A Perspective on Electric Vehicles, by Gary Novak

It is more inefficient to power a car with electricity than it is with gasoline. From Gary Novak at Science Errors on nov79.com:

An electric auto will convert 5-10% of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30% of the energy in gasoline into motion. That’s 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle.

Electricity is a specialty product. It’s not appropriate for transportation. It looks cheap at this time, but that’s because it was designed for toasters, not transportation. Increase the amount of wiring and infrastructure by a factor of a thousand, and it’s not cheap.

Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation level due to its miniscule nature. Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense and materials.

Using electricity as an energy source requires two energy transformation steps, while using petroleum requires only one. With electricity, the original energy, usually chemical energy, must be transformed into electrical energy; and then the electrical energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of motion. With an internal combustion engine, the only transformation step is the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy in the combustion chamber.

The difference matters, because there is a lot of energy lost every time it is transformed or used. Electrical energy is harder to handle and loses more in handling.

The use of electrical energy requires it to move into and out of the space medium (aether) through induction. Induction through the aether medium should be referred to as another form of energy, but physicists sandwich it into the category of electrical energy. Going into and out of the aether through induction loses a lot of energy.

Another problem with electricity is that it loses energy to heat production due to resistance in the wires. A short transmission line will have 20% loss built in, and a long line will have 50% loss built in. These losses are designed in, because reducing the loss by half would require twice as much metal in the wires. Wires have to be optimized for diameter and strength, which means doubling the metal would be doubling the number of transmission lines.

To continue reading: A Perspective on Electric Vehicles

Advertisements

3 responses to “A Perspective on Electric Vehicles, by Gary Novak

  1. Very good explanation. Went to the site–>interesting stuff to look at. Thanks for the link.

    Like

  2. I’m a degreed electrical engineer. This article is about 97% bullshit. Pure electric cars, outside of a few limited niche applications, are a dumb idea because the energy density of batteries, in both weight and volume terms, is at least an order of magnitude below that of a gasoline / diesel fuel tank. If the efficiency of transformers, transmission lines and electric motors were anywhere near as low as this author claims, they’d all be puddles of molten metal and there wouldn’t be any electricity even for toasters. And you really don’t want to get me started about . . . Induction through the aether medium . . .

    Like

    • One of the reasons I post science articles is to discover all the stuff I don’t know, either from the articles or from the comments afterwards.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s