You Think Electric Vehicles Not Viable? Think Again. - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > You Think Electric Vehicles Not Viable? Think Again.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-24-2013, 05:59 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,621
Liked 2407 Times on 1409 Posts
Likes Given: 540

Default

I don't mind the idea of electric cars/vehicles. They offer good torque, and power. I don't think they have fully come into their own, based on a lack of overall range, and ifrastructure to support longer distance travel with them.

They aren't a new idea. Ferdinand Porsche used an electric vehicle as one of his earliest designs.

What I do object to is many of the " militant green-minded" folks who think these things are an environmental boon at this point in time. They could be if there was an infrastructure to charge them without fossil fuels, but the fact is that the majority of the power that charges them still comes from coal, and fuel oil. There is hydraulic and nuclear power contributing to a smaller carbon foot print, but no to the same extent as the fossil fuels rght now. So, I lke to ask electric car owners who are not off the grid, how they like their coal burner.

I do like the idea of finding alternative fuels, renewable fuels, and solar, nuclear and wind power. I see nothing wrong with trying to harness available energy from any source and get our energy independence up. I woudl still use fossil fuels as well.

Other environmental impact exists in the mining of lithium for batteries (takes fossil fuel to run alot of the machinery), disposal of the batteries after they lose their life. Solar panels do eventually lose efficiency as well.

Environmentalists often fail to see the environmental impact of being an environmentalist sometimes.

__________________
SSGN_Doc is offline  
Vikingdad Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 06:44 PM   #12
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DFlynt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Festus, Missouri
Posts: 3,044
Liked 1787 Times on 1170 Posts
Likes Given: 1551

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSGN_Doc View Post
I don't mind the idea of electric cars/vehicles. They offer good torque, and power. I don't think they have fully come into their own, based on a lack of overall range, and ifrastructure to support longer distance travel with them.

They aren't a new idea. Ferdinand Porsche used an electric vehicle as one of his earliest designs.

What I do object to is many of the " militant green-minded" folks who think these things are an environmental boon at this point in time. They could be if there was an infrastructure to charge them without fossil fuels, but the fact is that the majority of the power that charges them still comes from coal, and fuel oil. There is hydraulic and nuclear power contributing to a smaller carbon foot print, but no to the same extent as the fossil fuels rght now. So, I lke to ask electric car owners who are not off the grid, how they like their coal burner.

I do like the idea of finding alternative fuels, renewable fuels, and solar, nuclear and wind power. I see nothing wrong with trying to harness available energy from any source and get our energy independence up. I woudl still use fossil fuels as well.

Other environmental impact exists in the mining of lithium for batteries (takes fossil fuel to run alot of the machinery), disposal of the batteries after they lose their life. Solar panels do eventually lose efficiency as well.

Environmentalists often fail to see the environmental impact of being an environmentalist sometimes.
Not to mention 50-70% of the world's lithium is in Bolivia a nation who's government is not exactly friendly to the west and who's mineral deposits have been exploited for centuries (not to their advantage).
__________________

“Somebody has to speak for these people. Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this—they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people...better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.” Mal Reynolds Serenity/Firefly

DFlynt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 07:07 PM   #13
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,591
Liked 8848 Times on 5122 Posts
Likes Given: 11575

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSGN_Doc View Post
I don't mind the idea of electric cars/vehicles. They offer good torque, and power. I don't think they have fully come into their own, based on a lack of overall range, and ifrastructure to support longer distance travel with them.

They aren't a new idea. Ferdinand Porsche used an electric vehicle as one of his earliest designs.

What I do object to is many of the " militant green-minded" folks who think these things are an environmental boon at this point in time. They could be if there was an infrastructure to charge them without fossil fuels, but the fact is that the majority of the power that charges them still comes from coal, and fuel oil. There is hydraulic and nuclear power contributing to a smaller carbon foot print, but no to the same extent as the fossil fuels rght now. So, I lke to ask electric car owners who are not off the grid, how they like their coal burner.

I do like the idea of finding alternative fuels, renewable fuels, and solar, nuclear and wind power. I see nothing wrong with trying to harness available energy from any source and get our energy independence up. I woudl still use fossil fuels as well.

Other environmental impact exists in the mining of lithium for batteries (takes fossil fuel to run alot of the machinery), disposal of the batteries after they lose their life. Solar panels do eventually lose efficiency as well.

Environmentalists often fail to see the environmental impact of being an environmentalist sometimes.
It depends on which state you live in as far as coal is concerned. Coal accounts for 42% of energy production in the US, but the huge majority of that coal production is for only 20 states. California does receive some energy from coal fired plants but less than 1% of the total in-state energy production is produced by coal and the rest of it comes from out-of-state (only something like 15% of CAs total energy is from coal).

To call an electric car "Coal Powered", while funny and all, is more than a little deceptive.

As far as the environmental impacts of producing the batteries and electric motors (which use rare Earth metals) there is a long way to go before those impacts will even begin to scratch the surface of the impact that petroleum production has had on the planet, let alone future impacts. Sending the production overseas is not in any way going to reduce that.

Charging time is definitely an issue. No way around that. But if you time your charge around your activity it is not too difficult to use less of your time in charging than you do in filling your tank with gas. Drive to work, plug in and punch in. It takes seconds to do. You don't have to drive to a filling station, wait in line, stand there while you fill the tank, etc.. Then at the end of the work day you just unplug and drive home where you plug in again and go inside to have dinner while it charges.

For long trips Tesla has committed to installing quick-charging stations all over the country where you can charge your battery in 45 minutes. You can then drive for 350 miles on that charge. Now I have done a lot of driving and I can say with some authority that stopping for 45 minutes after driving for 6 hours is a damned good idea. Gives you time to walk around, get something to eat, freshen up. I wouldn't complain a bit about that. And how much does that energy cost? (Tesla says the charging stations will be free for Tesla owners) Estimates are you would spend $15 for a "fill up".

Some of you might remember that the P51 Mustang was developed against the wishes of most of the military command back in WW2. They said it was unnecessary, to fast, too inefficient, too dangerous, and on and on. But they developed it anyhow. And that one development arguably won the air war in WW2. We are in a similar situation here.
__________________

Shoot me an email at vikingdad995@gmail.com

Quote:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 07:19 PM   #14
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,591
Liked 8848 Times on 5122 Posts
Likes Given: 11575

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFlynt View Post
Not to mention 50-70% of the world's lithium is in Bolivia a nation who's government is not exactly friendly to the west and who's mineral deposits have been exploited for centuries (not to their advantage).
Graphine supercapacitors is where things are headed. They are basically carbon and can be produced cheaply anywhere. Look for this technology in electric cars in the next 5 years I estimate. Charging time? Literally seconds.
__________________

Shoot me an email at vikingdad995@gmail.com

Quote:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 07:21 PM   #15
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,591
Liked 8848 Times on 5122 Posts
Likes Given: 11575

Default

Here's a good link http://www.dvice.com/2013-5-3/supercapacitors-near-ish-future-batteries

__________________

Shoot me an email at vikingdad995@gmail.com

Quote:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 09:07 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,621
Liked 2407 Times on 1409 Posts
Likes Given: 540

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad View Post
It depends on which state you live in as far as coal is concerned. Coal accounts for 42% of energy production in the US, but the huge majority of that coal production is for only 20 states. California does receive some energy from coal fired plants but less than 1% of the total in-state energy production is produced by coal and the rest of it comes from out-of-state (only something like 15% of CAs total energy is from coal).

To call an electric car "Coal Powered", while funny and all, is more than a little deceptive.

As far as the environmental impacts of producing the batteries and electric motors (which use rare Earth metals) there is a long way to go before those impacts will even begin to scratch the surface of the impact that petroleum production has had on the planet, let alone future impacts. Sending the production overseas is not in any way going to reduce that.

Charging time is definitely an issue. No way around that. But if you time your charge around your activity it is not too difficult to use less of your time in charging than you do in filling your tank with gas. Drive to work, plug in and punch in. It takes seconds to do. You don't have to drive to a filling station, wait in line, stand there while you fill the tank, etc.. Then at the end of the work day you just unplug and drive home where you plug in again and go inside to have dinner while it charges.

For long trips Tesla has committed to installing quick-charging stations all over the country where you can charge your battery in 45 minutes. You can then drive for 350 miles on that charge. Now I have done a lot of driving and I can say with some authority that stopping for 45 minutes after driving for 6 hours is a damned good idea. Gives you time to walk around, get something to eat, freshen up. I wouldn't complain a bit about that. And how much does that energy cost? (Tesla says the charging stations will be free for Tesla owners) Estimates are you would spend $15 for a "fill up".

Some of you might remember that the P51 Mustang was developed against the wishes of most of the military command back in WW2. They said it was unnecessary, to fast, too inefficient, too dangerous, and on and on. But they developed it anyhow. And that one development arguably won the air war in WW2. We are in a similar situation here.
Like I said. I get the idea, but they aren't as "green" yet as many people are lead to believe. I actually tend to be more of a proponent of nuclear power because they reduce carbon emmissions more per Kw than any other form of energy (right now, again based on current technlogy and infrastructure.)

The coal burner comment was really something I used when I was in Georgia, where the coal plant was just down te road, and people still didn't understand that the plug in their wall was connected to that plant. And it was more to point out the lack of thought some people actually put into understanding energy, and how it is produced.

There are other environmental impacts to consider in the mining and disposal of Lithium and rare earth batteries and motors, that are not fully understood or accounted for. Just like disposal and storage of nuclear fuel is the big headache of nuclear power.

And again, I'm all for expanding our energy technology and resources. I'd love to put OPEC out of business. We just aren't there yet.

Your situation is a bit different. You understand that adding your own solar energy to the equation reduces cost and carbon output. There are still others who don't do any of the homework to understand the power grid in their area, to teh point of driving past a coal fired power plant on a frequent basis, and understanding the electrons that come out of their plug at home were generated in that plant. Or the oil fired plant that provides a back-up when demand is high.

Heck, make wind power, solar power, compressed air cell power, hydroelectric power, tidal motion power, nuclear power, distilled fuels, natural gas, algae distillation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, fusion power, prisoners on a treadmil, oil shale, coal, geothermal steam power, swamp gas, landfill methane. I'm all for it. Just make it cost effective, have an infrastructure from cradle to grave, and make it efficient, and to make sense.

I'm not convinced that carbon is a total evil in teh global warming debate. The sun does go through cycles, it does change over time, and it plays a bigger role in temperature than any other factor.

We can do things smarter, and we should. But we shouldn't turn our back on the resources at hand, until the other technologies are proven from cradle to grave and cost effective.
__________________
SSGN_Doc is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 09:33 PM   #17
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 17,194
Liked 9573 Times on 4118 Posts
Likes Given: 1502

Default

Just my opinion- there is NOTHING that we do that does not have SOME environmental impact. For photo-voltaic (direct conversion of light to electricity) while the operation may be sum-neutral, at one time the photo cells were based on gallium and arsenic- and mining, refining, manufacturing and DISPOSING of those is HIGH impact.

The largest nickel refinery in the world was in Sudbury, Ontario- with a chimney known as the INCO Superstack. Take a look at it- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack Then take the lat/longitude from that article, plug it into Google Earth, and you can see the V of the ecological damage from outer space. Nickel- as in rechargeable batteries.

Not condemning ANY technology- just saying understand the FULL impact of it. Example- we have large office buildings switching to LED lights- and it cuts power consumption for lighting. And building owners find they cannot heat the building in winter- because the DESIGN of the building included the very substantial heat output from the light. Local grocer just replaced all of their open refrigerated cases with new cases with doors on them. Takes a lot less power for the refrigeration. AND the AC system could not cool the store on a hot day- no help from the reefer cases.

__________________

What we have here is... failure- to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 09:51 PM   #18
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 6,231
Liked 6966 Times on 3505 Posts
Likes Given: 7568

Default

What we have is what we need plus a whole lot more of what we dont have yet to change NRG production in my lifetime (Im 51).

Heck, make wind power, solar power, compressed air cell power, hydroelectric power, tidal motion power, nuclear power, distilled fuels, natural gas, algae distillation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, fusion power, prisoners on a treadmil, oil shale, coal, geothermal steam power, swamp gas, landfill methane. I'm all for it. Just make it cost effective, have an infrastructure from cradle to grave, and make it efficient, and to make sense.

You nailed it SSG, thats the answer cause no one source is gonna do it now or any time soon. To add to that, We need to do more regional power generation, try to get away from making giant plants and sending it long distances, too much loss and concentrated potential for failure or environmental destruction. We have many mill ponds, rivers, hills and lots of biomass, we do have a few windmills but we really need to advantage Clean burn Bio-Mass, hydro and wind much more, solar isnt a huge potential in upstate NY, we dont get that much sun.

__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
Vikingdad Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 10:41 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,621
Liked 2407 Times on 1409 Posts
Likes Given: 540

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
What we have is what we need plus a whole lot more of what we dont have yet to change NRG production in my lifetime (Im 51).

Heck, make wind power, solar power, compressed air cell power, hydroelectric power, tidal motion power, nuclear power, distilled fuels, natural gas, algae distillation fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, fusion power, prisoners on a treadmil, oil shale, coal, geothermal steam power, swamp gas, landfill methane. I'm all for it. Just make it cost effective, have an infrastructure from cradle to grave, and make it efficient, and to make sense.

You nailed it SSG, thats the answer cause no one source is gonna do it now or any time soon. To add to that, We need to do more regional power generation, try to get away from making giant plants and sending it long distances, too much loss and concentrated potential for failure or environmental destruction. We have many mill ponds, rivers, hills and lots of biomass, we do have a few windmills but we really need to advantage Clean burn Bio-Mass, hydro and wind much more, solar isnt a huge potential in upstate NY, we dont get that much sun.

If we regionalized power and made states make their own, we wouldn't have super cell cities like NY, LA, etc. they don't have the hydro power to sustain themselves, and southern CA doesn't have enough water for its population. It would spread the voter stupidity instead of concentrating it in small avoidable geographic pockets.

Give 'em the power and water they need to keep 'em in place. It's a good investment for the surrounding states.
__________________
SSGN_Doc is offline  
orangello Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 11:06 PM   #20
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 6,231
Liked 6966 Times on 3505 Posts
Likes Given: 7568

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSGN_Doc View Post
If we regionalized power and made states make their own, we wouldn't have super cell cities like NY, LA, etc. they don't have the hydro power to sustain themselves, and southern CA doesn't have enough water for its population. It would spread the voter stupidity instead of concentrating it in small avoidable geographic pockets.

Give 'em the power and water they need to keep 'em in place. It's a good investment for the surrounding states.
Oh boy, thats a whole diff thread! Save the nation, Knock down the cities! Half of our sustainability issues come from maintaining Vestigial Organs like Dirtroit and NY ****ty, they survive at the detriment of all those around them that are bled dry to keep them alive.

Its sickening that those that have the most needs do the least to feed that need and expect those with so little to supply everything. Its not that NYC or LA couldnt support their own needs, they flat out refuse to do for themselves what they must to do it. Dont tell me that 10,000 high rises cant advantage solar and wind power, they wont because its cheaper and more aesthetically pleasing to do that in my backyard instead of theirs!

I like the Idea of Electric powered transportation especially in the cities where they recirculate their own farts to breath! Electricity cant be found, it has to be generated, till we find those dilythium crystals, were gonna need to burn some coal, oil and keep the nuke plants cooking.
__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Cheap first off roading vehicles akm47nagiont The Club House 14 04-06-2012 05:39 PM
Hunting vehicles M14sRock Hunting Forum 8 11-29-2010 02:47 AM
Bullets and Vehicles Course at Sig Academy DrJason Training & Safety 4 11-09-2010 09:22 PM
Finally a viable presidential candidate Chester The Club House 9 03-16-2008 02:33 AM
A Viable 3rd Party cnorman18 Politics, Religion and Controversy 23 09-23-2007 01:30 PM