Interesting Electric Car

[ruppster]

Something no one is considering is the impact on the electric grid. We pay for having instantaneous power available. This is called "demand". In the summer time demand is very high because all of the air conditioning load, everyone's ac is running flat out from 4-6PM. This cost is almost as much as the kilowatt-hour (total amount used) charge. The faster these vehicles charge, the more demand is put on the electric grid. That forces electric utilities to have to install larger conductors/transformers, etc. This all equates to more cost for the consumer.No one thinks about it, but electric has no practical storage system. We pay for all the infrastructure so we can meet demand for a few hours every year.
Also, with all this legislation against coal fired plants, utilities are looking at gas fired turbines for future load. Guess what? It is currently more expensive to operate gas turbines than coal fired ones. In any case, you are burning something to make forward motion for your vehicle. Every time the energy changes state, energy is lost. The first two basic laws of thermodynamics are: 1. You can't get something for nothing. 2. You can't even break even, there is always loss.
By the way, if you can't tell, I'm an electrical engineer for a rural electric cooperative.

[MGMorden]

Something no one is considering is the impact on the electric grid. We pay for having instantaneous power available. This is called "demand". In the summer time demand is very high because all of the air conditioning load, everyone's ac is running flat out from 4-6PM. This cost is almost as much as the kilowatt-hour (total amount used) charge. The faster these vehicles charge, the more demand is put on the electric grid. That forces electric utilities to have to install larger conductors/transformers, etc. This all equates to more cost for the consumer.No one thinks about it, but electric has no practical storage system. We pay for all the infrastructure so we can meet demand for a few hours every year.
Also, with all this legislation against coal fired plants, utilities are looking at gas fired turbines for future load. Guess what? It is currently more expensive to operate gas turbines than coal fired ones. In any case, you are burning something to make forward motion for your vehicle. Every time the energy changes state, energy is lost. The first two basic laws of thermodynamics are: 1. You can't get something for nothing. 2. You can't even break even, there is always loss.
By the way, if you can't tell, I'm an electrical engineer for a rural electric cooperative.

You're right that the energy has to come from somewhere, but electricity can come from a lot of things that wouldn't otherwise be able to run a car.  My power for example comes from a hydroelectric generating station, which wouldn't otherwise be useful in running a car.  Wind turbines and solar I just don't see much in, but honestly, what we really need to do in this country is to get off of our butts and build more nuclear plants.  Not only that, allow the construction of breeder reactors to stretch the fuel longer.  We have quite a bit of uranium available, and it's not much good at anything but generating electricity or blowing stuff up.  If we get past the whole "not in my back yard" issue and start bringing nuclear plants online again, our electrical needs would be in much better shape.

[Dixie Dude]

It is not necessarily more expensive to operate a natural gas system if it is tied to an old coal boiler system.  A large jet engine using natural gas turns a generator in front of it.  The exaust is directed through an old coal boiler to produce steam.  This essentually doubles the output of an old coal system using natural gas.  Even though natural gas costs more than coal, with the attached boiler system, it can produce twice the output.  Granted, some natural gas generators are for summer demand only.  I work for a gas utility.  I think electric production using natural gas is a waste.  We need to use the natural gas in vehicles and use nuclear power.  There is enough uranium in granite rock to last indefinately.  We run our trucks on natural gas.  It can be quick filled in 15 minutes or slow filled overnight with a small compressor.  

I suggest not taxing gasoline made from coal or algae for a while, and instead adding a tax on imported oil.  This would jump start the alternative fuels production for vehicles and eventually eliminate imported oil along with using natural gas in fleet vehicles and encouraging diesel vehicle production.  

I also agree with breeder reactors reusing up spent fuel thus having only about 1/10 the waste nuclear fuel.  If we go total nuclear in the us with a smattering of hydro and wind it would take about 100-200 new nuclear power plants which isn't impossible.  They could be built in abandoned coal mines if people are afraid of a meltdown.  Plus the Appalation area in the eastern US has the most need to switch away from coal.  Plains and upper midwest can use more wind.  Coastal areas could use wind. 

[Sourdough]

That's great for you guys that have Natural Gas or Hydroelectric power.  But what about those of us whose electricity comes from fuel oil?  Electricity is far more expensive than gas or diesel.

[ruppster]

You're right that the energy has to come from somewhere, but electricity can come from a lot of things that wouldn't otherwise be able to run a car.  My power for example comes from a hydroelectric generating station, which wouldn't otherwise be useful in running a car.  Wind turbines and solar I just don't see much in, but honestly, what we really need to do in this country is to get off of our butts and build more nuclear plants.  Not only that, allow the construction of breeder reactors to stretch the fuel longer.  We have quite a bit of uranium available, and it's not much good at anything but generating electricity or blowing stuff up.  If we get past the whole "not in my back yard" issue and start bringing nuclear plants online again, our electrical needs would be in much better shape.

Do you believe that energy can not be created or destroyed, but can only change states? (Except for Creation in Genesis, that doesn't apply to us) Also, every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If so the energy that was used to roll the hydro plant was used for another purpose in the past. Warming the ocean? Growing microbes? I don't know, just the other side of the coin. Its the whole "butterfly flaps wings on one side of the globe, eventually a hurricane is created on the other side" Chaos theory.
I really don't believe we have a shortage of electric in this country (if fact I could show that there is currently coal fired electric being sold for less than production costs), I think we have a demand issue. We also have a lack of transmission for available power. We can't get power to places it needs to be at the times it needs there because of transmission issues.
I believe it makes sense to manage the demand. We can store thermal energy by cooling at night and basically keeping the cold in storage for the hot part of the day. There are a few building on the West Coast doing that right now and it seems to be working. Also, I think electric cars make sense in some places, but we need to somehow regulate the charging. Maybe only recharge at night or make a bit longer charge times. I also agree that nuclear makes sense in the long run.
People are even running into the "not in my back yard" mentality with wind turbines. Folks think they're ugly and kill too many birds.

[ruppster]

Plus the Appalachian area in the eastern US has the most need to switch away from coal.  Plains and upper midwest can use more wind.  Coastal areas could use wind. 

BTW, I'm in Appalachian Ohio. There are also some Marcellus gas projects happening in our area. I know of some people in our area that run diesel trucks on sweet, light crude oil (12V Cummins) and I can tell you a Ford 8N will run on drip gas.

[MGMorden]

Do you believe that energy can not be created or destroyed, but can only change states?

Law of Conservation of Energy - yep, I'm familiar .  However, remember the very important caveat in both the LoC of Energy and LoC of Mass: energy and mass under the right conditions are interchangeable.  You CAN get extra energy that you didn't previously have through the conversion of mass into energy.  That's the essence of both solar, nuclear, and geothermal.  MOST of our energy ultimately traces back to one of those.  Also remember that the law refers to the entire UNIVERSE, not small segments like the planet.  We have extra energy being input into our own localized area all the time.  

Wind energy?  Traces back to solar.  The sun's uneven heating of the atmosphere causes air currents and thus, wind.

Chemical energy (coal, gas, etc)?   Traces back to solar.  Solar energy allows the growth of plants.  Those plants either die and decay themselves (often forming coal after much time), or feed animals that can deteriorate into oil over time.

Hydroelectric?  Solar again.  The sun's heating causes the water cycle which lifts the water as vapor, and when it falls back down we can reclaim some of that energy as it flows back to lower areas.

So in essence, we can't create energy, but we CAN use energy converted from matter, and with the Sun as an external force, we have a TON of energy arriving on the surface of the planet every day that wasn't here previously .

With that in mind, building something to help CAPTURE some of that incoming solar energy - hyrdo-plants, wind turbines, etc, isn't really as futile as it seems.  And with nuclear, we're not getting it from the sun, but we're still converting matter into energy where it previously was not.  We got a lot to play with.  Indeed, the sun's output is INSANE.  Though only a small fraction of it is reaching Earth's surface, I read a study once that if we could capture 100% of the sun's output for 1 second, it would be enough to power all of man's energy needs for well over 1 million years.

[mechanic]

Some of the forklifts I sell and service can be equipped with a ventilated lead acid battery and a "fast charge sytem".  This allows the 850 amp hour battery to recharge in 2 1/2 hours, as opposed to 8 hours for a normal charger.  Even on a 600 volt circuit, the battery still requires the same charge time.  Existing battery technology for autos is using lithium batteries, and yes, you can get 90% efficiency from them, but they are also prone to explosion if shorted or overcharged, and are very expensive.  The batteries in a hybrid will exceed $3000.00 at today's prices, and will some day have to be replaced.  I get reams of stuff in the mail on new technologies, but so far the only one that seems promising to me is the hydrogen fuel cell.  I have yet to see a battery system that would do as these people have advertised.

Are they onto something?  I hope so, as they are moving us away from oil whether a new technology is available or not.....

Modern electric forklifts and other vehicles now use and inverter and convert the DC battery voltage to 3 phase AC.  They use regenerative braking and other measures which they say will increase battery life and shift time.  They will allow about 6 hours of continuous use...just like the old systems used in the 70's did.  So far, the limitations have not changed by much.

[ruppster]

MGMorden - That's right, its a beautiful cycle. "We" probably even created the drop on the river to turn the hydro plant. You just never know who you're talking with on the Web.
We are seeing a few solar projects in our area, one of them is pretty large (a couple of MW), a few small, residential systems. Its just pretty expensive with a very long payback period (50 - 100 yrs) if not "assisted" in some way. I wish we could get the available wind power from North Dakota and the available solar power from the Southwest into the grid and out to the coasts (East, especially).
Back to vehicles, batteries still remain the largest issue for electricity. I've priced some 1st generation Toyota Prius batteries, wow that's a big number! The disposal is almost as much as the battery.
The biggest obstacle facing natural gas vehicles is the lack of distribution. Electric is most widely available, but all of the hybrids and complete electric cars need to standardize on power (and connector) requirements so the "project" can move forward. Heck, we're barely farther along with complete electric cars than we were 50 years ago. Hybrids are another story of course.

[Dixie Dude]

Problem with electric vehicles is the time it takes to recharge.  With gasoline or diesel, you fill up and in 15 minutes you are on your way.  Can't do that with electric vehicles.  Batteries can't be charged fast unless you increase the voltage, then you put demand on the grid, especially in summer, of cars traveling on vacations wanting to quick charge at 2 in the afternoon when the demand for air conditioning is highest.  Puts a strain on the grid.  Hybirds work because they can charge at night or while you are at a stop light, but still needs a gasoline engine for long distance driving.  Prices need to come down though, thus alternatives of diesel or natural gas.