Posted on 01/22/2015 7:14:12 PM PST by jazusamo
Not an accurate statement.
It was about 50 years ago, and nobody was sure one way or the other.
I’ve had a pocket size HP scientific calculator that uses that tech or better in my pocket for 48 years.
.
Some big cities have more public charging stations than one would think at this stage of the game. The quick charge ones cost some bucks if your not a member of the charging network. But it could alleviate some fears of getting stranded across town.
.
>> “Regarding engineering, even with all the losses in electrical power generation and distribution it is still more efficient than a petroleum powered car overall is it not? <<
.
Silly!
Chances are that the electricity that you use comes from petroleum or natural gas, and your use of that oil/ gas in an electric car is less than 50% as efficient as an IC engine.
220V chargers run about $16,000 - able to charge 2 cars (around 25kW/h each) in about 4 hours. At $1/hr constantly charging 2 cars 24/7, and not considering other costs (like electricity itself), that will take nearly a year to just pay off the charger.
The 440V “fast” chargers run over $40,000 - will get you to 80% in 20 minutes.
I ran the numbers earlier in the thread, and that’s “at the pump” prices vs actual miles.
Chances are the electricity you use is either coal, hydro, or nuclear sourced. Show me ONE large-scale petroleum/NG electrical power plant.
Yup, as lights burn out around my house I’m replacing them all with LEDs. They look exactly right; only difference, trivial at that, is the LEDs turn on _faster_. Wasn’t long ago there was no apparent chance they’d ever be bright enough or have the right color temperature.
“even with all the losses in electrical power generation and distribution it is still more efficient than a petroleum powered car overall is it not?”
Nope. If you want to just look at energy and not cost, electric is not always a best efficiency. Coal is about 33% efficient at the plant, but add in all the other losses to get to the wheels of the car and that drops significantly.
Natural gas can be closer to 45% efficient, and is much better, but still does not warrant leaving gasoline behind due to it needing to be used at power stations. Transportation of natural gas to gas stations like gasoline drops its efficiency considerably since its energy per gallon is much less than with gasoline.
Gas engines in cars are about 30% efficient, but delivery of gasoline and it production is still within range of any other alternative.
There are many economic factors with all energy production from getting it from Earth to refining to distribution and storage vessels and engines. Toss in the convenience factor such as quick fill ups versus hours of charging, and gasoline and diesel are two excellent fuels.
You misunderstood what I was saying.
Ten years or so ago a number of technologist were saying that we were reaching the limit of what can be done with the geometry of a transistor in an integrated circuit. That heat, lithography, materials and other issues would prevent further integration. Except that it didn’t...
1972 was the first HP pocket calculator. A little short of 48 years, but close enough...
Sorry, but hydro has been zero in the Southwest for quite some time now. Nuclear is also way down now with three plants now out of action.
Natural gas is our fuel of choice for generation.
I wasn’t talking economics, or storage tech, just absolute efficiency of fuel in verses miles traveled in similar sized vehicles.
Read my comment again. I addressed that.
I believe that all of the power plants in the SF Bay area are at this date required by regulations to run natural gas.
.
72 was the HP45, and 65 and 73 was the 55.
I get essentially no electricity from oil. I do from natural gas and nuclear.
From what I can find, the actual efficiency of a gasoline powered car is typically about 15% and 20% tops.
For electric cars including power generation, etc, the total efficiency is about 26%.
Neither is great. But what I asked wasn’t “silly” and is probably correct.
So HP doesn’t know what they’re talking about?
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/museum/personalsystems/0023/
Transmission losses are very high for electricity, and charge/discharge cycle loss in batteries runs from 33%n for efficient ones, up to almost 50%.
In the summer of ‘72 we were replacing the 35s that the survey crews had with 45s to eliminate the errors they were making from not converting the angle to decimal fraction before using the trig buttons.
I remember it well because of the ruckus with Nixon before the election that we jabbered about at the time.
The 35 was cute when it came out, but a constant source of boners with people in a hurry.
.
So are you saying the HP Web site is wrong? That they don’t know when they introduced the HP-35? And that the HP-45 wasn’t introduced in 1973 as they also claim? None of which was 48 years ago?
Show my your reference for gas engine cars being 30% efficient. What I find is 15% to 20%, from fuel to the wheels on how a car is actually used - not just highway speeds.
The profit making guys may command a bit more than that. I saw some figures for the quick charging stations costing anywhere from $.4 to $.6 per KWH. So if you wanted to quick charge a leaf to 80% it would could $7.5 to $12. Am I close on this estimate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.