Quite possibly true. I have not run the numbers, but what you say makes sense. My point was that in order to accomodate thousands, or hundreds of thousands of electric cars on the road, existing electrical generating capacity will need to grow, even in the short term. Unless, of course, some other advance reduces demand on the electrical grid to make room for these cars.
I also agree with the point that these may be green"er" and should advance the cause for more development. I just hope we do not create one problem in trying to solve another.
That’s not clear to me. Most people will recharge their cars at night. Peak power usage is during the day, so cars recharging will not significantly increase peak power usage. Our electrical power infrastructure is built to supply peak power. Increasing power usage at night will mean that power plants will get more usage around the clock, not that more will have to be built.
I think that Electric-only cars aren’t ready for General Consumption yet – thinking over the Wright Brothers’ quip upthread, how long did it take from when flight became generally safe and relaible until it became something your average person could use? Over 50 years? I think the same may be the case for electric cars.
I can say first hand that the public acceptace of the Fluence ZX here in Israel is mixed at best – most people don’t feel it’s worth it, yet, although we mostly do see the potiential. for now, hybrids – like the Prius – seem to be doing a lot better, and will probably (IMO) be the basis for improving the Electric capabilities of future vehicles.
Simply put, what would you choose – the Fluence ZX, which gets you less time and distance between “pit stops”, or a Prius, which gets you more?
Electric cars are not exactly new, they existed right along with the earliest gasoline powered cars.
The primary problem with electric cars is that electricity itself is poorly suited to power a car. Cars simply use too much power*, and recharging is inherently limited by the current carrying capacity of copper wire.
Advances in technology have made electricity a marginally effective power source for cars. Additional advances will be slow because electricity is a mature technology. Eventually it’ll get there, but it may be another 10-20 years.
*Not because they are inefficient, because it takes a lot of power to safely propel 4 people at 60mph over hundreds of miles.
On the contrary, electric power is ideal for a car. No transmission needed, a quiet, small power plant with few moving parts that doesn’t create smog.
What the problem is is fuel storage. If an electric storage tank the size and weight of a 20-gal gasoline tank existed and worked for 350 miles on a fast fill-up, we’d have no problem with electric cars.
The lifetime operating cost of gasoline vehicles is basically on a permanent upward slope. At some point, the cost/utility ratio for them has to cross that of electrics.
The car companies that specialize in electric cars (like Tesla and Fisker) are all losing money, and the companies that make the batteries for electric cars are on the brink of bankruptcy! It sure seems like nobody has made a dime selling electric cars.
You are neglecting the possibility that electric cares are economically feasible after a certain volume of sales. Government can help them get there. If they are always going to be too expensive, then the subsidies can stop, but there are many cases where after a push by government industry becomes self sufficient. Airplanes are an excellent example - government subsidized early aircraft development, and the early airlines through air mail.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
On the contrary, electric power is ideal for a car. No transmission needed, a quiet, small power plant with few moving parts that doesn’t create smog.
[/QUOTE]
Agree completely. In addition, there are many, many less moving parts in an electric motor than in any IC ever built. It’s idea, except…
…for this. It’s an energy density/storage problem, and that’s where electric cars failed in the past and continue to fail today. They simply don’t have an equivalent performance envelope, and they cost a lot more in terms of the exotic materials needed and initial capital costs. The price of gas simply isn’t high enough, despite how much folks whine about it, to justify paying that large initial capital cost for something that doesn’t perform anywhere close to as good. Which is why electric cars haven’t been able to compete in anything other than very vertical, niche markets (rich yuppy types, or in dense, close cities where you aren’t talking about needing either highway type speeds or long distances, etc).
As I mentioned, Tesla is setting up a network of charging stations. As for range, I drive over 100 miles on trip very rarely, and over 200 miles maybe two or three times a year. 50 miles a day, which includes round trip to work and errands, is good enough most times. And most people will have non-electric cars for longer trips also.
And eventually business will have charging stations for employees.
Not at all…I mentioned, briefly, that they are a niche market. No amount of subsidies are going to make electric cars more competitive in the broader market, however, since the technology to do it simply doesn’t exist at anything like a mass market price (I’m thinking of the high end Tesla here, which, for over a $100k you can get a car with close to the performance envelop of an IC vehicle).
Exactly, a power source that is nice in one aspect, and a failure in another aspect, is a failure.
Get me 350 miles on a charge, at a comparable net cost to a gas powered car, and electric cars will become completely mainstream.
Mind… I don’t believe a “fast” fill up is technically viable without an earth shattering advancement in transmission technology. The amount of energy transferred through a modestly sized gas station is equivalent to a huge electrical substation.
But, a 350 mile charge means that 99.9% of trips don’t need a remote recharge. You recharge at home or at your destination, where you HAVE hours to let it run, instead of minutes. That also means that there will be little to no market for a roadside super-fast charge station, but lots of market for normally sized chargers at hotels and other destinations.
And don’t forget, if the price of gas goes up, the price of other fuels will also rise, although not necessarily proportionally, so the price of electricity may rise also.
I totally agree. Its not quite legal but doctors (and other small businessmen) have been writing off their cars for a while now.
I also agree that teh technology is new and requires more development. I happen to think that to the extent that basic research is required, the government should do it rather than have it be duplicated by each car company individually. The companies can figure out how to commercialize it.
Fast fill up is bullshit. I have an iphone app called fast recharge and it does nothing of the sort.
Switching out the depleted battery for a full battery seems like the way to go. What we need are relatively cheap and sturdy batteries.
Tesla is already building 30 minute charging stations. That’s fast enough, IMHO, since it would only be relevant on long trips; the other 95% of the time, I’m saving a huge amount of time by charging at home. It’s also likely that the 30 minutes for long trips can be folded into lunch time or other rest breaks.
The average gas station in CA sells 4,400 gallons of gas per day. That’s nearly 7 megawatts in pure energy terms, but isn’t a fair comparison. Supposing that the average tank is around 12 gallons (probably an underestimate), that’s 370 fillups. Further supposing that Tesla’s 85 kW-h pack is roughly equivalent, then we’re down to 1.3 MW average. That’s high but not obscenely so; certainly not equivalent to a large substation (the 7 MW isn’t either).
You might say that we need to look at peak power instead of average, but that’s not really true either; the station could have batteries of their own, or supercapacitors, or flywheel storage, or any number of other systems (which can be fairly cheap because they aren’t weight or size constrained). These systems could average power between fillups or even across the whole day.
One of the benefits of battery storage is it does not have to conform to space reserved for a conventional gas tank and can be easily stored in multiple places where there is space.
One of the drawbacks to electrical storage is you are not just carrying around the fuel but the oxidizer as well as the storage medium for both. It is as if a car had to also carry it’s own oxygen including the high pressure tanks.
That’s a silly way of looking at it. Gasoline technology is a failure in any number of other ways. You mean I can’t even fill up at home? What if the nearest station is miles away from home and I don’t have enough fuel to get there? Isn’t gasoline a fire hazard? Isn’t it really expensive compared to electricity? Isn’t it loud? Aren’t all those moving parts unreliable?
One can get even more speculative: one day cars will have motors on every wheel (the tech already exists), and we’ll have very advanced traction control that can independently accelerate each wheel separately. Hell, we can have cars that rotate in place just by driving the wheels differentially. None of this is possible (or at least practical) with gasoline technology. Does that mean gasoline is a failure?
No, of course not–every tech has successes and failures. We’ve lived with the failures of gasoline so long that we’ve worked around some of them and forgotten the rest. Electrics won’t work for every application, but neither does gasoline.
Eventually, we’ll have to go over to electric cars, if we’re not going to just give up on cars entirely. There is a hard, finite limit to the amount of petroleum in the Earth, and we’ve gone a nonneglible way towards that limit. Now, one can certainly debate precisely when petroleum-powered cars will be gone, but what’s indisputable is that it will happen.
So the question is not whether we’ll end up with electric cars, but only how. Personally, I see the plug-in hybrid as the perfect transitional technology: Most users will be able to do most of their driving on battery, so there’s a sizable market for them, and in those uncommon instances where you need to go further than electric range, you’ve got the gasoline. Meanwhile, they still use the batteries and other electric infrastructure, so there will be a plausible route for them to improve incrementally, with the chargers getting better and more common and the electric range gradually increasing, until it will eventually be no hardship to give up the gasoline entirely.
Of course, there are other ways it could go, too. Maybe we’re suckers for trying to move the energy storage around with us, for instance. Maybe the car of the future will have induction plates in the bottom to continually draw power from the road, or something of the sort. Again, it’s debatable exactly how the electric car will work, but we’ll have it somehow or another.
I often drive more than 350 miles a day, and I don’t consider myself unusual in that regard. If I’m driving to Chicago, I could put up with a few minutes fast charging, but I don’t want to spend hours and hours cooling my heels in Rockford.