[bikersfan]

link

Companies continue to put billions into these projects and consumers follow it like a moth to a flame.

These are not zero emissions vehicles! The electric that powers them isn't made by fairies magically. We produce about 1% of our electric from wind, so the rest of it is from fossil fuels.

Not to mention the huge toxic waste fund of the batteries that have to be replaced every 6 to 10 years depending on weather and driving conditions. And the expense! Last I heard it was like 7k for a new battery pack for a Prius.

We need to put that money and energy into a solution, not a stop gap that is not really helping anything other than making people feel better.

[SaraKonradtt]

Beyond the batteries and the electricity, don't forget to add into the equation the lubricants, plastics & synthetics that make up a large portion of the vehicle itself. They all are made from the products of the fossil fuel refining industry

[j2Y6Ysmb]

[Nubtoubrem]

link

Companies continue to put billions into these projects and consumers follow it like a moth to a flame.

These are not zero emissions vehicles! The electric that powers them isn't made by fairies magically. We produce about 1% of our electric from wind, so the rest of it is from fossil fuels.

Not to mention the huge toxic waste fund of the batteries that have to be replaced every 6 to 10 years depending on weather and driving conditions. And the expense! Last I heard it was like 7k for a new battery pack for a Prius.

We need to put that money and energy into a solution, not a stop gap that is not really helping anything other than making people feel better.

Somehow I doubt the emissions created by the energy plant used to power up the vehicle are equal or greater to the emissions from a gas fueled engine. Also, there is the benefit of lowering our reliance on foreign oil.

What is your proposed alternative to fossil fueled cars?

[Uhmavano]

link

Companies continue to put billions into these projects and consumers follow it like a moth to a flame.

These are not zero emissions vehicles! The electric that powers them isn't made by fairies magically. We produce about 1% of our electric from wind, so the rest of it is from fossil fuels.

Not to mention the huge toxic waste fund of the batteries that have to be replaced every 6 to 10 years depending on weather and driving conditions. And the expense! Last I heard it was like 7k for a new battery pack for a Prius.

We need to put that money and energy into a solution, not a stop gap that is not really helping anything other than making people feel better.

I don't understand: does the car directly create carbon emissions, or only indirectly through parts and charging?

If it runs entirely on electricity and is affordable, sign me up! I'm tired of paying $2.50 a gallon to get around. If it's a hybrid forget it.

[Uhmavano]

Somehow I doubt the emissions created by the energy plant used to power up the vehicle are equal or greater to the emissions from a gas fueled engine.

Very true--look at how oil companies rape the environment to get oil in the first place, and then how much of an energy exhaustive process it must go through for processing into a fuel grade. Compare this to nuclear power, which creates zero emissions and wastes no limited resource; the only negative being the nuclear waste.

[viagbloggerz]

Somehow I doubt the emissions created by the energy plant used to power up the vehicle are equal or greater to the emissions from a gas fueled engine. Also, there is the benefit of lowering our reliance on foreign oil.

What is your proposed alternative to fossil fueled cars?

I agree that ultimately a power plant would be more energy and pollutant efficient than cars, so in that respect, transferring the energy creation to the grid is not a bad thing.

The obvious drawback though is that our grid and plants are probably a long way away from handling a large shift from "gas station" to "power station".

Ultimately though, I have no problem with corporations dumping money into the research and production to the solutions. I would rather they do it than the government. At least then we have a better chance of what is truly a more efficient solution as opposed to a more politically connected solution.

Also, if someone doesn't like what a company is investing into, we can choose to not have our money associated with that company and support other avenues of research and production.


Overall though, it does illustrate that America probably needs to pay more attention to the power grid more than the automobile. Just about any significant solution to power cars outside of combustion will require transferring the burden to the grid. Plus, if we can keep energy costs at grid level clean and cheap, it will continue to make transference form combustion more attractive.

[retyopj]

link

Companies continue to put billions into these projects and consumers follow it like a moth to a flame.

These are not zero emissions vehicles! The electric that powers them isn't made by fairies magically. We produce about 1% of our electric from wind, so the rest of it is from fossil fuels.

Not to mention the huge toxic waste fund of the batteries that have to be replaced every 6 to 10 years depending on weather and driving conditions. And the expense! Last I heard it was like 7k for a new battery pack for a Prius.

We need to put that money and energy into a solution, not a stop gap that is not really helping anything other than making people feel better.

Electric cars have one big advantage over gas-powered cars and that is engine efficiency. The energy wasted in a gas-powered car is higher than the energy wasted in an electric powered car. So overall less oil (or fossil fuels) would be needed to power the same number of electric cars than gas-powered cars. So more electric cars would mean fewer fossil fuels burned.

[gogFloark]

Nissan rolls out electric car

Why? Wouldn't it roll itself?

I kid, I kid.

I favor nukes for the production of base load power. That will free up petroleum for use in manufacturing and as motor fuel.

[retyopj]

Why? Wouldn't it roll itself?

I kid, I kid.

I favor nukes for the production of base load power. That will free up petroleum for use in manufacturing and as motor fuel.

More nukes appears to be the direction we are going.

[Toossehew]

link


These are not zero emissions vehicles! The electric that powers them isn't made by fairies magically. We produce about 1% of our electric from wind, so the rest of it is from fossil fuels.

Not to mention the huge toxic waste fund of the batteries that have to be replaced every 6 to 10 years depending on weather and driving conditions. And the expense! Last I heard it was like 7k for a new battery pack for a Prius.

We need to put that money and energy into a solution, not a stop gap that is not really helping anything other than making people feel better.

They would be zero emissions vehicles. True, the power plants would not be zero emissions. But it is a lot more feasible to connect wind turbines and solar panels to the electric grid than it is to put a panel on every car.

Why would the car battery situation be any different than with current car batteries?

[gogFloark]

Electric cars have one big advantage over gas-powered cars and that is engine efficiency. The energy wasted in a gas-powered car is higher than the energy wasted in an electric powered car. So overall less oil (or fossil fuels) would be needed to power the same number of electric cars than gas-powered cars. So more electric cars would mean fewer fossil fuels burned.

In relative terms, the electric motor is more efficient than the gas motor. But nearly everything else about the electric car is less efficient than its gas counterpart.

The inefficiency confronting electrical car motors is that the electricity is generated at a power plant and transmitted along the grid to the plug, where it then charges the battery, which discharges it to run the motor. All of those steps involve considerable inefficiencies leading to lost electricity. While the electric motor is more efficient with energy it gets, that energy represents only a fraction of what was originally generated.

In addition, gasoline is far more energy dense than the batteries that drive electric cars. That means the electric car does a lot more work to haul around its energy source. That means less capacity to haul passengers and cargo.

And none of this addresses the fact that the nation's current electrical grid simply can't handle the additional load of supplying everyone's car.

I'd actually like to see a decent hybrid in which each system takes advantage of what the other isn't good at doing. But I remain skeptical of the ultimate utility of pure electrics for anything other than very-short-distance urban commuting.

[gogFloark]

More nukes appears to be the direction we are going.

No and no.

The administration's position on wind and solar is unrealistic. Nuclear, coal-burning and gas-burning generation are capable of supply energy when users demand it. Wind and solar produce it when it's windy and sunny, which doesn't coincide with demand. Battery technology simply doesn't enable the storage of sufficient wind and solar to take any kind of bite out of base load demand at peak demand. (In other words, we still need conventional and nuclear generating capacity equal to 100 percent of peak demand. Wind and solar don't replace a dollar of investment in generation by nuclear, coal or gas.)

[Nubtoubrem]

No and no.

The administration's position on wind and solar is unrealistic. Nuclear, coal-burning and gas-burning generation are capable of supply energy when users demand it. Wind and solar produce it when it's windy and sunny, which doesn't coincide with demand. Battery technology simply doesn't enable the storage of sufficient wind and solar to take any kind of bite out of base load demand at peak demand. (In other words, we still need conventional and nuclear generating capacity equal to 100 percent of peak demand. Wind and solar don't replace a dollar of investment in generation by nuclear, coal or gas.)

I am all for nuke plants. Just try to get one built though.

[viagbloggerz]

Why would the car battery situation be any different than with current car batteries?

Because a combustion car needs that small little battery that sits next to your firewall. An electric car needs this:

[retyopj]

In relative terms, the electric motor is more efficient than the gas motor. But nearly everything else about the electric car is less efficient than its gas counterpart.

The inefficiency confronting electrical car motors is that the electricity is generated at a power plant and transmitted along the grid to the plug, where it then charges the battery, which discharges it to run the motor. All of those steps involve considerable inefficiencies leading to lost electricity. While the electric motor is more efficient with energy it gets, that energy represents only a fraction of what was originally generated.

In addition, gasoline is far more energy dense than the batteries that drive electric cars. That means the electric car does a lot more work to haul around its energy source. That means less capacity to haul passengers and cargo.

And none of this addresses the fact that the nation's current electrical grid simply can't handle the additional load of supplying everyone's car.

I'd actually like to see a decent hybrid in which each system takes advantage of what the other isn't good at doing. But I remain skeptical of the ultimate utility of pure electrics for anything other than very-short-distance urban commuting.

Hmm, most cars carry one person at a time so cargo and hauling could be delegated to another vehicle. Electric vehicles can't replace every gas powered vehicle because of the drain on the grid, but electric cars can be part of a diverse transportation solution depending on the use of the vehicles and the power source.

[viagbloggerz]

Hmm, most cars carry one person at a time so cargo and hauling could be delegated to another vehicle. Electric vehicles can't replace every gas powered vehicle because of the drain on the grid, but electric cars can be part of a diverse transportation solution depending on the use of the vehicles and the power source.

And that is more of the real answer. There are going to be many solutions for different scenarios and it is best if the market sorts out the efficiencies and the government just makes sure there is a level playing field for them all to compete.

[retyopj]

No and no.

The administration's position on wind and solar is unrealistic. Nuclear, coal-burning and gas-burning generation are capable of supply energy when users demand it. Wind and solar produce it when it's windy and sunny, which doesn't coincide with demand. Battery technology simply doesn't enable the storage of sufficient wind and solar to take any kind of bite out of base load demand at peak demand. (In other words, we still need conventional and nuclear generating capacity equal to 100 percent of peak demand. Wind and solar don't replace a dollar of investment in generation by nuclear, coal or gas.)

The administration plans aren't really important regarding energy. It's going to be up to the companies.

Regarding nuclear power, I was thinking of the last 20 years in which I thought we were getting a larger share of our power from nuclear. Am I wrong?

[gogFloark]

Why would the car battery situation be any different than with current car batteries?

Adam has pointed out the physical difference between the two types of batteries, and here is a description of the performance differences.

Basically, an electric car runs on a bunch of laptop batteries.

[viagbloggerz]

The administration plans aren't really important regarding energy. It's going to be up to the companies.

Regarding nuclear power, I was thinking of the last 20 years in which I thought we were getting a larger share of our power from nuclear. Am I wrong?

We have actually been at about 20% for the last 20 years.