Topic: Electric cars are the future, but not with batteries. (Read 518 times)

We can certainly argue over the definition of free, but I would say if I plant some apple trees and they give me fruit for nothing then I would say those apples are free even if I had to purchase the seeds and look after them as saplings initially. Sometimes you need to invest a little money into something that bears fruit but after that I would say it's free. The initial cost of fitting the solar panels will soon enough pay for themselves with the money you are saving and once they're paid off I would then say that energy is free so sometimes you've got to spend money to save money.

Sorry for taking some time to respond to some of the messages back, kinda miss this thread and have been away from the from the forum for a little.



I mean, solar panels aren't free and shouldn't be thought of as producing 'free energy' the energy is only free once your investment (which is rather large to get these installed) is paid off. Until that is done, you should do some calculations to see how much you invested to put those up, maintain, etc.

But I do see your point, though people fall into this trap of thinking that energy is free if it's solar -- while it's not. You without a doubt reduce costs after them being paid back after 30 yrs (depending on financial situation, of course) but there's no such thing as instant free / free lunch.

There is no magic way of extracting Hydrogen from water without having to use energy. Also using hydrogen would mean that we would need completely new infrastructure for H stations which is more expensive and requires more resources than electric stations.

I do not agree with you that Lithium is such a wasteful thing to mine and use. We all know that that there is a good chance that TESLA will become a huge electric vehicle manufacturer and will have to use tons of Lithium to do so. It seems that there is big deposits of this stuff next to TESLAs giga factory (https://www.ft.com/content/95f90780-7557-11e8-b6ad-3823e4384287) so the resources needed to get Lithium to TESLA will potentially be relatively small.

 
Jokes aside, this is being done as we speak in Sweden (https://e360.yale.edu/digest/worlds-first-electrified-road-opens-in-sweden) and could be genius way to charge batteries on the way especially for trucks.


The need to go from fossil fuels to alternatives to generate electricity is fundamental. If we cant accomplish the task of going away from burning stuff to generate electricity, it will not matter if we use electric cars are other type of cars. But if we are changing the electricity generation sources as we change our transportation to electric, we are doing good to our planet.
_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ __________________

I want to add that current technology of Lithium batteries does not mean that we will always use LIthium batteries, there is a lot of effort put in to research for better alternatives and the electric car market competition could only help this to evolve.

But it is more recommended if vehicles have batteries. It will be the backup if unnecessary things happen.

The use of electric vehicles, in contrast to cars with diesel engines more safely affects the environment, and this is not the last thing for our developed world. Yes, there are big problems with the use of electric vehicles here, no one argues, but in terms of environmental protection, I think this is the preferred option.
I agree that it is very inconvenient to use the batteries in the car if charging takes a lot of time and if those charging stations just simply do not have, BUT I think in any case this kind of movement in the near future will be more popular than a car on petrol or diesel. Nikola Tesla more than 100 years ago studying this type of energy made it clear that electricity has a huge potential and it is not yet fully investigated. Even then he managed to light a phosphoric incandescent lamp and transfer electricity without wires to the distance.
Was made a lot of experiments that have shown the potential of electricity, but after his death all this was concealed from the people and the authorities went the other way because it was more profitable. It is more profitable to sell oil and gas, because now the entire economy of the world is built on this.

Why do you think that deforestation is necessary for the production of electricity, this is not the only way to get it. Its production is similarly used natural gas which is burned in the boilers, the boilers then produce the steam pressure of 140 ATA supplied to the turbine blades and further thermal energy of steam is converted into electrical generators to the network.

Extraction of hydrogen from sea water is also not a cheap way to refuel cars because its production requires the construction of entire fuel-producing complexes worth a lot of money.
In General I think that electricity is much more promising than the use of gas and petrol, just for its development today requires a lot of work. Construction of charging stations, increasing battery capacity, fast charging cars.. here are 3 main reasons why this mode of transport is not so popular yet - if these things become available then we will change to a car with batteries!!!

How can the batrey and electricity be incompatible, in my opinion of the two would certainly be useful in the future, maybe even both of them will be eliminated and could there be a new invention?
But all that can happen with a time series ,,

Having to swap batteries is a small price to pay. I'm sure changing them will become as easy as swapping them in your remote or laptop at some point in the future as well. These things always become more efficient. The time it takes to charge cars will become faster as well. Look how quick phones charge now. I remember having to charge my very first few phones for hours back in the day and now they are super fast. There will be more and more places available to charge them also. I'm seeing charging points all over the place, and as electric cars become more popular so will access points to charge them. You can also buy hybrid cars that take both gas and electricity. If you ever run out of juice then you can stop off at a place to fill up gas, but I imagine people with electric cars become accustomed to knowing how far they can go on a charge and factor that into the places they go to.

Hydrogen production with electrolysis is way to expensive for now. But imagine we would have something like (almost) "free energy", it would be a great option since the process is pretty much completely green.

I didn't know about that thing, and it amazes me to see more environmentally friendly way of fuel our cars. Then if electric cars will be our future, then I would definitely loved to fuel it with this. I don't want to add more stresses in our mother earth. This could be a great move to save our planet if this idea would be utilized. Let's use the ability of this idea as it would be beneficial not onky to us but also to the planet we lived in.

just electrify the roads and give us all dodgems.

No batteries, no engine, no fuel board so cars will be lightweight and efficient.  Cyclists will get electrocuted so all good news.

The problem is that you cannot simply swap your batteries as fast as you can fill your gas tank to full. Also, anyone would not want to go through the hassle of opening up your hood(or anywhere your battery is stored) and the hassle of removing and reattaching some things when you are in a long distance travel because you could have had used that time to do other more important things or rest.
Still, the time it would take for it to be fully charged is a long time and typically charging happens at the busiest time of the day(which is in the morning). You would not need to drive to work at night, do you? (unless you are in a night shift or travels for only a kilometer or two, the long charging time is fine).

This doesn't make sense to me. Free energy is free whereas gas costs a lot of money. Doesn't really matter if it takes a little longer to 'fill up' and seems a small price to pay for free energy. I'm sure there could be a mechanism that allows you to swap fully charged batteries for the empties as well so charging times wouldn't be an issue if you have spares. Just simply swap them every time you're out of juice.

It would not be more efficient since it will take a longer time to charge electric cars using the free energy from the solar panels unless someone can invent a more convenient solar panel that can speed up the electric car charging to at least an hour. Nevertheless, oil-powered cars would still be better to use in long-distance travels since refilling up their tanks is faster than waiting for an electric car's full charge.

What happens if you use the free energy from the solar panels on your house? That seems to me to be more efficient than oil-powered cars and certainly cheaper (assuming you don't but a ridiculously expensive electric car that will take you a lifetime to recoup the costs of).


Seriously? Not everybody wants to be stuck at home behind their computer screen every waking hour. Why bother having a girlfriend when you can just sit at home and fuck a sexdoll and just sit in your own filth all day whilst jacking it to online porn?

Why travel the world when you can just look at pictures or watch a movie?



Are you telling me you'd rather sit at home than experience that in real life 3D? Looking at pretty pictures or a film with great cinematography is great and all, but there's something about experiencing the real thing and in the moment that just can't be beaten.

I think an even better solution is to reduce the need to go anywhere in the first place. The digitization of the world in all aspects will make the need to physically go places much less important. People will be working virtually without feeling a difference thanks to haptic suits, etc. We need to start thinking outside the box. Anything physical is limited by physics and available resources, and is pretty inefficient.

That isn't true. You can generate the electricity directly by using a fuel cell, and then you don't need batteries - well maybe you do for the lights and things.

The big reason that people love these electric cars is for a few reasons

1. People are saving a good amount of money compared to the amount of money that they're spending on gas, so this is a pretty big postitive for people who are financially savy and want to save on money. Though I would never buy an electric car new, like any other car purchase I would want to buy it a couple years old and USED.

2. People think that they're saving the environment, while they're not -- the precious resources that are used to make these batteries and such are depleting and you're not saving the environment at all.

3 You're able to 'fill up' at your own house (with the proper equipment) and don't have to stop at the gas station anymore.

I'm going to bring forward a couple quotes from a politic quotes about these cars


You're right in the sense that they are the future, but is it REALLY better for the future?

Hydrogen is made industrially from natural gas.

Fuel cells are expensive.

Electric cars innovation-but it will not take root in our world and this is a huge number of reasons.
The fact is that at the current level of development of science, industry, technology, electric cars create problems much more than solve. So, if the US completely abandons cars with gasoline or diesel engines, the electricity produced by the country simply will not be enough to charge all electric vehicles. Only 79% of vehicles can be charged per night. At the same time, the standard charging of electric vehicles is quite long and takes up to 8 hours, which creates additional inconveniences.

At the same time, 60% of all energy produced in the world is accounted for by "dirty" resources — coal, oil, gas. To increase the volume of electricity, it is necessary to increase the number of power plants, which means that local pollution near energy facilities will only increase. And still it is impossible to forget that on utilization of the electric cars which have served the technically difficult accumulators also the mad amount of the electric power will be spent, and the enterprises on their destruction a priori will be very "dirty" from the ecological point of view. Trucks also at the moment can not give up diesel engines — electric traction is simply not enough to bring the car in motion.
In addition, we must not forget that electric cars are not only more expensive than traditional vehicles, but also have a smaller power reserve, require special infrastructure for charging batteries — all these factors greatly affect the choice of customers when buying a car. Repair of electric vehicles is also a completely new industry. Persuading buyers to purchase such a vehicle can be difficult, even with government propaganda and support. And the largest automakers controlling the world market today are not ready to fall completely into the arms of the "green". After all, for them, the rejection of gasoline threatens to abandon the established schemes of production, promotion and sales of cars and the need to create a completely new industry — electric vehicle construction.

I think it is sad that there is such an obsession with electric cars at the moment. They are more environmentally damaging than modern diesel vehicles, especially now that horizontally opposed two stroke diesels are being developed. They are a wasteful use of lithium, and there isn't enough for all the cars anyway. All they do is to export pollution out of the cities. It is even worse when they cut down trees to burn to generate the electricity.

A much better solution is the use of fuel cells. You can extract the hydrogen from sea water, and generate the electricity directly to drive the motors in the cars. Refuelling only takes a few minutes, as opposed to the hour or so that it can take to recharge the batteries in the current cars.