Electric cars 'pollute more than petrol or diesel'
151 replies, posted
Dont most oil companies hold patents that would make eletric cars even more efficient batterywise?
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924780]well I wasn't asking for a definitive answer haha.
perhaps fuel cells?[/QUOTE]
Lithium-Air batteries show potential. Though it still has it's skeptics.
Before I read I was sure this article meant the materials for the batteries and rare elements, but it means the coal from normal power plant, I guess this would be true on a widespread use, but electric cars will never become widespread anyway.
Honda predicts that by 2018 they could release hydrogen cars, which are the next evolution of the car.
[QUOTE=OvB;37925011]Lithium-Air batteries show potential. Though it still has it's skeptics.[/QUOTE]
The best batteries will never outperform fuel to engine. In my opinion that is, I have no facts to back it up, but fuel straight to the engine is faster and easier than batteries.
[QUOTE=patq911;37925034]Before I read I was sure this article meant the materials for the batteries and rare elements, but it means the coal from normal power plant, I guess this would be true on a widespread use, but electric cars will never become widespread anyway.
Honda predicts that by 2018 they could release hydrogen cars, which are the next evolution of the car.
The best batteries will never outperform fuel to engine. In my opinion that is, I have no facts to back it up, but fuel straight to the engine is faster and easier than batteries.[/QUOTE]
waaaat
this post is all sorts of weird
first off, hydrogen fuel cell cars are simply an alternative to batteries as energy storage. There still are electric motors. In fact, it adds one more step, which is even less "efficient" by your book. It goes hydrogen > fuel cell > motor, where in an electric car it's battery > motor.
But that's not accounting for your "fuel straight to the engine is faster and easier than batteries" fallacy.
The main reason why the acceleration of electric cars is so good is because the energy transfer is so much more faster from storage to kinetic energy.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37924392]Isn't it clear by now that we need to use and advance clean nuclear energy?[/QUOTE]
Chernobyl (even Japan to an extent.)
One (two, I guess) word(s) has essentially prevented the masses from ever seeing nuclear power as anything other than a potential disaster.
Why funnies? :(
Hydrogen's big problem is storage. Compressed gas tanks are heavy and dangerous, and solid storage methods are impractical for several reasons. Slow reactions require expensive catalysts to generate hydrogen in any reasonable timeframe, but there aren't any practical ways of recovering those catalysts after use, or recycling the byproducts by rehydrating them, and when left in solution (a typical assembly is to force said reactants through a fixed catalyst bed) the catalysts degrade.
I'm sure Honda has put significant R&D money into this, but having helped with similar research into different applications, those are significant hurdles for them to face
To me, electric is the best way to go. Hydrogen is just another way to complicate something that's as easy as having a battery and an electric motor. The only thing that brings it down, again, is the battery performance. Once we make that better, electric cars will be the best way to go.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37925125]waaaat
this post is all sorts of weird
first off, hydrogen fuel cell cars are simply an alternative to batteries as energy storage. There still are electric motors. In fact, it adds one more step, which is even less "efficient" by your book. It goes hydrogen > fuel cell > motor, where in an electric car it's battery > motor.
But that's not accounting for your "fuel straight to the engine is faster and easier than batteries" fallacy.
The main reason why the acceleration of electric cars is so good is because the energy transfer is so much more faster from storage to kinetic energy.[/QUOTE]
I just wanted to say that batteries will never, or, they have a long way to go for fast and easy charging and storage. With hydrogen, you just fill it up and go. It's easier to the end user.
Or maybe not, I don't know.
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;37925166]Hydrogen's big problem is storage. Compressed gas tanks are heavy and dangerous, and solid storage methods are impractical for several reasons. Slow reactions require expensive catalysts to generate hydrogen in any reasonable timeframe, but there aren't any practical ways of recovering those catalysts after use, or recycling the byproducts by rehydrating them, and when left in solution (a typical assembly is to force said reactants through a fixed catalyst bed) the catalysts degrade.
I'm sure Honda has put significant R&D money into this, but having helped with similar research into different applications, those are significant hurdles for them to face[/QUOTE]
But you won't need a heavy engine in the car, just a lighter electric motor, so I think you have some wiggle room for storage space and weight.
I was looking at this site: [url]http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production_cost_analysis.html[/url] and I was wondering why they used kilograms to weigh it? You mentioned "solid storage methods", but I thought compressed/liquid hydrogen was a liquid under pressure, why not measure it in liters or gallons?
[QUOTE=Vollybomb;37924409]At least you still don't have to spend money on gas.
[editline]5th October 2012[/editline]
As the car owner, of course[/QUOTE]
Your electric bill can skyrocket.
[QUOTE=patq911;37925216]I just wanted to say that batteries will never, or, they have a long way to go for fast and easy charging and storage. With hydrogen, you just fill it up and go. It's easier to the end user.
Or maybe not, I don't know.[/QUOTE]
No, you don't know. Like I said, the inability to just 'fill it up and go' in a safe, inexpensive, repeatable manner is where hydrogen falls flat
Here in Oregon, we use (mosty) clean forms of energy to generate electricity, so its all good.
.
Its quite simple. Electric cars have like, what 90% efficiency rate while cars running on petrol have a 50% or so efficiency rate. (If efficiency rate was 100%, that'd mean ALL energy is transforming into kinetic energy, and if efficiency rate was 0%, that'd mean ALL energy is transforming into heat)
That basically means electric cars require less energy to move.
And that basically means, when done right, it pollutes a lot less than a normal car.
Yeah and what about the fact that a good portion of solar panels today require more energy to make than they provide in their entire lives?
The technology is getting better, just give it some time.
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;37925166]Hydrogen's big problem is storage. Compressed gas tanks are heavy and dangerous, and solid storage methods are impractical for several reasons. Slow reactions require expensive catalysts to generate hydrogen in any reasonable timeframe, but there aren't any practical ways of recovering those catalysts after use, or recycling the byproducts by rehydrating them, and when left in solution (a typical assembly is to force said reactants through a fixed catalyst bed) the catalysts degrade.
I'm sure Honda has put significant R&D money into this, but having helped with similar research into different applications, those are significant hurdles for them to face[/QUOTE]
My chemistry professor was telling me that they are making significant strides toward building the entire car out of hydrogen fuel blocks. I wish I could remember all the details (this was about a year ago at 8 AM so its a bit fuzzy), but there was something perhaps about because the body of the car is a fuel block, it would be able to store huge amounts of Hydrogen, and then maybe even capture some Hydrogen from the air (though that doesn't sound right). I wish I could remember. Either way, you could probably tell me better than I could.
[editline]5th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Str4fe;37925324]Its quite simple. Electric cars have like, what 90% efficiency rate while cars running on petrol have a 50% or so efficiency rate. (If efficiency rate was 100%, that'd mean ALL energy is transforming into kinetic energy, and if efficiency rate was 0%, that'd mean ALL energy is transforming into heat)
That basically means electric cars require less energy to move.
And that basically means, when done right, it pollutes a lot less than a normal car.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, within the car, but the argument is the efficiency used when generating the electricity is less, and/or produces more pollution.
[QUOTE=Unreliable;37925251]Your electric bill can skyrocket.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-an-electric-car.htm]It costs about two to four dollars to charge an electric car[/url]
[QUOTE=Vollybomb;37925451]It costs about two to four dollars to charge an electric car[/QUOTE]
considering my electric bill is like 12 bucks, yeah that will make it skyrocket :v:
[QUOTE=Unreliable;37925251]Your electric bill can skyrocket.[/QUOTE]
Still MUCH less than gas.
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;37925267]No, you don't know. Like I said, the inability to just 'fill it up and go' in a safe, inexpensive, repeatable manner is where hydrogen falls flat[/QUOTE]
But how? From what I've seen, while right now hydrogen is twice the price of gasoline, the cars have twice the mileage, and hydrogen is renewable.
For safety just lock the pump in place, for inexpensive all things become cheaper eventually, even for the Honda FCX, which went from $1mil to make, to $140,000 in 2008, and for repeatable, it's just like a gas powered car.
I don't see any disadvantages.
[QUOTE=monkey11;37925284]Here in Oregon, we use (mosty) clean forms of energy to generate electricity, so its all good.[/QUOTE]
There isn't really a "clean" source of energy right now besides solar.
Wind sucks energy out of the atmosphere which can have bad effects on the environment.
Hydro-electricity fucks up the flow of rivers and can hurt salmon spawning(which has huge impacts on the environment at large)
Nuclear energy has toxic by-product which needs to be disposed of properly in order to have negligible effect on the environment.
Coal/Oil is already well known.
[QUOTE=Vollybomb;37925451][url=http://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-an-electric-car.htm]It costs about two to four dollars to charge an electric car[/url][/QUOTE]
And it's free to charge Tesla's at supercharging stations. (charges an empty battery to half power in 30 minutes) Take a road trip cross country without spending a time filling up. Try to do that in a gas car.
[QUOTE=monkey11;37925409]Yeah, within the car, but the argument is the efficiency used when generating the electricity is less, and/or produces more pollution.[/QUOTE]
Power plants usually have pretty good efficiency rates. Those that dont shouldnt be used anyway.
Anyways, i have an electric scooter, it costs about 1 dollar to travel 500km with it. Incredibly cheap stuff.
Also, im studying to be an electrician in a vocational institute, im on my last year.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37924443]Clean coal, it's also currently our most abundantly feasible energy resource.[/QUOTE]
The sun would like a word with you.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37925540]There isn't really a "clean" source of energy right now besides solar.
Wind sucks energy out of the atmosphere which can have bad effects on the environment.
Hydro-electricity fucks up the flow of rivers and can hurt salmon spawning(which has huge impacts on the environment at large)
Nuclear energy has toxic by-product which needs to be disposed of properly in order to have negligible effect on the environment.
Coal/Oil is already well known.[/QUOTE]
wind really hasn't had a proven negative effect.
No fucking shit they do. The batteries do more damage before the car's ever bought than an SUV or pickup does in 25 years, and running is only green if your local power grid is green.
Yet another reason why electric cars are just a pipe dream and not the actual answer.
Solar is best applied when panels are placed on rooftops. They're not very good for industrial or commercial applications.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37925698]wind really hasn't had a proven negative effect.[/QUOTE]
They're hideous, they only work in certain areas, and then there's this...
[video=youtube;7nSB1SdVHqQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ[/video]
This all means wind farms only work in a select few areas. Other areas they either don't work, get attacked by NIMBYism, or explode when a storm rolls through.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;37925655]The sun would like a word with you.[/QUOTE]
Good luck harnessing it on a scale as large as the typical powerplant.
[QUOTE=Coffee;37925760]Solar is best applied when panels are placed on rooftops.[/QUOTE]
But then we can't have [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_roof]green roofs[/url]!
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37925698]wind really hasn't had a proven negative effect.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html[/url]
I'm assuming this is credible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.