Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars

"BobR" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, Ted Striker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
negatives of
driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car
use becomes more
widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I
live in an area
where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
your coal
fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
which fuel makes a
certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy
or not is going
to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
get one anyway,
strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
company polutes
making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture
minded about the
whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
area and never
pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.







Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.

Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.

Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
an efficient hybrid.

On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.

Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
would manage 40 miles even in city driving.

Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
expensive.

BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
going to fly.

Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.

The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
alcohol will on the food chain.

Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.

All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.

Roger (K8RI)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How lucky you are to have that .07 cent a kwh price but that is not
the case for everyone nor is the generation by nuclear power.
Instead, I pay a bit over .13 cents per kwh plus a distribution charge
that brings the cost to well over double yours. (And it could be
worse) The plant that generate that power are largely coal fired and
polute out the kazoo. On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
to come up with an effective means of dealing with it. Instead, the
polution is building up in "temporary" storage with nowhere to put it
once the limits of that storage are reached. So by all means, get
your electric car and enjoy the hell out of it but don't be so foolish
as to believe it is the answer for everyone or that it comes without
its own set of problems that will have future consequences.

Everything has unintended consequences.

However, in the case of nuclear power, there is a strong possibility that
much of the "waste" could be used to very good use--producing less intense
heat for many purposes other than superheated steam. At least in theory,
that could drastically reduce the need for other fuels for a lot of simple
heating purposes and could also reduce the need for electricity for many
simple heating purposes. In other words, some of those future consequences
could be beneficial. There would still be waste and it would still need to
be safeguarded; but there could be less of it and there could be far less
waste of other resources.

Peter

On Nov 28, 10:15 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...



On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, Ted Striker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
negatives of
driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car
use becomes more
widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I
live in an area
where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
your coal
fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
which fuel makes a
certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy
or not is going
to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
get one anyway,
strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
company polutes
making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture
minded about the
whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
area and never
pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.

Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.

Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.

Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
an efficient hybrid.

On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.

Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
would manage 40 miles even in city driving.

Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
expensive.

BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
going to fly.

Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.

The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
alcohol will on the food chain.

Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.

All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.

Roger (K8RI)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How lucky you are to have that .07 cent a kwh price but that is not
the case for everyone nor is the generation by nuclear power.
Instead, I pay a bit over .13 cents per kwh plus a distribution charge
that brings the cost to well over double yours. (And it could be
worse) The plant that generate that power are largely coal fired and
polute out the kazoo. On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
to come up with an effective means of dealing with it. Instead, the
polution is building up in "temporary" storage with nowhere to put it
once the limits of that storage are reached. So by all means, get
your electric car and enjoy the hell out of it but don't be so foolish
as to believe it is the answer for everyone or that it comes without
its own set of problems that will have future consequences.

Everything has unintended consequences.

However, in the case of nuclear power, there is a strong possibility that
much of the "waste" could be used to very good use--producing less intense
heat for many purposes other than superheated steam. At least in theory,
that could drastically reduce the need for other fuels for a lot of simple
heating purposes and could also reduce the need for electricity for many
simple heating purposes. In other words, some of those future consequences
could be beneficial. There would still be waste and it would still need to
be safeguarded; but there could be less of it and there could be far less
waste of other resources.

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All that sounds great but it still remains in the "Could Be" category
of wishful thinking.