The Electric Car "Runs Out of Juice" With Consumers

It comes down to this, electric motors are magnitudes more efficient than the internal combustion engine. That is why the move is necessary, because efficiency and cost are related.

- - - Updated - - -

Really, is that why they stopped using steam.

- - - Updated - - -

Really, is that why they stopped using steam.

 

The warranty conditions for PV panels typically guarantee that panels can still produce at least 80% of their initial rated peak output after 20 (or sometimes 25) years. So manufactures expect that their panels last at least 20 years, and that the efficiency decreases by no more than 1% per year.​

​

http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/life-expectancy-solar-PV-panels


Also taken from the "Centre for Alternative Technology" article. Yeah, they don't have a bias. LOL.


I think that I will listen to the manufacturers that honor the warranties.

 

And this is what the liberal argument has deteriorated into.

I provide facts, math, references, and sources to validate my argument, and this is the response I get.

Could it be any clearer that progressives such as mdrobster worship at the alter of the progressive agenda, rather than swallowing a healthy dose of reality?

 

You have provided nothing but immature rants. Use coal to heat your house if you wish, the rest of the world will move on the 21st century of technology.

Good day!!!

 

God and goddess, this is like dealing with a three year old! Diesel-electric locomotives were efficient only when compared to the steam locomotives they replaced.

 

True,.

But since government subsidies, patent pools, monopolies that guarantee a market, or the government as the principal customer created the commercial airline business, radio, jet aircraft, the internet and the computer, we don't see this as a problem. The lessons of history suggest that this is a very effective way to go.

 

The commercial airline business did not depend on government to exist.

If obama were had been our Fuhrer during the early years of aviation trains would still be the king of transportation.

 

At almost 40K a pop there is no cost benefit for the consumer unless you are willing to keep it for 10 plus years...

 

Unless increasing production, reduces the cost?

Or,

Unless gas goes up right?

And what are the chances that gas would go up?

Its not like every action from China and the US revolves around securing energy fields for the future right now, right?

 

Entirely electric vehicles have a lot of drawbacks, which intensive R&D doesn't promise to alleviate a whole lot, such as:
1) The batteries are very expensive, and quite heavy
2) They take a whole lot longer to charge than it takes to fill a gas tank
3) They don't go as far as a full gas tank
4) They're more expensive than today's highly efficient internal combustion engines.
5) They often suffer in performance comparisons (1/4 mile times, etc.)

What the average American customer wants is a vehicle that costs less than $20,000, goes 350-400 miles on a tank of 87 octane gas, gets 35-40 miles a gallon, and doesn't require some sort of specialized physical plant (or several hours) to refuel. Hybrids are fine, because the electric component is transparent. The car works. Yeah, SOME people demand 6-second quarter miles, but not many. Most people are content with a comfortable, roomy car that will do 75 mph all day long, and never needs to go faster. Any technology that can deliver this is good enough.

Government mileage requirements, contrary to the auto industry's complaints, aren't that hard to reach. Just cut WAY back on the horsepower. Achieving this goal is a different story, because as soon as gas is seen as being inexpensive, sales of 12-14mpg V8 engines just skyrockets. Gas goes up $1 a gallon, and everyone heads for the hybrid dealer. Alas, no fuel will ever come close to replacing high-octane gasoline at 25 cents a gallon.

(Us old farts remember the trauma, back in the 70s, when none of the gas pumps were ABLE to handle gas prices over $1 a gallon. Even new pumps were built assuming this couldn't happen. Remember?)

Nothing is wrong with incentives to develop more efficient engines. But there are theoretical limits, and the days of sky-high energy return on investment is long gone.

 

I like the concept ,but economically speaking how many people will go out and get a loan to buy a 40k base model car even with a good down payment? I understand they are offering almost an 8k rebate but at this point in time with an uncertain economy and people out of work or unsure about work they are gonna hold on to what they have rather than tie themselves to a financial obligation such as the volt. I have no problem with the concept it is just too much money at this point in time for the average person especially when pay is shrinking.

 

Legit concern.

Now, how much do you think costs will be reduced when they go from producing 50,000 to 5,000,000 of the expensive tech inside the car?

It doesn't have to all be volts, just cars that use the same tech, and the production costs will be massively reduced!

Cut that 40K to 25K, and gas prices at 4.50$ or above, and its a no brainer in my book.

 

Is there something wrong with you?

You attacked the source I cited in that post. Well, that was taken directly out of YOUR post!!!!!!! That's YOUR citation, not mine!

So, you're attacking your own position!

 

lol......

 

Let's all go buy an electric car that runs off of electric power produced from COAL or a BANKRUPT solar company. Any logical inconsistencies here (i.e. the thermodynamic efficiency of power generation)?

 

How about we invest in every alternative source we can, and make current fuels as efficient as possible, so we can stop sending kids to go die for our economic security, and spending American tax dollars for the security of the shipping lanes for oil in the world.

 

You have to pick your poison. The Honda CRX was an extremely efficient automobile imported into the USA in 1987. However, the dual-personality of USA logic shows up time and time again. The car had a fuel efficiency of 50 mpg BUT, it was unsafe. Let's mandate bumpers, airbags, more frame structural rigidity so that it can withstand a crash with a tank, etc. Now you have cars that weigh nearly the same as a tank. The question as to why the fuel economy is lower is due to WHAT? As I stated on an Edmunds forum years ago, I WILL drive a gokart to work that gets 80 mpg. I'll take that risk if YOU make the government make it LEGAL to drive that vehicle to work.

 

100% agree!

There is a car made in Mexico that runs on compressed air, and only costs 4,000$.

It won't meet US safety standards. This is a issue.

I would think with airbag tech, we could losen the structural safety requirements, and see minimal increases in traffic fatalities. Of course building more roads is how you actually reduce traffic fatalities.

This is where CT's come from. It is almost impossible to phathom how something like this occurs without a puppeteer.

 

Yeah right, locomotives went from steam directly to diesel-electric.

 

And only when they run on low friction tracks.

Automobiles are far different from a train but libs don't seem to understand that simple fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually I think they did.

Congratulations!

You have inadvertently found an acorn.

 

This is an issue about efficiency, internal combustion engines are very inefficient, it is basic physics, go back to school.

 

I hate break the news to you but a diesel (as in diesel-electric locomotive) is an internal combustion engine.

 

They are more efficient than current electric autmobiles, especially with digital injection, ignition and emission control. Sorry.

Electric motors MIGHT be more efficient in the future, but that is not now. Energy expended for power achieved...there is NO COMPARISON, at this time.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh-oh. Looks like it's back to "Google" for some more "Cliff's Notes Instant Expertise", huh?

 

Go back to school, I have been through this with other posters, maybe even you, this is basic physics, there is no argument here.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow thanks for the enlightenment.

 

You're right; there IS NO argument. Please show your evidence of horsepower per kw vs btu., etc. IN THE REAL WORLD. Don't forget the ENERGY CONSUMED to OVERCOME INERTIA.

The "I've already been through this" bullcrap is a common Leftninny tactic, that fools NO ONE.



The internal combustion engine EASILY outperforms electric motors; this is why your electric weed eater SUCKS next to your neighbor's 2 cycle engine powered one.