I've been following hybrids and ethanol cars for a while, but just recently I stumbled upon the Tesla Roadster sports car. It's100% electric and can go 245 miles without a recharge. It gets .12 on the gallon. And you can generate electricity through a large amount of sources, such as solar or wind power. My question is, is the future of alternate fuels actually not a fuel but electricity?
2007-12-13 13:16:55 · 14 answers · asked by rob y 2 in Environment ➔ Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes. I think hydrogen fuel cells are not a long-term solution to global warming. You need to produce the hydrogen from natural gas, which emits CO2. In the end, you're trading the CO2 emitted from the cars, to the CO2 emitted from a hydrogen production plant.
For electric cars, you're now using electricity that is typically being produced by coal-fired power plants. This will change, however, by the conversion from coal power plants to nuclear, solar and wind. When this happens, electric cars will not be causing emissions of CO2 at all.
2007-12-13 13:26:56 · answer #1 · answered by kusheng 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
MAYBE, electric cars still need electricity, from where burning coal or oil. Generating electricity results in efficiency losses when generating so it takes burning of more coal or oil than just driving a gas or diesel car. Nuclear, not in the US with the tree huggers. Wind, Solar, too costly and does not produce enough to matter, and what about the space and birds that get whacked by the blades.
Also the current batteries are toxic waste dumps, Nickel, Cadmium, Lithium, Lead, and they do not last forever.
Electric cars just shift the pollution from the city to the power plant.
Until a breakthrough in battery technology is achieved they will not be affordable or practicle except for short distant commutes.
However if oil prices stay high there will be more incentive to develop new technology. Necessity is the mother of invention.
2007-12-14 05:34:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
At least some folks are giving the new ideas a shot instead of just complaining about the high cost of gasoline but doing nothing. We just bought a used Ford F-150 that runs only on natural gas (methane), and it costs just 64 cents per gallon to fill it up in Utah ( I paid $9.02 yesterday to fill it completely up). It gets the same gas mileage as any other truck but burns cleaner than any other fossil fuel, so it's better for the environment. Also, natural gas is all domestically produced, so my truck doesn't need any foreign oil. I believe electric cars can work, but natural gas is already here in abundance (many households cook and heat with it), so I think natural gas-powered vehicles deserve some attention. They also don't cost an arm and a leg to purchase. We just need more filling stations across the country for them. Give your local and state officials some pressure, and they'll hopefully come up with some incentives to make people want to try alternative fuel vehicles. As long as the officials aren't tied to the oil industry in some way...
2007-12-16 12:27:56 · answer #3 · answered by Kim R 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It also costs about US$100,000. For US$30,000 less, I can buy a Corvette Z06 that will run rings around the Tesla and with that $30,000 savings, I can buy all the gasoline I am likely to need for the life of the car. This illustrates perfectly the problem electric cars face in the market place. There is no electric car that can compete head to head economically with a well designed internal combustion engine powered car, and until there is, electric cars will be no more than novelty toys.
2007-12-14 07:29:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think close-coupled hybrid cars should become the norm.
Hydrogen can be generated from water using wind. This, stored in metal-hydride cylinders is safe and low weight.and ideal for fuel cell or engine-generator set-ups.
Electric cars can make excellent use of dynnamic braking - using the braking energy to charge up capacitors ready to restart motion. Normally this is wasted as heat and friction.
2007-12-15 08:03:09 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I to stumbled onto the Tesla roadster , I was most impressed ! This and many cars like it are the wave of the future , probably by 2010 !
2007-12-14 13:20:55 · answer #6 · answered by CatWomen 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yup. It's a lot easier to generate electrical power than fuel. It's a lot easier to make eco-friendly electricity than eco-friendly fuel.
Who killed the steam locomotive? Diesel-ELECTRIC locomotives. (made by guess who!) The electric part is an electric drive - no driveshafts, just big wires going down to motors on the wheels. Electric is better. Cars in the future will be at least partially electric drive. They'll either be batteries you plug in, or maybe with an optional fuel engine that can recharge the batteries over long trips.
2007-12-13 14:19:34 · answer #7 · answered by Wolf Harper 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You are on the right track; you just need to go one more step back. What fuels will be used to produce the electricity? That's where the rubber really hits the road.
2007-12-15 15:01:39 · answer #8 · answered by Photinus 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. The Tesla Roadster is a good first step, but costs $98,000. In late 2008 - early 2009 there will be several long-range high-speed EVs coming into production, available for around $30,000.
2007-12-13 13:55:54 · answer #9 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Have you seen the movie promoted by Al Gore- Who Killed the Electric Car? I has to deal with electric cars being reposessed and destroyed due to their popularity.
Not sure about the future, but electric certainly was not promoted in our past, although fuel is much more in demand now than before.
really see the movie very entertaining and informative, reminds me of Michael Moore a little bit.
2007-12-13 13:55:18 · answer #10 · answered by splenda 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋