EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   Fossil Fuel Free (https://ecomodder.com/forum/fossil-fuel-free.html)
-   -   Electric cars, unclean at any speed (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/electric-cars-unclean-any-speed-26294.html)

ConnClark 07-01-2013 03:04 PM

Electric cars, unclean at any speed
 
This was written by someone who both designed and championed plug in cars before he looked at the facts.

Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum

UFO 07-01-2013 03:34 PM

I do not understand why we cannot find solutions to the issues with manufacturing electric cars instead of making the perfect the enemy of the good, just like every other specious argument used against renewable fuels.

The issue is simple for me. How else are we going to get away from fossil fuels unless we develop electric technologies? What alternatives do we have?

ConnClark 07-01-2013 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378667)
I do not understand why we cannot find solutions to the issues with manufacturing electric cars instead of making the perfect the enemy of the good, just like every other specious argument used against renewable fuels.

The issue is simple for me. How else are we going to get away from fossil fuels unless we develop electric technologies? What alternatives do we have?

Ummmm..... until we get away from generating electricity from fossil fuels developing things that use electricity isn't going to do any good.

UFO 07-01-2013 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378672)
Ummmm..... until we get away from generating electricity from fossil fuels developing things that use electricity isn't going to do any good.

It's a step in the right direction. By converting to the grid, we gain a tremendous efficiency. Turbine generation of electricity on large scales is at least 60% to 70% more efficient than motorized ICEs. And the grid allows us to add in renewable sources as they become available, like wind, hydro and solar.

RustyLugNut 07-01-2013 04:28 PM

I agree completely.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378673)
It's a step in the right direction. By converting to the grid, we gain a tremendous efficiency. Turbine generation of electricity on large scales is at least 60% to 70% more efficient than motorized ICEs. And the grid allows us to add in renewable sources as they become available, like wind, hydro and solar.

Killing ideas because they are imperfect leaves us with few to no alternatives. Electricity is agnostic to it's generation, allowing use to develop and use cleaner and more renewable energy as times goes. Developing the MARKET for these electric vehicles allows alternative electric production to grow and become mainstream.

ConnClark 07-01-2013 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378673)
It's a step in the right direction. By converting to the grid, we gain a tremendous efficiency. Turbine generation of electricity on large scales is at least 60% to 70% more efficient than motorized ICEs. And the grid allows us to add in renewable sources as they become available, like wind, hydro and solar.

As of 2009 hydro only supplied about 6.9% of the US electrical generating capacity (and that percentage is dropping). All other renewables (Wind, Solar, Geothermal, etc..) composed about 3.6% . Nuclear power supplies about 20% of US needs. When you consider there are no more rivers that can be dammed, people oppose nuke, the fact that wind and solar aren't consistent and cost a lot, and by 2027 we will only have a fusion reactor that will run for 1000 seconds at a time, there isn't anyway we are going to ween ourselves from fossil fuel energy production anytime soon .

NachtRitter 07-01-2013 05:07 PM

Not many other transportation alternatives allow you the option of generating the "fuel" you need to "fill the tank" right there where you live. Biofuels (esp biodiesel) are close, but you still have to go out & get the ingredients for each gallon you end up needing to put into the tank. But once you have enough solar panels to generate the power needed to fill your electric car, the feedstock (sun) is delivered to you "for free"

Yes, there's the initial cost of the panels, and there are periods of time that the sun doesn't shine, etc, but I can't think of any other transportation option (except human power!) that can make it as easy as the combo of solar plus electric cars for self-sufficiency.

RedDevil 07-01-2013 05:24 PM

Just like we have to generate electricity, we have to make fuel. Gas has to be refined from crude; it takes a lot of drilling, transportation, management, trade, war, lobbying etc. to make it all happen.
You cannot criticize the pollution from generating electricity (at least in some ways of that) and ignore the pollution generated by making gas.

The Norwegian study the article refers to has fallen under harsh criticism itself, being funded by Statoil (the Follow the money argument backfiring) and making all sorts of false assumptions. The batteries get recycled, not like 70% of them but over 99%. Electric cars are mechanically simple and can do way more than 150.000 km.
They are expensive, that's true. But once the batteries get either twice as cheap, twice as durable or twice as powerful than now there is no holding back the EV's anymore.

t vago 07-01-2013 05:31 PM

It's amazing how people will not look at the forest because they're too drawn into the individual tress.

Sorry, but pound-for-pound, nothing beats the energy density of gasoline or diesel fuel, at the cost of said fuels. Unless and until some way can be found to beat this energy density, electric vehicles are going to continue to be expensive playthings.

Ryland 07-01-2013 06:28 PM

Just the energy it takes to produce a gallon of gasoline can power my electric car over 27 miles, so right there I'm displacing the pollution that is often not counted to produce gasoline, then you look at the pollution produced to burn gasoline! but gasoline refineries have huge natural gas pipe lines and high tension power lines going to them to power the refining, so as we demand less gasoline the electrical load is going to shift from powering oil refineries to recharging cars, most cars recharge at night as well so it's going to even out peek electrical loads, something oil refineries don't do.

The other argument in that link is that EV's use large amounts of rare metals... sure, but so do gasoline cars! gasoline cars use about as much aluminum in the engine block as the Leaf has in aluminum body panels, the copper in the motor for the Leaf is about as much copper as a single run of outlets in your house, but you don't have an issue with having outlets in your house, do you??? There is also a few pounds of copper in the starter and alternator of your gasoline car... why is that copper ok but the copper in an electric motor in an EV is bad!
Rare Earth magnets... the 2014 Leaf uses smaller and lighter rare earth magnets in a better designed motor that uses less electricity as well, so not perfect but better! Computer hard drives have rare earth magnets in them as well but no one is up in arms about those going to the landfill.

I knew right off tho that the author was jaded, he started out talking about $100,000+ cars owned by people who want to push a look, you don't buy a $100,000 car to save anything.

UFO 07-01-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t vago (Post 378692)
It's amazing how people will not look at the forest because they're too drawn into the individual tress.

Sorry, but pound-for-pound, nothing beats the energy density of gasoline or diesel fuel, at the cost of said fuels. Unless and until some way can be found to beat this energy density, electric vehicles are going to continue to be expensive playthings.

We cannot continue to use these fuels regardless of their perceived advantages. At least if we want to continue our lifestyle into the future. That's why I do what I can by using biodiesel as much as possible and keeping an eye on all-electric technology.

Frank Lee 07-01-2013 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378686)
As of 2009 hydro only supplied about 6.9% of the US electrical generating capacity (and that percentage is dropping). All other renewables (Wind, Solar, Geothermal, etc..) composed about 3.6% . Nuclear power supplies about 20% of US needs. When you consider there are no more rivers that can be dammed, people oppose nuke, the fact that wind and solar aren't consistent and cost a lot, and by 2027 we will only have a fusion reactor that will run for 1000 seconds at a time, there isn't anyway we are going to ween ourselves from fossil fuel energy production anytime soon .

People are so fixated on the supply side. Household electricity use has skyrocketed- why not cut that back down to a reasonable level instead of whining about more coal, more nukes, more everything on the supply side?

ConnClark 07-01-2013 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 378701)
People are so fixated on the supply side. Household electricity use has skyrocketed- why not cut that back down to a reasonable level instead of whining about more coal, more nukes, more everything on the supply side?

And adding an electric car to charge in every home is going to reduce demand how?

Frank Lee 07-01-2013 06:51 PM

Who says EVERY home will have an EV charging?

If households cut their non-EV charging electricity use down, that leaves room for plenty of EV charging to do at the current (pun!) level.

The title reminds me of another douche- Nader- singling out a perfectly good automobile for dissing when one of his big hang-ups, the non-collapsible steering column, was common throughout the industry.

t vago 07-01-2013 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378698)
We cannot continue to use these fuels regardless of their perceived advantages. At least if we want to continue our lifestyle into the future. That's why I do what I can by using biodiesel as much as possible and keeping an eye on all-electric technology.

This carries the assumption that nobody will ever figure out how to cheaply reformulate gasoline (or other fuels) from atmospheric CO2, water, and sunlight.

sheepdog 44 07-01-2013 07:27 PM

Put simply, if electric cars are the problem as the author states, would we be better off without them? Just look at the last 100 years of human history without electric cars! Have gas cars, the production of gas cars, and the distribution and refining of gasoline helped the environment one bit? The problems he sees with electric cars is mis-attributed from the infrastructure of everything we make. From energy use to mass production.

I just think he came to a very unimaginative conclusion really. So will riding bikes and walking while still burning gas be the solution to save the environment? It's not exactly the most informed opinion.

ConnClark 07-01-2013 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 378703)
Who says EVERY home will have an EV charging?

If households cut their non-EV charging electricity use down, that leaves room for plenty of EV charging to do at the current (pun!) level.

Average house hold electrical usage a year is 11,280 kWh. That equates to about 31 kW hours a day

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

So driving an electric car for about one hour a day will double a household's energy usage.

How do you propose to increase electrical efficiency in home to cover that?

t vago 07-01-2013 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378709)
Average house hold electrical usage a year is 11,280 kWh. That equates to about 31 kW hours a day

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

So driving an electric car for about one hour a day will double a household's energy usage.

How do you propose to increase electrical efficiency in home to cover that?

But.. but.. but... Renewable energy! And solar panels! And pollution! And... and... and... corporations! And... um... Greenhouse gases! Yah! Greenhouse gases! And...

Like I said... Nobody bothered to look past the trees, to see the forest.

sheepdog 44 07-01-2013 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378709)
Average house hold electrical usage a year is 11,280 kWh. That equates to about 31 kW hours a day

So driving an electric car for about one hour a day will double a household's energy usage.

How do you propose to increase electrical efficiency in home to cover that?

A Leaf uses a 24 kwh pack for about 71miles of range. Thats 24kwh + 31kwh = 59 kw hours of total energy usage. Thats a 90% increase, with driving 71 miles a day which is a ridiculous commute over 2 hours.

A compact gas car with reasonable efficiency gets 35mpg average. A gallon of gas contains 36.6kwh, and the car would use 2 gallons for the 71 miles. Thats a gas use of 73.1 kw + 31 kwh of the house = 104.1 kw hours of energy use, a 335% increase from the energy used to power your home, and a 76% increase in energy use from the combined energy of driving an electric car and powering a house!

Gas and Coal are both finite fossil fuel power sources. Where will the efficiency come from? from not burning twice as much energy in gasoline as can be obtained from the electrical grid. From using half as much fossil fuels from a coal plant, polluting half as much as a gas car.

There are valid arguments against Electric Vehicles that i agree with, even being an advocate for EV's. Price, battery pack lifespan, better use of pure EV batteries in many hybrids with small packs to displace the most gasoline used.

NachtRitter 07-01-2013 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t vago (Post 378704)

I didn't see in the article anything about it being cheap compared to alternatives. Nor did I see anything that said the production volume would be anywhere near what we currently consume. I did see that Steinfeld estimated that 'by 2020 we should be able to witness the first industrial solar fuel plants coming into operation.' I would take that with a grain of salt since scientists have a very poor track record estimating when (or if) something is going to be commercially viable. I'd be more inclined to guess 20 to 30 years before something like this can make a difference, and in the meantime, alternatives will continue to improve as well.

That's not to say it shouldn't be done... we ought to have as many alternatives to non-renewable fuels available as possible. Not everybody has to have an EV; in many cases, for many people, it wouldn't make sense. By the same token, not everyone has to have an ICE, nor does everyone have to have a hybrid. I don't even know why people argue so fiercely about it... there are definitely distinct advantages to EVs but they aren't (yet, and may never be) right for everyone.

Ryland 07-01-2013 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44 (Post 378711)
A Leaf uses a 24 kwh pack for about 71miles of range. Thats 24kwh + 31kwh = 59 kw hours of total energy usage. Thats a 90% increase, with driving 71 miles a day which is a ridiculous commute over 2 hours.

A compact gas car with reasonable efficiency gets 35mpg average. A gallon of gas contains 36.6kwh, and the car would use 2 gallons for the 71 miles. Thats a gas use of 73.1 kw + 31 kwh of the house = 104.1 kw hours of energy use, a 335% increase from the energy used to power your home, and a 76% increase in energy use from the combined energy of driving an electric car and powering a house!

That 35mpg car is also going to use 15kwh of energy just to produce that gasoline! and if someone is driving 71 miles per day then they are driving over 25,900 miles per year, average person drives around 12,500 to 15,000 miles per year so someone is stretching their figures here just to make EV's look bad.

A lot of people who buy EV's seem to also ad solar at some point or cut back their electrical use in other ways, I noticed my electric bill go up by about $10 per month with my EV, then I switched to a gas water heater and my whole utility bill it went down, my parents bought an electric car then installed more solar panels and are selling back the surplus, of course neither of us are rich so we bought some of those lower cost EV's that were not picked on by that writer.

redpoint5 07-01-2013 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378686)
As of 2009 hydro only supplied about 6.9% of the US electrical generating capacity (and that percentage is dropping). All other renewables (Wind, Solar, Geothermal, etc..) composed about 3.6%. Nuclear power supplies about 20% of US needs...there isn't anyway we are going to ween ourselves from fossil fuel energy production anytime soon.

It depends on what your definition of any time soon is. We are currently in the process of weening ourselves from fossil fuel electricity production. Although a relatively small market, Oregon is already mostly on hydro power, and the wind projects in the gorge are huge. The only coal plant in the state will be shut down in 2020, and there is a crisis of too much renewable energy here. Furthermore, federal and state regulations such as those from CA will increasingly mandate larger percentages of renewable electricity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t vago (Post 378692)
Sorry, but pound-for-pound, nothing beats the energy density of gasoline or diesel fuel, at the cost of said fuels. Unless and until some way can be found to beat this energy density, electric vehicles are going to continue to be expensive playthings.

While the energy density cannot currently be beaten, the cost sure can. Here, it's about 1/4th the cost to travel a given distance on electricity than with gasoline. This makes electric vehicles the perfect 2nd car for multiple car families. I was seriously considering replacing my fiance's car with an electric as the commuting/shopping vehicle.

Electrics should soon become the economic choice as fossil fuel prices rise, considering there is much less complication and fabrication that goes into their manufacture. All they consist of is an electric motor, controller, and battery. Very simple when compared to an ICE.

Frank Lee 07-01-2013 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378709)
Average house hold electrical usage a year is 11,280 kWh. That equates to about 31 kW hours a day

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

So driving an electric car for about one hour a day will double a household's energy usage.

How do you propose to increase electrical efficiency in home to cover that?

My household uses 1500 kwh per YEAR. It's on the grid with no alternative sources at all. Yeah I'd say the average household has substantial room for improvement. :rolleyes:

That's 4.1 kwh/day. If I had a Leaf and a commute... well my commute wouldn't be stupid long either, let's say I'd go 35 miles/day for 12 kwh AND that would be five days/week besides, for 16.1 kwh/day during the week and 4.1 kwh for weekend days, averaging 12.67 kwh/day, STILL less than the average Uhmerican slob by 60%! :eek: Let's say I run that poor Leaf down to 0 every day; at 28.1 kwh I STILL have the slobs beat. What was that about seeing trees and forests and stuff?

I run a full-sized fridge, chest freezer, all electric kitchen, old computer tower, mostly incandescent lighting, I even have a well pump to run whenever I want water, etc. too so no I'm not sitting here by candlelight with nothing electric running.

redpoint5 07-02-2013 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378709)
So driving an electric car for about one hour a day will double a household's energy usage.

How do you propose to increase electrical efficiency in home to cover that?

There have been excellent replies to the problem you propose, but I suggest a few more to consider...

As sheepdog points out, the average person doesn't drive anywhere near enough to consume an additional 31 kWh per day. Additionally, electric cars won't replace 100% of the passenger vehicles on the road any time soon. If we're being honest, we clearly aren't talking about doubling the demand of electricity due to EV use. But we are talking about increasing electricity demand by some amount.

One way the increased demand for electricity can be met at minimal monetary and environmental cost is to time EVs to recharge at off-peak periods of the day. Electricity pricing should be structured to give incentive for consuming at off-peak hours. Running electrical production facilities at more consistent output increases efficiency and reduces the need for additional production capacity to be built. (As an aside, the kWh meter at my parent's house was changed to digital and I believe it self-reports now. Strangely, there is no distinction between peak and off-peak pricing.)

Another thing to offset the burden to the electricity infrastructure is to offer consumers an incentive to use their grid connected vehicles as an auxiliary source of power during peak times of electricity demand.

At last, the most likely way that the problem of increased electricity demand will be met is to gradually increase production capacity. Our vehicle fleet isn't going to convert to EV overnight, so the expansion of production capacity will take place over time, keeping relative pace with demand.

user removed 07-02-2013 09:07 AM

The future will be decided by our ability to harvest energy from solar, either directly or indirectly. We also must find a way to store that energy for load levelling and peak demand.

Direct solar heating is definitely on the verge of economical practicality.

Evaporation, which is another form of solar, has been used for power for centuries and it should be further developed, especially since reservoirs can store electrical power for load levelling.

Ocean currents are another source of energy, as well as geothermal.

All of these sources are basically carbon free, and as petroleum becomes more scarce and costly, these "alternatives" will become economically feasible.

While battery technology is the chokepoint for electric cars right now, eventually that technology will become practical and economically viable.

All of these different technologies will, without exception, be enhanced by capacitive energy capture and reapplication, almost without exception, which is why my focus has been on that part of the total systematic application of carbon free energy sources.

It may be at some time in the future we actually go in the opposite direction and atmospheric carbon levels drop, expecially if we can economically create liquid fuels using atmospheric carbon.

The demise of the petroleum power vehicle will be a gradual process that takes many decades to complete, but it will happen but probably not in most of our lifetimes.

To force the issue with draconian regulations that destroy economic prosperity will only prolong the evolution of transportation. Ignorance and Agendas are both mutually dangerous.

regards
Mech

UFO 07-02-2013 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t vago (Post 378704)

Not that I am against it, but it seems less advanced than other leading technologies, and ICEs still have serious efficiency issues compared to electric. Fuel cells are a potential replacement for the ICE and could make use of liquid fuel more efficiently.

UFO 07-02-2013 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t vago (Post 378710)
But.. but.. but... Renewable energy! And solar panels! And pollution! And... and... and... corporations! And... um... Greenhouse gases! Yah! Greenhouse gases! And...

Like I said... Nobody bothered to look past the trees, to see the forest.

That seems ironic considering petroleum use is the core issue. From my perspective you are losing the forest for the trees.

jamesqf 07-02-2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 378703)
The title reminds me of another douche- Nader.

Yes. And notice how he plays into the envy thing, by leading off with a story about some idiot pop star driving a $100K EV? Now tell me why it would not be a problem for the same pop star to drive say a Ferrari, MSRP from $192-295K?

ETA: In fact, that person apparently DOES own a Ferrari, too.

gone-ot 07-02-2013 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378794)
That seems ironic considering petroleum use is the core issue. From my perspective you are losing the forest for the trees.

Now, if *only* we could cheaply change all those forest trees into oil...we'd have ALL the gasoline & diesel fuel we'd ever want.





...of course, there wouldn't be enough oxygen left in the atmosphere to allow the combustion of all that gasoline & diesel fuel (wink,wink).

ConnClark 07-02-2013 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44 (Post 378711)
A Leaf uses a 24 kwh pack for about 71miles of range. Thats 24kwh + 31kwh = 59 kw hours of total energy usage. Thats a 90% increase, with driving 71 miles a day which is a ridiculous commute over 2 hours.

A compact gas car with reasonable efficiency gets 35mpg average. A gallon of gas contains 36.6kwh, and the car would use 2 gallons for the 71 miles. Thats a gas use of 73.1 kw + 31 kwh of the house = 104.1 kw hours of energy use, a 335% increase from the energy used to power your home, and a 76% increase in energy use from the combined energy of driving an electric car and powering a house!

Gas and Coal are both finite fossil fuel power sources. Where will the efficiency come from? from not burning twice as much energy in gasoline as can be obtained from the electrical grid. From using half as much fossil fuels from a coal plant, polluting half as much as a gas car.

There are valid arguments against Electric Vehicles that i agree with, even being an advocate for EV's. Price, battery pack lifespan, better use of pure EV batteries in many hybrids with small packs to displace the most gasoline used.

You're making the assumption that energy conversion is 100% efficient for electrical production. In reality its only about 33% on average. If you want to take from that the Grid losses of about 5% and consider batteries are only 85 to 90% efficient with charging and about 90 to 95% efficient discharging. All said and done it puts you right back at the same efficiency of a standard car (Note there are other losses that could be considered too).

RustyLugNut 07-02-2013 12:30 PM

The science behind the idea is sound.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by t vago (Post 378704)

The economics behind the idea is not. Carbon dioxide content in the air is very small. Condensing it is energy intensive. This idea would have to be coupled with a large carbon source - such as a coal fired power plant. Yes, bio derived sources could also be used, but then you run into those limitations.

It all comes down to options. As in the video someone posted about the actor Ed Bagley Jr., the actor gives a good answer - multiple renewable sources will be needed, not just a single silver bullet.

UFO 07-02-2013 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378806)
You're making the assumption that energy conversion is 100% efficient for electrical production. In reality its only about 33% on average. If you want to take from that the Grid losses of about 5% and consider batteries are only 85 to 90% efficient with charging and about 90 to 95% efficient discharging. All said and done it puts you right back at the same efficiency of a standard car (Note there are other losses that could be considered too).

The numbers you have presented for electric efficiency do not boil down to 33%, which (probably not coincidentally) is the approximate efficiency of a typical gasser, except for all the inefficiencies of producing the fuel (not insignificant.)

ConnClark 07-02-2013 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378816)
The numbers you have presented for electric efficiency do not boil down to 33%, which (probably not coincidentally) is the approximate efficiency of a typical gasser, except for all the inefficiencies of producing the fuel (not insignificant.)

The efficiency of 33% is the efficiency of a typical Rankine cycle power plant (where most electricity is generated in the US).

t vago 07-02-2013 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378792)
Not that I am against it, but it seems less advanced than other leading technologies, and ICEs still have serious efficiency issues compared to electric.

In other words, let's abandon altogether something that's primitive, because ICEs are bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378792)
Fuel cells are a potential replacement for the ICE and could make use of liquid fuel more efficiently.

Fuel cells have been a potential replacement for the ICE for close to 30 years now. They're about as much worth in my book as all these other exotic replacements for the ICE that are "still in development, but will be ready Any Day Now."

UFO 07-02-2013 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 378817)
The efficiency of 33% is the efficiency of a typical Rankine cycle power plant (where most electricity is generated in the US).

Fair enough. It was my mistake thinking they were more efficient than that. Sad that energy conversion efficiency of fossil fuels is so low, and really makes the case stronger for renewables.

t vago 07-02-2013 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 378794)
That seems ironic considering petroleum use is the core issue. From my perspective you are losing the forest for the trees.

The irony is lost, that people here are vehemently defending electric vehicles and denying that they have a larger carbon footprint than the ICE vehicles they are to replace.

Somebody here mentioned aluminum and copper as "rare earth metals", for instance (I'll quote, this time, so that the quotation doesn't mysteriously disappear)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryland (Post 378697)
The other argument in that link is that EV's use large amounts of rare metals... sure, but so do gasoline cars! gasoline cars use about as much aluminum in the engine block as the Leaf has in aluminum body panels, the copper in the motor for the Leaf is about as much copper as a single run of outlets in your house, but you don't have an issue with having outlets in your house, do you??? There is also a few pounds of copper in the starter and alternator of your gasoline car... why is that copper ok but the copper in an electric motor in an EV is bad!

The problem isn't with easily recyclable copper or aluminum. The problem is with that nasty lithium in EV batteries. It takes a lot of energy to extract lithium from the ground, for instance, because lithium does not occur naturally in elemental form. The lithium must be handled carefully, because it's kind of reactive. Car batteries made with lithium must be made explosion-proof, which both makes the battery more complex and reduces their maximum energy density (which, incidentally, raises the price even more). Oh, yah... nobody's recycling lithium batteries because it's too expensive to reprocess the battery! However, let's pat each other on the back instead, for figuring out clever insults about "Uhmuricans!"

And what about motors? The EV motor approaches 90% efficiency, true. But that has to rely on a power plant which will typically get about 35% efficiency from burning petroleum. Oh, and let's count the distribution grid, which will zap out another 5%. Charging? Say buh-bye to another 10%. All of a sudden, EVs aren't that much more efficient than ICEs.

UFO 07-02-2013 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t vago (Post 378823)
The irony is lost, that people here are vehemently defending electric vehicles and denying that they have a larger carbon footprint than the ICE vehicles they are to replace.

Somebody here mentioned aluminum and copper as "rare earth metals", for instance (I'll quote, this time, so that the quotation doesn't mysteriously disappear)



The problem isn't with easily recyclable copper or aluminum. The problem is with that nasty lithium in EV batteries. It takes a lot of energy to extract lithium from the ground, for instance, because lithium does not occur naturally in elemental form. The lithium must be handled carefully, because it's kind of reactive. Car batteries made with lithium must be made explosion-proof, which both makes the battery more complex and reduces their maximum energy density (which, incidentally, raises the price even more). Oh, yah... nobody's recycling lithium batteries because it's too expensive to reprocess the battery! However, let's pat each other on the back instead, for figuring out clever insults about "Uhmuricans!"

And what about motors? The EV motor approaches 90% efficiency, true. But that has to rely on a power plant which will typically get about 35% efficiency from burning petroleum. Oh, and let's count the distribution grid, which will zap out another 5%. Charging? Say buh-bye to another 10%. All of a sudden, EVs aren't that much more efficient than ICEs.

You are still conveniently forgetting how conducive electric vehicles are to renewable sources of electricity. At that point the efficiency advantage is quite obvious.

niky 07-02-2013 02:29 PM

Renewable sources will depend on where, who, what and how much. Hydro IS limited, due to ecological, economic and etceteric concerns, and what we have already tapped is probably what we will still be tapping thirty years from now (as long as the reservoirs haven't silted up). Solar is getting cheaper, but supply and the ability to create large scale solar is not there, not quite yet. And Solar panels don't last forever. About 30-35 years at decent efficiency. Wind has myriad problems. Wave power we've been fiddling with for decades, but it is proving nearly as troublesome as wind. Geothermal... ooh. I like geothermal. But it's limited in scope.

Not that we should stop pursuing these, but EROEI and plain $RO$I for these different types of plants should also be considered. So far, hydroelectric is the best, but it is difficult to implement in the face of the need to create more great reservoirs to power it.

I like electric. I hope we can approach a point where most of our inner-city transport is electric. (levelling out the pollution, yeah). But tomorrow's fleet will have to be an eclectic mix to service our civilization. And, in the end, as the article stated, the more important matter may be changing that civilization in order to minimize the need for personal mechanical transportation, in the first place. Something which I wholeheartedly agree with.

RedDevil 07-02-2013 02:47 PM

I like electric too. The electric engine is at least 3 times as efficient as the ICE, while gas production is less than 3 times as efficient as electricity production; way less in fact. It is that simple. Going full cycle it is better even if you power the electricity plants with crude oil.
Production capacity and storage are the real problems, and there is where the ICE wins hands down.

If only we could combine the two, maybe make the car generate electricity under braking or when the load is too light on the ICE to run efficiently; and store that in a relatively small battery, to aid acceleration or be able to drive slow on just electricity.
It would use less gas than an ICE on its own and not use the grid at all.
I must be dreaming...

redpoint5 07-02-2013 02:52 PM

If electricity is more inefficient than gasoline, why is it several times cheaper per mile?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com