Why electric and hybrid cars suck.

Thanks for the ingthsi. It brings light into the dark!

nice, my dad always loved his 96 LT-1 Camaro SS, and I always hated putting new plugs/wires and opti-spark on it. he just recently traded it in for a new Camaro SS though

welllll i guess there are some shitty cars in here but hell its not my dmreas .more zonda's and skylines less maro's says my dream.

There is a company in canada that has been using a hydrogen amonia vapor for over 40 years. They power there plant and fleet vechicls off the same fuel. It burns clean and you still get all the advantages of the ICE

There are alot of options out there but most of us our left up to what ever is mainstream.

fwwe

There's a report out about the company Amyris developing a genetically modified version of cyanobacteria (microbe) that converts carbon dioxide, dirty water and sunlight into a liquid hydrocarbon that is functionally equivalent to regular diesel with a greater than 10,000 gallon per acre yield. That could make a difference.

Many car companies are choosing to go down the electric propulsion pathways, but the truth is they are heavy, (although having 100% torque) they are slow, have low range and are unsustainable. I’ve decided to speak out for the motoring enthusiasts and most of my generation.

The reason we are fueling our vehicles today with petrol, is because they have an energy density that is many times more than that of the most advanced battery technology. Your typical family car carries about 60 liters of fuel, which weighs about 45kg which makes it account for less than 4% of the vehicles weight. A battery with the same amount of energy as 60 liters of gasoline would weigh 1.6 tonnes, and that is with Li-Ion batteries (the most advanced battery to date). On the Tesla Roadster the battery weighs 400kg, which accounts for more than a third of the vehicles 1.2 tonne + weight. The exterior of the car is made out of carbon fiber which is very light and very expensive, yet it still has a top speed of only 200 km/h (120 mp/h), and unlike liquid fuels, this weight does not decline as the vehicle uses the fuel up. They haven’t thought fairly with Electric vehicles, because what happens when you put all that weight in let’s say a boat or a plane. Weight is more critical in these applications as planes need to be light to say in the air and boats need to be light to be able to travel fast along the water. Boats use more fuel than cars so we would have to have an even heavier battery for these.

Another problem with the batteries is their loss of capacity over time. Li-Ion batteries loose capacity at a rate of about 5-10% per year. After about 3 years the capacity of the battery becomes too low for good use, then you will have to get a new battery as a replacement it doesn’t matter if you use it or not, it is a constant degradation. Well no problem, right? We could just buy a new battery couldn’t we? Unfortunately for a car with only 320km (200mi) range it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery and then it would still degrade at the same rate and I doubt anyone spends $40,000 in petrol money in 3 years. In 3 years, the average family of four spends $10,200 on petrol. Even with a price decrease of 50% in Li-Ion batteries, it would still cost $20,000. That is a massive $9,800 saving, just by using petrol!

Another important factor to consider is the convenience factor. Recharging an electric car with a 400km (250mi) range takes between 3-6 hours. At the pump you spend roughly 3-5 minutes filling up your car. Many argue that a battery pack change takes about 5 minutes, but where are you going to get your battery changed? A battery station? Thousands of cars pass through fuel stations each day, where are you going to keep the thousands of batteries?

I’m not going to go into the “Where do you get your electricity from?” Because it’s a stupid argument because you can easily source the electricity from solar panels or other renewable resources. Speaking of renewability, the batteries are partially recyclable, but nowhere near to that of the internal combustion engine (the engine in your car today). Because in our cars today, the fuel gets used up and not the engines, the engines can be recycled. The same applies with the electric engines, but the batteries cannot. When the batteries have been used up, they can’t be used again, in the same way you can’t use burnt fuel again.

Many enhancements are being made to the traditional Internal combustion engine these days such as lean-burn technology, which uses less fuel, making it more fuel efficient with the same or more power.

Biofuels, that can be used in normal cars today, such as biogasoline, biodiesel, biobutanol etc are a much better source of fuel, as you can grow plants such as algae, sugar cane, nearly everything on the planet that grows can produce fuel. Unlike plants, metals cannot be grown which makes the batteries un-renewable and unsustainable.

The most advanced biofuel technology to date is algae. Yes, algae. The pond and pool scum has a use. It can make petrol, diesel, jet fuel, the lot. And what is better is algae can be used in our sewage water or salt water and it can be grown on un-arable land, so it does not affect our food or freshwater supply. We can also turn other waste that we have to pay to dump in landfill, such as cheese waste, to make biobutanol, a biofuel that replaces our normal petrol without modification to engines.

With Biofuels we can expect all the same and sometimes even better, performance from our engines and still be green at the same time (even greener than electric). Emissions still come out of the exhaust pipe, but the plants we use to grow the fuels take that carbon dioxide back from the air, as plants feed off carbon dioxide, which makes it carbon neutral. And by turning waste into fuel, we solve some of the waste problems as well.

Scientists speculate that the USA would become completely self-sufficient for fuel if they used an area the size of one seventh of the area used to grow corn, to make fuel.

There are many other benefits such as the more indirect ones. For example when we see a movie we all enjoy a fast and exhilarating car chase. The noise of the engines makes it exciting, with electric cars we would just get a boring whirring noise. And motorsports, where is the excitement in the vehicles being electric? Imagine a slower, shorter race in Bathurst with no noise. No enjoyment at all.

Also many jobs will be affected in the switch to electric as well such as mechanics, a fair slab of auto parts stores, everything that has anything to do with engines.

With further enhancements to the internal combustion engine and advances in biofuel technology we can still keep what we have all learnt to love. No 3 hour recharge, no expensive battery replacing, more excitement, more fun and more while still being greener than electricity!

What has seemed to be the problem is also the solution. So when buying a new car, don’t go for the hybrid or electric car, get the one with a straight internal combustion engine and next time you fill up, if your car is made after 1990 it is most likely compatible with the E10 fuel you see everywhere, so fill up with E10 (which contains 10% ethanol which is a biofuel and also increases the octane rating of your fuel so it is better for the engine) and enjoy the internal combustion engine.

hahaha AWESOME! Finally someone with the courage to say this in public, Im with you 100% on hybrids sucking

Agree! Only when solar powered cars are available cheaply, then the whole environmental issue will be solved.

There isn't a conflict between food and fuel with biodiesel Biodiesel consists of recycled vegetable oil which would have been thrown out anyway and was never intended to be used as a source of food. It might not be the ultimate solution but it's an effective way to address those 600 million cars in the meantime.

I recently saw Huel Houser visiting a Jahoba farm in the desert, there was government funding in the 70s when a replacement for sperm whale oil was first neeeded. It was mentioned that it can yield 150 gallons of oil per acre while soy only produces 100 gallons, they sell their oil to cosmetics companies for $650 a gallon. There's plenty of desert if they can automate the labor.

In just strategic terms, a small amount of electric power is generated with imported oil, so going electric does lower the need for international meddling. Fixed power generation could, in time be more green. Smaller bio fuel powered generation stations located close to consumers would reduce distribution loss.

There are two problems with alcohol fuel. First, you will need almost two times bigger fuel tanks due to its low energy content and air/fuel ratio; second in countries like Russia you are risking to have your tank drained by bums every night :D

But I heard they do well in Brasilia though :)

"There is so much of this type of thinking that it makes the whole human species seem moronic."

No, just some of the lawmakers. But in a way it's expected. Look who they hang out with...each other ;^)

"The hypocrasy of the association with marijuana and hemp is too crazy to believe."

It's "nuckin futz" is what it is. Here we have a weed that grows almost anywhere, produces high quality fiber and oil, and we can't use it because it's related to cannabis sativa/indica? Crazy sheeeet man!

Earnest, many thanks for commenting on the article I wrote about the alternative fuel being used in Britain. I re read you hub as I remember you had written on alternative fuel also. It is amazing the fuel choices that is available but of course has to be government regulated. I enjoyed writing the article in which you commented but I was not sure about the seriousness of fuel choices until I reread your article. Again, thank you for commenting.

Fantastic hub Earnest, and some brilliantly informative comments. These are all practical solutions to one of the world's largest dilemmas. Now, how do we get all of our respective governments to get their heads around this? As CWB so rightly says the oil and coal lobbies are still so powerful, that it's hard to get anything sensible sorted. Right now, the financial tsunami is pre-occupying all the decision makers to such an extent that the needs of the planet are being pushed farther and farther down the agenda.

Well...we can't have that..it..makes sense, not profit!

This is free market capitalism dammit! Not some bleeding heart charity!

 Yes JamaGenee. Methane is produced by the decomposition or "digestion" of any organic matter. That's how certain lunatic types turn their asses into flamethrowers. The gas released by flatulence is methane. It's ubiquitous. Given the right equipment, any home with its own septic tank will be able to produce fuel from the sewage it generates. http://newsblaze.com/story/2007080908010200002.ew/...

Every city or town that has waste water filtration systems is a source of huge quantities of methane. They burn it off as waste at every oil field. All forms of manure produce methane and even after the methane has been extracted the remaining solids still retain all the nutrient properties required for fertilizer. Vast quantities of methane are locked in the tundra in Alaska, Siberia and many other places in the arctic circle. It's frozen in the ocean floor as gas hydrate in massive amounts. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/05110...

Ironically this methane now poses a grave threat as a result of global climate change. As temperatures in the ocean and in northern latitudes continue to rise there is a high probability that the methane will be released abruptly in large quantities. This is what, in all probability, caused one of the greatest known mass extinctions in the history of Earth. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/03082...

Why hasn't this renewable resource been used worldwide for decades? Ask the lobbyists who work for the oil and coal companies, the nuclear power maniacs and even the hydroelectric industry.

Cold War Baby, you make a great case for methane.  Supposedly (if you can believe the ad), the S.C. Johnson Co powers an entire plant from the land fill (garbage dump) next to it.  Would that be methane too?

Tom Jose, here in the States, HEMP is a four-letter word - as in 'no way, jose' (sorry, couldn't resist!) - because it's a cousin of marijuana.  Makes no difference that a person could smoke hemp all day and *never* get the teeniest tiniest buzz. Ever. Once pot is legalized, which *will* happen because the case for keeping it illegal is wearing thin fast, this country will be awash in hemp fields, for all the reasons mentioned above. 

I still find surprise at the ignorance that the general populaton, including lawmakers, has towards hemp. I hadn't realized it was such a great fuel source, but that makes sense since it's great for just about every other use imagineable.

I'd say, given your point about the interim, that methane from sewage treatment would be best. It burns very cleanly and requires a minimum of modification on existing engines. It can be produced in great quantities from any and all organic waste.

There's actually a large dairy farm here in the u.s. that is running the entire operation, electricity and fuel for all their vehicles, on the methane produced from cow manure.

It's the ultimate in recycling. Turning shit into efficient, clean burning fuel. As opposed to burning dirty fuel to turn our environment into shit.

I'm not trying to be contrary. It's an excellent hub.

Biofuels are not a viable alternative for much the same reasons you point to for electrics.

All the farms and the equipment used to produce fuel crops are running on electricity produced by dirty technology and diesel fuel.

Beyond that, in most instances it takes more energy to produce power from biofuels than you get out. The law of diminishing returns.

Not to mention the conflict of interest you touch upon regarding food versus fuel.

Ultimately the internal combustion engine will have to go. The sooner the better.

We need, however, to address our main power supply before we worry overly much about the cars.

There must simply by a major paradigm shift. We must change the way we think and live. The amerikan “non-negotiable” lifestyle doesn't need to be negotiated, it needs to be abandoned completely.

Solar and wind can provide all the power needed by the entire planet. As a certain shoe maker is wont to say, we need to “just do it”.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

Of course it wouldn't be easy. Of course it would cause a lot of discomfort.

Not nearly as much as what climate change is going to cause if this problem isn't addressed immediately.

The global retrofitting of existing structures to utilize solar/wind energy would provided millions of jobs for many years.

The building of a global power grid to do the same, ditto.

A new or at least restructured auto industry, mandated to design and produce non-polluting vehicles, ditto again.

GM built and leased a completely viable, fully electric vehicle, the EV1, in 1996. It was crushed, literally, because it became too popular. GM even refused to sell the vehicle to those who had leased it. The first viable automobiles where not gas, diesel or even steam driven, they were electric. Even Henry Ford built an electric first.

It was oil and the men and I say men intentionally, that made their profits from it that pushed aside a technology that would have saved us from the ecological mess we now find ourselves in.

Had profit and greed not been the drivers of our technology, had we applied common sense rather than capitalistic self-interest, we would now be living in a vastly different world.

The human race will have to slow down. Instant gratification isn't necessarily a good thing anyway.

What a great Hub. Very informative.. I often wonder why hemp isn't at the top of everyones minds since it can be used for so many things and is a very sustainable crop product

Thank you

Hi Earnest,

A thought provoking hub. Other than the obvious reason (i.e., pollution) of looking for an alternate fuel for all of thes 600 million vehicles, maybe we should also prepare for the day when the fossil fuels will run out. Some estimates put the total oil reserves to last for another 25-30 years.

Here in India, even the local mechanics have mastered tweaking the current vehicles to run on LPG, which is used as cooking fuel. And they do it very cheaply too, costing less than 400 US dollars. I am not sure whether LPG is used elsewhere in world, is it?

G'day earnestshub, you are right on the money. If we go down the hybrid track has anyone done the home work on how much this battery guzzlers will cost to maintain.

At least with the ICE powered cars we already have an industry geared to build and rebuild the engines. And the batteries in the hybrids I've heard that they can cost up to $5000 to replace? Then how do we dispose of the old batteries?