Can anyone tell me why people think there is no benefit to energy consumption by using electric cars?

Question

There seems to be a lot of people who think it's just transferring energy from cars to the grid. If it was a 1 to 1 correllation, why not just use gas generators instead of the grid? See how silly? Plus think of all the stuff made overseas that we wouldn't have to buy to maintain them, and the net energy gain therein. Yes, there are problems - it still costs energy to make electric cars, and battery tech is still not as environmentally friendly as we want... Still not enough reason not to try IMO, prove me wrong.

Okay, there IS something missing in that we are all tied to a loser grid thingie that we supposedly can't control. That's the end of the plan though, cut the grid - and you're right, I got tongue/type tied about the generator statement - I mean that the logic of using the grid to recharge a car is better than the gas burned, and we can work on degridding later. I'm not concerned about going 1200 miles yet, and yes the tech has to get better, but it's more wasteful to keep supporting no change, like we're doing now, right?
Movement will always take energy, yes, but why support what we have now - with small exceptions like nuclear, solar, and wind/water. Someday, I don't think we'll even need nuclear, but I will wait for that until later.

Answer 1

I never said there couldn't be an energy bennefit from electric cars...

I said that electric cars are not practical with current technology.

People doing conversions of cars to electric are proud of their achievement when they can get a car to go 60 mph for 12 miles...

Yep... thats a good car for the average American household...

You can commute HALFWAY to work.. then you have to recharge for 8 to 18 hours... then commute the other half way to work... and then hope the battery charges enough to get halfway home before quitting time....

Answer 2

Strictly speaking of energy consumption, there is no overall benefit from electric cars. The energy used to move a vehicle from point "A" to point "B" will be the same no matter what powers it.

Although electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines when you assume in one case the fuel is electricity and the other is gasoline, you also need to take into account the energy that goes into making the electricity and the losses in the power cables that deliver the electricity and the heat loss at the power generating plant. And don't forget the fuel (coal, natural gas, oil, nuke) to generate the electricity!

Then there is the pollution problems from electric cars. First is the ozone created from the motor itself due to electrical fields and contact brushes. Next is the pollution to ground and water from the heavy metals (lead, mercury, etc.) used in the batteries. Some day the battery problem may be fixed and solid state electrics might solve most of the ozone generation but the ultimate energy (fuel) source is still to be perfected.

Demand your government drop all the political smoke-screen of global warming, renewable energy, wind, solar and all the other low-tech, feel-good, flower-power money wasting, people starving schemes and get to work on what will save this planet long-term... FUSION!

FLORIDIANS FOR FUSION ENERGY NOW!

Answer 3

The laws of physics say it takes a certain amount of energy to move a given mass around. Overcoming inertia, friction with the road, wind effects, all the mechanical losses in driving a vehicle over roads.

I do think you are forgetting that so far a mean-business battery, for acceleration, is still very heavy, and this decreases the overall efficiency, as well as making for some problems in the balance of the vehicle for safety.

And it will ALWAYS take energy to make something. Laws of Entropy apply! Even to electric cars.

Show me how I can drive 1200 miles at 70 mph and only 6 10-minute stops for refueling, and I will say your electric sounds interesting, if it is affordable. But I think we need to wait until we get the direct-beam transmission of power of the SciFi stories to make the idea really practical, because then we can get rid of the *&$&^&^$# heavy and dangerous and potentially polluting battery!!

Answer 4

You're not wrong, but you're not right either .

The losses from generating electricity, transporting it, and battery inefficiency make electric cars about a break even proposition. Whether they're better or worse than gas cars (which are easier to refuel right now) depends on exactly how you do the analysis.

Their real virtue will come when we build more nuclear power plants. Then they will become a way for those nuclear power plants to run cars, reducing imported fuel use and reducing global warming. And when we have fast charge batteries and an infrastructure to charge them. Hydrogen fuel cell cars may still be better for long trips.

That doesn't mean we should wait to develop and start making battery and fuel cell cars, it just means they won't be a big deal for a while, until we also develop and deploy the rest of the system.

Answer 5

NO Electricity can be produced at an efficiency of: 60% (combined cycle gas turbine) 46% supercritical coal power plant And then stored in batteries with an efficiency of 90% and converted by an electrical motor (98% efficiency). This compares to an average 20 to 30% efficiency for regular gas engines and 80% efficiency at the refinery. Moreover, electric vehicles can be equipped with regenerative breaks which instead of transforming kinetic energy into heat losses while breaking use the energy to recharge the battery.

Answer 6

The problem is not electric cars, but where the electicity comes from. Most power plants are Coal fired. The batteries are bad for the enviroment. you can only go a couple hundred miles on a charge. then you need to plug them in for 8-10 hours.

Do you really want to stop after driving a few hours and take 8-10 hours off to charge your car? you would never get anywhere.

Answer 7

Energy here = Energy there = Energy over yonder = Energy Somewhere. Laws of Physics.

It is like saying someone else could lift 100 pounds 10 ft. and use less energy. Not so. It takes a certain amount of energy to lift 100 pounds 10 ft., no matter who does it. Same with cars. There will be a little difference in the fuel used if the process and all the other losses are different, but not much.

Answer 8

Most of the energy in the U.S. is still produced by heavily polluting coal fired power plants. Also, the transfer of electricity from these plants to our homes is terribly inefficient (most of it leaking out through power lines along the way). While I agree we need a change to the current system, I don't agree that electric cars is the solution.
I believe that there is no one solution to our energy crisis, rather a combination of viable alternatives. Windy areas need to take advantage of the power of the wind. Solar energy needs to be the leading source for powering our homes. Hydroelectric plants need to be used where water is plentiful. Cars need to be more efficient (50+ mpg minimum) and public transportation needs to be the most common form of getting somewhere. And yes, new technologies need to be pursued.

Answer 9

So when you say,
"If it was a 1 to 1 correlation, why not just use gas generators instead of the grid? See how silly?"
are you saying people who say electric is better are silly or the people who DON'T say it are silly? Because it IS a 1 to 1 correlation. Your statement says to me that electric cars are silly, but I don't think that is what you meant.

Answer 10

The benefit of electric cars is not from decreasing energy consumption, but from decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

ICE = gasoline car (internal combustion engine)
HEV = hybrid gas-electric car (uses gasoline to recharge batteries)
EV = electric vehicle (plugs in to recharge batteries)

"EVs reduce CO2 by 11%-100% compared with ICEs and by 24%-54% compared with HEVs, and significantly reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions, using the U.S. grid mix. If all U.S. cars were EVs, we’d reduce global warming emissions. Using electricity strictly from coal, EVs still would reduce CO2 by 0%-59% compared with ICEs (one analysis found 0% change; six others found reductions of 17%-59%) and might produce 30%-49% more CO2 than HEVs (based on only two analyses). On the other hand, if electricity comes from solar or wind power, EVs eliminate all emissions. Using natural gas to make electricity, emissions fall in between those from coal and renewable power."

http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf