Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Hybrid and Electric Cars

  1. #1 Hybrid and Electric Cars 
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    I was reading an article on the new Nissan Leaf, and all-electric, "zero emission" car.

    http://www.hybridcars.com/vehicle/nissan-leaf.html

    I was struck by a fit of common sense:

    Great idea, Nissan...a zero emission car; because the power coming out of your wall to charge it desn't create emissions at the power plant. And, it only costs about $3 a day to charge. That's almost $100 a month...which is probably more than a compact car (with a 100 mile range) would 'drink' in gas for a month. Overall, I'm sure it's better for the environment, with the near 50 compact batteries that I'm sure are biodegradable...and the production process for those is "clean"...and all the Earth-friendly plastics involved in the car's production...

    Perhaps we should stick with green fuels like ethanol...you know, water soluble fuels that cannot be pushed through a pipe with water pressure, and have to be carried by truck or train...which burns...fossil fuels.

    I am entranced by those who think they've accomplished something by purchasing a hybrid, when it seems to me all the've really done is change their t-shirt, figuratively speaking. They wear the hybrid logo as a badge of honor, ignorant to the fact that this all evens out to a net zero effect. We have to explore new technology, instead of basing "advances" on antiquated platforms. Internal combustion engines are modified steam engines, for dog's sake! In essence, we have to reinvent the wheel to see a real change.

    Honestly, (not that it's worth anything) I have more respect for those buying a hybrid for the mpg savings and tax credits, rather than those who snatch one up in the effort to convince the neighbors that they are "Earth-friendly".


    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    The Nissan Leaf was unveiled in Vancouver, Canada for the first time in North America. BC, the province where Vancouver is located, gets 90% of their power from renewable resources. And actually we are planning to build another damn so we can outsource our green power. I've also read that 50% of American power is from renewable resources as well. You can;t expect us to change everything at once. We are making a slow drive to build greener technology. This new electric car is one of the first steps.


    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Hybrid and Electric Cars 
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    I was reading an article on the new Nissan Leaf, and all-electric, "zero emission" car.

    http://www.hybridcars.com/vehicle/nissan-leaf.html

    I was struck by a fit of common sense:

    Great idea, Nissan...a zero emission car; because the power coming out of your wall to charge it desn't create emissions at the power plant. And, it only costs about $3 a day to charge. That's almost $100 a month...which is probably more than a compact car (with a 100 mile range) would 'drink' in gas for a month. Overall, I'm sure it's better for the environment, with the near 50 compact batteries that I'm sure are biodegradable...and the production process for those is "clean"...and all the Earth-friendly plastics involved in the car's production...
    We need it. No matter what you think. Oil will be depleted in few decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    Perhaps we should stick with green fuels like ethanol...you know, water soluble fuels that cannot be pushed through a pipe with water pressure, and have to be carried by truck or train...which burns...fossil fuels.
    This makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say?


    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    They wear the hybrid logo as a badge of honor, ignorant to the fact that this all evens out to a net zero effect.
    No, it doesn't. And nissan leaf is not a hybrid.


    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    We have to explore new technology, instead of basing "advances" on antiquated platforms. Internal combustion engines are modified steam engines, for dog's sake! In essence, we have to reinvent the wheel to see a real change.
    1. What new technology exactly?
    2. Electric motors are not internal combustion engines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    I've also read that 50% of American power is from renewable resources as well.
    Unfortunately, and assuming by American you mean USAian, it's not anywhere close to that. It's about 10% renewable, but that just shows what a great potential there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Hybrid and Electric Cars 
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    We need it. No matter what you think. Oil will be depleted in few decades.
    We need what? An electric car that makes zero progress to where we need to be? If the purchaser happens to get their home energy from renewable resources, then great...it would be a plus for the environment on only that point.


    This makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say?
    I'm taking a jab at the scam known as ethanol.


    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    They wear the hybrid logo as a badge of honor, ignorant to the fact that this all evens out to a net zero effect.
    No, it doesn't. And nissan leaf is not a hybrid.
    I understand the Leaf is not a Hybrid; hence the title "Hybrid and Electric Cars".

    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    We have to explore new technology, instead of basing "advances" on antiquated platforms. Internal combustion engines are modified steam engines, for dog's sake! In essence, we have to reinvent the wheel to see a real change.
    1. What new technology exactly?
    I don't know "exactly" what new technology...but we're spinning our wheels trying to improve upon old technology.

    I understand that...
    Electric motors are not internal combustion engines.
    Based on that understanding, I did not reference them at all, much less in comparison to internal combustion engines.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Hybrid and Electric Cars 
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    We need it. No matter what you think. Oil will be depleted in few decades.
    We need what? An electric car that makes zero progress to where we need to be?
    Zero progress? We are running out of oil and electric cars don't need it. Do you have a better solution?

    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    I'm taking a jab at the scam known as ethanol.
    I don't see how could ethanol be a "scam" and how it relates to electric cars. Please elaborate further.

    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    I don't know "exactly" what new technology...but we're spinning our wheels trying to improve upon old technology.
    Of course we're trying to improve our technology. I don't see where you see the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    As to ethanol, here's an article that gives a good summary of ethanol:
    http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/node/8385

    I'll respond further in a while.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    As to ethanol, here's an article that gives a good summary of ethanol:
    http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/node/8385


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    I'm confused...I already know about ethanol...what was your link for? Maybe I should have clarified my intent...ethanol as a gasoline additive is a scam.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    I'm confused...I already know about ethanol...what was your link for? Maybe I should have clarified my intent...ethanol as a gasoline additive is a scam.
    It's all a scam.

    Ethanol is not a cleaner fuel in the end. Electricity is more efficient, but since clean energy sources are a small percentage of our electrical grid, added demand means burning more fossil fuels for the added demand.

    my biggest concern for this electric and hybrid push is the pollution generated in battery construction and disposal. The only good batteries have very toxic components.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    Agreed.

    I read an article a while back that discussed the production of these types of batteries, and they showed a picture of the facility over time, and it looked like the surface of Mars around it. Haven't been able to find it again though.

    To your concern, I am also in agreement. Many armchair enviromentalists immediately become irritated when approached with the logical outcome of many "green options"...in that there is no net gain to the environment. I have a friend on the left coast, that is a research scientist...we agre on very little, except for the fact that responsible living is a must, and genuinely new technology must be the solution. Inside the box thinking doesn't allow for obvious truths to draw the occupant out, into the light.

    This is what I mean by advancing new technologies, instead of trying to improve on old platforms. Perhaps my original wording was lacking.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    genuinely new technology must be the solution.
    Are you suggesting we should wait until some unexpected miraculous new technology is discovered?

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .


    acetone is a scam
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    I'm confused...I already know about ethanol...what was your link for? Maybe I should have clarified my intent...ethanol as a gasoline additive is a scam.
    It's all a scam. Ethanol is not a cleaner fuel in the end
    I agree with you about corn based ethanol production--more an attempt to subsidize farmers than develop a rational clean energy alternative. For sugarcane and other biofuels once we develop a means to use cellulose it will probably become a lot more realistic.

    Electricity is more efficient, but since clean energy sources are a small percentage of our electrical grid, added demand means burning more fossil fuels for the added demand.
    Even without any clean energy producing the electricity, electrical production is MUCH more efficient and internal combustion engines. Our gas car engines convert less than 20% of the fuel's energy into useful propulsion.

    my biggest concern for this electric and hybrid push is the pollution generated in battery construction and disposal. The only good batteries have very toxic components.
    Agreed.

    Another concern is trading in a relatively new gas car for a modern hybrid--the manufacturing energy alone probably counters any savings in energy use.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Electricity is more efficient, but since clean energy sources are a small percentage of our electrical grid, added demand means burning more fossil fuels for the added demand.
    Even without any clean energy producing the electricity, electrical production is MUCH more efficient and internal combustion engines. Our gas car engines convert less than 20% of the fuel's energy into useful propulsion.
    Gasoline engines are up to 75% efficient at peak conditions, but average about 65% for most driving patterns. Average Power to the wheels is about 57%. Natural Gas powered electric generators plus electric motors are about 82% peak and 77% nominal driving patterns. Im not sure 12% is MUCH more efficient, but it is subjective so you might think so. In any case the 20% figure is simply wrong, you can't always trust wiki. I can go through the energy balance calculations if you wish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    at what Cypress? Read what I wrote.
    The US government ( US Department of Energy and US Environmental Protection Agency) puts it even lower, at about 15%.
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    My bad, its a government agency, it must be correct. Sigh....

    Also, for the non engine related losses keep in mind they apply to either vehicle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    genuinely new technology must be the solution.
    Are you suggesting we should wait until some unexpected miraculous new technology is discovered?

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .


    acetone is a scam
    I am not saying that at all...I am saying that as long as we sit back and think we've made progress on these issues...we will not make any progress. To put it a bit more crudely, many people are satisfied with feeling they have done a good thing for the environment just by purchasing one of these. I drive a 4x4 SUV...but it's also 14 years old, and meticulously maintained...so I don't fit into the averages...I should have bought at least 2 other cars over the life of owning this one. Due to the production impact of new vehicles, I'm actually doing more for the environment than "suburb-Joe", who ditches his 2003 Civic for a Prius.

    Now, show me this Nissan with a self sufficient solar recharge station, then I will agree that some progress has been made, based on current technology. We need practical steps to take hold until long term solutions are viable.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I think the essence here is that advances happen in steps, whether small, Zen-like steps or large jumps between stepping stones. No perfect means of personal transport will ever exist. Different people at different times try different means as they see the technology allows. Personally, I lean toward something like http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6omtd/jorysquibb/index.html]Jory Squibb's Moonbeam[/url]. Progress is evolutionary. Different technologies excel at different times. I don't see anyone going back to horse and buggy, which is obviously very green.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    LOL...my wife and I actually own and (she) run(s) a horse farm...I'd gladly ride a horse to school, if we had a place for me to "park" one.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Cypress, I think you're wrong. I think the figure is in the 25% range give or take. The way to find out would be to take the energy in fuel and calculate that against the energy to move the car. You can find energy content of gasoline and other fuels here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Cypress, I think you're wrong. I think the figure is in the 25% range give or take. The way to find out would be to take the energy in fuel and calculate that against the energy to move the car. You can find energy content of gasoline and other fuels here.
    Well yes net efficiency for the entire vehicle is much lower, but many of the losses are not prime mover specific. I indicated that previously. Comparison of gasoline engines vs. the combination of boiler-steam turbine electrical generation and electric motor is on the order of the numbers I provided.

    Most electric motors range from 60-88% efficient depending on operating speed and the electric plant and transmission system is about 84-90% efficient.

    Gasoline engines are 60%-75% efficient at operating speed ranges.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Gasoline engines are 60%-75% efficient at operating speed ranges.
    Maybe. Let's say that they are 75%. Problem is that you are not operating it at a constant speed or torque. By the time you take the varying speed, it is far less effective. I don't have a clue what that 60% to 75% range could be. I'm all but certain it isn't the percentage of energy at the output of the engine from the fuel. Now when you do consider electric drive, they are near their top efficiency at any speed, and can be direct drive with no transmission losses.

    There is no doubt that an electric car is more efficient, and an internal combustion engine will never come close. Maybe always at a constant speed, but never under real driving conditions. I find the problem with electric cars as I already listed. They require fuel to be burned somewhere else giving the user a false sense of "green" and have battery toxicity issued.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Gasoline engines are 60%-75% efficient at operating speed ranges.
    Maybe. Let's say that they are 75%. Problem is that you are not operating it at a constant speed or torque. By the time you take the varying speed, it is far less effective. I don't have a clue what that 60% to 75% range could be. I'm all but certain it isn't the percentage of energy at the output of the engine from the fuel.
    That's a strange thing to say, I wonder what makes you so confident?

    Now when you do consider electric drive, they are near their top efficiency at any speed, and can be direct drive with no transmission losses.
    Electric motors are quite inefficient at low speeds (<40% peak) and thus a transmission is highly desirable for low speeds.

    There is no doubt that an electric car is more efficient,[/quote]

    Well yes, I think I was clear about that in my first post. Did you misinterpret my words?

    and an internal combustion engine will never come close. Maybe always at a constant speed, but never under real driving conditions.
    "Never come close" is a vague term. After including electrical generation and transmission and storage losses, they seem to be within 15% on motor/engine output. Not great, but in the ballpark.

    I find the problem with electric cars as I already listed. They require fuel to be burned somewhere else giving the user a false sense of "green" and have battery toxicity issued.
    Yes I saw that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman CrimsonViper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    67
    How about a compromise. Hydrogen fuel cell cars offer the performance of a petrol car and the smugness factor held by Hybrid and electric owners. Disregarding the transport of Hydrogen issues (to which I'm sure we can come up with a solution), this is the future of motoring, not electric or hybrid.
    Edukayshun haz fayled meh.
    "Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma". Punctuation saves lives. FACT
    Nerd???I prefer the term "Intellectual Badass"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonViper
    How about a compromise. Hydrogen fuel cell cars offer the performance of a petrol car and the smugness factor held by Hybrid and electric owners. Disregarding the transport of Hydrogen issues (to which I'm sure we can come up with a solution), this is the future of motoring, not electric or hybrid.
    Having disregarded the transport issue you seem to also have disregarded the production issue. What's the source of your hydrogen?

    If we can produce clean hydrogen (i.e. without producing copious amounts of CO2), then we can also produce clean electricity, making those smug (plug-in) hybrid drivers even smugger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Electric motors are quite inefficient at low speeds (<40% peak) and thus a transmission is highly desirable for low speeds.
    Are you sure?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Electric motors are quite inefficient at low speeds (<40% peak) and thus a transmission is highly desirable for low speeds.
    Are you sure?
    Fairly certain, do you disagree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Electric motors are quite inefficient at low speeds (<40% peak) and thus a transmission is highly desirable for low speeds.
    Are you sure?
    Fairly certain, do you disagree?
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    So you say that electric motors (let's not consider variable frequency drives just yet) operating at a speeds ranging from 5% - 40% of its unloaded maximum speed remains efficient (>60%). Do I have that right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    let's not consider variable frequency drives just yet
    Why???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Because the variable frequency drive is a power conditioner. It is not an electric motor. We are speaking of electric motors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Oh, it's you again. Bye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    Am I missing something here...Twit, I'm picking up quite a bit of attitude on a topic that I feel is somewhat relevant to long term progress.

    Environmentally speaking, I bet we share the same goals.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman CrimsonViper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonViper
    How about a compromise. Hydrogen fuel cell cars offer the performance of a petrol car and the smugness factor held by Hybrid and electric owners. Disregarding the transport of Hydrogen issues (to which I'm sure we can come up with a solution), this is the future of motoring, not electric or hybrid.
    Having disregarded the transport issue you seem to also have disregarded the production issue. What's the source of your hydrogen?

    If we can produce clean hydrogen (i.e. without producing copious amounts of CO2), then we can also produce clean electricity, making those smug (plug-in) hybrid drivers even smugger.
    Ok as for the transportation, I heard there were people working on adsorbing Hydrogen onto a solid making it easier to transport. I don't know how far along this research is but at least people are trying to make it better before going into mainstream production unlike hybrids.
    Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and are already various methods of production. It can be produced using "green energy" and then transported unlike the electricity used to power hybrid/electric cars which aren't very green when you live in a non-renewable area.
    As I stated in my previous post, H2 fuel cells offer the performance of a petrol engine car unlike electric cars which for the most part can't even make it to 60 mph. This in effect rules them out for anything other than city driving.
    Finally, the Honda FCX has already gone on sale in California and is already critically acclaimed by real motoring journalists, not just by green journalists.
    Which would you rather have? This or this?
    Edukayshun haz fayled meh.
    "Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma". Punctuation saves lives. FACT
    Nerd???I prefer the term "Intellectual Badass"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Yes, we know about fuel cells. The issue is the fuel. Hydrogen is made by steam reforming natural gas, coal or other hydrocarbons and the hydrogen produced has less energy value than the carbon fuel used to make it, while CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere as a byproduct. Of course it can be made by electrolysis using wind turbines, but can that source provide enough to fuel a hydrogen based economy? Most people don't think so it can come close. A better source for green electricity as needed to electrolyze water is solar. Unfortunately the best locations for solar generation (of any type) is in desert areas where there tends to be a shortage of the raw material needed for hydrogen production - water.

    One idea being developed is artificial photosynthesis, which in theory can work with the full light spectrum so doesn't need very sunny locations. If this becomes successful then, yes, I'd say hydrogen might be viable at some point in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Electric motors are quite inefficient at low speeds (<40% peak) and thus a transmission is highly desirable for low speeds.
    Are you sure?
    Fairly certain, do you disagree?
    Yes.
    I disagree too. There are different motor designs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Electric motors are quite inefficient at low speeds (<40% peak) and thus a transmission is highly desirable for low speeds.
    Are you sure?
    Fairly certain, do you disagree?
    Yes.
    I disagree too. There are different motor designs.
    There are different designs. I have not seen any that have good efficiency at low speed and low load (<25% peak load, <40% peak rpm) VFD's improve the speed situation down to about 30% of peak rpm. Perhaps you have some specs on a newer designs?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Electric motors are quite inefficient at low speeds (<40% peak) and thus a transmission is highly desirable for low speeds.
    Are you sure?
    Fairly certain, do you disagree?
    Yes.
    I disagree too. There are different motor designs.
    There are different designs. I have not seen any that have good efficiency at low speed and low load (<25% peak load, <40% peak rpm) VFD's improve the speed situation down to about 30% of peak rpm. Perhaps you have some specs on a newer designs?
    I don't have specs of any available. DC motors have a reasonably constant torque regardless of speed. This makes a transmission unnecessary except to go to a constant speed mode if anything, rather than acceleration. Even if I am wrong, the IC engine is less efficient at lower speeds also and require a transmission where the electric motor doesn't, reducing net power more.

    When you look up the costs of operating something like the Tesla, you see they get dramatically better usage of energy. I think the ones that were in the Genmark robots were of such designs, but I haven't seen that data for maybe 15 years. I can say with certainty these were more efficient motors than standard, I just don't know how much more.

    I was thinking of your 70% to 75% claim of internal combustion engine efficiency. Do you have it available? Anyway, when I maintained generator systems on communications sites, we learned that the operate at about 70% of their peak power, because that was where they achieved their optimum life. Could you have some confused data by chance?

    As for phase servo motors, or VFD's, I agree they are the wrong way to go. DC only in the electric car except maybe DC to DC inverters for power conditioning and speed control. These at least are now in the high 90's for percent of power transfer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I don't have specs of any available. DC motors have a reasonably constant torque regardless of speed. This makes a transmission unnecessary except to go to a constant speed mode if anything, rather than acceleration. Even if I am wrong, the IC engine is less efficient at lower speeds also and require a transmission where the electric motor doesn't, reducing net power more.
    You are wrong about torque but the error is in your favor. DC Electric motors produce the highest torque when stalled and zero torque at peak speed. The curve is nearly linear so they do not require a transmission for torque multiplication as a IC engine does but would benefit for efficiency reasons. DC motors operating at slow speeds require elevated current for energy balance and the relatively high current causes excessive resistive losses.

    IC engines are most efficient at modest speeds of around 1200-1600 rpm if they are tuned for that range. As I indicated previously IC engines need transmissions for torque multiplication at low speeds since peak torque is generally around 2500-3500 rpm.

    I was thinking of your 70% to 75% claim of internal combustion engine efficiency. Do you have it available?
    Here is a site that might help you validate my number for the efficiency of a IC engine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    cypress, are you trying to suggest that the engineers who designed it are fools?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    cypress, are you trying to suggest that the engineers who designed it are fools?
    No, engineering requires trade-offs of competing requirements that drives some aspects to be suboptimal in order to have a successful system, but I do find you to be foolish, the way you jump to conclusions and the way you mislabel people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    cypress, are you trying to suggest that the engineers who designed it are fools?
    No, engineering requires trade-offs of competing requirements that drives some aspects to be suboptimal in order to have a successful system, but I do find you to be foolish, the way you jump to conclusions and the way you mislabel people.
    So now you're saying that variable transmission is not so desirable after all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    cypress, are you trying to suggest that the engineers who designed it are fools?
    No, engineering requires trade-offs of competing requirements that drives some aspects to be suboptimal in order to have a successful system, but I do find you to be foolish, the way you jump to conclusions and the way you mislabel people.
    So now you're saying that variable transmission is not so desirable after all?
    No, are you having trouble reading?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress

    No, are you having trouble reading?
    No. Is it "highly desirable" or not? Are engineers fools or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Didn't see anything relative there.

    --add--

    The best I found for electric motors are 90% efficiency. I also discovered something I didn't know, but should have assumed. DC Brushless motors are AC motors with built-in controllers. They get as high as 88%.

    I simply will not believe an IC engine can be as efficient as you say. I know you wouldn't intentionally misrepresent such a thing, but I do challenge your facts on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    OK I am sorry to have wasted your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    The anti-electric car disinformation here is astounding.

    Electric cars are more efficient. Electric cars have less parts, less friction, require less maintenance.

    An electric engine is more efficient than IC, and electric motor-wheel can be even more efficient.

    Electric cars accelerate more efficiently from dead stop than an IC because an IC does not have full power at low revs.

    eletric cars do not depend on one source of energy generation, many competing ways do, and people that are able to can install solar panels on their roof tops to provide the energy needed. Buildings in Germany have been designed with solar panel glass to generate power not use it, so people that drive there could plug their cars and charge them with solar energy while working.

    We have been lied to about electric cars for decades, Oil and GM have killed the electric car, more than once.

    Nissan Leaf is great news, I only hope that down the road there will be multiple battery manufacturers to choose from (the way you can choose your tire from several manufacturer)

    Hydrogen is a red herring, wild goose chase to distract from the fact we could have had electric cars since the 90s.

    Another false argument, winter, my friend drives an electric car since 1993 in canadian winter, and the less power is a non issue if you dont need to go up to the limit of the battery(ex: if he uses 50% that there is 89% available is a non issue since he recharges after 50%). Another false agrument is radio, AC, etc all of which take a small % of electricity, again its only an issue if you need to go all the way to the limit which for commutes etc is not the case for people that will buy ev.

    The only ground people have to stand on is that the current sabotaged-tech has limited range, but no one is saying that EV are for everyone so thats a bogus argument. Its like saying a normal car is bad and should not exist for any driver, because "I" need a 4x4 that can haul 2 tons of logs, and since a normal car isnt good for me therefore its crap and no one should have one, that doesnt fly, EV may not be adequate for "your" need but it is great for other people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    The anti-electric car disinformation here is astounding.
    Your presumptions about information from others is astounding.

    Electric cars are more efficient. Electric cars have less parts, less friction, require less maintenance.

    An electric engine is more efficient than IC, and electric motor-wheel can be even more efficient.
    Of course they are more efficient. Everyone here has agreed they are more efficient. The discussion was only to establish the accurate relative difference. You have added nothing to aid accuracy.

    We have been lied to about electric cars for decades, Oil and GM have killed the electric car, more than once.
    GM is/was a profit center. They will make cars they think will earn them the most profit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •