Not to mention that if you take into account total energy it takes to build one and fuel one over its lifetime a diesels FAAAAAAAAAAR more efficient to begin with. Tesla owners still drive carbon fueled cars, they just move the carbon engine to the power plant far away. Now add the energy losses in transmitting all of that energy over thousands of miles of copper and electric cars are an absolute trasheap of waste and inefficiency, given current technology.
Add to that the electric grid will NEVER be able to be upgraded to handle all of the juice necessary to charge up all cars in a 100% electric car future and you quickly start to see how ridiculous all of this is.
There is an idiot this board that has a tesla and boy does he get fucking upset if you try to explain to him that the only reason that he can run and operate his iphone on wheels is because the slack in our energy grid can absorb his stupid latte drinking tastes but would be absolutely impossible if everyone got one.
However, that doesn't mean that electric cars aren't the future, they are because the first cars were all electric. It just isn't going to be using the current technology mix. Here is why I think that:
Tesla owners are driving carbon powered cars. They just moved their carbon engines 1000 miles away to a turbine powered electric generator.
Future electric cars will probably move those carbon powered turbine engines back to the car and instead of massive batteries simply have tiny supercapacitors that will be perpetually charged with tiny on board turbines.
We have had this technology since 1963: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs
The reason it didn't work was because like jay lenos jet car, they tried to mate the turbine to a transmission. If you use the onboard turbine the way they did in the 1963 chrysler but mate them to a generator + superacapacitors + electric motors, not only do you get super efficient energy productin (over 90% efficient), you can re-circulate the air like in the chrylser to extract the maximum amount of heat energy from the turbine air and keep the exhaust cool. You can also re-circulate the air so much to make an on board turbine almost silent if you want. Mate the trubine to a generator, keep the superpacpacitors charged appropriately, put 4 electric motors on the thing (or one for a commuter) and you have a car that is lighter than a gasoline engine car, more efficient than a diesel but can burn gas, diesel or anything that burns because turbines run on anything, and the power and torque of an electric car all without the problems of battery manufacturing and weight.
Also, because turbines iike to run at high and constant rpm, they are perfect as local electric generators, and you can use electric breaking systems that are available for heavy duty trucks to control over-rotation on a turbine if you are at idle and supercaps are full.
Add to that the electric grid will NEVER be able to be upgraded to handle all of the juice necessary to charge up all cars in a 100% electric car future and you quickly start to see how ridiculous all of this is.
Converting every single passenger car in the United States to 100% electric would only require about 3% more electrical output than we produce today. The good thing is that we're currently operating at about 40% of max capacity, so we'd need to operate at 44% of max capacity to handle it.
- Most electric cars drive about 4 miles on 1 kWh
- 1,050,000,000,000 / 4 = 262,500,000,000 kWh = 262,500,000 MWh needed to power all that driving
- 1,117,475 * 24 * 365 = 9,789,081,000 MWh annual capacity
- That means we generate 4,009,000,000 / 9,789,081,000 = 41% of our total capacity
- Running every car on electricity requires an additional 262,500,000 / 9,789,081,000 = 2.7% output from the grid
- Total capacity of current generation capacity used if all cars and light trucks are electric: 43.7%
I think you forgot to factor in the loss of energy in transferring electricity to the cars, charging the cars, and then using the charged batteries. Only 1/3 of energy created at the power plant actually makes it to the wheels to power the car. In Europe the efficiency of the system is even worse.
That's not to mention the energy used to mine all the Lithium, copper, etc. and the time wasted waiting for chargers, etc., etc. There was a report out recently that took all this into account and shined a very inefficient light on electric cars.
at best 1/3... mostly 1/5th
I think you forgot to factor in the loss of energy in transferring electricity to the cars, charging the cars, and then using the charged batteries.
The losses are already accounted for in the miles/kWh rating. 4 miles/kWh is net, not measured at the motor. The kWh is measured at the house utility meter. If they were more or less efficient they would get more or less distance per kWh. For each kWh you pull from the grid you will be able to drive about 5-6 miles in warm weather and 3-4 miles in cold weather.
That's not to mention the energy used to mine all the Lithium, copper, etc. and the time wasted waiting for chargers, etc., etc.
The total energy to manufacture an electric car is more than the equivalent gasoline car, which is why they cost more. Over the lifetime of the car the electric wins out ... in cost and pollution.
You are confusing power with energy. Power is instantaneous, the 1st derivative of energy with respect to time. Energy is found with time.
Just because we "only" use a portion of the grids total energy, doesn't mean we don't have power problems.
The grid is designed not only to provide the total energy needed, but also supply just above total peak power consumption.
Right now in the summer we have problems when everyone turns on their ACs, when everyone is plugging in their cars at stations looking for a quick charge, we will have problems.
The grid will have to be upgraded, not just power production, but distribution. This will absolutely raise the cost of electricity.
Also this administration is moving to a smart grid, that only means more control. Most likely the ability to shutdown stations at their will or have charging stations that will only charge if they are in ok status from the power company to provide a charge.
When the next virus hits, they will likely prevent those fast charging stations from allowing cars to be charged.
You are confusing power with energy. Power is instantaneous, the 1st derivative of energy with respect to time. Energy is found with time.
That's why why all the units in my post are measured in power units per time period. That's what kWh and MWh are - units of energy. I think you're the one who is confused.
Right now in the summer we have problems when everyone turns on their ACs, when everyone is plugging in their cars at stations looking for a quick charge, we will have problems.
Time of use pricing cures that problem. Nobody is going to charge their car when it costs $45 to charge up when you could charge overnight for $8.
The grid will have to be upgraded, not just power production, but distribution. This will absolutely raise the cost of electricity.
Only if your intent is to design the grid to be able to handle the maximum theoretical load, which is not how capacity planning is done. It's not done for sewers, it's not done for water, it's not done for natural gas pipelines, or anything else.
Also this administration is moving to a smart grid, that only means more control. Most likely the ability to shutdown stations at their will or have charging stations that will only charge if they are in ok status from the power company to provide a charge.
And you think they won't shut you off from buying gas if that's the plan? You'd have to be retarded to believe that.
(post is archived)