  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5716 Registered: 06-2004 |
...and couple it with the new California Congress... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ gavin-newsom/recharge-america- with-ele_b_145650.html | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 519 Registered: 04-2008 |
Either these people don't understand how electric cars work, or I don't. They talk about creating Electric Car Charging Stations, where "drivers swap out depleted batteries for fresh ones." Is this practical? I would think that electric cars will be charged in garages, driveways, and perhaps parking lots where people work or shop. Swapping batteries? That sounds like a lot of work! | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1945 Registered: 01-2004 |
^^^ Nah, it's easy, you just throw a fresh pair of AA batteries in there, and you're good to go for another 500 miles.  | ||
Sludgedaddy Member Username: Sludgedaddy Post Number: 228 Registered: 01-2008 |
....I'm still looking forward to the nuclear powered "atomic cars" that were promised by the visionaries of the late 1940's. Imagine the reactor leaks in Billy Bob's front yard as the half-life of the decaying vehicles continues as the body rests on blocks. Combining inbreeding with enhanced atomic mutation is something to look forward to. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 523 Registered: 04-2008 |
They're going to have to downsize to AAAs before I buy one. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2927 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "They talk about creating Electric Car Charging Stations, where "drivers swap out depleted batteries for fresh ones." Is this practical?" No. We'd need a total overhaul of our power grid. would cost billions if not trillions. Look, the electric car is just not practical. The battery technology isn't much better than it was a hundred years ago. And it may never improve. Sure we have NiMH batteries now. Here are a few fun facts about NiMH battery packs every car would need. They would cost between 5 and 10 thousand dollars a piece. Their efficiency/capacity diminishes by 20% annually. 200 miles range first year, 160 mile range at the end of that first year. 120 mile range at the end of the second year. Those are liberal numbers. Most electrics have about 60 mile range from new. The interior climate control for these vehicles is electric, yep subtract from the range. Below freezing temperatures, they cannot be charged at all, they would need some sort of internal electric heating elements to even be used in this climate. Electric car offerings are loaded with semi-precious metals, think scrappers are a nuisance now? Electric cars are low hanging fruit for lack-lustre visionaries. It's seen many eureka moments over the last hundred years and not one viable specimen has ever been produced. It's going to be a rough road with many winding turns to replace the pop poppers in all of our driveways. | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 3736 Registered: 10-2003 |
I was in San Francisco Friday morning. Mayor Newsom was on one of the local morning television shows discussing the electric charging station plan among other things. He seemed quite gleeful about the ouster of Dingell. I wasn't paying close attention but I think he said it was one of the most significant events of his lifetime with respect to the environment: http://cbs5.com/video/?id=4226 8@kpix.dayport.com | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6443 Registered: 10-2003 |
I just love how they tell us that we're the one's that didn't see the writing on the wall, and they are living an even more blissfully ignorant existence. I hate to break it to them, but reality is going to be just as unforgiving to them as it has been to us, so they better get their laughs and their jollies while they can. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3643 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Well... Coulomb unveils electric-car charging stations Be sure to take note of where this is happening. | ||
Rickinatlanta Member Username: Rickinatlanta Post Number: 210 Registered: 07-2006 |
"We'd need a total overhaul of our power grid. would cost billions if not trillions" Not at all true as charging stations are designed for 120 volt use. Added load to any suppliers grid would easily be offset by other Demand Side Options. | ||
Daddeeo Member Username: Daddeeo Post Number: 312 Registered: 09-2008 |
Smog must be getting to them. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 7532 Registered: 08-2004 |
If electricity is the way to go, how come homes are RARELY heated by an electricity powered furnace? | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5725 Registered: 06-2004 |
Furnaces have to throw heat, which in a vehicle and many other processes indicates wasted energy - totally opposite intent of purpose. | ||
Chandyside Member Username: Chandyside Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2005 |
- slightly OT - This apparently choreographed political sea change cheeses me off. So much so that I took a minute to write a zinger of a letter to Obama on the change.gov site, reminding him that michigan delivered and there are humans trying to eek out a living in Detroit who don't give a crap about politics besides the first couple priorities on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That's what the site is there for, right? sigh. "Nothing is Going to Be Alright" "Keep Calm and Carry On" - repeat - (Message edited by chandyside on November 22, 2008) | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 3890 Registered: 01-2005 |
The only thing I hate about living in Nevada is that it's so close to California. Those people live in a world of their own and tend to be oblivious to reality. The only worse drivers than people from LA and San Fran are them folks from Ontario. (Don't get upset, AIW and Goat....I mean Ontario, California.) | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2928 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "Not at all true as charging stations are designed for 120 volt use. Added load to any suppliers grid would easily be offset by other Demand Side Options." How is charging Millions of batteries continually not going to effect an already overloaded power grid? How will folks in California, especially, deal with it? "120 volts" means nothing. 120, 220, 440, it all comes off the same grid. Incidentally, it is a wasteful approach, using such a low voltage as more copper/aluminum will be needed to deliver the same amount of energy with lower voltages at higher current. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 526 Registered: 04-2008 |
I'm in favor of electric cars, provided the shortcomings mentioned by Sstachmoo can be mitigated. I just think the "swapping out" of batteries is not practical, nor the intention of electric car designers. I can envision "plug-in" charging stations, although $1000-2000 per station is way too high to pay for 10 feet of wire and an electric outlet. As for electric heated houses, as Gistok mentioned: For a home, natural gas is cheaper than electric and is considered a "clean fuel" (i.e. okay with the environmentalists, apparently). I don't think natural gas is possible for cars due to the gas tank size and safety, although I'm not an expert. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5726 Registered: 06-2004 |
Natural gas is possible for cars and is used in some countries. The real problem with natural gas is that, although it's more abundant, it's a non-renewable subject to market control issues and price shocks just like oil is. There's also the lack of infrastructure for public distribution, just like there is for E85 and hydrogen. At one time the oil companies used to be the largest natural gas holders in the US. I don't know if that's still true. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 531 Registered: 04-2008 |
Another problem with natural gas cars is that it would drive up the demand for natural gas, which would lead to higher home heating bills...just like ethanol drove up the price for corn and agricultural products. Maybe this is not such a factor in warmer climates/countries. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 451 Registered: 11-2007 |
Natural gas would be preferable to hydrogen and E85 because there is a distribution system in many locations. Certainly some new fixtures and compressors would be needed, but if I could fill up my car at my house, I wouldn't go to a gas station very often. Also, natural gas is a reasonably economic fuel, and is easier to store in a car than hydrogen (though not as easy as E85) while hydrogen and E85 are wildly uneconomic. However, the future is electric--natural gas would at best be a stopgap. It appears that there could be pretty large supplies of natural gas available with all the shale gas areas just starting to be explored, but no doubt widespread use in cars would raise the price. I'm not sure that is an adequate argument against doing it--using gasoline in cars drives up the price of heating oil, but we use gasoline anyway. | ||
Otter Member Username: Otter Post Number: 400 Registered: 12-2007 |
Comments remind me that one thing that can always be counted on is the willingness of people to tell you why some change or another is absolutely impossible.... | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5738 Registered: 06-2004 |
CNG is absolutely possible and is available in other countries but it's not the direction to go for wise energy policy. | ||
Rid0617 Member Username: Rid0617 Post Number: 357 Registered: 03-2008 |
Yea, I was told I'd be seeing flying cars by now. Guess that didn't quite work out. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6903 Registered: 12-2005 |
 ModernMechanix.com is very interesting. Check out the Ahead of its time link on the left side of their homepage. (Message edited by Jimaz on November 23, 2008) | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 542 Registered: 04-2008 |
 | ||
Oilcan_harry Member Username: Oilcan_harry Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2006 |
I can just see the typical electric car battling the hills of San Francisco. "Quick cram in a couple more D cells, we're approaching Nob hill!" | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 454 Registered: 11-2007 |
I'm not sure what the "typical" electric car is, but there is no reason San Francisco type hill-climbing needs to be a problem with electrics--ultracapacitors are cheap and pretty light, and they are good to have to maximize energy capture from braking anyway. Power shouldn't be much of an issue. The problems with electric cars are cost and range, because current battery technology is marginal in terms of the energy storage requirements for this application. That's the main reason for using hybrids instead of pure electics--so you can extend the range with gasoline and use fewer/cheaper batteries. Reduced power on long upgrades could also be a problem for an electric car depending upon the battery technology used, but hills really shouldn't be. Also, if you want to tow stuff any distance, batteries aren't good enough yet. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5746 Registered: 06-2004 |
load a golf cart and take it up a hill compared to on a flat - you'll see the issue better yet, load the golf cart and start going uphill from a dead stop already on the hill | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2960 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Please tell that to all of the people who loved their EV1. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 455 Registered: 11-2007 |
Golf carts aren't electric cars. The comparison is silly. You engineer in the characteristics you need. Golf carts don't need to climb big hills. Power isn't hard. Range (currently) is hard. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2941 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "Please tell that to all of the people who loved their EV1." Some may have "loved" them, if they did it was because they only leased them and it was a pilot project, where GM was covering the costs. The vehicles were 80k a piece and they leased them for $3-400/month. If those same folks had bought them and had to replace the batteries on their own, they wouldn't have been loving them. Well then, what about Tesla? http://blogs.automotive.com/63 06830/miscellaneous/tesla-look s-to-lay-off-workers-ceo-may-l eave/index.html ""Tesla, the harbinger of an excellent idea, may not be doing so hot as the fledgling automaker is rumored to be laying off 100 workers. This is following rumors that CEO Ze�ev Drori might be calling it quits as well. A hundred workers may not sound like much compared to other automakers who lay off thousands at a time, but considering Tesla�s size, it�s pretty substantial. The U.K. based automaker has garnered a fair bit of positive press with its performance electric roadster along with a culmination of talent and investors. The ultimate goal was to move Teslas into mass production with a factory in San Jose, CA, which no longer appears likely."" The bottom line: Electric cars are equal to a petrol burning vehicle that can hold only a few gallons of fuel, the gas-tank costs $8k dollars, takes 8 hours to fill, and needs to be replaced every few years. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2962 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote:quote: The only reason all of the EV1s were leased was because GM wouldn't allow anyone to buy them. Even when people walked into a dealership and offered to buy them, they still weren't allowed to do anything but lease them. quote: As for its fuel capacity/range, using 1996 technology, the EV1 was capable of handling the driving needs of approx. 90% of all Americans. No solution is right for everyone, but a solution that works for 90% of the market is a pretty good one. As for the time needed to recharge the batteries, most drivers only have their vehicle in use for 2 - 3 hours per day. EV1 drivers, therefore, never had an issue with recharging their car batteries. As for the cost of replacing a battery, that's offset by a) not having the expense of filling up at the pump every week and b) not having the expense of getting an oil change or many of the other maintenance issues that a conventional gasoline-fueled vehicle. As for Tesla and the fact that they had to lay off people, I simply remind you that Ford, GM and Chrysler all had to lay off people as well. Does that mean that conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles aren't viable? |
