Please tell me the benefit of using an electric car over petrol or diesel? Petrol and Diesel engines are very efficient, they have been R&D for decades. Electric cars offer _no_ benefit, they are not saving the environment because the electricity has to be made by either burning coal, nuclear reactor or some of the other less popular mass energy producing methods which all rape our planet of renewable resources or contaminate the place for thousands of years. I'm not saying let's continue to use oil as a way to power our cars either.
Please, do not tell me that a "windfarm" will power this car. I am sick to death of people thinking that electric cars are the way forward, why can't we push towards making cars run on things we have plenty of - water, methane gas, co2. All of these power sources are ACTUALLY possible (though in their infancy) and need so much more R&D.
Stop wasting time and money producing a vehicle that uses an expensive fuel so inefficiently, why can't we modify petrol/diesel engines to run on a synthetic fuel? I know that there are better options out there. I just hate the way that if something doesn't have an exhaust pipe people assume it's "environmentally" safe!
All car manufacturers are now saying "all electric cars by 2012/2020" etc.
@meridimus No electric isn't the perfect answer. Maybe riding horses again would be better, but then the white trash can't leave their horses up on blocks in the front yard.
There needs to be a stopgap option for those that want to use something that is more efficient that a straight gas car. Research on fuel efficiency had basically stopped in the early eighties when CAFE standards were relaxed. So I have to say that while everyone was enjoying their SUV's, no-one cared about mileage.
The price of fuel is going to continue to rise. After Gustav hits in a few days I'll bet gas prices hit $5+ a gallon in some areas.
What we need is Mr. Fusion (Back to the Future) because Bushes answer of using grass isn't going to work unless smoking it transports your ass to work everyday.
Nuclear power is much more environment friendly than you claim and certainly surpasses cars that run on fossil fuels when it comes to environment impact.
- Electric cars will run if the power inside their batteries is generated in a nuclear power plant, wind turbine or a hamster wheel. - Electricity can be generated anywhere, thus avoiding having to make business deals with unstable countries. - Fossil or synthetic liquid fuels have to be transported in small quantities to every gas station on the planet, while electricity can flow instantly through power grids.
When a battery with a much higher capacity is constructed, electric cars will enter today's world, until then, we will have to settle with hybrids if we want to travel further than our local grocery store.
I think the long-term potential of electric power vehicles far outweighs any of the points you've mentioned.
The point is to remove your mouth from the teet which we are all hopelessly latched upon (Arab oil). It is a dirty, dirty teet, my friend. Far dirtier than the coal-fired power plants that will provide the initial bulk of electricity to the Plug-ins of tomorrow.
This problem is best represented as a multi-step process:
Step 1: Become energy self-sufficient. (see dirty teet above) This will enable the US to STOP borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Arabs.
Step 2: After Step 1, we can throw much more federal funding toward a more ecologically friendly approach to powering the Plug-in vehicles that are soon to come.
@meridimus petrol/diesel engines are VERY EFFICIENT? stop talking buddy, average efficiency of an internal combustion engine on roads is around 20-25%, and no higher than 35-40% on all ideal conditions. water? sorry we tried that in the 1870s already with something called the steam engine. co2? sorry we're actually trying to get rid of that since we're making too much of it and we're killing all the polar bears with it. methane gas? it's certainly combustible, but it would require completely new infrastructures just to power vehicles with that kind of fuel and for right now, using ethanol spraying methods to cool the engine down and increase compression ratio/downsize engine/add bigger turbo/advance spark timing/etcetc is the most cost efficient way to move forward with an internal combustion engine.
Another day --- Another shortsighted, misinformed individual trying to denounce hybrid vehicles. I'm certainly not an industry expert, but I do understand the basic science and economics of the energy/fuel situation.
Your suggestion that petrol/diesel ICE engines are "very efficient" compared to an electric vehicle reveals just how ignorant you are of the situation, not to mention basic physics. If you do any amount of research into the topic you'll see that the fact of the matter is that hybrid electric vehicles are a great way to reduce dependence on oil and have a NET positive environmental impact.The environmental impact of the production and recycling of suitable battery and electrical engine components is inconsequential compared to the overall environmental benefits of a vehicle that achieves such fuel efficiency. Plug-hybrids (PHEVs) greatly extend this benefit.
1) The argument that hybrid vehicles just shift the source of pollution is very shortsighted. First of all, PHEVs energy-based environmental (and political) impact is a function of the power sources that run the electrical grid. As new renewable energy and/or clean energy production technology comes online in the form of solar-thermal plants, offshore wind, on-shore wind, geothermal, carbon-sequestering coal, natural gas, etc, the PHEV vehicles continue to get "greener" and more environmentally friendly, while gasoline ICE vehicles only get less efficient.
2) Even with traditional coal, natural gas, and fuel oil powered power plants, it is much more efficient to centralize power production in one major facility than it is in millions of simple combustion engines in cars. no matter the fuel, combustion engines are in fact incredible INEFFICIENT, with as much as 80% of the actual energy escaping as heat. Large facilities can use advanced technology, materials, and processes that are too expensive or impractical to have in a vehicle, but which can dramatically increase the efficiency of traditional sources of carbon-based fuel, from simply recapturing waste heat that is injected back into the system to other newer, much more complex techniques of increasing conversion efficiency.
On the same token, centralizing the energy production makes it much easier to maintain environmental standards and control pollution. Again, large centralized facilities can use technology that is too expensive or impractical for individual vehicles that can reduce emissions and create a lot less harm to the environment, even if they were burning the VERY SAME type and amount of traditional fossil fuels.
3) all the advantages I've mentioned until this point has entirely disregarded future distributed energy sources such as home and business solar-voltaic panels and small wind turbines, among other future technology. Many people will be able to provide for a large amount of their home and vehicle energy needs through these systems. Obviously, the same cannot be done with a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle.
Right now, hybrid electric vehicles that use petrol, diesel, biodiesel, ect are an important part of the transition to an all-renewable system. Although Hydrogen, natural gas, methane, etc is also a possiblity, the infrastructure to support it is not build yet. It's going to require an ENORMOUS amount of work and subsequent energy use and impact on the environment to build out the infrastructure to support, say, a nationwide hydrogen-based fuel system. They have to build out new plants to create hydrogen, pipelines, storage containers, etc. And even then, you still have to have a major distribution network to support the transporation of the hydrogen to individual fuel stations. This may become the future of transportation, but right now in the short-term, it is a whole lot easier and cheaper to focus first on reducing demand of conventional fuel through hybrid electric and plugin-hybrid electric vehicles. We already have an energy grid, even if it needs some work to support the new demand of electricity.
Regardless whether the future lies with hydrogen vehicles, all-electric, hybrid electric-biofuel, hybrid electric- hydrogen, etc, these unconventional means of powering vehicles are going to be a critical part of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reversing climate change.
You should really just stick to ranting about whatever it is that you are at least minimally knowledgeable about.
Electric allows the United States own resources to "fuel" automobiles ... rather than being dependent on foreign oil.
.... and while we have a continued dependence on coal power plants for electricity, at least most of that coal comes from within the US. No money is being sent overseas to suspect regimes. Eventually, "greener" power solutions will come about or become more prominent and the electric car will benefit greatly.
2 reasons for electric cars: - Electricity is cheaper than oil. At current oil prices, way cheaper. - Electricity is the standard transportation system for energy. Infrastructure is in place and works very well.
You make a point that the cars should be powered by ____(fill in the blanks)? Why not generate electricity from _____ and transport the energy over the existing energy grid? Otherwise you need a whole new delivery system which has proven prohibitive in the past.
You can instantly take advantage of any new ways of generating power with electric cars - just build the plants. It's the benefit of standards.
There is some loss along the way but the best place to put our resources is to create new technology to minimize those losses. Not invest in hot new tech X, create a whole huge expensive infrastructure, only to find out that tech Y is actually a lot better.
I am a big fan of electric cars (and trains, planes, etc) because there are many very interesting technologies coming down the line, nearly all of them infinitely smarter than nuclear, and electric is the way to take full advantage of them - no matter which one wins.
Meredimus wrote: benefit of using an electric car over petrol or diesel?
How I see it: It uses practically no energy while paused in traffic, or coasting. It can recharge itself while braking. Gas engines are always using gas.
Potential for higher torque, faster acceleration
Less noise pollution, no constant polluting emissions
It can be as clean as the electricity source. It defers and centralizes the solution of the fundamental problem. Everyone can start using an electric vehicle soon. Over time we can improve the electricity generation and storage.
The downside?: Electrics might be larger, faster and more powerful than any gas car ever was and yet more economical in the long run.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Only 300? Very low projections for a car company!
Please tell me the benefit of using an electric car over petrol or diesel? Petrol and Diesel engines are very efficient, they have been R&D for decades. Electric cars offer _no_ benefit, they are not saving the environment because the electricity has to be made by either burning coal, nuclear reactor or some of the other less popular mass energy producing methods which all rape our planet of renewable resources or contaminate the place for thousands of years. I'm not saying let's continue to use oil as a way to power our cars either.
Please, do not tell me that a "windfarm" will power this car. I am sick to death of people thinking that electric cars are the way forward, why can't we push towards making cars run on things we have plenty of - water, methane gas, co2. All of these power sources are ACTUALLY possible (though in their infancy) and need so much more R&D.
Stop wasting time and money producing a vehicle that uses an expensive fuel so inefficiently, why can't we modify petrol/diesel engines to run on a synthetic fuel? I know that there are better options out there. I just hate the way that if something doesn't have an exhaust pipe people assume it's "environmentally" safe!
All car manufacturers are now saying "all electric cars by 2012/2020" etc.
This car merely pollutes by proxy. What a farce.
@meridimus No electric isn't the perfect answer. Maybe riding horses again would be better, but then the white trash can't leave their horses up on blocks in the front yard.
There needs to be a stopgap option for those that want to use something that is more efficient that a straight gas car. Research on fuel efficiency had basically stopped in the early eighties when CAFE standards were relaxed. So I have to say that while everyone was enjoying their SUV's, no-one cared about mileage.
The price of fuel is going to continue to rise. After Gustav hits in a few days I'll bet gas prices hit $5+ a gallon in some areas.
What we need is Mr. Fusion (Back to the Future) because Bushes answer of using grass isn't going to work unless smoking it transports your ass to work everyday.
Nuclear power is much more environment friendly than you claim and certainly surpasses cars that run on fossil fuels when it comes to environment impact.
- Electric cars will run if the power inside their batteries is generated in a nuclear power plant, wind turbine or a hamster wheel.
- Electricity can be generated anywhere, thus avoiding having to make business deals with unstable countries.
- Fossil or synthetic liquid fuels have to be transported in small quantities to every gas station on the planet, while electricity can flow instantly through power grids.
When a battery with a much higher capacity is constructed, electric cars will enter today's world, until then, we will have to settle with hybrids if we want to travel further than our local grocery store.
I think the long-term potential of electric power vehicles far outweighs any of the points you've mentioned.
The point is to remove your mouth from the teet which we are all hopelessly latched upon (Arab oil). It is a dirty, dirty teet, my friend. Far dirtier than the coal-fired power plants that will provide the initial bulk of electricity to the Plug-ins of tomorrow.
This problem is best represented as a multi-step process:
Step 1: Become energy self-sufficient. (see dirty teet above) This will enable the US to STOP borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Arabs.
Step 2: After Step 1, we can throw much more federal funding toward a more ecologically friendly approach to powering the Plug-in vehicles that are soon to come.
Step 3: Kittens n' puppies!
@meridimus
petrol/diesel engines are VERY EFFICIENT? stop talking buddy, average efficiency of an internal combustion engine on roads is around 20-25%, and no higher than 35-40% on all ideal conditions. water? sorry we tried that in the 1870s already with something called the steam engine. co2? sorry we're actually trying to get rid of that since we're making too much of it and we're killing all the polar bears with it. methane gas? it's certainly combustible, but it would require completely new infrastructures just to power vehicles with that kind of fuel and for right now, using ethanol spraying methods to cool the engine down and increase compression ratio/downsize engine/add bigger turbo/advance spark timing/etcetc is the most cost efficient way to move forward with an internal combustion engine.
@meridimus
Another day --- Another shortsighted, misinformed individual trying to denounce hybrid vehicles. I'm certainly not an industry expert, but I do understand the basic science and economics of the energy/fuel situation.
Your suggestion that petrol/diesel ICE engines are "very efficient" compared to an electric vehicle reveals just how ignorant you are of the situation, not to mention basic physics. If you do any amount of research into the topic you'll see that the fact of the matter is that hybrid electric vehicles are a great way to reduce dependence on oil and have a NET positive environmental impact.The environmental impact of the production and recycling of suitable battery and electrical engine components is inconsequential compared to the overall environmental benefits of a vehicle that achieves such fuel efficiency. Plug-hybrids (PHEVs) greatly extend this benefit.
1) The argument that hybrid vehicles just shift the source of pollution is very shortsighted. First of all, PHEVs energy-based environmental (and political) impact is a function of the power sources that run the electrical grid. As new renewable energy and/or clean energy production technology comes online in the form of solar-thermal plants, offshore wind, on-shore wind, geothermal, carbon-sequestering coal, natural gas, etc, the PHEV vehicles continue to get "greener" and more environmentally friendly, while gasoline ICE vehicles only get less efficient.
2) Even with traditional coal, natural gas, and fuel oil powered power plants, it is much more efficient to centralize power production in one major facility than it is in millions of simple combustion engines in cars. no matter the fuel, combustion engines are in fact incredible INEFFICIENT, with as much as 80% of the actual energy escaping as heat. Large facilities can use advanced technology, materials, and processes that are too expensive or impractical to have in a vehicle, but which can dramatically increase the efficiency of traditional sources of carbon-based fuel, from simply recapturing waste heat that is injected back into the system to other newer, much more complex techniques of increasing conversion efficiency.
On the same token, centralizing the energy production makes it much easier to maintain environmental standards and control pollution. Again, large centralized facilities can use technology that is too expensive or impractical for individual vehicles that can reduce emissions and create a lot less harm to the environment, even if they were burning the VERY SAME type and amount of traditional fossil fuels.
3) all the advantages I've mentioned until this point has entirely disregarded future distributed energy sources such as home and business solar-voltaic panels and small wind turbines, among other future technology. Many people will be able to provide for a large amount of their home and vehicle energy needs through these systems. Obviously, the same cannot be done with a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle.
Right now, hybrid electric vehicles that use petrol, diesel, biodiesel, ect are an important part of the transition to an all-renewable system. Although Hydrogen, natural gas, methane, etc is also a possiblity, the infrastructure to support it is not build yet. It's going to require an ENORMOUS amount of work and subsequent energy use and impact on the environment to build out the infrastructure to support, say, a nationwide hydrogen-based fuel system. They have to build out new plants to create hydrogen, pipelines, storage containers, etc. And even then, you still have to have a major distribution network to support the transporation of the hydrogen to individual fuel stations. This may become the future of transportation, but right now in the short-term, it is a whole lot easier and cheaper to focus first on reducing demand of conventional fuel through hybrid electric and plugin-hybrid electric vehicles. We already have an energy grid, even if it needs some work to support the new demand of electricity.
Regardless whether the future lies with hydrogen vehicles, all-electric, hybrid electric-biofuel, hybrid electric- hydrogen, etc, these unconventional means of powering vehicles are going to be a critical part of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reversing climate change.
You should really just stick to ranting about whatever it is that you are at least minimally knowledgeable about.
Electric allows the United States own resources to "fuel" automobiles ... rather than being dependent on foreign oil.
.... and while we have a continued dependence on coal power plants for electricity, at least most of that coal comes from within the US. No money is being sent overseas to suspect regimes. Eventually, "greener" power solutions will come about or become more prominent and the electric car will benefit greatly.
2 reasons for electric cars:
- Electricity is cheaper than oil. At current oil prices, way cheaper.
- Electricity is the standard transportation system for energy. Infrastructure is in place and works very well.
You make a point that the cars should be powered by ____(fill in the blanks)? Why not generate electricity from _____ and transport the energy over the existing energy grid? Otherwise you need a whole new delivery system which has proven prohibitive in the past.
You can instantly take advantage of any new ways of generating power with electric cars - just build the plants. It's the benefit of standards.
There is some loss along the way but the best place to put our resources is to create new technology to minimize those losses. Not invest in hot new tech X, create a whole huge expensive infrastructure, only to find out that tech Y is actually a lot better.
I am a big fan of electric cars (and trains, planes, etc) because there are many very interesting technologies coming down the line, nearly all of them infinitely smarter than nuclear, and electric is the way to take full advantage of them - no matter which one wins.
Meredimus wrote: benefit of using an electric car over petrol or diesel?
How I see it: It uses practically no energy while paused in traffic, or coasting. It can recharge itself while braking. Gas engines are always using gas.
Potential for higher torque, faster acceleration
Less noise pollution, no constant polluting emissions
It can be as clean as the electricity source. It defers and centralizes the solution of the fundamental problem. Everyone can start using an electric vehicle soon. Over time we can improve the electricity generation and storage.
The downside?: Electrics might be larger, faster and more powerful than any gas car ever was and yet more economical in the long run.