AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Who Killed the Electric Car?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Mmh, need to get a copy of that movie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_...ric_Car%3F
I was originally looking for something else, watched in a documentary today how some important inventions of extremely fuel efficient piston engines in Germany were swept under the rug by the automobile producers (presented were the written refusals of virtually all manufacturers in Germany), and the government. Reason is alledgedly, that the petroleum tax is the second largest asset in the federal budget, a gallon of gas costing more than $8 at the moment. Wouldn't surprise me.
Found out that the most modern petrol engines have an efficiency of at best 30% (of the energy stored in the gas, most is lost as heat), and Diesel is not much better. There seems to be potential, indeed.
Back to the movie I linked to above, regarding the destruction of all EV1 cars by the producer GM. My favourite reasons from the page,

-Oil companies were afraid of losing out on trillions in potential profit from their transportation fuel monopoly over the coming decades. They also bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in US electric cars.
-The federal government joined in the auto industry suit against California, has failed to act in the public interest to limit pollution and require increased fuel economy, has promoted the purchase of vehicles with poor fuel efficiency through preferential tax breaks, and has redirected alternative fuel research from electric towards hydrogen.

Nice. WTF do Petrol companies with battery patents? Seems, big business uses more powerful means than the employment of useful idiots like John only.
Yup, its all a big plot. There are 2 possibilities:
1. Its a big plot by BIGOIL to block the development of electric cars
Or
2. Its a big plot by the producers of the movie to suck in fools who might actually believe the allegation.
jt Wrote:Yup, its all a big plot. There are 2 possibilities:
1. Its a big plot by BIGOIL to block the development of electric cars
Or
2. Its a big plot by the producers of the movie to suck in fools who might actually believe the allegation.

Are you actually giving him a choice here? That's Free Enterprise for you. Wink1
Now,I sort of like Quad's post. Here's why. I hear this same goofball stuff over here,but of course over here it is American car manufacturers or American oil firms,not German ones.

The conspiracy fails to consider this: Why haven't SOCIALIST states created an all electric vehicle society? Oil companies don't rule those wonderful socialists,ya know? Maybe cause it makes NO SENSE?

What Quad and all the flat earth society people do not understand is Exxon could care LESS what it makes it's profits on(nor do the shareholders and Quad can be one if he wants),so if Electric cars were demanded by the publics, then Exxon would invest in building batteries and electric cars and stop drilling for oil!

What difference is it to them? In fact,it is easier to build a car than to find,produce and transport oil. These kinds of stories are just unbearably goofy!

No one bought out the guy who created the 300 MPH carburetor(ever heard that one?) either.
This thing about the Evil Oil Companies buying up patents, including the one about using water for fuel, has been around since Yeshua word sandles. Wink1 I can remember it when growing up in Alaska, in the mid 50s. It goes on and on, and never stops.

Does anyone actually believe that this could be kept under wraps for all this time? And remember, patents run out after a reasonable time, and can be utilized by non-holders of those patents.

That is why Conspiracy people are called "Kooks", and rightly so. Wink1
Quote:Found out that the most modern petrol engines have an efficiency of at best 30% (of the energy stored in the gas, most is lost as heat), and Diesel is not much better. There seems to be potential, indeed.

Quad, this was of great interest in the early 1800s. People wanted more efficient steam engines, and to maximize the work output for the fuel used. Thermodynamics (motion from heat) is the study of the interplay between disordered energy (heat) and ordered energy.

There is a theoretical limit to the amount of work that can be extracted from fuel. Most of it is in fact lost as waste heat. The only way to improve theoretical thermodynamic efficiency is to raise the combustion temperature. That's one of the reasons diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines (the compression ratio of a diesel is about twice that of a gasoline engine).

The maximum efficiency is = 1-(ambient temp/combustion temp)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

Real engines never meet the theoretical efficiency because of internal friction, non-ideal gas behaviour, etc.

Sooo... there's no conspiracy. We just need to find a way to substantially raise the operating temperature of an internal combustion engine to make them more efficient (get more useful work from the fuel consumed).

-S
The documentary was pretty convincing, showing drafts of that technology, patent numbers, and the refusals of the manufacturers. A new kind of connexion rod, that makes higher pressures at the moment of ignition possible, higher temperatures, less friction. 40% better fuel efficiency according to the inventor.
A filter that makes the regular change of motor oil unnecessary for the whole life of an engine shares the destiny, being dismissed by possible manufacturers. Not good for their business, not the oil companies, not for the garages. A government expertise found out, "the filter doesn't improve the quality of the motor oil". Absolutely, but this wasn't the question. Amazing what ways they find to avoid progress that's not good for the quantity of business. Besides, that's a general disease of free market economy, developement goes mainly in the direction of increasing quantity.

Palladin,
there are about 45,000,000 cars licensed in Germany today, many times more than there were in the whole communist bloc, a third or so of the world in the eighties. (How many in the world? A billion?) Standing at an intersection in the small town I come from, you could count maybe five cars per minute. It was pretty quiet, and the pollution was low. Miss it a bit, watching the permanent avalanche of traffic today. I don't see progress in that, but insanity. With traffic on such low a level, the supply guaranteed by the inexhaustible looking reserves of the SU (more than 1,000 years compared with the usage back than), and the rather low impact of transportation on the environment, fuel efficiency doesn't have to be a great issue. Anyway, they were working on electric engines too, but remember, twenty years and more ago your technology wasn't yet what it is today either.
Quad,

You will admit though that no socialist state in the 20th century dedicated her auto fleet to the electric style,correct? It's because they make NO SENSE. Not yet. You cannot drive them far enough before they die is the problem.

As we're now seeing recently,auto manufacturers are thinking,innovating and came up with hybrids. Nothing stopped that development,did it? Oil companies didn't buy the patent up,etc.? Right?

Someday we might have fuel cells operating cars with no use of petroleum products,the US government is subsidizing the development of that process and majors are into it fairly heavy.

Now,let's assume fuel cell tech works and the public demand skyrockets. What will Exxon,Royal Dutch Shell and Total do? they will invest in fuel cell automobile manufacturing,that's what. They will purchase GM and Toyota if the trend becomes so huge that oil is falling off the map in usage,that's what they will do.

Back in the 1980s,our major oil firms bought out major hotel chains. Turns out that was an economic error,but the point is business enterprises are there to make a profit for their owners and how is not important. Gold miners can invest in oil production and DO,General electric makes non electric products,etc.

I mean this respectfully,but you simply do not understand free enterprise or us. Your hung up on your schooling in East Germany. I've owned a business before, it was financial advice stuff. I did poorly and folded. However,if before I failed,I could have re-invested in mosquito spray,I WOULD have to make a profit,see how we think???
Palladin,
oil doesn't follow rules of markets (which are an illusion for any product or sector), but is a gigantic cartel, benefiting the companies involved as well as the governments. There is no will to plug up this source of money, it's mostly hypocrisy what they promise about increasing fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. And for you, should you own a few oil shares, you have no interest either. See what I mean? :lol:
Hybrids? A technological dead end, the most expensive way to save a little fuel. Their high prices make most customers buy less fuel efficient cars of the same size. Just a token.
The reason why alternative fuels can't make a breaktrough either, is mostly the lack of infrastructure, to few gas stations that supply f.e. hydrogen. Tell me why no government establishes some company, that builds a net of hydrogen stations in that country, and when the enterprise is up and running, even privatizes it by selling the shares? Would most likely not be necessary, the oil companies would after the mere annunciation by a government to plan that, put hydrogen pumps on their stations over night.
Quadrat said
Quote:Tell me why no government establishes some company, that builds a net of hydrogen stations in that country, and when the enterprise is up and running, even privatizes it by selling the shares?
Maybe you should research the cost of doing this, and see if any government can actually do it. There must be a reason why this obvious and logical idea has not happened. Is the reason economic, or just a lack of political will?
Quote:Is the reason economic, or just a lack of political will?
Lack of political will for economic reasons, you don't kill the cash cow.

Quote:You will admit though that no socialist state in the 20th century dedicated her auto fleet to the electric style,correct? It's because they make NO SENSE. Not yet. You cannot drive them far enough before they die is the problem.
Palladin,
they easily do 100 miles at highway speed, rather more. After some time you take a break for the loo and some coffee anyway, and could recharge. Long journeys by car are rare (and car rentals be happy to help out), usually you get around your place only, a whole week before you had to recharge? Not more likely you have no electric car because they are not on offer? And don't offer the overkill of power needed for status, twenty or thirty horsepowers suffice to move you at the speed limits, but to have threehundred on call sounds better. Also, electric engines are unsuitable for your gigantic vehicles. Jesus, when I saw the pictures of the cars on that collapsed brigde last week, what do you compensate for? :lol:
Have you taken a look at the cost of electricity lately, Q?
The electric vehicle does not YET make economic sense for several reasons,if it did,we would all own them already.

Replacing the batteries is a major negative,short distance before they are dead is another(Quad,100 miles is NOTHING,we typically drive 180 twicw a month to visit our kid,what good is an electric to me?). Another major negative is how we would transfer the creation of the energy from gas to power plants.
Quick charges while at the loo will wear out batteries faster, a major expense. But in your case, maybe not.
jt,
don't know. If you compare with cellphone batteries, they have gotten a lot better in the last ten years. They were good for one day without recharge and had to be plugged in for many hours, now for weeks and recharged in a couple of minutes.

drgonzaga,
here about 10 of your cents /kwh. Mmh, if I reckon right, driving around one hour with 20kw, surely good for 60mph, would cost $2.
Quote:drgonzaga, here about 10 of your cents /kwh. Mmh, if I reckon right, driving around one hour with 20kw, surely good for 60mph, would cost $2.

I question the math however there are other implications with regard to "fueling" even in an urban environment. Besides, you'd also have to inquire as to where that source of electricity obtains its "fuel". After all the objective is supposed to be a smaller "carbon footprint"...As matters stand, it is all a huge charade equivalent to the guessing of which hand holds that carbon jewel.
drgonzaga Wrote:As matters stand, it is all a huge charade equivalent to the guessing of which hand holds that carbon jewel.

Well put.
Cleanest nuclear or renewable juice only, of course. If, as we somewhere mentioned, the efficiency of combustion engines is at some 30%, and that of electricity generators using fossil fuels a lot better, even considering some losses on the transport and in the car engine itself, the 'carbon footprint' should be smaller.
I guess an electric engine never wears out and would, apart from occasional changes of the batteries, need no service?
Electric cars do seem to make compelling sense. Except for the batteries. Maybe your cell phone battery lasts a long longer, but that is probably not due to battery progress, but due to chip progress, i.e. new chips use much less power. The progress in batteries has been agonizingly slow. Only tiny incremental progress per year. I do think that many engineers, scientists, altruists, communists, socialists and corporations know that if they could increase battery capacity by a factor of 2 or 3 (with the same weight) that they could spend the rest of their life on easy street, or get a Nobel Peace Prize. That's quite an incentive, altruistic or otherwise. If anyone had such a design, why would they sell it to GM (say) for a paltry few mil?

Unfortunately, electric motors are very efficient, not like chips, they cannot be made radically more efficient. Friction and drag are close to minimal too, and have been very well studied. So, that puts all the onus on battery development. It is my guess that batteries are close to their physical chemistry limits, unless some radically new, revolutionary principle comes up.
Guess what is one of the major ecological hazards in today's world? If you said batteries, you were correct. let's face it waste and its disposal has always constituted an inevitable problem of life itself. Let's face facts here. If one accepts the notion of ecological crisis as a result of human activity, then let's just speak bluntly: Man is a biological infestation whose sole remedy is extermination! I'll put my money on the Daleks!
Pages: 1 2