Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
To answer Spidergoat'spost 1723 "Why?"
SUMMARY: universaldistress is a "wish & dreamer" incapable of making evaluations of alternatives, so he picks one and posts for it (along with some very silly versions such as battery swapping stations and induction recharge roadways).
"... Converting a conventional gasoline car to CNG is complex, but not necessarily difficult, and quite do-able. And if you are mechanically inclined, it could feasibly be done in your own garage. The other option is to find a willing mechanic that will install a CNG kit for you. One potential hoop to jump through could be emissions certification for your particular state—some states require special conditions since you'd be changing the vehicles "engineered" fuel type.
CNG Outfitters – This company offers natural gas conversion and dual fuel conversions (the vehicle can run on both gasoline or natural gas) for on-road and off-road applications. They offer kit and tank ordering directly from their website, with prices starting at $1450 and $2200 respectively. For folks in the Utah area, they offer professional installation in 10 hours, with the basic install costing $1500.
FuelTek Conversion Corp. – This company offers alternative fuel conversions for a variety of American vehicle makes and models—installations are available directly at their facility for those in the Denver Metro area. Choose from compressed natural gas (CNG), propane (LPG) or bi-fuel (operates on gasoline or CNG/LPG with the flip of a switch). They also offer replacement parts and ready-to-go conversion kits for the Ford F-250—sold only to qualified conversion shops.
This CNG and alt fuel station finder (at http://www.altfuelprices.com/) includes pricing for the United States. Another alternative, if you have natural gas in your home, is to install a Phill home refueling appliance. These devices compress and dispense a tank of fuel in about 8 hours. They are designed to be attached overnight, delivering a full tank by morning. Another option could be to install a CNG compressor at your house—this company offers one for $4,500.
From: http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/naturalgasvehicles/a/cngconversion.htm
For map of Compressed Natural Gas, CNG, filling stations see: http://www.altfuelprices.com/ which comes up as a map of the LA area. You will need to change scale to cover much less as they overlap on initial scale. You can change display to show EV recharge stations (There are slightly more.) but instead of a 5 minute or less refill with CNG you will need to leave car for 6 to 8 hours.
“... Natural gas, a fossil fuel comprised mostly of methane, is one of the cleanest burning alternative fuels. It can be used in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) to fuel cars and trucks. …
• Nearly 87% of U.S. natural gas used is domestically produced
• 60-90% less smog-producing pollutants
• 30-40% less greenhouse gas emissions
• Less expensive than gasoline ….” [color=blue[[b]{Billy T insert: about half the cost /mile and getting cheaper s CNG prices decline.}[/b][/color]
Quote from: US government at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bifueltech.shtml
How much you will save depends up gas prices, which are rising, and CNG prices, which are falling, and how much you drive. Currently the cost per mile is about 60% as much as gasoline and next year probably less than half as much.
Here is the government’s official data for the Honda Civic CNG car:
Cost to Drive 25 Miles $1.72 A 40mpg car & $4/gal gas, going 25 miles costs (25/40)x4 = $2.50
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles 0.89 gal
Annual Fuel Cost $1034
Based on 45% highway, 55% city driving, 15000 annual miles and a fuel price of $ 1.93 per gallon of CNG
This from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm (after you check the “select box” and hit “compare.”) Immediately available at that government link is:
“Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is normally dispensed in "equivalent gallons" where one "equivalent gallon" is equals to 121.5 cubic feet of CNG.”
SUMMARY: universaldistress is a "wish & dreamer" incapable of making evaluations of alternatives, so he picks one and posts for it (along with some very silly versions such as battery swapping stations and induction recharge roadways).
Americans are changing their ways. But your debate and support for EVs in somewhat misplaced as American are switching to natural gas more than EVs. Already 12% of US buses have switched. Many cars are too, but the number is not known as it is mainly by conversion kits from dozens of suppliers. Cars are switching for the following reasons: Much cheaper to convert existing car than buy new EV and about as low a cost per mile to operate as an EV. (Much cheaper if the high cost of the EV is amortized over the total miles driven.):
"... Converting a conventional gasoline car to CNG is complex, but not necessarily difficult, and quite do-able. And if you are mechanically inclined, it could feasibly be done in your own garage. The other option is to find a willing mechanic that will install a CNG kit for you. One potential hoop to jump through could be emissions certification for your particular state—some states require special conditions since you'd be changing the vehicles "engineered" fuel type.
CNG Outfitters – This company offers natural gas conversion and dual fuel conversions (the vehicle can run on both gasoline or natural gas) for on-road and off-road applications. They offer kit and tank ordering directly from their website, with prices starting at $1450 and $2200 respectively. For folks in the Utah area, they offer professional installation in 10 hours, with the basic install costing $1500.
FuelTek Conversion Corp. – This company offers alternative fuel conversions for a variety of American vehicle makes and models—installations are available directly at their facility for those in the Denver Metro area. Choose from compressed natural gas (CNG), propane (LPG) or bi-fuel (operates on gasoline or CNG/LPG with the flip of a switch). They also offer replacement parts and ready-to-go conversion kits for the Ford F-250—sold only to qualified conversion shops.
This CNG and alt fuel station finder (at http://www.altfuelprices.com/) includes pricing for the United States. Another alternative, if you have natural gas in your home, is to install a Phill home refueling appliance. These devices compress and dispense a tank of fuel in about 8 hours. They are designed to be attached overnight, delivering a full tank by morning. Another option could be to install a CNG compressor at your house—this company offers one for $4,500.
From: http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/naturalgasvehicles/a/cngconversion.htm
For map of Compressed Natural Gas, CNG, filling stations see: http://www.altfuelprices.com/ which comes up as a map of the LA area. You will need to change scale to cover much less as they overlap on initial scale. You can change display to show EV recharge stations (There are slightly more.) but instead of a 5 minute or less refill with CNG you will need to leave car for 6 to 8 hours.
“... Natural gas, a fossil fuel comprised mostly of methane, is one of the cleanest burning alternative fuels. It can be used in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) to fuel cars and trucks. …
• Nearly 87% of U.S. natural gas used is domestically produced
• 60-90% less smog-producing pollutants
• 30-40% less greenhouse gas emissions
• Less expensive than gasoline ….” [color=blue[[b]{Billy T insert: about half the cost /mile and getting cheaper s CNG prices decline.}[/b][/color]
Quote from: US government at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bifueltech.shtml
How much you will save depends up gas prices, which are rising, and CNG prices, which are falling, and how much you drive. Currently the cost per mile is about 60% as much as gasoline and next year probably less than half as much.
Here is the government’s official data for the Honda Civic CNG car:
Cost to Drive 25 Miles $1.72 A 40mpg car & $4/gal gas, going 25 miles costs (25/40)x4 = $2.50
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles 0.89 gal
Annual Fuel Cost $1034
Based on 45% highway, 55% city driving, 15000 annual miles and a fuel price of $ 1.93 per gallon of CNG
This from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm (after you check the “select box” and hit “compare.”) Immediately available at that government link is:
“Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is normally dispensed in "equivalent gallons" where one "equivalent gallon" is equals to 121.5 cubic feet of CNG.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Natural gas has it's own peak as well as environmental concerns associated with it's production. Also, the more cars you power with it, the higher the cost for home heating. Plus you lose a significant portion of your cargo volume where the tank is.
Either EV or Hydrogen. Why? Because the risk that we are possibly affecting a rise in global warming. Are we willing to risk plunging the world into an ice age? Or some equally troublesome runaway cycle of global warming. I am not 100% that the earth won't be able to sort it out, but should we risk it? I personally think that becoming more economical is great thing anyway, it is driving new understanding and technologies that may never develop without this pressure. I do have to admit that the universities of the States are addressing these technological issues. I just say that a change in the attitude of the American population will need to happen. And I honestly think it will, not as soon as in Europe because our cousins have the luxury of cheaper oil, but it will start to pinch as the price per barrel goes up; and it will continue to go up as oil becomes more scarce over the next couple of centuries.
That is why EV make so much sense. And that is why, I suppose, it isn't a matter of the world MUST look forward to different technologies (like EV or hydrogen) to run their perambulation devices, but more, it IS going to happen.
This and Fusion may just make the world's continuance a certainy rather than a maybe. I suppose we just need the older populations of consumers to die so we younger lot can really address the issues. The world needs to develop a healthy conscience.
Last edited:
Billy T, all your evaluations are based on guess work (so no better than wishing and dreaming LOL. Wishing and dreaming I might add is the mosy important incentive for technological development. Think you have got to give up on that one because despite your technical prowess in this arena you have no working knowledge of new developments in the EV field). Ranges of EVs are going up up up. What will be an acceptable EV range to shut up the doubters that EV can take over from the majority of fossil cars?
Natural gas does not tackle the CO2 emissions in a really meaningful way. Carbon capture/nuclear/fusion power stations charging EVs at people homes would seem to be a solution as long as EV ranges can be bolstered sufficiently. With batswap and fast charge still in the mix as the extended ranges of EVs will reduce this recharge-in-the-day market to a doable level.
I think it's absurd that you suggest we confront global warming by the production of millions of 3,000 lb personal vehicles and all their associated energy and resource requirements. Even people that say they are environmentalists cannot conceive of doing anything differently.
And with charge as you drive being something that could be introduced into some zones if a consensus could be reached on the technology. EV tech looks bright to me, not a pipe dream.
Charge as you drive? Is that like free energy? I have no criticisms of the tech, just the scalability and it's continued high energy requirements in the face of economic contraction.
We are just talking about an evolution of technology. As the tech improves hybrids will become more electric orientated and less fuel orientated.
In the last few years, with hydrofracturing the known economic NG "peak" has move at least 100 year further into the distant future.
All fuels, have "environmental concerns" especially oil spills from ocean tankers or drilling accidents like BP Gulf of Mexico disaster and importing them is killing the US economy in growing balance of payments problem as oil climbs in price.
It is not evident that the cost of NG home heating will increase. Like electric energy supplied to your home, most of the NG cost / bill is paying for capital investment. That will be spread over many more users. Thus, it is more likely that cost of NG home heating will decrease, instead of increase.
About all of your post that is true is some cargo space may be lost, if fuel tank is put in the trunk ("boot" to you, I think). Note however it can go under the car with an inch or two of road clearance lost. 90+ percent of the taxis in Sao Paulo use natural gas with tanks under the car as they must keep the full capacity of the trunk/boot for many suitcases of people going or coming from the air port etc. Tanks will eventually be integrated in to the car structure. An "add on" NG fuel tank is just "transition stage."
can't go back over this one, we have done it to death already
More like a pay as you go top up for cars, as you drive.Don't like natural gas as it is too volatile. imagine the consequences of a pile up on the motorway?
Can't be any worse than petrol.
Then you had better learn how to do some rational analysis, instead of just wish and dream with near zero understanding of the fundamental laws of physics and economics.
Who cares? The fact is we just looked at the BEST selling vehicles for 2010 for both Canada and the US and in both cases large trucks were by far the most popular vehicles sold, and these trucks will still be around 10 years from now. You say its unjustifiable, yet people bought these knowing the price of gas was likely to go up so clearly they needed the features these vehicles provided. Indeed, when 2011 is over those two models will again lead the sales.
Why?
Because both Canada and the US are growing at dramatic rates. We will indeed build all the infrastructure here over the next 3 decades to equal the entire UK, and that growth needs work trucks.
At the same time what the US does with gas mileage will have virtually no impact on the total GHGs in comparison to the additional 3 billion or so people who will be added to the globe over the next 40 years. Cutting our gas use in half would only reduce global CO2 production by about 1.8%, which would have essentially no impact at all considering that so much CO2 comes from Coal and Natural gas and the use of both will be going up, not down over the next 40 years (remember the energy demands of those extra 3 billion people)
Movement to EVs, even if on a massive scale, would likewise have only a minor impact on CO2 because our electrical generation produces ~500 tons of CO2 per GWH produced, which because of transmission losses results in EV-CO2 rates of ~115 g/km, which is more than the new Prius at 89 g/km (True, it's less than the average CO2 per mile, but so far EVs only come in small models, bigger EVs would use far more watts per mile). If half of us were all driving Leafs tomorrow, the net change in CO2 on a global scale would be minimal.
In any case, the Leaf supposedly went on sale in the UK in Feb, with a price of $38,500 (after $8,150 rebate from the UK gov). Personally I couldn't imagine anyone paying that much for that car, but we'll see how well it sells to people who are fearful of GW and want to do their part. Note a Toyota Urban Cruiser (51 mpg) which is a far more capable car would cost $12,000 less, so the Leaf starts costing less to operate at around 120,000 miles if gas is $8 gallon and elec is $.15 kWh. Of course, even for a driver who puts 20,000 miles per year on their Leaf (not that easy to do as you have to drive about 55 miles every day), this savings only happens after 6 years and 1 year after the warranty on the Leaf battery expires.
Once the UK stops giving that huge upfront rebate (and they will), the cost of the Leaf will really be high compared to a high mileage hybrid like the Prius.
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toy..._URBANCRUISER&zone=Zone+Urban+Cruiser&sr=Mall
Arthur
Last edited:
You need to read New Scientist and try and keep up with an everchanging world and its technologies.
There are many sources of information about new technologies. What you lack is the educational foundation to recognize what is a technology limitation and what is a fundamental law of nature limitation so you mistakenly believe that a little more research, more development of new technology can overcome any limitation.
For example, high voltages occur if the current in an inductor is rapidly reduced to zero and is required to rapidly increase the current in an inductor. That is fundamental law of nature - Technology advance will not change it. Other facts of space and time I used in my analysis are equally fundamental. For example:
A car moving at 80mph (36m/sec) passing over a roadway coil its same length will have less than 50% of the car's coil over the roadway coil for less than 0.03 sec but the inductance of such a coil will limit the current rise and fall each to more than 0.15 sec if it is also 1meter wide and with enough turns to make at reasonable recharging induction field. ("Reasonable," as if only one turn the current required to get the ampere/turns required would have huge RI^2 loses in the coil.) Inductance is a property of ONLY the coil geometry and the roadway coils are not small, so even only a dozen or so turns makes a relatively large inductance in "car shaped" coil (1m by 2m).
Thus coil will be energized 10 times longer than 50% of the car is over it. This fact alone makes the system efficiency less than 10%.
There are also large losses (compared to energy delivered to the car's battery in less than 0.03 sec) in the essential 1000 to 1 step down, high power rated, expensive transformers, which as it has large inductance is energized most of the time - not possible to turn on and off as needed due to it large inductance.
Not even counting the RI^2 losses, which heavy copper wires and rod conductor can reduce at great expense in copper alone, these switch on and off limitations of inductors and the car high speed (short time over the roadway coil), make system efficiency less than 5%. Thus, with 50% of the electric power generated by fossil fuel, the induction roadway would INCREASE CO2 release by factor of 10.
However, it is the high cost that also destroys the system’s feasibility. Prior detailed analysis in post 1707 shows that the capital cost is greater than $30/ foot of road, not even including the car’s parts of the system (pick up coil, AC to DC conversion in the car or the optical switching system to turn on and off the coils, etc) as they are not a cost expressible in per mile of roadway, but are significant too especially if the EV battery is included when comparing to a gasoline car alternative, which would be 10 times LESS polluting.
SUMMARY: “Wishing and dreaming” is desirable activity but MUST be followed by analysis to separate the silly from the feasible. You need to understand this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting thing I learned while researching this topic.
The mileage tests done by the EU give higher gas mileage for the same car/engine than the EPA milage figures. (The US EPA tightened their tests after consumers complained that they weren't getting the rated mileage)
Turns out the EU tests really keep the speed down in their tests as well as the stops and starts compared to the US tests. They do both an Urban and an Ex-Urban cycle but the average speed in both is only 20 mph.
What seems to make the US test harder is they do a Cold Start test as part of the Urban driving cycle and that's when gas mileage is the worst. They also do a hot start as part of it, after 10 minutes of cooling down, and the highway test is at an average of 48 MPH which is why you see the biggest variation in the highway mileage between the two sets of tests.
So how does this work in real life. Took a while to find identical cars with identical engines to see the impact:
VW Jetta with 2 liter TDI (Diesel) in EU says it gets 42.2/62.8 mpg
Same car, same engine in the US and the EPA gives it 30/42 mpg
WOW!
But then I figure it must be Imperial Gallons for the EU and since 1 US gallon = 0.83 Imperial Gallons then restated the EU says the mileage is still quite a bit higher at 35/52 mpg compared to 30/42 mpg in the US.
Still quite a bit higher, but a bit more reasonable comparison.
SO, the net is when you see these HIGH MPG ratings for cars in the EU remember if they are stating it in MPG, the gallon is 20% larger, so make that correction and even then the testing is like the old EPA tests and so still the stated mileages are higher than what we would see in EPA numbers for the same car.
I also checked out a gas engine car, and the Passat CC is available in the 2.0 liter TSI engine in both the US and EU
In the US it is rated 21/31 mpg but in the EU it is rated as 23/41.8 mpg, again the easier EU Highway test producing a much bigger difference.
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/jetta-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-cc/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/
http://www.vw.com/en/models/jetta/trims-specs.s9_trimlevel_detail.suffix.html/2011_jetta~2Ftdi.html
http://www.vw.com/en/models/cc/trims-specs.s9_trimlevel_detail.suffix.html/2012_cc~2Fsport.html
Arthur
The mileage tests done by the EU give higher gas mileage for the same car/engine than the EPA milage figures. (The US EPA tightened their tests after consumers complained that they weren't getting the rated mileage)
Turns out the EU tests really keep the speed down in their tests as well as the stops and starts compared to the US tests. They do both an Urban and an Ex-Urban cycle but the average speed in both is only 20 mph.
What seems to make the US test harder is they do a Cold Start test as part of the Urban driving cycle and that's when gas mileage is the worst. They also do a hot start as part of it, after 10 minutes of cooling down, and the highway test is at an average of 48 MPH which is why you see the biggest variation in the highway mileage between the two sets of tests.
So how does this work in real life. Took a while to find identical cars with identical engines to see the impact:
VW Jetta with 2 liter TDI (Diesel) in EU says it gets 42.2/62.8 mpg
Same car, same engine in the US and the EPA gives it 30/42 mpg
WOW!
But then I figure it must be Imperial Gallons for the EU and since 1 US gallon = 0.83 Imperial Gallons then restated the EU says the mileage is still quite a bit higher at 35/52 mpg compared to 30/42 mpg in the US.
Still quite a bit higher, but a bit more reasonable comparison.
SO, the net is when you see these HIGH MPG ratings for cars in the EU remember if they are stating it in MPG, the gallon is 20% larger, so make that correction and even then the testing is like the old EPA tests and so still the stated mileages are higher than what we would see in EPA numbers for the same car.
I also checked out a gas engine car, and the Passat CC is available in the 2.0 liter TSI engine in both the US and EU
In the US it is rated 21/31 mpg but in the EU it is rated as 23/41.8 mpg, again the easier EU Highway test producing a much bigger difference.
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/jetta-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-cc/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/
http://www.vw.com/en/models/jetta/trims-specs.s9_trimlevel_detail.suffix.html/2011_jetta~2Ftdi.html
http://www.vw.com/en/models/cc/trims-specs.s9_trimlevel_detail.suffix.html/2012_cc~2Fsport.html
Arthur