TexasCHLforum.com

As the North East goes into their 4th day without power I ask the question: How do those greenies like them electric cars now?!!

With a forum name like that I thought you would be a fan of electric cars.

Cobra Medic wrote:With a forum name like that I thought you would be a fan of electric cars.

Yes, I make electricity but I'm a realist. Just like solar and wind power, if those electric cars were so great, Obama wouldn't have to subsidize them.

At first glance, I thought there were power outages in Nebraska.

Oh well, those northeastereners won't have to worry about boogeymen in the dark because guns are outlawed up east, eh?

Oldgringo wrote:At first glance, I thought there were power outages in Nebraska.

Oh well, those northeastereners won't have to worry about boogeymen in the dark because guns are outlawed up east, eh?

http://www.telegram.com/article/2012070 ... 49970/1116

Brought to you by the good people of CT where guns are pretty much banned.....except for criminals. They can have guns whenever and wherever they want. The gangs all over the country have guns and shoot each other up, even if some of the people who get shot are not longer active in the gangs. Sometimes, innocent people and even children get in the way.

MegaWatt wrote: Yes, I make electricity but I'm a realist. Just like solar and wind power, if those electric cars were so great, Obama wouldn't have to subsidize them.

Also, electric cars are less efficient than gas/diesel. I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but here's where I'm going with this. With gas/diesel, you take the fuel and convert the energy from it directly to power the drive shaft, taking a single hit in the "conversion loss" (you won't get 100% of the potential energy converted to drive power, that's just the nature of the real world). With electric, you take the same amount (potential energy-wise) of fuel and use it to run the electricity generation plant (first conversion loss), transmit the electricity to the car (second loss, more along the lines of loss via mechanical transmission), and then take the final conversion loss taking that electricity to create drive power in the car.

I just don't see the value in electric cars. Electricity isn't free. Just like solar power isn't "free" (those solar panels didn't just appear somewhere - they took energy to be created; and last I heard they either didn't put out as much energy as was used to create them or only just broke even; then again, my knowledge is dated).

LikesShinyThings wrote:

MegaWatt wrote: Yes, I make electricity but I'm a realist. Just like solar and wind power, if those electric cars were so great, Obama wouldn't have to subsidize them.

Also, electric cars are less efficient than gas/diesel. I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but here's where I'm going with this. With gas/diesel, you take the fuel and convert the energy from it directly to power the drive shaft, taking a single hit in the "conversion loss" (you won't get 100% of the potential energy converted to drive power, that's just the nature of the real world). With electric, you take the same amount (potential energy-wise) of fuel and use it to run the electricity generation plant (first conversion loss), transmit the electricity to the car (second loss, more along the lines of loss via mechanical transmission), and then take the final conversion loss taking that electricity to create drive power in the car.

I just don't see the value in electric cars. Electricity isn't free. Just like solar power isn't "free" (those solar panels didn't just appear somewhere - they took energy to be created; and last I heard they either didn't put out as much energy as was used to create them or only just broke even; then again, my knowledge is dated).

Internal Combustion Engines (regardless of the fuel) are pretty inefficient.

Dave2 wrote:

LikesShinyThings wrote:

MegaWatt wrote: Yes, I make electricity but I'm a realist. Just like solar and wind power, if those electric cars were so great, Obama wouldn't have to subsidize them.

Also, electric cars are less efficient than gas/diesel. I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but here's where I'm going with this. With gas/diesel, you take the fuel and convert the energy from it directly to power the drive shaft, taking a single hit in the "conversion loss" (you won't get 100% of the potential energy converted to drive power, that's just the nature of the real world). With electric, you take the same amount (potential energy-wise) of fuel and use it to run the electricity generation plant (first conversion loss), transmit the electricity to the car (second loss, more along the lines of loss via mechanical transmission), and then take the final conversion loss taking that electricity to create drive power in the car.

I just don't see the value in electric cars. Electricity isn't free. Just like solar power isn't "free" (those solar panels didn't just appear somewhere - they took energy to be created; and last I heard they either didn't put out as much energy as was used to create them or only just broke even; then again, my knowledge is dated).

Internal Combustion Engines (regardless of the fuel) are pretty inefficient.

Internal combustion engines aren't 100% efficient, absolutely agreed. I happen to believe that they are a more efficient method of converting chemical energy to drive power than any other method developed to date. But, I don't have numbers and statistics to back that up. So I should probably stop talking before I get myself in any deeper than I already am.

LikesShinyThings wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

LikesShinyThings wrote:

MegaWatt wrote: Yes, I make electricity but I'm a realist. Just like solar and wind power, if those electric cars were so great, Obama wouldn't have to subsidize them.

Also, electric cars are less efficient than gas/diesel. I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but here's where I'm going with this. With gas/diesel, you take the fuel and convert the energy from it directly to power the drive shaft, taking a single hit in the "conversion loss" (you won't get 100% of the potential energy converted to drive power, that's just the nature of the real world). With electric, you take the same amount (potential energy-wise) of fuel and use it to run the electricity generation plant (first conversion loss), transmit the electricity to the car (second loss, more along the lines of loss via mechanical transmission), and then take the final conversion loss taking that electricity to create drive power in the car.

I just don't see the value in electric cars. Electricity isn't free. Just like solar power isn't "free" (those solar panels didn't just appear somewhere - they took energy to be created; and last I heard they either didn't put out as much energy as was used to create them or only just broke even; then again, my knowledge is dated).

Internal Combustion Engines (regardless of the fuel) are pretty inefficient.

Internal combustion engines aren't 100% efficient, absolutely agreed. I happen to believe that they are a more efficient method of converting chemical energy to drive power than any other method developed to date. But, I don't have numbers and statistics to back that up. So I should probably stop talking before I get myself in any deeper than I already am.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, since electric motors can't directly use chemical energy. Of the energy available to "burn", internal combustion engines harness about 20%, compared to 80% for electric. The trick is keeping the batteries "fueled"... they haven't figured out how to liquefy electricity yet :-/