Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons
1586 messages, Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM
You are in the Electric Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: prm2000 (Aug 03, 2006 8:54 am) "...dedicated electric generators that operate at a single rpm are much more efficient than automobile engines with their requirement for wide power bands." True. Which is one reason why most hybrids like the Prius use CVTs which allow the engine to operate in a much narrower rpm range. However, I think (and this is just my opinion) it would be easier to market the plug-in hybrid than a system requiring a tow-behind trailer. Most people want the whole thing in a single tidy little package. Why not an electric car with an on-board diesel powered generator (vastly scaled down version of what one might see on a diesel/electric locomotive). It could be run as an electric plug-in commuter if desired or use power generated by a very small on-board diesel for longer trips?
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 03, 2006 10:06 am) Sure. But the fact that the sun and the wind are 'free' isn't the issue. It's the cost to EXTRACT the energy from the sun and the wind which is the issue. The cost to extract is the cost of the conversion device. Either a wind turbine or solar panel. These cost have steadily declined over the past 15 years. So, my question (slightly restated) remains: would widespread use of electric vehicles be 'cleaner' for the environment given the CURRENT source of electricity? Yes, it would be cleaner for the environment. Because, as you pointed out, 100% of our electricity does not come from burning coal and natural gas. Even if it did it is easier to maintain 1 smokestack than 1 million tailpipes. And as you also acknowledged, we are not dependent on foreigh sources for our electricity. So EVs are definitely the way to go. And we can always expand our nuclear energy capacity.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 03, 2006 10:17 am) Why not an electric car with an on-board diesel powered generator (vastly scaled down version of what one might see on a diesel/electric locomotive). It could be run as an electric plug-in commuter if desired or use power generated by a very small on-board diesel for longer trips?" I agree. I think an on-board generator probably makes more sense then a tow-behind. The benefits of the trailer (or some sort of dockable generator) would be the reduced weight and space taken up by something you don't need 99% of the time. The other nice thing about an all-electric drivetrain (as opposed to the current Prius) is that the basic design doesn't have to change as new electrical storage devices become available. For now you can hook in a diesel generator. In the future you could hook in additional improved batteries, a fuel cell or nano-capacitors as those technologies become viable, but your basic drivetrain doesn't have to change to accomodate them. |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 03, 2006 12:02 pm) No, I'm not. Look at the chart. There is a seperate column for hydroelectric (which was at 268,417 gigawatt/hrs in 2004). Right next to the column for "hydroelectric conventionals" is a column titled "other renewables". The note indicates that this column is for: "Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy and wind." ALL of my figures were based purely on "other renewables". "Solar energy now costs around 25 cents per kWh." Actually, according to solarbuzz.com (very pro-solar, I assure you), they show the average price for solar power running closer to 30 cents per kWh. They also state that "...solar is a long way from competing with conventional power generation costs at 3-5 cents/kWh..." http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm Meaning that it is MUCH more economical for utility companies to produce power from sources other than solar. Solar begins to make more sense when constructed/installed by the individual user since the consumer obviously pays much more than 3-5 cents/kWh. But this is why solar PV isn't being done wholesale by the electric utility companies. Wind power makes a lot more sense (and cost a lot LESS cents) than solar PV. However, I find it absolutely typical that some of the very congressman most adamant about pursuing renewable energy voted AGAINST having a wind farm in their back yard. They took a perfectly golden opportunity to set an example and pissed all over it. Beyond that however, I'm always interested in seeing how many more wind turbines have been constructed everytime I drive through west Texas. It seems as though for every oil pumper which has stopped pumping, 3 new wind turbines have been erected. "Yes, it would be cleaner for the environment." Would it? Odds are INCREASING that the electricity would be produced from the consumption of fossil fuels, since the % of electricity produced from fossil fuels is climbing, not declining. Let's talk about those million tailpipes. Common sense tells me that the VERY folks likely to convert from ICE to a 100% electric vehicle are ALREADY driving something very clean (at least LEV if not ULEV), so how much dirtier are THOSE million tailpipes compared to......that new lignite coal power plant constructed to supply the electricity for those million non-tailpipe electric cars? Meanwhile, the other 200 million folks are still driving 10-year old Malibus or Dodge Intrepids or Ford 150 trucks (and are the LAST folks to ever consider a 100% electric car). "And we can always expand our nuclear energy capacity." We already are (just not fast enough IMO). Electricity from nuclear energy grew 29% over the same period of time that 'other renewables' grew by 18.6%.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 03, 2006 12:02 pm) As a matter of fact, barely over 50% of our electricity is generated by coal. Even dirty coal is marginally better than burning gasoline in an ICE, but not all the coal is dirty. In California, we use no coal and our power is very clean, so the pollution benefits are huge. Even if the entire country was powered by dirty coal, you would have a small reduction in pollution and dramatically reduce our dependance on foreign oil. That is a compelling argument in and of itself. It is also true that the same electric car you buy today has the distinct possiblity of running progressively cleaner over it's long life than it does today. That is simply not the case with any ICE.
|
|
|
Replying to: prm2000 (Aug 03, 2006 2:46 pm) Is it? I'd like to see the figures that support that. |
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 03, 2006 2:44 pm) It is really impossible to come up with an accurate cost per kWh since it is dependent on your location. A solar panel in Phoenix is going to produce a lot more electricity than one located in Seattle even though their costs are the same. You seem to be knowledgeable in these things so you must realize that one of the factors driving up the cost of solar energy is the demand for PV cells is currently outstripping manufacturing capacity. Countries like Japan and Germany are very aggressively pursuing solar energy and pretty much buying up the global supply of PV panels. Maybe they aren't as smart as we are. In 2004 the US installed 90,000 Megawatts in PV solar capacity bringing total capacity to 365,000 Megawatts. Essentially 25% of the total was installed in one year. In 2005 another 105,000 Megawatts was installed. This represents nothing short of explosive growth. The fact that it has yet to make a dent in our energy composition is because it started out at 1/10 of 1 percent. BTW, these stats come from solarbuzz, a source that you obviously feel is reputable. Where can you buy electricity for 3-5 cents per kWh? The fact that utilities might be able to generate electricity at this cost is irrelevant to the consumer that now has the potential to generate his own electricity.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 03, 2006 2:50 pm) Is it? I'd like to see the figures that support that. Here is a Canadian study: http://evworld.com/library/CanadaFuelCycle.pdf "battery electric vehicles operating in provinces which rely primarily on electricity generated from coal, will produce 55% to 59% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to a gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle, and will produce between 80% and 92% less total other (non-CO2) emissions depending on the specific type of coal used." |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 03, 2006 3:34 pm) Ditto that. I just paid over 19 cents per kWh for a good part of my bill last month (the rate steps up with usage). That makes the 27 cents per kWh for a sunny location not sound so out of line. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: prm2000 (Aug 03, 2006 4:35 pm) Based on your comments, I feel safe to conclude: 1. Electric is less polluting and will continue to improve, 2. Battery technology will continue to improve to allow for longer range and less interruption for re-charge, 3. Those of us that are able to generate our own power will have an increased motivation to do so, which should also help drive down the price, 4. Gas prices will increase to the point that even those that would prefer to keep their old polluting vehicles, would have to let their wallets dictate a cheaper solution.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
