What are some reasons you think that gas engines were more succesful than electric or other alternative fuels?
I don't have to "think" because I know - nothing else comes anywhere as close in terms of energy density - nothing.
That's THE reason that matters. It's what doomed the Stanley Steamers and all the previous electric cars. It's exactly what is holding back the electric cars today. There's nothing else to list that even comes close. All other considerations are SO far down the list that they don't really matter at all. :shrug:
Its easy to transport, it has high energy content and we have over a centuries worth of infrastructure dedicated to it. The closes drop in replacement would be synthetic solid carbon, oil and gas produced from thermal-chemical processing of biological matter (agricultural waste and "energy" crops) and that would require whole new transport infrastructure and refineries which in our present economy won't get made.
I want to say we had a related post long ago, that I can't find, on the speculation of where we'd be if we hadn't discovered petroleum. It's truly one of the things that sparked the growth and development in the 20th century.
So it would appear that both the UK and the US get about 1/3 of the usable energy out of their fuel sources when delivering electricity to the end user.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGtxUTHnVvVxr3DaxeomVpNYGsCuA The biggest lose in the power grid is having base load power plants spinning all night without a load, electric cars charged on off-peak power would actually improve electric grid efficiency by utilizing that wasted capacity.
And yet your source clearly does not say that. If you look at the slide labeled: CBH Supports & Improves the Grid The Grid Supports CBH You will see this note pointing to the stack of Sources of Generation: Dispatched generation to meet load Which means, in general, they don't run it if they don't need it. When you look at that stack, the only one that they keep running all night long is Nuclear, Renewables and some of the Coal plants and that amount is typically kept pretty close to the demand line even in the middle of the night. Inefficiency comes from the thermal losses of normal generation and during the PEAK part of the day, as less efficient peaking sources are used to meet the peak demand. Secondarily spinning reserves lead to inefficiencies. The batteries in this plan would help defer the need for spinning reserves and that would improve efficiency. However every car used in this plan would need a larger (more expensive) battery and would haul this heavy battery around with it, so the gains the Electric company makes would be somewhat offset by the lowered efficiency of all these mobile backups. It's an idea which is good in theory, but with the paltry number of EVs on the road is, and will be, meaningless anytime soon.
I was assuming he was talking about conventional uses of oil-based (or coal) usage. Nuclear only provides a small fraction of power world-wide and I don't see a nuclear plant being installed in a motor vehicle anytime in the near OR distant future. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One already is. Of course it's on the way to Mars. ps Nuclear provides about 14% of the world's electricity, which puts it just behind Hydro, so it does supply a decent amount of our electrical energy (and about 6% of total energy).
What about this? http://www.examiner.com/green-life-in-los-angeles/india-s-tata-motors-mini-car-runs-on-air It appears to be using a good system of stored energy (not oxidizable fuel energy, not stored electricity energy, not fly-wheel stored energy, but compressed-air stored energy) that works well in a piston-engine at cool temperatures, using vegetable oil as the lubricant. If the efficiences are there, as they claim, then it is much cheaper than other forms of stored energy. Here's hoping.
Read the last slide "Will Improve the Overall Efficiency of the Electric System..." No, baseload power plants can't shut down or change output at any reasonable frequency. Sure peak-load power plants can but they are far less efficient. This is debatable by area depending on local power-plant sources but many areas in the US have significant excess base-load capacity. I've linked such a study before I'm sure you saw it as this is all starting to sound like and argument we had before. no shit. Double no shit, what the fuck do you think I'm talking about? Next you will be telling everyone about the intricacies of 2+2 equally 4. I stated before and I have the claimed sourced why say it over again rephrased? Well if we are ever going to go to EV that what will be required, beside the report was on PHEVs with ranges of less then 60 miles electric. Also the inefficiency of making larger batteries is quite small compared to the efficiencies of using it for years to store power. When did I say this can be implemented at present? It will take many decades to change our infrastructure no matter what path we choose.