Electric cars

[skookerasbil]

EV's are a joke.

I used to have an emic thread on this for a number of years...........got bored of it since the sale #'s of electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles was laughable. Still is of course...........

They will sell about 150,000 EV's this past year MAX............total all companies!!!

Ford will sell 733,000 F-Series pickup trucks ALONE in 2016!!

Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com


Spend 5 seconds and do some math..........don't spit on your monitor laughing!

 

[flacaltenn]

You are right, but technology is moving so fast...Although I disagree with the OP I have never seen a charge station run on gas..

I am not a Hi tech guy, but I see these solar panels all over, like google ... Little tiny cars on the freeway ( I would never drive one)


The Future of Solar And Electrical Vehicles


Students design a solar-powered car that can travel more than 600 miles fully charged

Despite the limitations of batteries, the tremendous efforts devoted to research have resulted in technological breakthroughs in the development of batteries and EV prototypes. The energy density of the batteries has been extended up to 200 Wh/kg in lithium-polymer and zinc bromine batteries, a level far greater than the typical value of 40 to 50 Wh/kg for lead-acid batteries, but still far below the energy density of gasoline (Oman and Gross). The typical limited driving range of 100 miles between recharging has been surpassed by the BMWE2, which traveled 267 miles on a sodium-sulfur battery, (O'Brien, 41) and German postal trucks, which have a maximum range of 186 miles and can obtain a top speed of 66 mph (Oman and Gross, 29). There have also been improvements in recharging times and lifetime of batteries. "Quick-charging" batteries can be recharged on the order of five to fifteen minutes, depending on the level that they have been drained, though these batteries are still highly experimental (ABCs, 36)

None of the "hopey" stuff you posted is really impressive. Samsung pushed "energy density" in battery packs to it's logical flame out. It's not the weight or size of the batteries that is the problem, it's the cost and LIFETIME.

Have you SEEN the car that those students designed? I did.. It's a bike frame with a fiber shell. NOT a car. Good for students. Kudos. BAD for an honest appraisal of how fast this technology is gonna grow anymore. It's pretty much matured. Otherwise some MAJOR auto factory would be PROJECTING higher ranges.

Better chance of saving gasoline is NOT to use the grid at all to replace it. Hydrogen fuel cell cars DO have a lot of room left for improvements. And several majors are prioritizing them HIGHER than battery cars. And you can make Hydrogen for virtually NOTHING off grid with wind and solar and store it. It's a better SYSTEM design..

Like I said, I am not a hi tech guy.. and from what I have been reading you are correct..

We are in the pioneer stage though , exciting too.

But...will you agree that they do not use gas like the OP suggests?

That's the point. We are NOT in a "pioneer stage". Not with PV solar panels and not with EVehicles. It's a fairly MATURE technology. Where there might be some "specialty" products that are not as cost or safety sensitive.

Solar panel tech. ITSELF has hit a plateau. It's the Manufacturing engineering and market scale that is driving costs down. That student car is largely a PR stunt. The "panels" on the vehicle aren't doing much. Especially not the way they slope back on the car. Only 1/2 of them are ever in the "prime angle" to capture sun during the day depending on which direction the car is driving. And they would almost DOUBLE the production cost of the vehicle, make it IMPOSSIBLE to Insure for collision, and probably BLIND other drivers in traffic with reflections off of the roof.

What about windmills?

What about them? They would be a GREAT way to make hydrogen OFF the grid. It's fairly useless ON the grid, because it can't be scheduled or contracted for. And it needs 100% backbone reliable fossil, nuclear, hydro capacity when it's not blowing.

The technology itself ain't gonna be taking any quantum leaps. They just keep getting BIGGER and more expensive. Because the maintenance costs are too high to have 10 smaller ones.

One thing to keep in mind is that OIL has nothing to do with competing with wind and solar. There is hardly ANY oil powered electrical generation in this country. Oil is a transportation sector issue. We have been "energy independent" in our electrical generation for a century. .

 

[flacaltenn]

Tesla, America's finest coal powered car.

Since coal accounts for only 33% of the present grid, and that percentage is rapidly declining, that really qualifies as a lie.

Oh for christsake, are you really that humorless?

The vast majority of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, the same source that powers electric cars.

When you combine that with the toxins in all those batteries, which will someday be in landfills, electric cars are not the green machines they're made out to be. That's the point I was making.

Try to lighten up Francis.

There they will join the hundreds of millions of lead acid batteries in the land fills, right? No, of course not, the lithium batteries will be recycled just as the lead acid batteries are. Amazing, here we have a new technology in which America is way ahead of everybody, and the car is almost 100% made in America, yet you 'Conservatives' are shitting all over yourselves to say bad things about it.

I'm not saying bad things about electric cars. I love the technology from a performance aspect. Full electric cars are however, not as green as many suggest. That's my only point.

Guess you really are the humorless???

Hybrids are GREAT !!! We should leave it at that..

 

[Wuwei]

I found this chart of Energy Return on Energy Investment a great way to understand the real costs of different technologies without using a monetary system. It also shows the amount of usage in terms of exajoules. It's latest update is 2013.

Energy Analysis - Wikid Energy Funhouse - UIowa Wiki

EROEI is the ratio of the amount of energy used to extract, process, transport, and all other energy inputs nececcary to utilize the energy source to the amount of energy gained in its usage. Energy sources with an EROEI greater than 1:1 are what powers our society today. An EROEI of less than 1:1 indicates not an energy source but an energy sink. EROEI is a measure of the feasibility, and to some extent the profitability, of an energy source.

The bubble plot below shows the diminishing EROEI of petroleum over time. Upon the proliferation of petroleum as a major energy source in the early 1900's, the energy return on domestic oil was extremely high; on the order of 100:1. By 1970, this ratio had reduced to around 30:1, due to the increasing difficulty of extracting the oil (see Peak Oil). Today, domestic oil returns less than a 15:1 ratio on average as domestic oil production slides down the back side of Hubbert's Peak. Similarly, the energy return ratio on petroleum has fallen significantly worldwide since 1970.​

Figure 1: Bubble plot representing quality (y-axis) and quantity (x-axis) of the United States energy economy for various sources at various times. Arrows connect fuels from various times (i.e. domestic oil in 1930, 1970, 2005), and the size of the "balloon" represents part of the uncertainty associated with EROI estimates.

​

 

[Old Rocks]

Does that pic in the op look like its in the woods? And what powers your charger?


I will wait for you to post a link for that specific charger.


.

Here I posted a link in my original post..

car charging centers - Google Search

They are advancing everyday, some cars can be charged with solar power..

Solar Powered Cars - Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

I asked for specific...


You gave me propaganda..


Again...


The U. S. Uses 91% fossil fuel, 9% green energy most of it hydro and bio fuel.


.

Well now, someone else that likes stinky facts, pulled straight from their ass.

Coal 33%
Natural gas 33%
Nuclear 20%
Hydropower 6%
Renewables 7%
Petroleum 1%
Other gases <1%

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

What a fibber

Renewable energy to hit 9 percent of U.S. total in 2017
by Stephen Edelstein, Contributing Writer
11/10/2016

Share This:

U.S. renewable-energy generating capacity is not only growing, but it is beginning to erode coal's share of the electricity-generating mix, according to new data from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

The agency predicts renewable energy—particularly solar power—to continue growing.

At the same time, a combination of renewable energy and natural gas are expected to further decrease the amount of coal used to generate electricity.

DON'T MISS: Renewable energy growth accelerating, says International Energy Agency

In 2017, renewable energy should account for 9 percent of U.S. electricity-generation capacity, according to the DOE's most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook.

That's up from 8 percent this year, the agency says.

Solar power is expected to account for most of the anticipated growth.

Renewable Energy - IER



According to the Energy Information Administration, “renewable energy refers to resources that are replenished in a relatively short period of time.” Renewable energy sources include hydropower, wood biomass (used to generate heat and electricity), alternative biomass fuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel), waste, geothermal, wind, and solar.



The use of renewable fuels dates to Neolithic times, when cave dwellers made fire from wood and other biomass for cooking and heating. For thousands of years thereafter, renewable energy was all humans used. The small amounts of energy accessible to humans through traditional dispersed renewable energy sources meant that for millennia, human lives remained unchanged. Today, many are seeking to use technology made possible by modern, concentrated energy forms to capture and harness dispersed renewable energy potential into concentrated forms. Renewable energy relies upon the natural forces at work upon the earth, including the internal heat represented by geothermal, the pull of lunar gravity as it affects the potential for tidal power, and solar radiation such as that stored through photosynthesis in biomass.

Renewable Energy in the US

About 9.9 percent of all energy consumed in the United States in 2015 was from renewable sources, and they account for about 13.4 percent of the nation’s total electricity production[ii].





While a relatively small fraction of our overall energy supply in 2012 (the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration), the United States was the world’s largest consumer of renewable energy from geothermal, solar, wood, wind, and waste for electric power generation producing 22% of the world’s total. In 2015, the distribution of U.S. renewable consumption by source was [iii]:

• 
  
  
  • Hydropower 25%
  • Biomass Wood 21%
  • Biomass Waste 5%
  • Biomass Biofuels 22%
  • Wind 19%
  • Geothermal 2%
  • Solar 5%

Other sources include nuclear and hydropower. Perhaps you did not notice? And only 33% is coal, and that is rapidly declining, and will continue to decline because of economics.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are right, but technology is moving so fast...Although I disagree with the OP I have never seen a charge station run on gas..

I am not a Hi tech guy, but I see these solar panels all over, like google ... Little tiny cars on the freeway ( I would never drive one)


The Future of Solar And Electrical Vehicles


Students design a solar-powered car that can travel more than 600 miles fully charged

Despite the limitations of batteries, the tremendous efforts devoted to research have resulted in technological breakthroughs in the development of batteries and EV prototypes. The energy density of the batteries has been extended up to 200 Wh/kg in lithium-polymer and zinc bromine batteries, a level far greater than the typical value of 40 to 50 Wh/kg for lead-acid batteries, but still far below the energy density of gasoline (Oman and Gross). The typical limited driving range of 100 miles between recharging has been surpassed by the BMWE2, which traveled 267 miles on a sodium-sulfur battery, (O'Brien, 41) and German postal trucks, which have a maximum range of 186 miles and can obtain a top speed of 66 mph (Oman and Gross, 29). There have also been improvements in recharging times and lifetime of batteries. "Quick-charging" batteries can be recharged on the order of five to fifteen minutes, depending on the level that they have been drained, though these batteries are still highly experimental (ABCs, 36)

None of the "hopey" stuff you posted is really impressive. Samsung pushed "energy density" in battery packs to it's logical flame out. It's not the weight or size of the batteries that is the problem, it's the cost and LIFETIME.

Have you SEEN the car that those students designed? I did.. It's a bike frame with a fiber shell. NOT a car. Good for students. Kudos. BAD for an honest appraisal of how fast this technology is gonna grow anymore. It's pretty much matured. Otherwise some MAJOR auto factory would be PROJECTING higher ranges.

Better chance of saving gasoline is NOT to use the grid at all to replace it. Hydrogen fuel cell cars DO have a lot of room left for improvements. And several majors are prioritizing them HIGHER than battery cars. And you can make Hydrogen for virtually NOTHING off grid with wind and solar and store it. It's a better SYSTEM design..

Like I said, I am not a hi tech guy.. and from what I have been reading you are correct..

We are in the pioneer stage though , exciting too.

But...will you agree that they do not use gas like the OP suggests?

That's the point. We are NOT in a "pioneer stage". Not with PV solar panels and not with EVehicles. It's a fairly MATURE technology. Where there might be some "specialty" products that are not as cost or safety sensitive.

Solar panel tech. ITSELF has hit a plateau. It's the Manufacturing engineering and market scale that is driving costs down. That student car is largely a PR stunt. The "panels" on the vehicle aren't doing much. Especially not the way they slope back on the car. Only 1/2 of them are ever in the "prime angle" to capture sun during the day depending on which direction the car is driving. And they would almost DOUBLE the production cost of the vehicle, make it IMPOSSIBLE to Insure for collision, and probably BLIND other drivers in traffic with reflections off of the roof.

What about windmills?

What about them? They would be a GREAT way to make hydrogen OFF the grid. It's fairly useless ON the grid, because it can't be scheduled or contracted for. And it needs 100% backbone reliable fossil, nuclear, hydro capacity when it's not blowing.

The technology itself ain't gonna be taking any quantum leaps. They just keep getting BIGGER and more expensive. Because the maintenance costs are too high to have 10 smaller ones.

One thing to keep in mind is that OIL has nothing to do with competing with wind and solar. There is hardly ANY oil powered electrical generation in this country. Oil is a transportation sector issue. We have been "energy independent" in our electrical generation for a century. .

Now Mr. Flacaltenn, that is bullshit, and you know it. Present, existing technology is being installed as we post that makes wind and solar 24/7. And since those grid scale batteries can be installed both that the production and use end, they make the grid far more robust. At one time, I thought that hydrogen was the way to go, but the battery technology, and the price of wind and solar, has pretty well driven it out of the market.

 

[Old Rocks]

I found this chart of Energy Return on Energy Investment a great way to understand the real costs of different technologies without using a monetary system. It also shows the amount of usage in terms of exajoules. It's latest update is 2013.

Energy Analysis - Wikid Energy Funhouse - UIowa Wiki

EROEI is the ratio of the amount of energy used to extract, process, transport, and all other energy inputs nececcary to utilize the energy source to the amount of energy gained in its usage. Energy sources with an EROEI greater than 1:1 are what powers our society today. An EROEI of less than 1:1 indicates not an energy source but an energy sink. EROEI is a measure of the feasibility, and to some extent the profitability, of an energy source.

The bubble plot below shows the diminishing EROEI of petroleum over time. Upon the proliferation of petroleum as a major energy source in the early 1900's, the energy return on domestic oil was extremely high; on the order of 100:1. By 1970, this ratio had reduced to around 30:1, due to the increasing difficulty of extracting the oil (see Peak Oil). Today, domestic oil returns less than a 15:1 ratio on average as domestic oil production slides down the back side of Hubbert's Peak. Similarly, the energy return ratio on petroleum has fallen significantly worldwide since 1970.​

Figure 1: Bubble plot representing quality (y-axis) and quantity (x-axis) of the United States energy economy for various sources at various times. Arrows connect fuels from various times (i.e. domestic oil in 1930, 1970, 2005), and the size of the "balloon" represents part of the uncertainty associated with EROI estimates.

​

Today, the wind energy return would be higher on the y axis, and solar is right there with the wind.

Solar Power Finally Becomes the Cheapest Source for New Energy

IN BRIEF

• According to the World Economic Forum, solar power is now cheaper than fossil fuels for new energy.
• Renewable energy has reached a tipping-point of sorts—massive investment, falling installation costs, and advancing tech is beginning to reap dividends. Now, a future of clean, renewable power is finally within reach.

SAY HELLO TO THE SUN
When it comes to obtaining new energy, solar energy now costs less than fossil fuels, according to a report by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) also show decreased prices, with the mean price of solar power in about 60 countries dropping to $1.65 million per megawatt, closely followed by wind at $1.66 million per megawatt.

Michael Drexler, Head of Long Term Investing, Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum, found the downturn in prices to be an encouraging sign.

“Renewable energy has reached a tipping point—it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming. Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Back to EV's. The Chevy Bolt, at over 200 miles per charge, is going to be an urban hit. The price is reasonable, and it looks to be an attractive package. The Tesla 3, at about the same price, will have versions that will eat Dodge Hellcats for lunch. And there is a new entry as a direct competitor to the Tesla S, the Lucid, that is promising 400 miles per charge. Tesla, Porche, and Mercedes are working on a faster charger, and a common plugin. The technology is progressing quite well.

 

[flacaltenn]

I found this chart of Energy Return on Energy Investment a great way to understand the real costs of different technologies without using a monetary system. It also shows the amount of usage in terms of exajoules. It's latest update is 2013.

Energy Analysis - Wikid Energy Funhouse - UIowa Wiki

EROEI is the ratio of the amount of energy used to extract, process, transport, and all other energy inputs nececcary to utilize the energy source to the amount of energy gained in its usage. Energy sources with an EROEI greater than 1:1 are what powers our society today. An EROEI of less than 1:1 indicates not an energy source but an energy sink. EROEI is a measure of the feasibility, and to some extent the profitability, of an energy source.

The bubble plot below shows the diminishing EROEI of petroleum over time. Upon the proliferation of petroleum as a major energy source in the early 1900's, the energy return on domestic oil was extremely high; on the order of 100:1. By 1970, this ratio had reduced to around 30:1, due to the increasing difficulty of extracting the oil (see Peak Oil). Today, domestic oil returns less than a 15:1 ratio on average as domestic oil production slides down the back side of Hubbert's Peak. Similarly, the energy return ratio on petroleum has fallen significantly worldwide since 1970.​

Figure 1: Bubble plot representing quality (y-axis) and quantity (x-axis) of the United States energy economy for various sources at various times. Arrows connect fuels from various times (i.e. domestic oil in 1930, 1970, 2005), and the size of the "balloon" represents part of the uncertainty associated with EROI estimates.

​

It's good. It says a lot. But if it's just an energy ratio it doesn't speak to a lot of other economic and life cycle factors. Oil by itself ain't really a useful fuel -- does it assume refining? I'm sure the "nuclear" number includes energy used in refining -- otherwise it would be MUCH higher. You could boost that oil ratio right back up there by building the Keystone to Canada. And in terms of nuclear, probably doesn't count the viable alternative of reprocessing the fuel. Which is an economic and security issue. I'm sure the "nuclear" number includes energy used in refining -- otherwise it would be MUCH higher.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes oil includes refining, discovery, and other costs. I don't think the Keystone will be a system with a great EROEI because the oil would be coming from oil sands which are harder to extract. However the pipeline will be used for other sources in the US.

The EROEI includes every cost in the entire process. For example the EROEI for corn ethanol is between 1.2 : 1 to 1.5 : 1 when you include amortization of machinery, fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides, energy in distilling and fermentation, and transportation. Often the EROEI does not include environmental destruction like pollution from runoff.

 

[Shrimpbox]

This is the reason I am so dubious about the solar con. The end of the video says by not burning a gallon of gas you save 20 lbs of co2 from going in the atmosphere. A gallon of gas weighs maybe 7 lbs. you do the math.

Now if you are going to say that is because of refining and transport and all fine. But don't forget to add all those costs to solar too. Hello?

 

[Wuwei]

This is the reason I am so dubious about the solar con. The end of the video says by not burning a gallon of gas you save 20 lbs of co2 from going in the atmosphere. A gallon of gas weighs maybe 7 lbs. you do the math.

Now if you are going to say that is because of refining and transport and all fine. But don't forget to add all those costs to solar too. Hello?

The gas is largely carbon and hydrogen. When you burn gas these elements grab oxygen out of the atmosphere to make H2O and CO2. Each C in gas acquires two O's and that is why the CO2 is heavier than the C in the gas that burns. So 20 lb out of 7 is not unreasonable.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the reason I am so dubious about the solar con. The end of the video says by not burning a gallon of gas you save 20 lbs of co2 from going in the atmosphere. A gallon of gas weighs maybe 7 lbs. you do the math.

Now if you are going to say that is because of refining and transport and all fine. But don't forget to add all those costs to solar too. Hello?

The math. Carbon = 12, Oxygen = 16 CO2 = 12 + 16 + 16 = 44 So every 12 pounds of carbon burned equals 44 lbs of CO2. That is a ratio of 3 2/3 to 1. You burn 1 lb of carbon, you get 3 2/3 lbs CO2. A gallon of gas weighs about 6.2 lbs., burning it releases about 19.6 lbs of CO2.

How much carbon dioxide is produced by burning gasoline and diesel fuel? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Yes, by all means, do the math. That is what science is all about.

 

[Wuwei]

The EROEI of Ethanol  |  Peak Oil News and Message Boards

In 2002, the USDA published The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol (1). The authors estimated the energy inputs required to produce one gallon of ethanol. They calculated that across nine major corn producing states the average input was 77,228 BTUs to produce 83,961 BTUs of ethanol ​

The author calculated the EROEI as 1.27.
The travesty of corn ethanol is that for every 1.27 gallons burnt that produce CO2, another gallon is burnt simply by manufacturing it, and producing almost the same amount of CO2. Ethanol as an auto fuel is stupid.

Here is another link. Ethanol sources are bold faced:
EROEI as a Measure of Biofuel Effectiveness  |  Peak Oil News and Message Boards

1. Hydrogen EROEI of 0.5:1
2. Corn Ethanol EROEI of 1.2:1
3. Oil Sands EROEI of 2:1
4. Corn Biodiesel EROEI of 3:1
5. Geothermal EROEI of 3:1
6. Switch Grass Cellulosic Ethanol EROEI of 4:1
7. Solar thermal EROEI of 4:1
8. Nuclear EROEI of 5:1
9. Sugar Cane Ethanol EROEI from 8.3:1 to 10.2:1
10. Solar PhotoVoltaic EROEI of up to 9:1
11. Coal EROEI of up to 10:1
12. Natural Gas EROEI of 10:1
13. Hydropower EROEI of 12:1
14. Wind EROEI of 19:1

Switch grass is much better. Advantages:

It has a higher biomass yield per acre than corn. In many areas it can yield two harvests in one growing season.
It requires much less water and less fertilizer to grow.
It grows on marginal lands that are unsuitable for other agricultural production.
It can be harvested using conventional haying equipment.​

We have to rethink where we get our energy.

​

 

[Shrimpbox]

I stand corrected, thank you.

 

[Old Rocks]

List of countries by coal production - Wikipedia

In 2014, the world produced over 8 billion tons of coal. That means that mankind added over 30 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. In just one year.