peteharvey

So let me get this right.

1) Finding oil, drilling, pumping, transporting oil, refining oil, transporting oil and storage at gas stations, manufacturing fuel tanks, internal combustion engines & gearboxes uses so much energy. Mileage won't just be 29 MPG, but mileage will be much much much less than 29 MPG here?

2) Finding coal, mining coal, transporting coal, does coal have to have much refinement [?], transporting coal again to power stations, electricity production, electricity transmission via high voltage lines, manufacturing of batteries and electric motors - would use 29 MPG, which is much better than an ICE.

3) Manufacturing solar panels and wind mills to capture sunlight and wind [in the daytime & only on windy days], electricity generation & transmission to power points, manufacturing batteries [at least two batteries/vehicle] and electric motors - would consume less energy @ 350 MPG, which is about 11 times better than coal-electric.

4) Finding and mining uranium, transport uranium to nuclear reactors, disposing of uranium by burying, electricity transmission to power points, manufacturing batteries [at least two batteries/vehicle] and electric motors - would consume even less energy at 2,300 MPG, which is about 8 times better than solar/wind?

5) Finding acres of land to build a dam & hydroelectric power station, transmitting power via high voltage lines to power points, manufacturing batteries [at least two batteries per vehicle] and electric motors, would certainly consume less at 5,100 MPG, which is over 2x nuclear-electric.


B) Using energy from one of the five techniques above to convert water to liquid hydrogen, then liquid hydrogen storage, transport & storage at gas stations, then into two liquid hydrogen fuel tanks [one under the rear seat base, and a second tank in between the rear wheels], only to be pumped to the bonnet where it is mixed with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce water vapour and electricity, the latter which is stored in batteries under the front seats, and behind the rear seats - to power electric motors.

This process seems much more inefficient & slow, so no wonder the Toyota Mirai at over 4,000 lbs [>20% heavier than Camry] only has 152 bhp & does 0-60 in a mediocre 9.0 seconds [won't be challenging Tesla Model S anytime soon], but it certainly does result in quick refilling at the gas station, and longer mileage @ 430 miles range.


Och is right.
EV is good, however we wouldn't want to ban ICE's too quickly, and how long existing old ICE vehicles can remain on the road is another topic altogether.

situman

California can do whatever they want when an earthquake separates them from the mainland. Please take the Kardashians and their ICE Rolls Royces and Ferraris with them.

mmarshall

Slightly off-topic, but that (hypothetical) out-into-the sea stuff from a California earthquake is a bunch of nonsense. California quakes originate along the San Andreas Fault zone, a fragmented system of underground cracks in the Earth's crust that, when pressure builds up along them and they slip, cause earthquakes. When that happens, the crack in the land mass just shifts a few feet, that's all...but the land mass itself says in place. It doesn't allow the sea to come in, except, in some cases, with a Tsunami-wave....and, even then, the land mass itself doesn't shift, and the waters recede.

However, if that WERE to happen, I agree on the Kardashians...and much of Hollywood LOL.

LeX2K

You missed the point. The so called caveman articles that deride electric propulsion conveniently exclude energy required to put petrol into the pump. No one with 2 brain cells to rub together is saying producing electricity has a zero carbon footprint. BUT, producing electricity using cleaner and cleaner methods is possible, this is not so for petrol burners the process remains essentially static.

I am not for banning ICE vehicles at all, IMO the electric car needs to be good enough to take over without artificial incentives. Which it will.

peteharvey

So that's why I put together a list including: mining petroleum, drilling, transportation, oil refineries, storage at gas stations, the simple single gas tank, and the massive ICE/gearbox with maintenance.

On the other hand, we have mining coal, digging coal, transportation of coal, coal refineries [if there is such equivalent], electricity generation, electricity transport via high voltage power lines, the manufacturing of not one, but at least two massive battery packs, and the manufacture of simple electric motors, which don't require much servicing.

To take into account your "clean" non-fossil fuel burning electricity generation, we have: solar/wind farms, the manufacture of solar panels and the manufacture of wind mills for electricity generation [albeit only when there is sunlight & wind], the manufacture of power lines to transmit the electricity, plus manufacturing not one, but at least two massive battery packs, and some simple electric motors.

Then we go nuclear with: nuclear mining, transport of uranium, building of nuclear power plants, disposal of radioactive wastes via burial, transmission of electricity, plus manufacturing of not one, but at least two massive battery packs, and some simple electric motors.

Then finally hydroelectric power via dams [but only when there is rain & not drought], electricity power generators, transport of power, plus manufacturing not one, but at least two massive battery packs, and some simple electric motors.


Overall, coal generated electric vehicles EV is not much better than petroleum for ICE; at least coal doesn't have to be refined as much as petroleum.
Non-fossil fuel electricity is required, via a combination of solar, wind & hydroelectric, because we don't always have sunlight, nor wind, nor rain.
Geothermal electricity generation is great too, but only certain geographic locations around the world have geothermal.
Meanwhile, nuclear mining is just as bad as petroleum or coal mining! Worse - the nuclear waste.

The ICE system has a simple lifetime use of an 18 gallon gas tank, as opposed to the massive energy required to manufacture at least two massive battery packs, which can barely be recycled.
On the other hand, weigh this against the ICE system which has a complex ICE & transmission, plus generally much more servicing & costs, but the old metal power train is mostly recyclable.


Thus:
Petroleum + complex ICE/transmission/servicing is not so good.
Coal + two massive battery packs for EV's which are difficult to recycle is not much better.
Non-fossil fuel solar/wind/hydro + two massive battery packs for EV's which are difficult to recycle is better - but not as much as you'd think.
Nuclear mining & nuclear waste disposal + two massive battery packs for EV's that can barely be recycled is maybe going backwards.

Overall, off the top of my head, non-fossil fuel EV definitely wins - but not by as much of a margin as I had thought.
If they can make the battery packs much smaller and lighter, plus last longer - like for the whole cycle of the vehicle, and make the battery pack more recyclable - and I'm sure all this will come, then the EV will really do business.

However, certainly give petroleum & ICE a bit more time for now.
The ICE is reaching its peak/ceiling in development, with maybe only an electric turbo to come in road cars...
.

riredale

Good article about electrics in the WSJ today:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-el...nes-1510628461

Sulu

Experts? Experts at what, exactly? Do they have expertise in electric vehicles or automotive engineering or traffic analysis or traffic engineering? It seems that anybody can claim to be an expert these days; it does not even matter what the subject is -- just have an opinion and be a blowhard.

mmarshall

I agree. You see a lot of that in media stories....references to "experts", without names, credentials, background, or what exactly qualifies them to be an "expert".

Och

iTrader: (3)

It will no doubt, but if politicians want that to happens they need to do a lot more, like investing into grid infrastructure upgrades instead of trying to pass idiotic mandates.