4 ms·

Right. And the transport of electricity to the charging station, the storage of electricity (and the attendant need to carry that storage) and the conversion of

Right. And the transport of electricity to the charging station, the storage of electricity (and the attendant need to carry that storage) and the conversion of that storage back to kinetic energy is inefficient. The internal combustion engine, for its flaws, has evolved into a fairly efficient device. I'm utterly convinced that electric cars are a red herring. Look instead at our insistence on dragging around behemoths of cars. We could save a tremendous amount of energy by quitting the race-to-the-top phenomena of escalating car size due to the (largely false) perception of safety.

ericb 18y ago
> transport of electricity to the charging station > storage of electricity > conversion of that storage back to kinetic energy I'd love to see actual numbers to back up your statement--I imagine you are right about efficiency, but I'd like to see how bad the numbers are. We have to drill, transport, and store oil, also. Efficient and dirty doesn't help us much if the dirtiness overshadows the efficiency. Lossy and clean seems preferable, because then you don't have to shed tears over losing energy bought at a steep price in terms emissions.
- tome 18y ago
  The comparison's not really meaningful, except to oil-burning electricity plants, but: "most [internal combustion] engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Ener...
anamax 18y ago
> We could save a tremendous amount of energy by quitting the race-to-the-top phenomena of escalating car size due to the (largely false) perception of safety. Actually, we can't because: (1) Personal transportation isn't that big a fraction of total energy use. (2) Cars are getting smaller and have been for some time. The most useful vehicle for fuel savings purposes costs less than $2,000 and gets around 50mpg. Higher mileage doesn't help much and higher price is a killer. Do the arithmetic using $4/gallon gasoline and a "main car" that gets 20-25mpg. And no, you don't get to replace the main car. Folks have it because they need what it does "often enough" and renting doesn't work.
anamax 18y ago
> escalating car size due to the (largely false) perception of safety. Actually, it isn't false. All other things being equal, a larger car is safer in an accident. (That's not to say that the extra safety is always enough.) No, a larger car is not necessarily more accident prone.
anamax 18y ago
> escalating car size due to the (largely false) perception of safety. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/ http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-f...

ericb 18y ago

> transport of electricity to the charging station > storage of electricity > conversion of that storage back to kinetic energy I'd love to see actual numbers to back up your statement--I imagine you are right about efficiency, but I'd like to see how bad the numbers are. We have to drill, transport, and store oil, also. Efficient and dirty doesn't help us much if the dirtiness overshadows the efficiency. Lossy and clean seems preferable, because then you don't have to shed tears over losing energy bought at a steep price in terms emissions.

tome 18y ago
The comparison's not really meaningful, except to oil-burning electricity plants, but: "most [internal combustion] engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Ener...

anamax 18y ago

> We could save a tremendous amount of energy by quitting the race-to-the-top phenomena of escalating car size due to the (largely false) perception of safety. Actually, we can't because: (1) Personal transportation isn't that big a fraction of total energy use. (2) Cars are getting smaller and have been for some time. The most useful vehicle for fuel savings purposes costs less than $2,000 and gets around 50mpg. Higher mileage doesn't help much and higher price is a killer. Do the arithmetic using $4/gallon gasoline and a "main car" that gets 20-25mpg. And no, you don't get to replace the main car. Folks have it because they need what it does "often enough" and renting doesn't work.

anamax 18y ago

> escalating car size due to the (largely false) perception of safety. Actually, it isn't false. All other things being equal, a larger car is safer in an accident. (That's not to say that the extra safety is always enough.) No, a larger car is not necessarily more accident prone.

anamax 18y ago

> escalating car size due to the (largely false) perception of safety. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/ http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-f...