Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by vfx, Mar 25, 2011.
Quote Of The Day: Who Killed The Electric Car, Part 2 | The Truth About Cars
Japan's nuclear disaster may pull the plug on EV enthusiasm in Europe
His claim that nuclear power is necessary for EV expansion is completely unsupported and I claim it to be completely false.
I have no doubt that oil company shills will try to use this disaster to poison the well for EVs.
I have studied the U.S. grid and it has vast amounts of excess capacity overnight when the bulk of EV charging happens. There was a study that we had capacity for 150 million EVs to charge overnight, TEG can you find that one? The european grid can not be much different.
We will be lucky if a few million EVs are made by 2020, and that number will not be a significant impact to the total electricity demand.
Whatever demand increase there is can be met with sources other than nuclear.
Living in Norther CA next to the Geysers area, with one of the world's largest GEOTHERMAL plants just 20 miles away, it amazes me that the worry over where our power will come from in the future is ever a concern. Japan could have built literally hundreds of geothermal electric plants. Why they did not is mostly because the Japanese revere their hot water bathing and hot springs parks, and NIMBY is strong. Geothermal is cheaper to build, low cost maintenance, no waste (maybe water?), no fuel needed, no dependence on foreign resources, no radiation, and this is BASELINE power. But... in just about EVERY discussion, geothermal is forgotten. Geothermal in Europe is rarer, but Italy, Belgium, Germany, especially Finland and Iceland use it. Geothermal in the US is viable from Colorado to the coast. When Nuclear is proved to be unprofitable, someone will figure out that our EVs will still have a renewable source.
Someday, maybe, there will be enough people with intelligence and reason to respond to the ICE manufacturers' FUD: " Don't need nuclear. Geothermal"
Who needs nuclear power give me a model S & some solar panels any day. The author of the article obviously has his head up has ass. The sequel to HKTEC comes out in April.
This one http://energytech.pnl.gov/publications/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf
breaks it down by region but comes up with 219 million total...
Who Killed The Electric Car...
National Grid: GB Seven Year Statement 2010: PDF version
Check out Chapter 3, fig 3.2 for the current and planned grid capacity and sources in the UK, versus fig 3.3 the maximum user demand on a worst case day.
The bottom line is there is enough night time capacity for the entire fleet to be charged for current average annual mileage and still leave some for planned outages.
put your solar-panels on the roof and charge your car direct from the sun. better put your sun power to the grid and charge through the night
Don't forget that the energy it takes to refine a gallon of gas will propel our EVs the same distance as the ICE can go on that gallon of gas.
Yep. It takes 6KWH to refine a gallon of gasoline. We can drive 22 miles using that much energy, plus another 142 miles using the energy in the gallon of gas.
And thats just the energy to refine it. What about the energy to find it, drill the well, maintain the wells, pump it out of the ground, transport it to the refinery, then transport it to the gas station, then pump it into your car, then allow for evaporation and loss through the entire process. Consider the energy of all the people, and buildings etc require to maintain all the above infrastructure! This could truly be a disruptive technology!!
That's not entirely fair since then you should also consider the costs of mining, refining, shipping, etc all the materials that goes into EV batteries.
I don't agree with that statement, because you didn't take into account the mining, refining, shipping, etc. of all the materials that go into internal combustion engines. Probably a lot worse than for EVs, since EVs are much simpler.
I think it's fair to restrict your attention to just the fuel. Alternatively you can include the manufacturing for both types of cars. But you have to do a fair comparison either way.
That was my point, that the poster was starting to take into account the entire process of creating petrol, but not for EV power. I'm not contending ICE is somehow cheaper to build as an entire car, I'd really doubt that. I'm just saying it's showing a lot of bias including process costs for one and not the other.
I wasn't disallowing the entire process of EV power, but it would be interesting to see an in-depth comparrison encompasing everything from manufacturing of the cars, fuel, batteries etc. ICE vs EV, entire energy used for the life of each vehicle and cost anaysis taking into consideration all of the above.
A big research project, but that'd be cool to see. It should also consider maintenance as well since ICE goes through a lot of oil and transmission fluid in it's lifetime (do EV's use transmission fluid?) and have more parts to replace.
Yes, there is fluid in the gearbox that needs occasional changing as well as brake fluid. And windshield washer fluid. And coolant for the battery, and coolant for the air conditioner. I believe those five fluids are it, however.
Technically, I think the A/C uses 'refrigerant' which is sortof in a different class from the other liquids.
Unless the system develops a leak I don't think you are supposed to replace it on any regular schedule.
Some cars have power steering fluid, but not the Roadster with its' manual steering.
Also, many cars need to have the wheel bearings repacked with fresh grease occasionally.
Nearly irrelevant as you make a battery for every 100,000 miles of Electric travel and the gallon of gas burns up in less than 50 miles.