You Think Electric Vehicles Not Viable? Think Again.

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Vikingdad, Jul 23, 2013.

  1. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0

  2. TruggieTex

    TruggieTex New Member

    1,589
    0
    0
    Yes. They are cool and there is certainly a market ready for them when the product and price is right. These are almost twice what a comparable Polaris Ranger runs and I can fill mine up with gas at my no-power camp.
    When the battery life/service improves and the price drops, I will go that way!
     
  3. limbkiller

    limbkiller New Member

    1,511
    0
    0
    I love a huge carbon footprint myself. Two degrees in Geology and find the global warming thing a complete joke. We are years away from green energy being viable. It cost a fortune to charge them stupid vehicles.
     
  4. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    I have a totally affordable 12.5 kW solar power system on my house that is "paying for itself" by offsetting my normal energy costs. No electric or plug-in electric car yet, but it will happen. My best friend has a completely off-grid house and shop that has a 10 kW solar power system and also has a Nissan Leaf that he charges off of solar. No cost at all to him to charge the car. If you are on-grid the cost per mile for propelling the car is less than 4 cents a mile. For a comparable gasoline powered car the fuel costs are 10 cents per mile and higher. This is not including engine maintenance costs which are not a factor with electric vehicles. Also, brake wear is significantly less due to the regenerative braking in an electric car so that further reduces the operating costs.

    I have many friends who have electric vehicles that are charged via solar power. It is viable and becoming more and more competitive with gasoline power ever day. To say that green energy is not viable and that it costs a fortune to charge them is painfully ignorant of the reality. On that last point an all-electric vehicle can be charged for a couple of bucks, versus how much does it cost you to fill your tank?

    I am not saying that everybody needs to run out and replace their favorite car with an electric car by any means. if you have a very long commute then an electric is not for you (especially if you can't charge it at work).

    I have a friend who got a Chevy Volt. He has used 9 gallons of gas in 10,000 miles. That puts his gasoline costs at $.0036 per mile. The best part is that he is not at all constrained by the limited range of an all-electric platform. He has become so enamored with the electric cars that he is replacing the Volt with a Tesla Model S all-electric sedan when the lease is up on the Volt in 2 years. By that time Tesla will have charging stations installed all over the nation so range will not be a problem.
     
  5. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,334
    188
    63
    Engines that burn air are at a disadvantage when you are 14,110 above sea level


    *GASP! PANT! WHEEEZE! *:eek:
     
  6. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    That they are my friend! I have been up Pike's Peak and it was quite taxing on my lungs, and I was in excellent shape at the time! No wonder that naturally aspirated IC vehicles are a rarity these days and rarely make any news at Pike's.
     
  7. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    Soon as someone comes up with a way to manufacture batteries that dont dump billions of poumds of waste more toxic than spent nuclear fuel rods into the environment and cost equal to gas power with the same or better maintenance cost and the same charge times as filling at the pump im there.

    There is a reason cheverolet makes all their volt batteries in china. In china there is no epa telling em they cant dump their toxins into the rivers...
     
  8. rockratt

    rockratt Active Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,158
    0
    36
    I moved from Colorado Springs in Aug of 04 and went to the hill climb. At that time the road was still dirt from Halfway camp ground to the top. Looks strange paved all the way to the top. Also that year there was an electric car ran up and that thing was impressive. When they announced an electric car I thought this is going to take a while but that thing was moving as well as it's fossil fuel powered brethren.
     
  9. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I hope your work dumps tailings on bear nurseries.

    I just want aftermarket "booster wheel" kits to let me add electric rear wheel drive to my lil 4banger (and the suspension upgrade and the brake changes and the ...). The increase in acceleration would be phenomenal.
    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012...could-bring-millions-to-tennessee-university/ That is a year old article.
    Nothing belongs that high up but cages for bears.

    Sounds good; let's pollute the heck out of China, Russia, all of the 'stans. Send them some rabid bears too!

    I think that hill climb should be made more challenging by the use of live bear anchors..."all the way up; you stop it'll eat you".
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013
  10. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48
    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.
     
  11. DFlynt

    DFlynt New Member

    3,038
    0
    0
    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).
     
  12. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    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.
     
  13. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48
    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.
     
  15. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,334
    188
    63
    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.
     
  16. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48

    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.
     
  18. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    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.