Electric Cars are not ready to replace gas-powered cars.
(img.patriotpost.us)
Comments (65)
sorted by:
Hah!
I like this one too... Helicopters de icing wind turbines.
https://imgflip.com/i/6ehesb
Go search up what happens to them after an accident.
We had a tow company last week full a dumpster with water and submerge the car. It kept catching on fire.3 or 4 times the fire dept was called to put it out in one day.
Other tow companies have built concrete divided stalls for them.when they light up,they just let them burn.
Yep. Crack those batteries open and guess what its mostly acid. My mind spins in circle at all the shit that can go wrong smashing up that many batteries in a high speed wreck.
Makes me smile remembering the good old days when my dad was a volunteer fire fighter and the biggest thing they worried about when a car was on fire was the 5 mph bumper pistons causing the bumper to fly off and take out your knees. Now it might literally explode and throw acid on you. I think I'd rather have gas thrown on me. At least that goes out when you stop drop and roll. Your gear would save you. Battery acid... you're just fucked.
lithium.
acid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q2w1eTu9s4
Base acid... same diff. I'm not a chemistry major, although I know a little. When I think of battery acid I admit I think of old school lead acid batteries not the weird ass lithium kind. So I will change the wording to this.
Caustic chemicals. I'd rather have gasoline... hell BURNING gasoline thrown on me than caustic chemicals. Fire can be put out a dozen different ways and protective clothing like firemen wear helps. Chemicals just dissolve you into goop and very little you do/wear would help.
The point is those cars are designed in a way that they are just a chemical bath waiting to happen. Then again gasoline had a pretty rough start. Now we just take for granted how dangerous it really is.
Yes, that is being done. It's called a range extender and the Mazda mx-30 will have a hybrid variant with a rotary engine to provide electricity.
At cruise --- direct drive is more efficient.
Hippies don't care about that, and for some reason we're catering to hippies now.
Hippies can't afford teslas...
Trustfund hippies can lol
Kek. Gotta love the new age rich kid "bourgeois marxists" isn't the dialectic wonderful?
Believe it or not this is the real solution. You make the generator where it is as efficient as possible and much smaller so its less weight. If you KNOW you are going very far then you have a switch that just turns it on and lets it run instead of an automatic mode that only runs when the battery is low.
I know you're making a joke but their is a balance there that would make electric cars useful, and practical.
This is stupid. Instead of taking fuel and turning it directly into motion for the vehicle, you would have them turn fuel into motion, motion into electricity, electricity into battery and battery back into motion. The only thing it beats is having to make the energy somewhere else and ship it miles thru power lines to get to your car
Maybe in an attempt not to over explain I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about an electric car that has a SMALL motor(less than 50 hp maybe even only 10-20 hp) that can trickle charge the batteries or just add to the power being used.
There is a lot of inefficiency in cars because they need a wide power band to deal with various problems like hills and starting from a dead stop. If you have a generator that runs at the most efficient RPMs with no clutch etc it solves a lot of problems and removes a lot of weight. Its not just as simple as motion to electricity to motion. Although I admit that part of it is less than ideal.
What I'm saying is if the goal is an electric car... as flawed as they are... then a setup of large battery with a small motor and modest fuel supply is best to achieve endurance and usability. Especially given that in most places gas is easy to find but a charging port isn't.
My personal preference is hydrogen fuel cell cars. By weight and volume liquid hydrogen has more energy than anything else and its actually quit easy to make. There are storage and handling issues but still we should be putting all our efforts into improving that technology not toying around with gas engines. Electric cars run on batteries should only be a jumping off point to ditch the batteries for a fuel cell IMHO.
I see what you mean. To use them as backup. But you will still no matter what always have some loss no matter what with every step you take away from the origional power source. Hybrid cars to me seem like the best option for pure efficiency. Using some electric and some gas allows for regenerative braking or I've heard some places are even toying with electronic generating suspension. There is a similar problem with hydrogen as with EV tho. In order to make hydrogen out of water. You need to run an electric current thru it. The problem here lies in that you need more electricity power to split the H2O than you will get energy from burning it. That's why when you try to make the perpetual motion machine where you burn hydrogen to power the generator to make the electricity to split the water and try to run the loop, it doesn't work for long. Eventually it sputters itself out. Crazy enough the most efficient way to make hydrogen comes from oil. It's a by product of making things like acetylene although I'm not sure how it works
Yeah, but the question becomes what wastes more energy... running that electricity through a power line that heats up or moving hydrogen through a pipe or via a truck.
Also from a standpoint of storing energy long term hydrogen has them all beat by so much its not even funny. Plus its crazy clean overall. And all this can be improved on. Which was my point... why aren't they working on improving that tech? You know what I think... I think they already have and they don't want us to have access to it because they know it will mean we can use nuclear power to make hydrogen and POOF they lose control. Energy will be cheap. No more wars etc etc.
Its just like medicine. Healthy patients don't pay. Cheap, portable, easily stored energy doesn't get massive profits for big oil. They know batteries are a boondoggle they can launder taxpayer dollars from. Hydrogen would actually solve the problem and not just strip them of their profits/tax money but it would also strip them of their power over us.
Imagine a house run by a fuel cell. You have a big low pressure hydrogen tank in your back yard that holds two or three days worth of power. A backhoe tears up the gas line. Guess what... you still have power. No UPS on your computer. No resetting clocks. Owe and when you need to fuel up your car you have a nozzle in your garage that allows you to just pump hydrogen right into your car.
Your house fuel cell goes tits up. You plug the hydrogen nozzle into your car, plug the house circuit box into the car, and flip a few switches. POOF! The whole house has power, but not as strong as the main cell so maybe you can't run a few things. Call the repair guy. No hurry. Easy simple portable power that's easily stored. Its like freaking Star Trek or something.
The cabal will never let that happen if its within their power to stop it.
Ya know I never thought about that part on hydrogen. Yea I can imagine that there would be some threshold where you would save energy in transportation if you used pipelines. Unless I suppose you were in close proximity to the power plant. But yea a lot of power is moved over hundreds of miles and a lot of energy is wasted. More than 50% in some cases. I can imagine that a way to pipe it and store it couldn't be all that different than say natural gas, or propane, except you can't pressurize it into liquid form. To me that would probably be the biggest hindrance to making say a hydrogen car. You would need a pretty huge tank to go all that far, whereas using something like propane can be condensed to something small.
Yeah, and they made test cars like a decade ago. One was a standard 4 door sedan compact car that pretty much the whole trunk was a large medium pressure tank. It would travel like 200 miles, I think, on one tank.
The last thing I saw a while back was that they were having problems with the fuel cell themselves. They wore out too fast and required a lot of weird chemicals and metal to make which created waste and supply bottlenecks.
So instead we make wasteful batteries out of rare metals? Get it. They either stopped looking for solutions to fuel cell problems or they already found some and buried them in a bottomless pit. Why? Because it would set us free FROM THEM.
Two decades ago hydrogen was all the rage. It was to be the new thing to solve all our problems. Now its a forbidden topic. Hardly anyone talks about it. Why?
One other thing... you could setup solar panels in a desert in the middle of nowhere. Condense water from the air, electrolysis it into hydrogen and oxygen, store the hydrogen, and along comes some rando lost in the middle of nowhere. Guess what... he can top off his car before he keeps driving.
Hydrogen solves like half the problems of wind, solar etc because it gives you a stable way to store that electricity that is scalable to massive shit-tons or just a little bit. If it is a lot you liquefy it. If its not much then you make a huge tank like a propane tank and lightly compress it. Because you can have storage tanks at every level of distribution it doesn't matter that wind and solar are unreliable or intermittent. You just make sure you top off the tanks before you start using it. As long as the supply overall is enough to meet demand no one ever runs out. No brown out bullshit.
And yes using liquid hydrogen directly as fuel would be like a military/industrial thing. Stuff like a train might use that, but for everyday people it would be too dangerous.
Notice that if you have enough solar, wind, and micro hydro of your own you could have a hydrogen generation plant of your own with a few large tanks and POOF you have cut the strings from your masters. If you had satellite internet then you are completely 100% off grid. You even have fuel for your own car/tractor etc.
On the plus side you can get regenerative braking which might give you a net gain for a stop and go all day vehicle.
Regenerative braking has also been done with flywheels and hydraulics.
That's not how physics works. If your driving the car in motion 50% of the time and regenerative breaking is 50% of the time but the power you get back is less than the cost of putting the car in motion because you don't gain energy in a transfer, only loss occurs. This is because of material inefficiency. Gold wires would get you closer (not exactly 1:1) but then no one could afford to buy it. you are in energy debt and analogous to any democrat run administration.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are finite - and MUST be obeyed!
Here is a regenerative braking bicycle using a flywheel.
https://www.wired.com/2011/08/regenerative-flywheel-powered-bicycle/
The design I saw years ago (1970s) used high pressure air over hydraulic reservoirs and variable displacement pumps and motors. They were getting 40 mpg on a VW sized car. It had good acceleration with regenerative braking. They used a 20 hp gas motor but had about 100 hp impulse air/hydraulic power.
Think of it this way.
Take a fuel efficient gas car and put a 1200 lb slab on top of it.
If that 1200 lb slab you're talking about is the battery, keep in mind that electric engines are extremely efficient at using the energy in there. It's a lot different than putting a 1200 lb slab of concrete that doesn't aid in moving the car forward. Electric engines are way more efficient than gas engines, and I fully expect that we will be getting 1000+ miles out of them off a single charge within 10 years.
Don't get me wrong: I've had many opportunities to buy electric cars and haven't. I thoroughly enjoy driving stick, and they just don't have anything like it for electric vehicles. All the hate for electric cars seems a bit unwarranted though. The idea of being able to charge my car using solar panels appeals to me. If the government tries to limit movement by cutting access to gasoline, I can still move around, provided my car's electronics do not brick the car.
I got my coal powered car because it’s super fast, always has a full tank in the morning, no maintenance except for tires (brakes last forever because of regen) and stick to the road (good in snow) because of the weight. I love it. I didn’t get it to “save the planet”, it doesn’t do that.
Not only is it super fast, the throttle response is next to nothing. That's the one aspect of EVs that I can't wait to try out, because it might feel so good that it's an acceptable tradeoff for the stick shift. I'm so close to pulling the trigger.
Electric car engines have ZERO efficiency at creating energy.
They do not create energy.
Someone else has to do that ---- then you have an additional ~5 to 10% loss (Tesla batteries have to have a cooling system for the waste heat energy).
.... and you have to drag around a 1200 lb weight.
Engine efficiency refers to the percentage of energy lost when converting stored energy into kinetic energy. No engine creates energy (it's one of the basic laws in physics: energy cannot be created or destroyed), so discussing how much energy an engine creates doesn't really serve to validate or invalidate any engine, gas or electric.
Comparing today's typical efficiency of consumer gas engines and consumer electric engines puts electric vehicles significantly ahead: gas car engines operate at 20% efficiency, whereas electric car engines operate at 60% efficiency. And the electric vehicle industry is still young, so we will likely see significant improvements in both energy storage and thermal efficiency.
I suspect improving battery weight is at the top of every EV manufacturer's list of desired improvements. Right now the energy density of a lithium ion battery is around 0.7 MJ/kg, whereas gasoline stores around 44 MJ/kg. There's quite a bit of research going on around increasing efficiency of electricity storage, so I suspect that will improve significantly within the next 5 to 10 years. Increasing the energy density of EV batteries from 0.7 MJ/kg to 2.8 MJ/kg will effectively make electric batteries lighter than most car engines (and would also increase the single charge range into thousands of miles).The future looks pretty exciting.
Toyota is claiming 40% thermal efficiency
That's a huge achievement. Very cool.
You have to factor the energy loss of charging the battery.
Battery charge and discharge loss is accounted for in the 60% efficiency number for EV's.
Electric cars are good for the golf course, and that's about it
Florida will need to build charging stations all along I-75 north for the cars waiting in-line during hurricane evacuation.
Not sure why they aren’t pushing more for plug-in hybrid (actually I know it is for control). Those would make a lot more sense as battery is a lot smaller only big enough for 30miles and we won’t have to strip mine the whole earth for all the materials for an EV. And the hybrid can run on gasoline and I believe some models could run as generators if you need.
So in theory you could make 10 plug-in hybrids’ batteries with the amount used for just one EV assuming an EV has roughly 300mi range.
EVs are so dumb.
True, and Toyota created Nickel batteries that are still plugins, and get 42 miles off of EV only. Nickel doesn’t require the full strip mining that a lithium one needs.
Considering the mileage range of an electric vehicle is so limited, if you were going cross country it would take at least double the travel time due to the constant need to recharge. Thais is what the government wants, confinement to a certain mileage radius. This is a round about way to control your movement.
When a Tesla charges from Empty on 110v -120v (house current, and almost certainly what that generator is putting out) charging is VERY slow. The gas tank on that little generator go empty before the car is charged enough for the owner to get home, is my guess.
Most generators over 5,000 watts have a 230 volt plug capable of 30 amps, maybe 50 amps on 8,500 watts or larger.
Ya, they need an 'electric' generator. lol
The sad thing is how many otherwise intelligent Trump supporters hate EVs with a passion of a democrat without facts.
They absolutely have their flaws, but in some use cases they absolutely are second to none.
Completely agree. This isn't really a political issue. Some people just like gas cars. That's fine, as long as you don't make preferring a gas car into a political issue 😑.
Being able to charge my car at home using solar sounds absolutely incredible. My transportation would no longer rely on other people drilling liquid out of the ground.
My turbo diesel is my favourite.
And you're 1 out of every 10000 people that own an EV. All the rest of them are charged using electricity generated from petroleum.
Fair point. If I could afford solar and an electric car, there's a good chance I would have tried it out by now :). Reality strikes again.
I’m a raging MAGA brother in arms and I’m picking up my model Y next week. To each his own.
Electric cars are kinda cool imo but only as a secondary or tertiary option. Never primary.
This only shows that there are many imbeciles out there. Trust me, running out of battery like this on a tesla is almost impossible.
They're not meant to replace gasoline cars. They're meant as a means to limit and control your movement.
Yes Biden let me go spend $60,000 on a car I can’t even afford to have lower gas prices. What a genius
Am old enough to remember when REA had electric delivery trucks in midtown Manhattan. Con Edison gave them a special rate to charge up overnight and when they raised the rate, the electrics got scrapped. Walker Electric trucks were built from 1907. REA used them until about 1960.
Everything about the Corrupt Green Steal is a hoax.
A Tesla...
I mean, it's the same thing when they plug it into the wall at home, it's just the generator is a big power plant and it's far away. Maybe it's coal instead of oil.
Yep....... & hydrogen is a way out..........
Somebody should really consider putting an alternator on one of those things