The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles

[BugI02]

Thanks mouse, I forgot about speed.
With the modern albacore hull design, subs of any type can be fast.
But, a rule of thumb is, to double your speed requires 4 times the power.
So, going faster means sucking up that power at a greater and greater rate.

Most of my exposure to this is admittedly aerodynamics, but the formulae are based on idealized fluids and water flow can be used in a 'wind' tunnel as easily as air. All other things being equal, drag rises as the cube of speed, so twice the power for 26% speed increase, 8x to double your speed

And doesn't speed limit = cavitation for you guys

 

[actaeon277]

Most of my exposure to this is admittedly aerodynamics, but the formulae are based on idealized fluids and water flow can be used in a 'wind' tunnel as easily as air. All other things being equal, drag rises as the cube of speed, so twice the power for 26% speed increase, 8x to double your speed

And doesn't speed limit = cavitation for you guys

Yes, it's been a few decades for me. the cube sounds better for the power vs speed relationship.
4 times must have been another rule of thumb.

and cavitation depends on your propeller design speed/depth.
Generally, at depth, a submarine will not cavitate while at flank speed.
Acceleration is the problem.
While answering bells we had a green/yellow/red light to watch. They were hooked up to a level detector hooked up to the aft hydrophones. And if we were in a situation where we needed to be more quiet, we (the throtteman) had headphones to put on hooked up to the same headphone.
He could come up slowly on the bell, backing off if he heard the noise level go up.

If necessary, such as an emergency, the control room would tell us to answer regardless of cavitation.

 

[actaeon277]

I think that the nuclear-steam turbine-electric drive submarine was USS Tullibee (SSN 597).

And the real reason for submarine evolution from diesel-electric to nuclear propulsion: Hyman G. Rickover, USN

That might be why I can't see anything about the Lapon's drive.
But that would mean it was built to decide on the Permit and Sturgeon classes, not the Los Angeles class.

And Hymie was the driving force for the nuclear program, military AND civilian.

 

[actaeon277]

No. They are complete. Big diff.

The list he asked for is a long one for sure.
Just the stealth ability is huge +++++
Staying submerged for extended length's of time++++++
Unlimited (time) available power +++++
Submerged speeds++++

Ha....guess I should have read your response before responding...

"complete"

long.

I admit it.

 

[actaeon277]

A little sub story in case anyone is interested

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/287895-threshers-last-dance.html

 

[Leo]

That's not a plausible way to calculate the actual government money spent on the Volt...unless you are a political opponent of the program. the actual number is probably well under $50,000 per car....but that is still too much by well under $50,000 per unit..

Agreed, the taxpayers on the hook for $50,000 subsidy for an individuals "feel good" purchase is still too much. If the individual buys a base model toyota and a couple pairs of walking shoes, he saves $15,000 and the taxpayers $50,000. Since deficit spending has been around longer than the Volt and all the GM subsidies under obummer, whatever the cost was is still hanging over our heads with compounding interest. For a nation that cannot service the maintenance on the debt, there has to be a better solution.


I think the electrics are a option for some people, and I back their right to have them, and as many of them as they can afford. I do also believe that a product or service is not viable if it does not stand on its own financial merits. If subsidy is required, it should be from the purchaser, not the taxpayers.

 

[jamil]

I'd rather not see any subsidies. Oil. Farming. Green energy. None of it.

 

[churchmouse]

I'd rather not see any subsidies. Oil. Farming. Green energy. None of it.

^^^^^^^^^^^BINGO^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We can not even service our infrastructure.

 

[KLB]

Agreed, the taxpayers on the hook for $50,000 subsidy for an individuals "feel good" purchase is still too much. If the individual buys a base model toyota and a couple pairs of walking shoes, he saves $15,000 and the taxpayers $50,000. Since deficit spending has been around longer than the Volt and all the GM subsidies under obummer, whatever the cost was is still hanging over our heads with compounding interest. For a nation that cannot service the maintenance on the debt, there has to be a better solution.


I think the electrics are a option for some people, and I back their right to have them, and as many of them as they can afford. I do also believe that a product or service is not viable if it does not stand on its own financial merits. If subsidy is required, it should be from the purchaser, not the taxpayers.

One point. Not buying an electric car only saves taxpayers any incentives given for purchase, if there are any still.

The $50,000 per car is already spent.

 

[churchmouse]

One point. Not buying an electric car only saves taxpayers any incentives given for purchase, if there are any still.

The $50,000 per car is already spent.

Truth. But this crap needs to stop.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

You keep using that word, efficiency ...

If you wish to compare various motor types just at the output, exclusive of infrastructure necessary to deliver the motive force to the engine/motor then electric motors are 90 - 98% efficient, most diesels fall around 40% and gasoline engines typically fall around 20 - 30%. One of the most fuel efficient gasoline engines currently running in laboratory and using a unique modified four stroke cycle tops out at 38% efficiency for a 1.3 litre turbocharged motor (its a Toyota product)

I expect most wont like the source of this info, but it puts a lot of generally reliable info in one place

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Comparing the various motor types only at the output doesn't tell you about the overall efficiency or costs for transportation use.

Let's generally compare the following:

1. Diesel burned in ICE to propel vehicle
2. Diesel burned in ICE turns generator to produce electricity > electricity powers electric motors to propel vehicle
3. Diesel burned in ICE turns generator to produce electricity > charges battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle

Real life examples of all of the above exist and are in use. Most efficient to least efficient use of the chemical energy contained in the diesel fuel is 1, 2, then 3. If you think otherwise you are wrong. Sometimes other considerations outweigh energy efficiency, such as in trains and submarines, but that DOES NOT mean those methods are superior, or smart, for everyday vehicle transportation use.

1. Liquid fuel (gas or diesel) burned in ICE to propel vehicle
2. Natural gas burned in ICE to propel vehicle
3. Natural gas burned in powerplant > transmission via electric lines > charge battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle
4. Coal burned in powerplant > transmission via electric lines > charge battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle
5. Nuclear powerplant > transmission via electric lines > charge battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle

Real life examples of all of the above exist and are in use.

Option #2 is superior to option #3 if natural gas is to be used, but both face lack of infrastructure and convenience issues (fueling time).

Option #3 exists because of onerous new powerplant regulations, current oversupply of natural gas, and tax subsidies for the specialty vehicles. It is less energy efficient than options #1 and #2.

Natural gas is replacing some coal generation because of regulations and the current over supply of natural gas. In the absence of onerous regulations, option #4 is potentially competitive price-wise even if it is less overall energy efficient than options #1 and 2. The viability of option #4 in this scenario would hinge on the price of coal vs. the price of liquid fuels. History shows that the price of both can change drastically and not always at the same time (there is a degree of correlation due to the fuel used by the mining and transportation equipment, but it's not huge, other market factors are more important).

Option #5 is potentially competitive depending upon the cost of generation. Currently, electricity produced by nuclear power plants is generally more expensive per Mwh than coal or natural gas. Future competitiveness hinges on managing waste disposal costs (which can be reduced by bringing breeder reactors back online, but good luck getting the gov't let that happen) and development of new technology (fusion?).

Option #1 is convenient, uses existing infrastructure, is energy dense (range), and is overall more energy efficient than options #2 or 3. With the recent advancements in extraction technology, supplies and prices are going to stay stable and affordable. The electric vehicle is a dead end for now and isn't going to be able to compete as rare earth metals for the batteries become more expensive and people begin seeing the costs of replacing/recycling the batteries. Rare earth metals are nasty and so are the processes for refining/recycling them. If the "green" subsidies disappeared tomorrow, no new electric vehicles would be sold. Options #4 and 5 are potentially viable in the future if liquid fuel costs skyrocket like they did 10+ years ago, but with the new extraction technologies that isn't going to happen any time soon...and #4 and 5 would still face the battery problem unless a breakthrough is made.

 

[jamil]

Comparing the various motor types only at the output doesn't tell you about the overall efficiency or costs for transportation use.

Let's generally compare the following:

1. Diesel burned in ICE to propel vehicle
2. Diesel burned in ICE turns generator to produce electricity > electricity powers electric motors to propel vehicle
3. Diesel burned in ICE turns generator to produce electricity > charges battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle

Real life examples of all of the above exist and are in use. Most efficient to least efficient use of the chemical energy contained in the diesel fuel is 1, 2, then 3. If you think otherwise you are wrong. Sometimes other considerations outweigh energy efficiency, such as in trains and submarines, but that DOES NOT mean those methods are superior, or smart, for everyday vehicle transportation use.

1. Liquid fuel (gas or diesel) burned in ICE to propel vehicle
2. Natural gas burned in ICE to propel vehicle
3. Natural gas burned in powerplant > transmission via electric lines > charge battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle
4. Coal burned in powerplant > transmission via electric lines > charge battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle
5. Nuclear powerplant > transmission via electric lines > charge battery > battery powers electric motors to propel vehicle

Real life examples of all of the above exist and are in use.

Option #2 is superior to option #3 if natural gas is to be used, but both face lack of infrastructure and convenience issues (fueling time).

Option #3 exists because of onerous new powerplant regulations, current oversupply of natural gas, and tax subsidies for the specialty vehicles. It is less energy efficient than options #1 and #2.

Natural gas is replacing some coal generation because of regulations and the current over supply of natural gas. In the absence of onerous regulations, option #4 is potentially competitive price-wise even if it is less overall energy efficient than options #1 and 2. The viability of option #4 in this scenario would hinge on the price of coal vs. the price of liquid fuels. History shows that the price of both can change drastically and not always at the same time (there is a degree of correlation due to the fuel used by the mining and transportation equipment, but it's not huge, other market factors are more important).

Option #5 is potentially competitive depending upon the cost of generation. Currently, electricity produced by nuclear power plants is generally more expensive per Mwh than coal or natural gas. Future competitiveness hinges on managing waste disposal costs (which can be reduced by bringing breeder reactors back online, but good luck getting the gov't let that happen) and development of new technology (fusion?).

Option #1 is convenient, uses existing infrastructure, is energy dense (range), and is overall more energy efficient than options #2 or 3. With the recent advancements in extraction technology, supplies and prices are going to stay stable and affordable. The electric vehicle is a dead end for now and isn't going to be able to compete as rare earth metals for the batteries become more expensive and people begin seeing the costs of replacing/recycling the batteries. Rare earth metals are nasty and so are the processes for refining/recycling them. If the "green" subsidies disappeared tomorrow, no new electric vehicles would be sold. Options #4 and 5 are potentially viable in the future if liquid fuel costs skyrocket like they did 10+ years ago, but with the new extraction technologies that isn't going to happen any time soon...and #4 and 5 would still face the battery problem unless a breakthrough is made.

Overall, I accept your logic; we are on the same side. Points for anyone who recognizes the reference.

Just some comments. There will always be *some* market for electric cars even if all subsidies dried up. But that market would be niche. And that is there will always be rich people who have nothing else to do with their money but virtue-signal or collect novelties. If subsidies for "green" disappeared tomorrow, the markets would shrink to just those two niches, but I doubt they'd go away altogether. I doubt Tesla could survive, at least to any extent close to their current scale, without subsidies.

 

[jamil]

This subject reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about subsidies. I argued that subsidies place government in the place of picking winners and losers. He asked, what's wrong with that? My response was the inevitable crony capitalism that follows.

In a truly free market, the value of ideas is decided by the market, where the best ideas produce the most value for people. His position was that it's okay for "society" to pick winners and losers when it is for "society's" benefit. But "government", whether appointed by dictators or elected by the people, isn't "society". The market IS. Government is comprised of a few individuals set apart from the group to rule over them. And I'm not complaining about that in terms of government of the people via a social contract. I'm just saying that those elevated individuals in positions of such power, can't speak for society as representative as the market does.

Maybe the market may be wrong, for a time, but that tends to get corrected. If the alarm for global warming is truly representative of the threat that the experts claim, when those facts become apparent, the market would certainly value life over extinction. But letting the government pick winners and losers, especially with pascal's wager as the primary argument, isn't any better guarantee of the right people winning and losing. Let winners and losers be chosen by merit and value.

 

[churchmouse]

This subject reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about subsidies. I argued that subsidies place government in the place of picking winners and losers. He asked, what's wrong with that? My response was the inevitable crony capitalism that follows.

In a truly free market, the value of ideas is decided by the market, where the best ideas produce the most value for people. His position was that it's okay for "society" to pick winners and losers when it is for "society's" benefit. But "government", whether appointed by dictators or elected by the people, isn't "society". The market IS. Government is comprised of a few individuals set apart from the group to rule over them. And I'm not complaining about that in terms of government of the people via a social contract. I'm just saying that those elevated individuals in positions of such power, can't speak for society as representative as the market does.

Maybe the market may be wrong, for a time, but that tends to get corrected. If the alarm for global warming is truly representative of the threat that the experts claim, when those facts become apparent, the market would certainly value life over extinction. But letting the government pick winners and losers, especially with pascal's wager as the primary argument, isn't any better guarantee of the right people winning and losing. Let winners and losers be chosen by merit and value.

It all to often seems that Gov. picks who wins through crony capitalism.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

INGO is always a wealth of info and discussion.

Didn't someone way cow-calf? Steak-veal. Fuel=Grill. I'm hungry.

 

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

This brings me back when I was considering buying A Chevy Volt.
when I checked the final figures. I could drive less than 400 miles.
Then I had to charge over night.
That means before 400 miles I was totally dead on the road.
the salesman said that I stop at a motel and plug the car charger in.
OH YEA a less than 1200 mile would take 3+ days.
What motel would let you run up their electric bill charging your car.
lets just say that the average motel bill is $50.
You just paid $150. to make a 1200 mile trip.
Also keep in mind that you had to find a motel before the 400 mile limit.

back to trains.
Steam engines one on one are more powerful that a diesel electric.
problem was when you needed more power. You had more engine crew.
then it depended on the Proficiency of the crews to contribute to the pulling power.
Then maintenance of a steam engine was greater than the running cost.
more later.

 

[HoughMade]

I like the Volt, but not at the prices they are new. Seems like a good commuter car. However, the engine will produce enough electricity to keep the car going as long as there is gas in the tank. It is not designed to fully recharge the battery on its own, but that doesn't mean that it will eventually run down. In most modes, it produces enough electricity to drive the car, but not recharge the battery.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Just some comments. There will always be *some* market for electric cars even if all subsidies dried up. But that market would be niche. And that is there will always be rich people who have nothing else to do with their money but virtue-signal or collect novelties. If subsidies for "green" disappeared tomorrow, the markets would shrink to just those two niches, but I doubt they'd go away altogether. I doubt Tesla could survive, at least to any extent close to their current scale, without subsidies.

Yeah, you're right about the two niches you mentioned, I missed them. And I agree Tesla would have to undergo vast changes to survive as a company.

the golf course, around the neighborhood, in the plant, a stadium, etc.

And of course these would continue as well. Small battery powered recreational and utility vehicles make sense where you start and stop a lot, don't want exhaust, and have no desire for maintenance of fiddly finicky small ICEs. On the other hand, there is always propane for Zamboni machines, fork lifts, and such. Regarding power source, the bottom line is I don't see much changing in one direction or the other in these types of niche settings.

 

[jamil]

This brings me back when I was considering buying A Chevy Volt.
when I checked the final figures. I could drive less than 400 miles.
Then I had to charge over night.
That means before 400 miles I was totally dead on the road.
the salesman said that I stop at a motel and plug the car charger in.
OH YEA a less than 1200 mile would take 3+ days.
What motel would let you run up their electric bill charging your car.
lets just say that the average motel bill is $50.
You just paid $150. to make a 1200 mile trip.
Also keep in mind that you had to find a motel before the 400 mile limit.

back to trains.
Steam engines one on one are more powerful that a diesel electric.
problem was when you needed more power. You had more engine crew.
then it depended on the Proficiency of the crews to contribute to the pulling power.
Then maintenance of a steam engine was greater than the running cost.
more later.

Electric bill? Motel? You don't need none of that. You just hook up at the conveniently well scattered free electric unicorn charging stations where you can feed the unicorns as you wait 13 hours for your Volt to charge. Think of it. 13 hours with unicorns. Who could pass that up?

I mean the Volt is just a win/win. You get up to 53 whole miles on pure electricity! 53 EFFing miles! Think of all the children and snail darters who don't have to breath in your exhaust for that 53 miles. Of course, when you do have to switch to gas, with regular charging you can go up to 1000 miles without refilling the tank! On gas mode you get up to 50mpg!

Now. I know what you're gonna say. Yeah. It stickers for nearly $40K. That's kinda salty for the ****ty cheap ass car this would be without the big ass battery. And I guess you'd expect to pay maybe $25K for a conventional car like this loaded decently. But after uncle Sam kicks in his share of the bill, you're driving it off the lot for less than $30K + tax/license/dealer-douchebaggery. So thanks to Uncle Sam and whatever goodies you get from the state, you're paying closer to the cheep ass price that the Volt would be if it weren't the virtue-signaling hippie chick magnet.

So, cost to run it? Well, assuming we won't have the free unicorn charging stations built into the infrastructure for awhile, for now you'll need to mostly charge it at home. So you can charge your Volt at home with a 120-volt portable cord in approximately 13 hours, or with a professionally installed 240-volt charging system in approximately 4.5 hours. The battery only requires ~20-25KWH to charge completely. Not bad.

So let's say the typical use would be as a commuter, and you commute 25 miles per day to work. Just think of it. Up to 53 totally *GREEN* miles baby! So you could potentially get to work and back on ONE CHARGE! So, let's say you pay $.10/KWH to the utility company. It takes 20-25KWH to charge a Volt completely. So we're talking in the neighborhood of $2 to $2.50 each night to recharge.

You can see the obvious savings piling up here. And I'm here to tell you how high and deep we're piling it. That modern gas guzzler you have now which gets only 20mpg? It takes you ~2.5 gallons of gasoline to get to work and back. That's over $6/day in your gas guzzler vs $2/day charging your virtue-signaling hippie chick magnet. So you're saving $4/day! On average you'll drive to work and back 250 times in a year. That's a thousand bucks a year you're paying to greedy electric companies instead of paying to greedy oil companies. Plus, you get to virtue-signal to all your friends and, of course, hippie chicks. So in maybe 10 to 15 years, you'll more than recoup the difference between the volt and the non-hippie chick magnet version of a cheep ass car you could have bought.

 

[churchmouse]

Electric bill? Motel? You don't need none of that. You just hook up at the conveniently well scattered free electric unicorn charging stations where you can feed the unicorns as you wait 13 hours for your Volt to charge. Think of it. 13 hours with unicorns. Who could pass that up?

I mean the Volt is just a win/win. You get up to 53 whole miles on pure electricity! 53 EFFing miles! Think of all the children and snail darters who don't have to breath in your exhaust for that 53 miles. Of course, when you do have to switch to gas, with regular charging you can go up to 1000 miles without refilling the tank! On gas mode you get up to 50mpg!

Now. I know what you're gonna say. Yeah. It stickers for nearly $40K. That's kinda salty for the ****ty cheap ass car this would be without the big ass battery. And I guess you'd expect to pay maybe $25K for a conventional car like this loaded decently. But after uncle Sam kicks in his share of the bill, you're driving it off the lot for less than $30K + tax/license/dealer-douchebaggery. So thanks to Uncle Sam and whatever goodies you get from the state, you're paying closer to the cheep ass price that the Volt would be if it weren't the virtue-signaling hippie chick magnet.

So, cost to run it? Well, assuming we won't have the free unicorn charging stations built into the infrastructure for awhile, for now you'll need to mostly charge it at home. So you can charge your Volt at home with a 120-volt portable cord in approximately 13 hours, or with a professionally installed 240-volt charging system in approximately 4.5 hours. The battery only requires ~20-25KWH to charge completely. Not bad.

So let's say the typical use would be as a commuter, and you commute 25 miles per day to work. Just think of it. Up to 53 totally *GREEN* miles baby! So you could potentially get to work and back on ONE CHARGE! So, let's say you pay $.10/KWH to the utility company. It takes 20-25KWH to charge a Volt completely. So we're talking in the neighborhood of $2 to $2.50 each night to recharge.

You can see the obvious savings piling up here. And I'm here to tell you how high and deep we're piling it. That modern gas guzzler you have now which gets only 20mpg? It takes you ~2.5 gallons of gasoline to get to work and back. That's over $6/day in your gas guzzler vs $2/day charging your virtue-signaling hippie chick magnet. So you're saving $4/day! On average you'll drive to work and back 250 times in a year. That's a thousand bucks a year you're paying to greedy electric companies instead of paying to greedy oil companies. Plus, you get to virtue-signal to all your friends and, of course, hippie chicks. So in maybe 10 to 15 years, you'll more than recoup the difference between the volt and the non-hippie chick magnet version of a cheep ass car you could have bought.

In that time period the maint. on the Hippie chick magnet (do the shave legs and pits these days..??) so any and all savings are right out the window.
Kind of like doing a heat pump over a 92% gas unit to heat the house. They are both losers.