/sci/ - Science & Math

Wheres that electricity gonna come from?

>keep dreaming

Be in Vancouver. Most buses are electric and almost all of the province's power comes from hydro-dams. Feels good.

>>3962470
L
F
T
R

>>3962473
>feels good man
and all those bike lanes

Here's the etrans electric schoolbus, sold in large sets to public school fleets. As the range is 130 miles per charge, it's ample to cover the daily route of a schoolbus driver which is predictable, and several hours pass before it's used to take students home, giving it plenty of time to recharge.

>>3962473

Fucking Canada, always being ahead of the curve on this shit. We'll catch up, you watch.

Pic: Electric shuttles used by airports in China

If I recall correctly, quite of bit of oil is used to make plastic right?

If so, is there any other way to make it, or something else we can replace plastic with?

A better question: How low are we going to have to get before those in denial quit denial'n and get on board the electric boogaloo?

Out?
Even if we did run out of oil though, it'd just be a matter of reorganizing things and we'd hardly know the difference. Also, boats would come back in a big way, I'd think.

>>3962472
> keep dreaming

Precisely. Most people are Cornucopians, in that they've never run the numbers on anything like this, hence they just believe that energy sources will be provided at the same range of costs, delivering the same range of energy density, and will have the same range of practicality. The facts are that NOTHING delivers energy like petroleum. It was cheap, dense and practical, and NOTHING has those three factors all in one alternative fuel.

Electrification will have to happen, but it will be too little, too late, which in the USA is the standard response to any coming need. Lots of people will be stranded regardless, and vast swaths of suburbs will have to be abandoned.

Even if you combined all the alternative fuels, the PRACTICALITY of delivery can't be met. But Americans being Cornucopians, can't even keep that sort of thing in mind.

>>3962519
> - and NOTHING has those three factors all in one alternative fuel.
Yet.
Just saying.

Just letting you know, you need a lot of coal for that electricity and soon we'll be running out of coal.

>>3962527
Coal is so 20th century. Thorium is the future!

>>3962527
You want a list of other ways to make electricity, or what?

>>3962470

>Wheres that electricity gonna come from?

The grid. Why? Are you under the impression that this makes EVs as dirty as gas vehicles? That's actually not the case, though it might seem counterintuitive. Remember, the grid is not 100% fossil fuel powered. A gas vehicle is. In addition, electric motors are insanely efficient (85%) compared to gas engines (15%) which waste most of the energy in gasoline as heat and transmission friction. This is why new EVs like the Model S are able to rival gas vehicles on range despite the inferior energy density of batteries on paper.

Anyway, because of that superior efficiency, EVs use much less energy per mile driven and as a result incur much less pollution per mile driven even when charged from dirty sources:

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

>>3962532
> make
Generate, my bad.

>>3962508
There's a lot of ways to make plastic from synthetic oils or plant oils instead of fossil fuel oil.

Is it possible for an aircraft that uses only electric engines to match the speed of a modern jet liner?

>>3962527

>Just letting you know, you need a lot of coal for that electricity and soon we'll be running out of coal.

Not a problem for me. There's three of these in my city so far and I have my own fold-out panels I drape over the seat for when I can't find a public outlet or charging station.

The way I see it, we'll run fossil fuel into the ground (no joke intened), and then move on to whatever else is on hand... which is plenty. Yeah, there'll be big changes in the way we do just about everything, but that's not a problem unless you're kainotophobic.

I'm still a huge advocate for solar power. That thing in the sky's not going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and if we're still confined to earth when it does we're fucked anyway.

>>3962463
> Ultracapacitor buses. [...] This makes them perfect for public transit.

Clue: Most of the USA doesn't run on public transit. 80% of the buildings and roads in the nation were built after WWII, which means they are totally spread out, to serve the concept of the INDIVIDUAL VEHICLE. So adding mass transit to that vast expanse would be too expensive to activate.

That's yet another piece of the equation that you Cornucopians continue to refuse understanding. A lot of what the USA does, can't be affordably transformed for the future of Post-Peak Oil. So there must be an economic collapse with the convergent catastrophe of abandonment of suburbia.

And when oil started becoming more expensive? Yeah, all the American Cornucopians did BY THE MILLIONS was build even more disconnected suburbs.

so how about them maglevs?

>>3962560

>That's yet another piece of the equation that you Cornucopians continue to refuse understanding. A lot of what the USA does, can't be affordably transformed for the future of Post-Peak Oil. So there must be an economic collapse with the convergent catastrophe of abandonment of suburbia.

So the comforts and way of living of America will not hold 50 years from now? Yeah, never figured that one out.

>>3962559
> The way I see it, we'll run fossil fuel into the ground (no joke intened), and then move on to whatever else is on hand... which is plenty.

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

>>3962560
So let the Amerifats have fun with their energy crisis while the rest of us reap the benefits of not living in an awful country?

>>3962560
> depends on individual transport.
Electric cars, done and done. Long daily commutes will be a thing of the past, but still.

>>3962540
the problem is battery capacity and weight.

>>3962540

>Is it possible for an aircraft that uses only electric engines to match the speed of a modern jet liner?

Using turbofans and a nuclear reactor onboard, possibly. I don't see that happening though, because Muslims. However, solar electric blimps could take over air freight; They carry more cargo than jets, and are faster than ships. By flying above the clouds, they are guaranteed to get the maximum exposure to sun, and by using the jet stream for most of the trip they can minimize use of their motors except for course correction and landing.

>>3962572
> So let the Amerifats have fun with their energy crisis while the rest of us reap the benefits of not living in an awful country?

Oh, you'd like that, but no. The U.S. military will still be fully fueled. And the Resource Wars they have already started, will get larger and larger, eventually consuming the world's governments in a condition of perpetual and pervasive conventional war.

Only when the rest of the world gets REALLY snarky, and starts forming a coalition to resist American aggression, with plans for the Last War begin, and then the nukes will fly and the biophages will be let loose. Billions will die, then. And you're likely to be one in those billions.

>>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.

>>3962577
I wonder if I could make one of those?

>>3962577
What kind of vehicles do you think will dominate the passenger air transport industry in this electrified future?

>>3962581

>biophages

I can't tell if you're referring to engineered viruses or ecophagous replicators.

I can buy this part

>The U.S. military will still be fully fueled.

The Resource Wars have already started and they have no problem with killing thousands just to secure a few extra billions of barrels of their precious joules, and the military will always be 100% full no matter what.

>>3962581

>a coalition to resist American aggression, with plans for the Last War begin, and then the nukes will fly and the biophages will be let loose

You're masturbating to post-apocalyptic science fiction. I don't understand this mindset. Only someone whose life is completely hopeless would look forward to something like this with eager anticipation.

The end of oil, by itself, cannot possibly destroy the world in the way you seem to desperately hope it will. That's completely unrealistic. Instead of waiting for the end, set about rebuilding your life. Become a productive, helpful, well adjusted human being instead of the bitter, vicious antihuman you are now. Is that really how you want to spend the rest of your life, raging impotently against a world that gradually gets better in defiance of your half baked prophecies?

>>3962581
Wait, so if America isn't compatible with non-oil energy, why would they wage war on the rest of the Earth? I'm assuming that nobody would be running on oil, because you said it would be finito, so what resources are they going to war over? Thorium? Nigger please, we've got enough Thorium for everyone.

Then again it's one o clock in the morning, so I might be running at less than normal capacity. Either way, mind explaining?

>>3962587

>What kind of vehicles do you think will dominate the passenger air transport industry in this electrified future?

For those able to afford the fares, jetliners. For most of us, solar electric blimps. Lockheed Martin is working on a next gen blimp for the military, I would be unsurprised to see something similar carrying cargo and passengers in the coming decades.

>>3962611
That blimp looks incredibly silly.

>>3962611
Would blimps replace large cargo ships, or would cargo ships simply use a different source of energy?

>>3962617

Let me guess, you posted that comment on a apple computer?

Seriously, maglevs anyone? I'm sure there are people that know more than me, but they could replace jets.

>>3962611
Would you, as a civilian, be able to afford or be allowed to drive, or let the computer do it, a blimp? Are flying cars finally arriving?

>>3962617

A lot of very practical things tend to look silly. Somehow I don't think anyone will complain that the blimp which carries the produce they buy doesn't look cool enough, if it keeps prices sane.

>>3962571
Well, there's electricity... that's a pretty awesome one. I could name other archaic ones, but that'd just be asinine. I mean, hook solar panels to the top of everything, then feed additional power to things on the grid from every air and hydro plant you can muster. Not to mention Nuclear power. I also said, in the post you're calling me out for, "Yeah, there'll be big changes in the way we do just about everything,-." In no way did I mean to imply I don't think the world will change, but just because you lose one resource doesn't mean you can't use another; long term results aside.

And who's to say there won't be some miracle synthesized 'new oil,' in the future? It's highly improbable; agreed, but that's how discoveries work.

>>3962630

I think:

>For most of us, solar electric blimps.

Meant that we would be using them as a replacement for jets. Not as personal transportation.

>>3962625

>Would blimps replace large cargo ships, or would cargo ships simply use a different source of energy?

Cargo ships could convert to the same compact nuclear reactors that power submarines, with a contingent of Navy engineers onboard to operate and maintain them as well as a modest number of marines to guard them. Submarine reactors have a perfect safety record. This would be an excellent use of our Naval resources in an era of (relative) peace.

>>3962634
I obviously didn't mean that they would replace cars or anything, but would a non-filthy rich person be able to own one?

>>3962629
It's not feasible so long as no room temperature superconductors have been discovered and China hoards there earth metal supply.

>>3962647

Probably not, but that isn't the point.

It depends, though. If the blueprints are open-source then a good enough 3D printer or a molecular manufacturing system could print out one. It does not look like the most complex thing in the world, specially not if you have the blueprints.

>>3962629
In certain cases, yes. But they can't cross oceans, obviously.

There's no easy way to compare the costs of all these hypothetical future transportation networks, is there?

Someone explain to me why we couldn't just hook solar panels to the top of everything? I've seen houses that are completely self-sufficient by said means, and I know it had at least two t.v.s and a computer in it at the time. Could a system of solar powered homes, charging stations, and self-charging devices leaning on it's self not supply enough power for most day-to-day life?
Are solar panels just that inefficient? Coped in a similar system, with hydro and air power, we should be able to generate enough electricity to support something similar to modern life (obvious extremes aside).

>>3962646
How much would it cost to convert most or all of the world's large cargo vessels to nuclear power?

>>3962628
An Asus G73, which also looks incredibly silly. Note that I never said it looked bad, just silly. Blimps tend to look kind of goofy anyway.

In China, cars are banned outright in most large cities to cut down on the terrible pollution. People have coped by switching, en masse, to lowspeed electric scooters. Classified by lay as electric bicycles (as inside the plastic exterior they are mostly bicycle parts) they can use the same bike lanes, paths and sidewalks as regular bicycles and because they use inexpensive batteries, they typically cost between $300 and $500. The low range is entirely sufficient for in-city use and they preserve the main benefits of cars without the bulk, expense, pollution, etc.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html

Electric bike sales are also booming in the US, but ours tend to look more like traditional bicycles in order to avoid legal confusion over where they can be ridden.

>we're running out of oil. However, this doesn't mean our quality of life must decrease

Stopped reading there.

>>3962611
Those blimps use helium, which we're going to run out of way sooner than oil.

>>3962648
There are plenty of rare earth metals on the sea floor. China is not the only source.

>>3962664
$32 billion

>>3962582

Those are shitty options for long distance travel. For me to travel from where I live to where my parents live, for say, holidays, It is a 3.5 hour dive over something a like 190 miles. For me to visit my thesis area is 9 hours and 500 miles each way. For me to go visit the national parks and such of the western US, its even further. Electricity will never be able to allow the same amount of long distance driving done in one day as you get from gasoline. The downtime for recharging is much much longer than filling a tank.

I think natural gas and hydrogen are more likely replacements for gasoline in the future. At the current time, known reserves for natural gas are expanding at an amazing rate, and hydrogen would be great, assuming the infrastructure and energy requirements for generating it are met.

>>3962661
I don't think they're efficient enough. I mean shit, here in Sweden we have about 8 hours of sunlight a day in the winter, that's not counting shitty weather (I like shitty weather though, so it's not that bad). Not everyone lives in the sahara.

>>3962664

Because cities nowadays expand vertically rather than horizontally, and since you can't cover windows, the amount of energy needed increases while the amount of roof surface area remains roughly the same?

>>3962669

But China is hoarding them, too. They have a head start.

>>3962668

A vacuum bag made of diamondoid or a similarly stiff material could hold a vacuum without collapsing and have the greatest possible buoyancy.

>>3962668
Then we must use hydrogen.

>>3962661

>Someone explain to me why we couldn't just hook solar panels to the top of everything?

For homes, solar panels are fine. But on a utility scale they are too expensive. Solar power towers, aka heliostats, are the only practical utility scale solar solution right now. They use less land, produce uninterrupted power day and night without the use of batteries (via a molten salt heat storage mechanism) and cost less to build and maintain as they use mirrors instead of solar panels.

Spain is building lots of these following a boondoggle where a government subsidized solar boom turned out to be economically unviable once the subsidy was removed.

We're beginning to see them in the US as well, the largest one courtesy of Google.

>>3962675
Just wait for Mad Scientist to tell you about battery-swap stations.

>>3962678
>They have a head start

Then we should move faster.

>>3962678
>A vacuum bag made of diamondoid or a similarly stiff material could hold a vacuum without collapsing and have the greatest possible buoyancy

Have such vacuum bags been made?

>>3962678

>A vacuum bag made of diamondoid or a similarly stiff material could hold a vacuum without collapsing and have the greatest possible buoyancy.

Moreover, Buckminster Fuller's century-old design for a sphere made of some ordinary material, half a mile wide, would have enough volume for its surface area to take off the ground on air heated one degree above the outside temperature.

>>3962680

It's funny because our primary means of extracting Hydrogen gas come from fossil fuel sources.

>>3962677
Okay, yeah. To clarify, I'm aware many places don't get the kind of sun required to use Solar exclusively. However, with all the ways we can generate electricity off of things that happen constantly and on their own (hydro,solar,wind,geothermal,etc) I think a 'team effort' system, if you will, of stations of whatever's most viable in that area supplying that and all the near by areas, leaning in on it's self, could provide a fair amount of electricity. And if/when panels on homes stat catching? Fageta' bout it.

>>3962682
Oh, cool. I'll have to read up on those.

>>3962675

>For me to travel from where I live to where my parents live, for say, holidays, It is a 3.5 hour dive over something a like 190 miles. For me to visit my thesis area is 9 hours and 500 miles each way. For me to go visit the national parks and such of the western US, its even further. Electricity will never be able to allow the same amount of long distance driving done in one day as you get from gasoline.

The Model S has a 300 mile battery pack option. It would easily cover your needs. It's $77,000 (The 160 mile version is $57,000) but battery prices are plummeting right now. Assuming only linear decrease, a 100 mile battery pack will cost $3,000 by 2050.

Other prototype EVs have covered 620 miles at 25mph, and 385 miles at 55mph. Batteries are really coming along.

>>3962690

We can't synthesize diamondoid cheaply.

But we're working on it. Pic quite related.

>>3962691
>It's funny because our primary means of extracting Hydrogen gas come from fossil fuel sources

However, we can also extract Hydrogen from electrolysis. Is there a method of comparable ease (and energy use) for extracting Helium?

>>3962700
Can you ballpark an estimate for when vacuum airships could become feasible?

>live in Washington
>shutting down last coal plant in like 10 years
>Seattle is aiming to be the first carbon neutral city
>Big investments in wood biofuels
>Fuck Yeah Hydro!

>>3962702
I'd imagine something similar to the way we do it now, just plugged into something else for the power.

However, I don't know shit about chemical synthesis and the like, so I'm going to shut up now.

>>3962696
Now, I'm neither a car expert nor a battery expert, but couldn't you, like, have several batteries? You could keep one in your trunk and then battery swap them both when you need a refill.

>>3962683

>Just wait for Mad Scientist to tell you about battery-swap stations.

Heh. Those are great if you live in Israel. Better Place has built many of them there. So far the US only has one, it services a fleet of electric taxis in San Fran.

I see them as being an infrequently used emergency solution. Fast charging will likely be the more popular method of traveling long distances in the near term. The swap station will be where you go when you're running low and didn't plan for it.

>>3962709
> Big investments in wood biofules
Oh God

>>3962716
Tell me about fast charging.

>>3962714
Or why not just have a automatic system, where you flip a switch and it moves the circuit over to the next battery?

I've seen a lot like these lately; Fancy looking golf carts more or less. They are low cost and make good business sense for fleet use if you run a short hop taxi service (for instance, taking drunk tourists back to their hotels as these ones do) or in-city delivery, stuff like that. The most common model is the GEM car, I see those fucking things everywhere lately.

>>3962702

>However, we can also extract Hydrogen from electrolysis.

Yeah, well, shit's expensive. That's why one of the proposed uses of the LFTR was to electrolyze water into fuel.

There's always fusion for Helium, but, yeah, no. Not yet.

>>3962706

Hm. Zyvex's atomically precise manufacturing method can be scaled to producing a few layers of Silicon crystal per second (A few million atoms), and can probably scale further with more scanning probe microscopes... The diamond mechanosynthesis approach is still in the simulation stage, with only one group working on experiments. I'd say by 2040, we should have some pretty good methods of printing out machines and circuits at the nanoscale with this stuff, and some good nanomaterials, if not necessarily diamond.

So by 2060 I expect to see Diamond Age-equivalent manufacturing technologies (Maybe a bit earlier), with which we could print these things.

If you like extrapolating, here's a trend.

Before I go any further, someone tell me what FLTR stands for, so I can google it.

>>3962735
Alright, so what you're saying is, there is no way to get more helium (yet), but there is an expensive way to get more hydrogen?

>>3962740

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

>>3962742

Yeah pretty much. You'd need an energy-dense, local source (An LFTR or another kind of reactor) producing power to turn several cubic miles of water every day into energy-dense fuel (Which is motile unlike reactors).

>>3962749
So if we want to start using a lot of airships, we're going to need nuclear power to produce hydrogen for lift.

This fits surprisingly well.

>>3962722

>Tell me about fast charging.

Right now most EVs can tolerate a fast charge of 0-80% in 30 minutes. A few can do it faster; It depends mainly on the battery type. Li-Ion can really only take 30-45 minute charges on average and degrade slightly each time. Li-Titanate, uniquely, can tolerate a 10 minute fast charge with no degradation. Kolibri Alpha Polymer batteries can tolerate a 6 minute charge (the fastest so far) with less degradation than Li-Ion, but they are short lived (5-7 years).

The biggest challenge isn't building a battery that can accept a faster charge, it's actually supplying the current necessary for it. Anything above a 30 minute fast charge approaches infeasibility due to the equipment you need on hand to do it. Think 'private transformer stations at every charging center'. Of course this can be overcome to some degree by battery advances, but there are basic physical laws that prevent putting too much energy into a battery too quickly. A realistic apex for fast charging is 0-80% in ten minutes with no degradation. I expect that to become the standard.

Pic related; Huge bulky fast charging station that provides a 30 minute 0-80% charge. Anything faster, with today's tech, would be ridiculously huge and expensive to build. This will change over time, but in the short term 30 minutes is what you can expect.

>>3962755

Yes.

>>3962696

Except it really wouldn't. Most of my longer distance trips generally require more equipment than can easily be fit inside a car, and often, a requirement for offroad capability. If they had a similar engine design in a vehicle with larger storage capacity and better ground clearance, maybe.

Pic related though. My thesis area.

>>3962757
How much bulk does that 30 minute fast-charging equipment require per vehicle, and how expensive is it?

>>3962463
Interesting note from wikipedia on these capacitors:
> General Electric engineers experimenting with devices using porous carbon electrodes first observed the EDLC effect in 1957.[8] They believed that the energy was stored in the carbon pores and the device exhibited "exceptionally high capacitance", although the mechanism was unknown at that time.

> General Electric did not immediately follow up on this work

There's that free market funding of science at work... argh.

>>3962766

>How much bulk does that 30 minute fast-charging equipment require per vehicle, and how expensive is it?

It doesn't add bulk or expense to the car, it adds it to the charging unit. The current 30 minute fast charges are the size of a refridgerator. Existing fast charging standards range from 480-500 volts DC and between 125-300 amps.

>>3962833
I know, I was just asking how much space it required. I was wondering if it would be feasible to outfit, say, half the parking spaces at a mall, with fast-chargers.

>>3962757
How do you learn so much stuff? Do you just google stuff and then discuss it, or do you remember all of this?

You are one of my favorite people on /sci/. Just thought you ought to know.

>>3962508
Genengineered corn crops can make plastic. Of course, to grow those crops, you'll need oil for the fertilizer, and for the fuel to till, plant, harvest, transport, and process it.

>>3962852

>How do you learn so much stuff? Do you just google stuff and then discuss it, or do you remember all of this?

It's illusory; I know a great deal, but only about a very narrow set of subjects. If you asked me about gas sportscars, fashion, sports, guns, etc. I would have nothing to say. I really only know about space, the ocean, robotics, cybernetics, electric vehicles and nuclear/renewable energy.

>>3962840

>I know, I was just asking how much space it required. I was wondering if it would be feasible to outfit, say, half the parking spaces at a mall, with fast-chargers.

No, but mainly because you don't need fast chargers someplace that people will be parked for hours. You need fast chargers along highways at gas stations and rest stops, places people really need them.

I love it. You Cornucopians are masturbating over e-cars that are either too expensive for the masses by far, or have such practicality problems (like short range and long recharges) that the masses won't make use of them either.

That's because NOTHING REPLACES CHEAP, ENERGY-DENSE AND PRACTICAL GASOLINE. You keep being told that, then you go off into La-La Land in your Cornucopian head about some alleged alternative.

There's only one future possible: LESS. Less of everything. Less transportation. Less food. Less modern opportunity.

>>3962882
Is anyone developing electric cargo trucks?

>>3962895

>Is anyone developing electric cargo trucks?

Yeah, Smith and Ford. Smith makes electric trucks for Frito Lay and Fed Ex. Ford makes the Transit Connect, for deliveries in cities.

Nobody makes electric long haul trucks yet, as they would require long patches of the interstate to be equipped with magnetic resonance wire to keep the truck's battery from depleting.

>>3962892

>I love it. You Cornucopians are masturbating over e-cars that are either too expensive for the masses by far, or have such practicality problems (like short range and long recharges) that the masses won't make use of them either.

Took this photo downtown a few weeks ago. I've seen six more since then. This is in addition to the seemingly everpresent hybrids.

>>3963023

Yeah, somehow this picture was taken 'a few weeks ago' every month :3

>>3963040

This is because I can't remember precisely how long ago I took it, and "a few weeks" seems like a reasonable guess.

The last one I saw was at the airport. I have a photo of that somewhere. I'll dig it up and start using that instead. I guess from now on I'll have to make a point to have a camera on me to photograph every Leaf and Volt I see, if only to repudiate anti-EV types.

>>3962892
> opportunity
haha

>>3963046

>I guess from now on I'll have to make a point to have a camera on me to photograph every Leaf and Volt I see, if only to repudiate anti-EV types.

I support this.

My old electric bicycle parked in front of two GEM cars used to make local deliveries around the lakeside community. These are also used on a nearby military base, I saw some being used around Kennedy space center, they were used by maintinence workers at my apartment complex, etc. etc.

I think we're likely to see these catch on as low cost runabouts for short trips. Groceries, short distance commuting, stuff like that. They're capable of up to 45mph, but limited by law to 25mph. There's legislation pending to permit them to go 45mph, which would greatly increase their utility. I had a secondhand one for a while, the vehicle itself was $1200. They always say "I don't know what's wrong with it" in the profile, which is code for "the battery is bad and needs replacing but I don't want to come out and say that because then I would need to charge less". A new pair of deep cycle batteries cost $400 total. The lakeside community I lived next to was all 20mph roads, so I was able to do all of my shopping there without ever needing anything more substantial. I used the bicycle to commute, as the GEM car wasn't legal to use on the roads I needed for that.

>>3963046
I'm cynical enough to think that EV marketers would hire people just to drive them round all day though. Find me pictures of old people in them, then we can talk.

>>3963046

Repudiate what? Yes, in some large cities, some people have hybrid and electric cars. People also bought minidiscs. Just because some people are using them to some effect doesn't mean its going to be the next big thing.

The one thing alot of people miss about the petroleum industry is that it is no longer 'the petroleum industry'. They saw the fall of the train industries having a monopoly on transportation. They have moved into being the 'energy industry'. And the technology I see at a lot of their trade shows relevant to transporation always point to natural gas and hydrogen.

There is also a large sector there that supports nuclear power.

>>3963090

That is very cynical.

I cant imagine it being cost effective to just pay people to drive you cars.

>>3963123

To be more in depth, they have their hands (aka research dollars) in a lot of the auto industry and various other alternative energy sources. And don't forget, own much of the current automobile refueling infrastructure. And they seem to really like natural gas.

Best part is, car designs barely need to change at all to have the cars run off that.

>>3963137
They're aiming to overtake a trillion dollar industry, of course it's cost effective to hire a few unskilled workers at minimum wage to drive around.

>>3963123

>Yes, in some large cities, some people have hybrid and electric cars. People also bought minidiscs.

False analogy. Minidiscs fell out of use not because of expense but because something superior came along. The first MP3 players were actually more expensive, as solid state memory was very costly per megabyte. As more people bought into it, research became focused on bringing down the cost of solid state memory and look where we are now; SSDs are becoming viable replacements for hard drives. The same is happening with batteries. Research has focused on them because they are the most significant barrier to mass EV adoption, and great strides have been made already.

>And the technology I see at a lot of their trade shows relevant to transporation always point to natural gas and hydrogen.

Because both are made from oil.

>>3963144

I spoke with the fellow whose Leaf was parked outside the world trade center. He didn't seem like a paid shill. Rather at first he seemed very nervous about a stranger photographing his car. Most of the others I saw were parked in front of homes.

>>3963144

The size of their competition has no relevance.

Whats the benefit? That people might subconsciously acknowledge there existence, and thus be more likely to accept them as legitimate cars?

Thats a stretch. Now present that on an hourly basis. You are paying $7 an hour so that people might see a car. There are better ways of marketing (if thats what you want)

>>3963158
And I believe you, because I trust your judgement. If I didn't know you though, I wouldn't necessarily.

>>3963160
Of course it does.They're in competition with GM, ford, toyota. They have to put themselves out there so people can so much as acknowledge them as a competitor- if you never see anyone driving an electric car, despite hearing promises of their ability, then you're going to assume that the salesperson is bullshitting you.

Paying people to pretend to like your products is actually pretty common. Monster give students sponsorship, ford will give you a car if you talk about them enough on facebook.

>>3963023
> Took this photo downtown a few weeks ago. I've seen six more since then. This is in addition to the seemingly everpresent hybrids.

The market penetration of these sorts of vehicles of negligible. They are too expensive and have too small a range when compared a gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle.

You might as well say that you can find people buying gold rings, so that must mean everyone will have one soon.

In comparison the Tata car company is making a $2600 gasoline car in India. About the best deal you can find in the USA is the 2010 Toyota Prius, which gets 50mpg for $24000. The Volt is a joke and is far too expensive ($41K) to even consider. The Leaf ($33K) is a little better, but not much.

A lot of the USA drives cars purchased used for under $4000. Your electrics will never reach those people, because by the time they do, their batteries will need replacing and those sorts of people won't be able to come up with the $2500-$7500 for a replacement batter pack. Like with cordless drills, used electric cars that need a battery-pack replacement will just be JUNKED-- vastly decreasing their economic value.

Does anyone know how much a Nissan Leaf costs? Im going to look that up right now.

>>3963183

>Of course it does.They're in competition with GM, ford, toyota.

Im not saying they dont need to compete, or market. I accept that. But they need to be smart, and paying someone to drive your car is not cost efficient.

Also they might not necessarily be in the hopeless circumstance of competing with the big car manufacturers, since they might be the big car manufacturers. All the big companies are starting to produce fuel efficient/ electric vehicles.

You talk about sponsorship and promotions, I sort of considered that to be something different.

So I don't know what proportion of emissions is from personal vehicles, but if it's anything like road wear, it's negligible.
That is, when you calculate road wear, you generally consider trucks. Sometimes you include buses. (This is because cars have less weight per contact area and cause much less damage).

So would switching personal vehicles have an appreciable impact, or would you have to wait for batteries to become feasible for commercial/industrial purposes?

>>3963214
I think it is, really. I mean, there are more effective ways of getting your product out there, but getting a noticeable level of penetration is what they're really going for. Sure, it might cost you $7/hour, but that's only $1000 for two people driving round a city for a week- less than a billboard in most places. Do it in new york or somewhere in CA and you're definitely going to get attention.

>>3963199

>The market penetration of these sorts of vehicles of negligible. They are too expensive and have too small a range when compared a gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle.

This was once true of all cars. It took most of a century before cars became cheap enough for normal people to own them. The first cars were crank started, had a top speed of 30mph, and had such poor gas mileage that they were outcompeted by electrics up until 1914.

Electrics are too expensive *right now*. Look into the future. Do you really believe they always will be? What about electric scooters and motorcycles? What about NEVs? Those are affordable for anyone right now.

>>>3963199

>A lot of the USA drives cars purchased used for under $4000. Your electrics will never reach those people, because by the time they do, their batteries will need replacing and those sorts of people won't be able to come up with the $2500-$7500 for a replacement batter pack.

It doesn't work that way. Most EVs lease the pack. It's rolled into your monthly car payments or added on as an 8 cent per mile fee, as with Better Place compatible cars. The company takes responsibility for battery pack testing, maintinence and replacement.

>>3963218

>So I don't know what proportion of emissions is from personal vehicles, but if it's anything like road wear, it's negligible.

This is true. We'd get more environmental benefit from converting large cargo vessels to nuclear. Currently they burn bunker oil, the cheapest and dirtiest kind, and account for far more emissions than personal autos.

However, the amount of oil used by personal automobiles is significant. Freeing that oil up for more important uses that cannot be electrified is what this is about. You don't need to be a hippie to appreciate the utility and benefit of electrified transport.

>>3963223

Yeah, but people look at bill boards. Bill boards are huge are put in places where they are easy to see and tens of thousands of people see them. They display carefully designed advertisements made to look as good as possible.

A guy in a car, is, a guy in a car. Significantly less people see him, no one cares that they saw him, and I would bet than 100% wont even acknowledge the event. There is nothing designed, or exotic about some guy next to you who is driving a car.

I dont know why I am arguing about this. Its just a matter of efficient. I dont even like marketing, I would hope that a good product, such as a car that doesnt need gas, could sell itself. But even at that markets are very smart and efficient at what they do, and I think they know paying just some guy to drive a car is not how you market something. Maybe a sponsorship, a discount during the first year of sales...

>>3963241
>It's rolled into your monthly car payments or added on as an 8 cent per mile fee
Plus a several hundred dollars a month subscription
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37982/

Also, another issue is the dead weight of the battery packs in EVs. Battery packs take up significant weight in EVs (several hundred pounds). As the battery gradually gets discharged during driving, more and more dead weight gets lugged around. This means energy is wasted, which negates the efficiency of EVs.

>>3963243

Why not natural gas then?

ANY gasonline car on the road can be made to use natural gas with minimal modification. We have a metric shit-ton of it, and more sources are being found every day. If you live in a place with natural gas hookups, you can refuel at your own home. The refuelling rate of natural gas is very quick, especially compared to the recharge rates of electric.

And it wouldn't be all that hard to stick the facilities for these cars at most existing gas stations.

>>3963279
>which negates the efficiency of EVs

Reduces, not negates.

>>3963268

>Plus a several hundred dollars a month subscription

$320 a month isn't unaffordable for a middle class family. It's definitely more manageable than paying off the entire battery pack in a lump sum. And the price will come down drastically in the coming years, like it has for every other piece of electronics that was once prohibitively expensive.

Nobody is saying we're ready to go full electric right now. I'm saying we're at the beginning of the transition right now. Prices are exactly what you'd expect at this stage. It's infeasible to full electric right now, at today's prices. That doesn't make the entire idea unworkable, any more than the cost of the first cell phones made cell phone technology a dead end.

Today, battery electric cars will be a niche product. By 2050, they will be the norm. You'll be able to buy an electric car with the same range as a modern gasoline car for the same price, adjusted for inflation.

>>3963279

Im sure there the lack of a gas tank or internal combustion engine compensates this. Right?

>>3963279

>This means energy is wasted, which negates the efficiency of EVs.

Negates, huh? Then explain these results:

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

>>3963279

>As the battery gradually gets discharged during driving, more and more dead weight gets lugged around

The amount of weight does not increase. The performance of the motor does not decrease, either. The weight does not somehow become more of a burden as the batteries discharge. You, a sentient being, are able to consider them dead weight. The car's drivetrain doesn't. It gives you the same performance right up until the batteries reach the low SOC cutoff.

There's a very common fallacy where, when considering an alternative, any shortcoming is presented as proof that the alternative is unworkable. Gasoline vehicles have shortcomings too, we just overlook them as they are established and taken for granted. When people complain about pollution incurred by EVs they are never considering the pollution involved in drilling for oil, shipping it to shore, trucking it to refineries, refining it, then trucking the gasoline to gas stations. They accuse EV proponents of believing the electricity comes from nowhere, yet at the same time they aren't factoring the production chain of gasoline into their comparisons, as if gasoline magically materializes at the local shell station.

With literally every aspect of production, disposal and operation taken into consideration, EVs are at least twice as clean as gas vehicles, and even cleaner than that in some states where power comes mainly from nuclear or hydro.

>>3963295
No, the battery pack weighs about the same as the internal combustion engine (~600 lbs) while the weight of the the gas tank is negligible. Also, what's not being factored into the efficiency of EVs besides the dead weight is the internal resistance of the batteries.

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11709
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_weight_of_a_car_engine

>>3963315
The Power-to-weight ratio of EVs decreases as the battery gets discharged while the Power-to-weight of gasoline vehicles decreases over time.

>With literally every aspect of production, disposal and operation taken into consideration, EVs are at least twice as clean as gas vehicles
Yet claim that EVERY aspect is considered, but where is your source?

>>3963337
I mean the power-to-weight of gasoline vehicles increases over time.

>>3963337

>Yet claim that EVERY aspect is considered, but where is your source?

I have linked to it twice already. Here it is a third time. Please don't skim over it.

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

tl;dr
>stopped at we're running out of oil
>mfw we have more than enough.
>hippies just hate the drilling

>>3963352
That's the same pdf you cited weeks ago. It only considers CO2 emissions during the use of the vehicles, but no information on pollution regarding the production process or disposal.

>>3963381

I am not a hippie. Nor are we truly running out of oil, as you say. However, we are running out of the oil that is easy to get at and therefore cheap. We're having to drill in deeper and deeper waters to get at oil, and as a result the price is never coming down again, at least not significantly. The overall trend from this point on will be upward. This makes burning oil products in personal vehicles that waste 75% of it a foolish and impractically expensive use of oil. There are things we need it for, like agriculture, and alternatives to gas burning cars that can replace them in the near future (and for some, today).

Even if all electricity was generated by oil and coal, electric vehicles would lower emissions.

It's simply more cost effective to regulate power plant emissions than it is hundreds of millions of vehicles.

>>3962486
>and all those bike lanes
and all those bikers swerving left and right without signaling, going against traffic, disobeying traffic signals, and wearing black clothing at night

>>3963390
nigger, it's deeper and deeper because we can't drill in most of the places that are oil rich because faggot hippies can't keep their dicks in their pants about the going green shit.
>"Nor are we truly running out of oil, as you say."
and when in the fuck did i say that?

>>3963389

>That's the same pdf you cited weeks ago.

Why do I need a new one every week?

>It only considers CO2 emissions during the use of the vehicles, but no information on pollution regarding the production process or disposal.

You may have heard an old talking point about electric cars being dirtier, full life cycle, than hummers. In fact the study that refers to involved the first generation Prius. It's true, but that was because the battery used was Nickel Metal Hydride. Because it was based on toxic heavy metals that must be smelted during manufacture and recycling, the overall environmental cost was more than that of the Hummer.

Modern EVs do not use NiMH batteries. They use enormously cleaner lithium batteries. The lithium carbonate used to make these batteries comes from a nontoxic mineral salt. You can even eat it without harm (you'll recall, lithium salts are consumed for medical purposes). Lithium metal is particularly soft and sticky as metals go, which means it can be extruded into shape instead of smelted. The hydraulic equipment used for this incurs vastly less pollution than smelting and can be powered electrically, meaning there exists the potential to power the entire manufacturing process cleanly.

As-is, it's the lithium batteries that permit EVs to make sense from the environmental standpoint. That's why the third big push for EVs has taken place to coincide with the advent of mature, large format lithium batteries.

http://www.downtoearthnw.com/blogs/down-earth/2010/jan/28/lithium-mining-cleaner-coal/

>>3963391
But we need to produce hundreds of millions of battery packs for cars. Have you thought about the pollution produced during the manufacturing process and their disposal? The batteries have limited life span and not every part of the batteries can be recycled. In addition, the internal resistance of the batteries adds to the overall efficiency of EVs. Temperature extremes can also affect efficiency and permanently damage the batteries.

>At low temperatures Lithium batteries suffer from Lithium plating of the anode causing a permanent reduction in capacity.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm

This means EVs can't be used in cold climates.

>>3963409

>nigger, it's deeper and deeper because we can't drill in most of the places that are oil rich because faggot hippies can't keep their dicks in their pants about the going green shit.

There are places on Earth I'd rather not see ruined in the name of delaying technological progress. Is there some reason you want transport to remain stuck in a rut forever? Were you raised Amish?

>and when in the fuck did i say that?

In the post I replied to. You said we're not truly running out of oil, and I agreed. I see how that part of my post can be interpreted the other way, though.

>>3963416

>This means EVs can't be used in cold climates.

No, it doesn't.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1052024_electric-cars-cant-handle-cold-weather-myth-busted

If you had given slightly more thought to the problem you'd realized it can be solved by climate conditioning the battery compartment to keep the temperature there within the ideal range. This decreases range slightly compared to what it would deliver in warm weather, but increases it greatly over what it would otherwise deliver in cold climates.

Battery climate conditioning comes standard on the 2012 Nissan Leaf, Volt and Tesla Model S.

So what's this about how EVs *can't* be used in cold weather?

>>3963418
amishfag reporting in

>>3963409

Don't forget the new paradigm in oil drilling that is tight gas shales. Hitting up huge reservoirs with horizontal drilling and fracing, and shitting out tons of stuff.

>>3963418

Protip: drilling isnt nearly a messy a process as the dirty hippies make it out to be. You can cover a huge area that formerly would have taken dozens of wells with a single well placed well now, thanks to horizontal drilling. The environmental impact from drilling now is ridiculously small compared to even 20 years ago.

>>3963416

>But we need to produce hundreds of millions of battery packs for cars.

Yes, so? How is this any different from the scale of operations needed to produce existing cars?

>Have you thought about the pollution produced during the manufacturing process and their disposal?

Yes, I've discussed it at length in this very thread. I explained earlier why lithium batteries in particular are very clean to manufacture and recycle. Did you miss that?

>The batteries have limited life span and not every part of the batteries can be recycled.

It's a plus that most of the battery can be recycled, not a minus that some small portion can't be. Are we pretending that even tiny flaws are complete show stoppers? "Fallacy of perfection", anyone?

>In addition, the internal resistance of the batteries adds to the overall efficiency of EVs. Temperature extremes can also affect efficiency and permanently damage the batteries.

Internal resistance is just an inherent aspect of batteries. It doesn't prevent them from working, or there would be no electric cars, yet there are. As for the cold climate issue, see my prior post about how literally every brand name EV includes climate conditioning of the battery compartment. Objection invalidated.

>>3963416
You're continued existence does more damage than any of those battery packs. Why should you be allowed to continue existing?

>>3963430
There's hardly any snow on the ground. It's not even extreme weather. Those greensters sure know how to make hyperboles.

EVs may be able to drive in cold weather, but the efficiency is drastically reduced because the internal resistance of the lithium increases as the temperature gets lower.
>http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm

In fact, Li-ion batteries, which you say are better, have significantly more internal resistance than other rechargeable batteries like NiCad and NimH.

>>3963466
Ad hominems don't add to the discussion. Please talk in a civilized manner.

>>3963416
>At low temperatures Lithium batteries suffer from Lithium plating of the anode causing a permanent reduction in capacity.

At the very minimum that means they need heated when not in use in cold climates.

Big deal, we can use refrigeration in cold climates by doing the same thing (heating the crankcase during the offcycle in this case).

>2011
>we don't have the technology to remedy emissions

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/07/08/129211/concrete-that-purifies-the-air

http://www.gizmag.com/air-purifying-roads/15638/

I see a lot of people here opposing technological progress in personal transport on the grounds that it's what they think "dirty hippies" want. Is that a good reason to cling to primitive, outdated technology and oppose progress? Is it intelligent to allow petty hatreds to shape your views on emerging technologies? Shouldn't you be able to consider them objectively, recognizing the merits of an objectively more efficient high tech drivetrain which requires vastly less maintinence?

Is it worth shooting ourselves in the foot to avoid pleasing "dirty hippies"? Is it worth abandoning the path to energy independence just to spite your most hated class of people? Is that rational?

>>3963450
>climate conditioning of the battery compartment
So not only energy is wasted through the internal resistance of the battery, it's also wasted in regulating the temperature of the battery.

>>3963492

We should make a compromise.

I'll consider the potential of lithium ion powered vehicles, if you get a hair cut.

>>3963492

>>3963467

>EVs may be able to drive in cold weather, but the efficiency is drastically reduced because the internal resistance of the lithium increases as the temperature gets lower.

You didn't read what I wrote. God damnit. Go back and read it, will you? I wasn't saying they can be driven in cold weather despite reduced range. I said that the effect you're talking about can be negated entirely by heating the battery pack. This reduces the range very slightly (induction heating is very efficient) but allows you access to 90+% of the normal range and prevents the damage you mentioned entirely. Please don't skim over this. It seems like you're ignoring most of my posts and continuing to make the same arguments I've already addressed.

>In fact, Li-ion batteries, which you say are better, have significantly more internal resistance than other rechargeable batteries like NiCad and NimH.

Uh, yes? So what? Internal resistance isn't a problem unless it reaches levels that prevent the battery from being useful for traction applications. That's not the case except for a select few chemistries like Nickel Iron.

Picking out these minor, arguable downsides and presenting them as if they are show stoppers is like if I were to say "Gasoline vehicles require the replacement of hundreds of different parts over time. This makes them entirely useless".

>>3963498

>So not only energy is wasted through the internal resistance of the battery, it's also wasted in regulating the temperature of the battery.

You're complaining about a few percentage points of wasted energy in EVs when gasoline vehicles waste 75% of the energy in gasoline?

...Am I being trolled?

>>3963492
>I see a lot of people here opposing technological progress
Please don't use strawman. You can't simply put the banner of technological progress on any technology that suits your fancy. Dead end technology isn't progress.

>Shouldn't you be able to consider them objectively, recognizing the merits of an objectively more efficient high tech drivetrain which requires vastly less maintinence?
You're not seeing them objectively yourself. You don't see how the car companies are simply exploiting the "green" market by producing EVs and not really interested in saving the environment. If EVs can't hold out on its own without subsidies, then they're not worth pursuing further.

The only way EVs are useful is when they are directly powered by the grid (e.g., light rail trains and buses connected to electric wires).

>>3963477
Wasn't an ad hom, bro it's a fact. Every human in a modern nation produces more eco damage than any batteries' life cycle.

>>3963529

Isnt it not appropriate to consider the end user? Because how we measure the human beings environmental impact relies on the technology they use in the environment.

Would a naked cave man do more damage to the environment than a lithium ion battery?

>>3963504
I swear you remind me of Liberty more and more by the day.

wireless power transfer recently made feasible
http://energydynamicslab.com/business-areas/electric-transportation..

place grid wires under roads, build cars that charge up wirelessly while driving.

>>3963543

I was just kidding. I agree totally with mad scientist. I should be more mindful about sarcasm on the internet.

Actually now that you said that, the post does structurally resemble a liberty post.

>picture of a politician
>non-constructive insulting comment.

Fuck I dont want to be like liberty...

>>3963533
It's about as appropriate as factoring in the whole life cycle of a battery while ignoring 90% of a gasoline engine's life cycle.

>>3963527

>Please don't use strawman. You can't simply put the banner of technological progress on any technology that suits your fancy. Dead end technology isn't progress.

Electric vehicles are not a dead end technology. You consider them as such because of personal prejudice against any technologies you perceive as being associated with hippies.

Selective opposition to technologies based on personal prejudice is irrational and anti-progress.

>You're not seeing them objectively yourself. You don't see how the car companies are simply exploiting the "green" market by producing EVs and not really interested in saving the environment.

That isn't objective. It's a product of your prejudice, an extreme cynical view of EVs colored by your hatred of anyone who wants to preserve rather than destroy the environment.

>If EVs can't hold out on its own without subsidies, then they're not worth pursuing further.

Are you unaware that oil production is also heavily subsidized?

>The only way EVs are useful is when they are directly powered by the grid (e.g., light rail trains and buses connected to electric wires).

This is obviously false, as proven by the existence of mass market EVs. If they weren't useful, nobody would buy and drive them, yet I have seen this happen myself.

>>3963492

>Energy independence

Again, i am going to argue NATURAL GAS, MOTHERFUCKER.

We have an absolutely obscene amount of it in the states. I bet that soon, Europe will find their equivalent to the tight gas shales we have in the US, and they too will have a crazy large amount as well.

>>3963575
he's got a point, they found a bunch of it up it around NY

>>3963579

NY, under Fort Worth, Northern LA, and up in Minnesota/ND are ones that are being drilled right now.

Does natural gas still have the same pollution problems as gasoline?

>>3963575
That'll make traffic accidents more explosive... ah well natural selection.

>>3963561
>Selective opposition to technologies based on personal prejudice is irrational and anti-progress.
Selective support is no different than selective opposition.

>It's a product of your prejudice, an extreme cynical view of EVs
It's not prejudice. It's reality. There has yet to be strong evidence that EVs are practical in the long run.

>Are you unaware that oil production is also heavily subsidized?
Tax incentives aren't subsidies.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100930055415AAAdlYm

>If they weren't useful, nobody would buy and drive them, yet I have seen this happen myself.
Sports cars like Ferrari's aren't particularly useful beyond being just status symbols and yet people buy them.

>>3963591

Its does indeed shit less stuff into the atmosphere.

>>3963592

Its not like cars aren't already filled with explosive shit. There are also plenty of vehicles on the road already that run on natural gas. Mostly fleet vehicles and the like, but still.

>>3963601

>Tax incentives aren't subsidies.

Yes they are.

Im pretty sure its literally the same thing. A tax incentive IS a subsidy. But if not its practically the same thing, as $50 in your pocket is no different from $50 less in taxes.

>>3963575

>Again, i am going to argue NATURAL GAS, MOTHERFUCKER.

Poor energy density. Natural gas vehicles have ranges around 100-50 miles, same as current EVs, and they cost more than gasoline vehicles as the natural gas must be stored under high compression to achieve even that much range. You can get far greater range out of it using a fuel cell (as fuel cells are between 38-50% efficient compared to 15-25% for gas engines) but natural gas fuel cells, like hydrogen fuel cells, have issues that make them unworkable right now. They cost more than lithium batteries providing the same range, and they wear out and require replacement over a shorter period.

The bottom line is that whatever we're driving in fifty years will use an electric motor. Whether the electricity comes from a battery, fuel cell or something else doesn't concern me nearly as much as simply replacing the monstrously inefficient internal combustion engine. A vehicle with an electric motor is fuel agnostic. It doesn't care where its power comes from. When the battery goes bad it can be replaced with the latest and greatest, extending the range and at a reduced cost. Your car becomes more advanced and capable over time without needing to be replaced, and whatever new energy storage comes along can be swapped in, since to an electric motor, power is power. Additionally because it's not tied down to any type of hydrocarbon fuel, as we clean up our grid, EVs get cleaner and cleaner over time. No matter where electricity comes from in coming decades and centuries, our cars will continue to run on it.

It's an idea that makes obvious good sense and whose time has come. Only fools oppose it.

>>3963608
Most cars are filled with combustibles, you're talking about a gas which would have to be stored under extreme pressures.

>>3963601

>Selective support is no different than selective opposition.

The only sense in which I am selective in my support for technologies is that I support new technology over old, and efficient technology over the inefficient. You seem to be the opposite.

>It's not prejudice. It's reality. There has yet to be strong evidence that EVs are practical in the long run.

Except that every major automaker now either has an EV on the market or in the works.

>Tax incentives aren't subsidies.

Yes they are.

>Sports cars like Ferrari's aren't particularly useful beyond being just status symbols and yet people buy them.

The Leaf is not a sports car. It's priced comparably to other hatchbacks in its class. The iMiev is cheaper still.

>>3963621

>they cost more than gasoline vehicles

EXCEPT THEY ARE THE SAME FUCKING VEHICLES.

And the range difference doesnt mean nearly as much, because it can be quickly refueled like a normal gasoline tank.

>>3963633

>EXCEPT THEY ARE THE SAME FUCKING VEHICLES.

No, they make use of a high pressure nat. gas storage tank which accounts for the additional expense.

>And the range difference doesnt mean nearly as much, because it can be quickly refueled like a normal gasoline tank.

The fact that the fuel is stored at higher pressure adds a few minutes to the refueling time, making a 10 minute EV fast charge competitive, especially as natural gas vehicles using IC engines will never exceed 150 mile range, while the range of EVs on the market is already up to 300 miles with 400+ mile ranges on the horizon.

>>3963633

And to be clear, like $500 of stuff can convert any gasoline driven engine to natural gas. ANY CAR. A 50 year old piece of shit junker. A brand new off the lot. So the $2000 PoS that anyone can afford can be set up to use natural gas.

>>3963641

What EV takes 10 minutes to charge?

Im reading about the Nissan Leaf (all of my money.jpeg) and it says the average owner charges it for 2 hours a day.

> "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline"

> -REM

>>3962533
Electric motors can be 98% efficient:
http://www.csiro.au/solutions/psz7.html


Also not willing to expend time to address these issue directly, but I'm sure from momentarily skimming this thread that someone said: blah blah blah batteries aren't environmentally friendly as internal combustion engines, blah blah blah it takes more energy to produce batteries than they will ever save, WRONG:
www.cars21.com/files/news/LCApresenation.pdf

Transportation is for generating the poison that is destroying the Earth!

Whats wrong with THE WAY THINGS ARE

I think the first step in admitting that one's civilization is a failure is

admitting that one's civilization is

stupid

If we're talking about highly efficient vehicles, heat pumps are pretty boss.

>>3963691
> I think the first step in admitting that one's civilization is a failure is
> admitting that one's civilization is
> stupid

Americans refuse to do that. They also refuse to introduce austerity measures of any kind since that would imply they are "poor". So they must be schooled by the inevitable imposition of catastrophes. What Kunstler warned us about is going to come to pass, times TWO.

>>3963653

>What EV takes 10 minutes to charge?

>Im reading about the Nissan Leaf (all of my money.jpeg) and it says the average owner charges it for 2 hours a day.

Leaf is not the only EV in existence. The Phoenix SUV charges in 10 minutes with no damage to the battery, as it uses Lithium Titanate. I haven't heard from them in ages so their vehicle might be vaporware, but the battery isn't, it's a well known Lithium variant.

>>3963670

The 85% figure includes the losses incurred transmitting electricity from the nearest power plant to your home, and the minimal loss involved in charging the battery. I use that in order to pre-empt complaints that I'm not factoring in every aspect of how power gets generated and sent to the car.

>>3963670
>Electric motors can be 98% efficient
There's no mentioning of how well it handles load. Judging by the info on that website, the motor was designed specifically for use in light weight solar vehicles.

>>3963670
>>3963809
the reason electric motors are so efficient is because they consume VERY organized energy already. Most of the power loss has already happened at the power station

>>3963879

>the reason electric motors are so efficient is because they consume VERY organized energy already. Most of the power loss has already happened at the power station

....What? The efficiency/inefficiency of motors versus engines has to do with the limitations imposed by the carnot cycle, not how "ordered" the energy they consume is. After all it requires an enormous amount of refinement to turn crude oil into gasoline; this does not somehow overcome the basic physical laws that prevent any combustion engine from surpassing the 50% theoretical maximum efficiency. So far none even approach that, even fuel cells struggle to achieve that figure.

You can charge an EV from solar panels, or a wind turbine. Electricity is electricity. It cannot be more or less ordered. I'm seriously baffled by your post.

>>3963918
i was talking about entropy
and most power is made in coal plants, so if a car running a 98% motor using electricity from a coal plant its is not actually 98% efficient

>>3963774
Ah cool. 90% loss due to battery charging, correct?

>>3963934

>and most power is made in coal plants

False. See picture at left.

Also, the source of the energy does not have any effect on how efficient a motor is at turning that energy into motion. The motor doesn't know or care where the electricity it uses comes from.

>>3963939

>Ah cool. 90% loss due to battery charging, correct?

No, actually it's less than 1% loss.

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries

This kind of tremendous charging efficiency is unique to lithium batteries, though. Most other battery types do incur significant losses while charging. Again, this is why the new push for EVs was timed to coincide with the advent of mature, large format lithium ion batteries. They're the only ones so far that make sense environmentally and from an energy efficiency standpoint.

>>3963934
yeah, but big powerplants(even, ugh, coal) can be made more efficient than small powerplants(car engines). So it's still more efficient.

>>3963940
but nature does

"Hey you were thinking about getting a new car?" - Me
"Yeah why?" - Mom
"Have you heard of the Nissan Leaf?" - Me
"No, whats that?" - Mom
"Its a new fully electric vehicle" - me
"I heard that if you get in an accident in an electric car the police wont rescue you" - Mom

>>3963957

How is that relevant? I already explained earlier that even charging from today's grid, EVs are much cleaner than any gas fueled vehicle. So from "nature's" standpoint, they're better.

>>3963958
Why would she think this?

>>3963963

IIRC there was one incident in which the police, having never seen an electric vehicle, would not try to pry into it after it was in a collision for fear they would be electrocuted. In fact, EVs have a safety mechanism that cuts off all connections to the battery pack in the event of a crash.

>>3963961
well that buy graph applies to the entire country, so it depends on where you live
also mining rare earths and making a new car and all the stuff such as engineers commuting you are not taking into account
tl;dr my 500hp 1987 Grand National is more green than this crap.

>>3963963

I dont know, because she watches TV.

I just thought it depicted something hilarious.

>Car crash
>police y
>cuz ur car sucks

>>3963967
Where was this?

>>3963976
>>3963967
>>3963963

It seems like in theory, a car full of explosive material would be a lot more dangerous than a car than an electric car.

Isn't it less polluting to replace parts on old vehicles than to create these new ones?

>>3963988
thats what I am saying >>3963969
and its not just about the materials to make the car, shit load of other factors like workers pollution, paint fumes, transportation/mining of raw materials.

Aptera: the failed dream of a hyper-efficient electric car

>>3964001
>>3963988
LRN2 LifeCycleAnalyze:
www.cars21.com/files/news/LCApresenation.pdf

I would very much like to buy an electric car. The only two things stopping me are the cost of buying one and the lack of recharge stations where I live.

>>3964156

Consider an electric motorcycle. They can be had for >$8,000, and would act as a sidekick for your car with which you could do maybe 75% of your trips. It would not eliminate your gas use but it would significantly reduce it and give you some bargaining power as a consumer when it comes to the price of gas, since you'd have a way to get around without it.

>>3964192

I had considered that, but I am not comfortable with the safety issues. On an electric bike, you can actually quite readily be killed in a 30mph crash or struck and seriously injured/killed by some dumbass driver not paying attention, whereas in a car, most likely not.

>>3964192
>electric motorcycle
ffs
the entire point of a motorcycle is to BURN FUCKING GAS AND GO 150 WITH YOUR FACE 2 FEET ABOVE THE ROAD
get a fucking scooter or something

>>3964223
What the fuck? Electric motorcycles can have amazing acceleration.

MadSci, I really appreciate you fighting the good fight for EV education tonight. You rock!

Also look up the Arcimoto EV, locally designed in Eugene. They are aiming for the sub $20k sweet spot.

>>3964225
can they go over 80?
if not, go back to playing with your vagina

>>3964213

If you have an existing vehicle you'd like converted, the parts needed to do so cost around $7,000, and if you have a conversion shop do the labor you just about double that to $14,000. It's less than what a new compact econobox runs, and you get an EV capable of 70+mph with a 50 mile range.

If that's not appealing, an electric bicycle might be the right answer. They can be car replacements for many people provided the weather's nice; You get to work without showing up sweaty from pedaling, you can travel longer distances than you could under your own power, they start at around $500 for a prebuilt, and can be used anywhere bicycles are allowed.

>>3964235
http://www.bikepoint.com.au/news/2011/road/electric-motorcycle-breaks-speed-record-26242

>>3964235

>can they go over 80?

The Mavizen will do 130. That's the fastest street legal electric motorcycle. There are electric superbikes built to break records that will do just over 200mph.

The fastest one that is reasonably priced is the Empulse; 100mph top speed, with three different battery packs. The 60 mile range model costs $10,000. The 80 mile one costs something like $12,000. The 100 mile range model costs $15,000.

>>3964256
No mentioning of how long it was able to sustain the top speed and how much of the battery was drained.

>>3964237
Refitting junk vehicle for $14,000 to run on electric doesn't sound like a good idea. I mean the car will still look uglier than a new vehicle you can get for that price.

Here's a POV video from one of the high performance electric motorcycles raced in the TTXGP eGrandPrix that now takes place annually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P2aFJTDmzE

The sound is from the chain, as these bikes still use a chain drive. Hub motors are considered too damage prone for motorcycles.

>>3964288

>Refitting junk vehicle for $14,000 to run on electric doesn't sound like a good idea. I mean the car will still look uglier than a new vehicle you can get for that price.

Sometimes, vehicles that look quite nice still have serious engine issues that would cost more to fix than simply buying a new vehicle. Those are the instances where you would convert to electric. Does that make sense? It isn't shitty looking junkers that people convert.

>>3964293
>It isn't shitty looking junkers that people convert.
But last time you said you got your vehicle from a junk yard and paid many thousands to convert it.

>>3964289
>The sound is from the chain, as these bikes still use a chain drive.
Chains can become distended over time, especially under high torque and speed, and therefore are dangerous.

>>3964308

>But last time you said you got your vehicle from a junk yard and paid many thousands to convert it.

I am one person, not everyone, and not representative of most who convert vehicles.

Mad, i got to give you credit. You bring the best engineering threads, whether its electric vehicles or deep sea explorations, its always a refreshing experience.

Maybe you should change your name to mad engineer? As for the electric vehicle range, there is absolutely no reason not to carry a backup generator. electric cars will always be hybrids, simply because of the ability to charge autonomously, given an emergency. That being said, there's no reason why it can't be biofuel of some sort, not that i think it needs to be seeing as how it won't be the usual source of power. i think we afford 12$ a gallon if we never burn more than a few gallons a year, in dire situations.

Also, concerning electric motorcycles. i wonder what the cost to convert a motorcycle would be if you had the chassis,brakes ect. but a busted engine. Seen anything regarding this? i might flex my engineering skills and buy a junker on craigslist.

>>3964316
>>ignores the huge amount of motorcycles that run on chains.

Best thread on /sci/ since.. well. ever.
I'm surprised about the little mentioning of trains trams or subways.

For public transport trams have increadible potential, and that is without even trying to make them energy efficient (generative breaking, lightweight construction)
I would bet you could rather easily shave off 50% of the energy consumption of the trams in my city.

I think its just so silly to see so many vehicles, made to transport people, use almost all their energy just to move the bulk material around. Of course, a well utilized bus would be good enough. Little overhead per passanger.

A friend of mine works on a company developing a lightweight eletrical vehicle. Quite similar to those golf-cart like vehicles in this thread. It'll have three seats, with focus on simple lightweight design.
Looking forward to see it in production.

or you could just use gas.

you might want to check what materials are used in the production of those capacitors. toxic dumps be multiplying.

>>3964235
FUN FACT: penis size is inversely proportional to the maximum speed of the car you drive.

>>3966810
since i dont have a vehicle does that mean that i have an infinitely large penis

Meet the Roberts electric car. Built in 1896, it gets a solid 40 miles to the charge -- exactly the mileage Chevrolet advertises for the Volt .. Its present-day owner .. has even completed the roughly 60-mile London to Brighton Vintage Car Race.

Lol @ people thinking oil isn't replaceable. It is. It just takes some time to adapt. Rising oil price and falling alternative energy production costs will make alt energy more competitive and at some point we don't need subsidies to make it economically viable.

Wind and especially solar are easily scalable, much more so than nuclear power.

Cars...the intermediate future will be ruled by plug in hybrids with a small on-board combustion engine. Short trips can be easily made using a small and affordable batteries, and most trips are just that kind - daily commutes from home to work. On longer trips you can use the combustion engine.

In the long term however, the batteries will become inexpensive, much faster to charge, lighter and containing much more energy. People will be wondering wtf all the fuss was about. Mark my words.

>>3966866
Roberts is probably 20% the weight of the Volt. Most of the weight in modern cars is for safety reasons. Roberts would probably disintegrate and kill the driver in a 40 mph collision.

>>3966874

Your plan depends on high prices. THAT'S WHY OIL IS IRREPLACEABLE. Nothing replaces petroleum since the resulting gasoline and diesel and kerosene were CHEAP, ENERGY DENSE, and PRACTICAL. Nothing NOTHING else fulfills all three at once.

You're going to raise the costs of commuting by a large amount of money. That will kill consumerism, which will kill employment, and then the entire thing is in a destructive feedback loop, and there won't even be a 4chan after that for us to DICKSMACK YOU AROUND ON.

>>3966912

The price of solar power is plunging and the production is ramping up at double digit rates annually.

Solar power will become so cheap nobody would use oil even if was pumped in their back yard.

Problem:
Metro/tramway stations can take you close to where you want to be, but never right on it like a car can. You can't build many all over the place either.

My idea:
Reverse ski lifts. (Or ziplines and we can all be Batman!) Metros lead to towers/modded skyscrappers, we take an elevator to some dedicated level where ski lifts are. You take a lift down, your added weight helping pull an empty lift up. Solar panels help with costs, and you don't need to add weight like a solar car would.

The friction loss of car wheels is diminished, and this doesn't need anything beyond a lot of cable and motors.

>>3962577
Wasn't viable years ago, but with more logistics from computers, we can predict the amount of stuff needed 2-3 months down the road. Giant unmanned blimps might work better than trucks and trains, since traffic is an issue for ground travel.

>>3966948
Aww. Already invented. But not very wide spread yet. And I see it as more viable than sky roads for dense urban cities.

http://gondolaproject.com/learn-the-basics-what-is-cable-propelled-transit/

>>3966879

I don't think it runs 40mph, but 40 miles to the charge isn't that bad given the age of the tech involved.

Weight shouldn't be too much of a problem for e-cars because kinetic energy doesn't get wasted, it is rather used to recharge the battery by switching the motor into generator mode. Trains do that, trams do it and busses too.

>>3962560
>murrka is the only country in the world
Okay.