Hybrid cars vs electric cars
| Hybrid cars vs electric cars07-09-2019 19:34 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Going all electric will require the construction of many new power stations and a whole lot of infrastructure. All of this will cause a lot of CO2 to be produced during the buildup. In other words the CO2 conc. in the atmosphere will get a lot worse before it gets better. Can you defeat climate change by throwing money at it (and CO2 at it)? Edited on 07-09-2019 19:35 |
| 07-09-2019 20:32 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21599) |
keepit wrote: Define 'climate change'. What is there to defeat? Let's just take 'climate change' out of it. The phrase is meaningless. Electric cars have their advantages and disadvantages. Factors in their favor is that they are quiet, handle snow and slippery conditions well (due to their independent traction motors), and can get decent range, about like a single tank of gasoline on a gasoline car. They require less maintenance than a gasoline car. They make an excellent commuter car. They absolutely suck at cross country driving. Factors working against them is their cost. They are expensive cars. They are essentially glorified electric golf carts, and have all the disadvantages of such vehicles. They require long periods of time to refuel them (typically eight hours or so). A gasoline car can be refueled in about 5 minutes, and that includes stopping in the convenience store at many stations to pick up a bottle of soda. Their batteries will eventually fail (five to ten years is their life span) and they will slowly lose the ability to hold a full charge more and more all the way. It's like a gasoline car that progressively has a smaller and smaller tank to store the gasoline in. Gasoline cars are are cheaper to buy. Gasoline cars make excellent cross country cars. They also make decent commuter cars. The Hybrid car is a combination. It can drive like an electric car, but it can be refueled like a gasoline car. Great factors in it's favor, but it has one big disadvantage. You are carrying around two engines for the price of one. The car gets no better gas mileage than any car of that size and weight, and the car is heavier than normal due to the two engines and two fuel systems in it. Now the infrastructure. This is built by market forces. The more electric cars we have, the more people will invest in electrical supplies to support them. People make money making electricity. If demand goes up, they can make more money making electricity. Making electricity requires an energy source. Oftentimes, that is oil or even coal. All you've done by putting a lot of electric cars on the road is to transfer where the oil is burned to a central power plant. Sure, you could build your own solar panel array and charge your car that way, but you can do that now to supply your electrical needs. What's the diff? Currently, market forces tend towards the use of oil or natural gas for mobile power supplies such as cars, trucks, ships, or aircraft. The infrastructure is already there because of market forces. Forcing one type of car over another is simply price controls all over again. They never work. The result is always the same: shortages. In this case, it will be a shortage of transportation. Let the market decide. If you want an electric car, go buy one. There are several models available now that are attractive. Like any car, some are better built than others. If you want a gasoline car, go buy one. Modern gasoline engines burn gasoline very efficiently and with little pollution, thanks to EGR systems and FADEC engine designs. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 07-09-2019 20:35 |
| 07-09-2019 23:22 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
keepit wrote: Electric cars would not requite new power plants to be built. The question is of efficiency. A gasoline combustion engine only uses 12% of the energy it produces to move the car forward. The other 88% are lost as heat. (you do need to break, but 12% is very low). It's more efficient to have a power plant produce electricity and for cars to use that. The first cars were electric so this is nothing new. The budget for gas for a family can run into the thousands. $1000 would be a reasonable amount for many. So it matters. |
| 07-09-2019 23:24 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Tmid, I don't get it. Where is al the new electricity going to come from? |
| 07-09-2019 23:30 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: Apologies I was dead wrong: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/evs-could-drive-38-rise-in-us-electricity-demand-doe-lab-finds/527358/ So a very good question is how it compares. A new power plant vs. the number of gas engines it would offset. |
| 07-09-2019 23:47 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: I believe 12% is kind of low, it's improved some since the 70s. And yes, if everyone is mandated to go electric vehicles, there is going to be a huge increase in electricity demands. The power grid in some areas fail under heavy demand periods, like when there is a heat wave (global warming), and during hard winter storms. As it sit now, it sort of averages out, under normal conditions, since high draw appliances don't run for hours at a time, non-stop, nor does use them at the same time. Imagine thousands of people charging their cars after work? It's similar to rush hour traffic, often a problem. You should also consider the tactics used, to compel the population to go 'green', it's by making carbon fuels expensive, which are also used to generate the electricity in many areas. Power companies can only raise prices so far, before people no longer can pay the bill every month. Not much profit in that. Maybe some of those jobs, Bernie Sanders had in mind, for people that would be unemployed in the gas and coal industries, could be riding stationary bikes hooked to generators. Or maybe they could push cars for people, who could afford a full charge... |
| 08-09-2019 00:01 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
HarveyH55 wrote:Since a car can charge in the off peak it could help even out demand. I always buy a car by checking the fuel economy here (it's real money): https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml    |
| 08-09-2019 00:21 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Consider the fact that many population scientists think that the world population will begin to shrink (other than poor africa) by around 2050 and consider the possibility that we won't hit some disastrous tipping point in the meantime, consider that if the world could just reduce the amount of money spent on CO2 production for a few decades, then the problem might be minimized during the 2nd half of the century. Also, consider that throwing a huge amount of money (and therefore CO2) at the problem might cause a tipping point that might not occur if we just took it easy on the money spending. |
| 08-09-2019 00:25 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
There would be no off-peak times, since the cars would be charging for hours. Day time peak, is also businesses, which drops considerably when they close for the day, and the works go home to charge their vehicles. When do you figure the post office, fire department, police, school buses, will be charging their vehicles? There are a lot of business that depend on transportation as well during the day. The real plan, is to stuff most of us on mass transit, likely still burning carbon based fuels. Independence is the enemy, the democrats want us all to be dependent. They don't want us to decide how to spend our money, they want to spend it all for us. Tend to believe some of those numbers in you graphic, are a little misleading. Climate control should be using more than 4%, least in Florida, during the summer. And a lot more for heat in the winter. One of the great things about internal combustion, plenty of heat to redistribute... |
| 08-09-2019 00:30 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote:But in India and China start living like the US has from an energy standpoint that's a huge increase even with a shrinking population. HarveyH55 wrote: I would think they already have the chargers able to adapt to grid demand. You don't need them charging for 12 hours. " For many electric cars, you can add up to 100 miles of range in ~35 minutes" Edited on 08-09-2019 00:30 |
| 08-09-2019 00:32 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Harvey, I'd like to see a real statistical analysis of the off peak hours argument. I'm sure there is a bit of an issue there in favor of your point though. |
| 08-09-2019 00:36 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Tmid, That is a great point you made about China and India. They are adding electric cars like crazy due to more people becoming able to buy cars but adding electric cars to satisfy new demand is better than adding gasoline cars like crazy. |
| 08-09-2019 01:00 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote:adding electric cars to satisfy new demand is better than adding gasoline cars like crazy. Yeah I was surprised how much more efficient electrics are in energy use. |
| 08-09-2019 01:11 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Yeah, i'm not an expert but it seems that electric is way ahead of hybrid which is way ahead of gas. I drive a midsize prius which gets me 65 MPG overall. |
| 08-09-2019 01:32 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: The thing not factored in is the energy lost in getting the energy. Power plants use fuel and it's not 100% efficient using it. And gasoline consumes energy to be produced. |
| 08-09-2019 01:48 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Crap the U.S. loses more than 67.8% of the electricity that is generated in our Grid. |
| 08-09-2019 03:00 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
i haven't gotten my head around the electric wastage thing but i know that my prius gets more than double the mileage of my previous chevy malibu. The cost of each car was about the same. The other thing is, whatever the wastage is it costs less dollars per mile to drive an electric car (except for the cost of the car and the cost of the infrastructure and power generating plant). It seems to me that fracking and hybrids and easing long term into the electric car mode is the best. Just wait and see how the population changes and the ice melt changes, etc. Edited on 08-09-2019 03:04 |
| 08-09-2019 03:06 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
keepit wrote: I've never seen any, just know that more people, plugging in, all at about the same time, is going to create a new peak demand. |
| 08-09-2019 03:12 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Harvey, I'm sure you're right. I wish i knew i knew more about peak usage and slack times. One of my best friends was an E.E. who worked on Hanford and Bonneville dam in a supervisory capacity. He died. I wish i knew enough at the time to ask him about these issues. I remember him saying one time that he was supervisor because he was the only one who could figure out the routings of power in his head. Edited on 08-09-2019 03:15 |
| 08-09-2019 03:13 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
keepit wrote: Do you think solar and wind farms can make up for gas an coal generating plants? Well, solar would be much good at night, when most people would want to charge their vehicles... |
| 08-09-2019 03:17 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
HarveyH55 wrote: The fleet of vehicles would offer electrical generation a vast system of energy storage in off peak. You can charge a vehicle whenever in theory. Solar is a good partner with air conditioning. I just can't get over our losing over half the electricity we generate! |
| 08-09-2019 03:20 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
What i know is from Great Courses (Professor Wysessions, The Science of Energy). He pointed out many things but he did say that solar uses up a lot of land which may become an issue. Wind doesn't use so much land. There are cars that can store energy while they are driving during the day. Then that energy can be put into a hand held battery and taken into the house and the battery can be used to run the house for awhile. Seems like that battery could be used to store energy from solar cells on your roof and then power your house when the sun is down. Edited on 08-09-2019 03:24 |
| 08-09-2019 03:25 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
Tmid, I can dig the problem with wastage. |
| 08-09-2019 03:27 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
The production of solar cells is polluting and dangerous to the workers who manufacture them. |
| 08-09-2019 04:04 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: Cool idea There's an interesting doc on batteries. Everything from cell phone batteries that can't catch on fire to batteries the size of cargo containers. Nova Search for the Super Battery 2017 ‧ Amazon prime |
| 08-09-2019 04:22 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
"We're gonna need a better battery" kind of like the line in Jaws, "we're gonna need a bigger boat". |
| 08-09-2019 06:37 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: Totally! They even have it in there where there as some hydroelectric plants that can use excess energy to pump the water back against gravity so they can use it later. Like a gravity battery. Maybe we all just need giant coo coo clock mechanisms on the sides of our houses. Edited on 08-09-2019 06:37 |
| 08-09-2019 06:56 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
There is no power storage on our current electric grid, basically use it or lose it. All those miles of wire have resistance, can't be avoided. We use alternating current, because transformers allow us to step up, or down the voltage, as needed, which also uses some power. Solar is direct current, you lose some converting it to AC, if you tie into your local grid (sell to the power company). If you have batteries, you can only push so much current in them at at time, or damage them. Your surplus is lost. If you over-discharge your batteries, the can be damaged too, so you need circuits to manage the charging, and prevent over discharge. Depending on the battery, it's only going to last 5 years, under normal use and abuse. If you are careful, you might get another year or two. Battery banks for the whole house, are fairly large, little dangerous, expensive too. There really is no city size storage solution. Basically, the same grid, the same waste... |
| 08-09-2019 07:45 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14414) |
keepit wrote: First of all, CO2 doesn't have any magickal superpowers to control the weather. Atmospheric CO2 may increase but it isn't getting "worse." It simply isn't a problem. It isn't a bad thing. CO2 is a life-essential compound. All life on earth depends on there being sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere and currently we are on the dangerously low side. Only someone who hates all life on earth and who would prefer to see global suffering and death of all species would consider sufficient CO2 to be a problem and would seek to reduce the amount available to plantlife worldwide. Secondly, going electric increases CO2 output. Only a tiny fraction of electric energy comes from solar and hydroelectric. The vast bulk comes from hydrocarbon-powered generation. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that every time energy changes form in a system that there is less usable energy in that system. In other words, to move a given car one mile it takes a lot less hydrocarbons to provide the energy needed by burning gasoline directly in a combustion engine than by burning gasoline to power a generator to provide the electricity to move the same car with an electric motor. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 08-09-2019 08:52 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
Here's an interesting article about a recent power outage in Britain. It was interesting, because they are big on the 'green' scene, which was the main cause of the blackout. They have a large assortment of various renewable energy sources, all hooked up to their traditional grid, which is still mainly powered in the traditional manner. Each, has certain points, that will cause a shut down, to prevent damage, and they talk to the other systems as well. They don't want to shut it all off at once, which can be dangerous too, but hope not to have a complete blackout. Basically, this is something we are going to see a lot of, since congress doesn't want to spend money on our power grid, since it's still works, why fix it? Don't know where people get the idea that stuff last for ever, and it's okay to wait until it fails... |
| 08-09-2019 10:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Efficiency varies widely. Many modern cars today are around 35% efficiency. Some have reached 38% efficiency. While the electric car is more efficient, it takes much longer to refuel one. This is it's major disadvantage. tmiddles wrote: The first electric cars were so weak kids could hold onto the rear bumper and prevent the car from leaving. It was quite the joke in the day. tmiddles wrote: And how much are you going to spend in electricity for charging that car? How much in waiting time? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:08 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: Power plants. Yup. That means bringing back coal power plants again to supplement the oil and natural gas plants we have now. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
HarveyH55 wrote:tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: It is very low. Cars haven't been that inefficient since the 60's, when induction systems had minimal equipment on them and they used downdraft carburetors. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:12 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:Since a car can charge in the off peak it could help even out demand. Fine, but remember, cross country use sucks. You get essentially one tankful, then you have to wait eight hours to charge it again. Gasoline cars can be refueled in about 5 minutes. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:13 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: There is no problem. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote:But in India and China start living like the US has from an energy standpoint that's a huge increase even with a shrinking population. No, you need eight to twelve hours to fully charge an electric car from dead. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:17 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote: I was going to point that out. You just found it first. Corona leakage and resistive losses in the wires account for the loss. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:18 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
HarveyH55 wrote:keepit wrote: Quite probably. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:19 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
HarveyH55 wrote:keepit wrote: Solar and wind are still the most expensive ways to produce electricity. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-09-2019 10:25 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: Wind uses more land than solar does. keepit wrote: But electric cars don't make it. keepit wrote: If you don't need to run much in the house. keepit wrote: Yes it can. Such a battery is called a 'ballast'. All solar and wind sources require a ballasting system. That can be a battery bank, pumping water to a higher elevation and then using the falling water as hydroelectric power, storing energy chemically, or even just raising a weight. In any solar or wind system, you should include the cost of ballasting that system. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate Hybrid cars vs electric cars:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The new USA electric tank, the dumbest invention in the history of warfare | 0 | 05-01-2024 15:27 |
| EV Muscle Cars? | 41 | 16-08-2023 15:00 |
| WHY DO SELF DRIVING CARS KEEP CAUSING TRAFFIC JAMS? | 15 | 11-05-2023 00:20 |
| LOL the US Army just bought a new GM all electric Hummer for military use | 32 | 25-07-2022 13:10 |
| Electric bus fire...........LOL | 3 | 28-05-2022 22:21 |