Electric cars are a JOKE!!!

[longknife]

I've seen and read about hybrid cars but never really tried to figure out how they worked. So, I did a Google search and came up with this from one of my favorite reference sites - How Things Work @ HowStuffWorks "How does a hybrid car work?"

Now that I've read that, I'm still not convinced they are viable right now and still need a few more years of research before they are. I am still also convinced that converting gasoline engines to natural gas is the way to reduce pollutants and improve vehicle performance - that from first-hand experience.

 

[bripat9643]

Ten years ago, a 60" tv screen was not ready for prime time. Only few wealthy people could afford them. Now you can buy them in your local supermarket. Or an 80+ in. one at Costco.

Batteries are materials science. That is the most up and coming field in science, and game changing technologies seem to occur almost overnight. Reduce the cost of the batteries by an order of magnitude, and the EV will take over the automotive field.

Developers of 60 inch TV screens didn't have to overcome the laws of thermodynamics. Electric car developers do.

They not only have to reduce the cost of batteries, they have to multiply the amount of power that can be stored by a factor of 100. They also have to vastly increase the speed at which they can be charged.

 

[gslack]

Ten years ago, a 60" tv screen was not ready for prime time. Only few wealthy people could afford them. Now you can buy them in your local supermarket. Or an 80+ in. one at Costco.

Batteries are materials science. That is the most up and coming field in science, and game changing technologies seem to occur almost overnight. Reduce the cost of the batteries by an order of magnitude, and the EV will take over the automotive field.

You don't drive your big screen tv around... The tv stays put, is plugged into a full time energy source. It doesn't have to carry it's energy with it, nor does it require we stop and recharge it.

Your comparison is a pointless one..

 

[mamooth]

Developers of 60 inch TV screens didn't have to overcome the laws of thermodynamics. Electric car developers do.

Do tell. Please explain to us specifically which laws of thermodynamics are violated by an electric car, and in exactly what manner.

I mean, electric cars are on the road. Were they given a special waiver to violate the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Ernie S.]

And the first time someone passed one of them newfangled horseless carriages as it was broke down beside the road, I bet they also had a good laugh.

This is the reason the OP is a short sighted, stuck in the past, twit.

The first cars were a joke, the first aircraft were a joke, the first everything is less than perfect and that goes for electric cars as well.
However, technology moves quickly and they'll be a normal part of life within a very short time.

I recall seeing a British TV technology program that described how to connect one of those new fangled mobile phones to a computer in order to send data.

It'll never catch on.

Yes the first cars and airplanes were inadequate, but private sector companies improved on technology to the point where government became customers. Ransome Olds and Henry Ford spent their OWN MONEY to make their products viable.
Glen Curtiss and the Wright Brothers formed early aircraft companies. Though one of the Wrights' first orders was to build a plane for the US Signal Corps, they built their factory and the plane with private investments far larger than the price tag on that first plane.

 

[Ernie S.]

This is the reason the OP is a short sighted, stuck in the past, twit.

The first cars were a joke, the first aircraft were a joke, the first everything is less than perfect and that goes for electric cars as well.
However, technology moves quickly and they'll be a normal part of life within a very short time.

I recall seeing a British TV technology program that described how to connect one of those new fangled mobile phones to a computer in order to send data.

It'll never catch on.

The difference is that those inventions of the past were funded by the inventors, not the government and not by tax dollars.

Are you truly that stupid? You are telling me that the development of airplanes was not funded by government? After Kittyhawk, the Wright Brothers, as well as others recieved and competed for government money to fund development. By WW1, our government, as well as many others around the world were putting major money into the development of airplanes.

There are many things in our lives that were funded by government money in some or many stages of development, including the means with which we are communicating. Your idiotic insistance that nothing good can come of government investment is just another really stupid wingnut mantra totally at odds with reality.

Sorry Old Rocks in the hHead. The government bought planes to their specifications, but other than paying an agreed upon price on delivery, they did not fund airplane development any more than you fund R&D at Levi Strauss when you buy pants in your size.

 

[kiwiman127]

Isn't it amazing how much technology has advanced in the last 1-15 years. Many of the devices we use daily didn't even exist.
The first gas combustion engine was invented over 125 years ago and we are still stuck on that century old technology. No one can tell me that the technology isn't out there to replace the gas combustion engine with something cleaner and much more efficient.

 

[petro]

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.
While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

There is no such thing as clean energy. Every form has some type of environmental cost associated with it.

Full article at
online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873241285045783469

 

[skookerasbil]

Isn't it amazing how much technology has advanced in the last 1-15 years. Many of the devices we use daily didn't even exist.
The first gas combustion engine was invented over 125 years ago and we are still stuck on that century old technology. No one can tell me that the technology isn't out there to replace the gas combustion engine with something cleaner and much more efficient.

s0n.....what bubble do you live in?

Nobody in America wants those gay little 2 door SPECKS!! Google any poll anywhere s0n. Time to exit the bubble.

A huge majority of Americans like BIG cars and BIG trucks and dont concur with the hopelessly duped who think everybody should be driving a SMARTCAR!!


Anyway....the whole CO2 thing is a farce.

 

[Ernie S.]

Isn't it amazing how much technology has advanced in the last 1-15 years. Many of the devices we use daily didn't even exist.
The first gas combustion engine was invented over 125 years ago and we are still stuck on that century old technology. No one can tell me that the technology isn't out there to replace the gas combustion engine with something cleaner and much more efficient.

There are dozens of technologies that are cleaner, some more efficient, but none as convenient.
Take a Tesla, for example You can drive it about 250 miles for $7.50 It has zero emissions until you consider that the electricity you use to charge it comes from burning coal for the most part.
Where the problem lies is in the convenience. If you run out of gas on the highway, you can call AAA and they'll bring you 5 gallons and you're on your way. They cannot bring you a fully charged battery pack. What they will do is bring a flat bed and tow you to their station and plug you in for a couple hundred bucks.
It does cost 4 or 5 times as much to refuel your car after 250 miles, but it takes 5 minutes and you're on your way.
I do a lot of long distance driving pulling a 7,700 pound travel trailer. Lets say I'm driving to Miami for a week I can make it in about 10 hours and I have to make 3 gas stops.
Suppose I made the same trip in a Tesla. Forget that the electric car couldn't tow 7,700 pounds, but if it could, it's range between charges would be significantly less than my range with a 25 gallon tank. I would need to recharge 3 times from fully discharged to fully charged. Best case scenario, if I found a service station with a proprietary Tesla 90 amp charging station would be 4 hours, according to data from Tesla. Worst case would be if I plugged into a 15 amp 120VAC outlet. It would then take 48 hours to fully charge the batteries. so my 10 hour trip is now a minimum of 22 hours, but could take 6 and one half DAYS.

I've heard that the Tesla isn't intended for long trips and that for long distance, you should use a different vehicle.

Why do I need 2 vehicles? for $125,000 when I can deal with one vehicle that fill all of my needs for $25,000? How many miles do I need to put on my Tesla before I can justify paying $101,000
Let's see. All other things equal, it costs me $0.25/mile in gasoline to drive my F 150 and $0.04/mile in electricity to charge my Tesla.

Wait for it........


I would have to drive the Tesla 481,000 miles before I realized a savings. At 12 to 15,000 miles per year, that's 32 years. I'm 63, for Christ sake!

Oh I forgot to factor in the 8 year life of the battery at a minimum of 10 grand per, thats 3 replacement batteries or another 10 years... Ooops another dead battery 3 more years. That's 45 friggin years?

 

[gslack]

Worse still, it won't actually go 250 miles on a full charge. Most of them time you're lucky to get 60 miles even if you baby it. And THAT depends on if it overheats or not like it has on tests so far...

 

[polarbear]

Isn't it amazing how much technology has advanced in the last 1-15 years. Many of the devices we use daily didn't even exist.
The first gas combustion engine was invented over 125 years ago and we are still stuck on that century old technology. No one can tell me that the technology isn't out there to replace the gas combustion engine with something cleaner and much more efficient.

The internal combustion engines we have today have little in common with those we had 125 years ago except pistons and a crankshaft. Even these are a far cry from what they have been then.
Electric motors are even older than internal combustion engines and that includes the PM (permanent magnet) motors.
The only thing that changed is battery technology.
You did not exactly argue that once there were people who laughed at the first cars that burned gas but others here have done so.
It`s a ridiculous argument.
Progress in engineering has nothing to do with government policy, as the electric car anti CO2 plant food enviro-nazis claim.
The best engineers go to companies that offer the best opportunities.
That`s the case in Germany and the "Spiegel" has published the latest findings:

19.04.2013
Beliebteste Arbeitgeber Alle wollen für Audi arbeiten

According to the "top graduate barometer" Audi is at the top of the list.
2.nd is BMW
#3 is Wolfsburg (Porsche and VW)
#4 is Amazon.com up from #15
Siemens who used to own a spot in the top 5 while it focused on ICE trains and wind turbines is now way down the list at #10:

Germany`s biggest offshore wind turbine engineering company Zueblin like Siemens or all the rest of the "green energy" companies can`t attract top engineers or top graduates either
They are barely made the top 100 list.

Züblin: Neu unter den Top 100 ist der Baukonzern Züblin. Zwar werden hier keine Autos konstruiert, aber unter anderem Offshore-Windparks und ähnlich zukunftsträchtige Bauprojekte.

Top engineering graduates and the best in the field don`t care about job security as much as performance based salaries.

Only the duds go for companies that are funded by green government taxe$, because these don`t care what kind of nonsense concept their "scientists" are cooking up.
The least gifted stay at their Universities and continue to conduct their government funded research there, because the only thing they have to do is publish papers and produce "thought experiments" like Roy Spencer or M.Mann do for the IPCC and "skepticalscience.com" cartoons