Sens4Miles

And you base this on what? current battery technology? How do you know what kind of range an EV will get 10 years from now? or 20 years from now? or what kind of electric charging infrastructure will be established by then? The point is, Nissan says EVs are the future and they may very well be right. You do not know that EVs are not a realistic solution to be the future of automotive travel. You are basing that on the way things are right now and the limitations that non-generator backed EVs seem to have. But you don't know that EVs aren't going to be the solution and the future, ultimately replacing the ICE vehicle entirely. This technology works and works well. But like anything, we're going to have to make some changes in order for it to work efficiently and to the best of its ability. Yes, there are some limitations, but they are a lot more reasonable and workable than hydrogen as an example which has about a zero chance of ever taking off and replacing the ICE vehicle.

The best solution right now are Plug-In hybrids. Excellent full electric range, far less fuel consumption, available to take on long trips, etc etc. The Chevy Volt for example is an excellent start to eventually changing the industry. Full EV mode for 40 miles, then works like a hybrid getting 50mpg. Until an EV can get at least a 300 mile range on a single charge, I think this is the best route to take. So, in that sense, Nissan is correct in saying that EVs are the future and the solution. But it's a process we must go through in order to get there. It's not going to happen overnight.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

the best hydrocarbon based power generation is 60% efficient using gas turbines with combined cycle, power transmission losses in 1995 were 7.2% efficient on power lines. With even higher transmission voltages you can drop the losses even further since the current is less on these high voltage transmissions. Electricity is far easier to transmit than handling the logistics of producing, transporting, and refining fossil fuels to run a power plant.

Nuclear power is by far the best form of power generation if you want to get away from burning fossil fuels. The up front cost maybe more but it generates far more power than any hydrocarbon plant can dream of and its emissions are much less and takes up the least amount of space per megawatt. Wind energy takes up far too much acreage per MW, hydroelectric cant be built wherever you want, solar energy is greatly expensive and has 40% efficiency, the fuel is "free" but wont supply enough power for demand.

In the meantime plug in hybrids and regular hybrids will be the stepping stone to getting away from 100% gasoline vehicles. Hybrid cars will stimulate and acclerate design of a new battery which will be used in future EVs. Many countries are realizing EVs will be the future of consumer transportation and want to build new power generation facilities to meed this future demand. So those power engineers out there, its coming

bagwell

you're describing the VOLT....but the range is only 40 miles...with gas 600.

gengar

And in 1000 years, we'll all have our own spacecraft to fly to colonized Mars that are completely emissions free because they're powered by pixie dust! Space travel is our future folks, you heard it here first! Can we stop with the nonsequiturs, or are you just going to keep babbling?

First off, 60% is a very high figure and there's no way that efficiency can be maintained across all fossil-based power generation plants. Only natural gas sources might be able to get anywhere close to that. Coal burning OTOH won't be anywhere near that. Heck, efficiency of half that is probably good for coal burning.

The other problem is that you can't use current figures to estimate power losses when all cars are going to be powered off the grid. The reason why estimated transmission losses (and yes, that 7.2% figure is only an estimate) can be stated so low is due to the majority of long-distance power transmission being very high voltage and therefore low current, reducing losses. But what happens when when more power is needed (such as that suddenly required to power the "future" millions of EVs)?

The potential losses in delivering huge amounts of power directly to consumer recharging stations in accessible locations is really incredible. At lower voltages (and thus higher current) it's not uncommon to incur >30% transmission loss over longer distances. And once again, EV supporters can't have it both ways. Either the electric grid needs to be completely restructured to deliver high voltage directly to recharging stations and have a step down transformer there in order to reduce losses (huge upfront costs involved), or usable voltages are delivered to each recharging station and incur high transmission losses. People can forget about charging at the house if maintaining low transmission loss is a goal.

Agree with you 100% here, and this is coming from someone who primarily resides in Nevada, which is now America's planned dumping ground for nuclear waste. If there's one lesson we can learn from the French, it's about nuclear power.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

60%, so far, is the best a hydrocarbon generator has achieved using a gas turbine and the combined cycle to recapture more heat leftover from teh turbine to generate more electricity using a secondary turbine. I only listed the best a hydrocarbon plant can do, of course not all of them can get near 60%. GE is already marketing this power generation package, the first installation has hit 24000 operating hours already

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/pro...stem/index.htm

What we really need is Tony Stark to make some more Arc Reactors

bagwell

yep, watch out for that immediate flood of millions of EV's. I have some candles if you need some so you can charge your car instead of turning on your lites

it took Toyota over 10 years to sell a million Prius btw.

gengar

When talking about having to 1) increase power supply to match demand for electric vehicles and 2) completely restructure our power grid and change the way high-voltage power is widely available, even a time frame like 10 years is immediate.

Sens4Miles

I'm going to keep babbling. Your points are ridiculous, your insight is wrong, and apparently, all the major car manufacturers agree with me. So you keep going on and on about how EVs are not the future, that battery technology will never ever improve (not even in a million years), that we'll never have a charging infrastructure put in place, that 200% of the population drives 300 miles day and goes on road trips 5 times a week, and how we should all just keep paying outrageous prices for foreign oil, polluting the environment, and essentially remaining technologically backwards.

I'll drive my EV that gets a 40 mile pure electric range and buy a gallon of gas once a month and you can go buy a Hummer and pay hundreds of dollars a week to fuel up. Have fun.

gengar

I'm glad you admit you're doing nothing but babbling, although at this point it's more accurate to note you've degraded into just being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Your only objective in this thread has been to claim I said things I never did, and it's unfortunate that's what you have to resort to. But I suppose such is the norm in order to proselytize.

Sens4Miles

Really? that's my only objective? .. interesting

gengar

Sure seems to be, given that 6 out of the 7 statements that you attributed to me in your last post were things I never said. And we can dig back into your prior posts as well for more.

Normally, even those who proselytize at least try to look honest, but to each his own I suppose.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

I agree with Nissan. I think the biggest barrier is battery energy density, but there is a lot of technology and research on the horizon that will make great strides in that area. I was reading an article recently about a new technology for Li batteries (being developed at MIT) that will increase their energy density by an order of magnitude... Of course the tech is in early stages of R&D, but it's still very encouraging.

I hadn't really considered the issues gengar brought up in dealing with extra power transmission from the plant to the home/charging station, but I have to believe that this problem would not be a huge hurdle. I don't see any real reason why proportionally, the losses could not stay the same. It's just that there would be some extra power conduits, meaning of course more power, and more losses to resistance.

gengar

Battery technology is always evolving; just look at consumer electronic devices over the past few decades (can't really consider small stuff like mp3 players, but higher-draw devices like notebooks are certainly more relevant). No one denies that. One of the recent developments I've found interesting is the ability to make battery cells moldable and shapable, which might allow better design accommodation in vehicles. Batteries will continue to weigh less and hold more power and that's critical to the success of EVs. The point is that this is technology independent of EV development, so the problem, as with developing new power infrastructure, is how fast batteries can evolve such that EVs have functional range in the reasonable future.

That's why a statement like "EVs are the future because we'll have new technology in X years that will make it functional" is just plain silly. There's plenty of technology in X years that will make plenty of things functional.

Duplicating existing power transmission is the easiest way to increase availability, and it wouldn't cause more relative losses (of course more total energy would be lost, but the % loss would still be just about the same). But it still won't be easy to duplicate existing infrastructure. I mean, imagine adding just one lane to every highway in the US. Power lines are probably easier to build than highway lanes, but it's an example just to give an idea of the scope (and keep in mind lines are not enough - you'd need to add capacity across the grid to all intermediary devices, such as to step-up and step-down transformers). Plus, you need to build new power sources, like coal-burning plants, to supply that additional electricity.

But adding more general capacity isn't the serious issue, as I mentioned in past posts. The real problem is how to deliver the electricity to the consumer (presumably to charging stations). That's the real issue and that's where we'll incur the big losses. As I asked earlier, how is it suggested we do this, if our goal is to provide widespread availability to charging stations? Consider that EV trolls in this thread love telling us that we can charge a EV battery in half an hour if we have 200V. Have you ever heard of 200V for consumers anywhere here? Of course not, because that's not what the power grid supplies at the consumer level.

These are the considerations, limitations, and problems we face in trying to make EVs functional in this country. Of course, I completely expect the resident proselytizers here to continue to attack these points as "ridiculous" with zeal usually reserved for religious fanatics.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

There are of course some limitations that will keep electric cars from becoming a completely ubiquitous replacement to ICE-run cars anytime in the near future, but there have been (or will be very soon) enough advancements that these cars now have a realistic shot at entering the market and becoming practical solutions for many consumers who are looking for alternatively-powered cars. Hell, it's already happening a little bit. Whether or not these cars will ultimately be the solution for completely weening ourselves off of petrol power, I don't know, but I could see it happening eventually.

Sens4Miles

Excellent post