jennythereader: (Bear: Testing The Waters)
[personal profile] jennythereader
So I'm listening to an episode of the Commonwealth Club where they're talking to a bunch of people involved with different aspects of the electrical vehicle industry.

The moderator asked a very good question about how much of a difference switching from gas cars to electric cars really makes today, when so much of our power still comes from coal burning plants. I mean, we're still putting carbon and other pollutants in to the air, right? The people had several good answers, but they left off one that I think is very basic: namely, that it's a lot easier to put a filter on the smokestack of one power plant than on the tailpipes of thousands of individual cars.

Added: And here's the episode I'm listening to - Turning Over A New Leaf

Date: 2010-06-22 07:17 pm (UTC)
seawasp: (Default)
From: [personal profile] seawasp
You can't really filter out CO2 easily, though, and that's the current hot button topic.

The real problem with switching to electric is that this would just about double our demand for electricity. Which would require doubling *our electrical distribution infrastructure* to handle that immense load.

MUCH better to just build the extra generation capacity and synthesize the fuel. If you synthesize it, it becomes effectively zero-carbon, so no more pollutant worries directly, and you can still take advantage of the infrastructure that currently exists for transporting and dispensing liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

Date: 2010-06-22 07:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jennythe-reader.livejournal.com
OK, insert the phrase if they ever figure out a good way to capture carbon somewhere into my statement.

They actually addressed your point, by noting that not everybody would make the switch at once, so the electrical industry could probably absorb the demand in the same way they've absorbed the increased demand from all sorts of high-drawing home tech becoming more common. On the other hand, we do need to update the distribution infrastructure regardless of whether we all switch to electric cars or not.
Edited Date: 2010-06-22 07:28 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-06-22 07:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tetsujinnooni.livejournal.com
I am not aware of a good study of the environmental safety of initially energy efficient, light electric motors when damaged due to poor maintenance by internal combustion engine specialists. Particularly, what are the environmental risk factors.

Similarly, I'm unaware of a realistic study of the environmental risk factors of catastrophic damage to the charging and storage systems in an all-electric vehicle. Particularly worrisome to me is the potential for physical impact damage to a high-density battery system.

Similarly, is there a realistic study of the risk factors and necessary building code changes to support adding potential charging station circuits to a home?

Date: 2010-06-22 07:36 pm (UTC)
seawasp: (Default)
From: [personal profile] seawasp
If they develop batteries capable of holding a charge even close to that equivalent to a tank of gas, you have a MAJOR explosion hazard -- and very nasty toxic fumes, much worse than gasoline.

You would *NEVER* want to put those charging circuits into a home. At a minimum you're doubling the input -- if you assume that Joe Homeowner is always willing to wait many, many hours for the recharge. If Joe Homeowner wants to recharge his car the way he "recharges" it currently, you're talking MEGAWATTS. Assuming you can get a battery that would take that charge that fast.

Again, one of the primary advantages of liquid fuel: I can refill my car tank VERY fast with a LOT of energy for use. No battery known can accept a charge even within orders of magnitude of that speed. Theoretical superconducting storage loops might, but they would also be theoretically capable of releasing all that energy in a single instant, which would make them the most powerful non-nuclear explosive in existence.

Date: 2010-06-22 08:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tetsujinnooni.livejournal.com
It surely reads to me that bottom line, from an engineering standpoint in 2010, is "not conceivable as a practical reality in the next 10 years".

Date: 2010-06-24 01:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ioldanach.livejournal.com
Also, you lose quite a lot of electricity to the transmission process. I actually think the future is in farmed biofuels. We have the infrastructure to distribute and dispense liquid fuels, they can be made practically identical to either gasoline or diesel, and they take in the same carbon they emit.

Electric vehicles are great for certain niches, but there are a couple big blocks to their adoption: refuel time and grid capacity. 300 miles worth of gasoline or diesel can be dispensed in under 5 minutes, whereas a similar portion of electricity takes 4-12 hours. Grid capacity was already addressed.

Date: 2010-10-29 05:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tetsujinnooni.livejournal.com
ANd to followup with a slashdot link: Engineering is pushing ahead on dealing with the objections we raised above (Other than grid capacity - build more nukes!)

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/10/28/2258252/Electric-Car-Goes-375-Miles-On-One-6-Minute-Charge

March 2015

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 27th, 2026 06:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios