Why the electric car is a bad idea....

[UP_4012]

Before this gets anywhere, lets start with simple physics.
The net change in energy over the course of the entire existence of the universe has been zero.
This means that the total energy in whatever form has not changed in quantitative terms in the history of the universe. Energy in must equal energy out.
That being said, lets look at conventional, a.k.a. internal combustion reciprocating engines.
They, at the maximum theoretical efficiency, are capable of extracting up to one-third of the energy contained in a gallon of fuel, meaning the other 2/3's are wasted. The wasted energy is usually lost to just keeping the tires rolling at the same speed, and it is also converted to heat. (Hint, the exhaust is well over 500 degrees F, and most engines must use an elaborate liquid cooling system)
Electric motors are much more efficient, however, like every other human invention, they waste energy.
All that means is that although more energy is actually used to move the car electrically, the same amount of energy must be expended to move a car of identical mass. (In most cases electrics out-weigh conventionals)
Therefore, the same amount of energy must come from somewhere. Gasoline is not used, but coal is.
Coal plants produce more than 50% of all power in the US, so more than likely, your just swapping burning oil for burning coal.
Coal is much dirtier to burn than oil, often releasing agents such as mercury, and high levels of sulfur.
Whatever anyone tells you, there is no such thing as "clean coal". It may be cleaner coal, but it damn sure is not as clean as gasoline.
Even though most will argue that you will be snubbing the oil companies by buying one of these machines, they are way off in la-la land.
The advanced plastics, glues, rubber compounds, chemical layer for laminated glass, grease, and even carpet fibers are all derived from oil. Even though it does not burn oil, a considerable amount went into its construction. Don't believe me? Look at your car and make a list of what parts are synthetic carpet, vinyl, PVC, are glued together, made of plastic, or lubricated. The parts list can be staggering.
So even if an electric car was manufactured, ( a totally different disaster), then you would still be paying for the parts that were derived from oil- which all goes back into Exxon's pockets.
Any questions?

[gateley]

1. Any questions? Yes.

What do you propose instead?

[UP_4012]

4. There is not really a very good solution

We just need to drive less, and recycle our 15mpg tanks into economy cars.

[Arctic Dave]

21. I agree with your statement here. Another thing we need to

do is redefine what transportation is. I think the automobile as we know it is an unsustainable vehicle to keep producing for the reasons you already stated.

In short, my opinion is, the entire automobile industry needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

[UP_4012]

24. Ive actually wanted

to see Chrysler Ford and GM implode for years, just to be taken over by someone who CARED for this earth.

[Arctic Dave]

26. I think they have been imploding, only its in slow motion.

[UP_4012]

27. I think it will accelerate exponentially now that

Saturn is producing the same cars as every other division of GM. (Equinox=Vue, etc) I just want Chrslyer to be the first to go. I despise them.

[Speck Tater]

2. "Learn to ride a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." Mark Twain. nt

[rucky]

3. What if we only used them to drive downhill?

[UP_4012]

5. Well,

You would need to expend the energy by pushing it up the hill first.....not fun.

[rucky]

11. Damn these laws of conservation

what if GM hires a good lobbying firm to challenge them?

[UP_4012]

17. Ha!

:rofl:

[rurallib]

6. so what if it's solar, wind or some other form of renewably derived electricity?

and what about carbon fiber resins as bodies?

[UP_4012]

9. Youd would have

to contend with the weight of a solar system installed in the car. As for wind, that would actually be a good idea, the problem being getting enough windmills online to power millions of vehicles cleanly.
Carbon fiber is way too expensive, and until Detroit makes it look attractive and cheap, its going nowhere.

[suziedemocrat]

65. Solar panels on your home, garage, carport to power the car.

Not solar panels on the car --- unless they make a lot of progress making them lighter. Wind Mills on your property.

What about electricity from damns?

[FREEWILL56]

70. Damns no, hydro yes.

Hydro (refering to all water generating appartas) can be gotten by dipping paddle wheel like appendages into a portion of the cross-sectional area of a river without blocking the river with a damn. This would just be another source for the utility as not many citizens have access to rivers.
Solar panels on a car would not be able to supply all of the power a car would need as you'd need too much area to capture the sun's energy as opposed to the area a car encompasses. This would give supplemental power and would extend the charge on the batteries giving an extra bit of distance than would otherwise be had during daylight hours though.

[GodlessBiker]

7. I think you mean to say mass-energy, not energy.

Mass-energy in = mass-energy out.

[UP_4012]

13. No

Even in a simple situation, like bouncing a rubber ball, it will never come to the same height, even though the collision is elastic. The reason? Energy lost as it is converted from kinetic to sound.

[GodlessBiker]

20. No, the mass-energy of the universe does not stay constant?

[UP_4012]

23. I will look that up

But as it was taught to me, everything stays conserved when dealing with energy/momentum/mass. Mass can actually be changed only if matter is physically removed/added though.

[wtmusic]

8. No questions, but a few comments

Electricity from burning coal is cleaner than the equivalent amount of energy from burning gas.

I own a "disaster" (100% electric car) and I drive it every day. The electricity in my area is generated by clean natural gas and I pay a fraction of what you do to do my daily errands. It has plastic parts in it which is entirely irrelevant because they also represent a miniscule fraction of the oil you will use to drive your internal combusion pig during its lifetime.

Any questions?

http://www.aspire-ev.com

[UP_4012]

15. Actually,

Did you build it? How does yours work? What batteries are you using? The reason I mentioned coal so heavily is because that is all TVA runs, besides nuclear. And my monster weighs 1,900ILBS and gets up to 40mpg. I drive it every day, back and forth to school 9.7 miles away.

[Beartracks]

63. producing electricity en masse

Yep. When you're producing electricity en masse to run people's cars, then any pollution is distributed across all the vehicles -- and fewer pollutants are associated with your individual commute than if you had generated the power from your own internal combustion engine. If a city of 500,000 people all drove electric cars, powering them up at night from the electric grid, you will have far fewer pollutants being generated than if they all drove about in gas-powered cars -- even though the power plant will need to generate additional power to handle the added load of all those plugged-in cars.

[lapfog_1]

10. So... how IS that horse you are riding?

Because the bicycle is made from oil and aluminum (and don't even ASK how much electricity that comes from the horrible coal is used to make aluminum).

And I guess that you use only a hemp blanket on that horse, because the saddle, well, let's just say that most of it comes from the skin of a dead cow... a cow that someone bred for the purpose of making that saddle... and you KNOW how much greenhouse gas that cow emitted before it was killed to make the saddle.

Or maybe you just walk, naked, everywhere you go?

[UP_4012]

16. Honestly

That is not at all relevant.

[ohioINC]

12. A better solution.

We need to develop electric cars while simultaneously transitioning from coal based electric to renewable based electric(solar, wind, geothermal hydro tidal....so many options not even considering nuclear) This would make a bigger impact in the end.

[UP_4012]

18. Alright!

I like your ideas! :toast:

[sandnsea]

14. We won't stop producing and traveling

We either advocate the least bad means of transportation, or let the corporatists choose the cheapest and worst for the planet.

[OneBlueSky]

19. "make a list of what parts are synthetic carpet, vinyl, PVC, are glued together . . .

made of plastic, or lubricated. The parts list can be staggering." . . .

right you are . . . but most of these parts can also be made from cannabis -- as can the car body itself! . . . I can't find the article right now, but this was done sometime last century and the resulting car bodies were damn near indestructible . . .

marijuana has a multitude of practical uses, and it's way past time that this country looked at it as the real miracle plant that it is and start cultivating it for any number of industrial uses . . . not to mention its medicinal uses and its "personal pleasure" value . . .

we could put an awful lot of farmers to work and create a whole new industry if elected officials stopped freaking out at the mere mention of the word and looked at the real science behind industrial and medicinal marijuana instead . . .

[suziedemocrat]

66. I agree! Hemp should be grown all over the US! I can't beleive we ignore this plant.

http://www.satyamag.com/apr96/friedman.html

[jpak]

22. and the alternative is???

:rofl:

[UP_4012]

25. Look at what ohioINC said higher up

[IDemo]

28. Time for another "Let's kill the electric car" post?

These seem to pop up fairly regularly here. While you would seem to make a few good points, you have propagated the same mistruths as others have.

First off: comparing the energy required for moving differently fueled vehicles of identical weight/rolling resistance/wind resistance is done using a "well-to-wheels" measurement. While the energy required between tires and road to propel similar vehicles is the same; the total energy used for mining/drilling, processing and transporting a liquid fuel or electrical energy, along with the total efficiency of the motor or engine, charging system (if it's an electric vehicle) and driveline losses still add up to more than double the miles per gallon equivalent, kilometers per megajoule, or any other distance to energy unit you prefer for an electric vehicle over an internal combustion powered one.

Secondly, while mercury output is certainly higher for an equivalent coal energy power source versus gasoline, greenhouse gases are less. Google "GREET greenhouse" or see Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks. The ecological benefits from driving electric vehicles are of course much higher in areas of the country using hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power.

EV's and hybrids can also provide tremendous additional benefits for the power grid using Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology, something no internal combustion vehicle can.

The efficiency of electric motors and modern charging systems is what makes EV's a solid choice both for energy and climate concerns.

[UP_4012]

30. OK, ill give you less greenhouse,

But Im more concerned with mercury. And because I live where TVA controls power production methods, its coal, a little hydro, a fake wind-farm,and maybe natural gas, with so far only one reactor. (Thank God)
Also, the batteries and frames of the cars use very hard-to-get material. Aluminum requires mining of a large quantity of bauxite. 4 tons of bauxite per one ton of usable primary. Also, the batteries use a huge amount of lead or lithium, along with copper. This produces dangerous emissions from smelters. Both types of car use aluminum, but only the electric uses (more than one) battery. That being said, the mining of the precious metals should come close to equaling emissions of a oil powered car.

[whosinpower]

29. Oil is used for parts

And lubricant, grease, oil, etc. However - cut out the consumable gas portion and replace that with electricity, and I think we will all know that demand for oil will substantially decrease.

We live in an era where instant gratification abounds. Freight is shipped far more readily and quickly with TRUCKS, rather than trains. Wonder which takes more fuel to deliver a lump sum of goods? It is faster - no doubt - I order goods and recieve them within 2 days - good news - but there is a cost to that, and I wonder if perhaps we, as a society need to learn a bit more patience, and a bit less expectations of timely delivery - for the good of the planet. Thinking ahead to Mr. Buffet - did he not invest heavily in train companies......what does he know that we should all take note of?

And I'll go even further - and imagine a day when a car is sold with a solar panel and converter to be hooked up to your house - and THAT is what you plug into. I'll step it up with another concept - windturbines on every household, and every rooftop covered with solar panels.

Of course, the centralized powers that be, do not want to imagine a day like that - true independance from the energy barons.

Coal is not the only source of electricity either....not many speak of hydro. Hydro is pretty environmentally friendly. Harness the tides to produce electricity - it has been proven to work too.

Realistically, we must also address the fact that we live far too extravagantly, with far too many energy sucking gadgets - I'm typing on one now!

[UP_4012]

32. Iv'e always wondered were the railroads went.

All they do in the bible belt is shuttle containers and coal. We do live an unsustainable lifestyle, and the high population is not helping matters... :(

[kristopher]

31. Your post is riddled with errors.

"meaning the other 2/3's are wasted. The wasted energy is usually lost to just keeping the tires rolling at the same speed, and it is also converted to heat."

ICEs are about 12% efficient, (forget your theoretical maximum) and the other 88% is wasted as heat. If it is maintaining the speed of the car it isn't wasted.

"Electric motors are much more efficient, however, like every other human invention, they waste energy."
Yes, more than 90% efficient. And the LIon battery delivers practically 100% of the input energy.

"All that means is that although more energy is actually used to move the car electrically, the same amount of energy must be expended to move a car of identical mass."
Half true: the energy at the wheels is the same, the loss between the point of energy input and the wheels is 88% for internal combustion and less than 10% for battery electric.

"Therefore, the same amount of energy must come from somewhere. Gasoline is not used, but coal is."
When you say "the same amount of energy" you fudge the boundaries of your analysis. Coal represents only 46% of the power mix to the grid. So your sentence more accurately would be that we only need to replace 12% of the gasoline energy consumed by the car and that coal generated energy replaces less than 6% of the gasoline energy consumed by the ICE automobile.


You need to sharpen your analysis.

[UP_4012]

33. Are those figures real-world?

Or just theoretical? 90% is highly improbable. The most efficient mechanical device is still the bicycle, at just over 70%. I know the theoretical is rather high for ICE's. And, if Lion batteries are 100% efficient, why do devices that draw the same power over the same time run far shorter than the charge time at the same rate?

[kristopher]

35. They are real world.

I don't think you completely understand the numbers you are offering. Find the analysis of the bicycle and see how the 70% is arrived at, then we can discuss it if you like.

What tests have you run to determine the claim you make about LIon? I'd be interested in seeing the basis of your statement.

Look at it another way, where is the energy lost in the battery charge/discharge cycle? There is a *very* small amount to heat and that's it.

[UP_4012]

38. I have 2

battery "arrays" that i built for my senior project that is required for graduation.
One is lead-acid, sealed, deep cycle.
The other is Lion, and is also sealed.
The first is wired to a standard constant-draw charger rated a 1 amp/hour.
The second (Lion) is hooked up to a special charger designed for lithium, rated at 1 amp/hours.
The first array takes 23.8 hours to go from fully depleted to fully charged.
The Lion bank takes takes 22.1 hours to charge.
Each bank is wired in parallel using 16-gage copper wire with PVC insulation, netting 24 amp/hours of storage.
Each array was attached to a high-efficiency (80+) 600W square-wave inverter.
Draw for load (PC) was 2.3965 amps, 110VAC, (263.3 watts), constant for both tests.
The first array held up for 48 minutes 13 seconds.
The second held up for 51 minutes 49 seconds.
No thermal alarms were triggered on the inverter. The inverter shuts down at 9v DC input. (around 1/3 total discharge)

[louis-t]

34. Great debate, folks.

My opinion has always been to use the electric grid but change the fuel source. The grid is already in place. Seems to be the cheapest, most practical approach.

[JohnWxy]

36. Did you forget to mention it takes 2.1 MJ of energy to produce 1 MJ of electricity in the U.S.?

http://www.eesi.org/briefings/Pre2003/07.31.02.brf_files/Allocation%20Procedures%20in%20Fuel%20Ethanol-Final.pdf
"the net energy for electricity in the United States is 2.1 MJnet/MJ of
electricity <10>. This value indicates that 2.1 MJ of energy is
required to generate one MJ of electricity".

Also, HOw long does it take to charge up an electric car to go a given distance. Let's take the volt for an example. It's not commercially available as of yet but how long do you have to charge it to get the 40 mile round trip range GM alleges it will have? This is necessary to know how much power over how much (charging time) is required to get it to go 80 miles (I guess with one person aboard).

[kristopher]

37. Standard for LIon is 80% recharge in 15 minutes.

That is capability as determined by the battery. There is a requirement to upgrade home service to meet recharging needs; that is the opportunity to upgrade to a "Smart Grid".

Also, you are looking backwards instead of forwards. The real question is what will the generating mix be on the grid in 20 years?

[UP_4012]

39. The Lions i used

were school property, too expensive for me. They got up to 90% charge on my array in a little under a day.

[kristopher]

41. Not exactly a convincing proof of your claim. nt

[UP_4012]

42. Those are my only examples that are actually my testing

The Lions were only slightly better, although they weighed a hell of a lot less. But then you trade the light weight for a fire hazard, oh well, nothings perfect.

[kristopher]

45. Fire hazard? Check out A123

Why don't you take some time and read up on battery technology. Perhaps you'd find the site for Tesla Motors to be interesting.

Also see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=147096&mesg_id=147218

[UP_4012]

46. Lithium is the most

reactive metal that we know of. Even a slight overcharge can result in a big fire.
Google "Lithium charging safety tips" I prefer batteries that don't need to be partially submerged in sand when "in-doubt".
And i do know my batteries! I remeber using ni-cads when they came out, long story short: corrode, leak, corrode, leak, smoke. Nimh have a memory effect supposedly, but i have not been able to replicate that.
All nickel batteries have low (compared to lithium) power-to-weight ratios. Lithium is not exactly the safest, but it does provide a quicker charge time and lighter weight.

[kristopher]

49. Dude, you are as dumb as a stump. It isn't the lithium

It is the material used for anodes; or more accurately that USED to be used for anodes. You are obviously not here to converse, but to throw shit against the wall.

Goodbye.

[JohnWxy]

43. I'm not looking backwards but I was only looking at what is currently possible. Yes, it may take 20

years (or 30) to get to where electric cars charged from the grid are a green alternative (that is a significant proportion of the power comes from wind and solar).

That was my point on another thread - that electric cars do not represent a currently available alternative to fossil fuel usage.

[kristopher]

47. That isn't true (again).

Electric cars are a green alternative to petroleum (or ethanol) right now. They get 'greener' as more renewables are added.

Your conclusion that "electric cars do not represent a currently available alternative to fossil fuel usage" is false also. I suppose you'd prefer the government squander more money paying you to build ethanol plants?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=147096&mesg_id=147096

[JohnWxy]

51. power grid is mostly fossil fuel powered and by the way where can I buy an electric car and

how affordable is it? Even if there is a plug-in hybrid the power grid is still fossil fuel driven and will (mostly) be for 20 to 30 years.

No other current alternatives. NOt in this real world.

[UP_4012]

53. Thank you!

:applause:

[kristopher]

54. You aren't being truthful

http://www.innovativebiotechnologies.com/index.htm
Welcome to Innovative Bio-Technologies, LLC

Innovative Bio-Technologies (IBT) was formed in late 2003, as a Wisconsin limited liability company. IBT was originally created to allow investors the opportunity to own and operate a biorefining facility. In January of 2006, we shifted that focus to include consulting, research and development in the rapidly-growing renewable energy sector.

Today the vision of Innovative Bio-Technologies is to:

* Consult and Develop clean and efficient renewable energy powered Bio-Refineries in Greenfield projects

* Retrofit existing Bio-Refineries to conserve energy resources

http://www.innovativebiotechnologies.com/people.htm

Key Personnel

Mr. John C. Walker

Mr. John C. Walker serves as Vice President of the Energy Division of Innovative Bio-Technologies.

[UP_4012]

55. You do understand that the near-entirety

of solar tech is owned by oil-companies? As well as the EV-1's motor patent, and battery?
SIEMENS=Owned by BP.
I'm looking up the others....

[JohnWxy]

61. YOu speak out of both sides of your mouth: quoteing you from this thread - link provided:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=147268&mesg_id=147321


You are saying the generating mix in 20 years will be (more green) than it is now.

"what will the generating mix be on the grid in 20 years?" YOu make the argument (with which I do not disagree) - that the grid will be (more) green in 20 years (at least I hope so).

Which agrees with my rather obvious observation that the grid mix is not green now which is my consideration in many of my threads and which you have disagreed with there(and even here say the grid is currently green while at link provided you say that you are looking at the grid mix in 20 years(when presumably, it will be green).

Like any child, you want to keep changing the rules as it suits you. A young child can't even tell the difference between the truth and his imagined truths(based on his/her whishes). LOL.

IT is a matter of fact that the grid currently is powered almost entirely by fossil fuels today which makes any electric or rechargeable car (hybrids) NOT green NOW (Even if there was one available and affordable) even though, you refuse to admit it (Wanna take your ball home if we don't play by your idiosyncratic and constantly changing rules (i.e. logic) (as suits your childish puroposes).

OF course, the grid (I am working for this) will be more green 20 or more years from now but as for the question IS THE ELECTRIC CAR OR PLUG-IN HYBRID GREEN RIGHT NOW - WITH THE CURRENT GRID MIX? - THE ANSWER IS: NO.


YOu can cry and beat your little fists on the floor all you want but it wont' change this reality. And pretending it isn't so and shouting it ain't so, won't change the reality of it either.

[kristopher]

62. Maybe you should change your screen name to "Stumpy"

You are making a straw man argument, my simple friend.

Nowhere did I say or imply "the grid is green" or anything remotely similar.

What I wrote in this thread is that an electric car powered by the grid is cleaner than a car powered by an internal combustion engine. That was in response to your claim that since coal is used for electric generation on the grid, an electric car created more pollution than an ICE car.

An ICE car actually uses only 12% of it's fuel energy to provide propulsion.

The other 88% is lost to heat.

A battery electric uses better than 90% of the energy input to provide propulsion.

So the question becomes "How much pollution from coal is produced to provide the equivalent to 12% of the petroleum combusted in the ICE?"

The percentage of coal on the grid (average) is 46%.

So that brings the percentage of pollutants from coal needed to run the battery electric down to the equivalent of 6% of the petroleum combusted in the ICE.

Now, coal is slightly more polluting than gasoline, but it would have to be about 15X as dirty as gasoline to EQUAL the output of the ICE.


Now, we know that your real interest is promoting ethanol in order to sell more of those refining facilities you sell, so let me restate my basic position regarding ethanol:

We are looking for a solution to our energy problems, and transportation is only one element of the entire picture. Ethanol does not solve our transportation sector problem, nor does it solve any other related problems. It returns too little energy for the energy invested for it to be a valid means of gathering surplus energy.

The fudge factor has been pointed out to you many times before yet you continue to act like it is something you couldn't possibly know. So, one more time from your link: Allocation Procedure in Ethanol Production System from Corn Grain by Seungdo Kim and Bruce E. Dale on page 6: ""In the allocation based on energy content, which uses the energy contents of ethanol and its coproducts, the dry milling system gets a 39-percent coproduct net energy credit, and wet milling has a 43-percent coproduct credit. The disadvantage of this method is that the calories of coproducts,a measurement of food nutritional value, are not a good measurement of energy in a fuel context."

That returns the EROEI of ethanol to the 1.2:1 value that is the accepted norm.

The environmental effects of ethanol are on a scale with other farming activities; if you don't think such agribusiness isn't an environmental problem related to land and water use, I'm not going to argue it with you. Too many other people know otherwise.

What we are searching for isn't someting to lower gasoline prices and it isn't something to augment the current supply of gasoline; what we are looking for is a total replacement for gasoline and diesel in the transportation sector. In order for ethanol to be self sufficient and deliver enough fuel for this nation's personal transportation sector, it would need to deliver on the order of 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline for transportation use each and every day. That means that with a 1.2:1 return rate and relying on ethanol as the source of input energy, we must actually produce some 2,000,000,000 gallons of ethanol each and every day, 365 days per year. That's 730,000,000,000 gal/year. Allowing for the input from sunlight, we fractionally better of, so lets call it 600,000,000,000 gallons per year. That means devoting about 1.2 billion acres to farm for ethanol production. Otherwise, we are using coal generated electricity as input, since we are spending all our money on ethanol and have none left over to develop other renewables.

Now, we could do all of that for transportation. We could....

But do we want to?

The answer is no, we don't want to. Why not?

Because we get a much larger return on energy invested if we put it into wind, solar, wave/tidal/current, and geothermal.

Led by wind, any and all of those give a return on invested energy thousands of times higher than biofuels. They also serve other needs besides the transportation sector.

The personal transportation sector is best served with battery electric in a Vehicle to Grid (V2G) configuration. Nmh and especially LIon is currently deployed in a number of hybrids and Tesla's roadster is 100% battery electric. Several pilot programs are deploying fleets of corporate, electric only V2G vehicles to confirm the amount they can contribute to grid stability. With large scale deployment of the V2G technology in the private sector, the costs of integrating renewables into the grid plummets dramatically, while simultaneously increasing overall grid reliability and dramatically decreasing overall costs of electricity to all sectors.

With clean grid energy we can use biofuels as they are best suited - to operate the heavy machinery of life that requires the extreme energy density and portability of liquid fuels. Serving only that portion of the transportation sector should be possible without destroying ourselves in the process.


If you have anymore questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[suziedemocrat]

67. I didn't read his post that way.

I thought he said electric cars are more green than gasoline cars. And as we derive electricity from renewable sources, they will become even greener.

If we hold out for the perfect solution before we do anything, we'll really be sunk. Progress will be made in stages.

It seems to me that Kristopher is the only guy on this thread who really knows what he is talking about.

[UP_4012]

44. Id love to see my laptop do that.

Are you sure that is for lithium-ion (Lion) or lithium-polymer (Lipo)?

[UP_4012]

40. That is because

the way we generate is terrible. There is only so much energy that can be harvested by an ECE.

[hunter]

48. I have a question. Does this thread have any point?

You start out talking about the Energy balance of the Universe and end with Exxon's pockets, with a rat's nest of factoids in between.

:wtf:

If you believe our insane automobile culture is a continuous environmental catastrophe (as I do), then why don't you just say so?

[kristopher]

50. He's plant by the

VP of Innovative Bio-Technologies:

http://www.innovativebiotechnologies.com/index.htm
Welcome to Innovative Bio-Technologies, LLC

Innovative Bio-Technologies (IBT) was formed in late 2003, as a Wisconsin limited liability company. IBT was originally created to allow investors the opportunity to own and operate a biorefining facility. In January of 2006, we shifted that focus to include consulting, research and development in the rapidly-growing renewable energy sector.

Today the vision of Innovative Bio-Technologies is to:

* Consult and Develop clean and efficient renewable energy powered Bio-Refineries in Greenfield projects

* Retrofit existing Bio-Refineries to conserve energy resources

http://www.innovativebiotechnologies.com/people.htm

Key Personnel

Mr. John C. Walker

Mr. John C. Walker serves as Vice President of the Energy Division of Innovative Bio-Technologies.

[UP_4012]

52. I did, but

the electric is not a viable solution until the required tech is in place. (solar, wind, geothermal) to take the place (permanently) of fossil fuel generated electricity. I cant stand it when i start an environmental conversation (away from this forum) all i get is "we need the electric car!!!!1!!!one.

[wtmusic]

56. Wait...I hear the ghost of OKIsItJustMe...I know he's in the room

OKIIJM, can you hear me?

I didn't believe in reincarnation until now.

[Ready4Change]

57. About plastics in cars.

Lets assume the entire car is made of plastic. No steel. No aluminum. No copper. No carbon or glass fibers. No wool or cotton cloth. No Soy foams (Ford Mustang seats, for example.) Nope, the entire car is plastic.

Since that's extreme, lets also say it's a small, very light-weight car. 2,000 lbs.

If the car is an electric vehicle, that's the majority of it's petroleum usage. At some point it will need it's batteries replaced. But, if those are being handled correctly, their plastic casing will me made of recycled materials, possibly some previous cars battery casings. You'll probably need a little more to be honest. But not much.

Now lets consider if this car was a petroleum burner, in the form of diesel or gasoline. It's a small, light car, so lets say it gets an average, city/highway 45mpg. Let's say it gets driven 15,000 miles a year. It'll need about 333 gallons of gas. At around 6lbs a gallon, we can find that it wil burn 2,000lbs of petroleum EVERY YEAR. If that car has a lifetime of 10 years before it's retired, it will consume a total of 22,000lbs of petroleum, vs maybe 2,200lbs of petroleum for the EV. In other, simpler terms, TEN TIMES the petroleum of the EV.

And that's assuming cars are 100% constructed of plastic. Which we know isn't the case. If we say they are 50% plastic, the final numbers are 21,000lbs for the IC car, vs 1,200lbs for the EV, which shows the IC car using over 17 times the plastic.

So, the insinuation that EV's use even close to as much petroleum as IC's is non-sense.

And others are debunking the myth that creating the electricity used to charge EV's creates as much or more GHG than running gasoline powered cars. In short, EV's charged off utility grids result in the production of significantly less GHG than gasoline burning cars, even when using nasty old coal to make that power.

What else you got?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

72. There's a new wave of non-petroleum plastics and rubber now in development

The Japanese have managed to make a quite serviceable automobile tire made of 97% non-petroleum products. Before the plastics revolution, tires were made of natural latex that came from trees. The problems with those types of tires of days-gone-by are being improved upon in the laboratory to make them stronger and less susceptible to damage caused by air. There's also a wave of GM crops being developed that will create the ability to make plastics out of them. I'm not in favor of GM crops for eating or for feeds, but maybe confined to the laboratory to get us off the oil addition, these uses might eventually prove to be useful to mankind. The GM crop-based plastics for now have some level of toxicity, and there's the danger that the source crops could "infect" other plants. But hopefully we can also overcome these problems with science. Biodegradable naturally-grown plastics aren't completely perfected yet or safe, but we can hope they eventually will be. I hope we'll live to see the day when we stop filling our landfills with the types of plastics that take hundreds if not thousands of years to decompose and that do so with less danger to the environment.

[kristopher]

73. Hell man, that's what we have to save the oil for - plastics.

Burning it for energy is an absolute sin. That's why the oil producers don't care if we buy it now or later.

[losthills]

58. Utter nonsense......

[NNadir]

71. Wow! This is the most insightful post I have ever seen on Democratic Underground.

The depth of your research comes across in every word, and one is immediately struck by the command of materials science, thermodynamics, and engineering that is obviously at your command.

Until now, I thought that thermoplastics were made from oil, but clearly, point by point, with a decidedly first hand knowledge of polymer chemistry that is of near Nobel quality, you have demonstrated, once and for all, that plastic is not made from oil.

Some thought it a disgrace when Somorjai didn't get the Nobel Prize, but you have established definitively that the real overlooked person on this score was none other than Losthills.

Similarly your incredible preparation and insight have established once and for all that the largest source of American electricity is not coal.

Thanks. You've set so many of my anxieties to rest with your careful and well thought out post.

You are, clearly and irrefutably, the paragon of deep thought. I kneel to you with the deepest and most profound intellectual respect.

[Javaman]

59. So remember, until they make cars out of recycled materials...

it takes between 20 and 50 barrels of oil to make each and every car, regardless of it's fuel type.

That's why it's better to convert and old car to electric.

[ladjf]

60. I disagree with your basic premise.

"Energy in energy out". True by the laws of physics. However, the key question is what are the comparable costs of the "energy"?

You assert that the components of the electric car would be manufactured using oil based products.

1. That isn't necessarily correct.

2. And even if true, the same would have to be said about cars with gasoline engines.

Are you just saying that any type of automobile is a mistake?

[excess_3]

64. if you don't like it --> don' buy it .n/t

[TheWraith]

68. Clearly, the only thing to do is for us all to kill ourselves.

Seriously, if you really believe what you just said, that's the only logical route since eventually ANY system or solution will use up available resources.

And by the way, a bunch of your facts are simply wrong, like electric motors using the same energy as combustion motors. They're actually about 6x more efficient. Further, coal actually IS cleaner than gasoline on a per-watt basis. And the amount of our energy that DOESN'T come from coal is demonstrably cleaner than any fossil fuel based motor. Last but not least, electric vehicles would tap into the roughly 20% of our energy production that's unused at night, during off peak hours. That energy is still being generated, but right now it's simply being wasted.

Please don't make me explain all the ways in which you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. I don't have that much time.

[Finishline42]

69. Plus, how long after PHEV's hit the market

Plus, how long after PHEV's hit the market before the car dealers hook-up with local solar PV installers and offer panels as a package deal? Don't you think that someone 'green' enough to buy a Plugin Hybrid would also be interested in some neat panels for the roof? Maybe sell electric produced by PV during the day to local utility at peak rates and re-charge the car batteries with a smart charger that uses off-peak power.

[TheWraith]

74. I'm afraid solar isn't energy-dense enough to help an electric car much.

Even under ideal conditions, solar panels covering the roof, trunk, and hood of a car would generate enough energy in an entire day to move the car about 12 miles. That would help people who like short hops, but with the average commute being around 33 miles, you're still very much grid tethered.

Now compare the cost of those solar panels, about $750, to the cost of drawing that energy off the grid (or, if you prefer, the value of selling it back to the grid): anywhere from $0.18 to $0.36 per day. At those rates, it would take 6 to 12 years just for the panels to save the cost of their own construction and installation.

I can, though, imagine the idea having a certain amount of popularity with people as either a safety measure, or simply because they like the idea.