/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3962571

>FALSE. There isn't "plenty", you stupid fucking Cornucopian. NOTHING replaces the combined factors of oil's cheapness, energy density and practicality.

Nuclear power plants feeding ultracaps and batteries. We don't need oil's specific properties in order to duplicate the conveniences it made possible. Improved technology and design since then has made it possible to do the things we used to do with oil using purely electric components.

>>3431022

>>Please don't tell me you think the electric car has failed so far for any other reason than that it is horribly inefficient.

Do you really believe this?

Actually, electric motors are vastly more efficient than gas engines. it's around 85-90% energy efficiency for electric motors versus 15-20% efficiency for gas engines.

The process of charging a lithium battery is in the high nineties for efficiency and the average transmission loss between a power plant and your house is 6.5%.

Electric cars are being produced now precisely *because* they are drastically more efficient in their use of energy, that's what permits them to be cleaner overall than gas vehicles even when charged from the current 45% coal powered grid.

Source: http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_wtw.pdf

So it's probably well known that I am obsessed with subsea technology. But perhaps it's not as well known that I am a full on aspie about batteries. Raise your eyebrow all you want, they're fucking interesting. So many different types, all with unique properties, and breakthroughs happening in the lab all the time.

I always hear shit like "Why no progress in battery tech? We had electric cars that went 100 miles back in 1910." That's true, but cars back then went about 25mph and weighed very little, being made mostly of wood and leather. If a 1910 Baker Electric were fit with the battery from a Nissan Leaf, it would have an approximate range of 650-700 miles.