What are the problems with electric cars?

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maporsche wrote:
And there is also carbon sequestration technology that could be applied to coal plants too...eliminating up to 90% of their CO2 output.

True, but I expect that the left will block it from widespread implementation.

Why would you think this? I'm seeing nothing but democrats coming out in favor of this technology...and seeing the Trump budget proposal eliminating/lowering funding.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Why would people choose electric-only over something that could use either electricity or liquid fuel?

I could see replacing the internal combustion engine with fuel cells. But foregoing liquid fuel just limits your options.

Because electric only will be cleaner, cheaper, better performing, and people love new shiny technology.

It may take 50 -100 years, but soon all cars will be electric (or something even newer).

3 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Anti-nuke zealots prevent the expansion of nuclear power.

BTW, I'd like to see this changed. If we could bypass the zealots and build sodium-cooled fast reactors, we could start using all actinides as fuel, which would eliminate most of the problems with nuclear waste.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Anti-nuke zealots prevent the expansion of nuclear power.

BTW, I'd like to see this changed. If we could bypass the zealots and build sodium-cooled fast reactors, we could start using all actinides as fuel, which would eliminate most of the problems with nuclear waste.

I'm not an anti-nuke zealot by any means, but there is a legitimate problem with the nuclear waste that needs to be figured out sooner than later.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Why would you think this?

Because they see coal as evil.

Also, I'm suspecting an agenda to cripple the US through power shortages. Nuclear could allow a reduction in greenhouse gasses. They oppose nuclear. As soon as fracking began to allow natural gas to start replacing coal, they started opposing fracking. Putting dust in the atmosphere to absorb sunlight could counter the impact of greenhouse gasses. They won't even hear of it.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'm not an anti-nuke zealot by any means,

Good for you. But they are out there waiting to oppose reasonable solutions.

maporsche wrote:

but there is a legitimate problem with the nuclear waste that needs to be figured out sooner than later.

It was figured out a long time ago. Most nuclear waste (including all of the very long lived waste) can be used as fuel for fast-neutron reactors. As soon as we start using it as fuel for reactors, we no longer have to worry about how to safely dispose of it.

The only thing we really have to dispose of are the fragments of split atoms. And even some of those might have practical uses (perhaps medical treatments).

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Because electric only will be cleaner, cheaper, better performing, and people love new shiny technology.
It may take 50 -100 years, but soon all cars will be electric (or something even newer).

If that's the case, why hasn't electricity displaced natural gas lines in cities or propane tanks in the country?

0 Replies

@Ponderer,

Thanks Pond for your kind response

Quote:

PS: Nu y'd undrstnd.

Yes, closer, but no, not entirely. Wonder if you'c'd provide a link

1 Reply

@mike94,

An educated guess tells me that an electric combustion engine is missing the 'explosion' (internally) needed for higher horsepower. This may change with more research. I like the idea of green engines.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

I meant I knew you would 'stand my mssg. ( * )If you mean that you don't entirely understand the idea of using a small turbine to spin an alternator, I just base it on the high rpm capability of a turbine. My electrical knowledge is mostly within 12-volt, +&- stuff. But I do know that spinning magnets in a coil of wire makes 'tricity. Seems like a small, high rpm alternator would be pretty volty.
.
If you mean a link to the Chrysler prototype ( really, I think they made about seven of them and gave them to people to try. Not sure) I googled "turbine car"
( * ) despite all of your quite humorous talk about think-cell loss

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

It may take 50 -100 years, but soon all cars will be electric (or something even newer).

http://beyondthemarquee.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2191_12652A-600x396.jpg

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The problem is one of temperature. A power plant operates a LOT hotter than any heat engine you could possibly drive (around 4000 deg F compared to 600 deg f). There is something called theoretic efficiency which is the highest possible efficiency any heat engine can achieve. As I recall, the theoretic efficiency for a typical power plant is about 80% (meaning it turns 80% of the coal burned into electricity, neglecting friction losses which are minimal). The theoretic effeciency of the typical internal combustion engine is less than 20%, and friction losses are much higher due to the necessary tolerances for mass production combined with reduced maintenance)/
Since line losses to transport electricity are small, you cut your carbon footprint from driving by about a factor of 4. That is a lot.

There are no battery improvements which will substantially improve the total capacity, the lack of range is probably going to remain a problem. Having two cars, one for short range and the other for long range is a poor solution since making another car causes massive pollution,

The solution to this requires a change in infrastructure and peoples attitudes. Ideally no one would own a car. When the battery is running low they simply pull into a parking lot and trade what they are driving for another vehicle. Busses should be used for any trip over about 50 miles and high speed rails should be used for longer trips. Planes should be reserved for trips over a thousand miles or so.

None of the above would require any new major technologh and would cut polution from travel enoemously without any real inconvenience. The ideas are 50 years old and no move has been made to implement any. I can't help but wonder if the Kochs and the Rockefellers have some opposition to the plan.

Get used to it. Capitalism will see to it that we continue to waste as much of everything as possible because there is money in selling you more and more.
They own the gold mine and all we get is the shaft.

Please forgive typpos. I'm writing with a split on the finger I would like to salute Charles Koch with.

2 Replies

@hibbitus,

hibbitus wrote:

The problem is one of temperature. A power plant operates a LOT hotter than any heat engine you could possibly drive (around 4000 deg F compared to 600 deg f). There is something called theoretic efficiency which is the highest possible efficiency any heat engine can achieve. As I recall, the theoretic efficiency for a typical power plant is about 80% (meaning it turns 80% of the coal burned into electricity, neglecting friction losses which are minimal). The theoretic effeciency of the typical internal combustion engine is less than 20%, and friction losses are much higher due to the necessary tolerances for mass production combined with reduced maintenance

4000 degrees f is way above the melting point of any steel I can think of.

Theoretical efficiency of 80% for coal fired power plant is just a bit misleading. Between pollution control systems and the necessary equipment to present pulverized coal to the boilers, coal fired plants were consuming 30% of their output internally. This was back in '88 when I worked in such a plant. I only speculate the pollution control systems are now consuming a bit more.

Yes, coal fired plants are surprisingly efficient, but you might be overstating the case.

1 Reply

@hibbitus,

Quote:

There are no battery improvements which will substantially improve the total capacity, the lack of range is probably going to remain a problem.

I think youre wrong. The testing of these newer sulfur/ lithium batteries promise to deliver rnges t leqt twice whqt a std Li battery bnk cn deliver AND, they wont hqve to be made up of these banks of smaller batteries hooked up in series.

One of the continuing problems I see is the heating and AC systems draining lots of that range. Thts been a dirty little secret of the Chevy Volt o the Bolt.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

There are no battery improvements which will substantially improve the total capacity, the lack of range is probably going to remain a problem.

Quote:

I think youre wrong

Me too. I imagine some day in the future we'd have one about the size of the was's, which would drive the car for 1000 miles. However, given the present State of the World I'm not sure we'll survive

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

(or something even newer)

Map that's occurred to me too. I imagine some sort of chem reaction drivin' a turbine or a gen

Ed'd to remark, even better, to just make the elect, direct thru chem means

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

they see coal as evil

Well Ora, from the persp of overpop, it is so. However, if there were 50 times fewer of us...

0 Replies

@roger,

I was using information from memory about 50 years old. I did not look up exact numbers because they are not crucial to the argument. The number I quoted is the pressure at the critical point (and is nearer 3000 anyway). Sorry for any misunderstanding. But you are right, I did overstate thee case by a good bit. Thanks for the correction,

0 Replies

Even twice the range is not going to help much. Two little boys pissing in the river is not much of an improvement over one little boy. US citizens want trips in the hundreds of miles. I am pretty sure that we will only get what we need with major infrastructure changes. I don't think that socialists should by satisfied with better regulations or with small improvements. I wish that I could think of a way to say the following which doesn't sound confrontational because I don't want to be. But the trouble is that our present system is capatilism and you seem to want to fix a broke stick.

2 Replies

@hibbitus,

What I'm wondering is, would the American driver be willing to put up with connecting a charger to a car at the end of nearly every day. Also, is he going to have to get his hands dirty while connecting and disconnecting the charger? Will she break a fingernail in the process?

3 Replies

What are the problems with electric cars?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know