Save the world by electric car?

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

********* Continuation of previous post *********

=========== Solar power calculation ===========


Sahara Solar Power Density exceeds 2200 [kWh/(m²yr)] *3
There are 8766 hours in a year.
This equates to a solar power density of
2200/8766 = 0.25 [kW/m²]

An average car uses 0.75 [kW]
Thus an average car needs: 0.75/0.25 = 3[m²]

There are somewhere between 600 and 800 million cars in the world today.
So we'd need 800,000,000 * 3 = 2,400,000,000 [m²] land area in the sahara to feed them all.

This is a square of 49*49 km



=========== Conclusion ===========

Those "I heard someone calculate that x needs y [incredibly high number] of z" stories generally can use some verification. Most are untrue, or people have been creative with numbers. This is how Greenpeace and other anti-groups have been working all along.

[QED]

 

[Olgaline]

Run em' on whisky!
yes it can be done!

and think I read somewhere that, they've built some prototype that ran purely on water

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Run em' on whisky!
yes it can be done!

and think I read somewhere that, they've built some prototype that ran purely on water

Water is one of the most stable substances in our universe.
Unless it's heavy water (Deuterium- or Tritium-water) and the car uses a nuclear fusion engine, I'll have a hard time believing any of it.

Mind you though, there are options that use water. Mix a bit of water in the gasoline (not actually mixing, but adding an extra injector), and the water will expand to steam when the gasoline ignites. This can boost the car's economy quite a bit. This introduces a corrosion issue though that'll need to be overcome.

 

[Olgaline]

well,
google says this:

1
2
3
4
5

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Really olga, All I'm gonna say to that is:

Go back to highschool and take up chemistry. This is impossible. There just isn't anything special to it. Put a couple of 12V electrodes in salt water, and yes, 2H2 and O2 forms. But this process is not too efficient.

There simply is no reason to use a carbattery and start converting water into 2H2+O2, and add it to the fuel-mixture of the engine, because the battery will need to be recharged afterwards.
Since an ICE isn't more than 30% efficient, and the rotational energy > electric energy efficiency is less than 100% and the convertion of water to gasses is less than 100% efficient, you'll end up using a LOT more gas than before.

You're better off directly powering an electromotor from the car battery, and charging the battery at home, but you won't have a big reach I'm afraid.

This simply isn't possible.

 

[Olgaline]

/shrug
all I said was I'd heard about it,
a quick google search brought up the links,
what you make of them is up to you.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ingafgrinn you're being creative with numbers too.

Fuel and energy don't cost as much. Fuel and energy don't have same need for resources in bringing them from "thin air" to the car.

Also, where does the 22km/l on fuel cars come from?

And, you're calculating the energy use of an electric car based on the fuel-energy use of a normal car. Doesn't work.

And even with that calculation, you still need a ridicilous amount of nuclear plants in the US alone, or, solar plate the freaking sahara desert to do so so the point stands;

Electric cars = ridicilous.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Those "I heard someone calculate that x needs y [incredibly high number] of z" stories generally can use some verification. Most are untrue, or people have been creative with numbers. This is how Greenpeace and other anti-groups have been working all along.

Those "i heard" calculations are for fun, for over a pint, for a laugh and to point out "ooh there's a problem".

It's not meant to be anally taken apart by some scientist, that is left for those who actually have a power to change things.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Ingafgrinn you're being creative with numbers too.

Fuel and energy don't cost as much. Fuel and energy don't have same need for resources in bringing them from "thin air" to the car.

Also, where does the 22km/l on fuel cars come from?

And, you're calculating the energy use of an electric car based on the fuel-energy use of a normal car. Doesn't work.

And even with that calculation, you still need a ridicilous amount of nuclear plants in the US alone, or, solar plate the freaking sahara desert to do so so the point stands;

Electric cars = ridicilous.

I'm not being creative with numbers. Infact I've calculated this in such a way that the cars most certainly will use less.
Running a car costs a certain amount of energy.
An Internal Combustion Engine is highly inefficient *1. If you'll reach an average efficiency of 25%, you'll best Mercedes, BMW and everyone. An electrical motor has an efficiency, generally exceeding 90%.

I've used the gas economy of a hybrid. Couldn't be arsed to calculate the real efficiency exchange rate yesterday evening, but if you're pushing:



=========== Calculating EV energy usage ===========

η-ice: 20%
η-ev: 90%

Average petrol car efficiency: 16 [km/l]
Converted EV efficiency: 16 [km/l] * (90%/20%) = 72 [km/l]

Average vehicle's yearly run: 15000 [km/yr]

Average EV's equivalent yearly gas usage: 15000 [km/yr] / 72 [km/l] = 208.3333 [l/y]

Gasoline has an energy content of about 35 [MJ/l]

To calculate the equivalent energy usage per year:
208.3333 [l/y] * 35 [MJ/l] = 7292 [MJ/yr] = 7.3 [GJ/yr]

So this makes the average electrical vehicle use 7.3 [GJ/yr].

1 Watt = 1 Joule per second.
There are 31.5 million (M) seconds in a year. (365.25*24*60*60)
7.3 [GJ/yr] / 31.5 [Ms/yr] = 232 [J/s] = 232 [W]

So the average EV averagely uses 232 [W]



=========== Converting the usage to avg power plants ===========

The average nuclear power plant has a powercapacity of 1.9 [GW]

1.9 [GW] / 232 [W] = 8.189 [M]

Thus, the average nuclear power plant can sustain approx 8.15 million EV's



=========== Solar power calculation ===========


Sahara Solar Power Density exceeds 2200 [kWh/(m²yr)] *3
There are 8766 hours in a year.
This equates to a solar power density of
2200 [kWh/(m²yr)] / 8766 [hrs/yr] = 250 [W/m²]

An average car uses 232 [W]
Thus an average car needs: 232/250 = 0.928[m²]

There are somewhere between 600 and 800 million cars in the world today.
So we'd need 800,000,000 * 0.95 = 760,000,000 [m²] land area in the sahara to feed them all.

This is a square of 28*28 km



[QED]




PS. These calculations are without energy recovering systems like regenerative breaking. Using those systems, an EV will be even more economical resulting in quite a bit less energy usage.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Still not comparable, fuel and energy, two different things.

Calculate the energy need of energy cars and their usage.

For example tesla roadster, 133 W·h/km.

FYI, i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm saying that you can't convert the current cars to electric cars like so.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Although, i shouldn't argue it as in the end the point kind of stands on either "electric cars would require 1000 nuke plants" or "electric cars would require a 100 nuke plants", so the whole "save the world" thing goes out the window 'cause greenpipers rant about ONE nuke plant

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Still not comparable, fuel and energy, two different things.

Calculate the energy need of energy cars and their usage.

For example tesla roadster, 133 W·h/km.

FYI, i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm saying that you can't convert the current cars to electric cars like so.

Yes you can. All I did in my calculations was to rip out the engine, and throw in an equivalently powered electrical motor with batteries. Not too hard. And the calculations are sound.
From the gasoline poored into the tank, you can calculate the energy transferred to the pavement. From that energy, you can also calculate back to an electrical motor. It's not hard. It's easy infact.

Although, i shouldn't argue it as in the end the point kind of stands on either "electric cars would require 1000 nuke plants" or "electric cars would require a 100 nuke plants", so the whole "save the world" thing goes out the window 'cause greenpipers rant about ONE nuke plant

Well, can also use solar power. There's plenty of sun in spain. They should just stop using those crappy and expensive solar panels, and use mirrors combined with turbines...

Also, At home I'm running on 100% water-generated power. Most of it from norway and sweden, some from switserland and austria.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

By the way, you stated 12500 nuke plants, only for the US cars. I calculated 100 for the world's cars. That's quite a bit of difference.
We can power the entire world, just from solar power from the sahara easily, and probably a couple of hundred times over. Those guys there just need to stop using solar panels, and go with mirrors and turbines. Much cheaper.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And then you calculate how much it would harm to get all the cars replaced? Then replace all the trucks, boats, planes,? How efficient REALLY an electric engine can be and can it replace a combustion engine? How much space would the solar plants need? How much of an effect would THAT have on the enivroment? Etc.

And the 12500 nuke plants is a calculation of a modern electric car, not one converted.

That's why your calculation doesn't fit, it's a theory. You can't convert a modern engien with an electric one YET.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

And then you calculate how much it would harm to get all the cars replaced? Then replace all the trucks, boats, planes,? How efficient REALLY an electric engine can be and can it replace a combustion engine? How much space would the solar plants need? How much of an effect would THAT have on the enivroment? Etc.

And the 12500 nuke plants is a calculation of a modern electric car, not one converted.

That's why your calculation doesn't fit, it's a theory. You can't convert a modern engien with an electric one YET.

Modern cars will only be more efficient than a converted one, so your more nuke plants don't fly.

Getting cars replaced is a continuous process. You don't replace all cars at once, but you replace them as the old petrol ones are at the end of their life.

I'm not calculating the effect on the sahara, because that's of no concern to the initial calculation. I'm also not calculating the replacement of the cars and trucks, because that's of no concern here either because you didn't in your initial post. You stated that it took 12500 nuclear plants to keep the cars in the US running. Not replacing, not anything, just running. That simply is untrue.

If anything, the amount I calculated will be higher than the actual energy necessary, because I calculated the efficiency on current data, not on improved future technology, and rounded the numbers in a direction causing the cars to use more.

And believe me when I say that I know how to calculate stuff. I do this shit for a living.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And believe me when I say that I know how to calculate stuff. I do this shit for a living.

Trust me, i know, you're being anal enough about it.

To change all those cars to electric cars and keep them running, you'd need...

That means; to change all current cars to current electeric cars.

Not "convert the energy use of petrol to energy", and not "to calculate the exact need and use of fuel in cars and then change it to an appropriate energy usage".

1 US car --> 1 modern electric car.

You took the calculations into "out of original post" already, so i'm doing the same and disbuting your "it IS economical/egological" with added data as you have done.

 

[Bugz]

Tohtori arguing with an expert over something he is an expert in is just not a good idea.

You were wrong - he was right.

 

[Olgaline]

I wont get into who's right or wrong,
Because frankly i dont have a clue, But!

Tohtori arguing with an expert over something he is an expert in is just not a good idea.

Being an expert and being right, are two very different things,
many a experts have been wrong about a shit load of stuff, hell infact often it's been the whole basis of thier inability to see things in a new or different light.

experts are often the most closed minded amongst men.

 

[Bugz]

We're talking calculations here though.

I would trust an expert in calculations over anyone else.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Tohtori arguing with an expert over something he is an expert in is just not a good idea.

You were wrong - he was right.

Actually that's wrong.

He was right, as i said, about his calculations, but it wasn't in the same context as i put it forward.

I'm not tryign to prove him wrong, i'm trying to keep his calculation in the same context and realm of "now" and "what is" as the original post is.

As an added note; i'm a professional game developer/designer, would you argue games with me? Yes you would

 

[Chronictank]

I thought hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars was produced almost entirely from natural gas using reforming?
Which is cleaner than burning fossil fuels to produce?

Also a fuel cell is more efficient than petrol (discounting you can simply turn off the car when at traffic lights etc etc), you get more power from the same amount of fuel

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Okay, apparently I misunderstood your first post Toht. This is the energy required to replace all those cars.
Still I have my doubts with those numbers then, and besides that I question the usefullness of those calculations, as you just don't swap all cars for new ones. You'd swap a petrol car for an EV when the petrol car is at the end of its life, and the energy requirements for an EV isn't much different than that for a petrol car, so not much changes. Also, a lot from old cars can be salvaged, refurbished, and reused. Things like power steering modules, windscreen wipers, safety belts, airbags and possibly entire car bodies all could be recycled, thus it wouldn't nearly use as much energy as creating an entirely new system.
You could even quite easily modify most front wheel drive cars to hybrid 4x4 cars by upping the dynamo and adding an electromotor to the rear wheels. This could already improve the car's economy quite a bit, using regenerative breaking.

 

[Fafnir]

If people just took time and money and went to guys who knows engines they would shortly earn back that money in saved fuel cost. A mate got his volvo done cut fuel costs with about 50%, upped the performance with 15%. All i know is that they drilled in the pistons, added a bit of electronics. Dunno what he paid, but he said he would earn it back in a year, he drives about 5-6 hours a day, 300 days a year.

 

[BloodOmen]

Lol, aside from the power plants electric cars take a wopping 14-16 hours to recharge aswell if you charge it from a standard house plug.

 

[Fafnir]

Lol, aside from the power plants electric cars take a wopping 14-16 hours to recharge aswell if you charge it from a standard house plug.

Yeah, saw on one of the discovery channels, buy this electric car, and get the power converter plant included in the price. Would fully charge the car in about 6 hours.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Lol, aside from the power plants electric cars take a wopping 14-16 hours to recharge aswell if you charge it from a standard house plug.

That's a limiting factor of the batteries mostly.
A 240 [V], 16 [A] wall outlet can give 3840 [W] continuously. That's 13.8 [MJ/hr]

The above calculated car runs at 35 [MJ/l] / 72 [km/l] = 0.486 [MJ/km]

So with 1 hour charging from a standard wall outlet you can drive 13.8 / 0.49 = 28 [km].
With this you'll get 224 km from a night's charge. For the average user that's enough to drive to- and from work, and do some shopping aside.

This isn't much for a poweruser, but about everyone can get 3-phase 400V at 35A, if you ask your power supplier, and then:

400 [V] * 35 [A] = 50.4 [MJ/hr]
50.4 [MJ/hr] / 0.49 [MJ/km] = 102 [km/hr]

And then with a night's charge, you can drive further than you'd most likely like on a day.

 

[BloodOmen]

Another thing, they use laptop batteries aswell alot of them, can't remember the exact number but I think (think) it was around 100-200 laptop batteries per car. And above all that the batteries only last so many recharges before you need to buy new ones... and they aint cheap think its like £1000-2000 for a new battery set (or was a few months ago unsure if the price has changed yet) .

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Another thing, they use laptop batteries aswell alot of them, can't remember the exact number but I think (think) it was around 100-200 laptop batteries per car. And above all that the batteries only last so many recharges before you need to buy new ones... and they aint cheap think its like £1000-2000 for a new battery set (or was a few months ago unsure if the price has changed yet) .

Not all cars use Li-Ion batteries. Some cars use special capacitors named SuperCaps or UltraCaps, or technically Electrical Double-Layer Capacitors.
You can flash-charge condensators (fully charge within a minute orso), they are easier on the environment, and they last a lifetime. Condensators are also better suitable for regenerative breaking.
They are more expensive though.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Okay, apparently I misunderstood your first post Toht. This is the energy required to replace all those cars.
Still I have my doubts with those numbers then, and besides that I question the usefullness of those calculations, as you just don't swap all cars for new ones. You'd swap a petrol car for an EV when the petrol car is at the end of its life, and the energy requirements for an EV isn't much different than that for a petrol car, so not much changes. Also, a lot from old cars can be salvaged, refurbished, and reused. Things like power steering modules, windscreen wipers, safety belts, airbags and possibly entire car bodies all could be recycled, thus it wouldn't nearly use as much energy as creating an entirely new system.
You could even quite easily modify most front wheel drive cars to hybrid 4x4 cars by upping the dynamo and adding an electromotor to the rear wheels. This could already improve the car's economy quite a bit, using regenerative breaking.

Oh i agree that in the future, replacing your used car to an electric one should be an option.

MAybe with government funding(seeing as they keep taking money to "save the world").

I wouldn't mind owning one of those tesla roadsters, speedy enough(3.6/0-60) and top speed of 200 or so.

Not to mention the metal of older cars could be used to build other stuff.

But...as long as they can't make an electric car sound like a '73 dodge charger, f*ck that