Slashdot Mirror
What Does the Future Hold for Low Emission Vehicles?
Bryan Andersen asks: "While searching for information on electric vehicles to make an EV Hot Rod I came across this Op Ed piece at EV World about James Cameron's Dark Angel series for fall. It got me thinking just what would it take to get low or zero emission vehicles common place? What has to change? What do people think is the future of low or zero emission vehicles? And just what is the state of the art in both manufactured and home built ones? What cool technologies are down the pike? Electric vehicles are something that I very much like the concept of. Every year or two I get the crazy idea of building an electric vehicle. Last time it was doing a motorcycle. This time it's a street rod. A few years before that it was for a hybrid/electric drive for an RV."
1. what if it breaks
2. Do I have to plug it in.
Since right now there is no real way generate electricity without using gasolene, people will never buy purely electric because they are afraid that if there isn't a plug then they will be stranded somewhere. This is why the future is with hybrid cars, at least for the time being.
Basically, a hybrid is a car that runs on a gas engine, and when the engine is turning it also turns an electric generator which charges a special battery. For example, with a normal car, when going downhill the engine is in idle and its still using juice, but nothing is being produced. In this situation, the gas would be off and the battery would charge.
Also, in a normal car when you break the extra energy is dissipated in heat and friction. with this, that energy is harnessed to turn the electric motor. The result is that when the car is going under 25 miles an hour, the gas motor is completely off and its super efficient as well as quiet. Because of this, the emmisions of these cars are two to four percent of a normal car. In other words, one hybrid equals about thirty normal cars.
They are actually pretty cheap too. The one we got is a toyota prius, it just came out and its 19,900 bucks. pretty good. They've been out in japan for a while and sold about 30,000 units, and they are making 10,000 for the U.S. and if they sell out they will make more. The one problem with this is that the batteries are still pretty expensive to make, and they have to come down in price. Still, with the full package for under 20k and you don't have to plug it in, this is going to be a big seller. Also, it looks exactly like a normal four door car.
In general, people want to do what's right for the environment, you just have to make it easy to swallow. That's what hybrids do. The ease of a normal car, but with the preformance near an all electric vehicle.
I am personally getting sick of people who say "we should all move to electrical vehicles." The main problem is the the answer to, 'where does the electricity they use come from?' And the answer surely does not come out of thin air like many "wantabe" environmentalists think it does!
Electric cars use upto 5 times as much fossil fuels than ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles.
How and why? First off, the electricity is produced at a power plant, of which, the nation still relies on 70-80% of fossil fuels to generate. Secondly, the efficiency of first generating the electricity from fossil fuels to drive a motor by electricity, rather than via an ICE is much, much lower. And, finally, there is a lot of transmission loss between the power plant, relay stations to your home (the most likely location where you will charge your vehicle). And there is the fact that the current power generation infrastructure could not meet the power generation needs to support home charging of electrical cars if 1/4th of America was driven them. In addition, I think most Americans would take exception to a $400-500 "electrical bill" even if they did not have to fuel their vehicles elsewhere.
In addition, because the elctricity is still generated from fossil fuels 70-80% of the time, the belief that it is "zero emissions" is just untrue. Now on the flip-side I will admit that power generation from fossil fuels at a power plant is less of a polutant than generation from fossil fuels in an ICE -- probably by an order of magnitude. So even if it takes 5 times as much gas to power the electric vehicle and, therefore 5 times as much fossil fuels are used, the total number of pollutants are probably cut in half. I.e. 5 (times as much fuel) x 1/10 (the pollution per unit fuel) = 1/2 (the total pollution).
So, at best, the "zero emissions electric vehicle" is a flight of fantasy, at least until we either develop direct heat to electricity generation (by passing the traditional steam turbine/generator system of today), possibly in combination with commodity fusion power generation (until which, we will be dependent on fossil fuels).
And if you are even thinking of solar power, don't bother. Solar cells would have to be 25 times as efficient as they exist now. Putting solar panels atop of your hood, top and trunk would not even yield enough power to go a few miles after several hours of charge. Wind power is in the same boat, although it it is more efficent than solar.
The reality of reduced fossil fuel dependence comes not from its total elimination. No. The best solutions come in "hybrid" electric vehicles where an ICE is used in combination with electric systems. Everything from alternators to flywheels are used to generate and charge the batteries while the ICE is running. Hybrid vehicles can almost double the MPG (miles per gallon) rating of vehicles over their ICE-only components.
Looking beyond just they ICE-electric hybrid, we can look at one petroleum replacement, and another one electrical source (other than direct battery storage and recharge). CNG (compressed natural gas) is one since it burns much cleaner than petroleum, and is in limited used in largely application-specific commercial vehicles (like various commercial utility trucks, etc...). Hydrogen fuel cells are a promising technology that will make electric cars much more efficient than charged and discharged batteries. But, both CNG and fuel cells have serious safety issues in their on-board storage in that massive explosions can result in rupture of their tanks (much larger than possible with petroleum-based ones because of the pressure and density of CNG, and the volitity of hydrogen in fuel cells).
Lastly, some may remember "gasohol", an ICE fuel replacement for petroleum. Gasohol is a reality, and can be used to power ICE. In fact, the US' total agriculture capability could meet the world's total demand for gasahol at least two times over if petroleum did not exist tomorrow. The reason it does not today is because of the cost of its refining into an end-user product. Not so much in the refining process itself, but in the massive and quite useless by-products and waste as a result of the refining process. As such, until petroleum resources start to dry up and drive costs of a crude barrel at least 5 times more than the cost today, gasohol will remain a relatively untapped technology.
I seriously hope I educated some individuals here. I don't work the petroleum industry nor do I defend them -- I'm actually quite critical, especially in light of the little effort by everyone in the US to push for the development and maturity of economical fusion power generation (which I believe is possible). I'm just an engineer who is sick of reading various comments on "electrical cars" or "renewable energies/fuels." Let's talk reality people or not talk at all!
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
The government in Germany recently increased fuel taxes to the point that fuel costs 2 DM per liter (slightly less than $4/gal).
The effect is that everyone is complaining about the tremendous fuel prices, while nobody can do anything about it.
Even in many of the bigger cities, there are no facilities to refill alternate fuel-cars.
Public transportation is not an alternative in many locations because it's even more expensive and not even available to a real extent in some of the more rural areas.
People who could afford getting a new car that just uses up less traditional fuel are not the ones hit hardest.
People who are still driving a 15 years-old car that obviously needs more fuel than recent technology simply because they can't afford buying a new car are in real trouble.
A more sane approach, IMO, would be to
Since the demand will obviously grow (because of #2), they'll know they need to do it sooner or later. If they get incentives only if they start in the next 6 months or so, they'll do it sooner.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
I believe that the pollution problem stems more from accepted lifestyles in our society than anything else. Look at all the SUV's out there today!
I don't think it's so much "lifestyle" as government interference steering people towards vehicles that are inefficient.
A major reason people are driving SUVs is due to government legislation. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy, if memory serves) standards added thousands of dollars to the costs of big car - the kind of car a growing family would want to cart themselves around in.
So given a choice between a $18k station wagon or $12k mini-van, the average family doesn't need a slide rule to figure that one out.
(See also The Energy Required to Manufacture Renewable Energy Technologies.)
So can we please put this bit of anti-photovoltatic FUD to rest?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Your claims are rife with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Look at just a few of the real doozies.
Modern oil-fired and coal-fired plants are getting 35-40% efficiency ratings. This compares wonderfully with the 25% efficiency of petrol engines or 30% efficiency of diesel engines. Even with ridiculously inefficient transmission, storage, and final conversion, electric cars are still more efficient in terms of quantity of fuel used. An ICE also produces far more toxic emissions due to not having the benefits of high-quality scrubbers and catalytic convertors (though you did comment on the reduced quantity of emissions, you didn't mention that the gasses produced by ICE are thousands of times more toxic to plant and animal life than power plant emissions).
This is just an outright lie. Even factoring in ridiculously high transmission losses from plant to car (say 40%), and even given a highly inefficient electric motor (say 75%), an entirely electrically powered car is still going to be more efficient and result in fewer emissions to the air. The quality of air produced by fossil fuel plants is amazingly good compared to an ICE so there's simply no comparison here.
Solar Power Plants don't ever rely on solar photovoltaic cells or panels. Not only are they far too expensive, the cells "wear out" after only 10 years usage. Modern solar plants use the tried and true heliocentric model. Mirrors or chromed surfaces reflect large areas of sunlight into a single point (either a tower with a collection point at the top, or using new trough technology with a copper pipe running down the centre of the reflective trough). These plants are in operation RIGHT NOW in Australia, and are turning 6c/kWh which is very favourable compared to the 4c/kWh of coal (currently the cheapest source of electricity).
I also see no mention of true, realistic, and even commercially viable zero-emission plants. They do exist but your rant seems to imply every person pushing for zero emissions is living in fantasy land and none of this is possible. Let's take a look at some of the zero emission plants in operation right now.
Hot-rock power is a new finding in a joint Australian-American investigation. You send water pipes 2km into the crust then use the temperature difference between surface and bedrock to drive a steam turbine. Estimates are that a single 2km cube of rock in the Australian desert could power the entire of Australia's power needs. Still in the experimental stage.
Wind power, currently the best bet for future zero-emission plants. Currently pushing 5c/kWh which is better value even than nuclear. It's in the running for beating oil/coal plants in the near future. People are concerned about the ugly nature of wind farms, but these same people never seem to complain about open-cut mines or tailings dams or the unsightly fossil fuel power plants.
Dam power, such as found in the hydro-electric power plants in Australia. Uses the natural water cycle (evaporation, condensation, water flow) to produce vast amounts of power. These plants have no emissions, are very cheap to maintain, and the high construction costs are easily offset by the long running lifetime.
This argument is ridiculous. By the same token nobody should ever have built modems, because at one stage there weren't enough ISPs to dial into. Power plants take a while to build (the typical estimate is 10 years per plant) but electric cars won't magically appear overnight. They'll slowly phase in alongside normal cars and power plants can be built to meet demand. The people who build and run the plants already know how to figure in rising demand: they've been doing it for decades.
I agree electric cars aren't a magical panacea but there's no reason to be a cynic just because they aren't 100% perfect. Electric powered vehicles are an incremental evolutionary improvement. Crying "I won't consider anything that isn't 100% emission free and costs nothing to run and has all the infrastructure already in place" is the attitude the oil barons want you to have.
Just which of our presidential candidates comes from a family of oil tycoon
And the answer is: Bush AND Gore.
While the Bush family's involvement in the oil industry is well known, what many people don't know is that after leaving the Senate, Albert Gore Sr. became a big executive with Occidental (sp?) Petroleum. Most of Gore's wealth comes from his father's involvement with the oil industry (not to mention the family tobacco land). At least Bush isn't being two-faced when it comes to the source of his money.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Hypercars don't solve the basic problems of too many miles driven by too many people in too many cars. Indeed, they may-without good accompanying public policy-worsen these problems by making driving even cheaper and more attractive.
Many of the social costs of driving have less to do with fuel use than with congestion, road-building, lost time, accidents, urban and suburban sprawl, and other side effects of auto dependence. Of those social costs, a sum estimated to be approaching $1 trillion a year-perhaps a seventh of U.S. GNP-is borne by everyone but not reflected in drivers' direct costs. Hypercars would cut those costs perhaps in half, but half of such a big number is still far too big.
It's hardly surprising that doubled U.S. new-car efficiency over the past two decades has been offset by more cars and driving, which also dilute the benefits of cleaner and safer cars. Global car registrations are growing more than twice as fast as population; Hypercars would do nothing about that alarming trend except slightly accelerate it.
Solving transportation problems without creating new ones requires not only having great cars but also being able to leave them at home most of the time. That in turn requires real competition between all modes of access, including public transportation and alternatives to physical mobility (such as telecommunications). And of course the best form of access is already being where you want to be-achievable only through sensible land use.
There is a real audio interview with Ed Begley, Jr. over on EVworld and he brings up some things I found to be very interesting.
First, EV is a lot like the early VCRs, CD players etc. Everyone worried "are they going to stick around?" EV is in that stage right now. He pointed out that things like ebike.com are going to help turn consumers onto the idea of plugging in your vehicle when you get it home.
I am preparing to build an electric bike (note this is not going to be electric-assist). There is a cool one here.
Another place to check out is Esarati. They look pretty damn cool.
Is it me, or is the whole 2-party system just a big "good-cop/bad-cop" scam? :^P
Well, it's not you.
However, it's more along the lines of Pepsi and Coke competing with each other only secondarily to their more important goal of keeping any third parties out of their common market than it is the conspiracy theory that you imply.
Republicans and Democrats don't have to be controlled by the same people for them to all come to the conclusion that switching power between themselves every few years is much better than having to compete against genuine alternatives...
First off, I was trying to make a point that we should not be looking into 100% electric vehicles until both the technology and infrastructure exist! I am NOT saying we should not be looking into them period, just that people should get off the ignorance game.
Secondly, I stand by my "5 times" statement on electric power that is generated by fossil fuel power plants for 100% electric vehicles. Until the majority of America's power either comes from non-fossil fuel sources, or the vehicles themselves are not just stored electric vehicles (i.e. fuel cells instead of batteries), it holds true! It's one of those "trees make smog" type of deals that people like to play "politically correct" on where the base problem is humanity and you can't do anything to stop (besides getting rid of humanity ;-).
100% electric is a pipe dream until we can come up with an infructure that at least:
Some of it will come from the "'PC' Renewable Energies", but figure less than 25% total, period. I guess it is my bias, but I believe fusion power plants are the best chance and could be a reality in 25-50 years *IF* proper funding is re-implanted into the various research programs. It is too bad the world has been turned off of nuclear fusion, largely from the irresponsibility of various members of our science community (on both sides of the cold fusion argument -- never seen so many closed minds on both sides). While cold fusion may or may not be a reality -- in fact, I think it will not be, at least in my lifetime -- but I think traditional, high-temperature nuclear fusion *IS*!
For now, hybrid (petroleum and electrical return) and, soon, alternate fossil (CNG) and electric (hydrogen) fuels and fuel cells are our best chance. I sick of people blindly stating electric cars and zero emissions without knowing jack!
As far as solar, it's a mixed bag. Solar is expensive, period, and does not produce much. Some new solar technology is on the horizon, but it is rediculously expensive and the actual results are not concrete yet. It holds promise, but don't invent a reality that does not exist yet, let alone we don't know if it will be cost-effective (time will tell).
Wind is looking better and better. I have no problem with eyesores and someone brought up that point (I cannot believe people would argue against them because they are eyesores!). But that's an infrastructure that is a whole new bag.
Water is not an option to power the entire nation. There just aren't enough rivers and damns that can be built to power even 1/10th of the US. It is also questionable how long it takes to get a return on the initial investment which is extremely large in the case of hydropower.
Again, I'm just an engineer. That means I'm a scientist and a businessman. I'm not going to say things that are PC, just reality today. I hope for the best in the future but clinging to alternate realities or lying to yourself as you see fit are NOT 2 ways to get there!
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
An acre is 43,560 square feet, or about 4000 square meters. If you average 400 W/m^2 of sunlight on a field for 10 hours a day for 2 months, that's about 880 megajoules per square meter or 3.5 terajoules per acre. A gallon of gasoline is about 119,000 BTU or 126 megajoules, so the energy falling on that acre of land is equivalent to about 28000 gallons of gasoline. It doesn't take any analysis to see that the energy yield from the corn grown on that land is only a very small fraction of the total solar input.
Current practice uses petroleum-based insecticides and herbicides, natural-gas-derived nitrate fertilizers and diesel fuel for planting, cultivation and harvest. This isn't sustainable in the least, and the yield from corn looks pretty bad if you count those inputs against the fuel production.--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I'm afraid that the "zapped city" idea is a hoax, and you bought it.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
[2] That's politics, not engineering. The greenies have as one of their express goals the closure of all nuclear powerplants. They have tried to force this by preventing plants from sending their spent fuel to the US Government for disposal, even though the USG is mandated by law and by contract to take it. Since the USG has welshed on their agreement (prompted by the greenies), the plants have moved some of their cooler fuel from ponds to dry-cask storage. This has really pissed off the greenies: they couldn't shut down the plants directly, they failed to shut them down indirectly, and now they'll have to either come up with a new idea (difficult for brains trained to dogma) or give up.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.