Sure, nothing wrong with flywheels to store electricity. The market will clearly decide which is more cost effective. I doubt Japan Rail is going with the less cost effective one that meets their needs. (Magiver perhaps you believe that only you matter but you are really not the only person in this discussion. T2BC had initiated asking about electric trains. You responded to that. Mentioning that trains actually already are electric motor driven with the electricity currently generated on-board by a diesel engine in most cases, a serial hybrid set-up, was something that (s)he might have been interested in an would need to know to understand my response to you. Your post was the jumping off point specifically to point you to the information on regen braking in extant hybrid trains. You’re welcome.)
And, assuming the same number of cars sold each year, the average age of vehicles on the road if they all last for ten years and die would be?
About 5 years.
And if the average age of cars on the road is 11 years then the average lifespan is?
(Note: the answer could be very different if we were asking the median age. “Most” cars may not last as long as the average lifespan, or last longer, depending on the exact distribution.)
fair enough but you’re responding to me when you hit “quote”. You can just post a fresh entry to the thread.
Sometimes it does make sense to put $6000 into a $5000 car; I’ve put more into repairs than what my car was worth before. You can’t throw your old car in the trash and buy another one at Walmart, changing vehicles is time consuming and aggravating, and what if your has exactly the features you want, how long will it take to find another one. When I bought mine, I knew I wanted a specific year with a specific engine and trim package. It took me two months to get one. Also, maybe you’ve fixed all the other problems you know about, but the other owner is getting rid of his car because it’s full of problems he doesn’t want to fix.
That’s exactly what I’m doing with my car. I had the transmission rebuilt at 160K and will likely put a rebuilt engine in when needed. I’d like a new 40 mpg car but for $5000 I can keep a 38 mpg car going for quite some time.
NYC taxicabs regularly get 300,000 miles of useful life. The secret seems to be regular maintainance-changing oil, coolant, transmission fluid.
Though I would imagine that a NYC can (at the end of its life), is probably beat to hell.
One of the reasons fleet vehicles can run up so many miles is that they do it in a relatively short period of time, and that the vehicles are used constantly. It’s hard on a vehicle to sit for long periods of time unused. And oil and other fluids don’t just deteriorate based on miles, but over time. A lot of people who think they’re changing their oil on the proper interval (based on miles) are actually using it too long (based on calender life).
In any event, fleet vehicles are one reason why the lifespan of the overall auto population is as low as it is - they put on a lot of miles per year, so they wear out faster in terms of years. You don’t see 20 year old police cars and taxicabs as a rule. Most taxis are required to be retired anywhere between 5 and 10 years of service.
As for personal stories about maintaining vehicles long past their lifespan and rebuilding engines and such - sure, we do that as individuals when the hassle and risk of selling a known vehicle for an unknown one is too great. But most cars aren’t sent to the scrapyard by individuals. They’re scrapped when they are traded in to dealers, or when they get involved in an accident where the cost of repairs is higher than the residual value. Then the insurance company pays you out and sells the vehicle to a scrapyard.
That last one is probably a fairly large factor in retiring older cars. Cars get in accidents. When they’re new-ish, fender benders and repaired and the car returned to service. But once a car is at its scrap value minus the cost of accident repairs, it will be scrapped. And if a car is close to 10 years old, that means it’s always scrapped rather than repaired through insurance, because even moderate repairs no longer become cost effective. Sometimes the vehicle will just be driven with the damage, but if the damage makes it undriveable without repair, it’s off to the wreckers.
Electric cars pollute more than fossil fueled cars in regions that use fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Note 1) Not “fossil fuels.” Specifically *exclusive coal *generation. If natural gas electricity generation then a decrease compared to ICE. And “[w]hen powered by average European electricity, EVs are found to reduce GWP by 20% to 24% compared to gasoline ICEVs”
Note 2) Life cycle analysis of full EV using 26 kWh batteries. Life of vehicles assumed to be 150,000 km (93,000 miles) with stated that vehicles lasting longer would result in greater EV benefits. Environmental costs are assumed in the production and disposal of the batteries. Running them is savings. No scenario with the extended range EV (Volt model) or those cas that describe themselves as plug-in hybrids (with smaller batteries but most miles still powered by the grid.) No recycling of batteries or after vehicular use modelled.
I think electric cars are the inevitable future, but I believe that infrastructure development needs to take place side-by-side with electric car manufacturing so that the additional costs above and beyond the price of the car itself, which is already going to be significantly higher than gasoline-powered cars, can be minimized.
I also believe that hybrid plug-in vehicles are the key intermediate step that will drive the demand for charging stations both in the home, apartment complexes, parking lots & multi-story parking garages, and places where market demand for (regular, non-plug in) hybrid cars has been strong, such as universities and their surrounding areas, wealthy suburbs, metropolitan areas in general, etc. The development of charging infrastructure on a large scale will eventually make all-electric vehicles an attractive option for the average American, but again, it’s my belief that it will be at least a decade before the convenience we are used to with gasoline-powered cars, i.e. refueling, is matched by electric car infrastructure.
Yep. As soon as I read that Greenpeace was against electric cars, I said to myself “Curses, now I’m going to have to start saving up for an electric car.” I just hope that they don’t start dissing something else that I am against-I’ll go broke!
So just to recap, the car nobody wants to buy is only green if it’s fed power from something other than coal and is kept for over 93,000 miles with assurances the batteries are recycled?
DSeid, I hope you’re taking this ribbing with grace and dignity.
Your day will come.
As mentioned before the Volt was not made for the mass market but for a niche market.
And as for repeating the mantra that nobody wants to buy it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57527745/chevy-volt-sales-race-ahead-of-nissan-leaf/
Well, I would not be surprised than many of those “nobodies” are people that are willing to put the money where their mouth is, we need those “nobodies” to be early adopters so the next generations cars will be better.
Not quite Magiver. Pure EVs, which few want to buy so far, are only not green from the life cycle analysis POV if it they are fed exclusively electricity from coal (not if fed from the typical mix in the EU, which is 30% coal, 30% something nuclear, 20ish% natural gas, and almost 15% renewable, nor if fed the mixin the US, which is 44% coal and dropping fast, 20% nuclear, 24% natural gas and rising fast, 6% hydro and a smattering of renewable) and if one assumes no aftermarket or recycling for the batteries.
So one assumption that is not true either in the EU or in the United States and a few pretty questionabe ones.
That said assuming the environmental costs associated with battery production used by that article are accurate (representing most of the environmental cost of an EV) the argument for the plug-in hybrid approach, in which a smaller battery (1/4 to 1/2 the size) is used but which still displaces most of the gas miles driven, becomes even more cogent.
That said I doubt the article is even correct there. They are factoring in the environmental cost of battery production but for gas are only factoring in the environmental cost of gas use, not the analogous and very large environmental costs involved in oil exploration, production, and refining. Not really a fair analysis.
It’s not an early adopter car. It’s a car nobody wants. The Prius was an early adopter car. The difference is that Toyota had a reputation for building cars that held up. GM has a reputation for building ticking time bombs.
There you go again, you also claimed before that 7,671 in 2011 were nobody so telling us once again that 16,348 so far this year are also nobodies just means that **nobody **will take you seriously, not even Forbes.
What you’re seeing are forced purchases by governmentagencies and political back-scratching purchases by GE. Those are not individual buyers.
Consider that against the original projected sales of 60,000 cars and actual sales of 16,348 cars so far this year. I doubt there are enough bogus pitty purchases to keep this car going. At some point, it will have to be euthanized. If they can keep it alive long enough for a battery to catch up to it then maybe it will stand a chance.
And can we ever see the chance of not relying on iffy sources for grasping at straws? The point stands, as Forbes reported:
You really need to look at the definition of what “nobody” means.
Ford sold 60,000 Edsels in it’s first year. That was in 1958. It was considered a failure.
60,000 is what GM projected the sales of Volts would be. So yes, I think the current figures are a fail. Nobody wants it. I have yet to see one on the road.
The plural of your anecdote does not make it data.
News to owners of Audi A6, BMW 7-Series, Porsche Cayenne and Mercedes-Benz S-Class and many others that they are nobodies.