Electric cars are as good for the economy as the environment and could put $80 billion in consumers’ pockets by 2030, according to a new study from the University of California.
Not surprisingly, the oil industry would take a $175 billion hit under the scenario sketched by UC Berkeley’s Global Venture Lab, while a booming battery business would gain $130 billion as the internal combustion engine sputters out. “There will also be significant changes in the balance of payments among nations as petroleum imports decline,” the authors wrote. “We find the net imports of the U.S. will decline by $20 billion.”
The report makes several assumptions to arrive at its optimistic conclusions: The Cal researchers are counting on 39% of cars on the road to be electric by 2030 and powered by electricity generated from renewable sources like wind and solar.
Electric car owners would save an estimated $7,203 in operating costs, mainly because with no engines to maintain, battery-powered vehicles rarely see the inside of mechanic’s garage.
Left unexplored in the report was the impact of electric cars on the United States auto industry. If General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler survive – and that’s a big if these days – they stand to benefit assuming they retool for the electric age and produce cars consumers want to buy before rivals like Toyota (TM), Honda (HMC) and Renault-Nissan beat them to the punch. But their dealer networks are sure to suffer once their lucrative repair and maintenance business evaporates.
Another winner in the electric car economy will be solar and wind companies and utilities, particularly those like PG&E (PCG) and Southern California Edison (EIX) that are making multi billion-dollar investments in renewable energy.
One of the biggest assumption the Cal report makes involves the rise of a U.S. battery industry. “We don’t have a battery industry today,” said Shai Agassi, CEO of electric car infrastructure startup Better Place, on Friday at a panel Green Wombat moderated for the University of California’s Global Technology Leaders Conference. “Either we make them here or they’re going to be made in China.”
Agassi and the mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland on Friday announced that Better Place would build a $1 billion network of charging stations throughout the Bay Area. Renault-Nissan has agreen to provide Better Place with the hundreds of thousands of electric cars it’ll need to put on the road make its business model profitable.
At a rate of sales of 16 million vehicles, it takes about 15 years to turnover the non-commercial U.S. fleet of 240 million cars and trucks. The projected 39% electric vehicles by 2030 would be about 100 million vehicles. To have 100 million electric vehicles on the road in 20130 at 39% market penetration we would have to produce 7 million such vehicle per year starting in 2015.
While that might well be possible, how do you produce the electricity for 100 million vehicles in a society that find reasons to not buld nuclear plants, wind farms or solar farms?
Ah, Utopia. Nothing will ever wear out or break. Yeah, right. Just like computers never have bugs, cell phones don’t drop calls, and televisions last forever. When an electric car breaks you won’t be able to afford to fix it, you’ll just have to replace it. $5,000 batteries,and computer interfaces will leave you stranded when they die. And somebody pays these people to do these worthless studies?
They need to pass around what they’re smoking out there in berkley.
We need it but it will take generations not decades to change our love of long range fast cars.
I like the adds for these electric cars showing how they will be charged up at your home at night when demand is lower for this already scarce electricity. Why then do we need all these charging stations all over the cities? To recharge them to get back home of course. Guess when all this recharging will be taking place? Right at the peak demand times during the day when we are already prone to blackouts and restricted use. Some plan to conserve.
Like Josh, I’m confused as to where we think we’re going to get this electricity to power these electric cars from. With the purpose of electric cars being 1) to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and 2) to reduce greenhouse / smog emissions, so if the electricity is being made using mostly oil and coal-fired power plants, where is the benefit? Unless we build nuclear, wind and solar plants, all we’re doing is shifting the use of the fuel from fossil-fuel burning autos to fossil-fuel power plants. This is not to say that we shouldn’t try to reduce our dependence on oil, but I’m not convinced that an electric car is the solution.
Pull the other one. It has bells on!
There is a green cost attached to the production of cars which is just as high or higher than that incurred in running one. Batteries DO NOT provide a greener alternative to gasoline and eco-fuel is more hazardous to our health. Infact both, in their production and use are more of a health risk to humans AND to the environment. And batteries, as we all know, do not recharge forever, nor do electronic devices work reliably. And have you ever tried fixing a new car yourself? I know a great computer programmer if you need one, at $150 an hour.
Running a 1962 chevvy nova and a prius simultaneously, I have actually found that my 1962 350 Small block, at 13MPG is a far greener and more cost effective vehicle than the prius. Far less to maintain, run and repair. Sure the fuel costs are high, but that accounts for little of the annual cost of ownership.
The facts are that buying a new green car is NOT greener. A family who replaces their Prius every three years is far less green than a person who replaces their car every 10 with a far less fuel efficient model!
The green cost of producing an electric car is far higher than that associated with producing a super efficient diesel engine.
US Oil companies produce and distributes only diesel fuel which is incompatible with super efficient diesel engines. So super efficient european cars like the lupo, that do 75MPG, are not available for purchase in the US. Because they are legislated against by lobbyists and the for by the media, who make their money selling us what we don’t need.
All over the media in the US on release, the Smart is a great example, available for over 10 years in Europe, it has a two year waiting list to buy in the US today on models which in Europe are 5 years old.
The truth is out of the bag now, however, and industry will suffer for it – Americans now know that we are lied to and cheated in every large investment we make. We are used to then being assaulted with a created need to buy replacements they don’t need and cant afford. US car manufacturers, and those in government and associated industries listened to their investors and owners, instead of considering those of the consumer. We know it, because we work for them! This is what inter-corporate corruption is. And this is it’s consequence. I am delighted that another bastion of US BS has been shown to be the scam it is to the American people.
Public transportation is the only way. I worked on all the R&D… hybrid (half breed), plugin electric, alcohol… you don’t want to put up with it. Besides, with the government involved, it will be a disaster. After 40 years of safety standards, the idiots still don’t have bumpers that match in height… DUHHHH!!!!!!
I’m a little confused by the comments posted so far, especially from Jim and Josh. They raise the point that electric cars sold today would still ultimately derive their traction energy from fossil fuels. I suppose it’s a valid point, but at least starting the transition to electric cars today builds the infrastructure and allows for the possibility of powering personal transportation with renewable energy. While there certainly isn’t enough renewable electricity currently on the grid, ultimately 100% of our electricity must be renewable since liquid and gas fossil fuels will be economically depleted within the next 50 years and coal is shortly to follow within the next 100 or so. When renewable energy becomes cheaper (or is subsidized by a non-myopic government), a society that already has its transportation system electrified will have a much easier transition than one that waits until the last possible second.
With this view, electrified transport of some sort is the ONLY answer.
As for the post by “GSD,” the point that the most efficient use of resources is to extract the greatest utility from manufactured goods before replacing them is a valid one. However, the point that a 13 MPG car from 1962 is “greener” than, say, an efficient car built since the 1990’s is laughable, and the hypothesis that an electric car won’t be as reliable as an ICE-powered one has been proven wrong already. I suppose “super efficient diesels” may be a good immediate option, but will be a non-option in the medium and long term.
Electric cars are an excellent choice, though there are some limitations that must be overcome. An interesting outline of some of the limitation of electric cars can be found at the Electric Car Owners Club site at: http://www.electriccarsociety.com/criticalev.htm
Our esteemed economist keep talking about the failed business model of the big three. From a stockholder standpoint it is terrible. As a whole it provides over 200 billion in wages. Pretty good from the standpoint of a thriving economy. Of the 200 billion over 50 billion goes into Federal, State and local coffers. Let’s see don’t invest 25 Billion lose 50 billion a year. Yep sounds like a brilliant plan. Then import 1 million cars a year at 25 billion another six billion a year in lost taxes. Sounds like our government took their math classes from the big three. Loose 56 billion a year in taxes save a one time 25 billion I’m in.
What is missing from this analysis is the necessary improvement to the infrastructure: the electric grid needs major improvements to accommodate solar & wind power generation, as well as the additional demands of electric cars. That only will cost billions…
What might work in California won’t work everywhere in the country.
No engines to maintain? All-electric cars will never have much range; in other parts of the country, like the Southern and Southwestern US, summertime temperatures easily exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours of the day and into rush hour. Most people over 40 cannot handle those kinds of temperatures in a vehicle stuck in rush hour traffic. And handicapped people have even less heat tolerance. So air conditioning is essential. In most parts of the US when it gets cold the occupants need heat. Both AC and heat draw a lot of power, thus trememdously reducing the range of the automobile.
So an auto with electric-drive and gasoline-powered generator gives the power and range needed for driving.
To reduce the need for long-range driving most people need to rearrange their lives so they can walk most places they need to go, carpool as much as possible, use public transportation.
The current Big Three crisis is long in the making, with market saturation, more reliable vehicles, and aging baby boomers reducing the need for new automobiles. The rest of us can still reduce automobile use by at least 10% more, simply by staying at home, and doing more walking.
I sure wish I could walk to work, but breathing automobile exhaust is no healthy alternative.
Electric cars are cool in theory, but still produce massive amounts of waste, aka the huge battery it’s self. Why not focus on using Brown’s Gas, HHO, aka Hydrogen with a Battery HHO hybrid, the Battery could start the reaction of electricity in water releasing hydrogen, the wheels rotating would then power a generator to charge the battery… nothing but water comes out the tail pipe. It’s a win win, and yes, the battery will have to be heavy duty and high amperage, a small price to pay for a purely hybrid car, that would have almost zero impact on the environment. Use a battery that’s 100 percent recyclable, and rechargeable, to reduce the first problem, and get gas out of the equation completely = Zero impact on the environment and no fossil fuels.
If people are really interested in electric cars, head to the leader, Tesla Motors – http://www.teslamotors.com
Yes, their first car is pricey, but it is designed to compete with Porsches, etc…and it does – and it has a 200+ mile range (0-60 in 4.2, as well). Their next car will be a ~$55K performance sedan, along the lines of a BMW 5-series. Tesla will move downmarket as battery technology allows them to do so.
Wow by 2030 and only a Billion dollars for just the Bay area. The must be smoking the good stuff in California. What a pipe dream!
Electric vehicles make all the sense. While an all electric vehicle is rolling down the highways and city streets it is emiting no exhaust whatsoever. The electricity it takes to re-charge its batteries is very low. If the electricity comes from a coal fired power plant, the net pollution is roughly 40% of one that burns gasoline while that dirty (sorry, clean coal) plant is spewing its poison anyway for all our other electricity needs. But only an idiot would have coal, or oil, or natural gas in their future. Although wind is big at the moment, and may it remain important where it blows, solar will leave all others in the dust. Then, electric vehicles will really be green. And don’t worry about the batteries. They can be as recyclable as any camera or cell phone battery is today.
How about using Starbucks for recharging stations? They are everywhere.
I disagree with comments about electric capacity not being available and pollution associated with power generation overriding any benefits from electric vehicles.
Studies have shown that our current electric grid and generation capacity can support 180 million vehicle based on off peak charging. Just take a look at the California ISO web page showing today’s usage. At the low point 20k megawatts (2AM) was being used with an available capacity of 34k megawatts. Peak usage was at 31k megawatts (6PM) with available capacity of 40k megawatts. Even in the hottest of summer days there is only a short 2-3 hour period (2PM) where usage comes close to available capacity. The bell graph on daily electric requirements is similar between all utilities across the United Stated. There may be some small differences when peak is reached and how long it is sustained. With smart charging a commuter would not need to worry about getting home due to a dead battery. Recharging could take place at work while still avoiding the most critical peak of the day.
With a smart PSC, the added revenue derived by the utility from new demand could be used to either add renewable capacity or enhance the electric grid. The PSC or state could also require the utility construct additional pollution control devices.
I currently pay $0.036 kWh off peak and $0.126 kWh peak. Peak hours are 4PM to 10PM in the winter and 11AM to 4PM in the summer. It would be both cost effective and simple to plug a vehicle in at 10PM and have it full charged in the morning for work.
Buying a new green car will be cost effective for me since I view it as an appliance and not a reflection of my self worth or status. I try to drive my vehicles for 14 years (unless they are totaled like the last two at the tender age of 12). So I plan to replace my ’98 in five years. I hope there is a proven plug-in by then.
If we really want to go to electric cars, we will need cheaper cars and batteries … and lots of them and recycling of the wornout batteries. Tesla is not the solution, unless you’re from a very rich family.
We will also need to power them with renewable electricity generated by geothermal, hydro, nuclear, and wind. Solar is just too expensive, due to the very pricey panels, and the prices went up this year instead of down. Recharging only during the day is, ahem also well, an inconvenience, to say the least.
Electric cars could eliminate a large portion of the gasoline in the US, which makes up about one-third of our oil consumption. They would also make our urban air breathable once again.
Electric cars are not likely to be helpful for long trips, so we need to keep up the shift to biofuels. The same thing with trucks, which use diesel, which makes up about 40% of our oil consumption. A battery-powered 18-wheeler would go about a mile between stops to recharge. Again, we need biofuels.
Between biofueled cars and trucks and electric cars, we could eliminate 70% of our oil consumption, which exceeds our imports. Then, we can save or export (!) the excess oil production.
Alternative energy will never be economical … unless governments step up and increase the gas tax. If we use less gasoline, oil prices will fall from lack of demand, making further conversions less attractive. The oil industry needs to be treated as a monopoly (with regulated prices and lower production quotas), to give competitors a chance. Otherwise renewable energy has no future until the last well is pumped dry.
It doesn’t matter where the batteries are made. Does it? I mean, isn’t that why we pushed globalization so hard in the first place?
So that we wouldn’t have to do anything dirty or meanial here in the US?
Or is it: ohh, that wasn’t such a good idea after all?
Solar thermal power plants are already being built, next generation electric cars will have Li-on batteries, that are lighter, provide much more power and faster recharge times. ( A Japanese company has developed one that can recharge 80% in 5 minutes. Write your senators and representatives imploring them to invest in infrastructure for these new technologies. The companies with the best solar, and battery technologies don’t need investment capital from the government i.e. the public, as they already have more than enough money provided to them from venture capitalists. Had any of the negative, whining naysayers on this message board done any meaningful research they would know this! We will become a green nation, and can do so rather quickly if we make it our priority, and make it our national goal, similar to what we did in our quest to be the first to reach the moon! We can do this!
Did GM forget how to build the EV1? they had the perfect electric car, but instead they are developing this crap that is to electric cars, what Hummers are to combustion cars. Doubtlessly greed that is keeping them from returning to the EV1. but the writing isn’t just on the wall anymore. The government needs to step in to revoke the patents Chevron has on the NIHM batteries.
The post by Charles reflects a disturbingly widespread belief in the perpetual motion machine. This particular manifestation turns water into energy by a process involving electrolysis of the water. This violates conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics. It also violates common sense; if this worked, why would the world spend billions every day on oil?
39% by 2030? Day late and a dollar short. Nobody will want them either. Why don’t you tell your readers that if you are in an accident with an electric or a hydrid, the rescue teams will not touch you until a certified technician inspects the vehicles to see if they are safe to touch. They carry 300 volts batteries and if you touch a “hot” vehicle, you are fried. Period.
WOW, haven’t been here before. Hard to imagine a more concentrated collection of drival. The scary part is that many of these morons are driving the current lemming-like public policy discussions. Guns, ammo, water and batteries – glad I have plenty of all of them. Time to hunker down and wait for the herd to thin.
Such negativity!! Batteries and terminals can be heavily encased. Cars with solar panels for skins can vastly reduce the size and cost of the batteries needed. Batteries can be recycled. Yes, batteries and the processes are expensive. But so is pollution.
What other excuses do I hear? The current electric grid will be built out with wind and solar, so the current capability excuse is spurious. Clean coal, natural gas, nuclear, propane, various fuel oils, etc. will supply the difference. American success has always depended on bold innovation. Whining about problems and obstacles is no substitute for stepping up to the plate to solve problems and overcome obstacles.
If the consumer wants it checking for “hot” cars will become just as common as checking for signs a car may be ready to explode. It wouldn’t be that difficult to create a way to measure the voltage of the car’s casing.
Besides, if the car’s metal casing is touching the ground (which isn’t all that unlikely in a wreck) it’s grounded out anyway. All in all dying in an explosion is an undoubtedly higher risk than being fried by an electric car in my opinion.
Sounds like the entire effort could benefit from educating the public.
So Negative! What’s with all the “Can’t Do” attitude? Support necessary change, or get out of the way, cavemen!
Hydrogen cars are the answer. Not big, heavy batteries, low range and poor performance. Much less emissions than electrical generation methods. Come on people! This is the technology that needs to be explored. That, or drill.
Let’s see…
1. An Aptera-2e has a 15KWh battery and a range of 120 miles. Based on the number of miles I am currently driving, I would have to charge it every three days. Here in Phx, that would be $0.07 per KWh (off peak), or a $1.05 per charge. That’s $10.50 a month in energy.
First, that’s only about 15% of my current monthly power usage in the winter (about 1000 KWh per month). In the summer my usage is around 1700 KWh.
Second, that’s ten bucks a month! That’s it! Not the $150/mo I’m paying now, and certainly not the $300/mo when gas was $4 a gallon.
It’s cheaper for me and our power grid only needs to provide an additional 20 to 25% capacity.
2. Electric motors are currently in the 90% efficiency range. Even the best internal combustion engines are no more than 30%. The amount of power lost over transmission lines in 2005 was 7%. Look it up.
Even our current dirty coal plants produce less pollution per unit of power than the cleanest gas or diesel engine.
3. An Aptera-2e has a solar panel in the roof. When the sun is out (heating up the car) the solar panel is generating more than enough electricity to run the air conditioning. Even when the car isn’t running!
I live in Phoenix for a reason. I don’t like being cold. I suppose neither do electric cars.
4. Solar panels (Sunpower) covering the roof of a 40 foot trailer will generate more than enough power to run an 18-wheeler at 65 mph and charge the batteries at the same time. Legally, truckers aren’t supposed to be driving more than 12 hours at a time anyway.
5. HHO is snake oil. By volume, HHO is 2/3 hydrogen and 1/3 oxygen. The intrinsic energy (BTU’s) of HHO is exactly 2/3 of pure hydrogen (assuming the oxygen is available to burn). That’s it. No more and no less. Monatomic H (which only exists below 5 K and above 5000 K) has the same energetic value.
You mean coal burning cars… This was posted on poorandstupid.com back in August:
Quote:
On Obama’s audacious dream of one million plug-in electric cars, Mark Kirby writes:
There’s an easier way to calculate the equivalent electricity demand for automobiles. You can get the monthly sales of gasoline from the EIA web page.
I’ll pick the lowest value over the past six years (annual thousands of gallons per day) and round down. 57,000,000 gallons a day. According to the EIA, 1 gallon of gasoline is 124,000 Btu. So the US uses 7,068,000,000,000 (7.068e+12) BTU a day of gasoline.
The internal combustion engine efficiency is typically less than 20%. But I’ll assume an overall efficiency of 5% to be conservative. So of that energy content of the gasoline, only 353,400,000,000 (3.534e+11) BTU does work.
The average nuclear plant produces 1,000 to 1,200 MWe. I’ll use the upper number. If it runs for 24 hours, that’s 28,800 MW-hr, which converts to 9.553997e+07 BTU Assume that the energy transmission, storage, and use in an electric car is 100% efficient, so that all of that electrical energy can do work.
Divide that into the BTU total and you find out how many nuclear plants you need to replace 100% of the gasoline: 3,698.
Since the process can’t be 100% efficient, the actual number would be more than that. Full disclosure, I work for a company that might benefit, so I wouldn’t be opposed to such a plans.
END QUOTE
Since we can’t build nuke plants, these things are going to burn coal!!! It will simply not be economical to power these things from wind and solar. This will be a bigger boondoggle than corn ethanol because your lights will go out at night when people plug in and overload the grid. Ain’t no way the generating capacity let alone transmission capacity will be available anytime soon.
Jeff,
You use Kirby’s careful and conservative numbers for no greater purpose than to give up? Suit yourself.
There are a few notable facts you neglect to report, however.
For one, adoption of electric vehicles isn’t going to be an overnight change, but one that will take decades. Over decades, we can manage the impact of this change on the grid.
Secondly, whatever issues arise during adoption, each and every electric vehicle results in a net reduction of greenhouse emissions, even if all the power comes from coal-fired plants.
Thirdly, your additions to Kirby’s exposition are full of unfounded assumptions. There’s no basis for your assertion that we can’t build nuclear plants. There’s no basis for your claim that wind and solar aren’t economical, considering that they’re currently producing at a cost premium in the 10% range, relative to the gas-fired status quo in my area.
Bottom line, electric cars consume far less net energy than IC engines, and that’s what will come out in the wash. The peak loads for which the existing electric power grid is designed are around four times typical nighttime base loads, so the existing grid can easily support a million electric cars.
Oil is OVER. We can deal with getting off oil in our own time and in our own way, or we can wait until the status quo simply collapses when the price of oil hits $500. Which of these options do you think would be advantageous for us?
Dear Mike Lewitke, Knoxville, Iowa
Sorry pal but the emmisions from a Natural Gas powered plant is significantly less than that of a oil or coal powered plant. You’re assumption that all fossil fuels are equal polluters is simply moronic. We would be better off transferring our transportation fleets (i.e. trucks and busses) to Natural Gas, this would significantly reduce emissions from current emmissions on diesel fuel. And this would help reduce our dependance on foreign oil since Natural Gas is very plentiful in this country. This could be fairly easily and quickly
(less than 10 years). To transfer our current coal powered electrical generation capacity (50 % of the total electrical generation is currently from coal) would take many, many years, probably in excess of 50 years unless the government subsidizes or the PUC’s change the way profits are allowed to go towards building more generation capacity. I believe that solar and wind must be part of the solution but I feel they will max out at about 25% of the total generation. I feel we are falling behind the Europeans in our desire to be energy dependent, we must turn to nuclear power, like it or not, to reduce our polluting emmisions and reliance on foreign oil. Why nuclear? We have the technology now, it doesn’t have to be developed and we can start building soon. If you know of a proven source that we could start producing power from now, I’d like to know of it. WE need to start now not another 25 years from now
Posted By Moekandu, Phoenix AZ
“An Aptera-2e has a 15KWh battery and a range of 120 miles. Based on the number of miles I am currently driving, I would have to charge it every three days. Here in Phx, that would be $0.07 per KWh (off peak), or a $1.05 per charge. That’s $10.50 a month in energy.”
Your math is just a little flawed. Ok first of all your battery produces 15 KWh, thats 15 KW per hour of use. Lets assume you get 4 hours of use before a charge is needed, that will be 60 KW that you will have put back in your battery not a mere 15 KW. Therefore your electric use would be 4 times what you calculated, or about $42/month. Thats assuming your battery charger is 100 % efficiency, but generally they are only about 85 % efficient, which will put you closer to $50/month. But that still cheaper than gas. Maybe somebody like First Solar will come up with a thin wall solar cell coating for your car and it will have to be charged even less from the grid….
I believe Jeff’s math is incorrect. There are 3409.5 BTU per KWh not MWh, therefore it would only take 4 nuke plants, not 3600, to power up the hypothetical cars.
Here’s the problem. As long as there is a desire to make a huge profit off of energy, then the green car market will take a VERY long time to get going. If we could stop trying to make a buck off what EVERY nation NEEDS, then maybe we can focus on being energy efficient and environmentally friendly. Pick something else to profit from.
Batteries aren’t as efficient as you might think. I don’t know the numbers or percentages, but think about it, that tiny little battery in you laptop can get mighty hot sitting on you lap. That’s a waste in efficiency (heat) right there. Imagine thousands of those batteries in a car, the heat would be incredible. A lot of the reason combustion engines are only 25% efficient is because that same heat is lost out the tail pipe, (let alone transmission friction and what not which is unavoidable even with a battery). If that electric car got in a serious reck, lithium ion batteries (the lightest and only practical battery) would explode much worse than the 10 gallons of gas in a fuel tank. In addition, do you think an 18 wheeler can run on batteries, HECK NO. Can I make a 250 mile day trip to college, see a friend or take a vacation, NOPE, unless the future of a gas station is taking out a 200 lb battery out of my car and replacing it with a fresh one (very unpractical).
Liquid fuels will still be the way. Enzymes that can break down any biomass (same enzymes found in termites that eat wood) into ethanol or butanol, a legitimate replacement for gasoline. Algae, which contains 30-40% oils can be harvested easily and turned into biodiesel. On that note, algae’s limiting factor in growth is that it cannot find enough C02 to generate fast enough. Bioengineer superalgae, route coal smoke stacks of C02 under algae ponds for plentiful C02 and you have a future of unlimited veggie oil for biodiesel to run 18-wheelers. God through evolution has made plants far more efficient than anything else. Plants convert 1 photon into energy a heck of a lot better than a man-made solar grid. Unless some serious battery technology that is way out of site comes on line, batteries will only be stuck in our portable small electronic devices.
@ Dan Wyke
the problem is the exact opposite:
chasing a profit is what drives everything. The only way to stop fossil fuels is to make the profits there disapear. The only way to turn green is to make that profitable.
The reality is that everthing need to be finance and that money has to come from somewhere.
The reality is that most people are selfish and look to personel enrichment.
Or is your primary goal to benefit you company and its costumers?
I would dare to say it is to get PAID.
I suggest you do your own research on how much electricity it will take to run our automobiles.
From EIA data: 370,000,000 gallons per day usage
1 gallon(US)of gasoline = 124,884 Btu
4.62 e +13 = Btu’s used by gasoline
Assume 20% efficency of gasoline engine
4.62 e +13 Btu x 0.20 = 9.24 e +12 Btu
1 MWh = 1,412,141 Btu
Lets assume that the batteries take 6-8 hours to charge not the 24 Jeff used
6 hours
1000 MWh x 6 h x 1,412,141 Btu = 8,472,846,000 Btu/ MWh
9.24 e + 12 Btu
____________________ = 1090 nukes
8.472 e + 9 Btu/MWh
8 hours
1000 MW x 8 h x 1,412,141 Btu= 11,287,000,000 Btu / MWh
9.24 e + 12 Btu
_____________________ = 818 nukes
1.13 e + 10 btu/MWh
Richard from HI posted
“I believe Jeff’s math is incorrect. There are 3409.5 BTU per KWh not MWh, therefore it would only take 4 nuke plants, not 3600, to power up the hypothetical cars”
You are right Jeff’s math was incorrect but so was his gas usage number. From the EIA web site all gasolines were about 360,000,000 gallons/day.
Oh, and by the way that would be about 750,000 1.5 MW wind turbines. Somebody ought to look at these numbers and start buildinng some power plants. And they want to shutdown half of our electrical generation(coal) capabilities. This country needs some leadership. But not just leadership, most people I talk to really don’t have a friggin clue what they are talking about, it just sounds great, but it really isn’t feasible. I’m for energy independence!! But that means more nuclear, wind and solar. Tranferring our auto and trucking transportation to a mix of hybrids, electrical and compressed natural gas. Along with continuing development in energy efficency and improving technology allowing us to be smarter in our usage of power. It would not suprise me, that in 25 years we were all driving light weight solar powered cars that were powered from a coating that was the source of power to the car.
You know what? Seriously. Insted of driving everywhere ride your bike for a change.
Hi Guys I am from the land down under
the land we call Oz Some time ago I built a $30 HH2 cell for my car the down side was I still had the old
cumbustion engine. To cut a long story short I now have a Electric
car e.g. Combustion enging out
and a Electric motor fitted to the gear box it is a real buzz to drive
and very fast 192 Volts infact Electric motor could of been contected
to the diff realy no need for a gear box. The other down side is having to re-charge every 50 miles The cost to charge is free at home is free thanks to the Sun. As mention the driving range is poor due to the fact of Lead
batteries are fitted Lithium would be better Any how I am now playing around with a small wind turbine
like the ones you see one small boats
Any how my point hear is what I have is very cheap to run But I am one of a large growing number of filks that have don the same thing last I hear about 7000 home conversions I the US
if any one is interested just google
electric car that what I did
I am not a machanic and know very little about electricity but I know
it was great for me.
Regards: Alan Hamer
alan@waterpower.net.au
“Your math is just a little flawed. Ok first of all your battery produces 15 KWh, thats 15 KW per hour of use.”
Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. 15KWh is not the same as 15KW/h … a watt is a RATE of energy, not an amount; you can’t charge up a battery with 10KW of “juice”. Read up on your units. Saying 15KW per hour doesn’t make any sense.
“Lets assume you get 4 hours of use before a charge is needed, that will be 60 KW that you will have put back in your battery not a mere 15 KW.”
Again, energy is charged by the kilowatt-hour, pumping in more kilowatts just means that your battery will be charged faster, thus using the same amount of KWh as if you charged it with less kilowatts for a longer period of time. You think that if you drain your battery in 1 hour, it will somehow charge 4 times faster than if you drain it in 4 hours? The original calculation is correct.
Sean posted
“Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. 15KWh is not the same as 15KW/h … a watt is a RATE of energy, not an amount; you can’t charge up a battery with 10KW of “juice”. Read up on your units. Saying 15KW per hour doesn’t make any sense.”
Sorry dude, but you misinterpreted everything I said. I’m not so sure you quite know what you are taking about A watt is an amount of power. If a generator produces 1000 watts thats 1000 watts every second, 1000 watts every minute, 1000 watts every hour, etc. Where KWh is a cumulative amount of power, its not a rate either. That generator would produce 24000 KWh if it ran all day. A KWh is something the utility uses to charge its customers. If you burn a 100 watt bulb for 10 hours you have used 1 KWh worth of electricity towards your monthly bill. Now that being said, most batteries have a rated output based upon its discharge rate. Voltage x Amperage = Watts, so whatever Watts discharged from the battery must be charged back into the battery. Power out must equal power out. Now I was using a 15 KWh battery that someone else used in their example. That 15 KWh battery will produce 15 KW for a time until the battery is depleted. But you will still use 15 KWh times the total amount of time, say if you run the battery at 15 KWh rate for 4 hours you have to charge 60 KW back into the battery to fully charge it…. Do you think that you could run an electric car with the same amount of electricity as you could power ten 150 watt light bulbs???
P.S you crack me up!!!
You don’t really need a lot of batteries if you have an efficent power distribution system, with the means to gather smart info on consumption of power (For billing?).
Inductive sub-surface plates & corridors can transfer the juice on an as-needed basis. Transferring energy from where it’s produced, to where it’s consumed.
Come on now, drop the invectives, think, how often do I use my “notebook” without plugging in? Not often I bet if you can’t afford the cost of replacement ($$$). Yet you get by with a (newly) evolved sense of proximity to power plugs, and a pocket full of mult-adapters to prevent ticking off current users. The on-board battery in each users device simply provides support during those unplugging moments… Right 😉
With an enveloping infrastructure, the need for heavy, expensive storage is reduced big-time.
Remember, think AROUND the box, not through it… (Saves on head-banging)
🙂
P.s Such infrastructures gave us cell phones, and WIFI (and people walking into power-poles 😦 )… why not power too?