Thread Tools

Mister Dignity
I flop like a boss
2184.34
Mister Dignity is offline
 
#1
Old 04-18-2012, 10:00 PM

So my dad and I were talking about random junk, and electric cars were brought up. I know many people believe they are "eco friendly" as well as other crappy theories (not to offend anyone, it's just my opinion) but they don't see how the electricity is generated.

I know of mills, wind turbines, and things like that, but then there are coal plants. These pump pillars of black fumes into the atmosphere, and people call this "eco friendly".

I don't see how this is considered that when a nice juicy chunk of this "eco" power is generated by "killing mother nature".

Most people use these cars to avoid releasing fumes from a gas powered engine, but then again, it's not really reducing much, and I believe in some cases adding.

Thoughts and opinions please! :)

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#2
Old 04-18-2012, 10:14 PM

As far as coal power goes, you'd have to compare coal plant emissions with your state's vehicle emissions requirements (if there even are any). Coal plant emissions are HIGHLY regulated in every state, where as vehicle emissions are generally not as closely watched in some states. It really just depends.

My concern with electric cars lies mostly not with production and operation, but rather disposal. Car batteries aren't exactly easy to get rid of, but neither is the used lubricant (oil) from standard vehicles with combustion engines. Likewise, electric cars contain much fewer parts than petrol cars--no need for fuel filters, oil filters, oil, spark plugs, or a number of other things.

So, really, the only way to make an accurate comparison is to look at the whole system. In some areas, like where I live (lots of solar power out here!), electric cars can really be zero-emission vehicles while in operation, which is great. But again, we have to look at disposal of car parts as well, and batteries aren't any easier to get rid of than used oil.

Mister Dignity
I flop like a boss
2184.34
Mister Dignity is offline
 
#3
Old 04-18-2012, 10:34 PM

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

But what I did forget to mention is the lithium batteries within the electric cars. Batteries like these are in laptops, and with Macs (easier for me to notice with Macs, at least) what will happen is you hear a loud humming and the bottom of the laptop becomes extremely hot. That is the lithium battery heating up from usage. Imagine a larger one inside a car, heating up. I forget the details, but a friend of mine's father told me that these can cause extreme damage to a car when overheating, or in a crash.

About the crash thing, the cars are also very little, so once in a crash you better have your seatbelt on :o

I just went from the environment to safety xD

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#4
Old 04-18-2012, 10:43 PM

Depends on the car. Some producers rely on lithium batteries, but there are also nickel-metal hydride and, of course, the lead-acid batteries used most often in petrol cars.

Also, the batteries aren't just made bigger to fit into a car. I mean, obviously they are indeed larger than a laptop battery, but usually there's an array them (which makes the car very very heavy--hence why they tend to be on the smaller size, the electric motor simply can't move around more weight without draining energy very quickly). That way if one battery goes bad, you're not stranded.

As for crashes, again, it depends on the car. Electric cars come in a variety of sizes and weights--the Nissan Leaf, for example is about the same size as many other hatchbacks, such as the Toyota Prius (which is not a fully electric car). Also, "wired" electric vehicles (such as the MUNI electric buses in San Francisco, photo here) can be VERY large, since they are designed for public transport. This bus has TWO cars! (And riding in the joint between them is a very very strange experience indeed)

More information here!

Last edited by Keyori; 04-18-2012 at 10:47 PM..

Mister Dignity
I flop like a boss
2184.34
Mister Dignity is offline
 
#5
Old 04-18-2012, 10:47 PM

Yes. Other batteries than just lithium exist, but I'm just saying, I don't think they're the safest thing on Earth to shove in a car to run it ;)

And with car crashes, I mean like not fender benders or a 5 mph collision at a neighborhood intersection. I'm talking about if the car was hit by a larger vehicle, both going over 40 mph. I just think these cars aren't the safest to ride around all the time, I mean look at motorcycles; they're small with no protection. These are small and cramped most of the time, so getting hit could get you slammed into some metal big time.

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#6
Old 04-18-2012, 10:57 PM

I understand what you're saying, but it still depends on the car. Not all EVs are small (see bus example), and some of them might even have better safety ratings than their petrol counterparts. You just have to do your research when purchasing. There are plenty of petrol vehicles that have terrible safety ratings.

See here (only one EV on the list), here, and here, and many many many more (you can usually find at least one "worst 10" list for each model year).

On the all-time-worst list, the top spot is a Chevy Pinto, which was the worst because of the gas tank.

Quote:
Ford Pinto. In production from 1971-1980, the Pinto became known as the one vehicle that didn’t discriminate when it came to exploding in accidents, often requiring only a low speed and moderate impact. Thanks to a design flaw that placed the gas tank in the optimal place for blowing up in the event of a simple fender bender, the Pinto quickly became known more as a murderer of mass proportion than a dependable family vehicle.
A low-speed, moderate impact will blow it up because of its tank placement.

But, I wouldn't fault ALL petrol vehicles based on one crappy Pinto. And likewise, you can't fault all EV's because some of them are smaller than others. By that logic we'd all have to drive Hummers just for the sake of safety.

Last edited by Keyori; 04-18-2012 at 11:00 PM..

Mister Dignity
I flop like a boss
2184.34
Mister Dignity is offline
 
#7
Old 04-18-2012, 11:01 PM

Yep, research will pay off! :D

And yeah, it does depend on the car. I myself, I'm not interested in these cars, I'll probably get a fuel efficient car, with decent size to it when I can drive, but for now eco cars aren't my thing.

Sun
(っ◕‿◕)&...
704.56
Send a message via MSN to Sun
Sun is offline
 
#8
Old 04-23-2012, 07:40 AM

I agree with you. Most electric cars i've seen support for (in the UK at least) have been marketed as a 'clean alternative'. That might well be true in terms of emissions, but it always annoys me how people don't consider that fossil fuels are still being used.
In my opinion, if it can't be used when fossil fuels are fully depleted (including the actual construction of the car, its interior and tires), then it's not 'clean driving', or 'emission free'. They always forget to tell you about the carbon footprint of these things i find.

Although i don't know much about them, i find a better alternative hydrogen fuel cells. The technology works, but it's still being refined.

Codette
The One and Only

Penpal
767.32
Codette is offline
 
#9
Old 05-03-2012, 10:07 PM

The one problem I have with electric cars is, what happens to batteries when it's uber cold. Where I live -50 degrees Celsius is a mild winter, so beyond frigid temperatures must create some problems with the batteries in these cars.

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#10
Old 05-03-2012, 10:13 PM

Certain biodiesel is the same way. Basically the vehicle has to run on petrol for a while to warm up the engine before it can use the biodiesel. I'm not sure if that would be effective for EVs though.

Kriemedesan
⊙ω⊙
1113.12
Kriemedesan is offline
 
#11
Old 05-22-2012, 01:10 PM

Someone brought up something to me that I feel like I should share. I cannot find her video, but she did an excellent job of explaining how the recycling of materials or other "environmentalistic" attempts cause a lot of chemicals (worse than cutting down trees and replanting) and wasting human resources (which are supplied by a great number of other services, including food, their own cars, taxes, etc which are affected by other services). Scientifically speaking, any exchange causes loss of energy, thus why you cannot have self-supplied energy. It should be noted though that there are CERTAIN recycling methods that do give back more than other methods, such as metal. When you have someone coming up to your home willing to buy something to recycle--and they are not supplied by government money--you know there is a profit that they see from this, whether monetary, socially or environmental.

QueenFool
(-.-)zzZ
3019.53
QueenFool is offline
 
#12
Old 07-19-2012, 05:11 PM

We don't have coal power here. Nuclear woo! Which, although I may be wrong, doesn't emit greenhouse gasses nearly as much as coal does. That's not to say that it's clean of course, because I'm pretty sure a few years ago they accidentally cooked all the fish in a nearby creek. Also, it's the oldest nuclear plant in the country, so I'm not really sure how modern its disposal and stuff is.

However, I did write one of my college admittance essays on my plan to build a truly emission free vehicle. It gave a lot of freedom, so I neglected things like the emissions created during production and some of the logistics and costs, but the general idea (to me at least) made sense. Basically, I said that the ideal car would have a traditional hybrid engine and run on hydrogen power. Frankly I have no clue if H3 is abundant or realistic or anything, but I know that H2 is incredibly flammable. Anyway, I said that the car would have a hydrogen tank and a hybrid engine, and then we would have to make new, better tires since the roads would always be wet.

I wonder if ANY of that is even possible, haha.

Also, the Chevy Volt is one of the most heavily subsidized cars ever, and they're still unpopular and I believe there was something wrong with their batteries or something recently. I'm not really sure, since I drive a Hyundai.

Quote:
The one problem I have with electric cars is, what happens to batteries when it's uber cold. Where I live -50 degrees Celsius is a mild winter, so beyond frigid temperatures must create some problems with the batteries in these cars.
I know that traditional hybrids, such as Toyota's Prius, don't get the same mileage when it's cold out as they do in the summer. I'm assuming it would be the same or worse for electric cars.

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#13
Old 07-19-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenFool View Post
We don't have coal power here. Nuclear woo! Which, although I may be wrong, doesn't emit greenhouse gasses nearly as much as coal does.
It doesn't emit ANY greenhouse gases. The cooling towers you see for nuclear plants are emitting steam, and nothing else. The waste concerns for nuclear mostly lie in spent fuel, which emits harmful radiation that is difficult to contain.


Pictured: dihydrogen monoxide emissions.

Quote:
Frankly I have no clue if H3 is abundant or realistic or anything, but I know that H2 is incredibly flammable. Anyway, I said that the car would have a hydrogen tank and a hybrid engine, and then we would have to make new, better tires since the roads would always be wet.
First: O2 is also extremely flammable. I don't think I understand your point :/

Second: It's unlikely the roads would be wet. See the cooling tower I posted above; I doubt the cars would be spilling water everywhere, it's more likely the water would get circulated through the cooling system first and then be expelled as steam. Even electric vehicles produce a fair amount of heat during operation (plus if you had an air conditioner, that would also mean a lot of heat discharge).


As far as Chevy goes, I'm not a fan of any of their vehicles, period. *shrug*

Quote:
I know that traditional hybrids, such as Toyota's Prius, don't get the same mileage when it's cold out as they do in the summer. I'm assuming it would be the same or worse for electric cars.
That's pretty much true for all cars, and is not limited to their means of power production.

Also, I hate hybrids. They're a crappy petrol engine and a crappy electric motor wrapped up into one vehicle. I think we should focus on improving efficiency of petrol vehicles and improving the different EV technologies, not mangling them together into one half-assed vehicle.

Suggesting a hydrogen-powered vehicle with a "hybrid engine" is basically putting THREE engines into one car, which makes the problem even worse.

---

Something that was pointed out to me recently; Electric vehicles are the ONLY vehicles that get more clean as you continue to use them.

It works like this: You purchase an EV. Perhaps the power you get is from, say, a coal plant. So you could essentially say that your EV is "coal-powered."

Then, a number of things are likely to happen: coal exhaust scrubbers get better, improving air quality. So now your vehicle contributes less pollution to the air, because that's what the coal plant did. Or, perhaps the plant's efficiency goes up; so too does your vehicle by comparison. You're now using less coal to go the same distance, essentially. Or maybe the community decides they're sick of coal and closes the plant in favor of opening a solar or wind farm (or geothermal or nuclear or hydro or whatever). Now your EV has become emissions-free, because you are no longer relying on coal for your power needs.

In essence, as we clean up our power grid, we also clean up our EV's.

No other vehicle does that. Petrol vehicles will always emit the same exhaust and their efficiency generally only degrades over its lifetime (I'm not saying it's impossible for the opposite to happen, but that most people do not invest in their vehicles to the point where they are making these improvements on their own automobiles as far as emissions or efficiency goes, or doing DIY conversions to electric motors from a previously petrol car; it's just not common at this point in time). Same for hybrids, which are still, in essence, petrol vehicles.

Last edited by Keyori; 07-19-2012 at 05:51 PM..

QueenFool
(-.-)zzZ
3019.53
QueenFool is offline
 
#14
Old 07-19-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:
Also, I hate hybrids. They're a crappy petrol engine and a crappy electric motor wrapped up into one vehicle. I think we should focus on improving efficiency of petrol vehicles and improving the different EV technologies, not mangling them together into one half-assed vehicle.
My feelings exactly. My dad told me he had a car in the 80s that got like 35mpg (I can't remember what it was!). My Elantra sometimes gets 40 if I drive on the highway for the entire tank and don't touch my brakes once, and it's considered "efficient". It's 2012. Come on.

Admonish Misconstruction
\ (•◡•) /
19434.78
Admonish Misconstruction is offline
 
#15
Old 07-20-2012, 07:12 PM

For a HEV (hybrid), like the Toyota Prius the issue is primarily from the manufacturing process. Hybrids use nickel metal hydrate batteries, which while expensive, contain no heavy metals and are relatively easy to recycle. All in all I think it's safe to say the Prius, and other hybrids, aren't a flawed design: except in one way. The premium to buy a hybrid is too large for numerous consumers, they're simply expensive to manufacture. This premium probably won't offset before you get rid of the car. In turn, a less expensive and better option would be a small diesel (especially in Britain). They can get great MPG (Renault Clio, 67 combined MPG, Citron C2, 67 combined) for a lower initial cost (Renault Clio is £14,000? Prius £21,000?) and gets better gas millage. Because the Prius (which has a gas engine) only uses its electric engines at speeds under 25mph I would think, that it would be worse for the environment than say, a diesel. Diesel are better in petrol in reference to carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. Diesel cars are worse than petrol cars with reference to particulates, which have unproved health impacts. Is the Prius a bad car? Not necessarily, I think. I think there's a far better choice (again, I think) than a hybrid. The Prius costs more, gets lower gas millage than a small diesel (even with the higher price of diesel), and both have spark plugs, oil filters, etc. For the majority of the market diesels will be cheaper, more fuel efficient, and better for the environment than their petrol counterparts.

I found this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...electric-cars/ Very interesting in concerning purely electric cars.


Quote:
In order to deliver 30 kWh to your house to fully charge the Leaf’s 24 kWh battery bank, for example—incorporating the charge efficiency this time, the source of electricity becomes a highly relevant factor. Two-thirds of our electricity comes from fossil fuel plants, typically converting 35% of the fossil fuel thermal energy into electricity. Only 90% of this makes it through the transmission system, on average. If your electricity comes from a fossil fuel plant, the 30 kWh delivered to your house took about 95 kWh of fossil fuel energy. The 73 miles the Leaf travels on a full charge now puts it at an energy efficiency of 130 kWh/100-mi. The MPG equivalent number is 28 MPG. From a carbon-dioxide standpoint, you’d be better off burning the fossil fuel directly in your car.

While I think purely electric cars are a wonderful idea I don't believe their a immediate cure, not nearly. The charging times can be 7+ hours and when you add that with their range and price ($28,000 after a $7,500 tax credit) wow. To note, there is a $700 option that allowsthe car to be charged in 27 minutes by a DC charger. When those will be readily avialable, I don't know.

Quote:
We think the Leaf is great for short trips. But its range is often not what its gauge might indicate. One staffer found that the range was rapidly reduced from 36 miles to barely 19 one frigid morning. Nissan claims the range on a full charge is about 100 miles, but during a long cold snap we averaged just 65 miles.
Quote:
Using our 220-volt chargers, charging times have been 7 to 9 hours, and the Leaf has taken almost 22 kilowatts per charge. The car can also be charged on 110-volt current, but charging times can be close to 20 hours.
Source: Nissan Leaf

Nissan (for the Leaf) does say when it comes time to replace your battery after 60,000 miles of use you may not have to, they'll just replace some components for a relatively low price.

I love the ideas of a electric car (so much acceleration!) but at the moment their simply not a immediate solution. We need to also focus on on making our petrol and diesel powered cars more efficient, and we have made some great progress already. There's millions and millions of gas and diesel powered cars on the road right now and a entire infesturcture and industry built around them. This does not just include your regular four door saloons but eighteen-wheelers, work vehicles, construction equipment, and trucks. Petrol and diesel powered cars will not be a thing of the past in our lifetime, and while we should still pursue making electric and hybrid cars less expensive, more efficient, and able to do bigger tasks (work trucks, vans, busses, etc) that's not going to happen for years.

We need to be focusing a lot on where are electricity comes from, which means nuclear power plants.

First, I would like to address the three major nuclear disasters:

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster:
This should have, simply, never have happened. Fuushima was not designed for a tsunami of the size that struck the plant and even after concerns were raised in Japan no modifactions were made to the reactor. If you have a nuclear power plant on the coast, you know, being ready for floods and stuff makes a lot of sense. TAPCO changed the layout of the emergency-cooling system without reporting it, there were falsification of safety records, and seismic and tsunami concerns were ignored. Furthmore the plant was using the older BWR Mark I containment system, a system that is outdated and does not befit a plant located next to a ocean and in a country where earthquakes and trunami's are sort of a thing. This disaster could have been prevented, and simply should have. The Mark 1 also have a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure, which is to further say "don't use on near floods and tsunamis". Also, at least one of the reactors were already cracked (which you know, is something that you know, should be taken care of).

Three Mile Island accident: Well, it was actually just as bad as riding in a commercial airline. I suppose "none at all" would be the danger level of this.

Chernobyl: American physicist and Nobel laurete Hans Bethe basically called the soviets nuclear power plant a piece of junk, if fundamentally faulty and having built-in instability is the same thing. The RBMK (the reactor they used) containment structure or any way to contain or shut it down.

Quote:
Without question, the accident at Chernobyl was the result of a fatal combination of ignorance and complacency. "As members of a select scientific panel convened immediately after the...accident," writes Bethe, "my colleagues and I established that the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power."
Quote:
The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl "was regarded as the workhorse of Soviet atomic energy, thrifty and reliable -- and safe enough to be built without an expensive containment building that would prevent the release of radiation in the event of a serious accident," The Guardian's Adam Higginbotham noted.

As a result, when a reactor exploded on April 26, 1986, the radioactive material inside went straight into the atmosphere.
Furthermore Chernoby's cooling system has a positive void coefficient, meaning the coolant basically turned into steam and things simply get worse, not better. Also, the Soviet Union sort of tried to cover up Chernobyl (four thousand related deaths).

In conclusion I guess we could say the disasters related to nuclear power plants are either the fault of the Soviet Union, stupidity, ignorance, complacency, and the like. Basically, they all could have prevented and have lead to a tarnished name for nuclear energy. Of course, if you don't do something properly it'll mess up horribly. If you do it right though even if the reactor goes haywire everything will work out perfectly fine.

Nuclear energy is a great source of power. While it costs a lot for construction it produces electricity at a far less expensive cost than gas and coal. The average nuclear power plant makes $20 million per year in state and local taxes (USA). It will also lessen our depency on Canada's gas and will help stabilize fluctuations in the electricity marke. Furthermore the reliability of nuclear power is great. It generates power 91.5 percent a day while coal only does 71 percent and wind 31 percent and solar energy whenever's the suns up. Nuclear energy is great for the enviroment, comparable to wind and geothermal. Also nuclear power plant owners are contributing to clean air and because of the tarnish on nuclear power work hard to keep their images clean. It's also safe. Nuclear energy is a safe, efficient, reliable, carbon-free source of electricity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keyori View Post
It doesn't emit ANY greenhouse gases. The cooling towers you see for nuclear plants are emitting steam, and nothing else. The waste concerns for nuclear mostly lie in spent fuel, which emits harmful radiation that is difficult to contain
If you reprocess spent fuel rods you can recover 96 percent of uranium that can be used for new fuel rods. The downside is it is expensive. The United Kingdom and France have been doing this for decades, so it isn't something new. In fact, it is something that we could get better and better at.

Nuclear waste (spent fuel roads in example) isn't so much difficult contain (it is complex, but there are numerous ways to) but what do you do with it?

Last edited by Admonish Misconstruction; 07-20-2012 at 09:18 PM..

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#16
Old 07-21-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by admonished nonsense View Post
I love the ideas of a electric car (so much acceleration!) but at the moment their simply not a immediate solution.

*clip*

If you reprocess spent fuel rods you can recover 96 percent of uranium that can be used for new fuel rods. The downside is it is expensive. The United Kingdom and France have been doing this for decades, so it isn't something new. In fact, it is something that we could get better and better at.

Nuclear waste (spent fuel roads in example) isn't so much difficult contain (it is complex, but there are numerous ways to) but what do you do with it?
As far as energy policy goes, I don't believe in an immediate solution. Nothing on such a global scale is going to work overnight; not even a 'simple' step like developing EV technology. Heck, even our highway system was not built in a time frame that anyone could consider 'immediate.' So, to me, that's not relevant.

In my opinion, complex + expensive = difficult (especially in this case, because safety, either from radiation or theft of spent fuel). Also consider the social hurdles in the US--a lot of people have a "not in my backyard" mentality about the plants and the waste disposal sites, which compounds existing problems greatly.

I 100% support research about what to do with spent fuel, for the record. I'm a fan of nuclear power, definitely.

Admonish Misconstruction
\ (•◡•) /
19434.78
Admonish Misconstruction is offline
 
#17
Old 07-22-2012, 05:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keyori View Post
As far as energy policy goes, I don't believe in an immediate solution. Nothing on such a global scale is going to work overnight; not even a 'simple' step like developing EV technology. Heck, even our highway system was not built in a time frame that anyone could consider 'immediate.' So, to me, that's not relevant.

In my opinion, complex + expensive = difficult (especially in this case, because safety, either from radiation or theft of spent fuel). Also consider the social hurdles in the US--a lot of people have a "not in my backyard" mentality about the plants and the waste disposal sites, which compounds existing problems greatly.

I 100% support research about what to do with spent fuel, for the record. I'm a fan of nuclear power, definitely.
Compared to the beginning of harnessing nuclear power we have made leaps and bounds, both in harnessing and understanding. Like anything, the car, cellphones, computers, software, medicine, so on and so forth it's something that will become easier, safe, and simpler through time.

Also, if we begin to use more nuclear power more readily, we only sixty-five in the United States currently, the need for recycling will grow, hopefully. Mining uranium is a terribly disgusting and environmentally unfriendly process (in the same way mining coal is, or lead, nickel, and so on for things like electronic components, silicon, batteries, etc) and rather difficult.

So hopefully we'd lean more to re-using our waste. There's tons of it sitting in Yucca Mountain. We could recycle a majority of the nuclear waste there and that would be enough to power plants for a ton of time! We wouldn't even need to make any more waste. The best way to deal with nuclear waste is to reuse it.

The only downside, safety wise, in the recycling of nuclear waste is that it creates plutonium in the process, which has in itself certain danger risks. Of course, with the proper oversight and security it won't be a problem unlike Cold War leftovers (which there are plenty unaccounted for) bio-weapons and weapons grade plutonium the recycling process could easily be guarded and watched over. Also, I would assume terrorist organizations, other world powers, "bad guys", etc would go after Cold War leftovers because a. easier b. don't need a fleet of scientists to finish the process to create weapon's grade plutonium (which isn't exactly something that's simple) c. and the gun runner will probably have great deals on car insurance, or something.

I think the problem is improper education on nuclear power, which is something readily fixed. Overseas (I'm looking at you England!) I've driven by a nuclear power plant that was literally just sitting there in the lush green English countryside. While not exactly the most attractive thing it's not hurting the environment and I'd rather have a giant concrete stack than a solar farm that's reflecting blinding light everywhere or the rather ugly sight of hundreds of windmills.

It just things like these that we need to educate people about. Want cheap energy? Want to help the environment? Did you know you can recycle the waste? The list goes on and on, so I think proper education is the key.

 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

 
Forum Jump

no new posts