Electric Cars Good for the Environment?
in [Manchester United]
|
From: Lawrence Jenkins on 2 Aug 2010 13:08 "Mark Williams" <spam.me(a)your.peril> wrote in message news:zK6dndgG0phrKcnRnZ2dnUVZ7oednZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "Lawrence13" <lawrence13(a)sky.com> wrote in message > news:b381d940-abf4-43ce-a874-af2b8910d426(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 31, 4:15 pm, "Mark Williams" <spam...(a)your.peril> wrote: >> "Lawrence Jenkins" <lawrenc...(a)sky.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4c5436e1$0$21651$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> > I don't know how carrying so much weight in storage batteries is >> > efficient. >> >> Very simple. The batteries can power motors attached directly to the >> wheels >> which are much smaller and lighter than the internal combustioon engine >> without the gears, clutch and everything else that is needed to run a >> petrol >> engine, plus the chassis required to support all that machinery. >> >> > The sensible sized cars can do no more than 80 miles before a recharge. >> > Even cars like the Prius still rely heavily on a petrol engine. How mad >> > can it be that a combustion engine is made even less efficient as it >> > has >> > to lug around the weight of the batteries and elecric drive motors and >> > vice versa. I don't believe there's much space left for luggage . >> >> The Tesla has a range of 250 miles, but this will improve as battery >> technology improves. >> >> >> >> > As for a cleaner atmosphere where do you think the waste gases go at >> > the >> > generating station Never Never Land? >> >> Carbon capture, although there could be more generation from non-carbon >> sources including nuclear. >> >> >> >> > If motorist in britain switch to electric cars then the natial grid >> > demand >> > would increase with more oil, gas and coal being burnt to meet the >> > demand >> > and as far as I know that means exhaust fumes at the power station >> > instead >> > of where the vehicle burns the fuel. >> >> True but oil and gas will run out eventually, replaced by other energy >> sources. It would only take an area the size of Austria in the Sahara >> Desert to generate electricity for all of the world's energy needs. > > Sorry Mark just saw the bit about somwhere the size of Austria in the > sahara. I take it you mean with solar photovoltaic panels? > > Yup. Not sugesting that it should be built in the Sahara, but there is > plenty enough solar energy even if PV cells are currently expensive. > Mark one of the great problems with photovoltaic panels surely is they produce DC only in light and the output is non existent once the sun goes down so that makes the enrgy they produce surplus to requirements at the time you need them. If you convert them to AC then you can't store the energy because as far as I know AC elctricity can't be stored? I think at the moment personal photovoltaic cells can reduce consumption but their fitting, location, lifespan and unit cost make them very economically foolish to install. Howver as gas and oil prices enevitably increase then they increase to look fiscally more tempting
From: Lawrence Jenkins on 2 Aug 2010 13:12 "johnty" <johnty1(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:49a27f8d-5822-4765-8a60-2db7baaa623a(a)f6g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On 31 July, 15:44, "Lawrence Jenkins" <lawrenc...(a)sky.com> wrote: > >> >> I don't know how carrying so much weight in storage batteries is >> efficient. > > It's about comparisons. It doesn't matter what load is being carried, > elctric cars are more efficient at it than the equivalent petrol car > in terms of energy used. > > You really are struggling with this. Try something less > intellectually challenging for a while. > > >> The sensible sized cars can do no more than 80 miles before a recharge. > > This is a different argument. There is no dispute that electric > vehicles are nowhere near are well developed as petrol cars, but that > has no bearing on the environment or efficiency in energy use. > > > > >> cars like the Prius still rely heavily on a petrol engine. How mad can it >> be >> that a combustion engine is made even less efficient as it has to lug >> around >> the weight of the batteries and elecric drive motors and vice versa. > > > Yet another, equally irrelevant argument. Start a new thread on > hybrid vs. petrol vs electric. > > > >> As for a cleaner atmosphere where do you think the waste gases go at the >> generating station Never Never Land? > > > Cleaner in that the exhaust fumes that might have been generated > aren't. Generating stations output is there regardless. I suspect > you are more familiar with Never Never Land than most of us. > > >> >> If motorist in britain switch to electric cars then the natial grid >> demand >> would increase with more oil, gas and coal being burnt to meet the demand >> and as far as I know that means exhaust fumes at the power station >> instead >> of where the vehicle burns the fuel. > > > You really are clueless. Yes, there is an extra load on the power > station to charge up an electric car. But, if this car has replaced a > petrol one then you have to deduct the burden that the petrol-driven > car would put on the power station, don't you? > > And as you are incapable of figuring it out, I'll give you some > hints: the gallon of fuel burnt by the petrol car has to be extracted > from the ground (very energy intesive), pumped down a pipe to a vessel > of some sort to be transported (fuel burnt, exhaust emitted) to a > refinery (large dirty thing not unlike a power station). The refinery > cracks the hydrocarbons (large energy requirement, exhausts fumes, > other pollutants), producing among other things, petrol. The petrol is > loaded into a tanker and driven (more fuel used, more exhaust) to a > garage (lights, pumps, 24hr shop). > > > All of these things are avoided if replacing the traditional car with > an electric one. The total energy requirement to fuel and run the > petrol car exceeds the energy requirment to fuel and run the electric > one over the equivalent distance. And the environmetal pollution is > greater, too. > > Remember "kettle and "black " Johnty? Look its a simple as this. If electric cars were so bloody good we'd all be queueing to buy one. I will conceed with the advent of ion batteries its made the electric car look a more serious viability but there is some way to go. I'm actually thinking of buying one later this year but there are still problems with range and recharge points-wouldn't you agree on that one at least?
From: Mark Williams on 2 Aug 2010 13:37 "Lawrence Jenkins" <lawrence13(a)sky.com> wrote in message news:4c56fb80$0$16633$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "Mark Williams" <spam.me(a)your.peril> wrote in message > news:zK6dndgG0phrKcnRnZ2dnUVZ7oednZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Lawrence13" <lawrence13(a)sky.com> wrote in message >> news:b381d940-abf4-43ce-a874-af2b8910d426(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 31, 4:15 pm, "Mark Williams" <spam...(a)your.peril> wrote: >>> "Lawrence Jenkins" <lawrenc...(a)sky.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:4c5436e1$0$21651$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> >>> > I don't know how carrying so much weight in storage batteries is >>> > efficient. >>> >>> Very simple. The batteries can power motors attached directly to the >>> wheels >>> which are much smaller and lighter than the internal combustioon engine >>> without the gears, clutch and everything else that is needed to run a >>> petrol >>> engine, plus the chassis required to support all that machinery. >>> >>> > The sensible sized cars can do no more than 80 miles before a >>> > recharge. >>> > Even cars like the Prius still rely heavily on a petrol engine. How >>> > mad >>> > can it be that a combustion engine is made even less efficient as it >>> > has >>> > to lug around the weight of the batteries and elecric drive motors and >>> > vice versa. I don't believe there's much space left for luggage . >>> >>> The Tesla has a range of 250 miles, but this will improve as battery >>> technology improves. >>> >>> >>> >>> > As for a cleaner atmosphere where do you think the waste gases go at >>> > the >>> > generating station Never Never Land? >>> >>> Carbon capture, although there could be more generation from non-carbon >>> sources including nuclear. >>> >>> >>> >>> > If motorist in britain switch to electric cars then the natial grid >>> > demand >>> > would increase with more oil, gas and coal being burnt to meet the >>> > demand >>> > and as far as I know that means exhaust fumes at the power station >>> > instead >>> > of where the vehicle burns the fuel. >>> >>> True but oil and gas will run out eventually, replaced by other energy >>> sources. It would only take an area the size of Austria in the Sahara >>> Desert to generate electricity for all of the world's energy needs. >> >> Sorry Mark just saw the bit about somwhere the size of Austria in the >> sahara. I take it you mean with solar photovoltaic panels? >> >> Yup. Not sugesting that it should be built in the Sahara, but there is >> plenty enough solar energy even if PV cells are currently expensive. >> > > Mark one of the great problems with photovoltaic panels surely is they > produce DC only in light and the output is non existent once the sun goes > down so that makes the enrgy they produce surplus to requirements at the > time you need them. If you convert them to AC then you can't store the > energy because as far as I know AC elctricity can't be stored? I think at > the moment personal photovoltaic cells can reduce consumption but their > fitting, location, lifespan and unit cost make them very economically > foolish to install. Howver as gas and oil prices enevitably increase then > they increase to look fiscally more tempting Produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis. Alternatively if the solar cells are near hydro dams, you pump water from the bottom of the dam to the top with any surplus, so the energy is stored.
From: johnty on 2 Aug 2010 14:18 On 2 Aug, 18:12, "Lawrence Jenkins" <lawrenc...(a)sky.com> wrote: > "johnty" <john...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:49a27f8d-5822-4765-8a60-2db7baaa623a(a)f6g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 31 July, 15:44, "Lawrence Jenkins" <lawrenc...(a)sky.com> wrote: > > >> I don't know how carrying so much weight in storage batteries is > >> efficient. > > > It's about comparisons. It doesn't matter what load is being carried, > > elctric cars are more efficient at it than the equivalent petrol car > > in terms of energy used. > > > You really are struggling with this. Try something less > > intellectually challenging for a while. > > >> The sensible sized cars can do no more than 80 miles before a recharge.. > > > This is a different argument. There is no dispute that electric > > vehicles are nowhere near are well developed as petrol cars, but that > > has no bearing on the environment or efficiency in energy use. > > >> cars like the Prius still rely heavily on a petrol engine. How mad can it > >> be > >> that a combustion engine is made even less efficient as it has to lug > >> around > >> the weight of the batteries and elecric drive motors and vice versa. > > > Yet another, equally irrelevant argument. Start a new thread on > > hybrid vs. petrol vs electric. > > >> As for a cleaner atmosphere where do you think the waste gases go at the > >> generating station Never Never Land? > > > Cleaner in that the exhaust fumes that might have been generated > > aren't. Generating stations output is there regardless. I suspect > > you are more familiar with Never Never Land than most of us. > > >> If motorist in britain switch to electric cars then the natial grid > >> demand > >> would increase with more oil, gas and coal being burnt to meet the demand > >> and as far as I know that means exhaust fumes at the power station > >> instead > >> of where the vehicle burns the fuel. > > > You really are clueless. Yes, there is an extra load on the power > > station to charge up an electric car. But, if this car has replaced a > > petrol one then you have to deduct the burden that the petrol-driven > > car would put on the power station, don't you? > > > And as you are incapable of figuring it out, I'll give you some > > hints: the gallon of fuel burnt by the petrol car has to be extracted > > from the ground (very energy intesive), pumped down a pipe to a vessel > > of some sort to be transported (fuel burnt, exhaust emitted) to a > > refinery (large dirty thing not unlike a power station). The refinery > > cracks the hydrocarbons (large energy requirement, exhausts fumes, > > other pollutants), producing among other things, petrol. The petrol is > > loaded into a tanker and driven (more fuel used, more exhaust) to a > > garage (lights, pumps, 24hr shop). > > > All of these things are avoided if replacing the traditional car with > > an electric one. The total energy requirement to fuel and run the > > petrol car exceeds the energy requirment to fuel and run the electric > > one over the equivalent distance. And the environmetal pollution is > > greater, too. > > Remember "kettle and "black " Johnty? Yes, thanks! > > Look its a simple as this. If electric cars were so bloody good we'd all be > queueing to buy one. Christ you really aren't paying attention at all. It's not whether they are good or not - no-one is disputing that. It's about overall energy conservation and reducing pollution. Driving petrol cars less is a start. Driving Electric is better than petrol. Driving nothing is better than electric. > > I'm actually thinking of buying one later this year but there are still > problems with range and recharge points-wouldn't you agree on that one at > least I have - loads of times, you just don't take it in.
From: Darth Simian on 2 Aug 2010 14:20
On 29 July, 19:43, "Lawrence Jenkins" <lawrenc...(a)sky.com> wrote: > Hmmm, I wonder where they get all that generated electricity from- low Co2 > fairy dust? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxUsGiGp3w&playnext=1&videos=rVaaAkSsTJc Top Gear: Supercars: The One Gallon Fuel Crisis Race - Top Gear - BBC -- "All Tories are lizard-masons from the planet Zog", PMD. |