English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In Inconvenient truth he talks of hybrids and fuelcell as good alternative to ICE cars. He doesn't mention the new electric vehicles coming out. Fuel cells take 3 times as much energy as electric cars unless they are filled with fossil fuels.

2006-07-14 04:11:40 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment

12 answers

Electric cars are not currently available, at least not many. I assume that is the main reason they did not get airtime in An Inconvenient Truth. I doubt Al Gore is opposed to electric cars.

Hybrid cars are more practical than electric cars right now because hybrids have a much better range - the Prius for example has about a 500 mile range. Electric cars are currently limited to about 150 mile range due to batteries.

Hybrids are currently much cheaper as well because they use fewer batteries and batteries are very expensive. The batteries in a Prius will run it for about 5-10 miles only, but they are constantly recharged by braking or when the engine has a little extra power.

Hybrids are an excellent way to transition towards full electric cars as well. They drive battery development and production volumes and so will drive down the cost and drive up the capacity of batteries. All of that technology will be transferable to a full electric.

If you consider a Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV), they look especially good. By adding a few more batteries and an electrical cord to a standard hybrid you create a PHEV, The PHEV is designed to have battery capacity sufficient for about a 50 mile range, which will cover the majority of normal car trips, and they have a gasoline motor and therefore have the long range that you get from a liquid fuel. A PHEV can average between 80 and 250 mpg.

Another great advantage of a PHEV is that they could be used with ethanol as the fuel. If all cars were PHEV's we would be able to grow enough ethanol to completely eliminate our use of gasoline and diesel. It is a far more practical solution than either pure electric or hydrogen fuel cells for transportation.

2006-07-14 04:50:23 · answer #1 · answered by Engineer 6 · 2 0

The thing is, it's not really about fuel, it's about energy use and efficiency. A typical IC engine converts 10 to 20% of the fuel energy into getting you down the road in comfort and style. An electric car uses electricity from the grid to accomplish that same task. The electricity delivered to your home represents about 30% of the fuel energy used to generate it. A good electric car is only slightly better than about 20% by the time you account for all of the losses and the extra weight in batteries you're hauling around. So that's only about 6% all together. (Note that the much vaunted fuel cell cars are even worse when you consider what it takes to make the hydrogen.)

Now on top of all that, batteries are like little environmental disasters in a box. An electric car (or even a hybrid) has to dispose of these batteries about every 5 years. If you've ever tried to dispose of a car battery legally, you have some idea what this will mean as these vehicles age.

Generally, the best thing in my mind is to concentrate on total energy cycle efficiency where vehicles are concerned and start designing our cities to better accommodate walking, bicycling, and mass-transit.

2006-07-14 11:23:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't think he's against electric cars - it's just that hybrids are an easier 'sell' to the rest of us.

Electric cars are much closer to reality than fuel cell cars. Some (very expensive) electric cars are available right now with sportscar acceleration and 300+ mile driving ranges.

Look at this car: http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_FAQs/FAQ_cars.htm

Electric motors are much simpler than gasoline engines (only one moving part in an electric motor) so there's no good reason why electric cars need to be more expensive.

It will take additional research plus mass acceptance and mass production to bring prices down.

2006-07-16 07:25:19 · answer #3 · answered by apeweek 6 · 0 0

Mr. Engineer - there are electric cars like japanese Eliica that go 200 miles and Tesla Motors in Silicon Valley will be showing one next week that goes 250 miles. It can add more batteries to go further but then it wouldn't be able to keep its 0 to 60mph in 4 seconds.

The reason Al Gore doesn't mention electric cars is because he is a politician and electric cars are bad for politics. There are lots of senators and democrates pushing million dollar fuelcell projects but none supporting electric cars.

If Al Gore wasn't a politician he would be pushing for electric cars like politically incorrect George Clooney and Tom Hanks.

2006-07-14 06:39:30 · answer #4 · answered by GreaseLightning 1 · 0 0

I think once you are in politics you always think like a politician.

I think Al Gore is afraid that electric cars is bad for the economy since you don't have to fix the cars as much and forget about our bread and butter oil industry.

But, what if they thought the same when Windows 95 came out in terms of our office workers? Damn China would have surpassed us a decade ago.

2006-07-14 06:56:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Electric cars are way better then anything out there. Al Gore is a politican and all politicans hate Electric cars because of the big changes required.

2006-07-17 06:17:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Electric cars are not new. Many of the first cars were electric, in the early 1900s. But ICE technology improved so much and battery technology didn't that electric cars just cannot compete any more.

2006-07-14 04:50:52 · answer #7 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0 0

I don't think Al Gore is against Electric cars ,but defiantly,if every body start driving E.cars,where Bush will sale his oil and make his fur tune.

2006-07-14 04:19:03 · answer #8 · answered by lucky s 7 · 0 0

that's a threat human beings have prioritized their agendas. i'd desire after twenty years this is been known that "saving the international" ought to rank a touch larger than rock song lyrics. possibly applauding both section for buying over petty ameliorations to paintings mutually for a a lot larger reason should be extra proper. for sure they're making use of "jets, and autos, and helicopters." no man or woman, no longer even the most livid conservationists, are sayin shall we supply up making use of fossil fuels. besides no longer a threat, that ought to easily be stupid and nieve. What maximum folk of the circulation is searching for are possibilities, techniques to wean us off our u . s . a .'s gas dependency.

2016-10-14 11:14:03 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Al Gore wants us to live in organic homes painted with corn oil based paint and use local products as to not cause any truck fart pollution. How could you say he is for oil companies or GM. He is as green as a grasshopper.

2006-07-14 07:02:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers