France to build charging networks for electric cars
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzgyMTE
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzgyMTE
Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
I bet there were a few who had the vision? Just as some people today have vision. It's a shame others are not so optimistic. . .
Here is a question for you,as of now it appears our transportation future is leaning toward electricity for it's power.However because were in the infancy of this great change,anything has a chance to be number 1 in powering our future. Once something get's a good foothold for powering our future,it most likely will stay and mature to great heights.What if any other energies have a good or equal chance as electricity for our future transportation and/or cargo needs?
What say you?
What say you?
I sold my car a few years ago.* Because of my age I ride bus and subway for free. The subway is much faster than a car, even when there is little traffic. (Generally the wait is less than the time needed to find a free parking place or even a metered spot that is open.)
The buses have special car-forbidden lanes and even with the stops they make, they are much faster than cars when there is normal or congested traffic. Prosperity has made the number of cars increase much faster than the road system. To a foreigner it is strange to see so many buses. Once I counted 22 of them streaming one behind the other! They are color coded by parts of the city they serve to help you find the one you want.
Sao Paulo traffic can be terrible - when it is I am faster walking five or less blocks! Brazil is very kind to older people lower taxes, special priority lines in banks and grocery stores, half price movie tickets, free transport, (even the students only get a deep price reduction)
* My professor wife still has a car. I drive her to university etc. to save her trouble of parking it, and on way home I may stop at the pool or the grocery store.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hydrogen, fusion, blackholes . . .
I live in a small town called Newmarket, pop 14,000approx. Drive 10 miles to work everyday in a 1litre car. I drive economically. I am happy with the flexibility of having car. My partner and I share the vehicle.
It seems if everyone followed out lead the world be much better off.
If everyone in the world followed your lead we would be out of oil in a few years.
Most of the world cannot afford an "economical 1 liter car." 90% of Americans own a car, but only 6% of Chinese do. If even half of the rest of the world bought a car, we'd have even bigger problems (traffic, fuel, pollution, climate change, habitat destruction) than we do now.
Only solar energy system are long term sustainable and do not add to global warning - the solar energy was going to absorbed anyway and ultimately become heat. Fact that we capture some of it in say sugar cane and drive our cars on it does not escape the fact that it will become heat in the end. All fossil fuels add new heat release at best and more importantly, all but nuclear power, also reduce the natural escape of heat from the Earth - warming it even more than just the energy they release.
Solar Photo Voltaic or thermal power converted to electricity for battery powered cars has the same environmental advantage during use, but producing these system makes environmental damage, even some toxins released. Also thus far, perhaps forever, they are more expensive than sugar cane alcohol.
Billvon, I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but the reality is we have many more cars in the US (~250 million) then we have drivers, so we are far past the point of using cars per capita as a reasonable means of comparison. In contrast China has about 12% as many vehicles as people, but they probably all are getting used each day, so it's not as skewed as these simple numbers make it and China is adding over 8 million new cars every year and retiring very few in comparison, which is why China is now home to the worst traffic jams on the planet, some lasting DAYS (no kidding)
Arthur
Arthur
As I pointed on another thread, the time for solar thermal or solar cell electricity generation is not yet. This is simply due to costs. The following are fairly current, and apply to the USA, measured as American cents per kilowatt hour of electricity generated.
Natural gas 8
Coal 10
Nuclear 12
Hydroelectricity 12
Geothermal 12
Wind power 15
Thermal solar 25
Solar cell 40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Natural gas 8
Coal 10
Nuclear 12
Hydroelectricity 12
Geothermal 12
Wind power 15
Thermal solar 25
Solar cell 40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Agreed. I was mainly pointing out that the idea of "give every family a small efficient car and we'll all be a lot better off" isn't really viable. There is going to have to be a paradigm shift if we're going to be able to keep growing and increasing standards of living - and that paradigm shift cannot include gas (and likely will not include vehicles we recognize as cars.)
The company that makes that device hopes to achieve cost parity with Fossil fuels by 2020.
http://www.rehnu.com/utility-scale/cost
Arthur
Arthur
I hope they do.
But I am skeptical about miracles. Cold fusion was a claimed miracle, and look where that got us. If they can drop the cost of solar cell generated electricity from the current 40 cents per kwh to the equivalent of 8 cents by 2020, I will take my hat off to them. I am not holding my breath!
I hope they do.
But I am skeptical about miracles. Cold fusion was a claimed miracle, and look where that got us. If they can drop the cost of solar cell generated electricity from the current 40 cents per kwh to the equivalent of 8 cents by 2020, I will take my hat off to them. I am not holding my breath!
Well that's not fair.
Cold fusion was never demonstrated to work, hence no miracle.
On the other hand people all over the world generate their own power via PV installations and have been doing it for some time.
Indeed today, it is quite economical for plenty of distributed installations.
Where it has a way to go is for CENTRAL generation and distribution, and thats what this team is trying to do, by concentraing the sun through lower cost mirrors, thus dropping the amount of expensive PV cells required per watt of power.
But for homeowners in the sunbelt states, PV today at $1.70 per watt, (~$3 watt installed as a grid tie system) is nearing break even without tax credits and can be a very good deal with them, the reason is quite simple, they only need to provide baseload electricity and the power company provides their backup system for night and when the sun don't shine and for peak demand but at nominal rates, so the homeowner actually gets a sweet deal.
http://www.sunelec.com/
Arthur
Arthur
Perhaps I am not being fair, but the data I have seen suggests that solar cells have a way to go. Hopefully the price will come down sufficiently so that this form of generation may become economic. But it will take some time, even if true.
In the mean time, there are proven methods of generating electricity large scale that are much cheaper.
Perhaps I am not being fair, but the data I have seen suggests that solar cells have a way to go. Hopefully the price will come down sufficiently so that this form of generation may become economic. But it will take some time, even if true.
In the mean time, there are proven methods of generating electricity large scale that are much cheaper.
Well not being fair in comparing it to Cold Fusion at least.
I think you are missing my point and it's embedded in your figures, and that's the cost of Solar PV at a central distribution point, and for that, as I said, PV has a way to go, but that's partly because of the losses in the distribution system.
But Solar PV as an onsite form of electrical power generation, using the existing grid as a back up and for peak loads already makes sense for a lot of users at current prices. Indeed there is over 1,200 MW of grid tied PV installed in the US and it is growing at a very fast pace (doubling about every 2 years)
In the world, there was about 23,000 MW capacity installed by the end of 2009, and that is also growing at a very fast pace. (I don't have the installed figures for 2010 but the manufacturers were expected to make over 12,000 MW of PV cells last year (not all will go into grid tie systems though).
Arthur
Arthur
Solar cells have a place. They have a utility. However, today, that value is for specialised purposes, such as power in isolated sites that are off grid.
Distribution losses will never come close to making up for the difference in electricity cost by solar cell versus gas, coal, nuclear, hydro or geothermal. There is an excellent reason why solar cells contribute only a tiny fraction of all electricity generated.
Maybe in 20 years, that will change. But right now, it cannot compete with the big boys.
Solar cells have a place. They have a utility. However, today, that value is for specialised purposes, such as power in isolated sites that are off grid.
Distribution losses will never come close to making up for the difference in electricity cost by solar cell versus gas, coal, nuclear, hydro or geothermal. There is an excellent reason why solar cells contribute only a tiny fraction of all electricity generated.
Maybe in 20 years, that will change. But right now, it cannot compete with the big boys.
There is indeed - they are new, and other technologies have been around a long, long time.
I recall the car manufacturers explaining why CAFE laws, catalytic converters, fuel injection etc could never be considered a serious solution to problems with fuel shortages and pollution. Fuel injection? That requires a COMPUTER in your car! Like NASA has! Cars will cost millions.
And catalytic converters? How many people can afford a car made with platinum? The very idea is silly.
And yet here we are, 30 years later, and nearly every car out there uses catalytic converters and fuel injection. Disruptive technology has a way of . . . disrupting things.
My last house had 3kW STC DC of solar. My house now has 10kW; I generate way more than I use. For me (and for a lot of people) it isn't just competing; it's winning.