The reason for the push on Electric Vehicles

here is a company i heard of couple years ago and wanted to invest, lol, no money!


they sound really good.

good enough that warren buffet bought 10% of the company.

Warren Buffett hasn't just seen the car of the future, he's sitting in the driver's seat. Why he's banking on an obscure Chinese electric car company and a CEO who - no joke - drinks his own battery fluid.

money.cnn.com...

reply to post by C0bzz

You addressed how it is inefficient to burn gas, how electric motors are more efficient. But what about converting fossil, ie. coal, nat. gas, etc, to electricity....

Did you factor in the energy losses during this process?

I think you mis-understand my thoughts. The batteries would power the vehicle. The solar would not be enough to power the vehicle while running. I know that. What the PV cells would be for is to charge the batteries. You would get some charging while driving and during "regenerative braking", but the panels could charge the batteries while you work, while you shop, while the car is sitting in the driveway on Saturday; basically it would be an extra "free" back up charger. You would still have the option to plug in for a faster charge, but the PV cells would always be giving you a little extra. Multiply that by millions of cars and you save a lot of "grid electricity". I already use solar panels to charge batteries and run a small window a/c unit on my van. I can also use the system to power a microwave, tv, and my laptop. It will not do the a/c and microwave at the same time, but it will do my a/c and laptop at the same time. I also use the system to charge up my cordless tools and rechargeable batteries. Solar is already very useful imo.

reply to post by fooks
If it is any consolation, any investment from late 2009 onward would have made you lose a lot of money.

reply to post by boncho


llol. i hear that~!

but these batteries this company is making might be ok.

and going with the other guy's idea of swap stations, it might have a chance to work as a start.

untill a better electric grid can be set up?

reply to post by fooks

The big problem is that they are expensive to make, and the single largest cost is the battery. Manufacturing a safe, reliable, long-lasting, and fast-charging battery for a car is a complex and costly undertaking. BYD claims to have achieved a breakthrough with its lithium ion ferrous phosphate technology, but no one can be sure whether it will work as promised.

I agree that a breakthrough in battery technology is needed in the electric car sector, but it doesn't look like [as of yet] BYD has made anything 'revolutionary'. 1

IMO, in regards to batteries, I think a 'revolutionary' breakthrough might come through nano-tech.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by C0bzz

 

You addressed how it is inefficient to burn gas, how electric motors are more efficient. But what about converting fossil, ie. coal, nat. gas, etc, to electricity....

Did you factor in the energy losses during this process?

Yes.

To explain.

Coal power stations are usually between 30% and 45% depending on the grade of coal used and the way it is used. Black coal typically attains greater thermal efficiencies over brown coal. Super-critical and ultra-supercritical technology are more efficient than subcritical technology and integrated gasification combined cycle is even more efficient on top of that. Efficiency of coal plants is steadily increasing.

Combined Heat and Power are decentralized installations that typically burn things like wood chippings, biogas or natural gas, which utilize the waste heat from the power generation for heating. These can be over 80% efficient depending on steam demand, theoretically they can reach efficiencies of >95%.

Natural Gas Combined Cycle are 50% to 60% efficient and steadily increasing.

Nuclear power stations are 32% to 39% efficient depending on technology.

Renewables typically do not have thermal efficiency ratings so it is irrelevant.

Grid losses are around 6.5%

Electric car itself is around 76% efficiency.
www.efcf.com...

So if you multiply it out, the total efficiency of an electric car varies from between 21% if powered from a 40 year old coal power station to 43% if running on a modern combined cycle natural gas power station, even higher if renewables are implemented (assumed 100% efficiency) or combined heat and power.

Internal Combustion Engines are around 21% efficient and are around 82% efficient for getting the fuel into the tank for total of 17% efficient.

www.fischer-tropsch.org...

courses.washington.edu...

mb-soft.com...

At worst, electric cars are parity with internal combustion engines, at best they're over four times better. Maybe next time I'll compare the fuel cost, the conclusion is similar, like I said before the problem is capital cost and charging, in terms of actual fuel cost there's almost nothing that can beat the electric car. For the most part, it is domestic energy sources that will be being used also and, as dirty as coal is and although PM2.5 particulates are practically impossible to contain, should have far better emission control than internal combustion engined cars because size and weight are no longer a constraint. The pollution should also be mostly where the power station is instead of where people live.

Electric cars are also likely to be charged during off-peak times increasing the proportion (versus peak) of baseload power. Baseload is more efficient than peak load, so it's possible that electric cars could lower peak electricity prices.

reply to post by C0bzz
That is a much better breakdown.

Unfortunately, what you are proposing seems like a large headache for a little payoff. Retrofitting, etc. Not only that, but the strain that would be put on power production. Canada sells 50-70% [if I remember correctly] of its natural gas to the USA.

If electricity demand went up I know that our current system could not handle it. We would probably have to stop giving away so much energy. Our country is also trying to phase out Coal burning plants. In the summer, they sometimes make public announcements for people to shut off their A/C units.

I am assuming a car charging draws at least 10amps+ on a 120v circuit?

Domestic power production is already strained. I think don't think your idea is realistic.

reply to post by boncho


To elaborate:

The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total use, using 100 quadrillion BTUs (105 exajoules, or 29 PWh) in 2005.

100Peta BTU

it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum

40quadrillion BTU's is used in petro. Then 71% of that is used for transportation.

71% Transportation

Roughly 28quadrillion btu used for transport. approx 8PWh

Of course we have to keep in mind how inefficient gas is...




Wiki lists the Gas consumed at 6.50PWh (A little shy of the number I calculated)

Because of the efficiency loss (in gas use, and better efficiency in EV's), we would still need to produce around half of that to meet demand. (based on your calculations of EV)

So you are talking about 3.5 PWh or 11 PBtu to be produced extra from domestic energy production.



Correct me if I am wrong.

Current consumption in PWh


Oil 11.71
Gas 6.50
Coal 6.60
Hydroelectric 0.84
Nuclear 2.41
Geothermal, wind,
solar, wood, waste 0.95

Even if electric is 100% efficient. You are talking about massive demands. Coal, seems the only likely candidate that could meet the demand, and we are still talking about it having to produce 150% of what is does now.

From what it looks like, natural gas would have to increase 500% to meet it.

I don't think it is realistic.


Source of numbers

Originally posted by boncho
Even if electric is 100% efficient. You are talking about massive demands. Coal, seems the only likely candidate that could meet the demand, and we are still talking about it having to produce 150% of what is does now.

I have a couple of comments to add.

Coal is a resource the US has, so from a national security standpoint it's preferable to large dependence on foreign oil.

Also, someone made the point that recharging electric cars could largely occur overnight. This wouldn't necessarily put extra strain on the electric grid, since it, along with the coal fired power plants, are utilized below capacity at night time.

What really drives the requirement for adding grid capacity or a power plant is peak power. If we try to recharge more cars at peak times, that would add to the peak demand problem. But if overnight charging becomes viable with drastic improvements in battery technology, it might not be as much of a problem as you think to generate extra power from coal at night.

Edit to add:
I don't understand the point the OP was trying to make.

reply to post by Jetman44


If everything we still use today is from the mind of Tesla...

why not move on to the more advanced ideas he had?

who needs a battery?

Nikola Tesla's wireless power system could make electric cars the only cars around.

Just look into it, a single power station could power a huge area, like a continent

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Coal is a resource the US has, so from a national security standpoint it's preferable to large dependence on foreign oil.

Right, but everyone seems to ignore geopolitics when discussing these issues. If the US was self sustaining on energy they would be depleting their own reserves....

Why deplete your own when you can deplete others'?

Also, someone made the point that recharging electric cars could largely occur overnight. This wouldn't necessarily put extra strain on the electric grid, since it, along with the coal fired power plants, are utilized below capacity at night time.

I will concede this point. But I would like to add, that it is hard to regulate or govern when people use electricity. Just because the 'idea' is to charge at night, I am sure recharge outlets would be installed at Businesses, Hotels, etc. There may be a lot of people that forget to charge, or charge on the go. Numbers (a lot of them) would have to be crunched to see just how much of an effect it would have.

But if overnight charging becomes viable with drastic improvements in battery technology, it might not be as much of a problem as you think to generate extra power from coal at night.

I agree that batteries, new types and new technologies, will probably be what makes EV's viable.

Edit to add: I don't understand the point the OP was trying to make.

Neither does anyone else.

Originally posted by berilium
Nikola Tesla's wireless power system could make electric cars the only cars around.

Just look into it, a single power station could power a huge area, like a continent

With no effect on cancer rates...

And it would make the cars fly too....

Forget cars... at least until the tech gets better.
Electric Motorcycle is the way to go.
Check this one out!
www.treehugger.com... rcycle-lito-green-motion.php

Pretty nice but they are already killing it with the Price

But this guy has the right idea! DIY!!!
Costs less and the more you learn the easier it will be to re-engineer it for an upgrade!!
www.treehugger.com...

Furthermore, NREL estimates that, through the implementation of energy efficiency programs and increased use of renewables, we have the potential not only to displace that growth in carbon emissions, but to actually reduce our domestic carbon output to below 1,000 million tons by 2030. The figures speak for themselves: we simply cannot afford to ignore the efficiency issue any longer.

Electricity is the lifeblood of our society, powering everything from households to hospitals. Our reliance on the grid becomes clear with each blackout, when our way of life comes to a screeching halt without power. Thus, it is critical that the electric grid remain safe and operational. However, the growing reliance of utilities on internet-based communication has increased the vulnerability of grid control systems.

www.faqs.org...
(emphasis mine)

The article is from industry-interest representatives whose sole job is to push the geo-engineering / carbon-trading agenda by pressing peoples panic buttons and laying claims that the continuance of the present system is the only hope for humanity. It takes a grain of salt for "advertising" such as this (even if the product is pricier than most & out of peoples usual price ranges), and a lot of background research on the green industry and their aims : especially the likes of the British Royal Society, their links to the UN and their member links to the Optimal Population Trust.

The great carbon trading scandal
My long crusade for common sense
Climategate’, ‘Amazongate’ - when will the truth be told?
*An in-depth look at the climate change situation*

If you have not already seen it, This is a Doc "who killed the electric car"
They just want to repeat of whats already been. ?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by boncho
Why deplete your own when you can deplete others'?

Good point.

I would like to add, that it is hard to regulate or govern when people use electricity.

Just because the 'idea' is to charge at night, I am sure recharge outlets would be installed at Businesses, Hotels, etc. Years ago I used to live in NC.

They had a voluntary program where you could sign up for reduced electric rates if you used your energy off-peak. They installed a special meter with a timer on it, and I paid lower rates for electricity used during off peak times. I forget the exact cutoff but it seems like after 7PM the rates went down. So I sometimes waited until after 7pm to use the electric oven, and the electric dryer,etc because the rates were lower. I'm sure if I had an electric car I'd also wait for the lower rates. It's really a win-win for the power company and the consumer because the consumers save money by paying lower electric bills and the power company saves money by not having to build new plants to meet peak demand.

If you hit people and businesses in their wallet and let them regulate their own behavior to reduce expenses, it's a lot easier to influence behavior that way, than to try to regulate or govern behavior.

What I am getting at is, what a better way to upgrade the electric grid. We upgraded the oil refineries in the 70s after the gas "crisis". I bought fuel from Walmart in a 16 oz can that was synthetic, to be used in my chainsaw and I didn't notice any differance. The technology is out there and being used.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

If you hit people and businesses in their wallet and let them regulate their own behavior to reduce expenses, it's a lot easier to influence behavior that way, than to try to regulate or govern behavior.

You also insight criminal activity. In Canada, we have major electrical theft when it comes to illegal hydroponic operations. Also, the government is talking about putting a 100-500 dollar fine against people who are caught with contraband tobacco now. Because the price of cigarettes has gone over 10 dollars a pack, people buy from the Indian reserves for a fraction of the price. There is a major trade in unregulated tobacco now.

People are not easy to control....

ETA: A lot of gas stations force you to pay for your gas before they will turn the pumps on now, since gas has gone up around $5/Gallon here. Too many people were filling their tanks and running off without paying.