Who Killed The Electric Car?

[DeusDeus]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whokilledtheelectriccar/

What do you think?

Sony Pictures Classics seems to be putting out a lot of political documentaries. Some good, thoughtful ones IMO. (Why We Fight)

 

[BrownTown]

Can't seem to get the trailer to work, but there are alot of reason why electric cars suck. First off, batteries are d@mn heavy and big, so you have a really heavy car or only limited range. Also, "no emmisions" is complete BS, where you think that electricity comes from? Coal fired plants are gonna make up the majority of it. Its true that a coal plant burs alot cleaner than a car becasue of all the polution control stuff on them, but when you add up the loses from pumping the electricity over the wires to your house, and then chargind a batter, and then discharging a battery, and then turning an electric motor you are gonna lose like 70% of the energy in the process, so it comes out to use alot MORE carbon emmisions, and more money, and the cars themeslves still have limited range.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Can't seem to get the trailer to work, but there are alot of reason why electric cars suck. First off, batteries are d@mn heavy and big, so you have a really heavy car or only limited range. Also, "no emmisions" is complete BS, where you think that electricity comes from? Coal fired plants are gonna make up the majority of it. Its true that a coal plant burs alot cleaner than a car becasue of all the polution control stuff on them, but when you add up the loses from pumping the electricity over the wires to your house, and then chargind a batter, and then discharging a battery, and then turning an electric motor you are gonna lose like 70% of the energy in the process, so it comes out to use alot MORE carbon emmisions, and more money, and the cars themeslves still have limited range.

That argument only works if you don't take into account all the polution and energy waste that comes from getting oil out of the ground and turning it into gasoline and getting it into your car. When you add it all up, it's far more efficient to generate power elsewhere and simply STORE it in your car. However, the drawback with the batteries is a real one. But if the electric car had seen more support at the beginning, who knows what kind of battery developments could have been made to make it more reasonable.

For what it's worth, I think an "electric" car is the future of personal transportation. The whole model we have now, where your vehicle generates power itself from some sort of fuel source, isn't really the best way to do things. Generating power will almost always be more efficient when you do it in a big powerplant, generating a lot of power at once...and that's not even taking into account things like nuclear power that wouldn't work on an individual vehicle level. The only remaining obstacle is storing the generated power in your car so you can use it, once some sort of storage mechanism is developed that is more efficient than current batteries (something that I don't think should prove to be all that difficult), we're going to see a BIG shift in personal transportation.

 

[BrownTown]

The energy "storage" techniques are no simper than what we have now.

*Im not an automotive engineer here, so bear with me a little if i get some stuff wrong*

Currently, your car has an energy storage system (fuel tank), and an energy converion system (internal combustion engine) which of course converts chemical energy into mechanical energy. A small amount of this mechanical energy is also converted into electrical energy via the alternator which power the electrical system, and finally, a backup electrical power supply is provided in the battery. Now, an electric car would seem to need a pretty quivilent amount of hardware. First you would need a way to convert the electical power into chemical energy If you are using a conventional battery this is very simple since you just apply the voltage across the terminals and it charges. IF you are using another storage device this might take alot more work (like splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen both of which would have to be sequestered). However you do it you end up with stored chemical energy in the batteries of fuel containers. You still have to convert in to mechanical energy. You can use a DC motor with batteries, a fuel cell, or internal combustion engine for various chemicals, whatever you want, but the point is its gonna be equivilent in cost to what is used now.

Also, what you have to realise is that converting energy between different forms is very ineficient. In the origional chemical energy from the source is converted to mechanical energy, then to electical, then back to chemcial, then back to electrical, then back to mechanical. Most energy converion methods are at best 50% efficient, so you can see how large a percent of the energy you are losing in this situation. In the current design you only convert the energy ONE time, from chemical energy in the gasoline to mechanical energy. Yes, energy is used in the minning, transportation and refining of the fuel, but the same goes for the power sources used by power plants. The coal still has to be minned and transported to the power plant. Whatever you use (even nucealr) is gonna be far to espensive due to the enourmos losses in the chain.

 

[Vic]

The electric starter for internal cumbustion engines killed the electric car. Any other opinion is bullsh!t, plain and simple. In addition to poor range, etc., electric cars are LESS efficient and LESS environmentally-friendly than ICE's. IF we had something better than toxic lead-acid batteries, that might not be true. But we don't.

The lead-acid battery car will never be the future. The next step is biofuels, followed by hydrogen fuel cells.

It was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever built. It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. The lucky few who drove it never wanted to give it up. So why did General Motors crush its fleet of EV1 electric vehicles in the Arizona desert?

That's the biggest, most uneducated, crock of sh!t I've ever read. Produced no emissions? Where did the electricity come from? Magic? :roll:

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Can't seem to get the trailer to work, but there are alot of reason why electric cars suck. First off, batteries are d@mn heavy and big, so you have a really heavy car or only limited range. Also, "no emmisions" is complete BS, where you think that electricity comes from? Coal fired plants are gonna make up the majority of it. Its true that a coal plant burs alot cleaner than a car becasue of all the polution control stuff on them, but when you add up the loses from pumping the electricity over the wires to your house, and then chargind a batter, and then discharging a battery, and then turning an electric motor you are gonna lose like 70% of the energy in the process, so it comes out to use alot MORE carbon emmisions, and more money, and the cars themeslves still have limited range.

That argument only works if you don't take into account all the polution and energy waste that comes from getting oil out of the ground and turning it into gasoline and getting it into your car. When you add it all up, it's far more efficient to generate power elsewhere and simply STORE it in your car. However, the drawback with the batteries is a real one. But if the electric car had seen more support at the beginning, who knows what kind of battery developments could have been made to make it more reasonable.

For what it's worth, I think an "electric" car is the future of personal transportation. The whole model we have now, where your vehicle generates power itself from some sort of fuel source, isn't really the best way to do things. Generating power will almost always be more efficient when you do it in a big powerplant, generating a lot of power at once...and that's not even taking into account things like nuclear power that wouldn't work on an individual vehicle level. The only remaining obstacle is storing the generated power in your car so you can use it, once some sort of storage mechanism is developed that is more efficient than current batteries (something that I don't think should prove to be all that difficult), we're going to see a BIG shift in personal transportation.

Rainsford, you and I agree on a lot, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

You seem to imply that if we only had electric cars, then battery power would have been magically researched and solved. B*llshit. NASA and the military have been researching the hell out of energy storage and batteries for decades...and what we have is what we have. Eventually it all filters down into civilian useage...and there is nothing on the drawing board that looks to significanly change battery technology cheaply.

And BrownTown is right - the energy transmission of all that electric is HUGELY inefficient - absolutely terrible losses of efficiency. To make it worse, we probably don't have sufficient generation capacity in many locals to handle the energy needs of an entire population of electric vehicles - we would need to build a LOT more plants. What kind? Polluting coal, expensive natural gas, or nuclear who's waste we can't store?

Future Shock

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Mr. Fusion FTW!

 

[Aisengard]

Where do the cars get the electricity? Oil and Coal. There's your emissions right there.

 

[Moonbeam]

Battery replacement that uses save materials and recharges in minutes

Telsa Motors Inc

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Where do the cars get the electricity? Oil and Coal. There's your emissions right there.

Nope, you put solar on your roof and sell power when it's expensive during the day and charge your car at night when electircity is cheap.

 

[fitzov]

Generating power will almost always be more efficient when you do it in a big powerplant, generating a lot of power at once...

That's pretty much my feeling as well. We use batteries for so many other things, what's the big problem with cars? Toxic? Well, then we need to dispose of them and recycle them properly. I think you have to recognize the fact that oil companies don't really want us to change the technology too quickly--so that they can put capital into whatever alternative energy source over a period of time and reduce losses.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Battery replacement that uses save materials and recharges in minutes

Telsa Motors Inc

An interesting discussion on the capacitor idea.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/09/073216

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Battery replacement that uses save materials and recharges in minutes

Telsa Motors Inc

An interesting discussion on the capacitor idea.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/09/073216

A functional device of battery capacity would revolutionize industry, I think, which means that tons and tons of our infrastructure would become obsolete. A lot of people might not like that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Battery replacement that uses save materials and recharges in minutes

Telsa Motors Inc

An interesting discussion on the capacitor idea.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/09/073216

A functional device of battery capacity would revolutionize industry, I think, which means that tons and tons of our infrastructure would become obsolete. A lot of people might not like that.

The business of business only occurs when money changes hands.

I have difficulty with articles that refer to electric batteries as "guilt-free, relatively inexpensive power" and "a clean source of energy." Just because there isn't a tailpipe out the back of your battery doesn't mean that there isn't a smokestack somewhere else (along with high-transmission lines, substations, etc.). Obviously, improving electrical storage can (and should) be the next big breakthrough for technology, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that that means free power.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Can't seem to get the trailer to work, but there are alot of reason why electric cars suck. First off, batteries are d@mn heavy and big, so you have a really heavy car or only limited range. Also, "no emmisions" is complete BS, where you think that electricity comes from? Coal fired plants are gonna make up the majority of it. Its true that a coal plant burs alot cleaner than a car becasue of all the polution control stuff on them, but when you add up the loses from pumping the electricity over the wires to your house, and then chargind a batter, and then discharging a battery, and then turning an electric motor you are gonna lose like 70% of the energy in the process, so it comes out to use alot MORE carbon emmisions, and more money, and the cars themeslves still have limited range.

That argument only works if you don't take into account all the polution and energy waste that comes from getting oil out of the ground and turning it into gasoline and getting it into your car. When you add it all up, it's far more efficient to generate power elsewhere and simply STORE it in your car. However, the drawback with the batteries is a real one. But if the electric car had seen more support at the beginning, who knows what kind of battery developments could have been made to make it more reasonable.

For what it's worth, I think an "electric" car is the future of personal transportation. The whole model we have now, where your vehicle generates power itself from some sort of fuel source, isn't really the best way to do things. Generating power will almost always be more efficient when you do it in a big powerplant, generating a lot of power at once...and that's not even taking into account things like nuclear power that wouldn't work on an individual vehicle level. The only remaining obstacle is storing the generated power in your car so you can use it, once some sort of storage mechanism is developed that is more efficient than current batteries (something that I don't think should prove to be all that difficult), we're going to see a BIG shift in personal transportation.

Rainsford, you and I agree on a lot, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

You seem to imply that if we only had electric cars, then battery power would have been magically researched and solved. B*llshit. NASA and the military have been researching the hell out of energy storage and batteries for decades...and what we have is what we have. Eventually it all filters down into civilian useage...and there is nothing on the drawing board that looks to significanly change battery technology cheaply.

And BrownTown is right - the energy transmission of all that electric is HUGELY inefficient - absolutely terrible losses of efficiency. To make it worse, we probably don't have sufficient generation capacity in many locals to handle the energy needs of an entire population of electric vehicles - we would need to build a LOT more plants. What kind? Polluting coal, expensive natural gas, or nuclear who's waste we can't store?

Future Shock

Perhaps I oversimplified the whole thing. Given the current setup we had, there are certainly problems in getting from gas powered cars to electric powered cars...but I believe that when we DO get there, it will be a more efficient system. Yeah, current batteries aren't all that great, but it's silly to assume that we'll NEVER come up with anything better...and the same goes for taking all that power from the power plant and putting it in the battery.

Perhaps the real issue is that we're treating the concept of an "electric" car a little too literally. Let's say you're right, that storing and transmitting electrical energy will never become more efficient. In fact, imagine that gasoline powered engines were truly the be all, end all of personal transportation. What I'm talking about could easially be a car that runs on synthetic gasoline. The energy is put into it through massive power plants that power the process of generating it, and you get it out at the end when you put your foot down on the pedal. Essentially the gas becomes the "battery".

I guess that's more the direction I mean to go in...not synthetic gasoline, per se, but some sort of new technology that removes a lot of the problems of current batteries (even if it isn't a battery) could help create the new "electric" car. You're right, the current model of lead-acid batteries and coal fired power plants isn't going to be better than gas powered engines. But I don't think the gasoline craze is going to last for too much longer, even if it's only because rising oil prices make gas a much more expensive form of fuel.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Where do the cars get the electricity? Oil and Coal. There's your emissions right there.

What about nuclear, solar or wind? None of those things will ever power a personal vehicle in a reasonable way...but if the power was generated somewhere else...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Generating power will almost always be more efficient when you do it in a big powerplant, generating a lot of power at once...

That's pretty much my feeling as well. We use batteries for so many other things, what's the big problem with cars? Toxic? Well, then we need to dispose of them and recycle them properly. I think you have to recognize the fact that oil companies don't really want us to change the technology too quickly--so that they can put capital into whatever alternative energy source over a period of time and reduce losses.

A big part of the argument in favor of oil powered cars is the unspoken one that oil will always be fairly cheap and will be around forever. The fact that this is in no way true has to be a major factor in the argument, I think.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Generating power will almost always be more efficient when you do it in a big powerplant, generating a lot of power at once...

That's pretty much my feeling as well. We use batteries for so many other things, what's the big problem with cars? Toxic? Well, then we need to dispose of them and recycle them properly.

I think you have to recognize the fact that oil companies don't really want us to change the technology too quickly--so that they can put capital into whatever alternative energy source over a period of time and reduce losses.

Please be specific. It is the Saudi's (OPEC) along with the U.S. Government they own that does not want to see the current reliance on Oil change.

 

[BrownTown]

I think its somewhat questionable to suggest that electric cars (or any other tech for that matter) are better, but only when some as yet undeveloped technology is created. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go around say stuff like "electric cars are better - once you develop better batteries", or "solar power is the future - jsut gotta make more efficient panels". Yeah, its true, we would be better off with lighter batteries, or more efficient solar panels etc, but right now we don't have them, so you really can't go about suggesting we use a technology that currently doesn't exist. I might as well jsut suggest we all power our cars with super-magical fusion batteries which are 1mm^2 and can create 1000HP etc... The point is that until the technology exists you can suggest using it as a large scale replacement.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I think its somewhat questionable to suggest that electric cars (or any other tech for that matter) are better, but only when some as yet undeveloped technology is created. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go around say stuff like "electric cars are better - once you develop better batteries", or "solar power is the future - jsut gotta make more efficient panels". Yeah, its true, we would be better off with lighter batteries, or more efficient solar panels etc, but right now we don't have them, so you really can't go about suggesting we use a technology that currently doesn't exist. I might as well jsut suggest we all power our cars with super-magical fusion batteries which are 1mm^2 and can create 1000HP etc... The point is that until the technology exists you can suggest using it as a large scale replacement.

That's not the point. When you are using a technology that is killing you but is maintained in place by the inertia of massive financial investment in that infrastructure will all the concomitant emotional commitment to maintaining that style of life, you need to start a war of revolution and invest massively at the government level in changing direction and creating alternatives.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I think its somewhat questionable to suggest that electric cars (or any other tech for that matter) are better, but only when some as yet undeveloped technology is created. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go around say stuff like "electric cars are better - once you develop better batteries", or "solar power is the future - jsut gotta make more efficient panels". Yeah, its true, we would be better off with lighter batteries, or more efficient solar panels etc, but right now we don't have them, so you really can't go about suggesting we use a technology that currently doesn't exist. I might as well jsut suggest we all power our cars with super-magical fusion batteries which are 1mm^2 and can create 1000HP etc... The point is that until the technology exists you can suggest using it as a large scale replacement.

That's not the point. When you are using a technology that is killing you but is maintained in place by the inertia of massive financial investment in that infrastructure will all the concomitant emotional commitment to maintaining that style of life, you need to start a war of revolution and invest massively at the government level in changing direction and creating alternatives.

You see, I disagree about this starting a war of revolution at the government level. If anything, government is more heavily invested in the oil industry infrastructure than the oil companies themselves. Think state gas taxes as just a tip of the iceberg example. Start talking about government involvement in international oil trade and it gets complicated fast.

The war of revolution needs to begin with the people. When the people stop just demanding for change, and actually start making change, then change will occur. Not before.

 

[Future Shock]

There already IS a cheaper alternative, that is less polluting, easier on the environment, and partially self-sustaining.

Don't look West young man. Look South - to Brazil.

The single BIGGEST economic interest that is thwarting biofuel in the US ISN'T the oil companies - it is the corn farmers, who have managed to get federal laws passed mandating that all biofuels in the US will come from corn. Unfortunately, it takes as much oil to fertilize, grow, process, and ship the corn-based fuel as the oil it replaces - hugely inefficient.

But Brazil uses sugar cane - which uses 1/8th the oil that it replaces to grow and process. So there is a huge net gain. And Brazilian cars are now dual-fuel capable, thanks to technology from Volksvagen.

This ISN'T rocket science - this is Amercian politics and patronage. Even the oil companies wouldn't be too set against it - after all, bio fuel still needs a refinery and distrubution network, and they HAVE the business models for those.

It's time to say fsck you to the American corn farmers, overturn the ridiculous law that is hurting our enerty independance, and move forwared with biofuels...

And maybe someday a magical battery or capacitor technology will pair with pebble-based fission nuclear plants or fusion plants and give us access to even cleaner and safer automobile transport...

Future Shock

/thread

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
There already IS a cheaper alternative, that is less polluting, easier on the environment, and partially self-sustaining.

Don't look West young man. Look South - to Brazil.

The single BIGGEST economic interest that is thwarting biofuel in the US ISN'T the oil companies - it is the corn farmers, who have managed to get federal laws passed mandating that all biofuels in the US will come from corn. Unfortunately, it takes as much oil to fertilize, grow, process, and ship the corn-based fuel as the oil it replaces - hugely inefficient.

But Brazil uses sugar cane - which uses 1/8th the oil that it replaces to grow and process. So there is a huge net gain. And Brazilian cars are now dual-fuel capable, thanks to technology from Volksvagen.

This ISN'T rocket science - this is Amercian politics and patronage. Even the oil companies wouldn't be too set against it - after all, bio fuel still needs a refinery and distrubution network, and they HAVE the business models for those.

It's time to say fsck you to the American corn farmers, overturn the ridiculous law that is hurting our enerty independance, and move forwared with biofuels...

And maybe someday a magical battery or capacitor technology will pair with pebble-based fission nuclear plants or fusion plants and give us access to even cleaner and safer automobile transport...

Future Shock

/thread

Sounds look a good idea...this is supposed to be a country where the free market decides what the best idea is, so let it work. Tell the corn farmers and the oil companies to shut the hell up and stop looking for handouts. Is it possible that if our energy system was truly a free market we'd all be riding around in cold-fusion powered hovercraft? Maybe not...but I wonder how much better off we'd be than we are with what we have right now.

 

[BrownTown]

not really sure how well sugarcane grows in the US, but from what I know it takes very little fertilizer, which also means that it likely produces less NOX pollution since it needs less nitrogen based fertilizers. Also, the good part about growing your fuel is that it produces no net CO2 production. The cars release CO2 when they run of course, but that carbon is all fixed from CO2 in the air by the plants themsleves. Well, anyways, the key is of coruse that no one technology can replace everything. Coal and Oil and still increadibly important materials, even if you dont burn them as fuel, they are the source of chemcials used to make plastics and a huge chunk of the rest of the chemical industry. So, you need a diverse energy profile, use wind turbines, hydro, and geothermal where the conditions are good. Use solar panels if they get cheaper. Use nuclear for base load, and coal+natural gas for peaking loads. Use a combination of oil and biofules for transportation. Yeah, your are still producing CO2, but if you cna produce alot less than its nto as bad. Especially if you do stuff like plant new trees and such to try to take some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere. IT would also buy you more time to identify where flooding might occur and build levees, and too have longer to find new and better energy sources. (fusion, safer fission, more efficient solar etc...)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Future Shock
There already IS a cheaper alternative, that is less polluting, easier on the environment, and partially self-sustaining.

Don't look West young man. Look South - to Brazil.

The single BIGGEST economic interest that is thwarting biofuel in the US ISN'T the oil companies - it is the corn farmers, who have managed to get federal laws passed mandating that all biofuels in the US will come from corn. Unfortunately, it takes as much oil to fertilize, grow, process, and ship the corn-based fuel as the oil it replaces - hugely inefficient.

But Brazil uses sugar cane - which uses 1/8th the oil that it replaces to grow and process. So there is a huge net gain. And Brazilian cars are now dual-fuel capable, thanks to technology from Volksvagen.

This ISN'T rocket science - this is Amercian politics and patronage. Even the oil companies wouldn't be too set against it - after all, bio fuel still needs a refinery and distrubution network, and they HAVE the business models for those.

It's time to say fsck you to the American corn farmers, overturn the ridiculous law that is hurting our enerty independance, and move forwared with biofuels...

And maybe someday a magical battery or capacitor technology will pair with pebble-based fission nuclear plants or fusion plants and give us access to even cleaner and safer automobile transport...

Future Shock

/thread

Sounds look a good idea...this is supposed to be a country where the free market decides what the best idea is, so let it work. Tell the corn farmers and the oil companies to shut the hell up and stop looking for handouts. Is it possible that if our energy system was truly a free market we'd all be riding around in cold-fusion powered hovercraft? Maybe not...but I wonder how much better off we'd be than we are with what we have right now.

Not something I follow too closely, but I thought the problem was primarily due to the high sugar subsidies and tariffs that keep it grossly overpriced in the U.S. It makes corn ethanol much more cost-effective (though it is subsidized too). Is that not the case?