Electric Cars

I also have a friend with one. He loves it.
He has a wife like mine that needs more stops than the car, so he has no range anxiety.

 

You didn't even bother to read the RESEARCH that I provided to you PROVING that SHILLenberger is LYING about the harm caused by nuclear plant disasters.

 

The first source I already know about and the 2nd source went some way towards explaining what I believe you are trying to communicate with this statement.

From your 2nd source;

The problem is that when that ICE vs EV comparison is being done it NEVER takes into account the INEFFICIENCIES inherent in the COST of FINDING, EXTRACTING, SHIPPING, REFINING, STORING and PUMPING that gasoline.

By NOT including those factors for the ICE while always INCLUDING them for EV's the end result is a completely distorted and utterly BOGUS comparison that has ZERO VALUE.

Either do a straightforward engine to engine comparison OR a complex TOTAL cradle to grave comparison for BOTH oil versus electricity but NOT some BIASED HYBRID that is deviously motivated by the Fossil Fuel Cartels nefarious agenda.

If we took ALL of the manufacturing aspects OUT of this comparison and opted instead to just make a comparison using two neighboring farms where one produced vegetable oils to run diesel vehicles and the other used solar/wind to charge EV's we would have a better idea of which was more efficient and which had the least negative impact on the climate. In that comparison it would be relatively easy to reach the conclusion that the solar/wind farm was more efficient because it could provide both energy AND food whereas the vegetable oil farm could only provide energy.

 

Fracking doesn't cause groundwater pollution?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

The peer reviewed scientific evidence has established that there are fracking chemicals in the water supply.

Ever noticed that corporations ALWAYS DENY that they are causing toxic pollution and then the evidence comes to light PROVING that they did and by then it is too late because the water supply is already contaminated?

Given this appalling track record the onus should be the other way around IMO. Corporations must PROVE that they will NOT cause any pollution and PAY for ongoing INDEPENDENT MONITORING of their activities at all times.

 

A hundred miles inland from a hurricane is ample distance to not be affected by it.

EVERYONE with an electric vehicle would be able to have it FULLY CHARGED before they evacuated and be able to go at least as far as the range allowed.

Tesla actually sent out a LINK to EXTEND the range of all of their vehicles in Florida when a hurricane was about to hit.

 

Since there are already people who have solar panels on their roofs but you can't find any of them complaining about doing any monthly cleaning, can you?

Is it because it is NOT necessary?

https://www.energysage.com/solar/solar-operations-and-maintenance/cleaning-your-solar-panels/

 

Wrong. Unlike gas powered vehicles, an EV hardly consumes any power unless the vehicle is in motion. The gas guzzler would burn fuel just sitting there idling.

 

Solar electrolysis of water exists

Why use gasoline to make hydrogen?

 

There have a couple of breakthroughs recently when it comes to hydrogen.

Firstly hydrogen is exceptionally difficult to store and transport however the Australians have come up with a relatively simple way to extract hydrogen from ammonia which is easy to both store and transport.

https://www.energy-reporters.com/transmission/study-claims-hydrogen-breakthrough/

Ammonia can be stored, pumped and handled in the same way as gasoline and with these filters in vehicles the hydrogen can be extracted and used to power the vehicles. The downside is what do you do with the remaining fluid?

The second breakthrough also comes from Australia and is a modification of the standard separation of water into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis.

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-electrolysis-breakthrough-hydrogen-conundrum.html

The second solution is preferable because if you just have a tank of water that you use as your source of hydrogen and only separate it when needed and then burn it then it just turns back into water. The downside is the source of electricity for the electrodes which could be similar to the batteries used in EV's. The trade off between using that battery energy to drive an electric motor versus an electrode to generate hydrogen which in turn drives an ICE has not yet been researched so we are just going to have to wait and see.

Another solution for this 2nd technology might be in arid coastal areas where solar power could be used to separate hydrogen from sea water and then that hydrogen is burned to provide electricity and the now pure water is used for irrigation and growing crops. This does not solve the EV problem but it does address the problems of water and food in regions where those are hard to find.

 

Those who work real jobs aren't within a bikes ride of the work.

 

Right only shills for so called renewable energy have any credibility.

 

There goes our natural gas.

 

No it's because they are utter garbage and they can't sell them here. Look at Fiat. They've been making garbage for over a hundred years. And it was after 2000 when they started marketing them here. And the embarrassing sales of the Fiat 500 after less than a decade. They are trash. The Italians do not make a good car, neither do the French or the British. That's why China bought jaguar and Land Rover from Tata motors in India.

Americans expect more from their carts they use them more.

It isn't a love affair with big fast and loud cars it's the desire to have something that isn't a boat anchor in 9 months.

 

Why not just go gas-electric like a locomotive?

 

Imagine what happens in high water. Not only is your vehicle lost, it becomes a potential hazard to anyone in water with it.

Do you remember hearing about Neil Young burning a 64 Lincoln up in his garage after he had it converted to electric?

There's that hazard to.

 

The electric motors on a locomotive are serving the same function as a transmission in an automobile. It is just a way to get the power from the engine to the drive wheels. The advantage for a locomotive is that provides a way to smoothly get the energy from the engine to multiple drive wheels. The hybrids are a variation of this. They just put batteries in there so that an engine is not needed at all times.

 

When you're evacuating you're in motion. But if the power is out, and you didn't get enough charge on that electrical vehicle well now it's just two ton cinder block

 

No on a locomotive the traction motor is use sort of like a transmission but not really. The diesel engine drives an alternator which produces the electricity use for the traction motor. The alternator is the equivalent of the engine in a regular car. The diesel engine on a locomotive is only a generator of electricity. Lots of things operate with this concept.

Hybrids operate on a different platform. the engine actually drives the wheels in a hybrid that's why it's a hybrid. On these vehicles the engine is actually part of the drivetrain.

 

On a locomotive you have an engine which converts energy from hydrocarbon fuels to mechanical energy. That mechanical energy turns the alternator. The electrical current from that alternator is distributed to the drive wheels.

I will put it a slightly different wheels. The engine on a locomotive is an internal combustion engine just like on an automobile. The alternators and electric motors and the wiring connecting the two, replace the whole drive train on an automobile including transmission, drive shaft, differential, and drive axles.

 

Yeah but the engine isn't part of the drivetrain it just produces electricity. On a hybrid it is part of the drivetrain.

It would be different than a conventional vehicle because the conventional vehicle the engine is part of the drivetrain. Exactly like on a hybrid.

 

The engine on both converts hydrocarbon fuels into mechanical energy. The drive train merely moves the energy along a path. The paths are different. Take a look at the warranty on your car. It most likely refers to the engine plus the drive train.

 

so what does that on a stationary generator to but there's no drivetrain.

the engine on a car mechanically engauges the drive axle. That's what I mean about it being part of the drive train. A component like the fuel tank which is necessary does not mechanically engage the. The engine on a locomotive does not mechanically engage the drive axle.

 

The engine engages a drive shaft connected the alternator.

 

That's exactly how a stationary generator works. And if you took that stationary generator and plugged an electric car into it you would have a locomotive. The car would still be strictly electric. Just like the locomotive.

 

That take me back to what I was saying originally. Whether that engine and generator is stationary or located in an automobile, there is a thermodynamic theoretical limit to that engines efficiency. There are simple explanations of that limit even though they do not come up with an specific value.

When fuel burns, it heats up a medium, generally the oxygen and air taken into that engine. The hotter that oxygen and air going into the engine, the less heat which can be transferred to it from the fuel. When the fuel does its job and converts to mechanical energy, you get a hot exhaust. Ideally, you would like that exhaust to to be cooled as much as possible by transferring the energy to mechanical energy. However, try as we might, it will still burn your hand.