Electric vehicles

[Mike270412]

https://www.piperblush.com/listwillitfit.php?type=4

 

[X-it]

Well getting back to the Electric car...tesla anyway. Every 10c drop in temperature form 20c expect 10% less range. 4 hours to charge at 220 80amp AC power. Tesla charging station by passes the internal power supply so DC power is direct to the battery with high amps. 75 minutes to charge to full power or 40 minutes to charge to 80%. There is a parasitic drain of 1% per day from the car and hills will affect your range as well.

 

[RGM]

260HP per liter, are you paying attention BRP

 

[52weekbreak]

Part of the challenge is not only electricity storage but the inability of the layperson's inability to imagine the type of things that might be used as energy storage. We are kind of like people who read about the first computers and can't imagine what else it might be used for beyond accounting.

https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-sil...tm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more

https://newatlas.com/fluoride-batte...tm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more

 

[Cdnfireman]

Part of the challenge is not only electricity storage but the inability of the layperson's inability to imagine the type of things that might be used as energy storage. We are kind of like people who read about the first computers and can't imagine what else it might be used for beyond accounting.

https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-sil...tm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more

https://newatlas.com/fluoride-batte...tm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more

All the advocates of these “high tech solutions “ fail to mention the basic physics that dictate that their energy storage systems are inherently inefficient. The laws of physics state that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed, and that energy output equals energy input plus losses.
So in order to create 100Mw of storage, you have to impart 100Mw of input energy into that storage plus whatever losses that energy conversion has. Then to draw out that energy (now somewhat less than 100 Mw because of the initial conversion loss) you lose more energy in the conversion from the storage medium into whatever energy type ( electricity, heat etc) you need to perform the work you want to do.
Obviously it’s more energy efficient to use the initial energy source to directly do the work we need it to do, but this is where the greenies don’t understand or care that using more energy to create a lesser amount of green energy is idiotic. It may make them feel good, but environmentally it’s a step backwards.

 

[adamg]

All the advocates of these “high tech solutions “ fail to mention the basic physics that dictate that their energy storage systems are inherently inefficient. The laws of physics state that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed, and that energy output equals energy input plus losses.
So in order to create 100Mw of storage, you have to impart 100Mw of input energy into that storage plus whatever losses that energy conversion has. Then to draw out that energy (now somewhat less than 100 Mw because of the initial conversion loss) you lose more energy in the conversion from the storage medium into whatever energy type ( electricity, heat etc) you need to perform the work you want to do.
Obviously it’s more energy efficient to use the initial energy source to directly do the work we need it to do, but this is where the greenies don’t understand or care that using more energy to create a lesser amount of green energy is idiotic. It may make them feel good, but environmentally it’s a step backwards.

Step back 10 years and I imagine you were having this same argument about corn ethanol, a really dumb idea that only makes sense if one doesn't think it through.

 

[FastFarmer]

I’ll just stick with my BBC engines..

 

[jhurkot]

All the advocates of these “high tech solutions “ fail to mention the basic physics that dictate that their energy storage systems are inherently inefficient. The laws of physics state that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed, and that energy output equals energy input plus losses.
So in order to create 100Mw of storage, you have to impart 100Mw of input energy into that storage plus whatever losses that energy conversion has. Then to draw out that energy (now somewhat less than 100 Mw because of the initial conversion loss) you lose more energy in the conversion from the storage medium into whatever energy type ( electricity, heat etc) you need to perform the work you want to do.
Obviously it’s more energy efficient to use the initial energy source to directly do the work we need it to do, but this is where the greenies don’t understand or care that using more energy to create a lesser amount of green energy is idiotic. It may make them feel good, but environmentally it’s a step backwards.

Speaking of 100MW battery solutions....

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-track-to-make-back-a-third-of-cost-in-a-year

 

[52weekbreak]

My only point is that technology moves on. Everything we do is an interim step. Some things work fairly well and others less so. Every technology takes time to develop and many don't make it past bench scale testing. I am interested in technology and follow it closely from time to time because it can be frustratingly slow. The desire of the greenies as you call them helped California reduce emissions in automobiles, acid rain in the Great Lakes areas and other things that really are worthwhile. If we stuck to using the energy source directly without looking for other ways to be more efficient or better use the resources we would all still be lighting our homes with gas lanterns as for most of us electricity is created by converting one energy source to another.

All the advocates of these “high tech solutions “ fail to mention the basic physics that dictate that their energy storage systems are inherently inefficient. The laws of physics state that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed, and that energy output equals energy input plus losses.
So in order to create 100Mw of storage, you have to impart 100Mw of input energy into that storage plus whatever losses that energy conversion has. Then to draw out that energy (now somewhat less than 100 Mw because of the initial conversion loss) you lose more energy in the conversion from the storage medium into whatever energy type ( electricity, heat etc) you need to perform the work you want to do.
Obviously it’s more energy efficient to use the initial energy source to directly do the work we need it to do, but this is where the greenies don’t understand or care that using more energy to create a lesser amount of green energy is idiotic. It may make them feel good, but environmentally it’s a step backwards.

 

[X-it]

Things that work are those that are not ... subsidized, retards in charge and just throwing gobs of money at it, never theirs of coarse ... never works out.

 

[52weekbreak]

So I guess it is better to never try than to try and fail and learn while you are doing so? If people weren't trying new approaches all the time, where do you think we would be at? It took 30 years for researchers to find a treatment for diabetes. I think it is good they didn't give up and I imagine there were literally thousands of dead ends. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-discovery-of-insulin

It is a good thing that others have the patience it takes to find new approaches to problems. Discoveries are coming faster now because of better funding much of which comes from private sources.

Things that work are those that are not ... subsidized, retards in charge and just throwing gobs of money at it, never theirs of coarse ... never works out.

 

[LennyR]

My only point is that technology moves on. Everything we do is an interim step. Some things work fairly well and others less so. Every technology takes time to develop and many don't make it past bench scale testing. I am interested in technology and follow it closely from time to time because it can be frustratingly slow. The desire of the greenies as you call them helped California reduce emissions in automobiles, acid rain in the Great Lakes areas and other things that really are worthwhile. If we stuck to using the energy source directly without looking for other ways to be more efficient or better use the resources we would all still be lighting our homes with gas lanterns as for most of us electricity is created by converting one energy source to another.

You bet tech moves on , some good some bad. Your examples suck tho. California reduced emissions in automobiles , yippee. And spent millions of dollars attempting to convince people they should fall in line, while the proponents like Suzuki and pthe governor and government staffers flew around in jets to and from every meeting , then rented the biggest limo/SUV they could find to transport them to and from airport, all the while telling the blue collars they should sacrifice for the cause, save the planet , be earth conscious !!! Cause of global warming ???? Probably the most lucrative industry ( for a select few ) the last 20-30 years has been outed recently by actual scientists, ( the ones not funded by govt grants) . The rampant and outright hypocrisy of the majority of these save the planet opportunists in the state of California is obscene at best.

 

[jhurkot]

Hypothetically lets say that electric and gas vehicles used exactlly the same amount of energy. In this case the electric vehicle is still superior for these reasons....
Next to no maintenance. No air filter, no oil changes, no fuel filter, no automatic transmission service, no spark plugs, no injectors/fuel pumps, no exhaust sensors, no belts or moving parts under the hood (Volkswagen timing belt on TDI). Brakes should last a LONG time because you almost never use them in an EV. Electric motor cost is low if it ever fails. Gearbox still looks like new after 1000000 miles.
Performance wise EV will smoke pretty much any gas vehicle in acceleration 0-60, 0-100, or 45-65. Front and rear motors that can sense wheel slippage and adjust power near instantly. Gas engine still wins for top speed or acceleration after 100mph.
Safety is much better because the front of the vehicle acts as a huge crumple zone and roll over risk is way reduced with the battery packs low center of gravity.

It is still faster to fill a vehicle up with gas. Gas vehicles are cheaper. If you live somewhere that doesn't have access to charging that can make it difficult as well.
Battery life on an electric vehicle could be an issue as well. Only charge to 80% for day to day use and don't run below 5% seem to go a long way.
Tire wear will be worse on an electric vehicle due to the excessive torque and regen when slowing down.

 

[lilduke]

I think hybrids are the best of both worlds.

 

[Caper11]

I think hybrids are the best of both worlds.

I agree, the hybrid Highlander I test drove a few years ago really impressed me. Was it worth the extra 10g at the time??? For us no, but if there is alot of city and around town use, than absolutely! Im not sure what the price difference is now.

 

[Cdnfireman]

So I guess it is better to never try than to try and fail and learn while you are doing so? If people weren't trying new approaches all the time, where do you think we would be at? It took 30 years for researchers to find a treatment for diabetes. I think it is good they didn't give up and I imagine there were literally thousands of dead ends. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-discovery-of-insulin

It is a good thing that others have the patience it takes to find new approaches to problems. Discoveries are coming faster now because of better funding much of which comes from private sources.

We all benefit from new technology and you’re right, new approaches have to be tried. But like all other scientific endeavours, truth and logic must be applied in evaluating the results of the R&D, and decisions made should be based on results and logic, not emotion. Every current green technology is a net loss to the environment and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Research on green energy will continue, but research on clean coal and reducing fossil fuel emissions should as well. If you look at the emissions of a modern car vs a 1970’s model, the reduction is amazing. There’s no reason a similar reduction can’t be made to a coal fired plant as well.

 

[acesup800]

Look at your electric bill. On a $100 bill your actual electricity cost is likely $20. If electricity were to double your bill would be $120 dollars. One part of the reason why the solar payoff is so long in Alberta right now is because our electricity is the cheapest in Canada (and most of the world). The price of electricity doubling would cut the time to pay off your system in half. Ontario also has time of use billing. So during the peak demand in the day when your system is generating it's max you are getting paid the highest rate. Then at night when the rates fall and demand on the grid goes down you charge up the battery in your car.

It's very easy to drive 1000km in a day. You wake up in the morning and unplug with a full charge. Drive 500km. Stop and charge for 45min-hour. While you're charging you might as well go to a nearby restaurant and eat. Drive another 500km and charge at your destination.

Wait until they finally start adding the road tax, fuel tax, etc tax to electricity. It's coming. The govt needs the money and they ain't walking away from all the gas taxes. Electric vehicles are getting subsidized to use the roads, just like the peddle bikers.

 

[ABMax24]

We all benefit from new technology and you’re right, new approaches have to be tried. But like all other scientific endeavours, truth and logic must be applied in evaluating the results of the R&D, and decisions made should be based on results and logic, not emotion. Every current green technology is a net loss to the environment and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Research on green energy will continue, but research on clean coal and reducing fossil fuel emissions should as well. If you look at the emissions of a modern car vs a 1970’s model, the reduction is amazing. There’s no reason a similar reduction can’t be made to a coal fired plant as well.

There are reasons why a coal power plant can't be more efficient. Coal power plants use the heat of burning coal to create pressurized steam that turns a turbine, also known as the Rankine Cycle. At the end of this cycle the steam is still hot but has no energy left to drive a turbine, this energy is then expelled through the condenser into some type of cooling system so the cycle can start again. In practice about the best that can be achieved is 42% efficiency, so effectively 58% of the coals energy either goes up the flue stack or out through the cooling towers.

There are better ways such as combined cycle plants that use a liquid or gaseous fuel to drive a gas turbine in the Brayton cycle, and then recover some of the reject heat from this cycle to drive another Steam turbine through the Rankine cycle. The very best plants of this nature are achieving 63% efficiency at the moment. There are 2 large power plants in the Calgary area that use this technology to produce the most amount of electricity from every cubic foot of natural gas.

Cars are a bad comparison for this however, modern gasoline engines essentially never cross the 35% efficiency mark, and the same for diesels at 40%. Never mind the engines from the 70's, some of them had a hard time burning all the fuel going into them never mind extracting useful energy from it.

On a side note to this I personally know a Chemical Engineer that spent years in the 90's trying to create a battery that once depleted could be recharged with coal. There were many different ways to do it and some actually worked, the problem is coal contains so many impurities that it would rapidly degrade the battery and render the entire thing useless. This is a common problem with coal today, it can't be burned in a turbine because of impurities, it can be converted to liquid or gaseous fuels but this again is hampered by impurities and is energy intensive.

We are coming to the end of where we can get with combustion engines, we have picked all the low hanging fruit in regards to fuel efficiency, with all remaining options being costly, complex, and possibly hampering reliability.

 

[52weekbreak]

We all benefit from new technology and you’re right, new approaches have to be tried. But like all other scientific endeavours, truth and logic must be applied in evaluating the results of the R&D, and decisions made should be based on results and logic, not emotion. Every current green technology is a net loss to the environment and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Research on green energy will continue, but research on clean coal and reducing fossil fuel emissions should as well. If you look at the emissions of a modern car vs a 1970’s model, the reduction is amazing. There’s no reason a similar reduction can’t be made to a coal fired plant as well.

Oh oil, coal and gas will be with us for some time so all that will happen (efforts to clean it up). A significant amount has been done already but not implemented because it costs money and will drive electricity prices up.

 

[jhurkot]

Wait until they finally start adding the road tax, fuel tax, etc tax to electricity. It's coming. The govt needs the money and they ain't walking away from all the gas taxes. Electric vehicles are getting subsidized to use the roads, just like the peddle bikers.

I don’t mind a road tax being included in the registration.
What is a fuel tax on electricity?