7 ms·
Interesting point to note here (since this article seems to float from point to point) is the fact that tesla's battery to wheels efficiency ratio is 88%, which
by brianbreslin 16y ago
Interesting point to note here (since this article seems to float from point to point) is the fact that tesla's battery to wheels efficiency ratio is 88%, which the article states is 4x the average. Seems to me like Toyota's investment in tesla was a better deal than we initially assumed.
- eru 16y agoNothing to write home about. Electric engines are efficient. If you look at the efficiency from, say, coal burned in the power station to electricity in the batteries to driving, electric cars fare similar to internal combustion engines. (Burning your fuel in the big power station is more efficient than a car's internal combustion engine, but going through the extra steps of transmitting the energy to your home and then into the batteries eats some of that.)
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoThis is rarely mentioned explicitly, but seems to be behind many of the "green car" claims: uranium "burned" in the power station is CO2-neutral, cheap and plentiful (even in politically stable regions.)
- roc 16y agoThat's the ultimate advantage of electric cars: independence from any single energy source. Have sunshine? Use solar. Have water? Use hydro. Have uranium? Use fission. And advances to generation technology increase the efficiency of everything downstream accordingly.
- kj12345 16y agoDefinitely. Particularly given that new tech will initially be costly and not necessarily fit in a car.
- roc 16y agoAnd by abstracting out of the car, you get to skip re-running acceleration/skid/crash tests, redesigning for the particular size/weight/balance signature of the new tech, retooling the lines to manipulate the thing, rewriting/testing the controller code to drive the damn thing, etc. And perhaps most importantly: you avoid compromising a technology's best efficiency curve in the quest to meet the demands of the driving model. e.g. even if you're burning fossil fuel to generate power, for whatever reason, there are vastly more-efficient ways to do it than the way we do in in-car ICEs. Those ways just happen to be ill-suited to the power-demands of personal vehicles.
- yock 16y agoThe disadvantage at this point is that our current capacitance technology is less energy dense and slower to replenish than a fossil fuel tank. What happens when your daily commute doesn't fit comfortably within the vehicle's range? Energy technology should ultimately improve our versatility. Putting batteries in a car doesn't achieve that goal just yet.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- MaysonL 16y agoSee Better Place's business model: buy the car, but rent the batteries, and have charging stations where they can be swapped in about as much time as filling your tank. http://www.betterplace.com/ http://www.betterplace.com/
- roc 16y agoFor most Americans, todays batteries are more than sufficient to handle the daily commute. For outliers, they can choose to keep their ICEs or opt for hybrids like the Volt. To discount current tech for not being equivalent is just making excuses for the status quo. It's tantamount to simple FUD.
- yock 16y agoIt most certainly is NOT fud. There are real consequences to your suggestion in the form of higher prices for both fuel and hardware. Right now we commute because it makes economic sense to commute, but if the fossil fuel cars and their fuel suddenly make that commute too costly it will negatively impact those who commite, their employers, and probably the communities in which these companies operate. This all happens because there are a few folks who naively believe that batteries are a clean way to store energy.
- roc 16y agoHow is pointing out that today's batteries are perfectly sufficient for the vast majority of commuters going to cause fossil fuels and the cars that drive them to become too costly? You've gone from suggesting the batteries are insufficient to suggesting that correcting your misinformation and fear-mongering will itself raise the price of ICEs and their fuel. You're burning down strawmen of your own imagining.
- rickmode 16y agoConsider transportation of oil and gas (petrol / auto gasoline) along with gas refining versus electricity generation and transmission. In any case full electric cars allow centralized power generation, in turn allowing more opportunities for clean power.
- brianbreslin 16y agoit'll be interesting to see if with this renewed nuclear scare if we'll see centralized power generation as such a benefit. as small scale energy production gets more cost effective I could see many homes generating their own power (solar, thermal) - though I'm not saying any time soon.
- protomyth 16y agoLiquid fuel does have one serious upside that electric doesn't: storage.
- coryrc 16y agoAnd recharge time: I calculated once that refilling your gas car occurs at a rate of approximately 5 Megawatts! But, for 95% of trips, an overnight charge at 120V is sufficient.s
- protomyth 16y agoYeah, we have a country built for a liquid fuel economy and electric just doesn't fit. I have some serious fears of technology not as versatile as previous and not as cheap.
- athom 16y agoWhat we really need for electric cars is battery swapout. Just pull into the nearest station, trade out the drained battery for a fresh one, and you're off! Meanwhile, the station sets the drained battery on the charging array, and in a few hours, it's ready for the next customer! In theory. I can see at least a couple of challenges in making such a system feasible. It's not like you can just shove the batteries into a massive underground tank, for example.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- brianbreslin 16y agowell were they comparing the 88% to regular combustion engines or existing electric/hybrid cars?
- eru 16y agoRead the article. They say `conventional cars'.
- otterley 16y agoConsider, too, that the diesel engines in large locomotives are basically rolling power plants. The diesel fuel doesn't directly power the drive train; it's used to generate electricity to power its electric motors.
- jpk 16y agoIndeed. Those giant dump trucks often employed in open-pit mines operate the same way. Like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B Note the transmission type is listed as "AC electric"
- dtegart 16y agoOne of the major reasons for these trucks and the locomotives having electric motors, is that maximum torque is available from 0 rpm in an electric motor. A diesel or petrol engine will max torque further up it's power band. This means these large machines are much easier to get moving.
- mcculley 16y agoLikewise for tugboats. Reversing the direction of a propeller is quicker and causes much less wear than with a transmission.
- kragen 16y agoSome electric motors are 95% efficient. 85-90%: typical brushless DC motors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor#Brushless_DC_motors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor#Brushless_DC_mot... 92.4%: minimum standard for 125hp NEMA B motors: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficienc... 96%: new record efficiency achieved in 2009: http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2009/04/06/japanese-researchers-breakthrough-96-electric-motor-efficiency/ http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2009/...