Jersey Tom wrote:Just don't agree with you. I don't see any advantage in electric vehicles. Waste of time.
Reduced noise, torque at 0RPM and no loss, better performance, no clutch, the efficiency of decoupling or removal of the ICE in a hybrid system so it isn't always loaded, the ability to introduce more advanced CVT transmission systems..... The advantages of having an electric motor in the powertrain have been known about for some time, which is why diesel electric has been widely used. The only pitfall has been applying the technology right to the automotive industry and eventually getting electrical efficiency to a point where the ICE can be removed.
Suppose we switched the world over to electric cars tomorrow. Where's all the electricity coming from? The grid. Just going to burn more coal, more oil, more gas, or more nuclear energy.
In contrast, we burn less fuel and waste less of it than putting our right foot down in our cars. It will also herald an era where we look at efficient production of electricity outside of the normal grid itself because there will be demand.
I'm afraid it is not an A = B situation, where we trade something with something equal.
How "clean" or "environmentally friendly" nuclear power is, is a subject of debate.
It's not a subject of debate. It is cleaner, but people get hung up on radioactivity. We also need to create enough demand so that efficient electricity production outside of the grid can happen. For this to happen the ICE needs to die and we need to look forwards, because that isn't going to be done with it.
Otherwise, you're still burning hydrocarbons to get energy...
That's not the point. The point is that when you burn those hydrocarbons you want to waste a lot less of the energy that comes out. In ICE systems the majority of the energy is wasted, and when you multiply that many millions of times over the number of vehicles out there the wastage of fossil fuels in vehicles is shocking. WhiteBlue has mentioned the efficiency savings of centralisation.
...and you're ADDING a step or two in the process which is inherently (by thermodynamics) less efficient than just going straight from chemical power to shaft power. Instead, you're going Chemical -> Shaft -> Electrical -> Shaft.
This is a common misconception, sometimes deliberately bandied about. The advantages and efficiencies gained from decoupling the ICE from the power required is well known. When you press your right foot to get RPM to gain torque and power the vast majority of that energy is simply wasted. Probably not even a quarter of it is used. It is possible to apply the power you need whilst loading any ICE engine in the sequence far less.
Plus, there's the whole supply chain and logistics aspect that people seem to forget about. The entire world's transportation system is geared toward liquid fuels.
And?
Hundreds of thousands of liquid fuel stations, tankers, distribution networks, etc. Can you imagine the cost, fabrication, demolition, and construction that would be required to convert that ALL over to electric? Something like 120,000 gas stations in the US alone. Not to mention 250 million registered passenger vehicles in the US... the cost to scrap all those out or convert them over is non-trivial.
You're not impressing with this "Oh, my God!" scenario. As with all things, this will be a gradual process where things get replaced with churn and demand is fueled. You're not going to go out and replace 250 million vehicles tomorrow, all at once. That would just be stupid, wouldn't it?
Take a look at what happened at the turn of the last century as the 'horseless carriage' developed.
This is all really a decade or two away as it takes off, but if you're not investing in the future now then you're going to be left in the stone age.
