Posted on 01/01/2007 10:44:24 AM PST by Uncledave
An oil and security task force of the Council on Foreign Relations recently opined that "the voices that espouse 'energy independence' are doing the nation a disservice by focusing on a goal that is unachievable over the foreseeable future." Others have also said, essentially, that other nations will control our transportation fuel--get used to it. Yet House Democrats have announced a push for "energy independence in 10 years," and in November General Motors joined Toyota and perhaps other auto makers in a race to produce plug-in hybrid vehicles, hugely reducing the demand for oil. Who's right--those who drive toward independence or those who shrug?
Bet on major progress toward independence, spurred by market forces and a portfolio of rapidly developing oil-replacing technologies.
snip
All this is likely to change decisively, because electricity is about to become a major partner with alternative liquid fuels in replacing oil.
snip
Utilities are rapidly becoming quite interested in plug-ins because of the substantial benefit to them of being able to sell off-peak power at night. Because off-peak nighttime charging uses unutilized capacity, DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimates that adopting plug-ins will not create a need for new base load electricity generation plants until plug-ins constitute over 84% of the country's 220 million passenger vehicles.
snip
Once plug-ins start appearing in showrooms it is not only consumers and utility shareholders who will be smiling. If cheap off-peak electricity supplies a portion of our transportation needs, this will help insulate alternative liquid fuels from OPEC market manipulation designed to cripple oil's competitors.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
>Electricity production and price is gov't regulated. I don't want my freedom of movement subject to the whims of elected officials.
That might be a good point against pure electric cars, but not for plug-in hybrids. Hybrids work fine on gas only.
If my guess is right, you might make it to the first stop and be finished charging for the second segment about the time I pull in to Chula Vista, CA.
I've made this run over 50 times. It's real familiar and not something I would attempt in an electric car or a hybrid.
"Electric will most likely beat gasoline for very obvious reasons. "
Maybe they are obvious to you, but physics says otherwise.
Internal combustion beats electric every time for like vehicles.
every time.
Then why should I pay the premium over a gasoline-only powered vehicle?!
Or, most likely, should I pay to subsidize those who choose plug-in hybrids?
Plug-ins are great as long as you aren't burning fossil fuels to make the electricity.
To make that much electricity, the US will have to go on a MAJOR nuclear power plant building spree along with wind and solar. Wind and solar alone won't even begin to address the needs.
I wonder how the Democrats will react to proposals to build a hundred or more nuke plants.
>No they arent, no they won't, there will not, nnnnno.
>Plug-ins and electric vehicles are for the technically illiterate to ponder as viable transportation alternatives.
As an apparently fellow engineer, I am dismayed by the lack of substance to your argument. Do you have any facts or credible sources to back up your statements?
Next generation Combined cycle SOFC steam turbine plants will convert coal to to electricity at twice the efficiency of current plants. From power plant to pavement will be about twice as efficient as current gasoline engine powered vehicles.
Last Father's Day I bought myself a present; a Kawasaki cordless drill that came with two batteries and charger.
Following the instructions, I charged both batteries and left one on the bench while the other was plugged into the drillmotor.
After three weeks and very little use, the drill began to slow appreciably so I swiched batteries and put the bench battery in the motor and the run down one in the charger.
The drill was no faster than before.
Only after recharging both batteries for eight hours was I able to drill holes.
Now I leave one battery in the charger for a few days and one in the motor in case of need, switching them around.
The instructions advise against this but the NiCad batteries will run down through self-discharge after a few weeks anyway.
I fully expect the batteries to be bad by the time I will really need the thing on a daily basis come April.
Lithium batteries have a number of practical problems to be worked out before they become common in automotive use.
Still, it would be nice to use that excess power being produced in low demand periods.
Apples and oranges. The amount of energy required to move your bodyweight from point A to point B is something that can't be improved by technology.
I'm a big fan of new technology, but I'm also educated enough to discern between BS and reality. Golf carts/electric wheel chairs are good applications for rechargeable electric transport. They provide good utility transport over a short range. The cost to go with a hybrid e.g. Prius or Ford Escape increases the cost of the vehicle far beyond the gasoline savings available to the owner. It is "feel good" technology that accomplishes little.
I understand your point on a pure electric vehicle but do you understand the concept of a hybrid vehicle. It drives just fine on motor fuel. The electric drive allows the engine to run at maximum effieciency while running and shut off when not needed. When well implemented, the only effect it would have on your drive is to make it less expensive and your fuel breaks less frequent.
BTW, the freight trains crossing the country every day are Deisel-electric hybrids.
So I pay the asking price of a Suburban and get a little piece of crap that will get me killed if a snowball hits it? If I pack the trunk I can take three shirts or two shirts and a pop-tart?
Why in the absolute Sam Hell would I do that?
As somebody else said, "You first."
I'll add, "Second and third."
"As an apparently fellow engineer, I am dismayed by the lack of substance to your argument. Do you have any facts or credible sources to back up your statements?"
*sigh* The argument is so obvious if one does an energy analysis.....
Ok, here you go.....
Lets say your car has a 15 gallon gas tank. This is equivalent to about 550 kWh of energy. So, let's say you "fill up" your electric vehicle. It will cost $2.19 (about the cost of gas now) if you can find electricity at $.06 per kWh...but since you can't find electricity at that price, let's consider the equivalent cost at $.10 per kWh - which is $3.66 per gallon.
Now, I have ignored all the factors that would go into actually charging a battery (you can't do it in a reasonable amount of time), assuming you could even intergrate one that big into a "normal" vehicle (which you can't).
I've even ignored the electrical infrastructure needed in your home to make charging one of these possible in even one full day.
Lastly, I've ignored the cost of an electric car......
Of course, numbers like these make no difference to people who are so sure that electric cars are viable that they ignore physics, even financial reality.
They aren't viable. The are so unviable that really, detailed techical explanation is unnecessary. It also is an unfortunate fact that electric car fans wouldn't listen anyway.
Nobody will ever have an electric car that rivals their internal combustion counterpart. If you don't want people to have big cars anymore, then an internal combustion counterpart to some of the ultra-tiny electric cars will still outperform the electric car version.
Oh, and electric cars will never have features like Air conditioning, because AC is power intensive.
So, fellow engineer, do you believe any of the numbers I've presented, or are you content to ignore physics as well?
Often the comments in this forum reflect a range of experience not possessed by the poster. It's a cheap way to see if an idea is viable or if there are glaring oversights. Compare to the cost of writing a formal proposal and having the customer cut it to shreds because it didn't get even this cursory level of scrutiny.
I can see it now.
Hundreds of abandoned cars on the side of the road, especially during snowstorms, as cars run out of power.
Seriously. Car thiefs would have to steal a dozen cars to get someplace.
And then there's the guy who just has to have a cigarette, or something, and attempts to head to the local market with barely enough juice powering his vehicle.
The amount of energy to move you from point A to point B is not fixed.
It varies based on how fast you want to go, drag, effiency and the amount of excess weight you drag along with you do do the job.
The automobile is very effective but it is a hundred year old idea. There are other ways to get the same job done and some days people will be amazed that we got into a 6000 pound mechanical contraption with hundreds of moving parts to get around.
Keep this in mind, we burn about 200,000,000,000 gallons of fuel, kill about 50,000 people a year and spend hundreds of billions of dolars a year creating reinforced roadways to handle these heavy beasts.
I love my car and don't plan on giving it up for something less usefull, but on the other hand, I don't want to be a "buggy whip" salesman either.
Feeling a little paranoid today? Fear not, they are talking about vehicles with gasoline engines and battery. Battery for short trips, gasoline for long trips. Keep your gas tank full and you don't have to worry about the battery level. It you are afraid of using grid electricity, never plug it in, it will still get better miliage than a standard combustion vehicle.
As for the rail industry...that is half my income. My project this year includes a GM Electromotive locomotive outfitted with a new FIRE computer, NY airbrake ECP brake system and lots of new sensors and actuators on the other cars to permit remote control of angle cocks, cut levers, hand brakes and cushion lockout devices.
The electric drive allows the engine to run at maximum effieciency while running and shut off when not needed. When well implemented, the only effect it would have on your drive is to make it less expensive and your fuel breaks less frequent.
Big misconception. At freeway speeds the hybrid has the gasoline engine running full time. It only goes electric under about 25 MPH. Just ask the folks on the HOV lanes in San Diego what they think of the jackasses in hybrids driving 25 MPH on the HOV lanes to save money on fuel. It happens and it is dangerous. There have also been reports of software failures that caused hybrids to simply shutdown when running at freeway speeds. Not good if you are traversing the desert.
As previously pointed out, the fuel savings in current hybrids do not ever repay the higher acquisition cost. What we don't know yet is the total cost of ownership. When the owner is ready to retire the hybrid, is there going to be a big fee assessed to deal with the battery? That widens the economic gap further between pure gasoline and hybrid designs.
Here's a site that shows gasoline versus electric. The yearly cost in electricity for 8000 miles of travel is estimated to be just $265.75 at $0.08/kWH.
Number 1 we pay .14/KWH and number 2, your calculations are for a vehicle with 27 HP.
That is 27 HP MAX
Try Multiply that 300 watt/mile number by 5 for a car we think of as an actual honest to goodness car (though it would still be a 100 hp Sh!tbox Dog)
Crunch away.
You'll find a 30 mpg Gasoline powered crapbox is still cheaper to operate.
I wonder how these electric cars do towing a four horse trailer.
Some people have work trucks and can't really afford to buy a few extra cars to please Al Gore.
Very good answer by the way.
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.