I had some time and took a peek at the slide show. I was totally disappointed - it seemed to be a random collection. I liked the Crazy Horse Pinto and some of the current, real product pics. I am curious as to why CT&T was included. I believe that their claim -
"CT&T, based in Korea, is said to be the world's largest manufacturer of battery electric vehicles."
is based on the manufacture of enclosed+'not enclosed' golf carts. They were looking to begin US production in '08/09 and agreed to build plants in 3 states + 'distribution centers' but it seems that they fell off of the face of the earth - a common EV occurence - as far as the US is concerned.
Chuck, well said! And the Scotty quote is a nice touch, too. Too often, the big picture costs are not captured to truly reveal the price of business. I see it all the time in my industry (consumer music products).
This is a bit of a tangent, but is anyone else disturbed by the fact that in our modern society, the only thing that we don't pay for to "live" is the air that we breathe. As my son matures, I make him aware of the supply chains that sustain us all. One of the lessons is what happens when something is plugged into the wall receptacle and how this ties to a global economy of energy production and how this relates to our transportation needs. Perhaps the next generation can sort out the planet-wide mess we've created. I'm hopeful! With the current state of America's politics I'm not convinced that common sense will prevail when it comes to energy policy and long term sustainable energy production.
You show that you miss the point by using a multiplier of 33.7 to convert to MPGE. So does the EPA. The appropriate multiplier is around 11. 33.7 would only be right for electricity made from heat without losses, especially those dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
No I don't see a problem because I'm talking about energy. It's just the PV puts out a much higher quality energy, electricity vs heat from gasoline, a low quality form that is ineff to turn into machanical energy.
As far as CO2 the PV's is only in it's building material, labor which has a EROI of well over 10-1. Vs gasoline has at best 2-1 because it takes so much energy, feedstock to make and so ineff to use at about 7% eff.. They use 3kwhr/gal just in the refining and that doesn't include chemical energy needed. Now PV I get about 30 miles/kwhr x's 33.7 equals about 1011mpge in my Harley size EV trike vs about 40mpg in a similar ICE. Deal with it.
Do you know what fungible is? Like oil it doesn't matter where you put the electric in as it displaces other power that is no longer needed., thus saving CO2.
Let's turn it around that I only need a fraction of the energy, thuis CO2/mile of an ICE. Since I need only 4% of the energy/mile to move my EV that means even using coal to charge it makes 5% or so of the CO2/mile an ICE does.
But you ignore the CO2 an ICE makes for a real comparison. Now compare that use po mine as I win in a no brainer.
Next time you fill up just think of me filling up for $.25 at home for 60 miles or $1 for 240 miles vs you $40-80!! Then think who is right? I'll be laughing all the way to the bank saving $100-200/month and you'll just be more poor.
And most of my power comes from a GTCC NG plant that gets 58% eff so only makes 30% or so of the CO2 of a coal plant., making it even less.
Nor does my EV support oil companies, oil dictators or terrorists that kill our soldiers your gasoline purchasing does, No? In fact it has the most stable energy source. Gasoline will get too expensive but one can cheaply make one's electricity from many sources.
There are easy solutions to the precieved EV problems from battery swapping like the Nissan Leaf is set up for to fast charging to a very small generator for the few times over 100 miles is needed.
As a interesting point the fastest production street MC is now an EV, the Lightning.
You seem not to see the problem when you say EV owners with PV make the 33 kWhr per gallon figure accurate. Even fully captive PV out in the woods or someplace does not make that figure accurate. Instead it makes it absurdly inaccurate in the other direction.
The heat from a gallon of gasoline, or the same heat from any fuel, is subject to the effects of heat engines. Roughly ten to fifteen kWhr is about all that can be done with that amount of heat.
It does not take any heat from fuel to make electricity with PV. This gives you a divide by zero computation, which makes the 'equivalent' a very large, undefined number. It could be arbitrarily large for plug-in hybrids using some gasoline, depending on the charging frequency.
For most PV installations though, the presence of this does not mean the electric car holds PV output captive. If reducing CO2 is the goal, then the PV output should be sold to the grid whereby the result could be reduction in use of coal. From that basis, making the independent decision to buy an EV would cancel that benefit.
Facts are we have cut our coal use by 20% over the last 10 yrs about about to cut it another 20% in the next 7 yrs according to the utility industry so hardly converting from oil to coal.
Why did you pick the lowest eff coal plant, old ones about to close to compare instead of newer units that get 40% to 58% for NGT/CC units which are the type that are replacing coal?
Many EV buyers also have PV and car companies are selling a PV option making the 33kw/gal figure accurate.
Then not bothering to mention ICE's are only 7%!!! eff gas tank to wheel. Vs EV's that are 21-65% eff depending on the electric source? Nor the 3kwhrs or oil, sulfur waste generated by making the gasoline?
It's also much easier to keep one smokestack clean Vs 1,000 of car exhausts.
My EV's are lightweight and use forklift EV drive tech and I only spend $1-2/week because I get 35 and 70wthrs/mile or 15-30 miles/kwhr. Doing the math that comes to 250-500mpge at 40% eff. Now how is even burning 10% of the weight of coal vs gasoline going to produce more CO2 than burning 10x's the gasoline?
We don't need better batteries though that would be nice, just well designed EV's as EV's. I build mine in composite monocoque body/chassis lowers weight while increasing strength along with good aero, lowering power needed, thus battery pack size, costs.
So go ahead and drive gasoline and be paying $100-$200/week and twice that in a few yrs while I can spend $1500 on PV oanels for 25 yrs of transport energy. How much will you spend in that time on gas? At 10gal/week over just 5 yrs comes to about $35k vs $1500 for my EV's. Now which is the smart way?
I wouldn't be surprised if the oil companies and auto companies at some point in the past thought about supressing alternative-fuel vehicles. But the truth is, they've never needed to do it. Battery technology has never really reached a point where it would need to be supressed. Its energy density is a fraction of gasoline's energy density. Its cost is still too high. Universities and national labs have worked hard on the development of this technology for decades and the results have been steady, but slow. Bill Gates has said that he has invested in five battery start-ups and has said that battery innovation "may not be solvable in an economic way." It's a little hard to believe that all of these people and organizations -- national labs, universities, Bill Gates' start-ups -- have all been bought off by the oil companies.
I totally agree with you Chuck. It's my feeling that the Oil Companies are the culprit behind the lack of advancement of alternate energy. The stockholders have a lot to loose, if any apparatus put on the market that either increased fuel mileage or eliminated petrol fuel altogether. I also think that this the reason why Nuclear Power Generation advancement has been suppressed over the years. When was the last time you heard of a Nuclear accidenton board a Navy vessel? Granted, spent fuel storage is still a problem, but again, that technology also has been suppressed. You right that all these people want to plug in their Green Vehicles, that are still being charged by Fossil Fuel Generators! That makes a lot of sense to me!! LMAO over that one! =)) What has happen in Japan, was an accident waiting to happen. A sad,sad lesson hard learned, you don't put your emergency back-up systems at or below ground level in areas that could be subjected to tsunami flooding. That was a Black Eye to Nuclear Power and all the advancements that had occurred up to this point in time. Dan, Santa Rosa, California, USA
Quoth Scotty.."Ya canna change the laws of physics Cap'n"
With regard to electrically powered vehicles, I admire the perseverence and optimism of all parties concerned and champion their achievements. Unfortunately, as a builder of electric vehicles, (kiddie-ride trackless trains), I would be the first to acknowledge that we have really not advanced terribly much at all.
Daimlers' four stroke engine was built in 1876. One hundred and thirty years later, we still have the same problem that any reciprocating engine is only capable of a finite speed before it self destructs. Looked at realistically, if a design student of today were to announce "I've invented a device which accelerates a chunk of metal from rest, to four times the speed of sound, to rest, over a distance of 70 millimeters, and then reverses that action and repeats it 200 times per second, and it will power the worlds transport", people would laugh.
Alessandro Volta "invented" the first true battery in 1800. The Ni-Cad battery was patented in 1899. Edison was also developing Nickel-Iron batteries at the end of the 19th century. Electric cars and trains were common in the early 1900's.
Sadly, in 110 years, there has not been the "Quantum Leap" in technology that we had hoped for. ( although it was evidenced in air transport.)
The same problems that dogged Edison: limited range, charging time far exceeding usage time, weight of battery packs etc. are still dogging current developers and there appears no immediate solution.
For me, the saddest aspect is that all the "well meaning but totally ignorant brigade", (Politicians, Media types, "Green" Pressure Groups and the bulk of the general public,) have no concept of the embodied energy in electric vehicles or the cost of replacement and disposal of batteries.
Worst of all, the worlds' generators will still keep spinning 24/7 and pumping out CO2 in order to keep these "Energy Saving" vehicles topped up.
By experimenting with the photovoltaic reaction in solar cells, researchers at MIT have made a breakthrough in energy efficiency that significantly pushes the boundaries of current commercial cells on the market.
In a world that's going green, industrial operations have a problem: Their processes involve materials that are potentially toxic, flammable, corrosive, or reactive. If improperly managed, this can precipitate dangerous health and environmental consequences.
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is