Electric motor cars have a lot of advantages and may well be the future motive power for our vehicles. Imagine a car that gets better than 100MPG, has four wheel drive (one electric motor at eat wheel), weighs less than today's cars, has no need for a large expensive battery, burns any liquid fuel and has the same or greater range as today's vehicles.
My question is: from where will we get the electricity: From coal fired power plants (how much is left and how much pollution is acceptable?); from onboard efficient generators (the railroads do this very efficiently with diesel generators), from highly efficient, safe, burn anything steam engines; from small compact turbines; from fuel cells; from solar panels; from wind power; from nuclear power plants?
I just want to know the source of this information: "Anyone who thinks we have more than 20 years of oil left has not done any math at all. None of the large oil producers are projecting much being left beyond then." Please cite a source and then we can discuss. Without attribution we're left only with someone's guess, which isn't worth talking about.
That is ridiculous. We have only seriously been using oil for 50 years or so, and it is clear our consumption rate is over 100 times what it used to be, and radidly rising. Anyone who thinks we have more than 20 years of oil left has not done any math at all. None of the large oil producers are projecting much being left beyond then. And long before then the price will be prohibitive.
To blindly believe a synthetic replacement is possible is to believe in perpetual motion. We do NOT make gasoline. It was made by the sun and organic processes. Neither of which can we utilize. All we do is refine gasoline, but we do not and can not make it without putting in more energy than we get out. That is true of all synthetic fuels. There are possible organic alternatives, but they will compete for field and sun space, against food, so are not viable either.
Batteries are our only alternative, and we are running out of time.
As a matter of fact we don't have a lot of choices when it comes to energy. The only sourece is fusion. It happens in the sun. Nuclear is remnants of old stellar fusion. Solar is new fusion. Oil is fossilized fusion. When the oil deposits are gone, there is no other reasonable source of energy other than something that produces electricity. And batteries beat hydrogen as the storage media so far. So unless we want future starvation, we need to adapt to batteriers as soon as possible. We can't wait until all the oil is gone. We need oil for food production.
No, the end of oil is not long off. We should already have been saving it for food production and distribution. It is tractors and combines that can not run on batteries, but cars most certainly can right now. Your stubborn and illogical attitude will cause mass starvation in the future.
TC your number are correct but forgot a little detail. ICE cars only get 7% eff or about say 30mpg. A similar built as an EV would get 150wthr/mile so gets 160 mile range.
The only one getting that now is the I-MEV though the EV1 got 175wthrs/mile from the batteries we are talking about. The Impact got 100wthrs/mile which was the prototype for the EV-1 before GM added 1000 lbs, $50k each and ruined it.
All my composite body EV's get under 100wthrs/mile which with a 24kwhr pack would be over 240 mile range. Of course you don't want to run the battery dead so lets say 20kwhrs.
Nor do you mention the 3kwhrs needed to refine a gal of gaoline which in my Harley size EV trike would give me 60 miles of driving. We don't need better batteries, we need better EV designs.
A simple 2 seat composite EVusing lead batteries getting 60 mile range and 80 mph with a 5kw gasoline generator for unlimited range shouldn't cost more than $10k with a nice profit. Gives you a vehicle that can be paid for in just the fuel savings alone using it when needed. Since it has unlimited range from the generator for about 50% of the drivers could be their only car and cost 25% of an ICE to run including new battery packs every 5 yrs.
As far as 20 yrs for oil used to burn in cars, yes that is about right. There will still be oil, it wil just cost too much to burn. Why is 3 billion new oil users want their share and most of the easy oil is gone. Fact is the good oil, sweet, is almost gone already with what's left sour being expensive to extract and refine.
Now add the fact that 1kw of PV panels gives the composite EV example above costs just $1k giving 5kwhrs/day, sunelec.com For my design that means 50 miles/day for 25 yrs!! Now just how is oil or any other vehicle going to beat that?
So keep beating that dead horse and pay oil companies, dictators and terrorist $1,000's/yr while giving oil companies huge subsidies.
At least switch to something decent like E85 or biodiesel which don't support the above much and makes jobs here instead of you making them for terrorists.
And please don't spout the ethanol lies big oil has been spreading. We sell it to Brazil without subsidies shows this clearly. If you want to do an EROI for it do the same for oil using correct, recent data that the decades old data big oil uses and account for all the other products like DDG higher qaulity animal feed, corn oil, etc that almost pays for the feedstock plus the plants are 50% more eff now mean ethanol is a smart fuel.
And on the food issue increased production/acre and all the byproducts which are better for humans or animals than raw animal feed corn they use so actually an increase in food supplies as more acres were openned. We still have millions of farm acres idle, even paying not to grow on them.
I am inclined to agree with the assertion that battery safety is a non-issue, really. The only problem that I see is that working on the systems could be hazardous to those unfamiliar with 300+ volt DC procedures. I have worked on DC battery systems able to deliver 3000+ amps long enough to do damage, and it is indeed a bit tense. The big difference is that it is entirely possible to spill some gasoline and not have any problems, but spilling amps is always a big problem.
But for poeple driving or riding in vehicles there is no reason to believe that there would be any difference in safety. A crash that was violent enough to cause an electrical problem in an EV would probably burst the fuel tank on an ICE vehicle, which would be the least of the concerns for the passengers in any case.
So the safety concern thing is really all about irrational fears, and there is no help for that.
Nancy, why would you think EV's are not as safe as ICE's? There is no basis for assuming so because other than gasoline, the materials, design and the way they are built is the same.
Plus all cars have batteries easily capable of starting fire yet few do and that'd due mostly to abuse. And far more batteries in ICE's than in EV's. So where is the safety problem? And is it worse than ICE's?
Personally I'd rather have my batteries safety wise than hualling so much gasoline not to mention paying for the gas/
WilliamK and JT wondered, whence 20 years till oil runs out?: This figure is pulled out of the backsides of greenies who can't do math. Might just as well say, well I have 20 fingers and toes, so that number sounds good. Finite oil is just a conjecture, taken as sacrament by the earth-good, humans-bad crowd.
A four-figure price tag for battery replacement will only work once the Sheeple have been softened up by years of $5-$10/gal gasoline, and have become used to socialist "redistribution" of money to subsidize the whole scam. Whether voting that O-guy out of presidency would counter this trend is unknown, but it seems like a good start.
Of course other high-energy density synfuels are worth looking into, but get precious little attention; after the maize-ethanol scam, can't say I blame investors staying away. As a career EE, it pains me a bit to conclude that even the best batteries are losers in the energy-density, service longevity, and efficiency criteria. Batteries are loved, but again only by loser greenies who were too high in math class to pay attention.
Like JT, I would like to see any credible source describe the reasoning behind the assertion that we have only 20 years of oil left. FRom where I stand that asserttion smells like a lie, not even an error. We do have a shortage of cheap oil, but a huge supply of expensive oil. That is quite clear.
For those who fear running out of charge we do have vehicles like the volt with the built in engine driven charger, which it is a perfect vehicle for stop and go city driving, which is a whole lot of what is done in many areas. So the electric car with the engine generator would indeed be the perfect choice, if it didn't cost so very much. It would take me years to get the payback in reduced fuel purchases to cover the extra initial cost.
But what I see as the real barriers aside from the high price are battery replacement costs and maintenance costs. The batteries will of course only be available from the dealer and in southeastern Mighigan the difference between a dealer and a robber is that the dealer doesn't use a gun. It is certain that replacement batteries will cost from $5000 to $10,000, and spending that much on a car 5 years old will be difficult to justify, since the rest of the car will still have five years of wear on it already. And I just know tyhat the environmental folks are going to do something nasty and expensive as far as regulations about used batteries.
As for the small engined low powered cars that we don't choose to buy, perhaps the problem is that it does take a certain amount of power to drive safely on quite a few roads. If the 10 or 15HP cars were restricted to roads with 35MPH or lower speed limits that might work, but a vehicle with such poor accelaeration does not belong on aany expressway. Would it even be possible to limit the roads that some class of vehicles could drive on?
We looked at a number of sources to determine this year's greenest cars, from KBB to automotive trade magazines to environmental organizations. These 14 cars emerged as being great at either stretching fuel or reducing carbon footprint.
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