It wasn't solar-powered. It used non-rechargeable batteries. Also, it didn't need much power to work in one sixth gravity. Supposedly the range was 92 km. They had enough power left after three EVAs that the TV cameras kept working to send back live video of the lift-off from the moon.
Gas-Powered Cars Will Vanish in 8 Years, Big Oil Will Collapse: Stanford Study
- Thread starter yung_dood
- Start date
You guys are short sighted. EV doesn't need to be charged every day, every time you park. Maybe only every 3 days, or even weekly if you are only driving locally. Every light pole on the street can be modified to become a charging station, thus reducing the need for "gas-station" like infrastrature.
Gas powered car has only ONE advantage - that is rapid fueling, but almost all other aspect are worse than EV - noise, polution, performance - yes EV has much better torque band and accelerate faster and more smoothly. Also, you can run AC, heater without having to "start engine", and in an enclosed space such as garage without CO poisoning. So many other advantages to mention. Even the fueling speed depends heavily on EXPENSIVE infrausture of gas stations and expensive cost of refining, transporting the gasoline fuel to so many stations. Electricity is already everywhere.
Even the speed of fueling gas in emergency / crisis situation is not all that reliable. As hurricane evacuation proves the long queues at gas station, and disruption in gasolution distribution in real disaster zone proves gas power cars are no better suited for evacuation than EVs.
In event of complete infrastrature breakdown, gas power cars will be useless without dedicated supply chain of refineries, gas distribution infrastures. whereas EVs can surive simply if you have a solar panel, just takes time to charge.
Gas powered car has only ONE advantage - that is rapid fueling, but almost all other aspect are worse than EV - noise, polution, performance - yes EV has much better torque band and accelerate faster and more smoothly. Also, you can run AC, heater without having to "start engine", and in an enclosed space such as garage without CO poisoning. So many other advantages to mention. Even the fueling speed depends heavily on EXPENSIVE infrausture of gas stations and expensive cost of refining, transporting the gasoline fuel to so many stations. Electricity is already everywhere.
Even the speed of fueling gas in emergency / crisis situation is not all that reliable. As hurricane evacuation proves the long queues at gas station, and disruption in gasolution distribution in real disaster zone proves gas power cars are no better suited for evacuation than EVs.
In event of complete infrastrature breakdown, gas power cars will be useless without dedicated supply chain of refineries, gas distribution infrastures. whereas EVs can surive simply if you have a solar panel, just takes time to charge.
Please explain how this would work in a neighbourhood like mine, where the majority of cars park on the street. First of all, who's going to pay to as you say, modify every light pole? And how does the city/province charge people for that electricity use? Then what about all of the cables stretching from poles to cars across the front of houses, and across sidewalks? Then what do you do where they only allow parking on one side of the street? Have you seen the diameter of these cables? They're not like a home extension cord. What about coiling up that 60' cable when it's been out all night in -15 ℃ weather?
And that is a huge advantage, as is range. If your only commute short distances, then an EV makes scene. Provided you have a regular place to charge it. If you do any kind of traveling, like to go on road trips, to a cottage up north etc. you're limited in where and how far you can go. Hey, let's drive from Toronto to Montreal (or a similar distance) for the weekend is basically out of the question.
We are so far from EVs being practical for most people, which is why sales are so low. Even with the huge incentives, credits rebates etc.
The problem with road trip is mostly due to lack of charging infrastructure, not the fault of EVs. Most of EVs can charge 80% of capacity in 30min in DC fast charging or Tesla super charging. The problem is availability of these charging stations especially outside of city. Agreed if your job or lifestyle requires you to travel long distances continuously, then EV is impractical. But I think vast majority of city dwellers only takes road trips maybe 2 - 5 times a year. If every rest stop, hotels are equipped with fast chargers, travellers can simply charge their car while using rest room and eating lunch, taking breaks. I see long queues of cars at costco gas stations, sometimes waiting 30 min - a hour just to save 10c / L. 30 min EV charging is not really all that bad considering the savings in $$ and you only need to do it when road trips. Other times, you just charge when you sleep or not using car.
Norway has already done it. and England is planning on it too. I'm sure technical problems of overcoming cold weather is easily solvable. As for who is going to pay for it, it's more difficult question. I'm sure it can be a profitable business if there is enough demand, but to get people to buy EVs, there has to be charging places everywhere to convince people it's as if not more convinient than gas cars. If one happens first, the other will follow. Problem is initial investment has to exist to give an impetus to start the change. I think it's going to be combination of goverment and startups, crowd sourcing etc.
Can someone tell me how much charge a fully charged battery will lose overnight in -20*C? I suspect the charge will halve which is not really "green."
If you plug it in overnight it will be fully charged in the morning when you need to use it. No need to cold crank that engine with semi-viscous. Electrical motor will smoothly without having to "crank"
which is why infrastructure is the key. I already see most hotels have charging spot for EVs, and will only grow as more people have them.
I wonder the sole reason for owning gas cars is the lack of charging infrastructures. Note the cost of gas stations and distribution of gasolines and refineries far outweigh the cost of charging terminals and distribution of electricity infrascture already exists.
You know more electricity is used to refine 1L of gasoline and transport that gasoline from refinery to your local gas station, than the electricity need to run the same distance of an EV?
I don't know why some people feel this loyalty to gasoline or why having to drive to a gas station is something desirable. Plugging in at work for 8+ hours or at home seems like it would be a lot more convenient.
Oh and
Oh and
I'd support a new gas tax/combustion engine vehicle registration taxes etc. dedicated solely to cities/communities funding and developing charging infrastructure. The only way to get people to change their outlooks is to ding them in the pocketbook. And yes, I do own a combustion engine vehicle.
The same people complain about taking too long to charge EVs will queue up for 45min at Costco gas stations to save c10/L
Roughly 750 watts per HP.
It takes roughly 50 HP to maintain highway speeds, which equals 37,500 Watts, and considerably more to accelerate a car.
Yes, that is an over simplification, but you get the idea.
Even when not moving, with air conditioning or heat on in an electric car, energy is being consumed, and MUST be replaced.
That energy has to be replaced, all of it, in every car that is electric.
I am NOT apposed to the concept of electric cars, but I would like to see a study showing how the infrastructure is going to handle this.
Granted most of this energy is going to be consumed at night, but still a LOT of energy,... and won't be coming from solar.
It takes roughly 50 HP to maintain highway speeds, which equals 37,500 Watts, and considerably more to accelerate a car.
Yes, that is an over simplification, but you get the idea.
Even when not moving, with air conditioning or heat on in an electric car, energy is being consumed, and MUST be replaced.
That energy has to be replaced, all of it, in every car that is electric.
I am NOT apposed to the concept of electric cars, but I would like to see a study showing how the infrastructure is going to handle this.
Granted most of this energy is going to be consumed at night, but still a LOT of energy,... and won't be coming from solar.
No, but how many electric cars does it take to make the production of one oil well unnecessary. And once they are up to 1,000,000 cars a year, then 5 mil etc..
The 8 year time frame is unrealistic, but just think how many Telsas you see on Toronto streets every day, compared to just 2 years ago.
Similarly, solar is crushing coal. Will soon take on oil & gas and install KWH just starts sky rocketing. So how may solar panels to replace one gas plant.
Except that it only takes about 10 hp to drive a recent 4 passenger sedan at 80km/hr; and horse power required varies as the cube of the speed, which is why the Tesla distance charts drop off dramatically above 110km/hr
The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles
Tyler Durden
April 30, 2017
An electric auto will convert 5-10% of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30% of the energy in gasoline into motion. That's 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle.
Electricity is a specialty product. It's not appropriate for transportation. It looks cheap at this time, but that's because it was designed for toasters, not transportation. Increase the amount of wiring and infrastructure by a factor of a thousand, and it's not cheap.
Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation level due to its miniscule nature. Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense and materials.
Using electricity as an energy source requires two energy transformation steps, while using petroleum requires only one. With electricity, the original energy, usually chemical energy, must be transformed into electrical energy; and then the electrical energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of motion. With an internal combustion engine, the only transformation step is the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy in the combustion chamber.
The difference matters, because there is a lot of energy lost every time it is transformed or used. Electrical energy is harder to handle and loses more in handling.
The use of electrical energy requires it to move into and out of the space medium (aether) through induction. Induction through the aether medium should be referred to as another form of energy, but physicists sandwich it into the category of electrical energy. Going into and out of the aether through induction loses a lot of energy.
Another problem with electricity is that it loses energy to heat production due to resistance in the wires. A short transmission line will have 20% loss built in, and a long line will have 50% loss built in. These losses are designed in, because reducing the loss by half would require twice as much metal in the wires. Wires have to be optimized for diameter and strength, which means doubling the metal would be doubling the number of transmission lines.
High voltage transformers can get 90% efficiency with expensive designs, but household level voltages get 50% efficiency. Electric motors can get up to 60% efficiency, but only at optimum rpms and load. For autos, they average 25% efficiency. Gasoline engines get 25% efficiency with old-style carburetors and 30% with fuel injection, though additional loses can occur.
Applying this brilliant engineering to the problem yields this result: A natural gas electric generating turbine gets 40% efficiency. A high voltage transformer gets 90% efficiency. A household level transformer gets 50% efficiency. A short transmission line gets 20% loss, which is 80% efficiency. The total is 40% x 90% x 50% x 80% = 14.4% of the energy recovered before the electrical system does something similar to the gasoline engine in the vehicle. Some say the electricity performs a little better in the vehicle, but it's not much.
Electricity appears to be easy to handle sending it through wires. But it is the small scale that makes it look cheap. Scaling it up takes a pound of metal for so many electron-miles. Twice as much distance means twice as much metal. Twice as many amps means twice as much metal. Converting the transportation system into an electrical based system would require scaling up the amount of metal and electrical infrastructure by factors of hundreds or thousands. Where are all those lines going to go? They destroy environments. Where is that much natural gas going to come from for the electrical generators? There is very little natural gas in existence when using it for a large scale purpose. Natural gas has to be used with solar and wind energy, because only it can be turned on and off easily for backup.
One of the overwhelming facts about electric transportation is the chicken and egg phenomenon. Supposedly, a lot of electric vehicles will create an incentive to create a lot of expensive infrastructure. There are a lot of reasons why none of the goals can be met for such an infrastructure. The basic problem is that electricity will never be appropriate for such demanding use as general transportation, which means there will never be enough chickens or eggs to balance the demand. It's like trying to improve a backpack to such an extent that it will replace a pickup truck. The limitations of muscle metabolism are like the limitations of electrical energy.
Electrons are not a space-saving form of energy. Electrons have to be surrounded by large amounts of metal. It means electric motors get heavy and large. When cruising around town, the problems are not so noticeable. But the challenges of ruggedness are met far easier with internal combustion engines. Engineers say it is nice to get rid of the drive train with electric vehicles. But in doing so, they add clutter elsewhere, which adds weight, takes up space and messes up the suspension system. Out on the highway, the suspension system is the most critical factor.
These problems will prevent electric vehicles from replacing petroleum vehicles for all but specialty purposes. The infrastructure needed for electric vehicles will never exist when limited to specialty purposes. This would be true even with the perfect battery which takes up no space and holds infinite charge.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-30/inconvenient-truth-about-electric-vehicles
Tyler Durden
April 30, 2017
An electric auto will convert 5-10% of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30% of the energy in gasoline into motion. That's 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle.
Electricity is a specialty product. It's not appropriate for transportation. It looks cheap at this time, but that's because it was designed for toasters, not transportation. Increase the amount of wiring and infrastructure by a factor of a thousand, and it's not cheap.
Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation level due to its miniscule nature. Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense and materials.
Using electricity as an energy source requires two energy transformation steps, while using petroleum requires only one. With electricity, the original energy, usually chemical energy, must be transformed into electrical energy; and then the electrical energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of motion. With an internal combustion engine, the only transformation step is the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy in the combustion chamber.
The difference matters, because there is a lot of energy lost every time it is transformed or used. Electrical energy is harder to handle and loses more in handling.
The use of electrical energy requires it to move into and out of the space medium (aether) through induction. Induction through the aether medium should be referred to as another form of energy, but physicists sandwich it into the category of electrical energy. Going into and out of the aether through induction loses a lot of energy.
Another problem with electricity is that it loses energy to heat production due to resistance in the wires. A short transmission line will have 20% loss built in, and a long line will have 50% loss built in. These losses are designed in, because reducing the loss by half would require twice as much metal in the wires. Wires have to be optimized for diameter and strength, which means doubling the metal would be doubling the number of transmission lines.
High voltage transformers can get 90% efficiency with expensive designs, but household level voltages get 50% efficiency. Electric motors can get up to 60% efficiency, but only at optimum rpms and load. For autos, they average 25% efficiency. Gasoline engines get 25% efficiency with old-style carburetors and 30% with fuel injection, though additional loses can occur.
Applying this brilliant engineering to the problem yields this result: A natural gas electric generating turbine gets 40% efficiency. A high voltage transformer gets 90% efficiency. A household level transformer gets 50% efficiency. A short transmission line gets 20% loss, which is 80% efficiency. The total is 40% x 90% x 50% x 80% = 14.4% of the energy recovered before the electrical system does something similar to the gasoline engine in the vehicle. Some say the electricity performs a little better in the vehicle, but it's not much.
Electricity appears to be easy to handle sending it through wires. But it is the small scale that makes it look cheap. Scaling it up takes a pound of metal for so many electron-miles. Twice as much distance means twice as much metal. Twice as many amps means twice as much metal. Converting the transportation system into an electrical based system would require scaling up the amount of metal and electrical infrastructure by factors of hundreds or thousands. Where are all those lines going to go? They destroy environments. Where is that much natural gas going to come from for the electrical generators? There is very little natural gas in existence when using it for a large scale purpose. Natural gas has to be used with solar and wind energy, because only it can be turned on and off easily for backup.
One of the overwhelming facts about electric transportation is the chicken and egg phenomenon. Supposedly, a lot of electric vehicles will create an incentive to create a lot of expensive infrastructure. There are a lot of reasons why none of the goals can be met for such an infrastructure. The basic problem is that electricity will never be appropriate for such demanding use as general transportation, which means there will never be enough chickens or eggs to balance the demand. It's like trying to improve a backpack to such an extent that it will replace a pickup truck. The limitations of muscle metabolism are like the limitations of electrical energy.
Electrons are not a space-saving form of energy. Electrons have to be surrounded by large amounts of metal. It means electric motors get heavy and large. When cruising around town, the problems are not so noticeable. But the challenges of ruggedness are met far easier with internal combustion engines. Engineers say it is nice to get rid of the drive train with electric vehicles. But in doing so, they add clutter elsewhere, which adds weight, takes up space and messes up the suspension system. Out on the highway, the suspension system is the most critical factor.
These problems will prevent electric vehicles from replacing petroleum vehicles for all but specialty purposes. The infrastructure needed for electric vehicles will never exist when limited to specialty purposes. This would be true even with the perfect battery which takes up no space and holds infinite charge.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-30/inconvenient-truth-about-electric-vehicles
I think your number may be more realistic,... but my point still stands,... the equivalent amount of energy consumed must be replaced into the electric cars batteries.
It ain't free, and it isn't going to come from solar.
