776
(2) the road taxes are paid annually at registration.
What does your home state do with the 600-700 million that it collects annualy from its $.235 per gallon gas tax. This doesn't includ the 6.25% sales tax on top of that.
If they're not using it for your roads, you should be furious with your state.
Just as was done until recently with diesel, road taxes are collected with an additional fee at the time of registration.
quote:
Also the efficiency of electric cars becomes very poor at heavy loads, for example over 50mph.
The heaviest loads in the world are moved by electric motors. Locomotives, mining equipment, and ships. Sure they usually generate that electricity on board from diesel but it seems the eMotors are up to the challenge.
Certainly electric cars are not yet ideal for the longest of highway trips but for the majority of shorter trips there are huge benefits.
|
Edited by - natureboy1776 on 02/05/2011 7:42:54 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 11 |
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/06/2011 : 06:53:38 AM
|
quote:
quote:
Also the efficiency of electric cars becomes very poor at heavy loads, for example over 50mph.
The heaviest loads in the world are moved by electric motors. Locomotives, mining equipment, and ships. Sure they usually generate that electricity on board from diesel but it seems the eMotors are up to the challenge.
I said electric cars are poor on heavy loads, not the motors. It comes with having to lug the batteries around.
I have worked on control systems for hybrid buses and the motors are amazing. Huge power output from tiny units.
However the rest of the technology just doesn't hold up propelling vehicles.
If there was a real interest in reducing emissions, then every year the minimum mpg of every car sold would be incrementally increased by law.
But that would be too unpopular.
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
barefootguyinco
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/08/2011 : 12:08:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FlCpl4NewdFun
I don't know about you, but I want to drink clean water, I want to breathe clean air, I want energy independence, and energy security. Are electric cars the answer, not entirely, but even if in a small way they start to shift the global addiction to oil, I'm fine with a few of my tax dollars going to support that effort.
Look, being the good Republican that I am, I like to consume a boatload of energy just as much as the next guy, I like my car (gasoline, hee heh), my air conditioner, my pool heater, and every other indulgence modern society has to offer. I'm not lost on the fact that all those activities generate pollutants. But but I also think if we can do that in a more responsible manner,  which may even reduce the total economic burden to society in the long run, why not throw a few extra bucks that way today to benefit tomorrow. Sure we have a long way to go to clean up the pollutants from traditional power generation, but in time using cleaner burning natural gas with carbon capture technology, base-load nuclear, and wind, solar and other renewables to generate power may in fact enable us to continue with advancements in all areas of our lives while also being a responsible steward to the environment.
I agree with FlCpl4NewdFun. I think the bottom line is that we have to find ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If you look at a chart of oil consumption it shows we keep needing more and more oil each year, by a large amount (http://www.evnut.com/docs/oil_demand_production.JPG) But our supply is limited and at some point in time the supply will NOT meet the demand. Maybe not in our lifetime, but we can't look at it that way. One day our children, or their children, will face this crisis, so it's time to find ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels NOW.
Sure, electric cars are not the perfect, or only solution, but we have to start somewhere. And given time, electric cars and batteries will get much better. Compare early engines to modern engines and then imagine early electric cars and ones made in 30 years.
But the other valid point is that electric cars are using electric mostly at night when plants have excess electric anyway, so it will put very little load on the grid, if any. And there are so many other costs associated with gasoline compared to electric. You have to factor in the other costs to our environment when using fossil fuels such as Drilling & extraction costs, importing costs (around 50% of our oil is from Foreign countries), refining costs, transportation costs, spills and leaks into our waterways, dripping oil on roadways, and much more. It's also estimated to take about 12 Killowatts of electric to produce a gallon of gas, so even gas puts some load on the electric grid, but most forget about that.
Also, we are mandating that cars get better fuel economy, but it's a slow process, and a lot of vehicles like semi's can only improve economy so much. Bottom line, we will always need more oil because the population is growing faster than we can reduce fuel consumption in fossil fuel burning vehicles so we need to find other sources to replace some of our oil needs. We'll never not need or use oil, but we can reduce how much we use.
Another big point to me is that around 50% of all the oil we use comes from Foreign oil sources. And most of the wars we get into are to protect our oil interests, despite the fact that we label them as something like 'Operation Freedom'. If we didn't need that countries oil we probably wouldn't be there.
And fuel prices will continue to rise, probably dramatically at some point when supplies get lower and demand is still increasing so we can't wait until then to do something. We have to find alternative energy sources now in order to have time to develop them properly. No alternative energy is perfect, but they are still better than relying only on fossil fuels. I think that all alternative energy sources need to be further developed and supported by our government. There's things like CNG, Hydrogen, Solar, Electric vehicles, Biodiesel, Ethanol and more. Together, these fuels can help reduce, but not eliminate our need for fossil fuels.
We can't condemn technologies such as electric just because it's less than perfect now. If we support it now, and continue to provide government support and financial assistance, it will eventually be developed into a much more efficient form of energy. Many condemned the first automobiles when they came out, but we made them work and they get more efficient every year, and we couldn't live without them now.
I felt compelled to add my 2 cents worth because I'm the author of a book about Biodiesel and manufacture equipment that makes biodiesel for the guy at home, schools, small businesses etc. But at the same time, I don't think biodiesel is the only alternative energy we should be supporting. But with fuels like biodiesel we are polluting about 80% less, the fuel source is renewable and carbon neutral. In addition it's a biodegradable fuel, non toxic and overall good for the environment. No, it's not perfect, but it's still much better than petro diesel.
It's time to reduce our energy use as much as possible while still maintaining our way of life and even getting rid of 'most' incandescent bulbs and replacing them with LEDs or florescent s will make a difference.
Body shame, like prejuduce, is not natural. It is learned from others and benefits no one.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 55 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/08/2011 : 8:54:55 PM
|
Why should electric cars get taxpayer subsidies instead of having a fairer competition?
|
Edited by - balataf on 02/08/2011 8:58:18 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
barefootguyinco
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/08/2011 : 9:58:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by balataf
Why should electric cars get taxpayer subsidies instead of having a fairer competition?
quote:
Originally posted by balataf
Why should electric cars get taxpayer subsidies instead of having a fairer competition?
They should get government help because without it they will never get off the ground and as I said before, this country needs alternative energies, so we need to 'invest' in getting them off the ground. Later, they don't need it, but to get off the ground, they do.
Or, we can wait until we are in an oil crisis and gas prices jump to $8.00 a gallon, like in some countries already, then we wait a few years for them to develop the technology while trying to pay $8.00 a gallon, or dealing with gas rationing or something like that.
Plus, the government helps businesses all the time when it's for new technology, etc. It's good for business, good for the economy & helps keep our country competitive with other countries. I agree that some big businesses shouldn't need it, but startup or new technology companies usually do need help until the technology is proven and in demand by the public.
Without government help technological growth in this country will slow way down or stall.
Body shame, like prejuduce, is not natural. It is learned from others and benefits no one.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 55 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 05:37:10 AM
|
I would say that there is no such thing as government support. It is really forced citizen support for something they might never buy.
Look at the computer industry. It was created by people looking for a profit. As Adam Smith pointed out in the 1700s, people seeking a profit help others, where there was no intention to do so. Have we profited from the rather complex world of computers? I think we have, and am eternally the government did not much of anything to "help" it along. Can you imagine a bunch of District of Columbia bureaucrats trying to govern the rapidly progressing computer industry?
So, electric cars, and the like, don't need to steal money from the average folks. The industry will get itself into business just like most industries do, and have done.
Private industry does most everything far better than fat gov't bureaucrats, always beholden to special interests.
We could let gov't go ahead and take over all green endeavors. History and experience shows us that this arrangement will get bogged down like a typical gov't arrangement always does. Red tape, spirit-killing policies, paperwork, lazy employees who want and get way too much money from the feds.
Private companies run smoothly, efficiently, maintain economic production, have spirited developers who love their work, even if they don't get paid much (it's in their blood, not their wallet).
Invention is a private thing, and no bureaucracy can invent, except a nearly infinite amount of forms and other useless paperwork. Take the backyard inventor and tinkerer. Can one really think that his free spirited creativity will be enhanced by a smothering bureaucracy? Not really, but that is just what the government does.
Why should I be forced to pay for this activity? What if I don't want to buy something from this government "enterprise?" Will I go to jail? Who knows, but I would not bet against that at some point.
Again, just imagine that the government was in chare of the whole development of the PC or MAC. I'm already laughing about that concept! The computers we use would not be better than the old 286s we used back in the late eighties. Also, imagine the Soviet grocery stores. Yes, empty shelves, because natural market forces were snuffed out, and some Soviet supreme was making all the decisions, in conjunction with a bunch of other equally ignorant Soviets.
Government force versus free enterprise? No contest, and that can be seen cleary when you examine the Soviet and American experience. Ooops, I'm sorry, the USSR went out of business.
Let free people control their own life, and then you can expect the best from them.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
"Green" projects
