Electric Cars - The Pros And Cons

[MrFireDragon]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could- ... 17691.html

[alj_ws]

That's actually a very good point...and something I've discussed with my husband when we noticed that some stores and other companies were making an effort to provide plug-in stations to electric cars. If we ever did get an electric car, we both agreed we'd still have one of our two vehicles be a fuel-efficient IC car so we could go on road-trips without having to worry about the "How far can I go before I have to stop and plug-in for the night?" situation. We may look into a hybrid at some point to see if we can have a kind of "best of both worlds," but that's entirely because of the growing expense of putting gas in our tanks. With the cost of fuel/gallon still high (why is it that no one seems angry about this anymore?), it's getting ridiculously expensive to fill up my little Mazda...and I live in Dallas (where gas prices are far from the highest in the nation), use regular unleaded, and get 30 miles/gallon during my regular city driving. I hate to think how expensive it is for people who have to use premium on a larger tank with bad gas mileage.

I find always amusing to hear Americans rant about fuel price. You still have it easy. Try 1.54€/Liter on premium unleaded, that is french prices right now and even worse in some other EU countries. Ok our commute is typically shorter and we have in most cities quite good public transportation.

About the range problem for electric cars, there was an interesting take in an Israely project (with cars supplied by Matra) where the batteries would be swapped by a robot at the station. Solve the problem quite nicely, with only the initial cost of making the batteries removable automatically. Dont know if it was implemented though.

[Fairportfan]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could- ... 17691.html

Uh uh.

[Fairportfan]

I find always amusing to hear Americans rant about fuel price. You still have it easy. Try 1.54€/Liter on premium unleaded, that is french prices right now and even worse in some other EU countries. Ok our commute is typically shorter and we have in most cities quite good public transportation.

Back when i was stationed in Italy since my car (my poor, dead, Sprite Mk 2.5 - literally the only one confirmed, rather than just rumoured, to have been built and sold) had Armed Forces Italy plates, rather than being registered in Italy, i could buy books of coupons that let me buy tax-free gasoline for (about) thirty cents/US Gallon.

For the same gas, including the tax, at the same Esso stations, people with Italian-registered cars were paying roughly three times as much.

[jwhouk]

That kit car ain't gonna take off. Tesla Motors has 1,000 times more upside than that thing.

[Fairportfan]

That kit car ain't gonna take off. Tesla Motors has 1,000 times more upside than that thing.

It ain't gonna fly because it's a pain in the gazoo to install, and i'm not real sanguine about its durability.

[shadowinthelight]

It does sound like too much work. It is probably technologically simpler to do a full electric conversion. This page talks about the issues with electric conversion but I have to admit I like the idea of a pimped out electric Chevy S10.

[Fairportfan]

It does sound like too much work. It is probably technologically simpler to do a full electric conversion. This page talks about the issues with electric conversion but I have to admit I like the idea of a pimped out electric Chevy S10.

Personally, i want a Porsche/VW 914 with a Mazda rotary...

Or a cut-down RX-7 chassis with a Miata body. (A one-off built as a gift for the head of the Miata program when he retired.)

[shadowinthelight]

Although I am happy with my '06 Corolla, I do miss the '88 S10 Blazer I traded in for it sometimes. It had plenty of room in the back for a battery bank and is probably a prime candidate for conversion.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Okay, let's crunch some actual numbers here. From the US Dept. of Energy:

Let's start with the Subcompact class an a side-by-side comparision, mostly because leading the pack, by a very generous margin, is the Mitsubishi i Electric Vehicle. While it's not up to Tesla's standards yet, it still blows anything Detroit has managed to do.

It's battery is a mere 16 KwH (compared to the Model S's 45-85, depding on the package), but it still has a top speed of 81 MPH (half of Tesla's, but still higher than most speed limits in America, and it's probably got a governor installed for that purpose) and a range of 62 miles (twice the distance the Volt can manage before becoming an inefficient hybrid). On the upside, it can be recharged in a mere half hour.

Now let's scroll down to Fuel Economics.

Both the Chevrolet Sonic and the Ford Fiesta rock in at about $2.91 to travel 25 miles. The MIEV? 90 cents. Cutting your fuel bill not just in half but into a third? Works well for my budget.

Now let's step over to the Mid-Sized Sedan category, wherin, again, the clear leader is the Nissan Leaf. Now this one is pitted up against the reigning champion, the Toyoda Prius, which has always been the most fuel efficient fuel-burning car around. With it's impressive 50 MPG rating, it's easily one of the most economical cars around.

But our newcomer is certainly coming out with some impressive numbers. A 24 KwH battery keeps this baby going, half to less than half of what Tesla packs into theirs, but it still manages a top speed of around 90 MPH, enough to get you into a lot of trouble with the local constables, and about a hundred mile range (+- 30, depending on conditions)

So let's hit the real important numbers... how much money goes into making this thing run. Well, the Prius, reigning champion of fuel economy that it is, clocks in a an astonishing $1.91 per 25 miles! So yes, this baby is significantly more efficient than the little subcompacts. That's going to be hard to beat. And the Nissan Leaf doesn't quite hit the numbers of the smaller MiEV, so he -only- gets down to $1.02 for 25 miles of usage. Therefore, he just barely manages to miss being twice the fuel efficiency of the hybrid... but it's still clear who the real winner is here.

The Volt is merely a straw man erected to argue against electric vehicles. Done so because they're so far up Big Oil's pocket they need to pipe in air.

As I have demonstrated, Tesla isn't the ONLY company producing electric cars (merely the best ones), and they all kick the stuffing out of even hybrids in terms of fuel economy. Nissan and Mitsubishi have both come out with models that are in every way superior to the Volt, and the RAV1 from Toyoda also puts it to shame, even though it hasn't shown up on the numbers because we didn't look at its classification.

Now then, as far as efficiency of the grid itself, I did some digging, and found some interesting numbers:

First off, I found this rather confusing chart while browsing the EIA's government website. It says that just under half of the energy grid (46% actually) is generated by coal. Natural Gas makes up a surprising 20%, and Nuclear makes up another 21%. 12% comes from renewable sources, and a mere 1% is actually being generated from Petroleum. Trending indicates that old coal burning plants are being phased out and is on the decline. Unfortunately, a lot of this slack is being taken up by more efficient, but still fossil fuel burning, natural gas. However, Renewable and Nuclear sources have been carving their percentages out of what Coal has been leaving behind, and both show a higher rate of increase than natural gas.

So all those numbers using the most pessimistic coal burning efficiency numbers? Yea... that's less than half, and those numbers are declining fairly rapidly.

As far as Wikipedia... my niece in Jr. High was told by her English teacher that if she cited Wikipedia, it would be an instant F. This from Jr. High. In Collegiate circles, it simply gets you laughed off the podium. It is a User Edited document. Anyone can come in and edit any article at any time for any reason. As a cited source, it makes you look like an uneducated and ignorant individual. Sources Wikipedia cites can range from accurate to wildly inaccurate, depending on the article at hand, and the polarization on the issue it is commenting on.

[Dave11]

As far as Wikipedia... my niece in Jr. High was told by her English teacher that if she cited Wikipedia, it would be an instant F. This from Jr. High. In Collegiate circles, it simply gets you laughed off the podium. It is a User Edited document. Anyone can come in and edit any article at any time for any reason. As a cited source, it makes you look like an uneducated and ignorant individual. Sources Wikipedia cites can range from accurate to wildly inaccurate, depending on the article at hand, and the polarization on the issue it is commenting on.

Yes, Wikipedia is user-edited. Yes, it is only as good as its editor and sources. Yes, it is not acceptable as a reference in an academic or professional work. HOWEVER, It often provides a good summary of the sources cited. What I used to do was use Wikipedia to do a top-level look, and then drill down into their references until I found a "reputable" source (like a newspaper), read their wording, and use that as my source.

On the other hand, let's look at "reputable" sources. Most of them are "news sources", either TV news, newspapers, or other periodicals. Also included are reference works such as encyclopedias. All of those are also only as good as their editors and sources, and display the same range of accuracy depending on the topic and slant being put on the topic.

The reason that Wikipedia is prohibited as a source in schools has nothing-to-very-little to do with the fact that it's user-edited. It has more to do with making sure that the student can do their own research and assemble the facts for themselves.

Saying that your opponent in a debate "looks uneducated and ignorant" due to Wikipedia use, when they outright stated that they investigated the cited sources themselves, sounds to me like an ad hominem attack rather than a reasoned argument.

The rest of your post seemed well written and argued. I may end up with an electric for commuting and a gas/electric hybrid for long trips, but until I have that kind of money, I'm going to need to stick with my all-gas Civic.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Saying that your opponent in a debate "looks uneducated and ignorant" due to Wikipedia use, when they outright stated that they investigated the cited sources themselves, sounds to me like an ad hominem attack rather than a reasoned argument.

Umm... you may be misunderstanding slightly. I was making a statement in general that citing Wikipedia is Bad Form, and likely to draw ridicule rather than applause. I wasn't aware I even had an 'opponent'. It's a fact, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Citing it as one is counterproductive and makes you look silly.

[jwhouk]

Citing Wikipedia in the 21st Century = Citing Encyclopedia Brittanica (or the World Book Encyclopedia) in the 20th.

[Fairportfan]

ShneekeyTheLost:

(A) you wanna crunch the numbers on ROI on those various vehicles, and see how many miles you'd have to drive an electric (or even a good hybrid) before you even break even on the cost premium to buy the damned thing? (I won't be seeing the result, if you do, but others may be interested).

(B) your ad hominem on Wikipedia citations in general ... well, are you familiar with the old Usenet term "plonk!"?

[jwhouk]

I've seen the "break even" point for Electric Cars. It's pretty high. Then again, any car/truck/van you buy depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot. It's conceivable that you could drive a brand-new car like, say, a Toyota Camry, for the next 10 years - getting more than your investment back. We're not as sure with a Tesla Model S, because it hasn't been out for that long, and no one is 100% certain that the batteries for the vehicle can last that long. Same with the Roadster, of which this whole discussion started; the car has only been out since 2008, and long-term reliability is, obviously, still in question.

It also didn't help that a lot of the cost of the vehicle wasn't because of the electric engine, but was instead because of the importing of the Lotus Elise "gliders" for Tesla to put their electric motor in. The Model S is likely going to be a cheaper vehicle, but with a little heftier price because of the electric engine.

I do suspect that, as the years go on and more electrics are built (like the Leaf, the Model S, the Volt and other hybrids/electrics out there), the price of electrics will get down to where they're competitive with gas-only engines. Of course, making an assumption like that is like throwing darts at a dartboard.

[Bathorys Daughter]

I think the issue should be electric cars or other types of non IC engine cars. I believe the way too go is the compressed air engine car. They can have much the same range as an IC engine car and can be "recharged" in a short time with high pressure pumps. They certainly have the same range as an electric car even now. No problems with battery replacement and disposal issues.

[Fairportfan]

I like flywheel energy storage - back in the 1960s/70s busses based on flywheel storage were being developed - big heavy muthas spinning in a vacuum.

[bmonk]

I like flywheel energy storage - back in the 1960s/70s busses based on flywheel storage were being developed - big heavy muthas spinning in a vacuum.

Several science fiction authors even used them in their works. I'm trying to remember one that had them as unicycles, with a gyro-stabilized body, thus using the flywheel for multiple purposes simultaneously.

Of course, after several hours, you did have to reorient the car by leaning on the proper side to get it fully upright again. . . .

I believe it was from The Ring by Piers Anthony.

[alj_ws]

I think the issue should be electric cars or other types of non IC engine cars. I believe the way too go is the compressed air engine car. They can have much the same range as an IC engine car and can be "recharged" in a short time with high pressure pumps. They certainly have the same range as an electric car even now. No problems with battery replacement and disposal issues.

unfortunately, storing energy in compressed air is a rather costly proposition in term of efficiency because of the big heat generated while compressing and the big cold when decompressing. More worrying is the safety issues. low pressure (7-20 bars) tanks must be checked annually in the industry because they are considered unsafe, and a car would need either a very big tank at those pressures, or a small one one but at eg 200 bars. If that explode, it would makes a lot of damages. Not something I would sit on.

early attemps at compressed air cars and rails

[NOTDilbert]

About compressed air....

During WWI and WWII, the Jersey docks where amunition was loaded onto ships for Europe used compressed air locomotives to shunt amunition cars from warehouse to dockside, The issue was one of fire safety - oil, wood or coal-fired engines dropped sparks/cinders/smouldering oil from the fireboxes; not something you want sitting undera boxcar of gunpowder.

Closer to (my) home - at the turn of the (last) century, the Fort Smith Wagon and Carriage Works consisted of several buildings about a hundred yards apart. Flats of wagons and carriages under construction were shunted from building to building via compressed air locomotives, for the same reason.

I have seen some mags like Popular Mechanics that sell plans in the back of the book for CA powered kiddie cars. Wonder if it would scale up for a little suburban runabout?