GAO: Electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions
posted at 9:22 pm on July 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The push for conversion to plug-in electric cars will do nothing to stop carbon emissions, a report by the GAO warns, throwing cold water on a push by Democrats to get more plug-ins on the road. In fact, the problem could be made worse as demand goes up at coal-fired electrical plants. Plus, the need for batteries may just have the US changing the dictators to which we’re chained, as IBD reports:
It’s a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.
“If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?” asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: “Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy.”
The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.
This misses another point as well, one I mentioned during the campaign. Obama wants the US to decrease its electrical demand over the next several years as a means of conservation as we switch away from coal and other fossil fuels as a source for power. Transferring cars from gasoline to electricity would vastly increase demand for power at the outlet, which would conflict with the decrease Obama wants to mandate. The result would be prices skyrocketing even higher, and people unable to use their vehicles from a lack of ability to pay for recharging them.
Of course, we have a source for electricity in abundance: nuclear power. IBD suggests that a program to rapidly expand our nuclear-power generation could fill the gap while generating zero carbon emissions. The Obama administration and the Democrats don’t want that, though. They shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility, which would have recycled used fuel rods into material for more nuclear power, giving us an almost-completely renewing resource for decades into the future.
The GAO also points out that electric cars would have the US trading one set of dictators for another in order to power our cars. The batteries for electric vehicles are lithium-ion, and for the experimental production levels in the US at this moment, we have enough lithium resources to keep pace. However, once we start building electric cars in mass numbers, we will quickly run through our proven stores of lithium. We would most likely have to do business with Hugo Chavez lackey Evo Morales of Bolivia, where half of the world’s proven stores of lithium reside. Even if we didn’t buy directly from the leftist leader, Morales has the ability to set the global price — just as Saudi Arabia and OPEC do with oil.
Plug-in electrics just trade one carbon source for another, one dictator for another, and deliver a lower-standard vehicle. It’s about as lose-lose as it gets, at least without nuclear power to fuel it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Apparently, it isn’t enough energy to be worth the price of putting them on. This may be a little out of date, but I have heard that the energy it takes to make a solar panel is comparable with the energy one gets out of it over a lifetime of use.
Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Heh
Vashta.Nerada on July 10, 2009 at 9:59 AM
elgeneralisimo on July 10
I have a magical electricity generating unicorn. I keep it in a cloud corral and feed it rainbows and Obama posters. I only misplaced her once, but my meds were adjusted and she’s been with me ever since.
SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Let me guess. They have time travel in the 81st century?
;*)
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM
LOLOL..That made my morning
Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Just for information purposes the method of controlling off peak power fluctuations is called load following. It’s a pain in the ass for operations and extremely difficult for a nuke plant.
That said American ingenuity will find a way to make the best out of a bad situation. This was our solution to allow us to base load our nukes 24/7 and limit load following for the rest of our system. It also allows us to actually store a significant portion of what silverfox refers to as off peak power. It works extremely well and, believe it or not, it was very cost effective.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Another area (one of many) where John McCain could have been effective, but chose not to be. Arizona has the country’s largest nuclear electric-generating power plant (Palo Verde), producing lots of clean, relatively cheap energy for Arizonans and neighbors. The plant is located about 40 miles outside of Phoenix, where McCain’s main residence is located and where his children were raised, so he could have spoken with some authority about how nuclear power is safe and clean and cost-effective. McCain could have been educating the public about the benefits of nuclear power, as contrasted with the limitations of solar and wind power (at least with current technology). But, as with so many other things, McCain didn’t make the effort.
AZCoyote on July 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM
” This was our solution …”
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM
.
That, sir, is extremely cool
Thanks for sharing.
CaveatEmpty on July 10, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Only if you mount them vertically and there is a good tail wind. In a cross wind you could tack back and forth across the freeway like you are sailing.
Geochelone on July 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM
I thought Republicans were all for reducing dependence on foreign oil? Wouldn’t it be a good thing even if Democrats think it’s a good thing for another reason? (A win/win!)
The GOP party line seems to be that global warming is a scam, so what do you care if you think electric cars will increase pollution? (They won’t, but it shouldn’t matter.)
Electric cars need electricity, some electricity production emits CO2. You haven’t figured out a stunning new idea here and the people who make (and are trying to popularize the idea of) electric cars have a much better grasp than you. The difference between electricity and oil is there are many ways to product electricity without emitting CO2, but there are no ways to burn oil without emitting it. On top of that electric motors are much more efficient than gasoline engines. That’s one reason why hybrids get such good mileage.
In the US we have about 30% of our electricity being made in a carbon free manner (the largest being nuclear, but a good chunk in the Western US is hydroelectric). Only half is coal. I think everyone here can agree that nuclear would be great to expand, but either way this energy is *domestic*. That’s a good thing right?
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 10:26 AM
The electricity costs (admittedly at today’s rates) for charging an electric vehicle is $40 per month.
Average gasoline costs are $200 per month.
Anyone want to save $2000 per year?
And NEVER have to change oil again. Plus, no filters, tuneups, antifreeze, fuel injection cleanings, etc.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 10:36 AM
faraway on July 10, 2009
And I’m sure there are no hidden costs and unintended consequences, right?
SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 10:41 AM
We need nuke plants, now. We need more secure electric power. Better batteries.
But we can make those things happen. Someone has to lead us in the right direction.
Internal combustion engines have flamed out.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers but energy is energy. You say $200 a month for gas. Ok let’s go with that. Average price in my area is $2.75 per gallon so for $200 you get about 73 gallons. 73 gallons of gasoline renders around 8.4 million btu. 8.4 million btu translates to over 2400 kwh of electricity. Now granted that is not a really accurate engineering study but it’s better than good enough for gubbmint work. So you’re telling me you can get 2400 kwh of electricity for $40….where? Perhaps you think you can go the same distance with an electric car on less energy. Maybe so, but not that much less.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM
This provided a much needed chuckle this morning, thanks!
One thing people seem to forget is that electric cars are throw aways. Once your batteries die, that’s it, you toss that car in the dump or whatever and go by a new one. What are the enviromental effects from those lithium battieries sitting in land fills? What about the cost of replacing the car when it dies, versus being able to fix a car yourself?
It seems to me that the govn’t wants to push more and more crap down our throats, but don’t want to explain or even look at the long term consequences. A quick fix now does not solve the long term problem.
/my Friday 2 cents
anj413 on July 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Everything mechanical requires maintenance. Electric motors DO require lubrication AND cooling, my experience comes from actually working on these things. Are there less oils/coolants involved?…yes… but there is NO free lunch. And what becomes of the 150-200 lb block of toxic metals that comprise the battery when it has lived out its life, multiply that by MILLIONS od these being on the road…again, NO free lunch. I`m not trying to slam elec/hybrids, they feed my family and IMO are a valuable part of the equation but a panacea they are not.
NY Conservative on July 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Actually, its 350. Your logic is backwards.
EPA-certified electricity consumption is 28 kWh per 100 miles on EPA combined cycle
11.38 cents per kwh average electricity cost.
1250 miles per month (15000 per year) at 28 kwh per 100 miles times 11.38 cents = 40 dollars per month
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM
What do you mean “more secure electric power”? Is it somehow unsecure? Exactly how would you make it more secure? My internal combustion powered pick up truck works just fine. Fuel is plentiful right now. So plentiful in fact that the oil companies are having storage problems with the surplus. One thing we agree on is that we need more nuke power plants. Of course there is a slight lag in building them. If one was started today Obama would not be president when it went on line, even if he somehow managed two terms. Another thing we agree on is better batteries. That’s happening. Not because of anything the government is doing but because there is an increased demand from consumers so in order to compete and grab those consumers better more efficient longer lasting batteries are being developed by private manufacturers.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Recycling
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I didn’t know how to phrase it correctly. If we are relying on electric power for most of our energy needs, we will be very vulnerable to destruction or disabling of power lines.
That is probably my biggest concern if we go electric. What happens if we go dark for a period of time?
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Really, well just to make sure try this.
Go here plug in 8.4 million btu convert to KWH and tell me what number comes out.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM
That looks rude as I look back on it. Sorry for that.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM
OK hows about we put that recycling plant right in your back yard?..again, NO free lunch. Do you have any idea how large of an operation would be required to recycle the massive amounts of nickel/cadmium/lithium that a Nation-sized fleet of these vehicles would produce? Again they are part of the equation NOT the solution…IMO.
NY Conservative on July 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM
What I am saying is that you are taking the energy required to run an internal combustion engine. The case should be based on the energy required to run a correctly sized electric motor.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Oh? I figured this long time back, but convinced myself that the scientists and economists have their PhDs and would have factored increasing emissions from electricity plants into account.
sram on July 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Stimulus baby!
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Well… the Navy always is ahead of its time… LOL….
8006…. sixth class of 1980…
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM
How much energy does it take to lift a 1kg mass 1 foot at 1g?
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM
NY conservative, at least this “stimulus” would provide long term jobs. Not part-time temp construction jobs like Obama’s “stimulus”.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM
haha That’s that hi-falutin higher math stuff I’ve been hearin’ about.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Agreed, this little place could be a role model for the next generation of motivation in America (too bad it`s a Canadian facility)it`s where the nickel is mined for one of the better known hybrids on the road today.
http://www.sprol.com/2005/06/the-inco-mine-at-sudbury-ontario/
NY Conservative on July 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Debate all you wish, but until an energy source is developed that eclipses the advantages of oil, y’all can be assured that the IC engine will remain the prime mover.
At least for those who live bound by reality.
irongrampa on July 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM
All that means is gasoline is less efficient than electricity, that much is pretty obvious.
jonknee on July 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Replace the coal with nukes and you might have something.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM
My point is that energy is energy. Doesn’t matter if it’s electrical, chemical, nuclear or fairy dust. It takes x amount of energy to produce y amount of work. If you use x btu in moving your car from point a to point b it doesn’t matter what the source is. If the conditions are the same the energy expenditure will be the same. My logic is not backwards. If you use $200 worth of gas in travel then using an electric car you will use approximatly the same amount of electrical energy to go the same distance. You can factor in differences in efficiency, friction in the engine etc. but it ain’t gonna change it much.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM
It depends… is that before or after the House Legislation currently being marked up in Barney Franks comitee gets passed?
You know, the one to rewrite the Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy? (cause they are so… like… last century!).
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM
The USA is the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal. Let’s please stop being stupid and build 1000s more coal-fired electricity generation plants.
Knott Buyinit on July 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Sorry, less efficient how? Before you go further define efficiency.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Oldnuke, I gave you an opportunity to gracefully back out, but your numbers are flawed somewhere. I will leave it up to you to find the error.
The facts are not in doubt. Gas price is $200. Electricity costs are $40.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:26 AM
About three joules.
But it is much easier if you stick to pure metrics.
Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:28 AM
I had completely forgotten about that! I’ll immediately go back and introduce the FDF into my equations. You know the fairy dust factor. :-) Oh wow! When I do that entropy gets reversed and you actually get more energy out than you put in! We will now be able to drive all day and then plug our ugly little cars in to the grid and dump all the excess electricity out to power the world! We will now be able to shut down all those tree killing power plants…rainbows for everybody! :-)
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM
More importantly we are the Saudi of NATURAL GAS.
We could convert our national transporation grid to Natural gas… which burns cleaner… and we already have the existing technology to do it.
Cars and trucks and buses are on the road TODAY that run off of CNG. Your car can be converted to CNG for a few hundred dollars, and Europe has cars that run (at the flick of a switch) off of either CNG or regular Gasoline.
Problem is that people won’t convert because gas stations don’t have fill pumps yet… but if some big company made that investment???? Wow…
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Just buy a new $20,000 battery pack every two years.
And that claim that you can charge an electric for $40 doesn’t take into account the fact that from the wall to the motor is less than 50% efficient for most electrics.
It also doesn’t take into account the fact that depending on where you live, more than half the cost of gas is road taxes. Taxes that will be added to electrics if they ever become common.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM
:-) Yeah, I have a habit of doing that.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM
You are consistent in your incorrectness.
daesleeper on July 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I guess the fact that we’ve been looking for this mythical battery for 100 years now is irrelevant.
If we just wish hard enough, it will happen.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM
I doubt them so they are in doubt.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM
That sounds fishy.
I think power production is at most twice as efficient in electrical plants as in a car’s internal combustion engine, which quickly gets eaten up by transmition costs and electrical motor inefficiency. So, unless the base fuel being used in the power plants is an order of magnitude cheaper per joule than gasoline, there is something wrong with the calculation.
On the other hand, with all the taxes, additives, and restrictions on gasoline, maybe it is ten times more expensive than coal.
Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Yeah, I thought so too. Sounds eerily similar to “The consensus is in” doesn’t it.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. States average roughly 20 cents. Maybe your gas costs 80 cents per gallon?
38 cents per gallon equates to roughly $30 per month. (1250 miles per month)
To compare:
- fuel costs $200 (with 30 in tax)
- electricity costs $70 (40 for power, 30 for Obama)
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM
My mom came to America, from India back in the ’50s, so she and her yet-to-be-born children had opportunity…and folks, this isn’t opportunity…turning America into a thrid world country to drive pedi-cabs like they had in India decades ago! My sewing machine motor has more power than that death trap of a car, or is that their point? Less people to have to cover with Obamacare.
The best and the brightest did this to us…the Stanford and Harvard MBA crowd. Shame on Washington DC and the folks that voted for them.
Dig it, Drill it, Cut it down!
JOBS, JOBS, JOBS
luvstotango on July 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM
You just awaken from a 20 year hibernation? Try Tesla, Volt, etc. They are good enough to get started.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM
That isn’t what I was talking about, punk.
I am saying that, unless coal is one tenth the cost of gasoline per joule of energy, all taxes include, the numbers you are quoting are bogus, regardless of how rosy they look.
Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM
I imagine a gas engine is much less efficient when idling compared to an electric motor. Gas engines are igniting fuel in all cylinders at 1200 rpm or so at idle.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM
You just slept through a market ecnomics class? No one is going to buy them.
daesleeper on July 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Mark, the $40 was for an entire month of charges, according to faraway.
I’ve seen that 50% efficiency number somewhere else but I don’t remember where. An electrical transformer is pretty close to a hundred percent efficient but the change from ac to dc will throw something into the mix. Have you got a reference to how that’s derived. I’d be interested in reading it.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Try not to be so emotional. Let’s just stick to facts.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM
The also cost $100,000 and the battery pack has to be replaced every couple of years. If you think that is good enough, your crazy.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I love you man…or woman.
I’ve been an extractive metallurgist for 20 years and I constantly defend my occupation to tree hugging retards everywhere I go. Nobody seems to believe that the key to high standard of living is developing natural resources.
Wyznowski on July 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Key words. How much less do you feel it is? Do you actually know what efficiency is?
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Tesla Roadsters (at $100,000 each) were sold out before production. The Tesla S will go out at $50k each.
We can place wagers on the Volt. The Volt is GM’s entry into the field. They will produce an improved version as they go.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Which is why we have highway millage and city millage.
Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Interesting… just looked over the Tesla site, again…
They base their CO2 and energy savings on electricity generated by Natural Gas.
I’ve got to look at the real efficiency numbers because they don’t make sense from a physics viewpoint.
Transmission of Electricity in and of itself in our current grid is only about 50% efficient.
That would mean, just to make up for THAT part of the energy equation… that the Gas burned in a Power plant, would have to be able to produce almost twice the available energy than a CNG based engine in a car…
Hmmmm…. gonna have to dig a bit deeper… may not be today as I need to go paint the back deck though… LOL
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The difference between the two amounts is trivial.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM
So anything that creates jobs is good, regardless of how much it costs?
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Thanks for making my case. LOL.
daesleeper on July 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM
He doesn’t understand conservation of energy. Note his constant reference to dollars and cents.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM
You punked out on responding to my statement, so I called up a punk — no emotion involved, really.
Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM
You are assuming that the process of creating electricity and getting it to the motor is 100% efficient.
It isn’t, not by a long shot.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM
But…but…electricity is magic!
Anybody who dreams of a future full of electric cars, but protests the construction of new nuclear power plants with which to charge them, is essentially an idiot.
Blacklake on July 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Again, I’m trying to help you out here. A gas engine is using energy when it idles – almost as much as when its going down the road. An electric motor – not so much.
Keep digging.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Everyone who disagrees with your favorite dream is wrong.
You don’t know how, but they must be.
Let me guess. You’re still in high school, aren’t you.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM
You know what the beauty of coal and oil is? It doesn’t lose energy when it is transported.
daesleeper on July 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM
The idea of 100 million utter amatuers who are paying more attention to the a$$ of the lady at the other pump then they are to what they are doing, handling all of those high pressure hoses gives me the willies.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Oh, brother. MarkTheGreat, super genius. Mark, we are not talking rocket science here. I have a kid in high school. Maybe he could help you out.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I’ve seen that number bandied around too. I asked a couple of my friends the other day about it. They should know, both engineers, both senior VPs and ex station managers at nuke plants. They spit out numbers that were much better than that and laughed uproariously when I mentioned 50%. Apparently T&D technology has come a long way contrary to what the congressional whiners are saying.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
And there are three Prius’s in my neighborhood… all sitting in driveways. They all drive their SUVs and BMWs to work instead.
Tesla… 45 MINUTE FAST charge time. Lets see… charge every 200 miles… just the charge time would add about 4 1/2 hours of travel time to my next California trip…
I also notice the disclaimer on their site, saying range is dependent on how you drive… so you will probably get LESS range than advertised (IMO).
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Well, it does cost energy to transport it.
Plus, gasoline is pretty highly refined.
NSTAAFL
Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I don’t need your help and I’m not in a hole.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM
He found an EPA document (like that’s a reliable source anyway) that measured how much energy it takes to move a car, and converted that amount directly to an electric equivalent.
The problem is it assumes that there is zero energy loss from the charging plug to the motor. It also ignores the various taxes.
But what the hey, having big dreams is more important than reality anyway.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM
What kind of numbers are the saying?
I’m working off of fairly old public data… and it was a study of the entire grid… and may have had numbers in about non peak hours and energy wasted…
Looked a bit on the net for newer data… but have not really found a good study/site yet…
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Yea, agree. The successful plugins (like the Volt) will have electric motor as primary with a gas backup (sorta like a generator from Home Depot) to charge the battery/ run the car. Note that most hybrids are stupid – gas primary with electric backup.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Try not to speak so often from ignorance.
Idle speed depends on the engine.
Mine is closer to 700 when warm.
The amount of fuel that enters the cylinder when idling is significantly less than enters it when cruising.
Perhaps you were unaware of that.
Idling engines can be turned off.
Many cars rarely idle. Depends on how or were you drive.
How far is your electric car going to get if you have to turn on the AC or heater?
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Secret costs.
The electrics run about 20 miles on a charge. That means you will have to charge to get home from work.
The parking lots alongside highways will hold hundreds of cars waiting for their 3 hour rapid charge.
It looks like the parking charge will be 10-20 dollars. NO one will buy electricity on the road at household rates. You do not buy a 10 dollar car wash and pay merely household water rates.
Pick your nose, read more quotations of Chairman Barry, scratch places and the 3 hours on a road trip will pass quickly untill 30 minutes later you stop for another 3 hour quick charge.
When I mentioned 3 hours every 20 miles for charging, another pro warming hysteria web site deleted my post. That may mean why Mini cooper will lease you an electric and not sell it. 850 per month. E-Mini will run 3 hours on a 3 hour charge.
seven on July 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM
No doubt. Don’t know what your acronym means… I’m just sick and tired of oil and coal being castigated as being dirty and evil. Those energy sources are neither. They are brilliant stores of energy. Let’s use them up.
daesleeper on July 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Volt 40, Tesla 200 or more. Try again.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM
You’ll have to take this with a grain of salt since I don’t really have any references you can check. But the number they both spit out was between one and five percent loss from generator output to customer. That number is an average because of the varying distances from customer to customer. It also sounded a little low to me but they seemed very confident. One of these days when I’m not busy doing nothing I’ll give one of my T&D buds a call, the ones who actually do the calcs, and get the real numbers and an update on technology. T&D wasn’t my thing once it left our switchyard I lost interest in it :-)
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM
With automobiles, oil is the best bang for the buck.
Johan Klaus on July 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM
So you are saying a gas engine is more efficient when idling?
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Nice try, but you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Source:
http://sections.asme.org/florida/ASME%20Fla%20Section%20Virtual%20Mythbusters.html
strictnein on July 10, 2009 at 12:07 PM
I’m saying that you are trying to over simplify the situation.
Not unusual for someone trying to defend a topic he doesn’t understand.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Linky
Read up electric car haters :)
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM
If it’s not rocket science, why do you have so much trouble understanding it?
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM
see above.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I keep forgetting to bow to your awesome brilliantness :)
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I’m pretty sure that most of these units use switching supplies to do the step down. That would handle the conversion of ac to dc as well. A top end switcher can push 99% efficiency. Somehow I doubt they paid for that much excellence in these things. So the efficiency is probably in the 90-95% range. From what I’ve read, most of these units use AC motors, (lighter, more reliable) so there would be an ac/dc converter between the battery and the motor. You don’t need a pure sine wave for an AC motor to work, however the closer you get to that sine wave, the more efficient the motor will be.
The big loss in this circuit comes from charging and discharging the battery. Converting electrical energy to chemical energy, and back again.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Crow for sale.
faraway on July 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM
And just how many people do you know with more money than sense?
There’s a reason why GM had to just about give away their electric cars back before they gave up on them.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM
You see Strictnein you’re just a deluded fool like the rest of us who don’t base our conclusions on feelings. Why I’d believe a piss-ant review from a totally trustworthy and unbiased gubbmint website before I’d accept anything the ASME said. Who is this ASME anyway anybody ever hear of them? Oh, and stop digging yourself into a hole with facts. Don’t you know that the consensus is in and his facts are not in doubt! WassamattaU?
Oldnuke on July 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »