Personally I like the Volt, but I would never purchase one. Just some more food for thought. If the world goes from petrol based automobiles to electric or some sort of hybrid what, if any, are the health risks associated with the electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by these vehicles' electric motors? Will the health risks outweigh the health risks of the polluting gases emitted by current fossil fuel powered cars? Currently there are no regulations in the United States concerning occupant exposure levels of EMF.
I was just wondering when the EPA will find a need to have manufacturers certify their electric/hybrid vehicles to inform consumers of the EMF levels emitted by these vehicles? Or are the risks to exposure of EMF acceptable considering that in "...1996, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that citizens may not bring suit against electric power companies over electromagnetic radiation emissions." Will drivers be able to sue car manufacturers for health problems they feel where caused by driving their vehicles?
IMO, I think this electric car stuff is just a fad. It provides government and consumers with the opportunity to feel good about themselves for the moment. Currently electric cars are viewed as world saviors. Once the price of oil goes down soccer moms will go back to driving their SUVs, the stock market will rise, the government will be taxing our CO2 emissions to help pay for the Wallstreet bailout and the world will finally go back to normal again.
Personally I like the Volt, but I would never purchase one. Just some more food for thought. If the world goes from petrol based automobiles to electric or some sort of hybrid what, if any, are the health risks associated with the electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by these vehicles' electric motors? Will the health risks outweigh the health risks of the polluting gases emitted by current fossil fuel powered cars? Currently there are no regulations in the United States concerning occupant exposure levels of EMF.
I was just wondering when the EPA will find a need to have manufacturers certify their electric/hybrid vehicles to inform consumers of the EMF levels emitted by these vehicles? Or are the risks to exposure of EMF acceptable considering that in "...1996, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that citizens may not bring suit against electric power companies over electromagnetic radiation emissions." Will drivers be able to sue car manufacturers for health problems they feel where caused by driving their vehicles?
One would expect to see a significant uptick in cancers and other ailments among populations that are already being exposed. This would include linemen, subway engineers, railway engineers, etc., who are working around rather large electric motors or other equipment generating large magnetic fields. To my knowledge there aren't any known links. I would suggest worrying about dying in a car wreck than EMF from a motor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblau
IMO, I think this electric car stuff is just a fad. It provides government and consumers with the opportunity to feel good about themselves for the moment. Currently electric cars are viewed as world saviors. Once the price of oil goes down soccer moms will go back to driving their SUVs, the stock market will rise, the government will be taxing our CO2 emissions to help pay for the Wallstreet bailout and the world will finally go back to normal again.
Electric cars are more efficient than internal combustion, end of argument. Yes, petroleum, LNG, and other chemical fuels are more energy dense than existing batteries, but the whole problem is that there is massive loss of that energy when it is converted into work. Heat, noise, friction from all the gearing, transmissions, and so on, all waste a lot of that energy. With electricity you have none of those problems - electrons create a magnetic field, that spins a magnet, the magnet spins the wheel, and away you go.
As for the CO2 taxes, don't think any money will go to the housing bailout. Everyone knows this is the UN's biggest business opportunity, ever.
One would expect to see a significant uptick in cancers and other ailments among populations that are already being exposed. This would include linemen, subway engineers, railway engineers, etc., who are working around rather large electric motors or other equipment generating large magnetic fields. To my knowledge there aren't any known links. I would suggest worrying about dying in a car wreck than EMF from a motor.
Common sense suggests you are correct, but I'm still surprised that there has not been some concerned activist group calling for government testing and regulation of EMF transmission in electric powered vehicles before giving the manufacturers the green light to start building cars. I can still remember all the controversy over the microwave oven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snugglebear
Electric cars are more efficient than internal combustion, end of argument. Yes, petroleum, LNG, and other chemical fuels are more energy dense than existing batteries, but the whole problem is that there is massive loss of that energy when it is converted into work. Heat, noise, friction from all the gearing, transmissions, and so on, all waste a lot of that energy. With electricity you have none of those problems - electrons create a magnetic field, that spins a magnet, the magnet spins the wheel, and away you go.
I have no reason to disbelieve that electric powered cars are more efficient then the internal combustion engine in a vehicle. But I'm just speculating, unless we go all nuclear, hydro, wind, tidal etc., ...it is the combustion of the power in oil, natural gas, and coal that is transformed to electricity, and how efficient is that? I am also under the impression that over 7% of the power is lost in the transmission of that power thru heat loss in the power grid lines.
Another concern is whether our current outdated power grid infrastructure can handle the extra demand if consumers suddenly trade there internal combustion powered cars for a Volt. How much will it cost to upgrade the infrastructure needed to power these electric vehicles? Environmentalists are already fighting current attempts to modernize the grid.
I would also think that the price of copper will shoot way up because the demand for copper needed to make electric motors will go up. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to consider investing in some copper mines.
Either way you look at it, it's going to cost the consumers more money and for what? History has proven that the electric car has failed and IMO will fail again to meet its objective of cheap, clean, reliable transportation. Like I stated, its just a fad now and in a few years it will pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snugglebear
As for the CO2 taxes, don't think any money will go to the housing bailout. Everyone knows this is the UN's biggest business opportunity, ever.
I'm confident our politicians are intelligent enough to get in on their piece of the action too.
I'd hate to run a "hotrodded" electric car from a dig.. 100% TORQUE @ 0RPM! you might get embarrassed!
If battery technology gets even 20% better as a result of more and more electric cars being produced then the world has been done a huge favor.
The model T by todays standards is pathetic. Cars didnt get where they are by magic. People gotta buy electrics, then they get better with time. Demand will rule technologies pace. (barring odd eureka's). It always has.
IF I can swing one I'd buy it.
Last edited by BaldTurboFreak : 09-22-2008 at 11:24 AM.
Performance wise it will be very interesting to see this new generation of hardware/software hot rodding for electric cars. On a much smaller scale electric R/C airplanes dominate over nitro/gas planes. I wonder if cars will move in that direction. I have planes flying with twice the torque and twice the duration of their nitro brethren.
__________________
2008 Black/Black GXP, purchased 7/23 right off the train.
Mod#1 blacked-out headlights
Mod#2 GMPP Intake -I like to hear my turbo.
Mod#3 Special Sauce (23PSI)
Mod#4 Solo Street Race
Mod#5 Repaint w/ Custom Silver Stripes
'07 Charger R/T Mama's car
Location: Rosamond, CA - Home of Willow Springs Raceway
Quote:
Performance wise it will be very interesting to see this new generation of hardware/software hot rodding for electric cars.
I wouldn't imagine that the software for an electric motor would be very complicated. I mean, what would it need to do? And I'm talking about strictly engine management.
__________________
2007 Cool GXP with Darkside Top, 5 spd, Ebony Cloth, Monsoon with Single CD, Sport Pedals, XM, A/C Mods: K&N Drop-in Filter, Solo Performance Street/Race Exhaust, Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec Tires, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs
I wouldn't imagine that the software for an electric motor would be very complicated. I mean, what would it need to do? And I'm talking about strictly engine management.
All you need is a potentiometer to control an electric motor. It's all the other parts, the battery charge management, the management of the generator, controlling any charge coming from regenerative braking, drain from accessories, and so on. GM seems to think it can get even more complicated with optimizations based on route and/or driving preferences. I can also think of a few cases where instantaneous current demand from the motor outstrips the ability of the battery pack to supply it, requiring a cycling of the engine to run in tandem (e.g. passing on a hill climb). Likewise, should the vehicle have regenerative braking and a route planner, the control unit may decide not to start the generator when the vehicle is cresting a long hill, preferring instead to recharge from gravity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mena661
It would have to hook up and the tranny would have to be up to the task. Two things that are not happening at the moment.
Location: Rosamond, CA - Home of Willow Springs Raceway
Quote:
All you need is a potentiometer to control an electric motor. It's all the other parts, the battery charge management, the management of the generator, controlling any charge coming from regenerative braking,
I thought we were talking about electric only not hybrids. I can understand some complexity with hybrids but not an electric only.
__________________
2007 Cool GXP with Darkside Top, 5 spd, Ebony Cloth, Monsoon with Single CD, Sport Pedals, XM, A/C Mods: K&N Drop-in Filter, Solo Performance Street/Race Exhaust, Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec Tires, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs
Common sense suggests you are correct, but I'm still surprised that there has not been some concerned activist group calling for government testing and regulation of EMF transmission in electric powered vehicles before giving the manufacturers the green light to start building cars. I can still remember all the controversy over the microwave oven.
And yet - we all have microwave ovens and we haven't all dropped dead of cancer. Lack of understanding between electromagnetic radiation and ionizing radiation. BIG difference. Light is electromagnetic radiation. So are the radio waves we are constantly inundated with that your car radio picks up.
EMF testing is mandatory - even for normal cars. There are emissions limits so you do not interfere with other electrically powered items and communications reception. Ever see the "microwave in use" signs?
EMF causing cancer is like arguing that di-hydrogen monoxide is a toxic substance and should be banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblau
I have no reason to disbelieve that electric powered cars are more efficient then the internal combustion engine in a vehicle. But I'm just speculating, unless we go all nuclear, hydro, wind, tidal etc., ...it is the combustion of the power in oil, natural gas, and coal that is transformed to electricity, and how efficient is that? I am also under the impression that over 7% of the power is lost in the transmission of that power thru heat loss in the power grid lines.
Yes, the transmission from power plant to your house may be on the order of about 93-96% efficient (up to 7% loss). The transmission of energy from your fuel tank to the road in a gasoline-powered combustion engine is only 18% efficient.
Think of that. We're talking over 80% loss. EIGHTY PERCENT!
The loss from a battery is closer to only 8%.
Math is in my previous posts - but 3 cents vs. 14 cents per mile driven - that just about says it all. Cars of the same rough size and duty cycle consume similar amounts of mechanical energy on average per mile driven - in the realm of 0.95 megaJoules to over 1.5 megaJoules per mile drivent for a larger truck.
MegaJoules are 1/3.6th of a kiloWatt-hour. In other words, a kiloWatt is 3.6 megaJoules.
Power generation is nearly twice as efficient as using an engine to propel 1 1/2 tons of metal down the road. This is because there is no limitation on the size of the power generation unit, so it can be a multi-stage, recuperating turbine approaching the limits of thermodynamic efficiency.
Or, you can burn gasoline, sip a bit of the explosive energy for a moment, and dump 80% of the energy out the tailpipe as heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblau
Another concern is whether our current outdated power grid infrastructure can handle the extra demand if consumers suddenly trade there internal combustion powered cars for a Volt. How much will it cost to upgrade the infrastructure needed to power these electric vehicles? Environmentalists are already fighting current attempts to modernize the grid.
Again, this argument is a non-starter. The 'grid' currently sits at less than 35% capacity useage at night, when the majority of the US goes nighty-night. This is EXACTLY the time that many user's plug-in hybrids will be charging - think of it, you're asleep, you aren't driving anywhere. Think of your plug-in hybrid like a horse - you rode it all day, IT needs to sleep too. Or you need another one at home 'resting' [CHARGING] so you can swap 'horses'.
There is enough capacity to handle very significant amounts of transportation energy - and the best news is we are much better at moving electricity around than figuring out how to dole out hydrogen. Hell, we can't even figure out how to get E-85 in more stations today.
Expanding the grid is also something that as technology becomes cheaper, can be done on an individualized basis.
If you had a 'household battery' to store, say, 10 days worth of energy for your house and car, it would peak-level the entire grid with more and more homes adopting one.
For an electric vehicle to go 350 miles on a charge, you need the ability to store about 100kWhr of energy - or about 6X a current battery like is in the Volt, or about twice a Tesla battery - if it is allowed to weigh the same.
If weight really doesn't matter, and you can get thousands of recharges, then you can use a household battery to do much of the work. Very high energy transfer from a household battery to your car is possible, where working off the grid may not be.
This is because of the other hurdles of charging a car is the 'speed' you can charge - the number of miles range per hour. Using a battery you can exchange energy at much higher power levels than 220V/70Amp. 110V/20 amps is about 6-8 'miles range per hour'. 220v/70Amp is 45-55 miles per hour charging speed. If estimates are right, the 33.4kW available for charging on the Chevy Volt is about 110-120 "MPH charging speed".
In other words - the generator on the Volt can charge the battery faster than you can normally use the energy out of the battery.
Normal household uses about 25 kWhr of electricity per day. Double that if heating with electrical, so call it 50 kWhr.
Everyone is up in arms about how much they drive and how 40 miles won't cut it, but again, math comes to the rescue.
If you put 15,000 miles on your car a year (that is a bit high for most, but let's go with it), that's aout 40 average miles per day. Hey, wait a minute...
No, they ain't equally distributed, so maybe we need to look at a median day rather than a simple average. At 15,000 miles per year, and say you only drive your car ONLY on work days (about 240), that's still only about 62 miles per day.
so how big would a Housebattery be?
It would be 10 days (ideally) of house power at 50 kWhr, plus the ability to fully charge a theoretical car of 350 miles range, or another 100 kWhr - or about 600 kWhr. Or, if you only needed to charge the car for 10 days at 62 miles/day, call it another 250kWhr (it's only 17 kWhr/day for 62 miles, but let's round it up) for a HouseBattery capacity of around 750 kWhr.
Remember, this is a battery that will EASILY handle a power outage from our outdated grid system of over a week, and charge your car for those 10 days too. This is not a non-occurrence, but definitely a rare occurrence.
Just for interest, such a battery would be holding about $75 of electricity.
But wait - the 'grid' of the future, which is starting to look more like the internet and less like the standard "energy purchase and delivery program" would also be supplemented by grassroots power generation. Some people would finally see that a few of the newfangled solarshingles and a pretty windmill would help keep their HouseBattery charged nearly indefinitely and potentially make more energy than they need at times - energy for which they would be reimbursed...
Encouraging this type of thinking in the future is what will help. This stuff is NOT out of the realm of technical possibility today. Anyone can put in a 40 kW solar system, even here in Seasonally Affected Disorder Michigan - it just costs an arm and a leg. That is really the true roadblock.
That and a really good battery for those electric cars.
You think it's a fad, but it's an idea waiting for an energy storage system. DaVinci had designs for tanks and flying machines 500 years ago - what he was missing was a device that had power density and energy density (we call it an engine).
Electric cars have been around for over a hundred years. They are an invention waiting for an energy storage system. Lithium-ion batteries have not been around and proven technology for that long, and though it prolly won't follow moore's law, the capacity and durability of electrical energy storage systems has been steadily improving - the Li-Ion battery technology of today is the first real breakthrough.
Without the energy density of them, the Tesla wouldn't exist, and the Volt would not be anything more than a 'what if'. But, there's more improvements out there.
BTW - the amount of copper in a single motor pales in comparison to the pounds and pounds of copper in your household wiring - and plumbing if you have copper plumbing.
Common sense suggests you are correct, but I'm still surprised that there has not been some concerned activist group calling for government testing and regulation of EMF transmission in electric powered vehicles before giving the manufacturers the green light to start building cars. I can still remember all the controversy over the microwave oven.
The hysteria has died down and there are more important things to kick and scream about. Why worry about electricity and EMF when CO2 produced by evil commuters, cars, and aircraft is obviously the bigger threat. Oh, and don't forget cell phones and wireless internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblau
I have no reason to disbelieve that electric powered cars are more efficient then the internal combustion engine in a vehicle. But I'm just speculating, unless we go all nuclear, hydro, wind, tidal etc., ...it is the combustion of the power in oil, natural gas, and coal that is transformed to electricity, and how efficient is that? I am also under the impression that over 7% of the power is lost in the transmission of that power thru heat loss in the power grid lines.
Another concern is whether our current outdated power grid infrastructure can handle the extra demand if consumers suddenly trade there internal combustion powered cars for a Volt. How much will it cost to upgrade the infrastructure needed to power these electric vehicles? Environmentalists are already fighting current attempts to modernize the grid.
Power plants are very efficient compared to the average vehicle engine and getting more efficient all the time. In the past few years, as fuel prices (nat gas, coal, etc.) has gone up, there has been increased use of second-stage turbines to salvage additional energy that would otherwise be waste heat and pressure. It's not perfectly efficient, certainly, but it's a big step up from pistons, a crankshaft, and transmission. The main issue is that grids have to be energized to certain levels regardless of demand on the system, so there is massive waste overnight when demand is low but supply still has to be kept at a certain threshold. There are still no cost effective ways of banking that energy in large batteries, capacitors, superconductors, etc.
As for the grid itself staying stable, it fully depends where you live. Us out in California are screwed - the grid is overtaxed and underfunded. We just learn to live with battery backups. Fortunately the weather is pretty good so we're not down for days at a time, mostly just a few hour or multi-hour events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblau
I would also think that the price of copper will shoot way up because the demand for copper needed to make electric motors will go up. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to consider investing in some copper mines.
Either way you look at it, it's going to cost the consumers more money and for what? History has proven that the electric car has failed and IMO will fail again to meet its objective of cheap, clean, reliable transportation. Like I stated, its just a fad now and in a few years it will pass.
Copper will be driven more by the extra 2-3 billion people on the planet who now want to consume basic products like toasters, electric ovens, coffee makers, laundry machines, and so forth. They'll be consuming these in mass quantities prior to vehicles, especially given increasing population density. Likewise, the need for copper in LV transmission lines will go way up, though HV is still Al, IIRC.
The cars are still more efficient. They're going to use less energy to go a given distance and the power plants are still more efficient than an ICE, plus they can run on just about anything. The future will be electric, the question really is whether the electricity is provided by fuel cell, battery, solar, flywheel (I kid not), or something else entirely.
No, it's here to stay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblau
I'm confident our politicians are intelligent enough to get in on their piece of the action too.
Perhaps your district has higher standards that mine (or California in general).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mena661
I thought we were talking about electric only not hybrids. I can understand some complexity with hybrids but not an electric only.
I was referring to hybrids, but no biggie. And technically I should have said rheostat, not potentiometer... last night after 9 miles at the gym it was the first word to come to mind after spinny-control-thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mena661
Too bad Tesla isn't aware of this tech. They wouldn't have had so many problems harnessing that 276 lbs-ft of torque.
When I was an undergrad the electric car team used to have major issues with this, too. Not many lightweight drive shafts can handle the torque of a decent-sized electric motor at full blast. I've seen a number of homebuilt electric conversions also break their drive shafts and/or axles.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
