I wanted to pop in with my 1st post here..

Google Video Link

Old one is dead..

What all the books and discussions on this matter didn't tell you....... the environmental whackos caused the downfall of the electric car.

Also, no-one really wanted the original electric car because it was too small, too slow, ugly and very unsafe. Period.

Power transmission without wires was demonstrated by HP
for wireless power to computers and components.

Unfortunately they used spiral coils as big, but not as many turns,
as the one behind the sitting Tesla.

There may be an antenna method, with the ball on top, to
transmit loss less power such that only the car picking up the
energy is the loss.

Hopefully this does not entail high voltage that gives the ground
hotfoot potentials.

A line of roadside power station, using atomic power, would power
each car.

Then of course each car might have it own atomic power source.

Gee, sounds like talk from 80 years ago when people foolishly
talked about atomic energy. What the heck were they talking
about.

If you want to know who kill the electric car, just search who is
the most powerful players in oil

AARRRGGGHHHH ! ! !

I just did see the docu, on TV about the electric car, and the battery
is NOT GUILTY ! ! !

AARRRGGGHHHH ! ! ! The B^5T^RD5 ^55 HOLE5 who stoped and killed
the EV1 make me soooo ANGRY ! ! ! And that was inside 2003-2005 ! !
AARRRGGGHHHH ! !

Blue skies !

I am amused by the ignorance concerning electrical vehicles as an energy saving and/or non-polluting reduced carbon footprint means of transportation. An electric vehicle will produce more carbon dioxide emissions and use more energy than its gasoline counterpart of the same size and weight. For example, let’s use our Hollywood activists impressing his friends with his overpriced electric vehicle powered by an electrical power plant burning coal on a Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona. For comparison purposes there are 115,000 Btu’s in a gallon of gasoline that will take a car of comparable size to the electric around 40 miles. Therefore a gasoline car will use 2875 Btu’s per mile. Meanwhile burning 115,000 btu’s of coal loses around 70% of its energy content in the conversion from coal to heat to steam to mechanical energy(generator) to electricity. (There’s a little problem called entropy where energy that does work creates losses in the form of lost heat, noise, friction, etc.) So of the original energy content we get 34,500 Btu’s of electricity. We’re not through yet because we lose another 5% warming bird’s feet in the power line going 1500 miles to Los Angeles. Then we convert the electrical energy to chemical energy (charging a battery) another 40% to 60% loss. Then we convert back to electricity to drive the wheel train another 10% minimum until we finally show up at the Oscars. So from the original 115,000 Btu’s of coal burned we probably get to utilize less than 15,000 Btu’s to actually move the vehicle. Assuming that the electric car also gets 40 miles to 115,000 btu’s we would have to burn about 900,000 Btu’s of coal to generate enough electricity to go the same distance as 1 gallon of gasoline. In short, the only accomplishment of the electric car is to move its emissions to Arizona rather than down town Los Angeles, make a Hollywood moron feel good and increase fossil fuel demand.

ALBERT EINSTEIN
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

Steller,

Appreciate the responce. Since BHA shut down Yucca mountain the only viable energy source is fossil fuels. For all the glue heads that have gone organic solar panels and windmills are a joke as far as replacing coal, nuclear or natural gas fired plants. With Cap & Trade or the EPA's ruling on CO2 if put into effect 50% of coal fired electrical generation would be shut down.

The other problem with electric cars not mentioned in detail is the time necessay to charge a battery. Again that old problem with physics gets in the way of fantasy. Until we build a hot rail on the freeways & interstates where one can be charging while driving, I can't see how the electric vehicle will supplant liquid fuels. Once this is done with electrical generation expanded then a transition to electrical cars may become practical. With a distance limit of 200 miles, there are very few places in the US that one can get more than 100 miles away from an interstate. Also has the advantage of transitioning away from gasoline over time.

Believe me the efficiency numbers are accurate although I did not include references. The only guess was the energy loss converting from chemical back to mechanical from the battery, but the 10% figure is probable way less than actual.

Billyjack

Electric cars are an absolute JOKE.


First of all, what does that car use to get around? Tires. Where do tires come from? OIL.

How is the car made? In a factory that uses hydraulic machines. OIL.

How do they paint the cars? OIL.

Plastic parts in the cars, OIL.


You people who think electric cars are the future really need to educate yourselves. The electric car will NEVER save this planet from fossil fuels. NEVER.

Hi Semus,

I have a few questions for you;

If electric cars are a joke what would you propose we use for personal transportation that we can do right now and do not emit any toxic gases in and around our cities?

You mention that many of a cars parts still require the usage of fossil fuels but i thought it was understood that the major problem were in fact not the production but the continuing emissions? Electric cars are as far as i know much longer lasting with far fewer non recyclable materials with the added benefit that as we gain more and more electricity generation from renewable resources electric cars will be more and more environmentally 'friendly'.

Your argument about paint, plastics in cars and 'hydraulic machines' are largely spurious doing little but showing that you do not seem to have a clear understanding of the usages of oil and the comparative savings that can be made if they were no longer used to fuel our global transportation networks.

I don't think many are suggesting that electric cars will 'save us' if we do nothing else but i think it's relatively clear that they very likely will and clearly should play a significant part in whatever local or global strategies we employ to protect our environment. As for fossil fuels according to our current conservative estimates we have until around mid century to make significant changes before we run into any serious supply constraints. I am confident that barring any cataclysmic world wide event ( world war, etc ) we have the time and the supplies of fossil fuels to still make the necessary changes without the global upheavals that might result if we put if off till then.

In conclusion the electric car has been maligned and certainly kept from the market far longer than seems technologically justified but it's slowly gaining , especially in the East, and there is not a whole lot that can be done to keep on artificially stimulating fossil fuel usages ( as has been done for the last century) over electric generation and employment in this primary sector.

Regards,

Stellar

Appreciate the responce. Since BHA shut down Yucca mountain the only viable energy source is fossil fuels

The lack of any permanent repository for nuclear waste at this moment in time does not prevent us from investing in nuclear energy, nor does it create any technical limitations. Reactors can store spent fuel in pools and later dry-casks for the entire life of the reactor (60 years) with no reason they cannot store it for longer.



That's 32 years worth of waste from the 620 megawatt (electric) Vermont Yankee reactor. After 40-50 years of storage, the heat and radioactivity of spent fuel have fallen to one thousandth of the level at removal from the reactor, therefore it is much easier dispose of waste when its overall radioactivity is only about 0.1% of its original level. Obviously nobody wants to deal with nuclear waste, however it is abundantly clear that renewables at this point in time, just do not work.

Also, one must remember that coal is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil in terms of power generation which is one of the reasons oil is NOT used to supply our electricity. Furthermore, centralized infrastructure is generally significantly more efficient than decentralized infrastructure, hence why we have super-sized coal boilers to supply our base-load electricity, instead of diesels at every house, business, or factory. Therefore, it is not only a question of energy losses, but if energy losses negative the advantage of low cost coal and electricity. Simply put: Does it make economical sense? (and Nuclear is marginally more expensive than coal, less expensive than clean-coal, and less expensive than coal with any sort of carbon tax).

Also, coal plants have efficiencies that range mostly around 40%, and I'm pretty sure transmission losses in the US are around 7%, while charging losses in electric cars are around 15%. What is the efficiency of a petrol engine compared to a electric engine?

If that techonology replaced our current reactors we would be paying $.04 per kilowatt hour.

LOL.

Current nukes are already sub 3 cents per kilowatt hour wholesale.

[edit on 24/3/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Semus
Electric cars are an absolute JOKE.


First of all, what does that car use to get around? Tires. Where do tires come from? OIL.

Uhh, really?

See, I thought tyres came from rubber. And nearly half of the world's rubber supply each year comes from trees. Rubber trees. And more than half of the world's natural rubber crop is used in tyres and tubes.

So, your condescension

You people who think electric cars are the future really need to educate yourselves. The electric car will NEVER save this planet from fossil fuels. NEVER.

would actually have some bite if you were even slightly acquainted with a few facts.

i'm about to watch this documentary. I want electric car right NOW! I will give my thoughts after i watch it but it seems pretty obvious what they will be. F the oil companies, those damn dirty pigs.