Why electric cars are more efficient than gas cars, regardless of the power source.

[TheWraith]

I posted this in another thread as a reply, but I thought it really should get more attention, since it clears up some misconceptions: specifically, the mistaken belief that electric vehicles aren't cleaner than gas cars unless they're fed by non-carbon power sources. A big part of the explanation lies in the distinction between how a car uses fuel, and how a power plant uses it.

An internal combustion engine burns fuel to derive mechanical energy from it, i.e. physically pushing the engine pistons. Most of the potential energy in the fuel is lost as waste heat.

A combustion power plant burns fuel to produce heat energy, which is then converted via steam turbines into electricity. In this case, the heat is the desired effect, meaning vastly less of the potential energy is lost as waste.

For a sense of perspective, when burning coal 1.9 pounds of CO2 is released to create one kilowatt of energy. Run through an electric vehicle that eats 250 watts per mile, that's 0.475 pounds of CO2 per mile.

One gallon of gas, when burned, releases 20 pounds of CO2. Put into a car that gets 30 miles to the gallon, like mine, that's 0.66 pounds of CO2 released per mile. A gas-driven car would have to get more than 42 miles per gallon in order to be competitive with even a basic electric vehicle driven entirely on coal-electricity.

Add to that the fact that very few people get their electricity solely from coal, and that most EVs would charge at night when power plants have surplus capacity that normally goes to waste, and it's hard to argue that an EV is not cleaner than any gas fired car, no matter the power source.

[gateley]

1. I am so baffled when people say "yeah, but..." about EVs. Like the energy has

to come from SOMEWHERE so it's not perfect?!? Well nothing is perfect but I sure like the idea of NOT releasing all that CO2 every time I drive. Recommend. :hi:

[TheWraith]

2. And yet, someone has unrecommended this post. What the fuck?

Am I offending people who are in favor of CO2?

[ejpoeta]

3. a rec to counteract the unrec.

i love this post because it makes perfect sense. it is clear and easy for someone like me to understand. here is what you can get someone like my bonehead beck watching brother to understand...... is it cheaper to drive. i am not sure how much an average person pays for a watt of electricity, but i am wondering if it would be cheaper than a gallon of gas or overall cheaper per charge vs per gallon. or overall with less need of maintenance etc.

[TheWraith]

8. To answer your question about the price of electricity...

If you're assuming a car that gets 30 miles per gallon of gas, and gas costing $3 per gallon, then you're paying about 10 cents per mile to drive a gas fired car.

For an electric vehicle, we'll use the high performance sportscar the Tesla Roadster for our example, which gets about 330 watt-hours per mile when you factor in inefficiency in the battery charger, "plug to wheel" as they say. The retail average price per kilowatt-hour in the US is about 12 cents. That makes the cost of an electric vehicle about 4 cents per mile.

A full battery charge on the Roadster would cost about $9, and would take you 220 to 240 miles. The same amount of driving with a 30 MPG gas car would cost $24.

The average American drives about twelve thousand miles per year. With a gas fired car, that will cost you $1200 in gas, plus call it four oil changes at $30 each, four new sets of brake pads at probably $200 each = $2120 as a rough estimate, assuming nothing else needs maintenance.

The cost of electricity for an EV over twelve thousand miles is $480. Since it uses no oil, and no brake pads, it doesn't have those costs.

[ejpoeta]

14. wow! i know the cost is higher up front, but if electric had the same length of time to

improve, i bet the cost would be comparable. it sounds like it'd be worth the savings in the long run. i know the current crop is kind of like throwing a bone. but i hope that as with the hybrids that there will be enough people buying them that it will have to become more than just the leaf and the volt. that tesla.... if i had the money..... in the end i think the cost savings would be enough for even my brother. i know the car companies can do it but just don't want to. it's a shame. when you think of hybrid you think prius. imagine if the US companies got their heads out of their asses and made it a priority that they would have that for the electric vehicle.

[TheWraith]

18. The problem is batteries.

The battery on the Tesla Roadster costs more than some small cars. Lithium Ion batteries are by far the most logical choice for EVs from a standpoint of performance to weight ratio: lead-acid and NiMH can't beat that.

But of course, battery pack size and quality has a direct effect on the range of the car, which is vital. The Tesla Roadster goes 220 to 240 miles on a charge, which is good enough for almost all use. There are smaller, economy EVs, but their range is typically only 40-50 miles, just enough for a day's commute.

But if you want enough range to replace a typical family car, then you're talking about an expensive battery pack, and one which pushes the car up into price territory where it has to be a luxury sedan to be competitive.

If LiIon battery costs come down, EVs will take off.

[txlibdem]

41. Cannot use the cost of the Tesla batteries in any logical comparison of EV vs fossil burner cars

The Tesla is a $100,000 car and it was DESIGNED to be a $100,000 car so its battery pack is expensive. Parts for any of the "luxury" sports cars are very, very expensive. No surprise there. So let's not compare a Maybach, Porsche, Astin Martin, Rolls Royce, etc., to a family car, it's meaningless.

The Nissan Leaf has a range of 100 miles and its battery pack costs $9000 (at projected mass production levels for 2011). They have an upgrade for the battery planned for 2012 which will double the range of the battery to 200 miles yet keep the cost the same. Thank mass production again for the improved range.

When the current crop of electric vehicles hit the streets in two months (December, 2010) your statement about the typical family car will just barely be true. Both the Leaf and the Volt can be leased for about $350 per month with no extra costs except the electricity used to charge them (and gas for the Volt if you need to exceed its 40 mile range on some days). The payment on our '02 Highlander was $400 a month. More than half the cars I see on the road cost as much (by MSRP) or more. There are a surprisingly large number of up-scale and top of the line pickup trucks here in Dallas as well as BMWs and the latest Fords like the Edge.

As an example I went to the following page to see if any of the new vehicles can be purchased for less than $350 a month. I started with the 2011 Chevy Colorado pickup ($18,170) and got a loan of $640 a month with 0-down and $580 a month with $2000 down. http://www.automotive.com/2011/12/chevrolet/colorado/loan/index.html

Ford Edge: ($28k to $38k), $28k loan with $2000 down shows a monthly loan payment of $890, a lease payment of $505.
http://www.automotive.com/2011/12/ford/edge/loan/index.html

Toyota Prius: (the cheapest one $21,000) with $2000 down I get a monthly loan payment of $680, a lease payment of $374.

Why am I using $2000 down on all these examples? Because if you were going to lease the Nissan Leaf you will need to put $2000 down and it is a 36 month lease so that is what I used in comparison.

So, while I believe that the current crop of electric vehicles will not work for every American family, they will work for a very significant percentage of families. By 2015 that percentage will grow to a majority but I look forward to getting electric vehicles into the hands of the millions of families where they are a good fit today.

The cost to a family of leasing a Nissan Leaf would be much smaller than leasing a Toyota Prius and the operating and maintenance costs would be much less on top of that. I don't see the comparison being unfriendly to electric vehicles at all.

(Note: edited to correct links - they just won't behave so you'll have to select Toyota manually sorry about that???, and added last paragraph)

[TheWraith]

45. What the hell is that about?

The lease price of primarily gas-driven hybrid cars has nothing whatsoever to do with the viability of true electric vehicles. The difference between the Roadster and those other vehicles you mention is that almost all of them have tiny battery packs in comparison. The Prius' battery pack, for instance, is just 1.3 kilowatt-hours compared to the Roadster's 53 KWH. Even the Nissan Leaf, which is a true EV, has only 24 KWh, at a price of around $10,000 just for the battery pack.

Now, Nissan may talk about doubling battery capacity for the same price--I'll believe it when I see it. A few years ago we were hearing about improvements to Lithium Ion batteries that would let them store 10 times the energy in the same volume. It hasn't come to pass.

The reason Tesla built the Roadster first for an extremely high end market, instead of building a mass market car, is because there they wouldn't be killed by the costs of developing the vehicle, one of the biggest of which was the battery pack. Fully one third of the cost of the Roadster, according to Tesla, is the battery pack: $36,000. Costs can and will come down gradually, but the fact of the matter is that if Lithium Ion batteries were cheap and plentiful, the Tesla Roadster would be a $70,000 car instead of a $100,000 car.

[kristopher]

47. Lithium Ion batteries that would let them store 10 times the energy

That was about 2 years ago with a predicted timeline of about 10 years to market.

Helping to keep your facts straight.

[TheWraith]

48. No, it wasn't.

The scientist promoting the discovery said commercial availability in 5 years, as of 2006. I should know, since I wrote an article about it when I was still doing journalism. The fact remains that if I had a $20 bill for every claim of miraculously expanding battery capacity, super-efficient solar cells, cancer cures, etcetera for which somebody made a stink in the media, I'd be able to buy one of those Tesla Roadsters. Improvements to technology very rarely come from the big, flashy announcements that grab newspaper space, they come from small incremental evolution.

[kristopher]

49. Here is the original article in Nature and the patent - all news came AFTER this article

If you are typical of what constitutes a "journalist" today, no fucking wonder the public are science idiots.

Nature Nanotechnology 3, 31 - 35 (2008)
Published online: 16 December 2007 | doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.411
Subject Category: Electronic properties and devices

High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires
Candace K. Chan1, Hailin Peng2, Gao Liu3, Kevin McIlwrath4, Xiao Feng Zhang4, Robert A. Huggins2 & Yi Cui2

Abstract
There is great interest in developing rechargeable lithium batteries with higher energy capacity and longer cycle life for applications in portable electronic devices, electric vehicles and implantable medical devices1. Silicon is an attractive anode material for lithium batteries because it has a low discharge potential and the highest known theoretical charge capacity (4,200 mAh g-1; ref. 2). Although this is more than ten times higher than existing graphite anodes and much larger than various nitride and oxide materials3, 4, silicon anodes have limited applications5 because silicon's volume changes by 400% upon insertion and extraction of lithium which results in pulverization and capacity fading2. Here, we show that silicon nanowire battery electrodes circumvent these issues as they can accommodate large strain without pulverization, provide good electronic contact and conduction, and display short lithium insertion distances. We achieved the theoretical charge capacity for silicon anodes and maintained a discharge capacity close to 75% of this maximum, with little fading during cycling.

Some might be interested in the patent. Sorry for the length, but I don't have a link only the downloaded PDF.

Patent title: Nanowire Battery Methods and Arrangements
Inventors: Yi Cui Candace K. Chan
Agents: CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC
Assignees:
Origin: ST. PAUL, MN US
IPC8 Class: AH01M436FI
USPC Class: 42923195

Abstract:
A variety of methods and apparatus are implemented in connection with a battery. According to one such arrangement,
an apparatus is provided for use in a battery in which ions are moved. The apparatus comprises a substrate and a
plurality of growth-rooted nanowires. The growth-rooted nanowires extend from the substrate to interact with the ions.

Claims:
1. An apparatus for use in a battery in which ions are moved, comprising:a substrate; anda plurality of nanowires, each
being growth-rooted from the substrate and having an outer surface with molecules that interact with the ions.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising first and second current collectors, wherein one of the current collectors
includes the substrate and the nanowires.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a lithium-based ion transporter located between the current collectors.
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the lithium-based ion transporter provides lithium ions for radial diffusion into the
nanowires.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nanowires include silicon.
6. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the nanowires are sufficiently small that they transport electrons in only one
dimension.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nanowires have an average outer diameter in a range from 10 to 100
nanometers.
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nanowires include crystalline-state structures.
9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nanowires include amorphous-state structures.
10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nanowires do not include carbon nanotubes.
11. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an ion transporter and first and second current collectors located on
either side of the ion transporter, wherein one of the current collectors functions as part of the anode of the battery and
includes the substrate and the nanowires.
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the ions and the nanowires are composed of first and second materials,
respectively, that are different from one another, and wherein the nanowires include alloy structures formed from the
first and second materials and formed during cycling of the battery.
13. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the ions include Lithium ions and the nanowires include Silicon, and wherein
the alloy structures include Lithium and Silicon.
14. A battery having a stable energy capacity, comprising:an ion transporter to transport ions;a first current collector on
one side of the ion transporter; anda second current collector, located on another side of the ion transporter, including a
substrate and a plurality of solid nanowires that are growth-rooted from the substrate and that interact with the ions to
set the stable energy capacity greater than about 2000 mAh/g.
15. A battery that is recharged, comprising:an ion transporter to transport ions;a first current collector on one side of the
ion transporter; anda second current collector, located on another side of the ion transporter, including a substrate and
a plurality of solid nanowires that are growth-rooted from the substrate and that interact with the ions to set a maximum
capacitive fading between subsequent battery cycling at less than about 25 percent.
16. The battery of claim 15, wherein, in a discharge state, the solid nanowires are one of Si, Ge and Sn.
17. The battery of claim 15, wherein, in a discharge state, the solid nanowires include an alloy of one of Si, Ge and Sn
and of another material.
18. The battery of claim 15, wherein substantially all of the solid nanowires are directly connected to the substrate.
19. The battery of claim 15, wherein, in a charge state, the solid nanowires have amorphous portions that include an
alloy formed from the combination of the solid nanowires and the ions.
20. A battery having an energy capacity, comprising:a first current collector having a substrate;a second current
collector;an ion transporter located between the first and second current collectors, the ion transporter providing ions;
anda layer of nanowires having a layer height equal to the length of about one of the nanowires, the layer of nanowires
including nanowires extending from the substrate toward the ion transporter to combine with ions from the ion
transporter, and setting the energy capacity for the battery.
21. The battery of claim 20, wherein the nanowires include a material chemically bound to the substrate and wherein
the energy capacity for the battery is greater than about 2000 mAh/g.
22. The battery of claim 20, wherein the nanowires are solid and growth-rooted from the substrate and are not carbon
nanotubes.
23. The battery of claim 20, wherein, in a discharge state, the nanowires are one of Si, Ge and Sn.
24. The battery of claim 20, wherein, in a discharge state, the nanowires include an alloy of one of Si, Ge or Sn and
another material.
25. The battery of claim 20, wherein the first current collector is an anodal current collector and the second current
collector is a cathodal current collector.
26. The battery of claim 25, wherein the energy capacity for the battery is less than about 2000 mAh/g.
27. The battery of claim 20, wherein substantially all of the nanowires are directly connected to the substrate.
28. The battery of claim 20, wherein a majority of the nanowires have an angle greater than about 60 degrees from the
end located on the substrate and a second end, the angle being such that 90 degrees is perpendicular to a surface of
the substrate at which the first end is located.
29. The battery of claim 20, wherein the nanowires include one of a metal oxide and a metal nitride.
30. A battery, comprising:a first current collector;a second current collector;an ion transporter located between the first
and second current collectors and one of the collectors including a substrate; andsolid nanowires to combine with ions
provided by the ion transporter for defining the nominal energy capacity, wherein a preponderance of the solid
nanowires are located on the substrate and have an end located on the substrate.
31. The battery of claim 30, wherein the battery has a nominal energy capacity that is defined as a function of the solid
nanowires that combine with ions provided by the ion transporter and of the ability of the solid nanowires to deliver
power to the substrate.
32. The battery of claim 30, wherein the solid nanowires provide an average energy capacity of greater than about
2000 mAh/g.
33. The battery of claim 30, wherein a majority of the solid nanowires have an angle greater than about 60 degrees
from the end located on the substrate and a second end, the angle being such that 90 degrees is perpendicular to a
surface of the substrate at which the first end is located.
34.-37. (canceled)
38. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the nanowires have an average outer diameter that is greater than 50
nanometers.
39. The battery of claim 14, wherein the nanowires have an average outer diameter that is less than 300 nanometers.
40. The battery of claim 15, wherein the nanowires have an average outer diameter in a range from 50 to 300 nanometers.
41. A battery having a stable energy capacity, comprising:an ion transporter to transport ions;a substrate;a first current collector on one side of the ion transporter; anda second current collector, located on another side of the ion transporter, including the substrate and a plurality of solid nanowires that are growth-rooted from the substrate and that interact with the ions to set the stable energy capacity greater than about 2000 mAh/g, and each of the plurality of nanowires having an outer surface with molecules that interact with the ions.



Description:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION
<0001>The present invention relates generally to ion battery arrangement and methods, and more particularly to nanowire-based electrode arrangements and approaches involving the assembly or manufacture of nanowire electrode arrangements.

BACKGROUND
<0002>The demand for batteries with high energy capacity, low weight and long lifetime has become increasingly important in a variety of fields and industries, including those relating to portable electronic devices, electric vehicles, and implantable medical devices. For example, the energy capacity, weight and cycle life characteristics are often useful for improving the functionality of a particular device in which the batteries are used. In portable electronic devices and implantable medical devices, these and other related aspects are useful to allow for increases in power (e.g., from additional processing power) and/or reduction in the size of the devices. In electric vehicles, these aspects are often limiting factors in the speed, power and operational range of the electric vehicles.
<0003>Various commercial embodiments of batteries function as an electrochemical cell that stores and converts chemical energy from chemical oxidation and reduction reactions into a useable electrical form. The chemical reactions occur in the materials composing the two electrodes of the battery, such as reduction occurring in the cathode and oxidation occurring in the anode. These reactions are due in part to a difference in electrochemical potential between the materials comprising the anode and cathode. In many ion-based batteries, the two materials electrodes are separated by an ionic conductor, such as an electrolyte, that is otherwise electrically insulating. Each electrode material is electrically connected to an electronically conducting, preferably metallic, material sometimes called the current collector. The current collectors can then be connected to one another using an external circuit that allows for electron transfer therebetween. To equalize the potential difference, the anode releases ions (e.g., by oxidizing to form the ions) when electrons are allowed to flow through the external circuit. The flow of electrons is balanced by the flow of ions through the electrolyte. The ions then react with the chemically reactive material of the cathode. The number of ions that a material can accept is known as the specific capacity of that material. Battery electrode materials are often defined in terms of the energy capacity per weight, for example in mAh/g. Much research has been devoted to creating and developing higher energy density electrode materials for higher capacity batteries.
<0004>A specific type of battery is a Lithium-ion battery, or Li-ion battery. Li-ion batteries transport Li ions between electrodes to effect charge and discharge states in the battery. One type of electrode uses graphite as the anode. Graphite anodes have reversible (rechargeable) capacities that are on the order of 372 mAh/g. Graphite anodes function by intercalation of Li ions between the layered-structure. A limitation in some graphitic anodes is that Li is saturated in graphite at the LiC6 stoichiometry. Materials that can allow for larger amounts of Li insertion, therefore, have been attractive for use as high capacity Li battery anodes.
<0005>Some alternatives to graphite anodes utilize storage mechanisms that do not involve the intercalation of Li ions between layered-structure materials. For example, some transition metal oxides use a conversion mechanism that can provide relatively high energy anodes of 700 mAh/g. Other alternatives include elements, such as Si, Sn, Bi, and Al, which form alloys with Li through Li insertion. Some of these elements provide relatively large theoretical energy capacities. Often such elements exhibit a volume change during Li insertion. For example, pure Si has a theoretical capacity of 4200 mAh/g for Li4 4Si, but has been shown to produce as much as a 400% volume change during Li insertion (alloying). In films and micron-sized particles, such volume changes may cause the Si to pulverize and lose contact with the current collector, resulting in capacity fading and short battery lifetime. Electrodes made of thin amorphous Si may exhibit improvements in capacity stability over many cycles, but such films seldom have enough active material for a viable battery. Attempts to increase conductivity using conducting carbon additives have not completely solved such problems, since upon dealloying (delithiation), the particles may contract, and thereby, lose contact with the carbon. Si anodes have been prepared with a polymer binder such as poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) to attempt to hold the particles together, but the elasticity properties of PVDF may not be sufficient for the large Si volume change and do not completely mitigate the poor conductivity. This results in a low coulombic efficiency and poor cyclability. For example, the use of 10 μm sized Si particles mixed with carbon black and PVDF has been shown to result in a first discharge capacity of 3260 mAh/g; however, the charge capacity is only 1170 mAh/g, indicating a poor coulombic efficiency of only 35%. After 10 cycles, the capacity also faded to 94%. Moreover, conductive additives and binders add weight to the electrode, lowering the overall gravimetric and volumetric capacities of the battery.
<0006>These and other characteristics have been challenging to the design, manufacture and use of Li-alloy materials in Li-battery anodes. A solution has been to use nanostructure battery electrode materials. Nanomaterials include nanowires, nanoparticles, and nanotubes, all of which have at least one dimension in the nanometer dimension. Nanomaterials have been of interest for use in Li batteries because they have better accommodation of strain, higher interfacial contact area with the electrolyte, and short path lengths for electron transport. These characteristics may lead to improved cyclability, higher power rates, and improved capacity. Current efforts, however, leave room for improvement.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
<0007>The present invention is directed to overcoming the above-mentioned challenges and others related to the types of applications discussed above and in other applications. These and other aspects of the present invention are exemplified in a number of illustrated implementations and applications, some of which are shown in the figures and characterized in the claims section that follows.
<0008>According to one example embodiment, an apparatus is provided for use in a battery. The apparatus provides high energy capacity through the novel use of nanowires that alloy with the ions. A specific example of the apparatus employs nanowires constructed from materials other than carbon to alloy with Li.sup.+ ions during a charge state of the battery and to release the Li.sup.+ ions during a discharge state. Careful growth of the nanowires directly from the substrate, which is connected to the current collector, can provide an apparatus having nanowires that are substantially all directly connected to the substrate and that extend therefrom.
<0009>According to another embodiment, an apparatus is provided for use in a battery in which ions are moved. The apparatus comprises a substrate and a plurality of nanowires, each being growth-rooted from the substrate and each having an outer surface with molecules that interact with the ions.
<0010>According to another embodiment of the invention, a battery is provided that has a stable energy capacity. The battery comprises an ion transporter to provide ions; a first current collector on one side of the ion transporter; and a second current collector, located on another side of the ion transporter. The second current collector includes a substrate and a plurality of solid nanowires that are growth-rooted from the substrate and that interact with the ions to set the stable energy capacity greater than about 2000 mAh/g.
<0011>According to another embodiment of the invention, a battery that is recharged is provided. The battery comprises an ion transporter to provide ions, a first current collector on one side of the ion transporter and a second current collector that is located on another side of the ion transporter and that includes a substrate and a plurality of solid nanowires. The solid nanowires are growth-rooted from the substrate and interact with the ions to set a maximum capacitive fading between subsequent energy charges at less than about 25 percent.
<0012>According to another embodiment of the invention, a battery is provided that has an energy capacity. The battery comprises a first current collector having a substrate, a second current collector, an ion transporter located between the first and second current collectors, the ion transporter providing ions, and a layer of nanowires. The layer of nanowires has a layer height equal to the length of about one of the nanowires. The layer of nanowires also includes nanowires that extend from the substrate toward the ion transporter to combine with ions from the ion transporter and that set the energy capacity for the battery.
<0013>According to another embodiment of the invention, a battery is provided. The battery comprises a first current collector, a second current collector, an ion transporter located between the first and second current collectors and one of the collectors including a substrate, and solid nanowires to combine with ions provided by the ion transporter for defining the nominal energy capacity. A preponderance of the solid nanowires are located on the substrate and have an end located on the substrate.
<0014>According to another embodiment of the invention, a method of an electrode arrangement that has a substrate for connecting to a current collector is implemented. The electrode arrangement is designed for use in a battery. The method comprises the step of growing solid nanowires from the substrate.
<0015>According to another embodiment of the invention, a method is implemented for assembling an electrode arrangement for use in a battery. The method comprises attaching a substrate with growth-rooted solid nanowires to a current collector, forming a current collector assembly with an ion transporter located between the substrate and current collector and another current collector; and placing the current collector assembly within a housing.
<0016>The above summary is not intended to describe each illustrated embodiment or every implementation of the present invention.

[TheWraith]

50. Once again, you mistake a wall of text for actual information.

As opposed to having the direct quote of the scientist, who said 5 years. :eyes:

[kristopher]

51. Those walls of text do a hell of a job of showing how loose you are with the truth...

..don't they?

[TheWraith]

53. Actually they don't do much of a job showing anything at all.

You like to pretend like being incomprehensible is proof of your correctness. That's not really the case.

[kristopher]

54. You said you wrote of it in "2006", the paper was published in late 2008 early 2009.

Anyone can make a mistake, but given the *gentle* opportunity to rectify yours, you chose to double down and attempt bluster instead.

Ok.

[TheWraith]

55. And I did write about it in 2006.

Shock of shocks: the researcher didn't stop researching after the first blush of information. :eyes:

[kristopher]

56. Interesting...

You'll have to forgive me but your blind disregard for truth in all issues nuclear has caused me to assign very little weight to what you say. I commend your support of EVs but in early 2007 the literature gives no indication they were working with silicon. The forecast for battery improvement at that time was 30% vs the 1,000% they found when they turned to silicon.

Layered-structure nanoribbons with efficient electron transport and short lithium ion insertion lengths are promising candidates for Li battery applications. Here we studied at the single nanostructure level the chemical, structural, and electrical transformations of V2O5 nanoribbons. We found that transformation of V2O5 into the ω-Li3V2O5 phase depends not only on the width but also the thickness of the nanoribbons. Transformation can take place within 10 s in thin nanoribbons, suggesting a Li diffusion constant 3 orders of magnitude faster than in bulk materials, resulting in a significant increase in battery power density (360 C power rate). For the first time, complete delithiation of ω-Li3V2O5 back to the single-crystalline, pristine V2O5 nanoribbon was observed, indicating a 30% higher energy density. These new observations are attributed to the ability of facile strain relaxation and phase transformation at the nanoscale. In addition, efficient electronic transport can be maintained to charge a Li3V2O5 nanoribbon within less than 5 s. These exciting nanosize effects can be exploited to fabricate high-performance Li batteries for applications in electric and hybrid electric vehicles.

ETA: Oops. Forgot title:

Fast, Completely Reversible Li Insertion in Vanadium Pentoxide Nanoribbons

Candace K. Chan,† Hailin Peng,‡ Ray D. Twesten,§ Konrad Jarausch, Xiao Feng Zhang, and Yi Cui*‡
Nano Lett., 2007, 7 (2), pp 490–495
DOI: 10.1021/nl062883j
Publication Date (Web): January 26, 2007


If you have literature that supports your timeline you could always share it. I'd enjoy admitting my error.

[peopleb4money]

62. The Nissan Lead gets 100 miles and can be recharged in 30 minuts with a quick charge station that...

Nissan's developed. That could allow for a nice day trip, and when the 200 mile battery pack comes out, it'll be even better.

[Scuba]

5. Perfection is the enemy of progress. n/t

[peopleb4money]

61. Yah, with BEV's, you at least have the option of fueling it from Solar. With Gas, the only option...

...you have is getting it from absolute monarchs who hate us and polluting the environment. There's no way of boycotting that. ICE's force an energy monopoly onto the public. At least, if you really wanted to, you could buy a wind generator or solar panel and charge your leaf or volt up with it. ...and at least with coal energy, its actually cheaper, per mile, than gasoline and its all mined domestically in the United States. Buying an electric vehicle is about the most American thing you can do, especially if the American car companies offer more options in electric that you can buy and support. Its been proven that money from oil rich family's in Saudi Arabia has been used to fund Al Queda.

[d_r]

4. good points

[madokie]

6. Thanks for this explanation

rec

[hootinholler]

7. Another point about carbon...

When you burn gas in a car you are a point of emission. When you charge an EV, you share the point of emission with everyone else charging their car. It is much cheaper to capture that carbon at a single point of emission.

-Hoot

[Nihil]

15. That is an important point in favour of EVs.

It is not only much cheaper to capture the CO2 at a single point of emission,
it is far easier and far more efficient(*) to do so.

(* = "efficient" in terms of "energy & cost expenditure to capture the same amount
of generated CO2" rather than the other sub-threads arguments about relative loss
of input energy to output energy)

Whilst I'm not claiming that there is currently any significant capturing of
CO2 at any power plant, neither is there at any of the mobile highly-distributed
CO2 emitters that we call "cars". Hence this does not negate my K&R for the thread!
:hi:

[DrGregory]

9. WRONG!!

Add to that the fact that very few people get their electricity solely from coal, and that most EVs would charge at night when power plants have surplus capacity that normally goes to waste, and it's hard to argue that an EV is not cleaner than any gas fired car, no matter the power source.
------------------------------------------------------------

You've only covered PART of the story. I agree that a big electric
power plant is MORE efficient than a gasoline ICE.

However, if you are going to use an electric power plant to run your
electric car - there are additional LOSSES that an ICE doesn't have.

First, there are transmission line losses. You lose about 7% of your
power plant energy getting it from the power plant to your house.

Additionally, battery chargers are only about 60% to 80% efficient.

If you haven't seen a big charger for an electric car; go find one
of the little chargers for your small battery powered appliances.
When they are working - they get warm. About 20% of the energy
is going into heat.

Additionally, batteries get warm due to their own internal resistance.
When you put your batteries in the charger - they get warm.

When you discharge the batteries; you also lose energy. When I put
away the laptop that I'm typing this on - the bottom of the laptop
is VERY warm. That's because the batteries that run the laptop are
not 100% efficient. They generate waste heat when the batteries are
discharged.

ALL these sources of loss combine in a MULTIPLICATIVE manner to reduce
the "efficiency" of the electric car. The power plant has to produce
MORE energy than is needed to run the car because it also has to "FEED"
all these additional losses.

If you do the math - you will find that these LOSSES MORE than compensate
for the higher efficiency of the power plant.

Like I said; California had a law that would require 2% of the cars be
electric - until DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab calculated that
the 2% electric cars would be counter-productive and told the legislature
and they repealed that provision.

Dr. Greg


Dr. Greg

[TheWraith]

10. I'll give you line losses from the power plant to the house.

However, if you'd read more carefully, my numbers already accounted for the inefficiency of the battery charging systems. The Tesla Roadster actually uses only 217 watt-hours to drive an average mile, but roughly 330 watts goes through the system. As I said, "plug to wheels," meaning that that's how much energy is taken from the socket relative to one mile traveled, not how much energy is consumed by the electric motor.

As to your laptop, that's not true. The heat produced there isn't from the batteries, it's from the central processing unit, and to a lesser extent the other micro-circuitry on your laptop's motherboard. The batteries do produce some heat when charging and discharging, but not that much relative to their total wattage.

[DrGregory]

11. Then I doubt the Tesla numbers...

As to your laptop, that's not true. The heat produced there isn't from the batteries, it's from the central processing unit, and to a lesser extent the other micro-circuitry on your laptop's motherboard. The batteries do produce some heat when charging and discharging, but not that much relative to their total wattage.
======================================

That is just plain WRONG!!

First - on my laptop - I know where the CPU is and I know
where the batteries are - and I'm describing the BATTERIES!!!

Get some specs on batteries - the ohmic heating is NOT trivial;
especially for high current batteries like those powering cars.
Remember the ohmic heating goes as the SQUARE of the current.

I think you may have fallen for some marketing by Tesla.

Chargers are on the order of 60% to 80% efficient.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You said it takes
217 watt-hours to go a mile. Then you say only 330 watts
go through the system.

Evidently you don't know enough science to keep your units
straight. The figure of 217 watt-hours is a unit of ENERGY.

The figure of 330 watts is a POWER.

You can't compare an ENERGY to a POWER.

It's like comparing one inch to one pound of force.

Different quantities, different units. It's a common
ERROR for non-scientists. It's probably why you've
come to ERRONEOUS conclusions.

Dr. Greg

[lfairban]

12. A couple of things you have not considered.

Actually, there are probably several, but I am not an expert.

The overall mass of an electric car should be much less than an ICE vehicle. Motors have a better power to weight ration than ICEs. Since you can scale them down better, you can use one for each of two wheels, eliminating the torque distribution you need in an ICE. Since the power curve is much wider, you don't need a transmission unless you plan on going 100+mph like the Tesla Roadster. The body is probably a lot lighter since you don't have to mount that 400 lb engine.

The downside is the energy density of the batteries vs gasoline which restrains the range, but Lithium batteries are much better than NiMH and four times as good as Lead Acid. But if the median vehicle trip is 3 miles and the average is 9 miles, how much range do you really need?

Another thing you forgot to consider is that gasoline must be transported by truck, but electricity just flows down a wire.

[TheWraith]

16. Excuse me for typing 330 watts when I meant 330 watt-hours.

In any event, the Tesla numbers have been the subject of several different independent testing setups, including the EPA.

[DrGregory]

29. What Tesla is calculating...

In any event, the Tesla numbers have been the subject of several different independent testing setups, including the EPA.
-----------------------------------------

What Tesla is calculating is the efficiency by which the
resources are used. That is different from what I'm
calculating which is the amount of pollution.

Tesla includes losses in the processing of petroleum
before it reaches the consumer. While there is a
loss in energy; the pollution at this step is relatively
modest.

Coal on the other hand doesn't suffer an efficiency drop
in the well-to-wheels calculation. You can take coal
direct from mine to power plant. You don't have to do
any processing ( except grinding it up ). Many coal
power plants are built at the edges of mines.

So the "well-to-wheels" calculation is really a metric
of how efficiently we are using the resources. It's
not a metric for how much pollution.

Coal has better "well-to-wheels" efficiency than oil;
but it is TWICE as dirty per unit energy delivered.

I'm less concerned with how well we are using the
resources, than about the pollution.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

44. .

:crazy:

[TheWraith]

46. Actually, that misses my point entirely.

Tesla isn't doing any math to compare their numbers to gas cars, I am. Tesla's numbers, which are backed up by independent testing including the EPA, is that their plug-to-wheels efficiency is around 330 watt-hours per mile. From there, and from the amount of coal burned to produce a kilowatt of electricity, the math is pretty simple about how much CO2 would be generated charging an EV, and we compare that to the CO2 generated by burning gasoline. Refining oil has nothing to do with it, since we're not talking about the efficiency of how much of the energy source is used.

[DrGregory]

58. ERROR ERROR ERROR!!!!

From there, and from the amount of coal burned to produce a kilowatt of electricity, the math is pretty simple about how much CO2 would be generated charging an EV,
-------------------------------------------------

ERROR ERROR ERROR.

There isn't an amount of coal burned to produce a kilowatt of electricity.

For Heaven's sake, can you EVER keep your UNITS straight??

From a given amount of coal, you get a certain amount of ENERGY.
You don't get a certain POWER ( kilowatt ) from a pound of coal.

From a given amount of coal, you can easily calculate the amount of
electrical energy AT THE BUSBAR - at the output of the power plant.

That is NOT the amount of energy that goes into the traction motor.
Only a FRACTION of the busbar energy finds its way to the traction motor.

The losses include transmission lines, battery chargers, heat loss during
charging of the batteries, heat loss during discharging of the batteries...

You OMIT those factors - which is why your calculations are WRONG!!!

That and you can't keep energy and its first temporal derivative, power;
unconfused.

Dr. Greg

[lfairban]

13. Our Prius gets 42 mpg.

It is relatively easy to argue that electric cars are not much of an improvement, especially if you live in Ohio where all the electricity comes from coal fired power plants.

If you use my ebike that only uses 12 Watt-hours per mile, there is no comparison.

[TheWraith]

17. Your Prius is electrically driven, which is why it gets good mileage.

The average miles per gallon for a passenger car is 22.6. The average for a brand new car is 31.2. The Prius is on the extreme top end of performance, and it STILL barely ties a purely electric vehicle.

And coal doesn't account for all of Ohio's electricity. Most of it, yes, at 86%. But 10% of that is nuclear, meaning you can take another 10% off the CO2 numbers for the electric vehicle.

[txlibdem]

19. Don't forget the Volt and Nissan Leaf can be leased for about $350 a month

beginning at the end of the year in several states, nationwide by the end of 2011.

The anti-EV crowd loves to say that half our power comes from coal. Not in my state. Follow the link below to find out your state's energy mix:
http://www.getenergyactive.org/fuel/state.htm

[GliderGuider]

20. My province of Ontario gets 72% of its electricity from non-fossil sources

Other provinces do even better - Quebec and Newfoundland get over 96% of their electricity from hydro power. BEVs in those provinces would be absolute winners.

[HuckleB]

21. That's not exactly cheap.

Especially for people who have paid off their vehicles, and don't drive that many miles.

[TheWraith]

24. Nobody's saying everyone should rush out and replace their current car.

But based on very rough numbers outlined here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261273&mesg_id=261294

An electric vehicle would save the average driver around $140 per month in gas and maintenance. And that's a pretty conservative estimate based on a competing car with good gas mileage. $210 per month is comparable to other competing mid-size sedans like the Honda Insight and Nissan Altima.

[HuckleB]

26. Who gets new brakes every year?

We've had our car for eight years, and have gotten new brakes once, and it didn't cost $800. Also, most cars only need to have oil changed every 5 or 6,000 miles now.

And there are no maintenance costs for an electrical vehicle at all? That's hard to believe.

In other words, it appears that someone is overestimating the maintenance costs of one vehicle, possibly underestimating the maintenance costs of the other vehicle. It would take a lot of years for your average driver to save enough on fuel to break even financially.

This has been the issue with hybrids to date, already.

That is a BIG issue.

[TheWraith]

27. Not brakes. Read more carefully. You're supposed to get new brake PADS every 2500 miles.

And it's typically $100 per axle = $200 per visit = $800 a year if you drive the average 12k miles per year and push the pads a little beyond their rated life.

It's not that there's no maintenance costs for an EV, but remember that an EV is a simple system and mostly solid state. There's few moving parts, so it needs no oil. Braking is regenerative, so there's no brake pads, brake drums, or brake fluid. It doesn't run as hot, so it's cooling system is simpler. No catalytic converters, no muffler, no longpipe, no emissions testing, no O2 sensors, no fuel line leaks, no spark plugs, no transmission fluid... I could go on like this. Electric motors are very simple and reliable, much more so than combustion motors. The reason combustion has always had an advantage is due to how hard it is to store large amounts of electrical energy.

And again: my numbers were done assuming a very cautious figure for the mileage of a gas car. If you actually compare the miles per gallon of a mid-size car competing with, say, the Chevy Volt, you'd find the fuel costs were higher.

[HuckleB]

28. Uh, no.

Where do you get this stuff? Brake pads last from 30,000 to 70,000 miles.

:rofl:

LOL!

Let's just say that if you don't know that, or if you do but you're pushing a line of crap to market EV's, I'm not trusting your statements about the maintenance on an EV, even if it is correct. How could I trust you on anything?

SHEESH!

[txlibdem]

30. It depends on your driving habits and how mountainous your region

In CO I'll bet there are people who get new pads every year. I haven't replaced them on our '02 Highlander yet (just went over 70,000 miles). I've always been one of those people who takes off from a stop light pretty slowly and start coasting and/or applying my brakes way before I approach the next stop. So YMMV.

But when I lived in the mountains I went through brake pads like crazy. Granted that was more than a decade ago...

[HuckleB]

37. I doubt it.

I've lived in the mountains myself, and put a good half of the miles on our vehicles in the mountains. Nevermind the reality that you're talking about a very small percentage of people at best.

The argument about expenses, as presented on this board, is not an honest.

[lfairban]

33. Will you please stop saying there are no break pads . . .

. . . because it has re-generative breaking!

The Nissan Leaf has front and rear disk breaks:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TQlXhL5VSbgJ:www.nissanusa.com/ev/media/pdf/specs/FeaturesAndSpecs.pdf+nissan+leaf+brakes&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShP-sJ324sThcOFDLCuYACVARTP_nqG4eSZ1t5_YUfilqo9ddBHdbEe2JrclfNDH0zUyIAlNH6z4dvdY6xKWb4PHgoFr3Ogj5v34JNESEIOmeX2LvEsxt0nS9I_t1xBGYkTR_2f&sig=AHIEtbRc7oyuwwGRElIM_7gTuklKv83q_A

And I assume the disk breaks have break pads, otherwise the rotors will get scored.

You seem to assume that because it has re-generative breaking that it does not need disk or drum breaks, it does. I'll bet that technically, you cannot bring a car to a complete stop using re-gen alone. The ability of the re-gen to slow the vehicle is proportional to the speed that the wheel is turning.

Re-generative breaking cannot be counted on for emergency breaking by itself. It is used to assist the primary disk or drum breaks, and to turn as much of the kinetic energy as possible into electrical energy. Our Prius has re-gen, AND break pads. The pads will last longer with re-gen.

[txlibdem]

35. Nobody said that, you simply misunderstood

Of course there are brake pads (or discs or whatever physical mechanism). There would be nothing to stop your vehicle from rolling away while parked if nothing else. And you are absolutely correct that in an emergency you'll be relying on the physical brakes primarily if not 100%. But nobody said there were no brake pads in the Leaf (or the Volt, or the Tesla, or any other electric vehicle).

What was said is that since most of your stopping WILL be regenerative braking and only the last "X" mph will be done by the brake pads. That will, therefore, reduce the wear and tear on the brakes and extend their life by a lot (double? triple? who knows).

And the person who said brakes do not cost $800 has obviously never had major brake job done at the dealer. Perhaps just replacing worn pads (where no other damage or wear exists) would be cheaper.

[HuckleB]

38. "Nobody said that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261273&mesg_id=261294

Perhaps that's technically true, but at the post above you will a supposed comparison of costs that only addresses brake pads on one type of vehicle, while leaving any such costs out on the other type of vehicle. Further, this person pretends people need new brake pads annually on a combustion vehicle. The whole argument is ludicrous spin. Why does this type of nonsense need to be pushed at all?

----------------------------

BTW, you might want to find another dealer, at least for repairs.

[caraher]

39. Actually, somebody did say that

From post 27: "Braking is regenerative, so there's no brake pads, brake drums, or brake fluid."

Still, from everything I've heard such components last a lot longer when you do regenerative braking.

[HuckleB]

40. Ah, thanks! -eom-

[NNadir]

22. Um...um...um...

You're missing several thermodynamic concepts here.

It doesn't matter though. Electric cars are more bull trying to save the car CULTure.

It wouldn't make a difference unless there were hundreds of millions of them, and that, frankly, is not going to happen in time to make a difference to the destruction of the atmosphere, which has already reached critical proportions.

[TheWraith]

23. NN, we all know very well your hardon for getting rid of cars.

However, you'd do just as well to join the Women's Christian Temperance Union as far as dead-on-arrival causes go. Cars are a necessity of life in the United States, and will be until we invent personal jetpacks or teleporters.

[NNadir]

25. Interesting analogy. Vodka is a "necessity" to many alcoholics, but their livers die nonetheless

from it.

Anyway the science of the OP sucks, since it completely and totally ignores the thermodynamics of voltage step up, transmission losses, and the thermodynamics of battery charging and discharging, and as usual in "caroholics" the external costs of manufacturing the cars is ignored.

It's garbage thinking, and in any case, electric cars have been a pipe dream for a long time.

California legislated in 1990 that "by 2003" law that 10% of California's new cars should be electric. That law proved to be garbage, much like the bazillion trillion gazillion solar roofs law, a complacency generator.

There will be no grand electric car CULTure future. It won't happen because it won't work, period.

[Ready4Change]

31. Question:

How would you feel about adding on a $5 per gallon tax on gas/diesel?

[DrGregory]

32. Suicide, simply suicide...

How would you feel about adding on a $5 per gallon tax on gas/diesel?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are a legislator, "How do you feel about political suicide?"

The public gets angry if the price of gasoline
goes up a few cents. If some politician proposes
$5 / gallon tax; it would be political suicide.

The public would reject the miscreant and his / her
Party; and boot them all out of office.

Dr. Greg

[lfairban]

34. What is necessary is that . . .

. . . people quit finding reasons to use a two ton vehicle to carry a 170 lb. person two miles to get an eight pound gallon of milk from a grocery store.

[txlibdem]

36. What is necessary

You could write a book around your two sentence post, dude (or dudette?)

You might be interested in PRT, which is short for Personal Rapid Transit (or in Europe they call it Personal Rapid Transport).

Imagine a grid of low speed PRT lines replacing the streets in neighborhoods. Another grid, with a two mile distance between each line, elevated high speed PRT lines connect every part of the city. Both people movers, called pods, and cargo movers can share the system, each having a weight limit of 500 pounds to 800 pounds. Smaller cargo can be transported as well either by sharing space in cargo movers or by "piggybacking" on the people mover pods much like a person wearing a backpack.

With a per-mile cost that is less than highways and on par with residential street construction as long as mass production is assumed the PRT system could and should replace all vehicles and all roads.

Why drive to the store to get milk when you could order milk on your smart phone or pc and have it delivered to you in a small robotic delivery drone? Or if you're out shopping for the day you simply pay for your purchases and they are scheduled to be delivered to your home later that day.

"Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), Personal Automated Transport (PAT) and PodCar Quicklinks"
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm

"Comparison of Costs between Bus, PRT, LRT and Metro/rail"
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/gorancomp.htm

[txlibdem]

42. Is it cars that we love (are addicted to) or the freedom to go where we please when we please

I agree that owning a personal vehicle puts a huge burden on the resources of our planet. My wife and I sold one of our vehicles 5 years ago so we have been a 1 vehicle family since then. I ride an electric-assist bicycle (Mongoose) when I need to go places and our schedules do not match up, or I take public trans (the train here in Dallas is FANTASTIC and they're expanding it again so it'll be even better www.dart.org). So I walk the walk and don't just talk about it. That being said, there is only one non-car transportation system that matches the convenience of having a car and that is PRT, Personal Rapid Transit (aka PAT, Personal Automated Transport).

Here is a page with a lot of links to the various systems. Or go to youtube/google and search for PRT.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/

The PRT system in London's Heathrow Airport is just about finished now and there are a few videos of that. I view that as a proof of concept for the automated operation of the vehicles because the pods are just like a small electric car that drives itself. The system from Vectus (http://www.vectusprt.com/) is more appropriate to the US, especially the northern states. Check out the youtube video of it operating in the snow. Masdar City in the UAE will be car-free and will use a PRT system that is underground with the surface of the city being 100% walkable (by design).

Some of the PRT systems can take the place of cars and also delivery vehicles (and even big trucks if the load can be split into multiple trips of less than 800 pounds) and cargo.

In my humble opinion, PRT is the way we need to go; a final destination that we should be incrementally working toward.

[txlibdem]

43. Safe operation in winter

Compare this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J-S_YYuNBU&feature=related

To our current situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM2gLjfE_3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a293u2g27CE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6TkJd5ik5s&feature=related - 40 car pileup starts at about the 1 min. mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC2y3b86AOA&feature=related - it's not just snow but also fog. This was a huge pile-up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkq6omn741A&feature=related - a little rain caused this "SUV Hydroplane Wreck Caught on Tape Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRtZtSBFj9s&NR=1 - he ended up overturned in a ditch, "Part 2"

But we all know that even in perfect weather some drivers put the rest of us in danger. I'd like to take all drivers off the road and build a PRT network that picks you up at your door and drops you off at our destination for less than the cost of owning a car.

More PRT vids that I thought were cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5W3OSZu9oA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiUDLYvNNbo&feature=related - Skyweb Express is a US company

[wtmusic]

52. It's the freedom.

No more than a tiny minority of car owners will submit to using mass transportation or PRTs for the sake of the environment. It won't happen, period. As much as you or I would like to see it, it makes a much sense to plan on it as it does to plan on everlasting world peace.

They will submit (and are right now) when mass transportation or PRTs are more convenient and provide enough flexibility, usually in densely-populated urban areas. But waste and environmental impact also comes along with that flexibility: do we want tracks crisscrossing everywhere we want or need to go? How much carbon is required to build and maintain those tracks? Do we want 10-ton city buses running late at night with two passengers aboard?

Owning a personal vehicle does not have to put a huge burden on the resources of the planet, if it's:
1) Kept and maintained for a long time
2) Used efficiently and minimally
3) Is of an inherently-ecofriendly design

Mass transportation should be encouraged and developed where it will be used. Bike lanes and other amenities for cyclists should be expanded. But effectively dealing with climate change will require immediate focus on three principal areas:
1) Adoption of a national fee-and-dividend system
2) Subsidies for electric cars
3) Subsidies for nuclear power

[Ready4Change]

59. My story

I couldn't wait to get my license. Freedom was the thing. For a tankful of minimum wage I could seemingly go ANYWHERE.

But when I started commuting to college, I started by using the bus. It seemed the responsible thing to do. There was a bus line that went fairly directly from a couple blocks from my house right into the middle of campus. Perfect, you'd think.

The buses were never on time. They were always packed. The ride took 3 times as long as driving would have, and stretched my day out so that it was hard to get in both enough study time and sleep. So, to keep my grades in shape I started commuting by car. It cost more, but was worth it.

My first real career job was in downtown DC. I took the subway to it for several years. However, to get to the subway from home I had to use a car. No way to ride there with a bike (all highways) and ride-on buses would have added 40 minutes to what in a car was about a 10 minute trip. I finally added up the costs of metro parking lot costs and subway costs, and compared them with parking and the additional costs commuting would incur on the car I had to have anyway and it turned out there was little out of pocket difference. Plus, commuting by car usually took less time, and granted me greater flexibility for activities before and after work. So I started driving into the city.

I later worked a job a ways around the DC Beltway. The car commute was hell. In light traffic it took 25 minutes. In normal traffic it took an hour. Each way. My record one way trip was 3 hours. One day I decided to try using the subway. I had to ride from one line, all the way into the inner city, transfer to another line, then back out. It had no delays and took 2 hours, one way. And cost MORE than driving.

I now have a dream commute to my current job (no longer down in the city.) It's about 5 miles, and takes about 10 minutes. A large chunk of that is on a road where riding a bike would be highly dangerous, but I'm looking around for reasonable alternate routes that I might use without risking hospital visits. I'm also thinking that an EV could REALLY fit the bill. But again, as through most of my adult life, public transportation still doesn't get me there in anything close to competitive time. There is no direct route, so to get there I'd need to transfer twice, travel 15 miles, and spend about 45 minutes (estimate, as I've never bothered to try it in reality.)

All would have to change with the end of petroleum. Doubling or tripling gas/diesel cost would have a strong effect. It would require that I change my wide roaming lifestyle. It would reduce the number of cars on that road and make riding a bike viable. More bus riders might fund more buses and more routes, making that more viable. I doubt it would be faster, but with scarce and/or expensive gas, time would likely need to be sacrificed.

I still love the freedom of my car driving lifestyle. But I continue looking for alternatives. An EV may be in my future for commuting, and my current car may undergo a transformation into a weekend joy driver/track car. It won't be a brilliant 'Red Barchetta', but it may be my last vestige of, as put in that song by Rush, 'a better vanished time before the motor laws.'

Time will tell.

[wtmusic]

60. IMO millions have a similar story

and the popularity of EVs will explode in the next five years. Harder will be finding the commitment, political and economic, to develop carbon-free sources to power them with.

:thumbsup:

[Kennah]

57. Couple of thoughts

EPRI studied PHEVs (Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles) and concluded millions of PHEVs would result in cleaner emissions, even if all the electricity came from coal.

46% of U.S. electric comes from coal
18% in California
17% in Washington state

California and Washington have high concentrations of hybrid vehicles so it's reasonable to conclude California and Washington will have high rates of EV and PHEV ownership early on.

Since EVs are 75% efficient, and ICEs are only 20% efficient, I conclude:
1) EVs and PHEVs will lead to cleaner air in the early years.
2) As drivers in coal states buy EVs and PHEVs the air will still be cleaner.

http://www.epri-reports.org
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/539/default.aspx
http://www.polk.com/TL/PV_200903_Issue007_HybridSector.pdf
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/evtech.shtml