But the capacity is there and will not require new power plants.
Steam locomotives were heavy brutes and had an efficiency of only 5%!!!. That’s because it is hard to make a mobile engine condense its steam which requires a vey bulky condenser, not a problem with a stationary steam engine. So it’s goodbye Casey Jones.
The diesels that replaced the steam engine were about 35% efficient, and oil was cheap. They are more efficient now, but diesel oil is also more expensive. Nobody wants top see the return of the steam locomotive, except for some sentimental historians.
In Russia and France, nearly all locomotives are electrical. Both countries have a widely electrified grid.
Almost every type of power source has been tried for the automobile. The fuel cell works great if you have an abundant supply of Hydrogen handy. The ultimate plant may be a fuel cell with a hydrate source of hydrogen in solid form. That would provide the right energy density, the lack of which which will forever plague the electric car. The exhaust of a fuel cell car is simply water vapor.
Just in time for the EVs to hit the market en masse
/tin foil hattery
I still say if EVs become common place, then an electric company will have a daytime peak time(~6pm) and a night time peak time(probably around midnight)
"I don’t think you can say “outsourcing pollution” (which is what you are describing) is an environmental good.
At a time when restrictions on coal mining and coal burning are increasing and making coal less desirable in this country, the U.S. producers are finding better markets by exporting coal to countries where it’s burned with fewer restrictions on emissions and environmental concerns.
We’re exporting some pollution, but it doesn’t just create a problem someplace else, the atmosphere on the other side of the planet is the same one that’s on this side.
CSA
The title for this thread should be changed to pick your poison. The hoopla over plug in electrics is driven by the manufacturers, for obvious reasons, and the US government, presumably to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The tax credits for hybrids and bio diesel have been replaced by credits for plugin electrics. The subsidy for ethanol remains. Several studies show that pollution from electric cars will increase as long as coal is the major source of our electric power. Seemingly, like ethanol, it is considered better to make more of our own pollution rather than import oil. Until something better is found lithium will be required in large quantities for the batteries. Currently, the main sources of lithium are South America and China. The elements needed to make efficient electric motors come primarily from China. Pick your poison.
Good points, meanjoe and csa. The discussion here is about CO2 emissions, which causes global warming according to the very powerful environmental juggernaut, and also the cost of electric vs gasoline.
The emissions are better controlled at a large central plant than on the individual car. So downtown will be cleaner. We are not “outsourcing” emissions here, just reducing them by controlling them better in a central plant. Let’s not confuse emissions (pollution) with CO2 emssions. CO2 is not a pollutant, no matter what the EPA says.
However, the CO2 generated by burning coal to power cars is greater than by burning gasoline, mainly because gasoline has 1/4 the carbon content of coal, which is virtually 100% carbon.
Every form of power generated has some side effects. Windmills kill thousands of birds anually, probably more than hydro dams “kill” salmon. In spite of all the dams on the Columbia and Fraser rivers, salmon runs were a record high last year. Some dams were ill conceived, but the majority have bestowed many benefits.
One of the cleanest forms of energy is nuclear, but recent events in Japan demonstrate that it, too, can pose some dangers.
In summing up, electrically powered cars really do not make a lot of overall sense, except for attempts to reduce CO2 emissions and that only works if the electric power is generated without coal.
The very large recent gas finds in the US will allow the country to make a partial move away from coal. In the meantime, using less electricity and driving a small car fewer miles will allow anyone to make a REAL contribution to lower pollution and reduce CO2 generation.
Correct, although the annual maintenance costs will go up because of the greater utilization. The life of “base loaded” coal fired plants is typiclly 35-40 years, during which time the whole plant is virtually rebuilt. Coal fired boilers need annual overhauls because of the very erosive nature of the flyash generated by coal. A similar gas fired plant comes down only once every 4 years and needs a lot less tube replacement.
The increased utilization will actually lower the cost per kilowatt hour produced, another benefit.
I’m in favor of a better environment, but I think the big issue here is dependency on nations that control the oil .
Rabid environmentalist do not understand technology takes time to develop.We should proceed with alternative fuels, but for short term economic reasons, drill and build more refineries.
The environment has dramatically changed for the better in the last thirty years.We as a nation are on the right track. The big problem is trying to create utopia , while sacrificing businesses and jobs . The rest of the world is eating our lunch in the process.
Foreign currencies are overtaking ours and jobs are being displaced.I blame overzealous EPA regulations as the main culprit in our economic downfall
Well said, Oldwrench.
“Let’s invent a different means of on-board electrical generation . A new source to spin that generator”.
Isn’t there a Ford model that uses a nuclear reactor to generate power? I saw one the other day and it was called the Ford Fusion. (Maybe I am mixed up and it was really a Ford ConFusion).
“over zealous EPA regulations” may be the thing to say among some. But, I live on a lake and I do battle with that same attitude. The science surrounding us is that tipping points when reached are never recoverable. If you want to play the economy fear game with fresh water and health, fine. But if "the lake here"turns over and becomes green because of pollution, the economy around here goes south a lot faster than the cost of preventing it. The same is true for every one’s living environment. The real truth is, in every long term environmentally improved area that I’m familiar with, living conditions and the economy both improved. That goes for the air we breath, the lakes we swim and drink
from and the rivers and oceans we get our food from. Mother nature is not in the habit of giving us second chances
The rabid environmentalist I know are a heck of a lot better informed than those who worry about having too much clean air and water. .
I disagree, this earth can rebound.I live on the Cheasapeake Bay on an island.
In an effort to save the Bay, we are over regulating the watermen who make a living fishing. If the EPA really wanted to save the Bay, they would monitor the millions of gallons of oil that large commercial tankers and pleasure craft disperse thru their bilges.
How about the thousands of lbs of freon dispersed into the air by the goverment thru their NASA wind tunnels? Its ok for them, but the rest of get fined or go to jail?
Rabid environmentalist are impatient spoiled brats.Long term goals and short term solutions should prevail with rational thinking.
As I said earlier, I’m all in favor of a better environment > I participated in the first Earth Day in 1970 and continue to be an environmentalist.
I hate to repeat myself, but:
A. You get economy of scale when you use the power grid as your fuel source. The turbines at the local coal powered power plant get a lot more miles per gallon than your car. For many people, the economics work, especially as fuel prices continue to rise.
My monthly fuel bill is larger than my electric bill. Imagine if I was able to erase my fuel bill. It might make my electric bill increase by $10-15, but erase a monthly fuel bill if $60, or cut it in half if I still keep a second car with an internal combustion engine.
B. The emissions at the local coal powered power plant are monitored and regulated more than the emissions from your car’s tailpipe. EVs cut emissions. They don’t eliminate emissions though unless you have a clean power source. There are people with the money to invest who have installed solar panels on their roofs and windmills on their property. These people drive emission-free EVs. Granted, there aren’t many of these people, but they can truly say they drive emissions-free vehicles.
I would like to add to that:
C. You could always say you are using the 0.4% generated by a hydro plant. 
D. I know an electric vehicle doesn’t make sense for your situation, but you don’t live in a smog-filled city like Houston. You and your family drive long distances, and your vehicles are in use a lot of the time, leaving little time for charging batteries. However, the average city-dwelling homebody doesn’t drive many miles, and his or her car spends a lot of time sitting in the garage, while it could be charging. Instead of these people having a car rotting away in the garage, they can have an EV plugged into a charger. Electric motors withstand occasional use better than the average internal combustion engine.
…and coal supports American jobs.
The chargers should have two settings; fast charge, to charge quickly on the weekend, and slow charge, for overnight use. If the chargers were on their lower setting, the peaks would be easier to handle, wouldn’t they?
I’m an advocate for an entirely different reason: electric motors should be much more reliable and less maintenance-intensive than ICEs. There isn’t yet enough data out there to support this prognostication, but I’m betting it’ll be true.
Besides, Tesla discovered that their car didn’t need the large range of gears that an ICE would have, and that should also make for a more reliable, longer lasting tranny, perhaps a lot smaller to boot!
I believe the history of the longevity of the electric motor in use almost contiuously in things like compressors, well pumps etc. Speaks for itself. I am skeptical enough to feel that some contrived under engineered and repair prone mechanisms will be built Into EVs, just to keep the maintenance and repair bucks flowing. The same way it’s done now with gas motors and related parts. Have talked to too many engineers not to feel differentlly.Many EVs do use direct drive with a single gear. What could be more maintenance free when compared to today’s auto or even manual trans mission .
You may not realize- concentrating the origin of power would result in the concentration of political power in the hands of the utilities. Then they can pollute with impunity.
Charging your electric car from a coal fired power plant will result in a net increase in pollution. Coal plants release more CO2 and particulates per lb. of fuel burned than pollution controlled automobile engines. Electricity generated from other sources, like; oil, NG, solar, hydo and wind will result in less or no pollution. You can make up your own mind about nuclear.
Commercial electric generation is not as efficient as you might think. Factoring the inefficiencies converting from; fuel, to steam, to turbine, to generator, to transformers and line losses, %50 efficiency at the outlet is about the best you can expect. That?s why the all electric house went the way of the leisure suit. In some applications small co-generation plants are considered a better alternative to buying power from a big utility.
From information available on the Nissan website; the Leaf will go from 138 to 62 miles on a charge. The main differences are due to climate control. By their calculation if electricity costs $0.1147/KWH it will cost $2.75 to ?fill up?. (23.97 KWH/charge)That works out to a cost per mile of $0.02-$0.44. A car that gets 30mpg with gasoline at $4.00/gal costs $0.13 per mile. Why the difference? The prices of gasoline and diesel are artificially high due to taxes. The price of electricity is artificially low due to public utility control. If paying $33,720-($0-$7500 tax savings) for a car you can drive 70 miles on a hot day makes sense go for it. For long trips you can always tow a diesel generator to recharge.