Up's and down's of electrical cars??

Question

what are some up's and down's of mass producing electric cars?? and does it actually benefit the environment?

Answer 1

The answer.....Dilithium Crystals, of course!!

In the Star Trek universe, dilithium is a fictional chemical element, although the name also applies to a real-world molecule.

Dilithium typically occurs as an extremely hard crystalline mineral, which occurs naturally on some planets. When placed in a high frequency electromagnetic field, magnetic eddies are induced in its structure which keep charged particles away from the crystal lattice. This prevents it from reacting with antimatter when so energized, because the antimatter atoms never actually touch it. Therefore, it is used to contain and regulate the annihilation reaction of matter and antimatter in a starship's warp core, which otherwise would explode from the uncontrolled annihilation reaction. Though low-quality artificial crystals can be grown or replicated, they are limited in the power of the reaction they can regulate without fragmenting, and are therefore largely unsuitable for warp drive applications. Due to the need for natural dilithium crystals for interstellar travel, deposits of this material are a highly contested resource, and as such, dilithium crystals have led to more interstellar conflict than all other reasons combined.

--- Wikipedia

Answer 2

The electric car really doesn't solve a whole lot.

Our electrical grid is 50% coal.  If you add transportation to our electrical grid, you'd have to increase the grid, meaning coal use would go up dramatically.  

If a perfect electric car was developed and even half the population drove it, we wouldn't have enough electricity to support that and heat our homes, keep street lights running, and so on.

We are past the point of having any one fuel power any one major part of our infrastructure.  Until solar is figured out, a mixture of fuels will be needed. The Hybrid will be around a lot longer than you think for this very reason, it uses two fuels and thus isn't over exposed to either, while at the same time conserving both.

Answer 3

I'd like to see an electric boat, then I'd feel safe. First things first

Answer 4

electric cars seem to be a good idea,but. these vehicles are using Batteries. these have to be repairable,or recycled.they need recharging, this will be done by plugging into the power grid,supplied by nuclear,steam(coal or oil fired) or hydro powered generators,the first two are also producing waste. Hybrid cars use gasoline or diesel fuels,in lower amounts to operate a small car generator.though less,it is still fossil fuel.

Breaking water down to hydrogen and oxygen uses electric power again from fossil fueled generators. Sort of a catch 22,isn't it?we have to find a simpler way of getting from a to b without killing ourselves.what we are trying now is only the delay of the inevitable, really look for a feasible answer to the problem

Answer 5

I love electric cars, their great for the environment.

Answer 6

I already see people saying how the grid power will pollute just as much which is not true especially with areas that use nuclear and other sources and even with fossil fuels the generators they use to make electricity are more efficient at turning the energy from the fossil fuels into electricity.  Your car only converts about 25% or less of energy produced into motion.  An electric car turns 90% of energy into motion.  Yes it does benefit the environment. the battery issue can be resolved by using recyclable batteries.  Range is getting better on electric cars but they are still oddly shaped.

Answer 7

Good question.  Here's my take on it. lets take the downs first:

Thedownside:

>right now, electriccars are expensive. That, however, is due to the small volume.  Assuming that manufacturers can establish a decent-sized market, we should see prices come down.

>Short range.  This is really more of a  nusience tnan anything else--the range of the new "Tessla" is about 200 miles, for instance. Taht'splenty for the kind of urban driving most people do most of the time.

>The bigie--infrastructure.  There's really no system in place for convenient recharging, as there is fror refueling cars.  Again, that's correctable--but you need enough of a market to justify businesses investing in charging equipment before you'll be able to have anything like the convenience gas stations offer.

The up side:

>Potentially, electric cars have zero impact on the environment.  The criticism about possible pollution from all those used batteries is a bit of hype--period. These batteries are recyclable--and even ones that are too far gone for that can be disposed of safely. The chief limit to the low environmental is that we also need alternative means of generating the electricity in the first place-rather than relying on coal for generating power. But electrics give us the opportunity to take full advantage of alternative power generating technologies like wind and solar--by using them to power cars as well as homes, businesses, etc.

>Potentially, the cost of an electric is lower--the technology, while sophisticated, is less complicated than gas-driven cars. That, combined with the lower cost of electricity, also means lower operating costs for consumers.

>Collateral benefits--two for sure--reducing dependance on foreign oil, andimproved health resulting from removal of pollutants in the air of our cities.

Answer 8

Electric Cars have not yet been accepted by most people for the following reasons:

1. Much more expensive. Even with some savings, Initial cost is so high you never get money back before the batteries / car needs replacement.

2. Short range on a charge.

3. Charging time to long.

4. May reduce pollution, but the majority is just moved to the Electric Power Plant's location.

5. Battery life, and expensive to replace.

6. Batteries give off H2 Gas which is very explosive.

Answer 9

well the benefits are,

recharging for you daily commute would only cost about $1 in most areas.

You wouldn't be cranking out pollution at stoplights or while driving.

Motors are more efficient than ICE.

Less pollution from petroleum companies/gas stations

drawbacks:

powerplants will have to handle the extra load producing more pollution.

Batteries will have to be replaced every half dozen years.  

Recycling costs..

High Voltage safety issues.

Answer 10

Pros: Lower greenhouse gas emissions than gas cars, hybrids, and even plug-in hybrids.  

http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/Emis...

Because electric engines don't have moving parts, they also don't need oil or oil changes every 3,000 miles like internal combustion engines do.  An electric car will also last longer than an internal combustion engine car (no parts to break/wear down), so we'll need to build fewer and they won't clutter up junkyards as much.

Neutral: Their environmental benefit depends on the power grid composition.  If we were to build more coal power plants, they would be less environmentally friendly.  If we build more renewables and nuclear plants, they become more friendly.

Since we're starting to move more toward renewable power, this means that generally electric cars will become more environmentally friendly.  However, if you happen to live in an area where the power comes mostly from coal, they may not be very green.

You can see how your local power grid mix stacks up at this link:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-an...

Cons: Environmentally there are no cons, unless the power grid were to somehow increase pollution.  The batteries are fully recyclable, the motors will last for ages, they won't require lubrication, etc.

The non-environmental cons are that there currently aren't any affordable long-range high-speed EVs being commercially produced, but this will change starting in about a year.

Available in California in October 2008, the Aptera typ-1e will cost about $27,000 with a top speed of 95 mph and range of 120 miles per charge.

http://www.aptera.com/details.php

Soon thereafter Aptera will introduce the typ-1h, a plug-in hybrid version of the typ-1e with a 40-60 mile range on purely electrical energy, and a range of over 600 miles total when in electric/gas hybrid mode, for around $30,000.  On a 120 mile trip, the typ-1h will get 300 miles per gallon.  The shorter the trip, the higher the efficiency.

http://www.aptera.com/details.php

Available in late 2009, the ZAP Alias will cost $30,000, have a top speed of 100 mph, and a range of 100 miles per charge.

http://zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/el...

Soon thereafter the ZAP-X will be available at a cost of $60,000 with a top speed of 155 mph and a range of 350 miles per charge.

http://zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/el...

Available in 2009, the Miles Javlon will cost $30,000 with a top speed of 80 mph and a range of 120 miles per charge.

http://www.milesev.com/

Phoenix Motorcars will start selling their SUT to individuals in late 2008 or early 2009.  It will cost $45,000 and have a top speed of 100 mph with a range of 100+ miles per charge.

http://phoenixmotorcars.com/

Answer 11

I'd really love someone to mass produce electric cars, but it doesn't seem like the big companies are willing to do it.  There's a great movie, "Who killed the Electric Car?"  It follows the history of the  EV-1, which was around in California for a while in the 1990s.  Now they are all gone, because they were leases, and taken back by GM.  

I see no cons from the electric car, except that they aren't readily available.  Using electricity for cars would have less of an environmental impact than the current fossil fuel burning system.