Author Topic: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'  (Read 16346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« on: June 18, 2010, 08:51:14 am »
ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'

Daily Express
Friday June 18,2010


ELECTRIC cars are unlikely ever to replace conventional cars and could even be worse for the environment, experts have warned.

 Millions of pounds are currently being pumped into developing battery-operated vehicles as a greener alternative to petrol or diesel cars.
 
 But engineering magazine E&T for members of the Institute of Engineering and Technology claims the switch to electric cars would not be viable because of the limited life of batteries and the need for frequent recharging.
 
 An investigation found electric cars could be restricted to less than 100 miles while batteries would only last two years.
 
 Peter Miller, director of electrical and electronic engineering at vehicle consultants Ricardo, said: “You could drive and then find it takes a day to recharge with a domestic electric socket.
 
 “To get a vehicle that behaves the same way as a petrol or diesel model is not viable for the foreseeable future.”
 
 The magazine said a battery capable of the same level of driving as a standard Ford Focus or Volkswagen Golf would cost £100,000 and would weigh 1.5 tonnes.
 
 Experts at E&T also suggested relying on electricity from non-renewable sources would even mean a greater carbon footprint than a high efficiency diesel car.
 
 Dickson Ross, editor in chief of E&T, said: “Some of the performance improvement claims being suggested are likely to stay pure fantasy for the foreseeable future.
 
 “While we believe electric cars overall are a good idea, particularly for short-range commutes, there’s a need for more honesty on whether they can really be the solution to our transport and environmental needs in the mid- to long-term.

Offline bill4588

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2010, 09:00:35 am »
this is retarded....why are we still focused on batteries?  an electric car will never be practical til they're fully solar powered.    I think they solar market is about to take off with the latest developments allowing it to be much cheaper and efficient.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,239
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2010, 09:32:22 am »
In today's corporate fascist environment, I think the bottom line is this: If someone invented a car that ran on water, the corporate whore media would immediately brand him as a "terrorist" and his invention as a "weapon of mass destruction." (Ok, perhaps they wouldn't go quite that far, but they would at least smear him as a "quack" or "con artist" and claim his invention is "unworkable" or "prohibitively impractical" -- all while denying him adequate air time to defend himself.)

From that point on there would be a total news blackout on the issue.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2010, 09:33:18 am »
this is retarded....why are we still focused on batteries?  an electric car will never be practical til they're fully solar powered.    I think they solar market is about to take off with the latest developments allowing it to be much cheaper and efficient.

Solar powered cars are another false solution.


Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,239
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2010, 09:35:13 am »
Solar powered cars are another false solution.

And false solutions are always what get news coverage.

Real solutions get ignored.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2010, 09:36:44 am »
And false solutions are always what get news coverage.

Real solutions get ignored.

Amen to that brother....

Offline bill4588

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2010, 10:03:28 am »
I definitely don't think it's false solution.  It's a very doable solution if TPTB let it develop into what it could be.  If solar energy research took off we could be living off of solar powered devices in less than 40 years.  But solar would be a step behind those free energy magnet motors, imagine what we could do if TPTB let that tech take off....it'll never happen.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2010, 10:04:22 am »
I definitely don't think it's false solution.  It's a very doable solution if TPTB let it develop into what it could be.  If solar energy research took off we could be living off of solar powered devices in less than 40 years.  But solar would be a step behind those free energy magnet motors, imagine what we could do if TPTB let that tech take off....it'll never happen.

Solar Cells cost more to produce than they yield.


Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2010, 10:07:44 am »
In today's corporate fascist environment, I think the bottom line is this: If someone invented a car that ran on water, the corporate whore media would immediately brand him as a "terrorist," and his invention as a "weapon of mass destruction."

From that point on there would be a total news blackout on the issue.

No need for branding them... they'll just kill 'em.

*cough* Stanley Meyer *cough*

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline tinfoiltruth

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2010, 10:09:32 am »
Super Capacitors.

they are cleaner Charge instantly and never degrade.

the downside, they are highly volatile.

Offline bill4588

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2010, 10:11:28 am »
Solar Cells cost more to produce than they yield.


not with the latest technique they just developed.  it uses light refraction allowing the unit to use only a small fraction of the solar cells required before, allowing mass production of units that are much much cheaper and more effective.  imagine the technology progressing as fast as the computer chip.... literally everything could be solar powered within a couple generations. 

Offline changedname

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,373
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2010, 10:15:13 am »
I recall reading some months back that someone actually invented a battery that never dies but I am sure the PTB squashed that technology too! That is the answer to the battery problem that this guy wants to promote!!  Bottom line is that these reports are designed to protect the oil industry or to only want something that will make us dependent forever in some way!

Offline TheProxy

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • Invalidcookie.net
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2010, 11:33:29 am »
The way to fix the Car issue is Hydro-power I believe. Water--> Electiric--> back to water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU&feature=player_embedded#!

I bring a message Those who would try to take our freedom... Pray.
-----------------------------------------
http://invalidcookie.net

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2010, 11:38:40 am »
Iceland wanted to use

GeoThermal  -->  Water  -->  Hydrogen.

The Icelandic Prime Minister announced that Iceland intended to covert the entire fishing fleet to hydrogen.

Response  : Rothschild Agents sent to Bankrupt the entire country.

Damascus

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2010, 05:31:25 pm »
WTF!!! Battery technology has come light years even with the suppression from our masters. Why do idiots have to just attack any alternatives in a knee jerk reaction? They were viable then and are even more so today. They just are keeping them to the upper elites. Watch "who killed the electric car" And get informed. And no I am not demonizing Gasoline cars, libertarians should especial embrace alternatives and freedom of choice!

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2010, 06:00:48 pm »
not with the latest technique they just developed.  it uses light refraction allowing the unit to use only a small fraction of the solar cells required before, allowing mass production of units that are much much cheaper and more effective.  imagine the technology progressing as fast as the computer chip.... literally everything could be solar powered within a couple generations. 

And if the sun goes out?
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline jeremystalked1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,317
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2010, 06:15:11 pm »
I forget, for the purposes of this thread, are cars good or bad?  Please tell me so I can focus my rage properly.


Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2010, 07:27:19 pm »
Electrolytic fuel cells are the best option. (not hydrogen based though, it energy density is far too low for any practical use. )

They are essentially batteries, but you can exchange the electrolyte are highly efficient charging stations. You run them in parallel with super caps to absorb surges, for example, when capturing break power.

I know power plants use them, so they don't have to waster energy when demand unexpectedly drops, or surges.

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/archive/Article_1157_Aluminum%20Energy%20for%20Fuel%20Cells.pdf


We should be energy independent, not because of scary CO2, but for simple economics and political security. (which is why it isn't happening, they want a global government)

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2010, 09:50:05 am »
Electric Cars - it gets worse

http://hanlonblog.dailymail.co.uk/

Hats off to Autocar magazine this week for reminding me of yet more of the electric car's shortcomings. I knew that electric vehicles had been around since the 19th century, but I didn't realise that in 1908 the Anderson Carriage Company of Detroit had an electric car for sale with a range of 85 miles, 100 with careful driving. That is better than the electric vehicle offerings of today; 102 years = no progress at all. Extraordinary when you consider just how terrible petrol engines were in Edwardian times.

It gets worse. Buy an 'EV' today and it will be effectively worthless in five years, according to Glass's Guide. The reason? By then, the batteries will need replacing - at £8000 a pop ($13,000). Imagine buying a new petrol car and being told that in five years' time its engine, gearbox and steering will be worn out. Madness.

More: advocates of EVs say that we can take advantage of off-peak electricity and recharge them at night. So what happens when everyone plugs their car in at 6pm when they get home from work? Especially if they are using the 600kW fast-chargers being mooted, it would be like everyone in Britain simultaneously switching on a hundred kettles. The Grid would keel over.

Finally: aside from the fact that generating clean green electricity is far from straightforward, there are other environmental issues with EVs. Lithium-ion batteries, the most efficient in terms of charge-per-kilo, will eat up the world's resources of lithium at a perilous rate.

Electric cars look great on paper but are not the answer. Neither is hydrogen, but that's another story.

Offline jeremystalked1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,317
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2010, 10:49:57 am »
Take this with a grain of salt, it could be disinformation, but:

http://theeestory.com/topics/2529

I'm quoting a transcription of an interview- if you're interested in the primary source, it used to be linked on that site... but now it's invalid.  Hmmm. 

Quote
W: is Dick Weir
I: is Interviewer, unknown, at time of transcribing
W: Well, ahh, the basic building block that we use here and that both Carl and I have extensive knowledge of is Composition Modified Barium Titanate powder.

0:10

Well known the best powders of the highest permittivity of any materials in the world. Although they have some very significant problems. And people tried for about 30 35 40 years to solve those problems by variety of techniques process and that stuff...


Well, we're happy to say that that suceeded. We've done a great job because a lot of this stuff has been out here over 3 years, 3 1/2 years, and no degredation whatsoever. I mean zero. De nada. So we're very happy that we really have superior chemistry here and from the aqueous process...


Very cost effective and time effective. So I think we've got that well under hand. I think the materials is a very very nice story there. Barite, which was Barium, was used in the front end of TV sets. If you go buy a TV right now there's no more ... it is hard to find a CRT TV set unless it is a small thing for a computer. Most of it now in fact is very ? DLP and or other types of technologies. CDP and so ... We're the best friend of the Barite company the Barium company's got in the world. There are major sources of Bariite found in the United States. But a new one is just found in Nevada. We're writing? to get the sole rights to that. And looks like that's going to be done. Then we have large amounts of it in Mexico. And owned by US companies. You can also bring that in from other parts of the world in very high volume. So, the United States Geological Service, with *out* the stuff I've got in Nevada, says there's at least 2 billion tons of stuff in known reserves.

14:04

That's unlike Lithium ion where there is a small amount down in Chile, where they got the brine. You run out of that, then you've gotta' go over to China an get it from China. Uhhh, if you think we're in trouble with oil, wait till you have to go to China to get your Lithium.


Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2010, 04:02:55 pm »
Well, what about the recent nanotube tech from MIT? I thought they'd found a way to make carbon behave like a metal under heat stress and duplicate the thermal reaction over and over to produce energy? As compressed hydrogen, expands at a rate greater the speed of sound, a small puncture in a simple tank, would cause an explosion.

They said batteries made this way would be 1/10th the size of current cells?

I wish hydrogen power was being developed more aggressively, this is such BS @@

A more accurate description on what the nanotubes would do, is allow higher compression, in the event of a puncture, it would keep the tank from exploding with enough force to cause lethal shrapnel. Because the tubes would slow the expansion of the decompressed gas.  As compressed hydrogen expands at a rate greater than the speed of sound.

The problem is, even with the highest theoretical compression that is economically possible, the energy density is still not high enough to make the technology possible.

Something like aluminum hydride with a much higher energy density is needed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Energy_density.svg

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2010, 04:21:45 pm »
electric cars would help with smog. But the energy still has to come from somewhere. The prob is shifting energy dependence from oil, onto the electric companies....not battery size.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2010, 04:28:26 pm »
electric cars would help with smog. But the energy still has to come from somewhere. The prob is shifting energy dependence from oil, onto the electric companies....not battery size.

In theory, recharging systems could be placed at regular intervals everywhere. Like at rest-stops, homes and businesses.

However, if exchanging electrolytes was used instead of direct recharging, the oil infrastructures could be adapted, to a new material.

Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2010, 08:33:16 am »
Amazing that you folks are discussing future possibilities of automobiles
when people are unable to pay mortgages and losing their homes.

Who will be driving these super vehicles?
NWO minions?
The Elite?

It will not be us, the way the world is going.

Americans are wed to the personal auto.
Admit it, it is difficult to imagine a future without one.

I think you'd better.
The rising price of petroleum will keep us all in our neighbourhoods
unable to visit distant friends and relatives.
Shopping will be in the mom & pop shops that Celente advocates,
or we can all walk to the mall.

We need to deal with the bigger issues of GoldmanSachs taking over our world,
the reclaiming of civil liberty hijacked by recent federal mandates,
and dragging these criminals to court and prison,
confiscating their electronic "money".

Then we can address what kind of personal transportation you'd like.
After you have a job in a boom economy,
a safe place to live,
ample food,
and are "FREE" men & women again.

Do you all watch TOP GEAR in your spare time fighting the NWO ?

What happened to mass transportation as being the need of the future?

Energy and economy are kissing cousins. Just wait till when they pump the price of gas to  6-10 dollars a gallon, and the energy bill for you house quadruples. Unlike people having to move out of their houses and having to rent again, or moving in with their family. When energy costs spikes people are going to die from exposure and hunger. Because energy is also tied directly to the cost of food.

Money is only at best a symbol of power. So in essence, these issues are more important. The things discussed here not exotic ideas, they are half century old technology. Its more an issue of infrastructure, and ideology.

Offline joethemechanic

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2010, 01:34:31 pm »
In theory, recharging systems could be placed at regular intervals everywhere. Like at rest-stops, homes and businesses.

However, if exchanging electrolytes was used instead of direct recharging, the oil infrastructures could be adapted, to a new material.

The charge in a battery is in the plates, not the electrolyte

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2010, 01:36:36 pm »
Electric Cars are an epic failure.


Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2010, 02:09:25 pm »
The charge in a battery is in the plates, not the electrolyte

You are a moron.

Batteries are electrochemical. Capacitors are electrostatic.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/equipment/energy_storage/energy_storage.html#flow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery


Offline joethemechanic

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2010, 03:29:16 pm »
   I'm too lazy to type out an explanation, but I have quoted a book written by someone quite knowledgeable

THE AUTOMOBILE

STORAGE BATTERY

ITS CARE AND REPAIR

1922

0. A. WITTE

http://www.powerstream.com/1922/battery_1922_WITTE/battery_WITTE.htm


CHAPTER 4

CHEMICAL CHANGES IN THE BATTERY

    Before explaining what happens within one storage cell, let us look into the early history of the storage battery, and see what a modest beginning the modern heavy duty battery had. Between 1850 and 1860 a man named Plante began his work on the storage battery. His original cell consisted of two plates of metallic lead immersed in dilute sulphuric acid. The acid formed a thin layer of lead sulphate on each plate which soon stopped further action on the lead. If a current was passed through the cell, the lead sulphate on the "anode" or lead plate at which the current entered the cell was changed into peroxide of lead, while the sulphate on the other lead plate or "cathode" was changed into pure lead in a spongy form. This cell was allowed to stand for several days and was then "discharged," lead sulphate being again formed on each plate. Each time this cell was charged, more "spongy" lead and peroxide of lead were formed. These are called the "active" materials, because it is by the chemical action between them and the sulphuric acid that the electricity is produced. Evidently, the more active materials the plates contained, the longer the chemical action between the acid and active materials could take place, and hence the greater the "capacity," or amount of electricity furnished by the cell. The process of charging and discharging the battery so as to increase the amount of active material, is called "forming" the plates.

    Plante's method of forming plates was very slow, tedious, and expensive. If the spongy lead, and peroxide of lead could be made quickly from materials which could be spread over the plates, much time and expense could be saved. It was Faure who first suggested such a plan, and gave us the "pasted" plate of today, which consists of a skeleton framework of lead, with the sponge lead and peroxide of lead filling the spaces between the "ribs" of the framework. Such plates are known as "pasted" plates, and are much lighter and more satisfactory, for automobile work than the heavy solid lead plates of Plante's. Chapter 3 describes more fully the processes of manufacturing and pasting the plates.

     

     

    We know now what constitutes a storage battery, and what the parts are that "generate" the electricity. How is the electricity produced? Theoretically, if we take a battery which has been entirely discharged, so that it is no longer able to cause a flow of current, and examine and test the electrolyte and the materials on the plates, we shall find that the electrolyte is pure water, and both sets of plates composed of white lead sulphate. On the other hand, if we make a similar test and examination of the plates and electrolyte of a battery through which a current has been sent from some outside source, such as a generator, until the current can no longer cause chemical reactions between the plates and electrolyte, we will find that the electrolyte is now composed of water and Sulphuric acid, the acid comprising about 30%, and the water 70% of the electrolyte. The negative set of plates will be composed of pure lead in a spongy form, while the positive will consist of peroxide of lead.

   

 

    The foregoing description gives the final products of the chemical changes that take place in the storage battery. To understand the changes themselves requires a more detailed investigation. The substances to be considered in the chemical actions are sulphuric acid, water, pure lead, lead sulphate, and lead peroxide. With the exception of pure lead, each of these substances is a chemical compound, or composed of several elements. Thus sulphuric acid is made up of two parts of hydrogen, which is a gas; one part of sulphur, a solid, and four parts of oxygen, which is also a gas; these combine to form the acid, which is liquid, and which is for convenience written as H2SO4, H2 representing two parts of hydrogen, S one part of sulphur, and 04, four parts oxygen. Similarly, water a liquid, is made up of two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen, represented by the symbol H2O. Lead is not a compound, but an element whose chemical symbol is Pb, taken from the Latin name for lead. Lead sulphate is a solid, and consists of one part of lead, a solid substance, one part of sulphur, another solid substance, and four parts of oxygen, a gas. It is represented chemically by Pb SO4. Lead peroxide is also a solid, and is made up of one part of lead, and two parts of oxygen. In the chemical changes that take place, the compounds just described are to a certain extent split up into the substances of which they are composed. We thus have lead (Pb), hydrogen (H), oxygen (0), and sulphur (S), four elementary substances, two of which are solids, and two gases. The sulphur does not separate itself entirely from the substances with which it forms the compounds H2SO4 and Pb SO4. These compounds are split into H2 and SO4 and Pb and SO4 respectively. That is, the sulphur always remains combined with four parts of oxygen.

    Let us now consider a single storage cell made up of electrolyte, one positive plate, and one negative plate. When this cell is fully charged, or in a condition to produce a current of electricity, the positive plate is made up of peroxide of lead (PbO2), the negative plate of pure lead (Pb), and the electrolyte of dilute sulphuric acid (H2SO4). This is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 19. The chemical changes that take place when the cell is discharging and the final result of the changes are as follows:

    (a). At the Positive Plate: Lead peroxide and sulphuric acid produce lead sulphate, water, and oxygen, or:

    (b). At the Negative Plate: Lead and sulphuric acid produce lead sulphate and Hydrogen, or:

    The oxygen of equation (a) and the hydrogen of equation (b) combine to form water, as may be shown by adding these two equations, giving one equation for the entire discharge action:

    In this equation we start with the active materials and electrolyte in their original condition, and finish with the lead sulphate and water, -which are the final products of a discharge. Examining this equation, we see that the sulphuric acid of the electrolyte is used up in forming lead sulphate on both positive and negative plates, and is therefore removed from the electrolyte. This gives us the easily remembered rule for remembering discharge actions, which, though open to question from a strictly scientific viewpoint, is nevertheless convenient:

    During discharge the acid goes into the plates.

    The chemical changes described in (a), (b), and (c) are not instantaneous. That is, the lead, lead peroxide, and sulphuric acid of the fully charged cell are not changed into lead sulphate and water as soon as a current begins to pass through the cell. This action is a gradual one, small portions of these substances being changed at a time. The greater the current that flows through the cell, the faster will the changes occur. Theoretically, the changes will continue to take place as long as any lead,,. lead peroxide, and sulphuric acid remain. The faster these are changed into lead sulphate and water, the shorter will be the time that the storage cell can furnish a current, or the sooner it will be discharged.

   

    Taking the cell in its discharged condition, let us now connect the cell to a generator and send current through the cell from the positive to the negative plates. This is called "charging" the cell. The lead sulphate and water will now gradually be changed back into lead, lead peroxide, and sulphuric acid. The lead sulphate which is on the negative plate is changed to pure lead; the lead sulphate on the positive plate is changed to lead peroxide, and sulphuric acid will be added to the water. The changes at the positive plate may be represented as follows:

    Lead sulphate and water produce. sulphuric acid, hydrogen and lead peroxide, or:

    The changes at the negative plate may be expressed as follows: Lead sulphate and water produced sulphuric acid, oxygen, and lead, or:

    The hydrogen (H2) produced at the positive plate, and the oxygen (0) produced at the negative plate unite to form water, as may be shown by the equation:

    Equation (f) starts with lead sulphate and water, which, as shown in equation (c), are produced when a battery is discharged. It will be observed that we start with lead sulphate and water. Discharged plates may therefore be charged in water. In fact, badly discharged negatives may be charged better in water than in electrolyte. The electrolyte is poured out of the battery and distilled water poured in. The acid remaining on the separators and plates is sufficient to make the water conduct the charging current.

    In equation (f), the sulphate on the plates combines with water to form sulphuric acid. This gives us the rule:

        During charge, acid is. driven out of the plates.

    This rule is a convenient one, but, of course, is not a strictly correct statement.

    The changes produced by sending a current through the cell are also gradual, and will take place faster as the current is made greater. When all the lead sulphate has been 'used up by the chemical changes caused by the current, no further charging can take place. If we continue to send a current through the cell after it is fully charged, the water will continue to be split up into hydrogen and oxygen. Since, however, there is no more lead sulphate left with which the hydrogen and oxygen can combine to form lead, lead peroxide, and sulphuric acid, the hydrogen and oxygen rise to the surface of the electrolyte and escape from the cell. This is known as "gassing," and is an indication that the cell is fully charged.

Relations Between Chemical Actions and Electricity.

    We know now that chemical actions in the battery produce electricity and that, on the other hand, an electric current, sent through the battery from an outside source, such as a generator, produces chemical changes in the battery. How are chemical changes and electricity related? The various chemical elements which we have in a battery are supposed to carry small charges of electricity, which, however, ordinarily neutralize one another. When a cell is discharging, however, the electrolyte, water, and active materials are separated into parts carrying negative and positive charges, and these "charges" cause what we call an electric current to flow in the apparatus attached to the battery.

    Similarly, when. a battery is charged, the charging current produces electrical "charges" which cause the substances in the battery to unite, due to the attraction of position and negative charges for one another. This is a brief, rough statement of the relations between chemical reactions and electricity in a battery. A more thorough study of the subject would be out of place in this book. It is sufficient for the repairman to remember that the substances in a battery carry charges of electricity which become available as an electric current when a battery discharges, and that a charging current causes electric charges to form, thereby "charging" the battery.

Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2010, 07:20:53 pm »
http://www.physorg.com/news174662162.html

Charge, is only a simple term for energy potential, in reference to a specific discipline.

The potential energy of a battery is stored in the electrolyte, batteries in general have practically 0 capacitive(static) storage. For example in a lead acid battery, its anode and cathode are involved in the reaction. But in contrast, flow batteries, the fluid itself is the reactive agent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93acid_battery

The potential energy for a capacitor, is the surface of two plates (or "bubbles" of electrolyte) thinly separated by insulation, and outside of malfunction have no chemical charge.

Flow batteries are reversible. The electrolyte can be exchanged at "charging stations". They can also be recharged on the fly through electromagnetic brakes.

I believe if electrical cars ever become practical, it will be through the use of such "flow" batteries, or through fuel cells (not the h20 type though, more likely aluminum hydride).


Offline joethemechanic

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2010, 10:37:17 pm »
I'm not talking about a static charge like a capacitor. In a flooded lead acid battery the lead plates themselves undergo a chemical change during charging / discharging.

As far as these flow batteries go, I'd have to take a much closer look.

The only usage I have ever known of flow batteries is in large UPS systems for computers. Are they suited for large periodic loading, as would be needed for accelerating a motor vehicle?


Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2010, 10:51:48 pm »

The only usage I have ever known of flow batteries is in large UPS systems for computers. Are they suited for large periodic loading, as would be needed for accelerating a motor vehicle?



No, they would have to be in parallel with super-caps or flywheels. However, because the "battery" or "fuel cell" does not need to be in scale with the "fuel" it has a higher total energy density that LI-ION batteries. Which the impressive Tesla roadster uses.

http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/plugging_in.php

But that's beside the point, the benefit would be the ability to refuel in minutes, rather than having to leave it plugged in over night.

The reason you only see them in large scale models. Is because they are so expensive, they are limited to industrial and high-end commercial applications. But its a matter of economy of scale, not necessarily because exotic materials. Good price as a result competitive market is not achieved, because they need a bit more expertise, than a simple UPS, to install, most places op for old fashioned battery UPS systems. Kind of like, how computers were only seen in universities and the military, until they were designed so that someone without a college degree could install one.

If engineered to fit an automobile application, with a built in market. The price would quickly become reasonable.




Offline joethemechanic

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2010, 11:23:13 pm »
Hmmmmmm,

I'm still of the mindset of electric/diesel hybrids. They would drastically cut fuel consumption and work without any modifications to the existing petroleum infrastructure.

Allowing an engine to operate at a constant speed that is right at it's best volumetric efficiency has a tremendous savings in fuel.

I guess pretty soon when oil goes sky high in price we will see how people adapt. But one thing is for sure, All the people driving around in pickup trucks that never see a load, and all those SUVs are going to have a real problem



Damascus

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2010, 11:54:13 pm »
All those sensors and complexity is designed to break then they can sell the parts to fix it. It is a vicious cycle by design.

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2010, 01:44:13 pm »
Wow, the knowledge level on this topic is all over the place, and alot of misunderstandings being put out in just this one thread. Now imagine this same topic being duscussed over many forums accross the internet, which it is, as I've read many of them, and quite frankly, most people are ignorant when it comes to technology.

Opinions aren't what makes technology work, so saying solar cars is THE solution is narrow-minded at best. Just as you can't say that electric cars is the way to go either. With alternative energy, one must use many solutions, because as yet there is no viable source of energy that will cover all aspects of transportation. While a solar car MAY work for a single person to ang from the store, it won't work really for a family going to go see grandma across country.

The key to energy conservation is many solutions, from electric to solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc.

Solar cars are an epic failure? Really? Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that to say the commercial production of electric cars is an epic failure because the Big 3 prevented it from working?

You might want to go take a look at Tesla Motors and their technology.

Capacitors?

Super Capacitors.

they are cleaner Charge instantly and never degrade.

the downside, they are highly volatile.

While I'm having to draw off 20 year old Navy electronics training, I think I remember what a capacitor is, and I'm thinking you don't. You do understand that a capacitor cannot be used as a continuous flow of current don't you? It seems you don't. Unless you design a way to manage what comes out of the capacitor, to limit it as it leaves the cap, caps won't work because they discharge almost instantly whatever charge they hold. They are designed that way. They are not a battery, even though they do "hold" energy for a time period, but the issue is release of said energy.

Just like a resistor is not a switch, though they both can block current flow.

Batteries. Now that's where the real issue is with many alternative energy systems. We need to get answered as to why, like it was pointed out, that battery technology hasn't progressed a whole lot in 100 years. As stated, electric cars are not new, and consider the time they were introduced and the advent of big oil. Hmm.

Look at the cost of solar panels, and I've priced ALOT of systems and brands, and you'll quickly see that cost is a major part of the equation for amount of energy you get out of it, as the cat pointed out, though costs have come WAY down in the last 10 years, but not enough. And so the problem with batteries is that is what you use with solar panels, as you must have a place to put energy that you don't use at any given time in the energy production process. That's the whole point; be able to store and use as needed, thus you have the high cost of panels and batteries, because you'll need alot of batteries. But then just how expensive is lead anyways? You'd think it was gold considering the cost of deep cycle 48 volt batteries.

But then you can ask your local power utility why it is that they seem to discourage a grid-tied solar system to use batteries. My local utility allows it, but it's back in the back pages of their site, and covered in about a couple paragraphs. The whole rest of the sales pitch is for a no-battery system. Why would they promote that? It means you the homeowner cannot store any unused power generated by the panels. It all goes to the grid, and you then but it back from the power company, (unless you use less than produced), on some kind of complicated formula they use to determine how much they will "credit" you for the very energy YOUR system produced! I wish I were an accountant and knew how to do their "math". I bet their profit margin is astronomical with the math they use.

The reality is energy storage, not production. We have technologies that can work, but the storage part is the hang up. Consider that all a home needs is a generator and the enregy to run it. It doesn't have to be totally free, 100% overunity, but just very economical. What's wrong with spending a few bucks if need be compared to an electric bill of 200 a month? That said, it doesn't matter what you power that generator with. It doesn't care. All you have to do is turn it at a steady rpm, that's all. No law says HOW you provide the energy to turn it at the proper rpm. But then I said there is no law, but that is not true technically, because city governments have rules about running a residence on generators. I know I spoke to a city chief engineer once that said no generators allowed except for emergancy backup, and that they do check the homes! That was telling all it's own but another topic. Fact is you have to address the local laws in your effort to go off-grid, but off-grid is exactly where we all should be. Main power utilitites can be for business and industrial use, but residences should be energy independent of any grid system. But the military leaders tend to like to "cut supply lines", so they most likely will never happen.

You can flip one big switch, or ask millions of people to turn their own power off. You figure it out!
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Damascus

  • Guest
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2010, 01:19:28 pm »
Well said. I agree with you 100% storage is the issue, and it is being suppressed. Why do we have to endlessly argue over what is better, this is the infighting they(NWO) have created to keep us from going anywhere. I believe lefty, you have been consulting ELI the ICE man about you electronics(I know it's more about phase shift but I could not help myself). ;D We had an effective program with the General Motors EV1, which they killed, but now the future is with the Tesla Roadster ($109,000 MSRP price)(only for the rich)? Also gasoline engines have had their efficiency suppressed to keep us in the artificial scarcity matrix.

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: ELECTRIC CARS 'BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT'
« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2010, 02:24:26 pm »
Quote
ELI the ICE Man
By Calvin A. Sessions

ELI the ICE Man, who lives in a cave,
Knows how inductors and capacitors behave.
Determining their phases is his favorite game.
If you ever need help, just call out his name.
The current through inductors lag, you can tell,
Because when you spell “ELI,” “I” is after “L.”
When you look at “ICE,” you will see,
The current of a cap leads; “I” is before “C.”
If you spell out his name, “E” is in sight,
But we do not talk about voltage relationships,
It’s impolite.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)