Tesla to Texas: How Do You Like Us Now?

[svauto-erotic855]

You haven't proven anything, and how much money has been spent developing the ICE? I'd bet good money that it's more than billions. You continue to harp about things that have yet to be proven by you (either you're too lazy to prove it or there's no proof to be had) and ignore everything regarding the ICE.

The ICE is a very simple design and it worked correctly from nearly day one and has turned a profit since the word "Go". The biggest kick in the pants for the ICE was the Kettering ignition. Most of the hard development work for the ICE was finished in the late 1950s and it has just been tweaks and details since then. Although it has yet to reach its full level of design maturity all of the pieces are there and most are going to be reality soon if we would just stop wasting time and effort on fancy golf carts.

[racrguy]

25 years and counting and not a single EV car or EV car company has turned a single penny's profit or has even been able to sell a car without a government subsidy. How far do you think the auto industry would have made it in the beginning if the same was true for gas powered cars?


I tell you what. If you believe in the potential of electrics and alternative energy then take all of your savings and invest in them; you will be rich if you are correct. How could you possible lose?

That my experiment with old tech was only surpassed when GM came out with the EV1 after spending billions on the project should show you what an uphill battle EVs are. If I had had the batteries that they were using in the EV1 my car would have out done theirs and I was working with only what I could come up with on my own. Granted; my car was very spartan, had one seat and had no a/c or heater but it would have gone farther on a charge than the EV1.

So far time has already proven my position to be correct and I believe that it will continue to do so. I also believe that my grand children will be driving cars powered by some type of combustible fuel if the politics that surround energy still allow for their production in this country.

You haven't proven anything, and how much money has been spent developing the ICE? I'd bet good money that it's more than billions. You continue to harp about things that have yet to be proven by you (either you're too lazy to prove it or there's no proof to be had) and ignore everything regarding the ICE.

[svauto-erotic855]

^^^^^

This is what it will take to truly work the way the greenies think that it will.

[Cooter]

I want a hydrogen fuel cell truck. Drive around in the rain and top up the tank

[svauto-erotic855]

Read and comprehend what we are saying. You are exactly one of those religious type people, except on the other side of the fence against EVs.

Here is why you're an idiot.
-----------------------------------------------------
First I start with this:





Now focus here...and think about what I originally said. All of that shit is 100% true. Electric motors are much more efficient.

Regenerative braking does work, and it typically uses the same fucking motor as a generator to charge the batteries. It's not this huge cumbersome system like you would have people believe.

And if you don't realize that electricity can be made by more than just burning fuel...you're a lost cause. Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Hydro...loads of way to make energy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have this...



It's not about the NOW, its about setting up the infrastructure to have the ability to run EVs free of fossil fuels eventually. Nothing in engineering was ever immediate, and by your thought process we would never have a civilized world because everything is a waste of time patch job and not true development.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'll quote myself again to bring up this point. The importance of electric cars is to set up an infrastructure that allows for multiple different types energy generation, but a common method of energy storage. Just like currency.



Now focus on exactly what I'm saying and tell me again how that's wrong.

---------------------------------------------------



You are still wrong here...it's less than 12%.



this is where you really show your inability to comprehend what we're saying. I'm bringing up the fact that you're claiming to have all of this knowledge and experience, but you used technology that isn't even relevant to modern EVs. Both the batteries and motors aren't even close to what is used today. You did a science experiment on a very simplified representation of an EV system.

Everyone knows electricity is generated largely by fossil fuels. But that doesn't mean it will always be that way. This is how advancement works. You have to set up the infrastructure. The goals are to phase out the reliance on fossil fuels

25 years and counting and not a single EV car or EV car company has turned a single penny's profit or has even been able to sell a car without a government subsidy. How far do you think the auto industry would have made it in the beginning if the same was true for gas powered cars?


I tell you what. If you believe in the potential of electrics and alternative energy then take all of your savings and invest in them; you will be rich if you are correct. How could you possible lose?

That my experiment with old tech was only surpassed when GM came out with the EV1 after spending billions on the project should show you what an uphill battle EVs are. If I had had the batteries that they were using in the EV1 my car would have out done theirs and I was working with only what I could come up with on my own. Granted; my car was very spartan, had one seat and had no a/c or heater but it would have gone farther on a charge than the EV1.

So far time has already proven my position to be correct and I believe that it will continue to do so. I also believe that my grand children will be driving cars powered by some type of combustible fuel if the politics that surround energy still allow for their production in this country.

[jw33]

What about from brushed to brushless motors? When didthat take place?

1962

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushless_DC_electric_motor

[Ruffdaddy]

Die thread, die.

You may know this already...but if you don't click in the link....it's as good as dead to you...

Die thread, die.

[Forever_frost]

I want a hydrogen fuel cell truck. Drive around in the rain and top up the tank

[Gasser64]

What about from brushed to brushless motors? When didthat take place?

[racrguy]

Son of a bitch........

[Ruffdaddy]

A conspiracy to waste time and effort maybe. The emissions per mile vary by what part of the country they are in and how the power that feeds them is made.

The problem in this conversation is the there are 2 topics that I am trying to address.

First you have to look at the stated reasons electric cars are even being considered and why. What goals are trying to be accomplished?

Second you have to do an analysis to see if those goals can be reached cheaper and easier with conventional tech without having to try to reinvent the wheel.

Honda was able to reach zero emission in 1995 with a conventional car. It produced cleaner air coming out of the tail pipe then the ambient air in California. CARB flatly refused to certify it as zero emissions even though there was no equipment that could detect what it spit out. CARB spent nearly 100 million coming up with new equipment that could measure the tail pipe emission just so they did not have to say that a car that burned gas was zero emissions.

My position is that electric car work sort of ok as proven by them being driven on the street but they do not accomplish the stated goals; nor do they meet or exceed the performance of conventional cars that cost less then half of what an electric car does. Electric cars can NEVER meet the stated goals as long as we keep getting electricity from burning any type of fuel to make it. If we make a switch to all solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear power they will be able to achieve the stated goals for making them. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that we will ever get even 1/3 of our power from wind or solar and it appears that we do not have the political will to try for more Hydro or nuclear power. Because of that I say that electric cars are a waste of time and effort that could produce better results if directed elsewhere.

And the back tracking commences...

[Ruffdaddy]

Read and comprehend what we are saying. You are exactly one of those religious type people, except on the other side of the fence against EVs.

Here is why you're an idiot.
-----------------------------------------------------
First I start with this:

Electric motors are much more efficient, electricity is recoverable under braking, electricity doesn't have to be a burned fuel. There are a lot of reasons electricity CAN be green.

My back ground is automotive engineering and I say that you are beyond brain dead if you believe any of the crap that you just posted.

Now focus here...and think about what I originally said. All of that shit is 100% true. Electric motors are much more efficient.

Regenerative braking does work, and it typically uses the same fucking motor as a generator to charge the batteries. It's not this huge cumbersome system like you would have people believe.

And if you don't realize that electricity can be made by more than just burning fuel...you're a lost cause. Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Hydro...loads of way to make energy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have this...

I never once said that they wouldn't work; I see them being driven on a daily basis and have built one and drove it myself. What more evidence of them working could I ask for?

What I actually said about them if you pulled your head out of your ass and put a little effort into your reading comprehension skills is that they will not cause less pollution or conserve power like the watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) would have you believe. That you believe it shows how little you know and how gullible you are.

It's not about the NOW, its about setting up the infrastructure to have the ability to run EVs free of fossil fuels eventually. Nothing in engineering was ever immediate, and by your thought process we would never have a civilized world because everything is a waste of time patch job and not true development.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'll quote myself again to bring up this point. The importance of electric cars is to set up an infrastructure that allows for multiple different types energy generation, but a common method of energy storage. Just like currency.

These cars are designed for city folk frost, not for the outliers.

And you guys must not understand what new development means. Batteries have progressed and continue to. Sure they're not some new random element, but that doesn't mean it's not new tech. I have designed battery powered stuff ranging from downhole tools to ground vehicle defense systems and the technology seems to be continuously evolving. Maybe primary lithium batteries aren't changing much but new stuff is always coming out in both the performance and safety arenas.

Think of electricity as the currency of energy. The benefit of electricity is that it can be generated a multitude of ways but used for the same purpose as petrol. It lowers our dependence on oil and gas. And svo855 is flat out wrong about regenerative braking. They are efficient enough to be effective, and they do not add appreciable weight. Actually he's wrong about most of what he's saying.

An electrical system has much more potential in the way of efficiency than petrol based. EVs aren't for everyone, but as they continue to develop they will become more useful.

Now focus on exactly what I'm saying and tell me again how that's wrong.

---------------------------------------------------

Big advancements are revolutionary not evolutionary and there is not even any talk of theory's concerning revolutionary advancements much less any work being made towards them.




I never said that they were a flash in the pan. I said that they will not do what the proponents of them want them to do because there is no such thing as a free lunch in engineering. They are a distraction from working on other types of technology that will make a bigger impact on the stated goals of the proponents of "green technology". Making a small car that gets the equivalent of 50mpg is not that big of a deal when a car of similar size and a IC engine gets 45mpg. Making a Tahoe or something like it that will get 20mpg around town is a MUCH bigger deal once you crunch the numbers.




My 12% number was losses. There are individual lines that have much lower losses and the figure in the early 80's was 10% but the grid is aging and the latest figure for the system as a whole in the US is touching on 12%.

You are still wrong here...it's less than 12%.

Exactly how old are you? Lead acid was all that there was back then. The cost is always a driver when a set of batteries will run you 7k. The tech in batteries has advanced quite a bit but will have to improve 300 fold to work as well as gasoline and even more if compared to diesel. The problems being faced doesn't hinge on just one item; it hinges on ALL of them and even if they all worked perfectly you sill are facing the issue of where the power to charge the batteries comes from.

Right now electric cars cause more pollution per mile then a comparable car with a normal engine and that is not even factoring in what it took to make them in the first place. EVERY SINGLE engineer in the electric car industry knows this but it is NEVER mentioned. To understand this you need to google "well to wheel analysis" and start reading. Get back to me in a few days and let me know what you think of electrics once you have a little research under your belt.

this is where you really show your inability to comprehend what we're saying. I'm bringing up the fact that you're claiming to have all of this knowledge and experience, but you used technology that isn't even relevant to modern EVs. Both the batteries and motors aren't even close to what is used today. You did a science experiment on a very simplified representation of an EV system.

Everyone knows electricity is generated largely by fossil fuels. But that doesn't mean it will always be that way. This is how advancement works. You have to set up the infrastructure. The goals are to phase out the reliance on fossil fuels

Shipping? You do realize that I am talking about nearly 1400lbs of batteries don't you?

I brought this up to indicate the main reason I would deviate from a Lithium or LiIon System in my current role.

[svauto-erotic855]

So now it's a conspiracy?

A conspiracy to waste time and effort maybe. The emissions per mile vary by what part of the country they are in and how the power that feeds them is made.

The problem in this conversation is the there are 2 topics that I am trying to address.

First you have to look at the stated reasons electric cars are even being considered and why. What goals are trying to be accomplished?

Second you have to do an analysis to see if those goals can be reached cheaper and easier with conventional tech without having to try to reinvent the wheel.

Honda was able to reach zero emission in 1995 with a conventional car. It produced cleaner air coming out of the tail pipe then the ambient air in California. CARB flatly refused to certify it as zero emissions even though there was no equipment that could detect what it spit out. CARB spent nearly 100 million coming up with new equipment that could measure the tail pipe emission just so they did not have to say that a car that burned gas was zero emissions.

My position is that electric car work sort of ok as proven by them being driven on the street but they do not accomplish the stated goals; nor do they meet or exceed the performance of conventional cars that cost less then half of what an electric car does. Electric cars can NEVER meet the stated goals as long as we keep getting electricity from burning any type of fuel to make it. If we make a switch to all solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear power they will be able to achieve the stated goals for making them. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that we will ever get even 1/3 of our power from wind or solar and it appears that we do not have the political will to try for more Hydro or nuclear power. Because of that I say that electric cars are a waste of time and effort that could produce better results if directed elsewhere.

[racrguy]

So now it's a conspiracy? What, exactly, are the pollution numbers by both ICE and EV cars per mile?