Who Killed The Electric Car? - Page 2 - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum

BCSparkyGirl · 10-09-2009, 08:50 PM

[quote=drsparky;128466]This is from wikipedia.

seriously, are you quoting wikipedia? That site is unreliable at best. I would never get my facts from that site, hun. I can go on there right now, and type in electricity, and change the defintion to the energy derived from banging two rocks together, and someone would believe it...............

Mr. Sparkle · 10-09-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toronto Sparky

Or use a 50 mile long extension cord..

Remember to upsize....

Fredman · 10-10-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDShunk

I'm not convinced that the cost/mile traveled is actually any better with an electric car in many localities, unless the community subsidizes electric car recharging stations. I'm also not convinced that the emissions are any less. More like transferring the emissions from the tailpipe to the smoke stack.

What about regenerative braking?

Roger · 10-10-2009, 11:01 AM

Electric cars are still alive, you just need deep pockets to own one.

Roger

randomkiller · 10-10-2009, 11:17 AM

Who killed the electric car? If I told you I'd have to kill you.

Toronto Sparky · 10-10-2009, 11:46 AM

Chevy Volt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVk_j...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTcd...ayer_embedded#

John Valdes · 10-10-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDShunk

I'm not convinced that the cost/mile traveled is actually any better with an electric car in many localities, unless the community subsidizes electric car recharging stations. I'm also not convinced that the emissions are any less. More like transferring the emissions from the tailpipe to the smoke stack.

What emissions? From the batteries? Electric motors do not emit anything but Hp. The EV1 had no combustion engine. You must mean the energy needed to charge the car in question. (coal). This is where nuclear, if taken seriously and implemented through out the country in the 70's would have us sitting pretty about now.

The EV1 had a initial range of 90 miles per charge (plenty for the average commuter). The newer battery was significantly better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drsparky

This is from wikipedia.

The Gen I EV1 models, released in 1996, used lead-acid batteries, and weighed in at 3,086 pounds (1,400 kg). The first batch of batteries were provided by GM's Delphi branch; these were rated at a mere 53 amp-hours at 312 volts, and provided the initially mediocre range of 55 to 75 miles (90 to 120 km) per charge. Gen II cars, released in 1999, used a new batch of lead-acid batteries provided by Panasonic; some Gen I cars were retrofitted with this battery pack. The Japanese batteries were rated at 60 amp-hours (18.7 kWh) at 312 volts, and increased the EV1's range to 75 to 100 miles (120 to 160 km). Soon after the rollout of the second generation cars, the originally intended nickel metal hydride (NiMH) "Ovonic" battery pack, which reduced the car's curb weight to 2,908 pounds (1,319 kg) entered production; this pack was also retrofitted to earlier cars. The NiMH batteries, rated at 77 amp-hours (26.4 kWh) at 343 volts, gave the cars a range of 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge, more than twice what the original Gen I cars could muster.
It took the NiMH-equipped cars as much as eight hours for the cars to charge to full capacity (though an 80% charge could be achieved in between one and three hours). The Panasonic battery pack consisted of twenty-six 12 volt, 60 amp-hour lead-acid batteries holding 67.4 megajoules (18.7 kWh) of energy. The NiMH packs contained twenty-six 13.2 volt, 77 Ah nickel-metal hydride batteries which held 95.1 megajoules (26.4 kWh) of energy.

This guy and his wife that invented the new battery was hired by GM, then told to keep his mouth shut, bought his patent and then all the batteries were destroyed along with all the brand new vehicles hidden in the desert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian john

When Regan was in office I did the final testing on the solar panels at GWU in Washington DC I asked the payback period, this was in 1982 I was tols 2075.

Now I know they have improved but at the time those were R&D stuff. And as one Pres disses another Regan was dissing one of the nicest presidents (THOUGH STUPID about running a country) we have had.

It just shows the mindset of some of us back then. You would think the oil crisis would have awakened the government. No, they insisted on fossil fuels and destroyed perfectly good energy efficient products to hide them from the public.

I am no radical conservationist. I drive a 390 Hp pickup truck.

But I do advocate for fossil fuel reduction.

steelersman · 10-10-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Valdes

What emissions?

He means the emissions from the power plants that make the electricity to charge the batteries.

Toronto Sparky · 10-11-2009, 04:12 AM

The only (large) emission free generation comes from water (hydro).

bobelectric · 10-11-2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toronto Sparky

The only (large) emission free generation comes from water (hydro).

And wind

paul d. · 10-11-2009, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobelectric

And wind

howz about nuclear ???

steelersman · 10-11-2009, 08:37 AM

Solar is emission free as well. Man that puts Toronto Sparky way off the map.

bobelectric · 10-11-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul d.

howz about nuclear ???

no space in howzabout. Good recall.

Peter D · 10-11-2009, 11:15 AM

The only problem is that so-called "green energy" (wind, solar) makes up a tiny fraction of our total generation capacity. Natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydro to a lesser degree make up the vast majority.

I do see what Toronto Sparky is saying though. There is currently no vast infrastructure of solar or wind power generation as there is with hydropower. So in that sense he is right.

steelersman · 10-11-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

The only problem is that so-called "green energy" (wind, solar) makes up a tiny fraction of our total generation capacity. Natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydro to a lesser degree make up the vast majority.

I do see what Toronto Sparky is saying though. There is currently no vast infrastructure of solar or wind power generation as there is with hydropower. So in that sense he is right.

All the government has to do it provide solar panels at little to no cost for all citizens or homeowners and then we won't need nearly as much production from the power plants. It would probably be feasible at that point to only use hydro at the power plants to provide the rest of the power.

Peter D · 10-11-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelersman

All the government has to do it provide solar panels at little to no cost for all citizens or homeowners and then we won't need nearly as much production from the power plants. It would probably be feasible at that point to only use hydro at the power plants to provide the rest of the power.

And where is the money to do that going to come from?

Ahhh...you're right. What's another trillion in debt when you're already $10 trillion in the hole?

steelersman · 10-11-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter D

And where is the money to do that going to come from?

Ahhh...you're right. What's another trillion in debt when you're already $10 trillion in the hole?

Exactly! Screw it!

John Valdes · 10-13-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelersman

He means the emissions from the power plants that make the electricity to charge the batteries.

Yes, I got what he meant if you read the post. I have to take the side of nuclear energy and coal for now. While solar, and wind are in their infancy stages and look promising, we need relief now, not 10-20 years from now. The environmentalist's are against both nuclear and coal, and so are some of our politicians. But we all know we can burn coal efficiently with little green house gases produced. The coal lobby does not want to increase the cost to burn coal, so cleaner burning coal plants are not where they need to be. But the technology is here now. We have enough US coal to support our needs for over 500 years.
Like I said in my first post. If we had heeded the problems we exposed in the 70's and ramped the building of nuclear facilities, we would be in excellent shape by now. In such good shape we would not have to buy one single drop of foreign oil.
To know what could have been is reprehensible.

Toronto Sparky · 10-13-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul d.

howz about nuclear ???

Where is all the spent fuel?
Hidden somewhere..
Most use lake water in the cooling process , raising the lake temp.

Toronto Sparky · 10-13-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobelectric

And wind

What about the Battery's that will have to be built and disposed of?