Dave Ashurst
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
Electric cars ARE the future.
... and THIS is what I'm looking for.
when they get a bit cheaper...
http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/0,,30400-13162
47-12,00.html?f=photogallery
http:
//www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-566703/FIRST-TEST-DRIVER-Behind-wheel-electric-Tesla-Roadster-powered-mobile-phone-batteries.html
EDIT: and I wasn't reading "Femail", honest!
[Edited on 23/6/08 by Dave Ashurst]
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 01:26 PM |
|
|
I think it is a great car but at £78,000 is far too expensive to be a viable product
Personally I'd rather have a Carver and it's a third the price of that and a lot more fun to drive.
[Edited on 23/6/08 by Mr Whippy]
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
keep up there this has been discussed many times...
Tesla
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 04:13 PM |
|
|
The problem is you still need to feed the squirrels to run the generator, to charge the car.
|
|
|
djrichie_stix
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 04:17 PM |
|
|
electric cars... more hypocritical bulls**t from governments and rich people who want to look important!
where do they think most of the worlds electricity comes from - forest elves? in reality it's from buring FOSSIL FUELS! so surely thats not eco
friendly then, cranking up the power on power stations?
and don't even get me started on prius's...
and finally, 1 hour of 32inch plasma tv equals 15 miles in a freelander! wheres the rediculous tax for plasma screens? answer, on our bloody
windscreens!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 05:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by djrichie_stix
and finally, 1 hour of 32inch plasma tv equals 15 miles in a freelander!
Sorry, but got to call you out on that one.
A 32" plasma consumes around 200 Watts, so in 1 hour you have consumed 0.2kWatt hours or 720 000 Joules of energy
Unleaded has about 35 MJ per liter, so the energy consumed by the plasma in one hour is around the same as that contained in 21cc's of petrol.
If a Freelander can do 15 miles on that, then it's returning around 3300 mpg.
If a Freelander returns say 20mpg, then 21cc of fuel would actualy get it 0.0933 miles, or 150 meters.
Put another way to use the equivalent energy of driving the Freelander 15 miles, you'd have to watch your 32 inch plasma 24 hours a day for a
solid week.
Even if you just consider the energy output of the petrol engine, which is around 25% of the chemical energy of the fuel, the calculations are still
way off.
[Edited on 23/6/08 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 05:54 PM |
|
|
he forgot to mention the freelander starts at the top of a 15 mile hill (and it magically gets there)
I'd also like to suggest electricity can be generated by renewable sources (although how practical that is is for another discussion or nuclear
power - i'm not mentioning carbon scrubbing coal as its never been done commercially).
|
|
|
watsonpj
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 06:05 PM |
|
|
This should suit you whippy
Linky
an electric carver coming next year no idea of price but I'm guessing it might suit you parrallel universe evil twin on the hicost site.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 07:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by watsonpj
This should suit you whippy
Linky
Is it just me or has that been styled after Sir Clive Sinclairs 3 wheeled wonder?
|
|
|
Mark G
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 07:52 PM |
|
|
smart are working on an electric car at the moment, They have made some and are out on the roads as we speak being tested. Only problem being that
the car requires 2 batteries costing £6000 each! Thats £12000 on batteries in a car that would should retail at around £7500. We'll be waiting
a while for the cost of the batteries to come down before we see any electric powered cars at a decent price.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 07:54 PM |
|
|
i would whole heartedly agree with Dave, this IS the future, the batteries will go up in performance and down in price, then we just need to move
toward nuclear from oil to gain more control over energy cost in £ and also over the alleged affect of carbon output.
Remember nuclear itself will get more efficient as time passes.
No idea if batteries are a better idea than hydrogen fuel cells, but i guarantee that time will tell. 
|
|
|
djrichie_stix
|
| posted on 24/6/08 at 08:57 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by djrichie_stix
and finally, 1 hour of 32inch plasma tv equals 15 miles in a freelander!
Sorry, but got to call you out on that one.
A 32" plasma consumes around 200 Watts, so in 1 hour you have consumed 0.2kWatt hours or 720 000 Joules of energy
Unleaded has about 35 MJ per liter, so the energy consumed by the plasma in one hour is around the same as that contained in 21cc's of petrol.
If a Freelander can do 15 miles on that, then it's returning around 3300 mpg.
If a Freelander returns say 20mpg, then 21cc of fuel would actualy get it 0.0933 miles, or 150 meters.
Put another way to use the equivalent energy of driving the Freelander 15 miles, you'd have to watch your 32 inch plasma 24 hours a day for a
solid week.
Even if you just consider the energy output of the petrol engine, which is around 25% of the chemical energy of the fuel, the calculations are still
way off.
[Edited on 23/6/08 by MikeRJ]
#
ok... fair enough... you did the maths, appears Im wrong! I'm just bassing that on something I read in the times, and being the times, i assumed
it was truthful, unlike something you might read in the daily mail?
don't get me wrong peeps, i may be a 'noob', but i do think something needs to be done bout the environment but i think hybrid cars
and electric cars won't make a jot o difference in our current econmical climate... most 3rd world countries will rely on oil for much longer
than us richer countries and they use knackered old engines that polute even more!
if we wana get serious, it's all bout wind farms!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 24/6/08 at 12:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by djrichie_stix
if we wana get serious, it's all bout wind farms!
errr .... no its not, not unless you want to cover the entire country in wind, then destroy every lake to make a water pump storage solution and then
we have to figure out where we're going to get food from.
You need to read a link i'll post in a minute. I'm in the process of reading it. Very interesting article from a physicist who considers a
number of environmental / energy views from the mathematical point of view (and i've not finished reading it before someone points out the major
flaws in his argument)
|
|
|
djrichie_stix
|
| posted on 24/6/08 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
crikey, second day on the forum and I'm getting merc'd... evry1 was so nice yesterday!
but what you on about 'fill the country with wind', it's all ready windy... and i meant windfarms at sea (where there is more wind
due to water not being a good insulator of heat, changing day temp blah blah)
and anyway, i retract that statement all aboput windfarms... its all about nuclear power!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 24/6/08 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
the fact of the matter is, all the oil reserves will eventually be turned into free CO2. Every last drop. At best an environmental revolution will
delay this, but the entire lot will end up free. I have no idea what PPM this will work out to, or what affect this will have on climate, but there is
no possible way to stop the poor countries burning oil. And coal in fact.
All we can hope to do is find alternatives, but even then they will be privately owned and probably more expensive than oil and coal.
As i keep saying, the cost of energy is low compared to what it will be once the free stuff is used up (ie oil).
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 24/6/08 at 05:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by djrichie_stix
crikey, second day on the forum and I'm getting merc'd... evry1 was so nice yesterday!........
We alternate...you'll need to mark up your calendar for the best days to post...
|
|
|
djrichie_stix
|
| posted on 26/6/08 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
the fact of the matter is, all the oil reserves will eventually be turned into free CO2. Every last drop. At best an environmental revolution will
delay this, but the entire lot will end up free. I have no idea what PPM this will work out to, or what affect this will have on climate, but there is
no possible way to stop the poor countries burning oil. And coal in fact.
All we can hope to do is find alternatives, but even then they will be privately owned and probably more expensive than oil and coal.
As i keep saying, the cost of energy is low compared to what it will be once the free stuff is used up (ie oil).
its weird hearing 'oil' and 'free' but your right mate... environmental change will just slow down the use of natural
resources...
unlike global warming, which would happen anyway, we are just accelerating it!
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 26/6/08 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by djrichie_stix
and anyway, i retract that statement all aboput windfarms... its all about nuclear power!
err, no its not. the nucler stuff, like coalt and oil is dug up from the ground nad like coal and oil has a finit reserve.
you need to read up about it but there is not tha many years left, maybe a 100 or so until that is all used up.
the unlimited and largely untapped energy sources (so far) are the sun and the heat inside the earth. did someone say magma?
wind is limited as the more wind farms you have, they will sap the energy from the air so there is less wind.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 26/6/08 at 05:05 PM |
|
|
it would seem foolish to start removing vast quantities of heat from the earth's core before we really know whats keeping it warm in the first
place.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 26/6/08 at 05:24 PM |
|
|
that said, by my calculations you could have 1x10^25 kJ out of the core and only drop the temperature 10 degrees.
|
|
|
Tim 45
|
| posted on 26/6/08 at 05:36 PM |
|
|
Its funny you should calculate that joel, it was an A level physics question in a recent paper about calculating the temp change of the earths core by
using it to heat water your not an examiner are you?
Also did anyone see the water powered car on reuters? seems like it uses electrons from the hydrolysis of water to power an electric motor...unless it
was an april fools joke, they are apparantly trying to go into production of it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPq1exwMaUs
[Edited on 26/6/08 by Tim 45]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 26/6/08 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
disappointing that reuters carried the story on such a scientifically flawed idea. I havent been into the details of that particular car, but its a
basic fact that if there's no input then there is no output. These schemes are all scams.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 26/6/08 at 06:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim 45
Its funny you should calculate that joel, it was an A level physics question in a recent paper about calculating the temp change of the earths core by
using it to heat water your not an examiner are you?
That would be funny, but im not! I was quite chuffed when i calculated the mass of the earth from its radius and was just 50% out!
|
|
|
djrichie_stix
|
| posted on 10/7/08 at 04:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
it would seem foolish to start removing vast quantities of heat from the earth's core before we really know whats keeping it warm in the first
place.
we do not whats warming it... it's the compression of gravity and the friction of the liquid rock moving over it'self? correct me if
i'm wrong...
seems everyone loves to
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 10/7/08 at 05:12 PM |
|
|
I'm all for electric cars: I finally have a use for those nasty, garden-invading squirrels.
|
|
|
