Jump to content


Photo

The harders you tries, the worsers it gets


  • Please log in to reply
376 replies to this topic

#1 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 12 November 2011 - 02:54

Whoda thought.

http://jalopnik.com/...l-investigation

Advertisement

#2 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 November 2011 - 03:23

Bet they get a battery of abuse over this ...

Pro EV activists really should understand exactly what the chemical make-up of an electric car is and the inherent dangers involved.

Edited by cheapracer, 12 November 2011 - 06:23.


#3 Spoofski

Spoofski
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2011 - 08:47

Bet they get a battery of abuse over this ...

Please......stop..........before it's too late :drunk:

#4 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 November 2011 - 09:30

Don't be so bloody negative!

#5 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,641 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 12 November 2011 - 09:35

Doooh, a well known problem with electric cars. Not the safest in an accident situation. The same as the various gas fueled vehicles either.

Though you think a vehicle in a crash storage area would have had the batterys disconected.

#6 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 November 2011 - 12:48

Please......stop..........before it's too late :drunk:


Watt?


#7 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 12 November 2011 - 12:56

You know, these are the very same batteries that power your laptops. Run, run away. Using extremely long tongs and wearing a welding mask, coat, and gloves, throw the unit out the window and call the fire department. Be sure to shriek hysterically into the telephone so the authorities grasp the dire nature of the emergency.

#8 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 November 2011 - 13:10

So much for your advice, Magoo! I did all you suggested but the Fire Department told me I'm on my own...

#9 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,423 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 12 November 2011 - 13:58

Yes, buy yourself a Ferrari 458 or a Ford Pinto. They never catch fire.

#10 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 November 2011 - 21:37

Yes, buy yourself a Ferrari 458 or a Ford Pinto. They never catch fire.



:up: :up: :rotfl:

#11 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 November 2011 - 22:31

This is why Toyota and Tesla stuck with NiMh, at a rough guess. Incidentally computers have had recalls on batteries, HP and Dell have current (ouch) ones.

#12 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 November 2011 - 22:37

RC lipo batteries have been during a little period demanded during races to be charged in a charger bag to prevent the potensial explosion from harming people.

#13 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 November 2011 - 22:58

Please......stop..........before it's too late :drunk:


That's what the fire chief was trying to tell the fire fighters when they started pumping water onto the fire.He was heard to say that it's absolutely shocking what these cars can do when water gets in the works just before one of the fire fighters shouted back watt.There was also supposed to be a firework dispaly planned here on November the 5 th by driving a whole fleet of the things into Lake Windermere but it got cancelled at the last minute on Health and Safety grounds.


#14 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 837 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 November 2011 - 02:32

Lithium batteries are a known fire hazard. Besides Chevy Volts, they have been the cause of fires on commercial aircraft:

http://online.wsj.co...4142599350.html

#15 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:18

Yes, buy yourself a Ferrari 458 or a Ford Pinto. They never catch fire.


Many cars have had design faults, hard not to when you have so many components from different design areas that have to come together as a unit. Mostly these problems can be immediately rectified by a local service dealer.

The case of the Volt is very different, here we have a vehicle that found it's own way to catch fire some time after the incident and it's reasonable to presume directly related to the chemicals/battery structure involved in this new vehicle area and I would hate to think of the toxicity of the fumes involved.

I see this as being completely different to say Volt's having an electrical wire fire for example.

Edited by cheapracer, 13 November 2011 - 06:27.


#16 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:26

Many cars have had design faults, hard not to when you have so many components from different design areas that have to come together as a unit. Mostly these problems can be immediately rectified by a local service dealer.

The case of the Volt is very different, here we have a vehicle that found it's own way to catch fire some time after the incident and it's reasonable to presume directly related to the chemicals/battery structure involved in this new vehicle area and I would hate to think of the toxicity of the fumes involved.

I see this as being completely different to say Volt's having an electrical wire fire for example.


I completely agree but there are methods to discharge damaged batteries and I do not see much difference in the dangers involved with this compared to dealing with damaged vehicles with liquid fuels.
The problem here was that no attempt was made to dischage the damaged batteries before the vehicle was placed in storage.
Safety with EVs is ongoing and does need improvement.

#17 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 November 2011 - 00:08

I am sure the issues with nuclear cars could be sorted. Should I start another thread?

#18 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 November 2011 - 00:34

I wonder if NHTSA crash conventional cars that are fueled up, and then leave them in the car park with full tanks and the 12v intact ? My guess is that they disconnect the 12v battery before testing or after, and crash them with water in the gas tank, or at least drain and purge the tank afterwards.

The same precautions need to be taken with EVs.

#19 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 November 2011 - 01:04

Good points.

Advertisement

#20 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:30

I wonder if NHTSA crash conventional cars that are fueled up, and then leave them in the car park with full tanks and the 12v intact ?


Thousands of crashed cars got to holding yards, repair shops and wrecking yards etc. every year in that state without drama.


#21 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:19

Yup, good point.

#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:47

. . and some of them are already smoking hulks when they get there.



#23 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 14 November 2011 - 13:01

Thousands of crashed cars got to holding yards, repair shops and wrecking yards etc. every year in that state without drama.


And cars catch fire in storage yards. It happens every day somewhere. This one made the papers because it's a battery vehicle.

The vehicle in question was crash tested and then left in a storage lot. If the batteries had been properly discharged and/or disconnected, there would have been no fire. Would you walk away from a crash-tested gasoline vehicle with a puddle of fuel spreading out the ground? That's essentially what they did here.



#24 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 November 2011 - 14:53

The thing is, you can see the puddle... It's not that the EV is better or worse, but it needs new procedures.



#25 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,105 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 14 November 2011 - 17:51

This is why Toyota and Tesla stuck with NiMh, at a rough guess. Incidentally computers have had recalls on batteries, HP and Dell have current (ouch) ones.


im pretty sure Tesla uses LIon ...

#26 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 November 2011 - 18:23

And cars catch fire in storage yards. It happens every day somewhere.


Does it? I don't recall ever hearing of a fire at a wrecking yard (other than an Oxy torch being the cause) - in no way am I saying it doesn't/hasn't happened.


Would you walk away from a crash-tested gasoline vehicle with a puddle of fuel spreading out the ground? That's essentially what they did here.


Are they supposed to stand around for 3 weeks just in case?

Petrol (Gasoline) - You can smell it and see it immediately at a crash scene and often the Fire Brigade are called out to clean up as a precaution if it's noticed.

If petrol leaks over 3 weeks it will evaporate at that rate well before the next drip hits the ground.

I have nothing against the Volt itself, this is just another showing that EV's are not the glossy alternate some want them to be.

#27 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,423 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:25

Let's imagine that EVs were the norm and had been for a century. Then along comes someone who suggests a car powered by a volatile flammable liquid, with a thin metal tank containing several gallons of it included in the design. And the driver will refuel it by self-operating a pump capable of dispensing 5 or more gallons a minute through a nozzle which the driver holds loosely in a tube in the side of the car. And so on.

The safety lobby would have the person proposing such a lethally risky idea committed. It would never be allowed. Everyone would point to the safe record of EVs and the obvious massive dangers of petrol power.

But then of course, if you suggested now for the first time, having cars steered by unqualified operators using the same track in opposite directions, with closing speeds for over 100mph and passing each other just a couple of feet away, you would be laughed out of court

#28 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,223 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 15 November 2011 - 13:21

Damn good point BRG. An individual's openness or scepticism to new ideas is often indicative of their outlook on life. I have no doubt batteries can be as safe or safer than IC. Some new safety measures may need developing yet but nothing that is outside the realm of existing engineering. Anyone who says otherwise is just a cynic to new technologies.

#29 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 November 2011 - 16:45

Damn good point BRG. An individual's openness or scepticism to new ideas is often indicative of their outlook on life. I have no doubt batteries can be as safe or safer than IC. Some new safety measures may need developing yet but nothing that is outside the realm of existing engineering. Anyone who says otherwise is just a cynic to new technologies.


Have you ever in your life had a drop of battery acid on your skin/face?? I have, I have also been rushed to hospital once from swimming pool acid in my eye thanks - 3 days worrying if permanent damage or not.

Any mechanic/regular workshop user will tell you just what it's like to even get the faintest amount of battery acid in your mouth or up your nose even by way of fumes that happens quite often in a workshop. I'm a fingernail biter and even after thoroughly washing hands after handling batteries, yep the acid is still there.

I have also been handling petrol all my life including having had that in my mouth, face and eyes (quick smart to a water hose or tap for a rinse out, a few blinks and back to work), I know the differences thank you.

My "outlook" on EV's is based in hands on practical experience.


#30 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 November 2011 - 16:48

Let's imagine that EVs were the norm and had been for a century. Then along comes someone who suggests a car powered by a volatile flammable liquid, with a thin metal tank containing several gallons of it included in the design. And the driver will refuel it by self-operating a pump capable of dispensing 5 or more gallons a minute through a nozzle which the driver holds loosely in a tube in the side of the car. And so on.

The safety lobby would have the person proposing such a lethally risky idea committed. It would never be allowed. Everyone would point to the safe record of EVs and the obvious massive dangers of petrol power.

But then of course, if you suggested now for the first time, having cars steered by unqualified operators using the same track in opposite directions, with closing speeds for over 100mph and passing each other just a couple of feet away, you would be laughed out of court


And lets imagine if they had a system where people could communicate publicly with each other and for everyone to see but allow any uninformed individual to do so.


#31 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,223 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 15 November 2011 - 17:41

Have you ever in your life had a drop of battery acid on your skin/face?? I have, I have also been rushed to hospital once from swimming pool acid in my eye thanks - 3 days worrying if permanent damage or not.

Any mechanic/regular workshop user will tell you just what it's like to even get the faintest amount of battery acid in your mouth or up your nose even by way of fumes that happens quite often in a workshop. I'm a fingernail biter and even after thoroughly washing hands after handling batteries, yep the acid is still there.

I have also been handling petrol all my life including having had that in my mouth, face and eyes (quick smart to a water hose or tap for a rinse out, a few blinks and back to work), I know the differences thank you.

My "outlook" on EV's is based in hands on practical experience.


Have you ever had brake fluid on your skin/face? With proper precautions things can be engineered out, the batteries should be closed systems and not tinkered with. It will become more about electrical rather than mechanical engineering. If this fills you with dread then go drink a cup of high octane before it's more expensive than champagne. Electric is the future whether you like it or not.

#32 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 November 2011 - 18:18

Have you ever had brake fluid on your skin/face? With proper precautions things can be engineered out, the batteries should be closed systems and not tinkered with. It will become more about electrical rather than mechanical engineering. If this fills you with dread then go drink a cup of high octane before it's more expensive than champagne. Electric is the future whether you like it or not.

The one small detail that keeps being ignored in this kind of future telling is how the damn electric is to be generated on the first place. It's not because the dirt is not coming of an exhaust right in front of you that it didn't came out at all...

Edited by saudoso, 15 November 2011 - 18:20.


#33 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 15 November 2011 - 18:24

Roll on shale gas! The two or three hundred years of that under the UK will allow time to get nuclear fusion up and running.

#34 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,423 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 November 2011 - 22:07

Have you ever in your life had a drop of battery acid on your skin/face??

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about lead acid batteries are we?

#35 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,223 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 15 November 2011 - 22:19

The one small detail that keeps being ignored in this kind of future telling is how the damn electric is to be generated on the first place. It's not because the dirt is not coming of an exhaust right in front of you that it didn't came out at all...


Completely agree. This isn't my argument though. I'm saying the electric motor is better than the IC engine. We just need to improve the supply of electricity by battery or other means. See jaguars latest concept. Not ridiculous to suggest the future of the IC engine might be as an onboard generator for electric drive motors built into the wheels.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 15 November 2011 - 22:22.


#36 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 November 2011 - 23:19

I'm saying the electric motor is better than the IC engine. We just need to improve the supply of electricity by battery or other means. See jaguars latest concept. Not ridiculous to suggest the future of the IC engine might be as an onboard generator for electric drive motors built into the wheels.


The figures don't agree with that idea though.Yeah right the thing can accelerate from 0-62 mph in 4.4 seconds and run at 186 mph but that includes the combined output of both the IC engine and the electric power.However the electric power provides just 95 bhp and is only available for 10 second bursts which isn't much use compared to the proper 5 Litre V8 IC engine fitted in the XKRS.So exactly what would the combined weight be of a 500 BHP + electric motor/s and batteries be,if the object is to go all electric,and how long could the thing run for at similar rates of performance available from the V8.The previous Jaguar concept involved the use of a micro gas turbine to charge the batteries.However it didn't take a genius to realise that the power requirement of the electric motors at max power exceeded that of the turbine's maximum output in which case how long would the thing have run at supercar performance levels before it's batteries ran out.

The future that you're suggesting is just using an IC engine/battery/electric transmission package which would actually require an engine of even more power and fuel consumption than would be needed to provide the same amount of performance by just using a conventional IC engine with conventional transmission caused by the weight penalty and the power losses caused by electricity generation and transmission.

The fact is if the C-X16 is offered with the 5 Litre V8 option there's no way any one with any sense would order the V6/Electric version.However the ones who do would probably be guaranteed to lose more in depreciation when they sell the thing than they saved in fuel costs.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 15 November 2011 - 23:21.


#37 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 November 2011 - 23:21

The one small detail that keeps being ignored in this kind of future telling is how the damn electric is to be generated on the first place. It's not because the dirt is not coming of an exhaust right in front of you that it didn't came out at all...

That is a totally different issue. More than half of the electricity presently generated is not sourced from coal. Even if electric vehicles all used coal sourced energy, the CO2 emission would be similar or less and urban toxic (exhaust) emissions would be zero. (Vehicular exhaust emissions are responsible for almost a million deaths every year.)


Posted Image

#38 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 November 2011 - 23:26

The figures don't agree with that idea though.Yeah right the thing can accelerate from 0-62 mph in 4.4 seconds and run at 186 mph but that includes the combined output of both the IC engine and the electric power.However the electric power provides just 95 bhp and is only available for 10 second bursts which isn't much use compared to the proper 5 Litre V8 IC engine fitted in the XKRS.So exactly what would the combined weight be of a 500 BHP + electric motor/s and batteries be,if the object is to go all electric,and how long could the thing run for at similar rates of performance available from the V8.The previous Jaguar concept involved the use of a micro gas turbine to charge the batteries.However it didn't take a genius to realise that the power requirement of the electric motors at max power exceeded that of the turbine's maximum output in which case how long would the thing have run at supercar performance levels before it's batteries ran out.

The future that you're suggesting is just using an IC engine/battery/electric transmission package which would actually require an engine of even more power and fuel consumption than would be needed to provide the same amount of performance by just using a conventional IC engine with conventional transmission caused by the weight penalty and the power losses caused by electricity generation and transmission.

You don't understand real world continuous power requirements do you?

#39 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 November 2011 - 23:36

That is a totally different issue. More than half of the electricity presently generated is not sourced from coal. Even if electric vehicles all used coal sourced energy, the CO2 emission would be similar or less and urban toxic (exhaust) emissions would be zero. (Vehicular exhaust emissions are responsible for almost a million deaths every year.)


Seems to me that just like the Californian government you're trying to apply the issues applicable only in inner city environments state/nationwide and as usual you seem to think that the global warming believers have the right to impose their beliefs on the non believers.It's a bit like the Taliban.


Advertisement

#40 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 November 2011 - 23:40

You don't understand real world continuous power requirements do you?


And you haven't provided those range figures for the previous Jaguar gas turbine electric concept and the performance figures for the C-X16 without it's 10 second electric power boost in a 'real world' cross europe London-Monza in a day comparison with an XKRS.(Or an old modified V12 XJ for that matter :cool: ).

Edited by Vanishing Point, 15 November 2011 - 23:43.


#41 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 16 November 2011 - 00:15

That is a totally different issue. More than half of the electricity presently generated is not sourced from coal. Even if electric vehicles all used coal sourced energy, the CO2 emission would be similar or less and urban toxic (exhaust) emissions would be zero. (Vehicular exhaust emissions are responsible for almost a million deaths every year.)


Posted Image

You chart pretty much sums it up.

Now add all the cars to that electrical demand and what you have?

Again, you might not be seeing the smoke, but it is there, somewhere...

#42 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 16 November 2011 - 00:50


you won't be burning any more oil, according to toyota that is supply constrained. You won't be doing much more nuclear in the short term at least as it takes so long to build them. wind solar hydro are all maxed out except for the economically illiterate. biomass is problematic.

I've got shares in coalminers (ok, and oil and uranium), wonder why?

#43 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:21

You chart pretty much sums it up.
Now add all the cars to that electrical demand and what you have?
Again, you might not be seeing the smoke, but it is there, somewhere...

The chart includes cars.

Worst case - you take cars out of the "crude oil" slice and increase the "coal" slice to make up the shortfall. CO2 doesn't go up, toxic emissions come down.

Now you can get back to the real questions like where does all the Lithium come from? etc etc.

#44 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:43

The chart includes cars.

Worst case - you take cars out of the "crude oil" slice and increase the "coal" slice to make up the shortfall. CO2 doesn't go up, toxic emissions come down.

Now you can get back to the real questions like where does all the Lithium come from? etc etc.



Think you'll find in the real world that you'll be burning more coal to produce the same performance in cars using electric power than petrol and diesel in IC engines.It's the inconvenient truth of those inefficient,obsolete,scrapped trolley buses defeating your argument again.


If it's CO2 that you're really worried about it doesn't need to go up because according to the global warming believers it's the present and previous levels of C02 output that's causing the so called 'problem'.Your argument is really just one of control freak ideas of forcing through a change in automotive power from IC engines to inferior electric power.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 16 November 2011 - 01:48.


#45 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:05

The overall "real world" efficiency of the "coal-electricity-EV" cycle vs the "crude-ICE vehicle" cycle is well researched and understood. The fossil energy requirement is lower but (because coal is more carbon intensive) CO2 produced is similar.

It doesn't matter what I am worried about. The reality is that governments and industry are moving toward carbon emission reductions and that is one of the factors included in every corporate decision these days.

#46 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:08

One calculation showed that if CO2 reduction was your personal aim you should run your Volt on petrol, or sell it and buy something economical. If oil import reduction is your aim run your Volt on electricity. If low /running/ costs are your aim then run a Volt on electricity. If low total cost of ownership is your priority then why did you buy a Volt?

Edited by Greg Locock, 16 November 2011 - 02:18.


#47 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:17

The overall "real world" efficiency of the "coal-electricity-EV" cycle vs the "crude-ICE vehicle" cycle is well researched and understood. The fossil energy requirement is lower but (because coal is more carbon intensive) CO2 produced is similar.


Great all I need to do now is find a way of injecting pulverised coal into a supercharged IC engine instead of petrol.In which case I'd bet that they'd still find a way of making the figures say that it would be better to turn it into electricity first and use it in an ev instead.


#48 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:41

One calculation showed that if CO2 reduction was your personal aim you should run your Volt on petrol, or sell it and buy something economical. If oil import reduction is your aim run your Volt on electricity. If low /running/ costs are your aim then run a Volt on electricity. If low total cost of ownership is your priority then why did you buy a Volt?



If oil import reduction is the aim then it's better to turn coal into petrol.


#49 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:17

Yup, that's one of the more likely caps on the price of oil. Once it hits $8/US gallon wholesale then the economics of Fischer Tropsch become irresistible. OPEC's core job is to ensure that there is sufficient uncertainity in the future price of oil that no-one can get finance to set another FT industry up.

It would be interesting to tradeoff between a mix of coal fired generators and EVs, vs FT derived diesel in IC cars.



#50 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,169 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 November 2011 - 04:23

Great all I need to do now is find a way of injecting pulverised coal into a supercharged IC engine instead of petrol.In which case I'd bet that they'd still find a way of making the figures say that it would be better to turn it into electricity first and use it in an ev instead.

Yes they did.

IC engines in cars must operate over a wide range and efficiency varies from 0 to about 40% whereas a coal-fired power station can operate at its peak efficiency continuously. (New power stations have efficiencies from 40 - 45%)

EV's operate at high efficiency - electric motors are very efficient, use no energy at idle and can recover energy during braking.

Then there is the absence of tailpipe emissions.

Not to mention coal is only one slice of the above pie chart.

Edited by gruntguru, 16 November 2011 - 04:24.