theprof00 said:
Now you're talking about creating markets where none exist. Electric companies have it in their best interest to be as efficient as possible. Car companies do not.....except for the regulations that Obama imposed on them. Furthermore, a power plant is capable of running off of only 70% fossil fuels, and it's a mix of different fuels of varying sources, so they're not as reliant on gasonline. 30% of their input comes from renewable energy. Additionally, that 33% is for the average combustion power plant. More modern cogeneration plants are up to 50% efficient, and also are capable of boosting it to 80% once you factor in the heat usage. See, the traditional power plant combusts fuels to heat up water which then powers turbines. That results in 2 things, stored energy and heat. The heat then escapes via smokestacks. Cogeneration plants are capable of using that escaping heat to power heating and cooling systems across areas. See, 200 degress in not very useful in creating energy, but it is still useful in heating water. A good cogeneration plant can heat and cool a large area, including water supply, and also create electrical energy. So, on the one hand, you have an average car running at around 16%, a car "built" for efficiency (on gas alone) at 25%, using 100% gas (or ethanol mix), and a power plant that is capable of transference of between 30-80% based on the plant type. I mean, just look at the costs to tell you the whole picture. It costs 4$ to go your mpg in a car (thereabouts), Traveling the same distance on electricity is only 4kWh, roughly 1$. If you're looking at an equivalent size, you still be paying half as much. So what that tells us, is that a portable combustion chamber is at least twice as inefficent as electric power source. However, advances are still being made in green car techologies including things like cogenerated power sources, ie; a mix of gas and electric (hailed as the best version of green car), that can heat itself, charge itself, and cost 25-50% per distance. Plus your less at prey to market fluctuations over the price of gas. Just in one year, if you put 10$ into your tank every 2 days, you'd save roughly 1000$ per year with a hybrid. the more gas you put in, the higher that savings grows. I know people that put in 50$ a week or more. |
Thanks for all the info. Your second source listed a us government website as its source and on that page out of the best fuel economic vehicles only two are electric. The rest still fuel powered. So wouldn't it still be better to make combustion engines more efficient? I mean thay have come a long way from their introduction already. It seems it would be easier to replace cars with more efficent engines than to start wind farms and solar power as they are not that good yet. People will buy new cars anyways as theirs get old so it would less of an impact on the econmoy to use more fuel efficent vehicles. We have come from 12-13 mpg vehicles (the Model T) to 40+ now ith some volkswagon models. Four times as efficeint. I guess what I am saying is I don't think solar and wind power are cost effective for us to switch too and forcing it on us is going to hurt the economy when we can get similar results just by continuing our progression of the combustion engine.
Hybrids are great. I do agree on that. But you pay about 3-5 thousand more for one of the same model so youy savings from gas are erased. Especially since a lot of people buy a new car every three to five years. And improving on combustion engines will also improve hybrid vehicles MPG when using gas and it doesn't require adding to the power grid to charge cars. Win win I say when they get the cost down.
ps: glad we are still discussing things and not arguing, doesn't happen very often on this site.
