Electric motors have a fairly high efficiency, actually over 80% not "up to" as stated in the video. You can also improve the efficiency of electric motors by making them brushless and by using neodimyum magnets instead of ferrite. Also, local geothermal power production would reduce line losses as opposed to centralized modes of production. In terms of energy storage, advances in capacitor technology should eventually replace reaction-dependant batteries.
Pretty basic info here.. Probably nothing most folks didn't already know. At least they did show a lot of different vehicles, Tesla, Leaf, Volt, Coda, Prius Plug-in.
Nope. The Volt's motor can connect directly to wheels, just like in Prius. This is because it's just so much more efficient. Here's a quote from a recent MIT technology teardown report: "A complex transmission system also allows the gas engine to connect directly to the wheels."
@SuperPianojack: As an owner of one of these cars, yes it does have a solar panel on it. However, even if you covered the car in solar panels and sat it in direct sunlight all day, that wouldn't generate enough energy to roll the car forward. Solar alone just doesn't generate enough power, basically. You'd need way more surface area. The solar panel (on my car) simply recharges the battery which is used to power the radio and other accessories like that.
Is any thing being done in the area of Electric Powered Vertical Takeoff and Landing Personal Aircraft. Right now their range is limited to short range flights but the minimization of power sources plus weight aka nuclear power ICs when they finish scaling up to provide the power required for these aircraft is really going to be a huge leap in range and reliability without the temperature swings of lithium batteries.
And as I said: I HAVE NO NEED to seat more than 3. Questions: Do you still use incandescent light bulbs? Wood burning stove? or have you upgraded to CFL or LED lighting? Do you even know what these are?
Sorry to break it to you but the only way an electric vehicle will even be close to helping this environment is if your power grid get all its power from a renewable source (common practical ones out right now are wind-turbines and hydroelectric dams) but those area are SO remote or SO FEW that the benefits do not out weigh the loss.
Less need for pipelines and dirty oil, less emissions, less air pollution, less negative impacts on climate, less noise, less maintenance and less dependence on foreign oil. Cleaner, better smarter.
I think it's really important to help both natural gas cars and EVs. In the long run as batteries get cheaper, EVs will be perfect for short commute, but for longer trips, busses and trucks people will use natural gas
Well that is simply because this technique is new.we have been using Natural Gas cars from many years.Enough innovations have been made in that area.and the advantages it gives are countless.for example - smooth driving,Low pollution, less noise,more sustainable than conventional vehicles.give it some time and you will be amazed to see these things working.and of course we cant suddenly replace all conventional cars by these,it will take time.
Just because you dont understand the concept of Hybrid cars doesnt mean that it is complicated and is going to be a fail.Hybrid cars have a huge potential.Currently some technologies are being developed that will make your Hybrid car almost completely maintenance-free for limited period.You wont even need to recharge your battery by plugging in.and forget battery now we have even more advanced storage technologies i.e. Ultracapacitor.Believe me,I have studied it and i know that it is the FUTURE.
In terms of what you called them, you were wrong. You weren't wrong about most people in China and India using Bikes. I agree, they are the cleanest and most effective ways of combating carbon emissions..at the moment. We should always strive to find new ways to be more eco-friendly, while also more effectively transporting items.(Transporting large shipments via bikes or walking, simply isn't plausible).
I have a chevy VOLT. I knew that I will not save money on the short term. although I do LOVE to drive by the gas station and not really care how much its gone up. Its been almost 3 months and I still have the same gas the car came with when I drove it off the lot. my electric bill went up ($17x3)$17 (but saved over $300 in gas)
Yes, but the internal combustion engine is very inefficient compared to the electric motor. It uses 1/5th of the energy to travel the same mile. And petroleum takes considerable electric power to refine, which is not always considered properly. Oil and gas-powered power plants are more efficient because they use less refined petroleum fuel oils and run at a constant maximally efficient rpm, rather the changing load and torque milieu of the automobile, tremendously increasing efficiency.
the alternator doesn't start the car, the battery does. The alternator charges the battery with a pulley off the crank which causes resistance. Meanwhile, more power is used to cool the motor by running a water pump the same way, then additional heat leaves the exhaust. This is incredibly inefficient. Exhaust heat could and should be used as power either with steam or a newer device called a tec cooler or peltier junction that would replace the alternator.
@klemenc123 - A catalytic converter only takes the gases coming down the exhaust system and converts them into oxides of nitrogen that do not contribute to photochemical smog. It does nothing else - no reduction in carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.
Don't hate just because you can't afford one. If I may ask. What is your education level? I am a lowly maintenance mechanic/electrician and I own a VOLT. saved money for 2 years so I could afford it.
I think Tesla came really close to that with the 85Kwh battery in the belly. What I find interesting is that 'frunk'. There's space where the transmission would go if it were a gas car. If they could stick an additional 20Kwh battery there,, all range anxiety arguments would dry up.
Taxpayer money(During the Stimulus) as well as subsidizing goes more towards Solar panels and wind turbines than Electric or Hybrid card. Look into Hybrid cards, I don't think you will be disappointed.
Natural Gas is a limited resource. We cannot rely on resources that will eventually dry up, especially considering how much of it we will use. A combination of Biofuels and electric is the future. Hybrid cars may seem complicated now, but give them a chance and you will see they are a pleasure to drive and not nearly as complicated as they seem.
Batteries are expensive,, are you sure you want nothing less than 400 miles of range? Since most people need a pit stop every 2 to 3 hours anyway a good 300 mile range seems quite adequate. I think when we see the 100Kwh battery for a 300+ reliable mile range,, at a reasonable cost,, we'll see the ICE go the way of the steam engine.
Into Solyndra and a few other green energy companies yes, but not Hybrid cars. Most new cars will top the $20K mark once you factor in interest rates anyways. It's best to look ahead to our future, instead of always sticking to what we know.
The electric car pollutes about 3 times less than a gasoline car. Oil refineries and tanker trucks pollute more than your car does when it burns the stuff. Lots of pollution is created before the gasoline ever gets delivered to the gas station and pumped into your car. The amount of electricity used at the oil refinery to produce 1 gallon of gasoline can drive an electric car 10 miles.
A manual-transmission car can be "kick started" by pushing it to 5MPH or so, putting it in first gear with the ignition on, and letting out the clutch quickly.
One of the most important characteristics of an EV is that the 'fuel' costs ~1/3 as much as gasoline. An efficient car (30 mpg real-world) may cost $150k over its lifetime to fuel. A comparable EV over the same lifetime would cost closer to $5k, saving its owner $10k just on fuel, not to mention oil changes and engine & transmission maintenance. If that EV costs less than $10k more at the time of purchase, it's already close to cost parity with a gasoline car. And batteries continue to get cheaper every year. Now, compare that to hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cell cars cost much more than battery electric vehicles. Plus, the cost of hydrogen is much, much higher than either electricity or gasoline. Based on real world efficiency results with hydrogen, fueling that same car will cost closer to $45k! Given the choice between spending $10k or $45k on my car, I know which one I want. And on top of the costs, I can make my own electricity, either with solar panels or with a home generator. In the case of a natural disaster, like a hurricane or blizzard, I can refuel an EV by myself. There's no way I'd be able to do that with either gasoline or hydrogen.
them sort of cars should have a soloar pannel on them aswell that will help the charge on it........and if you come from certain parts of america its extreamly hot and sunny so that will save you money in charging aswell
And how long do u think u can go with that? Natural gas is limited in amount and that is the basic fundae for using and innovating these technologies.and solar is a completely different issue.Even i dont favor solar that much only because it is one of the costliest power generation technologies available on earth.
Batteries are expensive,, I envision electrics with a starter battery in the belly like the Tesla of 40Kwh for a 140-160 mile range. Which is more than adequate for most everyday driving. But would be upgradable to say 60Kwh when the customer can afford it. Also that frunk could be designed to accept an additional range extender battery if needed. So electric cars that work is possible,, it's only a matter of just doing it. Despite what the oil companies would have us believe.
Yeah, but you can site the power station well away from where people live, and where forests can better deal with the load of carbon dioxide. At the moment, gasoline engines are only about 20% thermally efficient, while a good power station is closer to 40%. Losses in the transmission/distribution system might bring that back a bit, but not all the way to 20%, I'm guessing.
No, not just like the Prius. It can only support the drive train under very strict circumstances which rarely ever happens. So, the MIT is only half right. The car NEVER drives gas powered only.
NATURAL GAS cars is the FUTURE, not complicated 'Hybrid" cars. Natural gas will last for centuries and is clean and every car on the road can be converted to use it.
need more charging infrastructure in the US. thousands of gas stations a few charging stations. how do i take a road trip? fast charge takes an hour. stop every forty miles?
You've finally said something worth considering. methane won't last for centuries... It will last infinitely, because we can synthesize methane. All that's required is carbon dioxide, water, and of course electricity. A future society that is no longer plagued by the price system would have two modes of transportation: short range (electric), and long range(methane). We need to change the way we produce electricity. The earth's core releases trillions of watts in heat, you connect the dots.
I think more people need to focus on the "comfort" aspect. The environmental benefits of EVs have gotten a lot of attention (and for good reason) but these arguments fall on a lot of deaf ears. To get through to these people, we need to focus on something else... economics is one angle, EV performance and comfort is another. I don't see the EV experience being harped on nearly as much as it should be! They don't call it the "EV smile" for nothing!
Electricity is 4 times cheaper than gasoline. That's why I bought an electric car. I spend $200 less per month since I started using electricity instead of gasoline. I still have a gasoline car, but I only use it for long trips.
Instead of electric cars we should be switching NATURAL gas because it will last for centuries and will work with existing cars! Natural gas is also cleaner and you don't have to wait HOURS for a charge.
Carbon footprint: electric cars versus gasoline cars: Most people think that the carbon footprint on the planet from an electric car is smaller than an equivalent sized gasoline car, but this is actually not the case. If you have an electric car and you are charging your batteries from the grid, the amount of CO-2 released to the atmosphere is much greater than an equivalent gasoline car. Inefficiencies occur when you transfer energy from one form to another. In a gasoline car the chemical energy in the gas tank is converted to thermal energy in the engine and then the engine converts the thermal energy into mechanical energy to power the vehicle. Thus, there are two conversions, chemical to thermal and thermal to mechanical. If each is 50% efficient, the overall efficiency is (0.5) x (0.5) = 0.25, or 25 %. That is typically what the efficiency is of a modern gasoline car. Now let’s look at the electric car where you are getting your electricity off the grid, and the electricity being supplied to the grid comes from fossil fuels, or at least most of it. At some power plant fossil fuel is being burned and turned into thermal energy (conversion #1), the thermal energy is then used to create steam (conversion #2), the steam is used to spin a turbine to get mechanical energy (conversion #3 - about 30% efficient), the turbine is connected to an electrical generator to produce electric energy (conversion #4), the electricity has to be transmitted over wires (conversion #5, actually not a conversion but equally inefficient losses occur in transmission), the electricity arrives at your home and is used to charge the batteries in the car (conversion #6 - battery charging about 30% efficient); and finally the batteries are discharged through electric motors on the wheels to get mechanical energy (conversion #7). So now if we multiply all these inefficiencies together and except for the two at 30%, assume they are all 50%, here’s what we get: (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.3) x (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.3) x (0.5) = 0.0028, or 0.28%. By this simple calculation it can be seen that an all-electric car is about 75 times worse for the planet than a gasoline powered car of the same size from the standpoint of CO-2 emissions. Of course, if you are charging your batteries by a windmill on your roof, then the electric car is much better than the gasoline car. In this DOE video they say that the last conversion is "as much as 80% efficient." I doubt that, but if it's true we replace the last number by 0.8 and you get 0.0045, still terrible compared to gasoline cars. No matter how you ratchet the numbers for an electric car up, the end result is always much worse than gasoline cars. If the government wants to save the planet by getting people to buy electric cars, they should make a regulation that requires they come with solar collectors to charge them.
No. You are right that cars are only about 30% efficient, so they create over 3x CO2 emissions than burning gas with 100% efficiency. Most grid power is generated by natural gas (~50%), nuclear (no CO2), and renewables (0 CO2), at least where I live. Natural gas power generation produces less CO2 emission than burning coal or gasoline. SO overall electric cars have about 3x LESS CO2 emission than gas cars. It goes much lower than that if you charge with solar power, like many people do.
Tom Greene You’re basing what your are saying on Li-ion batteries and the GE-14 series natural gas turbine, both of which are the most efficient available and not representative of what is actually being used today. If you look at Pb-acid batteries or NiMH batteries and how electricity is actually generated, the conclusion is not so good for electric cars. As I think you know, in the US 70% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, mainly coal (39%), not natural gas (27%), and coal is much less efficient than the best natural gas generators as the coal plants use the steam cycle; notwithstanding, even most natural gas plants use the basic steam cycle which has an efficiency of 30-35%. The centralized gas turbine that you’re referencing can achieve higher efficiencies, but no more than 50-60%. If you do the math and look at the highest efficiencies possible you get 55% gas turbine efficiency of times 50% typical transmission line losses times 90% Li-ion charging/discharging efficiency times 50% electric motor efficiency which equals 12%, which is half of a gasoline car operating at 25% efficiency. To get more realistic, replace the gas turbine efficiency with 35% for the steam cycle and the Li-ion charging/discharging efficiency with 60% to reflect other batteries in use and you get an overall efficiency of 5%. No matter how you look at it, at this time electric cars are worse for the global carbon footprint than gasoline cars of a similar size. Maybe in the future things will change but we really don’t know. An objective assessment has to look at the current technologies in use, rather than cherry picking the best available technologies, unless of course the objective is to promote electric cars for some other agenda. Of course it should be kept in mind that we are really discussion a semi-irrelevant issue. Regarding CO-2 emissions, only about 14% comes from transportation. About 30-40% comes from electric power generation which is the lead producer, next in line is deforestation and agriculture, then industrial emissions, and only then transportation. Since a lot of the transportation contribution comes from modes which require burning fossil fuels like trucks and airplanes, the whole issue of gasoline cars versus electric cars is moot regarding saving the planet’s climate. Thanks for your response.
You must do the calculation for the mean energy generation mix and mean EV battery efficiency to calculate the net impact. Today's electric cars ALL have Li ion batteries, so they DO have substantially lower CO2 / GHG footprints than gas cars. THis has been PROVEN in the referedd scientific literature many times (e.g., J. Michalek et al. 2011PNAS v108, no. 40 p. 16554-16558) and summarized the Union of Concerned scientists "State of Charge Report" (2014 update): Nationwide, EVs charged from the electricity grid produce lower global warming emissions than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle (with average fuel economy)-even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the “dirtiest” electricity grids. In regions with the “cleanest” electricity grids, EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient hybrids. EVs have many other advantages over gasoline cars: - Much better performance than gas cars: faster, smoother - no stink or noise - Can charge at home - virtually never need to go to "gas stations" - MUCH CHEAPER to fuel; only $0.06 / kWh charging during off-peak periods translates to under $0.02/mile
In 2011, an article in Forbes magazine counted the cost of an electric vehicle, saying, "At $0.11/KWH for electricity and $4.00 per gallon for gasoline, you would have to drive the Nissan Leaf 164,000 miles to recover its additional purchase cost. Counting interest, the miles to payback is 197,000 miles." "Because it is almost impossible to drive a Leaf more than 60 miles a day, the payback with interest would take more than nine years," the article continues
Its called range anxiety, in 99% of cases its an irrational fear. The Leaf goes ~175 km on a charge. I dare say that if you're gonna drive that far, a 1h break is probably something you should take anyway. Have something to eat, strech your legs....and then you have 175 miles more to drive. So basicly you get 350 miles from 1h charging. Come on, this is not a problem in the real world. You WANT it to be a problem. But sure, some people have strange jobs/habits and this car is not for them.
The only problems with these Ev's is electricity and the toxic waste and when the batteries are no longer any good which was a 10 yr rating last time i checked. You may not need gas but the majority of the united states electricity still comes from coal burning power plants (not much better) while a small portion is solar wind and hydro. I think we are headed in the right direction but need refinement so as to reach a real solution.
0 current transversely, but I'm not talking about transverse electromagnetic waves; I'm referring to longitudinal electrostatic waves.There are some talks given by eric dollard and peter lindemann on the subject if anyone is interested, don't take my word for it.
The price is the problem for those of us that don't earn 'rich man' wages above $50,000 a year! This car can't cost more then $15,000 to build so the $45,000 price is robbery.
Electric cars are overpriced, but people are still motivated to buy them because of the much lower fuel cost and it doesn't use gasoline. Before you could buy one at an auto dealer, people were spending $10K to $20K to convert gasoline cars to electric. Society wants alternatives to gasoline and that's the primary motivation. Not necessarily return on investment.
Well yes, because not everyone in India is Hindu. There is Christians,Muslims, Atheists,etc. They are just Indians, plain and simple. The "Indians" in The U.S are actually called "Native Americans". "Indian" here in North America was a slang coined by Columbus because he was trying to get to India.
this guy made a mistake the volts power to the wheels comes only from the batteries the gas motor acts as a generator to charge the batteries as the car drives down the road
That still doesn't justify the excessive cost that working people can't afford: I bought my 2 story house for less then the price of two of these electric shoe-boxes! Why should a motor and battery cost more then a gas engine and transmission? Also, what happens when the $10,000 batteries wear out? I drive my cars at least 5 yrs and have been driving my Astro for 12 so the cost of replacing batteries would be horrible. Get rid of the tax credits and prices would drop $10,000
If the took the BILLIONS Wasted on Solar & batteries and used that to put in Natural Gas fueling stations nationwide the middle-east-supplied energy problem would be solved.
I have been driving an Astro van for 12 yrs that gets 17 MPG. I have spend $12,500 on gas these 12 yrs (I keep track) which is still less then the $15,000 extra you pay for a tiny electric toy car! I can carry 8 people where these toys carry 'maybe' 4 people. An electric will need new batteries every few years at a cost of thousand of dollars. Electrics make NO SENSE from a dollar standpoint or from a comfort standpoint. You run your heater during the winter and it will eat up that battery.
Yeah, I'm completely sticking to my 400 to 500 mile range battery before I accept the technology fully. I see this coming in about 5 to 7 years max. I can stick with my current car until then. If it doesn't happen I'll just pick up another gasoline car. I do know for a fact that my first electric car will be a Tesla and hope to see gas cars put to the trash heap of history fairly soon.
My power comes from hydro and nuke plants. I have no NEED for van, such as yours. I travel with my 2 daughters. (BTW, they love this car, especially my oldest, since it will be hers) My VOLT can travel the same 600 miles, on 16g vs ur 36g, (saving ±$75), granted I must refuel, but I have to stop anyway, kids get hungry and restless. By the time I NEED a vehicle with a higher seating capacity I will buy one. It WILL be an electric vehicle, more that likely, a TESLA Clean Efficient Silent
show me the peltier that will provide the same power as an alternator from exaust heat. show me the freewheel battery with low enough parasitic loss to work in a car long term. and most of all, show me the magnet motor that actually produces power. Dont get me wrong, im all for e-cars etc, but none of the options you've listed are viable. kinetic batteries have some good potential, and some drawbacks... peltiers lack the efficiency to be usefull for power generation, and magnet motors are bs.
anyone watching this should look up "who killed the electric car". there's much misinformation on the subject of energy; the technology to have a battery-less electric car is over 100 years old. There have also been cars that store energy in flywheels, and cars that run completely on magnet motors. Even your conventional car could gain much gas mileage if a peltier junction were used on the exhaust rather than an alternator. In the 70's a regular gas car was built that got 370 mpg. Crapitalism.
Its not 100% clean but it is better then petrol cars. At night when most people charge car in Britain the coal plants are turn off so its only nuclear, and wind. It lets a country be cleaner as if the power is being made clean then the cars are cleaner but if your power is 100% clean you could still be stuck with petrol cars. Petrol still has to be refined and that takes a lot of power so that will be using the same coal burned plants to produce the electricity.
I want 400 to 500 miles of range with an extremely fast charge. Nothing less! If I buy a car regardless of what powers it, I want to be able to cross my country with it!
Set your expectations more realistically. First, how often do you drive coast-to-coast? Could you rent a gas-powered vehicle for those few times you do? That will likely save you money. Second, why 400-500 miles? 400 miles @ 70MPH is 5.7 hours of continuous driving. 500 miles @ 70MPH is 7.1 hours. Do you EVER need to pee or eat? Use those break times to recharge the battery. Take a 30 minute stop at a quick-charge station. Probably good to stop about every 3 hours for safety reasons. Third, what is your ACTUAL daily driving distance? Try this: Reset your trip odometer for a typical day. At the end, see how far you really drove. The distance will likely be far less than you expect. The average daily journey, as stated in the video, is 40 miles round trip. You likely don't need to be carrying around a 200-300kWh battery pack for a journey that would be suited with a 30kWh battery pack.
None of that matters when an electric car that should cost $15,000 sells for $45,000, a price that only a RICH person could afford (or be stupid enough to pay!) I drive an Astro Van and it would take EIGHT YEARS before I would break even if I bought this car! I'll stick to my 18 MPG; it's cheaper!
so I wasn't wrong, and neither were you. happy now? anyways, bikes have been and will be for our lifetimes, the cheapest, CLEANEST mode of transportation. (powered by the user) My grandpa rode one for as long as I can recall.
QUIT YER WHINING DO U EVER TRAVEL??? I SPENT almost $20000 in the past 7 years driving a fairly efficient IMPALA (avg 27 MPG) And actually, I paid 25k more than a comparable $19000 cruze. Yes, one of the reasons I bought it was cuz of the $7500 FEDERAL CREDIT. so it will be $17500 come april. As an industrial mechanic/electrician I can afford it, thanks to my education level. My next car will be a TESLA, this one is $105,000.
$45,000 is almost 1/2 the price of a nice house! You drive a $45,000 car off the lot and it looses $15,000 worth of value within seconds! In 3 or 4 yrs you have to spend $10,000 replacing the battery! You take a trip you have to stop every 90 min for a multi-hour charge! Electric cars are nothing but a waste of tax-dollars, especially the $7,500 WELFARE HANDOUT!
Electric motors have a fairly high efficiency, actually over 80% not "up to" as stated in the video. You can also improve the efficiency of electric motors by making them brushless and by using neodimyum magnets instead of ferrite. Also, local geothermal power production would reduce line losses as opposed to centralized modes of production. In terms of energy storage, advances in capacitor technology should eventually replace reaction-dependant batteries.
Pretty basic info here.. Probably nothing most folks didn't already know. At least they did show a lot of different vehicles, Tesla, Leaf, Volt, Coda, Prius Plug-in.
actually not always. there is a mechanical connection between the engine and the wheels.
the first 35-40 miles are PURE battery
Nope. The Volt's motor can connect directly to wheels, just like in Prius. This is because it's just so much more efficient. Here's a quote from a recent MIT technology teardown report: "A complex transmission system also allows the gas engine to connect directly to the wheels."
@SuperPianojack: As an owner of one of these cars, yes it does have a solar panel on it. However, even if you covered the car in solar panels and sat it in direct sunlight all day, that wouldn't generate enough energy to roll the car forward. Solar alone just doesn't generate enough power, basically. You'd need way more surface area. The solar panel (on my car) simply recharges the battery which is used to power the radio and other accessories like that.
Is any thing being done in the area of Electric Powered Vertical Takeoff and Landing Personal Aircraft. Right now their range is limited to short range flights but the minimization of power sources plus weight aka nuclear power ICs when they finish scaling up to provide the power required for these aircraft is really going to be a huge leap in range and reliability without the temperature swings of lithium batteries.
The ev is very good for the environment
this is so crazy!
Thanks for the thoughts you have contributed here.
And as I said: I HAVE NO NEED to seat more than 3.
Questions: Do you still use incandescent light bulbs? Wood burning stove?
or have you upgraded to CFL or LED lighting? Do you even know what these are?
Sorry to break it to you but the only way an electric vehicle will even be close to helping this environment is if your power grid get all its power from a renewable source (common practical ones out right now are wind-turbines and hydroelectric dams) but those area are SO remote or SO FEW that the benefits do not out weigh the loss.
Great use of where cars should be going.
Less need for pipelines and dirty oil, less emissions, less air pollution, less negative impacts on climate, less noise, less maintenance and less dependence on foreign oil. Cleaner, better smarter.
I think it's really important to help both natural gas cars and EVs. In the long run as batteries get cheaper, EVs will be perfect for short commute, but for longer trips, busses and trucks people will use natural gas
Well that is simply because this technique is new.we have been using Natural Gas cars from many years.Enough innovations have been made in that area.and the advantages it gives are countless.for example - smooth driving,Low pollution, less noise,more sustainable than conventional vehicles.give it some time and you will be amazed to see these things working.and of course we cant suddenly replace all conventional cars by these,it will take time.
Just because you dont understand the concept of Hybrid cars doesnt mean that it is complicated and is going to be a fail.Hybrid cars have a huge potential.Currently some technologies are being developed that will make your Hybrid car almost completely maintenance-free for limited period.You wont even need to recharge your battery by plugging in.and forget battery now we have even more advanced storage technologies i.e. Ultracapacitor.Believe me,I have studied it and i know that it is the FUTURE.
In terms of what you called them, you were wrong. You weren't wrong about most people in China and India using Bikes.
I agree, they are the cleanest and most effective ways of combating carbon emissions..at the moment. We should always strive to find new ways to be more eco-friendly, while also more effectively transporting items.(Transporting large shipments via bikes or walking, simply isn't plausible).
Enlighten me.
What is this magnetic motor?
A poly-phase AC induction motor???
I have a chevy VOLT.
I knew that I will not save money on the short term.
although I do LOVE to drive by the gas station and not really care how much its gone up.
Its been almost 3 months and I still have the same gas the car came with when I drove it off the lot.
my electric bill went up ($17x3)$17 (but saved over $300 in gas)
Yes, but the internal combustion engine is very inefficient compared to the electric motor. It uses 1/5th of the energy to travel the same mile. And petroleum takes considerable electric power to refine, which is not always considered properly. Oil and gas-powered power plants are more efficient because they use less refined petroleum fuel oils and run at a constant maximally efficient rpm, rather the changing load and torque milieu of the automobile, tremendously increasing efficiency.
the alternator doesn't start the car, the battery does. The alternator charges the battery with a pulley off the crank which causes resistance. Meanwhile, more power is used to cool the motor by running a water pump the same way, then additional heat leaves the exhaust. This is incredibly inefficient. Exhaust heat could and should be used as power either with steam or a newer device called a tec cooler or peltier junction that would replace the alternator.
@klemenc123 - A catalytic converter only takes the gases coming down the exhaust system and converts them into oxides of nitrogen that do not contribute to photochemical smog. It does nothing else - no reduction in carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.
Good info for my study.
Don't hate just because you can't afford one.
If I may ask. What is your education level?
I am a lowly maintenance mechanic/electrician and I own a VOLT.
saved money for 2 years so I could afford it.
I think Tesla came really close to that with the 85Kwh battery in the belly. What I find interesting is that 'frunk'. There's space where the transmission would go if it were a gas car. If they could stick an additional 20Kwh battery there,, all range anxiety arguments would dry up.
It's time to change. Great intro video.
Taxpayer money(During the Stimulus) as well as subsidizing goes more towards Solar panels and wind turbines than Electric or Hybrid card. Look into Hybrid cards, I don't think you will be disappointed.
Natural Gas is a limited resource. We cannot rely on resources that will eventually dry up, especially considering how much of it we will use. A combination of Biofuels and electric is the future. Hybrid cars may seem complicated now, but give them a chance and you will see they are a pleasure to drive and not nearly as complicated as they seem.
Batteries are expensive,, are you sure you want nothing less than 400 miles of range? Since most people need a pit stop every 2 to 3 hours anyway a good 300 mile range seems quite adequate.
I think when we see the 100Kwh battery for a 300+ reliable mile range,, at a reasonable cost,, we'll see the ICE go the way of the steam engine.
Into Solyndra and a few other green energy companies yes, but not Hybrid cars. Most new cars will top the $20K mark once you factor in interest rates anyways. It's best to look ahead to our future, instead of always sticking to what we know.
The electric car pollutes about 3 times less than a gasoline car. Oil refineries and tanker trucks pollute more than your car does when it burns the stuff. Lots of pollution is created before the gasoline ever gets delivered to the gas station and pumped into your car. The amount of electricity used at the oil refinery to produce 1 gallon of gasoline can drive an electric car 10 miles.
Great Video! - I shared it on my Website!!!
...how do turn a car on without an alternator?...apart from cranking it manually
A manual-transmission car can be "kick started" by pushing it to 5MPH or so, putting it in first gear with the ignition on, and letting out the clutch quickly.
“Turning on” an EV is just turning on the electronics. Same thing as turning on your personal computer.
which is the background music?
SATURN's EV1.
I wish I could have been lucky and old enough to have one.
It would have been MYSTERIOUSLY stolen, I MEAN SAVED.
I hope electric cars become more popular. Global warming is bad, but I love cars.
One of the most important characteristics of an EV is that the 'fuel' costs ~1/3 as much as gasoline.
An efficient car (30 mpg real-world) may cost $150k over its lifetime to fuel. A comparable EV over the same lifetime would cost closer to $5k, saving its owner $10k just on fuel, not to mention oil changes and engine & transmission maintenance. If that EV costs less than $10k more at the time of purchase, it's already close to cost parity with a gasoline car. And batteries continue to get cheaper every year.
Now, compare that to hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cell cars cost much more than battery electric vehicles. Plus, the cost of hydrogen is much, much higher than either electricity or gasoline. Based on real world efficiency results with hydrogen, fueling that same car will cost closer to $45k! Given the choice between spending $10k or $45k on my car, I know which one I want.
And on top of the costs, I can make my own electricity, either with solar panels or with a home generator. In the case of a natural disaster, like a hurricane or blizzard, I can refuel an EV by myself. There's no way I'd be able to do that with either gasoline or hydrogen.
them sort of cars should have a soloar pannel on them aswell that will help the charge on it........and if you come from certain parts of america its extreamly hot and sunny so that will save you money in charging aswell
Aptera has developed an SEV that can charge while parked or driven in the sun; up to 40 miles/day from its own solar panels.
And how long do u think u can go with that? Natural gas is limited in amount and that is the basic fundae for using and innovating these technologies.and solar is a completely different issue.Even i dont favor solar that much only because it is one of the costliest power generation technologies available on earth.
Batteries are expensive,, I envision electrics with a starter battery in the belly like the Tesla of 40Kwh for a 140-160 mile range. Which is more than adequate for most everyday driving. But would be upgradable to say 60Kwh when the customer can afford it.
Also that frunk could be designed to accept an additional range extender battery if needed. So electric cars that work is possible,, it's only a matter of just doing it. Despite what the oil companies would have us believe.
Yeah, but you can site the power station well away from where people live, and where forests can better deal with the load of carbon dioxide.
At the moment, gasoline engines are only about 20% thermally efficient, while a good power station is closer to 40%. Losses in the transmission/distribution system might bring that back a bit, but not all the way to 20%, I'm guessing.
And the ev is very good for the environment
No, not just like the Prius. It can only support the drive train under very strict circumstances which rarely ever happens. So, the MIT is only half right. The car NEVER drives gas powered only.
why dont we use catalytic converter.
I wanna save up for one of these
I LOVE my LEAF!!
This video is heavily slanted towards small automobiles and makes no mention of electric trolley or battery buses. still, it's pretty good
BYD and Proterra :)
A battery bus is a BEV (battery electric vehicle), but I expect it is classified with an electric trolley as "transportation."
ICE= Highly efficient fuel, low efficient engines
eMotor= Highly efficient motors, low battery efficiency
@aug8241944 Sometimes its generator straight to electric motor... When idle batteries (stop light) are charging.
NATURAL GAS cars is the FUTURE, not complicated 'Hybrid" cars.
Natural gas will last for centuries and is clean and every car on the road can be converted to use it.
Thanks for posting this cool video....enjoyed sharing it on our Facebook page.
need more charging infrastructure in the US. thousands of gas stations a few charging stations. how do i take a road trip? fast charge takes an hour. stop every forty miles?
im doing a nobel prize project on electric cars.... how do I embed this video into it? Like, how do i save it to my files as a video?
@Iaff939 Up north we call these "American stop".
Solar panels are super-expensive and we working people can't afford it, especially when the 'pay-back' is at least 10 yrs just to break even!
You've finally said something worth considering. methane won't last for centuries... It will last infinitely, because we can synthesize methane. All that's required is carbon dioxide, water, and of course electricity. A future society that is no longer plagued by the price system would have two modes of transportation: short range (electric), and long range(methane). We need to change the way we produce electricity. The earth's core releases trillions of watts in heat, you connect the dots.
Who is going to have the first one around here?
On second thought. I may fold if Tesla creates something worth while with over 300+ mile range battery on their upcoming car.
YES IT IS > only for the first 35 miles.
I think more people need to focus on the "comfort" aspect. The environmental benefits of EVs have gotten a lot of attention (and for good reason) but these arguments fall on a lot of deaf ears. To get through to these people, we need to focus on something else... economics is one angle, EV performance and comfort is another. I don't see the EV experience being harped on nearly as much as it should be! They don't call it the "EV smile" for nothing!
yeah and i also studied it. Guessing you've only HEARD of it.
Electricity is 4 times cheaper than gasoline. That's why I bought an electric car. I spend $200 less per month since I started using electricity instead of gasoline. I still have a gasoline car, but I only use it for long trips.
how do you*
I live in Fresno and the air is bad.it just a no brainer
Instead of electric cars we should be switching NATURAL gas because it will last for centuries and will work with existing cars! Natural gas is also cleaner and you don't have to wait HOURS for a charge.
Carbon footprint: electric cars versus gasoline cars:
Most people think that the carbon footprint on the planet from an electric car is smaller than an equivalent sized gasoline car, but this is actually not the case. If you have an electric car and you are charging your batteries from the grid, the amount of CO-2 released to the atmosphere is much greater than an equivalent gasoline car.
Inefficiencies occur when you transfer energy from one form to another. In a gasoline car the chemical energy in the gas tank is converted to thermal energy in the engine and then the engine converts the thermal energy into mechanical energy to power the vehicle. Thus, there are two conversions, chemical to thermal and thermal to mechanical. If each is 50% efficient, the overall efficiency is (0.5) x (0.5) = 0.25, or 25 %. That is typically what the efficiency is of a modern gasoline car.
Now let’s look at the electric car where you are getting your electricity off the grid, and the electricity being supplied to the grid comes from fossil fuels, or at least most of it. At some power plant fossil fuel is being burned and turned into thermal energy (conversion #1), the thermal energy is then used to create steam (conversion #2), the steam is used to spin a turbine to get mechanical energy (conversion #3 - about 30% efficient), the turbine is connected to an electrical generator to produce electric energy (conversion #4), the electricity has to be transmitted over wires (conversion #5, actually not a conversion but equally inefficient losses occur in transmission), the electricity arrives at your home and is used to charge the batteries in the car (conversion #6 - battery charging about 30% efficient); and finally the batteries are discharged through electric motors on the wheels to get mechanical energy (conversion #7). So now if we multiply all these inefficiencies together and except for the two at 30%, assume they are all 50%, here’s what we get:
(0.5) x (0.5) x (0.3) x (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.3) x (0.5) = 0.0028, or 0.28%.
By this simple calculation it can be seen that an all-electric car is about 75 times worse for the planet than a gasoline powered car of the same size from the standpoint of CO-2 emissions. Of course, if you are charging your batteries by a windmill on your roof, then the electric car is much better than the gasoline car.
In this DOE video they say that the last conversion is "as much as 80% efficient." I doubt that, but if it's true we replace the last number by 0.8 and you get 0.0045, still terrible compared to gasoline cars. No matter how you ratchet the numbers for an electric car up, the end result is always much worse than gasoline cars. If the government wants to save the planet by getting people to buy electric cars, they should make a regulation that requires they come with solar collectors to charge them.
No. You are right that cars are only about 30% efficient, so they create over 3x CO2 emissions than burning gas with 100% efficiency. Most grid power is generated by natural gas (~50%), nuclear (no CO2), and renewables (0 CO2), at least where I live. Natural gas power generation produces less CO2 emission than burning coal or gasoline. SO overall electric cars have about 3x LESS CO2 emission than gas cars.
It goes much lower than that if you charge with solar power, like many people do.
Tom Greene You’re basing what your are saying on Li-ion batteries and the GE-14 series natural gas turbine, both of which are the most efficient available and not representative of what is actually being used today. If you look at Pb-acid batteries or NiMH batteries and how electricity is actually generated, the conclusion is not so good for electric cars.
As I think you know, in the US 70% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, mainly coal (39%), not natural gas (27%), and coal is much less efficient than the best natural gas generators as the coal plants use the steam cycle; notwithstanding, even most natural gas plants use the basic steam cycle which has an efficiency of 30-35%. The centralized gas turbine that you’re referencing can achieve higher efficiencies, but no more than 50-60%. If you do the math and look at the highest efficiencies possible you get 55% gas turbine efficiency of times 50% typical transmission line losses times 90% Li-ion charging/discharging efficiency times 50% electric motor efficiency which equals 12%, which is half of a gasoline car operating at 25% efficiency. To get more realistic, replace the gas turbine efficiency with 35% for the steam cycle and the Li-ion charging/discharging efficiency with 60% to reflect other batteries in use and you get an overall efficiency of 5%. No matter how you look at it, at this time electric cars are worse for the global carbon footprint than gasoline cars of a similar size. Maybe in the future things will change but we really don’t know.
An objective assessment has to look at the current technologies in use, rather than cherry picking the best available technologies, unless of course the objective is to promote electric cars for some other agenda. Of course it should be kept in mind that we are really discussion a semi-irrelevant issue. Regarding CO-2 emissions, only about 14% comes from transportation. About 30-40% comes from electric power generation which is the lead producer, next in line is deforestation and agriculture, then industrial emissions, and only then transportation. Since a lot of the transportation contribution comes from modes which require burning fossil fuels like trucks and airplanes, the whole issue of gasoline cars versus electric cars is moot regarding saving the planet’s climate.
Thanks for your response.
You must do the calculation for the mean energy generation mix and mean EV battery efficiency to calculate the net impact. Today's electric cars ALL have Li ion batteries, so they DO have substantially lower CO2 / GHG footprints than gas cars. THis has been PROVEN in the referedd scientific literature many times (e.g., J. Michalek et al. 2011PNAS v108, no. 40 p. 16554-16558) and summarized the Union of Concerned scientists "State of Charge Report" (2014 update):
Nationwide, EVs charged from the electricity grid produce lower global warming emissions than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle (with average fuel economy)-even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the “dirtiest” electricity grids.
In regions with the “cleanest” electricity grids, EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient hybrids.
EVs have many other advantages over gasoline cars:
- Much better performance than gas cars: faster, smoother
- no stink or noise
- Can charge at home - virtually never need to go to "gas stations"
- MUCH CHEAPER to fuel; only $0.06 / kWh charging during off-peak periods translates to under $0.02/mile
I'd much rather pay the electric co. than the oil co.s,bring on the EV's!!! Yes I've seen the research & it's time for change.
In 2011, an article in Forbes magazine counted the cost of an electric vehicle, saying, "At $0.11/KWH for electricity and $4.00 per gallon for gasoline, you would have to drive the Nissan Leaf 164,000 miles to recover its additional purchase cost. Counting interest, the miles to payback is 197,000 miles."
"Because it is almost impossible to drive a Leaf more than 60 miles a day, the payback with interest would take more than nine years," the article continues
Its called range anxiety, in 99% of cases its an irrational fear. The Leaf goes ~175 km on a charge. I dare say that if you're gonna drive that far, a 1h break is probably something you should take anyway. Have something to eat, strech your legs....and then you have 175 miles more to drive. So basicly you get 350 miles from 1h charging.
Come on, this is not a problem in the real world. You WANT it to be a problem.
But sure, some people have strange jobs/habits and this car is not for them.
T I hope that you will have a great Day
$44,000 minus the $7,500 FEDERAL CREDIT
How about a vid highlighting all aspects ? Seems like your a sales man.
The only problems with these Ev's is electricity and the toxic waste and when the batteries are no longer any good which was a 10 yr rating last time i checked. You may not need gas but the majority of the united states electricity still comes from coal burning power plants (not much better) while a small portion is solar wind and hydro. I think we are headed in the right direction but need refinement so as to reach a real solution.
0 current transversely, but I'm not talking about transverse electromagnetic waves; I'm referring to longitudinal electrostatic waves.There are some talks given by eric dollard and peter lindemann on the subject if anyone is interested, don't take my word for it.
The price is the problem for those of us that don't earn 'rich man' wages above $50,000 a year! This car can't cost more then $15,000 to build so the $45,000 price is robbery.
Electric cars are overpriced, but people are still motivated to buy them because of the much lower fuel cost and it doesn't use gasoline. Before you could buy one at an auto dealer, people were spending $10K to $20K to convert gasoline cars to electric. Society wants alternatives to gasoline and that's the primary motivation. Not necessarily return on investment.
Awesome, but if that battery goes on you one day and is no longer charging, have fun paying for a new one.
Well yes, because not everyone in India is Hindu. There is Christians,Muslims, Atheists,etc. They are just Indians, plain and simple. The "Indians" in The U.S are actually called "Native Americans". "Indian" here in North America was a slang coined by Columbus because he was trying to get to India.
Ya but it does less pollution to the air
this guy made a mistake the volts power to the wheels comes only from the batteries the gas motor acts as a generator to charge the batteries as the car drives down the road
That still doesn't justify the excessive cost that working people can't afford: I bought my 2 story house for less then the price of two of these electric shoe-boxes! Why should a motor and battery cost more then a gas engine and transmission? Also, what happens when the $10,000 batteries wear out? I drive my cars at least 5 yrs and have been driving my Astro for 12 so the cost of replacing batteries would be horrible. Get rid of the tax credits and prices would drop $10,000
Does it use gasoline
Daniel Odei a lot
My Electric Car uses No Gasoline. You can Learn more on my Website.
If the took the BILLIONS Wasted on Solar & batteries and used that to put in Natural Gas fueling stations nationwide the middle-east-supplied energy problem would be solved.
I have been driving an Astro van for 12 yrs that gets 17 MPG. I have spend
$12,500 on gas these 12 yrs (I keep track) which is still less then the
$15,000 extra you pay for a tiny electric toy car! I can carry 8 people
where these toys carry 'maybe' 4 people.
An electric will need new batteries every few years at a cost of thousand
of dollars. Electrics make NO SENSE from a dollar standpoint or from a
comfort standpoint. You run your heater during the winter and it will eat
up that battery.
Yeah, I'm completely sticking to my 400 to 500 mile range battery before I accept the technology fully. I see this coming in about 5 to 7 years max. I can stick with my current car until then. If it doesn't happen I'll just pick up another gasoline car. I do know for a fact that my first electric car will be a Tesla and hope to see gas cars put to the trash heap of history fairly soon.
Model s sedan 405 miles
My power comes from hydro and nuke plants.
I have no NEED for van, such as yours.
I travel with my 2 daughters. (BTW, they love this car, especially my oldest, since it will be hers)
My VOLT can travel the same 600 miles, on 16g vs ur 36g, (saving ±$75), granted I must refuel, but I have to stop anyway, kids get hungry and restless.
By the time I NEED a vehicle with a higher seating capacity I will buy one.
It WILL be an electric vehicle, more that likely, a TESLA
Clean
Efficient
Silent
show me the peltier that will provide the same power as an alternator from exaust heat. show me the freewheel battery with low enough parasitic loss to work in a car long term. and most of all, show me the magnet motor that actually produces power.
Dont get me wrong, im all for e-cars etc, but none of the options you've listed are viable. kinetic batteries have some good potential, and some drawbacks... peltiers lack the efficiency to be usefull for power generation, and magnet motors are bs.
anyone watching this should look up "who killed the electric car". there's much misinformation on the subject of energy; the technology to have a battery-less electric car is over 100 years old. There have also been cars that store energy in flywheels, and cars that run completely on magnet motors. Even your conventional car could gain much gas mileage if a peltier junction were used on the exhaust rather than an alternator. In the 70's a regular gas car was built that got 370 mpg. Crapitalism.
You paid at least $15,000 more for the electric thus it is more expensive to drive then a gas car....numbers don't lie.
Its not 100% clean but it is better then petrol cars. At night when most people charge car in Britain the coal plants are turn off so its only nuclear, and wind. It lets a country be cleaner as if the power is being made clean then the cars are cleaner but if your power is 100% clean you could still be stuck with petrol cars. Petrol still has to be refined and that takes a lot of power so that will be using the same coal burned plants to produce the electricity.
The Flintstones were a cartoon.
I want 400 to 500 miles of range with an extremely fast charge. Nothing less! If I buy a car regardless of what powers it, I want to be able to cross my country with it!
Set your expectations more realistically.
First, how often do you drive coast-to-coast? Could you rent a gas-powered vehicle for those few times you do? That will likely save you money.
Second, why 400-500 miles? 400 miles @ 70MPH is 5.7 hours of continuous driving. 500 miles @ 70MPH is 7.1 hours. Do you EVER need to pee or eat? Use those break times to recharge the battery. Take a 30 minute stop at a quick-charge station. Probably good to stop about every 3 hours for safety reasons.
Third, what is your ACTUAL daily driving distance? Try this: Reset your trip odometer for a typical day. At the end, see how far you really drove. The distance will likely be far less than you expect. The average daily journey, as stated in the video, is 40 miles round trip. You likely don't need to be carrying around a 200-300kWh battery pack for a journey that would be suited with a 30kWh battery pack.
None of that matters when an electric car that should cost $15,000 sells for $45,000, a price that only a RICH person could afford (or be stupid enough to pay!)
I drive an Astro Van and it would take EIGHT YEARS before I would break even if I bought this car! I'll stick to my 18 MPG; it's cheaper!
If there were no ev's, it wouldn't make a difference.
so I wasn't wrong, and neither were you. happy now?
anyways, bikes have been and will be for our lifetimes, the cheapest, CLEANEST mode of transportation. (powered by the user)
My grandpa rode one for as long as I can recall.
ever hear of natural gas? (and an obscure thing called) nuclear power??
QUIT YER WHINING
DO U EVER TRAVEL???
I SPENT almost $20000 in the past 7 years driving a fairly efficient IMPALA (avg 27 MPG)
And actually, I paid 25k more than a comparable $19000 cruze.
Yes, one of the reasons I bought it was cuz of the $7500 FEDERAL CREDIT.
so it will be $17500 come april.
As an industrial mechanic/electrician I can afford it, thanks to my education level.
My next car will be a TESLA, this one is $105,000.
I remember when the "EV" was reposessed by the GM company. For real reason apparently . Why take them off the street in the first place????
$45,000 is almost 1/2 the price of a nice house! You drive a $45,000 car off the lot and it looses $15,000 worth of value within seconds! In 3 or 4 yrs you have to spend $10,000 replacing the battery! You take a trip you have to stop every 90 min for a multi-hour charge!
Electric cars are nothing but a waste of tax-dollars, especially the $7,500 WELFARE HANDOUT!
its due Monday pple!! One day!!