Jump to content

Electric Cars


ignis

Recommended Posts

Following its purchase from General Motors by Dutch hand-built automobile manufacturer Spyker earlier this year, Saab working on its first all-electric vehicle . Taking its body from a conventional 9-3 SportCombi station wagon, the Saab 9-3 ePower has a 135kW/184 hp electric motor, a of range of 200km

A test fleet of 70 vehicles which will participate in extensive field trials carried out by hundreds of drivers and their families in Sweden early next year. The Saab ePower project team will monitor the performance of the cars across a wide variety of usage patterns and driving conditions with all vehicles to be equipped with aircraft-style, black box recorders to log essential component data.

The pack is intended to support recharge cycles equivalent to about ten years average use. It can be fully recharged from a domestic mains supply in about three to six hours. The company says charging times can be greatly reduced if the voltage of the electrical feed is raised, as there is no limitation on the battery’s input capacity.

post-42643-041319900 1285032151_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is the future Electric ?

Ultimate Aero EV

The Ultimate Aero EV is basically an electronic version of the SSC Ultimate Aero which is a supercar produced by Shelby SuperCars. However, despite the fact that the Ultimate Aero EV is an electric powered car the vehicle gives very little away against its traditional fuel counterpart!

The vehicle itself is not yet available on the market and could well be introduced on a limited order basis. Even though it could be some time before the vehicle is available to the mass market, when you consider it has a massive 1,000 HP and 800 lb-ft of torque it certainly seems to be a car worth waiting for. It is believed the vehicle will be able accelerate from a standing start to 60 mph in just 2.5 seconds with a top speed of up to 210 mph.

Despite the excessive power available with the Ultimate Aero EV the vehicle has an onboard recharging system which could see the onboard battery recharged in as little as 10 minutes. The vehicle will be able to cover a range of between 150 miles and 200 on any single charge, depending upon the speed of travel. The company has also announced it is going to explore potentially installing two engines on the Ultimate Aero EV in a 2 or 4 wheel drive configuration which would push electric car technology literally to the limit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 Sept 2010 USA

Columbus, US - The Buckeye Bullet, an electric vehicle developed by technicians at the Ohio State University and the sports car manufacturer Venturi, has broken a top speed barrier of 515 km/h, becoming the fastest electric car ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baby Audi

Munich - Audi is starting a fleet trial test with some 20 A1 e-tron electric vehicles in the southern German city of Munich as part of a project aimed at addressing issues such as data transfer between the driver, vehicle, electric filling station and the power grid, the car maker has announced.

The Audi A1 e-tron has a range of more than 50 kilometres in city traffic and a peak power output of 75 kW/102 hp. A compact internal combustion engine recharges the battery when its energy is depleted. Top speed is 130 km/h. The A1 e-tron is a zero-emissions vehicle for the first 50 kilometres. The battery comprises a package of lithium-ion modules mounted in the floor assembly in front of the rear axle.

A small, single-rotor Wankel engine in this near-series vehicle increases the range in exceptional circumstances. This "range extender" powers a generator that produces 15 kW of charging power. If the range extender is used to recharge the battery, the A1 e-tron can cover an additional 200 kilometres. This represents a fuel consumption of 1.9 l/100 km which translates to acarbon dioxide emission figure of 45 grammes per kilometre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe problem with ALL electric cars is they need charging - with electricity - which comes from power stations which are largely powered by fossil fuels so bang goes any hopes of reducing carbon emissions.

BUT, every day cars now are fuelled by fossil fuels, NOT every power station is fuelled by fossil fuels and the number will be falling. Even in LOS two new Nuclear power stations are to be built so theoretically your wrong about carbon emissions. :)

Come on think it through............

If you were to replace EVERY car - one on one - with an electric one - they would STILL require the same amount of energy, so for every internal combustion engine you replace the power stations have to give out a little more power.MOST - I said "largely" - power-stations are running on fossil fuel - all this EXTRA energy they have to produce will come from using more of their fuels - and nuclear simply ain't economically or politically a viable option. Other options for power stations are at present limited. So I think it is fair to say that the extra demand is likely to be met mostly by burning fossil fuels.

As a unit for converting energy into motion the internal combustion engine is actually quite good, convenient and relatively efficient. However the centralised infrastructure and system of power stations involves converting energy to electricity and then transmitting around the country to be used in electric cars is NOT such an efficient system.and on top of that, the cars themselves are HEAVIER as they have to carry batteries etc to store the power so a greater mass is being moved round thus requiring more energy.

So at the end of the day we aren't SAVING any energy - it still has to be produced and any "saving" on carbon emissions will probably be offset by the inherent inefficiencies of the system or worse still actually will be worse.

you might also note that fossil fuels include COAL which is an eco nightmare - and most power stations don't have the kind of catalytic converters of anti-pollutiion systems of a car. fortunately we don't at present have many cars running on coal.

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine.

The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges.

So long as the combination of power station + transmission + power lost in the charging process + electric motor is more efficient than hydrocarbon transport (trucking to petrol stations, etc.) + an internal combustion engine, there will be a gain in CO2 emissions even without the move to renewables/nuclear for the electricity generation.

Personally, I think climategate has shown that global warming is still not completely understood or they wouldn't have been trying to fudge the numbers to hide that, although warming definitely occured in the 90s, it slowed to a virtual standstill in the last decade.

My own pet theory, I think that the CFCs in aerosols/fridges/aircon were far more important in global warming than is being allowed for in the models. i.e. Everyone admits they are significantly more important per cubic metre than CO2, and with the banning of them in aerosols and the reduction of their use in other appliances coinciding with when warming appears to have stopped...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of places selling electric motorbikes/scooters here, it would appear that for a range of about 50km a full charge uses 4 to 6 baht to recharge, that being so would be a lot cheaper to run then a petrol one..

In many parts of Thailand almost everyday we have sunshine, so a solar panel to charge a electric car you would have no need to use the power grid at all.

The other thing about a electric motor is it has just 1 moving part, the only thing that would need to be replaced is the bushes every so often.

Don't expect to see many in my lifetime, but it seams a good idea.... every few months you hear about the mileage/km range is getting better and better because of different types of batteries, so now a normal motorist would need to charge 1x a week, for some of us would be 1x per month [in my car have driven 9,100 km in the past 2 years]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine.

The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges.

So long as the combination of power station + transmission + power lost in the charging process + electric motor is more efficient than hydrocarbon transport (trucking to petrol stations, etc.) + an internal combustion engine, there will be a gain in CO2 emissions even without the move to renewables/nuclear for the electricity generation.

Personally, I think climategate has shown that global warming is still not completely understood or they wouldn't have been trying to fudge the numbers to hide that, although warming definitely occured in the 90s, it slowed to a virtual standstill in the last decade.

My own pet theory, I think that the CFCs in aerosols/fridges/aircon were far more important in global warming than is being allowed for in the models. i.e. Everyone admits they are significantly more important per cubic metre than CO2, and with the banning of them in aerosols and the reduction of their use in other appliances coinciding with when warming appears to have stopped...

"Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine." - how so?

there are a lot of myths surrounding "electric" motor vehicles and that is one of them.To get forward motion you need energy and that comes from where and how much do you need?

"The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges."well there's half your answer from yourself!

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges.

In many parts of Thailand almost everyday we have sunshine, so a solar panel to charge a electric car you would have no need to use the power grid at all.

The other thing about a electric motor is it has just 1 moving part, the only thing that would need to be replaced is the bushes every so often.

Don't expect to see many in my lifetime, but it seams a good idea.... every few months you hear about the mileage/km range is getting better and better because of different types of batteries, so now a normal motorist would need to charge 1x a week, for some of us would be 1x per month [in my car have driven 9,100 km in the past 2 years]

"The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges." - again this is not the true picture.

at the end of the day it is not the PRICE that counts -it is the calorific values.

Motor fuels are subject to taxes and domestic electricity can be subsidised at present. What you need to look at is how many calories are turned into forward otion for each vehicle.you have to take into account things like the mass of the vehicle and the outside costs

Infrastructure - deliver etcFuel used to generate the powerand he MANUFACTURING of the vehicles - electric vehicles require all sorts of stuff for batteries etc that internal combustion vehicles don't. Batteries are a very UNGREEN component to manufacture!

you also have to figure out how the vehicle will be used, where and for what purpose.Climate will affect use, can it transport gods, etc etc.How long does it take to re-charge/fuel?How convenient is that? (Can you imagine motorists sitting in motorway service stations for 3 hours to re-cgarge their vehicle?)How flexible is the power supply?

Electric motors have some wonderful advantages - very few moving parts (one!) so they are going to be mechanically more reliable.no gearbox required.Silent - although experience with electric trolleybuses has shown that this can be a safety hazard.Local pollution is reduced - but there are other ways of doing this.

THe views expressed here would indicate to me that the majority of posters are not aware of the issues surrounding "electric" road transport.

Do they realise that many car companies including SAAB have been researching alternative propulsion for decades?A few years back SAAB worked on a very interesting hybrid project - a TURBINE/ELECTRIC car.

however in the end the extra energy for powering these cars will come largely from burning more fossil fuels.......and in the way of all road transport when the usage gets popular it will of course attract government taxes - so don't expect to save on costs per mile for any length of time.

If you really want to get into alternative fuels (and electricity ISN"T actually alternative - it's simply burning fossil fuels in a different place ) - , then you might want to check out Hydrogen and hydrogen cell fuels. They ARE alternative - don't rely on fossil fuel and let us keep our beloved internal combustion engines.

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges."well there's half your answer from yourself!

Not sure that is true... It appears many 'normal' electric cars do between 250 - 300 miles on a charge, some say that the batteries can be fully charged within 15 mins... Therefore you would have today's petrol stations also having charge points, so by the time you had used the restroom had a coffee, stretched your legs you are fully charged and ready to go..

My own thinking was all the people that have to have transport, yet only pop to the local shops or markets, go to Dr and hospital, a few times per year drive to the City.. many do less than 250 - 300 miles in a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS - people have been researching batteries for over a century - and hat they are finding is that there are practical limits to what we can do to make them good storers of energy - a fuel tank weight for power is FAR superior.

the other thing about batteries is they are costly to make using rare metals etc and are even more difficult to dispose of....many countries have recycling percentages that relate to motor vehicles.

Baer in mind that a single road vehicle has the main phase when it impacts on the environment

1 - is manufacture

2 - it's use as a vehicle

3- At the end o its life its disposal.

all THREE have major impacts on the environment - whatever the power unit you use.

An electric cars impact in 1 and 2 is most likely WORSE than an oil-burner and in number 2 any advantages are highly debatable if they exist at all.

So I'd suggest that taking all three into account the electric car may in the long run turn out to be a best a red-herring or worse a step backwards.

but it sells and makes people feel better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself have pondered for months about selling my Audi A6 and buy a motor Scooter of electric scooter..

Biggest stopping point is my 5 dogs, every 3 months they need a trim also take them to the Vet every month for the tick injections + yearly ones.. Not sure i would want to ride on the main road, and some places I go would need to.. OK in the 7km to the main road there are many different shops, but No Dr, No Hospital, No big Supermarkets.

O well time to re tax and Insure my car next month for another year.

Notice here in Thailand there are a number of Hybrids, cannot see the point really, as well as the petrol engine they have all the extra weight of an electric motor = fuel used is more or less the same as a normal petrol version + they cost a whole lot more to buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect to see many in my lifetime, but it seams a good idea....

You must have a very short life expectancy - commiserations! :(

By 2015 most/all models will be available with an electric or hybrid option, and by 2020 it will be standard.

Back to the topic, the pro's for electric are:

  • Cheaper to run.
  • Cleaner.
  • Quieter.
  • Reduces global demand for oil.

As for cons, they've all been addressed:

  • Still uses fossil fuel - nuclear power solves this. The countries that don't have it, have it planned (Allied intervention not withstanding).
  • Lengthy "refiling" times - 380-440V recharging stations are capable of getting even current generation electric cars to 80% charge within an hour or so. This will improve. Battery-swapping schemes under development/negotiation.
  • Limited Range - range-extending systems (e.g. GM Volt/Ampere) solve this in the short-term, battery tech, battery swapping schemes, and (a long-shot) hydrogen powered local generation solve this in the longer term.
  • Too quiet (i.e. danger to pedestrians) - millions has been poured into research on this, and problem has been solved by adding speakers. really.

If you don't want to accept climate change as a sustainable scientific theory then I'm sorry to say that you are the equivalent of a "flat earth" believer.

What educated person would accept theory as fact? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges."well there's half your answer from yourself!

Not sure that is true... It appears many 'normal' electric cars do between 250 - 300 miles on a charge, some say that the batteries can be fully charged within 15 mins... Therefore you would have today's petrol stations also having charge points, so by the time you had used the restroom had a coffee, stretched your legs you are fully charged and ready to go..

My own thinking was all the people that have to have transport, yet only pop to the local shops or markets, go to Dr and hospital, a few times per year drive to the City.. many do less than 250 - 300 miles in a month.

Top up charging can be short - but if you suddenly find you need to go long distance the vehicles are usually charged overnight...however I don't think this is a major issue - just one of MANY. how about the other issues or is that your only point?

Roads of any country are used for transporting goods and business - they are referred to under the heading of "COMMUNICATIONS"; countries like Thailand that have no real railways to talk of use roads as the main way of transporting goods and services - this is by far the biggest usage so when you talk about any measurable benefits it has to relate to this - the percentage used for "going to the shops" is minute. electric vehicle have been used in specialist areas for over a century (milk vans, buses etc) - So how do we see electric vehicles making and impact here?

The other problem with charging in places like Thailand is the NATIONAL GRID - I don't think there is anywhere in Thailand that doesn't suffer from power-cuts - so how will this infrastructure cope with a massive increase in demand from a change to electric vehicles? Will the new infrastructure be built to match??????

In remote areas as well one has to think about access to power - this is often a lot more convenient with a tank of diesel than laying out extra power-lines - not to mention the detrimental visual effect they would have o the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect to see many in my lifetime, but it seams a good idea....

You must have a very short life expectancy - commiserations! :(

By 2015 most/all models will be available with an electric or hybrid option, and by 2020 it will be standard.

Back to the topic, the pro's for electric are:

  • Cheaper to run.
  • Cleaner.
  • Quieter.
  • Reduces global demand for oil.

As for cons, they've all been addressed:

  • Still uses fossil fuel - nuclear power solves this. The countries that don't have it, have it planned (Allied intervention not withstanding).
  • Lengthy "refiling" times - 380-440V recharging stations are capable of getting even current generation electric cars to 80% charge within an hour or so. This will improve. Battery-swapping schemes under development/negotiation.
  • Limited Range - range-extending systems (e.g. GM Volt/Ampere) solve this in the short-term, battery tech, battery swapping schemes, and (a long-shot) hydrogen powered local generation solve this in the longer term.
  • Too quiet (i.e. danger to pedestrians) - millions has been poured into research on this, and problem has been solved by adding speakers. really.

If you don't want to accept climate change as a sustainable scientific theory then I'm sorry to say that you are the equivalent of a "flat earth" believer.

What educated person would accept theory as fact? ;)

A "well educated person" would know the difference between scientific theory and the kind of theory that you hear in a pub.

If you look up some articles on "critical thinking", you will get some idea of the validity attached to scientific theory.

you also might want to read up one what the scientific community and philosophical "theorists" have to say on "fact".

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must have a very short life expectancy - commiserations!

By 2015 most/all models will be available with an electric or hybrid option, and by 2020 it will be standard.

:D a previous poster said 'come back in 25 years'

'and by 2020' in my 70's will I still be fit to drive or even remember how :whistling: to go to any place :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect to see many in my lifetime, but it seams a good idea....

You must have a very short life expectancy - commiserations! :(

By 2015 most/all models will be available with an electric or hybrid option, and by 2020 it will be standard.

Back to the topic, the pro's for electric are:

  • Cheaper to run.
  • Cleaner.
  • Quieter.
  • Reduces global demand for oil.

As for cons, they've all been addressed:

  • Still uses fossil fuel - nuclear power solves this. The countries that don't have it, have it planned (Allied intervention not withstanding).
  • Lengthy "refiling" times - 380-440V recharging stations are capable of getting even current generation electric cars to 80% charge within an hour or so. This will improve. Battery-swapping schemes under development/negotiation.
  • Limited Range - range-extending systems (e.g. GM Volt/Ampere) solve this in the short-term, battery tech, battery swapping schemes, and (a long-shot) hydrogen powered local generation solve this in the longer term.
  • Too quiet (i.e. danger to pedestrians) - millions has been poured into research on this, and problem has been solved by adding speakers. really.

If you don't want to accept climate change as a sustainable scientific theory then I'm sorry to say that you are the equivalent of a "flat earth" believer.

What educated person would accept theory as fact? ;)

I have to say that the opposite is actually true of almost everything in this post!

it's just a collection of glib sounbites and slogans.

e.g. What on earth is "Cleaner"?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect to see many in my lifetime, but it seams a good idea....

You must have a very short life expectancy - commiserations! :(

By 2015 most/all models will be available with an electric or hybrid option, and by 2020 it will be standard.

Back to the topic, the pro's for electric are:

  • Cheaper to run.
  • Cleaner.
  • Quieter.
  • Reduces global demand for oil.

As for cons, they've all been addressed:

  • Still uses fossil fuel - nuclear power solves this. The countries that don't have it, have it planned (Allied intervention not withstanding).
  • Lengthy "refiling" times - 380-440V recharging stations are capable of getting even current generation electric cars to 80% charge within an hour or so. This will improve. Battery-swapping schemes under development/negotiation.
  • Limited Range - range-extending systems (e.g. GM Volt/Ampere) solve this in the short-term, battery tech, battery swapping schemes, and (a long-shot) hydrogen powered local generation solve this in the longer term.
  • Too quiet (i.e. danger to pedestrians) - millions has been poured into research on this, and problem has been solved by adding speakers. really.

If you don't want to accept climate change as a sustainable scientific theory then I'm sorry to say that you are the equivalent of a "flat earth" believer.

What educated person would accept theory as fact? ;)

I have to say that the opposite is actually true of almost everything in this post!it's just a collection of glib soundbites and slogans.

one really should look at the WHOLE subject rather than pick out a few little phrases and suggest they are a justifiable argument for electric.

e.g. What on earth is "Cleaner"?????

the cost of making thousands of extra batteries to swop? - CLEAN???

"nuclear power solves this" - so all of a sudden we will have all the extra power from unbuilt nuclear stations???? - and nuclear power is MORE EXPENSIVE by far over fossil fuels and where will we dispose of all the extra nuclear waste - Iran? or your back yard?As I've already pointed out it won't affect world oil consumption as the extra power needed will largely come from burning fossil fuels - and we'll need more as from burner to battery to wheel, the overall system is LESS EFFICIENT.

THe

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hybrids should be seen for what they are - a sales gimmick - they are at present heavy and expensive and popular with the wealthy and uninformed - a big market in Thailand and the US!

as sales improve the prices will come down, but in the long run vehicles like this only detract from the real problems and provide a "good image" for the motor industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deeral, i am all with you in your views of electrical vehicles.

If someone does not understand everything in the process of of making electrical vehicles, like what materials are used in the batteries, how to source these materials, the disposal of them and all the specifications of the vehicles it self like weight, range and charge time.

Then the most important thing the whole chain of producing energy. The whole manufacturing process from energy is sourced to its transferred to your wheels and down to the asphalt your driving on.

Then there is no point in discussing it. If it makes you feel better by putting a plug into your vehicle to fill it up, but you dont care, or dont know about whats happening in another place to create that energy, then its you the user that is the problem. There is many negative aspects but to narrow it down, how can one justify if more fossil fuel is burnt in another place to create that energy

One need to understand the whole situation and process

Edited by Thunderbird4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deeral, i am all with you in your views of electrical vehicles.

If someone does not understand everything in the process of of making electrical vehicles, like what materials are used in the batteries, how to source these materials, the disposal of them and all the specifications of the vehicles it self like weight, range and charge time.

Then the most important thing the whole chain of producing energy. The whole manufacturing process from energy is sourced to its transferred to your wheels and down to the asphalt your driving on.

Then there is no point in discussing it. If it makes you feel better by putting a plug into your vehicle to fill it up, but you dont care, or dont know about whats happening in another place to create that energy, then its you the user that is the problem. There is many negative aspects but to narrow it down, how can one justify if more fossil fuel is burnt in another place to create that energy

One need to understand the whole situation and process

What you are saying is that as we are not scientists here the thread should be closed as it's over our heads, Yes - No.

In the billions of years of our planets existance, the use of fossil fuels for transport will last perhaps 200 years, absolutely no time in

mans existance, so what is next, where do you start, do you sit back and wait for another Einstein or do you work on something from

it's humble beginings, bit like the combustion engine or even the huge edvances telephones computers. It all starts somewhere, and

electrical or neuclear energy will be the way it will go. Power stations are another thing, and remember fossil fuels will run out for them too, :)

Now you're jumping to conclusions and making assumptions - this is the problem 0 the lack of critical tought and argumentation.

"do you sit back and wait for another Einstein " - this seems to indicate that you consider that science consists of huge breakthroughs....the truth is nearer you "humble beginning" but even Einstein based his work on the THEORIES of others - he didn't deal in "facts".

Then without some much as a "by your leave" you state - "electrical or neuclear energy will be the way it will go" - well I don't think you have any solid basis for that prediction.Nuclear power is a best regarded as a stop-gap for a dwindling fossil fuel reserve and electric as has been repeatedly pointed out has to be generated at some location or other and then distributed and converted into motion - not very efficiently either.

politics will play a huge part in this - many countries will simply refuse to have nuclear power, business and politics will promote whatever they see as money spinners or vote winners - pure science and logic will probably loose out, but as has been pointed out hydrogen is a fuel that has many options both as a locomotive and staic power source. at present the infrastructure, industry and politics are not geared up for this avenue and it is suffering as a result - but inn the end it may well be the only viable alternative.....short of the development of a commercially viable nuclear FUSION system. Nuclear power is contrary to the belief of many not economically viable and the ecological and political ramifications are enormous.

Would YOU want to live near a nuclear power station?

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect to see many in my lifetime, but it seams a good idea....

You must have a very short life expectancy - commiserations! :(

By 2015 most/all models will be available with an electric or hybrid option, and by 2020 it will be standard.

Back to the topic, the pro's for electric are:

  • Cheaper to run.
  • Cleaner.
  • Quieter.
  • Reduces global demand for oil.

As for cons, they've all been addressed:

  • Still uses fossil fuel - nuclear power solves this. The countries that don't have it, have it planned (Allied intervention not withstanding).
  • Lengthy "refiling" times - 380-440V recharging stations are capable of getting even current generation electric cars to 80% charge within an hour or so. This will improve. Battery-swapping schemes under development/negotiation.
  • Limited Range - range-extending systems (e.g. GM Volt/Ampere) solve this in the short-term, battery tech, battery swapping schemes, and (a long-shot) hydrogen powered local generation solve this in the longer term.
  • Too quiet (i.e. danger to pedestrians) - millions has been poured into research on this, and problem has been solved by adding speakers. really.

If you don't want to accept climate change as a sustainable scientific theory then I'm sorry to say that you are the equivalent of a "flat earth" believer.

What educated person would accept theory as fact? ;)

I have to say that the opposite is actually true of almost everything in this post!

it's just a collection of glib sounbites and slogans.

e.g. What on earth is "Cleaner"?????

Sorry, let me explain. The bullet points I've presented are the reasons why people will buy electric cars. For the average vehicle owner they're cleaner in many ways. No gas stations, no oil drips, no diesel stains, no noxious gasses spewing out on cold starts, etc.

What I want is a nice looking car with superior NVH, cheaper running costs, sufficient range, and a reasonable TCO for the 2 or so years I'll keep the machine. So, range-extending electrics are the perfect fit for me (due to regular road-trips), and pure electric with >= 120KM range (double what she would normally drive per day) the perfect fit for my wife.

As for the argument over which is better for the environment, I've read both sides of the in detail and there is no conclusion other than electric will eventually win. However, once I put my consumer's hat back on I just don't give a crap about that. At all. It's not what I'm discussing :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

THe problem with ALL electric cars is they need charging - with electricity - which comes from power stations which are largely powered by fossil fuels so bang goes any hopes of reducing carbon emissions.

BUT, every day cars now are fuelled by fossil fuels, NOT every power station is fuelled by fossil fuels and the number will be falling. Even in LOS two new Nuclear power stations are to be built so theoretically your wrong about carbon emissions. :)

Come on think it through............

If you were to replace EVERY car - one on one - with an electric one - they would STILL require the same amount of energy, so for every internal combustion engine you replace the power stations have to give out a little more power.MOST - I said "largely" - power-stations are running on fossil fuel - all this EXTRA energy they have to produce will come from using more of their fuels - and nuclear simply ain't economically or politically a viable option. Other options for power stations are at present limited. So I think it is fair to say that the extra demand is likely to be met mostly by burning fossil fuels.

As a unit for converting energy into motion the internal combustion engine is actually quite good, convenient and relatively efficient. However the centralised infrastructure and system of power stations involves converting energy to electricity and then transmitting around the country to be used in electric cars is NOT such an efficient system.and on top of that, the cars themselves are HEAVIER as they have to carry batteries etc to store the power so a greater mass is being moved round thus requiring more energy.

So at the end of the day we aren't SAVING any energy - it still has to be produced and any "saving" on carbon emissions will probably be offset by the inherent inefficiencies of the system or worse still actually will be worse.

you might also note that fossil fuels include COAL which is an eco nightmare - and most power stations don't have the kind of catalytic converters of anti-pollutiion systems of a car. fortunately we don't at present have many cars running on coal.

and what about all the extra energy and chemicals needed in order to crack petroleum into gasoline?

not to mention motor oil and transmission fluid needed to operate a combustion vehicle.

the new generation batteries are lithium ion derivatives - 4 times the power density and 4 times lighter than the sealed lead acids your referring to.

coal is bad, charcoal on the other hand isn't as bad as coal.

im all for electric vehicles, but know that they will NEVER become mainstream, no infrastructure...the future is browns gas better known as HHO, or in laymans terms - water

electrify water and it breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen.

Edited by KRS1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine.

The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges.

So long as the combination of power station + transmission + power lost in the charging process + electric motor is more efficient than hydrocarbon transport (trucking to petrol stations, etc.) + an internal combustion engine, there will be a gain in CO2 emissions even without the move to renewables/nuclear for the electricity generation.

Personally, I think climategate has shown that global warming is still not completely understood or they wouldn't have been trying to fudge the numbers to hide that, although warming definitely occured in the 90s, it slowed to a virtual standstill in the last decade.

My own pet theory, I think that the CFCs in aerosols/fridges/aircon were far more important in global warming than is being allowed for in the models. i.e. Everyone admits they are significantly more important per cubic metre than CO2, and with the banning of them in aerosols and the reduction of their use in other appliances coinciding with when warming appears to have stopped...

"Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine." - how so?

there are a lot of myths surrounding "electric" motor vehicles and that is one of them.To get forward motion you need energy and that comes from where and how much do you need?

"The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges."well there's half your answer from yourself!

electric motors have the highest torque upon startup, if you look at freight trains they almost all have electric motors which are powered by diesel generators.

electric motors can be designed to vary the density and number of magnetic poles as system speed increase, the faster the motor spins, you'd want a lower number of poles, another technique used is to reduce the surface area of the stator as the rpms increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within 5 years time 30% of all new passenger vehicles sold will have some form of electric propulsion. By 2020 that number is expected to best 60%, and by 2025, more than 95% (official marketing projections). The numbers will be a little lower here in TH due to the lack of average purchasing power, and the market demand for commercial vehicles serving passenger duties, but TH will still eventually catch up.

The models we'll see first making up the 30% are a mix of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, pure plug-in and range-extender electrics. Over time this will eventually dwindle down to pure plug-in and range extenders only, and the range extenders will also gradually move away from fossil/mixes to pure bio fuels.

There is no doubt that the future of the passenger car is electric. Some may not like the sound of that (pun intended), but they'll eventually come around :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine.

The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges.

So long as the combination of power station + transmission + power lost in the charging process + electric motor is more efficient than hydrocarbon transport (trucking to petrol stations, etc.) + an internal combustion engine, there will be a gain in CO2 emissions even without the move to renewables/nuclear for the electricity generation.

Personally, I think climategate has shown that global warming is still not completely understood or they wouldn't have been trying to fudge the numbers to hide that, although warming definitely occured in the 90s, it slowed to a virtual standstill in the last decade.

My own pet theory, I think that the CFCs in aerosols/fridges/aircon were far more important in global warming than is being allowed for in the models. i.e. Everyone admits they are significantly more important per cubic metre than CO2, and with the banning of them in aerosols and the reduction of their use in other appliances coinciding with when warming appears to have stopped...

"Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine." - how so?

there are a lot of myths surrounding "electric" motor vehicles and that is one of them.To get forward motion you need energy and that comes from where and how much do you need?

"The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges."well there's half your answer from yourself!

electric motors have the highest torque upon startup, if you look at freight trains they almost all have electric motors which are powered by diesel generators.

electric motors can be designed to vary the density and number of magnetic poles as system speed increase, the faster the motor spins, you'd want a lower number of poles, another technique used is to reduce the surface area of the stator as the rpms increase.

Here's someone who doesn't understand the what I'm talking about when I refer to "efficiency"

don't confuse torque with efficiency.

basically wht we are looking at is a way to convert energy into motion in the form of public transport. If you only look at one small detail (the motor itself) in isolation you won't get the big picture..........

A electric MOTOR has only one moving part - which is great and usually doesn't require a multiple ratio gearbox.all this is great.

BUT the batteries need charging......this is done via an electrical supply, usually generated a long way away. Now this seems to also generate a general perception of "out of sight, out of mind" - but one way or another the electricity has to be generated - mostly by fossil fuels and then transmitted to the vehicle, stored in the vehicle in a battery and then transmitted via the motor to the wheels - this long and complex chain is INEFFICIENT.As a way of converting our resources of power to forward, private motion the electric car represents an inefficient way of moving about.

As for forecasts of electric car production and usage, as in the long run they don't offer a reduction of consumption of the world's natural resources, they will inevitably fail.

If s pointed out hydrogen cell technology become more viable then one might see electric cars becoming a workable alternative. I mentioned hydrogen and hydrogen cell technology way back.

If you think nuclear power will "safe the day" you are also sadly mistaken. Countries ;ike 'China and Australia will be powering their grid with COAL for years to come

As for "theories on CLIMATE CHANGE ...not "global warming - tat t is a misleading term.......

Firstly I think many people think that a scientific "theory" is the same thing as an idea you come up with in the pub...not so.

Newton, Darwin and even the risk of cancer from smoking are all still "theories" and even in some cases have been show not to be quite as universal as first thought. However they are still the most practical way of looking at analysing and dealing with the real. physical world that we have today. "facts" o the other hand are completely useless until they form part of a theory or argument..... then trying to shoehorn them into conveniently pre-formed opinions is just a waste of time.

trying to push global warming aside as "only a theory" is really only a reflection of that person's lack of understanding what a scientific "theory" really is.

I wouldn't rely on the mass media to get it right either.

Edited by Deeral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...