Are electric cars the answer to transportation pollution or are they just a gimmick?

Answer 1

I believe they are much more energy efficient than engines especially at low speeds (engines waste energy through heat & uncombusted fuel).
I think the 'battery' technology is here now with the advent of the hydrogen fuel cell. (powerstation-->electricity-->hydrogen electrolysis plant-->hydrogen gas-->hydrogen fuel cell in car--electricity -->electric motor).
Even if the electricity is still ultimately generated in a powerstation using coal/oil/gas, it is still more efficient to generate it that way than in 100's of thousands of badly-adjusted little petrol engines in cars.
As well as 'alternative' energy sources, there're still nuclear fission reactors for electricity generation, and with a great deal of luck maybe they'll be sucessful in creating nuclear fusion reactors one day.

Answer 2

A very large gimmick.

Internal combustion engines convert between 20% and 30% of burning fuel's heat into mechanical energy (an engineer would say that thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine is between 20% and 30%). It's not a lot, but electric cars and their power supply chain are even less efficient.

First, you need to burn fuel to heat steam; then, you use the steam to rotate a turbine; the turbine would drive a generator, which would produce electricity. If you use the most efficient turbines in the world (they are called combined-cycle turbines), you'll achieve 45-50% thermal efficiency, but most power plants are not that good. But wait, you're not done yet. Electricity must be transmitted over power lines, stored in a car's battery (which implies an AC-to-DC conversion), and, finally, retrieved from that battery to drive the car. With all those conversions and losses at each step, you'll be lucky if you get 15% thermal efficiency. So you end up needing more fuel for the same amount of driving.

On the plus side, with electric vehicles, the pollution would be concentrated around power stations, not in central business districts. But there is likely to be more pollution than we see now; my back-of-an-envolope estimates suggest that to fully convert from traditional to electric cars, the U.S. will need to at least double its production of electricity.

A much better idea would be to have a car powered by fuel cells. In a fuel cell, the oxidation of fuel produces electricity directly, with no moving parts and relatively little heat involved. Fuel cells have great thermal efficiency (40-60% is typical, 85% is not unheard of), but, unfortunately, they are still bulky; a block of fuel cells powerful enough to drive a car would barely fit into a 20-foot container. They are expensive to make, too.

The second-best alternative is a hybrid vehicle. A small internal combustion engine works at an optimal speed to charge a battery, which powers the car. Since the internal combustion engine does not idle (it either works at full power or turns off) or handle acceleration (the battery does that), you need about half the engine power compared to the traditional car and burn about 50% less fuel... Since the main powertrain is electric, hybrids do not need a transmission, either.

Answer 3

Gimmick.

Battery and electric motors have to be developed a lot more, you cant charge a battery for a few minutes and have it run for hours, in the same way you can with an IC car.

I also hear the line that electric motors are 95% efficient. What utter rubbish, the human body is efficient way beyond our capability and that is only 70% efficient.

Lets say the 95% efficiency is correct, what about all the components to run the car? They will knock the efficiency down.

Even the Prius isnt that efficient. Think about it. You have one engine lugging another one around all the time, its all added weight and complexity. Now wonder it cant get above 55mpg.

If you want to travel long distances and cause minimal environmental damage buy a Smart (average 65mpg in town traffic).

Answer 4

-----
They could be the answer to pollution, if people accept them - and can stop listening to oil company propoganda.
*
Gasoline engines are only 25% efficient. Electric motors are 95% efficient, and the power grid is 95% efficient, too. Combine this with the fact that fuel is burned far more efficiently in a powerplant than in your car. This means that even if powerplants burned nothing but petroleum, the energy would be used far more efficiently in an electric car, than that same gasoline in your gas engine. Higher efficiency means less fuel burned per mile, hence less pollution.
*
But the story is better than that, because almost no oil is burned in powerplants anymore. And an increasing percentage of electricity is coming from clean sources. So the pollution will continue to decrease with time.
*
Better batteries are already here. See the Tesla ( http://www.teslamotors.com )
And the Miles XS200 ( http://www.milesautomotive.com/products_xs200.html )
Both these cars get better than 200 miles to the charge, and cars with 350 mile and even longer ranges have been built experimentally.
*
Beware the oil company talking points. They are all over the net. Don't listen. Check out my references. I doubt the anti-EV posters here even have references. Do the math. It works.

---

Answer 5

A gimmick because pollution causing fossil fuels are used to create the electricity.

Answer 6

How long will oil last. Its estimated that all major oil reserves will last only another quarter of a century.

Electric cars would be the major source of transportation in future once fuel oil has had its day.

There a no pollution advantage too.

Answer 7

I presume it depends on how the electricity is generated. If mainly from coal fired power stations, i see no benifit but if more elctricity is generated by renewable means such as wind, wave and solar power, then elctric cars may come into their own. In the mean time, use a bike.

Answer 8

A gimmick until battery technology improves.

Either way they will need to be as noise as IC engined vehicles as no one will hear them coming with resultant fatalities. Its bad enough with some cyclists.

Answer 9

gimmick, where does the electricity come from?

Answer 10

Gimmic. they all seem to rely on a conventional engine somewhere along the line, and would you go 300 miles in a milk float?

i would'nt