With all the polution we now have why can't we have electric cars that do a long journey and use plant oil

Answer 1

------------------
Electric cars are an excellent solution to the pollution problem. It's true that power plants also burn some dirty fuel, but the far greater efficiency of electric vehicles means that much less pollution per mile is created, no matter how much coal is burned. Gas engines are only 25% efficient - electric motors are 95% efficient, and Li-Ion batteries are 88% efficient. Sending fuel by wire (the electric grid is 95% efficient) is also far more efficient and cost-effective than sending gasoline by truck to your local gas station.
*
So why don't we have electric cars? The electric car never went away. But the best battery technology for electric cars, called NIMH, was purchased by some big oil companies, who are refusing to license NIMH batteries for electric cars. This stopped the electric vehicle movement for several years.
*
Now, however, a new battery technology for electric cars has emerged, the lithium-ion battery. And many new electric cars are in development. We may even start to see some of these cars in the next year or two. A sampling:
*
From China: The Happy Messenger - only costs $10000, goes 150 miles per charge:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/chinese_ev_comp.html

Also from China: the BYD car, designed to be affordable, with a 250-mile range:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=106930

The GEO EV, from Korea. It goes 155 miles on a three hour charge:
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200505/18/200505182238171109900090609062.html

Also from Korea. The ENERGINE Electric-Pneumatic hybrid.
It runs on air and electricity. No gasoline:
http://www.energine.com/e_main.php

From Japan. The Subaru R1E. Charges to 90% in 5 minutes, costs under $18000:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8995780

Also from Japan. The Mitsubishi Colt EV. It can charge in 20 minutes, and is priced under $20k.
http://aftermarket.autoblog.com/2006/10/12/mitsubishi-looks-ahead-with-an-electric-i/

A chinese EV slated for import to the USA next year. It gets 200 miles/charge, and costs $28,500.
http://www.milesautomotive.com/products_xs200.html

The Tesla sports car:
http://www.teslamotors.com
*
And if you don't want to wait - and if you don't mind not having the very latest technology, there are many small entrepreneurs doing electric car conversions right now, that you can buy for as little as $5000. Details are on this page:
*
http://squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
*
Don't believe what people are saying about batteries. Even the old tech batteries (lead-acid) are very affordable. The battery pack in my EV costs under $1000, and lasts for 20,000 to 30,000 miles. That's only four cents per mile. Electricity to charge the batteries only costs one cent per mile. That's way, way cheaper than gasoline. Li-Ion batteries are good for 100,000 miles or more.
*
Best of luck!
-------------------

Answer 2

First, an "electric" vehicle runs on electricity, not another source of energy. This means the simple answer to your question is that using "plant oil" as a source means the car is no longer electric.

Second, using the term "long" to define a journey is inconclusive. For some people, a long journey is 15 km (about 10 miles) ... for others, it needs to exceed 10x that value, and for still others, it must be at least 1500km (nearly 1000 miles).

However, that's not what you were trying to ask, I believe.

The basic issues for all vehicle concepts are: power-to-weight ratio, energy efficiency, energy storage, and friction. With current technology, there's no reason we can't have "pure electric" vehicles - they run an annual solar-powered vehicle endurance race in Australia, for instance, where the vehicles cover approximately 800 km (500 miles).

The problem is that the surface area required to generate the electricity is fairly large, since the acquisition of the radiant energy from the sun is somewhat less than optimal efficiency. Similarly, wind-powered vehicles are equally susceptible to weather patterns.

Looking deeper, it takes mass to store energy. For electric vehicles, this is predominantly a battery of some sort - often with chemical contents that can be VERY environmentally unfriendly. Add to this mass the actual means of translating the energy into motive power (motor and drivetrain), the housing for all the components (body), and the contact elements (wheels, using a car example) and we get something that has a relatively high inertia ... thus requiring a hefty energy price tag to get moving.

Overall, research is leading to more efficient means of getting the energy from storage to motive power, but we're nowhere near even the capabilities of the first Model A, powered by a combustion engine.

Some of the factors inhibiting development are: current fossil fuel technology prices (we have to make the parts first, and that means oil, etc now!), regulatory bodies (such as governments) being unsure of the directions to take things, the "speed of life" to which we've become accustomed, and a definite lack of urgency in searching for alternatives. After all, we've got enough for our lifetimes, right?

I'm an advocate of alterntative sources, myself. My home is solar powered, I use human muscle power for transport (canoe, bike, walk), and I grow my own food (again using human effort to power the "tools" of the trade). I collect rainwater, and have a wind-driven pump for emergencies.

Don't give up yet ... keep looking. Someday, something has to break the right way!

Answer 3

I do not see what polution has to do with the production of electric cars for long journeys. Polution does not create or produce vehicles of any kind. And we do use plant oil. It is a misconception to think that all petroleum comes from dinasaurs.
Why would an electric car need plant oil? Be clearer in your own thinking and expression and maybe you could find the answers to your questions yourself.

Answer 4

geez

electric cars. where do you think the electricity comes from? most generally, at least in the U.S., from burning oil, or coal. except that burning oil or coal to make electricity is not very efficient, and then you lose some during the transport, and then you lose some in the batteries and in propulsion. so overall your electric car is actually an oil / coal car, and less efficient that if it burned the oil directly.

in other countries, such as France, nuclear electricity dominates. so you electric car is a nuclear car - sounds less sexy, doesn't it?

bottom-line is, if we all went electric, it would probably cause an environmental disaster. w/o even mentioning that because Li-ion o NiMH batteries are so expensive, most electric cars use lead-acid batteries, which are environmental disasters.


now plant oil? well, at least in the U.S., where agriculture is heavily mechanised, you need a lot of oil to produce plant oil. so much so, that burning plant oil burns more petrol, than if you burnt petrol directly. only cases where plan oil is "green" is in places w a much less mechanised agriculture, typically places where there is cheap labour (say, Brazil).


bottom-line? What you're suggesting would actually harm the planet much more, not less.

sorry - but if we're going to save the planet we need practical solutions, not dreams. For a start we could make all the 15-20mpg cars in the U.S. illegal, and force replacement by small cars with diesel engines, getting 65-75mpg. Now THAT would make a HUGE difference, a real one!

Answer 5

You can, see Soyabean Hybrid :-
http://www.evuk.co.uk/news/index3.html#CBS_soybean_electric_supercar
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

but don't bother with the agribusiness environmentally damaging plant oil and go all electric.
eg the ac propusion tZero http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm
which will out perform a ferrari, 250 miles per charge; and can even tow a small generator for longer range.

Also electric is far far more efficient overall than fossil fuel;
an electric generator may only be 50% efficient as Adam calims, however the laws of thermodynamics mean the bigger the system the more efficient, small petrol engines, that rarely run at optimum temperature or speed are only 20% effiecent at best, add in the refinery and tanker overheads and it is clear that a large constantly monitored electric generator is less polluting .

plus electric motors generate max torque at 0 rpm, recover energy slowing down or going downhill, need simpler (more efficent) transmission (eg the mitsubushi motor-in-each-wheel rally car), only have 1 major moving part, no exhaust or cooling system, no complicated pollution recyrculation systems or catylists ....

Answer 6

Just imagine what would happen to the world economy if we stopped selling petrol and diesel to fuel cars because all our cars run on electricity... Now I don't think the big oil magnates would like to make less money from their oil, however much of a good idea electricity, hydrogen cell and ethanol driven vehicles are.

Answer 7

well essencialy plant oil, is deisel oil. so your not realy decreasing polutants, by using it. but have merely switched to a renewable energy source, rather than using non-renewable oil.

and it takes more energy to operate an electric device than use a fuel driven one. since 50 of the energy is consumed by the generating source. so therefore can never be more than 50% efficient. and even if the efeciency of the electric device is about 70% or better, your still operating at an increased deficit. where as turbines are over 80% efficient. exceeding even gas driven recropicating engines, or electirc motors. not to mention the problems created by calcium lead deep discharge batteries. since they are considered another addition generator, consuming another 50% of the energy in order to drive a motor. so that now you are operating at no better than 25% efficiency.

Answer 8

they do and they could mass produce them to make them cheaper and they had a conference in Oklahoma about switch grass and how they can make a better fuel, cheaper than oil.
We are a nation of inventors and we have the technology.
They told why we are not using them. 86% of oil company's are owned by Republicans who are currently in power and don't want and alternate to oil which would reduce them from rich to poor. They are not real big on the environment and could care less if people can't breath. They are billionaires and really don't want to give that up. So use every form of legislation to block any kind of alternative fuel.

Answer 9

an electric car that uses plant oil?

way to go with the empty-headed speculation - was this supposed to be a rhetorical question? because the cheapest way of getting people around is by burning oil products, and people need to get around cheaply. that's why things are the way they are.

Answer 10

Because cars that ran on oil are cheaper.
Once electric cars will be cheaper than current cars, 99% of the people will be using them.