Posted on 04/09/2012 7:42:32 AM PDT by thackney
Not my problem, but I’m sure the tax nazis will have an answer in due course. Your farmer up the road is getting away with it right now only because it isn’t drawing their attention. Once more people start doing it, it will.
Still and all, the same problems remain - how to MAKE the electricity.... not enough is manufactured, currently, to support even a small fraction of cars on the road..... and how to safely and rapidly GET the electricity to the batteries in the cars.
As I said upthread - CNG works, electric cars do not,
so be assured the left will push electric cars over CNG.
Study up.
CNG is safe.
This is a very weak article.
Technically CNG is a very viable solution. Only things holding back are crazy politicians - can’t tell how they will regulate.
Use all existing technology. On existing cars.
Maybe in the states with tax Nazis. In a lot of rural areas that won’t happen. They’ve never gone after the folks running drip gas.
yes, yes they will.
We still have moonshiners in our backwoods here in SW Pennsylvania for exactly the same reason: the potential revenue from collecting the tax just isn’t worth the risk of getting shot at attempting to enforce it.
There is quite a difference (x10) in the tank pressure between propane and CNG. To each his own, I have seen enough pictures of ruptured pressure vessels, CNG included, to know I don’t want to be around when Bubba is topping one of.
“Check this out. I live in the People’s Republik of Bethesda Merryland and this popped up in the parking lot of my bank. This recharging station is FREE! Who built it I don’t know but I’m sure my tax dollars did.”
More likely your interest rate paid for it. By the way, each of those panels puts out, at most, 1500 Watts. You’re going to have spend a long time in that bank (maybe 8 hours per day, 3 days in a row) to get a charge from those panels.
Obviously it’s a scam, and the power for the charging station is coming from Con Ed. The panels may push in a bit of juice, but not even close to what’s needed.
An EV that will go 300 miles on a charge and the ability to quick charge does not present a range problem. That’s about five hours driving non-stop. Just because a dual tank GMC can go even further on a tank doesn’t mean that 300 miles at a whack isn’t a long way. Yes, temperature / driving patterns can reduce range, and that is why the 100 mile Nissan Leaf causes range anxiety. However, if you start off with 300 miles of range, and even if you give up 100 miles due to extreme could, blasting the heater, you are still left with 200 miles of range, which would be more than adequate for most drives, even without factoring in the ability to fully recharge, while you grab a cup of coffee. The problem is the cost of electric vehicles that can drive 300 miles on a charge, and then another 250 after a 30 minute charge cost at least 70, 000. And Conversion efficiency and regenerative braking aren’t things that are “optimized for” that otherwise reduce range. Conversion efficiency and regeneration capability are simple characteristics of the electric motor and attached inverter / controller. The ability to have a long range battery is not in conflict with either conversion efficiency or regenerative braking.
Tesla isn’t the only one with fast charge capability. From what I’ve read, a fast charge to 80% isn’t that much worse for a battery than a trickle charge. It’s when you try to get that last 20% of charge with a high current that you start to cause problems. Who would install a fast charger at home. You could charge overnight with 220V at off peak rates, and get electricity that is practically free. There is so much excess capacity on the grid at night that the utilities are providing incentives for people to use it. Save the fast charges for those 500 mile trips, when you want to stop to eat and get right back on the road. I’m not saying they are ready for prime time, with the current price tags, but the range of batteries has been increasing about 7% per year, and the price is steadily coming down. In a few years, they may be practical for all but the most demanding drivers.
Electric motors are several times more efficient than gasoline engines in converting energy to forward motion, so you don’t need to carry as much energy. Also, you can afford to carry more battery weight, since you are giving up the heavy gasoline engine and transmission.
A $70K sell price excludes 99% of the buying public.
Conversion efficiency is certainly something that is optimized for, along with durability, servicability, emission, power, range, operating cost, immunity to environment, etc etc etc. There's a long list of competing factors that must be balanced in order to optimize the vehicle. Letting one factor dominate creates a niche vehicle: a supercar, or an econbox, etc. My point was that electric vehicles place a lot of emphasis on power conversion efficiency, to detriment of other real world factors, and they carry a huge cost. The costs do not exceed the benefits, and I doubt they ever will for general purpose transportation for one final reason. When it comes down to it, electricity is not a fuel. It is an energy storage medium.
First of all, I’ve read lots of critical reviews on the Leaf, but none that have pegged the real world, worst case scenario range at 40. The number I’ve seen is around 70, but that still means you are limited to 35 miles out, if you need to have enough charge left to get home. You are essentially making my point which is a long range EV is available, but the price makes it impractical unless you have money to burn. Batteries in the pipeline now may bring that cost down dramatically, but that’s at least 4 years out, maybe more.
Second: What do you mean by “Optimized for Conversion” All electrical motors have a very high efficiency for converting stored energy to torque at the wheels. This isn’t some trade off that is being made, this is just an inherent characteristic of electric motors, so I don’t understand what you mean when you say that an EV has been optimized for conversion at the expense of range. The higher the conversion efficiency, the more range is extended.
Also how is an electric motor “optimized for durability or servicibility” in a manner that reduces range. Electric motors have one moving part and can last almost forever, this again is a characteristic of electric motors and is not some trade-off that you only get at the expense of range. Also on servicibility, one of the pluses of EV’s is that they require minimum service, no oil change, no tune ups, no transmission, no exhaust. These are not characteristics that are somehow gained at the expense of range. So when you say that an EV is optimized in these areas, and imply that this is at the expense of range, exactly what do you mean.
Maybe you mean something else when you say “conversion”.
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.