i just rode in an electric car!

I road in one of these at NAIAS a couple years back. Actually pretty exciting 0-60 in the 4.5 second range iirc

Granted..60 maybe the top end as these were to be sold as city cars

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

chaparral wrote: Could be coal, could be gas, could be nukes, could be hydro, could be wind.

80% of Americas electricity is coal fired. Yes the coal is home sourced, but I thought the point of these was the greenieness? A modern gasoline engine is way more green, and supply would be less of a problem if we'd push a viable green energy, like nuclear.

I wonder if this is true? I'd like to see how much pollution a coal plant creates while makin the energy to move a 2500 pound car 100 miles vs an ICE. Plus, the potential to use other types of energy is there.

Joey

joey48442 wrote:

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

chaparral wrote: Could be coal, could be gas, could be nukes, could be hydro, could be wind.

80% of Americas electricity is coal fired. Yes the coal is home sourced, but I thought the point of these was the greenieness? A modern gasoline engine is way more green, and supply would be less of a problem if we'd push a viable green energy, like nuclear.

I wonder if this is true? I'd like to see how much pollution a coal plant creates while makin the energy to move a 2500 pound car 100 miles vs an ICE. Plus, the potential to use other types of energy is there. Joey

Also have to factor in entropy, The losses for Gasoline>piston/driveline>Work is less wasteful then the losses associated with Coal>Steam>Turbine>Step up/Down Transformers>Transmission lines>Car Battery>Car motor>Work.

It still can be less pollution and Id be interested to find out as well, but no where near as clean as, say, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Not to mention a little rube goldberg...

Before you hop all over me for not mentioning it, for arguments sake and to keep the post short lets assume preparing Gasoline/Diesel for use is as wasteful as preparing Coal for use. (if only we would be so lucky that Coal was so clean and easy to retrieve!)

kreb wrote: If the Volt was $30K I'd also seriously consider one, because it has the added range and nicer accoutrements.

Prius PHEV for $32K?

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

joey48442 wrote:

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

chaparral wrote: Could be coal, could be gas, could be nukes, could be hydro, could be wind.

80% of Americas electricity is coal fired. Yes the coal is home sourced, but I thought the point of these was the greenieness? A modern gasoline engine is way more green, and supply would be less of a problem if we'd push a viable green energy, like nuclear.

I wonder if this is true? I'd like to see how much pollution a coal plant creates while makin the energy to move a 2500 pound car 100 miles vs an ICE. Plus, the potential to use other types of energy is there. Joey

Also have to factor in entropy, The losses for Gasoline>piston/driveline>Work is less wasteful then the losses associated with Coal>Steam>Turbine>Step up/Down Transformers>Transmission lines>Car Battery>Car motor>Work. It still can be less pollution and Id be interested to find out as well, but no where near as clean as, say, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Not to mention a little rube goldberg... Before you hop all over me for not mentioning it, for arguments sake and to keep the post short lets assume preparing Gasoline/Diesel for use is as wasteful as preparing Coal for use. (if only we would be so lucky that Coal was so clean and easy to retrieve!)

Im not going to hop all over you, I was just wondering myself.

Joey

Around here it would either be wind or Nuke powered.. depending on where it was plugged in.

If the casinos would let me plug in at work, I would probably convert a car to electric and use it to commute

joey48442 wrote:

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

joey48442 wrote:

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

chaparral wrote: Could be coal, could be gas, could be nukes, could be hydro, could be wind.

80% of Americas electricity is coal fired. Yes the coal is home sourced, but I thought the point of these was the greenieness? A modern gasoline engine is way more green, and supply would be less of a problem if we'd push a viable green energy, like nuclear.

I wonder if this is true? I'd like to see how much pollution a coal plant creates while makin the energy to move a 2500 pound car 100 miles vs an ICE. Plus, the potential to use other types of energy is there. Joey

Also have to factor in entropy, The losses for Gasoline>piston/driveline>Work is less wasteful then the losses associated with Coal>Steam>Turbine>Step up/Down Transformers>Transmission lines>Car Battery>Car motor>Work. It still can be less pollution and Id be interested to find out as well, but no where near as clean as, say, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Not to mention a little rube goldberg... Before you hop all over me for not mentioning it, for arguments sake and to keep the post short lets assume preparing Gasoline/Diesel for use is as wasteful as preparing Coal for use. (if only we would be so lucky that Coal was so clean and easy to retrieve!)

Im not going to hop all over you, I was just wondering myself. Joey

Electricity generation in the US - 45% coal, 25% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 7% hydroelectric, 3% wind.

New capacity installed over the last few years and to be installed over the next few is almost all natural gas and wind. Texas currently has more wind power available at almost all times than transmission capacity to distribute it.

General rule of thumb is to assume 40% net grid efficiency for fossil fuel plants. Most are higher, some are lower, and you have grid losses ranging from 1% to 15%. Figure on 75% charger-battery-controller-motor efficiency (somewhat lower than most modern electrics now), and you get a net efficiency of 30%. Regenerative braking allows some energy recapture.

The additional refining and distribution for automotive fuels usually takes up 10-15% of the energy in the fuel. An automotive gasoline powerplant can get into the low 30s, a diesel up to around 40% - but only at full power. A car with an engine sized to use full power in legal driving conditions would be unpleasant at best and undriveable at worst. Looking at the BSFC maps I have in front of me, when using 1/4 of peak power, fuel consumed per horsepower per hour is roughly double; so efficiency is halved. You're looking at a broad range of overall efficiencies from 12 to 25% over a car's operating cycle in a modern car, with no energy recapture under braking.

chaparral wrote:

joey48442 wrote:

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

joey48442 wrote:

BobOfTheFuture wrote:

chaparral wrote: Could be coal, could be gas, could be nukes, could be hydro, could be wind.

80% of Americas electricity is coal fired. Yes the coal is home sourced, but I thought the point of these was the greenieness? A modern gasoline engine is way more green, and supply would be less of a problem if we'd push a viable green energy, like nuclear.

I wonder if this is true? I'd like to see how much pollution a coal plant creates while makin the energy to move a 2500 pound car 100 miles vs an ICE. Plus, the potential to use other types of energy is there. Joey

Also have to factor in entropy, The losses for Gasoline>piston/driveline>Work is less wasteful then the losses associated with Coal>Steam>Turbine>Step up/Down Transformers>Transmission lines>Car Battery>Car motor>Work. It still can be less pollution and Id be interested to find out as well, but no where near as clean as, say, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Not to mention a little rube goldberg... Before you hop all over me for not mentioning it, for arguments sake and to keep the post short lets assume preparing Gasoline/Diesel for use is as wasteful as preparing Coal for use. (if only we would be so lucky that Coal was so clean and easy to retrieve!)

Im not going to hop all over you, I was just wondering myself. Joey

Electricity generation in the US - 45% coal, 25% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 7% hydroelectric, 3% wind. New capacity installed over the last few years and to be installed over the next few is almost all natural gas and wind. Texas currently has more wind power available at almost all times than transmission capacity to distribute it.

I don't see a percentage for Solar.. I am seeing more and more cells going on houses around me and there is a solar farm being built not 5 miles from here

Solar energy, as of my 2010 figures, was small-potatoes. It's certainly a lot more now, but it takes a lot of 50W panels to add up to a 500MW plant.

In a lot of measurements, it shows up as a reduced demand or energy consumption rather than energy produced, as it's behind a 2-way meter or is less than the energy consumed elsewhere in the plant.

I know if I had an industrial building or a house in Houston it would be covered in solar panels by now. 30 cents a kWh for summer electricity, plus the demand charge? Hang that, not only will the solar panels be way cheaper but they'll reflect the light off the roof and save me on A/C too.

Chap, you are right I was wrong about coal:

EIA Numbers

Its 80% for fossil fuels, not just coal. I quoted the number from memory, My mistake.

I would not be surprised if the majority of private solar panel use goes unreported.

"Texas currently has more wind power available at almost all times than transmission capacity to distribute it."

Isnt this the issue with wind power? Either an over-abundance or total lack of use?

There is real issue with wind power, and two that we've brought upon ourselves.

Real issue: either the wind blows, or it doesn't. With decent siting and turbine design you get about 1/3 of maximum power on average. That's still a lot of power, and it generally makes the cost of wind power competitive with natural gas and cheaper than most other sources. The subsidies are to get it built faster and to avoid equipment production shutdowns during times of cheap energy.

Texan issue 1: If you install 15GW of wind power, that means that at times you need to transmit close to 15GW to where it will be used. Since it burns no fuel, there is no point in not using all the power generated. Texas politicians either don't understand this or are actively trying to prove wind power uneconomical. By the time line capacity is expanded to 13GW in a year or so, installed wind capacity will have exceeded that significantly. Without line capacity limitations we'd double capacity every 2 years.

Texan issue 2: Over the past few years, lots of companies have taken out natural-gas leases requiring them to drill within a certain time period. Unfortunately for everyone but natural gas users, there is a lot more natural gas in America than anyone thought. This has led to an epic natural gas glut that is not expected to abate anytime soon. It costs $2.50/MMBtu right now; a gallon of gas contains about .11 MMBtu. You would find people very unwilling to take measures to conserve gasoline if it cost thirty cents a gallon.

OT: "Greg's Rule - the more remote, environmentally sensitive, or inconvenient a location, the more natural gas there is under it" appears to be universally applicable. I expect someone will discover an immense find under Manhattan. We already have under Dallas and "there ain't supposed to be NOTHIN' under Dallas".

Who's bitching?

I should have used 'snarking'

I just wrote a 15 page paper that addresses some of the other points you raised, but im still too sick of all the research to get back into it for the 'benefit' of anyone here.

or are actively trying to prove wind power uneconomical.

You do realize that every statewide office in Texas is held by Republicans and that Republicans are the Holocaust Deniers of the Climate Change era, right?

carguy123 wrote: Oh, the catfish car! The front end looks like a big ol' Mississippi catfish to me - and then being electric too really makes it undesirable.

I'm amazed no one else did this yet.

In reply to Vigo:

Why else would a state with little coal, steadily declining oil production, vast reserves of natural gas, and virtually limitless wind and solar potential be opposed to restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions?

I think one of the other things to consider is that more wind and nuclear (finally, maybe, I hope) power will be coming on line over the next several years. As our electric sources get cleaner, an electric car will get cleaner.

Before I got the autocross bug and way too many projects as a result, I was going to build an electric car and put solar on the roof of my garage.

After we won Formula Hybrid last year and were looking for what to do for a design-build-prove project for this year, I suggested building a solar-powered car to drive across the country with no support vehicle.

The electrics will be interesting to us GRMers as soon as crashed Volt/Leaf drivetrains become available and as soon as someone publishes good instructions on how to use them without setting the batteries on fire.