Posted on 08/23/2003 6:06:27 PM PDT by eldoradude
On my way home from work today at about 5 P.M. I saw the dumbest example of environmentalism gone mad. Just east of Folsom Blvd. on Highway 50 I saw a Ford Focus Electric car. Here's the stupid part. It was TOWING A GAS POWERED GENERATOR to provide the electricity to make the car go.
It was a large wheeled generator, the type that uses over three gallons per hour to run. The Ford Focus was going about 50 mph, probably close to top speed. Assuming it needed 3 gallons of gasoline to run for one hour and it traveled 50 miles in that hour, this moron is effectively getting less than 17 miles per gallon!
Can you believe it?
Before I became a geologist (way before), I was a groundskeeper at the local municipal recreational complex. The place was big, about 60 acres, so we used golf-carts to get around. The carts didn't have enough charge to go all day and it was sometimes pretty inconvenient to limp into the garage and get a fully-charged one. Sometimes these weren't available at all, if someone forgot to plug them in. The city would not buy a gasoline vehicle for us, partly on eco-wacky grounds, so we rigged one cart with a Honda portable generator, so we could re-charge as we went. It worked but I think a fleet of Hummers would have been more efficient (if they had existed then).
Nah, a Freeper would tow a small nuclear reactor.......know where I can get one?
The problem is... We have CA Air Resources people at 2020 "I" Street in Sacramento that are WAY more stupid than this joker!!!
"Thank Goodness were not getting all the government we're payin for!" (Will Rogers)
I doubt it. First it just sounds illegal and maybe dangerous. Second, there are highway emission standards.
So, If you burn gasoline to power a generator to create electricity, you are in the red, big time, in the energy efficiency pond.
The concept of an electric car is ludicrous; for instance, the electric utility has to burn X amount of coal or gas, then use that to create steam water to spin turbine blades connected to a 50 ton (whatever the weight) armature to spin generating armature to generate wattage which will have to be sent through a grid network (remember last week when the network was ailing? real reliable, huh?) to the future Exxons/Mobile service stations selling electricity... These people can't think through the process.
I'd say that portable fuels should be be used for portable means of transportation. Gasoline for cars and trucks, kerosene for the bigger trucks, tractors, diesel locomotives, etc.
Other forms of energy that the above sector can't mange, like COAL and NUKE energy should be utilized be GENERATING PLANTS. They don't move around too much; last I heard.
Since they raised the Kursk, I'm not sure.
Sure, write to these guys: MITEE:(Miniature Thermal ReacTor EnginE). Reactor weight, ~100 kgs; complete engine weight, ~140 kgs. This is intended for interplanetary rockets, so it should be more than adequate for a car.
The public isn't going to buy something that doesn't give them the same performance or better than the car they drive now. Who wants to drive 50 miles and have to recharge the batteries for 4 hours. And five years or less down the road from purchasing it spend thousand to replace a batter pack - bad for the pocket book and environment. Electric vehicle technology ain't going to make it before hybrids and fuel cells - if ever - solar will many many years from now - if the Lord tarries.
I also said in my thesis hybrids would be on the market within 10 to 15 years (that was 10 years ago) and that fuel cells would be longer term 25+ years (from 10 years ago). Hybrids will be on the mass market first. The technology is there - it's conventional. They get substantially better miles per gallon gasoline equivalent and substantially reduce emissions. If natural gas is used instead of gasoline the efficienty (and therefore miles per gallon) is increased and emissions are even further reduced.
That said the big thing then is performance compared to what we drive now. I haven't driven one. You take care of that and mass production will take care of cost.
Great minds think alike. See my post below. All these dopes are doing is creating more pollution, or in case of "fill 'er up with 50kw of fuel, the elctrical plant will be belching fuel; which the enviro-nutbirds will rail against.
I saw more bicycle in Luzerne Switzerland than I did in San Fran. Can these uninformed bird-brains spell "isolated and uninformed morons?"
Sounds like a shot from a Barbara Streisand comment and/or most of the wealthy movies actors; "You people should conserve fuel, while I have soirees in my 75,000 sq. ft. house on a 900 amp service. After all, 150,000 kw a month is nothing to me when I rake in a few million a year on royalties.
Further, Babas said, "Besides, my power comes from 600 miles away and the winds head East. So I really don't give a sh!t about the "unwashed" in CA, because I am wealthier than most others in this state."
Me too!
You loose energy because of the inefficieny of the energy conversion process - eg. chemical energy to mechanical energy. Different energy conversion process have different efficiencies. But because of the second law of thermodynamics they all result in a loss of energy. There is nothing you can do to prevent that (it takes energy to make energy - nothings free - except the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ).
Your typical gasoline powered car has an efficiency of less than 20%. Look at it like this: You give your car "$100 dollars" of energy and it makes use of less than $20 and throws the rest away (not unlike your teenage kids). Most of this is through wasted heat energy out the engine manifold and tailpipe.
The idea is to improve the energy conversion process so it makes use of more and throws less away. Though not feasible for other reasons, electric cars have an efficiency of 90 to 95%. Meaning they use $95 and throw only $5 to $10 away. And the reason for this is the inefficiencies in the mechanical transimissions, etc. not chemical to mechanical energy conversion.
So, If you burn gasoline to power a generator to create electricity, you are in the red, big time, in the energy efficiency pond.
This is true for the case described. If everyone had their own generators. In general hundreds of power plants are considerably more efficient at converting energy than millions of smaller generators or cars for that matter. The last numbers I saw on power plants were 35% to 40%. Also consider that there are other more efficient and/or cleaner methods of producing electriciy such as burning natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar and wind.
The concept of an electric car is ludicrous; ...
Very true with the technology available today and probably for years to come. But consider hybrid cars with an efficiency between electic cars and conventional gasoline cars. We significantly improve energy use and reduce emissions. The technology for hybrids is here.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
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.