Electric Cars A Scam

iguanaman said:

You do know that trees for paper are now a renewable resource and most paper is now made from trees raised that way. It was not always so.

Click to expand...

Honestly, no, I didn't know all that. Farming trees, huh? I can only support that if they're free range.

Manc Skipper said:

Why then do you introduce random factors not under discussion? You move outside the scope.

Click to expand...

nope because efficiency deals with a wide variety of things.
it isn't just the engine but what you do with the engine that counts.

that is a myopic view to have when it comes to motors.
to days 4 cylinder motors heck even 6 cylinder motors are getting 35+ miles per gallon.

a leaf gets 100.

if you plan on driving more than an hour down the road a leaf is not that efficient.

longview said:

I actually thought if they were serious about emissions, pickup trucks would be the best place to
start with hybrids and electrics. Electric motors have much better torque over the entire range
which is what trucks need. The frames and suspensions have the space and extra weight capability as well.
Changing a small commuter car from 35 to 50 mpg, is not that big a savings,
changing a pickup from 15 mpg to 30 mpg would be big.

Click to expand...

That depends on the yearly mileage driven by each type of vehicle. Commuter cars are typically driven more miles than pickups

X Factor said:

Honestly, no, I didn't know all that. Farming trees, huh? I can only support that if they're free range.

Click to expand...

https://www.treefarmsystem.org/

iguanaman said:

That depends on the yearly mileage driven by each type of vehicle. Commuter cars are typically driven more miles than pickups

Click to expand...

I was thinking about it from the stand point of someone who is commuting distance is already driving
an efficient car, Toyota, or Honda... ect, getting over 35 mpg, changing out to a prius may save 100 gallons a year.
(assuming 60 mile daily commute, and the prius gets about 45 mpg.)
Whereas the pickup truck driven 12K miles a year might move from 15 mpg to 30 mpg and save 400 gallons.

iguanaman said:

https://www.treefarmsystem.org/

Click to expand...

This may sound silly, but it is easy to get lost on a tree farm, every row looks the same!

LowDown said:

Moving a 4000 lb vehicle down the road requires a certain amount of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Likewise, building the vehicle and dealing with it after its useful life has ended requires energy. If that energy comes from carbon fuel burning plants then it's no different in terms of emissions than a vehicle that burns its fuel on board. The idea that electric cars have zero emissions is false. More than false, really, a lie. Because Elon Musk knows better, but he still depends on the falsehood of zero emissions to make sales.

Don't be fooled - Elon Musk's electric cars aren't about to save the planet

Click to expand...

They're so desperate they're trumping up production emissions?

Aunt Spiker said:

They're so desperate they're trumping up production emissions?

Click to expand...

If by "they" you mean the people who wrote this article, yes. They've falsely inflated the EV emissions numbers and deflated the ICE emissions numbers.

Deuce said:

If by "they" you mean the people who wrote this article, yes. They've falsely inflated the EV emissions numbers and deflated the ICE emissions numbers.

Click to expand...

I really meant that as in: people who buy vehicles aren't balancing out production factors - they shouldn't have to. The government is responsible for levying on companies who produce products.

The consumer watches their bottom line, government and corporations should watch theirs.

Aunt Spiker said:

I really meant that as in: people who buy vehicles aren't balancing out production factors - they shouldn't have to. The government is responsible for levying on companies who produce products.

The consumer watches their bottom line, government and corporations should watch theirs.

Click to expand...

...they don't have to? I'm confused about this objection. Nobody is making anybody weigh any factors. You can buy whichever vehicle you like for whatever reason you like.

But some of us might consider electric vehicles for environmental reasons and emissions numbers are a part of that decision.

So.... help me out here?

WillyPete said:

They do produce reduced emissions compared to other types of cars. If your numbers are accurate, they'll produce reduced overall emissions than they would from a 100% carbon grid. Where's the lie?

It seems like you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. Carbon fuel electrical generating plants are less efficient, so electric cars can result in more emissions than a normal car and certainly more than a hybrid, even when you consider the green electricity.

And, again, you have to consider the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process, especially of the big lithium battery, and of disposing of the car at the end of it's life.

iguanaman said:

You are assuming that all electric power is generated by fossil fuels, that is not the case and will be even less so in the future. Electric cars charged with power from solar, wind, hydroelectric, or nuclear power are true zero emissions vehicles.

Click to expand...

Nope, I go into the mix of electricity sources in another post. There's no such thing these days as a car powered only by solar or wind unless you're off the grid. If you connect to the grid you consume the standard mix, which is mostly carbon fueled. Even if you pay a utility company that advertises that it's 100% renewable you're really getting the standard mix, which is necessary because renewables couldn't operate without nuke and carbon plants to back them up.

I certainly hope solar and wind doesn't increase. We're paying enough in subsidies as it is.

LowDown said:

Sorry, but no. Carbon fuel electrical generating plants are less efficient, so electric cars can result in more emissions than a normal car and certainly more than a hybrid, even when you consider the green electricity.

And, again, you have to consider the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process, especially of the big lithium battery, and of disposing of the car at the end of it's life.

Click to expand...

Carbon fuel power plants are not less efficient than internal combustion engines, where on earth did you get that idea?

Deuce said:

...they don't have to? I'm confused about this objection. Nobody is making anybody weigh any factors. You can buy whichever vehicle you like for whatever reason you like.

But some of us might consider electric vehicles for environmental reasons and emissions numbers are a part of that decision.

So.... help me out here?

Click to expand...

If it matters then it should matter beyond 'things I buy / use' - I think our government has been crap-tacular about emission standards. Caps and trade for ****'s sake.

LowDown said:

Sorry, but no. Carbon fuel electrical generating plants are less efficient, so electric cars can result in more emissions than a normal car and certainly more than a hybrid, even when you consider the green electricity.

Click to expand...

We don't have to agree, but "sorry, but no" isn't really a convincing argument.

You say they can create more emissions. It seems like you're acknowledging they can also produce less. I still don't see the lie.

And, again, you have to consider the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process, especially of the big lithium battery, and of disposing of the car at the end of it's life.

Click to expand...

Electric cars and their batteries have recycle value. If it's not profitable (Tesla claims it is, and do the battery recycling themselves) I'd say this would be a good place for subsidies, both to jump-start the process and to fund development of improved designs.

Here's a Consumer Report article on the matter, and here's a Tesla blog on the subject. They're both a couple years old, so I'd expect some improvement has already come along.

Tesla doesn't appear to be calling for any additional subsidies for recycling. Heck, they even claim to recycle the heat produced in the process into electricity for a neighboring business.

LowDown said:

I certainly hope solar and wind doesn't increase. We're paying enough in subsidies as it is.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand your angle on this. You don't like Tesla, you don't like subsidizing renewables, and you don't seem to like nuclear.

What do you like? What solution do you envision for satisfy our energy needs?

WillyPete said:

Scam seem harsh. These cars do allow for the possibility of reduced emissions, if their the electricity comes from low emission sources.

Also, it makes them flexible, as now the source can be anything a power plant can run on. These cars run on nuclear, natural gas, solar, or wind just as readily as coal.

Obviously more efficient power plants are more important than what type of cars we're driving.

Maybe we're going about it backwards, but why the hate?

Click to expand...

And another thing.

An electric car fleet also provides a usually unmentioned potential benefit.

Grid storage.

Electric car battery pack capacities are huge. They give ups and take on energy very quickly.

Most people will rarely use more than a small.portion of their vehicles charge. So that energy could become available to the grid, while hooked up while at work to charge when demand is highest and returned at night when it is lower.

No more blackouts for electric car owners, they will have a backup battery for their house.

And a lot of the carbon attributed to battery production is actually the assinine way we make them. Lithium is mined in country A, transported to country B to be refined, transported to country C to be made into batteries and then transported to the car factory. This is exaggerated but you get the idea. If the batteries were made where the lithium is it would substantially reduce their carbon footprint.

And furthermore, its not just co2. Other pollutants that are the result of acceration/deceleration cycles are lower than those from power plants, and sequestration/filtering is possible for them with the latter.

And of course if the energy is from a hydro plant the numbers are very different.

Not for everybody, but they're fast. Get them in the hands of enough men and they will sell themselves. That's the genius of the new Tesla.

A successful electric has to be better than IC.

Doesn't have to beat conventional vehicles in every metric. All it has to do is be blisteringly fast, relatively affordable and have enough range for most people most of the time.

And give it a ludicrous button.

LowDown said:

Sorry, but no. Carbon fuel electrical generating plants are less efficient, so electric cars can result in more emissions than a normal car and certainly more than a hybrid, even when you consider the green electricity.

And, again, you have to consider the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process, especially of the big lithium battery, and of disposing of the car at the end of it's life.

Click to expand...

Are you talking transmission loss!

Because most of an automobiles inefficiency comes from acceptation/deceleration cycles, which power plants don't have.

The most efficient combustion in any fuel engine is derived from operating at a steady output. And automobile fuel use calculations in these comparisons often don't include the production and transportation of the fuel. But do include these in the electric car calculations.

longview said:

Battery powered electric cars suffer from some real limitations of battery technology,
and energy density.
Battery Comparison of Energy Density - Cylindrical and Prismatic Cells
Looking at their chart the best batteries are below 200 Wh/kg
Gasoline carries about 8800 Wh/kg, so even if the Carnot efficiency
of the engine is only 20%, gasoline still carries a useful 1760 Wh/kg,
or eight times greater the energy density.
This is an improvement, gasoline used to be 10 times greater!
That said, electrical propulsion, is head and shoulders above driving the wheels
with the IC engine and transmission.
Hybrid ships and trains have been around for decades.
If a company develops a series hybrid, (like ships and trains), it could be a game changer.
I think Volvo was working on one.
4 hub motors, with a small fixed speed engine, and a small battery to absorb the starts and stops.

Click to expand...

The Volt is almost one. There is some throughput to the drivetrain from the ICE but its essentially and electric car with an APU.

Ugly like a butt though.

BrewerBob said:

This was discussed on Skeptic's Guide a couple months back. The manufacture and disposal of batteries seems to be an insignificant factor. Whether or not it is worthwhile depends on where the electricity is coming from. In some places the electric car is superior and in others it is inferior. Depends on the nature of the power plant providing the electricity.

Click to expand...

Plus, if some new energy source comes online the electric automobile fleet can enjoy it instantly. No modification s required.

What if...? said:

The Volt is almost one. There is some throughput to the drivetrain from the ICE but its essentially and electric car with an APU.

Ugly like a butt though.

Click to expand...

What I'm wondering is.. with the Volt you have a 100k warranty regarding the battery. Tesla is 100 or 125k.
The Volt battery ive seen costs around 3k dollars but that doesn't include installation. the tesla battery is a lot more.
I know the Tesla uses a lith ion I'm assuming the Volt does too.

As we get more of these out on the roads and charging stations pop up .. how you charge effects battery life. Typically the thought was that trickle charging or slow charging was the better way so as to minimize heat that damages the battery.
But standford found a year or so ago that lithium ion batteries have tons of little particle clusters and the charign occurs one at a time one fills and then it moves on to the next... so from an efficiency perspecting fast charging would be better.

As to what kind of charging will be available and its effects on the battery life of electric cars is known then the long term costs are still a bit unknown.

ludin said:

as long as you don't have to drive long distances they are great.
most are only good up to 100 miles.

Click to expand...

And most people don't drive that far all at once all that often. Most can get to work and back on that.

The range issue doesn't really end up in the negative column when actual driving habits are analysed.

And as charging rates increase it matters less and less.

If you can get a hundred miles of charge in 15 minutes it becomes a matter of slight inconvenience but full usability.

SocialD said:

What I'm wondering is.. with the Volt you have a 100k warranty regarding the battery. Tesla is 100 or 125k.
The Volt battery ive seen costs around 3k dollars but that doesn't include installation. the tesla battery is a lot more.
I know the Tesla uses a lith ion I'm assuming the Volt does too.

As we get more of these out on the roads and charging stations pop up .. how you charge effects battery life. Typically the thought was that trickle charging or slow charging was the better way so as to minimize heat that damages the battery.
But standford found a year or so ago that lithium ion batteries have tons of little particle clusters and the charign occurs one at a time one fills and then it moves on to the next... so from an efficiency perspecting fast charging would be better.

As to what kind of charging will be available and its effects on the battery life of electric cars is known then the long term costs are still a bit unknown.

Click to expand...

I use a lot of lithium ion batteries in my RC flying hobby.

Maximum safe charge rate keeps going up.

I'd they can get it high enough range wont be an issue anymore.

ludin said:

opinion noted.

tell you what I will go borrow a truck and you borrow a electric or suv.
we will both hook up to a boat same size.

we will see which is more efficient at pulling it.

I bet I win.

Click to expand...

Distance or towing power?

LowDown said:

Moving a 4000 lb vehicle down the road requires a certain amount of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Likewise, building the vehicle and dealing with it after its useful life has ended requires energy. If that energy comes from carbon fuel burning plants then it's no different in terms of emissions than a vehicle that burns its fuel on board. The idea that electric cars have zero emissions is false. More than false, really, a lie. Because Elon Musk knows better, but he still depends on the falsehood of zero emissions to make sales.

Don't be fooled - Elon Musk's electric cars aren't about to save the planet

Click to expand...

I really depends on where the electricity comes from. In an age where people are starting to add solar to their residence, or in the Northwest where most the power is Hydroelectric, the electric cars emit no CO2 once built.

This is what we were telling the lefties who didn't understand such things before we started implementing solar and wind power. Its not going to be that bad in the future as we move away from fossil fuel.

Deuce said:

You don't use a Leaf to tow a boat, but you could use an electric vehicle with a larger motor and battery pack, and the equivalent emissions of that vehicle would be less than that of your F-150. (although certainly not cost-effective at the current stage of technology)

Click to expand...

Yeah, his whole argument has me scratching my head. Why is he trying to compare a Leaf or a Tesla S to a truck like a Ford F-150? Well no ****, the F-150 is going to pull a boat better.

You know what else a F-150 will pull a boat better than? A Nissan Versa or a BMW M5.

Yes, compact (Leaf) or Luxury (S) cars aren't going to tow a boat as well as a truck. That's true whether or not those compact / luxury cars are electric or gas.