[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

People need homes. They don’t need electric vehicles when gasoline vehicles work just fine. Those that are worried about the environment should be pushing for natural gas vehicles. Current gas burning cars can be easily converted as can service stations. Those who have natural gas in their homes would be able to fill up at home. Natural gas burns much cleaner than petrol. A complete conversion would reduce emissions by over 50%.

Yes, an environmental improvement, but you would still be left with a reciprocating piston engine and all the unreliability and high service costs that go along with that design.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

An electrical motor rotates in a SMOOTH continuous CIRCLE. An internal combustion engine is a RECIPROCATING engine that uses difficult-to-time EXPLOSIONS started by a spark plug to send a friction-producing PISTON moving rapidly upward, then stopping and reversing before being transformed into rotary motion by a friction-producing crankshaft. All that mess then sends energy to a flywheel and a transmission because the IC Engine is only moderately efficient within a small RPM range. An IC engine needs 2 types of oil and associated oil pumps to lessen the friction
and a heat exchanging radiator to keep the whole mess cool.

A vehicle's electrical motor uses about 1/3 of the parts that an internal combustion engine needs. Bottom line.......a simple E-vehicle engine design is better, more efficient, and much more reliable than the complex IC engine design.

My last vehicle with an archaic internal combustion engine went over 1,000,000 miles before I rebuilt it. That would indicate to me that they figured out the whole reciprocating explosion thing.
I’m not opposed to electric vehicles. When the price comes down and their reliability is proven I might consider one. Then again I probably only have maybe two new cars in my future so I doubt either of them will be electric.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

That 2-day drive can turn into a one-week drive if you have ENGINE problems! An electrical engine is more reliable than an internal combustion engine

?????? Been driving internal combustion engine vehicles for over 45 years and only had one break down, which had nothing to do with the engine. It was a faulty ECU, the engine control unit which is a motherboard that communicates with all the electronic sensors. A properly cared for internal combustion engine is very reliable, especially one that doesn’t have a bunch of unreliable electronic components like those found in an EV.

[dwoodley1975]

Next year.

[SilverMema]

No chance ever.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

?????? Been driving internal combustion engine vehicles for over 45 years and only had one break down, which had nothing to do with the engine. It was a faulty ECU, the engine control unit which is a motherboard that communicates with all the electronic sensors. A properly cared for internal combustion engine is very reliable, especially one that doesn’t have a bunch of unreliable electronic components like those found in an EV.

Back in about 1985 I rented a Lincoln Town Car from Hertz in Las Vegas. The whole dash instrument display was electronic, speedometer, gas gauge, all of it. It went black at night. I took it back and they gave me another car.

When I first visited The Villages in 2010 I rented a Nissan sedan at MCO from Enterprise. It had the first remote electronic key fob I had ever used. One day I stopped at the Belleview post office and the car's engine would not turn off. I tried everything I could think of and finally took it to the Enterprise agency in Sumter Landing. The guys there laughed at me but also could not get the engine to stop running. Last I saw of the car they had loaded it on a flat bed wrecker, engine still running. lol. I do not trust electronics.

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by Quixote

If a gasoline or diesel operated vehicle is right for you, then own and drive it.

If a hybrid or electric operated vehicle is right for you, then own and drive it.

We have owned several Priuses and now own a Tesla. They consistently worked well for us; our Tesla is 4+ years old, and the only operating/maintenance money we've ever put into it has been a pair of new tires.

I posted this on another thread: My wife was driving on 466 when the driver of a landscaping truck never saw her and pulled right out in front of her. Before she could even move her foot from the power pedal to the brake, the car had already stopped. After she caught her breath, she saw witnesses who stopped shook their heads incredulously....

THIS is why we drive a Tesla. We are not interested in Elon Musk's personality traits, nor do we envy his wealth. We recognize the issues involved in battery production that are analogous to those in computer production. Are we selfish in our focus on safety? Perhaps.

To each his or her own. Instead of simply saying it's not for them, those who are so absolutely adamant and forceful with their 'Never!' or 'Absolutely not!' or 'Zero chance!' sound like I imagine they said well over a century ago about Henry Ford and his 'contraption,' that their horses worked just fine....

I agree with you with many this conversation is like trying to have a conversation with sock puppets when it comes to discussions on EV or Hybrid vechicles

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Yes, an environmental improvement, but you would still be left with a reciprocating piston engine and all the unreliability and high service costs that go along with that design.

Do you mean the reciprocating piston engine that has been faithfully and reliably serving the world for the past 100 years? The engine that has powered tanks and other vehicles that won wars for us? The engine that is used in airplanes to safely get us airborne? Yes, that would be terrible. The problem with electric motors is that they take too long to charge. If you drive a long way and need to charge, you’ll need to stop for a minimal of several hours. If charging time can get reduced to minutes there might be a chance of EVs being successful. Even then, the entire electrical grid would need to be upgraded. How are we supposed to generate all of this additional electricity?

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Natural gas lobby not particularly strong?

Less powerful than gasoline. I cannot remember the numbers but I recall that natural gas is only 80% as powerful as gasoline.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

Do you mean the reciprocating piston engine that has been faithfully and reliably serving the world for the past 100 years? The engine that has powered tanks and other vehicles that won wars for us? The engine that is used in airplanes to safely get us airborne? Yes, that would be terrible. The problem with electric motors is that they take too long to charge. If you drive a long way and need to charge, you’ll need to stop for a minimal of several hours. If charging time can get reduced to minutes there might be a chance of EVs being successful. Even then, the entire electrical grid would need to be upgraded. How are we supposed to generate all of this additional electricity?

As has been pointed out in other posts, alternatives to petroleum-powered vehicles will become more available when they become as cheap and as reliable as petroleum-powered vehicles. That appears to be far in the future however.

Another technology that shows great promise is hydrogen power. A hydrogen-powered vehicle is essentially an EV but without the huge and expensive (to produce and to own) batteries. Instead the hydrogen is pumped into a fuel cell, and a reaction takes place that produces electricity to run the car. They have about the same range as battery-powered EVs and the running gear is pretty much the same. The difference is that you can fuel up a hydrogen-powered car in about four minutes vs. "X" length of time to charge a battery.

This technology already exists, albeit in infancy. Toyota makes a hydrogen-powered car (the Toyota Mirai) and a couple of other car manufacturers make one too. I don't think the infrastructure exists here yet, but it is available in a limited manner in California where you can fuel up with hydrogen at the some of the same stations that sell gasoline, and hydrogen tanker trucks are available to deliver it. I have no idea of the cost (probably a whole lot more at this stage than either petroleum - or battery - powered vehicles), but that should come down as the technology advances and infrastructure is adapted.

Best of all, absolutely emission-free.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

As has been pointed out in other posts, alternatives to petroleum-powered vehicles will become more available when they become as cheap and as reliable as petroleum-powered vehicles. That appears to be far in the future however.

Another technology that shows great promise is hydrogen power. A hydrogen-powered vehicle is essentially an EV but without the huge and expensive (to produce and to own) batteries. Instead the hydrogen is pumped into a fuel cell, and a reaction takes place that produces electricity to run the car. They have about the same range as battery-powered EVs and the running gear is pretty much the same. The difference is that you can fuel up a hydrogen-powered car in about four minutes vs. "X" length of time to charge a battery.

This technology already exists, albeit in infancy. Toyota makes a hydrogen-powered car (the Toyota Mirai) and a couple of other car manufacturers make one too. I don't think the infrastructure exists here yet, but it is available in a limited manner in California where you can fuel up with hydrogen at the some of the same stations that sell gasoline, and hydrogen tanker trucks are available to deliver it. I have no idea of the cost (probably a whole lot more at this stage than either petroleum - or battery - powered vehicles), but that should come down as the technology advances and infrastructure is adapted.

Best of all, absolutely emission-free.

Not likely to be around to see it but would be interesting to see which technology wins out

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Less powerful than gasoline. I cannot remember the numbers but I recall that natural gas is only 80% as powerful as gasoline.

I don't know what that means. But, the cars I used from the Government motor pool had a natural gas tank and a gasoline tank. There was a switch on the dashboard where you could change from one tank to the other. I couldn't tell the difference in driving acceleration, speed, etc., between the 2 tanks. When I first drove one, I didn't even know that it had a natural gas tank.

[biker1]

Given that lack of infrastructure and the high cost of building the infrastructure, it is doubtful fuel cells will ever achieve wide use. I suspect they will be limited to trucks and busses which leave and return to the same facility each day. Also, the generation of hydrogen via electrolysis requires electricity and the end-to-end efficiency of the process is not as high as battery powered EVs when you consider all the aspects of producing, compressing, and transporting hydrogen. It is not correct to say that fuel cell vehicles are emission free as the process of producing hydrogen takes electricity and currently 60% of electricity in this country comes from gas and coal.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

As has been pointed out in other posts, alternatives to petroleum-powered vehicles will become more available when they become as cheap and as reliable as petroleum-powered vehicles. That appears to be far in the future however.

Another technology that shows great promise is hydrogen power. A hydrogen-powered vehicle is essentially an EV but without the huge and expensive (to produce and to own) batteries. Instead the hydrogen is pumped into a fuel cell, and a reaction takes place that produces electricity to run the car. They have about the same range as battery-powered EVs and the running gear is pretty much the same. The difference is that you can fuel up a hydrogen-powered car in about four minutes vs. "X" length of time to charge a battery.

This technology already exists, albeit in infancy. Toyota makes a hydrogen-powered car (the Toyota Mirai) and a couple of other car manufacturers make one too. I don't think the infrastructure exists here yet, but it is available in a limited manner in California where you can fuel up with hydrogen at the some of the same stations that sell gasoline, and hydrogen tanker trucks are available to deliver it. I have no idea of the cost (probably a whole lot more at this stage than either petroleum - or battery - powered vehicles), but that should come down as the technology advances and infrastructure is adapted.

Best of all, absolutely emission-free.

[biker1]

What the poster probably meant was that LNG has 70% of the energy density of gasoline (by volume). Maybe he meant CNG?? While it is an interesting factoid, I don't think it really matters all that much.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I don't know what that means. But, the cars I used from the Government motor pool had a natural gas tank and a gasoline tank. There was a switch on the dashboard where you could change from one tank to the other. I couldn't tell the difference in driving acceleration, speed, etc., between the 2 tanks. When I first drove one, I didn't even know that it had a natural gas tank.

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

Do you mean the reciprocating piston engine that has been faithfully and reliably serving the world for the past 100 years? The engine that is used in airplanes to safely get us airborne?

Gas Turbines dominate the air transportation sector. A bit different than reciprocating engines.