Are Electric Cars A Pointless Effort?

[jimbob]

slight tangent, but here is a set of articles about photovoltaics in semiconductor international.

Of course this source tends to ignore solar concentration technologies...

some about this in another thread, about nanosolar, especially from this post onwards.

What about using nanosolar solar panels to power an electric car.

They claim that the cost/W will be down to less than 2USD.
A 10000W system will cost less than 20000USD.
You can recharge the battey of a Volt in 2 hours, apparently

I had also posted some links to articles about grid parity in there too...

 

[Daylight]

not a bad concept, but the pv contribution would be negligible...certainly not enough to move a modern car; even on a bright sunny day.

A larger part of the solution, imho, is to make the shift to hyper cars and more efficient lifestyles. In HPV contests, human powered vehicles have managed 81.4 mph (without hills or wind)...and this is accomplished with less than one horsepower. A 20 lb bike can handle a 200 lb person. The equation for a typical car is nearly the inverse of that.

The latest winner

http://www.wsc.org.au/

averged 55mph across Australia using Solar/battery. The rules are changing to reduce size/number of the solar cells.

What might help is an Indy 500 type race for electic cars to provide some positive PR. Even though stuff like the Tesla roadster are becoming availiable a lot of people still think of electric cars as glorified golf carts.

If you could buy a solar/electic car and never pay for gas again would you?

 

[robinson]

If you could buy a solar power system for your home, and never pay for electricity again, would you?

 

[ynot]

If you could buy a solar power system for your home, and never pay for electricity again, would you?

What is the purchase, setup and ongoing running costs of the system, and will it provide for all my power needs as and when I require them?

 

[Hindmost]

Electric cars are not an efficient form of transport overall, but may become necessary in the future.

Electricity production is not efficient overall. Plants have efficiencies in the 33 to 40% range. Therefore, there is a big energy loss from the initial fuel just from conversion. This is why houses don't have electric heat too often and that heat is expensive. Losing 60% of the energy before it gets into the batteries (or capacitors if they can be developed) is the reason electric cars were not developed before. Cheap oil made them useless.

To replace the 150 billion gallons of gas and 60 billion gallons of diesel the US uses on transportion every year will take a bunch of construction and the fuel generally used is coal...so electric cars can be worse for the environment. If renewables are included in the equation, it looks better, but renewables can't generate that much energy yet...and won't be doing so in the near future. Nuclear power would seem a better option for generating the electricity, but it cannot ramp up to that level of energy production in the next 2-3 decades.

Also, people won't be able to charge their cars during peak electrical use.

We may end up with electric cars with solar converters at home..

To replace 75 billion gallons of gas, we would need about 2,745 billion kilowatthours of electricity.

The US consummed 3,814 billion kilowatthours of electricity last year without electric cars.

glenn

 

[balrog666]

If you could buy a solar power system for your home, and never pay for electricity again, would you?

You can do that now. But it costs more.


Ditto for cars.


Batteries or no batteries, subsidies or no subsidies, the day solar power panels become cost effective for everyday use, 5000 companies will start manufacturing them in every part of the globe.

 

[CapelDodger]

So I hear on the radio this am that we'll soon be able to buy all-electric cars - another year or two. One of the ramifications they spoke of was that your electric bill could jump as your gasoline bill dropped, and that electric companies might charge more if you recharged your batteries during peak demand hours as opposed to off-peak.

The answer to that is to re-charge during off-peak hours, which is when most people are asleep (and, hopefully, not driving at the same time). Peak-time electricity is already more expensive than off-peak because it involves stop-start of generating capacity, which is inefficient. The generating industry would love to spread base-load across the day, and they will price accordingly as an encouragement. Factor in intelligent re-chargers connected via internet and base-load generation (nuclear, for instance) becomes a more attractive proposition. As you're driving to work the base-load generation is shifted to heating up the office you're driving to.

Solar power has an inherent stop-start quality, of course, but it does generally conicide with when we're awake and demanding, and it doesn't cost anything to turn the Sun on.

 

[CapelDodger]

We may end up with electric cars with solar converters at home..

We may end up working (and shopping) closer to home, and not waste so much time travelling back-and-forth to end up where we started from.

I have commuted by car in my time, and I resented every bloody minute of it.

 

[Hindmost]

We may end up working (and shopping) closer to home, and not waste so much time travelling back-and-forth to end up where we started from.

I have commuted by car in my time, and I resented every bloody minute of it.

Of course that will be true, but the US infrastructure is almost completely based on economic automobile travel...the transition will be an issue.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

The answer to that is to re-charge during off-peak hours, which is when most people are asleep (and, hopefully, not driving at the same time). Peak-time electricity is already more expensive than off-peak because it involves stop-start of generating capacity, which is inefficient. The generating industry would love to spread base-load across the day, and they will price accordingly as an encouragement. Factor in intelligent re-chargers connected via internet and base-load generation (nuclear, for instance) becomes a more attractive proposition. As you're driving to work the base-load generation is shifted to heating up the office you're driving to.

Solar power has an inherent stop-start quality, of course, but it does generally conicide with when we're awake and demanding, and it doesn't cost anything to turn the Sun on.

It is still an awful lot of electricity to generate.

glenn

 

[ynot]

Assuming battery powered vehicles become mainstream - What would happen to the millions of batteries when they're past their used by date? Could they be easily recycled or would they be a problem to dispose of? Also, would the ongoing cost of replacement batteries (including energy cost to manufacture and distribute) negate any other savings?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm afraid that if you did sell electrics and hybrids, no one would want the electric....

Not exactly, it is that most people would only buy them as a second or third car. My parents purchased a second cheap effecient car to avoid driving the big van that they have for moving large things, and driving people long distances.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, just the electric nets. I don't see why that should be more problematic than already existing overhead lines for trains and trams, which also don't need an electrically conductive roof above them.
.

Where are you returning the current?

Adding metal to the road?

 

[quarky]

Solving the wrong problem.

We already know how to move a 200 lb person in a much smaller than 4,000 lb vehicle. It's called a "bicycle," or for the less athletic, a "motorcycle" or a "moped." That technology's what, 100 years old? 150 years? 200?

Now ask yourself why people are willing to pay $40,000 for a car when you can get a decent bike for $200. It's not just status. There's a lot of things that you can do with a car besides lug your 200 lb butt around. More accurately, there's a lot of things that you NEED do with a car because a bike can't or won't handle it (ever tried moving drywall?)

Yes, I've moved drywall.
Of course there will remain a need to transport items heavier than passangers, but for the bulk of transport needs, much lighter cars will be a necessity...and as it is now, steel is the culprit.

Any talk about fuel efficiency that doesn't address weight and aerodynamics, as well as the distances between goals, is hopeless.
Rather than designing down from our present day dinasaur-like cars, I'm suggesting designing up from HPV's. It can be done without a return to the stoneage.

I've forgotten most of the chemistry I once knew, but I'm wondering if there's a way to strip the carbon (and sequester it) from methane; leaving 2 H2's?

 

[Davo]

Then you're on drugs. If you're suggesting that electric+gas is cheaper after five years than gas-only, the only explanation would be that you're on drugs.

Unnecessary comment..

Firstly you are making the assumption that I was was comparing electric + gas to gas only. Wrong assumption !!

I was making a comparison to straight electric v gas.

I still stand by my guess that a lot of people would hang on to their gas vehicles after they buy electrical, however I don`t think that is a requirement.

For long drives you could just hire a gas car or pool a car with friends or neighbours.

 

[Davo]

My thoughts for electrical transport . . .

An electrified network of “main” routes that directly power vehicles for long distance travel. The vehicles have on-board batteries that allow for shorter travel independent of the network. The batteries are recharged when travelling on the network. This system could also be utilised to distribute electricity around cities and countries (better than ugly power poles and pylons).

What would the main flaws of such a system be?

I suspect such a system would work.

But.. the cost of setting up the infrastructure would be huge. Imagine digging up each motorway lane to install cable.You also have chicken and egg situation where people would not buy the vehicle without the infrastructure. The infrastructure would not be built without having the vehicles.

 

[CapelDodger]

It is still an awful lot of electricity to generate.

glenn

True. I guess we'd have to look to a combination of less driving, intelligent battery-chargers, nuclear power, and renewables.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've forgotten most of the chemistry I once knew, but I'm wondering if there's a way to strip the carbon (and sequester it) from methane; leaving 2 H2's?

I believe so, but I think it involves steam and high pressure so it's rather energy-inefficient.

 

[jimbob]

I've forgotten most of the chemistry I once knew, but I'm wondering if there's a way to strip the carbon (and sequester it) from methane; leaving 2 H2's?

Methane Cracking:

First hit from google here:

I think the trouble is that you are still losing energy compared to burning methane...

(But I am a semicondutor engineer, with a first degree in Applied Physics, so... YMMV )

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course that will be true, but the US infrastructure is almost completely based on economic automobile travel...the transition will be an issue.

Well, there's the rub. Frankly, I think we'll be watching a long slow train-crash (metaphorically speaking ). The intelligent policy, obviously, is to avoid getting caught up in it.