GM suspends production of the Volt

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

comp_atkins

I still can't imagine it ever being feasible, except maybe when batteries can provide more than 30 hours of driving time.

I'll take my 5.7L HEMI V8 that gets 27 mpg and is actually *gasp* fun to drive over an electric piece of trash any day.

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

comp_atkins

That would make the most sense.

Still, batteries aren't nearly as efficent as they need to be to support that and hydrogen power is quickly becoming affordable.

Pure electric cars with no on-board power station are just kind of a dream.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

airshocker

I still can't imagine it ever being feasible, except maybe when batteries can provide more than 30 hours of driving time.

how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? comp_atkins

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? airshocker

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.Engrish_Major

I doubt gas would ever get that high and we better hope that it doesn't.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.airshocker

I doubt gas would ever get that high and we better hope that it doesn't.

It's already close to $10/gallon in many European countries that don't subsidize the industry like in the US. And aren't subsidies one of the main things that you are angry about in this thread?Engrish_Major

So subsidies will cause gas prices to rise to that price? I thought you libs keep saying that won't happen.

I never made mention of subsidies in this thread until just now.

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

comp_atkins

It's not recycling in the sense of the propane tank, which is merely convenience, since steel is cheap and propane is usually in a big tank in the first place, so it's just easier to manage in a small one.

Batteries are recycled by taking all their internal components out, filtering some of it, throwing other bits away, melting parts down... the only directly recyclable piece of a battery is it's plastic case. All of this requires energy.

Also, batteries degrade over time because they're a closed system, the chemical reactions aren't perfect, and every round that they go through they lose some of their efficiency. There 'is' a probability that entropy will lower over time, same probability that you'll get the molecules in your hands to line and up go through your desk, but it's 'there'... but that'd still not produce 'free' energy, you'd lose mass as it converted into energy.

The huge benefit of fuels is that it's an open system, fuel goes in, gets burn (becomes entropic) and goes out, put new fuel in to start it all over. Much easier to reduce entropy via replacement, rather than re-refinement.

how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? comp_atkins

Even if you get it's recharge down to the same time, then you have to deal with rebuilding all those batteries every 5 years (they won't last 10, people will drain them dry and over charge them)

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.Engrish_Major

I doubt gas would ever get that high and we better hope that it doesn't.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]It's already close to $10/gallon in many European countries that don't subsidize the industry like in the US. And aren't subsidies one of the main things that you are angry about in this thread?airshocker

So subsidies will cause gas prices to rise to that price? I thought you libs keep saying that won't happen.

I never made mention of subsidies in this thread until just now.

it's not higher in europe because of lack of subsidies.. it's because of more taxes..comp_atkins

No, it's the subsidies that make it cheap in the US. And you were talking about credits given to people for cars/solar panels, etc. (i.e., subsidies)Engrish_Major

Not in a negative manner, just being factual.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

Inconsistancy

It's not recycling in the sense of the propane tank, which is merely convenience, since steel is cheap and propane is usually in a big tank in the first place, so it's just easier to manage in a small one.

Batteries are recycled by taking all their internal components out, filtering some of it, throwing other bits away, melting parts down... the only directly recyclable piece of a battery is it's plastic case. All of this requires energy.

Also, batteries degrade over time because they're a closed system, the chemical reactions aren't perfect, and every round that they go through they lose some of their efficiency. There 'is' a probability that entropy will lower over time, same probability that you'll get the molecules in your hands to line and up go through your desk, but it's 'there'... but that'd still not produce 'free' energy, you'd lose mass as it converted into energy.

The huge benefit of fuels is that it's an open system, fuel goes in, gets burn (becomes entropic) and goes out, put new fuel in to start it all over. Much easier to reduce entropy via replacement, rather than re-refinement.

how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? comp_atkins

Yea, turns out the owner would end up paying twice, maybe even 3 times, as much in electricity to charge the vehicle for a short time frame of driving than if it were to be powered by fuel.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] it's not higher in europe because of lack of subsidies.. it's because of more taxes..Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? Engrish_Major

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

You also forget that the USA has a massive amount of oil refineries. Petrol is really cheap to produce and ship within the borders of the USA. It's one of the major exports of the USA. Combine that with the widespread need for petrol across the country and you get cheaper fuel as a result. No other nation has a consumer need for fuel like the USA. It's a whole different market over here.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] it's not higher in europe because of lack of subsidies.. it's because of more taxes..comp_atkins

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

Wasdie

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.Engrish_Major

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

You're assuming oil subsidies do anything.

Protip: they don't. They have been nothing but lining the pockets of oil execs for years. They don't even touch the actual economy. That's part of the reason why we need to end them.

The real economy is actually still not supply and demand based, it's run purly by speculators on Wall St.. If it was really supply/demand based, gas would even be cheaper in the USA. We refine it here and have dozens of oil exporters who work with the refineries. We export petrol we have so much of it.

This is what keeps it cheap.

You're advocating building artifical demand for an emerging market. The traditional energy market has widespread demand that is very real. There is a difference.

You're assuming oil subsidies do anything.

Protip: they don't. They have been nothing but lining the pockets of oil execs for years. They don't even touch the actual economy. That's part of the reason why we need to end them.

The real economy is actually still not supply and demand based, it's run purly by speculators on Wall St.. If it was really supply/demand based, gas would even be cheaper in the USA. We refine it here and have dozens of oil exporters who work with the refineries. We export petrol we have so much of it.

This is what keeps it cheap.

You're advocating building artifical demand for an emerging market. The traditional energy market has widespread demand that is very real. There is a difference.

Wasdie

true, batteries degrade over time ( didn't see anywhere where i was arguing against that but if you like tangents, knock yourself out... ) as for the second comment where are you getting 30m from when if done properly and w/ some standardization across the industry the packs could feasibly be replaced in under 5m?? why couldn't a station keep extra charged and charging batteries on hand? they currently have no problems storing 15-30 thousand gallons of fuel...comp_atkins

Fuel is a liquid, it doesn't require cranes to move it, you get truck, attach a hose and it drains out. And, it's a one way trip, the fuel goes in the ground for temporary storage, then into the vehicles to be burnt, truck just leaves after depositing the fuel, and weighs a good bit less.

Fuel cycle! drill ► load into barrels ► send to refinery (via ship) ► to pipeline ► is refined (produces other nifty products as well) ► load diesel and 'gas' into trucks ► ship to gas station in truck ► deposit fuel.

Batteries are solids...

Battery replenishment cycle!:

(ignoring all the initial processes to make the batteries) ► Factory produces battery ► puts onto truck ► sits at the recharge station waiting for the crane (you'll need it) to unload the batteries ► waits longer for spent batteries to be recycled to be loaded ► drives off to the recycle plant ► crane unloads ► factory reprocesses all the batteries ► restart process.

And then don't forget the lovely need for infrastructure, if these recharge stations are carrying batteries that need recharging, and the quickcharge for those with 30m to spare, you'll need a beefy power grid and quite a few more powerstations!

And GLHF with moving those batteries around, the volt's, with it's puny 35mi range, batteries weigh nearly 200kg. And I doubt they're in a place that's easy to take out and put in new ones, not like that battery under the hood.

Until we reach Star Wars level tech, with their lightsaber batteries, we're not going to be moving 100+kw batteries in and out of cars all 'willy-nilly'.

I go on a 'tangent' 'cause you're apparently so shortsighted to not notice it.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] well now you're off arguing a different point altogether..comp_atkins

The main reason to support the subsidies for EV technology isn't so that U.S. automakers put out amazing cars right away, but because they were incredibly far behind technologically.

A lot of cars are going to be hybrids in the coming years, and a little further out there will be a lot more electric vehicles. You can be certain that Chinese automakers will get government support, many of them were state owned at some point.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] well now you're off arguing a different point altogether..comp_atkins

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yes, worthless solar that allows one to have self-sustaining energy in their own home, decreasing their energy bill and reducing carbon emissions. Oh, when will the world learn just how useless solar power is?

Pirate700

You have no idea how solar energy in a home actually works, do you?

Don't electric toilets burn the waste?

We have a big ass generator for power outages, but if we use a toaster it'll break its back.

Anything that is high heat like that siphons power like an abrams does gas.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.kuraimen

The main reason to support the subsidies for EV technology isn't so that U.S. automakers put out amazing cars right away, but because they were incredibly far behind technologically.

A lot of cars are going to be hybrids in the coming years, and a little further out there will be a lot more electric vehicles. You can be certain that Chinese automakers will get government support, many of them were state owned at some point.

superfluidity

k. got what you're saying now. with regards to the level of taxation and how much is appropriate i can't comment since i'm not knowledgeable in whether or not current taxes cover the needs they're intended for.comp_atkins

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

When I took at look at it, I couldn't believe they were charging 40k+ for that piece of plastic.

airshocker

47k*. :lol:

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]true, batteries degrade over time ( didn't see anywhere where i was arguing against that but if you like tangents, knock yourself out... ) as for the second comment where are you getting 30m from when if done properly and w/ some standardization across the industry the packs could feasibly be replaced in under 5m?? why couldn't a station keep extra charged and charging batteries on hand? they currently have no problems storing 15-30 thousand gallons of fuel...Inconsistancy

Fuel is a liquid, it doesn't require cranes to move it, you get truck, attach a hose and it drains out. And, it's a one way trip, the fuel goes in the ground for temporary storage, then into the vehicles to be burnt, truck just leaves after depositing the fuel, and weighs a good bit less.

Fuel cycle! drill ► load into barrels ► send to refinery (via ship) ► to pipeline ► is refined (produces other nifty products as well) ► load diesel and 'gas' into trucks ► ship to gas station in truck ► deposit fuel.

Batteries are solids...

Battery replenishment cycle!:

(ignoring all the initial processes to make the batteries) ► Factory produces battery ► puts onto truck ► sits at the recharge station waiting for the crane (you'll need it) to unload the batteries ► waits longer for spent batteries to be recycled to be loaded ► drives off to the recycle plant ► crane unloads ► factory reprocesses all the batteries ► restart process.

And then don't forget the lovely need for infrastructure, if these recharge stations are carrying batteries that need recharging, and the quickcharge for those with 30m to spare, you'll need a beefy power grid and quite a few more powerstations!

And GLHF with moving those batteries around, the volt's, with it's puny 35mi range, batteries weigh nearly 200kg. And I doubt they're in a place that's easy to take out and put in new ones, not like that battery under the hood.

Until we reach Star Wars level tech, with their lightsaber batteries, we're not going to be moving 100+kw batteries in and out of cars all 'willy-nilly'.

I go on a 'tangent' 'cause you're apparently so shortsighted to not notice it.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.Engrish_Major

You use the highways far more than you think, even if you don't drive.

Without the highways in the USA, the economy we know today wouldn't exist. Everything would be far more expensive and localized.

Whilst I want to see electric cars gain more of a foothold, the Volt was an extremely poor start. Poor price selection and poor quality.

You use the highways far more than you think, even if you don't drive.

Without the highways in the USA, the economy we know today wouldn't exist. Everything would be far more expensive and localized.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You use the highways far more than you think, even if you don't drive.

Without the highways in the USA, the economy we know today wouldn't exist. Everything would be far more expensive and localized.

Engrish_Major

i'm sure similar arguments could have been made wrt transitioning to a gasoline infrastructure from an equine one ( you want to ship flammable liquids all over the place?!?? are you mad? ) it's been what, 100 years and we still struggle to produce an automobile that doesn't waste 85% of the energy put into it yet we accept it. i'm sorry that i'm not as pessimistic about ev future prospects as you. i guess i am just too shortsighted. comp_atkins

YES you are shortsighted.

That's not a similar argument, I wasn't even mentioning the hazards of transporting batteries, just the cycle they'd go through.

And fuel and batteries are just as hazardous as each other, one is flammable, one is highly caustic and often contains non 'earth friendly' metals... but moving a liquid between containers is Much easier than moving crates from one pallet to another. And again, don't forget the fuel is a 1 way trip, they don't have to reprocess it, batteries have to be recycled.

Batteries are what I'm pessimistic about, look how long we've been refining them (~150 years for rechargeable batteries, {2000+ years they've existed, but... }), and look where they are. Now look at computers, 60 years ago 'til now. You think batteries are progressing fast, that we're going to just find some silver bullet that solves all the issues with them Any time soon? They're crippled by the limitations chemistry and entropy.

You act like electricity is damn magic, it just comes out of faeries butts or something, you have to generate it, that's not free. And electric cars still waste plenty of energy as well, it's not like they're damn nuclear reactors (which still waste energy).

Have you ever wondered why trains have a third rail or power lines? It's 'cause batteries suck so much that it was much Cheaper to just lay track or power lines than try to use batteries.

I don't think theres any way that electric cars will take over. Price tag is too high, takes too long to charge the battery, and you can barely leave your house. I do a lot of driving, more than most, I put about 40,000 km on my cars each year if not more. A lot of the time, I need to fill the car up and keep going. I can't stand around and wait 12 hours for a battery to charge hahahaha the nissan electric car (whatever its called) has a charge time of like 4 hours to 70% on a 240V outlet... 4 hours is even too long. They should have stuck with nitrogen cars... I would personally like to get an engine that runs off of uranium. If the world wasn't so scared of nuclear, it would be perfect. You could go several years easily before you'd have to dispose of the small amount of uranium it would take.DJ-PRIME90

Small amount of uranium x millions of drivers=not small amount of uranium.

You think batteries are progressing fast, that we're going to just find some silver bullet that solves all the issues with them Any time soon? They're crippled by the limitations chemistry and entropy.Inconsistancy

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yes, worthless solar that allows one to have self-sustaining energy in their own home, decreasing their energy bill and reducing carbon emissions. Oh, when will the world learn just how useless solar power is?

Pirate700

You have no idea how solar energy in a home actually works, do you?

>electric toilet

why?

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

Wasdie

You're assuming oil subsidies do anything.

Protip: they don't. They have been nothing but lining the pockets of oil execs for years. They don't even touch the actual economy. That's part of the reason why we need to end them.

The real economy is actually still not supply and demand based, it's run purly by speculators on Wall St.. If it was really supply/demand based, gas would even be cheaper in the USA. We refine it here and have dozens of oil exporters who work with the refineries. We export petrol we have so much of it.

This is what keeps it cheap.

You're advocating building artifical demand for an emerging market. The traditional energy market has widespread demand that is very real. There is a difference.

I wonder how much green energy products is subject to supply and demand. My bet would be that it's far more than oil is. In that way it's still not a fair fight.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="DJ-PRIME90"]I don't think theres any way that electric cars will take over. Price tag is too high, takes too long to charge the battery, and you can barely leave your house. I do a lot of driving, more than most, I put about 40,000 km on my cars each year if not more. A lot of the time, I need to fill the car up and keep going. I can't stand around and wait 12 hours for a battery to charge hahahaha the nissan electric car (whatever its called) has a charge time of like 4 hours to 70% on a 240V outlet... 4 hours is even too long. They should have stuck with nitrogen cars... I would personally like to get an engine that runs off of uranium. If the world wasn't so scared of nuclear, it would be perfect. You could go several years easily before you'd have to dispose of the small amount of uranium it would take.thegerg

Small amount of uranium x millions of drivers=not small amount of uranium.

One of my neighbors has a brand new custom million dollar green home...they were telling me during the power outage that their full roof full of panels barely gave them enough to flush their electric toilet. :lol:Pirate700

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]You think batteries are progressing fast, that we're going to just find some silver bullet that solves all the issues with them Any time soon? They're crippled by the limitations chemistry and entropy.MannyDelgado

1. a thermodynamic quantity that changes in a reversible process by an amount equal to the heat absorbed or emitted divided by the thermodynamic temperature. It is measured in joules per kelvin. Symbol S See also law of thermodynamics [1]
2.a statistical measure of the disorder of a closed system expressed by S = klog P + c where P is the probability that a particular state of the system exists, k is the Boltzmann constant, and c is another constant
3.lack of pattern or organization; disorder