Falacy of the Electric Car

There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
form of energy.
There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
is no joke.
Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Of course they are going to
eliminate big screen tv's and turn off their air conditioning etc except
at times when no one wants to use them, so maybe that will make uo the
difference. NOT
Turning energy into electricity by fossil fuel means or nuclear, which
is a bad word, and isn't going to be allowed in Southern California,
uses three or four watts to make and transmit one watt.
The joke is true. Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
the cars so to speak. Hybrids will have to be plugged in too unless the
commute is long enough for the fossil fueled engine to kick in and
charge the batteries. Part of the electric car energy cost is the
frequent replacement of expensive battery packs.
The cost of electric vehicles will be far greater than gasoline engines
and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the
same equivalent energy.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:53:55 -0400, elmer wrote:

> There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
> clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
> form of energy.
> There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
> is no joke.
> Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
> out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Of course they are going to
> eliminate big screen tv's and turn off their air conditioning etc except
> at times when no one wants to use them, so maybe that will make uo the
> difference. NOT
> Turning energy into electricity by fossil fuel means or nuclear, which
> is a bad word, and isn't going to be allowed in Southern California,
> uses three or four watts to make and transmit one watt.
> The joke is true. Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
> the cars so to speak. Hybrids will have to be plugged in too unless the
> commute is long enough for the fossil fueled engine to kick in and
> charge the batteries. Part of the electric car energy cost is the
> frequent replacement of expensive battery packs.
> The cost of electric vehicles will be far greater than gasoline engines
> and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the
> same equivalent energy.

The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge
itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery.
Why can't an electric do the same thing?

One vehicle I saw recently, the owner swapped the lead acid batteries for
lithium-ion ones. Doing so decreased the weight and improved the
horsepower.

There is development in progress of power sources outside the standard
power company. Localized fuel cell stations could supply power for an
entire block of homes. Every home in the country could literally produce
it's own required power. What you'd have left would never result in even
one little "brown out", any where.

On Oct 31, 3:05*am, richard > wrote:

> The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge
> itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery.
> Why can't an electric do the same thing?

Is that not the definition of hybrid, richard?

Or are you envisioning some system where a full-electric car recharges
itself from some non-existant energy source - i.e. it creates it's own
energy by magic?

Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer > said:

>>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>>It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>>form of energy.
>>There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>>is no joke.
>>Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>>If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>>out and possibly a collapse of the grid.

>Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
>simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
>lowest and supply is more than ample.

Only until electric cars become more common. At which point,
charge-time becomes peak-time.

Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a
period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more
than a residence (other than Al Gore's) would consume over 24 hours.
In fact, it's about 9 times as much as I use. In less than one
sixth of the day. i.e. the rate of power consumption (and required
generation) is around 60 times higher than my average domestic
electricity consumption.

I couldn't even fast-charge a Tesla because the utility pole outside
the house has a 60A fuse.

What do electric cars mean for electricity supply grid? Can it
supply power at a rate 60 times higher than at present?

No way. Transmission lines can't meet such a demand. Substations
can't without huge, expensive upgrades.

Nor are the power stations capable of being ramped up to charge a
substantial fleet of electric cars overnight. It's much, much more
than supplying spinning baseload. Work it out!

A scale analysis quickly shows that grid-charged electric vehicles
are not practical without substantial, fundamental changes to the
way in which electricity is generated and distributed.

>>Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
>>the cars so to speak.

>Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels
>on the garage roof would solve the problem.

Do the scale analysis. You'd have to be a millionaire to be able to
afford the solar panels to run an electric car.

The "couple of solar panels" would have to cover an area of well
over 30 square metres and store the energy for night-time
car-charging. Recovery losses will be significant. Extended cloudy
periods, and periods where one can't clean snow/dust/bird-droppings
off the solar collectors will also diminish how far one can drive on
solar power.

Even with 30 square metres of solar cells (PV), it is very likely
that the majority of charge for the car bettery will have to come
from the supply grid. Probably a coal-fired power station.

Then, there's the finite battery life to keep in mind. I wouldn't
bank on more than 1000 cycles. That's less than 3 years.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities
X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities.
/ \ and postings | -- Voltaire

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer > said:
>
>> There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>> clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>> form of energy.
>> There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>> is no joke.
>> Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>> out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
> simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> lowest and supply is more than ample.
>
>> The joke is true.
>
> The joke is you and your ridiculous post.
>
>> Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
>> the cars so to speak.
>
> Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels
> on the garage roof would solve the problem.
>
> OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at
> least learn how to spell the word.
solar cells at night or evening? Interesting.
So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down.
Fast charge cells, in development will consume a lot of electricity fast.
No matter when they plug in it's an extra consumption, of electric
power, on an already loaded grid. Use Energy, of whatever origin, and
you have to replenish it if you plan on driving it again.
I really suppose your answer is to watch a meter, you install, and wait
for the brownout, to ease before plugging in? You know that is going to
work.
There is no magic. Power out means power in.

On Oct 31, 10:35*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer > said:
>
> >There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
> >clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
> >It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
> >form of energy.
> >There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
> >is no joke.
> >Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
> >If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
> >after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
> >out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
> simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> lowest and supply is more than ample.
>
> >The joke is true.
>
> The joke is you and your ridiculous post.
>
> >Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
> >the cars so to speak.
>
> Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels
> on the garage roof would solve the problem.
>
> OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at
> least learn how to spell the word.

well.. without some changes though.. there is some expressed concern
for adverse impacts to a non-smart grid.

but as Scott pointed out - there are even non-grid potential solutions
with solar, wind and even NG/LPG backup generators.

we're still aways away... so far the batteries are not able to hold
enough charge for a range better than local commuting...

make sure we're talking here about plug-in hybrids also.. which are
just ordinary hybrids - with larger/better batteries that can be
recharged conventionally from the engine or from a plug

these cars are going to cost even more than hybrid cars of the same
flavor.

The Chevy Volt - a loser in my view - is said to only have a 40 mile
range and will cost 40K even with tax credits.

but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads?

I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage
system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls..
including cordon tolls.

thoughts?

On 2009-10-31, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G > said:
>
>>but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads?
>>
>>I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage
>>system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls..
>>including cordon tolls.
>>
>>thoughts?
>
> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to
> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't
> even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to
> be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives,
> tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer
> them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the
> best way to go.

So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and
less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by
diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the
inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending.
Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road
projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway
authority.

On Oct 31, 1:35*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2009-10-31, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G > said:
>
> >>but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads?
>
> >>I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage
> >>system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls..
> >>including cordon tolls.
>
> >>thoughts?
>
> > There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to
> > change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't
> > even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to
> > be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives,
> > tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer
> > them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the
> > best way to go.
>
> So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and
> less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by
> diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the
> inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending.
> Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road
> projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway
> authority.

so lets use the corrupt criminal finance houses to administer roads

and you keep whining about diverting them to other purposes,

what is it you do not understand

unless there is a constitutional prohibition against doing that

there is nothing prohibiting the ELECTED LEGISLATURE from doing
exactly that

again what is it you do not understand

it is so very simple

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer > said:
>
>> solar cells at night or evening? Interesting.
>
> You could certainly use solar to charge your car while it sits in the
> parking lot all day at work. If you have storage batteries at home,
> you could charge those with solar and transfer the stored charge to
> your car when you get home. Or use the panels to charge your other two
> vehicles - the ones you don't use for commuting.
>
>> So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down.
>
> The power utility itself can tell you. Already there are devices which
> will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak demand, as
> well as meters which charge different rates at different times of the
> day depending on demand. If electric cars start to cause stress to the
> system, it will be trivial to provide this data.
>
>> There is no magic. Power out means power in.
>
> There is no magic source of fossil fuels, either - when the oil runs
> out, the oil runs out. On that day, we'll need something else to power
> our vehicles. If not electricity, then what? Ethanol? Hydrogen? Both
> cost even MORE in terms of energy inputs than you can recover in
> energy outputs. ISTM that electric vehicles are the best option we
> will have for the forseeable future.
>
> Now is the time to start preparing for the end of cheap oil. If the
> electric grid needs to be built up to handle electric cars, then let's
> get started. Let's not wait until the last drops are trickling out of
> the barrel and everyone is in a panic before we begin to act.
A lot of these points are not friendly to Citizens/Consumers, such as,
cutting off air conditioners when it is the hottest. that sorta defeats
the purpose of air conditioning.
Someone made the point that there are thousands of hybrids out there and
not affecting electric provision. But there are 10s of millions, perhaps
the number is larger, of cars not yet tapping the electric grid in
California. I have no idea what the number will be that causes a
problem. It is pretty low though based on the current situation there.
I think, certainly, that 10%, of vehicles, tapping the power grid would
cause a big problem at one time. 20% would be a really big drain at one
time and perhaps overloading capabilities if spread over the course of
the day.,
Perhaps the way to figure it is their target, of gasoline and diesel
replaced. Electricity will consume x times perhaps as much as 3 times,
probably around 2 times,energy that gasoline and diesel. Electricity is
produced from energy. They are simply shifting the source somewhat.
Instead of coming out of the tailpipes it will be coming out of huge
smokestacks and going in to huge tailing dumps and ponds. It will cost a
lot more than the gasoline and diesel.
Nuclear energy is not here now and they don't want to bring it on board.
Solar cells are a joke and a stop gap for such a large requirement and
very expensive.
Electricity is not free. Wind energy and geothermal and so contribute to
electricity production but unless you carpet the rest, of the west, with
big hideous prop blades but not in their yard of course, it wouldn't
work and will cost much more. Those things have associated costs and
environmental impacts too.
So far these People have not solved their problems but have multiplied
the costs, of vehicles, fuel costs and everything else for the rest, of
the Country.

Brent > wrote:
>
> Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>
>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to
>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't
>> even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to
>> be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives,
>> tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer
>> them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the
>> best way to go.
>
> So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and
> less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by
> diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the
> inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending.
> Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road
> projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway
> authority.

So now that you've pointed out all the problems, your solution is? ....