New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Death of the Electric Car

I was 50 years ago, then I read the history and moved on. Surely you dont think the internal combustion engine is some kind of miracle engine that cant be equaled or matched by other types of engines?
The reason they haven't worked Gaf, is because they can not compete with the output of energy that carbon based fuel put out. In other words they are not efficient enough.
 

degsme

Council Member
The reason they haven't worked Gaf, is because they can not compete with the output of energy that carbon based fuel put out. In other words they are not efficient enough.
Well you are ignoring the factor that gasoline fuel distribution received massive governmental subsidies and electric batteries did not.
 

degsme

Council Member
Originally Posted by degsmeNo they all are Americans. But many Americans are ALSO KKKers, nazis and homophobes.



But what this has to do with the electric vehicle is rather beyond me.
I was just anwsering the question as put to me.
No you were not. The original question "put to you" was whether or not you remember the original electric cars - and why they did not go forwards. What that has to do with name calling about who is and is not an American is still beyond me.
 

degsme

Council Member
Hey Gaffer - Thanks... I didn't not realize that at 70mph+ it becomes a parallel driver system rather than a series drive That makes great sense to do it this way. Essentially what it lets you do is charge the batteries on the highway for only a small mechanical cost (essentially like dragging a wheel driven generator behind the car) whereas in stop and go driving you are 100% EV until you run the battery down.

THEN the gas engine runs at optimal torque range to recharge the battery while you continue to Stop and Go drive.

By using this mechanism, you keep the motor in its optimal torque efficiency band even as the car starts and stops and takes advantage of the regenerative braking.
 
No you were not. The original question "put to you" was whether or not you remember the original electric cars - and why they did not go forwards. What that has to do with name calling about who is and is not an American is still beyond me.
Originally Posted by MaryAnne
One finger pointing,3 pointing back! What is with you guys? Everything is turned into a right/ left thing. Do you ever think of us as Americans? You are scared of your own shadow. Fox likes it that way! Boo!
I use to think that everyone was American, but I've been taught to think differently by the left. The left taught me that only the left are Americans and the rest are KKKer's, Nazis and homophobes.
Here is the original post to my anwser, Degs. I was anwsering the question as it was put to me. Get it, got it, good.
 

justoffal

Senator
Yes that is a good partnership..... GE now makes a Flex efficiency unit that is a gas turbine with HRSG and steam turbine. The combined cycle reaches as much as 70% efficiency when both the Rankine and Brayton cycles are fully functional. This plant can come online as little as fifteen minutes...that is key.

http://www.ge-energy.com/content/multimedia/_files/downloads/FlexEfficiency 50 Plant eBrochure.pdf

This unit is made specifically to respond to on/off peak loads. GE is selling them like hotcakes.

I will reconsider my position on the hybrid efficiency...your offering seem honest an legitimate....I do actually get it... I understand are saying about the usage mix between the motor and batteries...I have had this discussion before

I still have problems with the Volt's Drive Train....however there is a case to be made for a person who goes all in with the home systems. If we can get the local city councils to accept a 25 KW wind turbine with a sixty foot post in the average back yard or get used to the look of a roof with solar panels covering it....we may find ourselves in transition that will see both the entrance of useful green technologies at the same time hydrocarbon fuels will become cheaper simply due to drop off in demand.

But I caution you to remember that we will always have to deal with the speculative sharks who will find a way to drive up the prices...there's no need to burden the populace with three hundred percent electricity rates whilst hiding behind the holy green religion...it can be one cost effectively. I am in no hurry to trade one group of thieves for another.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Hey Gaffer - Thanks... I didn't not realize that at 70mph+ it becomes a parallel driver system rather than a series drive That makes great sense to do it this way. Essentially what it lets you do is charge the batteries on the highway for only a small mechanical cost (essentially like dragging a wheel driven generator behind the car) whereas in stop and go driving you are 100% EV until you run the battery down.

THEN the gas engine runs at optimal torque range to recharge the battery while you continue to Stop and Go drive.

By using this mechanism, you keep the motor in its optimal torque efficiency band even as the car starts and stops and takes advantage of the regenerative braking.
I get tired of these Wingers just spreading their bullsh!t about the Volt without doing any research whatsoever. But what else can I expect from Cultists, they operate on belief rather than facts.
 

degsme

Council Member
Well first I would suggest you take a look at the two links on the Volt that OldGaffer provided. The drive train isnt exactly what you believe it to be (and its a bit different than I thought it as well). Turns ou that it really has 4 modes

1) All EV with full regenerative recharging. In this case the powerplant is

  • More efficient than a Otto Cycle plant, since Electric motors are most power efficient (less mechanical parts, no Thermal limits) than gasoline engines
  • recovers energy that an Otto Cycle does not (thus eliminating the line and charging losses, since in essence you get to "reuse" the energy more than once)

2) All Gas mode (when the batteries are flat) in this case the powerplant is

  • DIRECT DRIVE OTTO Cycle via a special gear in the xmission
  • Slightly less efficient than a pure gas car since the generator is running in parallel

3) Gas Assist Mode - where the gasoline engine runs in parallel with the EV

4) EV Drive - Gas recharge -


#3 is for high speeds on highways
#2 overcomes most of your objections
#1 is the EV promise and is true for 75%+ of all driving Americans do

#4 is more efficient since the gas engine runs at optimal torque band while the EV handles Start/stop inefficiencies and captures regenerative energy






So even in this mode - if the energy is coming from the grid,we don't really need massive amounts of new plants. Because the charging happens mostly at night, which is a big dip in the grid load. So that simply means that the highly efficient gas turbine plants, run overnight recharging all the Volts and PIH Priuses. And yes this does add greenhouse gasses, but LESS than using gasoline does.

Furthermore it dramatically decreases oil consumption which massively improves balance of payments, security etc.
 

fairsheet

Senator
The engineering back 'n forth above, has been interesting....albeit of somewhat limited use. As I hinted way up towards the top, the science of say.....thermodynamics, is but one small piece of this overall puzzle. The serious practitioner of the science of thermodynamics, understands this. The amateur "scientist" and/or huckster, does not.

Here are just four (out of hundreds, if not thousands) of questions we need to ask ourselves, that an applied scientist may not consider in the course of his narrow focus, OR may not even occur to him:

-IF a pure gas car is more efficient (on engineering paper) than a hybrid, but due to its better mpg, the consumer prefers the hybrid, what difference does it make that the former is "technically" more efficient? (This question wraps the sciences of economics, marketing, et al, into the engineering equation).

-When we compare the thermal/energy efficiency of a pure gas car with a pure electric car, how does the practitioner of this applied science, account for the costs implicit in our accessing and preserving access to, foreign oil? Of course he doesn't account for these, as they're decidely outside his baliwick. He shouldn't be considering these costs in HIS equation. But, the rest of us are obligated to consider them in ours. (This question might touch on the sciences of politics, foreign policy, economics, and so forth).

-When comparing "losses" from an energy/thermodynamics standpoint - between say, petro and electricity, how can the applied scientist possibly account for all the various losses/costs, from the various energy's sources, to the point at which the rubber hits the road? The answer to that question is.....he can't, and the serious scientist knows this. Answering THIS question, would require the input of a whole host of different scientists and sciences.

-Also, when comparing "losses" from an energy/thermodynamics standpoint, how does the applied scientists account for the costs of these losses? For instance, the applied scientist may compare the energy lost out a gas engine's tailpipe with the energy lost by dint of delivering electricity by means of electrical lines. He can arrive at a formula suggesting that fewer "energy units" are "wasted" in the former instance than the latter. What he CAN'T do though, is assign a cost to those losses. For instance, is a "unit of energy" lost from an electrical line in the form of heat, equal to a unit lost from the tailpipe in the form of greenhouse gases? Of course it isn't. In order to put this question into context, we'd need help from say...environmental and climate scientists.
 

degsme

Council Member
Its curious FS that I was thinking along the same lines about the "line losses" JO was so focussed on for the EV Grid. The same "line losses" apply to gasoline as well - in the form of
Fuel to transport bulk oil around the world (and the associated carbon emissions - Cargo ships account for about 2% of all WW greenhouse gases http://www.ehow.com/facts_7489961_carbon-footprint-cargo-ships.html (yes that includes other cargo besides oil tankers) So that has to be factored in

You also have to factor in the "line protection" costs - ie the greenhouse gases of the navies being used to keep the oil tanker shipping lanes open

You then have to factor in the energy and CO2 emmissions of refining

you then have to factor in the energy and CO2 emmissions associated with shipping the refined product via pipelines and then trucks to the end gas station.



And yet none of that is being included.
 

justoffal

Senator
Yes...#2 does overcome most of the objections that I had.... It makes sense .....because frankly the other configuration just doesn't.....

It is very important to have that option.

Most of the literature I have read about it up till now did not include that feature and much of that was technical breakdown free from political agenda. I find that weird to say the least. However Popular mechanics is an unimpeachable source that I am glad to accept for reference.

Tuning the machine to assist in the maximum torque band is very clever indeed....at that point the momentum contained in the crank shaft can be tapped for charging purposes most efficiently.

I feel compelled to point out however that the same level of efficiency can be obtained more simply with a dedicated system...but I am not a marketing expert and would probably fail miserably in any attempt to market that kind of logic to the public in general. A product must be salable and therefore must conform to the market perceptions. Perhaps this is what has determined the final choices for their configuration of the machine.

I have done one test drive with the Leaf....it was an excellent experience....very peppy, very comfortable. Max range of 80 miles on full charge. Just doesn't quite do it for me but I was tempted. Running the leaf from a 240 volt fast charger at home is roughly equivalent to two dollar/gallon gasoline. That wan't such a big deal two years ago...but it is now. In choosing alternative transportation I am looking to be completely free of combustion....or at least combustion that I can see up close.

I will be doing more reading before making any more assessments starting with the PM article.

JO
 

justoffal

Senator
It is also a political choice.....in the end this is probably what the marketers will have to appeal to which circles back round to the global warming question once again.

I've got my eye on the Nissan Leaf....if the range was just a bit more.....I think I would bite. Right now 80 miles on a level roadway without headlights, AC or Heat....is a serious limitation. The cost of ownership is still a bi high but the gas equivalent is roughly two bucks per gallon...that is now a big deal.

Line losses are a serious problem in electrical transmission. Frankly the Chinese have outstripped everyone on earth at this point with massive grid-works of superconducting ribbon capable of delivering power up to 1500 miles from the source with acceptable voltage drop. Currently in North America the aging grid is good for about 300 miles max...after that it becomes an exercise in heating the atmosphere.

Recent studies of the high tension systems have revealed that they are also a notable source of Argon, Ozone and even Nox....this is not new knowledge but it does appear that these things are more abundant than originally thought.

One thing is certain....we do not yet have a complete comparison of the total effect of the green transition.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Its curious FS that I was thinking along the same lines about the "line losses" JO was so focussed on for the EV Grid. The same "line losses" apply to gasoline as well - in the form of
Fuel to transport bulk oil around the world (and the associated carbon emissions - Cargo ships account for about 2% of all WW greenhouse gases http://www.ehow.com/facts_7489961_carbon-footprint-cargo-ships.html (yes that includes other cargo besides oil tankers) So that has to be factored in

You also have to factor in the "line protection" costs - ie the greenhouse gases of the navies being used to keep the oil tanker shipping lanes open

You then have to factor in the energy and CO2 emmissions of refining

you then have to factor in the energy and CO2 emmissions associated with shipping the refined product via pipelines and then trucks to the end gas station.



And yet none of that is being included.
This thread hints at the frustration confronting real science and scientists these days, in the face of the Fox/GOP's desperate effort to co-opt genuine science and put it to their partisan/wedgie use. This problem has been especially evident, in the case of the climate sciences. No serious scientist would even think to "conclude" as to what sort of cars we should be driving 20 years from now, or which technology is most efficient outside the very narrow dictates of his specific science. For the real scientist knows damn well that his is just one very small piece of the overall pie.

Yet...the real scientist has to listen every day, to mercenaries on Fox and partisans desperate to feel smart - like JO, spewing their sweeping partisan/political conclusions out of "science" that the scientists know doesn't exist.
 

degsme

Council Member
I feel compelled to point out however that the same level of efficiency can be obtained more simply with a dedicated system[/qote]

No it cannot. because

  1. There is no way to regeneratively capture any fraction of the hydrocarbon energy expended in accelleration for re-use. You just burn it off as heat
  2. Given that 75%+ of all driving is at variable operating power requirements, it is almost impossible to have the OTTO engine run at optimal efficiency.

in fact the operational profile of an EV motor in the latter case is exactly what makes it "peppy" - Max torque comes in accelleration at low speeds.

THe Volt and other PlugIn Hybrids are the wave of the intermediate future. Eventually I'm fairly certain we will go to H2 powered vehicles using either Fuel Cells or small gas turbines that drive a generator coupled to batteries and an EV motor. See this is where a gas turbine works so well. 1700 deg exahust is still hot enough and high enough on the entropy scale that you can add a second and third stage turbine. In fact that is how the big turbines get their aggragate efficiency - they are multi-stage.

And if you think turbines are not practical for cars - consider that the hydroplanes use them in race boats, they have been used in race cars before - and you are now seeing "micro jets" http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/model-jet-engine.html in hobby situations http://www.ebay.com/sch/Radio-Control-Control-Line-/2562/i.html?_nkw=jet+engine

The big change is the availablity of much cheaper cost CNC milling and materials like Carbon Fiber.
 

trapdoor

Governor
They actually worked quite well. But they were heavier and slower. yes and?
Steam cars, especially the Doble, were not heavier or slower than their internal combustion counterparts. Electric cars from 100 years ago were definitely heavier and slower -- and Degs, that means for the typical driver they DID NOT WORK QUITE WELL.

The Doble's problem wasn't that it didn't work, but that the company was badly run. The car was among the best American automobiles ever built -- smooth, fast and powerful. But it was very expensive, and it only appealed to people who wanted a particular niche in the market. In other words -- it was a Chevy Volt, which is smooth, and fast, and expensive and only appeals to the very small niche people who are willing to pay $40K for a subcompact because it is "green." Whether that will be a sucessful business model this time around remains to be seen.
 

degsme

Council Member
Steam cars, especially the Doble, were not heavier or slower than their internal combustion counterparts. Electric cars from 100 years ago were definitely heavier and slower -- and Degs, that means for the typical driver they DID NOT WORK QUITE WELL.
Yup battery and motor technology weren't there yet. After all the early hand electric drills looked something like this
awww.deutsches_museum.de_uploads_pics_29_62757_300.jpg


The Doble's problem wasn't that it didn't work, but that the company was badly run. The car was among the best American automobiles ever built -- smooth, fast and powerful. But it was very expensive, and it only appealed to people who wanted a particular niche in the market. In other words -- it was a Chevy Volt, which is smooth, and fast, and expensive and only appeals to the very small niche people who are willing to pay $40K for a subcompact because it is "green." Whether that will be a sucessful business model this time around remains to be seen.
Except that
The Volt has an economic reason for being purchased
The Volt is not nearly as expensive as the Doble was (thanks BTW, didn't know about the Doble)
The INfrastructure for cars is much broader now than when the Doble was around

So the comparison isn't close to apt.
 

justoffal

Senator
And yet I submit to you that changes would have been forthcoming with or without " SKY IS FALLING " alarm of the Anthropogenic green house gas howlers. The Idea that we can " Hurry up" to make these changes have not facilitated a real world view of what is possible and what is simply not possible. Mankind has never been intimidated by deadlines either real or imagined and I don't suppose that is going to change any time soon.

As China does more than replace our co2 reductions we will reach the point of no return that has been proscribed by the doomsday science community with or without the application of new technologies. The planet will respond in whatever way it responds if at all.

JO
 

justoffal

Senator
Of course the piston driven combustion power plant is a marvel of inefficiency...however it becomes even more so when it drives a gen set. There is no way to avoid this. The loss is not retrievable.

Now if you are saying that using stored energy in the form of DC current motors is more efficient in and of it self, well I agree wholeheartedly and at that point you may retrieve portions of that energy with gimmicks like regenerative breaking for instance. You will not however gain back the initial loss in the transition from mechanical to electro-mechanical application. Remember the lesson of the Carnot cycle..... once initiated there is no perfect reversal of the energy dispersal except in the imaginary and enigmatic carnot engine.

To put it more simply..... If you can drive 100 miles on a tank of gas with direct drive to the wheels
you will lose approximately 30 miles of range in the transference to electro-mechanical application with the same amount of hydrocarbon fuel.
This simply cannot be avoided nor can it be changed nor can it be recaptured.

This should not pose an obstacle to the development of the technology but it is important that people understand this principle so that they do not have imaginary expectations.
 
The only efficiency rating that matters from hybrids or EVs are where the rubber hits the road. MPG or range on a charge... As far as engine efficiency we will continue climbing the evolutionary trend of "more with less". It will still only translate to where it counts for the consumer= ROI!
http://www.hybridcars.com/calculator/
This is a great source for all things alternative.
JO- we started the 60's with no space program and we were on the moon by the end of the decade. My optimism isn't devoid of science- it is because of science and USA human spirit. This is more important though for our National Security and Energy Independence. "Can't" is not an option.
By the way my own industry is telling us we "can't" and I'm vocal within this community as well. William P. Underriner made his first speech as NADA president- whining about CAFE. Short sighted at the least(did NASA whine about Kennedy Moon Speech?) and unpatriotic at worse...(Energy Independence is a National security issue).
His whine is for CAFE proposal of 54 MPG... by 2025. This as top 10 makers already have mutiple 30-40 mpg gas only engines and Hybrids are heating up due to market demands. We are a far cry from late 80's when GM re-badged Toyotas to meet CAFE rules. Today they are investing in their own future. Instead of embracing the 'Challenge' he's turning tail and running. His stance flies in the face of the reality- 'If WE build it- they will come". I will also add if you do what Toyota did- build it faster, better and cheaper then YOU WIN!


"The dealer group not only is battling for consumers, but for itself. “If government policy is going to shrink our customer base, shouldn’t we be concerned?” Underriner says. “NADA is fighting this fight because we want the days of empty showrooms to be long gone.” “We are fighting for sound public policy,” he adds, “not policy based on wishful thinking or happy talk or public-opinion polls.”...."
http://wardsauto.com/dealerships/new-nada-chief-calls-cafe-debates


From Solar or Wind or from that 70% efficiency Gas Turbine Large Scale generator. And you recapture via regenerative braking - which is something that OttoCycle petro engines CANNOT DO.


75% of all vehicular travel is less than 100 miles per day. That's what makes the Plug In Hybrid approach so appealing. for 75% of all the kind of driving a Volt does, the gasoline engine NEVER KICKS IN.

So rather than calling people names you might want to read up on the actual information

Secondly you are still presuming gasoline is the power source. Hydrogen works fine.


Well Toyota then are all idiots - since they are actually redesigning the Prius to be a plug-in-Hybrid like the Volt. For all the reasons I've given. MPG costs for PIH's drop to about 5-7cents/mile for fuel(electricity) costs vs. 11-13 cents for a Prius (at today's gas prices)


As for the link I gave which shows gasoline vehicle engines at WELL LESS THAN 25% efficiency - read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. Those are EMPIRICAL results. But we know that MOST GASOLINE VEHICLES spend MOST OF THEIR TIME - well outside the optimal power band. Thus their ACTUAL efficiency drops to closer to 15%. That means that a PIH like the Volt, has 55% efficiency losses that it can suffer in Line,Charging, battery and Operational energy losses (and the losses are not that great) before it loses to the all gas vehicle. And you forget the Regerative Recovery which gas engines dont get.


try again.
 
Top